
Can We Stop Drawing Trees on Top of Skyscrapers? - tumblen
http://www.archdaily.com/346374/can-we-please-stop-drawing-trees-on-top-of-skyscrapers/#.UU-2q9uRnOI.facebook
======
AlexMuir
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/...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2009/04/27/270409_beetham_simpson_feature.shtml)

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-b...](http://karmacrew.tv/our-work/architect-profile-ian-simpson-
beetham-tower/)

~~~
ChuckMcM
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
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>

------
jellicle
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
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.

~~~
jellicle
There are lots and lots of very hardy trees in the world.

<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%20Ato...](http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/trees/Single%20Pine%20Tree%20Atop%20Sandstone%20Formation,%20Zion%20National%20Park,%20Utah.jpg)

^^ Honey badger don't care

~~~
hamoid
It called my attention that in South Finland there are pine trees which
apparently are able to grow with their roots barely covered with soil. Some
sit directly on hard rock with all their roots visible. I took two photos of
this on 2006:
[http://pix.hamoid.com/finland2006/nature_is_a_huge_canvas.jp...](http://pix.hamoid.com/finland2006/nature_is_a_huge_canvas.jpg)
<http://pix.hamoid.com/finland2006/going_back_to_my_roots.jpg> Those trees
survive winter winds at -22F (-30C) with very little sunlight, although
sometimes winds knock them down making a vertical wall out of the exposed
roots.

~~~
temp453463343
Well, just because you can see roots, doesn't mean there aren't other deeper
roots. Redwoods and Giant sequoias also have shallow root systems.

~~~
hamoid
You are right, if one sees roots it doesn't mean there aren't other roots.

I think the difference is, South Finland was compressed by 1 km of ice during
the last ice age, and the ground is pure granite that is blown up using
explosives whenever a new building or road is built.

In those places I talk about, the dirt layer is extremely thin or often
nonexistent. The photos I linked don't show that, but many trees are clearly
sitting on pure red granite rock with just a little bit of dirt and moss
surrounding the roots, in the middle of pale rock.

------
Spooky23
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
The Walmarts you mentioned:

Lush:
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+...](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)

Fully paved:
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walmart++Hilton+Head+Island,+...](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)

------
josefresco
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
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
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.

------
sk5t
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.

------
up_and_up
> 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?

~~~
jcmontalbano
Oh man what an interesting question!

The short answer is that a tall hill or mountain represents a broad elevation
change that's contiguous with the surrounding landscape. Difference in air
quality from sea level is not a simple function of elevation, but of air flow
and direction. You actually have to treat the air near the surface as a flow.

Check out this extremely kickass old film: <http://youtu.be/7SkWxEUXIoM?t=29s>
The drag near the solid surface greatly slows down, and introduces turbulence
to, an otherwise laminar flow. This means that the air near the surface of the
earth is doing a lot more interacting with the earth than the other air, and
is getting and keeping a lot more heat and dissolved gases. Above that
turbulent layer, you just have cold dry air. It loses heat, water condenses,
gases fall out.

What can you use as an indicator for the height of the wet air layer? The
height of the local trees! Their tops are about at the top of the survivable
boundary layer in the air. Desert plants are short, rainforest plants are
tall. Interestingly, this might lead you to wonder where the tallest trees in
the world are.

Probably in some place where there's an ocean wind that blows into a blind
valley, right? Because that thick boundary layer would just pile up and up,
right?

Here's an elevation map of California:
[http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/images/ca_h....](http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/images/ca_h.gif)

And here's where the Giant Sequoia redwoods are:
[http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/sequoias_of_yosemite/distr...](http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/sequoias_of_yosemite/distribution.html)

So being on top of a tall building is like being on a spike up above the
livable atmosphere for trees. Unless your city is built in a place that
already had giant trees, it won't have much success growing them at heights
above their native height.

Unless you choose very specific trees.

------
DanBC
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.

~~~
Swizec
There is a building in Paris whose facade is a forrest of shrubbery.

<http://www.eco-eloquence.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_2736.jpg>

I was there and it's pretty cool looking. All the plants look very happy too.

