Hey adam. What about letting vines grow on your regular commie block? Is that a practical enough way to make some buildings pretty? Or is it just dumb?
Theres one major issue not touched on here and it makes green skyscrapers even worse. Plants and the substrate needed to sustain them are heavy AF. This requires the building to be specially reinforced and that is pretty damn expensive. Green rooves that use plants with drought tolerance and shallow rooting then this can work. Trees and shrubs largely do not fall under this category.
iirc, the extra reinforcement will have a total carbon cost that far exceeds the total carbon consumption of the plants for an entire century like even if we pretend money isn't a concern, it's literally counterproductive from an environmental standpoint
Also, trees need sunlight. That means at least one side of the building will have insufficient light. Adam's estimate of tree numbers ignores this... probably because almost every concept sketch/illustration ever created does, and has trees of equal size *everywhere*... which is absolutely *not* realistic. Aside from the fact that it's pure greenwashing, it won't give the aesthetic uniformity that they present. If they make anything matching the previs, it won't look good *at all*.
This. However, there is a solution to this problem, and in Europe, it's been working forever. IVY. You plant that into the ground, and then it just does its thing. The thing is just hugging the building and in 20 years covering it whole. The plant is incredibly sturdy, doesn't care about pollution, climbs on its own, it's easy to trim around windows, and if it already went around the window (or any other opening that it should go around), trimming that can be done with your hands because it will grow much slower and the twigs will be delicate. It's heaviest at the bottom, and light at the top, and connects to the building using a kind of air root system (it's not as destructive as some people say, I've seen it growing on 100-year-old buildings made out of brick, hopes and dreams - they were fine). Possibly it can actually reinforce the building from the outside?, but idk I'm not an engineer. It probably wouldn't grow as high as a 30lvl skyscraper, but on a 40-50m tall building? Totally.
In the Netherlands we have the 3-30-300 rule that the government strongly encourages developers to adhere. It means if you look out of a window, you must see 3 trees, 30% of a neighborhood needs to be in shade of leaves, and within 300 meters there needs to be a cooling place like a park or green space. I'm lucky to live in a neighborhood that is greener with a small pond and ducks🌳🦆
Not to mention, having greenery covered skyscrapers could add some mental health benefits and, of course, provide very important habits with the wild life
@@andrewreynolds912We could just build purpose-built greenery towers in parks to help wildlife, instead of blocking natural light from entering our windows.
Sure verry sound idea of beauty but what about.... New London approach make parks the focal point, create network of trees and turn whole corridors into linear parks so that London becomes a city in a park
Fire engineer here. Another massive issue is that if or when the trees become somewhat dried out (winter anyone?), a fire can spread very quickly up the facade of this type of building, proving devastating for the people inside. See Grenfell Tower in London for how this can look.
I mean, that sounds logical. There are also some desert cities I wouldn't even want to try this with. Imagine neglecting a tree for awhile until it becomes kindling, then the sunlight catches the glass door out to the balcony at the wrong angle.
@@DIMOHA25 20 Fenchurch Street, aka the Walkie Talkie. Its architect, Rafael Vinoly, is renowned for designing buildings that serve as lasers that terrorize their local communities
Singapore can kinda pull off the green building thing because it is tropical, rains constantly, and they are mainly planting bromeliads which are native, have minimal roots, and aren’t that heavy. As I understand it, even with those nearly ideal conditions, it’s still a pain to maintain.
I live in one of these. The maintenance is negligible as you divide it by 1000 tenants. Very much unlike the garden in a single home where one household pays for everything.
I do see the point, but a big reason for places like for example Singapore to put lots of greenery on the streets and on buildings is heat management. In urban areas in those climates it can get ridiculously hot, and while all the plants make the air much more humid, it's totally worth it so as not to feel like you're living in a concrete oven.
Yeah, and maybe just around three floors would be the maximum for this kind of green setup and the rest of the floors would be for shallow rooting and for residents' to take their plants.
On a building surely there's better ways to reduce solar gain through careful choice of materials, or adding things like exterior blinds / louvres, without all the complexities (added weight and therefore material cost, plus maintenance issues) added by putting trees in high rises. There are centuries old techniques used by people in hot climates which still apply today.
I've worked for a contractor with a specialty in green roofs and its amazing how many architects throw together these sorts of designs with no understanding of how plants work. The basic principles that all these designs violate. You need large continuous sections of green, otherwise it will die and become a hazard. Everyone wants to design these tiny little sections that dry out no matter how much maintenance you have. (and if we ever get to the point of the maintenance costs they want to weasel out of that anyway) We don't see it very frequently either, but trees just don't work on buildings for exactly the reasons you outline.
From my experience as a property manager, the plants on higher floors need more care, they need significantly more pesticide, fertilizers and water than the ones on ground. The fallen leaves needed to be clear twice per day to maintain cleanliness, and trimmed once per week. Whilist normal plants on the ground still grows with minimal care (mostly down to trimming). The carbon footprint alone from all the pesticide and fertilizer alone do not justify the carbon those plants captured from the atmosphere. Not to mention additional cost needed to maintain all of them.
Oh god I didn't even think about clouds of pesticides and fertilizer being sprayed all over the city by high winds, not to mention the pollen nightmare this would create for people with allergies.
Do forrests know that? I mean: couldn't you just select a composition of plants that go together with minimal to no intervention? I've seen dandylions grow from cracks in asphalt after beeing drowsed in herbicide. Also: Ivy.
"Sorry but there's money to be made".... Is basically the rationale as it was in the USA... Privatized profits, public pollution issues... A story as old as capitalism itself! Externalities...
@@InventorZahran railways are immensely quieter, don't spew carcinogens into the air, and move way more people while occupying much less space. not baffling at all really.
I feel youre being a bit unfair to nanjing, it has a metro system with 227 stations and a daily ridership of around 3 million, which is pretty good for a city of 9 million. At any rate not comparable to the level of urbanism in Dubai. Otherwise, good video
It’s starting to bug me, genuinely the most negative RUclipsr I watch. Maybe the anti flat earther channels are more negative but it least it feels like it serves a more important point. This is turning into being a D1 hater
@@monhi64did u want a video where he just says “oh yes that’s good look at this city. See how good it is. Yep. That’s it. That’s the video. This city is good, let’s move on to the next city that’s good”
@@suppositorylaxative3179 yes? I don’t really get what you’re going for, he could just describe why it’s good instead of why it’s bad it’s the same concept. This video felt more irrelevant like he’s just looking up sciencey things until he finds something goofy he doesn’t like versus dunking on hyperloop which makes sense feels relevant
I don't know, all his points were valid. I think most cities are just bad in general and it's fine to point that out. I think his point is that making things look nice on the surface does nothing when the problem is more deeply rooted@@monhi64
The thing is that we need something to have as a good option, even if its not perfect, we can have a clear view of what it looks like at least trying to make better city planning, that is planned around a high population density city. I think thats what nanjing is trying
I can't help but wonder where the roots of the trees are supposed to go. Root clusters are huge. When a tree gets knocked over by the wind, the pit left behind is massive compared to the diameter of the trunk. Are the roots supposed to just not exist because there's a balcony beneath them?
This is all extremely obvious: they hire specialists who select specific varieties of plantlife that can survive in these conditions. You guys, there's so much easy harm being done in urban areas, you don't need to make up fake problems like this.
Don't underestimate potted plants on balconies. My husband was a balcony gardener before he moved in with me, and he could have serious tomato and pepper crops, enough for several meals or pickle jars. If you want to be really efficient, just do herbs and never go to the store for the incredibly expensive little herbal spice jars again. Oregano, mint, thyme, lavender, rosemary, sage, savory, all very easy to grow and dry-store. Basil, too, if you like a challenge. You do like four of those and you can save 20$ a year if you were only buying dried herbs and 100$ a year if you were buying fresh herbs from the store.
That's awesome, I've recently gotten into indoor gardening myself with a modest section of pea plants amidst my regular potted plants to start. They're actually doing a lot better indoors so far as last summer the unseasonable heat wound up scorching the entire crop. I've noticed with my growing plant section now on the balcony the air inside is a lot more crisp and fresh now even on days when it's too cold to crack a window!
I don't think the video was decrying potted plants on balconies, in fact he suggested doing this instead of what the developer was suggesting. Not sure how you force people who probably have enough money to spend to care enough to do this (unless they were already interested in it). People in this socio economic group will care but most of the time don't want the hassle, expense, or the time to do this, and whilst it's a great idea I don't this is going to solve the problem of pollution in big cities.
My mom planted chillies on one pot alone. She then dehydrated them and they lasted us a long while. If she had kept on growing them then we'd have too many.
I don't hate the idea, but my landlord barely even does critical building repairs in a timely matter, you're right that I wouldn't trust them even a little bit to make sure the plant life thrived on the building. I don't think I'd necessarily mind attention from more animals an insects though, I love observing nature through glass.
Not the same here. Our apartment is little over 30 years old and everything is in perfect shape. If something needs to be fixed, it will be done immediately. Few years ago they even remodeled my then less than 5 year old bathroom. But I think I should ask for a new kitchen soon. This one is starting to be over 15 years old.
@@astupidlylongnamethatstoolong But then again, we have 9 months of darkness and icy or damp weather and three months of unbearable hot summer days so it's almost never nice to go outside.
As a person born and grew up in Nanjing, I don’t disagree with your opinions on the green skyscraper. But if you have ever been to Nanjing, it has great public transport and superb bike network. Even in the render you showed 3:56 , there is a light rail station in front of the building, and I guess that’s a protected bike lane between the rail and the 6 lanes road. Don’t be surprised at how wide those bike lanes are in China.
My brother in law worked on one of these buildings in Sydney, and I must admit I thought it looked awesome when done - although it didn’t have trees on it to be fair, just vine plants woven into a mesh through parts of the building. Even still, seeing how just vines and weeds manage to destroy roads and sidewalks given enough time, what this would do to a vertical structure if not aggressively managed…
Well there are buildings well over a hundred years old that have been covered in ivy most of the time and are still mostly fine. There are also tons of vines you could use that only root where you first plant them and as such if planted at ground level would not cause more damage than bishes near the building. And on top of that we have houses here in sweden that have stood since the 18-hundreds still with their original living plant roofs so there is no reason that can't be done. All and all this is one of the worst refutations of this idea I that a bigger youtuber supposed to know about theese things have put out.
@@anautisticswede6748How tall are the houses from the 1800s with living roofs? What kind of plants do they have on the roof? If they aren't skyscrapers with trees all over, not really an apt comparison
@@weir9996 well not that tall but made completely out of wood. And it is either grass or a thick leafed slow growing low plant but that does not matter in this case. The conversation in witch Adam is putting in his two cents is much more nuanced than Adam makes it out to be. Thete are a lot better alternatives for green covered houses than trees that could fill a great function of keeping temperatures down in cities an provideing some amount of cleaning for the air, help building a better city eco system and not create the structural damages to roads, sidewalks, bicycle lanes (that would ironicaly be the most effected) and the buildings that Adams solution would. And no just becouse it is not trees on a skyscraper (the litaraly worst version of the idea) does not mean building woth living parts should be discarded. Seriously that would be like arguing why public transport is a bad idea becouse it is not worth it to connect every village useing a subway system...
The dead tree and rat thing is extremely accurate, I lived in a place with a green roof and despite being built less than 2 years ago, there were rats and centipedes on the 12th floor.
I wonder if the only way to have no bugs at all is to, before constructing a block of apartment buildings, scorch the earth on which the buildings will inhabit, render it unsuitable to grow anything, plant some astroturf in vacant ground space, and hope the wind or migratory birds don’t introduce any new species of anything.
In the area where I live in Turkey, there has been an eco-ish residence for over 20 years. Well, because it's 20 years old, it hasn't been really well-maintained. The trees were alright because that type of fruit tree doesn't grow taller without an abundant water supply, so they addressed that problem, I guess. However, what they didn't consider was that the building is made of steel and concrete with wooden ornaments and coatings. Although the structure looks very cool and eco-friendly, the whole building burned down due to an electrical malfunction, likely because the building is old. Firefighters couldn't extinguish the fire because there was too much wood, and the smoke from the burning leaves made seeing things incredibly difficult. Fortunately, nobody died because rich people usually don't stay in the majority of their properties.
I like green skycrapers (and green walls and green roofs in general) on the basis that they A) look cool, B) have thermal and acoustic benefits for the occupants, and C) provide valuable habitats for small animals in what would otherwise be a brick wasteland. Mostly A. Trees are probably a bad approach, but vines and succulents are tried and true, and offer even more green coverage without the drawbacks.
A) is true, it does look cool. B) You'd need to build some serious foliage to stop heat from getting in or out. And remember, a highrise has no protection from wind so those plants had better have some serious storm-proof roots. I guess what I'm saying is that there is a reason why nobody is actually doing this. On low buildings sure, 2-3 storeys maybe, but not 12. C) I'm not sure what animals you expect at anything above the 5th floor. Birds may occasionally visit, but they won't nest that high. All you will get are insects that can climb or fly.
@@vinny142 I would add that plants high a high albedo, and photosynthesis is an endothermic process. Just by living, they provide substantial cooling in the summer.
@@luke_fabis Look, I like walls that are covered in foliage, but I either think you've never had to maintain one or are just in denial about this. Even if you grew say a climber in between the windows they will spread over the windows in no time and will need maintaining. It's a nightmare on a normal trail storey house, but you can put up with it because it doesn't take too much looking after. On a 15 storey building some part of this greenery would need attention every day and even if I'm not in agreement that burglary would be that much of an issue the constant unexpected invasion of your privacy would, and I'm sure wealthy upper middle class residents would not be happy with that. This is all nonsense. Sure plant more trees and shrubs in the city, plan to have more parks and less density of housing, but in the end you have to tackle the source of the pollution in the first place. As pointed out this doesn't solve the problem it is suggesting it can help with, in fact I'm not actually sure whose benefit this is actually for in the first place. It just seems to be trying to make people feel good that they're doing something without them knowing it does nothing, it's tokenism. It also has unintended consequences not thought of written all over it, or maybe not even unintended, all I'll leave here is the words Grenfell and Tower (if you're not from the UK you probably don't know what this was so I suggest googling it).
A co-worker lives in one of this buildings in Madrid. Every 3 months plants have to be cut plus there are a dozen regulations on how to cut them in order to not be dangerous. He pays a lot of comunity.
The problem is also scientific literacy. People don’t know how little trees contribute to sequestering carbon emissions so they think planting trees is a good solution. But we would need more than a trillion trees to combat carbon emissions substantially (quadrillions to overcome what humans produce). A trillion trees is not possible physically
I disagree. You'd think somebody planning to spend millions on putting up a building like that would do a bit more research. That is unless it's a scam of cause.
You forgot to mention that trees and bushes like the sun to the point of developing branches as far as possible in the direction that gives the most light. So they would really try to stretch away from the building and put even more torque on the structure as a result. This is kind of mitigated with gardening, but still worth pointing out.
The gardening is, for all intends and purposes, really the major problem here. YOu can pick polution resistant plants, you can pick plants that do not drill into your concrete, you can pick plants that to not grow massive branches, you can automate the watering, all of that can be done. Not to mention, rats don't eat trees and people tend to not throw garbage out onto their windowsill. Even Nanjing isn't that far gone. But you still need to do some gardening every now and again, to replace, prune, fertilize, whatever, and as he pointed out, that requires access, which means floorspace, which means less floorspace available for actual living / offices. Which means higher prices.
I also want to note something from an engineering standpoint, as someone who's been on farms since I was 6, and started dicking around with hydro, aero and aqua -ponics around 15: A HUGE issue for long-term installations is also that plants don't *get* they're in a building - the root systems that grow will *ALWAYS* find the tiniest imperfection in their beds construction given enough time. Meaning that the building itself is slowly getting demolished by the plants. My municipality building has those crawling/climbing shrubs because "aesthetic". The problem is, they also plate the outside with marble slabs. Every 5-15 years, the entire building gets shutdown for 6 months to fix and replace the marble, but they never uproot the invasive plant.
There are certainly barriers that can be installed to handle that with near certainty or pick more suitable vegetation. It is def a concern but no impossible hurdle
@monhi64 Honestly, not really? Except things that degrade incredibly slowly (e.g. steel and such are excluded, mainly due to excessive moisture and dirt exposure). I've heard of high-grade teflon--CF amalgams supposedly intended for those inane archology projects in the ME, and even they give an estimate of ~80 years before they need replacing. The entire issue stems from the timescale. We're talking some 15-20 years of use before anything worrisome can be noticed, and by that time, complacency and mundanity settle in. The big hazards pick up likelihood some 20 years after *that*. Suitable vegetation is a solution, but you can also just.... pot them instead of planting them *into* your building and avoid the entire hassle.
@@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid Actually a doomsday prepper. Weed's neat and all but in a context where you care about nutrition and energy expended per crop - not really worth it. I mostly looked at legume type plants and some more drought-tolerant veggies like potatoes.
@@MrChaosBones I was just joking but your reply is still a good one. Doomsday prepping sounds like a natural extension for your experience with growing with and without soil.
Most likely they are raising and harvesting Marijuana up there. Just tell the guard your rich mafia boss sent you to check out the quality of their product and the guard will let you in. 🤣😂
@@danilooliveira6580 not all the green-brown roof system can be utilized - few of them have insect zoo in it or dedicated feature for bird and bat, human presence could destabilize them.
I don't know about saving the environment, but trees, flowers, and plantlife growing on buildings in Singapore were absolutely, impressively beautiful.
