News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

Would like to see a proposal like this, but with a focus on ivy as well. In a just a few years we could have a totally green highrise. Something standard like Virgina creeper, or maybe exotic. Also would be nice to see conifers used, especially in a render showing it in winter. Would really stand out. There are very slow-growing subspecies of evergreens that could be chosen, so maintenance doesn't have to be a huge deal I don't think.
 
As wonderful as the renders are, I'd love to see something more realistic that depicts the likely look of the building after a few years. First, remove about 30-40% of the greenery as some people inevitably get rid of it due to the hassle of maintenance - and then update a third or so of the remaining plants so that they are dying or ignored, as will also happen in a real world setting. Then let's see what it looks like. To me, renders like this are similar to how great a white couch looks in a showroom. It's fantastic until it meets reality. Then you bring it home ... the dog walks on it every day ... kids spill things ... it gets stains on it from parties or whatever ... and you wonder what you were ever thinking when you bought it. Could this building still look good without the greenery? Probably yes. But the greenery is SO prominent in these renders that they are unrealistic to an extreme imo - unless you had some unusual situation built into the condo rules where the maintenance people were allowed into suites to keep it looking fresh and alive on behalf of the building.
 
Lloyd Alter has written probably the best analysis of this building over at Treehugger: https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/tree-covered-timber-tower-proposed-toronto.html

TL;DR it's beautiful but wildly impractical -- just a few of the problems include that it's three times as tall as Ontario's building code allows for wood-framed construction; the exterior wood cladding is a huge fire hazard, and the cantilevered balconies would have to bear the weight of a large volume of soil for the trees, which is a challenge even for concrete and has never been attempted with timber. Never mind the snow load.

So don't get your hopes up for a building that looks anything like this. It's cool, but it'll probably never be built in this form.
 
I thought it was intriguing albeit impractical until I read that its supposed to be wood framed too.

Wood Jerry . . . . wood.
 
I've read the tensile and compressive strengths of these beams can test higher than steel and concrete . It's unclear if the testing was done on materials of the same thickness. From what I've seen, Cross Laminated Timber are a lot thicker than typical concrete slabs or steel. Should make for taller buildings.
 
My issue with laminate products is that the glues and binders are metastable. It's fine to say they have certain structural behaviours when new but what about displacement over time? This is also an open question for use of said products in general housing. They are dead straight and work great in a house when you specify a 25 year design life but we will still be living in 25 year design life structures a hundred years from now. Now take the concerns of one floor of laminate product structure and compound that per floor in a high rise structure.
 
General Housing is a different story with the use of OSB gussets forming the trusses . One small leak that goes unnoticed for some time. Stuff falls apart when soaked.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top