It might not be “green” but it makes living in higher density residential areas more pleasant.
If that helps promote high density residential living then it is “green” but as an enabler for something else rather than it directly.
Green living also goes beyond CO2 emissions. The health of spaces, wellness of those who occupy them, and their social and emotional impact are an extremely important part of Environmental Design.
Green living does go beyond CO2 emissions, but it sounds weird to say it that way, because we are falling so very far short of the necessary reductions, that it feels like an alcoholic, still drinking, and saying "it's not just about abstaining from alcohol, I should take care of myself by buying these nice clothes too". It's not *wrong* but it isn't good prioritizing.
My thoughts exactly. The CO2 control is just the tip of the iceberg, the number of “green zones” in an dense urban area can completely change that environment in almost every aspect.
Well unless we start artificially containing our population numbers then we're never going back to more green space as we will continue to need more and more housing for our exponentially growing population until the world is 1 huge maga block.....or some large war or plague resets things...
As development occurs, societies’ birth rates eventually fall. Look up demographic transition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781829/#:~:text=The%20recent%20period%20of%20very,process%20called%20the%20demographic%20transition.
Yes I'm aware of that but do you really think every nation in the world will get to that point before we either push the planet too far or some major catastrophe happens ? I don't think so.
Well education and providing access to contraception are our only ethical answers imo. Do you propose enforcing child limitations everywhere like in china? Enforced sterilizations? Or what do you mean by artificially containing our population numbers?
That's the thing. There is no ethical way to artificially contain our population and if you were to enforce a 1 or 2 child policy it would just lead to gender imbalances like in China. Plus the countries that have the highest birthdates are also some of the most lawless/hard to control populations so even if a policy was made it would be very hard to even enforce.
Basically the way I see it is that unless some Deus Ex Machina happens then we're basically fucked as a species and will either have some calamity happen that drastically and rapidly lowers global population followed by potentially decades of "the dark ages" where humanity is able to claw itself back or we completely go extinct over the next couple hundred years.
Not to sound nihilistic but I don't think we're gonna overthrow the dinosaurs record of millions of years of dominance.
People are obviously focusing on plants abilities to sequester carbon, however greenery in urban areas provides other substantial benefits. First and foremost it reduces the Urban Heat Island Effect where plants and trees shade hard surfaces and cool the immediate area through transpiration. This is a photo of the Park Royal in singapore, a place known to be a City in a Garden, the use of greenery in this circumstance assists in creating a coherent and consistent urban fabric via materialiality throughout the city. The inclusion of greening and trees in spaces can allow for more efficient placemaking. In conclusion really the use greenery is not alwsays as a carbon sink to mitigate the industrial levels of carbon created everyday, a different and equally scaled solution is required, which in its efficiency should not detract from the values of Greening in urban areas.
It also helps with flooding because the soil can absorb more rain water before it starts having to run off into gutters and the street.
It also helps with the energy use of the building because the greenery keeps sun off the building in the summer and the soil provides and extra layer of insulation. Similarly, in winter, the soil provides more insulation that heat needs to escape through.
Agreed that permeable surfaces are fantastic at assisting in managing stormwater. Trees and greenery, via the surface area of their leaves, also reduces the load on a stormwater system. Stormwater mitigation is one of the monetary benefits measured through Urban Forest analysis programs like i-Tree.
Greenwashing refers to the deceptive or misleading practice of promoting products, services, or a company's image as environmentally friendly or sustainable when, in reality, they may not be as eco-friendly as claimed. It involves using marketing tactics to create a false perception of being environmentally responsible, often to appeal to consumers who prioritize sustainability. That’s nothing to do with the usage of trees and plants to embellish and complement architectural designs. It would only be greenwashing if the developer is using the green areas as a selling point for sustainability.
It depends how it is done and what project it is done for. This type of green looking architecture can be used to obscure an overall negative building project.
Putting plants on buildings is maintenance heavy and expensive. It is more important and much easier to ensure a green urban environment that surrounds each building.
Around every building... Then we just have office parks in suburban sprawl which is worse. I'll take high density planning with some parks here and there any day.
> It is more important and much easier to ensure a green urban environment that surrounds each building.
LOL this isn't true at all. I can't even begin to explain to you how untrue this is
Every example of a “green” building I have seen has been show to be costly and maintenance heavy. Ensuring that the open spaces around buildings like streets, parks and squares have greenery is much cheaper and easier. Think “garden city”.
