If its about being laughed at vs using money to purchase a plant they can laugh all day!

As to whether its an appropriate design choice one would need to provide a pic for context.

NEVER decide not to plant something because your spouse might laugh at you. It is quite narrow and every now and again throws a lateral that you can eliminate or shorten. I think it's a good idea.

A neighbor used to laugh at mine, but now comments how unique it is. My wife, however, still doesn't like it. A pic is a must. Orientation of the tree's "fletchings" is important because they can get quite wide.

tj

This is a tree, it's not going to stay behind the mailbox. Parent species is a forest giant in the wild. And I have never seen any indication any of these extra drooping horticultural selections were at all dwarf - quite the opposite actually.

So eventually this tree will fill out? Height shouldn't be a problem.

no it wont ....

but after 15 years.. mine is about 20 feet tall ... and has 4 or 5 wild side branches .. but you could take care of those with some selective pruning .... at that height.. it would be all out of scale ...imo ...

personally.. i wouldnt waste it on a mailbox planting .... but i suggest you have to have it ...

im also not sure.. that is a current correct name .... but whatever ... those nomenclature peeps are really a humorless bunch ... you will find many more pix under the Chamaecyparis name ...

see link for pix ...

a better suggestion for the mailbox might be something like picea abies pendula.. which basically you would train to the height you want.. and then it would grow back down.. forming a large skirt ... or even a larix pendula ... which might be kinda cool leafless in winter ....

ken

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=xanthocyparis+nootkatensis+%27green+arrow%27&t=ffcm&iax=1&ia=images

Hello NWalton, ' behind the mailbox' means a lot of things. Almost impossible without a photo. Chances are you've picked a great tree but a poor application. Keep the juices flowing, there are a lot of choices out there....

Al

I planted one about 5' off the main path through my garden about 6 years ago (I think it was a #15).. Since then, I have had to nip back one branch by about 1/3. Nowhere near being a problem. 'Van den Akker' is even narrower. I have a group of three planted together, they've been in about 5-6 years. They were in a #20, planted that way by the grower. Have never touched them and they are great. Some of this depends on whether you care if you have a problem 20-30 years down the road.

The ACS (and the RHS) doesn't recognize Xanthocyparis - we call it Cupressus. Just fyi. We're lumpers, evidently.

6 years is nothing, of course. Up here there is an office building planting of multiple 'Van Den Akker' - identified by a member of the family that was still growing and selling the plant himself at the time - that included individuals over 70 ft. tall some years ago.

Their heights were determined using a laser.

And their crown spreads were proportionate to their heights. We didn't tape any of these that I recall but say they were only 1/4 their heights, that would still have been 17 ft.

Of course it's nothing. But we are not going to live forever. The trees will long outlast me. If someone after me takes them out, so be it. Wouldn't surprise me if they painted the bathrooms and got new fixtures, either!

NWalton, I have seen some Green arrows stay very narrow at 10 years old but my green arrow is wider than other i've seen. My Green arrow is at least 10 years old.

That's a beautiful tree. Nice setting, too!

As the last photo in particular shows the shepherd's crook shape is a temporary feature presented only by young and small examples. With age there is forking, side branching and a considerable increase in overall volume.

The dead stump of one purchased as 'Pendula' and planted here from a 5 gallon pot about 3 ft. from the road is ~18 in. across. After establishment it grew 2-3 ft. per year. Or more.

Originally I thought the shape I've seen, similar to TJs, would make it perfect for being around the mailbox bc the lower branched arms would kind of hug around it. But if it sends out sides higher then I do see that as a problem.

I'll see if I can get a picture of a few spots in the yard and see if any sound like a good place.

Embothrium, are you saying Van Den Akker will also widen our over time?

This is the clump of three Van den Akker that I planted in April 2012 in a #20. As you can see, still very narrow. The cedar to the right is about 6-7' at its highest point, so the VdA's are about 9-10' tall and maybe 2' wide. No wayward lateral shoots yet. This photo was taken Christmas 2016.

