Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RagnarokDel t1_j6rlh5j wrote


Hour-Watch8988 t1_j6s2tc4 wrote

Eh, green roofs are usually realllllly heavy and require much bigger foundations. Better to limit building to tree-canopy height and get the vegetation benefits from overhang canopy.


Wonderful_Mud_420 t1_j6s59mo wrote

Yeah the whole point of a roof is to keep the elements away from the house. Adding tons of soils and vegetation and watering it everyday is just asking for trouble, specially if you cheaped out on the installation.


Spitinthacoola t1_j6tanax wrote

Most green roofs don't require tons of soil and watering vegetation. They're usually pretty thin layers of media and root barriers for grasses and other native plants to live, they're called extensive green roofs.

Intensive green roofs usually don't cover the whole thing, and have deeper layers and larger plants. They're much less common.


Fearlessleader85 t1_j6tn2k1 wrote

The intensive ones are awesome to see, but not practical. Thd extensive ones won't have near the impact on local temperature of trees.


Spitinthacoola t1_j6u06x2 wrote

It might not be better than painting all the roofs white for heat but they'd still do better than shingles or solar panels. A combination of that for the roofs and trees, especially native where possible, would not just impact local temps but also fauna.


MajinBuuMan t1_j6shf07 wrote

I hate going up on to my roof too. So many things could go wrong with a setup like that. Screw that noise. I want a low maintenance roof.


YouJustSaidButFuck t1_j6s9bn3 wrote

Limiting buildings to tree canopy height cements the housing crisis. We need high density housing.

It's a bad situation to be in. Every where you look there's pain.


TalkativeVoyeur t1_j6sdkfp wrote

We really should't get too hand up on this. Street trees apply almost anywhere. And green roofs are fine but just the trees outside to cover the asphalt is already a massive improvement. Trees and some green roofs where possible is totally doable and a massive improvement. Looking for a perfect solution is a great way to do nothing


Hour-Watch8988 t1_j6s9vuy wrote

There’s way more untapped vertical space in single-family neighborhoods in desirable cities even below five stories than there is housing demand. NYC might be the one exception but even there the surrounding suburbs have a lot of potential. We need high-density housing but we really don’t need buildings above 80 feet tall to achieve it except maybe in NYC.

The climate benefits of building height max out between 5-10 stories anyway.


YouJustSaidButFuck t1_j6sa2fi wrote

Urban sprawl is HORRIBLE for climate.

Suburbs are a major problem


Hour-Watch8988 t1_j6saol3 wrote

Of course. But you could immediately halt all exurban development and also provide plenty housing to ease the housing shortage if we just upzone inner-ring suburbs to medium-sized multifamily buildings.


histosol t1_j6ujylw wrote

building up is more expensive, plus people kinda want their own 4 walls.


real_bk3k t1_j6sulk1 wrote

Cars will never go away in places where everything is far apart. Mass transit can be great for cities, but becomes less practical outside them.


Hour-Watch8988 t1_j6t57kx wrote

Cities should be denser


real_bk3k t1_j6t9922 wrote

Sure. That doesn't solve the issue that so many people live outside cities. Even if you pretend they don't exist, their carbon emissions (including their cars) won't disappear.


Hour-Watch8988 t1_j6tbikj wrote

It solves the problem that people in cities have too-high emissions because our infrastructure has made them reliant on cars.

“Your proposal won’t fix anything, so we shouldn’t do it” is the argument on the side that doesn’t have arguments that are actually good.


real_bk3k t1_j6uc57k wrote

You are not actually arguing against what I said though. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead and reply to my comment however you please. You aren't even alone in that.


RagnarokDel t1_j6ue3h0 wrote

it wasnt a real proposition because it will never happen.


real_bk3k t1_j6v04zw wrote

It's a problem in that some people imagine this is a real solution. I'm afraid we need real solutions to real problems, and Climate Change is a very real, very serious problem.


Fearlessleader85 t1_j6tl1h1 wrote

The problem with green roofs is cost and potential failure. It's actually very difficult to seal them, and when a leak does show up, it's difficult to fix. Trees tend to also be absolutely excellent at breaking through even concrete, so planting trees on roofs is asking for a problem.

Green medians can be a much more cost effective way to green up a city. Small rooftop gardens with potted plants or shallow beds with shallow rooted plants could help.

I would love to see 80' tall sycamores and maples on top of skyscrapers, but i don't think it's practical.


RagnarokDel t1_j6ue03a wrote

> Green medians can be a much more cost effective way to green up a city.

ah yes, patches of grass. the worst possible greening you can do.


Fearlessleader85 t1_j6ukka9 wrote

That's not what I'm referring to. Trees and brush in the median. Think Tuscon AZ, not Beverly Hills.


Jr05s t1_j6sv5i4 wrote

Can't even get home owners to take care of benefitial green spaces on the ground, they aren't going to be able to do it on their roofs.


DrMobius0 t1_j6t0moy wrote

Yeah it's probably not realistic without an unimaginably robust nation-wide public transit system