I just like the idea. It don't solve anything. However more greenery is better than less.
Sucks up pollution. Hells with depression. Hells with pollinators and bugs. Can't really see a downside
Can’t really see a downside
The downside is almost certainly structural (significant weight as well as moisture, and a need for long term structural integrity and safety, likely don't pair well. Especially not when the people doing the building are looking for cost effectiveness).
If you don't build with cardboard this problem is very easy to solve, its called putting a goddam Pond liner between the dirt and the structure itself.
And the weigh isn't a issue with low buildings, say 10 to 20 floor that aren't made from cardboard, and higher than that is inefficient in all regards anyway and should be avoided.
How heavy do you think plants are ? Heavier than furniture? Or just fat humans ?
Well if we're talking fully grown oak trees for some stupid reason it'd be heavy, but most of the plants people point at in these things would be light as fuck. The dirt for the planters would probably be heavier.
Maybe some people are thinking trees. But no I expected potted plants. Shrubs of the like
Plants + dirt + water = significant additional weight to consider when designing a building for the people and their furniture..
Buildings today are already being designed with only the bare essentials in mind, they aren't even built with safety in mind only cost effectiveness (see Grenfell and million other buildings like it that should be condemned).
I never said it can't be done, but the person I replied to asked what the downside is, and from a developers' point of view, that will be it.
Water is heavy, and plants are made of mostly water.
Ok. Is water heavier than steel ? I think most buildings can support a bunch of plants
The issue I was trying (and failing) to get at is the additional weight the building now has to support on top of everything else a building normally has to support. However, it doesn't seem to be a big deal judging by everyone's replies.
Short info https://www.bbr-server.de/bauarchivddr/archiv/dokumente/3-4-17-wohnungsbauserie-wbs70.pdf
The blueprints https://bauarchivddr.bbr-server.de/bauarchivddr/archiv/dokumente/3-4-01-2-wohnungsbauserie-wbs-70-6-3-t.pdf
This is the blueprints of a pre modern apartment building (its in German but you could use chat pdf if you need translation) more modern buildings use these as basis (modified versions of course) as these block buildings are modular, cheap, very resistant and reliable. They can definitely support the extra weight of some plants on the facade, nobody wants to plant trees on the building, that wouldn't necessarily be a weight problem but rather a problem with the roots damaging the building, and you can't really stop tree roots, maybe some smaller trees but definitely not Oaks or Fruit trees.
That’s awesome, thanks for the info!
No problem
I have no idea. Not an architectural engineer.
My assumption would be that they have to build the building to a code that has a minimum weight requirements.
Male Humans are generally averaging about 80kg.
If you have a party and have 10 - 15 over. That's a lot of weight. Not all the time but I think if every apartment had a few plants then the weight would still be less than having a party.
Or that was my assumption anyway. I know balconies have a weight limit, as there was a story about a party and too many people were out on it and it collapsed
Depends on the plants...
Also... Humans are mostly water as well if you go by that. I know my balcony supports 3,2 (+ the required tolerance) metric Tons of weight on a area of 10 square meters.
I could plant a tree there. Probably more than one. And these building concepts are rather about small plants, so the weight shouldn't be a problem if you build with Reinforced Concrete like a normal person.
Except that plants grow… and grow, and grow. Unless they’re maintained, which takes additional labor and people and infrastructure to handle, all of which adds even more weight.
As said, you don't need to use trees or gigantic plants, use Twiners and shrubs, they cover the whole facade and don't way that much, yet they do the same, if not a better job at keeping the building cool and the air cleaner. They don't need much maintenance and they don't grow indefinitely, if the plant cant reach more facade it stops, only thing is you have to regularly cut the plants around the windows, wich isn't a gigantic problem.
For now, if richish people want to pay for it in their flat, go for it. (It would be interesting to see the carbon cost of the extra materials though!) They can pay for the building and maintenance, and everyone else gets a cool building to look at.
The hopefully the kinks get worked out and it can be done cheaper on other buildings.
The reality is plants are beautiful and greenery is good for the environment. So as long as you do not put literal trees on a building it should be fine. Also modern tall buildings have cranes on top for facade work, window cleaning and so forth. So caring for plants is certainly possible. Also those green skyscrapers basically have potted plants on them as well.
Plants also come with a lot of benefits. They cool the building when it needs cooling by providing shade and water. If you are in a colder climate and the plants you choose loose their leaves, they even allow sunlight on the facade, when heating is most needed, while shading it in summer. Plants like wine, which can easily be green on facades have useful fruits. As do many fruit trees, which can be grown from the ground floor in espalier fashion.
Then we have roof gardens, which only have been in use since 600BC or so. They work and are nice.
Also really import everybody has to look at a building and especially when you are building tall, they should make sure the building is beautiful. Plants are beautiful and are a great option for decoration.
This significantly oversees the fact that plants help in cooling the building down and to increase air quality.
Shure its not "The solution" but there is no singular solution to our problems, it can help. And as long as we don't build to high (wich is super inefficient) it should be a perfectly good part of the solution, and one that does not cost much.
Seems to work out OK for Singapore
Singapore can afford to throw money at a problem until it goes away …
Developers in Singapore have to make money too. Buildings are built by the market not the state
So much of this video hinges on the assumption that if you have greenery on buildings, you can't also have greenery on the ground. Sure, in an ideal world, you can use the fact that greenery on the ground is easier to maintain to guide priorities. In this current less-than-ideal world though, the city owns the road and a private developer owns the building and neither side can really force the other to add greenery.
limited budget – you can pay for structural changes and maintenance costs to put greenery on the building or you can use that same money for a lot more greenery at street level where it benefits a lot more people
It's always about the money. And if you are building a high building chances are you don't have acres around. And like you say, the solution is not building a dumbass vertical garden, it's politics. Green the city because you as a citizen should force the city to be good
Unpopular truth: every rooftop garden leaks. They require some really tricky water management, and it can go badly very easily.
I insists these are great, and not a solution to anything (the green thing is just marketing). Basically a form of fasade, the look of things etc.
And regarding implementation, they are just dog shit bad bcs often neither contractors nor architects are incentivized to spend time & money on it (they get most of their moneys by selling, not maintaining).
But there are solutions that were properly implemented and work all over the world. Even as retrofits to old buildings. Or to cover up outside walls where there aren't any windows for various reasons.
And also, most (green or non-green) highrises have some leaks, it's basically just a big complicated block that is bound to have imperfections.
And also 2, big core systems implemented have to be maintained as designed. Just like sprinkler systems have to be inspected and tested by law. Eg if we stop maintaining our air ventilation system (with filtration, humidification, and some pre-heating/cooling) I bet we get bacteria and fungi (maybe invertebrates) pumped around the building.
I bet we get bacteria and fungi (maybe invertebrates) pumped around the building
Exactly.
And hospitals had to solve the problem which is a system many buildings nowadays use (a bit depending on local climate needs). We now have osmosis water filtration for the humidifier (like 10+ kW for colder winter months?), HEPA filters before and after, mechanical & screen filters for the inlets (for potential smog particles, pollen, paragliders, that soft or thing) and probably much more stuff (various sensors, noise traps, regulators, fans, ...). All components have their own maintenance needs.
But if we were to cheap out and not hire actual professionals that are good at their jobs ... believe it or not, we all turn into an army of legionnaires and storm the city. And since we are in Europe, I mean highly organized Roman legionnaires.
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