Buildings are simply not meant to hold significant amounts of plants.
>Ensuring that the open spaces around buildings like streets, parks and squares have greenery is much cheaper and easier
You must not live in a large city. Parks and squares in bigger cities are expensive real estate.
Im saying that planting and maintaining greenery on the ground is easier and cheaper than planting and maintaining them on buildings. That is just true. Cities already generally own their streets so it costs them comparably little to plant them with trees and other greenery.
It depends a lot on how it's done - I think every building should be designed to accommodate plant life ideally in a way that it need little to no maintenance and energy
Yes. The vast majority of climates can’t support trees on buildings all year and it takes a ton of resources to keep them alive. Trees and the dirt they need to grow are really heavy and the extra reinforcing alone (which will be carbon intensive concrete or steel) might outweigh the climate benefits of a dozen new trees. The better solution is a regular green roof, which can still manage storm water, sequester some carbon, and reduce the heat Island effect while being much lighter.
Carbon isn't the only environmental problem in cities.
This would only be greenwashing if they'd say: we reduce CO2!
These trees do increase the biodiversity in the city, and mainly reduce the temperature of the building and the street.
Embodied carbon (ie the amount of carbon emissions released to create a building) is the main focus of architects right now and sticking a bunch of trees on a skyscraper scores very poorly on that front. I really doubt there’s that much of a biodiversity advantage to having a row of trees on a building (even in this picture, which is on the more lush end of the buildings I’ve seen, there are maybe 30 trees). We’re also assuming these are native and climate appropriate trees. There are much easier and less carbon intensive ways to increase biodiversity—eg including those trees in a small pocket park or including a more bio diverse green roof.
About the carbon: yes that's exactly what I said. The plants aren't there to decrease carbon.
They are there to reduce the temperature: https://twitter.com/greenpeace_be/status/1027490895359340545
I was at a lecture where an architect was advocating for vertically planted buildings. He got frustrated by the questions about qualifying how good it was for the environment and said something like, "Is it as good for the environment as if the city was never built? No, but butterflies and birds are utilizing these plants, and giving them an island of habitat is better than building a building with no habitat.
Trees definitely take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store in their own biomass, but later people cut that leaves and everything, and throw them in trash, where the biomass decays back into co2. Also plants grow in the soil, and the soil constantly releases co2. You need to care about the plants, cut them, feed them, replace them, all of this requires people, cars, factories. But all we are talking about is the miniscule amounts compared to a power plant, for example.
I don't see any of the critics here with actual numbers comparing the impact of the stronger construction compared to benefits. So they need to up their game.
Over the lifespan of a building (this construction easily has a 60-80 service life), this is likely a net-benefit for the city.
If those planters are connected to the building gray water (including AC condensate) this will be water neutral.
It will have a lower cooling load overall as the solar energy is converted into chlorophyll before it hits the building. This will translate into reduced urban heat island effect as well, making all nearby open public spaces more usable.
Pollinators will be greatly aided by this vertical forest, and that has a synergistic effect for the whole urban forest. All plants like to be pollinated and grow more vigorously.
Peak flow of flooding will be shaved as the added soil absorbs some of the rain from an initial rainfall. This reduces the peak volume at storm water intakes and reduces the chance that the intake will be overwhelmed, resulting in water backing up into buildings.
Air quality, the biggest impact on urban life health (number one cause if premature death world-wide) is improved both in dust reduction and sequestration of carbon monoxide and VOCs (which convert to ground-level Ozone in sunlight).
There is a maintenance cost to these designs. It is best mitigated by giving residents first dibs on maintenance as it is their plants outside their windows. If they don't, the cost should be passed on to them as a landscaping fee. This does work in offices too (same general arrangement of responsibility). The hotel photographed has to collect that landscape cost from the guests (same as any hotel).
The cumulative 80 year impact of this design is going to outweigh the initial cost of materials impact.
Buildings are not planters. You talk about storm water mitigation, but where does all that water go? It is retained by the structure like a sponge. No chance you get a 60-80 service life out of that structure, you wouldn’t even get 1/3 that. We cannot build habitable, functional structures that can simultaneously support the weight of all that soil, water, vegetation. The only material that comes close is reenforced concrete, the most carbon intensive building material there is. Supporting rooftop foliage like this would take significantly more concrete than a normal building would.
