Dense+Green Cities

DENSE GREEN CITIES
999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 1 11/5/19 11:01 AM

Thomas Schröpfer Dense+Green Cities Foreword by Birkhäuser
Architecture as Peter G. Rowe Basel
Urban Ecosystem Raymond Garbe Professor of
Architecture and Urban Design
and Harvard University
Distinguished Service Professor
Contributions by
Peter Edwards
Christophe Girot
Sacha Menz
Researchers
Michelle Jiang Yingying
(Coordinator)
Richard Belcher
Peter Christensen
Emek Erdolu
Srilalitha Gopalakrishnan
Mayank Kaushal
Thibault Pilsudski
Prashanth Raju
Ester Suen Yun Ju
Jonathan Tan Koon Ngee

Layout, cover design and typography We would like to thank the Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities
Waterhouse Cifuentes Design Laboratory as well as ETH Zurich and the Singapore University
of Technology and Design for their generous support of
Cover photograph this publication.
Iwan Baan
Bibliographic information published by the
Copyediting German National Library:
Elizabeth Kugler
The German National Library lists this publication in the
Editor for the Publisher Deutsche Nationalbibliografie.
Andreas Müller
Detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet
Production at http://dnb.dnb.de.
Heike Strempel
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019952517
Paper
135 g/m² Condat matt Perigord This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the
Printing rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation,
Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways,
and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the
copyright owner must be obtained.
This publication is also available as an e-book

(ISBN PDF 978-3-0356-1511-1).
© 2020 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel

P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland
Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Printed on acid-free paper produced from chlorine-free pulp.

TCF ∞
Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-0356-1531-9
987654321
www.birkhauser.com

Table of Contents
Foreword 8
Peter G. Rowe
Raymond Garbe Professor of Architecture and Urban Design and
Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
Dense+Green Agendas
Dense and Green: An Alternative History of the City 12

Thomas Schröpfer
The Collective Power of the Single Building 38

Sacha Menz
Green Spaces and Ecosystem Services 52

Peter Edwards
Green Buildings and the Ecological Picturesque 66

Christophe Girot
Dense+Green Dimensions
Learning from Singapore 82

Dense and Green at the Future Cities Laboratory 86
Biodiversity 88
Surface Temperature 98
Construction and Maintenance Costs of Integrated
Green Spaces 102
Economic Benefits of Vegetation On and Around Residential
Developments 106

Dense+Green Case Studies
Asia Americas
Solaris 118 Vancouver Convention Centre West 198

Singapore Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
T. R. Hamzah & Yeang/CPG Consultants LMN Architects/Musson Cattell
One Central Park 124 Pérez Art Museum Miami 204

Sydney, Australia Miami, Florida, USA
Ateliers Jean Nouvel/PTW Architects Herzog & de Meuron/Handel Architects
Punggol Waterway Terraces I 134 Torre Rosewood 212

Singapore São Paulo, Brazil
group8asia/AEDAS Ateliers Jean Nouvel/Triptyque/Königsberger Vannucchi
The Interlace 152 The Spiral 220

Singapore New York, New York, USA
OMA/Büro Ole Scheeren/RSP Architects Planners & Engineers BIG
SkyVille@Dawson 168 Miami Produce Center 228

Singapore Miami, Florida, USA
WOHA BIG/Kimley Horn Associates
Oasia Hotel Downtown 182 11th Street Bridge Park 234

Singapore Washington, DC, USA
WOHA OMA
1000 Trees 194

Shanghai, China
Heatherwick Studio/MLA Architects
001 Front Matter.indd 6 11/10/19 12:25 PM

Dense+Green Future
Europe Future Trajectories 284

Thomas Schröpfer
Bosco Verticale 240
Milan, Italy Appendix
Stefano Boeri Architetti
About the Author and the Contributors 292
Google King’s Cross 250
London, UK Bibliography 295
BIG/Heatherwick Studio
Acknowledgments 309
Valley 258
Amsterdam, The Netherlands Illustration Credits 310
MVRDV
Index of Names 314
1Hotel Paris and Slo Living 264
Paris, France Subject Index 321
Kengo Kuma and Associates/Marchi Architects
Mille Arbres 270

Paris, France
Sou Fujimoto Architects/Manal Rachdi Oxo Architectes
Les Lumières Pleyel 276

Saint-Denis, France
Snøhetta/Baumschlager Eberle Architekten/
Chaix & Morel et Associés/Ateliers 2/3/4//Mars Architectes/
Maud Caubet Architectes/Moreau Kusunoki
001 Front Matter.indd 7 11/10/19 12:25 PM

Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory
at the Campus for Research Excellence and
Technological Enterprise (CREATE) Singapore, aerial view.
Foreword
The book Dense+Green Cities: Architecture as Urban Ecosystem,

compiled and edited by Thomas Schröpfer, draws on work by
a research team comprised from the Singapore-ETH Centre
Future Cities Laboratory, ETH Zurich, and Schröpfer’s academic
base at the Singapore University of Technology and Design.
It takes up with the broad and important question of whether
buildings and their architecture can actively and positively
contribute to better-functioning urban ecosystems for the good
of all concerned. Clearly this is a timely topic, particularly in an
era when the fate of humankind’s balance with nature appears
to be becoming more and more precarious and threatening.
Beyond simply professional responsibility, this is also a matter of
envisaging how our cities might be made better, particularly in
a manner that is deliberately and increasingly dense and green,
as the book’s title suggests.
The urban ecosystems under analysis are several-fold, as the

19 cases in the book are comprised of seven in Asia and
primarily in Singapore, six in Europe, and six in the Americas.
Among them, as it turns out, the tropical eco-zone is the most
understudied, especially in comparison to more temperate
eco-zones. The main components of the ecosystem under
examination are biodiversity, primarily through the proxies of plant
and bird life and because of the important ecological services
provided, including mitigation of urban heat island effects,
improvement of storm-water management, and air pollution
abatement. As the book cautions, the loss of biodiversity, even in
a region naturally rich in it, is likely to come by way of further
population expansion and urbanization, destroying habitat, and of
biotic homogenization, that inevitably seems to follow, as well as
loss of native species so important to ecosystem propagation.
The main thrust of the book’s argument is a good one. If we
can green buildings appropriately, then surely we can materially
extend the network of other green spaces such as forest
preserves, parks, roadway connectors, and the like, into a more
expansive and lively urban ecosystem.

While leaving aside the potential combinatorics of how buildings The cases within the book are copious and well-selected,
might fit in to such a scenario more specifically, the book makes at least within the immediate geographic area and what is
a good baseline start on necessary questions, for example: dense and green there. Illustration is lavish and well supported
How can greening support biodiversity abundance and with accompanying text. In short, it is a handsome publication
connection? Do dense and green buildings actually cool and a worthwhile reference document. To be sure, networking
environments? What do property owners likely pay for nearby is a major way forward for helping and reinforcing ecosystem
vegetation? And what are the operating and maintenance costs abundance and performance in urban areas, as noted
to integrated green spaces and buildings? Drawing particularly copiously and earlier by landscape ecologists like Harvard’s
on the strides that have been made in Singapore in its ground- Richard Forman. The next step, at least based on this volume,
breaking blue and green planning, the documentation and will be to take this networking up seriously, more fully and in an
analysis of appropriate green architectural building components attractive visionary manner. Part of the success will come from
covers five types: garden grounds, sky gardens, roof gardens, being able to be convincing and to sell the network concept,
green walls, and landscaped decks. Appropriate metrics are then so to speak, to a broader and, at times, more skeptical public.
used for comparison across 200 ha patches, entailing vegetation But that will be another book.
surveys, econometric data and models, as well as drawings and
close readings of site and related conditions. Peter G. Rowe
Raymond Garbe Professor of Architecture and Urban Design and
Overall, the book’s findings are rather to be expected, with few Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor
surprises. Ground gardens perform best among alternatives,
with green walks doing well within constrained sites and Cambridge, Massachusetts
with sky gardens having relatively low vegetation densities. June 2019
According to albedo effects, shading is useful in reducing
surface temperatures, and residents seem to like being near
parks. More interestingly, construction and maintenance costs
appear to be quite variable but generally affordable. In short,
dense and green, as defined and illustrated in the book, has net
positive outcomes. This being said, though, the more significant
contributions are derived from rationales offered for the
empirical findings and the grain of detail offered by the findings
themselves. For example, albedo effects are complicated but
well-explained and parsed with regard to surface temperature
in the book. Actual ranges of costs provide useful guidance to
would-be clients, regulators, and designers. Also, much the same
can be said for how property owners perceive facets of value in
their residences and residential locations. Among the places of
interest, in Singapore, for instance, the preference for ‘managed
green’ is hardly surprising given the apparent national aversion to
something less technically controlled being well-known.
002 Foreword.indd 9 11/10/19 12:23 PM

DENSE GREEN
AGENDAS

Dense and Green
An Alternative
History of the City
Thomas Schröpfer
Our planet has been urbanizing for millennia and urbanization of the Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II, to assuage her
has been global and exponential in recent times, these longing for the greenery of her far-away homeland.2
are facts we have to deal with.1 Within the broad and long
history of research and publication on intensive urbanization, Although there is no definitive archaeological proof of their
the focus has tended to be on the themes of density — building existence, both written accounts of the era and popular imagery
typologies, zoning — and infrastructure — transportation, of all times have placed the Gardens adjacent to the Tower of
services. Yet although no urbanist or architect would deny Babel, a proto-skyscraper in more than one sense that was
the importance of greenery — parks, beltways, vertical green, testament to both early human ambition as well as hubris.3
biodiversity — many continue to treat urban green as an amenity, If we are to allow that these two structures did exist in direct
divorcing it from a more holistic way of understanding, planning, proximity to one another, then we have here a starting point to
and designing cities and buildings. Urban green is too often contextualize the Gardens as not merely a kingly folly but also
thought of as part of the ground level of the city, seen and an urban intervention, with clear spatial and aesthetic principles
rendered in the two dimensions of the plan. Currently, a growing and goals.
number of innovative urban and architectural developments
and projects force us to rethink the very dimensionality of urban Firstly, the Gardens were set into the architecture along the
green: as something that is also vertical and that must, as our entirety of the Tower’s perimeter, rendering the greenery
cities do, develop vertically as well. The vertical development itself, rather than the architecture, as the primary feature of the
of green in our cities stands to contribute to the livability and building’s elevations, a feature visible from great distances.
sustainability of our urban environments. Secondly, the diversity of the flora observed in the Gardens
represents the King’s interest in a cosmopolitan and vertical
The research conducted at the Singapore-ETH Centre Future model of landscape architecture, one where the world’s plants
Cities Laboratory (FCL), ETH Zurich, and the Singapore University unite at a location so as to be observed and admired. Thirdly,
of Technology and Design and the resulting contributions and while the Gardens would most certainly have been accessible to
case studies that led to this book demonstrate how the continuing members and guests of the royal courts, their visual impact went
trend towards densification of our cities can inextricably and much further, impacting the city in its entirety.
consistently interact with the active provision of dynamic,
and often public, green spaces on elevated levels. In other words, The fortification of towns and cities hemmed in the open
this publication is about architecture as greenery, not about expansion of many cities across Eurasia throughout the medieval
architecture with greenery. The purpose of this introduction period and put a tacit premium on public space. Important
is to place the selected projects within a historical context, structures like the Alhambra in Granada, Spain, the Shalimar Bagh
demonstrating that their specific and topical character is not in Srinagar, India, and the Forbidden City in Beijing, China,
a unique development of the 21st Century but instead a new held within them truly impressive gardens; however, their impact
articulation of a trend that has been underway for a much longer on the general populace was largely lost in the absence of visual
time. We will revisit some well-known and some lesser-known and experiential connectedness.4 The rise of humanistic culture,
projects to look at them through a new lens, considering how particularly in the Italian Renaissance, articulated the increased
architecture itself has spawned new thinking about the role of green importance of the citizen and democratic values and this spurred
in the dense vertical city. the slow emergence of a public, as opposed to private, green
sphere within the town or city. These spaces went beyond the
From Hanging Gardens to Garden Cities commons model already in place in England, as they were public
open spaces not merely committed to a flexibility of function.
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon are widely recognized for They were rather designed as spaces meant for appreciation or,
their mythical status as one of the Seven Wonders of the ideally, contemplation.5 This would begin with simple piazzas,
Ancient World, among the few of the many no longer extant often with a central fountain and some planted trees. By the late
structures that are deeply embedded in popular imagination. Renaissance, both interest and faith in science led to the rise
The Hanging Gardens, a terraced mud-brick structure with of the botanical garden, a place that combined the biodiversity
a series of gardens containing a wide range of trees, shrubs, one would have seen at the Hanging Gardens of Babylon with
and vines, were supposedly built for Queen Amytis, the wife a scientific and largely public mission. The Botanical Gardens of
12

Hanging Gardens of Babylon, colored engraving, 19th Century.
Alhambra, Granada, Spain, 13th Century, garden.
Forbidden City, Beijing, China, 15th Century, Imperial Garden.
13

Filippo Toma, Botanical Gardens of Padua, Italy, engraving, 17th Century.
Padua from 1543 are an example of this, as they were open to

both students and the public at certain hours of the day.6
The dawn of the Industrial Revolution brought with it an

even greater urgency to provide public spaces that could
serve as outlets for nature and spaces of recreation for the
working masses to ensure their health and, ultimately, their
productivity in a capitalist system. Such parks operated to
a large degree as pastoral idylls, trying to recall a primordial
kinship to nature that most denizens of the city had never really
experienced. This new public culture is vividly captured in
Georges Seurat’s 1884/6 pointillist masterpiece Un dimanche
après-midi à l’Île de la Grande Jatte.7 For most working Parisians,
many employed in industry, Sunday was the day to escape the
heat of the city and head for the shade of the trees, quietude,
and the cool breezes that came off the river. As one might
expect in a popular public space, the viewer sees many different
people relaxing in a park by the river, a courting couple, children
playing. But there are also codes of vice embedded in the image,
ready for those who knew where to find them and how to read
them: prostitutes, beggars, alcoholics, proving that greenery
could not, through “green lungs” alone, cure the ills of the
modern metropolis.8
Two quite different designers, on either side of the Atlantic,

did grasp how the increasingly dense modern city and the
provision of public green space could be formed into a holistic
project that superimposed green space onto architecture,
both vertically and horizontally, instead of treating it as an
amenity or release valve for the working masses. They were
Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann in France and Frederick Law
Olmsted in the United States.9
In Paris, Napoleon III commissioned Haussmann to begin a

series of enormous public works projects, which entailed the
hiring of tens of thousands of workers to upgrade the sanitation,
water supply, and traffic circulation of the city. Haussmann’s
annexation of eleven communes into the city was step one in
a tabula rasa remodeling of the city designed to both further
densify and beautify the rapidly growing and increasingly dense
city. Over the subsequent two decades, the City of Paris was
a construction site that slowly bore out Haussmann’s aesthetic
tenets for the new city: similar facades and materials, standard
street and sidewalk widths, and the profound modernization of
infrastructure such as sewage and transportation.10 Napoleon III
also insisted that Haussmann build new public parks and gardens
for the recreation and relaxation of Parisians, particularly those
14

Georges Seurat, Un dimanche après-midi à l’Île de la Grande Jatte, 1884–1886.
15

16

Place Charles-de-Gaulle, Paris, France, aerial view. Parc des Buttes-Chaumont, Paris, France.
Jardin du Luxemburg, Paris, France, aerial view.
in the new neighborhoods of the expanding city. The Emperor

signaled that the parks built in tandem with Haussmann’s
renovation of the city be of the English variety: informal,
topographically varied, and for strolling, just at a much larger
scale. With the assistance of the engineer Jean-Charles Alphand,
Haussmann planned four major public parks in the four cardinal
directions around the city.11 The massive effort involved
the construction of artificial lakes, lawns, flowered areas,
waterfalls, channels, and grottoes as well as park chalets and
pavilions, perhaps most spectacularly illustrated by the Parc des
Buttes-Chaumont.12
The plan was not limited to these four major parks. Haussmann
refurbished a number of existing parks, such as the Jardin du
Luxembourg, while also creating more than 80 small parks, one in
each city neighborhood, intended to replicate the experience of
the four cardinal parks en miniature.13 The success of this plan to
replicate the English garden model in miniature around the city
was measured in the planner’s promise that no Parisian was ever
more than a 10 min walk from a park, a measure of livability used
widely in the present book for contemporary projects.
The English-garden-in-the-city model also served as inspiration

across the Atlantic, particularly in the work of Frederick Law
Olmsted, who renovated the face of numerous American
cities with parks meant to adapt to and augment dense urban
agglomerations. Olmsted’s design principles privileged the
natural topography, flora, and fauna of a given site while
subordinating to them the designed hardscape elements so that
they would not compete with their setting, or at most operate as
decorative punctuation points.14 This strategy, whether employed
in New Orleans or New York City, Spokane or Springfield,
became synonymous with the so-called pastoral or picturesque
tradition, characterized by small lakes, vast expanses of green,
and groves intended to deliver a contemplative, restorative
effect.15 Olmsted left the boundaries between zones indistinct,
using the “soft” rather than “hard” boundaries afforded by
trees and brush. Perhaps this “soft” border type is one reason
why urban greenery began to emerge from its two-dimensional
confines in the urban plan.
Olmsted did not, however, have equally dogmatic principles

when it came to a park’s morphology within the North American
city. While several of his parks necessitated some land seizure
through eminent domain, his approach was more prospective
than renovative when compared to that of Haussmann.16
The strict rectilinearity of New York’s Central Park illustrates its
17

Calvert Vaux/Frederick Law Olmsted, map of Central Park, New York, New York, USA, 1870.
Frederick Law Olmsted, connection of Columbia Road with Franklin Park and Marine Park,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 1897.
18

Following pages: Central Park, New York, New York, USA, aerial view from the northeast.
19

20

21

Frederick Law Olmsted, Buffalo parks, New York, USA, 1868, map.
Ebenezer Howard, Garden City and Rural Belt, 1902, plan.
nature as a planned park on mostly uninhabited land, anticipating

further growth around it. This is in sharp distinction to the
irregular, practically surgical park systems of cities like Buffalo or
Boston, where parks were planned in mostly open zones in the
city.17 It was perhaps the latter type that eschewed the simplistic
idea of the park as an amenity most effectively. Nevertheless,
both approaches were wildly successful and essential, in their
inherent value as spaces even more than in their design, in both
beautifying and densifying the North American city.
Nothing, however, embodies a thoroughly holistic approach

to green planning as much as the idea of the so-called
“Garden City,” pioneered by the British farmer and humanist
Ebenezer Howard. The departure point for Howard’s radical
ideas in town planning lay in Edward Bellamy’s utopian novel
Looking Backward and Henry George’s Progress and Poverty,
both of which outlined conditions for human settlements where
man lives in harmony with nature.18 Howard manifested his
ideas most vividly in his 1898 book To-morrow: A Peaceful
Path to Real Reform, reissued as Garden Cities of To-morrow in
1902.19 In his book, Howard outlined a master plan for a city that
could house 32,000 people on 6,000 acres (approx. 2,500 ha),
laid out in a concentric pattern that provided a myriad of public
parks and open spaces arranged around six radial boulevards
originating in the center of the circle. The principle idea of the city
is that it would hold, contained within these circles, everything
it needed to not only survive, including food production, but also
to thrive. The idea was scalable; a cluster of garden cities could
also function as satellites of a larger, central city (58,000 people),
all linked one to the other by rail and road.
Howard’s book was a massive success, read by specialists

and everyday people with equal interest. Audiences in both
Europe and North America saw in his proposal an antidote to
the increasing overcrowding and deterioration of cities, rife with
their poverty and poor health. In combining town and country so
thoroughly, Howard signaled to assume an ideological position
about the ideal humane landscape, positioned at the intersection
of rural life and urban life. The “old city” and its “downtown”
were, for Howard, destined for failure and consigned to a status
of something that may at best be prevented from getting worse,
rather than getting better.
The Vicissitudes of Green in the 20th Century
It would not be long after the impact of Howard’s ideas began

to really take hold in Europe and North America that architects
22

Ebenezer Howard, Garden City and Rural Belt, 1902, plan.
23

Le Corbusier, Plan Voisin, 1922-25, drawings.
were seeking alternative approaches to city and town planning,

advocating in particular models of higher-density (read vertical)
residential blocks. Foremost among those new models was
Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin, designed between 1922 and 1925.20
The Plan Voisin was a tabula rasa scheme designed for the core
of Paris. Almost as if it was an inversion of Howard’s scheme,
it comprised high-rise residential blocks occupying a prime
location on the right bank of the Seine. These high-rises afforded
a density of approx. 3,000 inhabitants per ha, almost nine times
higher than that which existed and yet with even more green
space. The master plan also comprised two major traffic arteries
that were seen as units of what would ultimately be a road
network binding France’s four “corners” to its capital.21
The intense rethinking of man’s relationship with nature in

the context of the city was not limited to the so-called global
north. As European holdings in Africa, Latin America, and Asia
successively decolonized in the middle of the 20th Century,
the architects of the global north necessarily shifted their
objectives from one of civilizing mission to one of foreign expert-
consultant. For architects like Jean Prouvé as well as Maxwell Fry
and Jane Drew, this meant a shift from designing buildings to
designing building schemes and systems which were, perhaps
somewhat exaggeratedly, seen as more adaptable and hence
more open to the agency of the formerly colonized.22
In the 1950s, as the rate of global decolonization accelerated,

it was in the pages of Architectural Review that some of the
most evocative debates and designs of new green urbanisms
appeared.23 Specifically, these debates coalesced around the
“Townscape” series organized by editor Gordon Cullen.24
A considerable thread in the series throughout the 1950s were
articles on what would eventually come to be dubbed “world
architecture” (i.e. non-Western), with a focus on building in
places with distinctly different climates and hence different
building needs. The catch-all term “Tropical Architecture,” which
could include architecture in Africa, Asia, and the Americas,
provided something of a breath of fresh air to a gray and tired
post-war Britain.25
A fascinating moment showing the uneasy transition from

colonizer-expert to professional-expert is made manifest in the
ideas and works published by the architects Maxwell Fry and
Jane Drew.26 Fry and Drew published an extensive series of
projects and texts in Architectural Record in May 1953 entitled
“The African Experiment,” the title already signaling the ways
in which the so-called tropics were seen as a background for a
24

Fry, Drew and Partners, Mfantsipim School, Cape Coast, Ghana, 1958, exterior view.
T. R. Hamzah & Yeang, EDITT Tower, Singapore, 1998, rendering.
broad brushstroke type of proposal for an architecture that could

animate both established architectural practice in the West and
also buoying fragile new economies with the infrastructure they
would “need” to enter the world stage.27 They would eventually
publish a refined and expanded book on their research in the
so-called tropics in 1964. Simply titled Tropical Architecture in
the Humid Zone, it has had a lasting impact on generations of
architects in the West working outside of it.28
In the introduction to this book, Fry and Drew walk back some
of the colonial undertones of their work in the 1950s, stating
“it is necessary at the outset to recognize that we, the authors,
are not inhabitants of the tropic zone but have come to it from
the temperate zone. We have experienced its climate, lived with
its people and dealt with its problems as they have affected
our work…”29
Two key elements for Fry and Drew in the larger realm of urban
planning and design were passive shading systems and the
maximal infusion of greenery, horizontally as well as vertically.
With regard to passive systems, Fry and Drew advocated the
widespread use of the brise-soleil and thick, textured screen
systems, often of concrete, to provide expansive areas of
shading. They also saw greenery as equally, if not more effective
in providing passive shading at all levels of a building while
also improving air quality. Tropical trees and plants were never
omitted from the design of boulevards, parks, maidans, plazas,
or any other open space. Scholars like Peter Edwards, one of
the contributors to this book, continue to prove the pivotal
importance of trees to tropical cities to this day.30
Prospective Green in the 21st Century
Since the 1970s, many ecologists have turned their interest

towards ecological interactions taking place in, and caused by
urban environments. The advent of the 21st Century witnessed
the rise of ecologically-oriented design in architecture, landscape
architecture, and urban design. Landscape architects like
James Corner have pioneered new trajectories of design that
privilege open spaces of nature, an aesthetic approach that,
while perhaps originally somewhat disarming, has become
widely admired and sought after in urban renewal projects across
the globe.31 Architects, particularly early pioneers like Ken Yeang,
have made equally important strides in bringing the aesthetics
of ecologically sound design to the vertical dimension of the
city.32 And while the two fields of architecture and landscape
architecture still work on a more holistic integration to this end,
25

James Corner Field Operations/Diller Scofidio + Renfro, The High Line,
New York, New York, USA, 2009.
a common, shared language between the two disciplines has

emerged that has privileged the concept of ecology. In some
cases, the term “city” is now tacitly understood to be an ecology.
As a result, the idea that greenery in the urban environment is an
amenity is increasingly seen as both reductive and false. The city,
as we know it in 2019, is a multi-dimensional ecosystem.
Architects and urban designers have also begun to deal with the
question of sustainability not merely as a “green” contribution to
the zero carbon output agenda but also as an active combatant
against the threats of climate change and sea level rise.
The exhibition “Rising Currents” at the Museum of Modern Art
coalesced a number of these concerns as they related to
New York City’s waterfront in 2010. More recently, BIG has
taken this precise concern as the basis for a major polemical
project called the “Dryline,” a play on the famous New York City
“High Line.”33
The “Dryline” comprises an approx. 16-km-long flood defense

barrier, conceived in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which
caused severe damage in New York City’s lowest-lying areas in
2012.34 BIG’s novel proposal for this barrier is not a rote piece of
infrastructure but rather a seductive waterfront park, one that
becomes alternately thick and thin after it is unfurled like a
sort of carpet on New York Harbor. The barrier includes many
different kinds of protective mechanisms including berms,
plantings, and baffles as well as leisure opportunities among
the many promenades and bike paths. “We like to think of it as
the love-child of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs,” says Ingels.35
“Our project must have Moses’ scale of ambition, but be able to
work at the fine-grain scale of the neighborhoods. It shouldn’t
be about the city turning its back on the water, but embracing it
and encouraging access. By taking it one conversation at a time,
with the principle that everyone can get their fantasy realized,
you end up getting there.”36 The barrier originates in the waters
off West 57th Street, looping around the tip of Manhattan,
and then ending at East 42nd Street.
An approx. 3 km portion of the Dryline that runs adjacent to a

group of public housing blocks will concentrate on what the
architects have described as a “bridging berm.” The berm
resembles a serpentine mound that rises to a height of just
over 4.5 m, the 100-year flood level that Hurricane Sandy
came close to reaching. The berm will serve as the base for
several walkways spanning the six-lane highway known as the
FDR Drive and connecting it to the existing waterfront park.
The long-term objective is to continue the berm around the full
26

27

BIG, Dryline, New York, New York, USA, 2015, renderings.
28

29

16 km, adapting to the existing waterfront infrastructure as it
does on the Lower East Side while also providing variegated
opportunities for recreation and leisure through different
design elements.
One alternative to the monolithic barrier, as emblematized by the

“Dryline,” is a diffuse and porous strategy known as “sponge
city.” Sponge cities can employ any number of strategies
but some of the most common and significant include the
maintenance and restoration of wetlands in coastal areas, the use
of permeable materials in road and sidewalk construction, green
roofs that both absorb and store water, and intelligently designed
systems for stormwater runoff.37
China has taken the lead in the development of sponge cities.

Following a disastrous flood in 2012, flood prevention (and
perhaps, tacitly, sea-level rise) became a top priority for the
state. The state kick-started a “Sponge City” initiative in 2015
with a plan for 16 model sponge cities, a number that was later
increased to 30, including Shanghai.
The part of Shanghai serving as its “sponge” site is a district

known as Lingang, a district lined with a very large number of
trees, gardens, and public squares with plant beds.38 One of
the first moves in the design of the district is to eschew the
widespread use of concrete, which is widely used in China,
due to its nature as a hard and impervious surface that blocks
the flow of rain and stormwater. Lingang’s wide streets are
constructed using permeable pavement that allows water to
drain into the earth below. A number of centralized plots of land
are used as rain gardens, which are filled with soil and plants.
A manmade lake, Dishui Lake, serves to moderate the flow of
water throughout the district. A majority of buildings feature
water tanks and green roofs.39
One of the greatest challenges for fashioning a “sponge city”

is bringing the course and condition of natural waterways as
close as possible to their natural state, something that is often
highly problematic in districts and watersheds that are already
densely developed.40 Another major challenge is the creation of
new green space, for the same reason, and existing parks are
often designed in a way that is at odds with the basic principles of
sponge city design.
Singapore continues to be at the forefront of research and

design in this arena. A modern-day Hanging Gardens,
Kampung Admiralty by WOHA, awarded World Architecture
30

Urban park, Shanghai, China.
31

WOHA, Kampung Admiralty, Singapore, 2018, apartment blocks, medical center,
and rooftop community park.
32

WOHA, Kampung Admiralty, Singapore, 2018, rooftop community park and plaza.
Festival Building of the Year 2018, is the city state’s first

integrated public development that brings together a mix of
public facilities and services under one roof. The scheme builds
upon a layered “club sandwich approach,” as the architects call
it. A vertical village is formed through the design of a community
plaza on a lower level, a medical center on a central level, and a
community park with apartments for seniors on the upper level.
These three distinct levels juxtapose the various building uses
so as to foster a diversity of cross-programming. The community
plaza, in particular, is a fully public area conceived as a community
living room. It is an intimately scaled, elevated green space where
the community can come together to undertake any number
of activities.
Meanwhile, in Shanghai, Heatherwick Studio’s 1000 Trees

is making new paradigms of its own. Conceived as a piece
of topography, 1000 Trees is designed not to resemble a
stand-alone piece of architecture but a pair of “tree-covered
mountains.”41 Once completed, 1000 Trees will serve as a
mixed-use development comprising over 400 terraces designed
to encourage more outdoor interaction among its users and link
the sites, and 1000 living trees scattered over the entire structure
will sprout from the structural supports. According to the studio,
these supports “are the defining feature of the design, emerging
from the building to support plants and trees.” Like many of the
projects discussed in this book, 1000 Trees will act as part of
larger urban green and blue systems; in this case the projects is
an extension of a neighboring park in the vertical dimension and
it relates to an adjacent canal. Thomas Heatherwick, the principal
of Studio Heatherwick, said, “we got interested in the park,
as it felt like it could be the glue that somehow connected those
elements together.” The result is a lyrical embodiment of the
verticalization of urban greenery.
About the Book
The Sponge City and Kampung Admiralty are just some of

the more recent innovations in a longer story of innovation
in the ecologically minded renovation of our increasingly
dense cities. The research presented in this book builds on
that published in Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for
Sustainable Urban Architecture earlier but shifts the emphasis
to the urban scale.42 It analyzes innovative examples that were
selected from a total of 400 surveyed dense and green projects
to shed light on how contemporary planners and designers
around the world are meeting the issues of sustainability and
densification by fashioning urban and architectural projects
33

Heatherwick Studio, 1000 Trees, Shanghai, China, 2019, views along and from Suzhou River.
that reject the idea that the role of urban green is limited to a
two-dimensional amenity or a mere “greenwashing” of building
developments. The selected projects rather point to an emergent
understanding of the building and the city as ecological systems,
an understanding which immediately raises important questions
about their interaction. Here we witness the ways in that “green”
developments can contribute to the ecology of their immediate
surroundings and the city at large. And we witness the means
by which, across Asia, the Americas, and Europe, ecologically
designed buildings and cities, with their green and blue networks,
can produce more livable and sustainable urban environments.
The subsequent contributions to Part 1 by Sacha Menz,

Peter Edwards, and Christophe Girot discuss important aspects
related to the topic of this book. Part 2 describes Singapore’s
leading role in the development of dense and green cities in
Southeast Asia and provides an overview of the Dense and
Green research at FCL, followed by important findings on
biodiversity, surface temperature, construction and maintenance
costs, and economic benefits. Part 3 presents the case studies
and Part 4 explores future trajectories of Dense and Green.
34

Following pages: WOHA, Kampung Admiralty, Singapore, 2018, rooftop community park
with playground.
1. There is much scholarly literature on the rise of the city. See, for example: Nadine 18. Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward 2000-187 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1889);
Moeller, The Archaeology of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: From the Predynastic Period to the Henry George, Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry Into the Cause of Industrial Depressions
End of the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth: The Remedy (New York: D. Appleton and
2. See Stephanie Dalley, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Company, 1881).
Wonder Traced 1st Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 19. The former was reissued by Cambridge University: Ebenezer Howard,
3. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, A History of Babylon, 2200 BC – AD 75 (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Blackwell, 2018). 2010). The latter is Sir Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of To-Morrow (London: 1902).
4. On the Alhambra see: D. Fairchild Ruggles, Gardens, Landscape, and Vision in the 20. Robert Fishman, Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank
Palaces of Islamic Spain (College Station, PA: Penn State University Press, 2003). On Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1982).
the Forbidden City see Guo Daiheng, China’s Lost Imperial Garden: The World’s Most 21. See also Thordis Arrhenius, “Restoration in the Machine Age: Themes of Conservation
Exquisite Garden Rediscovered (Shanghai: Shanghai Press, 2016). in Le Corbusier’s ‘Plan Voisin’,” AA Files 38 (Spring 1999): 10-22.
5. See, for example: John Dixon Hunt, The Venetian City Garden: Place, 22. See this outlined in Ayala Levin, “Basic Design and the Semiotics of Citizenship:
Typology, and Perception (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2005). Julian Beinart’s Educational Experiments and Research on Wall Decoration in Early 1960s
6. See Alessandro Minelli, The Botanical Garden of Padua 1545 – 1995 (Venice: Marsilio Nigeria and South Africa,” ABE Journal 9–10 (December 2016), accessed January 31,
Editori, 1995). 2019, http://journals.openedition.org/abe/3180 .
7. See Matthew Gandy, “The Paris Sewers and the Rationalization of Urban Space,” 23. See Clément Orillard, “Tracing Urban Design’s ‘Townscape’ Origins: Some
in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24:1 (1999), 23 – 44. Relationships Between a British Editorial Policy and an American Academic Field in the
8. The idea of a major park being the “green lungs” of a city is most commonly 1950s,” Urban History 36:2 (August 2009): 284–302.
attributed to Frederick Law Olmsted. See William D. Solecki and Cynthia Rosenzweig, 24. Mira Engler, Cut and Paste Urban Landscape: The Work of Gordon Cullen (Abingdon:
“A Metropolitan New York Biosphere Reserve?,” in Rutherford H. Platt (ed.), The Humane Routledge, 2015).
Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st-Century City (Amherst and Boston: University of 25. See Chang Jiat-Hwee, A Genealogy of Tropical Architecture: Colonial Networks,
Massachusetts Press, 2006), 103. Nature, and Technoscience (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016).
9. On Haussmann, see David H. Pinkney, Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of 26. On Fry and Drew’s career see: Iain Jackson and Jessica Holland, The Architecture
Paris (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958). On Olmsted, see Witold of Edwin Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew: Twentieth Century Architecture, Pioneer
Rybczynski, A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law Olmsted and America in the 19th Modernism, and the Tropics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016).
Century (New York: Scribner, 2000). 27. The publications of 1953 are detailed in Jackson and Holland, The Architecture
10. See Colin Jones, “Theodor Vacquer and the Archaeology of Modernity in of Edwin Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew: Twentieth Century Architecture, Pioneer
Haussmann’s Paris,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 17 (2007), 157–83. Modernism, and the Tropics.
11. See Patrice de Moncan, Les jardins du Baron Haussmann (Paris: Les Éditions du 28. Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, Tropical Architecture in the Humid Zone (London:
Mécène, 2012). Batsford, 1956). Other works include Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, Village Housing in the
12. See Ann Komara, “Concrete and the Engineered Picturesque at the Parc des Buttes Tropics with Special Reference to West Africa (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013); Maxwell Fry
Chaumont (Paris, 1867),” Journal of Architectural Education 58:1 (September 2004): 5–12. and Jane Drew, Architecture and the Environment (Crow’s Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin,
13. De Moncan, Les jardins du Baron Haussmann. 1976).
14. The National Association for Olmsted Parks list the following central tenets to 29. Fry and Drew, Tropical Architecture, 17.
Olmsted’s designs: “1. A Genius of Place: The design should take advantage of unique 30. See, for example, Song Xiao Ping, Daniel Richards, Peter Edwards, and Tan Puay Yok,
characteristics of the site, even its disadvantages. The design should be developed “Benefits of Trees in Tropical Cities,” Science 235:6344 (2017): 1241.
and refined with intimate knowledge of the site. 2. Unified Composition: All elements 31. See, for example, James Corner and Alison Bick Hirsch, The Landscape Imagination:
of the landscape design should be made subordinate to an overarching design Collected Essays of James Corner, 1990-2010 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural
purpose. The design should avoid decorative treatment of plantings and structures Press, 2014).
so that the landscape experience will ring organic and true. 3. Orchestration of 32. See Sara Harr, EcoArchitecture: The Work of Ken Yeang (Hoboken: Wiley, 2011).
Movement: The composition should subtly direct movement through the landscape. 33. See Oliver Wainwright, “Bjarke Ingels on the New York Dryline: ‘We think of it
There should be separation of ways, as in parks and parkways, for efficiency and as the love-child of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs’,” The Guardian, 9 March 2015,
amenity of movement, and to avoid collision or the apprehension of collision, accessed January 31, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/mar/09/
between different kinds of traffic. 4. Orchestration of Use: The composition should bjarke-ingels-new-york-dryline-park-flood-hurricane-sandy.
artfully insert a variety of uses into logical precincts, ensuring the best possible site 34. John Abraham, “New Study Links Global Warming to Hurricane Sandy and Other
for each use and preventing competition between uses. 5. Sustainable Design and Extreme Weather Events,” The Guardian, 22 June 2015, accessed 31 January 2019,
Environmental Conservation: The design should allow for long-term maintenance and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/22/
ensure the realization and perpetuation of the design intent. Plant materials should new-study-links-global-warming-to-hurricane-sandy-and-other-extreme-weather-events
thrive, be non-invasive, and require little maintenance. The design should conserve the 35. Wainwright, “Bjarke Ingels.”
natural features of the site to the greatest extent possible and provide for the continued 36. Ibid.
ecological health of the area. 6. A Comprehensive Approach: The composition should 37. See a comprehensive outline of the concept of the “Sponge City” in Sophie Barbaux,
be comprehensive and seek to have a healthful influence beyond its boundaries. In the Sponge City: Water Resource Management (Mulgrave, Australia: Images, 2016).
same way, the design must acknowledge and take into consideration what surrounds 38. Helen Roxburgh, “China’s ‘Sponge Cities’ are Turning Streets Green to Combat
it. It should create complementary effects. When possible, public grounds should Flooding,” The Guardian, 27 December 2017, accessed January 31, 2019,
be connected by greenways and boulevards so as to extend and maximize park https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/28/
spaces.” Accessed January 31, 2019, http://www.olmsted.org/the-olmsted-legacy/ chinas-sponge-cities-are-turning-streets-green-to-combat-flooding.
olmsted-theory-and-design-principles/design-principles 39. Ibid.
15. See John Dixon Hunt, Gardens and the Picturesque: Studies in the History of 40. Ibid.
Landscape Architecture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994). 41. Georgie Sinclair, “Transforming Shanghai’s skyline with 1000 trees,” in
16. Olmsted displaced a settlement of mostly African American landowners to be able to “Let it Grow,” accessed March 19, 2019, https://letitgrow.org/city-culture/
create Central Park. See Hope Killcoyne and Mary Lee Majno, The Lost Village of Central transforming-shanghais-skyline-1000-trees/.
Park (New York City: Silver Moon Press, 1999). 42. Thomas Schröpfer, Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for Sustainable Urban
17. On Olmsted’s interventions in specific cities, see Francis R. Kowsky and Andy Architecture (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016).
Olenick, The Best Planned City in the World: Olmsted, Vaux, and the Buffalo Park System,
2nd ed. (Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2018); Cynthia
Zaitzevsky, Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston Park System (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University/Belknap Press, 1982); Jennifer Ott, Olmsted in Seattle: Creating a Park System
for a Modern City (Seattle: HistoryLink, 2019).
35
101 Dense+Green- An Alternative History of the City.indd 35 11/10/19 12:26 PM

36

37

The Collective Power of the Single Building
How Small-Scale Can Influence Large-Scale in
Urban Planning in the Future
Sacha Menz
“Perhaps the best definition for the inhabitants of an early city is care of men.2 In its structural pattern, the Garden City is arranged
that they are a permanently captive farm population.” circularly around a core city, with residential areas alternating with
– Lewis Mumford, The City in History (1961)1 green spaces, intended as an open criticism of the terrible living
conditions then predominant in English cities and as a response
People have been meeting up in public spaces since time to disproportionately high rental costs.
immemorial — praying, talking, bargaining, eating, arguing,
and making music together. Living in communities and wanting In contrast to established 19th-Century conceptions of the city,
to exchange views and experiences physically and on the spot life in the Garden City focused on residential usage. Many years
are characteristic traits that are primordially human and will later, the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM)
never be replaced by virtual platforms. Touch, sounds, smells developed a fundamentally new principle for urban planning.
and glances produce stimuli that cannot be transmitted across In the Athens Charter that he presented at the Fourth CIAM
electronic networks, which can neither replace nor conjure up Congress in 1933, Le Corbusier produced a radical manifesto
our physical and mental presence. A single glance may often say advocating a revolutionary way of thinking about and planning
more than a thousand printed words. The greater the density cities. In essence, the Congress concluded with the idea of a
of our surroundings and the scarcer the public space available, functional form of urban planning that regards itself as mediating
the more we tend to appreciate how important it is to genuinely in an interplay between individual functional areas within the
experience the reality of spaces right up close. These are the continuum of the city. This modernist view of urban planning
conditions in which contacts are made from person to person passed into European culture during the postwar period and
and in which stimuli and impulses are transmitted. influenced planning work in many cities. The disentangling and
separation of functional areas still provide the framework for
When we look back at the way in which the railways developed many assumptions and tools used in urban planning today.
during the age of industrialization, it appears that this new form of
transport gave rise to a network of links between the commercial Fortunately, modern cities have proven to be more adaptable than
centres and had an accelerating effect on the cities and their what was originally put down on paper, and in the end they are also
growth. Railway stations — large-scale public receptacles built to some extent resistant to passing trends in planning. Not only
to house the railway infrastructure — often formed the interface the built masses of the city itself, but also its inhabitants dispose
between existing urban structures and new urban areas that of a degree of robustness that should not be underestimated. It is
developed during industrialization in the 19th Century. people who shape buildings, and they do not all follow the latest
fashions. It is all about appropriation: city-dwellers are showing that
Planning new structures allowed for the creation of a very they are able to appropriate areas and spaces to themselves and
wide and diverse range of different usages. In accordance pour the widest possible variety of functions into them. The result
with traditional models, buildings that served the driving is a natural, refreshing diversity.
forces behind the economy such as education, manufacturing,
and trade were again intermingled with buildings for residential “Not only is the city an object which is perceived (and perhaps
and religious purposes. The ground floors, providing a kind of enjoyed) by millions of people of widely diverse class and
connecting medium, became established as vital levels of urban character, but it is the product of many builders who are
life. The next level of public space was established by streets, constantly modifying the structure for reasons of their own …
squares, markets, parks, and gardens. By definition, these are No wonder, then, that the art of shaping cities for sensuous
all publicly accessible places that even today still function in enjoyment is an art quite separate from architecture or music
accordance with agreed social rules, promoting social, cultural, or literature.”
and economic exchange among people. – Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (1960)3
In the early 20th Century, Ebenezer Howard advocated the This statement by Kevin Lynch initially suggests hope, but the
Garden City as a model in reaction to the growing separation of town appearance is deceptive. Today, as there are more people living
and country. Howard cited the town as symbol of society, of mutual in cities than in the countryside and the imbalance is likely to
help and friendly cooperation, of broad relationships, and of science become even more extreme in the future, established political
and art which contrasted the country as symbol of God’s love and and social planning processes are often unable to keep up with
38

Herzog & de Meuron, Caixa Forum, Madrid, Spain, 2008, view from the southeast.
39

Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City, 1960, image of Boston, Massachusetts.
the dynamic force of the urban centers’ rampant growth. In the

face of an urgent need to create space, and also due to shortages
of finance, central aspects of urban development such as the
production and implementation of master plans are often left to
private or institutional investors. The established competence and
independent authority of those responsible for planning in the cities
are often ignored and ultimately undermined. Public responsibilities
of the democratically elected representatives who are involved in
urban development shift into private hands.
The rapid influx of new city-dwellers fundamentally challenges

efforts to achieve a quality of life suited to the circumstances.
Both the built and natural environments are coming under
pressure. Never before have so many areas of public usage
been privatized in cities throughout the world — in areas such
as education, health care, living for the elderly, trade, culture,
infrastructure facilities, etc. Public market halls are a good
example, as they have given way to department stores and
malls in which the customer is subordinated to the applicable
house rules — often making the spontaneous occurrence of
unexpected events impossible and refusing entry to unwelcome
guests. Particularly in the booming big cities — in Asia,
for example — privatized areas are increasingly pushing out
publicly usable and freely available spaces. For reasons of
financial shortages and increased efficiency, cities are passing
the responsibility for creating and managing public space to
private investors. The latter are enticed with higher usage
bonuses for their development projects, and they compensate
for the obligations agreed with the authorities by raising the
rental income and sales returns. In the short term, this is usually
good business for both sides, but in the long term it is a pact with
uncertainty. Seen over the long term, private investors are never
as robust as municipal communities and they tend to adapt their
structures to economic facts very quickly, so that they are the
first to put an end to unprofitable expenses and services.
Even as the substance of the city is robust and city-dwellers are

ultimately capable of resisting the superficial attractions of the
market, the preconditions for this need to be established and
fortified — meaning in particular allowing the public authorities
to welcome novelty and ensuring that investors are willing to
take part in experiments. This is the only way in which innovative
forms of new residential and living spaces can be developed.
How can we describe and assess the quality of experiments and
their sustainability in this field? In the city rankings published by
The Economist or Monocle — both internationally respected and
widely available print media — various different criteria are used
40
102 The Collective Power of the Single Building.indd 40 11/10/19 12:28 PM

to measure quality of life. Factors such as distance to hospitals offer the same open equality of opportunity that was present in
and recreational facilities, unemployment rates, availability and the age of the great immigration. In this sense, Richard Sennett,
routing of public transport, trends in rental prices, and even in his book The Conscience of the Eye,4 is correct to describe
dog-friendliness, are taken into account as factors influencing New York City as being dead: the Big Apple has long since
urban well-being. Usually derived from questionnaires, closed the open arms that it held out to every class of society.
such data tend to produce an abstract and overly technical It was the colorful mixture of immigrants that made it great.
picture of contemporary lifestyles. People’s characteristics Ellis Island, the central arrival point and distributing hub for
and idiosyncrasies are difficult to assess. If Google constantly the immense stream of immigrants, no longer has a purpose.
measures the movement speed of mobile phones in order to The culture of difference — the elemental force behind urban
identify the locations of traffic jams, we know nothing about coexistence — now survives only in limited form.
what the drivers are thinking, why they are in their cars in the
first place, or where they are heading. Why do people become ill, One essential aspect that will bring us closer to the issue of
how do communities arise, what is it that creates job satisfaction, quality of life and livability are the ways in which individual groups
how are educational services actually used, and what effects of buildings, or even individual buildings, are able to exert a
do all these factors have on the job market? These and other positive influence on neighborhoods and improve the quality of
characteristics that are difficult to measure have a very life of their residents.
substantial influence on the quality of life in cities.
This situation has prompted us to investigate the nature of
Despite its tremendous popularity, the SoHo neighborhood ‘Collective Form.’ Collective Form represents groups of buildings
in Manhattan would not meet all of the criteria listed in the and quasi-buildings — the segment of our cities. Collective form
Livability Index of the AARP Foundation, a private foundation is, however, not a collection of unrelated, separate buildings,
in the United States for the improvement of living standards. but of buildings that have reasons to be together.
The index itemizes, for example, housing costs and availability,
neighborhood, safety and access to jobs, access to public “Cities, towns, and villages throughout the world do not lack in
facilities, transportation, road safety and accessibility, rich collections of collective form. Most of them have, however,
environment, quality of air and water, health, number of smokers, simply evolved: they have not been designed. This gives some
distance to hospital services and their quality, engagement, reason why today so many professionals, both architects
Internet access, voting rate, number of social institutions and planners, often fail to make meaningful collective
and opportunities, equality of opportunity, average age, forms — meaningful to give the forms forceful raison d’être in
and high-school graduation rates. our society.”
– Fumihiko Maki, Investigations in Collective Form (1964)5
SoHo, as an example, shows a low rate of housing affordability,
with a select and privileged class able to afford to live in this Important small-scale components of the city, either individual
neighborhood. This drastic social limitation calls into question all buildings or groups of buildings, have a greater influence on their
of the other factors taken into account in the calculation. surroundings than is commonly thought. This is the hypothesis
that is being investigated in the Dense and Green research at
Despite this, SoHo is an extremely popular area in New York the Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory, where new
City, particularly among tourists. SoHo creates what many building typologies are being studied in relation to their social,
people experience as a pleasant atmosphere. In comparison cultural, climatic, and eco-stabilizing capabilities. The city state is
with downtown Manhattan, it has a small-scale, clearly arranged one of the most popular places in Asia to live and work in, and it
appearance comprising urban green, it promotes interpersonal is aiming to become a megacity based on essential Asian values
relationships, and provides many communal and publicly usable such as harmony, respect, and hard work. This was how the city
spaces. It is spatially comprehensible for people and its clear was described in the National Geographic magazine, November
arrangement conveys a sense of physical protection. It is a district 2017 issue. Singapore has notable examples of building types that
you can get your hands on. There is a sense of neighborliness stand out from the mass of the city’s other structures and devote
that gives the deep-rooted community in the district a sense of themselves to coexistence, to a sense of community, comfort,
being at home. SoHo attracts people — but living there does not and biodiversity without losing sight of economic considerations.
41