To be fair, Nanjing currently has and is expanding a subway system. It has 13 lines with a daily ridership of 3.1 million, which is about 1/3rd of its metro population (I’m not sure if it’s 1 way or 2 ways. 2-ways it’s more like 1/6th, which is still a lot). It’s also has a bunch more metro scheduled for completion in the next couple years.
a sixth seems abismal for metro population no? Munich for example has 1.5M inhabitants and a daily ridership of 1.2M. and yet the city is always congested during rush hour. It is great that they are expanding, but with 13 lines (13!!!!!) it seems abismal for me as a clueless person.
no they are not. They aer an environmental catastrophe. pumping/transporting every kilo to the 76th floor is inneficient, Cooling/heating is an issue, they are resource hungry to build to be reinforced, they alienate people, they are noisy, cause strong winds or air-deadzones, they either blind you or cause shade all day, etc... horrific solution for anything really @@stickynorth
@@flappypatty743 Munich’s metro population is nearly 6 million people and metro ridership of 1.1 million daily. Nanjing’s metro area, by contrast, is barely bigger than the city. I’m not sure if that is in or against Nanjing’s favor, since most subway systems are in the city proper.
Birds of Prey like Hawks and Falcons like to nest on Skyscrapers in general. Peregrine Falcons (among other species) like to nest in mountains and to them a skyscraper is just a sort of funny but still perfectly serviceable mountain. My dad had a view which always had pidgeon parts that were the bird's leftovers.
Middle height buildings... from the comments - moss, as Tokyo is doing... short plants and weeds, which the gardeners or the owners pull up once or twice a season, and throw down the organic compost shute....And maybe every 7th floor can be a garden floor. Do it with PUBLIC HOUSING first. The grandmas would love to get the little ones digging.
Watch out! A community garden in every public housing estate would introduce back the "third place" where regular people can socialise on their own terms, without a long travel time, and with people they like, and that would in turn improve mental health! We can't have that!
I mean. A building shouldn't even have a 7th floor. Thats already taller than really reasonable. Maybe for important admin buildings and the like. A garden roof is nice though.
@@XMysticHerox What do you mean "shouldn't have a 7th floor", you cannot have a dense urban and GREEN environment with a bunch of low rises. High population density, means MORE land that is left to be forests, fields, or farms. People like to bring up Paris, have you seen Paris? There are almost no available green spaces, unlike New York City which have massive parks everywhere.
Yeah and it also means completely unsustainable cities which is in the end much worse. Highrises need way more concrete per person which is extremely expensive CO2 wise. They need massive amounts of infrastructure to transport people around. More than is really feasible. Especially when everyone is driving cars. The amount of space taken up by parking lots is insane. You also need a shit ton of space between buildings if you want tenents to actually get any light so the space saving advantage is not nearly as great as you might think. Highrises going above 10 stories also have issues with wind that make the street below basically impossible to use for certain purposes like outdoor cafes. It's why 3 to 5 story buildings have consistently been found to be ideal in terms of traffic, mental health and general sustainability. I also find it funny you talk about NYC as if to prove that highrises are the solution. When most of the cities density lies in the exact sort of 3 to 5 story buildings I am talking about. It's the highrises in Manhattan that cause most of the cities issues. As for Paris vs NYC greenspace. That has absolutely nothing to do with highrises. Paris just built less parks. Though I should not there are some issues with that statistic in that it only counts actual public parks rather than total area covered by plantlife. A lot of European cities have a lot green space just on the street. @@jouaienttoi
Your ability to transition to the sponsor description about rats, and hawks killing pigeons made me laugh so hard I had to watch it again. I sent it to my university friends to show how marketing should transition. Thank you Adam Something you made my week!!!!!
Vertical water pumping is difficult, and exposure to high wind and sun makes for thirsty plants. Even without these sterile ornamental parks roughly 1.5% of all power consumed in Hong Kong for example is used to pump water up to high rise apartments.
Everyone who brings up irrigation forgets how scarce water is in many parts of the world. Please no green skyscrapers in California agriculture is already drying up the state already don’t need worse wildfires
It's made by the same company, that is also responsible for such concepts as: - What if Call of Duty was VR? - What if GTA was VR? - What if GTA was set in a different town the idea guy has a lot of childhood memories attached, otherwise nothing else? - What if digital art really was made by pressing buttons on a computer, with the computer doing the rest?
To be honest the building in the thumbnail does not really have all the issues listed in the video. It's the Bosco Verticale in Milan which stands near a public parc, a major train and metro station, cycle lanes and is far from freeways. Also for maintenance there is a crane on top of the building which can be used by gardeners. Of course this is a building for the super rich and it would be better to put trees on the streets (and we're doing that) but Milan doesn't really have the same level of car dependancy as the other examples listed in the video, and in fact the thing that pollutes the most are the old buildings that don't meet current European standards, while transportation is "only" about 15%. And by the way I'm pretty sure they select plant types with caution, of course they won't choose to plant trees that will get too big and damage the building.
There is actually some big amount of green all around the Vertical Forest too. So.. too bad he just went for quick shots against the chinese project, instead of addressing the "ideal idea".
@@morganangel340 China isn't mentioned in the title, and the criticism isn't _wrong_ (especially considering the median income there is far different from Milan). It's just that people anywhere else would be more interested to the merits of the general idea rather than the faults of one specific implementation.
I used to live in an apartment covered in plants and greenery a bit similar to this. It meant that every time I opened a window, every little creature that lived in those plants came crawling into my apartment in droves. Spiders, ants, centipedes, you name it. Some people might not be bothered by that, but I wouldn't live in a building covered in plants again.
@@jackready4555 I live in a newly apartment building with plants on balcony and facades. Trust me, with all the window and door screens ants still find a way inside the apartment. I even installed "ant traps", the gardening company even treats the soil to avoid this kind of insects and they are still here even after almost 2 years. And I do not want to mention the ammount of bird shit we have to clean from the balcony, even though we were thrilled about them singing every morning.
Never expected a half-baked take from this channel, disappointing. I live in Singapore and we made it work and it helps to keep our areas cooled down and not be baking.
Alley-ways do the same thing. And a simple balcony where people can have their own potted plants has the same effect as "greening the fassade". Any way you look at it the green fassade is the more expensive and impractical solution to this problem. And the video is also more focused on calling out the greenwashing aspect of such projects.
@@lightbower5826you clearly know nothing about Singapore, the sheer level of ecological engineering in Singapore is astounding the entire city is built around allowing air currents to flow through the city. It's very complex it's not going to be replicated with "alleyway"
As someone who's studying architecture i find your video quite interesting as it seems that most problems involving green skyscrapers have already been solved Now i dont have any practical experience so please take my comment with a grain of salt but since this concept of putting plants on buildings seems to be quite popular here in the netherlands id like to give my own opinion 1. Maintainance In most green wall/roof systems there are pipes that provide plants with water and minerals. Plants are also carefully selected to minimize overgrowing and the need for trimming 2. Damage caused by roots When installing a green wall/roof a root repulsive layer is added to make sure the roots stay within their pots 3. Insects/pests One of the key sellingpoints of green walls/roofs is improving biodiversity for example: bees, butterflies and other insects wich support the ecosystem. Speciffic plants can be chosen to attract the right insects though i fully understand someone not wanting a massive insect magnet infront of their window Some more points not adressed: Having plants in a city drasticly cools down the temprature during the summer and with many (european) cities not having the space for plants at ground level it could be a solution to place them on the walls/roofs Having more plants in a city also improves with retaining rainwater Instead of al the water going down the drain a causing clog ups or even flooding the streets it is now being held by plants slowly evaporating in dryer periods Though the last one could also be a negative as having tons plants retaining water will affect the weight of the structure and thus needing more material for construction While green walls/roofs wil not be saving the climate as some people make them out to be i do think that having a green wall/roof here and there will have its merrit both for nature and human well being
I think we are also missing a major point here - it is a privilege to live in these buildings, like a paywall really. Green skyscrapers might be a good idea for really dense areas, but skyscrapers are already really expensive to maintain and cause a lot of pollution to make regardless.
@@EkNeechInsaan The "paywall" argument doesn't hold water, so to speak. It's like saying: "oh, if the poor can't live in nice buildings, the rich don't get to live there too!" That's ridiculous!
Thanks for adding a bit of optimism to this comment section! I think that Adam is correct in saying that green skyscrapers are a terrible idea *as a solution to urban air pollution*, but I think that as a way to build rich people's houses, their pretty good. The vertical forest has a contract with a company of "vertical gardeners". They use the cranes on top (the ones used by office buildings for window cleaners) to do their job without interfering with the residents. It's extremely expensive but it's for rich people and they pay for it. As for putting trees on the ground instead: it's not like we're bottlenecked by a limited tree supply. A construction company can buy trees to put them on the walls, without hindering the city's ability to put just as many trees on the ground. It's money coming from different wallets.
There's something soothing about listening to someone else complain about stuff. It's like a mini Holiday from my normal grumpy old man duties. Kind of have me leaning towards their plan when you had the hawk tearing apart of pigeon outside my window .
The Bosco Verticale in Milan does look very cool, but it's a one-off kind of project, made for millionaires and that's it. The park directly below it has a lot more trees and is actually enjoyed by Milanese people. It's a cool landmark in a new part of the city, like many other old landmarks in other parts of the city (Duomo, Castello, Galleria, Brera, Monumentale etc). It's not a solution to anything, it's just a cool piece of concrete in the middle of the city.
I live in Milan and work right in front of the "Bosco Verticale" ("Vertical Woods") buildings shown at 0:10 and I guess most of the problems discussed in the video can be solved (since the building has now been standing for 10 years and I remember no major problems about it). BUT, they can be solved AT A COST: a three-room apartment in the Bosco Verticale costs about 1.200.000 euros and condominium fees START from 1500 euros. That's almost the average monthly salary in Italy! In MIlan it's for sure higher, but probably still less than 2500. These buildings, no matter how aestethically nice (I think they are), are as always just a whim for rich people.
As someone who actually bought an apartment in this type of building and did a bit of due diligence: On one side, it's amazing that you found out all those issues as a hobbyist. On the other - so did Boeri & Associates - and got it all figured out: 1. The building is located right in the city centre, there is no space for any greenery on ground. buildings 7. They spend months running computer simulations to calculate wind speeds and optimize tree type and placement (most wind-exposed areas get smaller, more flexible trees). It worked, btw - the building survived 3 extreme storm events, not a single tree went flying. 8. Yes, you have to use alpinist gardeners. It sounds like best job ever and if I ever get bored working in IT, I *sooooo* want to become rappelling special forces gardener. Deep down, even you can admit it: It's a Best. Job. Ever. 9. Building uses intelligent, rainwater based watering system. You can get a system like it for your garden in Castorama for a few bucks, it would be outright weird not to use it in XXXM€ buliding. 10. They are squeezing 360 full size trees on 30 floor building, which is quite a result. As a funny trivia - the rooftop is fully forested and closed even to the penthouse owners (to make it a safe haven for birds and other animals). 11. The walkable terrace park on 8th floor will be reachable by general public. It was one of requirements city council put on the developer (and codified in the building deed). In summary: This is actually a rare good implementation. Pollution is very local phenomenon and putting building like it right in city centre should have great impact on local micro-climate. Even if you left the ground unused as a park, you wouldn't be able to fit more than 20% percent of trees the building has. You would be also stopping ~300 families from having a car-free home within walking distance to the best connected rail station in the whole country. @Jazzcat135: You are correct - that is the only real issue. Based on calculations of engineering firm that designed it, they had to use ~30% more concrete to accommodate the trees. I still feel that given the benefits, it's worthwhile choice. BTW, when the project is finalized in Q4 this year - feel free to visit with me, maybe with @AdamSomething in tow :D
Thank you! For the whole duration of the video, it really felt like bad faith arguments to me. Just trying to find reasons to justify a pre-made conclusion with the end in mind to argue for public transport instead of roads/cars as always. This might sound crazy, but you can actually do multiple good things at the same time. Especially when one of those things, transport, is managed by the government and another thing, housing, is typically paid for privately.
@@MisterGordonZolayeah i’m seriously not impressed by this video. really a nordvpn ad surrounded by some sensationalism. Green buildings are doing a lot of good in singapore (in addition to green pedestrian overpasses) to create wildlife corridors, reduce urban heat island effect, and make the city more pleasant. A lot of the comments are talking about falling leaves during winter and stuff as well which like… not everywhere has winter or the same horticultural concerns. Green buildings suit dense tropical and subtropical cities best
A bit of his arguments I do agree is in bad faith, especially the plant trees on the ground one. However, I do agree that this is a waste for 1 reason. It will not be built in areas that really need them. As you've said, pollution is very local, and this'll help with airing up the area around the building significantly. The problem is this buildings would be built only in more affluent areas. Meanwhile, reducing car pollutions or even transitioning from coal would be better in helping a larger scope albeit with a lot less effect. Even if they can't do that, instead of erecting more empty building complexes, it's better and cheaper to just create small tree plots that in several cities, or just make a variation of this skyscraper but not as a living complex, just to house and maintain trees vertically. I do also have a bias since I think the reason this was made was to be a justification for building more apartment complexes in the city. China has been having a surge of companies making rows of buildings recently because the condition allows them to and even just a few people buying houses here would turn a profit. While it's not bad to profit while doing something good, it also isn't something people would say revolutionary since it might cause unnecessary hype and profiteers like what happened with AI and online shopping (dropshipping MLMs). Also, yeah. This is perfect for Singapore. Because Singapore just doesn't have land that could be easily used as tree plots, nor anyway to shrink down they're infrastructure and power related emissions. Meanwhile in China, 60% of their land isn't used for anything, but they still built highly dense highly roaded new cities.
Don't forget the spiders. Thanks to plenty of cover, warmth and lights attracting insects, plants on the sides of buildings are FULL of spiders. Want to open a window for 5 mins? Say hello to your 182 new roommates.
As an Italian, I am very grateful you were merciful enough to never mention our Bosco Verticale. Seeing it in on screen every 5 seconds was enough for me to cower in shame.
First time I ve seen it my thoughts where - That's cool from a distance and surely on inside is neat, but right underneath it looks like just a huge mess - how they are going to maintain it?
I think you're being overly harsh about the design of the city of Nanjing. Just from looking at the images, it appears to be mostly tall apartment buildings packed quite densely together and with a lot of greenery between them. Yes, there are some wide roads going through the city, but it doesn't look like the entire place is dominated by roads - just looks like there's a few arterial roads going through it. I also do think that a) most of the problems with green skyscrapers that you mentioned are not actually insurmountable, pretty much all of them could be solved with careful planning, and b) it is possible to build green skyscrapers and also put more greenery on the ground at the same time, they are no mutually exclusive.
4:35 ... you missed the train station that is even closer to the buildings than the road. Regarding the effort: With automated watering and wise choice of plants you barely have any effort. Trees isn't a good choice... smaler plants might be smarter. Just to be clear, this can't be effective to catch CO2.. but it can keep buildings (and whole city area) cooler in hot climate.... if you reduce AC by this... it still helps reducing CO2.
hi, i'm actually in my first semester in uni studying city planing in germany. green facades are actually one of the key components we are talking about in my course. especially on roofs. the thing is tho, atleast here, a majority of buildings arent skyscrapers. i would really like to discuss this point. (other key factors are green infrastructure as in plants and public transport etc)
I own an apartment on the 14th floor in Germany. I do not think most people are aware of the wind load on a stormy day at skyscraper level. I could see the windows flex back and forth quite a bit, which gives everybody who sees it anxiety. I wonder how far a tree can fly.
Yes, trees are a bad idea in most cases, and so is this video. He made some good points - but he acts like his recommendations and greening buildings are exlusive. But yeah, our infrastructure needs some serious improvement. Telling us 'you need to use public transportation more' and then giving us a 49€ ticket which only can be used for regional traffic, while doing nothing about the overfilled and unreliable transportation that often lets you stranded isn't a solution.
we looked at a project that had a 'railing/fence' thing go around an office building. on that railing grew vining plants that had their roots in the actual ground wich i thought was pretty neat. i will say having actual trees on your facade or on the roof even is dumb bc they get really heavy but stuff like bushes and vines are good imo
@@silverwolf281yea it's all about the correct choices and designing it for that function. Plants have been interwoven with buildings for centuries, the difference in the past was generally that making it happen was so difficult you had to put the effort to make it work, you couldn't just build it quick with modern machinery then let it fall apart down the line.
There are three main things that are the most damaging to a building: wind, light, and water. And because soil retains a lot of water, lots of care was put into making sure that everything was completely watertight, and that the water could safely flow away. Consider the amount of engineering required to facilitate all that for two dozen times the amount of greenery, stacked on top of itself, multiplied by how many green skyscrapers they want to build. Come one tropical storm and every one of those buildings is a full tonne heavier. Unless all terraces are equipped with a proper drainage system, all the excess water will gush out the sides. Imagine the noise, the colossal volumes of water rushing through the pipes. The wind banging the leaves and branches against the glass. The same sounds echoing from the other eco-skyscrapers. It would be a green and grey hell
that sounds horrifying. We dont usually get huge storms here but we had one this summer. I live in a "commie block" and just being on the 8th floor surrounded by parks with large old trees, the wind, rain, hail and rustling and cracking of really everything, sounded horrifying. I cant image how this would sound. Especially with all the added crackling due to water weight and water gushing around. Add the fact the trees are literally on your windows and terraces instead of a decent amount of meters away from you on the ground. Tho a massive tree in front of our building got broken during the storm. Luckily it fell towards the park area and not the building. Even though it was positioned further away from the building it still wouldve crashed into the lower floors if it fell towards the building. I cant imagine the horror of these trees just smashing into your bedroom during a storm in a to floor of a massive a sky scraper
You are right about the weight maybe. but plants will make the water enter the canals much later, as some water is aoaked in the water and released slowly. So there is not a lot of water to imagine rushing down anywhere, definitely less than with any tower now. And yes, it will need drainage, but any balcony on any building has this integrated - i guess its doable 😂
I used to wok on one of these in Sydney, abseil cleaning windows... the gardeners were constantly behind because the EWP on the roof did not have the working capacity to pull out enough material in a day, the irrigation lines would constantly blow out, pouring fertilized water all over the windows, filthing them up. Worst part every 10 years the soil in the planter boxes, and all the vegetation had to be replaced, as plants do not live for ever and the soil becomes denigrated. There was not plan on how this was going to happen, and the EWP would not be able to handle it. long and the short is that the strata fees were increasing, with no sing of stopping.
