3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoMaybe 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 agoThere 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.