42

Greene Street, SoHo Cast Iron Historic District, New York, New York, USA, 2019, WOHA, Oasia Hotel Downtown, Singapore, 2016, section.
view from the northeast.
For example, there are buildings that have vertically arranged green
plantings and feature community spaces for recreation within
an extremely densified urban environment. The incorporation
of green areas within and around high-rise buildings occurs in
buildings with a wide range of usages. Sky terraces and sky
bridges, a step beyond the traditional roof gardens, as well as
vertical green elements are used here for cooling and providing
shade. Other combinations of this type of green approaches
to architecture are found in cities around the world, including
Milan, Sydney, and Miami. Departing from established types of
buildings, they propose a serious vision and novel models for the
vertical expansion of the city.
The cross-sections of these buildings make the idea clearer:

the urban ecosystem, with its public and private green spaces,
has been shifted to the vertical plane and reinvented for this new
dimension. The ways in which public, communal, green-planted
spaces can be integrated by this approach is likely to be a
challenge in the development of future architectural typologies.
A single green-planted building that is accessible to a district’s
inhabitants has the potential of creating better social links within a
limited space and footprint while at the same time representing a
successful economic model.
The growth of Asia’s cities is advancing tirelessly, and statisticians

have predicted growth of a further 20% over the next 10 years.
An extremely worrying prediction! Will that mean the end for
good quality of life in the cities, or will public activities that were
previously so popular then only take place on the vertical plane?
Seen from the point of view of evolutionary history, humans are
beings that live close to the earth. But human beings are also
adaptable, and the approaching explosive growth of the world’s
population, together with the rural exodus and subsequent
development of large cities, have shifted many human activities
from the horizontal to the vertical plane. Living and working at dizzy
heights have already become part of everyday life, above all in Asia.
At the 1959 CIAM congress held in Otterlo, Ernesto Rogers

triggered a debate on basic principles when he presented
the Torre Velasca, which he had designed together with his
colleagues Gianluigi Banfi, Lodovico Barbiano di Belgiojoso
and Enrico Peressutti (BBPR). The tower-like, multifunctional
building in Milan reflects working and residential usages that
are differentiated in terms of cross-section and elevation.
But Rogers did not succeed in explaining to his colleagues the
way in which the building’s expression represents a construct
formed of interlocking conditions and an image of its constituting
43

Street markets in Asia and Italy, 2018.
influences; and so he failed to persuade them of the need for

urban planning at this small scale. Through its combination of
functions and also in its structural quality (based on the principle
of structural honesty), the Torre Velasca represents a logical way
of densifying the city. And yet it was Peter Smithson’s severe
criticism of its formalism and historicizing attitude that won out
at the Congress. This discussion occurred at a time when the
focus was perhaps more on large-scale overall contexts, and this
might explain the conference’s dismay over the presentation
of an individual object. Peter Smithson then presented his
London Roads Study and contradicted Rogers. The Smithsons,
Louis Kahn, and Aldo van Eyck — the intellectual heavyweights
at the Congress — vehemently defended the view that one
should concentrate on the greater reality of the large scale.
This attitude, and their vote in favour of a statement opposing
object-like qualities and rejecting any processing of traditions,
were from then on demonstrated in new practices of architectural
design — and wrongly so, since Rogers’s tower already anticipated
the concerns of densified and combined living and working,
and with its slender substructure provided scope for valuable
public space from which the surrounding district could benefit.
There are many who believe that the construction of our cities
is essentially complete. Europe and North America have almost
given up looking at things on a genuinely large scale. At the other
end of the spectrum, entire cities have been springing up in
Asia within an extremely short time. But in the process of their
development, the small-scale concerns of the individual and in
the scale of districts are often overlooked. Mainly financed by
private investors, these projects provide residential and working
spaces in order to satisfy the demand by merely following the
market. Gated communities, for example, are popular, but the
way in which they are closed off to the outside world means they
do not in the end make any genuine contribution to public life.
The ways in which an individual building can influence its immediate

surroundings are still underestimated even today. How much
public and communal space do buildings contain? Do they offer
space for recreation within the district? Do they promote the
development of the flora and fauna, do they radiate less heat
into their surroundings so that they reduce the “heat island
effect,” do they regulate their water balance inside a separate
and independent system? These and other factors that influence
the environment can lead to improved living conditions in the
cities. If we look at the large scale once again, it becomes evident
that cities can and must make shared and public green spaces
available, implement them and ultimately also manage them.
44

Safdie Architects, Jewel Changi Airport, Singapore, 2019, interior.
45

CPG Consultants/RMJM Hillier, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, 2010, courtyard with sky bridges,
view from the west.
46

Fumihiko Maki, Investigations in Collective Form, 1964, Japanese lineal village.
Gruppo BBPR, Torre Velasca, Milan, Italy, 1958, view from the east.
But all this on its own is still not enough to satisfy the larger
aspiration to allow greater urban density in the future. As the
example of the Torre Velasca and its mixture of functions shows,
it will become necessary to integrate all of these concerns
into individual buildings: implement them architecturally
in order to supplement districts with high-quality usable
space. More creativity, courage, and social commitment are
needed in the development of new architectural typologies.
This will enable property developers to reposition themselves,
no matter whether they are private companies or institutional
or public bodies, and allow them to take responsibility for the
community and contribute to improving the quality of life.
Just as Ernesto Rogers was able to deduce the whole from
individual elements, we will in the future increasingly experience
the way in which buildings on a small scale can influence our
living conditions.
The examples presented in this book have the potential to become

persuasive models for the ways in which cities can be made
more enjoyable to live in and more environmentally compatible,
with smaller interventions. High density does not necessarily
mean any loss of green areas or community-used spaces;
the apparent opposites can in fact complement one another.
Ebenezer Howard conceived of the Garden City and implemented
several examples of it; and Singapore today is gradually trying to
develop itself into a “City in a Garden.” Here the idea of rethinking
cities is in accordance with political goals and is being established
as a guideline through the strong influence of the city planning
authorities and implemented ”from the top down.” Conversely,
”from the bottom up” development, from small scale to large
scale or from a single building to the level of the district, requires
commitment on the part of each individual. The demand to create
networked and active forms of urban existence emerges from
large numbers of small, compartmentalized structures. In his
book Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City, Richard Sennett
distinguishes between “two different things — one a physical
place, the other a mentality compiled from perceptions,
behaviours and beliefs. The French language first came to sort
out this distinction by using two different words: ville and cité.”6
The ville is laid out and planned on a large scale, it is built of stone
and mass. The cité embodies the Latin civitas, in contrast to urbs.
Instead of buildings made of stone, it is interpersonal concerns,
touch, sounds, smells, glances, etc., that come to the surface
and constitute what makes life in the city worth living in the first
place. This recognition has less to do with the size of one’s own
dwelling than with the quality of the spaces that we are able to
use in common as city dwellers.
47

group8asia/AEDAS, Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Singapore, 2015,
view from the northeast.
One important question remains: is there any hope to gain control

over urban planning in the future and make the cities worth living
in again? What will the cities of the future look like? Resource-
efficient, emission-free, green, and at the same time spatially
densified — that is the provisional answer at the moment.
In the search for civitas within the urbs, several of the projects
presented in this volume are already making a contribution to
public life while at the same time incorporating community spirit.
They stand as individual architectural works that have been
conceived and implemented through tremendous commitment
and were not developed solely on the basis of profit calculations.
1. Lewis Mumford, The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961), 47.
2. Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of To-Morrow (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1902), 17–18.
3. Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960), 2.
4. Richard Sennett, The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities
(New York: Knopf, 1990); German translation: Civitas: die Grossstadt und die Kultur des
Unterschieds, trans. Reinhard Kaiser (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1991).
5. Fumihiko Maki, Investigations in Collective Form (St. Louis, Missouri: Washington
University School of Architecture, 1964), 5.
6. Richard Sennett, Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City (New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2018), 1.
48

Following pages: Safdie Architects, Jewel Changi Airport, Singapore, 2019, interior.
49

50

51

Green Spaces and Ecosystem Services
Peter Edwards
The green spaces that add variety to today’s cities are the legacy
of past decisions and circumstances. While some green spaces,
notably public parks, playing fields, and gardens, were deliberately
planned, many are the by-products of other decisions,
such as constructing a roadside embankment or roundabout,
or a cemetery. Yet others owe their existence to chance or local
circumstance, such as quarries that have been abandoned or
wetlands that could not easily be developed for other purposes.
Whatever their origins, these urban ecosystems — and the
biodiversity they support — are increasingly valued for their role in
improving the urban environment and making cities more livable.
But as we come to appreciate the importance of green spaces
for urban life, we also realize that their continued existence is
threatened by economic pressures. We see that the combination
of chance and circumstance that produced the present mosaic
of green spaces will not be sufficient to ensure that it persists.
Like other essential infrastructure, urban ecosystems must be
planned, designed, and maintained.
Green Spaces and Biodiversity in Cities
The idea of greening cities is not new. In Roman times,

the Emperor Nero set his palace, the Domus Aurea, in a vast
landscaped garden that included groves of trees, pastures with
flocks, vineyards, and even an artificial lake. Many wealthy
Romans followed his example and surrounded their villas with
elaborate gardens or horti. It was not until the 19th Century,
however, that the importance of open spaces for human
well-being was generally recognized. In Britain, concern over the
poor health of people living in overcrowded industrial towns led to
the public park movement, which arose in the 1830s. By the end
of the 19th Century, the importance of public open spaces had
become widely appreciated, and parks even became symbols of
civic pride, providing inhabitants and visitors alike with attractive
surroundings where they could enjoy their leisure time.1
The interest in urban biodiversity is more recent. The oldest

organization dedicated to recording and protecting the wildlife
of a city is the London Natural History Society (LNHS), founded
in 1858. As its website proudly proclaims, there are some
fantastic places for wildlife in the London area. “More than 40%
of London is green space or open water. As many as 2,000
species of flowering plant have been found in the LNHS area.
The tidal Thames supports 120 species of fish. Over 60 species
of bird nest in central London. LNHS members have recorded
47 species of butterfly, 1,173 moths and more than 270 kinds of
spider around London. London’s wetland areas support nationally
52

Clichy-Batignolles Eco-district, Paris, France, green and blue spaces.
53

54

Botanic Gardens, Singapore, board walk. Wild otters in Kallang Basin, Singapore.
important populations of many water birds. London has 38

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), two National Nature
Reserves and 76 Local Nature Reserves.”2
Another city justly proud of its wildlife is Singapore, which is

home to a remarkable variety of plants and animals, many of
which can be still be found in their natural habitats. Singaporean
naturalists have recorded more than 390 species of birds and
at least 2,100 native vascular plants, of which more than 1,500
species still occur in Singapore. The city contains over 300 parks
and four nature reserves, including a 163 ha fragment of the
rainforest that formerly covered the island.3
As these examples show, there is no reason why even a

large, densely populated city cannot support a high biological
diversity. But what are the origins of these species? Every city
has its own history and circumstances, which determine
how much green space it has within its boundaries, and how
many species it supports. One source of species is deliberate
introduction — what we might call the planned biodiversity;
this includes the many plants grown in parks and gardens,
as street trees, and increasingly also on buildings. Indeed,
the number of introduced species sometimes exceeds that
which would occur in an equivalent area of natural habitat.
A second important origin is relicts of the ecosystems that

existed before the city was constructed. Some cities contain
patches of land that for various reasons have never been
developed: perhaps they were too steep or wet, or were areas
of religious significance such as sacred groves, or enjoyed
some special legal protection. Whatever the reason, these
patches of “natural habitat” can be extremely important for the
overall biodiversity. The few fragments of original rainforest in
Singapore, for example, contain over 450 tree species, most of
which occur nowhere else in the city. Similarly, London has large
areas that were either common land or royal hunting forests.
A third souce of urban biodiversity is the species that have spread

into cities and found there the habitat conditions they need.
Many of these occur in unplanned green spaces such as roadside
verges and waste ground, or on built structures such as walls and
derelict buildings, or in canals and drains. The red fox has become
an urban species in many European cities, while tropical cities
such as Singapore have thriving populations of animals such as
the palm civet and python, and even of endangered species such
as the smooth-coated otter.
55

PLANT Architects, Toronto City Hall, Ontario, Canada, 2010, green roof
(building design by Viljo Revell, 1965).
Benefits from Urban Ecosystems
Only recently have urban ecosystems and the biodiversity they

support become a focus of intensive research. The results of this
research are important for understanding the value of green areas
and how they can be better managed. A conclusion emerging
from this work is that urban ecosystems are not just “nice to
have,” but deliver important benefits for the quality of the urban
environment and for the health and psychological well-being
of residents. In attempting to understand these benefits,
two concepts – biophilia and ecosystem services – have proved
especially influential.
“Ecosystem services” refers to the benefits that people obtain

from functioning ecosystems, including green areas within
cities.4 These benefits are very diverse, but usually classified
into four main types: provisioning, regulating, socio-cultural,
and supporting ecosystem services.
The first of these, provisioning ecosystem services, refers to

the production of harvestable goods such as food, building
materials, and fuel. The second is regulating ecosystem services,
which helps maintain environmental conditions within safe or
comfortable limits. Vegetation can have a big effect upon the
urban microclimate and contribute to mitigating urban heat
islands. Similarly, temporarily retaining rainwater, vegetation,
and unsealed land can help prevent floods following heavy
rain. A third type is socio-cultural ecosystem services, meaning
those services important for human psychological well-being
and culture. Trees and gardens increase the amenity value and
attractiveness of the urban landscape, while nearly all green
spaces offer recreational potential. As places where people
meet, rest, and play, public green spaces foster social and cultural
integration, especially among children and young adults. The final
category, supporting services, underlies the provision of the other
three, and contributes to the overall resilience of urban systems.
Key supporting services include pollination, which helps maintain
plant populations and produce food, and biodiversity, which can
increase the resilience of an ecosystem in providing services.
The second concept, biophilia, emphasizes the importance of

biodiversity for human thriving. First formulated by the German
philosopher Erich Fromm in the 1960s,5 the biophilia hypothesis
proposes that humans possess an innate tendency to seek
connections with nature and other forms of life. This hypothesis
has been the subject of many studies, with most of them
supporting the idea that interacting with nature can be beneficial
56

Renzo Piano Building Workshop, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California,
USA, 2008, green roof.
57

James Corner Field Operations/Diller Scofidio + Renfro, The High Line, New York,
New York, USA, 2009.
for health and well-being. Given that most people now live in
cities, some of which are very large, efforts are increasing to
ensure that urban dwellers are not excluded from these benefits.
Biophilic design is an architectural approach aimed at promoting
people’s contact with nature; its advocates see such design as a
means to reduce stress, enhance creativity and clarity of thought,
improve human well-being, and expedite healing. Partly for this
reason, many architects now include features such as green
roofs, roof gardens, sky terraces and green facades as an integral
part of their building designs.
Urban Ecosystems under Pressure
When we think about the benefits of urban ecosystems,

we need to consider not only the formal parks and gardens,
but also smaller, informal areas such as derelict land, roadside
verges, railway corridors, and urban streams. This means we
must extend the concept of urban green spaces to include all
habitat patches that support wildlife, however small or temporary
they may be. Which raises some interesting questions.
How much green space is there altogether? How is it distributed
across the city? What benefits do different types of green space
provide? These may seem to be simple questions, but they can
be surprisingly difficult to answer. Here are some important
conclusions about urban green spaces based upon the rather few
studies that have been conducted.
First, most urban green spaces are small. In one recent study,
the green spaces in nine large Chinese cities were found to
be highly fragmented, consisting of few large areas such as
parks and many more small patches with an area of less than
0.1 ha.6 If only the larger patches were considered, which is
usual when green spaces are assessed using a low-resolution
satellite image, then the total area of green spaces was greatly
underestimated (averaging around 20% of the urban area rather
than the true value of 34%). One lesson from this study is that,
by concentrating on the larger areas, we overlook the important
contribution of small patches to urban ecosystem services.
Second, the proportion of green space declines towards the center

of cities. Because of high land prices, there is enormous pressure
to utilize land in the urban core as fully as possible: houses with
gardens are replaced by blocks of flats or offices, rivers are put into
pipes, open corridors are appropriated for roads, and even railways
are put underground. Except where there are legal or planning
restrictions upon development, urban centers usually end up being
almost devoid of green spaces or biodiversity.
58

Rail Corridor, Singapore. The Rail Corridor is a former railway line that stretches 24 km north
to south. Now a “green corridor,” it will be transformed into a community space that links
many parts of the City over the coming years.
Tree-lined road, Singapore.
Third, the pressure to develop the urban core increases as cities

grow. This is because land prices increase disproportionately
with population,7 so that the available land is used ever more
intensively. Large cities are therefore less likely to enjoy the
benefits provided by green spaces, especially in the dense urban
core, making them prone to problems such as poor air quality and
urban warming. Given this negative relationship between urban
density and environmental quality, novel approaches are urgently
needed to restore ecosystem services, for example through the
use of sky-rise greenery.
Strategies to Protect Urban Ecosystems
Given the economic pressures to develop land, it is unrealistic

to expect the green areas we have inherited to persist into
the future unless cities develop clear strategies to protect and
enhance them. Many cities around the world are doing just that,
for example by setting targets for green areas and putting a
value upon ecosystem services. Indeed, it is encouraging that
cities have even begun to compete for the accolade of being the
greenest and most ecological city.
Set targets for green space and biodiversity. This is perhaps the
single most important step towards enhancing biodiversity and
improving ecosystem services. London recently announced its
plan to become the “first National Park City,” rich in wildlife and
with 50% of its area green by 2050. As the mayor of London said
recently, “We are working to make our city’s parks, green spaces
and waterways great places for people and spaces where wildlife
can thrive.”
Singapore also has ambitious goals to create more green and

blue spaces near people’s homes. By 2030, it plans that over
90% of citizens should live within a 10 min walk of a park, and the
park connector network should be doubled to 400 km. In the
same period, the total area of public green space is planned to be
increased to over 4,000 ha, and 180 km of new green corridors
(known in Singapore as Nature Ways) will be created.
Creating new green areas is undoubtedly good for wildlife, but it

is not possible to set firm targets for biodiversity. Nonetheless,
it is possible to monitor the factors that favor biodiversity and set
goals accordingly. Singapore has developed the Singapore Index
on Cities’ Biodiversity (SI), which it uses as a quantitative tool to
monitor progress in conservation.8 The index uses 23 indicators
that measure native biodiversity, ecosystem services provided
by biodiversity, and governance and management of biodiversity.
59

The method has proved very valuable in setting priorities for Planning for Ecosystem Services: Some Principles
planning and conservation not only in Singapore but also in many
other cities around the world. The proportion of green areas in a city offers a simple metric for
urban environmental quality, and many cities use it. But not all
Assess the value of ecosystem services. Setting aside land in a green areas are equally valuable; an intensively managed lawn,
city as green spaces entails costs. It entails opportunity costs, for example, probably delivers much less in ecosystem services
since using the land as a green space means not using it for than a patch of woodland. The type of ecosystem, the level of
other purposes such as housing, which might be very profitable. biodiversity, and the spatial arrangement of green patches are
It entails management costs for operations such as mowing all important in determining the benefits we obtain from green
grass, pruning trees, and raking up leaf litter. And it entails indirect areas. To get the most value out of urban greening, planners need
costs, such as those caused when tree roots damage pavements some guiding principles about how to design and care for them.
and buildings, damage and injury from falling trees, and blockage Here are some suggestions:
of drains by leaf litter. All these are real costs, and it is scarcely
surprising that creating green areas and planting trees is often Take a system approach. In a natural ecosystem, the individual
politically controversial, being seen by some as a luxury that the trees and patches are linked spatially through many processes.
city cannot afford. Birds and butterflies migrate, water flows, wind blows, seeds
disperse, and so on. This means that a landscape is a system
Given these costs, the political argument for creating green areas of systems: hydrological systems, nutrient cycles, the breeding
is greatly strengthened if the benefits can be measured and systems of all the species, etc. All too often, these systems are
presented in financial terms. In the past few years there have drastically altered through urbanization, and we should be much
been several studies aimed at assessing the diverse economic more aware of them as we design urban landscapes.
benefits of street trees and urban ecosystems. Among sources
of value that can be readily measured, one of the most important A good example of taking a systems approach is Singapore’s
in cities is amenity benefits, which can be assessed through Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters (ABC Waters) program,10 which is
the effects of green spaces and trees upon property prices in based upon a detailed understanding of how water flows through
the neighborhood (known as the “hedonic pricing method”). an urban catchment. The ABC program incorporates a variety of
Other benefits relate to the regulatory functions of ecosystems, measures for retaining water at the source, thereby ensuring that
such as cooling, which can be assessed in terms of electricity less water is lost in storm runoff and reducing the need for large
saved, and reducing the risk of flooding, which can be assessed storm drains.
in terms of the cost of structures that would otherwise be
needed to manage stormwater. Finally, the “contingent valuation Plan for multifunctional land use. Urban landscapes must fulfill
method” allows researchers to assess other non-market benefits many functions, especially in the most land-scarce cities.11
by asking people how much they would be prepared to pay for In particular, all green areas should contribute to regulating
green spaces or urban ecosystems. environmental conditions, even if they are primarily intended
for some other purpose, such as cultural amenity or recreation.
The methods for assessing the value of ecosystem services are A nice example of a multifunctional landscape is Bishan Park
far from perfect, but progress is being made in capturing social in Singapore, a recently restored segment of the Kallang River,
and cultural values that are less easily assessed. Even with their which is not only much used for recreation and escape, but also
present limitations, however, these methods provide striking forms part of the water catchment, contributes to cooling and
evidence of the value of urban ecosystems. A recent review of flood mitigation, and is a haven for wildlife.
the costs and benefits of urban trees found that the economic
benefits usually outweighed the costs, even when only one For the planner, multifunctionality means asking a simple
or a few sources of benefit were considered.9 In that survey, question about every green area: “what benefits can it provide?”
the benefits with the highest valuations, and those most likely While this may seem rather obvious, especially for larger urban
to outweigh costs, were “aesthetic and amenity,” shading, green spaces such as parks and playing fields, the same question
and water regulation. needs to be asked also about smaller patches of green space
such as roadside verges and roundabout islands. Even areas set
60

Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl, Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park, Singapore, 2012, green and blue spaces,
aerial view from the southwest.
61

Learning Forest, Botanic Gardens, Singapore.
aside for later development should not be overlooked but utilized buildings. As other contributions in this book illustrate, examples
to provide ecosystem services and recreation. of this approach can be found in many cities around the world,
including the famous Bosco Verticale in Milan and the hanging
Strengthen connectivity. Given that any landscape involves vertical gardens of One Central Park in Sydney. In Singapore,
many interconnected systems that operate over different spatial vertical greenery, sky terraces, roof gardens, and green roofs are
scales, it is obviously important to strengthen ecological linkages now officially recognized as important types of urban greenery,
whenever possible. The idea of ecological corridors is now along with the more traditional parks and green corridors.
well accepted, and many cities have developed greenways and Given these new trends, it seems fair to assume that the urban
blueways to connect the urban centers with the surrounding landscape of the future will be one in which the green covers on
countryside. These corridors are not only a great resource for buildings merge – perhaps imperceptibly – with the surrounding
recreation, but also help wildlife spread and establish within the city. vegetation. Connecting the urban landscape in this way
offers enormous possibilities to improve walkability, promote
However, green corridors need not be confined to the open biodiversity, and provide ecosystem services.
spaces between buildings; they can also connect buildings
with the landscape, and even be made features of individual
62

Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl, Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park, Singapore, 2012, green and blue spaces. Following pages: Rain Tree, Singapore.
The smaller subpopulations are often unstable, and sometimes

die out because of disturbance, disease, or some other reason.
When this happens, the patch may be recolonized, but only if
there is another subpopulation nearby. This metapopulation
concept is very helpful in thinking about urban biodiversity;
we need to ensure that there are patches of relatively
undisturbed habitat where there are stable populations of
species that can colonize more disturbed areas.
Why Green Spaces and Ecosystem Services Matter
In closing, it is worth emphasizing once again why urban green

spaces, and the ecosystem services they provide, have become
so important. We have entered an urban era in which well over
half the world’s population now lives in cities. The magnitude of
many cities far exceeds any that existed in the past, with some
urban areas extending over hundreds, and even thousands,
of square kilometers. These cities consume vast amounts of
water and energy, and are sinks for huge quantities of materials,
including essential nutrients for life. Some megapolitan areas
have become so large that they alter the regional climate, being
generally hotter than their surroundings and subject to more
intense bursts of rainfall.
In all these ways, cities are increasingly out of balance with

their environment. For a sustainable future, cities will have to
become more “ecological,” in the sense that they regulate their
environment, including temperature, flooding, and air quality,
collect and recycle their water, and provide residents with open
spaces for recreation and solitude. To a large extent, these goals
can be achieved by strengthening the ecosystem services
provided by green areas. These green areas represent the city’s
Provide undisturbed areas for wildlife. To persist in an urban natural capital, and it is essential that we care for it appropriately.
environment, many species of wildlife require patches of habitat
free from human disturbance. This is true of many birds, especially 1. Harriet Jordan, “Public Parks, 1885-1914,” Garden History, 22, 1 (1994): 85–113.
2. http://lnhs.org.uk.
during the nesting season, and also of some mammals. In practice, 3. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/wildlife-in-singapore.
most cities provide such inaccessible areas unintentionally: 4. E. Gómez-Baggethun et al., “Urban ecosystem services, chapter 12, in T. Elmqvist et al.
(eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities:
examples include the fenced land surrounding transformer A Global Assessment (Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London: Springer, 2013).
substations or highway embankments. Provided that such areas 5. Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 1992).
are not over-managed—for example, by excessive mowing or 6. Zhou et al., “The rapid but ‘invisible’ changes in urban greenspace: A comparative study
shrub clearance - they can contribute greatly to urban biodiversity. of nine Chinese cities,” Science of The Total Environment, 62 (2018): 1572–1584.
7. L. M. A. Bettencourt, “The origins of scaling in cities,” Science 340 (2013):1438–1441.
8. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/urban-biodiversity/the-singapore-index-on-
But there is another reason why “no-go areas“ can contribute cities-biodiversity.
9. X. P. Song et al., “The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest
to urban biodiversity, which is related to the ecological stewardship: A systematic review,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29 (2018): 162–170.
concept of the metapopulation. This concept describes how 10. https://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/about.
11. S. Taylor Lovell and J. R. Taylor, “Supplying urban ecosystem services through
the individuals of a species in a landscape usually occur as multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States,” Landscape Ecology 28 (2013):
scattered subpopulations in places where the habitat is suitable. 1447-1463.
63

64

65

Green Buildings and the Ecological Picturesque
Christophe Girot
The fashion of greening buildings has grown in architecture Case 1: “La Tour Verte” in Noisiel, France,
over the past decades; now seems like the right moment to Christian de Portzamparc, 1971–1974
look at this short history and question some of the outcomes.
Some trends can be identified, differentiated, and compared When Christian de Portzamparc was awarded the Pritzker
over this relatively short time period. Green like many other living Architecture Prize in 1994, 20 years had already elapsed
things has specific material, temporal, and climatic requirements; since his first built “Tour Verte” (Green Tower) project was
it is important to consider physical conditions pertaining to a completed in Noisiel in the far-off suburban reaches of Paris.
specific location, in light of the actual performance, endurance, The 37-m-high tower was meant to shroud a concrete water tank
or development of a plant on a roof or against a tall facade. in dense vegetation, supported by a “Babylonian” Constructivist-
looking metal cage clad in wood lattice.1 By using the water
Before entering in any sort of typological consideration on tank’s structure made of concrete posts to wrap the steel frame
green buildings, one should first understand two basic laws around a narrow spiraling service path, some ivy and other vines
of physics that are being exerted on living materials, the one placed in planter boxes with irrigation along the spiral were meant
being temperature and the other being wind and rain. Both the to climb to the top and cover the entire structure.2 Almost 50
roots and foliage placed upon a building are typically exposed to years later, the structure remains for the most part bare of any
extremes that are not commonly found on the ground. Roots, kind of vegetation, despite several attempts at patching it with
for instance, cannot withstand variations at very high or very low green planters from the inside. What happened, and why did the
temperatures, a recurrent problem that limits the geographic plants not behave properly?
range of a given plant and its capacity for exposure off ground.
Wind tends to desiccate foliage and often prevents plants from The reasons are multiple and can be explained by a combination
growing normally, which in turn prevents full development of ambient conditions defined by wind and temperature.
because young and tender foliage tends to break and dry up. The example is interesting precisely because of the fact that
The two fundamental indicators of temperature and wind appear plants never acclimated to this highly exposed structure on
recurrently as a common thread throughout this short study. the windswept Plateau de Brie. It serves almost as a textbook
example of important things to consider before venturing into
Like the warp and weft in a weaving, roots tend to adapt vertical greening. The fact that the metal structure was open to
horizontally, whereas foliage tends to operate vertically, which all winds meant that there was almost no thermal respite to be
contributes to the structural and compositional logic of the whole found anywhere on its surface for the plants. The wind swept
building. The vertical surface of most plants placed on buildings not only from without, but also around and from within. Plants
tends to cascade downwards or climb upwards, while the that are not protected at least on one side by a wall or container
horizontal organization of the roots adds considerable weight and tend to desiccate rapidly in the wind, and this is precisely what
eats up vital space on a facade. These two fundamental axes of happened in Noisiel.3
green on a building determine to a large extent the physics, rate of
exchange (CO2, O2, and H2O), and exposure of the building to the The other premise was that ivy and other climbers would grow
outside. Depending on the orientation and height of the structure, from the ground up and cover the entire structure. The height of
the microclimatic forces at play on a building are considerable as the structure, despite its moderate 37 m, offered a true challenge
they interact and change in effect. A cooling effect can indeed be for climbing ivy. Ivy is one of few native climbers in Europe and
achieved on tall towers with the help of Venturi effects, but these it seldom reaches such heights in nature except under the tall
same effects can also rapidly dry up the vegetation so much so shade of forest trees. Ivy typically grows on solid walls made of
that this is liable to jeopardize the green concept. wood, concrete, or stone, and even in normal forest conditions
seldom does it attain a height of 30 m or more. In the case of the
Through a selection of four European examples that have been Green Tower, the ivy that grew remained close to the ground,
more or less successful, we will try to evaluate the gradual where it was firmly rooted and more protected by surrounding
progress that has been achieved in the design of vertical green in vegetation. It never climbed the structure because its rootlets
temperate climate zones over the past decades. The goal is to sort could not find the required nutrients or humidity to feed upon,
out the wheat from the chaff in a discourse on greening buildings as they were incessantly exposed to extremes of heat and cold
that has at times left the bounds of horticultural reality behind. borne by the wind.
66

Christian de Portzamparc, La Tour Verte, Noisiel, France, 1974, view from the east.
67

68

Christian de Portzamparc, La Tour Verte, Noisiel, France, 1974, elevation and plan, section. Christian de Portzamparc, La Tour Verte, Noisiel, France, 1974,
view from the south and facade detail.
The idea then was to add containers with ivy that would hang
from the inside of the structure high above the ground in the hope
that growth would finally succeed in covering the structure.4
But the conditions on the wood-lattice-clad structure had not
changed, and moreover the roots in those containers were
exposed to repeated thermal shock year-round as it was either
too hot or too cold most of the time. So the plants dwarfed their
growth in reaction to ambient conditions and remained almost at
a standstill in their containers.
The young de Portzamparc, bearing this beautiful image of

a perfectly composed decagonal “Tour Verte,” was right to
choose ivy because of its sound ecological basis. Ivy flowers
in autumn deliver a rich source of nectar for bees, the berries
ripen the following summer and provide also ample food for
birds. The dense overlapping foliage of the vine offers shelter
and nesting possibilities to many sorts of insects, animals,
and birds. Evergreen ivy is dynamic and becomes metamorphic:
when it grows vertically on a tree it switches to an arborescent
mode, the leaves change shape, the stems becomes a solid
trunk, and the plant begins to bloom. An open concrete and
metal structure, although entirely clad with wood lattice,
simply could not succeed in taming temperate ivy to grow on
its sides. The young architect was unable to find a plant that
would actually match his green cage concept drawn with the
golden section.5 Unmitigated exposure to the three Ws (water,
wind, and weather) made sure that nothing would ever grow
properly there. Despite efforts to add some patchy spots of green
here and there, few plants actually succeeded in establishing
themselves permanently on the “Tour Verte,” which has
remained green, to this day, only by name.
Case 2: “Cathedrale de la Résurection” in Évry, France,

Mario Botta, 1992–1996
When Mario Botta designed the “Cathedrale de la Résurection”

(Cathedral of the Resurrection), he had the vision of a cylindrical
brick building crowned with a ring of deciduous trees bearing
a strong symbol of Christ.6 This was to be the first and only
cathedral built in France in the 20th Century and was in that
sense highly emblematic of its time. The cylindrical brick building
of 38 m in diameter was to be built at the heart of the new
satellite town of Évry, located 35 km south of Paris. A beveled
roof topped the structure, reaching 34 m in height to the
northwest and tapering down to 17 m on the southeast.7 The roof
was rimmed with a golden ceramic crown and planted with a ring
of 24 majestic silver Linden trees. The native tree species that
69

Mario Botta, Cathedrale de la Résurection, Évry, France, 1996, section perspective.
70

Mario Botta, Cathedrale de la Résurection, Évry, France, 1996, view from the southeast.
was chosen corresponded to some of the oldest forest stands of

Europe, where they can reach the age of 1,000 years or more.
The Linden tree was an important feature of pagan rituals in

Europe since times immemorial. According to the architect,
the 24 trees were meant to symbolize Christian life, harmony,
and resurrection, as well as the 24 hours of the day, and the
12 apostles together with the 12 tribes of Israel.8 Because the
Linden tree held such sacred place in early Celtic, Germanic,
and Slavic tribes, it was able to serve as a universal symbol of
faith. The Linden was meant to give a sense of life, community,
and belonging to the cathedral. Many villages across Europe still
have a Linden planted at their heart for people to gather and dwell
in its shade. Linden wood as well was considered sacred and
was frequently used for altar pieces and religious statues. At the
same time, the Linden tree fills an important ecological niche for
bees and other insects when it blossoms in the spring. It serves
also as habitat for a large variety of birds and insects. It has been
cultivated and trimmed in pollard form since Roman times, which
will also be the fate of the trees on the roof as they grow older
and have to be contained.
The most remarkable point about this project is that all trees
have managed to survive 25 years of ambient exposure on
the roof through summer heat waves and winter cold spells
rather well. The reason for this is that each tree was planted
in roughly 30 m³ of soil in a continual stepped ring trench that
circles the roof. This is about six times the normal quantity of soil
required to plant a street tree in a pit. The soil and trench added
considerable weight to the roof, but this was integrated in the
structural calculations and costs from the beginning. Each tree
was fastened with cables and irrigated regularly with water and
nutrients to ensure healthy root growth.
Yet despite these vital precautionary measures, there still remain

noticeable differences in the sizes and development of the trees
depending on where they are actually located on the roof. Those
showing the most promising development are located mostly
towards the base of the roof facing south and protected from
the wind, whereas those showing slower development tend
to be located towards the top of the roof facing north that is
more exposed to temperature extremes. All things considered,
and because of the intensive care and attention given to each
individual tree, these differences remain minimal and may be
expected to gradually equalize when all trees are trimmed and
maintained in their mature form.
71

72

Andrée Putman and Patrick Blanc, Hotel Pershing Green Wall, Paris, France, 2001. Patrick Blanc, Green Wall, Musée du Quai Branly, Paris, France, 2004, view from the
northeast and northwest.
In this project, the architect’s green concept came across

successfully – at the expense of adding more than 750 m³ of soil
substrate on the roof, which translates into more than 1,000 t of
extra weight when wet. The question of the mass and quantity of
soil is a recurrent theme in green buildings, because it concerns
directly the structural costs of a project. All things considered,
the Cathedral of the Resurrection can be considered as one of
the better examples, albeit expensive, of a hanging tree garden
today, as its Babylonian proportions are somewhat reminiscent
of Antiquity. The accent was placed on a unity of planting form
to obtain a strong Christian symbol through the use of identical
Lindens that were probably hybridized or cloned to maintain an
identical structure. This formal choice, which belongs to the past
century, may appear too dogmatic nowadays, when the need for
ecology and a greater diversity of species is being proclaimed.
Case 3: The Green Wall, “Hotel Pershing Hall” in Paris,

France, Andrée Putman & Patrick Blanc, 2001
When architect and designer Andrée Putman invited botanist

Patrick Blanc to create a vegetative wall in the inner courtyard
of the Pershing Hall Hotel that she was restoring, little did she
know that she was launching him on an extraordinary odyssey of
architectural greening. Patrick Blanc had already experimented
with green walls as art forms since the mid-1980s, but had never
ventured into full architectural scale until that point.
The green courtyard wall of the hotel was composed

essentially of exotic tropical and subtropical groundcover, vines,
and epiphytes, which created an extraordinary quilt of lush
vegetation in colorful textured patches all the way to the top.9
The trick was to suspend the vegetation in thin felt pouches
hung directly on a steel frame fixed to the wall and to feed them
hydroponically. Each individual plant received nutritious liquid,
fed regularly by capillarity via small plastic tubes. Patrick Blanc
used a hydroponic technique that was already widespread
in greenhouse horticulture. He traveled to riverbanks, cliffs,
and waterfalls to select plants that thrived there year-round on
the basis of a liquid solution, without any sort of substrate or
soil.10 The ensuing plant selection, comprised of small ligneous
and herbaceous species, made the Green Wall installation light
and compatible with most conventional architectural structures.
The Green Wall planted with ferns, fuchsia, heuchera, hosta,

irises, tricyrtis, and willows became an instant wonder of
horticultural high-tech. The impact of the Pershing Hall Hotel
project on the fashion world was immediate and seduced many
73

Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, view from the south.
architects. The project was followed shortly thereafter by a reaching over 100 m in height using this green wall technique.
series of projects initiated by Jean Nouvel with his Quai Branly In this instance, the vertical plantation beds are spread out in
Museum in Paris in 2004, and Herzog & de Meuron with the patches over 1,000 m² of facade. Patrick Blanc claims that more
Caixa Forum in Madrid in 2007, to mention a few. Both these than 250 different plant species were integrated in this project
projects, done together with the team of Patrick Blanc, exhibited where hydroponic nature meets high-tech architecture.12
artfully vertical horticultural techniques that were robust enough
to withstand all seasons under temperate climes.11 This method of facade greening has caught on worldwide
now. It is a high-maintenance technique akin to that used in
The key to the success was the complete absence of soil or greenhouses to produce flowers and crops. Although the
substrate in the felt pouches; the planting system consisted ecological performance of these projects can be questioned,
essentially of a highly efficient drip irrigation system, requiring there is reason to hope that future projects will develop more
regular maintenance, to ensure each plant was feed a nutrient appropriate plant selections that are more in keeping with the
solution in continual hydroponic transfusion. Some projects, local environment. There prevails, however, a strong limitation in
like the green wall on Rue d’Aboukir in Paris, used the matters of plant dynamics that is inherent to the system. As each
opportunity to recycle greywater and rainwater produced by the plant is fixed in place in a predetermined pattern, the system
building into the irrigation fluid. The lush vegetation, composed remains permanently bound to its original form. Plant dynamics
essentially of small ligneous and herbaceous perennials like per se on the green wall are, therefore, quite limited, but this
Berberis, Spirea, Stachyurus, Cotoneaster, Begonias, Balsamina, critical point may evolve and be improved.
Orchids, Bromeliads, and Aracea, to mention but a few, grows
and reaches maturity on the facade rapidly. The picture-perfect The exuberant floral style of the green wall and the thermal comfort
result simulated a vertical biotope without adding much stress and architectural luxury associated with it undoubtedly means that
to the structure. The complete absence of large ligneous plants the method is here to develop, diversify, and stay. The green wall
and particularly of trees is an important point of comparison to toilets by the landscape architect Kim Wilkie, recently inaugurated
other greening approaches. The small ornamental plants provide at Longwood Gardens near Philadelphia, make a case in point.
only limited ecological services in terms of CO2 retention, but the 17 individual pods, equipped with skylights and planted with
green wall acts as a good protective membrane for cooling, almost 50,000 ferns, function well aesthetically while serving our
capable also of trapping fine particles. basic bodily functions. It is still not quite clear, though, beyond the
green awareness that it stirs in the user, how such a picturesque
A drawback is the cost of the permanent hydroponic irrigation latrine truly contributes to the environment.
system in terms of maintenance and the fact that some of the
perennial plants are relatively short-lived and need to be replaced. Case 4: “Il Bosco Verticale” at Porta Nuova in Milan, Italy,
The Quai Branly Museum green wall, for instance, is being Stefano Boeri, 2014
entirely replaced at the time of writing, restructured and replanted
only 15 years after it was first delivered. When Stefano Boeri completed his “Bosco Verticale”
(Vertical Forest), his idea was somewhat reminiscent of an old
Another advantage linked to this green wall technique is that the Corbusian dream, where two towers respectively 76 m and 110
plants with their support system become an integral part of the m high would host 750 trees and 4,500 shrubs to recreate the
building’s skin and contribute to some kind of climatic insulation. equivalent of 2 ha of forest cover on the ground.13 In light of the
The intrinsic thickness and opacity of the suspended green wall previous example of the Cathedral of the Resurrection, can one
tends to serve the architecture, while competing with window reasonably elevate and maintain that many trees upon a concrete
surfaces on the facade. This makes it quite difficult to apply the frame so far off the forest floor? In addition to the soil problem,
technique to normal housing or office conditions. critical questions linked to water, wind, and exposure in this city
needed also to be addressed and solved. The solution came
The latest ultra-modern twin tower project in Sydney, “One Central from the development of deep concrete planters placed on every
Park,” designed in 2013 by Jean Nouvel with PTW Architects side and at each level of the towers, providing ample room for
and Patrick Blanc as green wall expert, demonstrates that it soil substrate and good anchoring and watering possibilities for
is possible to design high-end mixed-use residential buildings each tree.14
74

75

76

Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, elevation, rendering. Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, construction.
The deep planters were the answer to most of the problems in

this project, and together with the selected trees they became
part of the architect’s branding signature. This choice of
construction translated into more steel and a thicker concrete slab
on each floor, at an extra cost of about 5% for the built structure.15
Substantial maintenance costs and year-round care were needed
to ensure the provision of water, nutrients, pruning, and plant
replacement in the first five years of the project. 90 plant species,
comprised of a mix of shrubs and trees, were carefully selected
to meet the harsh climatic requirements of the tower. According
to the architect, the trees meant to produce oxygen and capture
CO2 in their ligneous fibers were carefully chosen by experts,
taking the microclimatic constraints of the tower into account.
A selection of native and ornamental trees species was carefully
established, either as flowering, deciduous, or evergreen, ranging
from olive trees and Mediterranean evergreen oaks to hazelnuts,
ashes, beeches, as well as flowering cherry, plum, and apple
trees from China and Japan that flower spectacularly in spring.
The final outcome is a compelling collection of plants and trees

growing as large bonsais in an artificial cliff-like concrete setting.16
The maximum height of a tree is set at 9 m, which corresponds
to three stories in the tower. Whether the word “bosco” (forest)
is the appropriate term in this context remains debatable.
The result on each floor appears more like a manicured Japanese
garden, and the external aspect of both towers reminds one
more of a composite grove or “bosquet” than a forest per se.
The success of this project, however, has been immediate,
and even the surrounding neighborhood has experienced a
significant increase in the greening of the existing building
stock. The “Bosco Verticale” promoted an exclusive lifestyle in
Milan that was entirely new, through the creation of luxurious
apartments with ample garden terraces surrounded by trees
on two sides, as promoted by the developer Hines. The project
received worldwide acclaim, including the prestigious
International Highrise Award in 2014.
It seems as though the vertical tree planting model in architecture

has caught on, and Stefano Boeri is now planning several other
such “Bosco Verticale” around the globe all the way to China.
One which is in an early project phase and not approved at
the time of writing is located at Chavannes-Près-Renens near
Lausanne. It should measure 117 m and may become the tallest
building in western Switzerland. It will be covered by no less than
80 trees.
77

Ateliers Jean Nouvel/PTW Architects, One Central Park, Sydney, Australia, 2014,
view from the north, heliostat.
Could it be that the trees, with all the ecological symbolism

that they bear, can help make tall buildings more acceptable to
the general public? There are still strong ecological limitations
with this model of building and planting. It will, therefore,
be interesting to see how the prototype developed by
Stefano Boeri will be able to adapt, evolve, and perform under
different climes.
Despite the extraordinary efforts deployed to make the twin

towers in Milan seem “forested,” there remain some patchy
problems at the top of both buildings, where Venturi wind
effects accelerate the desiccation of plants and puts the
vegetation under duress. The fact that mature trees 9 m tall
were transplanted directly onto the structure adds to the stress
of climatic exposure. Planting smaller, younger trees would have
significantly increased their rate of establishment and survival,
but the marketing image of a completely forested tower from the
beginning was more important to the developer.
Problems in thermodynamics may vary significantly depending

on the latitude, the ambient humidity, and the actual height
and breadth of a building. Nonetheless, the Vertical Forest has
become a pioneer of green architecture, in that it has opened
up an array of new possibilities that can be tested, improved,
and developed in the future. It may eventually become possible
to lower structural costs through the establishment of better
height-to-output equations, ingenious prefabrication processes,
and innovative maintenance procedures. Some of the costs may
also be reduced and born directly by the inhabitants, assuming
they acquire proper training as urban foresters in their own right.
But the main ecological question remains whether the extra cost
of steel, concrete and CO2 emissions will ever be compensated
by the output of the trees.
It will, therefore, be interesting to analyze further the exact data of

the “Bosco Verticale” towers in Milan concerning improvements
in thermal comfort, the reduction of energy consumption, and the
production of oxygen as claimed by the architect. The question
of biodiversity will also need to be addressed more critically,
because the vegetation that has been chosen to withstand the
harsh climatic conditions of the towers differs fundamentally
from that of the Po Plain down below, which is one of the flattest
places on earth. This choice of vegetation may in turn affect the
diversity and fauna that will actually inhabit the Vertical Forest.
Let us hope that, for the first time in history and with many more
towers to come, architecture will finally become a significant
game changer in matters of urban ecology and biodiversity.
78
104 Green Buildings and the Ecological Picturesque.indd 78 11/10/19 12:29 PM

The four cases of vertical greening that have been examined 1. Jean-Pierre Le Dantec, Christian de Portzamparc (Paris: Editions du Regard, 1995), 29-33.
2. Michel Jacques and Armelle Lavalou, Christian de Portzamparc (Bordeaux and
illustrate some of the trends to be found today in dense and green Basel: Arc en Rêve Centre d’Architecture and Birkhäuser, 1996), 14-17.
cities located under temperate climes. (We have left Scandinavian 3. Patrick Le Merdy, “A la recherche du végétal urbain,” Urbanisme 209 (1984): 77-81.
4. Christian de Portzamparc, “Château d’Eau à Marne la Vallée,” in Christian de
sod roofs out of the picture, despite the fact that they correspond Portzamparc (Milan, Paris: Electa Moniteur, 1984), 50-54.
probably to some of the oldest forms of green architecture in 5. Christian de Portzamparc, Les dessins et les jours, L’architecture commence avec un
dessin (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2016), 85-91.
Europe, because of the sheer weight problems that they would 6. Jean-François Pousse, “Pour la Ville, Cathédrale d’Evry,” Techniques et Architecture
pose in high-rise structures.) The trends that we have examined “Architectures Sacrées” 405 (1993): 34-37.
7. Mario Botta, The Complete Works, Volume 3, 1900-1997 (Basel: Birkhäuser, 1998),
continue to evolve rapidly both in terms of method, efficiency, 126-145.
plant content, and ecology. Even early prototypes, like the 8. Mario Botta, Architetture del Sacro (Bologna: Editrice Compositori, 2005), 66-80.
9. Anna Lambertini and Jacques Leenhardt, Vertical Gardens (London: Thames and
Green Tower by de Portzamparc, have served as a lesson for Hudson, 2007), 94-103.
more recent developments in steel frame buildings turned green. 10. Maria Kmiec, “Green Wall Technology,” Technical Transactions Architecture 10-A
(2014): 47-60.
This applies particularly to recent buildings like the Oasia Hotel 11. Patrick Blanc, The Vertical Garden from Nature to the City (New York: W. W. Norton &
Downtown by WOHA architects in Singapore, built under tropical Company, 2011), 86-91.
12. Karl Ludwig, Compendium of Landscape Architecture and Open Space Design (Berlin:
latitudes with high atmospheric humidity, where constant Braun Publishing, 2018), 128-129.
temperature and wind remain stable. The vegetation in that case 13. Melanie Müller-Boscaro, “A Vertical Forest in Milan,” Topos “Plants and Design”83
(2013): 43-47.
grows as an external membrane that breathes and transpires, 14. Caterina Testa, “Vertical Forest Residential Complex,” The Plan Magazine 10 (2015): 81-87.
reducing the building’s exposure to direct light and reflectiveness. 15. Elena Giacomello and Massimo Valagussa, Vertical Greenery: Evaluating the High-Rise
Vegetation of the Bosco Verticale, Milan (Chicago: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban
The thin translucent layer of leaves placed on the outer steel Habitat, 2015).
frame protects the building from excessive exposure to solar 16. Ibid.
radiation. Another example in Singapore is the new PARKROYAL
on Pickering, also by WOHA architects, that uses a planting
technique closer to that which inspired the “Bosco Verticale.”
The concrete building uses ample planters and irrigation to provide
lush vegetation throughout the inner and outer floors, while the
use of tall trees remains quite limited.
There are a lot of green “showcases” being built out there,

without much consideration for their actual performance.
We need to know more about the effective function and purpose
of architectural vegetation to better understand the range of
ecological services that it could provide. At present, we are still
delving for the most part in an aesthetically pleasing form of
green, akin to what I would call the “ecological picturesque,”
a sort of greening that makes the user feel closer to nature and its
needs. The day when ecological forests will effectively grow on
buildings, however, is still quite far away.
The same could be said of the hydroponic green walls that now
decorate banks, museums, and shopping malls worldwide.
They are ravishingly pretty and striking, but what are actually the
ecological benefits that they account for in a rapidly depleted
environment? Is this green fashion just a matter of taste and
image that will pass, or does it offer a substantial answer to our
quest for a more balanced urban environment? The lessons to be
learned from the considerations put forward here will be vital for
contemporary architecture to contribute more significantly and
critically towards ecology and sustainability.
79

DENSE GREEN
DIMENSIONS

Learning from Singapore
WOHA, School of the Arts, Singapore, 2010, view from the south,
facade with greenery.
A number of fortuitous and strategic conditions have made