Here is a photo from the same day of the Green Arrow:

As you can see, MUCH wider branches, but still not problematic. This was planted in summer 2010. For better perspective of how close to the path it is, here's a photo from 2012:

Many of the woody plants in my garden will eventually get too big to coexist. Some will have to be removed (the Acacia in the second photo did it for me; blew down last month in a freak storm) and some will have to be pruned. However, if I planted everything to accommodate its final size, which would be long after my own demise, this is what my garden would look like now:

That shot was taken in 2009. It's all a balancing act. I try to plant so that 75% of the plants will have enough room, and I try to plant inconsequential ones in between the more interesting specimens. I have removed many deciduous shrubs that were there originally as filler. But since a garden grows and changes (and not always the way we expect), you have to pick a 'time'. Do you want your garden to look good right away? Do you want it to ultimately all fit long after you are dead (or moved away)? Many landscapers - egged on by their clients - create and plant landscapes that are way over-planted and almost immediately need editing. I try for 5 years, meaning that I am relatively patient for about 5 years from planting to let things grow enough not to look puny or uninteresting. I also prune.

There is no right answer. One way or the other you are going to have to deal with the fact that most of these plants have longer life spans than we do and if, like me, you started your garden when you were in your 40's, you have an even shorter horizon. Knowing what the plant wants to do is very helpful. But don't let the fact that the size in 150 years is larger than you can accommodate keep you from planting something that will likely work out fine for the next 20.

And some of those 'edits' have made great firewood!

Ok. Green Arrow may be too large for any place in my front yard. I'm guessing it's going to become a backyard addition.

This is the bed in the front that is getting a makeover. The spirea are going to be replaced with a glow girl birch spirea, and a Japanese maple. I don't think a green arrow will fit into the mix?

It would want the whole space, I think. That's a pretty small bed, if I'm getting the proportions right. One tree is enough, and JMs can go pretty wide and you really don't want to clutter up their crown with other plants pushing in.

I agree with Sara Malone.

Please, Cupressus nootkatensis. The X. thing is history now.

Sorry, from my reading on it I thought they had moved it from cupressus to xanthocyparis. Or callitropsis? Something like that. C nootkatensis it is :-)

It'll be a dwarf Japanese maple, so it'll just replace the lower service berry bush. I may look into C nootkatensis 'van den aker' but even that may be to wide. It'll be the width of the top serviceberry in 10yrs.

The "correct" name has been all over the place in recent years but has finally been settled on as Cupressus. However, it takes a long time for the taxonomy to filter down in to standard usage and you will still see these plants sold as Chamaecyparis nootkatensis and most of the literature will refer to them under that name as well.

The ACS and the RHS use Cupressus. Others use xanthocyparis. I think that the key thing is to note that they refer to the same plant!

"Chamaecyparis nootkatensis is still widely used, but the molecular analysis of Mao et al. (2010) returns it to Cupressus, albeit as a monotypic section. The argument that it warrants treatment as a monotypic genus is not without merit, in which case the correct name is Callitropsis nootkatensis Ørsted (or Oersted)"

http://www.conifers.org/cu/Cupressus_nootkatensis.php

All the advice here is great stuff.

Just when you probably decided to not put a nootka in that space I'm going say, do it! If it was me, I'd put a 'Van den Akker' or 'Strict Weeper' in there, furthest away from the sidewalk. The narrow vertical accent of this tree is going to be such a beautiful focal point. Throw in a few large boulders and a very dwarfy red type of maple and that bed will look superb. Just prune outstretching arms as needed and widen the bed a bit. I don't think you will regret putting 'Van den Akker' or 'Strict Weeper' in that space. I think you may regret not doing it =).

Of course, don't take my word for it. I'm just a little obsessively in love with my nootkas. I have to run my hands through the foliage of my 'Green Arrow' every time I pass it.

2013

2017

I'm with Garen Rees! I was trying not to lead you astray, but if it were me, it's what I would do!

Thanks everyone! I'll see if I can find a more narrow variety for the space. So far I've only found jubilee and green arrow but my search has only just begun. I think once I pull out all the overgrown plants in that bed and add some color this tree will look amazing!

Any Nootka Cypress cultivars that are not dwarf are in time going to completely overwhelm - both physically and visually - the small beds shown in most of the photos on this thread. I have seen no indication any of the selections that start out with more or less of a shepherd's crook appearance are dwarf.

