Written by Meghan Mitchell
In class we have been talking about over population. Although this might not have been the problem Stefano Boeri was trying to solve, I believe that this kind of thinking is a step to solving future problems. Stefano Boeri has designed a vertical forest and Milan is prepared to build it. Boeri has a vision of a garden city and wants to make Milan less polluted, crowded, and inhumane. When first reading about this brilliant idea I thought about the cost. However once I realized all the benefits, more room, more plants and a better environment, it lead me to believe that the benefits out weighed the cost and this is something that should be done everywhere. “The Bosco Verticale building has a green façade planted with dense forest systems to provide a building microclimate and to filter out polluting dust particles. The living bio-canopy also absorbs CO2, oxygenates the air, moderates extreme temperatures and lowers noise pollution, providing aesthetic beauty and lowering living costs.”
Since the over population of humans is rapidly diminishing the rainforests, could vertical forests be the solution? If the over population of our world keeps increasing at this rapid rate, could vertical buildings be the solution? With this vertical forest idea (read more HERE), we could have almost everything we need in a building.
I think this tower is a great idea. Besides looking cool and being the first of its kind, it benefits the people by providing trees. We all know the advantages to having more trees on the planet, but forests are getting smaller and smaller. If this sort of building truly comes to be, people can live in a forest without the dangers of deforestation. I was also concerned about the obvious high cost of the building, but was happily surprised to find that only about five percent is added to the cost. This means that having trees on the building can be affordable as well. It seems like a win-win to me.
Anyone who has spent time getting dirt under their nails while gardening will understand a few dilemmas here: (1) trees, dirt and water carry considerable weight, (2) trees blow in the wind, and have the potential of blowing over — in this case, over the ledge, a steady 300 foot drop on to some poor old lady below, and (3) trees grow and have the potential of, in this case, turning the 37th floor into the 37th+38th floor. I love design, but this seems hazardous on many levels (figuratively speaking of course).
I agree with Cameron. This building is a unique and innovative idea with an eye towards helping the environment. The cool thing is that this allows for two things. Residential living is constructed and it would give people places to live. At the same time, it provides at least some sort of positive effect on the environment no matter the size of that effect. Anything counts. Another good point by Cameron is that of the lesser and lesser number of trees today due to deforestation. This idea gives a place for the trees to be. It would be interesting to see if this idea becomes big. It certainly has the potential.
I agree with the fact that there are two great benefits that come from the construction of this. It would allow for more residentiall living because it would not take up as much space. If it is built upward, then that would leave a lot of empty space to build living areas. Not only is it allowing more space, it is making a huge impact on the environment. More forests can exist since there will be more room and we do not have to fear deforestation. It will be beneficial to our problem of overpopulation because it is providing more space and less harm to forests by humans.
I agree with both of you guys. I think that its a nice addition to a necessary item. Obviously these “vertical forests” will not be able to take the place of real forests they are still a step in the right direction. My first thought upon seeing this was if plants would be able to be sustained in higher altitudes. I couldn’t imagine a plant being able to live very long on top of a large building in LA or really any place that has a lot of air pollution. I am also wondering if this would give large companies an excuse to cut down more trees. Maybe if they are able to have trees growing on their buildings then they will be able to use that as a reason as to why they can cut down more naturally growing trees. Like I said above, I do not think that these should replace traditional plants.
I agree with Catherine that I don’t think this should replace the real forest but adding more trees is definitely a benefit no matter which way you look at it. At first I was a little confused on how this would actually work like Catherine said at a much higher altitude then intended for plants but if they are able to survive that’s a major factor that should allow this to be a huge success. I do hope this can become a reality for more and more places in the world. It would not just help environmentally but economically later on when we don’t have to pay for what we did now to the forests.
I also agree with you. It is a great idea, but I don’t think it could replace forest or that it should even be considered a solution to deforestation. It would definitely help in the city by reducing air pollution and maybe making a healthier environmentm. There would be complaints about people who don’t maintain and cut their plants. The plants might also cause humidity problems in the apartments, and humidity is known to provoke health issues in people. I don’t think altitude would affect the trees unless the building is a skyscraper. What would affect the trees might be wind, since at that altitude it is stronger than at the bottom. As well, I don’t know if having plants like that in buildings would create a fire hazard. In storms, a lightning could start a fire or a cigar, or any other thing that would spark a fire.
