[jensen123]

Some of these designs look amazing. One thing is for sure, trees make cities much more pleasant wherever they are, whether along tree-lined streets, in parks or I guess on skyscrapers.

Perhaps putting trees on the ground is more practical, but the conclusion to this article makes no sense: "A treescraper approach suffers the same problem, but magnified: it lifts trees out of shared public spaces entirely, putting them up where they can be seen by many but enjoyed by few. Thus removed, they become more like window dressing, green ornaments rather than social activators." If you're seeing the trees, you're enjoying them. Trees are "social activators"? Whaaaat? Is this yet another attempt by a journalist at manufacturing some sort of outrage, in order to drive page views? Why turn treescrapers into some social justice issue?

[barrkel]

All buildings in cities have a social component; the whole reason you're in a city rather than in a campus or remote plot of land is because there are other people, and relations with these other people are important. If buildings turn into towers of exclusivity, thumbing their nose at outsiders walking by, it harms the connection to other people. It becomes part of the character of the city and ulmitately makes the city worse off. And that in turn harms the people who own the building; not only do they devalue the building by harming the city, but they make it harder to hire people since fewer people want to live in a city like that.

[nitrogen]

Look, if you want trees on your building then put them there. It shouldn't matter whether it makes anyone else jealous. Let them buy their own trees.

[barrkel]

Companies are made out of people who interact with other people. Why would people want to work for a company that acts like a dick?

Not only is it self harm, but it also pollutes the public space, and the public has a say in that too. We don't yet live in an autocracy.

I can see we're probably not going to come to any resolution. I think you believe more strongly in absolute property rights, while I believe that if you want absolute property rights, you should relocate outside a city where you don't have neighbours. Neighbours make all the difference. They have to suffer your outward appearances. If you're going to put up a hostile face, they're going to be hostile right back, and there are more of them than there are of you.

[nitrogen]

Trees pollute the public space? If mixing neighbors and trees causes problems, then the problem is with the neighbors, not the trees. Trees are awesome. Assuming sustainable low-pollen species are chosen, why not cover every building in green?

[barrkel]

Trees don't pollute the public space; a view of inaccessible trees pollutes the public viewscape.

[nitrogen]

The same argument can be made against anything. I might have a car you can see. But you can't access it. Does this pollute the public viewscape? You might have windows or balconies that I can see, but I can't access them. Does this pollute the public viewscape?

[Ygg2]

I think they are saying only rich people can fully enjoy skyscraper trees (i.e. they can lie on the ground). Pleb can just watch but never touch the trees.

[true_religion]

Right, but I think its a bit unfair to compare skyscraper trees to parks. It doesn't have any relation to 'real' wilderness, these are more like balcony gardens with very large potted plants.

[worldsayshi]

Adding trees on the building doesn't take remove them from the ground. What kind of argument is that?

[restalis]

It is probably about a mental association of decorative trees in the city-dense areas with public space and the off-limits skyscraper tree space gets in conflict with this association. Don't worry, in time they'll get used to it.