9 ms·

Can We Stop Drawing Trees on Top of Skyscrapers?

245 points by tumblen 14y ago

dragonbonheur 14y ago
On the contrary: do let's. http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/09/08/namba-parks-gets-rave-reviews-from-overseas/ http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/09/08/namba-parks-gets-rave-...
- cleverjake 14y ago
  Shoppning malls != skyscrappers, cool link none the less, though.
- pyre 14y ago
  He mentions "500 ft" as a height that the trees would be at (and wouldn't deal well with). That's roughly 50 stories. I don't think that shopping malls reach those heights. ;-)
SeanLuke 14y ago
Apparently someone hasn't heard of the Guinigi Tower. Trees on top of buildings didn't used to signify green. They used to signify power.
- mapleoin 14y ago
  Guinigi Tower's height doesn't come close to that of a modern skyscraper.
marknutter 14y ago
Can't the trees be enclosed?
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Yep, but trees are big, so the enclosure will have to be similarly massive. One thing not mentioned in the article: roots. Tree roots get everywhere and have no respect for the clean lines of your skyscraper. They are also capable of going anywhere it damn well pleases - anyone who's seen tree roots break concrete sidewalks and barriers can attest to that. Whatever trees we put on skyscrapers won't last very long. You'd have to destroy them/replace them every few years.
  - VLM 14y ago
    The expense makes tree'd buildings a show of conspicuous consumption not "green". This IS marketing genius in that it appeals to both the "ha ha I'm richer than you" crowd and also at least superficially to the wanna be greenies. There is a certain "startup wisdom" to it in that one way to save marketing dollars is to appeal to two groups at the same time. Maybe a very crude tech example would be facebook being a workforce automation system for teen girls social interactions AND also for their mothers, sorta. There are cars like that, the Prius was cool enough from a technological standpoint that I got one quite a few years ago although I don't care about the mileage, yet it also appeals to the greenies as being lower eco impact or something. You can be a success only appealing to one group, but if you can appeal to two for free, why not?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    There are probably solutions to the root problems. Bonsai growers prune roots, so you just need a big double walled structure. The inner liner has many holes which is good for drainage and allows roots to grow, and you prune roots growing out of the holes. I say 'Just' - having read this it feels very wrong and anyone who knows anything about how tree roots actually grow will be able to point out the flaws. But it can't be that hard. In West Drayton there's a garden with everything grown in pots. (http://goo.gl/maps/G2oXN http://goo.gl/maps/G2oXN)
T-zex 14y ago
In my neighbourhood there is an apartment block with two pine trees on the roof terrace. The trees are about 2m high. I still do not understand how they are not causing any trouble. Its not a skyscraper but still..
raverbashing 14y ago
Funny "Trees won't survive in this conditions", but in Nature they are not watered, they are not pruned, and they have lived for millions of years What harsh conditions are there in the side of a building that don't exist in nature? (Off the top of my head there are several, but it would be nice for him to specify) It could be: temperature, winds, lack of cover (either soil cover or taller trees) and their corresponding soil dynamic. But it shouldn't be too complicated to find a plant that works there.
- jerf 14y ago
  Scroll down further. I almost missed it too for some reason due to the page structure, so I understand, but he does address that quite directly.
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    My issue is that it's pure speculation. Trees won't grow there because he says they won't. Except trees do grow under some of the most extreme conditions possible. This is after all just a blog.
    - jerf 14y ago
      No, they don't "grow under some of the most extreme conditions possible"; consider the meaning of the phrase "tree line". It is routine for conditions to be too extreme for trees to be feasible. Life is very adaptable, but it's a category error to then conclude that any given life form is very adaptable. Trees have limits. Ones based in physics.
      - hahainternet 14y ago
        > No, they don't "grow under some of the most extreme conditions possible"; consider the meaning of the phrase "tree line". It is routine for conditions to be too extreme for trees to be feasible. 'Routine' is a strong word. You'll note that tree lines exist at significant altitudes commonly on mountains. Typically places that trees cannot grow are also places that humans find difficult. Demonstrating that trees are incapable of growing on buildings would of course shut me up, but the author didn't do that. What they did was to say 'trees wont grow on buildings'. A bare assertion. One counteracted by pictures in this very thread.
DanBC 14y ago
I think this shows the problem that people like me have with design. I don't notice good design. Things just work and everything is where it should be. It's taken hundreds of years of collected wisdom and research and skill to get it like that, and someone has worked very hard to make it so I don't notice their work. I do notice when someone draws a willowy slender tree on the side of a towerblock. It'd be great to have more shrubbery and trees up high, but at least they could do it realistically. And I get the impression that they forget about all the root system and maintenance and etc. England has a problem with terribly dull architecture.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  This is not about good design, this is about whether it's possible. If it was possible it would certainly not be a bad idea as it would allow for even more interesting types of architecture. So you might not notice it, but you do reap the benefits of good design (which should not be confused with aesthetics)
  - qompiler 14y ago
    It's possible just not feasible and therefore there is no interest in executing these plans by corporations.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > This is not about good design, this is about whether it's possible. ...but a good designer would have some appreciation of whether it's possible or not and thus not bother drawing trees on tops top of skyscrapers. Or at least they'd draw realistic stumpy trees. > but you do reap the benefits of good design Absolutely, yes. I need to be clearer. I am very grateful for good design. It has made my life better. Through HN I have developed a better appreciation for the hard, hidden, work of good design. In the past I automatically thought of of things I'd find on Yanko as 'designery stuff' - but I've learnt that many designers hate that kind of design just as much as I do. dcurtis got some stick for taking so long to pick out nice cutlery, but at least he was only choosing the best from real cutlery. Yanko gives me things like this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/fractal-utensils_n_1937056.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/fractal-utensils_n_...)
wyck 14y ago
Mister Spock has a 30 foot tall oak tree on top of a building for many years now, http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2896752060_d5bd34df28_z.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2896752060_d5bd34df28_z.j...
- RutZap 14y ago
  That's nice but that is hardly a skyscraper. By the look of it the building is around 15 floors high... let's say around 40m high. The author was talking about putting trees at 500feet in the air, that's 152m... considerably more.
  - Retric 14y ago
    500 feet up is really not that much considering trees are just fine over two miles (10,560ft) above sea level. Mountains generally do have a tree line, but most buildings are well below what the local tree line would be as most city's are fairly close to sea level.
  - Nux 14y ago
    Highest tree line in the world is at 5200m[1]. Don't see why trees couldn't cope with 150m (yes, I know building != mountain, but still). [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_line#Alpine_tree_lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_line#Alpine_tree_lines
    - corresation 14y ago
      What is relevant here is height above the ground, as the various forces that he describes are a facet of the ground effect (or lack of ground effect). e.g. You would find the top of the CN tower an endlessly windy, environmentally unfriendly place. Yet standing on the street in Madrid you are just as high and suffer none of the same effects.
  - wyck 14y ago
