You're viewing a single thread.
Adam Something made a video about these. Plants on buildings are actually very unsustainable and limits the greenery to those who can afford luxury housing.
Real eco sustainable city design has to come from tearing down superfluous highways and parking lots, replacing their need with public transport and walkable districts, then filling the empty space with plants or even communal food gardens.
oh believe me I am very much into that urbanism shit, but we have to admit that "pure" urbanism isn't as visually evocative to those not in-the-know (though it is true that before/after pictures of rehabilitation projects are nice to look at)
i will also say that greenery on buildings is just a facet of beautiful architecture which is wildly overlooked as a necessary part of sustainable cities. beyond the practical purpose of summer heat management for greenery specifically (and other practical aspects of non-minimalist architecture such as the water stains that appear on "minimalist" architectural designs which forego overhangs), there are psychological and cultural effects to good looking, distinct architecture. used well and especially in poorer areas it also has ripple socioeconomic effects. it's the reciprocal of brutalist architecture in social housing which had its own devastating effect on quality of life by virtue of ugliness alone.
we aren't robots or numbers on an excel sheet, and by god if prehistoric nomadic human tribes had time to make art while hunting woolly mammoths, we can afford to put a some plants on public buildings. i have a dream, and that dream is a city skyline that isn't blue-gray but a vibrant green.
thank you for coming to my tedx