Oh, boy, sure doesn't look like there's much life remaining in it, I think it's best to get yourself another plant.

considering your collecting gene.. and the size of your micro yard... im thinking you might be better off without a tree that can grow 367 feet tall ...

if you need the spot ... be done with it ...

if you dont need the spot.. keep watching it ... maybe a miracle will happen ...

was there an cold winter below the z6 this requires.. in the 4 years you have had it??? .. if not.. i would then wonder if summers are just too hot for this PNW tree???

ken

LOL!! No worries about the weeping form of giant sequoia reaching 367 feet...............40' or so would be a very large and mature one in my area where the tree is very well suited. I'd expect much less in a less favorable climate :-)

But to answer your question, that little guy is pretty much toast. And even if it survived long term (which I seriously doubt), its natural form has been permanently compromised and it will never regain the tall, quite narrow and somewhat contorted shape.

If you were to try again, I'd site this tree where the sun is maximized and without a lot of competition from nearby plantings. This is really a stand-alone type of specimen tree, where the unique and typically very narrow growth habit can shine.

i missed the weeping part ... ken

Actually the weeping form is not a dwarf tree either, with examples over 100 ft tall having been known across the pond*. With one in Seattle having been over 50 ft tall with an average crown spread of 17 ft during ~2005. The habit does vary from tall and narrow to forking and broad, with the latter mode being the most prevalent by far. But either way not a tree for a tiny yard.

"For instance a 'Pendulum' planted in Wales during 1890 had reached 105+ ft by 2010.

I've posted this photo before when questions about the size of this cultivar have arisen. This is at The Oregon Garden and I am the tiny orange dot at the bottom...

Not ever gonna look like that in the OP's location!! It's pretty impossible to make valid comparisons of sizing from an Oregon or PNW location to one on Long Island or elsewhere in the new England area.

Totally agree with you gardengal! With a few exceptions, things generally never obtain the same size here in the east, and if they do, they take 5x as long!

Also, I don't believe Sequoiadendron giganteum 'Pendulum' is a z6 plant..no way. Is anyone successfully growing this one in z6? Even Hazel Smith gets winter damage here in tough z6b winter's, and they cultivar is much hardier than the species..

Anyways...that one looks toast. You think it was drought damage?

In a great many of the situations asked about here it makes no difference if the existing or proposed planting being discussed will some day be seen 60 ft tall or only half that - the site will still be overwhelmed. And even if the party asking about a particular kind of tree may never see it as big as it gets they will have left behind a tree removal problem - including the associated expense - for somebody else in the future. With all the time that was spent developing an unsuitably large choice that ended up being cut down time that otherwise could have been used producing a wonderful old example of a plant that was in scale with the location.

It is also very often the case that if a tree lasts long enough in a given area to be at all feasible as a landscape specimen it also does well enough there to produce a full sized one. Or at least one that is still bigger than what was originally envisioned - many people plant trees where what they really needed was a shrub. I have heard something like "15 ft" given repeatedly as an example of how big somebody wanted that "tall tree" they were looking for to grow. Some even appear to think that anything growing above the level of their own head is "tall".

Anyone grow this tree successfully on the east coast? I'd love to see photo's. From what I hear it seems to eventually get diseases and struggles due to the heat/humidity.

HERE is an exhaustive thread about shortcomings of giant sequoia in eastern US. OP needs to understand that the disease mentioned in this thread also pertains to cultivars of g.s.

Thanks. So your thinking is to remove it and plant something else there? I guess it doesn't make sense to plant another Sequoia.

Not perfect, but certainly looks as good or better than many of the other species are the Arnold arboretum. I wouldn't describe these as diseased or unhealthy... almost all of the trees the size of the last two specimens start to lose their lower branches...

'Hazel Smith' is unique though, no other giganteum cultivars can grow up here as far as I know. Even these seem to take a hit in tough winters

There are two Giant Sequoia in Hershey Gardens in PA. They are probably 75-100' tall, I've been observing them for as long as I can remember..even as a kid. The last few years, I've noted a steep decline, and this year they look really rough. They are on their way out for sure. I just don't think G.S. can be expected to reach their potential in 99% of the cases here in the East.

Some posters here are just overly focused on how large a tree might grow and continually quote sizes of extraordinarily large examples found here and there. It should be noted that these are exceptions, not the rule, and not every tree is likely to grow to 'championship' size. They are in fact a rarity, not a typical occurrence!!

Weeping giant sequoias are common landscape elements here in the PNW and are often found in smaller urban gardens. They are popular because of their unique and quirky Dr. Seuss-like appearance and typically narrow profile. I have seen a number of mature specimens (40-50 y.o.) and all have been size appropriate to the setting.

It is your garden and your landscape.........plant whatever you like that will do well in your location. If it grows larger than you want, then remove it. With the sale of a property, the new homeowners will often make their own landscape choices and they have a similar option to keep or remove.

Residential gardens are not parks or arboretums and few cultivars will reach their optimum size under those conditions.

Also...if I were a member of the landed gentry and knew that my progeny (of which I have none!) were going to inherit my estate, I would be careful to be a steward for the future. But since it is far more likely that after my demise this property will be sold for development, why on earth would I care how big anything will be in 50 years? I have three S.g. 'Pendulum' in a clump that have been there for nine years and are perhaps 25' tall and each is 2.5' wide. No problem. No dominance. Wonderful plants!