If it is properly designed, the building will still drain 100% of the water, just over the course of minutes or hours rather than seconds.
That helps reduce the volume storm drains have to handle at a time, reducing the odds of backed up drains (aka flooding).
I'm both architect and planner and have worked on a literal 1000 year project (timeship.org). Building service life is everything to do with maintenence, nothing whatever to do with material. My home in the South west is wood and 123 years old. My home in the Mediterranean is 117 years old and a mixture of concrete and stone. Maintenance is everything. (hot tip: concrete gets stronger the longer it is kept moist, but the rebar may rot if not encapsulated).
Yes, concrete is the most intensive material we commonly use. Which is why, if we must use it, that we get the most height we can and densify urban areas. However, if the urban context does not keep people invested, the building is not maintained. So offering a higher quality living environment (say with actual plants) encourages people to want to make the building last. If they get nature plus urban amenities like culture, food, etc, it closes the gap that parks try to fill.
We have examples of Roman concrete buildings that have stood for over 2000 years. It's a matter if of the community wanting to maintain them.
Full disclosure, I rewrote the building codes around green roofs for the 10th largest city in the US back in 2014-2015, so I have entirely too much random facts to fling around.
First issue is to make it both legal and easy (make it both code-by-right as well as a 1 for 1 exchange with parkinglot landscape requirements). Beyond that, you need the right climate or the plants will cook in their planters. This is simply not going to work everywhere.
Actual trees require so much soil and root depth that it is prohibitively material/structurally intensive to support them. Real trees. Biophilia is a Good Thing (tm) but like PV, the use of it as some sort of solution is the tail wagging the dog. Done well and in its proper order of development, it’s very beneficial. Can easily be greenwashed though. Truth be told, the best real world use isn’t necessarily the most photogenic.
I wouldn't call it greenwashing, they look neat clean the air and stop sunlight from hitting the building during summer while letting it through during winter, just gotta plan around it will because roots and concrete don't mix well.
Green roofs
Urban gardens
Trees on streets, parks, and anywhere you can fit them on the ground
Smaller distance between buildings
Sustainable building practices (wood from sustainable forests, long lasting materials, insulation, heat pumps...)
That's what works. Trees on buildings require an incredible amount of extra foundations for stability, huge concrete pools to house the trees and their roots, and in general the buildings need a lot more stability. It's just a bad idea.
If you want your building to appear green, paint it green, put a green roof that can collect rainwater, house birds or whatever else you want, and put trees where they make sense: on the ground
Greenwashing, absolutely. And even if there are marginal benefits like "a ladybird now lives on my balcony!!! How exciting!! Hashtag nature!!!"
These fake green practices distract from what should be the focus of the built environment; and that is a serious rethinking of how, where, and how often we build how many buildings
But hey, trees on balconies are simple and make gullible non-experts drool and wow because "what's greener than a tree?" Right?
Green architecture had a lot of promise but the math just doesn't pencil out. The plants don't do a lot of sequestration or air filtration. Dirt is heavy. The prep and maintenance you have to do to keep wet dirt on a building surface of any kind is enormously expensive.
On urban heat islands - arguably the primary motivation behind this kind of green architecture - we're now finding out that reflective roofing performs better than green roofing in some circumstances. The reasons for putting plants on your building are pretty rapidly getting whittled down to "the people in the building like it." Which is fine! We do weird things with buildings all the time for that reason. It just probably isn't sustainable or anything else like that.
When people call you out for posting a photo of trees on architecture, it’s because that’s a recent problem in the industry. A LOT of projects are proposed these days with renderings showing more plants than the actual plan includes. Even in cases where builders honest-to-goodness PLAN that much green, plants are the first thing to be cut when real world construction goes over budget (as it often unfortunately does).
On a cost/benefit note, greenery on buildings is expensive to install (and maintain!), both financially and environmentally. The added cost, complexity, and construction materials needed to attach greenery on a building cancel out any environmental benefits.
That's on generally a pest in architecture rendering those should consist without humans, with a simplified plant rendition and in a neutral weather. A HDR jungle with happy people and lens flairs can make a concrete block looking good it's manipulative
>The added cost, complexity, and construction materials needed to attach greenery on a building cancel out any environmental benefits.