Singapore a leader in dense and green buildings for the tropics.
Projects like WOHA’s School of the Arts (completed in 2010)
and PARKROYAL on Pickering (completed in 2013) have led
the way in design with visionary leadership. Asia in general
and Singapore in particular have great potential for the further
exploration of dense and green as well as livability principles.
The breathtaking scale of many of the new developments in
Singapore captures the attention of politicians and developers
and the imagination of its citizens.
As a small island state with limited land and natural resources

and a current population of approx. 5.6 million, Singapore’s
developmental approach has been guided by green agendas
even before the term became a buzzword. The late Lee Kuan
Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, wanted
to transform the City into a ‘Garden City’ already in the 1960s.
It was a revolutionary concept at that time because no one else
talked about ‘going green’ or climate change.1
Since then, Singapore has recognized the importance and

benefits of a green environment. Even as the city state embarked
rapidly on industrialization and urbanization programs to provide
jobs and housing for its people, the natural environment was high
on the Government’s agenda. Since the 1960s, the city state’s
vision has evolved from ‘Garden City’ to ‘City in a Garden’.2
This concept is seen to strengthen its brand as a distinctive,
livable city. The new vision also embodies ideas of conserving
and nurturing biodiversity in the urban context, an area where
Singapore has contributed scientifically through, for example,
the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity.3
As its population continues to grow and with limited land

available, developing a compact city with extensive greenery
and highly livable environments will continue to be an important
strategy. Singapore currently pursues three key strategies to
realize its ‘City in a Garden’ vision: using pervasive greenery
from the ground to the facade and rooftops of buildings, infusing
biodiversity into urban landscapes, and fostering community
involvement as active participation. Ownership and pride among
the community are seen as factors that will sustain the ‘City in a
Garden’ vision.4
Since the early 2000s, Singapore has pursued a number of

research studies and small demonstrations that explore the
integration of greenery in buildings. These projects led to a
number of policies and initiatives such as GFA Exemption for
82

WOHA, PARKROYAL on Pickering, Singapore, 2013, view from the northeast, sky gardens.
Following pages: WOHA, School of the Arts, Singapore, 2010, aerial view from the south.
Communal Sky Terraces, GFA Exemption for Communal Planter

Boxes, Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme, Landscape
for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH), as well as the
Landscape Excellence Assessment Framework (LEAF). These
have been instrumental for the subsequent experimentation with
dense and green buildings.
Many property developments in Singapore employ marketing

phrases such as “near a park,” “rooftop greenery,” or ”vertical
greenery.” The quantifiable benefit of such features is land
value appreciation. At the same time, dense and green buildings
can also be seen as having a potential alleviating effect on
land use competition as they are able to layer horizontal city
functions vertically, thereby optimizing land use in Singapore.
Also, Singapore increasingly recognizes the unquantifiable
benefits of living within or near natural areas with rich
biodiversity that can result in improved physical and mental
health and mitigate some of the negative effects associated with
high-density urban environments.5
Further, pockets of green spaces can also function as part

of a larger urban ecosystem. For example, dense and green
buildings can perform as high-quality habitats for flora and
fauna. The combination of buildings with green spaces such as
green corridors, parks, nature areas, and nature reserves can
form an interconnected matrix that becomes part of a larger
ecosystem. Dense and green buildings can mitigate the negative
effects of high-density areas and improve urban environments
by synthesizing the architectural, environmental, social,
and economic aspects of living.
Singapore offers a wealth of case studies for dense and green

buildings research. The information at hand and knowledge
gleaned from these can enable similar ideas to be applied to other
cities. This helps to improve urban environments there as well,
steering the Dense and Green agenda from its current status
to an integrated and tacit element of planning and design in that
density and livability are not seen as contradictory but rather as
mutually dependent and synergistic.
83

Dense and Green at the
Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory, Campus for Research Excellence and
Technological Enterprise (CREATE) Singapore, interior.
“Dense and Green: Architecture as Urban Ecosystem” exhibition, Palazzo Mora,
Future Cities Laboratory

Venice Biennale, Italy, 2018.
Dense and Green is an ongoing research project that was

launched at the Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory
(FCL) in 2015.6 FCL was established by ETH Zurich and the
National Research Foundation Singapore in collaboration with
key academic partners including the Singapore University
of Technology and Design in 2010 to study sustainable
future cities through science, by design, and in place.
Its High-Density Mixed-Use scenario develops new integrated
planning paradigms, research methodologies, and implementation
processes to support higher population densities, higher standards
of environmental sustainability, and enhanced livability.7 In this
context, Dense and Green explores innovative building projects
and developments in high-density urban contexts through
case studies and a systematic study of their urban planning
and design, architectural, environmental, social, and economic
aspects with a focus on Singapore.8 The following paragraphs
provide a brief overview of the research approach and the
methods applied to the project as a whole and the case studies
featured in this book.
Urban Scale
Each case study explores the particular project background and

context based on document reviews and interviews with its
various stakeholders. It analyzes the project on the urban scale
in terms of density and greenery, landscape space provisions,
as well as its contributions to larger urban ecosystems such as
green and blue networks.
The typical urban analysis covering an area of 200 ha around the

projects allows for the capturing of at least one ecosystem in the
urban context and therefore a meaningful quantification of the
project’s greenery contributions. This analysis further provides
the basis for a comparison with other case studies.
Each case study includes a detailed review of relevant master

plans and development guidelines. The density analysis
is comprised of various project mappings, 3D-modeling,
and quantifications of land based on drone videography,
Google Earth Pro satellite images, ArcGIS/QGIS data,
and Open Street Maps (OSM) vector components.
Capturing roads, other building plots and footprints, open and
elevated landscape spaces around the project allows for a
cross-case comparison of urban morphologies.
86

Architecture categorized digital images in order to determine the mean
temperatures for shaded and un-shaded surface types in
The case studies capture relevant building regulations and each pair.
analyze the spatial organization of the projects in terms
of massing, layout, as well as greenery and community To allow for comparisons between case studies, the research
provisions. The analysis is based on information provided applies a linear Mixed-Effects Model based on mean
by various stakeholders, including building owners, clients, temperatures of shaded and un-shaded surfaces in all analyzed
architects, landscape architects, and contractors, as well as images.9 This allows for predictions regarding typical surface
on-site documentation. The spatial information is captured temperatures in the projects, with the mean surface temperature
in isometric drawings that are also the basis for the analytical as the response variable and the surface type, shading condition,
mappings of research data such as biodiversity and space use. air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation
Each case study includes geographic and climatic information, as explanatory variables.
building area calculations, green plot ratios, and greenery
typology quantifications. Space Use
Biodiversity The case studies investigate the relationship of greenery

provisions, space use, and pedestrian movement in the
The case studies provide a thorough and detailed analysis of developments through onsite observations with a focus on
plant and animal biodiversity in the developments and their urban public and shared spaces. Data including space users’ age and
surroundings. The vegetation of all landscaped areas is surveyed gender, the start and end time of their use, activity types,
as a basis for the study of plant biodiversity. Plants are identified as well as context information such as weather conditions is
as species and mapped onto the isometric drawings. Plant collected. The data is visualized through space use ‘heat maps’
species identifications are cross-referenced with landscape plans that are mapped onto isometric drawings. The collected data
provided by contractors, Flora Fauna Web, and plant identification is subsequently analyzed to establish relationships between
reference books. The vertical and horizontal vegetation structure space types and uses, as well as time of use and user age
of each landscaped area in the projects is assessed and recorded groups. Additional methodologies include on-site interviews
also qualitatively to capture its spatial complexity and potential with residents and visitors of the case studies that enquire about
for biodiversity. preferences and perceptions in terms of green spaces in the
respective projects.
Animal biodiversity is investigated through bird point count
surveys for patches of 250 to 1,000 m2. The applied statistical Cost
model correlates the abundance of birds found in different green
elements around the projects at each survey patch. To capture The case studies analyze construction and maintenance costs
species diversity, researchers walk transects within each project affiliated with the provision of green spaces. These are derived,
to provide a general backdrop of what types of animals, aside for example, from government agency plant classification
from birds, are found in its different parts. Methodologies of data and information provided by various project stakeholders.
studying the animal biodiversity connections with the larger In addition, the case studies feature detailed cost analyses for
ecosystems include the scientific modeling of how animals move integrated landscape design components.
in the surrounding urban environments.
Surface Temperature
For studying the effects of greenery on the surface temperatures

in outdoor spaces, the research identifies areas highly frequented
by residents and visitors. Surface temperatures of surface
types in these areas are documented through thermal images.
The images are also superimposed with correspondingly
87

Biodiversity
Population growth in cities is expanding by 3.3% per year in the On elevated levels, urban designers, architects, and landscape
tropics and 2% per year in other eco-zones.10 This expansion architects increasingly experiment with the integration of
is likely to result in a loss of biodiversity, as cities often replace green spaces, producing innovative building types, often for
natural landscapes with artificial ones. Numerous studies high-density urban environments. These include extensive roof
showing that fauna species richness per unit area of natural terraces, sky bridges, vertical parks, roof gardens, and other
landscape such as forests has declined with the loss of natural components. Combinations of all of these, often applied to mixes
landscape areas.11 Urbanization causes biotic homogenization: of residential, civic, and commercial programs, conjoin at times
the process of biodiversity becomes more similar within a city to produce ‘vertical cities’ in which the built section becomes
and between cities, of both plants and animals.12 In plants, this is part of larger urban ecosystems. Density and sustainability in
driven by active planting of replacement of native fauna with these developments are not seen as contradictory but rather as
the same species that are planted at multiple cities throughout mutually dependent and synergistic.19
the globe. This leads to a loss of native animal species that have
special species or habitat requirements, while generalist species, As the number of such dense and green buildings increases, it is
especially those that benefit from human activity, survive.13 important to consider how they can best support biodiversity
These are often introduced species, which then compound abundance and connectivity. While research on ground level
this effect by outcompeting the remaining native species for vegetation at the urban scale is well established, little research
resources, including those with less specific requirements.14 has been done regarding whether green elements, for example in
the form of green walls and roof gardens, on and around buildings
Native species not only provide color and character to urban can impact animal and plant species richness; or whether they
environments; they are also providers of important ecological can support native and introduced fauna.20 As for existing studies,
services. For example, native birds are pollination agents, research in Singapore found an increase in bird and butterfly
seed dispersers, nutrient recyclers, and scavengers.15 As biodiversity around flowering plants at elevated green spaces.21
such, they support vegetation that provides other regulating In Hong Kong, an increase in bird species richness was found on
and provisioning ecosystem services, for example stormwater green roofs as foliage cover increased.22 In temperate locations,
management and urban heat island-effect mitigation. Birds research has compared diversity or abundance of bird species
also act as bioindicators of ecosystem health.16 Having on buildings featuring green elements against buildings devoid
more native plants and animals in the city can support global of them. One study found a positive impact of elevated green
biodiversity conservation by reversing the extinction of ecological spaces such as sky gardens, ground gardens, and green walls,
experiences, which cause distinct ecoregions with specific while another one did not.23 To date, only limited research has
and rare or threatened species to be perceived as “natural” been done on green spaces in buildings using ecological metrics
with invasive species.17 Urban vegetation that is more similar to of vegetation.24
native forests and that is providing a higher vertical complexity
and structure for native species can also support biodiversity. The Dense and Green research aims to fill some of the current
An actual higher leaf area can scale with certain ecosystem gaps in knowledge by exploring how incorporating green spaces
service benefits, such as air quality improvement. in buildings on and above the ground level in the form of ground
gardens, sky gardens, roof gardens, and green walls impacts
In recent years, the benefits of urban biodiversity have plant and animal biodiversity in urban environments. It also
increasingly been recognized and led to urban development that compares the vegetation structure and species composition of
aims for increased abundance and richness of species — primarily these different green spaces, using ecological metrics to identify
on, but not limited to, the ground level.18 Larger core patches, areas of high and low performance.
such as big urban parks, are built and semi-natural forest are
retained. They are linked by continuous green connectors such
as naturalized rivers, pedestrian walkways and designed habitat
corridors, or discrete stepping stones such as small forests and
neighborhood parks.
88

Plants Total leaf area across different space types and case studies in Singapore
In the case studies featured in this book, an area was classified 12

as a green space based on the fact that it contains vegetation 11
and constitutes a single, intentionally designed space. These 10
Total leaf area (ha)

identified green spaces provided unique observational units. 9
8
They were categorized as five types: ground garden (garden 7
on bare soil), landscape deck (garden on the first floor of a 6
development), sky garden (midlevel spaces with vegetation), 5
4
roof garden (uncovered rooftops with vegetation), or green wall
3
(building facade with vegetation). For each case study, multiple 2
patches with an area of approx. 200 m2 for each of the five green 1
space types were identified. This allowed for the characterization 0
Puat Hospital
Khoo Teck
Downtown
Oasia
Terraces I
Punggol Waterway
SOLARIS
Skyville@Dawson
The Interlace
of their biodiversity in terms of plants and animals as well as for a
fair comparison by a number of ecological metrics.
Vegetation surveys analyzed each patch to the species level.

This information was cross-referenced with the ecological
characteristics of each species according to locally available Case study
databases, resulting in a suite of ecological metrics for each
species patch. Each green space type was subsequently
compared to other types within a given case study to draw Ground garden Landscape deck Sky garden Roof garden Greenwall
conclusions as to what extent ecologically important factors of
vegetation were considered in the design.
plants. This often makes them a costly option and explains
Density Richness and Structural Complexity why the total leaf area on roof gardens in the case studies was
generally lower than in ground gardens.25 However, in some of
In those case studies where the building footprint did not the case studies, such as The Interlace, roof gardens feature a
extend to the plot boundary, ground gardens provided by far vegetation density comparable to its ground gardens. In these
the highest vegetation density, measured in terms of total leaf buildings, the species richness per space was also comparable to
area, of any green space type; examples include The Interlace, that of the ground gardens.
Punggol Waterway Terraces I, and Skyville@Dawson. Where
a building footprint did reach the plot boundary, green walls Landscape decks were typically designed primarily for social
were the dominant typology; examples include Oasia Hotel uses and they generally provide fewer plant species than,
Downtown, Solaris, Bosco Verticale, and One Central Park. for example, the ground gardens. As vegetation density
increases in sky gardens, the richness of species generally does
Ground gardens provided the highest species richness in all not increase at the same rate as on roof gardens, ground gardens,
case studies. The number of their species steadily increased and landscape decks, due to the smaller palette of species
with the total leaf area, showing that landscape architects and available for this green space type. Plants in sky gardens need
designers generally tended to plant a variety of species in these to be able to survive in natural light conditions that are typically
locations. This may be due to an increased soil depth, allowing for less favorable than in other green space types. Sky gardens
the planting of multiple canopy layers that support higher plant were also found to have the second lowest vegetation density of
species richness. all green space types. This is due to their locations on midlevel
floors, often adjacent to circulation areas with high human traffic,
Roof gardens, which essentially have the same conditions as for example, at the Oasia Hotel Downtown and at Skyville@
ground gardens but are elevated, require substantial structural Dawson, where they are located in close proximity to the
loading capacity to support the same weight of substrate and entrances of both the hotel and the residential units.
89

The species richness across green walls was generally found to Summary
be lower than across other green space types and it increased
at the lowest rate with vegetation density. For example, in the Of the dense and green buildings studied, those with ground
Oasia Hotel Downtown and One Central Park, most facades level gardens provide the highest proportion of total leaf area and
consist of climbing plants directly exposed to wind and solar density of vegetation within these spaces. The ground gardens
radiation, which means that their selection needed to be limited also have the highest species richness. However, they are
to few hardy species. Furthermore, there is a low soil area typically not as well-designed as roof gardens in terms of their
on which to plant the individual species, which further limits ability to promote biodiversity of birds and butterflies. In some of
the range of plants that could be used. However, in the case the case studies, roof gardens provide high vegetation density
of Solaris, the continuous green ramp that wraps around the and species richness. While leaf area and species richness are
facade provides a higher species richness than the building’s roof generally lower on traditional green walls, they still provide a
gardens. This may be due to its unique design that uses deep soil substantial quantity of leaf area, even given the relatively small
able to support the weight of small trees with understory layers. planting area that they use. A good example is Oasia Downtown
Hotel, where the green walls were often planted with
Native Plants biodiversity-attracting plants. Bosco Verticale is an exception in
that its hybrid design of vertical greenery and green walls allows
With very few exceptions, the native plant species total leaf for large trees enabling a more complex vegetation structure and
area was less than 50% across all roof garden areas, for every species richness.
vegetation type and in all case studies. This is not ideal,
as native plants can help to augment and support local habitats.26 The sky gardens in the case studies tend to not support
When green walls, for example at Oasia Hotel Downtown, biodiversity as well as the other green space types. This is largely
showed a very low percentage of native species (<1 %), this is due to the fact that they are located on midlevel floors, which
likely due to the fact that native climbers that are hardy and makes them hard to perceive by flying animals. Sky gardens
resilient are hardly available in local nurseries. Conversely, generally showed a low species richness and proportion
predominantly native species were used at Bosco Verticale of biodiversity-attracting plants and vegetation density.
and One Central Park, allowing residents to connect with the An exception is Oasia Hotel Downtown, which provides a high
local ecology. vegetation density and open spaces above the sky gardens large
enough for birds to see the vegetation and fly to it. Sky gardens
Biodiversity-attracting Plants in general may have intrinsic properties that work better for social
programs involving shade (limiting species choice), heavy footfall
Across all case studies, the green space type that provided the (potentially scaring birds), and requiring significant structural
largest proportion of biodiversity-attracting plants per space was loading (increasing the cost of planting).
the roof garden. For example, in the case of Punggol Waterway
Terraces I, close to 80 % of this green space type’s vegetation In the case studies, landscape decks tend to provide a lower
had biodiversity-attracting properties. Compared to that, the leaf quantity of biodiversity-attracting plants, although vegetation
area consisting of biodiversity-attracting plants in the ground density and species richness were higher than in the
gardens was significantly lower. This may be due to the lack sky gardens.
of the provision of trees that produce fruits, as they may cause
maintenance issues. Animals
Green walls provided a relatively large proportion of biodiversity- In terms of fauna, by far the largest species group observed
attracting plants. For example, the facade of One Central Park in the case studies were birds. Other animals were absent on
featured many butterfly-attracting species, demonstrating how elevated green spaces and only very few were observed on the
biodiversity can be introduced to dense parts of the city. ground level, for example a monitor lizard in Punggol Waterway
Terraces I. For the research, birds were used as a proxy for the
type of fauna-biodiversity that is available to the buildings in
90

T. R. Hamzah & Yeang, Solaris, Singapore, 1998, roof garden.
group8asia/AEDAS, Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Singapore, 2015, green and blue
spaces, aerial view from the west.
OMA/Büro Ole Scheeren/RSP Architects Planners & Engineers, The Interlace, 2015,
green and blue spaces, aerial view from the north.
the urban environment, which includes birds, butterflies, bats,

and smaller mobile mammals such as squirrels.
Case studies with elevated green spaces such as roof gardens

and green walls support a higher richness in bird species and
a higher abundance of native birds compared to other roofs
selected as a control group and to walls without vegetation.
This is especially true in locations with immediate links to larger
urban green networks and likely due to the trees and shrubs
where native birds could rest and forage for food and nesting
materials in the surroundings.27 In contrast, the elevated green
spaces of the case studies showed no effect on the abundance
of introduced bird species, while the effect of ground gardens on
richness and abundance was more diverse.
Bird Species Richness
Many bird species were observed on roof gardens while only few
were found on control roofs. Similarly, many more bird species
were found on green walls than on control walls. Ground gardens
and control locations, such as carparks with trees, showed a
similar richness while the species richness on vacant plots was
less than half of that of the ground gardens. The modeled mean
and total richness of species was also higher on roof gardens
than on control roofs.28 Similarly, it was higher for green walls than
for control walls, matching other studies in temperate and tropical
regions. 29 This is due to the fact that roof gardens provide more
usable resources for non-synanthropic bird species, of which
there is a high richness particularly in the tropics.30 However,
across all case studies the total richness of species on roof
gardens was much lower than that recorded in typical forests,
with habitat specialists being excluded.31
Abundance and Behavior of Native Birds
Native species showed a preference for roof gardens compared

to control roofs. This was likely due to the provision of suitable
habitats, food, and nesting materials supplied by roof gardens,
while in the control locations native birds were mostly observed
foraging on trees and shrubs. The flora on roof gardens also
drew in species which preferentially utilize similar vegetation
at ground level.32 Biodiversity-attracting plants incorporated
into the roof gardens, for example, include species such as
Russelia equisetiformis (Firecracker plant) and Ixora congesta
(Ixora), which would specifically attract nectarivores such as
Cinnyris jugularis (Olive-backed Sunbird), the bird species most
commonly sighted in roof garden surveys.
91

Rarefication curves per space and case study, showing the rate of rate of plant species
accumulation as sample size increases and the mean Total Leaf Area and percentage of
native and biodiversity-attracting plants.
Case study rarefication curves Mean leaf area
160 800
Mean leaf area per 200 m2 sample (ha)

700
120 600
Plant Species Richness
500
80 400
300
40 200
100
0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Puat Hospital
Khoo Teck
Downtown
Oasia
Terraces I
Punggol Waterway
SOLARIS
Skyville@Dawson
The Interlace
Number of 200 m2 Samples
Ground garden Khoo Teck Phuat Hospital

Landscape deck Oasia Downtown
Sky garden Punggol Waterway Terraces I
Roof garden Skyville@Dawson
Greenwall SOLARIS
The Interlace Ground garden Landscape deck Sky garden Roof garden Greenwall
Mean percentage of biodiversity-attracting plants Mean percentage of native plants

Mean percentage of biodiversity attracting leaf area per 200 m2 sample
Mean percentage of native species leaf area per 200 m2 sample
100 90
90 80
80 70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Puat Hospital
Khoo Teck
Downtown
Oasia
Terraces I
Punggol Waterway
SOLARIS
Skyville@Dawson
The Interlace
Puat Hospital
Khoo Teck
Downtown
Oasia
Terraces I
Punggol Waterway
SOLARIS
Skyville@Dawson
The Interlace
Ground garden Landscape deck Sky garden Roof garden Greenwall Ground garden Landscape deck Sky garden Roof garden Greenwall
92

WOHA, Oasia Hotel Downtown, Singapore, 2016, facade with greenery, detail.
A greater diversity of behaviors was observed on roof gardens

than on control roofs, where the exclusive hardscape elements
ruled out or minimized resource use for example for foraging and
the gathering of nesting materials.
The abundance of native species decreased with the height of

the location of the green spaces. Fewer birds were observed
higher than 60 m above the ground level, corroborating previous
research.33 Specifically, for native species, the abundance of
individuals dropped by 50 % from ground level to 60 m. In the
case of Bosco Verticale and One Central Park, most birds were
observed between 10 and 30 m above the ground level. Higher
roof gardens are less optimal for birds to forage in due to wind
currents and distance, requiring them to expend more effort to
reach them.
No significant difference in the abundance of native birds and

richness of species was found between the ground gardens and
control locations featuring trees. This might be due to both having
a similar vertical complexity in terms of shrub and tree canopy
layers. The abundance of native species on adjacent vacant
plots was lower than in the ground gardens. This was due to
the presence of flowering plants, trees, and vegetation that can
support these species.
Abundance and Behavior of Introduced Birds

There was no significant difference between the abundance
of introduced species on the green roofs compared to control
roofs. This suggests that both roof types are less attractive to
introduced species than they are to native species. Green roofs
also showed a lower mean abundance of introduced species
than control ground-level spaces. A higher mean abundance of
introduced birds was found in control locations such as urban
spaces with trees. In general, elevated green spaces were found
to be less attractive to introduced species, most likely due to their
lack of resources that are readily available on the ground level.
Connectivity to Larger Urban Green Networks
Many of the studied projects provide good connectivity to nearby

urban green spaces. For example, Solaris is located adjacent to
an urban park with a large number of trees and Bosco Verticale
adjacent to a large patch of grassland that was once a forest,
nearby a cemetery with trees and a substantial population of
native birds. In contrast, projects such as Oasia Hotel Downtown
and One Central Park are located in urban contexts with no or
few connections to urban green spaces. This explains why they
93

showed little increase in richness and abundance of bird species equivalent non-vegetated roofs, especially in well-connected
compared to control areas, despite featuring fairly large amounts locations. To attract urban native bird species, they may also
of biodiversity-attracting plants. This highlights the importance provide ground gardens.36 Attracting non-native birds is also
of the connectivity of dense and green buildings to larger urban important as it can increase the instrumental value of an urban
green networks, at least in the early years of development, as it ecosystem.37 Only few uncommon or habitat-specialist bird
takes time to introduce biodiversity to a dense part of the city: species were found in the case studies, while they were often
the new green spaces need to be “found” by the various species present in primary forest or old secondary forest patches in
before they can become more structurally complex. As the green various locations.38 This means that, in their current form,
spaces age and their vegetation matures, they become able to green roofs and green walls may not be able to replace the
support more animal biodiversity. natural habitat for some bird species. Design features created
by architects and landscape architects across both ground
Designing Dense and Green Buildings for Biodiversity and elevated level spaces can encourage or discourage some
bird species. For example, the majority of birds utilize trees for
Ensuring Species-specific Connectivity to the Urban Green Network resting and foraging. Therefore, the provision of trees should
be an important consideration for attracting birds to green
Well-understood concepts in ecology emphasize that bird spaces in buildings. Also, architects and landscape architects
species richness and abundance in urban green spaces rely on can consider designing habitats specifically for rarer species,
their ecological connectivity to larger urban green networks. augmenting rather than replacing more diverse habitats so as to
These may or may not be identical with networks for people.34 improve biodiversity.
Therefore, planners and designers need to consider that green
walls and roofs are likely to support and augment the larger To support higher bird species-diversity and native abundance,
urban ecosystem better at locations with nearby green areas sky gardens, roof gardens, and green walls need to be placed at
or connections. In the case studies, such connections were levels below approx. 60 m. This corroborates previous research.39
relatively poor at the time of the research, for example in the case More research is required to determine if migratory birds, species
of Oasia Hotel Downtown and One Central Park; time needs that can be important seed dispersers and pollinators, providing
to be factored in for these spaces to mature and to allow transboundary ecosystem services, can use green spaces higher
biodiversity to move in.35 than 60 m.40 While these birds generally fly at higher altitudes
during the migration season, research suggests that they are
Emphasis also needs to be put on designing green spaces in more likely to collide with the glass facades of buildings that
buildings that cater to specific species groups, and guilds within reflect images of vegetation at the ground level. 41 This raises the
those groups, that live nearby as they can have very different possibility that green spaces on elevated levels in buildings could
requirements. For example, urban birds use buildings as increase migratory bird collisions.
‘stepping stones’ and they therefore do not require a continuous
path of vegetation to benefit from elevated green spaces. The research found the abundance of birds in sky gardens
Therefore, urban birds may be targeted in most urban areas. generally to be low. In the case studies, the vegetation density
Conversely, smaller mammals need a wide area of continuous of the sky gardens is generally low and they feature smaller
vegetation known as a ‘habitat corridor’ to move between green numbers of biodiversity-attracting plants. To encourage
spaces on the ground level before being able to utilize elevated biodiversity, green spaces would be better placed across the
areas. A viable habitat corridor should range from 25 to 400 m for building development outside of these areas, e.g. in ground and
some birds which are typically not found in urban areas and be roof gardens, as long as the latter are not located more than 60 m
even wider for larger mammals. above the ground level.
Designing Elements for Dense and Green Buildings Green wall systems such as those used for One Central Park
and Oasia Hotel Downtown provide a high abundance of
During the design phase, architects and landscape architects biodiversity-attracting plants and they have a relatively small
should consider that green roofs can support similar native planting footprint. The fact that One Central Park and Oasia Hotel
birds as found on the ground and more native bird species than Downtown showed lower quantities of birds than other projects
94

Significant predicted effects (p-values <0.05) found from bird abundance model results.
The blue and green bars show 95% confidence intervals of native and introduced bird
models, respectively. All Poisson model results (A–F) are shown on a linear scale,
back-transformed from the model log scale. The binomial model result (G) has been
transformed from a logit scale to the probability of observing an effect. All model results
are contrasts, predicting the effect of a one-unit change (or effect of a category compared
to the reference category) of the explanatory variable, holding all other variables (and
in the case of factors, also the left-most y-axis label reference level) constant at their
mean values.
A - Roof richness model B - Roof richness model C - Well richness model
2.5 6 15
Bird species richness per point count
2.0
4 10
1.5
1.0
2 5
0.5
0 0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Control roof Roof garden Control wall Green wall
Height of roof (m)
A - Roof abundance model results B - Roof abundance model results C - Roof abundance model results
12 12 12
9 9 9
6 6 6
3 3 3
0 0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Control wall Green wall
Height of roof (m) Height of roof (m)
D - Ground abundance model results E - Ground abundance model results F - Ground abundance model results
Number of birds per point count
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
Ground garden Carpark Vacant plot 0 1 2 3 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24
(with trees)
Noise code Area (ha)
G - Wall abundance model results

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
Control wall Green wall
Native bird species
Introduced bird species
95

11/5/19 11:03 AM
Fighting Red-whisked Bulbul
Flitting
Eating Sooty-headed Bulbul
Vacant plot
Calling
Common Pigeon
Foraging
Resting/perching Eurasian Tree Sparrow
Preening/cleaning
Javan Myna
Nesting
Courtship Oriental Magpie-robin
Carpark (with trees)
Preening
House Swift
Flitting
Eating Grey-rumped Treeswift
Calling
Collared Kingfisher
Foraging
Resting/perching Asian Koel
Hunting prey
Plied Triller
Preening/cleaning
Fighting Common Tailorbird
Nesting
Sunda Pygmy Woodpecker
Courtship
Species sighted
Flitting Laced Woodpecker
Control Ground garden
Mean abundance of birds at building green spaces and nearby control space by species
Eating
Activity
Calling Oriental White-eye
Average activity on surface sighted per point count

1.0
1.0
Average number of birds sighted per point count
Foraging
Pacific Swallow
Resting/perching
96
Brown-throated Sunbird
Calling
wall
0.8
0.8
Resting/perching Black-naped Oriole
Eating
Scaly-breasted Munia
Dominant behavior and surface used by birds, observed across different survey spaces.
Green
0.6
0.6
Foraging
wall
Mean times of each native and introduced species, seen per point count across the
Resting/perching Long-tailed Shrike

Drinking water
0.4
0.4
Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker
Courtinfg
Control roof Eating Pink-necked Green Pigeon
0.2
0.2
Calling
Common Myna
Resting/perching
Preening/cleaning White-breasted Waterhen
Fighting Zebra Dove
Nesting

Preening Asian Glossy Starling
Native bird species

Native bird species
Flitting
Spotted Dove
Eating
Roof garden
Calling Yellow-vented Bulbul
Foraging
Resting/perching Olive-backed Sunbird
Roof garden
Control roof
Green wall
Controll wall
Ground garden
Carpark (with trees)
Vacant plot
Tree branch
Grass
Hardscape floor surface
Shrub
Railing
Hardscape ledge
Hardscape other
Climbing plant
Tree branch
Grass
Hardscape floor surface
Shrub
Railing
Hardscape ledge
Hardscape other
Climbing plant
999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 96

different space types.
Location Location
Ateliers Jean Nouvel/PTW Architects, One Central Park, Sydney, Australia, 2014, facade with
greenery, detail.
T. R. Hamzah & Yeang, Solaris, Singapore, 1998, roof garden.
Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, facade with greenery, detail.
can be due to the provision of some urban greenery around

their locations. Based on the comparably low cost of green wall
systems, their provision has great potential to support urban
biodiversity at a larger scale. The fact that green walls typically
lack the vertical complexity to support some species, especially
in terms of nesting, could be addressed by combining green
walls with ground level trees, allowing flying biodiversity to have
a feeding and nesting space.
Biodiversity around buildings can result in undesirable human-

animal encounters. This is something that may be problematic
for example in tropical locations with perceived dangerous fauna,
such as snakes and monkeys.42 The perception of residents of
specific species that may be encouraged on and around dense
and green buildings requires further study.
Improving Quantities of Native Plant Species
Some of the case studies, such as Bosco Verticale, One Central

Park, and Punggol Waterway Terraces I, feature large proportions
of native plant species, contrary to others, such as The Interlace,
Skyville@Dawson, and Solaris. While native bird species are
still utilizing much of this vegetation, efforts should be made to
increase this proportion. By doing so, dense and green buildings
would be able to augment natural ecosystems and support
rarer species better. Introducing more forest-like natural native
vegetation even on elevated spaces obstructed to ground-
dwelling fauna can also increase the variety of mobile native
urban fauna, such as birds, butterflies, and bats. Furthermore,
this would help users to better connect psychologically to
vegetation within their respective eco-region.43 Being able
to recognize vegetation as distinct may foster a sense of
stewardship towards it, connecting people better to the loss of
species in urban areas and becoming more willing to support
nature conservation.
97

Surface Temperature
With urban development and global warming continuing and without plants. Other research found vertical concrete walls
largely unabated, there is a growing concern about the health up to 6.9 °C cooler when they featured a layer of greenery.55
consequences of the increasing intensity of the Urban Heat
Island (UHI) effect in cities across the world. The UHI directly While research on the cooling effect of urban greenery typically
exacerbates the risk of heat-related stress, injury, and mortality collects data from a single landscape feature repeatedly over time
for the people living in cities, particularly during extremely or in an experimental setting, field studies are rare that assess
hot spells and heatwaves, which are expected to increase in and compare the actual thermal performance of implemented
severity and frequency in the future.44 Often overlooked but also greenery versus conventional surfaces of multiple dense and
of concern is the impact of high temperatures on the health of green buildings. The research conducted by the Dense and
the other living residents in the city, the urban flora and fauna.45 Green team addressed the question of whether dense and
For instance, high temperatures have caused multiple mortality green buildings can contribute to cooling the urban environment,
events of urban bats such as in 2018, where more than 200 flying and if so to what extent. To address this question, the research
foxes in the city of Campbelltown, Sydney, succumbed to heat quantified the surface temperature differences of greenery and
stroke as temperatures reached 47 °C.46 In 2014, up to 5,000 artificial building materials.
flying foxes were killed by a heatwave with temperatures up to
44 °C in Casino, northern New South Wales.47 Differences in Surface Temperature Between Plants and
Artificial Materials
To mitigate the UHI effect, many strategies have been proposed,
one of which is to increase the extent of urban greenery.48 The statistical model for all case studies in the tropics predicted
There is general consensus that urban greenery can cool its that, at the average air temperature, shrubs and trees were found
surrounding surfaces and air by intercepting solar radiation and to be 5 °C cooler than masonry materials, 8.35 °C cooler than
by evapotranspiration, which diverts energy from solar radiation plastics and 12.9 °C cooler than rubber when unshaded. These
in the process and, consequently, leaves less energy available for differences became more prominent at higher air temperatures.
heating up the surroundings.49 When the air temperature reached 33.4 °C, the maximum
recorded across all case studies, shrubs and trees were predicted
The cooling effect of urban greenery has been quantified by to be 7.05 °C cooler than masonry materials, 12.4 °C cooler
numerous studies spread over a wide geographical context. than plastics, and 23.5 °C cooler than rubber. This observational
A study in Taipei, Taiwan, for example, revealed that air evidence confirms previous studies that found that greenery is
temperatures underneath tree canopies can be up to 2.5 °C lower cooler than conventional artificial building materials and supports
than the air temperatures in adjacent unshaded spaces.50 In Hong the supposition that plants have low heat admittance. The result
Kong, urban greenery lowered the maximum floor surface also demonstrates that the surface temperature of greenery is
temperature during the day by 5.2 °C and the air temperature at generally much lower than that of building materials, including
10 cm above the ground by 0.7 °C.51 A green wall in Beijing was frequently studied concrete and less frequently studied wood,
monitored and reported to be, on average, 4.5 °C cooler than plastics and rubber.56
its bare control counterpart.52 An experiment on green walls at
Reading, UK, illustrated that, between vegetated walls and bare In the case studies, shrubs and trees had similar mean surface
brick walls, the difference in temperatures to the adjacent air temperatures as turf. The estimated 5 °C difference between
reached 3 °C and that in surface temperatures 9.9 °C.53 shrubs and trees on the one hand and masonry materials on the
other supports research, for example, in Beijing that found that
In Singapore, numerous studies have investigated the effect during summer the average temperature of leaves on green walls
of greenery on the urban built environment. One study found was up to 4.5 °C cooler than that of an exposed brick wall.57
that, at a rooftop garden, the maximum surface temperature
measured under a shrub was about 30 °C cooler than the Case studies on dense and green buildings in other climate
maximum surface temperature measured on an adjacent surface zones showed similar results. For example, the greenery at
devoid of plants.54 The same study also reported that for air Bosco Verticale and One Central Park was cooler than artificial
temperatures measured at a height of 300 mm above the ground, building materials. A study in Phoenix, Arizona, at a location
there was a maximum difference of 4.2 °C between areas with within the desert eco-zone detected a 10.6 °C difference in mean
98

Predicted mean surface temperature (± confidence interval) of the various surface types
under shaded and unshaded conditions in Singapore.
surface temperature between concrete and turf, a difference

Predicted mean surface temperature of surface types in Singapore case-studies
even larger than that of dense and green buildings studied in
the tropics.58
50
The thermal performances of the non-plant materials
Mean material surface temperature (°C)

investigated across all case studies can largely be attributed 45
to specific thermo-physical properties: albedo, a measure of

the amount of incident solar radiation absorbed and reflected; 40
emissivity, thermal conductivity, and diffusivity, which influence
how fast heat is absorbed, transferred, and released; as well as
35
volumetric heat capacity, which concerns the amount of heat
required for material temperature to rise.59 By enhancing these
properties, a material can have cooler surfaces, and likewise 30
materials with low values for these properties have a greater

capacity to absorb and store heat. 25
Many of the surveyed rubber and plastic surfaces were dark

20
in color and had rough textures, suggesting that they had low
Shrubs /trees
Water body
Turf
Metal
Masonry
Wood
Plastic
Rubber
albedo. In addition, the high surface temperatures of these
materials can be explained by their low thermal conductivity
and diffusivity.60 Conversely, the cooler artificial materials were
Shaded
water bodies, metal, and wood and this is likely due to the Unshaded
relatively high heat capacities of water and wood as well as the
characteristically high albedo and thermal diffusivity of polished
metal.61 Irrespective of shading, the hotter artificial materials rubber by 5.16 °C. This is in contrast to the surface temperature
surveyed were invariably masonry materials, plastics, and rubber, decrease experienced by shrubs and trees, which is only
with masonry materials having the lowest mean surface 0.98 °C. At maximum air temperature (in Singapore of 33.4 °C,
temperature among these materials and rubber the highest. for example), the surface temperature reduction caused by
shade increased by 1.22 °C on these artificial building materials,
Effect of Shade on Surface Temperature to 4.31 °C on masonry materials, 5.47 °C on wood, 5.74 °C
on plastics, and 6.37 °C on rubber. The greater a material’s
Irrespective of shade, greenery generally had a lower potential to get hotter, the bigger was the difference in its surface
temperature in the studied buildings, confirming previous temperature under shaded and unshaded conditions. Since
research.62 The surface temperature reduction of shrubs and shading virtually blocks out solar radiation, its effect on lowering
trees at mean air temperature was less than 33% of that surface temperature is directly proportional to a material’s ability
experienced by the hotter artificial building materials including to accumulate heat from solar radiation. Based on this simple
masonry materials, wood, plastics, and rubber. This is likely due relationship, shading is more effective on materials that can
to the plants’ low heat admittance and their ability to actively attain higher surface temperatures. In the studied dense and
regulate their temperatures as part of homeostasis. green buildings in the tropics, for example, one such material
was rubber, which exceeded a surface temperature of 70 °C
Shading effectively reduces the surface temperature of the when unshaded.
artificial building materials by reducing solar radiation input and
storage. However, the effect of shading was found not to be Designing Dense and Green Buildings for
equal for all the different surface types. At mean air temperature, Better Surface Temperature
shading was estimated to lower the mean surface temperature
of masonry materials by 3.09 °C, the mean surface temperature Replacing various conventional artificial building materials in
of wood by 4.25 °C, that of plastic by 4.52 °C, and that of unshaded spaces with greenery, or placing greenery on shading
99

Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, facade with greenery.
structures, creates an offset of solar radiation interception,

whereby the shading structure receives the solar radiation
instead of the surface below it. This can effectively reduce the
UHI effect. The greenery implemented in the studied dense and
green buildings lowered surface temperatures by up to 23.5 °C.
Based on the potential surface temperature reduction of

the various surface types, shading should be prioritized on
artificial building materials rather than on greenery, and for
artificial building materials, on those that can attain higher
surface temperatures such as rubber and plastics, which
are characterized by low albedo and low thermal diffusivity.
This could be a viable strategy for localized cooling, for example
in cities with tropical climates such as Singapore and Miami.
Rubber was predominantly used as the surface material for play
areas in the case studies. Some of the play areas were located
on roofs and highly exposed to the sun. Therefore, to improve
the thermal comfort of the people using them, it would be most
efficient to shade them, be it fully or partially, by artificial shelters,
tree canopies or structures clad with greenery.
Since the magnitude of the surface temperature reduction

by greenery and shading increased with air temperature,
more impactful cooling can be achieved by anticipating which
buildings or spaces would experience the hottest microclimates
and specifically targeting them for the implementation of
landscaping and shading structures.
Future research will investigate the relationship between the

duration of shade and how it interacts with different species or
functional groups of plants. To green urban environments most
efficiently, it may not be necessary to pick specialist species that
have high thermal performances in particular shading scenarios,
for example if they are located in largely shaded spaces.
100

Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, aerial view from the southwest.
101

Construction and
OMA/Büro Ole Scheeren/RSP Architects Planners & Engineers, The Interlace, 2015,
green and blue spaces, aerial view from the north.
WOHA, Oasia Hotel Downtown, Singapore, 2016, facade with greenery, detail.
Maintenance Costs of
Integrated Green Spaces
The benefits of dense and green buildings can be expressed in

economic terms to complement the more established ecological-
environmental perspective to guide decision-making processes
for better resource planning.63 For example, cost-benefit analysis
(CBA) has been used as a basis to assess and compare buildings
with integrated green spaces in terms of their economic impact.64
Also, post-occupancy studies of dense and green buildings have
been able to provide a better understanding of construction and
maintenance costs associated with integrated green spaces.65
Both approaches have been important in providing architecture
and landscape architecture practices with the information
needed to move towards more evidence-based processes.66
Research conducted by the Dense and Green team analyzed

the economic dimension of integrated green spaces in buildings
by exploring the impact on construction and maintenance costs
on the end user: construction cost related to cost for integrated
green spaces incurred during the construction phase and
maintenance cost related to the cost for upkeep and sustenance
during operation. The combined cost was analyzed in relation to
the overall project cost and its impact on end users.
Cost Analysis of Integrated Green Spaces
The analysis of the construction costs of integrated green spaces

in the case studies consisted of breaking down its individual
components, quantifying their respective requirements,
establishing the prevailing rates for each of the elements,
and estimating the total cost for the project. This methodology
corresponds to the established bill of quantities method for
tender estimation widely used in building projects.
The integrated green spaces were quantified to determine their

costs in terms of structure, plant material, drainage, irrigation, safety,
and maintenance. This provided a uniform way of determining
the cost for each of the associated green spaces including ground
gardens, sky gardens, roof gardens, green roofs, green walls,
as well as planters on facades and landscape balconies.
Detailed as-built drawings were used to identify and quantify all

planting areas in the case studies.
Construction Costs of Integrated Green Spaces
The construction cost of integrated green spaces is between

1.5 and 4.5% of the overall construction cost for the majority
of the case studies. Planted areas contribute between 70 and
102

80% to the total landscaped area in the buildings. Exceptions are
Integrated greenery installation vs project construction costs (SGD/m2)
projects in which the elevated planted areas are comparatively
large, for example Oasia Hotel Downtown. The percentage of the 900 18
construction cost spent on integrated green spaces is in a similar

800 16
range in all case studies, irrespective of the total cost of the project.
Construction cost vs landscape cost (million SGD)

700 14
Construction Cost Distribution of Integrated Green Spaces
600 12
The spatial distribution of the integrated green spaces has a direct
impact on their cost. For buildings that provide 70 to 85% of their 500 10
integrated green spaces in ground gardens, the average cost is
consistent at SGD 250 to 300 per m2, when most of the planting 400 8
was done on true ground. The cost increases significantly when
6
the planting was done above true ground, for example in the case 300
of The Interlace, which features a large parking structure on its

200 4
lowest level.
100 2
Roof gardens, which have the same conditions as ground
gardens except that they are elevated, as well as sky gardens 0 0
X The Skyville Punggol Oasia Solaris KTPH
show significant variations in cost, ranging from SGD 300 to Interlace Downtown
1,000 per m2. The variation in quantum of planted area and the
total number of large trees in these spaces contribute to the Project construction cost Greenery installation cost
large differences. A balanced distribution of the planted area with
effective tree cover results in a range of SGD 300 to 400 per m2,
for example in the cases of Solaris and Skyville@Dawson.
Integrated greenery components distribution (%)
With SGD 221 per m2, Skyville@Dawson has the lowest
construction cost for integrated green spaces. 90
80
Plant material and planting media contribute between 50 and
70% to the surveyed construction cost, followed by irrigation
70
systems, which contribute between 15 and 20%. For projects
Greenery components distribution (%)
that feature extensive elevated integrated green spaces, 60

the structural cost is 20 to 30% higher, while for projects
with extensive ground gardens such as Skyville@Dawson, 50
the additional cost is only 5 to 10%.
40
Maintenance Costs of Integrated Green Spaces

30
These costs include both planting areas and irrigation components.

20
In most of the projects, irrigation is included in planting
maintenance. Irrigation methods are simple and straightforward,
10
for example by providing manual tap points. The maintenance of
auto-irrigation systems is typically included in the irrigation by the 0
The Skyville Punggol Oasia Solaris KTPH
landscape contractor or the system installer. Interlace Downtown
Ground gardens Skybridges Green roofs Planter on facade
The recurring monthly maintenance cost ranged from SGD Sky gardens Roof gardens Landscape balconies Greenwall
8,000 to 24,000, depending on the extent of the planted areas
103

in the respective project. Plant diversity was both a cost-saving
Installation cost of landscape components for a constant area of 100 m2
as well as cost-incurring factor, depending on the particular
180,000 plant selection and layout of the project. Planting palettes with
a balanced combination of native and non-native plants proved
160,000
to be most cost-effective, as they provided a good variety of
plant choices to meet biodiversity and design requirements.
140,000
Palettes that required regular pruning, for example to maintain
Greenery components cost (SGD)
120,000
the geometry of a green space, needed more attention and
resulted in higher maintenance cost compared to more ‘natural’
100,000 arrangements. This applies to planted areas at all building levels.
80,000 Important additional factors that have an impact on the

maintenance costs at elevated levels are accessibility of the
60,000 green spaces as well as their safety features. In most of the case
studies, sky and roof gardens can easily be reached and provide
40,000
well-defined maintenance access to the planted areas. Planters
on facades are generally provided with safe access from the
20,000
building edges, eliminating the need for special equipment such
0
as gondolas or boom lifts. In the case of Oasia Hotel Downtown,
X Ground Skygardens Roof Green Planters Green
gardens gardens roof on facade wall
for example, the planters are located behind the perforated
facade screens, allowing for easy access from walkways. In the
The Interlace Punggol Solaris
Skyville Oasia Downtown KTPH case of Solaris, a continuous maintenance walkway provides
access to integrated greenery from a continuous ramp that spirals
around the building. No additional cost for safety certificates or
skilled workers for operating equipment at heights was incurred
Average cost comparison for ground and elevated gardens (SGD/m2)
in any of the case studies.
1000 100
900 90
The total maintenance cost was largely dependent on the extent
of the planted areas, plant diversity, and the spatial complexity
Distribution of ground gardens and elevated gardens (%)
800 80 of the integrated green spaces. Most of the case studies

Average landscape installation cost (SGD/m2)
feature highly efficient water-saving auto-irrigation systems,

700 70
thereby reducing the need for labor-intensive manual watering.
600 60
The average monthly maintenance cost for irrigation systems was
in most cases equivalent to the cost of one full-time gardener.
500 50
Long-term maintenance was efficiently addressed through
400 40
the provision of rainwater harvesting tanks for recycling water;
300 30
effective plant selection and placement to meet optimal water
and light requirements; as well as easy and safe access to
200 20 integrated green spaces.
100 10
User Contributions to Construction and Maintenance of
0 0 Integrated Green Spaces
X The InterlaceSkyville Punggol Oasia Solaris KTPH
Downtown
The total construction and maintenance cost of integrated green
Ground gardens (%) Elevated gardens (%)
GG average cost/m2 EG average cost/m2 spaces was analyzed to quantify the individual average building
user contribution.
104

WOHA, Oasia Hotel Downtown, Singapore, 2016, sky garden, view from above.
WOHA, Skyville@Dawson, Singapore, 2015, roof garden on parking garage, aerial view.
For residential developments, the average user contribution to

the construction cost of integrated green spaces translated to
about 3% of the total construction cost for a typical residential
unit. The recurring monthly maintenance cost per user translated
to SGD 13 to 24.
For commercial and institutional buildings, the additional

construction and maintenance cost for integrated greenery
components was more than compensated for by the increased
rental values, premium room rates, and high patient occupancy-
rates of these buildings. In the case of Solaris, for example, office
space is highly sought-after and typically rented for long periods
of time. In the case of Oasia Hotel Downtown, the spectacular
integrated green spaces on elevated levels translated to premium
room rates and high occupancy rates.
Designing Buildings with Integrated Green Spaces for

Economic Sustainability
Distribution of Integrated Green Spaces at Ground and

Elevated Levels
The construction of integrated green spaces at ground level is

very cost-effective only when most of the planting areas are on
true ground as this does typically not require additional building
structure, extensive subsoil drainage, and safety features.
In these cases, the cost of integrated green spaces is typically
limited to that of plant materials, planting media, and irrigation
systems. However, as the area of building sites in dense
urban contexts is often limited, projects require underground
construction, leading to ground gardens being located on top of
basements. Therefore, the construction cost of ground gardens
is often close to that of sky and roof gardens. A distribution of
integrated green spaces at ground and on elevated levels is
therefore economically less problematic.
Designing Integrated Green Spaces for Maintenance
Considering the maintenance of integrated green spaces

already in the design phase is important for the cost-effective
operation of dense and green buildings. Spatial requirements
for the pruning, weeding, and fertilizing of plants need to be
considered carefully. Reduced plant replacement requirements,
effective spatial layouts, the use of recycling systems for rain
and greywater, auto-irrigation and fertilization systems, as well
as rain and moisture sensors for plant irrigation can be important
cost-saving factors as well.
105