By the way the one in the next to the last photo posted here looks like it may have that post planting blighting off disorder that has been asked about on this forum for years.

Ron did you see my photo above of THREE Van den Akkers planted together, bean-pole straight and only 2' wide? Yes, I know, you will say that five years is nothing, which in the life of the tree is true. I'm talking about in MY life, in which case five years is a lot. And if I have to prune a bit or cut two of the off, so be it. I wager that I will not have to do much of anything to those trees for as long as I live.

Walton , I say make that bed wider , no matter what

ron

Embo, I planted that one the year before the photo was taken. It doesn't matter but what you are seeing is dog pee damage from two old past friends. Hoping I only acquire female dogs from here on. My trees can finally develop skirts.

Ron did you see my photo above...?

Did you see my discussion above of the 'Van Den Akker' planting at a commercial building northeast of Seattle where height measurements of more than 70 ft. were obtained, with my suggestion that the associated average crown spreads were probably at least 17 ft (and could just as well have been 20 ft or more)? Or the plant obtained as 'Pendula' and planted here a few feet from the access road that was soon growing more than 2 ft. per year (probably 3 ft) and left behind a stump 18 in. across when it was cut down not all that long after planting from a 5 gallon pot?

What a young small tree looks like and how big it is at that time is about as relevant to what the tree is - perhaps quite soon - going to become as the trunk of an elephant is to the rest of the animal. Nootka cypress is a plenty vigorous species that becomes a forest giant in nature. Strongly weeping forms are very common in plantings in my area, many of them well on their way to overwhelming their planting positions - if they haven't done so already*. A choice conifer or other tree stuck in a much too small space is one that is on its way to being removed or deformed after perhaps many years of development, resulting in the wasting of what might otherwise have become a legacy landscape feature.

*Yesterday I ended up parked across the street from a apartment or condo building that had a Blue Atlas Cedar, a Mountain Hemlock and a Weeping Nootka Cypress arranged in a row in a raised bed contained by concrete wall blocks between it and the street, parallel and next to the sidewalk. The Cedar was taller than the building and had been marred by an opening having been tunneled out of it, presumably so that it was possible to see through it from a top floor window - which lined up with the gap. The Hemlock, which was between them had been swallowed by the Cedar and the Cypress, was barely visible from my vantage point. The Cypress was having to be pruned to allow pedestrians to pass and had grown branches that were resting on the utility lines. The two larger trees should now be cut down and the Hemlock retained, as that is the only one that is in scale with the space. This has happened because unlike the Cedar and the Cypress this species grows at as snail's pace, takes decades to produce a specimen of much size in lowland plantings.

**Informed and successful selection at planting time is everything**

Yes I get it! But our livespans don't jive with thise of the trees. I prefer to look at green rather than an empty space as the slow grower takes decades to produce a specimen of much size.

A conifer that naturally develops a skirt that could interfere with the mailman's legs and/or naturally develops arms that could hit the mailman's face looks like the wrong choice to me.

A vase-shaped plant with no skirt and a canopy higher than human height is required, IMHO.

If it has to be a conifer, look at the beautiful vase-shaped Pinus densiflora 'Umbraculifera'. I would plant even a dwarf cultivar at least 5' behind the mailbox.

that would hit a mailman's face,,nootka good

ron

Here's a large 'Van den Akker' at Stanley and Son's. If it starts tickling too many mail man faces in 10-20 years just whip out the old editing chainsaw and plant a mini or something more appropriate for tight spaces. =)

I think green arrow will end up in my yard. But it seems the front may not be the right place for it.

I wish I looked more like the Van den Akker! ;-)

Barbie Van den Akker?

Since there are trees believed to be 'Van Den Akker' over 70 ft. tall the Stanley example is clearly not a large one. No matter how much some people want these Nootka cypress selections to be small trees suitable for spaces that are too small even for large shrubs to be in scale that is simply not what they are.

Period.

Exclamation point!

The best tree to welcome the mailman

Be sure not to overwater the green arrow and make sure there is good drainage. I had one and killed it with too much water.