I do not recognise this tree(?) growing outside one of my windows, but it looks too robust to me. I think it might be a trash tree, and if so, I want to cut it down. Can anyone identify it?

Thank you!

My first thought was crape myrtle...
Limb in bottom pic looks like privet...

I'd consider both as "trash trees".

If it's too big for the spot, too close to the house, it should come down. Doesn't matter what it is.

I don't believe in "trash trees." We need every tree we can get, as long as they aren't poised to damage something.

"Trash tree" is a generic description for unwanted wild trees, i.e. non-cultivar trees.

I do believe it is too close to the house, but I want to identify it before I do anything else.

It looks like a privet to me too. I wouldn't wait to identify it before I pulled it out because it is way too close to the house.

One of my neighbors was talking about removing the 'trash trees' in the retention basin. I had to ask her what that was because all I could see were trees. Her explanation (I think) was planted vs wild but I have some great trees in my yard that planted themselves so are they trash trees?

Lucy68 said: It looks like a privet to me too. I wouldn't wait to identify it before I pulled it out because it is way too close to the house.

One of my neighbors was talking about removing the 'trash trees' in the retention basin. I had to ask her what that was because all I could see were trees. Her explanation (I think) was planted vs wild but I have some great trees in my yard that planted themselves so are they trash trees?

Well, wild trees can be trash trees, but I would not go so far as to say all wild trees are trash trees because it is possible to have a tree growing wild that is not considered a trash tree because it has some sort of value to a culture. For example, I am sure once settlers came to the U.S. from Europe they discovered many trees, such as oaks, that we prize today for their utility and/or beauty. We cultivate such trees now.

However, a tree that is described as a "trash tree" means it likely was naturally seeded (without human help or intention), and it holds little or no value to a culture for one or more reasons. For example, it may not be able to be used to make commodities like furniture, or maybe it is aesthetically unpleasing, or perhaps it attracts undesirable wildlife? I am sure there are many reasons why trash trees are not valued and thus not cultivated.

The point that this particular tree, no matter what it is, is planted too close to the house is absolutely correct. I would not have planted a tree i such a position, but this house does not belong to me. I lease it, and it was here at the time I signed my lease and moved in. I am merely trying to decide what type of tree it is before I decide what would be the best step to take next.

Re the comment that no tree is a trash tree may apply if you are looking at it from this particular point in human history where what we have done to the planet is harming both the planet and ourselves. However, I think industry and individual gardeners will still consider some trees as desirable cultivars and other trees as "trash trees."

So to sum up, broadly speaking, so-called trash trees are not cultivated. They grow wild (I have some along the back fence, too, and they are providing privacy for my yard, so I am not particularly interested in cutting them down). However, not all trees that might be found growing wild would be considered trash trees. A cherry tree, a wild oak, etc. if found growing wild would be a "wild growing tree," but they would not be deemed trash trees because human beings value them either for making products such as tables or for landscaping or for some other possible purpose.

I hope that makes sense, Lucy.

So the trash trees growing against your back fence, although providing you with something you value, are still trash trees? Why haven't they morphed into wild growing trees?

Lucy, you are splitting hairs, but I will answer anyway.

The trash trees along my back fence are wild growing trees and indeed still trash trees because they do not provide the many benefits that cultivars could provide that would cause someone to plant cultivars.

I would not have planted them (no one would), and any benefit they may provide is accidental. I am willing to allow them to remain because I do not own the property and they do provide some accidental benefit, but if someone offered to remove them and plant some cultivars in their place, e.g. Japanese Maples, I would be thrilled and say go ahead which indicates I do not really value them per se. I appreciate the accidental benefit of their presence at the moment, but they are still trash trees, and they have more drawbacks than they do accidental benefits, e.g. their roots.

I have noticed these types of trees growing wild in many areas. They are very leggy for the most part, and they send out long roots in every direction that makes cultivating the ground under and around them well neigh impossible. Unlike, for example, an oak, they do not develop with one strong, attractive trunk. They are more like tree-vines than trees. This type of tree is characteristic of jungle growth. I did cut down one that had come up in a bed at a prior property and had grown enough before I arrived that it required a chainsaw to cut it down. Then, it kept trying to come back. Killing the stump was no mean feat, which is why no one wants these trees to get a toehold in their gardens and yards.

I leased another property some years ago that had them growing all along the back fence line. They provided extra privacy to my backyard, but that was the only accidental benefit I had from them. The costs far outweighed the benefit, though.

Pretty much 95% or more of that yard had nothing growing in it because the trees blocked the sunlight. The soil was rich, though, from their leaves constantly falling and decomposing on the ground. I thought I could plant a variety of shade loving plants under and around them, such as Hostas, but everywhere I tried to dig, I was thwarted by their roots which stretched across the entire yard in every direction even growing underneath the cement walkway. It literally would have taken men with machines to cut through the morass of roots and pull them up to make the ground usable for planting anything.

A few years later, I moved to another property where one of these trash trees had sprouted some years earlier right on the fence line. The tree literally engulfed the metal hurricane fence. The wire could not be extricated from the tree. Eventually, that fence will have to be removed, but in order to do so, they probably will have to get heavy equipment to take down the trash trees and the fence. It is a shame someone did not pull up the tree before it grew that much. Unlike most cultivars, they grow very fast, too.

Another cost is that they do not age well and are disease prone. Those trash trees I just mentioned in the paragraph above were CONSTANTLY dropping dead bits of brittle, sickly branches. It added a significant amount of extra work to keeping my back driveway tidy no matter the season.