Santiago Zapata
I don’t think that the higher altitude of the trees would be a huge problem because the article states that the building will be 27 stories high, which is much less than most modern skyscrapers. This works out to around 250-290 feet high, which is well below the first step of the tree line for most of the world. Also, the trees would have less competition for root space than in a real forest, so they would grow better and faster. I also do not think that this will replace real forests, but I think that it is a step in the right direction.
I definitely agree that these buildings should never be thought of as a replacement for traditional plants. It’s funny to think that human’s response to the lack of nature within cities is to build a man-made structure in order to re-introduce nature. Kind of ironic but at the same time I understand the effort. I do see how they can restore some of what has been lost, however, I do hope that if these buildings were ever used, they would not be thought of as an alternative to true plants or as an excuse to cut down natural trees…etc.
They are not a replacement to real forests aesthetically, obviously, but they can potentially replace the function of forests. Trees take in CO2 and release oxygen, something that we all need to survive. As the forests disappear more and more, we still need something to replenish the oxygen in the atmosphere. If buildings like this truly take off, I think that they can definitely serve the purpose of forests.
I agree with what Allie is saying, it is sad that our world has had to come to this but the benefits to these vertical forests are going to be very beneficial to our environment. At the rate that forests are being cut down and disappearing, we are going to have to have an alternate way to get the oxygen we need in order to survive. It is scary to think of the future though, imagining no forests and just these vertical buildings of aesthetic forests, but in order to survive we are going to have to have solutions and I think this new invention is going to be amazing.
Curious about the wildlife, bugs, and personal/child safety concerns (I know a kid that would love to break their neck climbing that!)
I ❤ the idea, though. I think-up many similar things, excellent to see one just pop into existence. Keep them brains storming, just remember to cover your …
I’m sure it’s as safe as any other building for kids. It can’t be up to the engineers of the building to keep people from climbing on it. It looks closed up to me, so as long as they keep the roots of the plantlife in check, than there shouldn’t be too many worries as far as wildlife. It’s still a building, it’s just built with the idea of being ecologically friendly, and with trees growing along with it vertically.
My worries lie more in how the trees could effect the infrastructure of the building fifteen or twenty years after it has been completed. What happens if the trees ruin the walls or column supports and it tumbles? Is the ecological purpose of the building worth the costs of maintaining it?
Also, I was just thinking of the fire safety. Wouldn’t a vertical forest burn with the same ferocity as a real forest. Forest fires destroy thousands of acres of land each year and this is just one building. I would think that the engineers behind this project have figured out a solution but it is still a little worrisome. About the infrastructure, I mean the building is framed out of steel so I would think that if a tree or two fell, the building would remain largely intact.
Zander you bring up a very good point about the trees ruining the infrastructure. Personally, I think about the roots of the tree and how forceful they can be. Could they begin to grow into the concrete supports of the balconies they sit on? The cost of maintaining the building would most likely outweigh the ecological benefit to answer your question. Another form of maintenance would be tree and bush trimming. How could a landscaper prevent debris from falling 20 stories down resulting in an injury?
I agree with what Holly is saying. In order to avoid debris from falling and causing numerous injuries, we would need these trees to be maintained on a regular basis which would be very costly but could we possibly place these vertical forests in the outskirts of cities so that if anything were to happen with debris that it would not cause destruction to the city or the people? just a thought! 🙂
Call me a nerd, but I have an engineering mind and I was thinking about the different ways to keep this building safe and several things popped into my head. About the falling debris from the trees, why not put a gutter of some sort just a few stories from the bottom to catch most of the leaves, branches, etc. that fall off. If a tree dies, it can stay there and decompose just like it would in a real forest. Also, I would imagine that the trees are just along the outside of the building, not the trees form the building. Therefore, the trees would not be part of the infrastructure of the building. About the wildlife, they could be in the trees and still not in the building as long as the trees were only on the outside. Just a few things to consider…
The worry isn’t that the building is MADE OF trees, Cameron, it’s that the trees that are planted along it could root themselves in the structural support of the building. We’ve all seen plants grow through the cracks in concrete, and I’m positive tree roots could result in some cracks. What’s worse is that once those cracks are made, and the freezing season comes along, those cracks could get filled with water, freeze, and ultimately ruin the building.
