Wright had a very good record for building things that structural engineers said were impossible, so if you want the build the world’s tallest building, he’d be the safest choice to copy. The work he did for Johnson Wax is still astonishing today. It’s unfortunate nobody would fund the Illinois building in 1956.
8 Likes
I don’t know what Kohlstedt thinks is sensible about extensive v. intensive planting, but Kurt threw in bunches of renders and even an as-built with tree No.1 in progress. I imagine they’re just stocking back the Oculus …omg, coverage at Steam X Penny Arcade…footage of hurricanes ripping through the 500oz. pinecone arcology v. just the moss, cactus, herb, grass one. How do the arborist drones fare? (Or: just swank bulbasaurs living simply)
Welcome to New Anchorage. Ya know, you don’t have to go to quarter loads just because a bear’s your neighbor.
1 Like
Why, they’ll just send 5 space elevators down in sync from the Mulryan Trans-Orbital FCG Fabs; or have them land the pool in the same deep bucket the swimmer’s supposed to land in when they suddenly wish there were lane ropes or something.
This. Very.
Thanks for professionally weighing in.
It’s true that even with all conditions being ideal, any treescraper would have to cope with an ever-larger and -heavier load of biomass to carry. In Austin, with a climate decidedly not ideal for green roofs…
(not enough rainfall throughout the year to keep it alive without intervention like artificial irrigation lines)
… there has been much study of whether the engineering of green roof that can take an increasingly heavier load has the right kind of return on investment long-term wrt cooling loads (air conditioning). IMO green roofs are basically the first human effort to put green plants on a human-built structure, a precursor to treescrapers.
Long have I wondered (as both a long-time employee of a green building information web site and as an employee at an environmental engineering firm) whether the engineering implicit in a treescraper would ever be a reality.
It would take something like the non-negotiable environmental and extreme economic conditions of, say, a Kuwait or a Saudi Arabia with their megastructure manmade islands project in Dubai…
… combined with the desperate need for more living space for people, as with land “reclamation” or “rehabilitation” efforts in Singapore…
or old Holland…
… and some mind-bogglingly committed and talented people working under hospitable regulatory conditions and for the right “client” to pull this off.
Even then, I’d wonder what the lifespan of such a treescraper could be.
2 Likes
It’s true that living walls (and for the purposes of discussion here, on the exterior of a building) are high maintenance unless the building with those green walls is ideally situated, either because it can store adequate rainwater for irrigation in dry/hot seasons, or push greywater irrigation during same, or because the climate itself is cooperative.
Gobbless that crazy ol’ Patrick Blanc:
http://www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com/
… and I mean that sincerely. He’s really pushing the vertically green envelope. He’s one I’m watching, tracking, with interest. I think he’s got a fairly large multi-story project in Japan going, will have to go look that one up. Not a treescraper but evolutionarily related. Early days, perhaps?
7 Likes
some argue that there hasn’t been an original architectural thought/innovation since the arch. I’m not sure yet if I’m one of them
I’d recommend you check out the Johnson Wax research tower and administration building before making up your mind. 
1 Like
Hmmmm. . . looks cool, but I remember when I was at college and the school administration began removing ivy from many of the buildings because they found it was damaging the stone and brick work.
2 Likes
Yeah there’s definitely a set of plants that are really not ideal for green walls.
Ivy and vines are… problematic, in part because they cover whatever damage they are doing with their own leaves:
http://www.oldhouseweb.com/how-to-advice/ivy-and-vines-attribute-or-detriment.shtml
English Ivy and other Hedera spp come to mind. So does Virginia Creeper. Both are often found in university campuses because they do generate that Ivy League feeling to the Gothic or Neogothic (in the States it was practically a requirement, conferring desperately needed gravitas) campus architecture.
Some interesting comments on this thread:
… so perhaps some ivies on brick aren’t bad, per one commenter.
This here is a rogue’s gallery of vines in my area with bad reputations:
http://www.wildflower.org/expert/show.php?id=4305
And there is an art to creating the right kind of scaffolding etc. that green roofs and walls require. I know the plant lists for green roof projects often specify natives and a lot of succulents like sedums.
5 Likes
Maybe it is because I live in a rocky area, but have you seen tree roots split rocks? 
I can only imagine the structural damage they would do to tall buildings.
building damage caused by tree roots
6 Likes
I suppose if one has a durable, long-term set of conscientious maintenance workers/residents to manage the trees for a few centuries, it might be workable.
I can’t imagine a 40-story building surviving a Strangler Fig, or a willow, or any other tree with an opportunistic root system. Shallow-rooted species would be selected, I’d guess.
But.
This writer, Tim de Chant, states things compactly and I like how he thinks:
in part, this:
“… Instead of planting trees on buildings, let’s focus on preserving and restoring places that already have, or desperately need, trees. … We still disagree on the value of trees on skyscrapers: he, and Krulwich, see them as an inspiration; I see them as a distraction and potential liability—what if the Bosco Verticale [aka treescraper project] becomes a brown eyesore, turning people off to his larger vision? I’d love it if Bosco Verticale and other proposed arboreal skyscrapers were sustainable and successful.³ Who wouldn’t want to live in a city full of tree towers? But I just can’t make a case for it. Plant physiology tells me that the trees, if they do survive, will require constant and costly maintenance throughout their short, brutal lives. Finance tells me that the money required to afforest a building would be more effectively used for restoration and preservation. And my gut tells me there are more equitable ways to give people trees, not just to those who can afford it. [emphases mine]”
7 Likes
Anything less than type M mortar will be damaged by a sturdy vine with holdfasts. Stonework is typically done using type S, which is much softer. Wood buildings will be completely destroyed by large holdfast vines like trumpet creeper (campsis radicans); it will shatter the boards and tear apart beams. Twining and creeping vines are much less destructive.
3 Likes
Ends badly.
3 Likes
Kudzu.
7 Likes
Thanks for this tip. Am going to have to redo mortared fieldstone retaining wall in front of our house. Knock loose all the old mortar, try to keep the stones oriented lichen-side up.
I’m going to guess Type M mortar is probably more expensive, but it’s probably worth it if I end up with a stronger, tougher wall.
1 Like
One word for ya: drones. 
What The Nature Conservancy and similar organizations have found is that tree roots don’t work for shallow berms, pond edges, etc. like you see in the Midwest. Native grasses are the way to go, because their roots don’t break up the ground the way tree roots do.
4 Likes
Rule of thumb: if the leaves drop off in the fall, the ivy is not harming the brick or stone, but if the leaves stay on through the winter, that’s an ivy to get off your walls.
5 Likes