    I don't see height as being the issue, I beleive this building is around 50m-60m high. This building is in front of the ocean and gets a fair share of both wind, salt and the occasional snow storm (it's in Vancouver). It was lifted in place using a crane and since it's a large oak tree a system must have been been put into place to deal with the extensive amount of roots ( I'm not sure how long it's been there but at least 15+ years). Here is Google maps street veiw, it has a better perspective: https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=1919++Beach,+Vancouver,+BC,+CANADA+(Eugenia+Place)&ll=49.28911,-123.14293&spn=0.001912,0.003001&hnear=1919+Beach+Ave,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia+V6G+1Z2&t=h&z=19 https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=1919++Beach,+Vancouver,+BC,+CA... tl;dr Trees are not pussies, this is all about money (installation and maintenance).
Nux 14y ago
Please do not stop! I absolutely love the idea of buildings lush with vegetation, as if in some post-apocalyptical world where nature has reclaimed the cities. It may not be very possible/feasible, it may even be a public safety hazard, but I'm so fed up with steel, concrete and glass.
- pauljz 14y ago
  Agreed. I think a blanket "Don't even try" is silly, and antithetical to the ethos of HN. I'm surprised there isn't more backlash against this. "Don't just draw them on the skyscraper, make it work." would be a better sentiment. If wind is a problem, find a way to break the wind. If roots are a problem, find a way to stop the roots, or trim the roots, and build that into the design. But there's a pile of evidence for the benefits of adding greenery to cities, so please just don't say to stop trying.
  - dspeyer 14y ago
    Still, at least consider if climbing vines on trellises might serve better before putting a ton of effort into trees per se. They provide most of the same greenery benefits, can be made to fit the space, don't have dangerous roots, and are in many ways more robust. Plus they can have flowers or fruits near floor level.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Some form of vegetation may be feasible. I think the author makes a fairly good argument that trees are not it.
- jahewson 14y ago
  > post-apocalyptical world where nature has reclaimed the cities We are natural.
  - qu4z-2 14y ago
    You know what he means. Also, if we're to pick a definition of "natural" that means something more specific than "exists", cities seem like a good candidate for the "unnatural" end of the spectrum.
AlexMuir 14y ago
We have an incredible 4000sq ft olive grove at the top of the 48 storey Beetham Tower in rainy Manchester. The architect turned the top two floors into his own penthouse, complete with enclosed olive trees. Picture: http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2009/04/27/270409_beetham_simpson_feature.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2009/04/27/... Trees at the top of a skyscraper convey both extravagance and eco credentials. Helipads are no longer credit-crunch-friendly. Video (Skip to 1:16 for the trees) http://karmacrew.tv/our-work/architect-profile-ian-simpson-beetham-tower/ http://karmacrew.tv/our-work/architect-profile-ian-simpson-b...
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Well that certainly skewers the claim in the article that it will "never" happen :-). I note that these trees are effectively indoors as opposed to many of the architectural conceptions of being out doors (and the primary objection of the author). That said my biologist friend says that trees are a lot hardier than the author gives them credit for, in particular many evergreens are adapted to living in pretty harsh climates and their needles are better able to deal with high winds and temperature extremes. His question was "where are the roots" since a 25' tall tree might have a 10' root 'ball' holding it in place. So if you don't mind having a floor of 'dirt' and then the tree on the next floor up, and you don't mind your tree being an evergreen, you can probably do something sustainable.
  - bhickey 14y ago
    Your comment made me think of the trees down by the shore near Mori Point. The trees are radically bent away from the ocean by the sea breeze. http://goo.gl/maps/S0BSd http://goo.gl/maps/S0BSd
- graeme 14y ago
  I am pleased that the architect lives in his own building. Inspires confidence in the buildings design.
- GFischer 14y ago
  There are several other buildings with trees inside, in Buenos Aires (Argentina), one of the tallest towers (the YPF tower, by architect César Pelli), has an Eucalyptus grove inside. http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido-martinez/4686769123/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido-martinez/4686769123/ http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=342972&page=2 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=342972&pa... In Mexico City, you have "La Torre del Árbol" (Tree Tower), with a baobab tree that goes outside a window on the 9th floor, it has now grown up to the 13th floor http://www.judastechnologies.com/2009/10/30/la-historia-no-autorizada-de-la-torre-del-arbol/ http://www.judastechnologies.com/2009/10/30/la-historia-no-a... Edit: j1o1h1n mentioned the Capita Centre in Sydney, Australia: http://www.sydneyarchitecture.com/cbd/cbd4-008.htm http://www.sydneyarchitecture.com/cbd/cbd4-008.htm Le Corbusier built the Curutchet building in Buenos Aires, also with a tree in the middle: http://majocobe.blogspot.com/2009/01/casa-del-doctor-curutchet-imagen-de.html http://majocobe.blogspot.com/2009/01/casa-del-doctor-curutch... Edit: an amazing amount of examples from everywhere from Vancouver to Paris to New York to Chicago in the comments.
kalms 14y ago
Please make it viable instead of halting it, just because it's hard.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bargl 14y ago
I get what he's saying. I think he's more upset that architects are using a "tree" to add some level of trendiness to their buildings. When in fact they should be adding altitude hardened plants that are typically not the most aesthetic plant. But it is after all just a model and hopefully someone will sit down and scratch their head and say, wait what happens if a branch falls off that tree? Lets just put some bushes up there that don't grow past the railing...
torya 14y ago
question: he says: Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the [b]snow and sleet pelt[/b] you at high velocity. so for snow and sleet, how is it any worst than at ground level? wouldn't it be worst at ground level since there is more gravity?
ry0ohki 14y ago
Maybe there is a certain height where this comes into play, but I've seen trees growing naturally (not by design) in abandoned buildings. The first I could think of is the 13-story Highland building here in Pittsburgh you can kind of make out the quite large tree in this photo http://photos.mycapture.com/PITT/1314621/37517652E.jpg http://photos.mycapture.com/PITT/1314621/37517652E.jpg
- ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
  East St. Louis as well has a bunch of abandoned 10+ story buildings with trees growing on top. They're not the biggest but they're actually quite beautiful. Like nature taking back what belongs to it.
smurph 14y ago
I'm a bit surprised that the article never mentioned the potential affects of the tree's roots on the structures supporting them. My driveway can tell you that the roots of a decent sized tree will not play nice with man made things that get in their way.
- nonamegiven 14y ago
  Yeah, I wouldn't want my unit under or around whatever space was reserved for the roots. Nor would I want my unit next to or under any of those units. After enough years a root will break through just about anything, or at least stress it. Then comes the water. And the critters.
kybernetyk 14y ago
I see a huge potential market for holographic trees.
alexrson 14y ago
Is architects drawing trees on skyscrapers an analogy for something non-function-related we do with software (other than put a bird on it).
josefresco 14y ago
I feel like most of the replies are focusing on the feasibility of putting trees in or on skyscrapers when I think the criticism levied in the article was more towards "designers" or architects who are using them as decorations knowing they will never get to see actual production. I don't think it actually matters to the author if trees can live and thrive in this environment but more so if they are actually implemented. Including something in your design to make it special (or to win a project) knowing it will never be implemented is a design problem and one that could be translated to what we (hackers) do with technology projects.
- ryanklee 14y ago