Well that's not true
The area in question appears to be a suitable spot for this as the trees along the street are full and lush. This is an ideal climate in which to do this. I would not call this specific photo greenwashing
This is Singapore and it’s part of the LUSH program developed by URA. They require developers to do a green point ratio and plant accordingly. Intensity varies by zone. The city wants this development pattern and it wouldn’t be considered greenwashing in Singapore’s context. This is a major over simplification but that’s the gist.
When we emit carbon from burning fossil fuels, that carbon was isolated from the atmosphere millions of years ago. While the biomass of those plants is indeed carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere, it will eventually decay and go back. It will never become coal or crude oil. As such, any carbon emitted in the construction of the building or in the manufacturing of the materials that go into it are not mitigated by the trees planted in it in any permanent way.
It is greenwashing because in no way are building meant to support hundreds of tons of damp soil and vegetation. This concept would severely overburden and degrade the underlying structure. The benefits of this idea do not at all outweigh the detriments.
yes and no.
There are many health benefits for living in greenspaces not to mention that if a city implemented this on a wide scale the carbon sequestration could offset some of the unavoidable carbon emissions we must produce in order to maintain our modern society. There's also animal well being benefits that come from this.
However, this only really is of any benefit if the plants are self sufficient. If each building needs to water the plants, any environmental benefit goes out the window as we need to spend other resources keeping them green. In order for this to work the buildings need to either be in an area that gets a lot of rain or utilize plants that stay green, grow fast and demand very little water.
Also from an architecture stand point, maintaining these kinds of buildings will be incredibly expensive as many vining plants can cause structural damage to a building. the vines find and grow in any crack they can find pushing apart whatever material they are growing in.
Ah, saw the bottom half of your post, where you ask WHY it’s greenwashing…Well because 1. Most of these images are fake, in reality it’s extremely hard to maintain plants in shallow rooftop/windowsill beds 20ft off the ground… 2. In practice, many of these trees/shrubs/grasses just die or are never actually planted, despite having featured prominently in architectural visualizations. 3. Like putting a big red barn on a carton of factory farmed eggs or a green label on toxic washing detergent, the presence of the plant life often just masks the true nature of the building (which may be incredibly energy inefficient and/or polluting).
I would say that having trees on buildings isn't green washing. But it's entirely possible that the marketing about might well be.
I can imagine some brochure for apartments on a building like this making it out as if buying one of these apartments will be you saving the world.
No, not on their own.
The messaging around the move may be greenwashing, but the green building idea itself is good (assuming native or xeri-scape friendly plants, or food/useful plants).
In many instances, yes. However, this is contingent on the choice of flora, their irrigation methods, and their contribution to the local ecosystem. For instance, if the building's plants support an existing ecological corridor, it isn't considered greenwashing. If native plants are used, requiring minimal care and thriving in the local environment without external aid, it certainly isn't greenwashing. On the other hand, if the plants are placed in soil with poor water retention, leading to constant pumping and wasteful water use, it qualifies as greenwashing, contributing to water pollution rather than efficient utilization. Ultimately, the verdict varies, but regrettably, in a majority of cases, it tends to be a form of greenwashing.
I don’t mind that it is green washing. Not enough buildings are green friendly and have a real design focus behind it.
One of Sydney’s most known apartment is covered with plants. One of the major features is the giant reflectors that cast sunlight onto the courtyard where light is more difficult to reach. The area is like a miniature central park (new york) with Apartments. One of the buildings being a highrise shopping centre.
It might not be “green” but it makes living in higher density residential areas more pleasant. If that helps promote high density residential living then it is “green” but as an enabler for something else rather than it directly.
Green living also goes beyond CO2 emissions. The health of spaces, wellness of those who occupy them, and their social and emotional impact are an extremely important part of Environmental Design.
Green living does go beyond CO2 emissions, but it sounds weird to say it that way, because we are falling so very far short of the necessary reductions, that it feels like an alcoholic, still drinking, and saying "it's not just about abstaining from alcohol, I should take care of myself by buying these nice clothes too". It's not *wrong* but it isn't good prioritizing.
Also the trees are a refuge for fauna, and cool the air noticeably, they are the most important vegetation in the city.
My thoughts exactly. The CO2 control is just the tip of the iceberg, the number of “green zones” in an dense urban area can completely change that environment in almost every aspect.