In response to your fire safety thing though, the building being not ACTUALLY made of the trees will probably keep it from being destroyed. Cement doesn’t burn and steel melts and really high temps, so the building itself might be safe.
Warren brought up a good point about the wildlife. I wouldnbe curious to see what types of wildlife would live there…the different types of birds, worms, insects, etc. It would be amazing to see new communities of organisms adapt to and live in these forest buildings.
Yeah it would be cool to see what wildlife would adapt to this environment but what about the wildlife that just cant live in that type of environment. Its quite hard for all wildlife to live 100ft above ground. Just a thing to consider, we cant always be selfish because we are more powerful but we need to think about the environments of all wildlife and whats good for them too!
This is a really cool idea, Its like having a backyard on your high-rise balcony. I would assume that a lot of people would be interested in living in a “vertical forest” for both the visual appeal and to help the environment. I do wonder how it would be possible to grow a tree on a blacony but I’m assuming that these architects have somehow figured out a way. Also there would most likely be no wildlife besides birds living in these trees. Would that cause problems for residents or the plants?
I think stopping deforestation would be a lot better plan rather than just letting it continue to happen and building vertical forest. We can think of what will benefit only us humans, we have to also think of all the animals that will be affects. I highly doubt that these vertical forests will be able to shelter all the animals of the rainforest.
Agreed! All people are thinking about is the trees and how they we can no have more and blah blah, which is all great and dandy but what about all the other forest components? Are we planning on having the bugs and animals live on these buildings. Are we expecting them to learn to live so far off the ground? What if they fall? Niko is right, it is a better idea to try to stop deforestation. We should still have some buildings like these vertical ones because they can bring benefits but we can not depend on them.
After reading Lauren and Nikos comment I completely agree. It would be a much better idea to stop deforestation than to create these vertical forests. Yes this is a very innovative and clever idea but thinking realistically, what about the wild life and the insects? It would be impossible for this plan to help shelter the needs of them as well. I like this idea but I feel like it is trying to control nature by giving trees somewhere to go. We need to remember about the other speices that would be affected by this as well.
Agreed. I’m not against the idea that these could be beneficial for respiration, but I am against the idea that these would eventually replace ALL forests. That would be selfish of us to only think of our needs, and I think we can still make a change to keep the forests that we have. It’s not realistic to think that we can force all those animals and insects live on a vertical forest. I mean can you picture a 400 pound Grizzly Bear living 100 feet off the ground?
That makes me sad trying to imagine a Grizzly Bear trying to adapt to that sort of environment. We cant think selfishly here, although we are trying to replace forests for they are being destroyed but we cant just leave all the other animals, insects and birds to just adapt to a building structure. Also imagine the people trying to live in these buildings, I dont know about you guys but I wouldnt want these crazy looking insects on my balcony. I think the effort and idea is a good one, but our world cant come to this and depend on vertical forests, we need to STOP deforestation!!!
I was hoping someone would mention this! I mean I don’t understand how people can believe these “vertical forests” can replace real forests. This idea has no regard for biodiversity in plant or animal life and if people allow these vertical forests to replace natural forests, then our terrestrial biodiversity is in serious danger. Also, the systems of the cut down forest habitats will be messed up since there are plenty of keystone species found there that will go extinct from this project. If people expect birds and rodents to live in peace within close proximity of humans, they need to rethink their logic.
…..cough….
I think y’all need to read the full article, and THEN make a comment…..