  I feel like > There are plenty of scientific reasons why skyscrapers don’t—and probably won’t—have trees, at least not to the heights which many architects propose. implies strongly and clearly enough that the author doesn't think it's feasible. That said, he's also clearly annoyed that designers/architects are being unrealistic in their proposals.
  - josefresco 14y ago
    Maybe it's more me wishing he had taken that tact than him actually doing so. I felt like he should be more mad at the architects and those who award projects to said architects with these "never to be implemented" features.
- 7952 14y ago
  There is a history of putting large plants inside glass buildings at ground level. Because in a building with amazing views and glass walls you should make people look at something that is trite and artificial! Skyscrapers are already in a sometimes beautiful dynamic natural environment (the sky). Putting trees in the sky is absurd.
alan 14y ago
Looking at those pictures, I wonder "Where are the roots?" It's like the artists think the tree stops where the trunk meets the surface. I see rooms where peoples would be walking just under the trunk of the tree. I could see using Bonsai style root trimming and enclosed spaces for the trees, but yeah, other than that it looks like pure fantasy.
Spooky23 14y ago
You can grow trees on skyscrapers. But the author captured why it is unlikely to happen: trees need care & maintenance. Care & maintenance == $. For the types of people who build and run skyscrapers, facility operations is a cost center, and regulating authorities don't really care about greenscape. Nobody wants to pay for a staff of gardeners. That's why when plans get mocked up, the public spaces around commercial buildings are usually lush, but when the building are actually constructed, you see a few shrubs or maybe a few arbor vitae at ground level. When the local people and regulating bodies care, things are different. The Wal-Mart parking lot in Hilton Head Island, SC is wooded and shaded. The town refuses to issue construction permits that require old growth trees to be cut down -- so there's 60" wide tree in the lot, with a buffer between it and the pavement. Instead of curbs directing water to storm drains, there are mulched beds that absorb alot of storm water. About 15 miles away near I-95, there is another Wal-Mart with the typical construction methods -- bulldoze, flatten and pave everything.
- zumbojo 14y ago
  The Walmarts you mentioned: Lush: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+SC&ll=32.210849,-80.726606&spn=0.003767,0.006968&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&fb=1&gl=us&hq=walmart&hnear=Hilton+Head+Island,+Beaufort,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=18 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+... Fully paved: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+SC&ll=32.309886,-80.974903&spn=0.007526,0.013937&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&fb=1&gl=us&hq=walmart&hnear=Hilton+Head+Island,+Beaufort,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=17 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+...
up_and_up 14y ago
> Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the snow and sleet pelt you at high velocity. Life for city trees is hard enough on the ground. I can’t imagine what it’s like at 500 feet, where nearly every climate variable is more extreme than at street level. How is being located on top of a tall building much different from being located on top of a tall hill or mountain? Wouldn't the only factors involved be the type of soil and species chosen?
- alberich 14y ago
  I guess he addressed this point. There are plants well adapted to life on top of a tall mountain... though it's not the beautiful tall trees depicted on the mockups. I'm guessing those plants probably are short shrubs with dark green leafs and contorted trunks.
- rhplus 14y ago
  My guess is that the raw exposure is a big deal. Trees on hillsides or mountainsides only have one side fully exposed, so there's a dominant direction they could brace against. They would also benefit from having other trees (and a mountain) next to them to help dissipate the energy from the wind and rain.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Attrition rate for saplings is pretty high. So in nature when you see a bunch of trees on a hill there are many more trees that didn't survive. But in a building you don't get to have any attrition; you want all trees to survive. And city buildings can generate surprisingly strong winds. "The wind loading on a skyscraper is also considerable. In fact, the lateral wind load imposed on super-tall structures is generally the governing factor in the structural design. Wind pressure increases with height, so for very tall buildings, the loads associated with wind are larger than dead or live loads." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_buildings#Design_and_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_buildings#Design_and_cons...)
- apendleton 14y ago
  Friction with the ground slows air down near ground level, so air 500 feet above the ground will, on average, be faster-moving than ground-level air, regardless of elevation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient
ichtet31 14y ago
I live @ 9200 ft in the rocky mountains in colorado. Plenty of tree growing right out of the granite. It amazes me how easily plants and trees can make their homes here. At these altitudes, a wide, horizontal root system works better than a deep vertical root system. It is definately within our ability to plant trees on top of buildings.
- blocktuw 14y ago
  I'm wondering if the author has ever seen a tree on the side of a mountain or cliff - it's hard to stop a tree from growing if they are left alone. He makes trees sound like whiny children who require constant pampering. Not the things that have been on earth longer than any invertebrates and will most likely out survive our species.
- oijaf888 14y ago
  Are those trees the stereotypical tall strong oak type trees used in most examples? I agree its possible but you don't usually see what most people think of as a "majestic" tree standing alone in those sorts of conditions. Normally they seem to be oddly shaped and have grown away from the predominate direction of wind.
breadnwater 14y ago
Putting trees on skyscrapers is lame when its only purpose is to gussy-up an image, but honest to goodness metropolitan reforestation where condos and apartment buildings are self-sustaining and eco-friendly is something we should move forward with. Instead of building outward as in urban sprawl, build upward with vertical forests: https://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/future-of-home-sweet-home/ https://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/future...
zemo 14y ago
this is a really, really interesting critique of why the current idea of trees on buildings is wrong, but it's a bit short-sighted in that it just says "stop". The next logical step in this is to contemplate how a rooftop environment would affect the evolution of trees moving forward; how human architecture will interact with the genetic lineage of trees in the future, and how we can encourage an evolutionary process so that we get to a point where trees on buildings are possible. Either way, upvote; there's a lot of interesting content in this article.
Glyptodon 14y ago
I think the writer is being a bit unrealistic. So long as you aren't somewhere at a rather high elevation to begin with, the temperature, elevation and wind chill factors seem like they'd be quite easy to work around. Even something as simple as buffering vegetation from the prevailing wind direction ought to go a long way. Perhaps a more relevant point might be that the architects aren't fully designing their vegetation's support systems, but that seems like it would require a higher burden of proof. I wouldn't be surprised if issues such as 'what if a large branch fell off 500 feet above street level?' aren't fully thought out, either. But I don't think there's any reason that someone using careful engineering and design couldn't put healthy plants on a tall building. If he was merely intending to point out that many architects are placing vegetation without proper design and engineering, he may be right, but I don't think he really succeeded in making the point.
jellicle 14y ago
