Re: Must one plant a redwood at all? WAS RE: Responses to Sequoia sempervirens 'Soquel'

Redwoods planted in very narrow urban spaces in San Francisco actuallyserve a useful function. I've seen them in situations (some as narrowas 3m wide!) providing greenery and verticality where little else wouldgrow. They are stunted but pretty, and eventually pop out above the 10mbuildings to confer a little spire of foliage to the asphalt rooftops.My concern is for the plumbing, sewage, and foundation infrastructureat root level. A quarterly sweep of duff off the floor of these dankinter-building wells would be prudent, too.
I'm not sure there's anywhere outside of San Francisco (maybeValparaiso, Portland Oregon, or Quito?) where this use would berelevant due to the rare convergence of the plant's preference formild, moist air and the restrictive urban conditions.

----- Original Message ----
From: david feix <davidfeix@yahoo.com>
To: yarrow@sfo.com; pkssreid@comcast.net; medit-plants@ucdavis.edu
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:31:49 PM
Subject: Re: Must one plant a redwood at all? WAS RE: Responses to Sequoia sempervirens 'Soquel'

I think it really depends on the depth of the local
water table.  I have Coast Redwoods in my neighborhood
of the flats of Berkeley that never receive any summer
irrigation, yet are thriving, and while we do get
coastal fog and cooler summer temperatures, we do not
typically get any fog drip acting as supplemental
precipitation.  I would assume that Coast Redwoods
would be happy in coastal southern California anywhere
that the native California Sycamore is growing, as
this would indicate a fairly high water table to tap
into.

No doubt Coast Redwoods do look and grow better in
northern California, but they can look good and be
useful as a conifer in a suburban setting, if one
realizes that they are not the easiest trees to garden
under due to surface rooting and constant debris and
dense shade.  On the other hand, they are long lived,
very much more fire and disease resistant than many
California native pines or cypresses, and will not
require removal due to old age and disease at a
relatively short 100 years, as do Monterey Pines and
Cypresses locally.

I treasure the skyline silhouettes of all the
neighborhood Coast Redwoods nearby, while I also am
thankful that I don't have to garden with them right
next door.  At least here locally they are fully
capable of thriving without summer irrigation once
established, and it will always be obvious which ones
are struggling for water as they will have much
shorter growth and greatly pronounced taper to the
trunks if they are deprived for abundant water.  The
grove of Redwoods at the San Francisco
Botanic/Strybing illustrates how much dwarfer they
grow in higher wind situations in pure dune sand,
where they seem quite puny in comparison to the
Monterey pines, Monterey Cypress and Eucalyptus
globulus trees elsewhere in the gardens.

I have also seen Coast Redwoods used as a clipped
hedge in gardens along the San Francisco peninsula,
and they are quite manageable when grown this way if
one doesn't mind all the shearing.

I would think an additional constraint upon growing
Coast Redwoods in southern California would be the
poor air quality in many parts of the region, and the
drying effects of Santa Ana winds.  They would be poor
candidates for heavily polluted areas or those areas
regularly subject to strong Santa Ana winds.  In
interior valley areas of southern California, they are
probably best suited to creeks/drainage basins with
shade and wind protection.
--- yarrow@sfo.com wrote:

> I agree. Even in northern California, most of the
> redwoods planted as 
> single trees outside the fog belt are not healthy,
> with dry branches 
> or sparse foliage. If they're mostly green, other
> shrubs and trees 
> planted nearby may have a harder time surviving,
> both because of the 
> heavy leaf drop and because the redwoods greedily
> take all the water 
> they can get.
> 
> Many trees require some regular water to get
> established in the first 
> couple years, but then are fairly drought tolerant.
> Redwoods need a 
> lifetime supply of ample water.
> 
> According to arborist Barrie Coate, a redwood tree
> needs 20 gallons 
> of water per inch of trunk every month. So a
> 12-inch-diameter tree 
> would require 240 gallons of water a month to stay
> healthy. Birch 
> trees are the only other trees that require as much
> water as 
> redwoods, Coate says.
> 
> Tanya Kucak
> sunset zone 15
> 
> At 8:28 AM -0800 2/23/08, Reidfamily wrote:
> >I would heartily contest the idea that any redwood
> fits comfortably on any
> >urban lot.  This is, in my opinion, the biggest,
> most common landscape error
> >made.  I have seen these trees placed more often
> where they should not go
> >than any other species.  I have spoken with several
> city arborists who
> >lament its misplacement repeatedly in urban
> situations. A 50' tree with its
> >subsequent spread is too large in scale for most
> urban lots, and most
> >suburban lots for that matter.  And the eventual
> spread of such a tree is
> >always underestimated, making for an awkward aspect
> of structure and tree
> >when mature, and the tree shades out anything else
> under it except shade
> >loving ground covers hearty enough to compete for
> the water these trees
> >need.  With the increasing need for conserving
> water, especially in Southern
> >California where their water isn't really their own
> in most cases, it is
> >ecologically irresponsible to plant a tree that
> uses that much water.  If a
> >gardener in So. Cal just must have some thirsty
> species, they really should
> >limit them to small areas and numbers of specimens,
> and not make the lion's
> >share of the landscape a water-hogging plant like
> the COAST redwood.  I
> >think Sean's adage of "a garden suited to its
> place" should be the by-word
> >of all mediterranean gardens.  Frankly, I am
> surprised this species would
> >even be considered in So.Cal. outside an arboretum
> setting.  Surely the
> >encyclopedic minds on this forum could suggest far
> more appropriate
> >drought-tolerant trees for this purpose.
> >That's my very opinionated opinion, anyway.
> >
> >Karrie Reid
> >Folsom Foothill Gardener
> >Zone 9
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-medit-plants@ucdavis.edu
> [o*@ucdavis.edu]
> >On Behalf Of Ben Wiswall
> >Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 7:44 PM
> >To: medit-plants@ucdavis.edu
> >Subject: Responses to Sequioa sempervirens 'Soquel'
> >
> >Thanks for the input from everyone.  I've seen just
> >the straight species and also 'Aptos Blue' redwoods
> >get up to 100'+ in Los Angeles, and given moderate
> to
> >high irrigation (2-4" per month), they seem to do
> OK
> >even in the hot inland valleys.  Boething Nursery
> did
> >list 'Aptos Blue' as growing to 150'+, so I figured
> >maybe 'Soquel' listed at 50' was legit.  Redwoods
> >aren't the best fit for the southern California
> >landscape, but they're very handsome trees, and any
> >tree narrow enough to fit comfortably on a small
> urban
> >lot is worth consideration, especially if they
> don't
> >get too tall.
> >-Ben Wiswall
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index