Stopping deforestation is a complicated objective. I believe that it can be reached, but these buildings are a temporary solution to the problem of trees being lost at an alarming rate. I agree that this cannot replace real forests completely because of all the wildlife and climates and such, but I believe that it can replace the function of forests. I do advocate for saving the real forests, but is there anything wrong with a few extra trees out there? Absolutely not.
Great argument Niko! I agree completely. It is good that we bring up ideas like this, but we also need to be thinking about what we can do to help stop deforestation. This forest buildings are a great addition to thr natural forests but cannot be a replacement for them.
This “vertical forest” is a great idea, however, I don’t think this will actually work out. I am all for producing more trees and forests, but how will people be able plant trees on a balcony and have it grow to potential height? Or how will they know if the trees will grow at that height?
Just like Dallas mentioned, I am also very skeptical about these things actually becoming a reality. Business and companies are already having a hard time getting by in this economy so I dont imagine that they would have any room to hire people to tend to the plants they have growing on the side of their buildings. These plants would obviously take a lot of maintence and lot more care than having a nice flower pot on your desk.
Agreed. Of course there is still the understanding that natural forests must exist, but it is that point exactly: Natural forests must exist, not man-made forests. This limitation on height for example is absurd knowing that vertical growth is crucial to trees of a forest. Also effective on how these trees would grow is the amount of sunlight they would receive. At noon, only the trees on the top floors will receive sunlight, but even after that, what about the faces of the building that face North and South. These building would have to face NE, SE, SW, and NW to provide maximum sunlight. Critical factors that aid in plant growth seem to disappear when we look at vertical forests.
Everything about these vertical forests are very skeptical. Nobody would know until we actually built one and see how it goes. That couldnt hurt right? I do not think we can depend on vertical forests though and that scares me because in they eyes of people that are cutting down the forests they could think, Oh well now that there are vertical forests we can cut down more. Its scary to think of what could happen!
I think the idea is extremely cool, but it is just that. It would be great to see something like this in cities, but how practical is this really? Like Warren said above, there are plenty of saftey hazards that surround this “vertical forest.” Children, bugs, and all other kinds of animals would most likely be around these trees during most of the day. I don’t know about ya’ll but I dont think I would wan’t to have those problems around my house. It is though a unique idea that would definitely help the environment in some ways. But at the end of the day we need to be finding more practical ways to help the environment.
Hmm. How do the trees put down roots into real soil when they are that far off the earth? How long do potted trees grow before they die of claustrophobia? Isn’t that rather like putting animals in cages? Sounds like a good idea, but it could be another human attempt at artificially simulating nature that ends up costing a lot of money for a less-than-beneficial result. A “forest” is something much more complicated than a bunch of trees in pots, IMHO.
Humans should not have to right to try to close of the forest so I completely agree with you. We are minimizing their potential by closing them off in balconies. Like Dallas said earlier, how are the trees going to grow as tall as they can if there is a ceiling on top of them? They can’t just go through the ceiling because that would eventually create a problem. How are we taking out the dead trees?
I agree with both of you. This attempt at recreating nature is eventually going to create problems. Initially, everything will look pretty and inviting to the public, but not so inviting to the exotic birds that live in various forests, especially when a human steps outside every once in a while. The economic situation will also soon get worse with the constant maintenance that would be required for this type of agriculture. Trimming trees and bushes constantly from preventing out-of-control growth rates. Watching the roots of trees to make sure they don’t grow into the infrastructure as Zander mentioned. The list could go on and on.
Yes, it is a good idea but doesn’t seem possible. Like you said, the roots wouldn’t be able to grow into the ground like they would in a natural habitat. Also, It would be an extreme fire hazard and light up like a christmas tree if it got struck by lightening. Then the city we would be trying to help would burn down and the world would be more polluted.
This is really cool! I wonder what the actual effects from building something like this would be. People talk all the time and a lot of times money is wasted on huge ideas that don’t pan out…. I think there is the hesitance with it all. However this seems like a really legit idea and seems to have been well thought out. I would love to see something like this all over the place. If it works to create a better environment, I’m all for it!
