I inherited these shrubs in my tiny front yard when I moved in, and have no idea what they are. They turned out to be evergreen, and the green one even has some interesting winter flowers. Sorry about the picture of the reddish one - I realize it kind of blends in with the mulch. Any help would be much appreciated.
The one on the left is an azalea. The one on the right looks like a form of Viburnum davidii . But I may be wrong on that one.
Evergreen azalea looks like it could be a Kurume hybrid but there are multiple hybrid groups with hundreds of cultivars. A common Kurume here is 'Hino Crimson'. The time to hunt for a variety name is when it flowers. The Viburnum is V. tinus. One common here is V. tinus Spring Bouquet = 'Compactum'. It has a comparatively low habit, purplish flower buds and may be at least partly self-fruitful - all characteristics your specimen looks like it may share. However, it may not have the same exact leaf shape as the clone I am thinking of (I have seen more than one selection appearing in garden centers here under the Spring Bouquet trademark in recent years).
Thank you! I asked my neighbor, who I share this yard with (I live in a joined townhouse), but she is the type of gardener who can make things grow like crazy but doesn't know any of the names. I didn't know azalea turned so red. I moved into the house in late spring, so I guess it had already flowered. I just thought it was a reddish green little shrubby thing, had no idea it would have flowers! I'm excited to see what they look like this spring. I really like the viburnum, but I am concerned because a neighbor two houses down has a huge shrub that looks exactly like it. It covers her entire fence and is a good 8 feet high and 5 feet high. I hope this isn't the same shrub, and I have a compact version, because my yard is tiny and a shrub of that size would overwhelm it.
Azaleas can be coloured from white through reds, pinks and even a purple, but isn't it half the fun to find out what they are?
Plan and carry out a regular pruning program, and you should be able to keep the size within bounds. It is your yard, not the shrub's, and you get to make the plan. In any case, plants always keep growing and many ultimately need to be replaced.
"Maintenance shearing" distorts the appearance of the shrub, removes flower buds and fruits. When shrubs are grown for a long time and then replaced because they have overwhelmed the space or deteriorated because of years of maintenance shearing (or worse) then all that time that could have been used to produce an impressive large (for the type, in the case of dwarf shrubs) specimen has been wasted. It is much better to select plants that have the desired attributes (including potential growth within a desired size range) and prune and train them to have a natural and normal appearance. Formal layouts involving close shearing of shrubs use them as architectural elements along with wood, stone etc.
The azalea looks hungry or it may be because of too much sun. One of mine has gone that colour. Fed it up and it's again a good hue. I have these as quiet tall old bushes probably put in when house was first built in 55 and some that I am sort of bonsaing to keep small. I like them best out of all the azaleas as they give such a stunning flower show when in good nick. Ron's probable id. http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/county/smith/azalea/kurume.html http://www.bonsai-bci.com/species/kurume-azalea.html Liz
On the other hand, if shearing is the type of pruning you want to do, there is nothing wrong with it as long as you recognize, as Ron says, that the plants eventually grow beyond looking good with that treatment, and that they won't become "specimen" shrubs with the natural look if grown that way. Shearing is still going strong, and is the foundation of a good number of yards around here that are obviously a source of pride and satisfaction to their owners who clearly work hard to maintain them and even love doing it. So what if it's not "good" for the shrub - no matter how you prune, in an urban environment most woody plants will need replacing eventually anyway, and the sheared plants stay within bounds better than most. I am getting tired of the horticultural snobbery that tells so many of these hardworking, responsible homeowners, as if they were idiots or criminals, that a look that they obviously love and work hard to achieve - shearing - is a bad thing. The purpose of gardening is to have the yard you love, and that involves pruning to YOUR specifications, not the design world's. People who are contemptuous about shrub shearing should save their disdain for the more destructive elements among us - like people who don't pick up after their dogs.
It's only OK if you think a pieris pruned into a square, a poodled rhododendron or a pollarded sweetgum is a fine thing. Promoting better practices and working to raise awareness does not automatically translate into a superiority complex. http://www.plantamnesty.org/
Looking at the trees in Ron's very interesting article I would say they are a lot older than from 2001. I too would suggest they never had a view from up top. I on the other hand did 20 years ago I could see my horses agisted on the far hill these days I can only see over there in winter when the neighbours Birch plantation has leaf fall. It is however very pretty. I do cheer when the cockatoos land on mass to prune the trees tho :) "We were saying we would give you your view without having our property destroyed," she said. "All they kept giving us was to cut the trees to create views that were not there in 2001 and probably never were." http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/jun/23/battle-over-trees-pits-sk-couple-against-their/ Liz
The Plant Amnesty website is the grandaddy of the type of attitude that I mean - that someone whose opinion has not been requested should have the right to publicly express an opinion, and a derogatory one at that, about the properties in question and the choices people make in their yards. It is fine to roll your eyes and make fun of a property for its landscaping sins in private, and it is fine to discuss landscaping trends in general and express opinions about them publicly. It is also fine to express a critical opinion, even quite a harsh one as I have done on more than one occasion, to someone who has asked you for one. It is, however, quite another thing to select specific individuals and hold them up for public ridicule based on your judgement of their lives as expressed by their gardening choices. How does the author of this derogatory website, which to me is almost preaching hatred, judge the various elements that go into landscaping - the emotional needs, for example, that might lead one to make a silly topiary yard, or that might lead one to sinfully, according to her, shape a single shrub formally in an otherwise informal garden? Who the he** does she think she is? The yard may provide the person with respite from a chaotic life, something they feel they can control, a singular creative outlet in an otherwise constrained life or relationship, or a comfort or happiness of some sort of which she can have no idea. I wonder if she herself would submit as readily to a public, non-anonymous analysis of her behaviour by, say, the fashion police or the parenting police as she submits others to her landscaping analysis? And I wonder too, did the homeowners whose proudly-done work is held up for ridicule on that site give their permission for those photos to be posted in such a context? I don't have to consider sheared shrubs or poodled rhodos beautiful myself in order to find it in myself to respect people who do like them. I see absolutely no excuse for ridiculing and denigrating the people who like sheared shrubs - or any other landscaping feature that I don't like - and who choose to have them in their yards. They do the work, they pay the taxes, and they are not hurting anyone. Venom such as Plant Amnesty should be saved for people who do not pick up after their dogs. Her website borders on the inexcusable. I believe she spoke at UBC not long ago and I did not for one second consider attending and, a rarity for me, forwarded the notice of her presentation to no one. Pardon the detour.
Perhaps it is better summed up as each to their own, personally I like most plants and admire the beauty of them regardless of their shape
I don't know if it helps end the argument/discussion in this particular thread or not, but I do prefer more naturally shaped shrubs, not sheared ones, just from an aesthetic view. I can understand that website and that attitude being construed as rude, but the person who runs that website absolutely has the right to convey that view, even if not asked for. Not to turn it into that kind of thread, but that is a constitutional right. And your right in turn is to absolutely not agree with them.
Better for the plants = better for people. Same as with environmentalism, it's not about people vs. nature. Maintenance shearing is a mistake undertaken most often by those not interested enough to know the difference. They are tidying up, with shearing being part of the clean-up. It's not the same as a topiary hobby. PlantAmnesty is pointing out the difference, just as do pruning manuals and guidebooks. There is "horticulturally correct" pruning and there is maintenance shearing (and tree topping). People do dumb things to their pets (and children) too. If nobody pipes up, nothing gets better.
This is as hot as it gets on this site. But still mild compared to the many other forums I have been to. Do carry on, I am learning something here. (I get Ron B's point - so far.)