Economic Benefits of
group8asia/AEDAS, Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Singapore, 2015, green space.
Vegetation On and
Around Residential
Developments
Little is known about the actual amount property owners pay

above ‘normal’ cost for vegetation on and around their residential
development. The hedonic pricing method is one way to
assess how neighborhood and structural and environmental
characteristics, including vegetation, influence the price
consumers pay for a property.67
Vegetation has been identified as an important determinant

of property price around the world, with recreational parks
and managed vegetation having clearer positive effects than
forests.68 In previous studies, the distance to the nearest
recreational park was identified as having positive and statistically
significant effects on house prices more often (eight studies)
than not (four studies), whereas distance to the nearest forest
was found to be positive and statistically significant less
often (two vs. six times).69 In South China and Hong Kong,
similar effects of nearby vegetation on property prices were
observed.70, 71 Metrics of park quantity or accessibility were
significant in all three of the studies that considered these
factors;72 in two of these studies, the presence of a park within
a neighborhood explained 10 to 11% and 15% of property price,
respectively.73 The quantity of woodlands was considered in one
study and found not to have a statistically significant effect.74
Preferences of homebuyers for neighborhood vegetation are

known to vary geographically, and estimated values cannot
be simply transferred from one region to another.75 Benefits
relevant to homebuyers vary in type and magnitude across
eco-zones. For example, urban forests in tropical areas can
cool the climate through evapotranspiration and shade. Of 83
published hedonic pricing studies valuing vegetation, 61 were
located in temperate eco-zones, six in tropical eco-zones, five in
Hong Kong or Guangdong and one in Brazil; nine were situated
in Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrub, four in deserts
and xeric shrub lands, and two in boreal forests and taiga.
The preferences of homebuyers in tropical areas were addressed
by a study conducted by the Dense and Green research team
using Singapore as a case study.
In the Tropics, the difference in temperature between a forest

and urban location can be up to approx. 7 °C, enough to moderate
the urban heat island effect and dramatically reduce the risk of
heat stress in those cities where the temperature is regularly
higher than 30 °C .76 In contrast, the urban heat island effect in
temperate locations can have either a positive or negative effect,
depending on the time of year.77
106

More information about the economic value of natural vegetation Housing & Development Board.83 Each public housing town
to residents of tropical cities is needed to ensure a fair and comprises high-rise residential blocks, often reaching more
efficient planning process in these cities. One study in a than 20 floors in height. Public housing apartments within these
desert eco-zone found that neighborhood greenness was the blocks come in six major types, each of which has uniform
variable with the strongest effect on property selling prices, structural characteristics, including the number of bedrooms
potentially due to greenness naturally being a rarer feature in the and bathrooms, and approximate floor area. Approximately
desert landscape. 86% of properties are three-, four-, or five-room apartments.
Ownership of public housing apartments within these blocks
The need to understand homebuyers’ preferences for vegetation is on a leasehold basis, with the majority of residents having
in tropical cities is also important for biodiversity conservation. 99-year leases. After this period, an apartment’s ownership
Tropical areas have high biodiversity and are urbanizing rapidly. legally returns to the state. However, five years after the first
In the period from 1980 to 2000, the urbanization rate in tropical owner moves in, the lease may be resold to a private buyer.
cities was 3.3% per year, more than one third higher than in This creates a large resale market for government-built and
the rest of the world.78 In the tropical city state of Singapore, subsidized housing.
for example, the government plans to further urbanize by
constructing 700,000 new public apartments by 2030.79 If The next largest group of properties, approx. 14% of Singapore
tropical homebuyers have a preference for living near a particular households, is leasehold or freehold condominiums, which
type of vegetation, this could aid biodiversity conservation typically include extra facilities such as security guards,
efforts, provided that these preferences are known and swimming pools and gyms. Finally, 5% of households are
communicated to developers or planners. Singapore was used terraced, semi-detached or detached houses, known locally as
in this research as a case study on which to apply the hedonic landed properties.
pricing method and estimate tropical homebuyers’ preferences
for different types of vegetation. Previous hedonic pricing studies in Singapore have not included
vegetation-related variables. One study found that the floor
Parks and Managed Vegetation in Singapore area had the strongest effect on housing prices in Singapore,
accounting for 79% of the variance, with year of construction and
Singapore public parks make up approx. 11% and roadside percentage of expatriates in each condominium having weaker
greenery approx. 13% of urban managed green space. positive effects and distance to central Singapore having a weak
The remaining 76% of urban managed greenspaces include negative effect.84 Another Singapore study found that variables
vegetation on and around buildings in public housing estates and having positive effects on house prices were floor area, public
condominiums, and vacant land plots with trimmed grass and housing apartment type, apartment floor, upgrading plan, being
park connectors.80 Singapore has applied a three-tiered system to within 1 km of a train station and being within 1 km of a school
park planning so as to ensure an even distribution of green space that has a record of good academic performance.85
around public housing towns: precinct gardens, neighborhood
parks and town parks. This has led to a number of newer building The results from hedonic pricing studies in Singapore are
developments introducing park features to be within the overall generally corroborated by survey data. One survey found that
design of the building as part of dense and green buildings. transportation networks, location within Singapore, proximity
Previous research has shown that Singapore residents appreciate to the center of a public housing town and to estate facilities,
managed vegetation landscapes81 and specifically find them and provision of public housing estate facilities, such as retail
more aesthetically pleasing then other vegetation types.82 shops, eateries and cooked food centers, transportation
networks, education centers, health-related facilities and financial
Singapore’s housing market consists of both privately and facilities were the most frequently cited positive aspects of
publicly built properties, the planning (zoning) and approval public housing blocks. Poor cleanliness or maintenance, noise,
of which is the responsibility of the Urban Redevelopment and poor lift services were the most frequently cited negative
Authority (URA), which is responsible for all of the planning aspects.86 Another survey found that being located close to
decisions in Singapore. Around 80% of households in central Singapore was the most important determinant of
Singapore are public housing apartments developed by the apartment choice, while other important aspects of properties
107

Spatial distribution of condominium units used in the analysis across residential zones in Singapore.
0 400
Number of dwelling units Residential Zone
were proximity to commercial areas, train stations, and bus Effect of Managed Vegetation on Property Selling Price
interchange stations, and being located on an intermediate
level of a building.87 A third survey assessed preferences for The analysis found that managed vegetation is the vegetation
environmentally friendly buildings in the private housing market type most valued by property purchasers. Homebuyers may
in Singapore.88 Consumers were willing to pay a premium be implicitly valuing the ecosystem services and recreational
equivalent to 20% of a property’s value based on floor area, activities that this vegetation type provides. These include
12% for location, and 3% for proximity to commercial areas. running, sports, and children’s activities, the aesthetic value of
In addition, Singaporean buyers were willing to pay an extra 8% designed green landscapes, and the effect of shade and local
for an apartment that is in a building with official green building climate regulation from trees. The richness of park facilities in a
certification such as Greenmark Platinum. neighborhood was also found to have a positive and significant
effect on selling prices. Again, this relates to previous research
The hedonic pricing method was applied to 15,962 resold HDB showing that individuals prefer neighborhoods to have managed
condominiums to determine if managed vegetation and park parks and associated facilities. These results corroborate those
facilities designed in the urban environment had a positive effect of previous research in Singapore, using case-study and survey
on their selling price. When designing hedonic pricing studies based techniques and underscore the importance of managed
of property prices, control variables should be included in the parkland in the small island nation.92 The results also support
model to account for other reasons why someone would buy a previous research showing that Singapore residents want more
property; otherwise it biases how much the vegetation affects “manicured” or managed landscapes than primary or secondary
selling price. This was done in this research, and the choice of forests nearby their houses.93 Managed vegetation may also be
control variables was informed by previous research, subject more desirable than other forms of vegetation due to the mere
to constraints of data availability. 89, 90 Other forms of spatial and exposure effect, whereby individuals prefer this more “familiar”
temporal autocorrelation were also accounted for.91 vegetation type in their neighborhood. The positive impact of
managed vegetation on property price found here is qualitatively
108

Spatial distribution of vegetation types and public housing locations in Singapore.
Managed vegetation
Spontaneous vegetation
High conservation value vegetation
Dwelling unit
similar to that found in previous studies conducted in Hong Kong Homebuyers who see negative effects of high conservation
and South China. Two studies in particular found that managed may perceive risks from wild areas, such as dangerous wildlife,
vegetation (parks) greatly increases property value and explains such as snakes, or nuisance wildlife, such as long-tailed
10 to 15% of property value.94 The importance of managed macaques. Long-tailed macaques in particular are tolerant of
vegetation in urban areas thus may be a general phenomenon human presence in Singapore and previous research has found
across tropical Asia. their close proximity to humans has caused human–wildlife
conflict in public housing towns. They are often found at the edge
Effect of Other Vegetation Types on Property Selling Price of nature reserves foraging for food from human sources.96
High-conservation-value vegetation generally had negative Conservation areas may also be perceived as a source of
effects on house prices; estimated effects were positive only mosquitoes, making outdoor managed spaces less attractive.
for the 17.8% of properties with the least managed vegetation Mosquitoes spread diseases, and dengue outbreaks have
in the vicinity. A reason for this might be that homebuyers, occurred across Singapore in recent years. It is also possible
in general, value having vegetation nearby but prefer managed that the conservation value of this vegetation may not be fully
areas. Only when there are few managed areas do homebuyers understood by homebuyers. Previous research in Singapore has
appreciate the presence of some conservation areas, revealed a misconception among homebuyers that managed
and perhaps the associated boardwalk and nature trail facilities vegetation is equivalent to natural vegetation in terms of its
inside them, even though they may not perceive this vegetation importance for nature preservation, something respondents
as ideal. The benefits of high-conservation-value vegetation for stated as being important.97
this minority of homebuyers may also include greater abundance
and diversity of wildlife, and the increased psychological benefits The lower value attached to spontaneous vegetation by
of more “natural” areas.95 homebuyers may be due to the lower variety of recreational
activities available when compared to the other two vegetation
109

Predicted marginal effect of leaf area and unbuilt area per condominium unit in SGD
(where interaction term confidence intervals do not overlap zero) within the range of the data.
Hollow circles show data points used in the model. Numbered points correspond to the
effect size at representative levels of leaf area and unbuilt area per condominium unit.
Black dashed lines shown the mean of each axis. Grey dotted lines show a convex hull
around the range of the data.
types. High-conservation-value areas often have nature trails

Predicted marginal effect of leaf area and unbuilt area per condominium unit (SGD)
and walks; and managed vegetation is often designed to
meet expectations of landscape attractiveness in Singapore
5
and is much more accessible. In a similar way to having
high-conservation-value vegetation, the negative effect may
4 be driven by residents who fear the presence of wild animals
Unbuilt area per dwelling unit (m2)
such as snakes and macaques. Previous studies have found that

these animals are perceived as either dangerous or a nuisance in
3 these areas.98
Effect of Other Explanatory Variables on Property

2
Selling Price
The findings corroborate previous hedonic pricing research in

1 Singapore, Asia, and the world by suggesting that structural
characteristics, specifically age and floor area of a unit, are the
most important determinants of property price.99 The strong
0
250 500 750 1,000 1,250 effect size for apartment type, collinear with floor area, matches
Leaf area per dwelling unit (m2)
the positive effect of floor area in another previous study with
0 0.5M 1M 1.5M 2M condominium selling price as a dependent variable.100 For
SGD
apartment-floor preference, however, the findings differ from
Mean of axis Range of data Condo development
-0.0836M SGD 0.0797M SGD 0.264M SGD 0.731M SGD 2.33M SGD those of previous research. Whereas a previous survey-based
study found that respondents prefer mid-level apartments,
the hedonic pricing analysis suggested people prefer high-level
apartments.101 The findings of the hedonic pricing analysis may
be more accurate, as stated preferences from surveys are subject
to biases from consequentiality and incentive compatibility,
and therefore do not always match consumer actions modeled in
hedonic pricing studies.102
Among all neighborhood variables, distance to the Singapore

city center was found to have the largest effect on house prices.
This is consistent with previous research.103 Also consistent with
previous research is that distance to train stations had a large
effect on size, suggesting that consumers in Singapore will pay
a premium to be located close to the train network, the most
commonly used local transport system.104 Distance to nearest
cooked food center had a strong effect size as well, suggesting
that property purchasers value ease of access to these culinary
and cultural centers.105 Previous research also found that being
close to top primary schools had a positive effect on property
prices. A slight positive effect was found in the hedonic
pricing analysis, although it was not statistically significant .106
Unexpectedly, being located away from a bus interchange had
a positive effect on property selling prices. This may be due to
increased pollution caused by a large cluster of diesel machines.
110

Estimated effect of vegetation on selling price. The colored areas correspond to a convex
hull covering the range of the observed data. Dashed lines show the mean of each axis
variable. Each red curve shows combinations of the vegetation types on the two axes—
whose estimated effect on property value is equivalent to having 0% of the two vegetation
types—with the third vegetation type held at its mean. Points show each public
housing apartment.
Predicted marginal effect of control variables (in million SGD) used in the model that have
95% confidence intervals not overlapping zero. Only predicted effects within the range
of each variable are shown. The dashed line shows variable mean. Numbered points
correspond to the effect size at representative levels of the leaf area and unbuilt area per
apartment interaction.
Estimated effect of vegetation on selling price
60 60
Managed vegetation within 1600-m of apartment (%)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
Spontaneous vegetation within 1600-m of apartment (%) High conservation value within 1600-m of apartment (%)
-15,000 0 15,000 30,000 45,000

SGD Public housing apartment Mean of axis
A - Floor area (m2) B - Story C - Completion year D - Tenure E - Distance to orchard road (m)
Selling price (millions, SGD)
8 8 2.0 0.25 0
6 6 1.5 0.2 -2
0.15
4 4 1.0 -4
0.10
2 2 0.5 0.05 -6
0 0 0.0 0 -8
250 500 750 250 500 750 2000 2005 2010 2015 >850 Year Freehold 5,000 10,000 15,000
Lease
F - Distance to coastline G - Distance to nearest H - Distance to expressway I - Number of condominium units J - Primary school catchment
shopping mall (m) entrance (m)
Selling price (millions, SGD)
0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.2 -0.1
0.2 -0.2
-1.0
-0.4 -0.2
-1.5
0.1 -0.4
-2.0 -0.6 -0.3
-2.5 0.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 500 1,000 1,500 <1–2km of top >2km
primary school
Mean of axis -0.0836 million SGD 0.0797 million SGD 0.264 million SGD 0.731 million SGD 2.33 million SGD
111

The hedonic pricing method can create only a partial valuation residential developments should continue to provide outdoor
of Singapore’s vegetation and the value of ecosystem services managed green recreational space for residents.109 More
provided to homebuyers. Other ecosystem services provided research is needed on how to increase the habitat connectivity in
by vegetation, such as carbon sequestration, recreational use managed to semi-managed vegetation. This could help support
by individuals who do not live close by, existence values and biodiversity and property value appreciation by combining some
watershed services, are ignored in analyses based on house of the benefits of both of these vegetation types. Managed
prices but should be included in any holistic assessment of vegetation should also be differentiated in more discrete
vegetation value. Similarly, the hedonic pricing method does not categories to further disentangle which kind of managed green
take into consideration non-substitutable benefits, i.e. benefits spaces are economically more valuable.
whose loss would be irreversible on policy timescales, if, for
example, very old vegetation patches such as primary forest and Research findings suggest that high-conservation-value
old secondary forest were removed. These factors should be vegetation has a mixed effect on house prices. When on its own,
considered in land-use decisions. its effect is positive, but with much managed vegetation, it is
negative. To ensure that vegetated land is not undervalued by
Even among the ecosystem services that do benefit property purchasers, public awareness of the value ecosystem
homebuyers, the method applied in this research provides services have should be raised. Future studies should provide
a lower bound on the value provided by vegetation because a better understanding of what types of biodiversity people
homebuyers may lack awareness of ecosystem services that find acceptable in the urban environment where they live,
benefit them directly. One particularly relevant example is the including those near high-conservation-value areas. Where
increased cost of air-conditioned cooling caused by a reduction potential conflict is unavoidable, for example in locations very
in vegetation cover in a neighborhood. A solution to this can be close to high-conservation-value areas with larger mammals,
raising public awareness. there should be spaces designed to be difficult to reach for
ground-dwelling fauna. These can include sky or roof gardens,
Lastly, as is inherent to all statistical modeling methods, which are only easily accessible for flying animals. Biodiversity
including hedonic pricing, omitted variables can bias the effects can in turn benefit from vegetation on the ground and residents
sizes and errors of model variables, should they be collinear. can still enjoy the ecosystem services of shading, air quality
However, by addressing spatial autocorrelation using a mixed- improvement, and visual relief that ground-level spaces can
effects model, the research attempted to minimize this bias. provide, from their apartments, roof or sky gardens.
Furthermore, a number of variables were included that explain
zoning patterns, such as distances to the central area, nearby
shopping malls, and cooked food centers. Another technical
limitation of the study is the size of the vegetation classification
pixels, which was 10 by 10 m. Because tree canopies can be
smaller than this, the methods underestimate the value of
smaller managed vegetation patches such as isolated trees and
smaller shrubs.
Economic Evidence to Support Dense and Green Buildings
The research shows the synergy between parks and managed

vegetation on the one hand and urban development on the other.
It provides new evidence that government initiatives to develop
green urban environments will benefit residents.107 In Singapore,
one of these initiatives has been government-sponsored tree
planting, which has been used since 1967 to provide ecosystem
services of heat reduction and aesthetic enjoyment.108 Based
on the high value of managed vegetation identified here, future
112

1. Ng Lang, “Interview: Ng Lang, CEO, Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA),” 20. Hadi Susilo Arifin and Nobukazu Nakagoshi, “Landscape Ecology and Urban
Architecture and Urbanism, Special Edition May 2012: 50. Biodiversity in Tropical Indonesian Cities,” Landscape and Ecological Engineering 7,
2. The vision for Singapore might evolve to ‘City in Nature’ in the coming years. no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 33–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0145-9; Alberto
See, for example, Khoo Teng Chye, “Building a City in Nature,” in Thomas Schröpfer and González-García and Antonio Gómez Sal, “Private Urban Greenspaces or ‘Patios’ as a
Sacha Menz (eds.), Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research, Policy and Practice Key Element in the Urban Ecology of Tropical Central America,” Human Ecology 36, no. 2
Perspectives (Singapore: Springer, 2019), 13-19. (2008): 291–300; Harini Nagendra and Divya Gopal, “Tree Diversity, Distribution, History
3. “Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity,” National Parks Board Singapore, and Change in Urban Parks: Studies in Bangalore, India,” Urban Ecosystems 14, no. 2
accessed May 20, 2019, https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/urban-biodiversity/ (June 1, 2011): 211–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0148-1; Anders Busse Nielsen
the-singapore-index-on-cities-biodiversity. et al., “Species Richness in Urban Parks and Its Drivers: A Review of Empirical Evidence,”
4. Poon Hong Yuen, “Interview: Poon Hong Yuen, CEO, National Parks Board (NParks),” Urban Ecosystems 17, no. 1 (March 1, 2014): 305–27, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-
Architecture and Urbanism, Special Edition May 2012: 106. 0316-1; Navjot S. Sodhi et al., “Bird Use of Linear Areas of a Tropical City: Implications
5. Tan Puay Yok, “What does Vertical Green Mean,” Architecture and Urbanism, Special for Park Connector Design and Management,” Landscape and Urban Planning 45, no. 2
Edition May 2012: 138-141. (October 30, 1999): 123–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00028-6.
6. Dense and Green at FCL is partially based on previous research on related topics conducted 21. James Wei Wang et al., “Building Biodiversity: Drivers of Bird and Butterfly Diversity
at ETH Zurich, the Singapore University of Technology and Design, and Harvard University. on Tropical Urban Roof Gardens,” Ecosphere 8, no. 9 (1 September 2017), https://doi.
7. See Peter Edwards, “Foreword,” in Future Cities Laboratory Indicia 01, eds. Stephen org/10.1002/ecs2.1905.
Cairns and Devisari Tunas (Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2017), VI: “Future Cities 22. Huijuan Deng and C. Y. Jim, “Spontaneous Plant Colonization and Bird Visits of Tropical
Laboratory (FCL) is an interdisciplinary research programme of the Singapore-ETH Extensive Green Roof,” Urban Ecosystems 20, no. 2 (1 April 2017): 337–52, https://doi.
Centre, organized within the framework of Singapore’s Campus for Research Excellence org/10.1007/s11252-016-0596-3.
and Technological Enterprise (CREATE). First launched in 2010, FCL has the ambitious 23. Brian E. Washburn et al., “Composition and Diversity of Avian Communities Using a
goal of providing the knowledge and ideas needed to make cities more sustainable.” For New Urban Habitat: Green Roofs,” Environmental Management 57, no. 6 (June 1, 2016):
additional information on FCL, see Gerhard Schmitt, “Foreword,” and Stephen Cairns, 1230–39, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0687-1.
“Technical Medium, Hyper-Medium, Design Medium,” in Future Cities Laboratory Indicia 24. Richard N. Belcher et al., “Birds Use of Vegetated and Non-Vegetated High-Density
02, eds. Stephen Cairns and Devisari Tunas (Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2019), VI-VII Buildings—a Case Study of Milan,” Journal of Urban Ecology 4, no. 1 (January 1, 2018),
and IX-XXI; and http://www.fcl.ethz.ch. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juy001; Caroline Chiquet, John W. Dover, and Paul Mitchell,
8. The research is conducted by a multidisciplinary team that includes Thomas Schröpfer “Birds and the Urban Environment: The Value of Green Walls,” Urban Ecosystems 16, no.
(Principal Investigator), Sacha Menz (Co-Principal Investigator), Michelle Jiang Yingying 3 (September 1, 2013): 453–62, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0277-9.
(Coordinator), Richard Belcher, Peter Christensen, Emek Erdolu, Srilalitha Gopalakrishnan, 25. Nyuk Hien Wong et al., “Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Rooftop Gardens in Singapore,”
Mayank Kaushal, Thibault Pilsudski, Prashanth Raju, Ester Suen Yun Ju, and Jonathan Building and Environment 38, no. 3 (March 2003): 499–509, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Tan Koon Ngee. The research team brings together expertise in planning, urban design, S0360-1323(02)00131-2.
architecture, landscape architecture, ecology, and social science and works synergistically 26. Masashi Soga and Kevin J. Gaston, “Extinction of Experience: The Loss of Human–
with others at FCL. Beyond FCL, the team collaborates with important stakeholders from Nature Interactions,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, no. 2 (March 1, 2016):
government and practice as well as other design and building research institutions. 94–101, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225.
9. Such statistical models are used in a variety of disciplines in the physical, 27. Belcher et al., “Birds Use of Vegetated and Non-Vegetated High-Density Buildings—a
biological, and social sciences, in settings where measurements are made on the same Case Study of Milan.”
statistical units or where measurements are made on clusters of related statistical units. 28. Belcher et al.; Chiquet, Dover, and Mitchell, “Birds and the Urban Environment.”
10. Alexandra Edelman et al., “State of the Tropics 2014 Report,” 2014. 29. Wang et al., “Building Biodiversity.”
11. Marcela Suarez-Rubio and John R. Thomlinson, “Landscape and Patch-Level Factors 30. A. Báldi, “Edge Effects in Tropical versus Temperate Forest Bird Communities: Three
Influence Bird Communities in an Urbanized Tropical Island,” Biological Conservation 142, Alternative Hypotheses for the Explanation of Differences,” Acta Zoologica Academiae
no. 7 (July 2009): 1311–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.035. Scientiarum Hungaricae 42, no. 3 (1996): 163–72.
12. Ingo Kowarik, “Novel Urban Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Conservation,” 31. Sodhi et al., “Bird Use of Linear Areas of a Tropical City.”
Environmental Pollution, Selected papers from the conference Urban Environmental 32. Christopher J. Hails and Mikaail Kavanagh, “Bring Back the Birds! Planning for Trees
Pollution: Overcoming Obstacles to Sustainability and Quality of Life (UEP2010), 20-23 and Other Plants to Support Southeast Asian Wildlife in Urban Areas,” Raffles Bulletin of
June 2010, Boston, USA, 159, no. 8 (August 1, 2011): 1974–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Zoology, 2013.
envpol.2011.02.022; Michael L. McKinney, “Urbanization as a Major Cause of Biotic 33. Wang et al., “Building Biodiversity.”
Homogenization,” Biological Conservation 127, no. 3 (2006): 247–260; Frank a. La Sorte, 34. Darren R. Grafius et al., “A Bird’s Eye View: Using Circuit Theory to Study Urban
Michael L. McKinney, and Petr Pyšek, “Compositional Similarity among Urban Floras Landscape Connectivity for Birds,” Landscape Ecology 32, no. 9 (September 1, 2017):
within and across Continents: Biogeographical Consequences of Human-Mediated 1771–87, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0548-1.
Biotic Interchange,” Global Change Biology 13, no. 4 (April 1, 2007): 913–21, https://doi. 35. Nicola T. Munro, David B. Lindenmayer, and Joern Fischer, “Faunal Response
org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01329.x. to Revegetation in Agricultural Areas of Australia: A Review,” Ecological
13. Kowarik, “Novel Urban Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Conservation”; McKinney, Management & Restoration 8, no. 3 (December 1, 2007): 199–207, https://doi.
“Urbanization as a Major Cause of Biotic Homogenization.” org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00368.x.
14. Jessica Gurevitch and Dianna K. Padilla, “Are Invasive Species a Major Cause of 36. Edelman et al., “State of the Tropics 2014 Report.”
Extinctions?,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, no. 9 (September 2004): 470–74, https:// 37. James Justus et al., “Buying into Conservation: Intrinsic versus Instrumental Value,”
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.005. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, no. 4 (April 1, 2009): 187–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
15. Kevin J. Gaston et al., “Population Abundance and Ecosystem Service tree.2008.11.011.
Provision: The Case of Birds,” BioScience 68, no. 4 (April 1, 2018): 264–72, https://doi. 38. Barry W. Brook, Navjot S. Sodhi, and Peter K. L. Ng, “Catastrophic Extinctions Follow
org/10.1093/biosci/biy005. Deforestation in Singapore,” Nature 424, no. 6947 (July 24, 2003): 420–26, https://doi.
16. Daniel G. Wenny et al., “The Need to Quantify Ecosystem Services Provided by Birds,” org/10.1038/nature01795.
The Auk 128, no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2011.10248. 39. Wang et al., “Building Biodiversity.”
17. James R. Miller, “Biodiversity Conservation and the Extinction of Experience,” Trends 40. Laura López-Hoffman et al., “Ecosystem Services from Transborder Migratory
in Ecology & Evolution 20, no. 8 (August 1, 2005): 430–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Species: Implications for Conservation Governance,” Annual Review of Environment and
tree.2005.05.013. Resources 42 (2017): 509–539.
18. Gary Austin, Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning: Integrating Human and 41. Daniel Klem et al., “Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with
Natural Systems (Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, 2014). Bird–Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment,” The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121,
19. Thomas Schröpfer, Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for Sustainable Urban no. 1 (February 24, 2009): 126–34, https://doi.org/10.1676/08-068.1.
Architecture (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016). 42. John Chih Mun Sha et al., “Macaque-Human Interactions and the Societal Perceptions
of Macaques in Singapore,” American Journal of Primatology 71, no. 10 (October 2009):
825–39, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20710.
113

43. Soga and Gaston, “Extinction of Experience.” 62. Manfred Köhler et al., “Green Roofs in Temperate Climates and in the Hot-humid
44. Jianguo Tan et al., “The Urban Heat Island and Its Impact on Heat Waves and Human Tropics – Far beyond the Aesthetics,” Environmental Management and Health 13, no. 4
Health in Shanghai,” International Journal of Biometeorology 54, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): (October 1, 2002): 382–91, https://doi.org/10.1108/09566160210439297; Wong et al.,
75–84, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-009-0256-x; Anthony J. McMichael, Rosalie E. “Investigation of Thermal Benefits of Rooftop Garden in the Tropical Environment.”
Woodruff, and Simon Hales, “Climate Change and Human Health: Present and Future 63. Johanna Choumert and Julien Salanié, “Provision of urban green
Risks,” The Lancet 367, no. 9513 (March 11, 2006): 859–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/ spaces: Some insights from economics,” Landscape Research, 33 (3) (2008): 331–34.
S0140-6736(06)68079-3; Jonathan A. Patz et al., “Impact of Regional Climate Change on 64. Leon S.Dochinger, “Interception of Airborne Particles by Tree Plantings 1,” Journal of
Human Health,” Nature 438, no. 7066 (November 2005): 310–17, https://doi.org/10.1038/ Environmental Quality, 9 (2) (1980): 265–268.
nature04188. 65. John F. Dwyer, David J. Nowak, Mary Heather Noble, and Susan M. Sisinni,
45. Thomas J. O’Shea et al., “Multiple Mortality Events in Bats: A Global Review,” “Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: an assessment of our nation’s
Mammal Review 46, no. 3 (18 January 2016): 175–90, https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12064. urban forests,” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
46. “Hundreds of Bats Die in Sydney Heatwave,” Al Jazeera, accessed March Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (2000): 483-490.
31, 2018, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/hundreds-bats-die-sydney- 66. Wang Zhen, Yang Bo, Shujuan Li, and Chris Binder, “Economic Benefits: Metrics and
heatwave-180109070833282.html. Methods for Landscape Performance Assessment” Sustainability, 8 (5) (2016): 424.
47. “Hellish Scenes as 5000 Dead Bats Drop,” Daily Telegraph, November 67. Sherwin Rosen, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure
18, 2014, https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/heatwave- Competition,” The Journal of Political Economy, 1974, 34–55.
hell-as-5000-dead-bats-drop-from-trees-in-casino-northern-nsw/ 68. C. Mansfield et al., “Shades of Green: Measuring the Value of Urban Forests in the
news-story/21af4e024867a2c7ef9197a9fbca8e56. Housing Market,” Journal of Forest Economics 11, no. 3 (2005): 177–99, https://doi.
48. B. Givoni, “Impact of Planted Areas on Urban Environmental Quality: A Review,” org/10.1016/j.jfe.2005.08.002; L. Tyrvainen and A. Miettinen, “Property Prices and Urban
Atmospheric Environment. Part B. Urban Atmosphere 25, no. 3 (January 1, 1991): 289–99, Forest Amenities,” Journal of Enviornmental Economics and Management 39, no. 2
https://doi.org/10.1016/0957-1272(91)90001-U; S.E Gill et al., “Adapting Cities for Climate (March 2000): 205–23, https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1097.
Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure,” Built Environment 33, no. 1 (March 13, 69. Cho Seong-Hoon et al., “Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Housing Market Values
2007): 115–33, https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115. of Lot Size and Open Space,” Land Economics 85, no. 1 (February 2009): 51–73.
49. E. Gregory McPherson, “Cooling Urban Heat Islands with Sustainable Landscapes,” 70. Cho Seong-Hoon, J. M. Bowker, and William M. Park, “Measuring the Contribution of
In: Platt, Rutherford H.; Rowntree, Rowan A.; Muick, Pamela C.; Eds., The Ecological City: Water and Green Space Amenities to Housing Values; An Application and Comparison of
Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversit (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Spatially Weighted Hedonic Models,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31,
Press, 1994), 151–71. no. 3 (December 2006): 485–507.
50. Bau-Show Lin and Yann-Jou Lin, “Cooling Effect of Shade Trees with Different 71. E. G. Irwin, “The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values,”
Characteristics in a Subtropical Urban Park” HortScience, 45 (2010): 4. Land Economics 78, no. 4 (November 2002): 465–80, https://doi.org/10.2307/3146847.
51. C. Y. Jim and Lilliana L. H. Peng, “Weather Effect on Thermal and Energy Performance 72. Edwin Hon-Wan Chan et al., “Private Space, Shared Space and Private Housing Prices
of an Extensive Tropical Green Roof,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11, no. 1 (January in Hong Kong: An Exploratory Study,” Habitat International 32, no. 3 (September 2008):
2012): 73–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.10.001. 336–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.11.004.
52. H. F. Di, D. N. Wang, “Cooling Effect of Ivy on a Wall,” Experimental Heat Transfer 12, 73. Chan et al.; C. Y. Jim and Wendy Y. Chen, “External Effects of Neighbourhood Parks
no. 3 (July 1999): 235–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/089161599269708. and Landscape Elements on High-Rise Residential Value,” Land Use Policy 27, no. 2
53. Ross W. F. Cameron, Jane E. Taylor, and Martin R. Emmett, “What’s ‘Cool’ in the (April 2010): 662–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.027.
World of Green Façades? How Plant Choice Influences the Cooling Properties of Green 74. C. Y. Jim and Wendy Y. Chen, “Impacts of Urban Environmental Elements on
Walls,” Building and Environment 73 (March 1, 2014): 198–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Residential Housing Prices in Guangzhou (China),” Landscape and Urban Planning 78, no.
buildenv.2013.12.005. 4 (November 28, 2006): 422–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.003.
54. Nyuk Hien Wong et al., “Investigation of Thermal Benefits of Rooftop Garden in the 75. Luke M. Brander and Mark J. Koetse, “The Value of Urban Open Space:
Tropical Environment,” Building and Environment 38, no. 2 (February 1, 2003): 261–70, Meta-Analyses of Contingent Valuation and Hedonic Pricing Results,” Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00066-5. Environmental Management 92, no. 10 (October 2011): 2763–73,
55. Chun Liang Tan, Nyuk Hien Wong, and Steve Kardinal Jusuf, “Effects of Vertical https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019.
Greenery on Mean Radiant Temperature in the Tropical Urban Environment,” 76. Matthias Roth and Winston T. L. Chow, “A Historical Review and Assessment of Urban
Landscape and Urban Planning 127 (July 2014): 52–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Heat Island Research in Singapore,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33, no. 3
landurbplan.2014.04.005. (November 1, 2012): 381–97, https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12003.
56. Jim and Peng, “Weather Effect on Thermal and Energy Performance of an Extensive 77. Nastaran Makaremi et al., “Thermal Comfort Conditions of Shaded Outdoor Spaces in
Tropical Green Roof”; Nyuk Hien Wong, Tan Puay Yok, and Chen Yu, “Study of Thermal Hot and Humid Climate of Malaysia,” Building and Environment 48 (February 2012): 7–14,
Performance of Extensive Rooftop Greenery Systems in the Tropical Climate,” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.024.
Building and Environment 42, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 25–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 78. Alexandra Edelman et al., “State of the Tropics 2014 Report,” 2014, http://
buildenv.2005.07.030; Eleftheria Alexandri and Phil Jones, “Temperature Decreases in researchonline.jcu.edu.au/35471.
an Urban Canyon Due to Green Walls and Green Roofs in Diverse Climates,” Building 79. Singapore Government, “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore:
and Environment, Part Special: Building Performance Simulation 43, no. 4 (April 1, 2008): Population White Paper,” 2013.
480–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.055; Erin C. Mueller and Thomas A. 80. Tan Puay Yok, James Wang, and Angelia Sia, “Perspectives on Five Decades of the
Day, “The Effect of Urban Ground Cover on Microclimate, Growth and Leaf Gas Exchange Urban Greening of Singapore,” Cities 32, Supplement C (June 1, 2013): 24–32, https://doi.
of Oleander in Phoenix, Arizona,” International Journal of Biometeorology 49, no. 4 org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.001.
(March 1, 2005): 244–55, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-004-0235-1; Roger Kjelgren 81. Joan C. Henderson, “Urban Parks and Green Spaces in Singapore,” Managing Leisure
and Thayne Montague, “Urban Tree Transpiration over Turf and Asphalt Surfaces,” 18, no. 3 (2013): 213–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2013.796181; Belinda Yuen
Atmospheric Environment, Conference on the Benefits of the Urban Forest, 32, no. 1 and others, “Use and Experience of Neighborhood Parks in Singapore,” Journal of Leisure
(January 1, 1998): 35–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00177-5. Research 28, no. 4 (1996): 293–311.
57. D. N. Wang, H. F. Di, “Cooling Effect of Ivy on a Wall,” Experimental Heat Transfer 12, 82. Joanne Yu Ting Khew, Makoto Yokohari, and Toshinori Tanaka, “Public Perceptions of
no. 3 (July 1, 1999): 235–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/089161599269708. Nature and Landscape Preference in Singapore,” Human Ecology 42, no. 6 (December
58. Mueller and Day, “The Effect of Urban Ground Cover on Microclimate, Growth and 2014): 979–88, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9709-x.
Leaf Gas Exchange of Oleander in Phoenix, Arizona.” 83. Department of Statistics Singapore, “Statistics Singapore - Latest Data,” 2016, http://
59. Jooseng (Gavin) Gui et al., “Impact of Pavement Thermophysical Properties on www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#22.
Surface Temperatures,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 19, no. 8 (August 2007): 84. David E. Andersson, “Hypothesis Testing in Hedonic Price Estimation – On the
683–90, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:8(683). Selection of Independent Variables,” The Annals of Regional Science 34, no. 2 (July 1,
60. “Materials Thermal Properties Database,” Thermtest Inc., accessed April 5, 2018, 2000): 293–304, https://doi.org/10.1007/s001689900010.
https://thermtest.com/materials-database.
61. “Materials Thermal Properties Database.”
114

85. Eddie D. W. Sue and Wei-Kang Wong, “The Political Economy of Housing Prices:
Hedonic Pricing with Regression Discontinuity,” Journal of Housing Economics 19, no. 2
(June 2010): 133–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2010.04.004.
86. Housing Development Board, “Public Housing in Singapore: Residents’ Profile,
Housing Satisfaction and Preferences,” 2008, http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10320p.
nsf/w/PublicationForSale?OpenDocument.
87. Belinda Yuen, “Romancing the High-Rise in Singapore,” Cities 22, no. 1 (February
2005): 3–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2004.10.002.
88. Stefanie Lena Heinzle, Augustin Boey Ying Yip, and Melissa Low Yu Xing, “The
Influence of Green Building Certification Schemes on Real Estate Investor Behaviour:
Evidence from Singapore,” Urban Studies 50, no. 10 (August 1, 2013): 1970–87, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042098013477693.
89. Cho Seong-Hoon, Neelam C. Poudyal, and Roland K. Roberts, “Spatial Analysis of
the Amenity Value of Green Open Space,” Ecological Economics 66, nos. 2–3 (June 15,
2008): 403–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.012.
90. Cho Seong-Hoon et al., “Amenity Values of Spatial Configurations of Forest
Landscapes over Space and Time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands,” Ecological
Economics 68, no. 10 (August 15, 2009): 2646–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2009.04.017.
91. For example, deflated prices and modeled temporal effects.
92. Khew Yokohari and Tanaka, “Public Perceptions of Nature and Landscape Preference
in Singapore.”
93. Chih John Mun Sha et al., “Macaque-Human Interactions and the Societal Perceptions
of Macaques in Singapore,” American Journal of Primatology 71, no. 10 (October 2009):
825–39, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20710.
94. Chan et al., “Private Space, Shared Space and Private Housing Prices in Hong
Kong: An Exploratory Study”; Jim and Chen, “External Effects of Neighbourhood Parks
and Landscape Elements on High-Rise Residential Value.”
95. Kjell Nilsson et al. (eds.), Forests, Trees and Human Health (Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands, 2011), http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1.
96. Sha et al., “Macaque-Human Interactions and the Societal Perceptions of Macaques
in Singapore.”
97. Khew Yokohari, and Tanaka., “Public Perceptions of Nature and Landscape Preference
in Singapore.”
98. Sha et al., “Macaque-Human Interactions and the Societal Perceptions of Macaques in
Singapore”; Jun-Han Yeo and Harvey Neo, “Monkey Business: Human–Animal Conflicts
in Urban Singapore,” Social & Cultural Geography 11, no. 7 (November 2010): 681–99,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2010.508565.
99. Sue and Wong, “The Political Economy of Housing Prices.”
100. Andersson, “Hypothesis Testing in Hedonic Price Estimation – On the Selection of
Independent Variables.”
101. Yuen, “Romancing the High-Rise in Singapore.”
102. John Loomis, “2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming
Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 39, no. 1 (2014), http://econpapers.repec.org/article/agsjlaare/168258.htm.
103. Yuen, “Romancing the High-Rise in Singapore.”
104. Sue and Wong, “The Political Economy of Housing Prices”; Yuen, “Romancing the
High-Rise in Singapore.”
105. Jim and Chen, “External Effects of Neighbourhood Parks and Landscape Elements
on High-Rise Residential Value.”
106. Sue and Wong, “The Political Economy of Housing Prices.”
107. Henderson, “Urban Parks and Green Spaces in Singapore.”
108. Lye Lin Heng, “A Fine City in a Garden—Environmental Law and Governance in
Singapore,” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2008: 68–117.
109. “HDB InfoWEB: Welcome to Punggol : Punggol Eco-Town,” HDB InfoWEB,
accessed December 13, 2017, http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10333p.nsf/w/
EcoTownHome?OpenDocument.
115

DENSE GREEN
CASE STUDIES

Solaris
Architect: T. R. Hamzah & Yeang/ Site Area: 7,734 m²
CPG Consultants Gross Floor Area: 51,282 m²
Landscape Architect: Gross Plot Ratio: 6.6
Tropical Environment Green Plot Ratio: 9.2
Developer: Soilbuild Group
Building Type: Commercial Office
Climate Zone: Tropical Wet
Location: 1 Fusionopolis Walk, Singapore
138628
Coordinates: 1°17’54.3”N 103°47’24.0”E
Date: 2011
Solaris is part of the Fusionopolis development in the green open spaces of school and business campuses, elevated
Queenstown Planning Area. This area, more than 20 km2 in size, landscape spaces of office buildings, and the existing greenery
is the largest of the Central Region of the Urban Redevelopment within the low-density residential settlements – all situated within
Authority (URA) Singapore master plan.1 Solaris is located a 200 ha zone (10 min walk radius) surrounding Solaris. At the
adjacent to one-north Park and part of the one-north time of writing, the gross built coverage is 19%, while 61% of the
Business Park, which makes up the major commercial and office area consist of parks and semi-public landscape spaces.
zone of the area that is still developing. Planned by Zaha Hadid
Architects, one-north Business Park provides a cluster of research Landscape Space
facilities and offices combined with the campuses of several
educational institutions on a 200-ha piece of land. As a planning As required by typical commercial development efficiency,
subzone in the URA master plan, one-north features commercial Solaris covers much of its 0.8 ha plot. 95% of the building’s
and office development densities ranging from 2.5 to 10.0 greenery is situated above ground level, in the “ecological
Gross Plot Ratio.2 Characterized by a high density, the part of the armature” of the envelope with its spiraling ramp and in sky
plan implemented at the time of writing includes office towers and roof gardens at multiple levels.7 The ramp also works as an
such as Connexis, Solaris, MediaCorp Campus, Star Vista as the extension of the adjacent office spaces and connects the sky
anchor commercial node, and the Buona Vista and one-north gardens at five interim levels to the roof gardens.
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations.
The ramp as well as the sky and roof gardens create visual
The name one-north reflects the site’s geographical location connectivity and constitute a continuous green space.
1° north of the equator.3 Launched in 2001, one-north comprises With the ramp and sky gardens providing 0.5 ha of landscape
open spaces and development zones with a combination of space, and the roof gardens 0.6 ha, the building provides 6%
residences, recreational amenities, and educational institutions and, together with the adjacent park, 20% of the landscape
with research facilities, forming an urban “work-live-play-learn” space inside a 5 min walk radius.
environment with a focus on info-communications technology,
physical sciences, engineering and biomedical sciences, Green and Blue Systems
and related sectors.4 In 2016, one-north was home to more than
400 companies with a total of approx. 46,000 employees. Solaris was designed to work as part of larger urban green and
blue systems. Its various landscape spaces accommodate a
one-north Park, maintained by Singapore’s National Parks substantial amount of vegetation that augments the existing
Board (NParks), extends across the entire length of one-north ecosystem around the site. There is 122 ha of open space within
and provides a green link that connects Biopolis, Fusionopolis, a 10 min walk radius of the building and nearly two thirds of this
Mediapolis, and the one-north MRT station.5 Fusionopolis space is covered with existing forest and managed trees.8 Within
was developed and is operated by Soilbuild Group, a private a 5 min radius, 26% of the area is made up of open space and the
developer for business spaces and property group focusing on existing greenery constitutes nearly half of it.9 Within the same
the construction, development, and management of industrial 10 min and 5 min walk radius, Solaris provides 0.6% and 2%
estates. Soilbuild has collaborated closely with JTC Corporation respectively of the total vegetation coverage, as an important
to design, build, and lease or sell developments such as Solaris.6 contribution to views, shading, and recreation space.10
Urban Scale The ramp and roof gardens are integral parts of the building’s
stormwater management system. The planted areas of the roof
Density and Greenery gardens feature a drainage layering of planting soil, a geotextile
filter fabric layer, and drainage modules on top of a waterproofing
As a counterpart to the high building density, the one-north membrane.11 The drainage modules help regulate the runoff and
master plan includes one-north Park, a green amenity that also work as an additional particulate filtration layer. The runoff is
contributes to the continuous network of urban green spaces. discharged to drainage pipes at the roof level and the perimeter
The 2-km-long park connects to the preserved Kent Ridge Park in ramp, and stored in tanks at the basement level.12 Collected
the south of Singapore. Other landscape features in the area are runoff water is recycled and used for the irrigation of the
118

T. R. Hamzah & Yeang/CPG Consultants, Solaris, Singapore, 2011, aerial view from the southeast.
View from the northeast.
119
301 Solaris.indd 119 11/11/19 4:10 PM

Types of trees in the area Ground coverage in the area
Grey landscape 21%
Road 20%
Building footprint 19%
Forest 14%
Future development 18%
Managed trees 28% Green landscape 16%
Park 6%
0m 400
100 200
Site plan, urban green systems, types of trees, and ground coverage.
building’s landscaped areas.13 Other runoff water is discharged to link between an escalating sequence of roof gardens and sky
the underground city drainage running along the east side of the terraces that integrate with the building facade.
plot and linking to Alexandra Canal to the north, where the canal
extends as a street drainage and continues underground along Solaris’ distinguishing design feature is a 1.3-km-long spiraling
Singapore’s Commonwealth Avenue. ramp with greenery along its facade — a “linear park”
that physically connects the vegetation on the building with the
Architecture adjacent green areas on ground level. The ramp allows users to
walk up to the building’s roof gardens and features a series of
Solaris is a commercial office building with a total constructed plazas and sky gardens along the way.14
Gross Floor Area of approx. 51,300 m2.
All office levels receive ample natural light. A diagonal light shaft
Massing and Layout cuts through the upper levels and allows daylight to reach the
interior. Landscaped terraces along the shaft allow for access
The development comprises two office blocks that surround to greenery from adjacent office spaces. The building’s facade
a multilevel atrium with “vertical landscaping” as an ecological features sun-shading louvers that act as light shelves by virtue of
120

Exploded isometric, green space.
121

Aerial views of roof gardens and green ramp.
Green ramp.
122

their wide dimensions. In addition to the ramp and sky gardens, 1. “Punggol Planning Area in Singapore,” City Population, accessed January 4, 2018,
https://www.citypopulation.de/php/singapore-admin.php?adm1id=303.
the louvers support a desirable microclimate along the exterior. 2. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, “Development Control Parameters
for Residential Development,” accessed January 4, 2018, https://www.ura.gov.sg/
Corporate/Guidelines/Development-Control/Residential.
With its extensive use of greenery and landscape space, 3. “one-north: JTC - Creating Tomorrow’s Industry Spaces,” JTC Corporation, accessed
sustainability features, and the spiraling green ramp, Solaris January 4, 2018, https://www.jtc.gov.sg/industrial-land-and-space/pages/one-northone-
north.aspx.
intensifies the plot’s existing ecosystems, rather than just 4. Vina Jie-Min Prasad, “Jurong Town Corporation: Infopedia,” accessed January 6, 2018,
replacing them. However, at the time of writing, large parts of http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_553_2004-12-31.html.
5. “one-north Park: Biopolis,” National Parks Board Singapore, accessed January 5, 2018,
the ramp are entirely cordoned off due to security and privacy https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/
concerns associated with the different tenants of the building. one-north-park-biopolis one-north.
6. “Soilbuild Group Holdings Ltd,” Soilbuild Group Holdings, accessed July 7, 2018, http://
www.soilbuild.com/Corporate-Information.
Greenery and Community Provisions 7. Thomas Schröpfer, Dense + Green: Innovative Building Types for Sustainable Urban
Architecture (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016).
8. Daniel Richards and Bige Tunçer, “Using Image Recognition to Automate Assessment
The spiraling ramp expands into generous double-volume sky of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Social Media Photographs,” Ecosystem Services:
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004.
terraces. Connecting the basement and ground levels with the 9. Ibid.
roof gardens, it includes generous spaces for social interaction 10. Xiao Ping Song, Puay Yok Tan, Peter Edwards, and Daniel Richards, “The Economic
Benefits and Cost of Trees in Urban Forest Stewardship: A Systematic Review,” Urban
in combination with the office environments.15 The extensive Forestry & Urban Greening 29 (2018): 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017.
roof gardens (Levels 8, 10, and 16) provide approx. 3,000 m2 11. “Elmich Green Roof at Solaris Fusionopolis,” Elmich, accessed April 27, 2018, http://
elmich.com/asia/elmich-green-roof-at-Solaris-fusionopolis/.
of accessible greenery, allowing occupants to get up close to 12. Ibid.
nature and enjoy views of the adjacent one-north Park. The ramp, 13. Ibid.
14. Ken Yeang, “Emulating and Replicating Ecosystems Ability to Provide ‘Ecosystem
with its deep overhangs and high concentration of shrubs and Services’ by the Built Environment,” in Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research,
small trees, provides shading for the facade and allows for direct Policy and Practice Perspectives, eds. Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha Menz (Singapore:
Springer, 2018), 89-96.
visual connections of the interior with the surrounding greenery. 15. Ken Yeang, “Emulating and Replicating Ecosystems Ability to Provide ‘Ecosystem
Services’ by the Built Environment,” in Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research,
Policy and Practice Perspectives, eds. Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha Menz (Singapore:
A quantitative analysis of the greenery and common space Springer, 2018), 89-96.
provisions demonstrates the design intent to integrate large 16. The greenery and common spaces of Solaris have been measured based on
industry-recognized norms for the quantification of greenery in Singapore, such as the
amounts of vegetation into the development.16 These are Green Plot Ratio (GnPR = total leaf area/site area) and overall landscaped area. For the
primarily located on the roof and the spiraling ramp. 95% of common areas, the aggregated figures may or may not include greenery. The GnPR,
total landscaped area, and total common area figures have been measured against the
the greenery is located above the ground level. The GnPR of Gross Floor Area and occupancy. Each provision is further segregated to understand the
more than 9.2 means that the greenery within the development proportions of accessible and inaccessible green.
17. “Soilbuild Group Holdings Ltd,” Soilbuild Group Holdings.
replaces the site area by this factor. The total landscaped area
of Solaris constitutes 140% of the site area. The project also
achieves an optimal Leaf Area Index through extensive planting
of layers of shrubs and small trees. These not only provide an
important green volume but also create a visual perception of
dense greenery, specifically along the spiraling ramp.
0.9 m2 of common areas are provided per person, which is

exceeded by the provisions for greenery at 1.1 m2/person.
The generous amount of greenery and common spaces is
distributed vertically rather than horizontally as a result of the
location, zone constraints, and the size of the building plot.
The highest share of landscaped and common areas is located
above ground level, a design strategy that vertically continues
the adjacent one-north Park. The designers’ ambition was to
provide opportunities for inhabitants to meet and interact by
creating spaces connected to the larger urban green network.
Even though at the time of writing only approx. 40% of the
landscaped areas in the project are accessible, Solaris still
provides ample visual connections to greenery.
The project has received many important awards

and recognitions, including the Singapore Institute of
Architects and Singapore National Parks (SIA-NParks)
First Prize in Skyrise Greenery Awards, the Royal Institute of
British Architects (RIBA) International Award, and The Chicago
Athenaeum International Architecture Award.17
Through the generous provision of greenery, common areas,

and a strong contextual response, Solaris establishes an
innovative model for office buildings in Singapore and beyond
that deviates from the staid one of the corporate glass tower.
123