~~~
yardie
That is the musee de quai branly. It's a vertical garden on one of the sides
of the main building. If you look really close there is a lot of
infrastructure to water and feed those plants. Also, at this altitude and
orientation the plants are shielded from weather extremes fairly well. The
architect was complaining that these high-rises don't have any of this plant
nutrient infrastructure nor the shielding. If you've been to the top of the
Eiffel tower you'll know the wind can get pretty intense up there. Now imagine
trying to exist as a tree up there.

The problem is that architects are trying to make their buildings look more
ecofriendly, green by putting more trees on it.

~~~
Swizec
Yes, but couldn't we put all that infrastructure in skyscrapers?

Also trees are quite sturdy, in the desert they grow as high up as 1500m
according to wikipedia. Here in Europe we have lone trees in the alps as high
up as ~1800m if I remember my primary school geography correctly. Have you
ever been so high? It gets pretty crazy as far as weather is concerned and
situation can change from lovely sun to heavy storm with insane cold in a
matter of minutes.

~~~
yardie
you could but most of these architect renderings don't look like they have any
of that. Some of them are communal terraces with deep infrastructure for trees
to grow down into. But a few of these renderings are smaller terraces and
judging from the rendering just 30-50cm of structure above the apartment
below. Except grass not much can grow there. I've seen some pullt it off
fairly well. Like the Sands Marina Bay Hotel in Singapore. In real life it
looks like it does in the renderings before groundbreaking.

------
ry0ohki
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>

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
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.

------
cperciva
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
> 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
>You're more likely to have the entire tree fly straight at you.

Well, that certainly sounds much safer.

------
wyck
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.j...](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2896752060_d5bd34df28_z.jpg)

~~~
RutZap
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.

~~~
wyck
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,+CA...](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)

tl;dr Trees are not pussies, this is all about money (installation and
maintenance).

~~~
wahnfrieden
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5437406>

------
bargl
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...

------
raverbashing
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
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
snowwrestler
> Typically places that trees cannot grow are also places that humans find
> difficult.

The windows on tall buildings don't open, which is not a coincidence. Humans
can't survive for very long 50+ stories in the air either.

~~~
hahainternet
> The windows on tall buildings don't open, which is not a coincidence. Humans
> can't survive for very long 50+ stories in the air either.

50+ stories is significantly less than the difference between my altitude and
the altitude of many perfectly happy civilisations.

The reason windows don't open is that there are significant issues with
cooling and regulating air pressure in a building that large. It has little to
do with anything like oxygen concentration or even temperature.

~~~
snowwrestler
The issue with tall buildings is not absolute altitude, the issue is elevation
above the local boundary condition in the atmosphere.

------
smurph
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
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.

------
Glyptodon
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.

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

~~~
pyre
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. ;-)

------
ichtet31
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
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.

------
alan
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.

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

------
SeanLuke
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
Guinigi Tower's height doesn't come close to that of a modern skyscraper.

------
Nux
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
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
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.

------
rossjudson
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.

------
hawkharris
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.

------
Aloisius
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.

------
kybernetyk
I see a huge potential market for holographic trees.

------
cwp
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...](http://www.venturevancouver.com/blog/tree-on-top-of-building-
vancouver-british-columbia)

<http://www.treecaretips.org/Pruning/TCI0308_p50.htm>

------
gadders
This house: <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.

------
T-zex
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..

------
michaelbuddy
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.

------
biznickman
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!

------
pdevine
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.

------
SonicSoul
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-c4...](http://www.honestbuildings.com/dres/di_full_23c708c1-5549-c4a3-0912-b6d488ccbb19.jpg)

I guess it's more manageable because the trees are not on very top?

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

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

------
zemo
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.

------
brownbat
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>

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

------
j1o1h1n
Capita Centre, Sydney, Harry Seidler & Associates 1989

------
danielsiders
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.

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

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

------
dysoco
This reminded me of Gremlins 2.

------
marknutter
Can't the trees be enclosed?

~~~
potatolicious
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
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?

------
gcb0
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.

------
breadnwater
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...](https://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/future-
of-home-sweet-home/)