This idea is really cool. I feel that it might need to be thought through a little more because what happens with the trees grow to tall to be on the lower floors? Trees grow up not out. But I like the fact of having a whole forest in a compact building. I do feel that alot of these buildings would be beneficial and it would eleminate the space problem. I think this is an awesome idea that could really help out the enviornment!
I would love to see this “verticle forest’ really happen. Unfortunately, i do not see this plan coming into affect in years from now. There would be too many negative problems. What would happen if the trees got too tall and there was not enough room for the trees to grow completely? Also, wouldn’t there be twice as many insects? I would not like the fact of having insects in or around my house. Lastly, what about the problem of the roots coming out of the ground from the trees being elevated? There are too many negatives niches that need to be figured out first before such a project ios put into play
While I do believe that the building of vertical trees in Milan, if done right would be inspirational and truly groundbreaking, it is hard for me to see this idea as anything close to realistic to achieve. I just wonder where in Milan they would find the space, don’t to mention the money to build such an extravagant skyscraper whose only purpose is to better the environment. But I also do agree with Jackson and Cameron that this idea is very unique and if we continue to come up witj such great ideas the world would be a better place.
This is incredible, I agree with Cameron, this is just a great idea. This would be so beneficial. I think finding innovative ways to live in this environment are essentially needed. The one concern I have is do they have any protection against limbs or branches that break? I just worry that if something from a tree were to fall from such a high place it would gather a lot of velocity. This could endanger people around the viscidity of the building. Do they have something to protect against this? I believe this could have the potential to change the way city living is done if there are preventative measures on what I stated above!
Quite an interesting concept. It sure is a great idea, giving more room for the population, and still leaving room for the forests that oxygenate the air we breath and absorb CO2. Like Meghan said, I do think this project would be extremely expensive, but in the end, it has great benefits. Lewis162 (not sure who you are), brought up another good point. What if the limbs break off? Do we have any protection from them? I suppose the best prevention from that would be to set up, for example, a 200 ft. radius around these vertical forests so that falling branches or even trees won’t land on and crush buildings.
Lets say we are building 3 vertical forests, why can you just take the 300ish feet (per each) needed to provide a safe space incase they fell and just make it into a park. You save all the energy and pollution created to build the forest and the upkeep of the tree on the ground would be exponentially easier. Over all I think its just easier to plant trees on the ground, one reason is when people see the beauty it adds to their community people are more inclined to keep them alive and beautiful, but if its a skyscraper who would be motivated to keep the tree alive to keep their community beautiful?
I do like the idea of a park, Paul, but again the question of safety comes up again. We wouldn’t want people walking around and suddenly getting hit by a falling branch from a tree 50 feet in the air. Also, I do think it is much easier to plant trees on the ground as they get an abundant amount of light from the sun and water from rain. This project could be pretty difficult because those factors I just mentioned won’t be as much in existance. So we will have to come up with substitutes which will cost lots of money.
Safety from a park tree branch falling? And do you think you really need all of thoughs trees to clean up the city? And a park in the city will get plenty of sunlight and water, take a look at central park its survived in one of the biggest cities and it is a beautiful landmark that people go see on vacations. Why can Milan build something similar to Central Park and advertise it to the world. I know that space comes into a factor but overall I think it would be beneficial for Milan to create a park.
Are these trees being built on business buildings?? Or are the buildings built just for trees?
These buildings are just like normal building just with adaptation so that they can hold more trees and plants on the terraces. They can either be office buildings or apartment buildings.
These buildings can definitely cause issues if they are not placed in the right place. These would work very well if they were placed around buildings that release a lot of smoke. The trees will be there to take in the bad air but there are places they where they won’t be such a great idea like around schools because everyone knows kids love to climb everything and go in to places they where they should not be.
I think after reading a lot of these comments, especially a few above of me, it just shows how an idea like this really doesn’t make a whole lot of since. Lauren is right, these building can and most likely will cause issues if they aren’t placed in the right area. There are so many hazards that would have to be dealt with and I think something as abnormal as this does not make a ton of since. The risks out weigh the rewards.
If the trees are on the outside of the building, I would be leery because a fire could be even more severe because the fire will climb up the trees. Building evacuations would be difficult too because people couldn’t simply jump onto a trampoline.