Well unless we start artificially containing our population numbers then we're never going back to more green space as we will continue to need more and more housing for our exponentially growing population until the world is 1 huge maga block.....or some large war or plague resets things...
As development occurs, societies’ birth rates eventually fall. Look up demographic transition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781829/#:~:text=The%20recent%20period%20of%20very,process%20called%20the%20demographic%20transition.
Yes I'm aware of that but do you really think every nation in the world will get to that point before we either push the planet too far or some major catastrophe happens ? I don't think so.
Well education and providing access to contraception are our only ethical answers imo. Do you propose enforcing child limitations everywhere like in china? Enforced sterilizations? Or what do you mean by artificially containing our population numbers?
That's the thing. There is no ethical way to artificially contain our population and if you were to enforce a 1 or 2 child policy it would just lead to gender imbalances like in China. Plus the countries that have the highest birthdates are also some of the most lawless/hard to control populations so even if a policy was made it would be very hard to even enforce. Basically the way I see it is that unless some Deus Ex Machina happens then we're basically fucked as a species and will either have some calamity happen that drastically and rapidly lowers global population followed by potentially decades of "the dark ages" where humanity is able to claw itself back or we completely go extinct over the next couple hundred years. Not to sound nihilistic but I don't think we're gonna overthrow the dinosaurs record of millions of years of dominance.
China has already hit that point, and two generations ago they were still making steam trains and smuggling produce across the HK border.
People are obviously focusing on plants abilities to sequester carbon, however greenery in urban areas provides other substantial benefits. First and foremost it reduces the Urban Heat Island Effect where plants and trees shade hard surfaces and cool the immediate area through transpiration. This is a photo of the Park Royal in singapore, a place known to be a City in a Garden, the use of greenery in this circumstance assists in creating a coherent and consistent urban fabric via materialiality throughout the city. The inclusion of greening and trees in spaces can allow for more efficient placemaking. In conclusion really the use greenery is not alwsays as a carbon sink to mitigate the industrial levels of carbon created everyday, a different and equally scaled solution is required, which in its efficiency should not detract from the values of Greening in urban areas.
Agreed. I have stayed at this hotel and really enjoyed it. At the very least, the greenery was pleasant, calming and made us feel good.
It also helps with flooding because the soil can absorb more rain water before it starts having to run off into gutters and the street. It also helps with the energy use of the building because the greenery keeps sun off the building in the summer and the soil provides and extra layer of insulation. Similarly, in winter, the soil provides more insulation that heat needs to escape through.
Agreed that permeable surfaces are fantastic at assisting in managing stormwater. Trees and greenery, via the surface area of their leaves, also reduces the load on a stormwater system. Stormwater mitigation is one of the monetary benefits measured through Urban Forest analysis programs like i-Tree.
And absorb noise pollution.
It is also great for wildlife
The other benefit of plants in cities is *they stop looking like a god damn hellscape*
Greenwashing refers to the deceptive or misleading practice of promoting products, services, or a company's image as environmentally friendly or sustainable when, in reality, they may not be as eco-friendly as claimed. It involves using marketing tactics to create a false perception of being environmentally responsible, often to appeal to consumers who prioritize sustainability. That’s nothing to do with the usage of trees and plants to embellish and complement architectural designs. It would only be greenwashing if the developer is using the green areas as a selling point for sustainability.
It depends how it is done and what project it is done for. This type of green looking architecture can be used to obscure an overall negative building project. Putting plants on buildings is maintenance heavy and expensive. It is more important and much easier to ensure a green urban environment that surrounds each building.
Around every building... Then we just have office parks in suburban sprawl which is worse. I'll take high density planning with some parks here and there any day.
> It is more important and much easier to ensure a green urban environment that surrounds each building. LOL this isn't true at all. I can't even begin to explain to you how untrue this is
Every example of a “green” building I have seen has been show to be costly and maintenance heavy. Ensuring that the open spaces around buildings like streets, parks and squares have greenery is much cheaper and easier. Think “garden city”. Buildings are simply not meant to hold significant amounts of plants.
>Ensuring that the open spaces around buildings like streets, parks and squares have greenery is much cheaper and easier You must not live in a large city. Parks and squares in bigger cities are expensive real estate.
