Why Green Skyscrapers are a Terrible Idea – Adam Something - eviltoast

Piped link | Invidious link

“Because green skyscrapers and high-rises are a bullshit non-solution to serious systemic problems.”

“But if you want greenery on a building nonetheless, do I have an idea for you – a portable, modular, scalable solution called ‘potted plants on your balcony’.”

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Can’t really see a downside

    The downside is almost certainly structural (significant weight as well as moisture, and a need for long term structural integrity and safety, likely don’t pair well. Especially not when the people doing the building are looking for cost effectiveness).

      • shani66@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well if we’re talking fully grown oak trees for some stupid reason it’d be heavy, but most of the plants people point at in these things would be light as fuck. The dirt for the planters would probably be heavier.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Plants + dirt + water = significant additional weight to consider when designing a building for the people and their furniture…

        Buildings today are already being designed with only the bare essentials in mind, they aren’t even built with safety in mind only cost effectiveness (see Grenfell and million other buildings like it that should be condemned).

        I never said it can’t be done, but the person I replied to asked what the downside is, and from a developers’ point of view, that will be it.

          • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            The issue I was trying (and failing) to get at is the additional weight the building now has to support on top of everything else a building normally has to support. However, it doesn’t seem to be a big deal judging by everyone’s replies.

            • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I have no idea. Not an architectural engineer.

              My assumption would be that they have to build the building to a code that has a minimum weight requirements.

              Male Humans are generally averaging about 80kg.

              If you have a party and have 10 - 15 over. That’s a lot of weight. Not all the time but I think if every apartment had a few plants then the weight would still be less than having a party.

              Or that was my assumption anyway. I know balconies have a weight limit, as there was a story about a party and too many people were out on it and it collapsed

          • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Except that plants grow… and grow, and grow. Unless they’re maintained, which takes additional labor and people and infrastructure to handle, all of which adds even more weight.

    • Nighed@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      For now, if richish people want to pay for it in their flat, go for it. (It would be interesting to see the carbon cost of the extra materials though!) They can pay for the building and maintenance, and everyone else gets a cool building to look at.

      The hopefully the kinks get worked out and it can be done cheaper on other buildings.