We have an incredible 4000sq ft olive grove at the top of the 48 storey Beetham Tower in rainy Manchester. The architect turned the top two floors into his own penthouse, complete with enclosed olive trees.

Picture: http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2009/04/27/...

Trees at the top of a skyscraper convey both extravagance and eco credentials. Helipads are no longer credit-crunch-friendly.

Video (Skip to 1:16 for the trees)

http://karmacrew.tv/our-work/architect-profile-ian-simpson-b...

Toronto requires green roofs for new building projects. Grasses and shrubs are typically grown, and they survive just fine with minimal care. I suspect the only reason that large trees are not typically used is that there's fear that tree roots will damage the roof of the building. Oh, and the weight of the soil required for larger plants is an issue.

Yep, looking at the bylaw, the growing medium - soil - is only required to be four inches deep. Weight of soil and drainage starts to be a problem - you have to figure that the soil may be 100% soaked...

It's going to be tough to grow trees in four inches of soil.

So, nutshell, tree survivability not a problem, but engineering a roof to hold enough soil (and therefore water) to grow a large tree is expensive, and root damage is a problem, and therefore - no large trees on skyscrapers. Still, there's nothing magic about it, just engineering problems. I could easily imagine a high-end residential tower with a forest on the roof.

You can grow trees on skyscrapers. But the author captured why it is unlikely to happen: trees need care & maintenance. Care & maintenance == $.

For the types of people who build and run skyscrapers, facility operations is a cost center, and regulating authorities don't really care about greenscape. Nobody wants to pay for a staff of gardeners.

That's why when plans get mocked up, the public spaces around commercial buildings are usually lush, but when the building are actually constructed, you see a few shrubs or maybe a few arbor vitae at ground level.

When the local people and regulating bodies care, things are different. The Wal-Mart parking lot in Hilton Head Island, SC is wooded and shaded. The town refuses to issue construction permits that require old growth trees to be cut down -- so there's 60" wide tree in the lot, with a buffer between it and the pavement. Instead of curbs directing water to storm drains, there are mulched beds that absorb alot of storm water. About 15 miles away near I-95, there is another Wal-Mart with the typical construction methods -- bulldoze, flatten and pave everything.

I feel like most of the replies are focusing on the feasibility of putting trees in or on skyscrapers when I think the criticism levied in the article was more towards "designers" or architects who are using them as decorations knowing they will never get to see actual production.

I don't think it actually matters to the author if trees can live and thrive in this environment but more so if they are actually implemented.

Including something in your design to make it special (or to win a project) knowing it will never be implemented is a design problem and one that could be translated to what we (hackers) do with technology projects.

Two other things about trees:

* They hold tons and tons of water and are generally massive (if you've never given a hardwood tree a good pruning, the volume and mass are surprising). A large, growing tree and its root system would add very significant load to the structure.

* They blow over sometimes. Probably frequently, on an exposed, elevated rooftop with limited soil depth (shallow roots, fairly easy to saturate). 20 tons of tree flying off a tower during a storm doesn't sound like fun.

> Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the snow and sleet pelt you at high velocity. Life for city trees is hard enough on the ground. I can’t imagine what it’s like at 500 feet, where nearly every climate variable is more extreme than at street level.

How is being located on top of a tall building much different from being located on top of a tall hill or mountain? Wouldn't the only factors involved be the type of soil and species chosen?

I think this shows the problem that people like me have with design.

I don't notice good design. Things just work and everything is where it should be. It's taken hundreds of years of collected wisdom and research and skill to get it like that, and someone has worked very hard to make it so I don't notice their work.

I do notice when someone draws a willowy slender tree on the side of a towerblock. It'd be great to have more shrubbery and trees up high, but at least they could do it realistically. And I get the impression that they forget about all the root system and maintenance and etc.

England has a problem with terribly dull architecture.

Maybe there is a certain height where this comes into play, but I've seen trees growing naturally (not by design) in abandoned buildings. The first I could think of is the 13-story Highland building here in Pittsburgh you can kind of make out the quite large tree in this photo http://photos.mycapture.com/PITT/1314621/37517652E.jpg

There's another reason to not have trees on top of skyscrapers: It's dangerous.

Even the best-pruned tree will occasionally have the occasional branch break off in a severe storm. Normally that's not a problem -- but if the tree is 300' in the air, that branch can go flying a long way and hit someone with a lot of force when it reaches ground level. The sorts of companies which build big skyscrapers don't like to take risks like that; nor do most city zoning boards.

Mister Spock has a 30 foot tall oak tree on top of a building for many years now, http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3228/2896752060_d5bd34df28_z.j...

I get what he's saying. I think he's more upset that architects are using a "tree" to add some level of trendiness to their buildings. When in fact they should be adding altitude hardened plants that are typically not the most aesthetic plant.

But it is after all just a model and hopefully someone will sit down and scratch their head and say, wait what happens if a branch falls off that tree? Lets just put some bushes up there that don't grow past the railing...

Funny

"Trees won't survive in this conditions", but in Nature they are not watered, they are not pruned, and they have lived for millions of years

What harsh conditions are there in the side of a building that don't exist in nature? (Off the top of my head there are several, but it would be nice for him to specify)

It could be: temperature, winds, lack of cover (either soil cover or taller trees) and their corresponding soil dynamic.

But it shouldn't be too complicated to find a plant that works there.

I'm a bit surprised that the article never mentioned the potential affects of the tree's roots on the structures supporting them. My driveway can tell you that the roots of a decent sized tree will not play nice with man made things that get in their way.

I think the writer is being a bit unrealistic.