Toronto requires green roofs for new building projects. Grasses and shrubs are typically grown, and they survive just fine with minimal care. I suspect the only reason that large trees are not typically used is that there's fear that tree roots will damage the roof of the building. Oh, and the weight of the soil required for larger plants is an issue. Yep, looking at the bylaw, the growing medium - soil - is only required to be four inches deep. Weight of soil and drainage starts to be a problem - you have to figure that the soil may be 100% soaked... It's going to be tough to grow trees in four inches of soil. So, nutshell, tree survivability not a problem, but engineering a roof to hold enough soil (and therefore water) to grow a large tree is expensive, and root damage is a problem, and therefore - no large trees on skyscrapers. Still, there's nothing magic about it, just engineering problems. I could easily imagine a high-end residential tower with a forest on the roof.
- morsch 14y ago
  Can you provide any reference/elaboration for your claim that tree survivability is not a problem? It's directly counter to the arguments made in the article. Grasses and shrubs are a lot more hardy than trees, as anybody who's even been on a mountain can attest to. Your other points are well taken and they are sort of addressed in the article in the form of the infrastructure issues. I think the author also would agree that it's sort of feasible in theory, but extremely expensive and impractical.
  - damoncali 14y ago
    There are plenty of trees on windy mountains in cold climates that survive just fine.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    There are lots and lots of very hardy trees in the world. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07423.html http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07423.html But you need a meter of soil, two meters would be better. This is 10-20x as much soil as is currently available on most green roofs (or mountainsides). There are already pictures in this thread of buildings with trees on top, so... the idea that somehow trees are subject to instant death when lifted off the ground is silly. The conditions are not any harsher than trees living in an asphalt jungle in the city are subjected to every day. http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/trees/Single%20Pine%20Tree%20Atop%20Sandstone%20Formation,%20Zion%20National%20Park,%20Utah.jpg http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/trees/Single%20Pine%20Tree%20Ato... ^^ Honey badger don't care
beefman 14y ago
There's a tracking hash ("#.UU-2q9uRnOI.facebook") that probably should be trimmed before posting.
danielsiders 14y ago
When I saw the title of this article I really hoped it was a metaphor for software, ideally about building products on top of proprietary APIs.
sk5t 14y ago
Two other things about trees: * They hold tons and tons of water and are generally massive (if you've never given a hardwood tree a good pruning, the volume and mass are surprising). A large, growing tree and its root system would add very significant load to the structure. * They blow over sometimes. Probably frequently, on an exposed, elevated rooftop with limited soil depth (shallow roots, fairly easy to saturate). 20 tons of tree flying off a tower during a storm doesn't sound like fun.
protomyth 14y ago
shows what picking a different submission time will do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5416289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5416289
hawkharris 14y ago
As a fan of urban exploration (photographing old left-behind structures in cities), I had a positive gut reaction to images of buildings overrun by plants. To me putting trees on the exterior of a tall building makes the building look abandoned. When you find your way in and explore such a building, the artifacts, grittiness and worn-down aesthetic make you think about all the people who have ever lived and worked there. For this personal reason, I think the trees might be an improvement. Much better than the typical sterile corporate look of skyscrapers. But I can understand why someone who has more architecture experience might think of it as a cliche.
SonicSoul 14y ago
we do have some buildings in NYC with trees sustained for years. Trump 5th ave being one example. http://www.honestbuildings.com/dres/di_full_23c708c1-5549-c4a3-0912-b6d488ccbb19.jpg http://www.honestbuildings.com/dres/di_full_23c708c1-5549-c4... I guess it's more manageable because the trees are not on very top?
torya 14y ago
just wait until you have a hurricane (since they are a LOT more common now), then with the powerful winds you will have trees falling from the sky. the building owners will get sued and then they will have to pay multimillion dollar settlements.
pdevine 14y ago
I lived in Singapore for a while where I commonly saw trees on the top of skyscrapers. Sky gardens live and thrive in South East Asia.
rossjudson 14y ago
Who says these have to be real trees? Fake trees look damn impressive these days. All you have to do is dust them off. And hey -- the wind at these altitudes will do that for you. Now we just need to hire someone to clean up the bird poop.
Mankhool 14y ago
Here's one that has thrived for years, but it has its own planter! http://www.jpmtree.com/images/sides/JPM,%20Vancouvers%20Highest%20Tree.pdf http://www.jpmtree.com/images/sides/JPM,%20Vancouvers%20High...
gadders 14y ago
This house: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2994951 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2994951 is a few miles from where I live. Last time I saw it the green stripe over it was a sea of dead yellow grass.
gcb0 14y ago
typical frustrated architect :) how about new ideas and solving problems to make them a reality? if it were for people like him alone, we'd still have only blocky concrete buildings.
dysoco 14y ago
This reminded me of Gremlins 2.
cperciva 14y ago
There's another reason to not have trees on top of skyscrapers: It's dangerous. Even the best-pruned tree will occasionally have the occasional branch break off in a severe storm. Normally that's not a problem -- but if the tree is 300' in the air, that branch can go flying a long way and hit someone with a lot of force when it reaches ground level. The sorts of companies which build big skyscrapers don't like to take risks like that; nor do most city zoning boards.
- maratd 14y ago
  > Even the best-pruned tree will occasionally have the occasional branch break off in a severe storm. I would imagine it's not that easy for a tree to truly root itself in whatever shallow sandbox they plant it in. You're more likely to have the entire tree fly straight at you.
  - InvisibleCities 14y ago
    >You're more likely to have the entire tree fly straight at you. Well, that certainly sounds much safer.
  - cperciva 14y ago
    That's also a potential problem, but the weight:surface area ratio suggests that whole trees are more likely to get knocked over and stay in place, while individual branches are more likely to become long-range projectiles.
biznickman 14y ago
Yes, trees bow on windy mountains (or even next to the ocean), but since when was this a bad thing and/or a sign that the trees were not healthy? This article is like saying "don't put plants on your balcony". True, it's more windy but many plants, especially trees, are created to be more durable. I do agree that it's a more challenging environment than a forest, but if the building is willing to cover the costs of maintenance, I don't see why not have them!
prawn 14y ago
Reminds me of the arcologies in SimCity, though the one this brings to mind had a dome over the roof park.
brownbat 14y ago
I can't help but think of Betteridge's Law, even when a headline is a request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_law_of_headlines
cwp 14y ago
Here's one example. It's an oak tree, right at the top of an apartment building. http://www.venturevancouver.com/blog/tree-on-top-of-building-vancouver-british-columbia http://www.venturevancouver.com/blog/tree-on-top-of-building... http://www.treecaretips.org/Pruning/TCI0308_p50.htm http://www.treecaretips.org/Pruning/TCI0308_p50.htm
Aloisius 14y ago
In San Francisco there at least one building with trees and other greenery about 500 ft up at 1 Front Street. It has them on the 35th through 38th floor with a rather high glass wind shield that keeps parts from blowing off the roof. I know that's short compared to some of these massive skyscrapers they show, but as long as the building radiates heat back up at the trees, I don't really see why you couldn't go considerably higher.
j1o1h1n 14y ago
Capita Centre, Sydney, Harry Seidler & Associates 1989
michaelbuddy 14y ago
So far, I hadn't seen written what's most obvious problem to me. A dead branch or something from the tree that falls from a building will kill or cause serious injury to someone. Now if a few trees were dead center on the roof, they likely wouldn't, but anything close to overhanging in high winds will shake loose objects very dangerous to humans. sure you could protect people by adding nets. Well then you have a skyscraper that looks trashier than it did without plants at all.