One Central Park
Architect: Ateliers Jean Nouvel/ Ground Foot Print: 7,550 m²
PTW Architects Gross Floor Area: 67,626 m²
Landscape: Patrick Blanc/Aspect Oculus Gross Plot Ratio: 8.9
Developer: Frasers Property Australia/ Total Greenery Area: 3.2
Sekisui House Australia Number of Units: 623 residential units
Building Type: Mixed-Use and approx. 16,000 m2 of commercial
Climate Zone: Humid Subtropical space
Location: 26-30 Broadway, Sydney NSW
2008, Australia
Coordinates: 33°53’04.1”S 151°12’02.3”E
Date: 2014
Chippendale is a central district of Sydney, Australia,

Ground coverage in the area
situated between the University of Sydney campus and the
Sydney Central Railway Station. The district is characterized
by a mix of small office, retail, and residential programs. It also
features industrial complexes, some of which have been
adapted to new uses through urban renewal. Central Park,
Future
development 27% the redevelopment of the former Carlton United Breweries
site, is one of these. Originally based on a master plan by
Tzannes Associates and Cox Richardson, the development
Residential
landscape 20% was later modified by Foster + Partners and features approx.
255,000 m2 of residential, commercial, and retail space on a
Building 5.8-ha site.1
footprint 16%
Road 12% Central Park introduces a new high-rise mixed-use model to the
Park 12% existing urban fabric of Chippendale and is characterized by its
high density, a contrast to the surrounding industrial buildings
River 9%
Urban landscape 4%
and townhouses. The redevelopment includes internationally
acclaimed buildings such as The Mark, Park Lane, Connor,
and One Central Park.2
The developers of One Central Park are Frasers Property Australia,

0m
100 200
400 part of an international real estate company that operates in Europe,
China, Southeast Asia, and Australia, and Sekisui House Australia,
Ateliers Jean Nouvel/PTW Architects, One Central Park, Sydney, Australia, 2014, site plan,
ground coverage. part of one of Japan’s largest homebuilding companies that also
Opposite page: view from the north. operates internationally in China, Russia, and the United States.3
Following pages: aerial view from the southwest.
The lively district is located within walking distance of Sydney’s

central railway station, a bus interchange, and light rail as well as
to a number of educational institutions including the University of
Sydney, and is frequented by more than 200 million people per
year. With 120,000 students living there, it is also one of the most
densely populated student hubs in Australia.4
The implementation of the Central Park master plan is

characterized by an innovative integration of architecture and
landscape architecture that reflects Sydney’s ambition to become
a “greener” city in the future. Examples of this integration include
the planted terraces and facades of One Central Park that extend
the green spaces on ground level vertically to the buildings and
the placement and orientation of through-blocks that connect the
green public spaces and circulation space seamlessly. 5, 6
124

302 One Central Park.indd 125 11/8/19 10:14 AM
126

127

Urban Scale
Density and Greenery
The master plan for Central Park includes Chippendale Green,

a 0.64-ha public park that contributes significantly to the
total amount of green space in the district.7 In addition to
Chippendale Green, the various open green spaces of
educational institutions and office buildings, sports facilities,
and the landscaped yards of townhouses and residential streets
make up the greenery. However, these spaces are often not
connected and therefore do not provide a continuous green
network. The two other large public green spaces in the area,
Victoria and Prince Alfred Park, are separated from Chippendale
by a railway corridor and a number of busy roads.8
An urban density analysis of a 200 ha (10 min walk radius)

zone surrounding One Central Park shows these elements.
At the time of writing, the gross built coverage of the area is 40%
and is primarily comprised of new mixed-use and institutional
buildings and townhouses, leaving a total of 42% for parks,
plazas, public and semi-public residential landscape spaces,
and the greenery of the railway corridor. The built-to-open space
ratio largely reflects the fine grain of the older parts of
Central Sydney with a large footprint coverage and a lack of open
space in between buildings.
The landscape provision on the elevated levels of the new

developments is a significant addition to the limited amount of
ground-level open space, an amount that is unlikely to change
in the future. The total amount of elevated landscape space
primarily brought about by the new developments is about 2.5%
of the total open space within the 200 ha zone.
Landscape Space
One Central Park includes greenery on multiple levels as well as

on the facades. Green components include slab-edge planter
boxes, green walls, a roof garden on the retail component as
well as on one of the towers, and a sky garden on the other.
When combined, they visually define the building as a vertical
continuation of the planted ground-level spaces of the adjacent
Chippendale Green.
The area within the 800 m radius of One Central Park features four
public green spaces. These are largely composed of turfed areas
with trees around their perimeter. The landscape space provision
of One Central Park is 33% of the total area of Chippendale Green
within a 5 min walk radius zone, which is equivalent to 20%
of the total elevated landscape space coverage within this radius.
In total, the building provides 9% of the coverage of both ground
level and elevated landscape space within this radius.
Architecture
With a building footprint of about 6,060 m2 and on a total

constructed Gross Floor Area of about 67,626 m2, One Central
Park houses 623 residential units and approx. 16,000 m2 of
commercial space.
View from the northeast.
128

129

Massing
One Central Park comprises a 12-story serviced apartment building

and a 34-story residential tower, placed on top of a podium
with commercial programs. A large heliostat in between the
towers redirects daylight to areas on the lower levels that would
otherwise be shaded for most of the day. The project features
multiple shared outdoor spaces with seating areas that allow
users to connect with greenery and to enjoy views of the city.
Layout
One Central Park’s towers feature compact vertical cores that

provide circulation to all residential units. Each level consists of
a combination of 14 to 20 units of varying size and configuration
with direct access to greenery. All units feature at least one large
planter box with greenery that contributes to the building’s green
facade and its integrated hydroponic system.
Greenery and Community Provision
The vertical greenery of One Central Park comprises green

walls as well as low-lying shrubs grown in horizontal planters,
with climbers growing around steel wire. The vertical greenery
planted along the edges of the two towers maximizes the foliage
cover to provide shade for the facades.
The quantitative analysis of the development highlights the design

intent to integrate greenery into the building primarily above ground
level.9 The total landscaped area constitutes 78% of the site area.
The provision for common areas is approx. 4.6 m2 and for greenery
approx. 10 m2 per unit. These numbers are indicative of the
ambition to provide a high amount of accessible greenery in order to
create a new model for residential and commercial developments
in Chippendale. The project received numerous international
awards and recognition for its generous provision of green space,
its contextual response, and the quality of its common spaces.
Biodiversity
Animals
Overall, the quantity of birds observed was low compared to the

relatively large area surveyed. Only two bird species appeared
at One Central Park during the time of observation, compared
to none at the nearby University of Sydney. The large majority
of birds in the surrounding areas nearby the building were all
urban synanthropic species, known to feed off of human rubbish,
and to be highly adapted to a (non-green) urban environment.
These species include the introduced Spotted Dove,
Common Myna, Common Pigeon, and Silver Gull. Synanthropic
native bird species seen nearby were the Australian White
Ibis and the Fairy Martin, nesting in a nearby building. The only
non-synanthropic species seen nearby not found at One Central
Park was the Noisy Miner, located nesting in trees within the park
opposite the building.
Surface Temperature
In exposed conditions, the green walls and the greenery in

horizontal planters were expected to be 2.6 °C and 1.1 °C cooler,
respectively, than artificial facade materials. This difference was
relatively small because the artificial components of the facades
130

Surface temperature (°C)
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Other
Ground floor playground
Exploded isometric, surface temperature.
131

For example, sports groups exercised for over one hour on the
turfed areas whereas people that rested and chatted typically
spent approx. 20 min on site.
Age Groups
Adults between the ages of 20 and 39 represented approx.

78% of space users, followed by adults between the ages of 40
and 59 with approx. 15%. Only 7% of the users were not part
of these two groups. Very few young children below 10 years of
age used the space to play with their parents in the early morning
and late afternoon. Adolescents through those aged 19 also did
not use the space in large numbers. They occupied the turfed
areas to meet and chat. Adults between the ages of 20 and 39
and 40 and 59, the majority of space users, engaged in a wide
range of activities, including resting, chatting, having meals,
and exercising. Older people of 60 years and above seldom
appeared. They engaged in largely the same activities as those
between the ages 20 and 59.
User Perception
The perception analysis of One Central Park included interviews

with users of different backgrounds, ages, and gender about their
preferences for using the spaces. By analyzing the frequency of
words in the conversations, it becomes clear that the focus of
users was the quality of the space, as they describe it as “nice,”
“lovely,” “enjoyable” and “beautiful.” One group perceived a
successful continuation of the greenery on the ground level
on the building and expressed that it contributes significantly
to integrating nature and city, whereas the other group had a
Green space, view from the south.
preference for more traditional buildings. Both groups believed
are largely reflective. Shading, by contrast, has a negligible effect the maintenance cost of the building to be very high.
on reducing the mean surface temperatures of the artificial and
green components of the facades. Eight in 10 interviewees stated that they visit the green
space every day and two about twice per week. Only two
Space Use mentioned the sky gardens of One Central Park, but none of
the interviewees had visited them. All interviewees appreciated
As some of the common spaces in One Central Park are for the greenery, the shade provided by trees, and the provision of
residents only, the space use analysis recorded 390 activities furniture and facilities on and adjacent to the site that allow for
with a focus on spaces that are publicly accessible and located on connecting to nature in the city.
the ground level.
1. “Foster + Partners’ Broadway Corner, Now on Exhibition,” Central Park Sydney,
accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.centralparksydney.com/what-s-on/
More than 70% of the recorded space uses were resting and news-events/2013-march-foster-partners-broadway-corner,-now.
chatting with friends, followed by 13% of dog walking and 6% 2. “Central Park,” Frasers Property, accessed February 18, 2018, https://www.
frasersproperty.com/what-we-do/our-portfolio/aus_central-park-nsw.
of having meals over work breaks. People sat on the furniture and 3. “Explore Our Diverse, Multi-National Property Company,” Frasers Property, accessed
the turfed areas of the green spaces, choosing the former more February 18, 2018, https://www.frasersproperty.com/who-we-are/overview.
4. “Central Park, Retail NSW,” Frasers Property, accessed February 18, 2018, https://
frequently and occupying it approx. 5 min longer on average than www.frasersproperty.com.au/retail/nsw/central-park/register.
the latter. Space use depended largely on its exposure to sunlight 5. “Designing Central Park, Chippendale,” Tzannes, accessed September 3, 2018, http://
tzannes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AB-Tzannes-Sept-2016.pdf.
and adjacent programs. A number of shaded benches next to a 6. “One Central Park,” Ateliers Jean Nouvel, accessed February 10, 2018, http://www.
café were always occupied, whereas unshaded benches were jeannouvel.com/projets/one-central-park/.
7. “Greening Sydney Plan,” City of Sydney, accessed June 15, 2018, http://www.
rarely used. cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/135882/GreeningSydneyPlan.pdf
8. “Draft Open Space, Sports and Recreation Needs Study 2016,” City of Sydney, accessed
June 15, 2018, https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Data/Environment%20
Time of Use Committee/201605091401/Agenda/160509_EC_ITEM04_ATTACHMENTC1.pdf.
9. The provisions allocated to greenery and common spaces can be demonstrated through
quantitative spatial analysis and computation. Common space provision calculations
The time of space use generally corresponded to the availability of are based on the aggregate common spaces provided, which may or may not include
shade on site. Most activities took place from 9 AM to 1 PM and greenery. The total green and common space area figures are then measured against the
Gross Floor Area and occupancy. Each provision is further segregated to understand the
5 PM to 7 PM. Only a few activities were observed in the time in proportions of public green, private green, and inaccessible green so as to evaluate the
between, when the green spaces were most exposed to sunlight. design intent.
During lunch breaks, users stayed on site for an average of

approx. 38 min compared to approx.15 min during the rest of
the day. The length of the stay varied according to activities.
132

Visits per day
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Exploded isometric, space use.
133

Punggol Waterway
Architect: group8asia/AEDAS Site Area: 44,802 m2
Landscape Architect: ICN Design Gross Floor Area: 146,000 m2
International Gross Plot Ratio: 3.3
Terraces I
Developer: Housing & Development Green Plot Ratio: 4.3
Board Singapore Number of Units: 1,072
Building Type: Public Residential
Location: 308A-C Punggol Walk,
Singapore 822308
Coordinates: 1°24’28.4” N 103°54’00.3” E
Date: 2015
The Punggol Planning Area is more than 9 km² in size. It has detailed strategies and initiatives for enhanced greenery and
been developed as a new residential town that houses approx. biodiversity and has provided a common denominator for all
150,000 residents at the time of writing.1 The area is part of the developments along the waterway.
northeast region in the master plan by the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA) Singapore. With development densities In Punggol Town, the Eco-Town framework has led to the
predominantly at 3.0 Gross Plot Ratio and above, it manifests the development of relatively unconventional plots. The typical
high-density model employed for a new generation of residential checkerboard pattern was reduced to about 1,300-2,000 units.4
developments in the land-scarce city-state.2 In addition to town parks, neighborhood parks, and common
greens, the developments in Punggol Town have four additional
Punggol Town Centre is one of the area’s seven subzones layers of greenery: green connectors, precinct landscapes,
and comprises Waterway Point, a major neighborhood rooftop gardens, and sky-rise greenery. Accessible greenery is
amenity. It functions as an anchoring commercial node, part of spaces grouped with facilities, traditional green areas,
site of the Punggol Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Station, which and institutions. Greenery is incorporated on the decks of
handles the North East Line and serves a large portion of the building podiums and also connects hierarchically to larger urban
Punggol Waterway Park. networks of green.
In 2008, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) of Singapore A key component of Punggol Town is its connection to
organized a master planning competition to solicit ideas for blue networks. Punggol Waterway joins Serangoon River
a public residential building for an approx. 45,000-m2 site in and Punggol Reservoir, balancing their respective water
Punggol Town Centre. Located adjacent to Punggol Waterway levels. The connection of the two by a waterway avoids the
Park, the site is bounded by Punggol Way and Punggol Walk, conventional underground piping system and thus provides a
which also serve as access roads, as well as adjacent plots fundamental aspect of the Eco-Town vision. All plots adjacent
of a future school and an existing church. Punggol Waterway to the waterway are to incorporate the Eco-Town principles
Terraces I, designed by group8asia, was awarded first prize in while also forming a visual, physical, and social relationship
the competition, the second international competition for public with it. The blue element has a number of functions, including
housing in the history of Singapore. Subsequently, group8asia that of a freshwater reservoir, a leisure facility, and a drainage
became the first foreign architecture practice to design public provision. The Eco-Town framework also seeks to establish a
housing in the city-state. The international competition was part cohesive relationship between the buildings and the edges of
of a wider array of local and international competitions aimed at the waterway.
drawing attention to a new generation of affordable residential
developments in Singapore. Urban Scale
Punggol was designed as the first project within the framework Density and Greenery
of Sustainable Eco-Town developed by HDB. As HDB houses
more than 82% of Singapore’s population, the greening of its Despite its high density, the URA master plan provides
residential developments stands to enhance the greenery and substantial amounts of open green space in Punggol.
sustainability of the city-state as a whole.3 HDB has set up Punggol Waterway’s 4.2-km-long linear park extends between
multiple models, including the rubric Sustainable Development the Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs and is part of the
as well as the typologies of Eco-Town and Biophilic Town, North Eastern Riverine Park Connector Loop as well as a network
to frame national goals and to align themselves with the of smaller parks and open spaces that are distributed across
Sustainable Singapore Blueprint. almost every development plot in the planning area. There is
a 40% maximum site coverage for residential developments,
Eco-Towns are usually based on a checkerboard pattern layout, which exempts landscape decks on ground and elevated levels
juxtaposing areas with high and low density and creating a town in compliance with the guidelines for building envelopes and the
center surrounded by neighborhoods with approx. 4,000 – 6,000 provision of landscape.
units each. The Eco-Town framework comprises 10 goals for
environmental, social, and economic sustainability. It includes
134

303 Punggol.indd 135 11/8/19 10:15 AM
group8asia/AEDAS, Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Singapore, 2015, site plan, urban green and blue systems.
Previous page: green and blue spaces, aerial view from the west.
Types of trees in the area Ground coverage in the area
Future development 27%
Residential landscape 20%
Road 12%
Forest 5% Park 12%
Managed trees 16% River 9%

Urban landscape 4%
0m 400
100 200
Site plan, ground coverage.
An urban density analysis of a 200 ha zone (10 min walk radius) Landscape Space
surrounding Punggol Waterway Terraces I clearly exhibits these
elements. At the time of writing, the gross built coverage is The high density of the interlinked blocks of Punggol Waterway
15%, primarily comprised of high-density HDB developments Terraces I, rising on top of a basement car park, allows for 70%
with a maximum 40% site coverage each and a total of 61% of the 4.5 ha site to serve as ground-level landscape space,
of the area as open space for parks, plazas, as well as public including courtyards and a portion of the Waterway Park. This is
and semi-public residential landscape spaces. As vacant plots equivalent to 11% of the total ground-level landscape space
for future developments make up a considerable portion of within a 5 min walk radius in the district.
the area, this suggests an emerging urban scenario with much
less open space once the area is fully built up to its planned The provisions at ground level are complemented by roof gardens
density. Therefore, landscape space provisions by the individual located at the terraced tops of the development. The roof
developments become all the more important. So far, approx. gardens provide 13% of the total elevated landscape space
8.3% of the total open space within the 200 ha zone is added as within a 5 min walk radius. They create visual connectivity from
landscape space at elevated levels, predominantly via car park the Waterway park to the residential courtyards and constitute
podium decks.
136

a continuous and multilevel sequence of green public spaces
within walking distance.
Green and Blue Systems
Punggol Waterway Terraces I was designed to work as part

of larger urban green systems. The ground level landscape
spaces accommodate a substantial amount of vegetation that
augments the existing ecosystem. More than 1⁄3 of the 122 ha of
open space within a 10 min walk is covered with existing forest
and managed trees. This coverage is nearly 1⁄3 of the 31 ha of
total open space within a 5 min walk radius. The development
provides 3% and 12% of the total vegetation coverage within
10 min and 5 min radii, respectively. This is relevant for benefits
including views, shading, and recreational potential, as well as
View from the north.
environmental regulation.
The ground level landscape is designed as an integrated

stormwater management system to regulate the runoff rate
and cleanse the runoff water before it is channeled back to the
Punggol Waterway. The major element performing this function
is a retaining wall with a bioretention basin, enabled by the
difference in level created to provide space for basement parking.
Up to 35% of the site runoff is retained in this basin, treated by
a layer of cleansing plants and soil media and finally discharged
back to the waterway through drainage pipes. The landscape
configuration concentrates vegetated and permeable grounds
at the lower grades of the site, adjacent to the waterway,
and helps maintain the flow and quality of surface runoff. In the
roof gardens, trays with planting media and filter substrate are
implemented to absorb surface runoff to minimize the discharge
Circulation space.
at ground level.5
Architecture
On a total constructed Gross Floor Area of approx. 146,000 m2,

Punggol Waterway Terraces I houses 1,072 residential units.6
Massing
group8asia designed the massing for Punggol Waterway

Terraces I in a hexagonal arrangement with “arms” to form
courtyards that are open to the waterway and volumes that
gradually step down towards the park. Inspired by the design of
traditional terraced rice fields found across Asia, form and space
make use of the topology, which steps down to the river and
provides car parks in underground areas.7 The “arms” are located
around these hexagonal green pockets. This massing approach
supports the provision of visual connections to greenery and to
the Waterway for almost all residents as each “arm” is facing
open space.
Layout
Each access core is connected to one of three corridors angled

at 120° from the vertical cores. Residents of the lower floors can
view the greenery in the courtyards, the riverfront, and various
gardens. Optimized circulation areas provide ease of access to all
landscaped areas at ground and basement levels.
Continuous corridors run the length of all floors. Distinct from

single-loaded corridors, a well-established solution for public
housing in Singapore, the project employs double-loaded
Ventilation space.
137

Aerial view.
Courtyard.
138

corridors. To avoid blocking natural airflow to the housing
units, the corridors are designed in a way that facilitates
cross-ventilation. The interminable appearance of the corridors
is unique in comparison to typical public housing layouts.
The continuous horizontality of the blocks provide additional
opportunities for community interaction on the upper levels of
the development.
North elevation
Each dwelling unit is designed within repetitive, modular
proportions. This modularity provides a range of modification
choices and flexibility for the units. Modular voids allow for
the ventilation of every apartment. The facade, designed
for the tropical climate, includes sun shading and allows for
cross-ventilation, which in turn provides passive climate control. East elevation
The undulating balconies maximize shielding from rain and
heat and add to the horizontal reading of the overall building.
The porosity of the elevation creates a distinct relationship of
solid to void, blurring the boundaries between the two.
Greenery and Community Provisions South elevation
The landscape greenery components of Punggol Waterway

Terraces I comprise the ground and sky gardens, roof gardens,
green roofs with access limited to maintenance personnel,
and planters on the facade (edge planters with low shrubs and
training plants for visual impact). The total landscaped area West elevation
(hardscape and softscape) amounts to 62% of the site area,
achieving a Landscape Replacement Area (LRA) of 0.62.8 The
Ground garden
green area (softscape) amounts to 76% of the landscaped area.
Podium (eco-deck)
85% of the green area is located in the ground gardens, with the Roof garden
remaining 15% distributed on elevated levels: 12% on the green
Vertical distribution of green space.
roofs, 2.5% in the planters on the facade and just under 1% in the
roof gardens.
A quantitative analysis of the greenery and community provisions

of the development demonstrates the design intent to integrate
greenery into the areas adjacent to the waterway primarily
located at the basement and ground levels.9 The greenery at
the basement level, the actual ground level, reaches the highest
figures. With a GnPR of over 4.5, the greenery within the
development replaces the site area by that factor. In contrast,
the landscaped area constitutes only 50% of the site area, which
is compensated for by the intensive planting of trees, palms,
and shrubs, as indicated by the Leaf Area Index. This measure
not only allows for an important green volume but also creates a
visual perception of dense greenery.
Community areas of 6.28 m2/person are provided, which

exceeds the provisions for greenery at 5.28 m2/person. This is
indicative of the project’s ambition to provide a high amount
of accessible greenery in order to generate more community
spaces than required by HDB’s Eco-Town framework.
The corridors and pathways in the development lead either to

areas with greenery or to community spaces. The generous
Circulation.
greenery and community spaces are distributed horizontally
rather than vertically as a result of the location, zone constraints,
and the size of the plots. The highest share of landscaped and
community areas is located at the basement and ground levels,
a design strategy that allows for the provision of immediate
connections to the adjacent Waterway Park through walking
tracks and landscaped corridors.
139

Native plant species (29.7%) Community space per person Green area per person
6.74 m2 / person total 5.28 m2 / person total
1% 0.5%
9.1%
0.08 (1.52%)
1.54 (22.85%)
19.1%
52.3%
3.2%
6.0%
8.8%
Introduced plant species (70.3%) 5.2 (77.15%)
2.72 (72%)
Normal plants Butterfly attracting plants Hardscape area / person Inaccessible green / person
Bird attracting plants Bird and butterfly attracting plants Public landscape area / person Public green / person
Through three elements — greenery, community spaces, species and two tree species. Of these, two species attract birds
and strong contextual response — Punggol Waterway and three attract both birds and butterflies. The bird-attracting
Terraces I provides a dialogue between the architecture and Ficus deltoidea (Mistletoe Fig) is the most frequent species in the
its surroundings, restoring a social image and experience of a roof gardens.
new generation of high-density public residential developments
in Singapore. The first level of the development provides the least plant
richness and abundance. The majority of plants at the
Punggol Waterway Terraces I has received numerous first level are found surrounding the hexagonal basement
international awards and recognitions, with special “Jungle Courtyards” in discrete planters, covering a total
commendations on its provisions of generous green space, of approx. 0.16 ha of landscaped area. They appear in two
its contextual approach, and community spaces. layers: groundcover, or shrubs and trees. The plants often
have biodiversity-attracting features; for example, the Cordia
Biodiversity sebestena (Geiger Tree) produces red flowers that attract
both birds and butterflies, and the Spaghneticola trilobata
Plants (Singapore Daisy) produces yellow flowers that attract both
moths and butterflies.
A vegetation survey of the landscaped areas in the development
found 79 distinct floral species, covering a land area of 2.12 Most of the greenery on the ground level is found along the
ha. Out of these, 34 are tree species, the others woody and Waterway Park. Non-native Axonopus compressus (Cow Grass)
herbaceous shrubs or groundcover. 25 species, or 30%, covers large areas (0.125 ha) along the park and is found near the
are native to Singapore. Five native species covering approx. playgrounds and fitness areas. In areas not covered by turf grass,
0.2 ha are known to attract birds; among them are Ardisia the vegetation structure is composed of either two or three layers
elliptica (Shoebutton Ardisia), a small tree that regularly produces of groundcover, shrubs, and/or trees. The ground gardens along
clusters of berries, and Elaeocarpus mastersii (Small-leafed the Waterway Park also have a high abundance of trees, such as
Oil Fruit), a medium-sized tree that produces fruits rich in oils. Delonix regia (Red Flame) and Lagerstroemia speciosa (Rose of
In less than 1% of the area covered by native plant foliage, India). Although these trees do not have biodiversity-attracting
Tristellateia australasiae (Maiden’s Jealousy) attracts both birds properties, they regularly produce pleasing floral blooms and
and butterflies, for example by the frequent flowers of the vine. offer large crowns that provide shade.
Many butterflies have direct associations with specific plant
species and many birds feed on plant nectar or fruits. The Jungle Courtyards were designed to mimic natural forests
and have the highest diversity of floral species, with 62 unique
54 species of non-native plants are abundant on 1.45 ha of plant species. They cover approx. 0.55 ha of landscaped area
foliage area. Five species, on approx. 0.2 ha, attract birds, but have almost double the amount of foliage area (approx.
four, on approx. 0.1 ha, attract butterflies, and six, on approx. 0.97 ha). The vegetation in these courtyards is the most
0.1 ha, attract both. Among those that attract both are Saribus structurally complex, with multiple layers of groundcover,
rotundifolius (Fan Palm), a cultivated palm species whose fruits shrubs, and trees of different heights. The shrub layer consists
are eaten by a large number of birds, Russelia equisetiformis of herbaceous tropical plants that grow at different heights,
(Firecracker Plant), a herbaceous shrub that produces nectar and such as the low-growing Piper sarmentosum (Wild Pepper),
attracts sunbirds and butterflies, and Elaeocarpus grandiflorus Monstera deliciosa (Swiss Cheese Plant), and Pandanus tectorius
(Fairy Petticoat), a medium-sized tree that produces bright fruits (Pandanus Palm), a large plant that can grow up to 5 m in height.
eaten by birds. In addition to these small and medium-sized trees, there is also a
great abundance of trees with large crowns, such as the Saribus
The roof gardens comprise 0.12 ha of foliage area, spread over rotundifolius (Fan Palm), Corypha umbraculifera (Talipot Palm),
six gardens at varying heights. The vegetation here is arranged and Peltophorum pterocarpum (Yellow Flame). All of these trees
in discrete planter boxes and made up of a maximum of two produce large shady areas and simulate the lush and shady
layers, consisting of shrubs and trees. Only few plant species environment of a tropical jungle.
exist here, including six distinct underlying and groundcover
140

141

Potential forest bird species connectivity
Low potential
1. Javanese Mynah 2. Common Mynah 6. Spotted Dove
8. Zebra Dove 9. Yellow-vented Bulbul 11. Olive-backed Sunbird

High potential
Potential forest bird species resistance
Low resistance
13. Black-naped Oriole 20. Common Tailorbird 21. Pied Triller
23. White-breasted Waterhen 25. Long-tailed Shrike 26. Sunda Pygmy Woodpecker
High resistance
0m 400
100 200
27. Sooty-headed Bulbul 30. Scaly-breasted Munia
Animals
Birds, butterflies around butterfly-attracting plants such

as Sphagneticola trilobata (Singapore Daisy), small lizards,
and invertebrates inhabit the rooftop gardens and the ground
level. The abundance and richness of bird species on patches
around Punggol Waterway Terraces I is relatively high and
contains much conservation importance, as the species are
native and not common.
The mean abundance of native bird species is significantly higher

on roofs with (2.2) than on roofs without gardens (0.33). Native
bird species are more abundant in ground gardens than on nearby
vacant plots covered with turf and trees along the border (a ratio
of 1.43 to 0.75), while the contrary is true for introduced bird
species (a ratio of 0.56 to 1). A less common urban species is
found in the ground gardens: Lanius schach (Long-Tailed Shrike), Bird species type (shape) Information
a bird of prey that feeds on small animals such as snakes, Native species Common names of species
insects, and other birds. Birds are seen in abundance throughout Introduced species found in case studies are shown.
Numbers correspond with the
the basement courtyards outside of the formal surveys, biodiversity diagram on the left.
interacting with trees that produce fruits frequently, such as the
Ardisia elliptica (Shoebutton Ardisia) and Muntingia calabura
(Japanese Cherry).
142

Plant Attraction Type (color) Bird species type (shape) Number of birds sighted (shade) Other
Butterfly-attracting plants Native species 1 Observation area

Bird-attracting plants Introduced species 2
Bird- and butterfly-attracting plants 3
4
5
Exploded isometric, biodiversity.
143

Given that the ground gardens feature a lower concentration of
biodiversity and plants attracting butterflies, one might expect
that they contain relatively fewer native birds than roof gardens.
On the contrary, ground gardens have a higher abundance of
native birds than nearby vacant plots. This is again likely due to
plant provision — the ground gardens feature many large trees
and shrubs, while vacant plots largely consist of heavily managed
turf, which support introduced species like Acridotheres
javanicus (Javan Myna) and Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree
Sparrow). Also, unexpectedly, more birds are spotted per
survey patch on the roof gardens than in the ground gardens.
This may be due to the density of plants that attract birds in the
roof gardens. A number of fruit-eating birds (frugivores) appear
in abundance around fruit-bearing plants, including the Ficus
deltoidea (Mistletoe Fig), and nectar-eating birds (nectarivores)
around nectar-providing plants, namely Russelia equisetiformis
(Firecracker Plant).
Surface Temperature
The green elements have the lowest mean surface temperature

on-site both within shade (shrubs, trees, and turf: 32 °C)
and outside of shade (shrubs and trees: 34 °C, turf: 32 °C).
Compared to masonry materials, plastic, and rubber, the surface
temperatures of the vegetation are less variable and there is a
smaller temperature difference between shaded and unshaded
parts as vegetation seems to have the ability to self-regulate
temperature. Among the artificial elements, rubber has the
poorest thermal performance, with the hottest mean surface
temperatures in both shaded (39 °C) and unshaded (44 °C)
conditions. Masonry materials and plastic have similar thermal
performances: masonry materials shaded 36 °C, unshaded
41 °C, plastic shaded 37 °C, unshaded 40 °C.
The surface temperatures in the roof gardens are generally

higher than in other places across the site. This may be due to
the synergy between lack of shade and dominance of plastic and
rubber surfaces in the roof gardens. The small trees and shrubs
there lack canopies large enough to form substantial overhead
shelters. Likewise, the climbing plants trained on the pergolas
are sparse, allowing for a high solar penetration to the surfaces
beneath. Moreover, the most common artificial materials in those
spaces—plastic and rubber—are dark-colored or matte-textured
so as to absorb most of the solar radiation. In the roof gardens,
plastics reach surface temperatures of up to 9 °C higher than
those of adjacent vegetation, while for rubber, the temperature
difference reaches 13 °C. On sunny days, both materials in the
roof gardens will probably reach the higher end of this spectrum,
close to 50 °C.
At the ground level, three main sections were analyzed:

pathways along the waterway, the play areas, and the hardscape
surrounding the Jungle Courtyards. Across these three sections,
surfaces are typically covered in concrete, plastic, or rubber.
Along the east side of the pathways and around the play areas,
small to medium-sized trees provide some shade for users, albeit
not enough to cover the spaces in their entirety. On sunny days,
surface temperatures reach approx. 40 °C for concrete, and 45 °C
for plastic and rubber. Shading can potentially reduce the
temperatures of these surfaces to approx. 35 °C. As the rubber
surfaces have low thermal emissivity and release heat slowly,
they are expected to get hot and remain so for extended periods.
144

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Other
145

The hardscape surrounding the Jungle Courtyards is made
almost entirely of concrete, with the flooring in two shades
of grey and the framing walls in white, along with a few metal
coverings for drainage purposes. Climbers grow on many of
the surrounding concrete walls, acting as a cladding of green
that is approx. 5 °C cooler than the exposed concrete wall next
to it. The inner circumference of this hardscape comprises the
same kind of plastic decking found in the roof gardens (brown
with a wooden texture), with shrubs and small trees planted on
an elevated plastic platform in two green rings. On sunny days,
the vegetation can be approx. 20 °C cooler than the dark grey
concrete flooring encircling the plastic platform, and 24 °C cooler
than the surrounding plastic decking.
As the vegetation is generally low in height, the shade it

Public space.
provides is limited to the edges of the plastic platform. However,
tall buildings standing at all but one side of the hardscape
surrounding the Jungle Courtyards shade large parts of these
spaces at different times of the day. Similar to the pathways in
the vicinity, the concrete surfaces of the outer ring space heat up
to 40 °C if not shaded and to around 35 °C when shaded.
Notwithstanding environmental variations, such as relative humidity

and wind, vegetation and shade can ameliorate micro-scale
urban heat island effects through surface temperature reduction.
The temperature of vegetation is predicted to be 5 to 24 °C lower
than artificial materials in the sun, depending on the material. Shade
only has a small effect on the surface temperature of plants, which
remain cool when exposed to the sun, while the temperature of
artificial materials is reduced by 5 °C when partially shaded.
The conversion of hard surfaces to shaded greenery might be

the most effective strategy to reduce surface temperatures.
However, such conversions could require changing the function
of the spaces, for example from an open play-scape to a
sheltered grove-like observation deck or an inaccessible, dense
naturalistic green patch.
Space Use
Residents and visitors of Punggol Waterway Terraces I frequented

green and public spaces more than 800 times over an
observation period of six days. Playgrounds and fitness areas at
the ground level were used more often than other areas in the
development. The use was dependent on the time of the day and
the specific demographics of users.
Most activities occurred in the low-level spaces; more specifically,

half of them at the ground level next to the Punggol Waterway,
34% on the environment deck, and 10% on the void deck, while
only 6% were observed in the roof gardens. The average duration
of space use decreased with the elevation of the spaces: approx.
18 min at the ground level, approx. 14 min on the environment
deck and the void deck, and approx. 10 min in the roof gardens.
At the ground level, 90% of the activities consisted of playing,

exercising, strolling, and interacting socially. On the environment
deck, people mainly played, walked, and took photographs
(totaling 80% of the activities). On the void deck, the majority of
the spaces were used for resting, interacting socially, and strolling.
In the roof gardens, people typically walked, chatted with one
another, and enjoyed the scenic views. The variations of space
use corresponded to the differences in spatial quality: most of the
Facade.
146

Visits per day
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
147

Number of visits, below ~10 years old Activity frequency per level, below ~10 years old
Rooftop garden Rooftop garden
Void deck Void deck
Environmental deck Environmental deck
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
10 15
Number of visits, ~10–19 years old Activity frequency per Level, ~10–19 years old
Void deck Void deck
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
10 15
Number of visits, ~20–39 years old Activity frequency per level, ~20–39 years old
Void deck Void deck
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
10 15
Void deck Void deck
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
10 15
Number of visits, ~60+ years old Activity Frequency per Level, ~60+ years old
Void deck Void deck
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
10 15
Space use.
148

comprehensive facilities for playing and exercising are located at
the ground level and on the environment deck, while only few can
be found in the roof gardens, which, located next to residential
units, provide enclosed spaces with a rather private atmosphere.
Some of the spaces in the development also provide specific

conditions for activities. For instance, the environment deck,
which is spacious and usually quiet during the daytime, was used
as an outdoor playground by the development’s pre-school for
collective playing from 11:30 AM – 12 PM regularly. The covered
void deck, quiet and breezy, was used as a dining and resting
place by a group of young construction workers from nearby sites
from 12:30 – 1:30 PM. The HDB precinct in the new Eco-Town of
Punggol also hosted occasional visits on the environment deck.
In interviews on space use preferences, residents and visitors

stated that they spend time in the green and public spaces
almost every day, and much more than the analysis by
observation has shown.
Time of Use
Residents usually occupied green and public spaces in the later

morning (9 – 11 AM) and the later afternoon (4 – 7 PM), on all days
of the week. In the later morning, most activities were dynamic
such as playing and exercising. During the day, there were more
sedentary activities such as reading, resting, and chatting,
but dynamic activities were still dominant.
The space use peak corresponded with school hours. The

development’s pre-schools that are located on the void deck
brought a significant number of users to the green and public
spaces. On average, they spent 19 min playing or 15 min doing
exercises. Parents or domestic helpers typically spent 19 min
waiting to pick up children from the pre-schools or school shuttle
buses and users spent 16 min talking to each other. Sedentary
activities took up more time, with average users spending 33 min
resting and 45 min having meals.
Age Groups
The public and shared spaces of Punggol Waterway Terraces I

were largely populated by parents and domestic helpers with
young children, while there were fewer adolescents and older
people. In the analysis, children below 10 years old and adults
between the ages of 20 and 39 account for more than 70% of the
space users. However, the average time spent is mostly the
same for all age groups: users spent an average of 17 min in the
public and common spaces.
Young children below 10 years, accompanied by adults,

mostly strolled around and played at the ground level and on
the environment deck but seldom went to the roof gardens.
Adolescents through those aged 19 did not use the spaces
as frequently as the other age groups and were driven to the
spaces by clear motivations: they exercised on the environment
deck, chatted in the roof gardens, played volleyball, and jogged.
They typically did not spend time on the void deck. More than
two thirds of adults of age 20-39, mostly stay-at-home-
parents or domestic helpers, came to accompany children,
the elderly, or pets. Others exercised on the ground level or
interacted socially while resting on the void deck and in the roof
gardens. This age group typically occupied the site in the later
Public spaces.
149

afternoon, corresponding with school hours and working hours.
Middle-aged people (of age 40-59) were not only present for
leisure but also for business, but very few spent time resting
or exercising on the site. Older people of 60 years and above
seldom appeared, accounting for only about 10% of the total
space users. They typically accompanied young children,
with few of them exercising individually.
User Perception
The perception analysis of Punggol Waterway Terraces I includes

semi-structured interviews with users of different backgrounds,
ages, and gender as well as residents and non-residents about
their preferences for using the spaces.
An analysis of the frequency of words in the conversations

shows that the focus of users was on playing, cycling,
children, and environmental quality. Also, more than half of the
interviewees stated interests in and concerns about views,
the size of spaces, and the presence of mosquitoes in the
development. The majority of people interviewed on site agreed
that the greenery attracted them to use outdoor spaces more
frequently than before. Half of the interviewees were aware
of the difference between constructed greenery and natural
parks but nevertheless appreciated the development providing
large spaces with high-quality landscape design at the ground
level. All interviewees stated that they regularly played or cycled
with their children or grandchildren at the ground level or on the
environment deck. Seven in 10 users stated that they came to
use the spaces every day and that they usually spent around
1 hour there. By comparison, the quantitative study shows fewer
people exercising and their duration on the site being shorter.
Eight in 10 users visited the roof gardens but most of them said that
they had only seldom been there in the last two years because of
the high temperatures during the daytime. Users appreciated the
view from the top as well as the breezes. They also cited adverse
factors including high temperatures, direct exposure to sunlight,
mosquitoes, uncomfortable narrow spaces, the perceived danger
of the height, and the lack of facilities. The decisive factors for space
users in the green and public spaces were cool temperatures,
spaces for playing, and well-designed environments, followed
by good layouts, useful equipment, and safety. Half of the
interviewees appreciated the greenery and its regular maintenance
and four in 10 felt attracted to the structures providing shade.
The presence of mosquitoes was the most unattractive

factor for all users, followed by high temperatures, and lack of
natural ventilation. Four users expressed concerns about the
proportion of greenery and usable spaces in the landscape
design, perceiving too many plants, concrete spaces,
and un-programmed spaces to be unattractive. In addition, health
and comfort were important topics. Users stated that they felt
more relaxed and happier after their outdoor activities. Half of
the interviewees agreed that the greenery and pleasant outdoor
spaces could help them to lead healthier lives in terms of air
quality, noise reduction, and through a connection to nature.
Cost
A cost analysis study for the project established the estimated

investment and maintenance costs of the high-quality landscape
greenery. The estimated costs were subsequently analyzed in
Public spaces.
150

relation to the overall project costs and economic implications on
Landscape greenery cost distribution
the residents’ contributions to the greenery.
2000
The estimated landscape vegetation installation cost in 1800
1600
Punggol Waterway Terraces is SGD 8.76 million, less than
Cost (SGD/m2)
1400
2.5% of the total SGD 350 million project cost. 50% of this 1200
1000
cost is attributed to plant material and planting media and 20% 800
to auto-irrigation provisions. The average landscape installation 600
400
cost is estimated at SGD 340/m2. The ground gardens have the 200
0
lowest average cost at SGD 292/m2, while roof gardens are much Ground gardens Green roof Roof garden Planters on facade
more expensive at SGD 1,666/m2 – mainly due to the increased Landscape greenery component
building structure loading requirements to support the relatively
small quantity of the elevated greenery. The average contribution
of each residential unit to the installation cost is estimated at
approx. 3% of the cost for a typical unit (between SGD 170,000
and 220,000 for a three-bedroom apartment).
Distribution of landscape greenery cost per dwelling unit (SGD/DU)
The average monthly maintenance cost per residential unit is
estimated at SGD 49, mainly for labor, planting, and irrigation. 3%
6%
The local Singapore Town Council is responsible for maintenance
and selects plants according to their suitability and maintenance. 12%
Based on the National Parks Board (NPB) classification,
low-maintenance species account for 12% of the total GnPR
and drought-resistant species for 24%. However, these
maintenance requirements do not prevent other considerations
in plant selection; 30% of the total GnPR appears to be made
up of plants that attract birds and 18% that attract butterflies.
Town Council representatives were involved in workshops with 79%
designers during the initial design phases of planting areas and
participated in the selection of plant species prior to finalizing the Ground gardens Green roof Roof garden Planter on facade
planting schemes.
Costs.
While the cost of downstream maintenance is usually addressed

during the initial design and planning stages, interviews indicated
that a lack of understanding on the side of the Town Council of
the specific maintenance requirements of novel garden design
concepts like the Jungle Courtyards resulted in applying standard
maintenance procedures for these spaces. Therefore, the initial
design intent of a natural, less-maintained expression translated
to an over-maintained and under-utilized garden space.
1. “Punggol Planning Area in Singapore,” City Population, accessed January 4, 2018,

https://www.citypopulation.de/php/singapore-admin.php?adm1id=303; and Urban
Redevelopment Authority Singapore, “Master Plan 2014,” accessed January 4, 2018,
https://www.ura.gov.sg/maps/#.
2. For detailed Gross Plot Ratio information of Punggol Planning Area see Urban
Redevelopment Authority Singapore, “Master Plan 2014,” accessed January 4, 2018,
https://www.ura.gov.sg/maps/#.
3. “Estimated Singapore Resident Population in HDB Flats,” data.gov.sg, accessed
January 4, 2018, https://data.gov.sg/dataset/estimated-resident-population-living-in-hdb-
flats?view_id=d9174d5e-e811-4235-b150-feb869fa1f49&resource_id=a7d9516f-b193-
4f9b-8bbf-9c85a4c9b61b.
4. Cheong Koon Hean, “Creating Liveable Density through a Synthesis of Planning, Design
and Greenery,” in Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research, Policy and Practice
Perspectives, eds. Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha Menz (Singapore: Springer, 2018), 7-12.
5. Details are based on the Public Utilities Board information on the site.
6. For additional information on Punggol Waterway Terraces I, see group8asia, http://
g8a-architects.com/project/punggol-waterway-terraces/.
7. Manuel Der Hagopian, “Creating Liveable Density through a Synthesis of Planning,
Design and Greenery,” in Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research, Policy and
Practice Perspectives, eds. Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha Menz (Singapore: Springer,
2018), 27-34.
8. Landscape Replacement Areas are landscape areas provided on the first or upper levels
of a development and in total at least equivalent in size to the development site area.
9. The measurement of green space is based on industry-recognized norms for the
quantification of greenery in Singapore, such as the Green Plot Ratio (GnPR = total
leaf area/site area) and overall landscaped area. Community provision calculations are
based on the aggregate community spaces provided, which may or may not include
greenery. The GnPR, total landscaped area, and total community area figures are then
measured against the whole Gross Floor Area and occupancy. Each provision is further
segregated to understand the proportions of public green, private green, and inaccessible
green to evaluate the design intent of the project.
151

The Interlace
Architect: OMA/Büro Ole Scheeren/ Site Area: 81,000 m²
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Gross Floor Area: 170,000 m²
Landscape Architect: ICN Design Gross Plot Ratio: 2.1
International Green Plot Ratio: 1.1
Developer: CapitaLand Residential and Number of Units: 1,040
Hotel Properties Limited Singapore
Building Type: Private Residential
Location: 180-226 Depot Road,
Singapore 109684
Coordinates: 1°16’54.8”N 103°48’10.9”E
Date: 2015
The Interlace is located in the Bukit Merah Planning Area that is

Types of trees in the area
part of the Central Region in the master plan by the Urban
Redevelopment Authority (URA) Singapore. With the Ayer Rajah
Expressway (AYE) as its main traffic route, Bukit Merah
comprises business and industrial subzones in the center,
residential subzones including Alexandra Hill, Redhill,
and Tiong Bahru in the north, as well as the residential and
industrial subzones Telok Blangah and Depot Road in the south.1
At the time of writing, the Central Region, more than 14 km2
in size, houses approx. 150,000 residents with development
densities ranging from 2.5 to 4.9 Gross Plot Ratio.2
Forest 22%
CapitaLand Singapore, one of Asia’s largest real estate
companies, developed The Interlace in collaboration with
Hotel Properties Limited, a Singapore-based company with
Managed trees 31%
interests in a number of properties of international hospitality
brands that also manages its own portfolio of hotels, resorts,
and other commercial projects.3, 4 The developers envisioned the
development as an innovative urban habitat that would feature
iconic architecture and allow for the creative use of open spaces
while also creating a sense of community through facilities and
0m
100 200
400 substantial greenery.5
The Interlace occupies an 8 ha site on a hill adjacent to

Singapore’s Southern Ridges, a continuous urban green
space of approx. 10 km length that includes Mount Faber
Park, Telok Blangah Hill Park, Hort Park, Kent Ridge Park,
and the Labrador Nature Reserve. Offering panoramic views
of Singapore’s harbor and CBD area, the Ridges are a popular
destination for residents as well as tourists.6 Taking the adjacency
Grey landscape 29% to the Ridges and their features into account, the developers
envisioned The Interlace as a project with lush greenery both at
ground and elevated levels that would foster social interaction
Park 18% and offer spectacular views of the surroundings.7
Road 17% Urban Scale
Building footprint 16% Density and Greenery

Green landscape 11% The green belt of the Southern Ridges is complemented by a
Future development 9% number of green spaces that are part of business campuses as
well as public and semi-public landscape spaces of residential
developments. An urban density analysis of a 200 ha zone
(10 min walk radius) surrounding The Interlace illustrates these
spaces. At the time of writing, the gross built coverage, primarily
0m
100 200
400 comprised of residential and industrial developments, takes
up 16% of the area, while 67% is open space for parks, plazas,
OMA/Büro Ole Scheeren/RSP Architects Planners & Engineers, The Interlace, 2015, site plan,
ground coverage. Opposite page: aerial view from the northwest.
152

Aerial view.
as well as public and semi-public residential and industrial More than 80% of the 134 ha of open space within a 10 min
landscape spaces. The area is almost fully developed, so that walk radius is covered with existing forest and managed trees.8
there are few remaining plots for future development. Almost the total 32.5 ha of open space within a 5 min walk radius
is constituted by this greenery.9 The Interlace provides 4% of the
Landscape Space vegetation coverage within a 10 min walk radius and 13% within
a 5 min walk radius.10 This is relevant for benefits including views
The high density of the interlinked blocks of the development of greenery, shading, recreation, and environmental regulation.11
rising on an “eco-deck,” a landscaped elevated level on top of
a basement car park, allows for 72% of the 8 ha site to serve The ground-level and elevated landscape spaces provide an
as ground-level landscape space. It is equivalent to 21% of the integrated stormwater management system for regulating
ground-level landscape space within a 5 min walk radius. the runoff rate and cleanse the water before it is channeled to
Together with the green spaces of the Southern Ridges, the respective drains. The ground-level landscape areas were
the green ground-level space of The Interlace accounts for designed with a high proportion of vegetated and permeable
approx. 80% of the total landscape space within that radius. surfaces and multiple water bodies, all of which help to maintain
the flow and quality of the surface runoff. The ground-level park
Landscape space on the eco-deck at ground level is in the north of the development features a bioretention basin
complemented by roof gardens on top of the residential that can hold and treat water runoff at the lowest grade before it
blocks, which constitute the entire elevated landscape is released to the city drainage alongside the AYE.12 The ground
space. The eco-deck and the roof gardens combined provide level also features a 60-m-long vegetated swale that regulates
approx. 33% of the total landscape space within a 5 min the rate and quality of surface runoff along the periphery of the
walk radius. These spaces create a visual continuum from site.13 In the roof gardens, raised planters absorb portions of
the Southern Ridges to the residential courtyards and roof the surface runoff and maintain its quality before draining it to a
gardens and constitute a continuous, multilevel sequence of water-recycling tank at the basement.14
green spaces.
Architecture
On a Gross Floor Area of approx. 170,000 m2, The Interlace
The Interlace was designed to work as part of larger urban houses a total of 1,040 residential units.15
green and blue systems. Its ground-level landscape space
accommodates a substantial amount of vegetation that
augments the existing ecosystem.
154