I suggest to go checking how Bosco Verticale in Milan, which is now 10 years old, was built and is maintained. Many questions the video ironically asked, has been solved. From how to carry the weight of the plants, to how to replace them (there are two cranes on the roof tops, in case), how the trees are anchored to prevent wind to make them fall, to maintenace done with special gardeners. Obviously those things aren't cheap. But this is not the point. The point is that, if you do it properly, it works just fine. Many imitations around the world didn't take in account all these things and often failed.
Hello! Very interesting video. Im an architecture student and i'd like to add some context. Green roofs or green walls are a concept that has at least 100 years. It was revolutionary in 1928 when Le Corbusier built Villa Savoye. Green roofs have lots of problems, if poorly done they leak, they are heavy (which means they require stronger construction, which means more concrete and steel [concrete has a very big carbon footprint]). The idea behind greenery on buildings was more about allowing people to enjoy having a garden, when they only live in an apartment. I would love to know what do you (the author of this video) think about Habitat 67' that is an apartment building, created for EXPO in 1967 in Montreal. It looks pretty much the same as this one. Except it was built 50 years ago. As far as i know Habitat 67 is rather looked up to, or maybe i looked at the wrong sources. Montreal as a canadian city likely dosent have the best enviormentak thought put behind it. What i mean to say is that its not architects fault that the space around is poorly designed. Its the job of the urbanist, or another architect before him. Although i understand it looks hypocritical to put "green" building next to a highway. The only solution i see is to just ban things. Or create good building laws. Limit some things, force every new building to obey new restrictions. It also requires politicians and city planners to listen to urbanists and architects. Another thing. Idk how is it in China but where i live every building plot has to have certain - required by law "biologically active surface", that means, grass, trees, ponds etc. Green roofs and green walls are added to this. So someone can have more development surface on their plot, (more concrete, lack of water retention etc.) But they put a green roof to have enough biologically active surface. Another thing, im no gardener but. Not all green roofs require care, there are certain types of bushes which grow to a certain size and they dont grow more. There are built green roofs that arent meant to have people walking on them. Although it dosent look like its the case here, but i would like to point out that this solution exists. Another, last thing. As i said im no gardener but there are surely trees that grow to a certain size and dont grow more. Especially if they have restricted roots. You can grow a tree in a big pot. If im mistaken, id like someone to correct me. It would be really helpful. But if its the way i think it is, there wouldnt be a danger of tree falling from a green balcony. I've never heared of such danger before.
Also, there are many more eco friendly technologies that can be used. Puting a tree on a high rise is not really innovative. For example, the simplest one would be putting more rockwool or styrofoam in the walls to make them energy saving. Or you can collect the rainwater, then store it, pure it and reuse it for laundry. Or water your garden with it. Or, about the simpler ones you can plant decidous trees on the southern side of your building. Then they will give you shadow in the summer, and in winter, when there wont leaves, you will get more sun. (It applies to the northen hemisphere). There are many little things like this that can build a very low energy house. But they arent screaming "im green" and arent visible at the first glance.
The biggest advantage of the greenery is the natural cooling and it’s actually pretty cost effective in the long run if you choose the right plants like native shrubs
As a landscape architect, I see nothing wrong with wanting more greenery one the buildings. It's mostly an issue of chosing plants that are suitable for what is basically a giant cliff-side. And less than full-on trees or shrubs can do the job just fine to get this kind of vibe. I'd say it's one of those things where, no, of course this is not by itself a solution to anything, but it has a strong signal value of a worldview becoming more widespread where unkept nature is valued as something integral to daily life and human well-being, not just something out there far away in a nature reserve or (god-forbid) an in-itself worthless thing to exploit. Culturally, it is a big step that apparent wilderness is becoming not just something to tolerate for the sake of dry biodiversity goals etc., but attractive and alluring as an aesthetic in itself. Keep in mind, I don't want to defend dictatorship concrete jungles, car-centric planning or greenwashing in general etc. I love this channel precisely because it is so good at cutting through the bullshit and I don't doubt that a lot of those greenscraper projects are just that seen in isolation, but I hope this adds a bit of context.
After going one days time with this occupying somewhere in my backhead, I want to add a couple of points that may not be immidately obvious to someone not working with ecology in an urban context: Insects: Most insects are well-adapted to native plants, so a way to avoid this being an issue on buildings is to have non-native plants, which the insects aren't specialised to eat, live on and/or pollinate. It's actually a problem of urban biodiversity that parks and gardens very often plant exotics that the native wildlife hasn't adapted to (this is also one of the many problems of climate change, since rapidly changing climate means invasive species may get the upper hand in nature before local species can adapt). Uncommon substrate: Leading on from the previous point, unless the city is located in an area where very steep tall cliffs are present nearby, then the local native species won't be suited for such harsh exposed conditions in any case. Food chain: The whole ecosystem depends on there being bugs, as those are often the main source of food for smaller birds and animals. So if someone is squimish about the prospect of hawks eating prey birds, well, the chances are small. Rats: They should be as much a problem as they may be in single-family homes with gardens. If the rats common to cities actually would want to climb and live with the extreme weather exposure on a building side that is, which I'll admit I don't know anything about. I'd say as a rule of thumb that if people are able to live safely adjacent to relatively wild/spontanous nature at a specific location, then having some (lighter and smaller) plants on the side of a building won't either. Just consider using vines and very hardy smaller plants actually suitable for the environment and with no big need for heavy soil volumes rather than trees and shrubs.
The structural integrity of the buildings will most likely be the biggest problem with big plants on buildings. Everyone who owns a small garden or just.... ....has eyes. Knows that no matter what you do, plants can and will break though everything. You can see this with roads where plants crack up everything. No imagine this with skyscrapers. Ofc maintaining could kinda delay the problem (not solve it) but we all know that most residents won't do that, especially in countries with less regulations.
Milan “giardino verticale” featured heavily in this video is actually very nice. It’s just a luxurious apartment building that looks extremely nice and placed in an area that got re-qualified successfully.
@@NickiRusin living in milan, they have been there for 10 years and i don't remember any incident involving the plants in the kast 10 years, there are 2 towers, each with a small crane on top used by gardeners to care for the plants all year round, if it isn't a hassle for the residents i don't see why we should complain since that are also very beautiful buildings.
That's a millenium old architectural technique called green roofs, on one level houses or on a single top floor, it's no problem to maintain even if hard labour is required, although it does reduce your bills on heating and cooling on top of looking actually great.
I visited Milan, the Bosco Verticale (used in the video quite a lot); and I kind of like it. Not from an eco-greenwashing perspective, we don’t need a whole city full of these, but still. It looks cool. It can attract tourists and give a unique feature to the city. Reducing car dependency and developing such projects are separate topics. You can remove roads, add more trees, and build such futuristic-looking beauties at the same time.
I feel like Adam might not know of the fact that one of these buidlings has already been realised as he never adresses it directly. It also tackles a lot of the questions he poses from 6:30 to 8:05. Like the watering system and crane on top of the Bosco that lowers a workstation along the sides for maintainance and the crew that does this.
At 5:50 there is a building that is now completed building in the Netherlands Eindhoven strijp-s. In front of the building is a bus stop and a 5 minute walk to a train station. Most roads around it are made bicycle and pedestrian only. A lot of the space in strijp-s is already converted to greenery and the building does probably noting for the climate. But the building looks cool and brings some more greenery in a place that was 15 years ago just a desolate industrial area. These buildings are not everywhere a good idea and do nothing for the climate but they are not all bad like Adam will make you believe. Adam maybe do not bash these buildings there could always something worse be build there like a parking lot.
I agree, I feel like the he takes far too firm of a stance against them, as opposed to a more nuanced take of ‘they’re better than nothing / not harmful in of themselves, but take focus away from more serious solutions’.
@@notaschoolemail210 they are worse than nothing because putting and maintaining one tree on a slyscraper costs as much as planting a couple hundred trees not on a skyscraper. it isnt just ineffective. it is actively harmful. you can plant more trees just by changing your default browser search engine to ecosia
I go regularly to Nanjing. It's, in many ways, a concrete jungle, and the long summer is 40c, very humid weather. However, the public transportation system is quite good and affordable. The center(s) are walkable, and residential areas all have convenience stores nearby. You can live far from the center without the need of a car. One critic I would have about those buildings is the maintenance cost. In China, typically, the residents of a block choose the maintenance service and go for the lowest bidder, so what was nice after construction quickly degrade over a few short years. The many green spaces will likely quickly degrade to a few low maintenance plants, with patch of dead vegetation.
I understand your point about Greenwashing for a city, but it can be done right! In Eindhoven there is the Trudo tower (you showed the construction of it in your video), which is social housing (tenants pay ~600€/month instead of 1200€/month that is usual in Eindhoven)! It was built for 1650€/m2 instead of the usual 1500€/m2 for social housing. The balconies have an irrigation system and the shrubbery is chosen in collaboration with landscape architects and a gardening company that also takes care of the plants. Tenents are made aware that they need to allow gardeners in their apartments every quartile for maintenance (not every 2 weeks), as the shrubbery is low maintenance. You mention that the trees can also be fitted on the ground. As an architect I say: why not both? The urbanist does their part, and the architect does too :)
At 5:50 there is a building that is now completed building in the Netherlands Eindhoven strijp-s. In front of the building is a bus stop and a 5 minute walk to a train station. Most roads around it are made bicycle and pedestrian only. A lot of the space in strijp-s is already converted to greenery and the building does probably noting for the climate. But the building looks cool and brings some more greenery in a place that was 15 years ago just a desolate industrial area. These buildings are not everywhere a good idea and do nothing for the climate but they are not all bad like Adam will make you believe. Adam maybe do not bash these buildings there could always something worse be build there like a parking lot.
Yeah his main thing is hating everything. The biggest issue he doesn’t properly address is what if people just like it? There are far worse things rich people are blowing their money on for aesthetics. Not properly considering that there are proven health benefits with increased water features and plants or trees, we had a section on that in my construction degree. Someone’s blood pressure might be five points lower here but he’s going to call out this instead of all the other unnecessary shit. That stupid but cool billion dollar LED Orb in Vegas, or completely unnecessary burj khalifa. If everything was built for pure efficiency you’d just be living in featureless squares
I don't know what is true for "in most cities", but in Poland studies regularly show that the major source of air pollution (by that I mean except CO2) is small houses and their heating- coal furnaces. Transport is the second one, but heating by personal coal furnace is the source of 60% of all pm 10 and pm 2,5 dust. And in the other 40% comes in transport, industry, public heating and electricity.... So in all transport is around 20% -25%. In this aspect big housing blocks are a step forward. CO2 is a problem on it's own (climate change). It is not a important part of air quality problem - in the concentration we find it in the atmosphere it is indifferent to health directly.
that is true on average, but in cities there is usually a higher concentration then outside of them. and plants improve the air quality actually mostly by "catching" the dusty particles in the air with their leaves. But of course it cannot substitute changing to more sustainable sources for energy then burning coal for heat.
Single Family houses are abysmal for energy efficiency. The average SFH uses 4 times the energy of an appartment for a 4 people family. (German numbers)
Most developed countries banned coal furnaces in homes a long time ago. When gas heaters became common. They dont just pollute the environment, its also very unhealthy to live in a house with such a heater.
There's a tree near where I live that has roots which are forcing their way through the pavement, causing the concrete near it to buckle and break. I'm sure, though, that the architects who designed these buildings have already considered the risk of having living plants (with unpredictable and potentially destructive roots) growing inside an external concrete planter on the 8th floor facade of a building. After all, once you plant a tree the roots stop growing forever... right?
Designs like these usually include root-barriers to prevent that sort of damage. All you have to do after that is choose a species whose roots can fit in the space provided.
@@skylarschell7858 I'm sure they do, but root barriers are not infallible and will eventually fail, and when choosing species you can never be certain that a plant won't outgrow its space or grow in an unexpected direction. Every tree planted in buildings like these is therefore a gamble that you won't be dealing with a maintenance job decades later which would involve, at best, having to remove a mature tree out of a balcony several stories high or, at worst, structural remediation work triggered by the discovery of a large crack on the underside of one of these balconies caused by a rogue root.
@@c.a.7844 That's why trees are generally poor choices for these sorts of projects. The most practical plants will depend on the soil depth, but they typically range from succulents like sedum in shallower soils/substrates to grasses, perennial flowers, and small shrubs in deeper soils. It's all about choosing the right plants for the right location. You shouldn't plant an oak on a roof that's likely to be replaced in another sixty years, but a rose bush would do fine.
Trees don't just send their roots out indiscriminately. They grow towards areas with the right combination of water, nutrients and aeration. Green roofs are designed with well sealed heavy polymer barriers. Tree roots have no interest in breaking through these given the surrounding well watered and aerated substrate. Trees will break through a street pavement because they are usually growing in some heavily compacted subsoil which has not been designed for them. @c.a.7844
Two things: It's not easy at all to plant trees at ground level in cities, as there are some many underground facilities and infrastructure. I live right next to such a green building and the main problem is that plants need constant moisture to thrive, while at the same time that's very bad for the buildings substance. Just doesn't mix very well.
I get your point and mostly agree. But on the other side, I'm quite often at Alterlaa in Vienna. Which is often featured in the context of Vienna's housing solutions (which is actually not the best example for that). You probably seen it at least on pictures. It's a high rise complex from the 1970s or the like in the outskirts of Vienna. The complex includes shops, schools, sport facilities and big parcs. It is directly connected to Viennas famous public transport. And I also has special shaped buildings so that for the lower floors the building gets leaner at every level. And each of this set backs actually has big planters for plants. They quite often have trees growing in them. Or bushes. I guess they are maintained by the people living in the respective flats. So they are probably very hig balconies. While people love to live there despite it being relatively far away from the center of Vienna, its also not the very rich living there. It provides hosing for a lot of people. While giving a very special green feeling and not just concrete. I actually love walking between these buildings, as the park and those balconies actually provide a nice atmosphere. And this is while the park is directly connected to another (public) green space along a park at a small river (Liesing). Which by itself is connected to even more parks. And small woods. However on the other side of the complex there is a 5 line street and crossing another fast 4 line street that connects to a highway. It's not a "modern" green high rise, but somewhat in between. And I guess its working out well enough. Else it wouldn't appear in so many examples about Viennas housing solutions. I guess a big element why this works is because of the great public transport. But it also caters to those dependent on cars. However, in my point of view the greenery included helps a lot to make it a livable space. (Shops and schools as well.) It's not the solution. But its better than just concrete. On so many levels. As I actually offers third places in the parc between the buildings. Which one works because of all the greenery.
I thought of the Hundertwasser house in Vienna. Seems to be working there. But i would not call it a high rise. It can be debated whether this is better than the old 4 Kant Hof design with the semi private park inside.
Alterlaa is a good place to live. Some high buildings are good and offer nice living quality. It depends on who they where built for, with which quality at which cost. And it is not a place for poor people, rahter for the upper middle class. But there plants are only on private balconies, it is not a green skycraper (it is not even really a skyscraper). And it has its own metro station, shops, buses and so on.
I'm a research ecologist studying the effects of green infrastructure on climate change and biodiversity. Having trees near windows and covering buildings actually does have a significant affect on heating and cooling energy expenditures due to evapotranspiration. In addition, green roofs and green balconies provide habitat for pollinators. The more of them you have in close proximity, the higher the net benefit is. Cities like those shown in the video are lacking ground space to implement these positive measures. It would be infeasible and unsustainable to knock down buildings to put in a prairie or a forest. These types of urban projects ARE positive AND feasible. Overall they do not take attention awa from other efforts like you suggest.
While your intentions are probably good, I'm surprised that anyone who's familiar with Adam's content is not already aware of how powerful the grip of the automotive industry is on national infrastructure projects. YES, they absolutely serve to take attention away from green initiatives such as money towards public transportation projects, parks, and responsible civil engineering. It may seem like a harmless suggestion, because that's what it's meant to be perceived as. It's greenwashing propaganda by definition, as it pointed out in the video itself how quickly the project turns the eye away from the ever expanding 6-lane highway in a so-called "residential zone". Urban design and subsidized investments towards any kind of real estate projects always has a trickle down effect into the ecology of the overall region, I'm surprised that you don't know this.
Okay, but why trees? Trees are heavy, and just get heavier over time. Vertical gardens would make maintenance much easier, have more green per area and weight, and weigh way less overall. Seems like you can have the same beneffits with a turbo version of potted plants (which imo is a very shite argument in the video, it is comparing apples to plastic oranges, it looks like a fruit comparison but it really isn't).
What about in the winter when the trees get dry and brittle, what if there’s a sudden storm with high winds or even a small fire in an apartment. What would happend to the people in the building who probably will have their shit burnt or even the things outside the building if a tree falls
@@mollusckscramp4124 That's in the US, not in China this time. Nanjing has 1000+ bus lines and 13 metro lines with 3 million uses per day. The city can and does spend attention on the conventional public transit already.