245 points by tumblen 14y ago

On the contrary: do let's. http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/09/08/namba-parks-gets-rave-reviews-from-overseas/ http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/09/08/namba-parks-gets-rave-...

cleverjake 14y ago
Shoppning malls != skyscrappers, cool link none the less, though.
pyre 14y ago
He mentions "500 ft" as a height that the trees would be at (and wouldn't deal well with). That's roughly 50 stories. I don't think that shopping malls reach those heights. ;-)

SeanLuke 14y ago

Apparently someone hasn't heard of the Guinigi Tower. Trees on top of buildings didn't used to signify green. They used to signify power.

mapleoin 14y ago
Guinigi Tower's height doesn't come close to that of a modern skyscraper.

marknutter 14y ago

Can't the trees be enclosed?

potatolicious 14y ago
Yep, but trees are big, so the enclosure will have to be similarly massive. One thing not mentioned in the article: roots. Tree roots get everywhere and have no respect for the clean lines of your skyscraper. They are also capable of going anywhere it damn well pleases - anyone who's seen tree roots break concrete sidewalks and barriers can attest to that. Whatever trees we put on skyscrapers won't last very long. You'd have to destroy them/replace them every few years.
- VLM 14y ago
  The expense makes tree'd buildings a show of conspicuous consumption not "green". This IS marketing genius in that it appeals to both the "ha ha I'm richer than you" crowd and also at least superficially to the wanna be greenies. There is a certain "startup wisdom" to it in that one way to save marketing dollars is to appeal to two groups at the same time. Maybe a very crude tech example would be facebook being a workforce automation system for teen girls social interactions AND also for their mothers, sorta. There are cars like that, the Prius was cool enough from a technological standpoint that I got one quite a few years ago although I don't care about the mileage, yet it also appeals to the greenies as being lower eco impact or something. You can be a success only appealing to one group, but if you can appeal to two for free, why not?
- DanBC 14y ago
  There are probably solutions to the root problems. Bonsai growers prune roots, so you just need a big double walled structure. The inner liner has many holes which is good for drainage and allows roots to grow, and you prune roots growing out of the holes. I say 'Just' - having read this it feels very wrong and anyone who knows anything about how tree roots actually grow will be able to point out the flaws. But it can't be that hard. In West Drayton there's a garden with everything grown in pots. (http://goo.gl/maps/G2oXN http://goo.gl/maps/G2oXN)

T-zex 14y ago

In my neighbourhood there is an apartment block with two pine trees on the roof terrace. The trees are about 2m high. I still do not understand how they are not causing any trouble. Its not a skyscraper but still..

raverbashing 14y ago

Funny "Trees won't survive in this conditions", but in Nature they are not watered, they are not pruned, and they have lived for millions of years What harsh conditions are there in the side of a building that don't exist in nature? (Off the top of my head there are several, but it would be nice for him to specify) It could be: temperature, winds, lack of cover (either soil cover or taller trees) and their corresponding soil dynamic. But it shouldn't be too complicated to find a plant that works there.

jerf 14y ago
Scroll down further. I almost missed it too for some reason due to the page structure, so I understand, but he does address that quite directly.
- hahainternet 14y ago
  My issue is that it's pure speculation. Trees won't grow there because he says they won't. Except trees do grow under some of the most extreme conditions possible. This is after all just a blog.
  - jerf 14y ago
    No, they don't "grow under some of the most extreme conditions possible"; consider the meaning of the phrase "tree line". It is routine for conditions to be too extreme for trees to be feasible. Life is very adaptable, but it's a category error to then conclude that any given life form is very adaptable. Trees have limits. Ones based in physics.
    - hahainternet 14y ago
      > No, they don't "grow under some of the most extreme conditions possible"; consider the meaning of the phrase "tree line". It is routine for conditions to be too extreme for trees to be feasible. 'Routine' is a strong word. You'll note that tree lines exist at significant altitudes commonly on mountains. Typically places that trees cannot grow are also places that humans find difficult. Demonstrating that trees are incapable of growing on buildings would of course shut me up, but the author didn't do that. What they did was to say 'trees wont grow on buildings'. A bare assertion. One counteracted by pictures in this very thread.

DanBC 14y ago

I think this shows the problem that people like me have with design. I don't notice good design. Things just work and everything is where it should be. It's taken hundreds of years of collected wisdom and research and skill to get it like that, and someone has worked very hard to make it so I don't notice their work. I do notice when someone draws a willowy slender tree on the side of a towerblock. It'd be great to have more shrubbery and trees up high, but at least they could do it realistically. And I get the impression that they forget about all the root system and maintenance and etc. England has a problem with terribly dull architecture.

ThomPete 14y ago
This is not about good design, this is about whether it's possible. If it was possible it would certainly not be a bad idea as it would allow for even more interesting types of architecture. So you might not notice it, but you do reap the benefits of good design (which should not be confused with aesthetics)
- qompiler 14y ago
  It's possible just not feasible and therefore there is no interest in executing these plans by corporations.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > This is not about good design, this is about whether it's possible. ...but a good designer would have some appreciation of whether it's possible or not and thus not bother drawing trees on tops top of skyscrapers. Or at least they'd draw realistic stumpy trees. > but you do reap the benefits of good design Absolutely, yes. I need to be clearer. I am very grateful for good design. It has made my life better. Through HN I have developed a better appreciation for the hard, hidden, work of good design. In the past I automatically thought of of things I'd find on Yanko as 'designery stuff' - but I've learnt that many designers hate that kind of design just as much as I do. dcurtis got some stick for taking so long to pick out nice cutlery, but at least he was only choosing the best from real cutlery. Yanko gives me things like this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/fractal-utensils_n_1937056.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/fractal-utensils_n_...)

wyck 14y ago

Mister Spock has a 30 foot tall oak tree on top of a building for many years now, http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2896752060_d5bd34df28_z.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2896752060_d5bd34df28_z.j...

RutZap 14y ago
That's nice but that is hardly a skyscraper. By the look of it the building is around 15 floors high... let's say around 40m high. The author was talking about putting trees at 500feet in the air, that's 152m... considerably more.
- Retric 14y ago
  500 feet up is really not that much considering trees are just fine over two miles (10,560ft) above sea level. Mountains generally do have a tree line, but most buildings are well below what the local tree line would be as most city's are fairly close to sea level.
- Nux 14y ago
  Highest tree line in the world is at 5200m[1]. Don't see why trees couldn't cope with 150m (yes, I know building != mountain, but still). [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_line#Alpine_tree_lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_line#Alpine_tree_lines
  - corresation 14y ago
    What is relevant here is height above the ground, as the various forces that he describes are a facet of the ground effect (or lack of ground effect). e.g. You would find the top of the CN tower an endlessly windy, environmentally unfriendly place. Yet standing on the street in Madrid you are just as high and suffer none of the same effects.
- wyck 14y ago
  I don't see height as being the issue, I beleive this building is around 50m-60m high. This building is in front of the ocean and gets a fair share of both wind, salt and the occasional snow storm (it's in Vancouver). It was lifted in place using a crane and since it's a large oak tree a system must have been been put into place to deal with the extensive amount of roots ( I'm not sure how long it's been there but at least 15+ years). Here is Google maps street veiw, it has a better perspective: https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=1919++Beach,+Vancouver,+BC,+CANADA+(Eugenia+Place)&ll=49.28911,-123.14293&spn=0.001912,0.003001&hnear=1919+Beach+Ave,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia+V6G+1Z2&t=h&z=19 https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=1919++Beach,+Vancouver,+BC,+CA... tl;dr Trees are not pussies, this is all about money (installation and maintenance).

