I don't KNOW--but I am ALWAYS willing to speculate. (BIG surprise--right?) Clearly, junipers are the 50's/60's red-tip photinia analog--without the disease issues!

melanie

Ginger:

No clue, but the "Hollywood" junipers are still rampant in 50's-70's developments in Cali. My parents still have one in front of their house. If that indeed started in my state, that's one trend that I disavow as a native Californian.

spectre

It's not just California. In New England, we have had the Pfitzer junipers that everyone planted back in the day. They are also like something out of a sci-fi movie--and just try getting the roots out.

I'm curious too. I've ripped them out at 3 houses and it has never been a fun task. I got bitten alive by mosquitoes. My guess is that it was a cheap and easy way for developers to quickly landscape a home back then, and there wasn't the interest, knowledge or variety of options there are now for attractive landscaping. Out my way there are a lot of Frank Lloyd Wright homes, and even many of those have the junipers. I wonder sometimes if 25-30 years from now, people will wonder why so many homes had proliferations of spirea, daylilies and ornamental crab trees, as that's about all you see in the new developments around here.

Tried to find an answer to your question today, Catkim, but no luck. Maybe it would be in one of these books suggested on an earlier thread by others:

"Try the last chapter of "Reading the Landscape of America"
by May Theilgaard Watts, called 'The Stylish House' it traces a typical American landscape from the mid 1800s until the 1960s complete with plants and how they were used. It's a great book."

Another recommended book that I've not read is Kenneth Helphand's "Leaping the Property Line": Observations on Recent American Garden History. Maybe someone else can comment on this book.

Covering up the foundation with big yews and junipers is a common design problem, that's for sure. Probably has something to do with the ugly 2'-4'high cinderblock/cement foundations left showing on 1950's-'60's homes, coupled with the hardiness and "hiding" abilities of junipers and yews.
G.

Catkim:

I must apologize . . .I had a brain cloud this morning and I'm so used to seeing Ginger start threads on this forum, her baby, that out of habit I prefaced my answer with "Ginger." Sorry about that chief.

Let this be a lesson to all of you lurkers out there . . . unless you start new threads here, I'll be calling everybody Ginger.

spectre

P.S.: Still don't know why junipers are a staple of the tract house, Catkim.

They were CUTE little ones at one time

They were the wrong species for the space, but rather than rip them out and repace them with a suitable variety, people just pruned them harshly.

"foundation junipers" were the landscape norm of that era.

You arent speaking of aborvitae are you?
Kelly

I have wondered about this myself and offer my present thoughts which may not be my conclusion.
Buying plants from a nursery would not have been as popular in 1950's America as it is now.
Gardening as a leisure activity was in its infancy.
A garden as a place other than to grow food was a novelty.
Dare I mention jerry built houses?
Put these together and it is possible that the junipers were taken from the forest as saplings with no thought or understanding beyond that day. In no way is this a criticism because those people were trying to beautify their environment in the best way they knew how with what money was available, so in effect it is praise.
What is relevant to this forum is the fact that gardens often came into existence in spite of economic pressures that made it difficult. In my opinion an urban balcony that has tomatoes growing in plastic buckets has as much cred as the mythological English cottage garden.
English houses (even the pre-fabricated dump I grew up in) don't have exposed foundations so we didn't start from the premise of hiding something. An understanding of what it was like then, whether 'then' is 50 years ago or 5000, in other words the social history of the time will help us put a perspective on our restoration.

Tony,
Your hypothesis is so far off the mark as regards Hollywood Junipers in California that it brought a smile to my face as I read it! It is fairly obvious that Juniperus chinensis 'Torulosa' is not soemthing that anyone would be familiar with back east, as they are not hardy there. The very large shrub does eventually get tree sized, and is known for the twisted form it assumes as it grows, and the deep emerald green color of the foliage. I happen to like using it,(but not as a foundation shrub in a narrow 2 foot planter), for its year round good looks, great deep green color and interesting form, not to mention the virtually no care required to grow it,(it is completely drought tolerant here once established).

At no time was this ever a plant to be found in the woods locally(not native here in California), and there has always been a culture of local nurseries in all urban areas of the state of California. Digging wild plants up in the woods might have been a depression ear trend here in California, but certainly not in the post war years when almost the entire state was feeling flush, and southern California still had its golden paradise reputation. I think it was so commonly planted because when it was first introduced, it stood out as being different and more interesting color and texture wise than the typical Juniper variety. Architectural plants were also very big back in the late 1950's, look at all the Philodendron selloums which are also common from this period. I also think that most nurserymen selling this back in the 50's and 60's did not realize that it could become a 35 foot tall tree by 20 feet across. It was planted in the same way that the African Fern Pine(Podocarpus gracilior) still is in California, as a foundation shrub used as a shrub that in habitat becomes a towering forest tree. Junipers in particular were and still are very popular in southern California, and seemed to be deriguer for any 1950's/1960's Eichler home with hillside slopes to cover. Even if they seem rather boring now, they definitely are low water use and low maintenance plants; when given the space they need to grow. Unfortunately most all Junipers were,(and still are), usually planted way too closely together, little realizing the width and height they will grow to, and so require near constant trimming. No doubt this reflects the lack of patience to let things fill in over time, we want everything to look mature in the first two years... I must admit I am also guilty of this, but try not to do this with larger growing trees and shrubs, but smaller plants only,(easier to thin/rip out as they get too large.