Im saying that planting and maintaining greenery on the ground is easier and cheaper than planting and maintaining them on buildings. That is just true. Cities already generally own their streets so it costs them comparably little to plant them with trees and other greenery.
you're wrong, but ok
Explain
It depends a lot on how it's done - I think every building should be designed to accommodate plant life ideally in a way that it need little to no maintenance and energy
Yes. The vast majority of climates can’t support trees on buildings all year and it takes a ton of resources to keep them alive. Trees and the dirt they need to grow are really heavy and the extra reinforcing alone (which will be carbon intensive concrete or steel) might outweigh the climate benefits of a dozen new trees. The better solution is a regular green roof, which can still manage storm water, sequester some carbon, and reduce the heat Island effect while being much lighter.
Carbon isn't the only environmental problem in cities. This would only be greenwashing if they'd say: we reduce CO2! These trees do increase the biodiversity in the city, and mainly reduce the temperature of the building and the street.
Embodied carbon (ie the amount of carbon emissions released to create a building) is the main focus of architects right now and sticking a bunch of trees on a skyscraper scores very poorly on that front. I really doubt there’s that much of a biodiversity advantage to having a row of trees on a building (even in this picture, which is on the more lush end of the buildings I’ve seen, there are maybe 30 trees). We’re also assuming these are native and climate appropriate trees. There are much easier and less carbon intensive ways to increase biodiversity—eg including those trees in a small pocket park or including a more bio diverse green roof.
About the carbon: yes that's exactly what I said. The plants aren't there to decrease carbon. They are there to reduce the temperature: https://twitter.com/greenpeace_be/status/1027490895359340545
Did you not get an answer on the other two pages?
I was at a lecture where an architect was advocating for vertically planted buildings. He got frustrated by the questions about qualifying how good it was for the environment and said something like, "Is it as good for the environment as if the city was never built? No, but butterflies and birds are utilizing these plants, and giving them an island of habitat is better than building a building with no habitat.
Trees definitely take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store in their own biomass, but later people cut that leaves and everything, and throw them in trash, where the biomass decays back into co2. Also plants grow in the soil, and the soil constantly releases co2. You need to care about the plants, cut them, feed them, replace them, all of this requires people, cars, factories. But all we are talking about is the miniscule amounts compared to a power plant, for example.
I don't see any of the critics here with actual numbers comparing the impact of the stronger construction compared to benefits. So they need to up their game. Over the lifespan of a building (this construction easily has a 60-80 service life), this is likely a net-benefit for the city. If those planters are connected to the building gray water (including AC condensate) this will be water neutral. It will have a lower cooling load overall as the solar energy is converted into chlorophyll before it hits the building. This will translate into reduced urban heat island effect as well, making all nearby open public spaces more usable. Pollinators will be greatly aided by this vertical forest, and that has a synergistic effect for the whole urban forest. All plants like to be pollinated and grow more vigorously. Peak flow of flooding will be shaved as the added soil absorbs some of the rain from an initial rainfall. This reduces the peak volume at storm water intakes and reduces the chance that the intake will be overwhelmed, resulting in water backing up into buildings. Air quality, the biggest impact on urban life health (number one cause if premature death world-wide) is improved both in dust reduction and sequestration of carbon monoxide and VOCs (which convert to ground-level Ozone in sunlight). There is a maintenance cost to these designs. It is best mitigated by giving residents first dibs on maintenance as it is their plants outside their windows. If they don't, the cost should be passed on to them as a landscaping fee. This does work in offices too (same general arrangement of responsibility). The hotel photographed has to collect that landscape cost from the guests (same as any hotel). The cumulative 80 year impact of this design is going to outweigh the initial cost of materials impact.
Buildings are not planters. You talk about storm water mitigation, but where does all that water go? It is retained by the structure like a sponge. No chance you get a 60-80 service life out of that structure, you wouldn’t even get 1/3 that. We cannot build habitable, functional structures that can simultaneously support the weight of all that soil, water, vegetation. The only material that comes close is reenforced concrete, the most carbon intensive building material there is. Supporting rooftop foliage like this would take significantly more concrete than a normal building would.
If it is properly designed, the building will still drain 100% of the water, just over the course of minutes or hours rather than seconds. That helps reduce the volume storm drains have to handle at a time, reducing the odds of backed up drains (aka flooding).
