You are definitely going for the right look for a foundation planting, namely a layered series of different textures with evergreen at the back. But I agree that a total of 5 feet from foundation out is not enough width to get that job done. You have enough sun to work with and you have a vision, so why not do it up right: expand the bed 3-4 feet, move the roses out a few feet, and then put in some spreading yew or a globe arborvitae-type thing about 2-3 feet out from the house. You'll have to trim the yew or whatever you put there, but it will give you the look you want. Yews are incredibly overplanted on the foundation, but for the back row of a layered planting, I think they work just fine. Put a low layer in front of the roses, maybe some Blue Star Juniper, then you can keep the layered thing going on during the winter. The Blue Star is fairly slow growing, (especially living on the east side), so don't expect it to fill in quickly. Instead, cough up the cash and plant several. If you think widening the bed is daunting, just lay down wet cardboard on the turf and cover with lots of mulch. Then cut out wide holes for your plantings. The grass will be long gone in a year. Boxwood could work against the foundation too, but it grows like molasses. Just my thoughts, based on having been in a similar situation. Get what you want the first time around, so you don't have to do it again later.

I'm in the process of systematically cutting back my larger bushes. They've gotten too big for me to handle and deadhead, especially from my scooter. Bushes 6 feet tall are being cut down to one foot. So far everyone I've done has come back nicely. Several large Explorers and rugosas have been cut back or are being done. My goal is to get them all done by mid July. All mine are own root so I don't worry about grafts. My advice: Don't be limited by the 1/3 or 2/3 rule. Cut back what you want. BTW, I expect mine to bloom again this season. Some repeat bloomers done earlier are already setting buds.

My guess, and this is just a guess, is that dilution of vinegar is really being used as a soil acidifier. It sounds like something I could dump on the hybrid multifloras, and there would be much rejoicing. It's fairly common for roses to have rather distinct ideas on how big they want to be. If somebody tries to keep them smaller than that, all they do is grow until they get to the 'right' size. As much as anything, it sounds like the 'right' size is too large for the spot. Not only do landscapers like to plant for a finished look, but around here they tend to think all roses are HTs. Seeing a R. hugonis jammed into a 3 ft spot makes you realize just how clueless they can be. However, the Meidiland roses at the gas station look just fine. They are supposed to be 4-5 ft shrubs and do their job.

That's a good point Brenton but I don't have an answer for you just yet.We're mainly about producing potted roses.The finished product must have flower and bud.If some or all of these varieties are as disease tolerant as is claimed and "if" they can be flowered in pots (smaller the better)than I've no doubt they will sell well.It may take a couple of seasons or more to evaluate these roses for ourselves. My wife started this thread because we just never seem to bump into these roses up/over here.So..... we've never grown them and nobody we know has grown them.If anybody else has anything to say on this subject, please do.I don't care wether its positive or negative. Incidently we have received and planted these roses and they have begun growing strongly.I may get around to posting some digital photos some time soon.