Nux 14y ago

Please do not stop! I absolutely love the idea of buildings lush with vegetation, as if in some post-apocalyptical world where nature has reclaimed the cities. It may not be very possible/feasible, it may even be a public safety hazard, but I'm so fed up with steel, concrete and glass.

pauljz 14y ago
Agreed. I think a blanket "Don't even try" is silly, and antithetical to the ethos of HN. I'm surprised there isn't more backlash against this. "Don't just draw them on the skyscraper, make it work." would be a better sentiment. If wind is a problem, find a way to break the wind. If roots are a problem, find a way to stop the roots, or trim the roots, and build that into the design. But there's a pile of evidence for the benefits of adding greenery to cities, so please just don't say to stop trying.
- dspeyer 14y ago
  Still, at least consider if climbing vines on trellises might serve better before putting a ton of effort into trees per se. They provide most of the same greenery benefits, can be made to fit the space, don't have dangerous roots, and are in many ways more robust. Plus they can have flowers or fruits near floor level.
ams6110 14y ago
Some form of vegetation may be feasible. I think the author makes a fairly good argument that trees are not it.
jahewson 14y ago
> post-apocalyptical world where nature has reclaimed the cities We are natural.
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  You know what he means. Also, if we're to pick a definition of "natural" that means something more specific than "exists", cities seem like a good candidate for the "unnatural" end of the spectrum.

AlexMuir 14y ago

We have an incredible 4000sq ft olive grove at the top of the 48 storey Beetham Tower in rainy Manchester. The architect turned the top two floors into his own penthouse, complete with enclosed olive trees. Picture: http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2009/04/27/270409_beetham_simpson_feature.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2009/04/27/... Trees at the top of a skyscraper convey both extravagance and eco credentials. Helipads are no longer credit-crunch-friendly. Video (Skip to 1:16 for the trees) http://karmacrew.tv/our-work/architect-profile-ian-simpson-beetham-tower/ http://karmacrew.tv/our-work/architect-profile-ian-simpson-b...

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Well that certainly skewers the claim in the article that it will "never" happen :-). I note that these trees are effectively indoors as opposed to many of the architectural conceptions of being out doors (and the primary objection of the author). That said my biologist friend says that trees are a lot hardier than the author gives them credit for, in particular many evergreens are adapted to living in pretty harsh climates and their needles are better able to deal with high winds and temperature extremes. His question was "where are the roots" since a 25' tall tree might have a 10' root 'ball' holding it in place. So if you don't mind having a floor of 'dirt' and then the tree on the next floor up, and you don't mind your tree being an evergreen, you can probably do something sustainable.
- bhickey 14y ago
  Your comment made me think of the trees down by the shore near Mori Point. The trees are radically bent away from the ocean by the sea breeze. http://goo.gl/maps/S0BSd http://goo.gl/maps/S0BSd
graeme 14y ago
I am pleased that the architect lives in his own building. Inspires confidence in the buildings design.
GFischer 14y ago
There are several other buildings with trees inside, in Buenos Aires (Argentina), one of the tallest towers (the YPF tower, by architect César Pelli), has an Eucalyptus grove inside. http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido-martinez/4686769123/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido-martinez/4686769123/ http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=342972&page=2 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=342972&pa... In Mexico City, you have "La Torre del Árbol" (Tree Tower), with a baobab tree that goes outside a window on the 9th floor, it has now grown up to the 13th floor http://www.judastechnologies.com/2009/10/30/la-historia-no-autorizada-de-la-torre-del-arbol/ http://www.judastechnologies.com/2009/10/30/la-historia-no-a... Edit: j1o1h1n mentioned the Capita Centre in Sydney, Australia: http://www.sydneyarchitecture.com/cbd/cbd4-008.htm http://www.sydneyarchitecture.com/cbd/cbd4-008.htm Le Corbusier built the Curutchet building in Buenos Aires, also with a tree in the middle: http://majocobe.blogspot.com/2009/01/casa-del-doctor-curutchet-imagen-de.html http://majocobe.blogspot.com/2009/01/casa-del-doctor-curutch... Edit: an amazing amount of examples from everywhere from Vancouver to Paris to New York to Chicago in the comments.

kalms 14y ago

Please make it viable instead of halting it, just because it's hard.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bargl 14y ago

I get what he's saying. I think he's more upset that architects are using a "tree" to add some level of trendiness to their buildings. When in fact they should be adding altitude hardened plants that are typically not the most aesthetic plant. But it is after all just a model and hopefully someone will sit down and scratch their head and say, wait what happens if a branch falls off that tree? Lets just put some bushes up there that don't grow past the railing...

torya 14y ago

question: he says: Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the [b]snow and sleet pelt[/b] you at high velocity. so for snow and sleet, how is it any worst than at ground level? wouldn't it be worst at ground level since there is more gravity?

ry0ohki 14y ago

Maybe there is a certain height where this comes into play, but I've seen trees growing naturally (not by design) in abandoned buildings. The first I could think of is the 13-story Highland building here in Pittsburgh you can kind of make out the quite large tree in this photo http://photos.mycapture.com/PITT/1314621/37517652E.jpg http://photos.mycapture.com/PITT/1314621/37517652E.jpg

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
East St. Louis as well has a bunch of abandoned 10+ story buildings with trees growing on top. They're not the biggest but they're actually quite beautiful. Like nature taking back what belongs to it.

smurph 14y ago

I'm a bit surprised that the article never mentioned the potential affects of the tree's roots on the structures supporting them. My driveway can tell you that the roots of a decent sized tree will not play nice with man made things that get in their way.

nonamegiven 14y ago
Yeah, I wouldn't want my unit under or around whatever space was reserved for the roots. Nor would I want my unit next to or under any of those units. After enough years a root will break through just about anything, or at least stress it. Then comes the water. And the critters.

kybernetyk 14y ago

I see a huge potential market for holographic trees.

alexrson 14y ago

Is architects drawing trees on skyscrapers an analogy for something non-function-related we do with software (other than put a bird on it).

josefresco 14y ago

I feel like most of the replies are focusing on the feasibility of putting trees in or on skyscrapers when I think the criticism levied in the article was more towards "designers" or architects who are using them as decorations knowing they will never get to see actual production. I don't think it actually matters to the author if trees can live and thrive in this environment but more so if they are actually implemented. Including something in your design to make it special (or to win a project) knowing it will never be implemented is a design problem and one that could be translated to what we (hackers) do with technology projects.

