9 ms·

Ah, the old "tree covered building" render. Putting trees on buildings might make them green as in color, but doesn't make them "green" as in environmentally

by danans 5y ago

Ah, the old "tree covered building" render. Putting trees on buildings might make them green as in color, but doesn't make them "green" as in environmentally sound. Supporting all those trees requires a lot of concrete, and the maintenance of the trees is another issue. On balance, it's a gimmick [1]. There are few real world examples of buildings like this (one in Italy I believe) but it ended up being a far cry from the original renders. 1. https://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-there/ https://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-t...

jzymbaluk 5y ago
You're right about the unfeasibility of trees on buildings, but one clarification is that these buildings are actually Mass Timber construction, so they're using wood as the main support structure instead of steel and concrete. That's one of the reasons this project is going to be able to be carbon-neutral if not carbon negative
epistasis 5y ago
The amount of concrete is pretty insignificant compared to variability of building operations in terms of heating/cooling. I've spent a ton of time reviewing embodied carbon, since that's probably the strongest critique against this sort of structure, but I can't find numbers that make me the least bit concerned. Plus,people like greenery, if that's a "gimmick" bring it on. In addition, compared to the major consumer of greenhouse gases, poor land use requiring massive personal vehicle use, and the poor thermal envelopes with far larger surface to volume ration that happens with single unit development, these sort of critiques are missing the forest for the trees.
bckygldstn 5y ago
I've lived in an apartment building with grassy shrubs on the facade, I liked it! They were a low-maintenance species, and had automated irrigation in the soil so nether me or the building owner had to touch them. I wouldn't be surprised if they're a net environmental cost, but the cost has to be small compared to the overall impact of the building construction, and they have other benefits. The plants look nice from inside and outside, provide a bit of privacy without blocking too much light, and deaden road noise.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by danans 5y ago

jzymbaluk 5y ago

You're right about the unfeasibility of trees on buildings, but one clarification is that these buildings are actually Mass Timber construction, so they're using wood as the main support structure instead of steel and concrete. That's one of the reasons this project is going to be able to be carbon-neutral if not carbon negative

epistasis 5y ago

The amount of concrete is pretty insignificant compared to variability of building operations in terms of heating/cooling. I've spent a ton of time reviewing embodied carbon, since that's probably the strongest critique against this sort of structure, but I can't find numbers that make me the least bit concerned. Plus,people like greenery, if that's a "gimmick" bring it on. In addition, compared to the major consumer of greenhouse gases, poor land use requiring massive personal vehicle use, and the poor thermal envelopes with far larger surface to volume ration that happens with single unit development, these sort of critiques are missing the forest for the trees.

bckygldstn 5y ago

I've lived in an apartment building with grassy shrubs on the facade, I liked it! They were a low-maintenance species, and had automated irrigation in the soil so nether me or the building owner had to touch them. I wouldn't be surprised if they're a net environmental cost, but the cost has to be small compared to the overall impact of the building construction, and they have other benefits. The plants look nice from inside and outside, provide a bit of privacy without blocking too much light, and deaden road noise.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]