I live in a Brazilian metropolis called São Paulo, most areas of it i think can be described as tree obsessed, in almost every curb in almost every block in residential areas there will be trees, you can only barely see highrises in the distance covered by trees, surrounded, choked, avenues that don't get much sun because of rows of enormous unbroken canopies, rows of newly planted trees, green splotches between rows of buildings, it's one of the main reasons i love living here so much. Now, we can only afford to have that much space dedicated to trees because of how robust the public transit system is, bike lanes, buses, electric buses, bus lanes, subways, trains, you can get from anywhere to anywhere by public transportation and often it's way better than driving since traffic is hell, all the while being a city richer than entire states and countries because efficient mass transit is a blessing to any economy. Not every area of the city CAN be like this, industrial districts and heavy foot traffic (like hundreds of thousands of people a day heavy foot traffic) specialized commercial districts can't really afford that space, but considering an over 20 million people population and city planning focused on having all essentials within walking distance of most residences instead of crammed in commercial districts, residential vastly outweighs the rest, it's a successful example of a not perfect, complex, chaotic and definitely flawed, but better way, one that is still striving to be better and improve, it shows there is no logical, societal or even economic reason to desperately hold onto the car dominated sweltering miserable concrete jungles so many population centers are, many industries who profit specifically from the status quo like automotive have a choke hold on government yes but the people allow it, and the only reason they do is the fear of change, the refusal to accept anything new or different. So what I'm saying is we have to use old people as fertilizers
tl:dr: canberra is good because the feds go "look at the capital! it's so green!" as someone in canberra, we're on the way to becoming a green city. Mass public transport across a city center. The buses are wonderful. the only things that have to change are the roads, from more car-focused to more bike-focused. canberra is the virtue signaller city of australia, so we get all the good things like massive amounts of amenities - i have like 4 grocery stores in walking distance. Since we're the place the federal government goes to virtue signal, we also use entirely snowhydro power for our grid (renewable, non-impactful because the rivers still flow, the snow still melts).
While I agree with most of your points about green skyscrapers, I don't think your comparison between Nanjing and Dubai holds up at all. Let's look at some numbers Nanjing Population: 9.2 million Metro ridership: 3.11 million/ day Registered vehicles: 3.2 million Dubai Population: 5.9 million Metro Ridership: 684,000/ day Registered vehicles: 1.8 million Nanjing's metro services way more of it's population, and they're already planning on expanding the service with an additional 13 lines in the next 10 years. Dubai only has plans for two more lines by 2030. I was quite surprised to see that Nanjing has more cars per capita than Dubai - maybe it has to do with Dubai's large migrant worker population having less access to vehicles? Nanjing seems a lot more comparable to London (Pop: 8.8m Metro: 3.15m/d Cars: 2.6m) but with more cars, but Nanjing is still expanding of their current metro network, which will hopefully reduce the number of cars in the city.
And to make it look purdy to sell... It's about curb appeal in the sky as it were... And setting your design apart from the bland masses that surround it... Not great reasons but I get it...
Environmentalism and day-to-day maintenance aside, "Green" skyscraper really only work in very specific regions. If you are in typhoon/hurricane prone region, the trees become a liability of branches blowing into the windows. Similarly with earthquake prone regions as entire tree can topple. If you are in a drought prone region, are the tree drought resistant? Can the structure support the expansion of frozen ground and can the tree survive with shallow root in freezing temperature of snowy regions?
In arid regions, the idea of adding succulents to the ground as well as any other open spaces does make sense. Those Succulents will absorb the reflected heat and light at daytime and hold moisture when natural rain occurs, as seldom or non existent it will be in such areas, providing the soil with extra bits of humidity Adding trees to a building does not though.
Living in Milano (where the bosco verticale you show is) I have to say I did like seeing the green towers pop up on the horizon here and there. Then again I see your criticism and completely agree. Still I think it’s a little harsh for certain specific projects and geographic locations. For example , Bosco verticale has a built in water system that is fed by surplus water arriving from the near by alps to the large Milano metro area. The gardening and grooming of trees is done by a specialized crew which is paid well, and in my mind is not much different than to landscapers for all the new fancy eco parks that are built in the wealthy areas of NYC or London etc. The structural issue was solved … but by pouring a TON of concrete… so yea not so eco in the end. But just a cool one off idea that can’t be replicated really lol
I've seen a German article on the Bosco Verticale, which claims the cost per unit for the greenery is 1500€/month (possibly gone up since then because that's how it is these days). It's prohibitively expensive for any sort of reasonable use, except for these sort of flagship projects. Which, yeah, there's worse stuff we're building so having some here or there isn't really that offensive. Just don't cover them with this "it's the future!" "it'll change how we live!" blabla in the media. That's just nonsense. If people said "here's a cool project that tries to do a few things with greenery" then fine, no real reason to object.
I live near Luciano Pia’s 25 Verde in Turin. It isn't a skyscraper, but I think it is an early example of this type of work. The plants are in big iron planters on a scaffold that wraps the building. I was going to do a tour on an annual architectural tour event around the city, but the line was crazy long (Italians can't just let people walk around for 20 min and read signs, they have to engage some long-winded person to tell you endless details). I like it from an aesthetic point of view, and it gave me a real feeling of serendipity when I first stumbled upon it when going to tour the old Fiat plant across the street. Certainly, any claims of it being a great environmental treasure are silly, but I'm glad it exists.
I would say that apart from carbon capture and helping air pollution the Urban heat island must also be considered, green spaces help reduce insolation absorption because vegetation has a the ability to transform heat into chemical energy rather than a stone building that absorbs heat and then releases it as it gets colder. Cities on average are around 20° hotter than their surrounding neighborhoods and implementing greenery can actually help lower temperatures considerably.
As a Washingtonian, I require a minimum number of evergreen trees in view of my current location or I don't quite feel at home. Those trees don't need to grow on buildings, however. Just plant them wherever there's space
If you did not do it yet, take a look to Singapur and how they did it. They combined parks and green areas with their buildings. It looks more like nature took over the city.
They also built another nice city for the rich on top of the slums, thats some Bladde Runner level dystopian shit. Singapore is a nice example in many cases but not in urban planning.
@@TheSuperappelflap i do not know the city, I appreciate if you would tell me the name. In Singapore it is policy to have mixed neighbourhoods and over 80% of the apartments in SG are subsidised apartments. They also do not allow monoethnic blocks to prevent the creation of ghettos or isolated communities. Of course it is not perfect, but in comparision to Europe it is very advanced. I won't even try to compare SG with North America or other parts of the world, bc it is like comparing a car with a bike.
@@TheSuperappelflap as a Singaporean I'm genuinely confused which city and slum you're talking about. Is this about the 1960s? If so I hate to break it to you but the apartments that replaced the kampongs then were public housing for the poor and middle class, many of whom were former slum and Kampong dwellers. It erased some culture for sure, but that's the most notable slum clearing in Singapore and it's not so malevolent as you describe
@@str2010 sure, they did the same in Hong Kong. Not malevolent except for the forced evictions and people ending up homeless because they cant afford the rent of the new buildings. In the Netherlands we have a saying for such matters: "Go be poor somewhere else"
@@str2010 Singapore also has a problem with ridiculous vanity projects, for example Marina Bay Sands, instead of investing in effective solutions that dont cost as much money. It is one of the best places to live in Asia, probably the best, but from my perspective that says more about how bad the other countries are. I wouldnt want to live in such a place that bulldozes over people's homes and spends billions on land reclamation just to build casinos and resorts for the rich.
Or (and I accept this is a somewhat radical idea) we can do *both* ideas! Remove lanes to reduce traffic, have street-level parks and make the city walkable _and_ have green wall/roof buildings to add even more plants to the city, reducing the heat island effect, reducing echoes and damping the noise of the city, providing habitat for wildlife and so on... Maybe keep trees on the ground and have climbing plants and small shrubs etc on the buildings. With regards to maintenance access, I recently did some work at a clients apartment where the buildings main stairs lead onto an outside balcony that then went to the apartment doors. Didn't seem to be any more of a problem than inside corridors. I suppose when it rains you might get wet going between your door and the stairwell.
Some counterarguments: - I went to a school that was newly built with plants on the top. The Welsh weather and the short roots made it such that nobody had to water them except for maybe a few days in Summer, and the roof was very safe. - If you were to look _between_ a lot of the nanjing towers you mentioned, you'd see a lot of trees, green space, and public utilities. Oh and also, the area is on the growing metro network too. - It would be entirely possible to have the lease agreement state that to live inside the flat, you need to allow the garderners to come in, say, every Tuesday at around 13:00. The floorplans could certainly be made such that the floor-balcony route follows a hallway instead of going through rooms - There is little problem with flowers and short-rooted plants in what are effetively plantpot-troughs attached directly to the structure - Should there be plants on _both_ the floor and skyscraper, there should be little problem with the class split you mentioned.
Don't forget all the additional concrete that is required to hold all the trees (yes plants weigh much). The production of concrete creates a lot of CO2 as does it's demolition
When I was studying architecture we did a field trip to Paris and some of us went to see the Riccardo Bofill buildings around Marne-La-Vallée. We were all bonkers about the film Brazil and its most iconic scenes were filmed there. The bloated cornice of the Palais d'Abraxas was supposed to be fringed with a parade of cypress trees. When I saw them, the buildings were hardly 5 years old, and every single cypress was dead and skeletal. (Mind you - the Hundertwasser flats in Vienna - that's really how to do it.)
You can build automated watering systems You can select plants that require relatively little maintenance You can provide access routes for gardeners without having to go through apartments You can select plants that can resist high winds You can have the gardens inspected regularly by professionals to identify and remove potentially hazardous plants. All that is possible, and individually these solutions are already implemented. But each one adds more costs, limitations and considerations. The cost would be incredibly high, though it would be a high-end building so I guess money isn't really an issue. But what you can't fix is that plants are quite flammable, and having a flammable exterior on a high rise is a bad idea, and when you put it that way, it starts to sound like Grenfell 2.0...
As mostly mentioned in this video: Positives: countless environmental benefits (not necessarily big ones) [marketing] Negatives: immense consequences in the event of a faliure (dead and or falling plants, life living directly on your window?!), maintenance, better alternatives
Some of the problems would be solved by not planting any trees that can grow too big & heavy. So, by planting bushes and climber plants. Still, maybe covering the sunny-side walls with solar panels is a better idea.
Some critique about this video: This video has left me with the impression that your main point of harsh criticism is that there are more efficient ways of achieving similar effects, which is, however, no reason to not tackle the idea of greening building facades. Moreover, the many contra arguments you did list felt overly hypothetical, often taking the worst possible outcomes as granted, or do not acknowledge that other problems of such scale have been commonly solved before when society finally developed the need for solutions. For example, rat infestation and water supply should hardly be an issue if you already plan on planting greenery on the facade during the architectural design process of the building. Burglars using utility entrances to enter flats is not a new threat nor something we haven’t developed counter measurements already. And instead of planting a full sized tree on a tiny balcony on the 20th floor (I agree that this can be highly dangerous), you could instead opt for more moderate, light and compact plant types. In summary, your explanation why greening high rise facades is a terrible idea is mainly based on your assumption that people will not manage to care for said greenery in a reasonable way. This is a legitimate argument against the practical application, however, doubting a good execution it is no reason to judge such buildings as terrible ideas by default. In the end, I think you should’ve focused more on explaining your strongest arguments or instead also address possible pro arguments that counter your issues. You could’ve also mentioned real experiences that have already been made by people living in and near such structures instead of only theorizing about blue prints (e.g. inhabitants have mentioned a highly uncomfortable rise of fly populations due to higher humidity and shelter even in higher altitudes of the building). Your video seemed more satirical than actually debating the topic from an objective point of view. Having this video be more of a comment instead of a two-sided discussion may have been your goal and is, of course, totally valid. However, I personally think that coming to your conclusion after discussing both pro and contra arguments (at least addressing them to show the audience that you considered them), would’ve significantly strengthened your point of view. That being said, I still very much enjoyed the video and it gave me a couple of new thoughts about the topic. So thank you, and have a good day!
I remember seeing a short documentary about pollution in big cities in China. It showed 4 story apt sized buildings that were air filters. An entreprenuer was sweeping up ash from the sidewalks and making construction bricks out of it. Heart disease in China is increasing as the bicycle is replaced by automobiles. Progress.
Actually pollution got down... way down in China in the last 10-20 years... Heart disease in China is increasing because they switched from traditional food to american style garbage.
That being said china also has rather poor enviromental regs and a lot of people and large distances so even a moderate proportion owning cars is rather impactful.
Green skyscrapers are about (1) improving humidity balance around the building, (2) decreasing temperature of "concrete jungles" cities, and (3) cleaning air by collecting dust on the leaves.
6:26 That's Bosco Verticale, in Milan, and it actually works. The crane on top does maintenance yearly, the trees are properly anchored to the building and the species were carefully chosen. There isn't an Adam Something video without misinformation of some kind, so maybe it doesn't matter that much.
As someone that works a job where you sometimes need to enter different building (say for example a apartment complex) you don't get a skeleton key that can unlock every flat, if work has to be done on the facade or the roof it is pretty much always accessable w/o having to enter any private living quarters. If the planter boxes have to be maintained it would be insane not to have a small walkway or smth similar. So I don't think your robbery claim stands, but other than that it's a pretty good video :)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
🌏 Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months free here ➼ nordvpn.com/adamsomething It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
The green buildings in Italy were a one time thing Adam. Don't be sour about it
So you’re saying if i live in these sky scrapers I can get a hawk.
Bro commented 9 hours before the video ☠️
Hey adam. What about letting vines grow on your regular commie block? Is that a practical enough way to make some buildings pretty? Or is it just dumb?
Your urban planning videos are awesome but man, keep out of politics
Theres one major issue not touched on here and it makes green skyscrapers even worse. Plants and the substrate needed to sustain them are heavy AF. This requires the building to be specially reinforced and that is pretty damn expensive.
Green rooves that use plants with drought tolerance and shallow rooting then this can work. Trees and shrubs largely do not fall under this category.
iirc, the extra reinforcement will have a total carbon cost that far exceeds the total carbon consumption of the plants for an entire century
like even if we pretend money isn't a concern, it's literally counterproductive from an environmental standpoint
Also I’m no arborist, but I’d think these would be quite fertilizer heavy potted plant type things, not biodiverse vast park/forest type systems.
Also, trees need sunlight.
That means at least one side of the building will have insufficient light. Adam's estimate of tree numbers ignores this... probably because almost every concept sketch/illustration ever created does, and has trees of equal size *everywhere*... which is absolutely *not* realistic.
Aside from the fact that it's pure greenwashing, it won't give the aesthetic uniformity that they present. If they make anything matching the previs, it won't look good *at all*.
In case you care, it’s “roofs”
This. However, there is a solution to this problem, and in Europe, it's been working forever. IVY. You plant that into the ground, and then it just does its thing. The thing is just hugging the building and in 20 years covering it whole. The plant is incredibly sturdy, doesn't care about pollution, climbs on its own, it's easy to trim around windows, and if it already went around the window (or any other opening that it should go around), trimming that can be done with your hands because it will grow much slower and the twigs will be delicate. It's heaviest at the bottom, and light at the top, and connects to the building using a kind of air root system (it's not as destructive as some people say, I've seen it growing on 100-year-old buildings made out of brick, hopes and dreams - they were fine). Possibly it can actually reinforce the building from the outside?, but idk I'm not an engineer. It probably wouldn't grow as high as a 30lvl skyscraper, but on a 40-50m tall building? Totally.
In the Netherlands we have the 3-30-300 rule that the government strongly encourages developers to adhere. It means if you look out of a window, you must see 3 trees, 30% of a neighborhood needs to be in shade of leaves, and within 300 meters there needs to be a cooling place like a park or green space.
I'm lucky to live in a neighborhood that is greener with a small pond and ducks🌳🦆
Thank u. I mean, buildings with greenery are still a good idea because of the acoustic and thermal benefits it gives
Not to mention, having greenery covered skyscrapers could add some mental health benefits and, of course, provide very important habits with the wild life
@@andrewreynolds912We could just build purpose-built greenery towers in parks to help wildlife, instead of blocking natural light from entering our windows.
Do you mean trees when you say purpose-built greenery towers?
Sure verry sound idea of beauty but what about.... New London approach make parks the focal point, create network of trees and turn whole corridors into linear parks so that London becomes a city in a park
Fire engineer here. Another massive issue is that if or when the trees become somewhat dried out (winter anyone?), a fire can spread very quickly up the facade of this type of building, proving devastating for the people inside. See Grenfell Tower in London for how this can look.
Fire engineer too!!!
Was about to comment the exact same thing.
Grenfell combines with a forest fire. Deadly combination
I mean, that sounds logical. There are also some desert cities I wouldn't even want to try this with. Imagine neglecting a tree for awhile until it becomes kindling, then the sunlight catches the glass door out to the balcony at the wrong angle.
@@fleetingimmersion Yeah, wasn't it also in London that some building melted some cars around it with some sort of focused sunlight reflections?
Tbf, a ton of old council towers in London are very susceptible to becoming the next Grenfell due to the fact they're all built like Grenfell.
@@DIMOHA25 20 Fenchurch Street, aka the Walkie Talkie. Its architect, Rafael Vinoly, is renowned for designing buildings that serve as lasers that terrorize their local communities
Singapore can kinda pull off the green building thing because it is tropical, rains constantly, and they are mainly planting bromeliads which are native, have minimal roots, and aren’t that heavy. As I understand it, even with those nearly ideal conditions, it’s still a pain to maintain.
I live in one of these. The maintenance is negligible as you divide it by 1000 tenants. Very much unlike the garden in a single home where one household pays for everything.
@@DominikPlaylists exactly, Adam is under the assumption that the building houses 50 families as in EU/US standard instead of 400 families in Asia.
I do see the point, but a big reason for places like for example Singapore to put lots of greenery on the streets and on buildings is heat management. In urban areas in those climates it can get ridiculously hot, and while all the plants make the air much more humid, it's totally worth it so as not to feel like you're living in a concrete oven.