I think Bahia you put the hollywood juniper in the right light. I just want to add that it was around way before the 50's because I remember along the south coast around Encinitas, and around old neighborhoods in orange county that there were huge specimens even in the early 60's in front of houses from the twenties. I think it is one of the most interesting junipers there is. Also as you said, if junipers were given the room they need to grow and the proper site they are beautiful plants.

I know you are far away Tony, so I forgive you for surmising the junipers were taken from the forest as saplings. And I forgive you for mentioning jerry-built houses. There is evidence that there once were trees growing here, but they were gone long before the Spanish explorers anchored off the point. In its natural state, much of coastal California is covered in low-growing sage scrub. In the years before the land was subdivided for homes my neighborhood was an expanse of olive groves (planted, not native) and a few remain still. But in all of my travels through California, I've never seen this species of juniper in the wild.

I think bahia's got the story right. And on my walk this morning, I could easily imagine one of these large specimens looking handsome, if more thoughtfully placed with a lot more room around it. They are so common and so poorly placed as to have become "invisible", just blending in with the older neighborhoods and their overgrown, cubed raphiolepis. I think grandblvd03 has an interesting point too, that what is "fresh and new"--and increasingly common-- today, will be the invisible, boring old stuff 20 years from now.
Thank you all for your interesting comments.

Catkim writes "what is "fresh and new"--and increasingly common-- today, will be the invisible, boring old stuff 20 years from now."
This was brought home to me quite abruptly last week. I was out in the eastern reaches of the county where I seldom travel, to a new "redevelopment" abomination of retail sprawl known as the Santee Trolley Center/Station. Costco, WalMart, HomeDepot and every fast food variety known to mankind. But I liked some of the trees. There were Swan Hill Olives planted by the dozen. Those beautiful grey-green shimmering leaves and knarled trunks. Here I lust after one or two for my yard and have actually located what I think are two specimens that may serve (they're like signed and numbered prints, fergawdsake!) and now it looks like they may become the future shopping center tree of the southwest. I'm conflicted in that I'd hate to see them become invisible and boring, but I'm pleased that at least someone is choosing something appropriate and of (to my eye) beauty for a parking lot.
Tessa

HtessaSDCA, I do not know what a Swan Hill olive is, but olives were the tree for shopping center parking lots back in the early sixties, They were boring AND messy by the late 60's when they were replaced by Melaleucas, so fashon repeats itself.

A Swan Hill is a fruitless olive of particular beauty for which a patent has been granted, thus they are sold at a premium price for the time being. They are no mess, drought-tolerant, and shimmer in the sun while granting cooling shade - especially to small, urban spaces such as my 90+ yr old Craftsman which authentically would have a messy fruiting one, but I'll grant myself this fudge. :)
Tess

Here is a link that might be useful: pleeze, not the next juniper

Tess,
Thanks for the link to the Swan Hill Olive site.
I found it interesting that they have a photo of a very familiar client/ project on their website.

Mich.

What - and not credited? How rude!
This means you get your next four free, right? ;)

Tess

I wonder if the Swan Hill Olive will grow in my area. According to our local horticultural history both olives and citrus were first introduced to this country by the early Spainish who built forts along the southeast coast and rivers. When the Florida indians that were waging war along the coast were defeated citrus and olive were replanted south of here in Florida's warmer climate. I have been told that several of those early olive trees still exist but have never been able to pin down their location. Doubt that the story is true.

Tony....I would gently say that horticulture and nurseries were thriving before and in the 1950's. The American Nurseryman was an important magazine for the trade. Some of the finest horticultural writings of the time can be found in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden Records magazine Titled "Plants & Gardens" which began publication in 1947. Any gardener who can locate a library which has the complete collection of Brooklyn Botanic Garden magazines will have access to some of the best of garden writing. I have a number of back issues here. Still as fresh and informative as the day they were printed.

Our home is a California cottage (totally nondescript architecture both inside and out) built in 1940 -- I should probably say jerry-built, considering its mediocre quality of construction -- and there were two of these hideous contorted junipers, planted on either side of the front staircase. Clearly planted as original landscaping when the home was first built. Thank goodness they're long gone, we ripped them out as soon as we could.