View from the north.
Massing in a community”-experience for the residents. The range of

landscape themes of the various shared spaces provides many
OMA/Büro Ole Scheeren designed The Interlace as a hexagonal options for social interactions.
stack of residential blocks, which form eight courtyards at the
ground level and allow for elevated shared spaces. The volume The residential units are designed within repetitive, modular
of the development comprises 31 apartment blocks, stacked patterns which provide a range of choices of modification and
vertically up to four blocks, with six levels per block. Each block flexibility for the individual units. Each residential block comprises
forms a “vertical village” connected to either an open space on two vertical circulation cores. The facade is optimized for the
the eco-deck or a shared elevated space. tropical climate.
All levels of the blocks are naturally lit and ventilated. The stacking The porosity of the overall massing, the internal structure of the
allows for natural ventilation of the overall site as well as the individual blocks, and the layout of most units allow for cross-
provision of shared open green spaces on multiple levels on top ventilation and passive climatic control. The massing further
of and within each block. The eco-deck provides a connection provides a sufficient level of self-shading for the courtyards.
between the development’s green spaces and the larger urban The protruding balconies and terraces of the residential units
green space networks.16 form links with the greenery of the eco-deck and the adjacent
Southern Ridges. The lobbies are all naturally ventilated and,
Layout in most cases, receive daylight.
The unique geometry of the massing creates a pronounced Greenery and Community Provision
spatial configuration that accommodates a wide range of
common and shared spaces. The extensive open space at the The landscaped areas of The Interlace comprise the basement
ground level accommodates shared programs such as sports gardens, eco-deck, landscape deck, roof gardens, and green
facilities, shops, conference spaces, playrooms, and a movie walls along the retaining walls at the lower levels. The planted
theater. There are eight connected courtyards with different area (hardscape and softscape) amounts to 78% of the site
landscape themes. The periphery of the development features a area — which equals a Landscape Replacement Area (LRA)
1-km-long running track. The second, third, and fourth levels of of 0.78 with a share for the green area (softscape) of 39%. Of the
the residential blocks are located above the tree-tops and provide latter, 80% is located in the ground gardens, 8% distributed
a visual connection to the adjacent Southern Ridges. The shared at elevated levels, 8% in roof gardens, and the remaining 4%
open spaces in between the blocks and the extensive network of on green walls at lower levels.
common green spaces throughout the project produce a “living
155

Green and blue spaces, aerial views from the east and the north.
156

A quantitative analysis of greenery and common space provisions
demonstrates the design intent of the development.17 Greenery
is mainly provided in the areas adjacent to the Southern Ridges,
primarily located at the level of the eco-deck, where the greenery
level reaches the highest figures. With a GnPR of more than 2.1,
the greenery within the development more than doubles the
site area. In contrast, the landscaped area constitutes only 42%
of the site area but comprises intensive planting of trees, palms,
and shrubs, as indicated in the Leaf Area Index. This measure
not only allows for an important green volume but also creates a
visual perception of dense greenery.
The 17.31 m2 of common space per person exceeds the

provisions for greenery at 9.95 m2 per person. These numbers
are indicative of the provision of a high amount of accessible
greenery in order to generate more common spaces than is
typical for a private residential development in Singapore.
The largest share of landscaped and common spaces is located

on the eco-deck, a design strategy that enhances connections
to the adjacent Southern Ridges. All circulation paths lead
either to areas with greenery or to common spaces. Through
these three elements – greenery, common spaces, and strong
contextual response – the project provides an innovative model
for residential developments.
The Interlace has received numerous international awards and

recognition, with special commendations for its provisions of
generous green space, its contextual approach, and the quality of
its common spaces.
Common sky gardens.
Biodiversity
Plants
A vegetation survey of the landscaped areas of the development

found 248 distinct species within the site’s 5.3 ha of foliage area.
Out of these, 34 are native to Singapore, while the remaining 214
are introduced species. Of 34 native species, six (0.04 ha or 0.8%
of the foliage area) attract birds; three attract butterflies (0.06 ha or
1.2% of foliage area); and six (0.23 ha or 4.3% of foliage area) attract
both. Among the notable native biodiversity-attracting plants that
exist in high abundance are Barringtonia asiatica (Fish-Killer Tree),
a medium-sized tree with large leaves, showy flowers, and large
fruits that attract moths; Caryota mitis (Fishtail Palm), a medium-
sized palm with slender stems, fronds that resemble fish tails,
and fruits that attract birds; and Fagraea fragrans (Tembusu),
Circulation.
a large tree that produces fragrant cream-white flowers that
attract butterflies and red berries that attract birds and bats.
The majority of plants found are not native to Singapore. Of the

non-native plants, 22 species (0.48 ha or 8.9% of total foliage
area) attract birds, 22 species (0.34 ha or 6.4% of total foliage
area) attract butterflies, and 12 species (0.18 ha or 3.4% of total
foliage area) attract both. Some notable non-native plant species
in high abundance include Sanchezia speciose (Gold Vein Plant),
a herbaceous shrub that has bright yellow veins and produces
yellow tubular flowers that are visited by birds; Megaskepasma
erythrochlamys (Brazilian Red Cloak), a woody shrub that
produces bright red showy tubular flowers that attract butterflies;
and Magnolia champaca (Orange Champaka), a medium-sized
tree with fragrant yellow-orange flowers and red seeds that are
attractive to birds.
Eco-deck gardens.
157

The roof gardens comprise approx. 0.2 ha of foliage area, spread
over nine locations with varied heights. While the gardens have
different themes, their vegetation structure is similar, with one
or two layers of shrubs and one layer of small- to medium-sized
trees, all contained within concrete planter boxes. Plants found
Native plant species (12.9%)
4.3% 0.8% in high abundance in the elevated gardens include palms such as
1.2%
6.6%
Areca catechu (Betel Nut Palm), a small- to medium-size solitary
palm; and Dypsis lutescens (Yellow Cane Palm), a small-
to medium-size clustering palm with cane-like stems, as well as
small shrubs such as Phyllanthus myrtifolius (Mousetail Plant),
8.9%
an ornamental small plant with small leaves and thin,
flexible stems.
3.4% The basement parking level features a series of small pocket

63.6%
gardens as well as a large garden in the Spa Valley. These include
6.4%
lush planting and tall trees with large crowns that grow through
the openings of the eco-deck above. The basement-level
gardens feature approx. 0.26 ha of foliage area and 127 plant
species. The garden in the Spa Valley is the richest in terms of
species. A large number of the plants there produce fragrant
odors, such as Dryobalanops aromatica (Kapur), a small tree with
Introduced plant species (87.1%) flowers and fragrant resin; Fragraea fragrans (Tembusu), a large
tree with fragrant cream-white flowers that attract butterflies,
moths, and hummingbirds; and Alpinia purpurata (Red Ginger),
an ornamental plant that produces fragrant red inflorescences.
The gardens on the eco-deck above are mainly located in

the courtyards and feature a tropical mix of vegetation that
Normal plants Butterfly-attracting plants
connects them to each other and to the lush planting on the
Bird-attracting plants Bird-and butterfly-attracting plants periphery of the site. The gardens are the most abundant
and species-rich spaces of the development, with approx.
4.4 ha of foliage area and 150 plant species; the foliage area in
the courtyards ranges from 0.09 to 0.21 ha. A number of existing
large trees on the site were maintained and now provide privacy
and shade for the residents, as well as roosting spots for birds.
The vegetation structure of the plants in the eco-deck gardens

consists of several layers that together emulate the qualities
of tropical environments. This includes one or two layers of
groundcover, several layers of shrubs at different heights, and one
or two layers of medium to tall trees. The majority of the plants
are contained within sunken planters, with a small number of
plants contained within raised concrete boxes along the circulation
spaces. There is a high abundance of turf grass, such as
Axonopus compressus (0.05 ha of the foliage area) and Zoysia
japonica (0.78 ha of the foliage area), especially along the
circulation spaces and some of the shared facilities. This enables
the residents to utilize these spaces for recreation and sports.
There is also an abundance of large trees, such as Canarium
vulgare (Chinese Olive) and Fragraea fragrans (Tembusu) as well
as tropical ornamental shrubs, such as Costus woodsonii
(Red Button Ginger) and Thaumatococcus daniellii (Miracle Berry).
The landscape deck located across two courtyards contains approx.

0.52 ha of foliage area and 75 plant species. The composition of
plant species here is similar to the eco-deck gardens and consists
of one layer each of groundcover, shrubs, and small- or medium-
sized trees. The most common plants are Cratoxylum formosum
(Pink Mempat), a native medium-sized tree that produces small
light pink flowers; Livistonia rotundifolia (Footstool Palm), a large
solitary palm that produces red berries eaten by birds; and Magnolia
champaca (Orange Champaca), a medium-sized tree that produces
fragrant yellow-orange flowers.
Common sky garden.
158

159

Potential forest bird species connectivity
Low potential
1. Javanese Mynah 4. Eurasian Tree Sparrow 6. Spotted Dove
9. Yellow-vented Bulbul 10. Asian Glossy Starling 11. Olive-backed Sunbird

High potential
Potential forest bird Species resistance
Low resistance
12. Brown-throated Sunbird 13. Black-naped Oriole 14. Pink-necked Green Pigeon
16. Scarlet-backed 19. Oriental White-eye

Flowerpecker
High resistance
0m 400
100 200
Animals
Birds, butterflies, small lizards, and invertebrates inhabit the

elevated and ground-level gardens. The abundance and richness
of bird species on patches in The Interlace is higher than in other
locations surrounding the site.
The mean abundance of native bird species in the roof gardens

(1) is marginally higher than on other roofs that do not feature
gardens (0.83). Conversely, the mean abundance of introduced
bird species is lower in roof gardens (0) than on control roofs
(0.16). Native birds in the roof gardens include the Olive-backed
Sunbird and the Yellow-vented Bulbul, both known to feed on
vegetation. The spotted dove, a ground feeder known to use
rocks to break down food in its gizzard, appeared on other roofs
that were used as control locations.
Bird Species Type (shape) Information
In the ground gardens, the mean abundance of native birds Native Species Common names of species
is slightly lower per point count (1.06) than in nearby car park Introduced Species found in case studies are shown.
sites with trees (1.34), while for introduced bird species it is biodiversity diagram on the left.
not even half as much (0.45 compared to 1). Three individuals
of an uncommon species were found in the ground-level
gardens, among them the Oriental White-eye, and another one,
160

Plant Attraction Type (color) Bird Species Type (shape) Number of Birds Sighted (shade) Other
Butterfly-attracting plants Native Species 1 Observation Area

Bird-attracting plants Introduced Species 2
Bird- and butterfly-attracting plants 3
4
5
161

the Laced Woodpecker, on the adjacent control sites with trees.
A larger quantity of native birds were found in the Spa Valley,
most likely due to the larger proportion of plants that attract birds
in that location.
Surface Temperature
Surface temperatures at the Interlace range from 26.7 °C on

shaded turf to 61.3 °C on unshaded rubber, with the mean
surface temperatures of different materials increasing from water
bodies, via shrubs and trees, turf, masonry materials, wood,
and plastic, to rubber with the highest temperatures. The higher a
material’s mean surface temperature, the bigger is the difference
in temperature between shaded and unshaded surfaces of
that material. For water bodies, the difference in mean surface
temperature is estimated to be only 0.4 °C, whereas for rubber
it is 7.5 °C. Greenery is cooler than artificial materials. In this
context, it is interesting to compare organic turf and artificial turf
in the Play Hills courtyard. The latter is up to 25.1 °C hotter than
the former.
Most spaces, including the Play Hills, the Theatre Plaza,

the Bamboo Garden, the playground designed by Carve,
the putting green, and the gardening zone, are partially shaded
by trees and, to a lesser extent, tall shrubs, and at times by
a roof in addition to the canopies of trees, as, for example,
in the case of the Party Pavilion. The coolest surface at shaded
spots is turf at 26.7 °C. Various other spaces such as the
outdoor exercise stations, the Lotus Pond, the Water Terrace,
and the BBQ Promenade lack artificial shelters or trees at their
present state of growth and receive considerable amounts of
solar radiation. While the sun-lit water bodies typically reach
temperatures of around 30 °C, the exposed masonry materials
and rubber surfaces attain temperatures of about 53 °C and
61 °C respectively.
Comparing the temperatures of an exposed surface to an

adjacent shaded surface of the same material, shading was
found to reduce the surface temperature of concrete and rubber
by a maximum of 19.5 °C and 26.7 °C respectively. Many of
the wooden benches and composite wood seating on the site
experience some shading from trees, which lowers the surface
temperature of the wooden benches by up to 15.4 °C and the
surface temperature of the composite wood seating by up to
18.3 °C.
Space Use
As a private condominium, access to The Interlace is generally

limited to residents and their visitors. Over an observation period
of six days, they used the green and public spaces more than
1,500 times with an average duration of 69 min, increasing from
50 min in the morning to 99 min in the afternoon and decreasing
to 33 min in the evening.
Most activities at the eco-deck level occurred in the

Central Square, the Theatre Square, the Bamboo Garden,
the Play Hills, and the running track; at the basement level, in the
tennis courts, the basketball fields, the Party Pavilions and the
Spa Valley, as well as the Water Park. At the eco-deck level,
83% of the activities were playing, strolling, and social
interaction, with an average duration of 36 min. The Water Park
is the second-most used space in The Interlace. More than 80%
162

Lorem ipsum
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
163

of the activities observed here consisted of exercising, resting,
playing, and interacting socially, with an average duration of 100
min. At the basement level, where facilities generally need to
be reserved by residents in advance through an online booking
system, spaces were more frequented during the weekends.
The Party Pavilions were used for an average of 103 min and the
sports facilities for an average of 75 min.
Time of Use
Use was dependent on the time of day and the specific

demographics of the users. Generally, most activities occurred
from 8 AM to 6 PM, with two peaks around 9 AM and between
3 and 6 PM. These contributed more than 70% of all activities.
The period of least activity was around noon. The space use
pattern varies slightly during weekends, a time when more family
activities took place during the day and when sport facilities were
often fully occupied.
Age Groups
The common spaces of The Interlace were largely populated by

parents and domestic helpers with young children, followed by
adolescents and older people. In the analysis, children below 10
years and adults between the ages of 20 and 39 account for more
than 70% of the space users.
Young children, often accompanied by adults, spent an average

of 75 min in the common areas playing. Adolescents through
age 19 did not use the spaces as frequently as other age
groups and were driven by clear motivations. They exercised
on the eco-deck and chatted in areas such as the Water Park.
The activities of adults between the ages of 20 and 39 included
exercising, resting, playing with children, and interacting
socially. This age group typically occupied the site in the later
afternoon, corresponding with school and working hours.
Middle-aged people between the ages of age 40 and 59 were
not as present in the common spaces. Their activities on the
eco-deck, at the basement level as well as in the roof gardens
were the same as those of the previous age group. Older
people above 60 mostly used the eco-deck-level gardens,
accompanying their grandchildren, strolling, and exercising.
User Perception
The perception analysis of The Interlace includes semi-structured

interviews with users of different backgrounds, ages,
and gender as well as residents and non-residents about their
preferences for using the spaces. The analysis of the frequency
of words in the interviews shows that the focus of users was
on the environmental and social quality of the development.
Interviewees stated that they use the shared facilities at the
lower levels frequently but not those in the sky and roof gardens.
They saw the extensive greenery of the development as an
attractive feature that encourages them to spend more time
outside. They also saw it as a quality beneficial to their health.
Cost
A cost analysis study established the estimated investment and

maintenance costs of the high-quality landscape greenery in the
development. The estimated costs were subsequently analyzed
Common spaces.
164

Visits per day
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
165

Landscape deck lvl 2 Landscape deck lvl 2
Ground Ground
Basement Basement
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Studying
Walking
Chatting
Eating
Resting
Exercise
Waiting
Playing
photos
maintaining
Taking
Cleaning and
10 15
Number of Visits, ~10–19 years old Activity Frequency per Level, ~10–19 years old
Ground Ground
Basement Basement
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Studying
Walking
Chatting
Eating
Resting
Exercise
Waiting
Playing
photos
maintaining
Taking
Cleaning and
10 15
Number of visits, ~20–39 years old Activity Frequency per Level, ~20–39 years old
Landscape deck Lvl 2 Landscape deck lvl 2
Ground Ground
Basement Basement
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Studying
Walking
Chatting
Eating
Resting
Exercise
Waiting
Playing
photos
Taking
maintaining
Cleaning and
10 15
Ground Ground
Basement Basement
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Studying
Walking
Chatting
Eating
Resting
Exercise
Waiting
Playing
photos
maintaining
Taking
Cleaning and
10 15
Number of Visits, ~60+ years old Activity Frequency per Level, ~60+ years old
Landscape Deck Lvl 2 Landscape Deck Lvl 2
Landscape Deck Lvl 1 Landscape Deck Lvl 1
Ground Ground
Basement Basement
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Studying
Walking
Chatting
Eating
Resting
Exercise
Waiting
Playing
Photos
Maintaining
Taking
Cleaning and
10 15
Space use.
166

in relation to the overall project cost and to the economic 1. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, “Master Plan 2014,” accessed January 4,
2018, https://www.ura.gov.sg/maps2/?service=mp#.
implications on the residents’ contributions to the greenery. 2. “Punggol Planning Area in Singapore,” City Population, accessed January 4, 2018,
https://www.citypopulation.de/php/singapore-admin.php.
3. “CapitaLand Global Sustainability Report 2017,” CapitaLand, accessed May 22, 2018,
Private residential developments in Singapore are managed by https://www.capitaland.com/sites/SustainabilityReport/2017/introduction.html.
the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST), which is also 4. “Corporate Profile,” Hotel Properties Limited, accessed November 12, 2018, https://
www.hotelprop.com.sg/corporate-profile/.
the managing body of The Interlace, with multiple owners and 5. “The Interlace Wins the Prestigious Inaugural Urban Habitat Award,” CapitaLand,
shared public facilities.18 The MCST appoints an estate-managing accessed May 22, 2018, https://www.capitaland.com/international/en/about-capitaland/
newsroom/news-releases/international/2014/jun/nr-20140627-the-interlace-wins-the-
agency to maintain the common areas, among them the prestigious-inaugural-urban-habitat-award.html.
landscape areas. Residents contribute to the maintenance of the 6. “The Southern Ridges,” National Parks Board Singapore, accessed March 29, 2018,
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/
common areas by paying a monthly fee. hortpark-southern-ridges.
7. “The Interlace,” OMA, accessed May 22, 2018, http://oma.eu/projects/the-interlace.
8. Daniel Richards and Bige Tunçer. “Using Image Recognition to Automate Assessment
The estimated landscape vegetation installation cost for of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Social Media Photographs,” Ecosystem Services
development is around SGD 8.03 million and less than 1% of the (2017): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004.
9. Ibid.
total SGD 852 million project cost.19 47% of this cost is attributed 10. Ibid.
to plant material and planting media such as soil, 13% to 11. Xiao Ping Song, Puay Yok Tan, Peter Edwards, and Daniel Richards, “The Economic
Benefits and Cost of Trees in Urban Forest Stewardship: A Systematic Review,” Urban
additional building structure for elevated and roof gardens, Forestry & Urban Greening 29 (2018): 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017.
and approx. 19% to auto-irrigation provisions. 12. “Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters Design Guidelines,” Public Utilities Board
Singapore, accessed January 8, 2018, https://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/Documents/
ABC_DG_2014.pdf .
The average landscape installation cost is estimated at 13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
SGD 432/m2. The ground-level gardens have the lowest 15. For additional information on the project see “The Interlace,” OMA, http://oma.
cost at SGD 384/m2, while elevated gardens are much more eu/projects/the-interlace; and Büro Ole Scheeren, http://buro-os.com/the-interlace/,
accessed July 22, 2017.
expensive at SGD 842/m2. This is mainly due to the higher 16. Henry Steed, “Taking Urban Greening to a Higher Level,” in Dense and Green Building
loading requirements for the building structure to support the Typologies: Research, Policy and Practice Perspectives, eds. Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha
Menz (Singapore: Springer, 2018), 71-78.
relatively small quantity of the elevated greenery. For the roof 17. The provisions of greenery and shared spaces were spatially analyzed, with the
gardens and green walls, the cost is lower at SGD 477/m2 and measurement of green space based on industry-recognized norms for the quantification
of greenery in Singapore, among them the Green Plot Ratio (GnPR = total leaf area/site
501/m2, respectively. The average maintenance cost calculated area) and overall landscaped area. The calculations for common space were based on the
per dwelling unit is estimated at SGD 65/month, mainly for labor, aggregate space figures provided, which may or may not include greenery. The GnPR,
total landscaped area, and total community area figures were then measured against
planting, and irrigation. the GFA and occupancy. The individual provisions for common space and greenery
were then further differentiated to understand the proportions of public green, private
green, and inaccessible green in an effort to evaluate the design intent.
Of the overall landscape spaces, 61% are hardscape, the rest 18. “Strata Living in Singapore,” Building & Construction Authority Singapore, accessed
are green areas. Of these, 80% are provided on the ground level, January 4, 2018, https://www.bca.gov.sg/bmsm/others/strata_living.pdf.
19. “Singapore Real Estate: CapitaLand and HPL unveil The Interlace,” Property
allowing easy access for maintenance. The lushly planted areas Guru, September 4, 2009, http://www.property-report.com/detail/-/blogs/
require regular maintenance, although the provision of forest singapore-real-estate-capitaland-and-hpl-unveil-the-interlace.
trees and vegetation that is left to grow without intervention
lowers the total maintenance cost.
Due to the high density of the vegetation, landscape

maintenance cost at The Interlace is higher than in a typical
Singapore residential development project, including public
housing estates. However, landscape maintenance accounts for
only15-18% of the total maintenance cost of the development.
167

SkyVille@Dawson
Architect: WOHA Site Area: 23,392 m²
Landscape Architect: ICN Design Gross Floor Area: 114,793 m²
International Gross Plot Ratio: 4.9
Developer: Housing & Development Green Plot Ratio: 5.6
Board Singapore Number of Units: 960
Building Type: Public Residential
Location: 85-88 Dawson Road, Singapore
141086
Coordinates: 1°29’57”N 103°81’04”E
Date: 2015
SkyVille@Dawson is part of a series of new residential

developments situated along the Alexandra Canal
Linear Park in Singapore’s Queenstown. With more than
20 km2, Queenstown is the largest planning area of a master
plan by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Singapore.
Its development densities range from 1.2 to 10 Gross Plot Ratio
for commercial and office and from 2.8 to 4.9 for residential
developments. Queenstown comprises educational programs
including the National University of Singapore and the
Singapore Polytechnic in the west, commercial and office
programs including one-north Business and Science Park in the
center, and residential programs in the north and east.
Forest 14%
Queenstown is the oldest HDB town in Singapore. At the time of
writing, HDB manages more than 31,000 apartments with more
Managed trees 26% than 82,000 residents there. A number of these estates are being
transformed under the HDB Remaking Our Heartland (ROH)
program that started in 2007.1 The aim of ROH is to modernize
older HDB towns and forge unique identities by providing new
projects, community plazas, playgrounds, promenades, as well
as greenery and other public amenities.2 HDB has set up multiple
0m
100 200
400 urban planning models, including Sustainable Development,
Eco-Town, and Biophilic Town, to frame national goals and to
align with the Singapore Sustainable Blueprint.
The guiding premise for the design of the new developments
was to create a “living in a park-like environment.” The project
brief called for a combination of architecture and nature that
would create greener neighborhoods with greater biodiversity
and enhanced identity, sustainability, and connectivity.
Future development The subsequent developments provided various measures to
32% strengthen the ecology of the area, which included linking the
greenery of the new buildings seamlessly with that of the existing
1.3-km-long Alexandra Canal Linear Park, which in turn is part
Green landscape 28% of larger Singapore Park Connector Network.3 Once completed,
HDB’s developments around Alexandra Canal Linear Park
will comprise approx. 3,700 two-to-five-room apartments as
Building footprint 18% well as commercial facilities including 30 shops, four eateries,
a supermarket, and a food court.
Road 14%
Grey landscape 5%
Park 3% Urban Scale
Despite its high density, the URA master plan for the area
0m
100 200
400 provides a substantial amount of open green space, including the
green corridor of one-north Park that runs from north to south,
WOHA, Skyville@Dawson, Singapore, 2015, site plan, ground coverage.
Opposite page: circulation space and sky gardens.
168

View from the southeast. Sky garden on parking garage, aerial view from the east.
where it connects to Kent Ridge Park. Sungei (River) Ulu Pandan Green and Blue Systems
in the northwest and Alexandra Canal Linear Park in the northeast
are connected to these two parks. The green open spaces of the SkyVille@Dawson was designed to act as part of larger urban
educational and business campuses of the area as well as public green and blue systems. The landscape spaces at ground level
and semi-public landscape spaces of residential developments accommodate the bulk of the vegetation that augments the
with large plots and rather low site coverage complement the existing ecosystem around the site.4 Almost two thirds of the
urban green network. 136 ha of open space within a 10 min walk radius, and half of the
37 ha within a 5 min walk radius, are covered with existing forest
An urban density analysis of a 200 ha zone (10 min walk radius) and managed trees.5 The development provides 0.7% of the total
surrounding SkyVille@Dawson illustrates these elements. vegetation coverage within a 10 min walk radius and 3% within
The gross built coverage is 18%, comprised largely of HDB a 5 min walk radius. This offers benefits such as views, shading,
developments. This percentage is likely to increase with and recreational spaces, as well as environmental regulation.6
upcoming projects. Parks, empty plots for future development,
and public as well as common landscape spaces of residential The ground-level landscape is designed as an integrated
developments constitute 68% of the area. Elevated landscape stormwater management system to regulate the runoff rate
space, predominantly located on car park podium decks, and cleanse the runoff water before it is channeled back
constitutes approx. 2.8% of the ground-level open space. into Alexandra Canal. The park at ground level comprises a
150-m-long bioswale that can hold up to 60% of the site runoff
Landscape Space and treat the stormwater through cleansing plants as well as
filter and drainage layers.7 The park comprises large areas of
The tower blocks and the car-park podium occupy approx. vegetated and permeable grounds that help to slow down the
40% of the 2.9 ha site, leaving approx. 60% for ground-level flow of surface runoff. The roof garden on the car park podium
landscape space. This is equivalent to 5% of the total ground- also absorbs portions of the surface runoff and assures that it is
level landscape space within a 5 min walk radius, including channeled to the adjacent Alexandra Canal.
the landscape spaces of other residential developments,
green vacant plots, and parks. Within this radius, more than
half of the ground-level landscape space is provided by a park
in the northern part of the site that extends the greenery of
adjacent sites.
170

Public space, view from the south.
Architecture SkyVille@Dawson provides flexible apartment layouts for

multi-generational living. The residential units were designed
On a total constructed Gross Floor Area of approx. 115,000 m2, within repetitive, modular proportions, allowing for a range of
the development houses 960 residential units. choices for modification and flexibility. Modular voids allow
for the ventilation of every apartment. The facade, designed
Massing for the tropical climate, includes sunshading and allows for
cross-ventilation, which in turn provides passive climatic control.
The massing of SkyVille@Dawson consists of three The undulating balconies maximize shielding from rain and heat
interconnected tower blocks, each of them comprising four and add to the horizontal reading of the facade. The porosity of
vertical stacks that contain “Sky Villages” of 80 residential the elevation creates a distinct relationship between solid and
units each. Landscaped sky terraces and roof gardens are void, blurring the boundaries between the two.
situated on Levels 14, 25, 36, and 47. The perforated massing
allows for natural light and ventilation and provides visual Greenery and Community Provision
connections to the surrounding city and greenery. Instead of
blocking the airflow to the residential units, the massing strategy The landscape greenery components of SkyVille@Dawson
facilitates cross-ventilation and vertical cooling with triangular comprise the ground gardens (including ground and podium deck
semi-open courtyards within the towers. The development gardens), sky gardens, roof gardens (roof areas with intensive
includes a large multilevel car park on its southern side and a greenery and accessible recreation spaces), green roofs (roof
number of park pavilions on its northern side. areas with extensive greenery and access limited to maintenance
personnel), planters on the facade (edge planters with low shrubs
Layout and training plants for visual impact), and green walls (along the
east facade).
The vertical circulation cores connect to both the residential
units and the public spaces through double-loaded lobby The landscaped areas (hardscape and softscape) amount to
spaces. All units face greenery either on the northern or the 136% of the site area, achieving a Landscape Replacement
Alexandra Canal side and have easy access to all landscape areas Area of 1.36.8 The green area (softscape) amounts to 81% of the
at the ground or upper levels. The sky gardens run the entire landscaped area. 52% of the green area is located in the ground
length of the building and provide connections to all towers as gardens, while 34% is distributed at elevated levels, with 11%
well as to the vertical circulation cores. of green roofs and 3% spread in planters, on facades and as
green walls.
171

Circulation space and sky garden.
Every apartment of SkyVille@Dawson belongs to an 80-unit are indicative of the project’s ambition to provide a high amount
Sky Village which shares a common Village Green, a landscaped of accessible greenery in order to generate more community
sky terrace occurring on every 11 levels, overlooked by a lift lobby spaces than required by HDB standards.
and circulation spaces leading to the residential units. In this way,
the residents always cross a shared space when entering their SkyVille@Dawson has received numerous international
unit and may observe the activities in the study areas, gathering awards and recognition, with special commendations on its
spaces, playgrounds, community gardens, and the “micro white provisions of generous green space, its contextual approach,
sites,” a high-rise version of backyards. and community spaces.
Community “living rooms” at ground level provide seating Biodiversity

areas overlooking a landscaped park, where large rain trees
were retained and community pavilions arranged around a Plants
150-m-long bioswale. A “penthouse for the people” in the form
of a rooftop park incorporates a 400-m-long jogging track and A vegetation survey of the landscaped areas in Skyville@
pavilions.9 The car park podium features a roof garden of approx. Dawson found 94 distinct floral species, covering a land area of
3,000 m2. 2.35 ha. Out of these, 39 are tree species and the rest woody
and herbaceous shrubs or groundcover. 17 species, or 12.3%,
A quantitative analysis of greenery and community provisions are native to Singapore. Eight native species, covering approx.
shows the design intent of the development.10 Greenery is mainly 0.11 ha, attract birds.
provided in the areas adjacent to Alexandra Canal, primarily
located at the ground level and on the car park podium. With a The majority of the plants on the site are introduced, comprising
GnPR of more than 5.6, the greenery within the development 87.6% of the total foliage area. Of these, 11 species with
replaces the site area by this factor. The landscaped area approx. 0.07 ha of foliage area attract birds; six species with
constitutes 130% of the site area, which is achieved by the approx. 0.35 ha attract butterflies, and four species with approx.
intensive planting of trees, palms, and shrubs, as indicated 0.14 ha attract both. While there are more bird-attracting species,
in the Leaf Area Index. This measure not only allows for an the plants that attract butterflies are more abundant, due to the
important volume of green but also for a visual perception of presence of large areas of shrubs that produce attractive flowers
dense greenery. in the park, the sky gardens, and the roof gardens.
Community areas of 11.89 m2/person are provided, which exceeds The three roof gardens – on top of the food court on Level 3,
the provisions for greenery at 9.66 m2/person. These numbers on top of the car park podium on Level 8, and on Level 47 –
172

Native plant species (12.3%)
2.3% 2.6%
7.5%
2.8%
5.8%
64.3%
14.7%
Introduced plant species (87.7%)
Normal plants Butterfly attracting plants

Bird attracting plants Bird and butterfly attracting plants
contain a total foliage area of approx. 0.5 ha. They are similar in
landscape structure, with plants growing in discrete concrete
planter boxes. The vegetation structure consists of either a layer
of groundcover or shrubs, or of two layers of groundcover or
shrubs and small- to medium-sized trees.
The food court comprises 900 m2 and the car park roof
2,251 m2 of foliage area. Similar in landscape layout and species
composition, both areas feature high numbers of plants with
properties that stimulate biodiversity, containing 11 and 14 floral
species, respectively. Eight of the species produce nectar that
attracts both birds and butterflies, including Xanthostemon
chrysanthus (Golden Penda), a non-native tropical tree with bright
yellow flower clusters that attract both birds and butterflies;
Ixora cultivars, commonly cultivated tropical woody shrubs with
clusters of small red and orange flowers that attract butterflies;
and Duranta erecta (Sky Flower), a sprawling woody shrub with
tubular purple flower racemes that attract butterflies and with
golden-orange berries throughout the year.
The roofs on Level 47 contain a total of 14 distinct floral species,

with approx. 1,790 m2 of foliage area. Six of these species,
comprising 411 m2 of foliage area, attract birds. Notable plants
found in these gardens include small trees that attract birds,
such as Syzygium mytifolium (Kelat Oil), which has dense crowns
and produces dark berries that are eaten by birds, and Clusia
rosea (Pitch Apple), which produces fruits that split open when
ripe to reveal red seeds also eaten by birds.
The four sky gardens at Levels 3, 14, 25, and 36 linking the
towers contain approx. 2,420 m2 of foliage area. Three of them
173

feature the same design and vegetation composition (the
Potential forest bird species connectivity exception being the one on Level 3), containing 1,500 m2 of
foliage area from 11 distinct floral species. The sky garden at
Low potential
Level 3 features more landscaped areas and 915 m2 of foliage
area as well as nine additional plant species. Linking to the roofs
of the pavilions in the landscaped park at ground level, this sky
garden contains a high abundance of Sphagneticola trilobata
(Singapore Daisy), a commonly planted low-growing herbaceous
plant whose yellow flowers attract butterflies and moths.
Compared to the ground and roof gardens, the sky gardens

contain a relatively low number of plant species that promote
biodiversity. Most notably, there is a high abundance of
Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree), a medium-sized tree with
umbrella-like compound leaves that produce long spikes of red
High potential flowers and fruits attractive to frugivorous birds. These trees are
able to grow well in planters. They are tolerant of varying light
conditions and thus thrive in the semi-shaded environments of
the sky gardens.
Low resistance The landscaped areas at the ground level feature a foliage area of
15,870 m2. They include a large park in the northern part of the
site as well as periphery planting along the roads and pathways
and around the site.
The vegetation structure of the ground gardens consists of

areas with a single vegetation layer, either groundcover or
shrubs, and others with two layers of groundcover and shrubs
as well as trees. The landscaped areas on the periphery
feature a high abundance of Eucalyptus trees. These visually
attractive trees have a smooth textured peeling bark that creates
patterned trunks.
High resistance
Large parts of the ground-level landscaped areas are covered
with non-native Axonopus compressus (Cow Grass), creating flat
fields that residents can use. The park contains a high number
of species that promote biodiversity, including Cheilocostus
0m
100 200
400 speciosis (Crepe Ginger), a commonly planted native herbaceous
shrub that has spirally arranged velvety leaves and produces
white flowers that attract both birds and butterflies; Vitex trifolia
(Arabian Lilac), an aromatic small shrub with small purple flowers
Mean abundance of birds at building green spaces and nearby control spaces
that attract butterflies; and Duranta erecta (Sky Flower), a small
shrub that produces purple flowers and golden-yellow berries
2
attractive to both butterflies and birds. The northern part of the
park contains a number of large Samanea saman (Rain Tree )
that existed prior to the development of the site and were
Mean number of birds counted over 10 min
1.5 preserved in its creation. The wide-spreading crowns of these

trees provide shade and roosting spots for birds.
1 Animals
Located within 800 m of Skyville@Dawson is a large secondary

forest. The ground garden vegetation in the northern part of the
0.5 development acts as an extension of the patchy forest areas to
the north of the site. A census conducted on site found birds,
butterflies, and small lizards in the various green areas of the
project. There were more species and a higher abundance of
0
Roof garden Control roof Ground garden Carpark birds than in control patches near the site.
(with trees)
Space type
The mean abundance of native bird species is approximately
three times higher in the roof gardens (0.71) than on control
Native bird species
roofs (0.22). Conversely, the mean abundance of introduced
bird species is lower in the roof gardens (0.1) than on the control
174

1. Javanese Mynah 6. Spotted Dove 8. Zebra Dove
9. Yellow-vented Bulbul 11. Olive-backed Sunbird 12. Brown-throated Sunbird
13. Black-naped Oriole 14. Pink-necked Green Pigeon 16. Scarlet-backed

Flowerpecker
18. Red-whiskered Bulbul 20. Common Tailorbird 28. Pacific Swallow
32. House Swift
Bird species type (shape) Information Plant attraction type (color) Bird species type (shape)
Native species Common names of species Butterfly-attracting Attracts both Native species
Introduced species found in case studies are shown. Bird-attracting Introduced species
biodiversity diagram on the left.
Number of birds sighted (shade) Other
1 2 3 4 5 Observation area
175

roofs (0.24). The abundance of birds and species found are also
related to the height of the roof gardens. Far fewer individuals can
be found in the roof gardens at Level 47, mostly two migratory
species, Hirundo tahitica (Pacific Swallow) and Apus nipalensis
(House Swift). Conversely, birds found in the lower gardens are
mostly the nectavore Cinnyris jugularis (Olive-backed Sunbird)
and Treron vernans (Pink-necked Green Pigeon), which is
often found nesting in trees in Singapore and has a diet mostly
consisting of fruit and some insects. Native bird species showed
more active behavior, such as foraging, in the roof gardens,
mostly on trees, than on the control roofs.
In the ground gardens, native bird species showed the same

abundance as in nearby car parks with large trees (0.93).
By contrast, there were fewer introduced bird species (0.93)
Roof garden.
in the ground gardens than in nearby car parks with large trees
(1.43). Native birds in the gardens were most often found on the
preserved Albizia saman (Rain Trees), among them the common
and native Hemiprocne longipennis (Grey-rumped Treeswift),
Spilopelia chinensis (Spotted Dove), and Yungipicus moluccensis
(Sunda Pygmy Woodpecker).
Surface Temperature
Green elements have the lowest mean surface temperature on

site both within shade (shrubs, trees, and turf: 32 °C) and outside
of shade (shrubs and trees: 34 °C, turf: 32 °C). The surface
temperatures of vegetation are less variable than those of
masonry materials, plastic, and rubber, and there is also a smaller
temperature difference in vegetation between shaded and
unshaded parts. Of the artificial elements, rubber has the poorest
thermal performance, with the hottest mean surface temperatures
in both shaded (57 °C) and unshaded conditions (67 °C).
The roof garden on top of the food court is the most and gardens
on Level 47 are the least exposed to the sun. The unshaded
concrete pathways and black plastic seats in the lower-level
garden reach temperatures exceeding 60 °C, only slightly
below of the maximum temperatures of plastic and masonry
materials. In contrast, the tall artificial shelters found at Level
47 provide shade for the concrete pathways and the colorful
plastic tables and seats, which lowers their surface temperatures
considerably. The pathways reach temperatures of approx. 45 °C
(unshaded) and 34 °C (shaded), the plastic furniture of approx.
50 °C (unshaded) and 35 °C (shaded). Similar to the lower garden,
the greenery in the higher garden contains mainly shrubs and
small trees.
Circulation space and sky garden.
The extent of shading in the car park roof garden is between that
of the lower and the higher gardens. It features several pockets
of resting spaces comprising black plastic seats underneath
artificial shelters clad in a layer of greenery. The plastic seats can
cool down to around 35 °C when shaded. There are several play
areas largely exposed to the sun, with only a couple of small trees
providing some shade at the periphery. Their floors are covered
entirely in rubber, which has high heat transmissivity. As a result,
the play areas exhibit the highest surface temperatures on site,
with the rubber floor measuring over 70 °C.
Even though the greenery of the roof gardens does not provide
much shading, it still contributes to cooling the environment
locally. Moreover, it serves as a heat sink on account of its cooler
surface temperature and evapotranspiration.
Ground level public space.
176

30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Other
177

Roof garden.
Ground garden.
178

In contrast to the roof gardens, the sky gardens have extensive
overhead coverage. They feature well-ventilated areas with
shading greenery and provide some of the coolest outdoor
spaces in the development.
The ground level also features some greenery in the space in

front of the food court. Like the greenery in roof garden on top of
the food court, these shrubs and small trees provide shading only
to their immediate surroundings. The long concrete tables and
the plastic seats in the middle of the space are exposed to the
sun at all times and reach temperatures in the range of 50-60 °C.
Most of the greenery at the ground level is located in the

landscaped park that features large trees with expansive
canopies that provide shade to the pathways, concrete benches,
play areas, shrubs, and turf in the vicinity. The effect of the
shading trees is most evident on the rubber floor of the play area
in the park, resulting in a temperature reduction of about 15 °C.
For the concrete pathways and turf, the temperature reduction by
shading is close to 10 °C and 6 °C respectively.
Space Use
Residents and visitors of Skyville@Dawson used green and

public spaces more than 1,800 times over an observation period
of six days for individual leisure as well as organized group and
special event activities. Most visits occurred in the ground garden
(67% of the total number of visits) and roof gardens (27%), while
only around 5% of visits were observed in the other public and
green spaces, such as in the roof gardens on top of the food
court and the car park, even though these are furnished with
similar playground and fitness equipment as the ground garden.
At the ground level, 84% of the activities consisted of playing,
exercising, strolling, and interacting socially. Only few visits
occurred in the sky gardens; this might change in the future,
as residents still moved in during the observation period and
access to those spaces was often blocked.
Time of Use
Individuals used the green and public spaces at all times of the
day, slightly more often between 9 and 10 AM (14% of all visits)
and 5 and 6 PM (17%) both during the week and on the weekend.
Sunday was the most popular day to visit the spaces.
On average, people spent 24 min in the green and public

spaces, varying according to activity: 24 min for playing, 20 min
for exercising, and 10 min for walking, while other activities
such as resting, interacting socially, eating, and studying took
longer – people rested and chatted for 30 min, spent 37 min
eating with friends and colleagues and studied for close to 1 hour.
While fewer people visited the roof gardens, those who did spent
significantly more time there, sometimes up to several hours.
Age Groups
The public and shared spaces of SkyVille@Dawson were largely Visits per day
populated by children under the age of 10 and adults between
ages 20 and 39. In the analysis, they account for more than 0 50 100 150
60% of the space users. Young children below 10 years who,

accompanied by adults, mostly strolled around and played at
the ground level and in the roof gardens, account for 90% of the
outdoor activities. Adolescents through those aged 19 did not
179

Rooftop garden, lvl 47 Rooftop garden, lvl 47
Sky garden, lvl 3 Sky garden, lvl 3
Pavilion roof Pavilion roof
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Cleaning &
Event
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
Smoking
maintenance
organizing
10 15
Number of Visits, ~10–19 years old Activity frequency per level, ~10–19 years old
Rooftop garden, lvl 47 Rooftop larden, lvl 47
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Cleaning &
Event
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
Smoking
maintenance
organizing
10 15
Number of Visits, ~20–39 years old Activity frequency per level, ~20–39 years old
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Cleaning &
Event
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
Smoking
maintenance
organizing
10 15
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Cleaning &
Event
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
Smoking
maintenance
organizing
10 15
Number of visits, ~60+ years old Activity frequency per level, ~60+ years old
Ground Ground
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Cycling
Cleaning &
Event
Walking
Playing
Exercise
Photography
Chatting
Waiting
Eating
Studying
Resting
Smoking
maintenance
organizing
10 15
Space use.
180

use the spaces as frequently as the other age groups and were for a typical unit (between SGD 170,000 and 220,000 for a
driven to the spaces by clear motivations: they exercised at the three-bedroom apartment).
ground level, while in the roof gardens they studied for an average
of 30 min and chatted for up to 1 hour. Adults between the ages The local Singapore Town Council is responsible for maintenance
of 20 and 39 were the most frequent users of the spaces and of the development.12 The average monthly maintenance
were often accompanied children, older people, or pets. Others cost per residential unit is estimated at SGD 43, mainly for
exercised at the ground level or interacted socially while resting labor, planting, and irrigation. Based on the National Parks
in the roof gardens. This age group typically occupied the site Board classification, low-maintenance species account for
in the later afternoon, corresponding with school and working 27% and drought-resistant species for 24% of the total GnPR.
hours. Middle-aged people (between ages 40 and 59) used the However, these maintenance requirements do not prevent other
spaces only slightly more frequently than adolescents. Older considerations in plant selection; 30% of the total GnPR attract
people of 60 years and above seldom appeared. They typically birds and 18% butterflies.
accompanied young children and exercised occasionally.
Town Council representatives were involved in workshops with
User Perception designers during the initial design phases of planting areas,
participating in the selection of plant species prior to finalizing
The perception analysis of SkyVille@Dawson includes the planting schemes. They also requested the installation
semi-structured interviews with users of different backgrounds, of an auto-irrigation system that allows for an efficient use of
ages, and gender, as well as residents and non-residents, water and labor. While the overall cost-effectiveness of the
about their preferences for using the spaces. An analysis of the development still needs to be proven over time, these measures
frequency of words in the conversations shows that the users’ successfully addressed the immediate concerns in terms of
focus was on environmental and social quality as well as the maintenance cost.
views from the sky and roof gardens. Interviewees appreciated
the green and public spaces and the overall design quality of the 1. “Queenstown - Housing & Development Board,” Housing & Development Board
Singapore, accessed March 3, 2018, https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-us/
development. They emphasized the ground garden more often history/hdb-towns-your-home/queenstown.
than the sky and roof gardens, although all used the roof gardens, 2. Ramakrishnan Karthigayan, “Remaking Our Heartland – Rejuvenating Singapore,”
gov.sg, accessed November 6, 2017, http://www.gov.sg/news/content/
enjoying the spectacular views, the relatively cool temperatures, remaking-our-heartlands-rejuvenating-singapore.
and the built-in furniture. Some felt that the absence of playing 3. Ng Jun Sen, “HDB Unveils Landscape Masterplan to Spruce up Dawson Estate,” The
Straits Times, December 18, 2016, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/
equipment in the roof gardens makes them less attractive for hdb-unveils-landscape-masterplan-to-spruce-up-dawson-estate.
families with young children. 4. Daniel Richards and Bige Tunçer, “Using Image Recognition to Automate Assessment
of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Social Media Photographs,” Ecosystem Services
(2017): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004.
Features that all interviewees appreciated include the diversity 5. Ibid.
6. Xiao Ping Song, Puay Yok Tan, Peter Edwards, and Daniel Richards, “The Economic
of facilities, the overall pleasant environment, the provision Benefits and Cost of Trees in Urban Forest Stewardship: A Systematic Review,” Urban
of furniture in common spaces, and the facilities for safety. Forestry & Urban Greening 29 (2018): 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017.
7. “Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters Programme Certified Projects (2010-2016),”
More than half of them also highlighted the general spaciousness Public Utilities Board Singapore, accessed January 8, 2018, https://www.pub.gov.sg/
of the development, the easy accessibility of residential units, Documents/ABC_Waters_Certified_Projects.pdf.
8. Landscape Replacement Areas are landscape areas provided on the 1st level or above
and the provision of public and shared spaces with varying of the development and in total at least equivalent in size to the development site area.
degrees of privacy. Interviewees also cited social connectivity as 9. Mun Summ Wong and Richard Hassell, “High Density, High Liveability,” in Thomas
Schröpfer, Dense + Green: Innovative Building Types for Sustainable Urban Architecture
one of the highly appreciated qualities of the development. All of (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016), 271-72.
them believed that the environment is beneficial to their physical 10. The measurement of green space in the project is based on industry-recognized norms
for the quantification of greenery in Singapore, such as the Green Plot Ratio (GnPR =
and mental health. total leaf area/site area) and overall landscaped area. Community provision calculations
are based on the aggregate community spaces provided, which may or may not include
greenery. The GnPR, total landscaped area, and total community area figures were
Cost measured against the whole Gross Floor Area and occupancy. The provisions of green
and community spaces were further segregated to understand the proportions of public
green, private green, and inaccessible green.
A cost analysis study for the project established the estimated 11. Clifford A. Pearson, “Skyville@Dawson: Gardens in the Sky,” Architectural Record,
investment and maintenance costs of the landscape greenery. March 16, 2013, https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/7925-skyvilledawson.
12. Town Councils were created in 1989 to manage and maintain the common property of
The estimated costs were subsequently analyzed in relation Singapore public housing estates.
to the overall project costs and economic implications on the
residents’ contributions to the greenery.
The estimated landscape vegetation installation cost is SGD 7.17

million, less than 4.6% of the total project cost.11 30% of this
cost is attributed to plant material and planting media, 30% to
additional building structure for the loading of sky and roof
gardens, and 17% to auto-irrigation.
The average landscape installation cost is estimated at

SGD 221/m2. The ground gardens have the lowest cost at SGD
156/m2, while roof gardens are more expensive at SGD 480/
m2, mainly due to the increased loading requirements on the
building to support the relatively small quantity of elevated
greenery. The average contribution of each dwelling unit to
the installation cost is estimated at approx. 3.7% of the cost
181

Oasia Hotel Downtown
Architect: WOHA Site Area: 2,311 m²
Landscape Architect: STX Landscape Gross Floor Area: 19,416 m²
Architects Gross Plot Ratio: 8.4
Developer: Far East SOHO Green Plot Ratio: 22
Building Type: Mixed-Use Number of Units: 100 office units and a
Climate Zone: Tropical Wet hotel with 314 rooms
Location: 100 Peck Seah Street,
Singapore 079333
Coordinates: 1°16’33.5”N 103°50’39.4”E
Date: 2016
With projects including The Pinnacle@Duxton, Guoco Tower,

and Oasia Hotel Downtown, the Outram Planning Area
comprises many of Singapore’s most recent commercial and
residential developments.1 Encompassing 1.37 km2, the area
is part of Singapore’s Central Business District that has been
developed by the Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore.
Outram claims the highest population out of six planning
areas adjacent to the Downtown Core and consists of four
mixed-use subzones – China Square, Chinatown, People’s Park,
and Pearl’s Hill.2
Oasia Hotel Downtown stands out for the way in which land use
is intensified through a building in a tropical and urban setting.
Its client, Far East SOHO, is part of Far East Organization, one of
the largest private property developers in Singapore. Established
Forest 3% in 1960, the company’s portfolio includes a large number of
Managed trees 12% commercial, residential, and industrial projects.3
Urban Scale

0m 400
100 200
The area around Oasia Hotel Downtown comprises
mixed-use buildings as well as a continuous green corridor
consisting of Pearl’s Hill Park, Duxton Hill Park, Vanda Miss
Joachim Park, and Tras Link Park. Most of the buildings in the vicinity
do not allow for the inclusion of green spaces at the ground level.
An urban density analysis of a 200 ha zone (10 min walk radius)

surrounding Oasia Hotel Downtown illustrates its setting.
Grey landscape 36%
The gross built coverage was 29% at the time of writing and will
most likely increase when the few remaining vacant plots in the
area are developed. Within this zone, the elevated landscape
space amounts to approx. 10% of the ground-level open space.
Landscape Space
Road 15% The open spaces of Oasia Hotel Downtown, comprised of sky
gardens, a roof garden, and green wall facades, add 0.57 ha of
Future development
10% landscape space to the area: approx. 20% to the open space ,
Green landscape 7% approx. 11% to the elevated landscape space, and approx. 5% to
Park 3%
the total landscape space within a 5 min walk radius.
0m
100 200
400 Oasia Hotel Downtown was designed to work as part of larger
urban green and blue systems. Its elevated landscape spaces,
WOHA, Oasia Hotel Downtown, Singapore, 2016, site plan, ground coverage.
Opposite page: sky garden, view from the north.
182

ranging in size from approx. 1,000 to 1,700 m2, and its green
facades compensate for the lack of landscape space at ground
level. However, the number of trees in the sky gardens and the
roof garden is relatively small and their contribution to the total
number of forest and managed trees, which cover 40% of the
open space within a 10 min walk radius, is not significant.4 The
project contributes to the greenery in the area largely through
its extensively planted facades, which also function as vertical
catchment elements for stormwater that help to regulate the
surface runoff to the city drainage system.
Oasia Hotel Downtown has received many design and real estate
awards for its extensive use of greenery and the integration
of sky gardens on multiple levels, which create high-quality
common spaces in a high-density urban context.
Architecture
Oasia Hotel Downtown has a footprint of approx. 2,300 m2 and

accommodates 100 office units and a hotel with 314 rooms on a
total Gross Floor Area of approx. 19,400 m2.
Massing
Oasia Hotel Downtown comprises a series of layers or “strata.”