Even bigger part is property values. People just enjoy living and working in beautiful green areas and are willing to pay for it.
Yeah, and maybe just around three floors would be the maximum for this kind of green setup and the rest of the floors would be for shallow rooting and for residents' to take their plants.
On a building surely there's better ways to reduce solar gain through careful choice of materials, or adding things like exterior blinds / louvres, without all the complexities (added weight and therefore material cost, plus maintenance issues) added by putting trees in high rises. There are centuries old techniques used by people in hot climates which still apply today.
I've worked for a contractor with a specialty in green roofs and its amazing how many architects throw together these sorts of designs with no understanding of how plants work. The basic principles that all these designs violate. You need large continuous sections of green, otherwise it will die and become a hazard. Everyone wants to design these tiny little sections that dry out no matter how much maintenance you have. (and if we ever get to the point of the maintenance costs they want to weasel out of that anyway) We don't see it very frequently either, but trees just don't work on buildings for exactly the reasons you outline.
Yeah.
Thich tall grasses, or bushes would work way better, though.
true even trees and bushes planted on the ground will starve and dry up if not properly cared for (in their growing phase)
Exactly, well put.
From my experience as a property manager, the plants on higher floors need more care, they need significantly more pesticide, fertilizers and water than the ones on ground. The fallen leaves needed to be clear twice per day to maintain cleanliness, and trimmed once per week. Whilist normal plants on the ground still grows with minimal care (mostly down to trimming).
The carbon footprint alone from all the pesticide and fertilizer alone do not justify the carbon those plants captured from the atmosphere. Not to mention additional cost needed to maintain all of them.
Oh god I didn't even think about clouds of pesticides and fertilizer being sprayed all over the city by high winds, not to mention the pollen nightmare this would create for people with allergies.
These buildings also need noticeably more materials to build, to support the added weight of soil and additional water systems.
What about all the electricity needed to pump water up a tall building?
Do forrests know that?
I mean: couldn't you just select a composition of plants that go together with minimal to no intervention? I've seen dandylions grow from cracks in asphalt after beeing drowsed in herbicide.
Also: Ivy.
@@I_dont_need_a_handleand what was shown by the "visionaries" in the video? You COULD do that, but is that what THEY are going to do?
Cities continuing to be designed with this mentality of "highway first and we'll fit everything around it" baffles me.
But "railway first and we'll fit everything around it" doesn't baffle you?
@@InventorZahran🤖
@@InventorZahran Why would it? Railways are efficient in carrying around a ton of people. Cars are not.
"Sorry but there's money to be made".... Is basically the rationale as it was in the USA... Privatized profits, public pollution issues... A story as old as capitalism itself! Externalities...
@@InventorZahran railways are immensely quieter, don't spew carcinogens into the air, and move way more people while occupying much less space. not baffling at all really.
I have to say im disappointed in you, Adam. Not once did you suggest turning the skyscraper into a train.
I feel youre being a bit unfair to nanjing, it has a metro system with 227 stations and a daily ridership of around 3 million, which is pretty good for a city of 9 million. At any rate not comparable to the level of urbanism in Dubai. Otherwise, good video
It’s starting to bug me, genuinely the most negative RUclipsr I watch. Maybe the anti flat earther channels are more negative but it least it feels like it serves a more important point. This is turning into being a D1 hater
@@monhi64did u want a video where he just says “oh yes that’s good look at this city. See how good it is.
Yep.
That’s it.
That’s the video.
This city is good, let’s move on to the next city that’s good”
@@suppositorylaxative3179 yes? I don’t really get what you’re going for, he could just describe why it’s good instead of why it’s bad it’s the same concept. This video felt more irrelevant like he’s just looking up sciencey things until he finds something goofy he doesn’t like versus dunking on hyperloop which makes sense feels relevant
I don't know, all his points were valid. I think most cities are just bad in general and it's fine to point that out. I think his point is that making things look nice on the surface does nothing when the problem is more deeply rooted@@monhi64
The thing is that we need something to have as a good option, even if its not perfect, we can have a clear view of what it looks like at least trying to make better city planning, that is planned around a high population density city. I think thats what nanjing is trying
I can't help but wonder where the roots of the trees are supposed to go. Root clusters are huge. When a tree gets knocked over by the wind, the pit left behind is massive compared to the diameter of the trunk. Are the roots supposed to just not exist because there's a balcony beneath them?
The trees are suspended in time, they have transcended the constraints of living beings to become ~aesthetic~ beings of perfect size and shape
They select smaller varieties for these applications.
I mean it does work with the right kind of smaller tree. Not all trees have enourmous root clusters.
@@XMysticHerox Maybe not all, but many do have a root system that's twice the diameter of the longest branches.
This is all extremely obvious: they hire specialists who select specific varieties of plantlife that can survive in these conditions. You guys, there's so much easy harm being done in urban areas, you don't need to make up fake problems like this.
Don't underestimate potted plants on balconies. My husband was a balcony gardener before he moved in with me, and he could have serious tomato and pepper crops, enough for several meals or pickle jars. If you want to be really efficient, just do herbs and never go to the store for the incredibly expensive little herbal spice jars again. Oregano, mint, thyme, lavender, rosemary, sage, savory, all very easy to grow and dry-store. Basil, too, if you like a challenge. You do like four of those and you can save 20$ a year if you were only buying dried herbs and 100$ a year if you were buying fresh herbs from the store.
That's awesome, I've recently gotten into indoor gardening myself with a modest section of pea plants amidst my regular potted plants to start. They're actually doing a lot better indoors so far as last summer the unseasonable heat wound up scorching the entire crop. I've noticed with my growing plant section now on the balcony the air inside is a lot more crisp and fresh now even on days when it's too cold to crack a window!
"incredibly expensive little spice jars" ?? what do you buy, saffron?? you must have plenty of free time, lol
Or you go to a wholesaler once every 5 years and buy big jars of spices for a fraction of the price.
I don't think the video was decrying potted plants on balconies, in fact he suggested doing this instead of what the developer was suggesting. Not sure how you force people who probably have enough money to spend to care enough to do this (unless they were already interested in it). People in this socio economic group will care but most of the time don't want the hassle, expense, or the time to do this, and whilst it's a great idea I don't this is going to solve the problem of pollution in big cities.
My mom planted chillies on one pot alone. She then dehydrated them and they lasted us a long while.
If she had kept on growing them then we'd have too many.
I don't hate the idea, but my landlord barely even does critical building repairs in a timely matter, you're right that I wouldn't trust them even a little bit to make sure the plant life thrived on the building. I don't think I'd necessarily mind attention from more animals an insects though, I love observing nature through glass.
Same
Not the same here. Our apartment is little over 30 years old and everything is in perfect shape. If something needs to be fixed, it will be done immediately. Few years ago they even remodeled my then less than 5 year old bathroom. But I think I should ask for a new kitchen soon. This one is starting to be over 15 years old.
@@oskar6747Great for you then tbh. Not everyone is so lucky.
@@astupidlylongnamethatstoolong But then again, we have 9 months of darkness and icy or damp weather and three months of unbearable hot summer days so it's almost never nice to go outside.
@@rizkiramadhan9266That's true. The city owns my apartment.
As a person born and grew up in Nanjing, I don’t disagree with your opinions on the green skyscraper. But if you have ever been to Nanjing, it has great public transport and superb bike network. Even in the render you showed 3:56 , there is a light rail station in front of the building, and I guess that’s a protected bike lane between the rail and the 6 lanes road. Don’t be surprised at how wide those bike lanes are in China.
My brother in law worked on one of these buildings in Sydney, and I must admit I thought it looked awesome when done - although it didn’t have trees on it to be fair, just vine plants woven into a mesh through parts of the building. Even still, seeing how just vines and weeds manage to destroy roads and sidewalks given enough time, what this would do to a vertical structure if not aggressively managed…
Well there are buildings well over a hundred years old that have been covered in ivy most of the time and are still mostly fine. There are also tons of vines you could use that only root where you first plant them and as such if planted at ground level would not cause more damage than bishes near the building. And on top of that we have houses here in sweden that have stood since the 18-hundreds still with their original living plant roofs so there is no reason that can't be done. All and all this is one of the worst refutations of this idea I that a bigger youtuber supposed to know about theese things have put out.
@@anautisticswede6748How tall are the houses from the 1800s with living roofs? What kind of plants do they have on the roof?
If they aren't skyscrapers with trees all over, not really an apt comparison
@@weir9996 well not that tall but made completely out of wood. And it is either grass or a thick leafed slow growing low plant but that does not matter in this case. The conversation in witch Adam is putting in his two cents is much more nuanced than Adam makes it out to be. Thete are a lot better alternatives for green covered houses than trees that could fill a great function of keeping temperatures down in cities an provideing some amount of cleaning for the air, help building a better city eco system and not create the structural damages to roads, sidewalks, bicycle lanes (that would ironicaly be the most effected) and the buildings that Adams solution would.
And no just becouse it is not trees on a skyscraper (the litaraly worst version of the idea) does not mean building woth living parts should be discarded. Seriously that would be like arguing why public transport is a bad idea becouse it is not worth it to connect every village useing a subway system...
The dead tree and rat thing is extremely accurate, I lived in a place with a green roof and despite being built less than 2 years ago, there were rats and centipedes on the 12th floor.
Nothing wrong with centipedes. They are predators and will keep the numbers of other species down. Just don't try to pet one, they have a nasty bite.
Ugh that's disgusting!
Also rats can provide snacks in times of apocalypse.
@@vylbird8014I'd rather have dragonflies or ladybugs, at least those aren't dangerous to humans
I wonder if the only way to have no bugs at all is to, before constructing a block of apartment buildings, scorch the earth on which the buildings will inhabit, render it unsuitable to grow anything, plant some astroturf in vacant ground space, and hope the wind or migratory birds don’t introduce any new species of anything.
In the area where I live in Turkey, there has been an eco-ish residence for over 20 years. Well, because it's 20 years old, it hasn't been really well-maintained. The trees were alright because that type of fruit tree doesn't grow taller without an abundant water supply, so they addressed that problem, I guess. However, what they didn't consider was that the building is made of steel and concrete with wooden ornaments and coatings. Although the structure looks very cool and eco-friendly, the whole building burned down due to an electrical malfunction, likely because the building is old.
Firefighters couldn't extinguish the fire because there was too much wood, and the smoke from the burning leaves made seeing things incredibly difficult. Fortunately, nobody died because rich people usually don't stay in the majority of their properties.
I just love the flat sarcasm underlying your words. That’s a mad skill 👍🏼👍🏼
I like green skycrapers (and green walls and green roofs in general) on the basis that they A) look cool, B) have thermal and acoustic benefits for the occupants, and C) provide valuable habitats for small animals in what would otherwise be a brick wasteland.
Mostly A.
Trees are probably a bad approach, but vines and succulents are tried and true, and offer even more green coverage without the drawbacks.
Yes, I like a house or townhouse facade covered with ivy ! Though in winter it looks bad as everything is dead lol.
@@fandecaisses1 " Though in winter it looks bad as everything is dead lol."
And the brickwork underneath is torn apart by the roots.
A) is true, it does look cool.
B) You'd need to build some serious foliage to stop heat from getting in or out. And remember, a highrise has no protection from wind so those plants had better have some serious storm-proof roots. I guess what I'm saying is that there is a reason why nobody is actually doing this. On low buildings sure, 2-3 storeys maybe, but not 12.
C) I'm not sure what animals you expect at anything above the 5th floor. Birds may occasionally visit, but they won't nest that high. All you will get are insects that can climb or fly.
@@vinny142 I would add that plants high a high albedo, and photosynthesis is an endothermic process. Just by living, they provide substantial cooling in the summer.
@@luke_fabis Look, I like walls that are covered in foliage, but I either think you've never had to maintain one or are just in denial about this. Even if you grew say a climber in between the windows they will spread over the windows in no time and will need maintaining. It's a nightmare on a normal trail storey house, but you can put up with it because it doesn't take too much looking after.
On a 15 storey building some part of this greenery would need attention every day and even if I'm not in agreement that burglary would be that much of an issue the constant unexpected invasion of your privacy would, and I'm sure wealthy upper middle class residents would not be happy with that. This is all nonsense. Sure plant more trees and shrubs in the city, plan to have more parks and less density of housing, but in the end you have to tackle the source of the pollution in the first place.
As pointed out this doesn't solve the problem it is suggesting it can help with, in fact I'm not actually sure whose benefit this is actually for in the first place. It just seems to be trying to make people feel good that they're doing something without them knowing it does nothing, it's tokenism. It also has unintended consequences not thought of written all over it, or maybe not even unintended, all I'll leave here is the words Grenfell and Tower (if you're not from the UK you probably don't know what this was so I suggest googling it).
A co-worker lives in one of this buildings in Madrid.
Every 3 months plants have to be cut plus there are a dozen regulations on how to cut them in order to not be dangerous.
He pays a lot of comunity.
Yep till it ist s bloopy bloob of tree mushed as a wall..
Ughh safty I'm out
I would blame the media and design journalists during 2010s that pushed the idea and hyped up the public about these trees covered skyscrapers.
Omg sound similar to "in the cloud" and for a moment we thought we were magical
The problem is also scientific literacy.
People don’t know how little trees contribute to sequestering carbon emissions so they think planting trees is a good solution.
But we would need more than a trillion trees to combat carbon emissions substantially (quadrillions to overcome what humans produce).
A trillion trees is not possible physically
@@suppositorylaxative3179 that's definitely a key issue. all the carbon credit/offset scam forestation projects prove that.
Side note: media is already plural (of medium). No s required.
I disagree.
You'd think somebody planning to spend millions on
putting up a building like that would do a bit more research.
That is unless it's a scam of cause.
You forgot to mention that trees and bushes like the sun to the point of developing branches as far as possible in the direction that gives the most light. So they would really try to stretch away from the building and put even more torque on the structure as a result. This is kind of mitigated with gardening, but still worth pointing out.
The gardening is, for all intends and purposes, really the major problem here. YOu can pick polution resistant plants, you can pick plants that do not drill into your concrete, you can pick plants that to not grow massive branches, you can automate the watering, all of that can be done. Not to mention, rats don't eat trees and people tend to not throw garbage out onto their windowsill. Even Nanjing isn't that far gone.
But you still need to do some gardening every now and again, to replace, prune, fertilize, whatever, and as he pointed out, that requires access, which means floorspace, which means less floorspace available for actual living / offices. Which means higher prices.
The "shitting on the floor" analogy is the best comparison I've seen for a while! Bravo!
Hey, it works for cats
Adam is violating my right as an American to shit on the floor
I also want to note something from an engineering standpoint, as someone who's been on farms since I was 6, and started dicking around with hydro, aero and aqua -ponics around 15:
A HUGE issue for long-term installations is also that plants don't *get* they're in a building - the root systems that grow will *ALWAYS* find the tiniest imperfection in their beds construction given enough time. Meaning that the building itself is slowly getting demolished by the plants. My municipality building has those crawling/climbing shrubs because "aesthetic". The problem is, they also plate the outside with marble slabs. Every 5-15 years, the entire building gets shutdown for 6 months to fix and replace the marble, but they never uproot the invasive plant.
There are certainly barriers that can be installed to handle that with near certainty or pick more suitable vegetation. It is def a concern but no impossible hurdle
That's a lot of types of ponics. Whacky tobaccy enthusiast? 😉
@monhi64
Honestly, not really? Except things that degrade incredibly slowly (e.g. steel and such are excluded, mainly due to excessive moisture and dirt exposure). I've heard of high-grade teflon--CF amalgams supposedly intended for those inane archology projects in the ME, and even they give an estimate of ~80 years before they need replacing. The entire issue stems from the timescale. We're talking some 15-20 years of use before anything worrisome can be noticed, and by that time, complacency and mundanity settle in. The big hazards pick up likelihood some 20 years after *that*.
Suitable vegetation is a solution, but you can also just.... pot them instead of planting them *into* your building and avoid the entire hassle.
@@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid Actually a doomsday prepper. Weed's neat and all but in a context where you care about nutrition and energy expended per crop - not really worth it. I mostly looked at legume type plants and some more drought-tolerant veggies like potatoes.
@@MrChaosBones I was just joking but your reply is still a good one. Doomsday prepping sounds like a natural extension for your experience with growing with and without soil.
My apartment complex advertised dense green spaces on top. The fact that no one is allowed up there makes me doubt it.
what is the point of a rooftop green space if people can't visit it ? how about making it a small community garden for the tenants ?
Most likely they are raising and harvesting Marijuana up there. Just tell the guard your rich mafia boss sent you to check out the quality of their product and the guard will let you in. 🤣😂
@@danilooliveira6580 not all the green-brown roof system can be utilized - few of them have insect zoo in it or dedicated feature for bird and bat, human presence could destabilize them.
I don't know about saving the environment, but trees, flowers, and plantlife growing on buildings in Singapore were absolutely, impressively beautiful.
Personally I prefer traditional architecture buildings
To be fair, Nanjing currently has and is expanding a subway system. It has 13 lines with a daily ridership of 3.1 million, which is about 1/3rd of its metro population (I’m not sure if it’s 1 way or 2 ways. 2-ways it’s more like 1/6th, which is still a lot). It’s also has a bunch more metro scheduled for completion in the next couple years.
Bingo! And skyscrapers are still the best way to house the masses both environmentally but also for transit-planning purposes...
a sixth seems abismal for metro population no? Munich for example has 1.5M inhabitants and a daily ridership of 1.2M. and yet the city is always congested during rush hour. It is great that they are expanding, but with 13 lines (13!!!!!) it seems abismal for me as a clueless person.
no they are not. They aer an environmental catastrophe. pumping/transporting every kilo to the 76th floor is inneficient, Cooling/heating is an issue, they are resource hungry to build to be reinforced, they alienate people, they are noisy, cause strong winds or air-deadzones, they either blind you or cause shade all day, etc... horrific solution for anything really
@@stickynorth
@@flappypatty743 Munich’s metro population is nearly 6 million people and metro ridership of 1.1 million daily. Nanjing’s metro area, by contrast, is barely bigger than the city. I’m not sure if that is in or against Nanjing’s favor, since most subway systems are in the city proper.