ryanklee 14y ago
I feel like > There are plenty of scientific reasons why skyscrapers don’t—and probably won’t—have trees, at least not to the heights which many architects propose. implies strongly and clearly enough that the author doesn't think it's feasible. That said, he's also clearly annoyed that designers/architects are being unrealistic in their proposals.
- josefresco 14y ago
  Maybe it's more me wishing he had taken that tact than him actually doing so. I felt like he should be more mad at the architects and those who award projects to said architects with these "never to be implemented" features.
7952 14y ago
There is a history of putting large plants inside glass buildings at ground level. Because in a building with amazing views and glass walls you should make people look at something that is trite and artificial! Skyscrapers are already in a sometimes beautiful dynamic natural environment (the sky). Putting trees in the sky is absurd.

alan 14y ago

Looking at those pictures, I wonder "Where are the roots?" It's like the artists think the tree stops where the trunk meets the surface. I see rooms where peoples would be walking just under the trunk of the tree. I could see using Bonsai style root trimming and enclosed spaces for the trees, but yeah, other than that it looks like pure fantasy.

Spooky23 14y ago

You can grow trees on skyscrapers. But the author captured why it is unlikely to happen: trees need care & maintenance. Care & maintenance == $. For the types of people who build and run skyscrapers, facility operations is a cost center, and regulating authorities don't really care about greenscape. Nobody wants to pay for a staff of gardeners. That's why when plans get mocked up, the public spaces around commercial buildings are usually lush, but when the building are actually constructed, you see a few shrubs or maybe a few arbor vitae at ground level. When the local people and regulating bodies care, things are different. The Wal-Mart parking lot in Hilton Head Island, SC is wooded and shaded. The town refuses to issue construction permits that require old growth trees to be cut down -- so there's 60" wide tree in the lot, with a buffer between it and the pavement. Instead of curbs directing water to storm drains, there are mulched beds that absorb alot of storm water. About 15 miles away near I-95, there is another Wal-Mart with the typical construction methods -- bulldoze, flatten and pave everything.

zumbojo 14y ago
The Walmarts you mentioned: Lush: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+SC&ll=32.210849,-80.726606&spn=0.003767,0.006968&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&fb=1&gl=us&hq=walmart&hnear=Hilton+Head+Island,+Beaufort,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=18 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+... Fully paved: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+SC&ll=32.309886,-80.974903&spn=0.007526,0.013937&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&fb=1&gl=us&hq=walmart&hnear=Hilton+Head+Island,+Beaufort,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=17 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+...

up_and_up 14y ago

> Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the snow and sleet pelt you at high velocity. Life for city trees is hard enough on the ground. I can’t imagine what it’s like at 500 feet, where nearly every climate variable is more extreme than at street level. How is being located on top of a tall building much different from being located on top of a tall hill or mountain? Wouldn't the only factors involved be the type of soil and species chosen?

alberich 14y ago
I guess he addressed this point. There are plants well adapted to life on top of a tall mountain... though it's not the beautiful tall trees depicted on the mockups. I'm guessing those plants probably are short shrubs with dark green leafs and contorted trunks.
rhplus 14y ago
My guess is that the raw exposure is a big deal. Trees on hillsides or mountainsides only have one side fully exposed, so there's a dominant direction they could brace against. They would also benefit from having other trees (and a mountain) next to them to help dissipate the energy from the wind and rain.
DanBC 14y ago
Attrition rate for saplings is pretty high. So in nature when you see a bunch of trees on a hill there are many more trees that didn't survive. But in a building you don't get to have any attrition; you want all trees to survive. And city buildings can generate surprisingly strong winds. "The wind loading on a skyscraper is also considerable. In fact, the lateral wind load imposed on super-tall structures is generally the governing factor in the structural design. Wind pressure increases with height, so for very tall buildings, the loads associated with wind are larger than dead or live loads." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_buildings#Design_and_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_buildings#Design_and_cons...)
apendleton 14y ago
Friction with the ground slows air down near ground level, so air 500 feet above the ground will, on average, be faster-moving than ground-level air, regardless of elevation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

ichtet31 14y ago

I live @ 9200 ft in the rocky mountains in colorado. Plenty of tree growing right out of the granite. It amazes me how easily plants and trees can make their homes here. At these altitudes, a wide, horizontal root system works better than a deep vertical root system. It is definately within our ability to plant trees on top of buildings.

blocktuw 14y ago
I'm wondering if the author has ever seen a tree on the side of a mountain or cliff - it's hard to stop a tree from growing if they are left alone. He makes trees sound like whiny children who require constant pampering. Not the things that have been on earth longer than any invertebrates and will most likely out survive our species.
oijaf888 14y ago
Are those trees the stereotypical tall strong oak type trees used in most examples? I agree its possible but you don't usually see what most people think of as a "majestic" tree standing alone in those sorts of conditions. Normally they seem to be oddly shaped and have grown away from the predominate direction of wind.

breadnwater 14y ago

Putting trees on skyscrapers is lame when its only purpose is to gussy-up an image, but honest to goodness metropolitan reforestation where condos and apartment buildings are self-sustaining and eco-friendly is something we should move forward with. Instead of building outward as in urban sprawl, build upward with vertical forests: https://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/future-of-home-sweet-home/ https://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/future...

zemo 14y ago

this is a really, really interesting critique of why the current idea of trees on buildings is wrong, but it's a bit short-sighted in that it just says "stop". The next logical step in this is to contemplate how a rooftop environment would affect the evolution of trees moving forward; how human architecture will interact with the genetic lineage of trees in the future, and how we can encourage an evolutionary process so that we get to a point where trees on buildings are possible. Either way, upvote; there's a lot of interesting content in this article.

Glyptodon 14y ago

I think the writer is being a bit unrealistic. So long as you aren't somewhere at a rather high elevation to begin with, the temperature, elevation and wind chill factors seem like they'd be quite easy to work around. Even something as simple as buffering vegetation from the prevailing wind direction ought to go a long way. Perhaps a more relevant point might be that the architects aren't fully designing their vegetation's support systems, but that seems like it would require a higher burden of proof. I wouldn't be surprised if issues such as 'what if a large branch fell off 500 feet above street level?' aren't fully thought out, either. But I don't think there's any reason that someone using careful engineering and design couldn't put healthy plants on a tall building. If he was merely intending to point out that many architects are placing vegetation without proper design and engineering, he may be right, but I don't think he really succeeded in making the point.

jellicle 14y ago

Toronto requires green roofs for new building projects. Grasses and shrubs are typically grown, and they survive just fine with minimal care. I suspect the only reason that large trees are not typically used is that there's fear that tree roots will damage the roof of the building. Oh, and the weight of the soil required for larger plants is an issue. Yep, looking at the bylaw, the growing medium - soil - is only required to be four inches deep. Weight of soil and drainage starts to be a problem - you have to figure that the soil may be 100% soaked... It's going to be tough to grow trees in four inches of soil. So, nutshell, tree survivability not a problem, but engineering a roof to hold enough soil (and therefore water) to grow a large tree is expensive, and root damage is a problem, and therefore - no large trees on skyscrapers. Still, there's nothing magic about it, just engineering problems. I could easily imagine a high-end residential tower with a forest on the roof.