Each one of them features a sky garden that provides a “ground
level in the sky” with generous common areas that serve the
respective building levels above.
Layout
Aerial view from the northwest.
The development comprises compact vertical circulation cores
at the corners to allow for large and unobstructed spaces in
between them. Three sky gardens are located on Levels 6,
12, and 21, and a roof garden on Level 27. The building occupies
almost its entire site on the ground and lower levels. Access
to the levels with hotel rooms and office units is provided
through multiple circulation cores. Central corridors connect
to the cores at the corners. The program blocks frame the
sky gardens and allow for visual connection to the greenery
they feature. The arrangement of the three sky gardens varies
in order to create a visual balance between solid and void
throughout the tower. The roof and sky roof gardens feature
both hard- and softscapes. Generously dimensioned planters are
located next to the green wall facades throughout the building.
Greenery and Community Provision
Large open spaces with extensive greenery and landscaping

as well as green facades are used as a means of architectural
expression throughout the project. The landscape greenery
components of Oasia Hotel Downtown comprise the ground
gardens, sky gardens, roof garden, and green wall facades.
The landscaped area (hardscape and softscape) amounts to
1,065% of the site area. The softscape constitutes 68% of the
landscaped area. 73% of that area are attributed to green wall
facades and 27% to the gardens on multiple levels.
A quantitative analysis of greenery and common space provisions

demonstrates the design intent of the development.5 Greenery
is provided on all facades as well as in the roof and sky gardens.
98% of the greenery is located above ground level. With a GnPR
of 22, the greenery within the development replaces the site
Facade with greenery.
184

Circulation. Exploded isometric, green space.
185

area by this factor. The intensive planting of shrubs, small trees,
and green wall facades that cover the entire building create a Potential forest bird species connectivity
visual perception of dense greenery throughout the project.
Low potential
The project features 5.2 m /person of common space, which

2
is relatively little compared to the provisions of greenery at

18.10 m2/person. This is indicative of the project’s goal to provide
a large amount of greenery to create a strong visual impact.
Biodiversity
Plants
A vegetation survey of the landscaped areas of Oasia Hotel

Downtown found 56 distinct species within the project’s
1.4 ha foliage area. Out of these, 15 are native to Singapore, High potential
while the remaining are introduced tropical species from either

horticultural or non-southeast Asian origins. Native species
provide approx. 0.17 ha of foliage area. Out of 15 native species,
three (140 m2 or 0.97% of the foliage area) attract birds.
Two attract butterflies (388 m2 or 2.7% of the foliage area) Low resistance
and three both birds and butterflies (257 m2 or 1.8% of the foliage
area). Native plants attracting biodiversity include Barringtonia
asiatica, Melaleuca cajuputi, and Syzygium myrtfifolium.
Non-native plants provide a foliage area of approx. 1.2 ha. 12 of

the non-native plants have biodiversity-attracting properties
(approx. 1 ha or 71% of the foliage area), with a predominance
of two species of climbers, Antigonon leptosus (Coral Vine)
and Argyreia nervosa (Elephant Climber).
There is minimal plant landscaping at the ground level, as most

of the plot area is occupied by the building; the foliage area High resistance
of 0.08 ha is low compared to that of the elevated gardens.
The vegetation structure is made up of either single layers
of shrubs or two layers of shrubs and small trees, plus small
shallow planters with small- to medium-sized shrubs and
medium-sized trees. 0m
100 200
400
All three sky gardens are similar in terms of their landscape

design and vegetation composition. Their foliage areas range vine that produces large, conspicuous, blue-purple flowers
from 0.09 ha to 0.17 ha. They feature the most complex attractive to birds.
vegetation structure in the tower, usually with two to three layers
of shrubs and small trees. Notable plant species found here in Animals
high abundance include Libidibia ferrea (Leopard Tree), a medium-
sized, drought-resistant tree with peeling ivory-grey bark. Only three native birds were spotted on the facade during 41
10 min point counts while no birds at all were spotted on control
The roof garden comprises approx. 0.08 ha of foliage area made facades with no greenery. This relatively low number is likely due
up of 13 different plant species. The vegetation structure consists to the low connectivity of the building to notable forest patches
of single layers of groundcover and shrub or trees, contained in (over 2 ha in size) and the small amount of vegetation in the
sunken planters. With 0.05 ha of foliage area, the most dominant high-density urban context of the development. Some foraging
plant species is Livistonia rotundifolia, a non-native large palm was observed around vegetation by olive-backed sunbirds; birds
with a wide crown that provides shade and has properties that were resting and perching on artificial surfaces; no birds were
attract birds. found in the elevated gardens.
The facades comprise a foliage area of 0.9 ha, with a simple Surface Temperature
vegetation structure of a single layer of climbers growing from
planter boxes. Nine different species of climbers can be found Surface temperatures at Oasia Hotel Downtown’s sky gardens
here, the most dominant and abundant ones being Antigonon generally do not exceed 45 °C as most spaces are well-protected
leptopus (Coral Vine), a drought-tolerant herbaceous climber with from solar radiation. Insulated laterally by a layer of greenery
bright pink and fragrant flower racemes that attract bees and on the building exterior, they gain heat from the “urban canopy
butterflies, and Argyreia nervosa (Elephant Climber), a woody layer,” the air between urban elements, at a slower rate.
The mean surface temperatures of the various materials increase
186

9. Yellow-vented Bulbul
11. Olive-backed Sunbird
187

from water bodies, masonry materials, shrubs and trees, to wood
and plastic when unshaded, and from water bodies, shrubs and
trees, masonry materials, to plastic and wood when shaded.
The sky gardens include greenery in the form of low-lying

shrubs, climbers, and small trees. The bulk of the shading is
provided by the built structure above them, so that they receive
less solar radiation than elevated gardens that are open to
the sky. The rooftop garden receives the most sunlight; here,
the plastic and wood decking adjacent to the water bodies
reaches the highest temperatures recorded on site at 64.3 °C
and 65.2 °C respectively. Many of the surfaces are made of
masonry materials and are sheltered from the sun. Shading
reduces the surface temperatures of concrete and plastic by
up to 5.6 °C and 11.8 °C respectively. When exposed to solar
radiation, the temperatures of artificial versus green components
of the facade differ by as much as 15.4 °C. When the facade
becomes more shaded over time by the growth of the greenery,
the difference in surface temperatures will likely decrease to
as low as 1.7 °C. This illustrates that green facades can be an
effective cooling strategy for high levels of solar radiation.
Space Use
As a private mixed-use development, Oasia Hotel Downtown

does not feature public spaces. The use of the common spaces
in the sky garden and the roof garden is limited to specific
activities such as checking in or out of the hotel or eating at the
hotel restaurant. During the observation period, the common
spaces were mostly used during work hours, with slight peaks
from 7 to 10 AM, when guests appeared in the sky gardens
for breakfast, and from 11 AM to 3 PM, when they arrived at or
departed from the hotel. Occasionally, users stayed for extended
periods of time to sit at the hotel bar, to read, or to exercise.
User Perception
The perception analysis of Oasia Hotel Downtown is based on

semi-structured interviews with users of different backgrounds,
ages, and gender about their preferences for using the spaces.
The analysis of frequency of words in the interviews shows
that the focus of the users is on the aesthetic dimension of
the building as well as its need for maintenance. Interviewees
described the building as a “landmark,” “creative,” and “special;”
three in 10 highlighted the elevated gardens as a unique feature
for a building in the CBD area.
Interviewees mentioned the difficulty of maintenance of the

greenery and, when they were staff of the hotel, that they
should be allowed to use the gardens for work breaks. Half of
the interviewees felt that with more trees on the ground level,
the building would be more attractive. Some suggested the
addition of commercial programs. Interviewees generally
believed that the presence of greenery helped to reduce stress
levels in the urban environment.
Cost
A cost analysis study for the project established the estimated

investment and maintenance costs of the high-quality landscape
greenery. The estimated costs were subsequently analyzed in
relation to the overall project costs and economic implications
on occupants, sale and lease value of office space, hotel ratings,
Facade with planters.
188

30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Other
189

Sky gardens.
190
306 Oasia Downtown.indd 190 11/8/19 10:17 AM

visitor experience, room rates, and the overall cost of managing
the building’s extensive greenery. The landscape vegetation
installation cost for Oasia Hotel Downtown is estimated at SGD
12.2 million, approx. 8.9% of the total project cost of SGD 155.9.6
Of the SGD 12.2 million, 76% is attributed to plant materials
and planting media and 24% to structure, irrigation, drainage,
and various other materials.
The average landscape installation cost is estimated at

SGD 556/m2. Of the cost for a typical office unit (approx. SGD 1,5
million for a 45 m2 space), an average of 3% is contributed to the
cost of installation of the greenery components. The average
contribution of each of the 314 hotel rooms to this cost is
estimated to be equivalent to the revenue that it generates in
three months of operation.
The average monthly maintenance cost is estimated at

SGD 36 per office unit and SGD 51 per hotel room, mostly
for labor, planting, and irrigation. Maintenance of the green
wall facades and the ground garden is organized by the
Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST), which is jointly
operated by the hotel and the office owners.7 The maintenance
of the sky garden on Level 6 is organized by the office owners,
while the hotel organizes the maintenance of the sky gardens on
Levels 12 and 21, as well as the roof garden.
Access to the planters is convenient and safe. The auto-irrigation

system and the facade planters limit the need for manpower.
The same applies to the sky gardens and the roof garden.
The thoughtful integration of maintenance requirements during
the early design stages led to an overall relatively low cost for
maintenance of the green components.
1. Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, “Development Control Parameters

for Residential Development,” accessed January 4, 2018, https://www.ura.gov.sg/
Corporate/Guidelines/Development-Control/Residential.
2. “Punggol Planning Area in Singapore,” City Population, accessed January 4, 2018,
https://www.citypopulation.de/php/singa,,pore-admin.php?adm1id=303.
3. “Four Far East Organization’s Developments Awarded at FIABCI Singapore Property
Awards 2017,” Far East Organization, press release October 6, 2017, https://www.fareast.
com.sg/-/media/fareast/aboutus/newsroom/press-release-pdfs/20171006-Four-Far-
East-Organization-developments-awarded-at-FIABCI-Singapore-Property-Awards-2017.
ashx?la=en&hash=385D7B97F0999FA3A47B7845395B76F6F1480DBA.
4. Daniel Richards and Bige Tunçer, “Using Image Recognition to Automate Assessment
of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Social Media Photographs,” Ecosystem Services
(2017): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004.
5. Green space was measured based on industry-recognized norms for the quantification
of greenery in Singapore, such as the Green Plot Ratio (GnPR = total leaf area/
site area) and overall landscaped area. The common space provision calculations
are based on the aggregate common spaces provided, which may or may not
include greenery. The GnPR, total landscaped area, and total common area figures
were then measured against the Gross Floor Area and occupancy. Each provision
was further segregated to understand the proportions of public green, private
green, and inaccessible green.
6. Bryna Singh, “Oasia Hotel Downtown, luxury resort Amanemu clinch top prize at the
SIA Architectural Design Awards,” The Straits Times, October 7, 2017, https://www.
straitstimes.com/lifestyle/home-design/delightful-designs.
7. “Strata Living in Singapore,” Building & Construction Authority Singapore, accessed
January 5, 2018, https://www.bca.gov.sg/bmsm/others/strata_living.pdf.
Visits per day
0 50 100 150

Following pages: facade with greenery.
191

192

193

1000 Trees
Architect: Heatherwick Studio/ Site Area: 58,930 m²
MLA Architects Gross Floor Area: 315,987 m²
Landscape Architect: Urbis Gross Plot Ratio: 5.4
Developer: Tian An China Investments Landscaped Area: 17,503 m2
Building Type: Mixed-Use
Climate Zone: Humid Subtropical
Location: No. 292, Moganshan Road,
Putuo District, Shanghai
Coordinates: 31°15’3.37”N
121°26’27.37”E
Date: 2019
1000 Trees is located next to the M50 Art District in the

Shanghai Putuo District that covers an area of approx. 54 km2
and has a population of approx. 873,000.1 The project occupies
a site along Suzhou River, bordering on Moganshan and
Changhua Road, with a plot area of approx. 58,930 m2.2
Grey landscape 34% The neighboring M50 Art District, formerly the location of an
industrial hub for cotton milling dating back to the late 19th
Century, houses a thriving community of more than 100 artists
whose studios are open to the public. The studios are mostly
Green landscape 22% located in old warehouses and industry complexes.3 The location
of 1000 Trees was previously occupied by China’s first privately-
Building footprint 17% owned flour factory, which was China’s largest and most modern
plant of its kind when it opened in the 1900s.4
Road 14%
1000 Trees highlights the history of the site. Four buildings
River 8%
Park 5%
that were part of the former flour plant have been preserved
and will become part of the new development. Inspired by
the neighboring M50 Arts District, one of these buildings will
be converted into a museum, while the other three will house
restaurants and galleries.
0m 400
100 200
The developer of the project is Tian An China Investments.
Heatherwick Studio/MLA Architects, 1000 Trees, Shanghai, China, 2019, plan,
ground coverage. The company was founded in Hong Kong in 1986, along with its
Opposite page: aerial view from the northwest, rendering. subsidiaries, and invests in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
It is engaged in the development of villas, apartments, commercial
properties and office buildings, property management,
and investment on the mainland in the PRC. The company also
manages and invests in properties in Hong Kong.5
From the beginning of the project Tian An China Investments

wanted 1000 Trees to be different from the surrounding
high-rise developments by connecting it to the M50 Arts District
as well as to Suzhou River and preserving the historic buildings
on site.6
Urban Scale
1000 Trees is largely surrounded by high-density residential

developments. Greenery around the site is mainly provided by
two linear parks along Suzhou River.7 In addition, greenery can
be found in the spaces between the residential developments
as well as along the surrounding tree-lined roads. The gross built
coverage within a 200 ha zone is 59%. 35% of the area consists
of open space, parks, semi-public landscape space, and the river.
194

Construction, view from the northwest.
Landscape Space Anhui Province in eastern China, provided the inspiration for
the project. The building’s massing and extensive vegetation
The footprint of 1000 Trees covers almost the entire site area of make it appear like a mountain range. This is in stark contrast
approx. 5.9 ha. Most of the development’s landscaped areas are to the surrounding residential tower typology. According to
located above the ground level. Vegetation in integrated planters Heatherwick, “1000 Trees is conceived not only as a building but
on the top of columns and on balconies covers most of the roof, as a piece of topography and takes the form of two tree-covered
visually extending the landscape space along Suzhou River into mountains, populated by hundreds of columns.”10
the project.8 1000 Trees provides approx. 18% of the landscape
space within a 5 min walk radius around the project. The columns are an essential part of the structure and are
expressed as main elements. They support the trees and
Green and Blue Systems greenery on the top of the building. The development includes
a large terrace made of 400 steps and a tree-shaped abutment
1000 Trees was designed as an artificial mountain range with formed by the columns that protrude from the roof. Each column
green and blue features that are part of larger urban systems. features a potted pond at its top which will be planted. The 1,000
The project’s 400 greened terraces are connected to allow for columns stand on round platforms and feature irregular surface
stormwater management.9 The development borders on a linear textures.11 There are no seams in the vertical formwork so that
green space in the north, linking it to larger urban green networks the columns appear as continuous extrusions of the ground.
that include the M50 Art District Park as well as Suzhou River According to Studio Heatherwick, the columns “are the defining
Mengqing Garden in the east, which is the most significant area feature of the design, emerging from the building to support
in terms of green and blue systems in the district. plants and trees.”12
Architecture 1000 Trees houses a large range of programs including retail,

restaurants, cafes, theaters, offices, and hotels, held together
1000 Trees is a mixed-use development with a total constructed by the expressive massing and large landscape space of the
Gross Floor Area of approx. 300,000 m2. development. According to Heatherwick Studio, “The integrated
planting acts as a natural balancing element and the building’s
Massing and Layout edges are lowered to minimize the impact where it meets
the art district and park, reducing the discernible threshold
According to Thomas Heatherwick, principal of between them.13
Heatherwick Studio, the design architect of 1000 Trees,
the Yellow Mountain, part of a mountain range in southern
196
307 1000 Trees.indd 196 11/13/19 8:24 AM

features a potted pond at its top which will be planted. The 1,000 conceived not only as an urban neighborhood revitalization
columns stand on round platforms and feature irregular surface project but a well-scaled ‘green lung’ space that engages its
textures.11 There are no seams in the vertical formwork so that surrounding neighborhoods.”14
the columns appear as continuous extrusions of the ground.
According to Studio Heatherwick, the columns “are the defining 1. “1000 Trees,” Tian An China Investment, accessed March 28, 2019, http://www.
tiananchina.com/en/projects_developments.php?pid=14.
feature of the design, emerging from the building to support 2. “Hanging Gardens with 1,000 Trees Take Shape Along Suzhou Creek,” SHINE,
plants and trees.”12 accessed March 28, 2019, https://www.shine.cn/news/metro/1804112941/.
3. “Shanghai M50 Creative Garden, Special Art District in Shanghai,” Top China
Travel, accessed March 28, 2019, https://www.topchinatravel.com/china-attractions/
1000 Trees houses a large range of programs including retail, m50-creative-garden.htm.
4. “Hanging Gardens with 1,000 Trees Take Shape along Suzhou Creek,” SHINE.
restaurants, cafes, theaters, offices, and hotels, held together 5. “Profile,” Tian China Investments, accessed March 29, 2019, http://www.tiananchina.
by the expressive massing and large landscape space of the com/en/overview_profile.php.
6. “Hanging Gardens with 1,000 Trees Take Shape Along Suzhou Creek,” SHINE.
development. According to Heatherwick Studio, “The integrated 7. Oliver Wainwright, “China’s Syndrome,” RIBAJ: The RIBA Journal, accessed March 28,
planting acts as a natural balancing element and the building’s 2019, https://www.ribaj.com/culture/china-s-syndrome-wiles-wainwright.
8. “Hanging Gardens with 1,000 Trees Take Shape Along Suzhou Creek,” SHINE.
edges are lowered to minimize the impact where it meets 9. “1000 Trees,” ARCHINA, accessed March 29, 2019, http://www.archina.com/index.
the art district and park, reducing the discernible threshold php?g=works&m=index&a=show&id=195.
10. Ibid.
between them.13 11. Ibid.
12. “Transforming Shanghai’s Skyline with 1000 Trees,” Letitgrow, accessed December
27, 2018, https://letitgrow.org/city-culture/transforming-shanghais-skyline-1000-trees.
Greenery and Community Provisions 13. Jessica Mairs, “Heatherwick releases new video of 1000 Trees under construction in
Shanghai,” dezeen, accessed December 27, 2019, https://www.dezeen.com/2017/08/10/
thomas-heatherwick-studio-1000-trees-video-photographs-shanghai-china/.
1000 Trees’ mountain-like massing integrates the project’s many 14. “1000 Trees,” 1000 Trees Shanghai, accessed April 5, 2019, http://www.1000trees.
greenery and community provisions with the ambition to not only com.cn/.
serve the visitors of the building but the larger urban population.
According to the Tian An China Investments, “1000 Trees was
197

Vancouver
Architect: LMN Architects/ Site Area: 8.9 ha (5.6 ha on land,
Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership/ 3.3 ha over water)
DA Architects + Planners Gross Floor Area: 45,615 m2
Convention Centre
Landscape Architect: PWL Partnership Gross Plot Ratio: 0.5
Landscape Architects Landscaped Area: Approx. 3.7 ha
Developer: BC Pavilion Corporation
West
Building Type: Commercial
Climate Zone: Oceanic
Location: 1055 Canada Place, Vancouver,
BC V6C 0C3, Canada
Coordinates: 49°17’21”N, 123°6’49.67”W
Date: 2009
Vancouver Convention Centre West is the result of two decades

of planning and redevelopment for Vancouver’s waterfront area.
The project together architecture and urban design with the
aim of functioning as a living part of both the city and its harbor.
The development defines an urban district that is the focal point
of the Vancouver Downtown Waterfront in a city known for its
strong civic involvement and environmental awareness. An early
Sea 50% indication of the building’s value to the city was that it served as
International Broadcast Centre for the 2010 Olympic Games,
with the public plaza as the site for the Olympic Torch. Having
tripled Vancouver’s convention capacity, the Centre continues
to reap economic benefits for the British Columbia region with
significant bookings.1
Grey landscape 17%

The development’s extensive and complex program
Road 10%
encompasses a single building as well as a new urban district.
Park 3% Occupying a former brownfield site on the downtown waterfront,
Green landscape 2%
Vancouver Convention Centre West covers approx. 5.7 ha on
land and 3.2 ha over water, with approx. 92,900 m2 of convention
space, 8,360 m2 of retail space, and 450 parking lots.2
0m 400
100 200 Urban Scale
LMN Architects/Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership/DA Architects + Planners,
Vancouver Convention Centre West, British Columbia, Canada, 2009, site plan, Density and Greenery
ground coverage.
Opposite page: aerial view from the northwest.
Vancouver Convention Centre West is the first LEED Platinum-
certified convention center in Canada.. It aims to integrate the
urban ecosystem at the intersection of downtown Vancouver and
a unique natural ecosystem. The site borders the high-density
urban core to the south, Vancouver Harbour in the north and
east, and Harbour Green Park in the west. The latter connects to
the development through a series of urban green spaces along
the shore to Stanley Park, a 405-ha public park that borders
the downtown area and that is almost entirely surrounded by
Vancouver Harbour and English Bay.
Landscape Space
Vancouver Convention Centre West features a large living roof.

At 2.4 ha, it is the largest in Canada, hosting some 400,000
indigenous plants and 240,000 bees in four colonies that provide
honey for the convention center’s restaurant.
The roof’s sloping forms draw on the topography of the region,

creating a formal as well as ecological connection to nearby
198

Aerial view from the northwest.
Aerial view from the southwest. Public space.
Stanley Park and the North Shore Mountains in view across concrete reef drops below the waterfront promenade, designed
the Burrard Inlet. The slopes set up natural drainage and seed in collaboration with marine biologists, and helps to restore the
migration patterns for the roof’s ecology. The roof has no public ecology of the natural shoreline.3
access points, allowing it to develop as a fully functional habitat
for migrating wildlife, while the landforms fold to allow views onto The internal metabolism of the building draws many of its inputs
the lush vegetation from inside and outside the building. from the site’s renewable resources. A seawater heat pump
system takes advantage of the constant temperature of seawater
Approx. 35% of the project is built on piles over the water, to produce cooling for the building during warmer months and
surrounded by a custom-designed marine habitat skirt consisting heating in cooler months, contributing to a reduction in energy
of five concrete tiers that provide rocky surfaces for marine life use of 60% compared to other buildings of this program and size.
to attach to. Each tier supports a separate set of biota depending A water conservation and reuse system reduces potable water
on the water depth, forming a complete shoreline ecosystem consumption by 70%, including an on-site blackwater treatment
including salmon, crabs, starfish, shellfish, and many other native plant that cycles all wastewater from the building, including
species. Runnels built into the tidal flats beneath the building stormwater from the living roof, and returns it for irrigation and
create additional tidal habitats that flush out daily. An artificial other greywater needs.4
200

201

Architecture
Vancouver Convention Centre West is a mixed-use building with

a total constructed Gross Floor Area of approx. 111,500 m2.
Massing and Layout
The massing of Vancouver Convention Centre West, with its

iconic living roof, is highly visible from throughout the city. It is
located at the terminus of a chain of waterfront parks that ring the
harbor and create a continuous stepping-stone habitat between
the convention center and Stanley Park.
The building’s landforms create a topographical experience on

the interior. The development’s materiality is based on the use
of indigenous British Columbia wood, expressed in the strong
directional lines of the ceiling plane and a wall cladding that
simulates the texture of stacks of lumber. The interior invites
daylight and views, setting up an extroverted, community-
friendly relationship with the exterior and connecting the
interior experience with the life of the city and the waterfront.
Transparency serves as an orienting device for users in the
facility, anchoring each space to the views available. By night,
the lit interior turns the building into an “urban lantern” at the
water’s edge.5
Greenery and Community Provisions
In addition to its approx. 2.4 ha living roof, Vancouver Convention

Centre West features approx. 37,200 m2 of partially greened
walkways, bikeways, public open space, and plazas. The public
Interior.
realm extends through and around the site (excluding the living
roof), including a waterfront promenade featuring restaurants,
retail storefronts, and public art, while infrastructure for future
development extends into the water. At the center of the public
realm, the development’s Jack Poole Plaza is the city’s first major
gathering space on the water’s edge, and the permanent home
of the 2010 Olympic Torch.6
1. “About Us,” Vancouver Convention Centre, accessed February 28, 2019, https://www.
vancouverconventioncentre.com/about-us.
2. “How Vancouver Greened Its Waterfront,” LMN Architects, accessed February 28,
2019, http://lmnarchitects.com/case-study/vancouver-greened-waterfront.
3. Bridgette Meinhold, “LEED Platinum Vancouver Convention Centre Takes Home Top
Ten AIA COTE Award,” inhabitat, accessed February 28, 2019, https://inhabitat.com/
leed-platinum-vancouver-convention-centre-takes-home-top-ten-aia-cote-award/.
4. “Vancouver Convention Centre West,” LMN Architects, accessed February 28, 2019,
https://lmnarchitects.com/project/vancouver-convention-centre-west.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
Public spaces.
202

Interior.
Green roof.
203

Pérez Art Museum
Architect: Herzog & de Meuron/ Height: 18 m/4 floors, 1 basement
Handel Architects Gross Floor Area: 41,000 m2
Landscape Architect: Patrick Blanc Gross Green Area in Building: 2,400 m2
Miami
(Vertical Gardens)/ArchitectonicaGEO Gross Green Area to Built-Up Area: 6%
Client: Miami Art Museum
Building Type: Museum
Climate Zone: Tropical
Location: 1103 Biscayne Boulevard,
Miami, Florida 33130, USA
Coordinates: 25°47’09.2”N 80°11’10.3”W
Date: 2013
The Pérez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) is part of the

redevelopment of the city’s downtown waterfront on
Biscayne Bay. The institution evolved from the Miami Art
Museum, which grew out of the Center for the Fine Arts (CFA).
In 1994, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary, the CFA’s
leadership decided to transform this county department from a
space solely for temporary exhibitions into a private institution
Sea 42% with a permanent collection dedicated to international art in the
20th and 21st Centuries, art that would reflect Greater Miami’s
diverse community and pivotal geographic location at the
crossroads of the Americas. To embody this new mission
Grey landscape 19%
and the community’s aspiration for a major art museum on a
prominent waterfront site, the CFA was renamed the Miami Art
Road 17% Museum (MAM).1

The museum’s plans included a significant educational program,
Park 7% the building of the collection, and the creation of a new, world-
Green landscape 3%
class facility that would affirm the region’s growing stature as
a global capital. MAM, in tandem with the Miami Museum
of Science, led the charge to transform a derelict, approx.
12 ha waterfront site in the City of Miami into Museum Park,
0m
100 200
400 formerly known as Bicentennial Park. The area had previously
been part of the Port of Miami, until it moved to the neighboring
Herzog & de Meuron/Handel Architects, Pérez Art Museum Miami, Florida, USA, 2013,
site plan, ground coverage. Dodge Island in the mid-1960s. Today, Museum Park, together
Opposite page: view from the southwest. with its partner location Bayfront Park seven blocks to the south,
is host to many large-scale events such as the annual Ultra Music
Festival with its capacity to hold up to 45,000 people.
The city dedicated the land and funding to realize the vision of
a great public park anchored by the art and science museums.
Through its landmark Building Better Communities program,
Miami-Dade County provided the capital funds to construct major
new art and science museums. MAM commissioned Herzog
& de Meuron to design a state-of-the-art, sustainable building
that expresses the museum’s role as an educational and civic
forum for the county’s residents and visitors. In 2013, when the
museum moved to its new facility overlooking Biscayne Bay in
Museum Park, it was renamed the Jorge M. Pérez Art Museum
of Miami-Dade County, in recognition of a generous gift by a
prominent donor.2 Today, the museum’s permanent collection
contains over 2,000 works, particularly 20th- and 21st-Century
art from the Americas, Europe, and Africa. Since the opening of
the new building at Museum Park, the museum has seen record
attendance levels, with 150,000 visitors in its first four months
compared to an average of about 60,000 visitors annually at its
previous location.3
204

View from the east.
Urban Scale Biscayne Bay, the building was required to be elevated above
the regulated flood and storm surge requirements, which
Density and Greenery allowed the parking garage to be placed below the museum.
This arrangement facilitated a design that integrates parking and
Museum Park is located at the northern edge of Miami’s planting beds with irrigation system water storage, stormwater
downtown core. PAMM’s direct neighbors are the Patricia infiltration, temporary storm surge storage, and aquifer recharge.
and Phillip Frost Museum of Science, a science museum,
planetarium, and aquarium formerly known as the Miami Science The porous-floored parking garage, along with rain gardens,
Museum; and MacArthur Causeway, a major freeway that captures rainwater and funnels it into the groundwater
connects mainland Miami with Miami Beach in the north; system, thus reducing local flooding and stormwater runoff
Maurice A. Ferré Park, and Biscayne Bay in the east. The area into Biscayne Bay. The science museum to the west shares
to the east of Museum Park features a series of residential stormwater management and circulation facilities, including
high-rises. To the south, the park faces the building and the planted infiltration basin in the roundabout and the pervious
parking lot of American Airlines Arena, a large-scale sports concrete plaza and bus drop-off. 4
and entertainment facility that is home to the Miami Heat and
National Basketball Association. The landscape concept of the formal hanging gardens was
expanded to include the use of water-wise, animal-friendly
Landscape Space native plant materials, in conjunction with systems that capture
rainwater and air-conditioning condensate for irrigation.
Museum Park is part of a larger landscape space that runs along Large irrigation cisterns are concealed within the planted berms
the waterfront to Biscayne Bay, including Bayfront Park in the that surround the parking garage. Ten large trees were preserved,
south and Margaret Pace Park in the north. The museum itself and now serve as focal points and anchors in the sculpture garden.
is designed as an extension of the adjacent park by a series New plant material has been chosen based on ability to survive
of spaces that provide a gradual transition from the outside full sun or full shade, and the harsh climate of South Florida, which
to the inside. With its raised, wraparound terraces and broad can alternately provide saltwater, heavy salt wind, drought and
overhanging canopies, its spaces are conceived to withstand excessive rain. The extensive plant palette takes advantage of the
hurricanes and floods while providing ample shade and South Florida Ecotone, an area of overlap between the temperate
ventilation. The museum also incorporates a series of hanging biome of the southern USA and the tropical biome of the Caribbean,
vertical gardens made from local plants and vegetation, designed permitting an extraordinary selection of appropriate plant material.
by French botanist Patrick Blanc. 64,033 plants are strategically placed to frame views, stabilize
slopes, and absorb excess water. Additionally, the landscape is
Green and Blue Systems arranged by habitat for resiliency and biodiversity, rather than
as a botanical display. Hardy, salt-tolerant Coconut palms form
PAMM was designed to work as part of larger urban green and the first line of defense along the bay. Lowland hammocks with
blue systems. Its various landscape spaces accommodate a Fakahatchee Grass and Bald Cypress form rain gardens tolerant
substantial amount of vegetation that augments the existing of extended inundation. Sand dunes with Beach Morning Glory and
ecosystem of the adjacent park. Its green and blue systems grasses transition to upland tropical hardwood hammock farther
are continuous and connect the various components of the from the bay. The elevated Metromover offers a bird’s-eye view of
overall development. Because of the museum’s proximity to various habitats as it traverses the edge of the site.5
206

207

Hanging garden.
The landscape and the building have been designed to be the museum platform to the waterfront promenade next to
flexible, based on concerns including porosity to air, light, water, Biscayne Bay.
and ecological function. This flexibility by design permits the
migration of water, plants, paths, and animals. This project The veranda of the museum occupies the entire site with its
demonstrates that habitat reclamation and the cultivation interior volumes nesting within. Suspended amid the structural
of wilderness is possible, even in an urban setting. Indeed, framework, each level is shaped according to the program it
the cultivation of wilderness will be a critical tool for landscape contains. The interior spaces provide generous views to the outside
architects in the coming decades, as we design for resiliency in despite the fact that all of the museum’s expansive windows are
the face of an uncertain future.6 recessed. Wooden planks under the concrete beams minimize the
sun’s impact on the glazing and reduce the building’s overall energy
Architecture consumption for cooling. The exterior surface of the massive
concrete walls is chiseled in some places and polished in others;
The three-story PAMM features a total area of approx. 18,600 m2 adjacent to the glazing, the concrete is smooth and reflective, while
with an interior Gross Floor Area of 11,125 m2 of programmable it is rough facing the outside, exposing its natural ingredients.8
space for the display of works of art, educational activities,
relaxation, and dining. The building includes interior and At the heart of the museum, a stair as large as a gallery
covered outdoor event spaces, an auditorium, a museum store, connects two exhibition levels. This central stair also functions
an education area, and a cafe. as an auditorium, using sound-insulating curtains in different
configurations to provide space for lectures, film screenings,
Massing and Layout concerts, and performances. This allows for events in preparation
to be visible. When the space is not actively used for events, it is
The structure of PAMM is inspired by Stiltsville, a number available for visitors and staff for individual readings, introductions
of wooden houses built on stilts that stand off the coast of to groups, and other activities.9
Key Biscayne and Biscayne Bay. The design is highly responsive
to the City’s climate. The three-story building sits upon an PAMM was chosen for the 2015 American Society
elevated platform and below a canopy, both of which extend of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Professional Awards.10 In
far beyond the museum’s walls, creating a shaded veranda and its citation, the award jury pointed out the project’s complex
plazas.7 Rising from the parking level, stilts support the museum approach to water, vehicular, and ecosystem management,
platform with a dense field of columns on the upper levels that in calling it “a true example of multidisciplinary team-driven
turn support the canopy that covers the entire site and creates a sustainable design, in both vision and implementation.”11 The jury
veranda-like public space. Facing the bay, a wide stair connects further highlighted the project’s exemplary water management
208

View from the south. View from the southeast. Following pages: view from the southeast.
that became the key feature that informed almost every other counterpoint to the more formal hanging planted columns.
decision, whether from rain, sea, or condensate as well as the Overall the materiality of the greenery and landscape space
fact that air conditioning and irrigation are provided by the building is deconstructed to exhibit some of Earth’s most basic forms,
itself through high trellised structures that shade the decks and including the gravel in the paths and the parking garage.14
funnel sea breezes and water to make the subtropical exterior
setting comfortable for people and plants.12 According to ASLA, Inside the museum, a number of densely vegetated interstitial
collaborative efforts by the design and construction teams, spaces stage the interplay of the natural world with the very
and careful attention to detail, allow the multitude of sustainable different, contemplative space of the art gallery. Roof and plants
layers to work in concert. combined create an overall microclimate that helps to reduce
the extreme temperature gaps between outside and inside in
PAMM further earned LEED Gold Certification, with the Miami’s hot weather in all of the museum’s public spaces.
landscape contributing significantly to that designation.
1. “Who We Are,” Pérez Art Museum Miami, accessed February 27, 2019, https://www.
pamm.org/about.
Greenery and Community Provisions 2. Ibid.
3. “Pérez Art Museum Miami proves to be a work of art,” Florida Trend,
accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.floridatrend.com/article/16740/
The dense field of structural columns and columns covered with prez-art-museum-miami-proves-to-be-a-work-of-art.
plants suspended from the building’s large overhanging roof as 4. “PAMM - Pérez Art Museum Miami,” Landezine, accessed February 28, 2019, http://
www.landezine.com/index.php/2014/07/pamm-perez/.
well as the intensely planted shading canopy of the museum 5. “2015 ASLA Professional Awards,” ASLA, accessed April 16, 2019, https://www.asla.
create a ‘vegetal microcosm’. The greenery on the suspended org/2015awards/89062.html.
6. Ibid.
columns comprises 80 kinds of plants which can withstand 7. “Pérez Art Museum,” Handel Architects, accessed February 28, 2019, https://
tropical heat as well as hurricanes.13 The building blurs outside handelarchitects.com/project/perez-art-museum.
8. “Pérez Art Museum Miami,” Herzog & de Meuron, accessed February 28, 2019,
and inside through a system of planted spaces. Larger public https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/index/projects/complete-works/301-325/306-perez-
spaces are generally located at the periphery of the building, art-museum-miami.html.
9. Ibid.
maximizing their exposure to the veranda, Biscayne Bay, 10. “Pérez Art Museum Miami proves to be a work of art,” Florida Trend,
and Museum Park. Native trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and vines accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.floridatrend.com/article/16740/
prez-art-museum-miami-proves-to-be-a-work-of-art.
cover the ground plane and are complemented by the hanging 11. “2015 ASLA Professional Awards,” ASLA, accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.asla.
vertical green elements above. The designers chose largely org/2015awards/89062.html.
12. Ibid.
native plants for the project to display the ‘raw materials’ of the 13. Ben Hobson, “Green wall pioneer Patrick Blanc: Now everybody is doing vertical
local landscape as complement and contrast to the architecture. gardens,” dezeen, accessed February 28, 2019, https://www.dezeen.com/2014/01/08/
patrick-blanc-herzog-and-de-meuron-perez-art-museum-miami-vertical-gardens/.
Southern Florida’s lush subtropical trees, shrubs, groundcovers, 14. “2015 ASLA Professional Awards,” ASLA, accessed April 16, 2019, https://www.asla.
and vines are featured on the horizontal ground plane in vibrant org/2015awards/89062.html.
209

210

211

Torre Rosewood
Architect: Ateliers Jean Nouvel/ Site Area: Approx. 2.8 ha (entire Cidade
Triptyque/Königsberger Vannucchi Matarazzo site)
Landscape Architect: Rodrigo Oliveira Gross Floor Area: Approx. 54,000 m2
Developer: Groupe Allard (tower only)
Building Type: Mixed-Use Landscaped Area: Approx. 2,100 m2
Climate Zone: Humid Subtropical Number of Units: 122 residential units
Location: Alameda Rio Claro, 196, Bela and a hotel with 151 rooms
Vista, São Paulo, SP, 01332-010, Brazil
Coordinates: 23°33’40.8”S 46°39’10.4”W
Under construction (design 2012)
Cidade Matarazzo is a quiet, green refuge in the center of

São Paulo adjacent to the lively Avenida Paulista, one of the city’s
most important and busiest avenues. Located on the 5.5 ha site
of the former Matarazzo Hospital, the development features a
mix of commercial and residential programs in restored historical
as well as new buildings including Hotel Rosewood São Paulo,
Torre Rosewood, and House of Creativity.1
The developer of Cidade Matarazzo is Groupe Allard, a company
based in Paris, France that focuses on the acquisition and
development of sites with historic buildings and architectural
heritage. Groupe Allard established its first office in Brazil in 2009
Grey landscape 30% to work on the site of the Cidade Matarazzo, which, at that point,
had been abandoned for over two decades.2, 3
Road 14% The centerpiece of the Cidade Matarazzo is the 93-m-high

Park 4% Torre Rosewood, a mixed-use complex that accommodates 122
Green landscape 3%
residential units as well as 151 hotel rooms of Hotel Rosewood
São Paulo, two restaurants, a bar and lounge, three swimming
pools, a spa, and a fitness area. Designed by the French
architecture firm Ateliers Jean Nouvel as a “landscape building,”
0m
100 200
400 the tower is meant to be a tribute to the Atlantic Forest that lines
much of Brazil’s coast.
Ateliers Jean Nouvel/Triptyque/Königsberger Vannucchi, Torre Rosewood, São Paulo,
Brazil, under construction, site plan, ground coverage.
Opposite page: rendering, view from the southwest.
Following pages: rendering, view from the northwest.
Urban Scale
Cidade Matarazzo is surrounded by the dense fabric of São Paulo’s

urban center. In the northeast, the development borders on
Rua Itapeva, a tree-lined street that connects it to Avenida Paulista
and to a number of larger urban green spaces including
Parque Tenente Siqueira Campos, Parque Prefetto Mário Covas
in the west and Praça 14 Bis in the north.
Landscape Space
Torre Rosewood extends the lush vegetation of Cidade Matarazzo

into the building. It incorporates a large variety of local vegetation.
Flowers, plants, and trees drape the building’s common and
private spaces, with “floating” sky and rooftop gardens providing
a sense of continuity between the building and its surroundings
while also offering a sense of refuge and privacy to its guests
and residents.
212
313 Rosewood Tower.indd 212 11/10/19 12:30 PM

214

215

Torre Rosewood was designed to work as part of larger

urban green and blue systems. Its various landscape spaces
accommodate a substantial amount of vegetation that augments
the existing ecosystem on and around the Cidade Matarazzo
site. Its continuous green and blue systems connect the various
components of the overall development. Ground-level landscape
is designed as an integrated stormwater management system
to regulate the runoff rate and to cleanse the runoff water of
the site. In the roof gardens, planter boxes with planting media
absorb surface runoff to minimize the discharge at ground level.
Architecture
Massing and Layout
The building was designed as a vertical continuation of its

surrounding landscape. Its massing develops at different levels
through a variation of the building’s 22 floor plans, creating a
series of terraces and large gardens with small- and medium-
sized trees and making the overall volume appear as a series
of floating gardens. The tower’s facade comprises 720 metal
Rendering, aerial view from the southeast.
screens made of Corten steel in the color of Brazil’s national
trees, Pau Brasil and Rosewood. Together with the vegetation,
the screens shade the building interior and provide guests and
residents with privacy. They are layered and arranged vertically
as well as horizontally and combined with plants placed on the
building’s multiple terraces. On the ground floor, the tower is
connected to adjacent buildings through a series of covered
walkways and planted paths.4
The landscape greenery components of Torre Rosewood

comprise the ground, sky, and roof gardens as well as planters
along the facade and terraces. At ground level, the tower is
surrounded by the lush 1.5 ha garden of Cidade Matarazzo
that features a variety of trees common to the endangered
Brazilian Atlantic Forest, such as Jatobás, Sibipurinas,
Pitangueiras, Canelinhas, Jacarandás, and Goiabeiras. On the
upper levels, the tower incorporates lush local vegetation
with flowers, plants, and trees draping both common and
private spaces.5
1. “Cidade Matarazzo,” Cidade Matarazzo, accessed February 11, 2019,

http://www.cidadematarazzo.com.br/site/en/projeto/
Rendering, ground floor garden and common space. 2. Ibid.
3. “Rosewood Hotel Group: Us,” Rosewood Hotel Group, accessed February 12, 2019.
https://www.rosewoodhotelgroup.com/en-us/.
4. “Torre Rosewood,” Ateliers Jean Nouvel, accessed February 12, 2019,
http://www.jeannouvel.com/en/projects/torre-rosewood/.
5. Ibid.
216

217

Renderings, common spaces.
218

219

The Spiral
Architect: BIG Site Area: Approx. 7,750 m2
Landscape Architect: BIG (Landscape Div.) Gross Floor Area: 264,775 m2
Client: Tishman Speyer Gross Plot Ratio: 34.1
Building Type: Office and retail
Location: 66 Hudson Boulevard,
New York, New York, 10001, USA
Coordinates: 40°45’17.3”N 73°59’59.4”W
The Spiral, also known as 66 Hudson Boulevard, is an approx.