@@stickynorth actually Paris has a higher urban density than Nanjing: 3800/km2 compared to 1400/km2.
Birds of Prey like Hawks and Falcons like to nest on Skyscrapers in general. Peregrine Falcons (among other species) like to nest in mountains and to them a skyscraper is just a sort of funny but still perfectly serviceable mountain. My dad had a view which always had pidgeon parts that were the bird's leftovers.
Seems a good way to keep the pigeon numbers under control.
Old industrial smokestacks. We have a pair breeding there, which is why that thing still stands.
Middle height buildings... from the comments - moss, as Tokyo is doing... short plants and weeds, which the gardeners or the owners pull up once or twice a season, and throw down the organic compost shute....And maybe every 7th floor can be a garden floor.
Do it with PUBLIC HOUSING first. The grandmas would love to get the little ones digging.
I was about to say this! I do love the moss and different types of grass they have on the roofs of some buildings
Watch out! A community garden in every public housing estate would introduce back the "third place" where regular people can socialise on their own terms, without a long travel time, and with people they like, and that would in turn improve mental health!
We can't have that!
I mean. A building shouldn't even have a 7th floor. Thats already taller than really reasonable. Maybe for important admin buildings and the like. A garden roof is nice though.
@@XMysticHerox What do you mean "shouldn't have a 7th floor", you cannot have a dense urban and GREEN environment with a bunch of low rises. High population density, means MORE land that is left to be forests, fields, or farms. People like to bring up Paris, have you seen Paris? There are almost no available green spaces, unlike New York City which have massive parks everywhere.
Yeah and it also means completely unsustainable cities which is in the end much worse. Highrises need way more concrete per person which is extremely expensive CO2 wise. They need massive amounts of infrastructure to transport people around. More than is really feasible. Especially when everyone is driving cars. The amount of space taken up by parking lots is insane. You also need a shit ton of space between buildings if you want tenents to actually get any light so the space saving advantage is not nearly as great as you might think. Highrises going above 10 stories also have issues with wind that make the street below basically impossible to use for certain purposes like outdoor cafes.
It's why 3 to 5 story buildings have consistently been found to be ideal in terms of traffic, mental health and general sustainability.
I also find it funny you talk about NYC as if to prove that highrises are the solution. When most of the cities density lies in the exact sort of 3 to 5 story buildings I am talking about. It's the highrises in Manhattan that cause most of the cities issues. As for Paris vs NYC greenspace. That has absolutely nothing to do with highrises. Paris just built less parks. Though I should not there are some issues with that statistic in that it only counts actual public parks rather than total area covered by plantlife. A lot of European cities have a lot green space just on the street. @@jouaienttoi
Your ability to transition to the sponsor description about rats, and hawks killing pigeons made me laugh so hard I had to watch it again. I sent it to my university friends to show how marketing should transition. Thank you Adam Something you made my week!!!!!
Yes
same~ XD good thing i didnt skip that part~ XD
Vertical water pumping is difficult, and exposure to high wind and sun makes for thirsty plants. Even without these sterile ornamental parks roughly 1.5% of all power consumed in Hong Kong for example is used to pump water up to high rise apartments.
Everyone who brings up irrigation forgets how scarce water is in many parts of the world.
Please no green skyscrapers in California agriculture is already drying up the state already don’t need worse wildfires
Do you have a link to one of those poop scraping robots?
My toilet is like 8m away from where I sit now. Unbearable.
Just upscale a self-cleaning litter box, bro!
It's made by the same company, that is also responsible for such concepts as:
- What if Call of Duty was VR?
- What if GTA was VR?
- What if GTA was set in a different town the idea guy has a lot of childhood memories attached, otherwise nothing else?
- What if digital art really was made by pressing buttons on a computer, with the computer doing the rest?
Ikr
@@ZILtoid1991damn its a patreon supporter, nice to meat you good sir!
@@ZILtoid1991oddly specific
6:18 - that was my first reaction to the concept of trees growing on buildings. Their roots can penetrate (eventually) just about anything.
To be honest the building in the thumbnail does not really have all the issues listed in the video. It's the Bosco Verticale in Milan which stands near a public parc, a major train and metro station, cycle lanes and is far from freeways. Also for maintenance there is a crane on top of the building which can be used by gardeners. Of course this is a building for the super rich and it would be better to put trees on the streets (and we're doing that) but Milan doesn't really have the same level of car dependancy as the other examples listed in the video, and in fact the thing that pollutes the most are the old buildings that don't meet current European standards, while transportation is "only" about 15%. And by the way I'm pretty sure they select plant types with caution, of course they won't choose to plant trees that will get too big and damage the building.
There is actually some big amount of green all around the Vertical Forest too. So.. too bad he just went for quick shots against the chinese project, instead of addressing the "ideal idea".
@@mirHL China bashing is big business.. so why not get the clicks ?
@@morganangel340 China isn't mentioned in the title, and the criticism isn't _wrong_ (especially considering the median income there is far different from Milan). It's just that people anywhere else would be more interested to the merits of the general idea rather than the faults of one specific implementation.
I used to live in an apartment covered in plants and greenery a bit similar to this. It meant that every time I opened a window, every little creature that lived in those plants came crawling into my apartment in droves. Spiders, ants, centipedes, you name it. Some people might not be bothered by that, but I wouldn't live in a building covered in plants again.
Ew
You didn’t have a window screen ?
you could install a fly screen if you wanted - they're pretty cheap
@@jackready4555 I live in a newly apartment building with plants on balcony and facades. Trust me, with all the window and door screens ants still find a way inside the apartment. I even installed "ant traps", the gardening company even treats the soil to avoid this kind of insects and they are still here even after almost 2 years. And I do not want to mention the ammount of bird shit we have to clean from the balcony, even though we were thrilled about them singing every morning.
Seems like a you problem
Never expected a half-baked take from this channel, disappointing. I live in Singapore and we made it work and it helps to keep our areas cooled down and not be baking.
Alley-ways do the same thing. And a simple balcony where people can have their own potted plants has the same effect as "greening the fassade". Any way you look at it the green fassade is the more expensive and impractical solution to this problem. And the video is also more focused on calling out the greenwashing aspect of such projects.
@@lightbower5826you clearly know nothing about Singapore, the sheer level of ecological engineering in Singapore is astounding the entire city is built around allowing air currents to flow through the city. It's very complex it's not going to be replicated with "alleyway"
As someone who's studying architecture i find your video quite interesting as it seems that most problems involving green skyscrapers have already been solved
Now i dont have any practical experience so please take my comment with a grain of salt but since this concept of putting plants on buildings seems to be quite popular here in the netherlands id like to give my own opinion
1. Maintainance
In most green wall/roof systems there are pipes that provide plants with water and minerals. Plants are also carefully selected to minimize overgrowing and the need for trimming
2. Damage caused by roots
When installing a green wall/roof a root repulsive layer is added to make sure the roots stay within their pots
3. Insects/pests
One of the key sellingpoints of green walls/roofs is improving biodiversity for example: bees, butterflies and other insects wich support the ecosystem. Speciffic plants can be chosen to attract the right insects though i fully understand someone not wanting a massive insect magnet infront of their window
Some more points not adressed:
Having plants in a city drasticly cools down the temprature during the summer and with many (european) cities not having the space for plants at ground level it could be a solution to place them on the walls/roofs
Having more plants in a city also improves with retaining rainwater
Instead of al the water going down the drain a causing clog ups or even flooding the streets it is now being held by plants slowly evaporating in dryer periods
Though the last one could also be a negative as having tons plants retaining water will affect the weight of the structure and thus needing more material for construction
While green walls/roofs wil not be saving the climate as some people make them out to be i do think that having a green wall/roof here and there will have its merrit both for nature and human well being
I think we are also missing a major point here - it is a privilege to live in these buildings, like a paywall really. Green skyscrapers might be a good idea for really dense areas, but skyscrapers are already really expensive to maintain and cause a lot of pollution to make regardless.
@@EkNeechInsaan The "paywall" argument doesn't hold water, so to speak. It's like saying: "oh, if the poor can't live in nice buildings, the rich don't get to live there too!"
That's ridiculous!
Thanks for adding a bit of optimism to this comment section!
I think that Adam is correct in saying that green skyscrapers are a terrible idea *as a solution to urban air pollution*, but I think that as a way to build rich people's houses, their pretty good.
The vertical forest has a contract with a company of "vertical gardeners". They use the cranes on top (the ones used by office buildings for window cleaners) to do their job without interfering with the residents. It's extremely expensive but it's for rich people and they pay for it.
As for putting trees on the ground instead: it's not like we're bottlenecked by a limited tree supply. A construction company can buy trees to put them on the walls, without hindering the city's ability to put just as many trees on the ground. It's money coming from different wallets.
Don't. I'd. Let's see what happens when those plants dry off.
@@caty863
No.Nice try.
"gardening-themed burglaries" is my new favorite phrase 😂💀
There's something soothing about listening to someone else complain about stuff. It's like a mini Holiday from my normal grumpy old man duties. Kind of have me leaning towards their plan when you had the hawk tearing apart of pigeon outside my window .
The Bosco Verticale in Milan does look very cool, but it's a one-off kind of project, made for millionaires and that's it. The park directly below it has a lot more trees and is actually enjoyed by Milanese people. It's a cool landmark in a new part of the city, like many other old landmarks in other parts of the city (Duomo, Castello, Galleria, Brera, Monumentale etc).
It's not a solution to anything, it's just a cool piece of concrete in the middle of the city.
I live in Milan and work right in front of the "Bosco Verticale" ("Vertical Woods") buildings shown at 0:10 and I guess most of the problems discussed in the video can be solved (since the building has now been standing for 10 years and I remember no major problems about it). BUT, they can be solved AT A COST: a three-room apartment in the Bosco Verticale costs about 1.200.000 euros and condominium fees START from 1500 euros. That's almost the average monthly salary in Italy! In MIlan it's for sure higher, but probably still less than 2500. These buildings, no matter how aestethically nice (I think they are), are as always just a whim for rich people.
As someone who actually bought an apartment in this type of building and did a bit of due diligence:
On one side, it's amazing that you found out all those issues as a hobbyist. On the other - so did Boeri & Associates - and got it all figured out:
1. The building is located right in the city centre, there is no space for any greenery on ground.
buildings
7. They spend months running computer simulations to calculate wind speeds and optimize tree type and placement (most wind-exposed areas get smaller, more flexible trees).
It worked, btw - the building survived 3 extreme storm events, not a single tree went flying.
8. Yes, you have to use alpinist gardeners. It sounds like best job ever and if I ever get bored working in IT, I *sooooo* want to become rappelling special forces gardener.
Deep down, even you can admit it: It's a Best. Job. Ever.
9. Building uses intelligent, rainwater based watering system. You can get a system like it for your garden in Castorama for a few bucks, it would be outright weird not to use it in XXXM€ buliding.
10. They are squeezing 360 full size trees on 30 floor building, which is quite a result. As a funny trivia - the rooftop is fully forested and closed even to the penthouse owners (to make it a safe haven for birds and other animals).
11. The walkable terrace park on 8th floor will be reachable by general public. It was one of requirements city council put on the developer (and codified in the building deed).
In summary:
This is actually a rare good implementation. Pollution is very local phenomenon and putting building like it right in city centre should have great impact on local micro-climate. Even if you left the ground unused as a park, you wouldn't be able to fit more than 20% percent of trees the building has. You would be also stopping ~300 families from having a car-free home within walking distance to the best connected rail station in the whole country.
@Jazzcat135: You are correct - that is the only real issue. Based on calculations of engineering firm that designed it, they had to use ~30% more concrete to accommodate the trees.
I still feel that given the benefits, it's worthwhile choice.
BTW, when the project is finalized in Q4 this year - feel free to visit with me, maybe with @AdamSomething in tow :D
Thank you! For the whole duration of the video, it really felt like bad faith arguments to me. Just trying to find reasons to justify a pre-made conclusion with the end in mind to argue for public transport instead of roads/cars as always. This might sound crazy, but you can actually do multiple good things at the same time. Especially when one of those things, transport, is managed by the government and another thing, housing, is typically paid for privately.
@@MisterGordonZolayeah i’m seriously not impressed by this video. really a nordvpn ad surrounded by some sensationalism. Green buildings are doing a lot of good in singapore (in addition to green pedestrian overpasses) to create wildlife corridors, reduce urban heat island effect, and make the city more pleasant.
A lot of the comments are talking about falling leaves during winter and stuff as well which like… not everywhere has winter or the same horticultural concerns. Green buildings suit dense tropical and subtropical cities best
Thanks for the additional context! How's the bug situation, by the way?
A bit of his arguments I do agree is in bad faith, especially the plant trees on the ground one. However, I do agree that this is a waste for 1 reason. It will not be built in areas that really need them. As you've said, pollution is very local, and this'll help with airing up the area around the building significantly. The problem is this buildings would be built only in more affluent areas. Meanwhile, reducing car pollutions or even transitioning from coal would be better in helping a larger scope albeit with a lot less effect. Even if they can't do that, instead of erecting more empty building complexes, it's better and cheaper to just create small tree plots that in several cities, or just make a variation of this skyscraper but not as a living complex, just to house and maintain trees vertically.
I do also have a bias since I think the reason this was made was to be a justification for building more apartment complexes in the city. China has been having a surge of companies making rows of buildings recently because the condition allows them to and even just a few people buying houses here would turn a profit. While it's not bad to profit while doing something good, it also isn't something people would say revolutionary since it might cause unnecessary hype and profiteers like what happened with AI and online shopping (dropshipping MLMs).
Also, yeah. This is perfect for Singapore. Because Singapore just doesn't have land that could be easily used as tree plots, nor anyway to shrink down they're infrastructure and power related emissions. Meanwhile in China, 60% of their land isn't used for anything, but they still built highly dense highly roaded new cities.
Former treeclimber here (or "special forces gardener" 😅)
As a colleague of mine used to say: it's the best shitty job in the world! 😂
Don't forget the spiders. Thanks to plenty of cover, warmth and lights attracting insects, plants on the sides of buildings are FULL of spiders. Want to open a window for 5 mins? Say hello to your 182 new roommates.
Tbf spiders are the best roommates, they are never in the way; eat the mosquitoes and my cat thinks they’re great snacks!
I live in a tropical area with a lot of mosquitoes, some of which are dangerous, i welcome the spider friends
They do eat all the actually harmful things though.
I think providing more space of urban insects is a good thing actually. It just doesn't need these buildings to do it
how is it much different from having a yard or garden with lots of plants adjacent to the house?
As an Italian, I am very grateful you were merciful enough to never mention our Bosco Verticale. Seeing it in on screen every 5 seconds was enough for me to cower in shame.
Italian vertical city... you mean Civita di Bagnoregio, right?
Milan, I was there this sommer. First time seeing that kind of sykscraper. Thought all of those where only renditions
Why? It works, it’s cool, that’s it.
@@Caladras il Bosco Verticale in Milan, it's the one in the photograph.
First time I ve seen it my thoughts where
- That's cool from a distance and surely on inside is neat, but right underneath it looks like just a huge mess
- how they are going to maintain it?
I think you're being overly harsh about the design of the city of Nanjing. Just from looking at the images, it appears to be mostly tall apartment buildings packed quite densely together and with a lot of greenery between them. Yes, there are some wide roads going through the city, but it doesn't look like the entire place is dominated by roads - just looks like there's a few arterial roads going through it.
I also do think that a) most of the problems with green skyscrapers that you mentioned are not actually insurmountable, pretty much all of them could be solved with careful planning, and b) it is possible to build green skyscrapers and also put more greenery on the ground at the same time, they are no mutually exclusive.
4:35 ... you missed the train station that is even closer to the buildings than the road.
Regarding the effort: With automated watering and wise choice of plants you barely have any effort. Trees isn't a good choice... smaler plants might be smarter.
Just to be clear, this can't be effective to catch CO2.. but it can keep buildings (and whole city area) cooler in hot climate.... if you reduce AC by this... it still helps reducing CO2.
hi, i'm actually in my first semester in uni studying city planing in germany. green facades are actually one of the key components we are talking about in my course. especially on roofs. the thing is tho, atleast here, a majority of buildings arent skyscrapers. i would really like to discuss this point. (other key factors are green infrastructure as in plants and public transport etc)
I own an apartment on the 14th floor in Germany. I do not think most people are aware of the wind load on a stormy day at skyscraper level. I could see the windows flex back and forth quite a bit, which gives everybody who sees it anxiety. I wonder how far a tree can fly.
Yes, trees are a bad idea in most cases, and so is this video. He made some good points - but he acts like his recommendations and greening buildings are exlusive.
But yeah, our infrastructure needs some serious improvement.
Telling us 'you need to use public transportation more' and then giving us a 49€ ticket which only can be used for regional traffic, while doing nothing about the overfilled and unreliable transportation that often lets you stranded isn't a solution.
Yeah, green walls are pretty cool. Just not trees.
we looked at a project that had a 'railing/fence' thing go around an office building. on that railing grew vining plants that had their roots in the actual ground wich i thought was pretty neat. i will say having actual trees on your facade or on the roof even is dumb bc they get really heavy but stuff like bushes and vines are good imo
@@silverwolf281yea it's all about the correct choices and designing it for that function. Plants have been interwoven with buildings for centuries, the difference in the past was generally that making it happen was so difficult you had to put the effort to make it work, you couldn't just build it quick with modern machinery then let it fall apart down the line.
