If the developer is really committed to having the trees, I guess at some point they will market this under a more appropriate name (like Bosco Verticale in Milan). You can't call your development "Vertical Forest" (or similar monikers) and then renege on the trees.
 
The whole point of this development is the tree cover, it's being sold on it, and purchasers are expected to pay premium prices for it. Those trees will be planted.

Whether they flourish or not, only time will tell.

42

There has been discussion in the Arborist/Forestry community about this project.

Lots of discussion about the kind of specialty training and equipment that would be required to maintain it.

It isn't being opposed as an idea at all; but certainly many have questions as to feasibility.

*****

In terms of the plants flourishing, some of their choices absolutely could, if they have enough space, soil quality, water, and proper maintenance.

One issue for many of these plants, close to a building wall, is that they will all tend to grow lopsided towards the sun.

A combination of staking and pruning can make that work, but there will certainly be on-going costs.

One particular challenge will be tree removals, from what I'm hearing, the consensus is that these will have to be done by crane.

*****

They've got quite a few imported species in their list; most are not at risk of being invasive here, and even those that are should probably be fine in this setting.

But several I have no practical experience with and couldn't hazard a guess as to how they'll do.

I rather expect the reason their species is list is so long is about experimenting to see what works.

I suspect the safest choice they have is Red Cedar which is very hardy.
 
Last edited:
Why did they remove the podium's yellow colour? Now it's just bland.
The front page story suggests they did, for good or bad...


...although, that maybe least of the issues with this. As this building may not be able to support its planned signature "forest" because of the trees in its current version. >.<
 
The front page story suggests they did, for good or bad...


...although, that maybe least of the issues with this. As this building may not be able to support its planned signature "forest" because of the trees in its current version. >.<
True. Trees on green roofs are a good idea, but putting them on balconies is hard to pull off.
 
The front page story suggests they did, for good or bad...


...although, that maybe least of the issues with this. As this building may not be able to support its planned signature "forest" because of the trees in its current version. >.<
Why do you think it may not be able to support its planned greenery?

42
 
Why do you think it may not be able to support its planned greenery?

42
I believe the claim is that those balconies as is are unsupportive of trees as depicted in the renderings. And likely due to things such as pesky gravity, unreliable wind vector factors and the trees' own meandering root structures over time...

...that said, the claim could be all wrong if the developers have found ways to best deal with those issues without having to alter the current design of the thing. And/or if the claim is not understanding the current science and engineering around this properly.

I hope that answers your question. 😅
 
I believe the claim is that those balconies as is are unsupportive of trees as depicted in the renderings. And likely due to things such as pesky gravity, unreliable wind vector factors and the trees' own meandering root structures over time...

...that said, the claim could be all wrong if the developers have found ways to best deal with those issues without having to alter the current design of the thing. And/or if the claim is not understanding the current science and engineering around this properly.

I hope that answers your question. 😅
So, someone on UrbanToronto who has had nothing more than a quick glance at a rendering before declaring the balconies incapable of supporting trees is even given consideration…

…while there's a whole team of professionals, who have spent years being trained and who now earn their living designing such structures, and who could be sued into oblivion and would also have their reputations and lives ruined if the structures failed — they should be the ones you question first?

42
 
So, someone on UrbanToronto who has had nothing more than a quick glance at a rendering before declaring the balconies incapable of supporting trees is even given consideration…

…while there's a whole team of professionals, who have spent years being trained and who now earn their living designing such structures, and who could be sued into oblivion and would also have their reputations and lives ruined if the structures failed — they should be the ones you question first?

42
Then I'll go with the latter portion of my answer for $500, Alex. >.<
 
…while there's a whole team of professionals, who have spent years being trained and who now earn their living designing such structures

It's also relevant that there's been a change in landscape architects on this one (not sure whether that's public or not), and the new ones are noted experts in urban ecology and natural systems. They were hired specifically for that expertise because the desire here is to actually pull this off, rather than just render-and-forget it.
 
It's also relevant that there's been a change in landscape architects on this one (not sure whether that's public or not), and the new ones are noted experts in urban ecology and natural systems. They were hired specifically for that expertise because the desire here is to actually pull this off, rather than just render-and-forget it.
The Planning Partnership are listed in the database file.

42
 
Looks like they could be gearing up for a launch soon. From Cityzen's IG:



Screenshot_20210627-142154_Instagram.jpg
 

Back
Top