#A Park on the Tower

A new tower in Milan is being billed not as a skyscraper, but as a vertical forest:

They say it only adds 5% to construction costs, which I imagine would easily be recouped through the premium in rent this tower would surely get. They also say that to provide the same amount of vegetation at sprawl-level density would require 50,000 sq meters of land.

I think it’s a really interesting idea, and I hope it works, but the practicalities of managing this seem to say it won’t. I mean, are you going to plant trees by helicopter when one dies? And, is that cost acceptable for the benefit of having this living architecture”? What do you think?

More here.

Previous post
In case anyone needed another reason to dislike Frank Gehry This will probably help you out. So, since around 2008, the U.S. has wanted to build a
Next post
The Important Difference Between a Road and a Street Chuck Marohn is the director of the non-profit group Strong Towns, a group focused on what