There are three main things that are the most damaging to a building: wind, light, and water. And because soil retains a lot of water, lots of care was put into making sure that everything was completely watertight, and that the water could safely flow away. Consider the amount of engineering required to facilitate all that for two dozen times the amount of greenery, stacked on top of itself, multiplied by how many green skyscrapers they want to build. Come one tropical storm and every one of those buildings is a full tonne heavier. Unless all terraces are equipped with a proper drainage system, all the excess water will gush out the sides. Imagine the noise, the colossal volumes of water rushing through the pipes. The wind banging the leaves and branches against the glass. The same sounds echoing from the other eco-skyscrapers. It would be a green and grey hell
that sounds horrifying. We dont usually get huge storms here but we had one this summer. I live in a "commie block" and just being on the 8th floor surrounded by parks with large old trees, the wind, rain, hail and rustling and cracking of really everything, sounded horrifying. I cant image how this would sound. Especially with all the added crackling due to water weight and water gushing around. Add the fact the trees are literally on your windows and terraces instead of a decent amount of meters away from you on the ground. Tho a massive tree in front of our building got broken during the storm. Luckily it fell towards the park area and not the building. Even though it was positioned further away from the building it still wouldve crashed into the lower floors if it fell towards the building. I cant imagine the horror of these trees just smashing into your bedroom during a storm in a to floor of a massive a sky scraper
You are right about the weight maybe. but plants will make the water enter the canals much later, as some water is aoaked in the water and released slowly. So there is not a lot of water to imagine rushing down anywhere, definitely less than with any tower now.
And yes, it will need drainage, but any balcony on any building has this integrated - i guess its doable 😂
I used to wok on one of these in Sydney, abseil cleaning windows... the gardeners were constantly behind because the EWP on the roof did not have the working capacity to pull out enough material in a day, the irrigation lines would constantly blow out, pouring fertilized water all over the windows, filthing them up. Worst part every 10 years the soil in the planter boxes, and all the vegetation had to be replaced, as plants do not live for ever and the soil becomes denigrated. There was not plan on how this was going to happen, and the EWP would not be able to handle it. long and the short is that the strata fees were increasing, with no sing of stopping.
Oh god is that what that’s like, building next to UTS right?
@@matthewshanks3684 I also suspect he means that one.
"Climbing plants" like Ivy would also be a good idea for greening regular buildings
As a civil engineer, no
As a gardener, also no.
Ivy kinda rips apart things over time, I remember having to get a fence replaced because the ivy destroyed the wood's binding
As someone who has heard of structural issues relating to the Sylvia Hotel in Vancouver, no
I suggest to go checking how Bosco Verticale in Milan, which is now 10 years old, was built and is maintained.
Many questions the video ironically asked, has been solved. From how to carry the weight of the plants, to how to replace them (there are two cranes on the roof tops, in case), how the trees are anchored to prevent wind to make them fall, to maintenace done with special gardeners.
Obviously those things aren't cheap. But this is not the point. The point is that, if you do it properly, it works just fine.
Many imitations around the world didn't take in account all these things and often failed.
Hello! Very interesting video. Im an architecture student and i'd like to add some context. Green roofs or green walls are a concept that has at least 100 years. It was revolutionary in 1928 when Le Corbusier built Villa Savoye. Green roofs have lots of problems, if poorly done they leak, they are heavy (which means they require stronger construction, which means more concrete and steel [concrete has a very big carbon footprint]). The idea behind greenery on buildings was more about allowing people to enjoy having a garden, when they only live in an apartment. I would love to know what do you (the author of this video) think about Habitat 67' that is an apartment building, created for EXPO in 1967 in Montreal. It looks pretty much the same as this one. Except it was built 50 years ago. As far as i know Habitat 67 is rather looked up to, or maybe i looked at the wrong sources. Montreal as a canadian city likely dosent have the best enviormentak thought put behind it.
What i mean to say is that its not architects fault that the space around is poorly designed. Its the job of the urbanist, or another architect before him. Although i understand it looks hypocritical to put "green" building next to a highway. The only solution i see is to just ban things. Or create good building laws. Limit some things, force every new building to obey new restrictions. It also requires politicians and city planners to listen to urbanists and architects.
Another thing. Idk how is it in China but where i live every building plot has to have certain - required by law "biologically active surface", that means, grass, trees, ponds etc. Green roofs and green walls are added to this. So someone can have more development surface on their plot, (more concrete, lack of water retention etc.) But they put a green roof to have enough biologically active surface.
Another thing, im no gardener but. Not all green roofs require care, there are certain types of bushes which grow to a certain size and they dont grow more. There are built green roofs that arent meant to have people walking on them. Although it dosent look like its the case here, but i would like to point out that this solution exists.
Another, last thing. As i said im no gardener but there are surely trees that grow to a certain size and dont grow more. Especially if they have restricted roots. You can grow a tree in a big pot. If im mistaken, id like someone to correct me. It would be really helpful. But if its the way i think it is, there wouldnt be a danger of tree falling from a green balcony. I've never heared of such danger before.
Also, there are many more eco friendly technologies that can be used. Puting a tree on a high rise is not really innovative. For example, the simplest one would be putting more rockwool or styrofoam in the walls to make them energy saving. Or you can collect the rainwater, then store it, pure it and reuse it for laundry. Or water your garden with it.
Or, about the simpler ones you can plant decidous trees on the southern side of your building. Then they will give you shadow in the summer, and in winter, when there wont leaves, you will get more sun. (It applies to the northen hemisphere).
There are many little things like this that can build a very low energy house. But they arent screaming "im green" and arent visible at the first glance.
The biggest advantage of the greenery is the natural cooling and it’s actually pretty cost effective in the long run if you choose the right plants like native shrubs
As a landscape architect, I see nothing wrong with wanting more greenery one the buildings. It's mostly an issue of chosing plants that are suitable for what is basically a giant cliff-side. And less than full-on trees or shrubs can do the job just fine to get this kind of vibe. I'd say it's one of those things where, no, of course this is not by itself a solution to anything, but it has a strong signal value of a worldview becoming more widespread where unkept nature is valued as something integral to daily life and human well-being, not just something out there far away in a nature reserve or (god-forbid) an in-itself worthless thing to exploit. Culturally, it is a big step that apparent wilderness is becoming not just something to tolerate for the sake of dry biodiversity goals etc., but attractive and alluring as an aesthetic in itself. Keep in mind, I don't want to defend dictatorship concrete jungles, car-centric planning or greenwashing in general etc. I love this channel precisely because it is so good at cutting through the bullshit and I don't doubt that a lot of those greenscraper projects are just that seen in isolation, but I hope this adds a bit of context.
After going one days time with this occupying somewhere in my backhead, I want to add a couple of points that may not be immidately obvious to someone not working with ecology in an urban context:
Insects: Most insects are well-adapted to native plants, so a way to avoid this being an issue on buildings is to have non-native plants, which the insects aren't specialised to eat, live on and/or pollinate. It's actually a problem of urban biodiversity that parks and gardens very often plant exotics that the native wildlife hasn't adapted to (this is also one of the many problems of climate change, since rapidly changing climate means invasive species may get the upper hand in nature before local species can adapt).
Uncommon substrate: Leading on from the previous point, unless the city is located in an area where very steep tall cliffs are present nearby, then the local native species won't be suited for such harsh exposed conditions in any case.
Food chain: The whole ecosystem depends on there being bugs, as those are often the main source of food for smaller birds and animals. So if someone is squimish about the prospect of hawks eating prey birds, well, the chances are small.
Rats: They should be as much a problem as they may be in single-family homes with gardens. If the rats common to cities actually would want to climb and live with the extreme weather exposure on a building side that is, which I'll admit I don't know anything about.
I'd say as a rule of thumb that if people are able to live safely adjacent to relatively wild/spontanous nature at a specific location, then having some (lighter and smaller) plants on the side of a building won't either. Just consider using vines and very hardy smaller plants actually suitable for the environment and with no big need for heavy soil volumes rather than trees and shrubs.
Dziękujemy.
The structural integrity of the buildings will most likely be the biggest problem with big plants on buildings. Everyone who owns a small garden or just.... ....has eyes. Knows that no matter what you do, plants can and will break though everything. You can see this with roads where plants crack up everything. No imagine this with skyscrapers. Ofc maintaining could kinda delay the problem (not solve it) but we all know that most residents won't do that, especially in countries with less regulations.
Ok true.. But this is our reality.. So I'mma say they probably off us like in the movie
Milan “giardino verticale” featured heavily in this video is actually very nice. It’s just a luxurious apartment building that looks extremely nice and placed in an area that got re-qualified successfully.
yeah but how are the plants
@@NickiRusin living in milan, they have been there for 10 years and i don't remember any incident involving the plants in the kast 10 years, there are 2 towers, each with a small crane on top used by gardeners to care for the plants all year round, if it isn't a hassle for the residents i don't see why we should complain since that are also very beautiful buildings.
Usually I've only seen these green buildings on smaller ones where there's just grass on the roof.
That's better
That's a millenium old architectural technique called green roofs, on one level houses or on a single top floor, it's no problem to maintain even if hard labour is required, although it does reduce your bills on heating and cooling on top of looking actually great.
Grass on your roof is cool, just make sure your roof will support the cows that will join it.
@@ABrit-bt6ce Wait, how do you get the cow up there??? They can't climb for a second.
@@Game_Hero Give them a bit of a run up. No, actually a lot of houses like that are set back a bit into hills.
I visited Milan, the Bosco Verticale (used in the video quite a lot); and I kind of like it. Not from an eco-greenwashing perspective, we don’t need a whole city full of these, but still. It looks cool. It can attract tourists and give a unique feature to the city.
Reducing car dependency and developing such projects are separate topics. You can remove roads, add more trees, and build such futuristic-looking beauties at the same time.
I feel like Adam might not know of the fact that one of these buidlings has already been realised as he never adresses it directly. It also tackles a lot of the questions he poses from 6:30 to 8:05. Like the watering system and crane on top of the Bosco that lowers a workstation along the sides for maintainance and the crew that does this.
At 5:50 there is a building that is now completed building in the Netherlands Eindhoven strijp-s. In front of the building is a bus stop and a 5 minute walk to a train station. Most roads around it are made bicycle and pedestrian only. A lot of the space in strijp-s is already converted to greenery and the building does probably noting for the climate. But the building looks cool and brings some more greenery in a place that was 15 years ago just a desolate industrial area. These buildings are not everywhere a good idea and do nothing for the climate but they are not all bad like Adam will make you believe. Adam maybe do not bash these buildings there could always something worse be build there like a parking lot.
Yes thats what we need to save the planet, more tourism. lmao
I agree, I feel like the he takes far too firm of a stance against them, as opposed to a more nuanced take of ‘they’re better than nothing / not harmful in of themselves, but take focus away from more serious solutions’.
@@notaschoolemail210 they are worse than nothing because putting and maintaining one tree on a slyscraper costs as much as planting a couple hundred trees not on a skyscraper.
it isnt just ineffective. it is actively harmful.
you can plant more trees just by changing your default browser search engine to ecosia
I go regularly to Nanjing. It's, in many ways, a concrete jungle, and the long summer is 40c, very humid weather. However, the public transportation system is quite good and affordable. The center(s) are walkable, and residential areas all have convenience stores nearby. You can live far from the center without the need of a car.
One critic I would have about those buildings is the maintenance cost. In China, typically, the residents of a block choose the maintenance service and go for the lowest bidder, so what was nice after construction quickly degrade over a few short years. The many green spaces will likely quickly degrade to a few low maintenance plants, with patch of dead vegetation.
I understand your point about Greenwashing for a city, but it can be done right! In Eindhoven there is the Trudo tower (you showed the construction of it in your video), which is social housing (tenants pay ~600€/month instead of 1200€/month that is usual in Eindhoven)! It was built for 1650€/m2 instead of the usual 1500€/m2 for social housing. The balconies have an irrigation system and the shrubbery is chosen in collaboration with landscape architects and a gardening company that also takes care of the plants. Tenents are made aware that they need to allow gardeners in their apartments every quartile for maintenance (not every 2 weeks), as the shrubbery is low maintenance.
You mention that the trees can also be fitted on the ground. As an architect I say: why not both? The urbanist does their part, and the architect does too :)
At 5:50 there is a building that is now completed building in the Netherlands Eindhoven strijp-s. In front of the building is a bus stop and a 5 minute walk to a train station. Most roads around it are made bicycle and pedestrian only. A lot of the space in strijp-s is already converted to greenery and the building does probably noting for the climate. But the building looks cool and brings some more greenery in a place that was 15 years ago just a desolate industrial area. These buildings are not everywhere a good idea and do nothing for the climate but they are not all bad like Adam will make you believe. Adam maybe do not bash these buildings there could always something worse be build there like a parking lot.
Came to the comments to say exactly this, but you beat me to it. I love the Trudo Tower
Give it a couple years, you will see the problems.
Meh, i like it but eindhoven is all over the place with its architecture especially strijp-s is a clueless project
Yeah his main thing is hating everything. The biggest issue he doesn’t properly address is what if people just like it? There are far worse things rich people are blowing their money on for aesthetics. Not properly considering that there are proven health benefits with increased water features and plants or trees, we had a section on that in my construction degree. Someone’s blood pressure might be five points lower here but he’s going to call out this instead of all the other unnecessary shit. That stupid but cool billion dollar LED Orb in Vegas, or completely unnecessary burj khalifa. If everything was built for pure efficiency you’d just be living in featureless squares
I don't know what is true for "in most cities", but in Poland studies regularly show that the major source of air pollution (by that I mean except CO2) is small houses and their heating- coal furnaces. Transport is the second one, but heating by personal coal furnace is the source of 60% of all pm 10 and pm 2,5 dust. And in the other 40% comes in transport, industry, public heating and electricity.... So in all transport is around 20% -25%. In this aspect big housing blocks are a step forward.
CO2 is a problem on it's own (climate change). It is not a important part of air quality problem - in the concentration we find it in the atmosphere it is indifferent to health directly.
that is true on average, but in cities there is usually a higher concentration then outside of them. and plants improve the air quality actually mostly by "catching" the dusty particles in the air with their leaves.
But of course it cannot substitute changing to more sustainable sources for energy then burning coal for heat.
Single Family houses are abysmal for energy efficiency. The average SFH uses 4 times the energy of an appartment for a 4 people family. (German numbers)
Most developed countries banned coal furnaces in homes a long time ago. When gas heaters became common. They dont just pollute the environment, its also very unhealthy to live in a house with such a heater.
6:44 dude that was so out of context 😭💀
There's a tree near where I live that has roots which are forcing their way through the pavement, causing the concrete near it to buckle and break. I'm sure, though, that the architects who designed these buildings have already considered the risk of having living plants (with unpredictable and potentially destructive roots) growing inside an external concrete planter on the 8th floor facade of a building. After all, once you plant a tree the roots stop growing forever... right?
Designs like these usually include root-barriers to prevent that sort of damage. All you have to do after that is choose a species whose roots can fit in the space provided.
@@skylarschell7858 I'm sure they do, but root barriers are not infallible and will eventually fail, and when choosing species you can never be certain that a plant won't outgrow its space or grow in an unexpected direction. Every tree planted in buildings like these is therefore a gamble that you won't be dealing with a maintenance job decades later which would involve, at best, having to remove a mature tree out of a balcony several stories high or, at worst, structural remediation work triggered by the discovery of a large crack on the underside of one of these balconies caused by a rogue root.
@@c.a.7844 That's why trees are generally poor choices for these sorts of projects. The most practical plants will depend on the soil depth, but they typically range from succulents like sedum in shallower soils/substrates to grasses, perennial flowers, and small shrubs in deeper soils. It's all about choosing the right plants for the right location. You shouldn't plant an oak on a roof that's likely to be replaced in another sixty years, but a rose bush would do fine.
Trees don't just send their roots out indiscriminately. They grow towards areas with the right combination of water, nutrients and aeration. Green roofs are designed with well sealed heavy polymer barriers. Tree roots have no interest in breaking through these given the surrounding well watered and aerated substrate. Trees will break through a street pavement because they are usually growing in some heavily compacted subsoil which has not been designed for them. @c.a.7844
0:30 my dude I can't focus with this Sims 2 BANGER blowing through my speakers
literally same
Two things:
It's not easy at all to plant trees at ground level in cities, as there are some many underground facilities and infrastructure.
I live right next to such a green building and the main problem is that plants need constant moisture to thrive, while at the same time that's very bad for the buildings substance. Just doesn't mix very well.
I get your point and mostly agree. But on the other side, I'm quite often at Alterlaa in Vienna. Which is often featured in the context of Vienna's housing solutions (which is actually not the best example for that). You probably seen it at least on pictures.
It's a high rise complex from the 1970s or the like in the outskirts of Vienna. The complex includes shops, schools, sport facilities and big parcs. It is directly connected to Viennas famous public transport. And I also has special shaped buildings so that for the lower floors the building gets leaner at every level. And each of this set backs actually has big planters for plants. They quite often have trees growing in them. Or bushes. I guess they are maintained by the people living in the respective flats. So they are probably very hig balconies.
While people love to live there despite it being relatively far away from the center of Vienna, its also not the very rich living there. It provides hosing for a lot of people. While giving a very special green feeling and not just concrete. I actually love walking between these buildings, as the park and those balconies actually provide a nice atmosphere.
And this is while the park is directly connected to another (public) green space along a park at a small river (Liesing). Which by itself is connected to even more parks. And small woods.
However on the other side of the complex there is a 5 line street and crossing another fast 4 line street that connects to a highway.