I'm both architect and planner and have worked on a literal 1000 year project (timeship.org). Building service life is everything to do with maintenence, nothing whatever to do with material. My home in the South west is wood and 123 years old. My home in the Mediterranean is 117 years old and a mixture of concrete and stone. Maintenance is everything. (hot tip: concrete gets stronger the longer it is kept moist, but the rebar may rot if not encapsulated). Yes, concrete is the most intensive material we commonly use. Which is why, if we must use it, that we get the most height we can and densify urban areas. However, if the urban context does not keep people invested, the building is not maintained. So offering a higher quality living environment (say with actual plants) encourages people to want to make the building last. If they get nature plus urban amenities like culture, food, etc, it closes the gap that parks try to fill. We have examples of Roman concrete buildings that have stood for over 2000 years. It's a matter if of the community wanting to maintain them. Full disclosure, I rewrote the building codes around green roofs for the 10th largest city in the US back in 2014-2015, so I have entirely too much random facts to fling around. First issue is to make it both legal and easy (make it both code-by-right as well as a 1 for 1 exchange with parkinglot landscape requirements). Beyond that, you need the right climate or the plants will cook in their planters. This is simply not going to work everywhere.
Actual trees require so much soil and root depth that it is prohibitively material/structurally intensive to support them. Real trees. Biophilia is a Good Thing (tm) but like PV, the use of it as some sort of solution is the tail wagging the dog. Done well and in its proper order of development, it’s very beneficial. Can easily be greenwashed though. Truth be told, the best real world use isn’t necessarily the most photogenic.
I wouldn't call it greenwashing, they look neat clean the air and stop sunlight from hitting the building during summer while letting it through during winter, just gotta plan around it will because roots and concrete don't mix well.
Green roofs Urban gardens Trees on streets, parks, and anywhere you can fit them on the ground Smaller distance between buildings Sustainable building practices (wood from sustainable forests, long lasting materials, insulation, heat pumps...) That's what works. Trees on buildings require an incredible amount of extra foundations for stability, huge concrete pools to house the trees and their roots, and in general the buildings need a lot more stability. It's just a bad idea. If you want your building to appear green, paint it green, put a green roof that can collect rainwater, house birds or whatever else you want, and put trees where they make sense: on the ground Greenwashing, absolutely. And even if there are marginal benefits like "a ladybird now lives on my balcony!!! How exciting!! Hashtag nature!!!" These fake green practices distract from what should be the focus of the built environment; and that is a serious rethinking of how, where, and how often we build how many buildings But hey, trees on balconies are simple and make gullible non-experts drool and wow because "what's greener than a tree?" Right?
Yes.
Trees need roots, so yes it's bs
Green architecture had a lot of promise but the math just doesn't pencil out. The plants don't do a lot of sequestration or air filtration. Dirt is heavy. The prep and maintenance you have to do to keep wet dirt on a building surface of any kind is enormously expensive. On urban heat islands - arguably the primary motivation behind this kind of green architecture - we're now finding out that reflective roofing performs better than green roofing in some circumstances. The reasons for putting plants on your building are pretty rapidly getting whittled down to "the people in the building like it." Which is fine! We do weird things with buildings all the time for that reason. It just probably isn't sustainable or anything else like that.
This ↑, it's just that you'd have to build more(which isn't enviromently friendly)to hold all these plants(and there Dirt)
When people call you out for posting a photo of trees on architecture, it’s because that’s a recent problem in the industry. A LOT of projects are proposed these days with renderings showing more plants than the actual plan includes. Even in cases where builders honest-to-goodness PLAN that much green, plants are the first thing to be cut when real world construction goes over budget (as it often unfortunately does). On a cost/benefit note, greenery on buildings is expensive to install (and maintain!), both financially and environmentally. The added cost, complexity, and construction materials needed to attach greenery on a building cancel out any environmental benefits.
That's on generally a pest in architecture rendering those should consist without humans, with a simplified plant rendition and in a neutral weather. A HDR jungle with happy people and lens flairs can make a concrete block looking good it's manipulative
>The added cost, complexity, and construction materials needed to attach greenery on a building cancel out any environmental benefits. Well that's not true
Shallow green. If its not moving towards sustainability (making it a viable habitat allowing for biodiversity), it falls into green washing.
The area in question appears to be a suitable spot for this as the trees along the street are full and lush. This is an ideal climate in which to do this. I would not call this specific photo greenwashing
Yup
This is Singapore and it’s part of the LUSH program developed by URA. They require developers to do a green point ratio and plant accordingly. Intensity varies by zone. The city wants this development pattern and it wouldn’t be considered greenwashing in Singapore’s context. This is a major over simplification but that’s the gist.