I think this is a very interesting and unique concept. It would extremely beneficial to have a building that gives more room to the population and helps the environment at the same time. However the predicted cost of this project makes it seem very unrealistic. But if this were to happen it would be ideal. Whoever thought of the concept to put a whole forest in a compact high rise is very innovative but there are so many what if”s and needs to be a little more thought out, as Alex was saying.
Well this is something different. If these buildings actually work out, great! There’s no harm in them being built and which apartment dweller doesn’t love some greenery? But the concept seems a little farfetched and I have a feeling that these buildings are just going to end up being a regular apartment complex or office bulding. There are a lot of unanswered questions but if they work out and save some trees, I am all for them!
In a world with inhabitants that require space for their new innovations and ideas, it’s cool to see an innnovation that thinks vertically rather than horizontally. This idea helps the environment while conserving space for other endeavors.
I really like this idea! I like how the building of this will start to fix the problem (mostly caused by human) of pollution by taking in all the CO2 in the air and giving out a lot of oxygen. It would be really interesting to see if this would actually solve the problem of overpopulation. I don’t really get how it would solve that problem besides people living on less land horizontally and instead living vertically. It doesn’t seem that this would solve that problem because it wouldn’t make the number of people on the earth go down. It just seems that this would be a great way to keep the same number of people on the earth and have them be more healthy by the trees pretty much purifying the air. People being healthier is an important quality of life for all societies.
I think that this is a great idea, because it has many benefits. The main one being that it absorbs CO2 which is one the most produced harmful gases we as humans produce in our society. From a larger perspective this is great to see that people are starting to think vertically instead of horizontally considering over population. However I do see a problem in years after the trees have grown some. How will their roots expand? Wont they out grow the ceilings? I like the idea but it this doesn’t replace the same forest we have been destroying for years.
I really like that Fallon and Johne noticed the fact that these buildings will take more CO2 out of the air and produce more oxygen. I feel like a lot of people just read what I wrote and didn’t read the main article. Maybe that’s why they aren’t understanding. I highly recommend reading more on this topic and I’ll put some links below so you might understand better. Stefano Boeri is a great architect and I promise you that all of your concerns… he has already thought of. That’s an architects job! They design it and then figure out all the possible problems and then find out how to prevent these problems. Regarding the insect question… most insects can fly so that would be my logical answer to that. Please check out the links if you wanna know anymore information on this topic!
http://inhabitat.com/bosco-verticale-in-milan-will-be-the-worlds-first-vertical-forest/
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/milans-vertical-forest-towers/
http://www.stefanoboeriarchitetti.net/?p=4194
Well if the objective is to make Milan “less crowded, polluted and inhumane”, why is the solution to build more high-rises of any type? Why not knock a few down and return the land to open green space?
I agree would building upwards really make Milan less crowded? Cause I spent 3 weeks in Hong Kong and every single building they build is at least 40-50 stories high, and that city is one of the most crowded cities I’ve ever been in. Eventually they will just build more and more vertical and it will be even more crowded than they started with? Seen that eventually everything will be built vertical rather than horizontally.
I think his logic was that these buildings did make the air less polluted and therefore making us less inhumane. As for less crowded… I see your point. Trust me, I wish just as much as you, Scillagrace, that we didn’t have to resort to this. It would be amazing if people didn’t cut down forests… but that’s just it we do. According to “The Understory”(link bellow), we cut down about 3 billion to 6 billion or more trees each year! Yes, the best solution is to not cut down trees and take down a few buildings, then return the land into open green space. However, that solution isn’t practical because no one is going to do that. This idea is practical because it’s giving back what we selfishly took from our earth, in the most practical way that fits our society today.
http://understory.ran.org/2008/04/22/how-many-trees-are-cut-down-every-year/
How exactly are these vertical forest being built? cause I feel like it will take a lot of materials and energy to build the forest and to maintain upkeep of the building. Will it really be that productive to take all this time to build the forest just clean up the air? Cause when you first start off the trees will need to grow in order to really make a difference in our air. Then we would have to water the trees seeing that they probably cant get water on their own. I just feel like this plan talks a whole lot more energy and time to accomplish. When in reality people can just plant trees around there homes and in parks in order to clean up the air and take in more of the Co2.
