The trend for “green” eco-fantasy buildings is sweeping the world of architecture, with designers now integrating gardens, terraces and all manner of vertical planting in their specifications for office blocks, apartment buildings and even skyscrapers. “Starchitects” [...] who a few years ago would have scoffed at the idea that their sleek and shiny building might incorporate something as embarrassingly domestic and “unmodern” as a garden, are now getting in on the act. — telegraph.co.uk
We have all seen many plant covered architectural renderings of firms getting in on the green building movement. While green buildings and sustainability are not new concepts, they are now a widespread trend being commercialized on a whole different scale. From the vast number of these green projects we must now distinguish between the quality of these designs and their overall effectiveness on the environment. Now we must ask: is there a difference between putting trees on buildings and real environmental change?
11 Comments
"Is there a difference between putting trees on buildings and real environmental change?"
Forget that for a minute, because it (naively) assumes implementation.
A more immediate question for those who work in the real world of construction documents, budgets, clients, and entitlements is: "Will all that foliage so exquisitely and realistically shown on the renderings actually show up in the CDs in the form of physical support systems, irrigation, species selection, plant specifications, and appropriate orientation?"
Yes? Then, in a few months, add: "Will the designed-and-specified architectural landscape system that was approved for permit actually be fully installed? Or will it be cut back or eliminated entirely during construction due to 'unforeseen' costs?"
Once we get past what occurs in reality, then we have the luxury of theorizing the more ethereal questions.
PS. The more ethereal original question is a darned interesting one .
Agreed. Even more "essential" components to a structure that I have detailed at my office have been forgone for cheaper solutions.
I think you touched on one of the biggest issues I have with these renderings and designs; there is no context or regionalism taken into account when these structures are proposed, re species selection. They're always ambiguous clumps of green.
I think some of those construction reality issues have bee addressed:
The real questions are horticultural and potentially plumbing related given that these plant will become pot-bound 5-10 years. At that point they'll need to supply more water and nutrients to the plant in order for them to continue to thrive/grow. Plant design size is a pain.
These towers were nearing completion while I was studying abroad in Italy, and I would have to say they're an exception to how these renderings typically translate into a finished product.
It's early yet. the cynic in me is looking for ward to seeing the browns and yellows revealed as time goes on.
It's really wasteful of resources to try to cover vertical objects like these with planting, in order to project an illusion of ecosensitivity. Most plants want to be in the ground.
Cue the Iraqis of 2,700 years ago. Kind of a "Green Zone" on steroids.
I was thinking Choisy
When architects only study the art of constructing shapes, and the engineering to minimize costs, and maximize profits, creating a multi-use habitat is outside of their comfort zone.
However, thickening the life bearing VOLUME of the finite surface of the Earth is a valid goal. The only caveat is to not restrict that volume to human habitat and exclude all others.
As to implementation, perhaps that, too, needs to be re-examined. A typical high rise apartment building, made of sterile glass, steel and concrete, has little visual appeal. But there are many possibilities in that basic shape.
On the flat roof, designed to withstand the load of 0.5 meter of soil and water, one might imagine an urban farm. (Vertical planters, etc)
And imagine the exterior wrapped in a spiraling balcony, so that animals can travel around and up the anthropogenic mountain. Ditto, for water draining downward, to be collected and pumped to the top (if necessary). Occupants can watch nature right outside their windows, instead of a bleak vista of repetitive towers.
Clearly you've never worked a day in the real world.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.