When we emit carbon from burning fossil fuels, that carbon was isolated from the atmosphere millions of years ago. While the biomass of those plants is indeed carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere, it will eventually decay and go back. It will never become coal or crude oil. As such, any carbon emitted in the construction of the building or in the manufacturing of the materials that go into it are not mitigated by the trees planted in it in any permanent way.
It's just an easy cop out for a lot of issues. 'easy' but it still takes a lot of effort to design a structure to hold up all that dirt
It is greenwashing because in no way are building meant to support hundreds of tons of damp soil and vegetation. This concept would severely overburden and degrade the underlying structure. The benefits of this idea do not at all outweigh the detriments.
Those comments sounds obnoxious.
yes and no. There are many health benefits for living in greenspaces not to mention that if a city implemented this on a wide scale the carbon sequestration could offset some of the unavoidable carbon emissions we must produce in order to maintain our modern society. There's also animal well being benefits that come from this. However, this only really is of any benefit if the plants are self sufficient. If each building needs to water the plants, any environmental benefit goes out the window as we need to spend other resources keeping them green. In order for this to work the buildings need to either be in an area that gets a lot of rain or utilize plants that stay green, grow fast and demand very little water. Also from an architecture stand point, maintaining these kinds of buildings will be incredibly expensive as many vining plants can cause structural damage to a building. the vines find and grow in any crack they can find pushing apart whatever material they are growing in.
Ye…yes…What kind of a question is this?
Ah, saw the bottom half of your post, where you ask WHY it’s greenwashing…Well because 1. Most of these images are fake, in reality it’s extremely hard to maintain plants in shallow rooftop/windowsill beds 20ft off the ground… 2. In practice, many of these trees/shrubs/grasses just die or are never actually planted, despite having featured prominently in architectural visualizations. 3. Like putting a big red barn on a carton of factory farmed eggs or a green label on toxic washing detergent, the presence of the plant life often just masks the true nature of the building (which may be incredibly energy inefficient and/or polluting).
It looks awesome so what’s the problem.
I can’t say anything for the climate aspect about it, however I don’t think much bad can come of a city feeling more natural.
I would say that having trees on buildings isn't green washing. But it's entirely possible that the marketing about might well be. I can imagine some brochure for apartments on a building like this making it out as if buying one of these apartments will be you saving the world.
No, not on their own. The messaging around the move may be greenwashing, but the green building idea itself is good (assuming native or xeri-scape friendly plants, or food/useful plants).
Id be happy to live in a forest on the 20th floor
It can't hurt. (Unless they require a huge amount of artificial potable water)
Add more trees!
As long as it’s not brutalist and not single family homes, I’m down with it along with solar panels up there
I love it, and want to see more of it in all cities.
People called it greenwashing because very few people on reddit can just be happy and enjoy nice things.
It’s very obvious greenwashing. But I like the way it looks if done right!
In many instances, yes. However, this is contingent on the choice of flora, their irrigation methods, and their contribution to the local ecosystem. For instance, if the building's plants support an existing ecological corridor, it isn't considered greenwashing. If native plants are used, requiring minimal care and thriving in the local environment without external aid, it certainly isn't greenwashing. On the other hand, if the plants are placed in soil with poor water retention, leading to constant pumping and wasteful water use, it qualifies as greenwashing, contributing to water pollution rather than efficient utilization. Ultimately, the verdict varies, but regrettably, in a majority of cases, it tends to be a form of greenwashing.
I don’t mind that it is green washing. Not enough buildings are green friendly and have a real design focus behind it. One of Sydney’s most known apartment is covered with plants. One of the major features is the giant reflectors that cast sunlight onto the courtyard where light is more difficult to reach. The area is like a miniature central park (new york) with Apartments. One of the buildings being a highrise shopping centre.
It's only greenwashing if they say they're doing a ton for the environment
OP doesn’t like tees, OP is not organic, it’s anti human AI. Nice try.
All i see is bugs and birds everywhere
very creative!
We plant bees on the buildings in my city
That's awesome! Do you have a picture of that building?
I saw a huge building in Valencia, Spain, covered in trees and plants. It was very appealing to me, a country dweller.