“I wish…we didn’t have to resort to this.” “It would be amazing if people didn’t cut down forests…but that’s just it we do.” “…that solution isn’t practical because no one is going to do that.”
There’s the rub exactly. If we’re going to be innovative and creative and make changes, then that’s what we’re going to have to do. Stop cutting down forests and pouring concrete over the soil. We don’t have to resort to anything. We CHOOSE to do it!! We could choose not to, but that would require sacrifice and change. Do we want these changes or don’t we???
I like what you’re saying a lot. “We don’t have to resort to anything. We CHOOSE to do it!!” I completely agree. This project shouldn’t be something we are forced to, we should be doing it because we choose to and believe it will help. And I think that is how the people of Milan are thinking. But we can’t just think of ideas to work around the problem of deforestation, we need to think of ideas to FIX the problem AND include other ideas like these.
[…] coming out of Italy. The title of the article is “Milan’s Vertical Forest”. https://pensci.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/milans-vertical-forest The premise of the idea is to create a “less crowded, less polluted, less inhumane” […]
Scilla, I see where you’re coming from. Humans have and will continue to destroy land and forest. Most of all, humans will continue to urbanize. However, the idea of the buildings, I believe, has a more powerful effect that the actual statistics that come off of it. Sure this building helps with Co2 emissions and is environmentally friendly, however I don’t think that is the point. What I get out of this is that people in Milan now have a beautiful “green” structure to remind them of where they come from and what keeps us alive. Perhaps if people see this vertical forest, they will be reminded about the world outside of the city; the world that we need to survive. Just think about it.
So what we have is yet another expensive and largely cosmetic solution to a very serious problem. Do we congratulate ourselves on this or can we do better?
Scilla, the money could probably be put to better use. However, in the world we live in today, people want instant results. The people in charge of environmental awareness need to adapt to the everyday person and not vise versa. Sure the money could have been sent to the amazon or sent to restore a damaged piece of land, but it seems like millions of dollars get sent to those causes every year and nothing changes. The people of Milan are trying something new and interesting. I am excited to see how it turns out.
“The people in charge of environmental awareness need to adapt to the everyday person and not vice versa.”
How do you suppose the planet got in such bad shape to begin with? The everyday person IS the person in charge of environmental awareness. The responsibility is ours. The fact that we have adapted the environment to ourselves and not ourselves to the environment illustrates the exploitation we have perpetrated and has led to the over-crowding and pollution and inhumane atmosphere in which we now live. There can be no instant results in any attempt at restoration, but the least we can do is attempt a drastic change of pattern instead of simply continuing to march toward the abyss.
Good points Scilla, and I see where your coming from, but I simply cannot agree. If you want people to do what you want them to, you don’t force your opinions on them, you adapt your opinions to fit their wants (not referring to our conversation, i’m referring to the article). Most people, correct me if i’m wrong, do not keep the environment in mind on a day to day basis. We got in such bad shape to begin with because we as a race neglected the very world that we live on. I think that little things like these vertical forrest will serve as reminders, that’s all. It will incorporate nature into an urban community. I think most examples of drastic change result is drastic results. Sometimes they are positive, but most of the time they are negative. When you force a new way of living on a person, they tend not to react well. Think about it.
I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone, nor am I going to adapt my opinions to fit the wants of a society that is neglecting the environment. What I am trying to do is raise awareness and challenge people to take responsibility. Perhaps a green tower in the midst of the urban gloom will raise some awareness and challenge some to think more critically about the way they live. I don’t imagine that it will reverse trends or solve any long term problems. I will still campaign for more drastic, progressive efforts because all these little efforts may end up merely presenting distractions and providing placebos even if they do receive positive reviews. I think it’s important to keep asking, “Is this the best we can do?”