morsch 14y ago
Can you provide any reference/elaboration for your claim that tree survivability is not a problem? It's directly counter to the arguments made in the article. Grasses and shrubs are a lot more hardy than trees, as anybody who's even been on a mountain can attest to. Your other points are well taken and they are sort of addressed in the article in the form of the infrastructure issues. I think the author also would agree that it's sort of feasible in theory, but extremely expensive and impractical.
- damoncali 14y ago
  There are plenty of trees on windy mountains in cold climates that survive just fine.
- jellicle 14y ago
  There are lots and lots of very hardy trees in the world. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07423.html http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07423.html But you need a meter of soil, two meters would be better. This is 10-20x as much soil as is currently available on most green roofs (or mountainsides). There are already pictures in this thread of buildings with trees on top, so... the idea that somehow trees are subject to instant death when lifted off the ground is silly. The conditions are not any harsher than trees living in an asphalt jungle in the city are subjected to every day. http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/trees/Single%20Pine%20Tree%20Atop%20Sandstone%20Formation,%20Zion%20National%20Park,%20Utah.jpg http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/trees/Single%20Pine%20Tree%20Ato... ^^ Honey badger don't care

beefman 14y ago

There's a tracking hash ("#.UU-2q9uRnOI.facebook") that probably should be trimmed before posting.

danielsiders 14y ago

When I saw the title of this article I really hoped it was a metaphor for software, ideally about building products on top of proprietary APIs.

sk5t 14y ago

Two other things about trees: * They hold tons and tons of water and are generally massive (if you've never given a hardwood tree a good pruning, the volume and mass are surprising). A large, growing tree and its root system would add very significant load to the structure. * They blow over sometimes. Probably frequently, on an exposed, elevated rooftop with limited soil depth (shallow roots, fairly easy to saturate). 20 tons of tree flying off a tower during a storm doesn't sound like fun.

protomyth 14y ago

shows what picking a different submission time will do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5416289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5416289

hawkharris 14y ago

As a fan of urban exploration (photographing old left-behind structures in cities), I had a positive gut reaction to images of buildings overrun by plants. To me putting trees on the exterior of a tall building makes the building look abandoned. When you find your way in and explore such a building, the artifacts, grittiness and worn-down aesthetic make you think about all the people who have ever lived and worked there. For this personal reason, I think the trees might be an improvement. Much better than the typical sterile corporate look of skyscrapers. But I can understand why someone who has more architecture experience might think of it as a cliche.

SonicSoul 14y ago

we do have some buildings in NYC with trees sustained for years. Trump 5th ave being one example. http://www.honestbuildings.com/dres/di_full_23c708c1-5549-c4a3-0912-b6d488ccbb19.jpg http://www.honestbuildings.com/dres/di_full_23c708c1-5549-c4... I guess it's more manageable because the trees are not on very top?

torya 14y ago

just wait until you have a hurricane (since they are a LOT more common now), then with the powerful winds you will have trees falling from the sky. the building owners will get sued and then they will have to pay multimillion dollar settlements.

pdevine 14y ago

I lived in Singapore for a while where I commonly saw trees on the top of skyscrapers. Sky gardens live and thrive in South East Asia.

rossjudson 14y ago

Who says these have to be real trees? Fake trees look damn impressive these days. All you have to do is dust them off. And hey -- the wind at these altitudes will do that for you. Now we just need to hire someone to clean up the bird poop.

Mankhool 14y ago

Here's one that has thrived for years, but it has its own planter! http://www.jpmtree.com/images/sides/JPM,%20Vancouvers%20Highest%20Tree.pdf http://www.jpmtree.com/images/sides/JPM,%20Vancouvers%20High...

gadders 14y ago

This house: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2994951 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2994951 is a few miles from where I live. Last time I saw it the green stripe over it was a sea of dead yellow grass.

gcb0 14y ago

typical frustrated architect :) how about new ideas and solving problems to make them a reality? if it were for people like him alone, we'd still have only blocky concrete buildings.

dysoco 14y ago

This reminded me of Gremlins 2.

cperciva 14y ago

There's another reason to not have trees on top of skyscrapers: It's dangerous. Even the best-pruned tree will occasionally have the occasional branch break off in a severe storm. Normally that's not a problem -- but if the tree is 300' in the air, that branch can go flying a long way and hit someone with a lot of force when it reaches ground level. The sorts of companies which build big skyscrapers don't like to take risks like that; nor do most city zoning boards.

maratd 14y ago
> Even the best-pruned tree will occasionally have the occasional branch break off in a severe storm. I would imagine it's not that easy for a tree to truly root itself in whatever shallow sandbox they plant it in. You're more likely to have the entire tree fly straight at you.
- InvisibleCities 14y ago
  >You're more likely to have the entire tree fly straight at you. Well, that certainly sounds much safer.
- cperciva 14y ago
  That's also a potential problem, but the weight:surface area ratio suggests that whole trees are more likely to get knocked over and stay in place, while individual branches are more likely to become long-range projectiles.

biznickman 14y ago

Yes, trees bow on windy mountains (or even next to the ocean), but since when was this a bad thing and/or a sign that the trees were not healthy? This article is like saying "don't put plants on your balcony". True, it's more windy but many plants, especially trees, are created to be more durable. I do agree that it's a more challenging environment than a forest, but if the building is willing to cover the costs of maintenance, I don't see why not have them!

prawn 14y ago

Reminds me of the arcologies in SimCity, though the one this brings to mind had a dome over the roof park.

brownbat 14y ago

I can't help but think of Betteridge's Law, even when a headline is a request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_law_of_headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_law_of_headlines

cwp 14y ago

Here's one example. It's an oak tree, right at the top of an apartment building. http://www.venturevancouver.com/blog/tree-on-top-of-building-vancouver-british-columbia http://www.venturevancouver.com/blog/tree-on-top-of-building... http://www.treecaretips.org/Pruning/TCI0308_p50.htm http://www.treecaretips.org/Pruning/TCI0308_p50.htm

Aloisius 14y ago

In San Francisco there at least one building with trees and other greenery about 500 ft up at 1 Front Street. It has them on the 35th through 38th floor with a rather high glass wind shield that keeps parts from blowing off the roof. I know that's short compared to some of these massive skyscrapers they show, but as long as the building radiates heat back up at the trees, I don't really see why you couldn't go considerably higher.

j1o1h1n 14y ago

Capita Centre, Sydney, Harry Seidler & Associates 1989

michaelbuddy 14y ago

So far, I hadn't seen written what's most obvious problem to me. A dead branch or something from the tree that falls from a building will kill or cause serious injury to someone. Now if a few trees were dead center on the roof, they likely wouldn't, but anything close to overhanging in high winds will shake loose objects very dangerous to humans. sure you could protect people by adding nets. Well then you have a skyscraper that looks trashier than it did without plants at all.