Large tree close to house

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Take it down before you regret it, its going to be a slow job, a chunk at a time to ensure
your roof is not damaged. Even the piece below the roof is going to be a real pain, not damaging
anything around it in the house. Its a big problem and it will only get bigger and costlier the longer
you leave it.
 
The tree is fine. So is the slab. Without looking at it in person I would say leave it be. It’s a super interesting addition to the home.
Your worried about what will happen to the slab and foundation if the tree starts lifting it, correct?
Have you considered what will happen if you remove the tree, and all the root mass below the slab decays, and the ground settles? Foundations crack not only by being lifted up, but also by settling down.
Leave the tree be.
Its a problem either way, but at least if you cut it down you will only have to worry about
the lesser of two evils, that being the slab sinking, which is a lot less likely than it being lifted
if the tree is left, and when its gone you will never loose a nights sleep wondering if it will blow down,
get hit with lightening or otherwise cause you grief. Personally I would never fall for a house with tree
growing too close to it, never mind in it, that just adds cost to the house in that you need to eventually deal with such.
 
Its a problem either way, but at least if you cut it down you will only have to worry about
the lesser of two evils, that being the slab sinking, which is a lot less likely than it being lifted
if the tree is left, and when its gone you will never loose a nights sleep wondering if it will blow down,
get hit with lightening or otherwise cause you grief. Personally I would never fall for a house with tree
growing too close to it, never mind in it, that just adds cost to the house in that you need to eventually deal with such.
That is because you are looking at the tree as a problem, rather than an asset.....
I tell people on a regular basis in my line of work: If you have any trees within striking distance to your house you have some level of risk.
If you remove all the trees around your house you have a real crappy property.
It's all about each individuals level of risk tolerance.
That tree, in my opinion, is a feature and asset to that home.
 
I tell people on a regular basis in my line of work: If you have any trees within striking distance to your house you have some level of risk.
If you remove all the trees around your house you have a real crappy property.
Actually... to be more accurate...
"I tell people on a regular basis in my line of work: If you have any trees within striking distance to your house you have some level of risk.
If you remove all the trees around your house you have ZERO risk of a tree falling on your house.

There are plenty of landscaping options that add to the visual appeal of a home that don't include massive trees within striking distance of the house.

I think whoever put that tree there had good intentions, and it is a cool idea, it's just the wrong kind of tree for that space, imo.
 
If I could, I’d cut everything within striking distance. I’m well on my way, I quit counting at 150 dropped. Whatever the number is went up by one yesterday when I dropped the 90’ gum.
 
Correct, looks like it was cut multiple times, that adds up to the bill.

I will put some budget aside and cut it down later this year or early next year, and replace the stump by a table with a base made of the stump.
Probably pruned on a yearly basis, years ago I maintained high dollar properties and certain trees and plants were hand pruned with care . Sometimes I would spend days in a small tree to straighten out the growth patterns ( think big bonsai) .
Any unnatural growth angles or defects need to go first to eliminate hazards.
My main concern is the concrete on top of the root ball , it is referred as a "tree coffin" in the business for a reason. It does not matter whether moisture is present because the tree breathes and interacts with the top soil around its base, the concrete literally promotes root rot disease of multiple kinds and usually suffocates the tree if 40% of the root structure is covered.
Cool idea , bad application. I strongly suggest that you have an arborist remove it soon then later, because the tree will die at ground level first and could still leaf out which creates a sail for wind of any kind and then it either rips part of the structure or crushes it when it does go.
 
If you remove all the trees around your house you have ZERO risk of a tree falling on your house.
You do, but you have reduced the aesthetic appeal of you property, in my opinion.
If you want concrete, move back to the city.
Trees are assets, not liabilities. Unfortunately, many people in the tree business have convinced people of the latter, because there income is directly related to only cutting trees down.
 
You do, but you have reduced the aesthetic appeal of you property, in my opinion.
If you want concrete, move back to the city.
Trees are assets, not liabilities. Unfortunately, many people in the tree business have convinced people of the latter, because there income is directly related to only cutting trees down.
Um, did I say pour concrete in place of trees? No.
I agree, trees are a definite asset - as long as it's not a monster next to your house, then it's a liability.
I have a giant American Holly that should be taken down for that reason.

https://www.epa.gov/watersense/landscaping-tipshttps://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g6900
 
Um, did I say pour concrete in place of trees? No.
I agree, trees are a definite asset - as long as it's not a monster next to your house, then it's a liability.
I have a giant American Holly that should be taken down for that reason.

https://www.epa.gov/watersense/landscaping-tipshttps://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g6900
How large a tree is, does not directly correlate to liability.

First would be structural stability, then tree health, which don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Lawyers and insurance companies are not arborists.

Unfortunately they tend to be the final arbiter of whether a tree stays or goes. They are a plague on society.
 
What I expressed in my first post still remains true. The OP is concerned about the roots possibly lifting.
There will definitely be settling after the tree is removed due to decay of the root system.
One is a possibility, the other is a guarantee.
 
What I expressed in my first post still remains true. The OP is concerned about the roots possibly lifting.
There will definitely be settling after the tree is removed due to decay of the root system.
One is a possibility, the other is a guarantee.
Agreed. And I still think any way you look at it, this tree will be a problem for someone.
 
If you never go into traffic, there is zero chance of dying in a traffic accident (which is FAR more likely than being struck by a tree).

If you never swim, get on a boat, or take a bath there is (nearly) zero chance of drowning.

If you never eat solid food, there is zero chance of choking.

If you are never around a dog, you have zero chance of getting bit.

I'm curious: How many who think every tree within striking distance of a house take any of those precautions? What is the difference?
 
Back
Top