Rock on…
The idea of tree covered skyscrapers is a good idea. The concept of building living space upward instead of outward is possible but laden with risk. Japan has built smaller living spaces and taller buildings to increase living quarters without building another island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport). These giant pollution filters have potential, but building these towering structures could lead to major damage and not a widespread cleaning of pollution. If you have a stack of trees 100m long x 100m wide x 1km high and a forest of 1km long x 1km wide x 10m high, which would clean more pollution? The answer would be the wider forest because the pollution is able to flow through a much larger area and be cleaned instead of a tower and hoping for good winds.
With Milan being one of the most polluted cities in Europe, I think Stefano Boeri is on the right track in designing the Bosco Verticale. He is blending nature and urban together to create a vertical forrest in the middle of a bustling city. It is rare to find a lot of greenery in a large city, but Boeri is trying to make it possible. The trees will provide Milan with more humidity and oxygen, soaking up harmful air particles and CO2. One of the towers is planned to be 110 meters, and the other tower 76 meters. Boeri is turning architecture and art into a green masterpiece that will reduce the pollution in Milan. I think the two towers will be a huge hit and I can’t wait to see the finished product.
Like Olivia, the finsihed product will be amazing to see. The architect really did think of everything! I never thought of growing up rather than out. I think that this idea could be a big solution to many of the problems that Americans are having today. This masterpiece will reduce so many environmental probelms in Europe, and I hope to see this continue to the States.
This building project looks like it would cost a LOT of money. I wonder how much it would cost if it is to be completed because there obviously would be high demand for it, because who wouldn’t want to live in the trendy new green buildings downtown. This project is great because it would bring good publicity and tourism to Milan, Italy a city that is currently seen as kind of un-eco friendly.
Cameron Pipes said in his first comment that it would only cost about 5% more. I find this to be a suprisingly low number. I would have guessed it to have been more around 27%.
The theory is great and I really like that he was thinking outside of the box, but I do not think that the idea can be executed the way it appears in the plans. As George mentioned there are too many problems that can make things difficult. Maybe an altered plan can be more practical… But it is a great start, its certainly better than nothing!
I agree with Kate, I would like to see it work but I’m not really sure how it would. Trees have very deep roots, so that would mean a lot of soil to put down. Also these trees would need lots of watering, as rain won’t reach the lower levels of the forest…I’m just thinking the upkeep of this project would be very expensive.
I agree. I think if he could figure out some way to provide the proper amount of water and soil that this would be able to actually work.
I like this idea very much. It correlates with the idea of aquaponics being introduced into urban society. With these vertical forests and aquaponics together we could be reducing carbon levels as well as producing food for communities and feeding those that are hungry.
I do think this will be a long term project. Which gives us all the more reason to start now. Starting now will benefit future species. We can’t just think about us and now. We have to think about how it will help the land as our population continues to expand. Yes, we can plant trees and plants around our home but in large cities this is harder to do. scillagrace said have a plant tower in the middle of a city would help, and stand out to make a greater awareness for going green.
this was supposed to be under Paul’s comment like a reply thing.
[…] MIlan’s Vertical Forest Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Taking care of this planet! […]
Nice information-thank you for sharing! We also recently pointed out similar topic in our blog: vertical farms- can they be the future solutions to growing population and food insecurity problem?
Yeah this is genius. Think of all the unnecessary building that just take up room and have a terrible cause, with angry, bitter, employees sitting in a cubicle inside spending the majority of their miserable lives clicking away on a keyboard. Then think of all the trees, grass, flowers, squirrels homes, rabbit holes, and all other animals natural habitats that were selfishly destroyed in order to construct such a monstrosity. How ironic would it be to knock down a building in the middle of a city in order to plants trees? Thats pretty amazing to me. But then on the other hand, Jeff rated a good point. If done incorrectly, and with out caution, this could be extremely dangerous. Before even considering to build anything like this, there would have to be serious thought and consideration put into the safety risks that come along with it.
What happens when the horticulture grows and invariably begins to undermine the structure? What happens when the horticulture retains so much water and a storm hits? Please don’t say you asume the designers have taken this into consideration as assumption makes an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’.
Mike – Paleoworks