NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD

[worldtrade2021]

Originally Posted by pj3000

And as always, it needs to be said, trees will not survive at the heights shown in the renderings. Lose the silly, tacked-on greenery.

Part of the reason new terraces were added to the design of the building were to accommodate space for more greenery and possibly as part of the pitch to tenants about how the building is one of the most environmentally sustainable and environmentally integrated buildings to be constructed yet.

While the green space does seem a bit excessive, it doesn't make sense why trees wouldn't survive at those heights. There are already outdoor terraces on 3 WTC and 4 WTC that are pretty high up where trees on the green roof portion of the terraces are surviving quite fine.

If anyone is concerned about some trees not being able to survive at those heights, it would make sense to use trees that grow well at higher altitudes where drier air, windier conditions and icing are more frequent. Something like a shorter, needle leaf conifer tree that tolerates the windy, drier and more extreme conditions at that height above ground for example. If that doesn't work, there is always ground cover shrubs, vines and grasses.

[MAC123]

Trees can and will survive at those heights. It just depends on what tree you're putting there.

Will the specific trees in the rendering survive there? Idk. Not a tree expert.

[RobEss]

Originally Posted by MAC123

The design changes because architecture companies aren't charities, they're businesses and they sell a product. The product is the design...

Thank you for telling me how commercial real estate development works. Now, let me repeat my actual question:

I wonder what the general population of the city will think if Foster's design doesn't get built.

[worldtrade2021]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Trees can and will survive at those heights. It just depends on what tree you're putting there.

Yes, preferably trees that are adapted to windy and drier conditions at higher elevations and don't grow too tall are chosen.

Will the specific trees in the rendering survive there? Idk. Not a tree expert.

From the frequently cited latest rendering


it almost looks like they will choose to keep the highest terrace portions free of trees and just have grass or low growing shrubs.

[RobEss]

Originally Posted by worldtrade2021

it almost looks like they will choose to keep the highest terrace portions free of trees and just have grass or low growing shrubs.

The fact that they forgot to include a window washing rig tells you just how serious these renderings are.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by RobEss

Thank you for telling me how commercial real estate development works. Now, let me repeat my actual question:

That's cool. I don't really care though otherwise I would have responded to that question.

[pj3000]

Anyone who thinks 30 ft trees (as depicted in the renderings at ~400ft on the side of a building) will survive, knows nothing about trees.

And putting trees on a skyscraper does not make it sustainable. The energy/water mix required to maintain trees that will die at a moderate pace anyway sees to that.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Anyone who thinks 30 ft trees (as depicted in the renderings at ~400ft on the side of a building) will survive, knows nothing about trees.

And putting trees on a skyscraper does not make it sustainable. The energy/water mix required to maintain trees that will die at a moderate pace anyway sees to that.

"trees will not survive at the heights shown in the renderings"
This was your claim. It is objectively wrong.

Now if you wanna talk about specific types of trees surviving (such as the ones in the renderings) or not surviving at specific heights (of the tree and their elevation), that conversation can be had. Also about whether it's sustainable or not, which it most likely isn't. Not that I remember anyone making that claim in this thread.
But then again that's not your claim.

[rgarri4]

lol trees wont survive? There are trees thriving on mountains literally within the state that would say otherwise. So tired of the "trees on buildings aren't realistic" argument. If they get VEd then that's a different argument. If you're a company looking for an office with outdoor space, wouldn't you want one with some life and some greenery? When attracting big tenants to get the building built, this seems like a no brainer.

[UrbanImpact]

Not as tall, but, here are some examples from Shanghai, Singapore, and Milan:

[RobEss]

I don't think anyone is saying that trees can't survive when incorporated into buildings or at lofty heights.

To expand on what I was initially saying about this building, it's just is that the depiction of how the greenery would appear on it is fantastical. Trees on balconies over 900 feet in the air are rendered as being 40+ feet in height, despite having limited space for root growth and frequent exposure to high winds. The green roofs spread from edge to edge, without any machinery or washing rigs in sight.

I have no problem with incorporating greenery into architecture (looking at you, Ford Foundation Center...) but I wish architects would be more honest about how it will actually look and function.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by RobEss

I don't think anyone is saying that trees can't survive when incorporated into buildings or at lofty heights.