It's not a "modern" green high rise, but somewhat in between. And I guess its working out well enough. Else it wouldn't appear in so many examples about Viennas housing solutions. I guess a big element why this works is because of the great public transport. But it also caters to those dependent on cars.
However, in my point of view the greenery included helps a lot to make it a livable space. (Shops and schools as well.) It's not the solution. But its better than just concrete. On so many levels. As I actually offers third places in the parc between the buildings. Which one works because of all the greenery.
I thought of the Hundertwasser house in Vienna. Seems to be working there. But i would not call it a high rise.
It can be debated whether this is better than the old 4 Kant Hof design with the semi private park inside.
Alterlaa is a good place to live. Some high buildings are good and offer nice living quality. It depends on who they where built for, with which quality at which cost. And it is not a place for poor people, rahter for the upper middle class. But there plants are only on private balconies, it is not a green skycraper (it is not even really a skyscraper). And it has its own metro station, shops, buses and so on.
I'm a research ecologist studying the effects of green infrastructure on climate change and biodiversity. Having trees near windows and covering buildings actually does have a significant affect on heating and cooling energy expenditures due to evapotranspiration. In addition, green roofs and green balconies provide habitat for pollinators. The more of them you have in close proximity, the higher the net benefit is.
Cities like those shown in the video are lacking ground space to implement these positive measures. It would be infeasible and unsustainable to knock down buildings to put in a prairie or a forest. These types of urban projects ARE positive AND feasible. Overall they do not take attention awa from other efforts like you suggest.
While your intentions are probably good, I'm surprised that anyone who's familiar with Adam's content is not already aware of how powerful the grip of the automotive industry is on national infrastructure projects. YES, they absolutely serve to take attention away from green initiatives such as money towards public transportation projects, parks, and responsible civil engineering. It may seem like a harmless suggestion, because that's what it's meant to be perceived as. It's greenwashing propaganda by definition, as it pointed out in the video itself how quickly the project turns the eye away from the ever expanding 6-lane highway in a so-called "residential zone".
Urban design and subsidized investments towards any kind of real estate projects always has a trickle down effect into the ecology of the overall region, I'm surprised that you don't know this.
Okay, but why trees? Trees are heavy, and just get heavier over time. Vertical gardens would make maintenance much easier, have more green per area and weight, and weigh way less overall. Seems like you can have the same beneffits with a turbo version of potted plants (which imo is a very shite argument in the video, it is comparing apples to plastic oranges, it looks like a fruit comparison but it really isn't).
What about in the winter when the trees get dry and brittle, what if there’s a sudden storm with high winds or even a small fire in an apartment. What would happend to the people in the building who probably will have their shit burnt or even the things outside the building if a tree falls
@@mollusckscramp4124 That's in the US, not in China this time. Nanjing has 1000+ bus lines and 13 metro lines with 3 million uses per day. The city can and does spend attention on the conventional public transit already.
I live in a Brazilian metropolis called São Paulo, most areas of it i think can be described as tree obsessed, in almost every curb in almost every block in residential areas there will be trees, you can only barely see highrises in the distance covered by trees, surrounded, choked, avenues that don't get much sun because of rows of enormous unbroken canopies, rows of newly planted trees, green splotches between rows of buildings, it's one of the main reasons i love living here so much.
Now, we can only afford to have that much space dedicated to trees because of how robust the public transit system is, bike lanes, buses, electric buses, bus lanes, subways, trains, you can get from anywhere to anywhere by public transportation and often it's way better than driving since traffic is hell, all the while being a city richer than entire states and countries because efficient mass transit is a blessing to any economy.
Not every area of the city CAN be like this, industrial districts and heavy foot traffic (like hundreds of thousands of people a day heavy foot traffic) specialized commercial districts can't really afford that space, but considering an over 20 million people population and city planning focused on having all essentials within walking distance of most residences instead of crammed in commercial districts, residential vastly outweighs the rest, it's a successful example of a not perfect, complex, chaotic and definitely flawed, but better way, one that is still striving to be better and improve, it shows there is no logical, societal or even economic reason to desperately hold onto the car dominated sweltering miserable concrete jungles so many population centers are, many industries who profit specifically from the status quo like automotive have a choke hold on government yes but the people allow it, and the only reason they do is the fear of change, the refusal to accept anything new or different.
So what I'm saying is we have to use old people as fertilizers
Oh my goodness. 😆 The last line in your comment is hilarious!
tl:dr: canberra is good because the feds go "look at the capital! it's so green!"
as someone in canberra, we're on the way to becoming a green city. Mass public transport across a city center. The buses are wonderful. the only things that have to change are the roads, from more car-focused to more bike-focused.
canberra is the virtue signaller city of australia, so we get all the good things like massive amounts of amenities - i have like 4 grocery stores in walking distance. Since we're the place the federal government goes to virtue signal, we also use entirely snowhydro power for our grid (renewable, non-impactful because the rivers still flow, the snow still melts).
As an avid floor pooper myself, I'm interested in that poop scraper you mentioned.
While I agree with most of your points about green skyscrapers, I don't think your comparison between Nanjing and Dubai holds up at all. Let's look at some numbers
Nanjing
Population: 9.2 million
Metro ridership: 3.11 million/ day
Registered vehicles: 3.2 million
Dubai
Population: 5.9 million
Metro Ridership: 684,000/ day
Registered vehicles: 1.8 million
Nanjing's metro services way more of it's population, and they're already planning on expanding the service with an additional 13 lines in the next 10 years. Dubai only has plans for two more lines by 2030.
I was quite surprised to see that Nanjing has more cars per capita than Dubai - maybe it has to do with Dubai's large migrant worker population having less access to vehicles?
Nanjing seems a lot more comparable to London (Pop: 8.8m Metro: 3.15m/d Cars: 2.6m) but with more cars, but Nanjing is still expanding of their current metro network, which will hopefully reduce the number of cars in the city.
That's a good comment that actually bring up data that could ad up to the topic. I wish more comments were like yours.
I agree with the points made and the only reason I can think of to do this is to mitigate the heat island effect.
And to make it look purdy to sell... It's about curb appeal in the sky as it were... And setting your design apart from the bland masses that surround it... Not great reasons but I get it...
Also noise, and it looks awesome. That's actually pretty important too
@@stickynorth This is probably it. I was naive lol.
Environmentalism and day-to-day maintenance aside, "Green" skyscraper really only work in very specific regions. If you are in typhoon/hurricane prone region, the trees become a liability of branches blowing into the windows. Similarly with earthquake prone regions as entire tree can topple. If you are in a drought prone region, are the tree drought resistant? Can the structure support the expansion of frozen ground and can the tree survive with shallow root in freezing temperature of snowy regions?
well, it doesn't have to be trees though, "green facades" can involve just moss and fern for exmple.
In arid regions, the idea of adding succulents to the ground as well as any other open spaces does make sense.
Those Succulents will absorb the reflected heat and light at daytime and hold moisture when natural rain occurs, as seldom or non existent it will be in such areas, providing the soil with extra bits of humidity
Adding trees to a building does not though.
Living in Milano (where the bosco verticale you show is) I have to say I did like seeing the green towers pop up on the horizon here and there.
Then again I see your criticism and completely agree. Still I think it’s a little harsh for certain specific projects and geographic locations.
For example , Bosco verticale has a built in water system that is fed by surplus water arriving from the near by alps to the large Milano metro area. The gardening and grooming of trees is done by a specialized crew which is paid well, and in my mind is not much different than to landscapers for all the new fancy eco parks that are built in the wealthy areas of NYC or London etc. The structural issue was solved … but by pouring a TON of concrete… so yea not so eco in the end. But just a cool one off idea that can’t be replicated really lol
I've seen a German article on the Bosco Verticale, which claims the cost per unit for the greenery is 1500€/month (possibly gone up since then because that's how it is these days). It's prohibitively expensive for any sort of reasonable use, except for these sort of flagship projects.
Which, yeah, there's worse stuff we're building so having some here or there isn't really that offensive. Just don't cover them with this "it's the future!" "it'll change how we live!" blabla in the media. That's just nonsense. If people said "here's a cool project that tries to do a few things with greenery" then fine, no real reason to object.
I live near Luciano Pia’s 25 Verde in Turin. It isn't a skyscraper, but I think it is an early example of this type of work. The plants are in big iron planters on a scaffold that wraps the building. I was going to do a tour on an annual architectural tour event around the city, but the line was crazy long (Italians can't just let people walk around for 20 min and read signs, they have to engage some long-winded person to tell you endless details).
I like it from an aesthetic point of view, and it gave me a real feeling of serendipity when I first stumbled upon it when going to tour the old Fiat plant across the street. Certainly, any claims of it being a great environmental treasure are silly, but I'm glad it exists.
I mean, they are pretty, lets just not pretend they are anything else.
I would say that apart from carbon capture and helping air pollution the Urban heat island must also be considered, green spaces help reduce insolation absorption because vegetation has a the ability to transform heat into chemical energy rather than a stone building that absorbs heat and then releases it as it gets colder. Cities on average are around 20° hotter than their surrounding neighborhoods and implementing greenery can actually help lower temperatures considerably.
As a Washingtonian, I require a minimum number of evergreen trees in view of my current location or I don't quite feel at home. Those trees don't need to grow on buildings, however. Just plant them wherever there's space
8:17 Lol, Adam realized he fucked up while editing and tried to smooth it over. I'm on to you, Adam!
Trees on the ground in sufficient quantity can lower the ambient city temperature by over 10 degrees C (roughly 25F lower) in really hot weather.
then how will we make American Toasted Marshmalleow what you propose is Real Work Idk
wellp
2:38 I'll consider nord vpn if they add bonus feature of dealing with that pesky avians and rodents
If you did not do it yet, take a look to Singapur and how they did it. They combined parks and green areas with their buildings. It looks more like nature took over the city.
They also built another nice city for the rich on top of the slums, thats some Bladde Runner level dystopian shit.
Singapore is a nice example in many cases but not in urban planning.
@@TheSuperappelflap i do not know the city, I appreciate if you would tell me the name. In Singapore it is policy to have mixed neighbourhoods and over 80% of the apartments in SG are subsidised apartments. They also do not allow monoethnic blocks to prevent the creation of ghettos or isolated communities. Of course it is not perfect, but in comparision to Europe it is very advanced. I won't even try to compare SG with North America or other parts of the world, bc it is like comparing a car with a bike.
@@TheSuperappelflap as a Singaporean I'm genuinely confused which city and slum you're talking about. Is this about the 1960s? If so I hate to break it to you but the apartments that replaced the kampongs then were public housing for the poor and middle class, many of whom were former slum and Kampong dwellers. It erased some culture for sure, but that's the most notable slum clearing in Singapore and it's not so malevolent as you describe
@@str2010 sure, they did the same in Hong Kong. Not malevolent except for the forced evictions and people ending up homeless because they cant afford the rent of the new buildings.
In the Netherlands we have a saying for such matters: "Go be poor somewhere else"
@@str2010 Singapore also has a problem with ridiculous vanity projects, for example Marina Bay Sands, instead of investing in effective solutions that dont cost as much money. It is one of the best places to live in Asia, probably the best, but from my perspective that says more about how bad the other countries are.
I wouldnt want to live in such a place that bulldozes over people's homes and spends billions on land reclamation just to build casinos and resorts for the rich.
Adam flexing his image editing skills in this one.
Or (and I accept this is a somewhat radical idea) we can do *both* ideas!
Remove lanes to reduce traffic, have street-level parks and make the city walkable _and_ have green wall/roof buildings to add even more plants to the city, reducing the heat island effect, reducing echoes and damping the noise of the city, providing habitat for wildlife and so on...
Maybe keep trees on the ground and have climbing plants and small shrubs etc on the buildings. With regards to maintenance access, I recently did some work at a clients apartment where the buildings main stairs lead onto an outside balcony that then went to the apartment doors. Didn't seem to be any more of a problem than inside corridors. I suppose when it rains you might get wet going between your door and the stairwell.
Some counterarguments:
- I went to a school that was newly built with plants on the top. The Welsh weather and the short roots made it such that nobody had to water them except for maybe a few days in Summer, and the roof was very safe.
- If you were to look _between_ a lot of the nanjing towers you mentioned, you'd see a lot of trees, green space, and public utilities. Oh and also, the area is on the growing metro network too.
- It would be entirely possible to have the lease agreement state that to live inside the flat, you need to allow the garderners to come in, say, every Tuesday at around 13:00. The floorplans could certainly be made such that the floor-balcony route follows a hallway instead of going through rooms
- There is little problem with flowers and short-rooted plants in what are effetively plantpot-troughs attached directly to the structure
- Should there be plants on _both_ the floor and skyscraper, there should be little problem with the class split you mentioned.
4:27 This stock photo image really caught me offguard and made me lose my shit. Who is making these??
It's written on the pic itself: Shutterstock
Don't forget all the additional concrete that is required to hold all the trees (yes plants weigh much).
The production of concrete creates a lot of CO2 as does it's demolition
When I was studying architecture we did a field trip to Paris and some of us went to see the Riccardo Bofill buildings around Marne-La-Vallée. We were all bonkers about the film Brazil and its most iconic scenes were filmed there.
The bloated cornice of the Palais d'Abraxas was supposed to be fringed with a parade of cypress trees. When I saw them, the buildings were hardly 5 years old, and every single cypress was dead and skeletal.
(Mind you - the Hundertwasser flats in Vienna - that's really how to do it.)
You can build automated watering systems
You can select plants that require relatively little maintenance
You can provide access routes for gardeners without having to go through apartments
You can select plants that can resist high winds
You can have the gardens inspected regularly by professionals to identify and remove potentially hazardous plants.
All that is possible, and individually these solutions are already implemented. But each one adds more costs, limitations and considerations. The cost would be incredibly high, though it would be a high-end building so I guess money isn't really an issue.
But what you can't fix is that plants are quite flammable, and having a flammable exterior on a high rise is a bad idea, and when you put it that way, it starts to sound like Grenfell 2.0...
As mostly mentioned in this video:
Positives:
countless environmental benefits (not necessarily big ones)
[marketing]
Negatives:
immense consequences in the event of a faliure (dead and or falling plants, life living directly on your window?!), maintenance, better alternatives
Moisture seeping.
Roots spreading.
Rodents scurrying.
Insects burrowing.
Plants burning.
Concrete breaking.
Iron rusting.
Building collapsing.
Some of the problems would be solved by not planting any trees that can grow too big & heavy. So, by planting bushes and climber plants.
Still, maybe covering the sunny-side walls with solar panels is a better idea.
Some critique about this video:
This video has left me with the impression that your main point of harsh criticism is that there are more efficient ways of achieving similar effects, which is, however, no reason to not tackle the idea of greening building facades.
Moreover, the many contra arguments you did list felt overly hypothetical, often taking the worst possible outcomes as granted, or do not acknowledge that other problems of such scale have been commonly solved before when society finally developed the need for solutions.
For example, rat infestation and water supply should hardly be an issue if you already plan on planting greenery on the facade during the architectural design process of the building. Burglars using utility entrances to enter flats is not a new threat nor something we haven’t developed counter measurements already. And instead of planting a full sized tree on a tiny balcony on the 20th floor (I agree that this can be highly dangerous), you could instead opt for more moderate, light and compact plant types.
In summary, your explanation why greening high rise facades is a terrible idea is mainly based on your assumption that people will not manage to care for said greenery in a reasonable way. This is a legitimate argument against the practical application, however, doubting a good execution it is no reason to judge such buildings as terrible ideas by default.
In the end, I think you should’ve focused more on explaining your strongest arguments or instead also address possible pro arguments that counter your issues. You could’ve also mentioned real experiences that have already been made by people living in and near such structures instead of only theorizing about blue prints (e.g. inhabitants have mentioned a highly uncomfortable rise of fly populations due to higher humidity and shelter even in higher altitudes of the building).
Your video seemed more satirical than actually debating the topic from an objective point of view. Having this video be more of a comment instead of a two-sided discussion may have been your goal and is, of course, totally valid. However, I personally think that coming to your conclusion after discussing both pro and contra arguments (at least addressing them to show the audience that you considered them), would’ve significantly strengthened your point of view.
That being said, I still very much enjoyed the video and it gave me a couple of new thoughts about the topic. So thank you, and have a good day!
I remember seeing a short documentary about pollution in big cities in China. It showed 4 story apt sized buildings that were air filters. An entreprenuer was sweeping up ash from the sidewalks and making construction bricks out of it. Heart disease in China is increasing as the bicycle is replaced by automobiles. Progress.
Actually pollution got down... way down in China in the last 10-20 years... Heart disease in China is increasing because they switched from traditional food to american style garbage.
That being said china also has rather poor enviromental regs and a lot of people and large distances so even a moderate proportion owning cars is rather impactful.
I'll be honest, gardeners rappelling down skyscrapers to care for high altitude urban vegetation sounds like an awesome premise for a video game.
Green skyscrapers are about (1) improving humidity balance around the building, (2) decreasing temperature of "concrete jungles" cities, and (3) cleaning air by collecting dust on the leaves.
6:26 That's Bosco Verticale, in Milan, and it actually works.
The crane on top does maintenance yearly, the trees are properly anchored to the building and the species were carefully chosen.
There isn't an Adam Something video without misinformation of some kind, so maybe it doesn't matter that much.
4:55 fuck yeah, the Barcelona superblocks are such a good example of how nice and walkable cities could be!!
"Gardener that repels down skyscrapers" sounds like the coolest job in the world
As someone that works a job where you sometimes need to enter different building (say for example a apartment complex) you don't get a skeleton key that can unlock every flat, if work has to be done on the facade or the roof it is pretty much always accessable w/o having to enter any private living quarters. If the planter boxes have to be maintained it would be insane not to have a small walkway or smth similar. So I don't think your robbery claim stands, but other than that it's a pretty good video :)