So long as you aren't somewhere at a rather high elevation to begin with, the temperature, elevation and wind chill factors seem like they'd be quite easy to work around. Even something as simple as buffering vegetation from the prevailing wind direction ought to go a long way.

Perhaps a more relevant point might be that the architects aren't fully designing their vegetation's support systems, but that seems like it would require a higher burden of proof. I wouldn't be surprised if issues such as 'what if a large branch fell off 500 feet above street level?' aren't fully thought out, either.

But I don't think there's any reason that someone using careful engineering and design couldn't put healthy plants on a tall building.

If he was merely intending to point out that many architects are placing vegetation without proper design and engineering, he may be right, but I don't think he really succeeded in making the point.

On the contrary: do let's. http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/09/08/namba-parks-gets-rave-...

I live @ 9200 ft in the rocky mountains in colorado. Plenty of tree growing right out of the granite. It amazes me how easily plants and trees can make their homes here. At these altitudes, a wide, horizontal root system works better than a deep vertical root system. It is definately within our ability to plant trees on top of buildings.

Looking at those pictures, I wonder "Where are the roots?" It's like the artists think the tree stops where the trunk meets the surface. I see rooms where peoples would be walking just under the trunk of the tree.

I could see using Bonsai style root trimming and enclosed spaces for the trees, but yeah, other than that it looks like pure fantasy.

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

Apparently someone hasn't heard of the Guinigi Tower.

Trees on top of buildings didn't used to signify green. They used to signify power.

Please do not stop!

I absolutely love the idea of buildings lush with vegetation, as if in some post-apocalyptical world where nature has reclaimed the cities.

It may not be very possible/feasible, it may even be a public safety hazard, but I'm so fed up with steel, concrete and glass.

Who says these have to be real trees? Fake trees look damn impressive these days. All you have to do is dust them off. And hey -- the wind at these altitudes will do that for you. Now we just need to hire someone to clean up the bird poop.

As a fan of urban exploration (photographing old left-behind structures in cities), I had a positive gut reaction to images of buildings overrun by plants.

To me putting trees on the exterior of a tall building makes the building look abandoned. When you find your way in and explore such a building, the artifacts, grittiness and worn-down aesthetic make you think about all the people who have ever lived and worked there.

For this personal reason, I think the trees might be an improvement. Much better than the typical sterile corporate look of skyscrapers. But I can understand why someone who has more architecture experience might think of it as a cliche.

In San Francisco there at least one building with trees and other greenery about 500 ft up at 1 Front Street. It has them on the 35th through 38th floor with a rather high glass wind shield that keeps parts from blowing off the roof.

I know that's short compared to some of these massive skyscrapers they show, but as long as the building radiates heat back up at the trees, I don't really see why you couldn't go considerably higher.

I see a huge potential market for holographic trees.

Here's one example. It's an oak tree, right at the top of an apartment building.

http://www.venturevancouver.com/blog/tree-on-top-of-building...

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

This house: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2994951 is a few miles from where I live. Last time I saw it the green stripe over it was a sea of dead yellow grass.

In my neighbourhood there is an apartment block with two pine trees on the roof terrace. The trees are about 2m high. I still do not understand how they are not causing any trouble. Its not a skyscraper but still..

So far, I hadn't seen written what's most obvious problem to me. A dead branch or something from the tree that falls from a building will kill or cause serious injury to someone. Now if a few trees were dead center on the roof, they likely wouldn't, but anything close to overhanging in high winds will shake loose objects very dangerous to humans.

sure you could protect people by adding nets. Well then you have a skyscraper that looks trashier than it did without plants at all.

Yes, trees bow on windy mountains (or even next to the ocean), but since when was this a bad thing and/or a sign that the trees were not healthy? This article is like saying "don't put plants on your balcony". True, it's more windy but many plants, especially trees, are created to be more durable.

I do agree that it's a more challenging environment than a forest, but if the building is willing to cover the costs of maintenance, I don't see why not have them!

I lived in Singapore for a while where I commonly saw trees on the top of skyscrapers. Sky gardens live and thrive in South East Asia.

we do have some buildings in NYC with trees sustained for years. Trump 5th ave being one example.

http://www.honestbuildings.com/dres/di_full_23c708c1-5549-c4...

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

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

Here's one that has thrived for years, but it has its own planter! http://www.jpmtree.com/images/sides/JPM,%20Vancouvers%20High...

this is a really, really interesting critique of why the current idea of trees on buildings is wrong, but it's a bit short-sighted in that it just says "stop". The next logical step in this is to contemplate how a rooftop environment would affect the evolution of trees moving forward; how human architecture will interact with the genetic lineage of trees in the future, and how we can encourage an evolutionary process so that we get to a point where trees on buildings are possible. Either way, upvote; there's a lot of interesting content in this article.

I can't help but think of Betteridge's Law, even when a headline is a request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_law_of_headlines

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

Capita Centre, Sydney, Harry Seidler & Associates 1989

When I saw the title of this article I really hoped it was a metaphor for software, ideally about building products on top of proprietary APIs.

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

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

This reminded me of Gremlins 2.

Can't the trees be enclosed?

typical frustrated architect :)

how about new ideas and solving problems to make them a reality? if it were for people like him alone, we'd still have only blocky concrete buildings.

Putting trees on skyscrapers is lame when its only purpose is to gussy-up an image, but honest to goodness metropolitan reforestation where condos and apartment buildings are self-sustaining and eco-friendly is something we should move forward with.

Instead of building outward as in urban sprawl, build upward with vertical forests: https://cbpowerandindustrial.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/future...