To expand on what I was initially saying about this building, it's just is that the depiction of how the greenery would appear on it is fantastical. Trees on balconies over 900 feet in the air are rendered as being 40+ feet in height, despite having limited space for root growth and frequent exposure to high winds. The green roofs spread from edge to edge, without any machinery or washing rigs in sight.

I have no problem with incorporating greenery into architecture (looking at you, Ford Foundation Center...) but I wish architects would be more honest about how it will actually look and function.

Agreed, however, maybe they can prove us wrong. Since I do work in architecture and from my experience, I want to say they are amenity spaces that "may" have greenery in some form and are most likely a way to get employees outside.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Not as tall, but, here are some examples from Shanghai, Singapore, and Milan:

to be fair, north american weather is quite a bit harsher.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RobEss

The fact that they forgot to include a window washing rig tells you just how serious these renderings are.

Most developments don’t usually include that in renderings. Meanwhile, Silverstein has officially released only two versions of this tower. I’ll get bogged down in this when the full reveal comes.

Originally Posted by rgarri4

lol trees wont survive? There are trees thriving on mountains literally within the state that would say otherwise. So tired of the "trees on buildings aren't realistic" argument. If they get VEd then that's a different argument.

I don’t get the obsession either. There are obviously trees growing in New York at higher elevations, (with harsher climates than you get in Manhattan), but they’ll carry on anyway. I don’t bother to respond anymore.

But we’re in an age where tenant amenities are strongly sought after, and developers - more than anyone else - know that as well as which amenities are must haves. Outdoor terraces are in demand, so much so that even older buildings are being retrofitted to have them. Luckily for New York, there are a lot of setbacks in older buildings, and that can well acommodate them. With the redesign announced to better meet demands of today, it was inevitable this tower would have outdoor space.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by MAC123

"trees will not survive at the heights shown in the renderings"
This was your claim. It is objectively wrong.

Now if you wanna talk about specific types of trees surviving (such as the ones in the renderings) or not surviving at specific heights (of the tree and their elevation), that conversation can be had. Also about whether it's sustainable or not, which it most likely isn't. Not that I remember anyone making that claim in this thread.
But then again that's not your claim.

Show me a tree (not a shrub) that survives (and for more than a couple years, and actually thrives, i.e., grows and is healthy) on the side of a building at 400ft. exposed to the extremes of temperature and wind, in a climate like NYC.

For your point bolded above, check out worldtrade2021's post at the top of the page: Part of the reason new terraces were added to the design of the building were to accommodate space for more greenery and possibly as part of the pitch to tenants about how the building is one of the most environmentally sustainable and environmentally integrated buildings to be constructed yet. That's what I was responding to.

Originally Posted by rgarri4

lol trees wont survive? There are trees thriving on mountains literally within the state that would say otherwise.

This displays how very little you understand the topic.

[JMKeynes]

The trees at the very top appear to be enclosed in glass cubes. I assume that the green roofs represent the tops of the trees as seen through the glass.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Show me a tree (not a shrub) that survives (and for more than a couple years, and actually thrives, i.e., grows and is healthy) on the side of a building at 400ft. exposed to the extremes of temperature and wind, in a climate like NYC.

For your point bolded above, check out worldtrade2021's post at the top of the page: Part of the reason new terraces were added to the design of the building were to accommodate space for more greenery and possibly as part of the pitch to tenants about how the building is one of the most environmentally sustainable and environmentally integrated buildings to be constructed yet. That's what I was responding to.



This displays how very little you understand the topic.

"Show me a tree (not a shrub) that survives (and for more than a couple years, and actually thrives, i.e., grows and is healthy) on the side of a building at 400ft. in a climate like NYC"

No. Why would I do that. Ignoring the fact that that is entirely possible, that wasn't what I was responding to. You said specifically that a tree could not grow at that height (with no other modifiers to that statement either), you are objectively wrong. This is not a debatable topic; we know for a fact that trees can grow at that height.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

The trees at the very top appear to be enclosed in glass cubes. I assume that the green roofs represent the tops of the trees as seen through the glass.

Hmm, Im thinking the green tops are sedum or some other carpet plant.

[Drcastro]

Thank god I have some place to come read arguments about where trees can survive. Lol

[skcr]