So anyway, in the case of the trash trees growing along my current back fence are concerned, their benefit is purely accidental and not enough to make me truly value them. They are still trash trees to me, and if I owned this property and had the budget to remove them and replace them with a nice ornamental tree and surround it with some rose bushes and pretty annuals and perennials, I would do it. I could get shade, privacy, and aesthetic benefit from cultivars.

ETA: Another drawback to these trees is they are opportunists that often pop up in highly inappropriate spots such as the one pictured outside my window in my first post above. I truly doubt this tree is a cultivar because I do not think anyone would intentionally plant a tree that close to the foundation. It is most likely a trash tree. Its growth so far this season is another indicator of its lineage. It has grown substantially since last Autumn. I think it has put on between 2 and 3 ft in height so far this Spring. In any case, I want to be sure I have correctly identified it before I do anything else about it.

stone said: My first thought was crape myrtle...
Limb in bottom pic looks like privet...

I'd consider both as "trash trees".

There are some what I believe are Crepe Myrtles growing alongside my driveway. I very much like them. Their trunks are smooth, strong, and a pleasing colour, and their leaves are full and a healthy green. Best of all, they make flowers. My little house is a bit of a cottage given its age, somewhat isolated location, style, etc. These trees along the drive look totally appropriate to the property. This tree outside the window, however, not so much.

I would not expect to need to trim wayward trees @ a rental, especially if they were already there. Have you asked the owner about tree maintenance?

You're welcome to call any plant anything you want, there are no plant police. But I won't join you in calling self-planted or straight species (non-cultivar) trees trash trees. Most trees are older than any cultivar name registrations. I spent this past weekend in a cabin in a forest of old-growth self-planted loblolly pines. Not one of those trees is a trash tree. Most trees are self-planted, millions of acres of them in places where no human intervention has occurred.

Being suitable for a particular landscape is a matter of personal preference. I would never buy a cultivar tree because it may or may not live up to the hype. The issue of desirability seems like a personal one that people would approach with a huge variety of different preferences, levels of info, and pre-conceived notions.

It might be worth considering referring to unwanted plants as unwanted plants, or just growing in the wrong place. Gardeners have a word for self-planted plants, volunteers, whether they are trees or smaller plants. Just because a tree is a cultivar does not automatically mean that it won't make seeds that sprout in inappropriate places, unwanted.

You're not alone at all in wanting to know what an unwanted plant is. Sorry to have gone off on a tangent. I wish people had more respect for trees. People can ruin in 60 seconds what took hundreds of years to grow. Not that this applies to your asked-about plant, which everyone seems to agree should be removed no matter what it is.

Shade is not an accidental benefit to me, it's a requirement. I've never lived in a house without a lot of shade around it, and hope I never have to do that.

I am sorry you do not like the term "trash tree," but that is the terminology used long before I came along.

As for the accidental benefit of added privacy to my backyard from the trash trees, well that is exactly what it is---accidental. No one planted the trees for any reason, so whatever comes from there presence here is either an accidental benefit or an accidental cost to their presence.

You must be a homeowner who has not been a renter in many, many years.

stone said: My first thought was crape myrtle...
Limb in bottom pic looks like privet...

I'd consider both as "trash trees".

I was looking for photos of privet trees and came across one called Chinese Privet. It looks very similar to this tree. Do you think this could be Chinese Privet? I read it is a very invasive, dangerous species.

Privet is invasive and definitely deserves the title of trash tree.

porkpal said: Privet is invasive and definitely deserves the title of trash tree.

I am not fussed over what they are called. I just want to keep things under control and first of all identify this "tree" or shrub or whatever it is. Do you think it is the so-called dreaded Chinese Privet??

There are pics to compare in the plant database on this site:
https://garden.org/plants/sear...

Well, it does not look like the Chinese Privet photos on garden.org. I sent my photos to a nursery not too far from here where I have shopped many times. There is a good chance the young man there will be able to identify it.

purpleinopp said:
I don't believe in "trash trees." We need every tree we can get, as long as they aren't poised to damage something.

The "trash tree" concept came down from our forebearers, referring to trees that had no use.
As we've moved away from strict definitions of what's considered useful, the concept could and probably should be applied to those invasives that escaped from previous garden plantings.

As an example, consider the box elder... often called a "trash tree" but... as a fast growing native, seems to have some value in the yard, and to wildlife:
https://www.urbanecologycenter....

Whereas privet?
That exotic invasive is busily crowding out all other plant life where it becomes established in thick jungles... And, the berries while being eaten, are said to be of very low nutrient value to our songbirds who depend on the native plants and trees:
https://www.newhopeaudubon.org...

Yesterday I read that the Chinese Privet's dark berries are actually highly poisonous....

Anyway, I snapped a few more photos this morning. One gives a better view of this "tree's" trunk. I also snapped photos of two other things growing out there. I have no idea what they are either. The last one is rather short relatively speaking. It loses a lot of "limbs" for want of a better word. Still, I am not keen to remove anything if it is providing some benefit and not doing any harm to anything else.

I am really rather amazed by how much is growing around here considering how clay-ee is the soil. Somehow, "weeds" and "trash trees" seem to be able to flourish in this rather unforgiving soil.

The last photo is of an Oleander, two and three look like a Hackberry - possibly regrowing after being cut back, and the first still looks like Privet.

porkpal said: The last photo is of an Oleander, two and three look like a Hackberry - possibly regrowing after being cut back, and the first still looks like Privet.

Thank you. Well a cursory search indicates that the Oleander should produce flowers at some point in the season. Happy about that!