On 1st February this year I blogged about World First Man-Made Vertical Forest. It was a new architectural concept for improving city's air quality. Now, questions have raised whether it was a practical and realistic design.
I am quoting few phrases from "Are architects going overboard with the trees on buildings?" on how others viewed.
Tim De Chant, Senior Digital Editor at WGBH, said that it is just one of many that architects are drawing these days.
Want to make a skyscraper look trendy and sustainable? Put a tree on it. Or better yet, dozens. Many high-concept skyscraper proposals are festooned with trees. On the rooftop, on terraces, in nooks and crannies, on absurdly large balconies. Basically anywhere horizontal and high off the ground. Now, I should be saying architects are drawing dozens, because I have yet to see one of these “green” skyscrapers in real life.
There are plenty of scientific reasons why skyscrapers don’t—and probably won’t—have trees, at least not to the heights which many architects propose. Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the snow and sleet pelt you at high velocity. Life for city trees is hard enough on the ground. I can’t imagine what it’s like at 500 feet, where nearly every climate variable is more extreme than at street level.
Lloyd Alter, Design / Green Architecture, also commented that,
City trees have enough trouble finding enough space for their roots at ground level in sidewalk planters, and even if they survive, they rarely grow much bigger than they were when they were planted. So are the trees on this building ever going to look like they do in that rendering?
It seems like building a skyscraper embedded in trees is still a technically challenged concept. It is very nice to view on the rendering. In reality, the design could come out very different. I guess there is still a long way to go for "Man-Made Vertical Forest".