306 m tall office tower located in the rapidly developing
Hudson Yards district of Manhattan’s Midtown West. It is
the largest private real estate development in the USA and
the largest mixed-use development in New York City since
Rockefeller Center. Rezoned in 2005, the area currently
experiences an influx of development activity, attracting
high-end retailers, restaurants, entertainment and cultural
destinations, as well as high-profile commercial tenants.
Hudson Yards covers an area of approx. 11 ha. The development

Road 23%
is roughly bound by 30th Street to the south, 41st Street to the
north, 11th Avenue to the west, and 8th Avenue to the east.
Grey landscape 19%
It is connected to commuter rail, the subway, the West Side
Highway, as well as the Lincoln Tunnel and ferries along the
River 9% Hudson River. The extension of New York City’s No. 7 subway
Park 4%
Green landscape 4%
line arrives at the Hudson Yards station, which opened in 2015.
When completed in 2025, 125,000 people will live, work in,
or visit Hudson Yards per day.1
The New York City-based architecture firm Kohn Pedersen Fox

0m
100 200
400 (KPF) designed the master plan for the site. The development is
largely built on two platforms above the Long Island Rail Road rail
BIG, The Spiral, New York, New York, USA, under construction, site plan, ground coverage.
Opposite page: rendering, view from the west. yard, also called the “West Side Yard,” at the point where 30 rail
tracks converge into four before entering Pennsylvania Station.
Describing their approach to the design of the master plan,

KPF emphasize that “the new development is not just about
erecting tall buildings or bricks and mortar; it is about creating
dynamic spaces to be used and enjoyed by residents and
workers, and a celebrated destination for visitors from across
the city, the region and the world. Hudson Yards is a distinctive
community characterized by advanced sustainability, housing,
and diverse architectural styles. Its streets are lined with shops,
restaurants, galleries, arts and culture.”2
The master plan features a number of urban green

spaces, including a large park that is meant to become
an important public space for New York City, unifying the
residential, commercial, and retail structures, and linking the
development to the Hudson River waterfront, the High Line
district, and Hudson Boulevard Park. Architects contributing
individual buildings to the overall development include the
US-based Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Roche-Dinkeloo
and Diller Scofidio + Renfro as well as the UK-based
Studio Heatherwick. 13 of the 16 planned buildings of
220

222

Hudson Yards will be placed on the platform built over the
West Side Yard.
The first of Hudson Yards’ two major development phases,

completed in 2019, comprises public green space and eight
buildings that accommodate residences, a hotel, office buildings,
a mall, and cultural facilities. The second phase, scheduled to be
completed in 2024, will include more residences, an additional
office building, and a school.
The Spiral will join other developments made possible by

rezoning, including 3 Hudson Boulevard and Manhattan West.
Designed by BIG and located in the east of the Hudson Yards
development, The Spiral occupies an entire city block between
34th and 35th Streets.3 A distinguishing feature of the building
is that each floor will have outdoor gardens that are designed to
spiral around the building. The tower was initially conceptualized
in 2014 with the name Hudson Spire and a height of 610 m
and was marketed as the tallest building in the USA and the
Western Hemisphere. Renderings released from 2016 onwards
show the current design by BIG lined with a cascading series of
landscaped terraces and hanging gardens.
The Spiral is developed by Tishman Speyer, a US-based firm that

owns, develops, and operates real estate worldwide. In 2017,
the New York City-based pharmaceutical firm Pfizer announced
its plan to move its headquarters into The Spiral, becoming its
anchor client by occupying 74,000 m2 of office space and taking up
Levels 7 through 21 of the building. The company officially signed
a 20-year lease in April 2018, in conjunction with Blackstone,
a US-based multinational private equity, asset management,
and financial services firm, providing a construction loan of USD
1.8 billion, one of the largest such loans in New York City’s history.4
Urban Scale
The Spiral draws its sustainable and landscape inspiration from

the various urban green spaces it is connected to. These include
the High Line, the newly developed Hudson Park and Boulevard,
and Hudson River Park.
The Spiral occupies a site at the northern end of the High Line,
an approx. 2.3-km-long elevated linear park and green way
built on a historic freight rail line elevated above the streets of
Manhattan’s West Side. Saved from demolition by neighborhood
residents and the City of New York, the High Line in its current
form was designed by landscape architects James Corner
Field Operations and architects Diller Scofidio + Renfro. The High
Line opened in 2009 as a hybrid public space where visitors can
experience nature, art, and design in the high-density urban
context of Manhattan. The project originates on the Lower West
Side and runs to the northern edge of the West Side Yard on
34th Street. It features extensive greenery in a series of gardens
and green spaces. The design of The Spiral directly relates to the
High Line by extending its green space vertically and intertwining
a spiraling continuous green pathway with workspaces on every
level all the way to the roof.
On the ground level, The Spiral connects to the newly developed

Hudson Park and Boulevard, also known as Bella Abzug Park,
that extends from West 33rd to West 38th Streets to the east
Opposite: rendering, view from the southeast.
223

of the park and from West 35th to West 38th Streets to the in 1916 and transformed the city’s skyline by requiring all towers
west. The park covers an area of approx. 1.6 ha and features to stay within a diagonal sky exposure plane, ensuring light
extensive greenery including many trees.5 Once completed, and air could reach the streets. Following the requirement of
Hudson Park and Boulevard will become the green center of the the setback, The Spiral’s massing becomes gradually slimmer
Hudson Yards development, with entrances through each of its towards the top.
newly designed East Side and West Side Streets. In addition to
extensive greenery, Hudson Park and Hudson Boulevard will The tower’s entrance provides access to the newly extended 7
accommodate large paved areas for public events as well as subway line, providing quick access especially to Grand Central
smaller, more intimate areas placed within shrubs and trees.6 Terminal. The approx. 10-m-high lobby space of the tower opens
towards the Hudson Boulevard and Park, offering direct access
Landscape Space to green spaces.
With its continuous green pathway, The Spiral features an The layout of the upper levels of The Spiral consists of
uninterrupted double-height landscape space spiraling up the center-core open and largely column-free floor plans with large
entire building. According to its architects, this design “ensures ceiling heights. These allow for flexible configurations of the
that every floor of the tower opens up to the outdoors, creating various tenants. The building’s floor-to-ceiling glass facade
hanging gardens and cascading atria that connect the open allows for largely unobstructed panoramic views of Midtown,
floor plates from the ground floor to the summit into a single Central Park, the Financial District, and the Hudson River. With a
uninterrupted workspace. The string of terraces wrapping around focus on sustainability and green construction, The Spiral is
the building expand the daily life of the tenants to the outside air targeting LEED certification.10
and light.”7 In addition to its spiraling green pathway, the tower’s
approx. 10 m-high lobby extends the landscaped space of Greenery and Community Provisions
Hudson Boulevard Park into the building, connecting the tower to
the adjacent large urban green space. Coiled around the building, the spiraling path of green
spaces creates a string of interconnected double-height atria
Green and Blue Systems terraces and cascading gardens. Ranging in size from approx.
20 to 100 m2, these terraces and gardens aim at providing
The Spiral is designed to work as part of larger urban green and uninterrupted workspaces that allow for a collaborative
blue systems. Its spiraling landscape space accommodates the workplace. According to Bjarke Ingels, principal of BIG,
greenery that augments the existing green and blue systems “The terraces will ascend, one per floor, in a spiraling motion
around the site, thereby becoming part of a much larger to create a unique, continuous green pathway that wraps
network of urban green spaces that includes Chelsea Park, around the facade of the tower and supplies each occupant
Clement Clarke Moore Park, and 14th Street Park as well as with readily accessible outdoor space.”11 On the inside, every
Hudson River Park, an approx. 223 ha riverside park and estuarine terrace becomes a double-height atrium with spectacular
sanctuary located on the West Side of Manhattan between views over Manhattan, offering a more informal setting for
Battery Place and West 59th Street.8 Hudson River Park is the meetings, events, and recreational activities. The atrium spaces
second-biggest park in Manhattan after Central Park. It is part of connect multiple levels in the building, offering an alternative to
the 51-km-long Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, a foreshore elevators to encourage physical activity and interaction amongst
way for walking and cycling around Manhattan. Hudson River Park colleagues. They connect to the lush outdoor terrace space on
opens up large parts of Manhattan’s waterfront for recreational every tower floor.
use. Its features include sports fields, playgrounds, running and
cycling paths, and many others and it incorporates several rebuilt 1. “Related City Centers,” Related Companies, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.
piers along its length, formerly used for shipping. Hudson River related.com/city-centers.
2. “Hudson Yards,” KPF, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.kpf.com/projects/
Park connects many other recreational sites and landmarks hudson-yards.
as its runs through the areas of Lower Manhattan including 3. “Firm,” Tishman Speyer, accessed April 5, 2019, https://tishmanspeyer.com/firm/
organization.
Battery Park City and World Trade Center; Greenwich Village 4. Will Parker, “Tishman Speyer picks up Pfizer as anchor tenant for Spiral, lands mammoth
including the West Village and the Meatpacking District; Chelsea; construction loan,” The Real Deal, April 10, 2018, https://therealdeal.com/2018/04/10/
and Midtown West including Hudson Yards and Hell’s Kitchen.9 pfizer-to-move-hq-to-tishman-speyers-spiral-2/.
5. “Hudson Park & Boulevard,” Hudson Yards Development Corporation, accessed April 5,
2019, http://www.hydc.org/html/project/hudson-park.shtml.
6. Ibid.
Architecture 7. Niall Patrick Walsh, “Construction Begins on BIG’s Spiral Skyscraper in
Manhattan,” archdaily, February 13, 2019, https://www.archdaily.com/911425/
The Spiral is a 65-story office tower with a total floor area of construction-begins-on-bigs-spiral-skyscraper-in-manhattan.
264,775 m2. 8. “Explore the Park,” Hudson River Park, accessed April 6, 2019, https://hudsonriverpark.
org/explore-the-park.
9. “Vision & Progress,” Hudson River Park, accessed April 6, 2019, https://
hudsonriverpark.org/vision-and-progress.
Massing and Layout 10. “The Spiral,” Tishman Speyer, accessed April 5, 2019, https://tishmanspeyer.com/
properties/the-spiral.
The Spiral’s massing punctuates the northern end of the 11. Ibid.
High Line and the beginning of Hudson Boulevard. The basic
zoning envelope for the site required two massing setbacks.
To address this requirement, the architects combined the
efficient layouts of modern high-rises with the classic ‘ziggurat’
silhouette of the early 20th-Century Manhattan skyscraper.
The latter was the result of New York City’s first zoning resolution
224

Rendering, interior.
Rendering, sky gardens.

Following pages: rendering, aerial view from the west.
225

226

227

Miami Produce Center
Architect: BIG/Kimley Horn Associates Site Area: Approx. 3.45 ha
Landscape Architect: BIG (Landscape Div.) Gross Floor Area: 125,000 m2
Client: UIA Management Gross Plot Ratio: Approx. 3.6
Building Type: Mixed Use
Climate Zone: Tropical
Location: 21 Northwest 12th Avenue,
Miami, Florida 33128, USA
Coordinates: 25°47’49.8”N 80°12’57.2”W
Under development (design 2018)
Miami Produce Center is a mixed-use development in the

Allapattah neighborhood, located east of Miami International
Airport and west of the prominent art and entertainment
Wynwood district. Allapattah stretches from Interstate 95 to the
east to Northwest 27th Avenue to the west and from Interstate
195 in the north to Interstate 395 and the Miami River in the
Building footprint 27% south. It is part of the larger industrial district of Miami which
extends from the airport to downtown. Dominated by industrial
uses, Allapattah is known for its large open-air produce and
Road 26% textile markets. Much like the neighboring Wynwood, Allapattah
is currently undergoing a transformation from an industrial to an
art and entertainment district, similar to Chicago’s Fulton Market
Green landscape 24% and New York City’s Meatpacking District.
The client of Miami Produce Center, UIA Management,

Grey landscape 23% is a Miami-based real estate firm led by Robert S. Wennett,
a developer with a reputation for innovative urban projects.
Wennett’s prior projects in Miami include 1111 Lincoln Road,
an urban redevelopment project designed to showcase
the city’s international prominence as a destination for art,
culture, and commerce that since its completion in 2010 has
0m
100 200
400 received international status and acclaim. For the design of
1111 Lincoln Road, Wennett engaged Herzog & de Meuron
BIG/Kimley Horn Associates, Miami Produce Center, Miami, Florida, USA,
under development, site plan, ground coverage. and Raymond Jungles, a Miami-based landscape architect,
Opposite page: rendering, aerial view from the west. for the gardens that feature water elements and contain mature
plantings indigenous to the area.1
Based on the great success of 1111 Lincoln Road, Wennett

bought the Allapattah Produce Market, a site with three old
industrial buildings on it, in 2016 for USD 16 million with the
intention to redevelop the site. BIG’s design for the new
complex features a stack of linear buildings rising above restored
warehouses on the site that will be repurposed for use by
artisans, brewers, light manufacturers, and other producers.
At the ground level, the restored warehouses will include retail,
restaurants, and other amenities surrounding the pedestrian and
public areas. A direct connection to the Santa Clara Metrorail
station will be included. Above the restored warehouses,
a series of “floating” vertical structures will feature residential,
hotel, co-working offices, urban farming, and educational
components. On top of each building, programmed roofscapes
will extend the public realm vertically and capture panoramic
views of the area as well as downtown Miami.
The new development will include three existing produce

buildings, linear warehouse structures with a strong
industrial identity that local fruit and vegetable wholesalers
228

Rendering, view from the southeast.
used for storage, which will be converted into retail spaces. open landscaped space at the center of the development. Each of
The residential component of the project will include 2,400 the new buildings features a specific roofscape with a variety
co-living units, a new form of housing where residents share of landscaped areas as elevated recreational environments.
living space. While relatively new to Miami, co-living apartments Four additional buildings ‘float’ above the lower buildings’
have been successfully implemented in the USA in Los Angeles, roofscapes. Spanning over the openings below, they will create
San Francisco, and New York City. Miami Produce Center will be gateways that open up to the surrounding neighborhood while
the first in Miami with a major co-living component. providing light and air to the landscaped rooftops below.
Urban Scale Green and Blue Systems
Density and Greenery Miami Produce Center is designed to work as part of larger urban
green and blue systems that exist further north and south of its
Located between Allapattah’s Northwest 21st and 22nd Streets site. The project’s various landscape spaces will accommodate
and between Northwest 13th and 12th Avenues, the immediate a substantial amount of vegetation, adding greenery to its
urban context that largely consists of low-rise industrial buildings largely non-green industrial urban context. The green and blue
with little to no greenery. A series of urban green spaces mostly systems of the project will be continuous and connect the various
related to institutional buildings including Jackson Memorial components of the whole development.3
Hospital is located to the south, starting from Northwest 20th
Street. North of Northwest 24th Street, the industrial corridor Architecture
to which the site belongs borders on a low-rise residential
neighborhood with lush greenery, largely in the form of The mixed-use development, including the converted existing
private gardens. buildings, will feature approx. 21,500 m2 of office, 12,000 m2
of retail, and 2,100 m2 of educational space as well as 1,094
Landscape Space parking spaces.4
The spaces in between the buildings of the new development Massing and Layout
will be landscaped according to the warehouse programs
they relate to, creating three different public spaces. These The massing of Miami Produce Center is conceived as a
are referred to by the architects as “campus,” “street,” three-dimensional urban framework, designed to activate the
and “garden.”2 Four new buildings will be built over the existing surrounding neighborhood with a large range of programs
warehouses along the periphery of the site and create a large and environments. A series of passages will cut through the
230

231

development to allow for public access as well as circulation
to and from the adjacent metro station across the site. A street
will run through the middle of the project, which will include
an educational campus. The three existing warehouses will
be converted to accommodate education and commercial
programs. Large expanses of glazing will be added to their fronts
to open up the interiors to the outdoor space.
The four linear buildings with hotel, office, and residential

programs along the perimeter of the site will create a large
open courtyard at the center. Supported by slender columns,
they will feature large industrial floor plates to provide maximum
programmatic flexibility. Zigzagging walls between the floor
plates will create outdoor nooks, while their offset arrangement
will produce patterns across the facades. The walls will be
Rendering, view from the northwest.
colored pale pink, orange, or blue, depending on their position
in the overall complex. Four additional residential buildings will
float above their roofscapes and span over the openings below.
All new buildings will provide outdoor space on the rooftop,
which will feature sports courts, gardens, and urban farms.5
The warehouses on the ground level of the development will

accommodate education and commercial programs. Between
them, three public parks will exhibit a variety of landscapes with
lush tropical greenery that will create diverse microclimates
and allow the buildings’ programs to extend outdoors.
The development as a whole will be activated by urban farming,
restaurants, storefronts, co-working offices, co-living units,
and educational programs with the goal of creating a vibrant
public realm while preserving the industrial spirit of the site.
Extensive greenery will be placed throughout, from the gardens
and walkway canopies to the car park, where it will drape through
gaps in the ceiling. A night-time rendering of the garage shows it
transformed into a night club.6
1. “Real Estate Impact Conference February 10, 2012 – Robert S. Wennett,”

University of Miami Business School, accessed April 3, 2019, https://umbfc.bus.miami.
edu/re2012/speakers/robert-wennett.html.
2. “Mipro – Miami Produce,” BIG, accessed April 5, 2019, https://big.dk/#projects-mipro.
3. Ibid.
4. “First mixed-use project in Allapattah scores first commission approval,” The Real
Deal South Florida, accessed April 4, 2019, https://therealdeal.com/miami/2019/03/29/
major-mixed-use-project-in-allapattah-scores-first-commission-approval/.
5. Ibid.
6. Eleanor Gibson, “BIG reveals Miami Produce Center raised on stilts above former
warehouses,” dezeen, August 8, 2018, https://www.dezeen.com/2018/08/08/
miami-produce-center-big-warehouse-housing-offices/.
Renderings, public spaces.
Rendering, parking garage.
232

Renderings, public spaces.
233

11th Street Bridge Park
Architect: OMA Site Area: 12,306 m2 (footprint)
Landscape Architect: OLIN Gross Floor Area: 17,066 m2
Client: 11th Street Bridge Park Gross Plot Ratio: 1.4
Building Type: Infrastructure Landscaped Area: Approx. 15,000 m2
Climate Zone: Humid Subtropical Dimensions: 364 m (length),
Location: Washington, DC 20003, USA 10 m (width Navy Yard Landing),
Coordinates: 38°52’17.9”N 76°59’24.5”W 55 m (width Anacostia Landing)
The 11th Street Bridges are a complex of bridges across the

Anacostia River in Washington, DC, USA. The bridges lead
Interstate 695 across the Anacostia to its southern terminus at
Interstate 295 and the District of Columbia Route 295 (DC 295).
The bridges also connect the neighborhood of Anacostia with the
other parts of Washington, DC. 1
River 23%
In March 2014, a competition was launched by Building Bridges

Park 21%
Across the River, a Washington, DC-based non-profit
organization with the mission of improving the quality of life for
residents of areas next to the Anacostia River, and of finding new
Road 19% uses for a series of piers that had previously supported a part of
the bridge complex which had been moved to a new location.2
Green landscape 15% Residents from both sides of the river engaged in identifying
programming concepts. The resulting design brief called for
an architectural and landscape design that would connect the
Grey landscape 10% neighborhoods of Capitol Hill and Anacostia that face each other
across the river with a series of green spaces, cultural amenities,
and gathering spots. It asked for a design that would speak to
its location on an elevated level overlooking the river, including
its history, ecological challenges, and plans for a cleaner and
0m
100 200
400 more sustainable future, making it a destination for residents and
visitors.3 OMA and the Amercian landscape architecture firm
Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), 11th Street Bridge Park, Washington, DC, USA,
under development, site plan, ground coverage. OLIN were announced as the winning design team from more
Opposite page: rendering, view from the southeast. than 80 entries in 2014.4
Urban Scale
Located between Capitol Hill to the northwest and Anacostia

to the southeast, the 11th Street Bridge Park has an immediate
context characterized by a number of four to eight-story
buildings and parking structures that are part of a US Navy
yard to the northeast; the District Yacht Club to the northeast;
and Anacostia Park, one of the largest and most important of
Washington, DC’s recreation areas, stretching along the banks of
the Anacostia River.
Landscape Space
11th Street Bridge Park will feature extensive landscape

space beyond the new neighborhood park, which will be
complemented by a series of layered programs with landscape
space components including an environmental education center,
an art space, a play space, a cafe, a beer garden, and a large
public plaza.
234

Green and Blue Systems The resulting massing produces an “X” in elevation, creating an
expressive new image for the river.
The project was designed to work as part of the larger
urban green and blue systems of Anacostia Park along and The layout of the park will make the river landscape accessible
beyond the Anacostia River. With an area of over 490 ha, to the community and visitors. Through programmed activities,
Anacostia Park includes Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens the project will showcase the region’s cultural and natural history.
and Kenilworth Marsh. In the northeast, the park connects to the To encourage visitors to spend time on the structure and in the
US National Arboretum and in the southwest to East Potomac neighboring communities throughout the year, amenities for
Park as well as to the Potomac River. Anacostia Park features comfort and opportunities for seasonal programming will be
large areas for sports, recreation, and public events. As a green provided along the entire length of the bridge park. As a whole,
and blue system, it protects the wetlands and woodlands the project will provide a gateway to events with strong roots in
alongside the river, providing a habitat for diverse species of the adjacent communities.
plants and animals. Its diverse range of plants includes cherry
trees, northern wild rice, cattail, and milkweed. Wildlife includes The intersection point of the two main paths of the structure
osprey, bald eagles, songbirds, and waterfowl as well as deer, will create the central meeting space of the bridge park. It will
foxes, beavers, muskrats, and turtles.5 feature a public open plaza as a flexible venue for markets,
festivals, and theatrical performances held throughout the year.
Architecture and Landscape Design For the architects, the “paths that frame the plaza will enhance
the bridge as a hub of activity, providing a sequence of zones
Massing and Layout designated for playing, relaxing, learning, and gathering.”6
The paths will form elevated platforms on a 5 ° slope with
11th Street Bridge Park will connect two historically disparate views to the Anacostia River, the activities on the bridge,
sides of the river with a series of outdoor programmed spaces and prominent landmarks within Washington, DC and Anacostia.
and active zones hovering above, yet directly related to, These platforms will simultaneously provide shade and shelter
the Anacostia River. The massing defines the bridge park as for the cafe on the southeast side and the performance space
an intersection where the two sides of the river converge and and hammock grove on the northwest side. At each side,
coexist. Paths from each side will function as “springboards,” a waterfall will mark their terminus and reconnect the paths to
sloped ramps that elevate visitors to panoramic lookout points to the river below. On the east side, this waterfall will be linked to
landmarks in all directions. Extending over the river, the Anacostia an active filtration system that, together with new wetland areas
paths will join to form a loop, embracing the path from the adjacent to the bridge piers, will work to actively clean the river
Navy Yard side and linking the opposing banks in a single gesture. around the bridge park.
Rendering, aerial view from the southwest.
236

237

Rendering, view from the southeast.
Rendering, public space.
238

The activated zones and multiple levels of the project also bring
visitors down to the river itself. A series of voids along the bridge
park will provide spaces for play and access down to the river
itself. The performance space and cafe will be each partially
carved into the volume of the bridge, creating intimate zones
with views to the waters below. Together, these areas will
allow visitors to engage the river from multiple vantage points,
from above to take in its large expanse, or engaging with the
waters for boating and recreation.
The project’s environmental education center will provide a

variety of programs that will illustrate the 400-year history of
the river, including how the Anacostia watershed lost much
of its original hardwood forest cover, grassland meadows
and tidal wetlands due to the treatment of this landscape.
Rendering, public space.
11th Street Bridge Park will illustrate the challenged current
condition of the river as well as highlights the possible solutions
demonstrated by many ongoing efforts to clean the river,
build community, and educate the next generation of river
stewards and engaged citizens. According to the architects,
the design “will serve as a catalyst to improve the ecological
integrity of the Anacostia River through demonstration and
education on ecosystem enhancement as well as restoration
shoreline plantings making it once again one of the Nation’s
greatest waterways.”7
With its many greenery and community provisions, the project

aims to promote the health of the citizens of Washington,
DC, particularly those who live in Wards 6, 7, and 8 by
Rendering, view from the southwest (Washington, DC side).
reflecting the communities’ aspirations for a higher-quality built
environment. In addition, the design builds upon and connects
to the existing Anacostia Riverwalk Trails on both sides of the
river and creates a new topography for the public to engage and
explore. As such, its programmatic elements will be extended
to provide stepping stones to the heart of historic Anacostia,
encouraging residents to explore this new place in the city.
Much like the waters of the nearby Chesapeake Bay estuary,
where salt and fresh water mix to create a rich biological diversity,
the 11th Street Bridge Park will create a place for sharing the
rich cultural diversity of communities on both sides of the river.
According to the design team, “the full integration of architecture,
landscape, and infrastructure will allow for the creation of a
socially sustainable civic experience.”8
1. “AWI Master Plan,” Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, accessed April 15, 2019,
https://www.anacostiawaterfront.org/awitransportationmasterplan. Rendering, public space.
2. “BBAR – Building Bridges Across the River,” Building Bridges
Across the River, accessed April 15, 2019, https://bbardc.org/partner/
bbar-building-bridges-across-the-river/.
3. “11th Street Bridge Park Competition: Design Principles, Values and Facilities
Description,” Building Bridges Across the River, accessed April 15, 2019,
https://bbardc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bridge-Park-Principles.pdf.
4. “11th Street Bridge Park, Washington, D.C.,” Design Build Network,
accessed April, 15 2019, https://www.designbuild-network.com/
projects/11th-street-bridge-park-washington-dc/.
5. “Anacostia Park,” National Park Service, accessed April 15, 2019,
https://www.nps.gov/anac/learn/nature/index.htm.
6. “11th Street Bridge Park,” OMA, accessed April, 15 2019,
https://oma.eu/projects/11th-street-bridge-park.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
Rendering, view from the southwest (Anacostia side).
239

Bosco Verticale
Architect: Stefano Boeri Architetti Site Area: Approx. Approx. 10,000m²
Landscape Architect: Emanuela Borio and Gross Floor Area: Approx. 40,000 m²
Laura Gatti Gross Plot Ratio: Approx. 4
Developer: Hines Italy Total Greenery Area: 1,987 m²
Building Type: Private Residential Number of Units: 400
Location: Via Gaetano di Castillia, 20124
Milan, Italy
Coordinates: 45°29’09.2”N 9°11’27.1”E
Date: 2015
Bosco Verticale is located in Porta Nuova, a main business

district of Milan. At the time of writing, it is one of the largest
urban redevelopment projects in Europe. Porta Nuova comprises
three neighborhoods, the largest being Garibaldi with an area of
more than 23 ha. Based on a master plan by Pelli Clarke Pelli and
located around Milan’s Garibaldi train station, the neighborhood
Grey landscape 34% features office, residential, commercial, hotel, and exhibition
spaces. The second-largest neighborhood is Varesine, based on
a master plan by Kohn Pedersen Fox, with an area of 8.5 ha of
office, residential, commercial, and cultural spaces. The third
and smallest is Isola, based on a master plan by Stefano Boeri
Architetti, with an area of 3.15 ha of primarily residential space.
Isola is characterized by a vertical densification achieved
through high-rise office as well as mixed-use and residential
Road 17%
developments. The surrounding area is largely composed of
Park 9% typical European mid-rise perimeter blocks, consisting of five-to-
Green landscape 7% eight-story apartment buildings with ground-level commercial
spaces. The new developments include the Unicredit Tower,
Torre Diamante, and Bosco Verticale.
The developer of Bosco Verticale, Hines Italy, is part of an

0m
100 200
400 international real estate company that operates in the USA,
Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. In Porta
Stefano Boeri Architetti, Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy, 2015, site plan, ground coverage.
Opposite page: view from the north. Nuova, the company has developed a total of 28 mixed-use and
residential buildings.1
Isola borders on the Garibaldi Station and its rail tracks.

As a result, the neighborhood is cut off from the larger urban
context despite the fact that it is adjacent to the Corso Como and
the skyscrapers of Porta Nuova.2, 3 Historically, Isola has been
dedicated to light industry.4 In this context, Bosco Verticale aims
at creating a new type of sustainable housing that provides a
high level of livability both for its residents and the neighborhood.
Designed as a “vertical forest,” it features extensive greenery
that helps to improve the air quality in Isola.5
Urban Scale
Porta Nuova features the Giardini di Porta Nuova, a continuous

16 ha public green space. Located at its center is La Biblioteca
degli Alberi, a large park that connects the district’s public green
spaces with the larger urban context.6 In addition, Porta Nuova
features a number of pocket parks, landscaped courtyards,
and pedestrian avenues that add to the existing greenery in
the area.
240

Aerial view from the southwest.
Maintenance of greenery.
242

An urban density analysis of a 200 ha zone (a 10 min walk radius)
surrounding Bosco Verticale shows the built density of the
area. The gross built coverage of 33% is primarily made up of
mid-rise perimeter blocks and the new towers. 50% of the
area consists of open space of parks, plazas, as well as public
and semi-public residential landscape spaces. The resulting
built-to-open-space ratio reflects the fine grain of the
existing urban form, consisting of large-footprint coverage of
mid-rise and low-rise buildings along with compact open spaces
and courtyards.
In contrast, the large-scale ground-level and elevated

landscape spaces of the Porta Nuova buildings constitute a
new form of urban density and provision of greenery in Milan.
The landscape areas provided on the elevated levels of these
buildings is a significant addition to the limited amount of
ground-level open space, an amount that is unlikely to change
in the future.
Landscape Space
The total amount of elevated landscape space, primarily provided

by Bosco Verticale, contributes 2% of the total open space
within the 200 ha zone. The development contributes 10%
of the landscaped area of the Giardini di Porta Nuova, 35% of the
elevated landscape space and 6% of the total ground-level and
elevated landscape space within a 5 min walk radius.
Architecture
On a Gross Floor Area of approx. 40,000 m2, Bosco Verticale

houses 400 residential units.7
Massing
Among a number of sustainability features, the development’s

extensive greenery creates an experience similar to “living on the
ground” with an adjacent green space for the residents. Inspired
by the idea of a forest, the towers visually connect to the larger
green spaces of Porta Nuova. The balconies of the residential
units provide generous outdoor seating areas from which
occupants can enjoy views of the city and the surrounding parks.
Layout
Arranged around the vertical circulation cores, the residential

units are based on a modular system that allows for variations
in configuration and size. Each level comprises a combination of
three one- to four-bedroom units, each with at least one large
balcony. The generous size of these outdoor spaces exceeds that
of typical private residential developments in Milan.
The window-to-wall ratios of the facades take into account

the large protruding balconies and the effective shading by the
extensive greenery, which allows for passive climatic control
of the interior. Visually, the greenery softens the rigid building
elevations. The roofs are primarily used to accommodate
technical services.
Bosco Verticale comprises two residential towers with

built-in planters on large protruding balconies on every level.
243

The planters contain large and small trees with grown canopies
accompanied by shrubs, perennials, and groundcovers. In their
visual appearance, they define all facades, continuing the ground-
level green spaces of the Giardini di Porta Nuova vertically.
An analysis of the greenery and common space provisions

highlights the design intent of the development. Greenery is
primarily provided above ground level. The total landscaped
area constitutes 116% of the site area. The provision for
common areas is approx. 52 m2/person and the provision
for greenery is 9.5 m2/person. This is indicative of the
ambition to provide a high amount of accessible greenery
with the underlying intent to create a new model for
residential developments.
Bosco Verticale received numerous international awards

and recognition for its generous provision of green space,
its contextual response, and common spaces.
Biodiversity
Animals
The area within an 800 m radius around Bosco Verticale features

a number of green spaces. These include a large open grassland
park that is part of the wider Porta Nuova green network, which
also comprises a cemetery that is populated by urban bird
species. The neighborhood features also other smaller green
spaces as well as tree-lined streets. Forest and urban biodiversity
would be expected to move from the green spaces on ground
level into those of the vertical spaces of the blocks and few
View from the southeast.
towers of the adjacent buildings, allowing them to act as an
extension of these ecosystems.
Bosco Verticale has a higher abundance of bird species

(17 species) and they are more present than on the nearby
Torre Breda, which is similar in height and also features balconies
but lacks extensive vegetation. Birds breed and forage on the
towers, with the fruiting trees and shrubs of their green balconies
providing perchable surfaces and a natural nesting place for
many species.
Surface Temperature
In exposed conditions, the vertical greenery of Bosco Verticale

is 3.8 °C cooler than the artificial facade materials. This suggests
that partly substituting the latter with greenery can reduce
heat gains of the facades that are exposed to the sun. Shading
was predicted to lower the mean surface temperature of
artificial facade materials by 4.8 °C and that of vertical greenery
by 3.3 °C. The surface temperature difference between
exposed non-organic materials and shaded vertical greenery is,
at maximum, 41.4 °C and, on average, 7.1 °C. For the purpose
of the study, glass and white concrete, which tend to have
lower surface temperatures than many other building materials,
were grouped together with black concrete under the category
of “artificial materials.” This likely led to smaller mean surface
temperature differences between vertical greenery and artificial
materials, so that the difference may have been even larger in
some parts.
Balconies with greenery, aerial view.
244

29. Laced Woodpecker
30. Scaly-breasted Munia
31. Collared Kingfisher
33. Red-billed Blue Magpie
34. Oriental Magpeie Robin
35. Common Iora
245

Facade and balconies with greenery.
View from the east.
246

30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Other
247

Number of visits by age group, ground floor Activity frequency by age group, ground floor
~ < 10 years old ~ < 10 years old
~ 10–19 years old ~ 10–19 years old
~ 60+ years old ~ 60+ years old
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Studying
Walking
Chatting
Eating
Resting
Exercise
Waiting
Playing
photos
Taking
10 15
Space use.
Word frequency in interviews

Terms mentioned frequency
100
75
50
25
0
Greenery
environmet
Nice
garden
Ground
access
Easy
design
Building
temperature
Thermal
equipment
Facilities or
cost
Expensive
Resting
noise
Urban
Relaxing
unit design
Dwelling
Uniqueness
Shade
Crowdedness
design
Landscape
Terms mentioned by interviewees on the site
Space Use Age Groups
As Bosco Verticale is a private residential development with Approx. 70% of the observed users were adults between the ages
secured access points, the space use analysis focused on the of 20 and 39 and children younger than 10 years. Approx. 14% were
publicly accessible green spaces adjacent to the development. over 60 years old. The remaining approx. 16% were adults
Visitors used those around 550 times over an observation between the ages of 40 and 59. Young children below 10 years,
period of three days in summer for a broad range of activities accompanied by adults, mostly played on the playground and in the
including playing, resting, and chatting. Some of them came adjacent green spaces. Adolescents through those aged 19 did not
with regular city tours organized for visitors of Milan interested in use the spaces as frequently as the other age groups, except for
contemporary architecture. those related to the city tours mentioned above. About half of all
observed activities were those of adults between 20 and 39 years.
Time of Use They accompanied children, rested, read, and exercised. People
between the ages of 40 and 59 did not spend much time on site.
The times of space use corresponded to the movement of the Those older than 60 typically rested and chatted while sitting on
shadows cast by the surrounding high-rise buildings. Approx. park benches and they often accompanied young children.
80% of all activities took place from 4 to 7 PM, when the
shadows of the two residential towers cover almost all the User Perception
green spaces. Approx. 10% of the activities were observed
from 8 to 10 AM as well as from 12 to 2 PM. During these times, The analysis of user perception of Bosco Verticale included
the surrounding buildings and large trees on site provide some interviews with visitors outside of the restricted areas, between
shade in the green spaces. the ages of 20 and 50 and with different backgrounds and
gender. An analysis of the frequency of words in the interviews
The patterns of space use varied over the course of the week. shows that the focus was on greenery and trees. Most users
People used the spaces more frequently on weekday mornings expressed their appreciation of the green spaces at ground
than on weekends whereas on weekends, many more people level and the greenery on the buildings. They felt positively
used them in the afternoons. The durations of space use also about the availability of public furniture such as benches and
corresponded to the availability of shade. In the mornings and a playground, a rare occurrence in the city center. More than
early afternoons, users spent an average of only 10 min on site, half of the interviewees appreciated the integration of greenery
whereas after 4 PM, the average duration was 40 min. in Bosco Verticale, which some considered a significant
architectural contribution and unique landmark. However,
a number of interviewees said that they prefer more traditional
248

Balcony with greenery.
Interior.
buildings. More than half of the interviewees stated that in their

opinion the cost of living in Bosco Verticale is relatively high.
Most of the interviewees said that they use the green spaces
for resting, chatting, and reading. More than half of them stated
that they visit the spaces because they are close to their living
or working places. Frequency and duration of the use of spaces
varied significantly, from once in a while to daily and from a few
minutes to a couple of hours, respectively.
All interviewees appreciated the quality of the green spaces and

emphasized the pleasant outdoor environment and the provision
of public furniture. Two thirds of them stated that they value the
quietness the site provides, as it is away from heavy urban traffic.
Other qualities they noted include the social connectivity of the
site as well as its cleanness and convenience in terms of proximity
to housing and work places. All interviewees expressed that the
green spaces in the development have a positive impact on their
well-being. One third of them stated that the green spaces not
only encourage them to engage in more outdoor activities but also
that their use has a generally positive impact on their daily life.
1. “Hines Italy,” One Design Company, accessed July 13, 2018, https://www.hines.com/
locations/italy.
2. “Neighbourhood Spotlight: Isola, Milan,” The Crowded Planet, accessed December 12,
2017, https://www.thecrowdedplanet.com/neighbourhood-spotlight-isola-milan/. Visits per day
3. “New Door,” Porta Nuova, accessed December 13, 2017, http://www.porta-nuova.
com/area/spazi-verdi/.
0 50 100 150
4. “Redevelopment of Porta Nuova Isola,” Arup, accessed December 13, 2017, https://
www.arup.com/projects/porta-nuova-isola.
5. Luca Buzzoni, “Bosco Verticale,” Arup, accessed February 9, 2018, https://www.arup.
com/projects/bosco-verticale.
6. “Porta Nuova,” Porta Nuova, accessed May 15, 2018, http://www.porta-nuova.com/
area/progetti/.
7. For additional information on Bosco Verticale, see https://www.stefanoboeriarchitetti.
net/en/project/vertical-forest/. Exploded isometric, space use.
249

Google King’s Cross
Architect: BIG/Heatherwick Studio Site Area: Approx. 13,000 m2
Landscape Architect: Gillespies Gross Floor Area: Approx. 92,000 m2
Developer: Google UK/Argent King’s Gross Plot Ratio: Approx. 7.1
Cross
Building Type: Office
Climate Zone: Temperate Oceanic
Location: King’s Boulevard, Kings Cross,
London, UK
Coordinates: 51°32’00.9”N 0°07’28.6”W
Google King’s Cross, the US-based company’s new UK

headquarters, is part of King’s Cross Central (KXC), one of
the currently largest urban redevelopment projects in Europe.
The multi-billion GBP mixed-use development is located in the
northeast part of central London. It is owned and controlled by
the King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership, which consists of
Building footprint 33% Argent King’s Cross, one of the UK’s largest property developers,
and AustralianSuper, Australia’s biggest superannuation and
pension fund. The KXC area consists of approx. 27 ha of former
railway lands to the north of King’s Cross and St. Pancras
Grey landscape 27% mainline railway stations. The area is largely determined by
three boundaries: the existing East Coast Main Line railway
leading out of King’s Cross, York Way, a road marking the division
Green landscape 20% between the boroughs of Camden and Islington, and a new
railway line, High Speed 1, formerly known as the Channel Tunnel
Road 13% Railway Link, which curves around the site to the north and
Park 5% west.1 The development will include a total of 50 new buildings,
Canal 2%
1,900 apartments, 20 streets, as well as approx. 11 ha of open
space, including 10 public parks and squares. KXC has been
the subject of an extensive study by the Urban Land Institute,
a non-profit research and education organization with the
0m
100 200
400 mission to provide leadership in the responsible use of land,
which highlights the project’s innovative approaches and
BIG/Heatherwick Studio, Google King’s Cross, London, UK, under construction, site plan,
ground coverage. practices in terms of urban development.2 The master planners
Opposite page: rendering, view from the northwest. for the development are Allies and Morrison, Demetri Porphyrios,
and Townshend Landscape Architect.
Google King’s Cross, one of the 50 new buildings of KXC, is the

first purpose-built project outside of the USA that the company
has commissioned. In addition to its new headquarters, Google
is planning to build two more projects in the KXC area. The three
buildings combined will provide office space for approx. 7,500 of
the company’s staff.
The site for Google King’s Cross is located in the southern part
of the KXC’s master plan, adjacent to King’s Cross Station.
It borders on the station in the east, Battle Bridge Place in
the south, King’s Boulevard and Pancras Square in the west,
and Goods Way and Regent’s Canal in the north.
Pancras Square, located to the west of the project, serves as

an important gateway to the King’s Cross development. A total
of seven new office and commercial buildings are located
there with tenants such as the London Borough of Camden,
Louis Vuitton, PRS for Music and Google. They will eventually
be joined by the media companies Havas and Universal Music.
Besides bars, restaurants, and shops of well-known brands,
250

251

Rendering, view from the south.
the square also houses the Pancras Square Leisure Centre and Besides contributing to a highly livable and attractive urban
the Public Library in the London Borough of Camden Building. environment, the green spaces of KXC are meant to provide a
wide range of economic as well as health benefits, including
At the urban scale, Google King’s Cross functions as part of the helping wildlife to flourish and reducing the risk of flooding.4
gateway to the KXC area. Based on its close proximity to the
major transportation hubs King’s Cross and St. Pancras Station, The green roofs and walls for KXC are part of the development’s
it optimizes land use through a high-density development. larger Living Landscape strategy, which encourages flora and
However, the Outline Planning Permission for the new project fauna to be placed in many spaces. For example, since the
limited its height to 12 floors as it faces Battle Bridge Place, beginning of the project, 200 m of green walls have been planted
an important public space.3 It further required the project to along its streets and footpaths, including on York Way. Many of
be designed in a way that it would create a positive impact the new buildings feature green spaces, often including green
on the adjacent public space through its character, use of roofs. The roof garden at Two Pancras Square, a new office
hierarchy, and scale. These factors are required to relate to building providing approx. 12,000 m2 of space designed by Allies
the neighboring heritage as well as the other new buildings. and Morrison, is an example; designed by Townshend Landscape
In addition, the project was not allowed to limit the flexibility Architects, it provides a lush green space not only for the people
of future plots in any way. Within this framework, the design who work in the building but also for insects and birds.5
aims at creating a legible and sustainable working environment.
The facades complement the architectural language of the KXC borders on Camley Street Natural Park, an approx.
surrounding buildings. 1 ha nature reserve on the banks of Regent’s Canal in the
north. The park is run by the London Wildlife Trust, a nature
While the original Outline Planning Permission envisioned the conservation charity for Greater London. Created from an old
approx. 330-m-long project site to be divided into five separate coal yard in 1984, it is the home of many birds, butterflies, bats,
plots, the project was conceived as one large continuous volume, and a large variety of plant species. The developers of KXC
addressing the needs of its owner and single occupier Google. work closely with the Trust to enhance the park and to increase
biodiversity across the new development.6
Urban Scale
KXC further includes the Global Generation Skip Garden,
Density and Greenery a community garden that provides a green space that moves
around in the area during its development phase. Known as
KXC is a high-density urban development with a green agenda. “the garden of a thousand hands,” it was built and managed by
Approx. 40% of its 27 ha area has been reserved for open largely Global Generation, an educational charity that works together
green space. Its network of internal streets and footpaths will with local children and young people, businesses, residents,
connect public parks, gardens, and squares. Regent’s Canal, and families in Camden, Islington, and Southwark. Skip Garden
flowing through the center of the development, and the routes is the largest of the 26 community and commercial gardens
adjacent to it will link the development to the larger urban green that Global Generation has co-created with local businesses,
and blue network in Camden and Islington. restaurants, schools, and young people in and around the
KXC area.7
Roofs and walls of many of the KXC’s new buildings will covered
with greenery, and approx. 400 new trees will be planted.
252

253

Rendering, view from the east.
The gross built coverage within a 200 ha zone around the new Architecture
project is 73%. This percentage includes building footprints,
grey landscape, and roads. The remaining 27% of the zone consists Google King’s Cross is a commercial office building with a total
of public parks, landscape spaces, and the Regent’s Canal. constructed gross floor area of approx. 92,000 m2.
Landscape Space Massing and Layout
The stepped massing of Google King’s Cross and the placement A number of scale and massing strategies have been employed
of all of its mechanical components in the basement allow for to create contextually sensitive architecture. The continuous,
the provision of a generous roof garden. Covering almost the full 330-m-long building mass steps up from eight floors in the
330 m length of the building and varying in width from approx. south to 12 floors in the north, resulting in a shape that the
60 m on its southern to approx. 20 m on its northern end, the roof architects refer to as a “landscraper,” as it gains most of its size
garden spreads across Levels 7 through 11. With its extensive by stretching horizontally.8
landscape space, the roof garden provides a significant addition
to the 20% of landscape space within the 200 ha zone around it. The building is organized in three distinctive layers called
“Ground Plane,” “Work Plane,” and “Roof Plane.”9 While largely
Green and Blue Systems an office building, Google King’s Cross also features a number
of retail units at the ground floor. The Ground Plane provides an
Google King’s Cross was designed to work as part of larger active street frontage for the retail units facing King’s Boulevard.
urban green and blue systems, and its various landscape Its southern part features a large glass facade to provide visual
spaces accommodate a substantial amount of vegetation that linkages between exterior and interior for passersby and building
augments the existing ecosystem around the site. The project occupants alike. The office space of the Work Plane occupies
provides connections from King’s Cross Station to Camley Street Levels 2 to 12. In total, the building provides approx. 76,000 m2
Natural Park and the linear green spaces along Regent’s Canal in of office and approx. 4,400 m2 of retail space as well as approx.
the northwest and north. Its continuous green and blue systems 11,600 m2 of basement space.
connect the various components of the overall development
through a variety of strategies such as a change in level along The design addresses the presence of diverse building types
the length of King’s Boulevard, creating a continuity of frontage and spaces in the area as a starting point. The large railway
and activating the street edge along King’s Boulevard with a stations, roads, canals, and other infrastructure “all layered up
high degree of transparency to engage the public realm and to create the most connected point in London” provided an
responding to the context through varying facade treatments. important reference.10 The building emerges like a single piece of
254

Rendering, interior. Following pages: rendering, aerial view from the northwest.
infrastructure split into a number of components. To reduce the former including planting media that absorb surface runoff to
visual impact of the volume, three main floorplates are grouped minimize the discharge at ground level. With the roof gardens
across three levels in the north and two in the south.11 Here, extending from Level 7 to 11, their design features distinctive
the scale of the facade elements acknowledges the surrounding landscape areas such as plateaus, fields, and proper gardens.
context including King’s Cross and St. Pancras Station. Together It accommodates a diverse habitat of insects and birds by
with the main precast structural members they echo the dominant providing a mixture of plant species including wildflowers,
southwards thrusts of the adjacent railway stations, while at the sedums, herbs, and perennials. The roof gardens include a
same time addressing the smaller urban grain of the surrounding running track and a large multi-game area at Level 11 that
historic buildings. The timber fins of the southern facade are features a basketball court as well as football and badminton
designed to shield the interior from sunlight. They create a fields. The building features a number of amenities on the lower
variegated appearance throughout the course of the day. levels, including a staff training and events center, a number of
cafes, a gym, and a 25-m-long swimming pool.13
Orientation, sun shading, the use of thermal mass for cooling,
and passive ventilation systems contribute to a highly energy- 1. “About the Development,” King’s Cross Central, accessed March 25, 2019, https://
www.kingscross.co.uk/about-the-development.
efficient building. The project also draws on innovative water-saving 2. “King’s Cross Central,” Urban Land Institute, accessed March 25, 2019, https://
and recycling technologies. It connects to an on-site energy center casestudies.uli.org/kings-cross/.
3. “Detailed Plans Unveiled for Google’s First UK Headquarters by BIG and Heatherwick
through a district heating network, which provides power and Studio,” World Architecture, accessed March 25, 2019, https://worldarchitecture.org/
generates heat via efficient combined heat and power engines. articles/cvcne/detailed_plans_unveiled_for_google_s_first_uk_headquarters_by_big_
and_heatherwick_studio.html.
4. “A Green King’s Cross,” King’s Cross Central, accessed March 25, 2019, https://www.
As with all of the new office buildings in KXC, the project was kingscross.co.uk/green-infrastructure.
5. Ibid.
designed to achieve an environmental performance of at least 6. Ibid.
40% greater than required by current UK building regulations.12 7. “About Us,” Global Generation, accessed March 26, 2019, https://www.
globalgeneration.org.uk/about-us.
8. Alex Hern, “Google submits plans for ‘landscraper’ London headquarters,” The
Greenery and Community Provisions Guardian, June 1, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/01/
google-submits-plans-million-sq-ft-london-hq-construction-kings-cross.
9. “KXC Overview October 2018,” King’s Cross Central, accessed April 1, 2019, https://
Google King’s Cross’ ground-level landscape was designed as www.kingscross.co.uk/media/KX-Overview-October-2018.pdf.
10. “Google King’s Cross,” Heatherwick Studio, accessed March 26, 2019, http://www.
an integrated stormwater management system to regulate the heatherwick.com/projects/buildings/google-kings-cross/.
runoff rate and to cleanse the runoff water of the site. 11. Ibid.
12. “Green Buildings,” King’s Cross Central, accessed March 26, 2019, https://www.
kingscross.co.uk/sustainable-building-design.
The approx. 0.9 ha of landscape space of the roof garden 13. “APLAWS+: Planning and Built Environment,” webmanager@camden.gov.uk,
accessed February 6, 2007, http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/PlanRec?
comprise 60% softscape and 40% hardscape, with the q=recContainer:2017/3133/P.
255

256

257

Valley
Architect: MVRDV Site Area: 5,262 m2
Landscape Architect: DeltaVorm Groep & Gross Floor Area: 58,025 m²
Piet Oudolf Gross Plot Ratio: 11
Developer: OVG Real Estate Landscaped Areas: Approx. 4,600 m2
Building Type: Mixed Use Number of Units: 7 stories of office units
Climate Zone: Oceanic and 196 residential units
Location: 1082 LC Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Coordinates: 52°20’15.3”N 4°52’39.8”E
Zuidas (literally “south axis” in Dutch) is a rapidly developing

district in the City of Amsterdam. Located on a 245ha
parcel of land between the city center, Schiphol Airport and
Nieuwe Meer nature reserve, it is a high-profile international
business area and center of research and education quickly
evolving into a full-fledged urban hub — a place to live, work,
Building footprint 29% and play. From 2019 onwards, Zuidas will also be the location
of Zuidasdok, one the most important infrastructure projects
in the Amsterdam metropolitan area, a project that will expand
the current Amsterdam-Zuid Station into a large urban public
Grey landscape 27%
transportation hub.1 By 2030, Zuidas will provide more than
1 million of a total planned 3.4 million m2 of office, residential,
Road 13% commercial, and institutional space. In this context, Valley is part
of Amsterdam’s plan to create highly livable mixed-use urban
Green landscape 12%
districts that can accommodate large numbers of residents.
Park 10%
River 9% Valley’s client is OVG Real Estate, which focuses on the

development of smart, high-tech office buildings in the
Netherlands, Germany, and the United States with a sustainable
footprint and the ambition to create healthier working, living,
and learning environments.2
0m 400
100 200
MVRDV, Valley, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, under construction, site plan, ground coverage.
Urban Scale
Opposite page: rendering, aerial view from the northeast.
Valley’s site is defined by transition. Located south of

Amsterdam’s Zuid Station, it forms a threshold between
residential and commercial programs as well as athletic facilities
in the east and the dense urban setting of the business center to
its west. The athletic facilities extend the green public space of
Beatrixpark, one of Amsterdam’s numerous large urban parks,
south of the railway.
Landscape Space
The development derives its name from the publicly

accessible terraced valley that is spread in-between its three
mixed-use towers. From street level, a pedestrian path, running
alongside retails spaces, terraces, and roof gardens, leads up
to the central valley area that spreads across Levels 4 and 5 of
the central tower.3 The lushly planted terraces and roof gardens
provide open views on Valley and its surroundings. The diverse
plants in these spaces, including blooming low-growth trees and
shrubs, feature varying leaf colors, shapes, and inflorescence.
258

Valley was designed to work as part of larger urban green and

blue systems. Its various landscape spaces accommodate a
substantial amount of vegetation that augments the existing
ecosystem around the site. Its continuous green and blue
systems connect the different parts of the development. In the
north and east, Valley borders tree-lined canals that run along
the railway tracks as well as the athletic facilities, linking the site
to urban green and blue networks that include Amstelpark in the
east and Nieuwe Meer nature reserve in the west.
Architecture
Valley is a mixed-use building with a total constructed gross floor

area of approximately 75,000 m2.
Massing and Layout
Valley’s massing initiates the change from the smaller-scale

buildings of the inner city to the larger volumes that define
Amsterdam’s Zuidas. The massing concept is rooted in this
idea of transition. Valley features publicly accessible terraced
spaces that are spread in-between its three mixed-use towers.
The highest volume reaches 100 m, with a publicly accessible
bar located on the top two stories, offering panoramic views
of Amsterdam. The development includes a total of 196
apartments, seven stories of office space, three levels of
underground parking with 375 parking spaces, as well as a variety
of retail and cultural facilities.
Rendering, aerial view from the northwest.
By placing the residential volumes on top of the multifunctional
plinth and pushing them to the very edge of the envelope,
Valley’s volume reads as a single entity. In mirroring the corporate
programs of its surroundings by way of a reflecting glass facade,
the design acknowledges its office components and visually
connects to its immediate neighbors. In a stark contrast, the inner
facade is defined by a series of rugged stone terraces with large
planters, covering the building in vegetation and introducing a
human scale to the development. This opposing treatment of the
facades expresses the duality of the resulting volume, which is
reminiscent of a carved-out block.
Publicly accessible from the ground floor through two large

stairs is the Grotto, a large interior space. It is fully clad in natural
stone and lit by two large skylights that double as water-filled
ponds on the terraced valley above. The Grotto serves as both a
“living room” for the residents of Valley as well as a grand foyer
for all other activities in the building, ensuring a lively atmosphere
throughout the day.
MVRDV’s design emphasizes the contrast between the

corporate present and the more residential future of the Zuidas.
The offices feature high floor-to-ceiling windows, large, brightly
lit floorplates, and full-service amenities. The residential levels
provide large operable windows and sliding doors for outdoor
spaces integrated within the stone facades. Outdoor ceilings
and terraces are clad in natural stone as well, as are the fixed,
automatically hydrated planters of varying heights that facilitate
Valley’s distinct green appearance. Full glass railings protect
residents against wind and sound without impeding the
panoramic views.4
260

261

The jagged, natural stone facade has been defined by
employing parametric tools developed in collaboration with
Arup Amsterdam. This allows for control over quantities of
daylight and sunlight, structural limitations, and required privacy,
among other considerations. The overall variation of Valley’s
building volume led to a design in which no two apartments are
alike, thus creating a wide range of housing types with unique
plans for its inhabitants.
Valley’s greenery provisions were designed to provide a

year-round green appearance.
The abundance of outdoor spaces and common green spaces

in the development promotes health and well-being while also
contributing to the development’s overall ambitions in terms
of its high level of livability and environmental sustainability.
Valley’s design aims for BREEAM-NL Excellent certification for
commercial spaces.5 Its residential component scores highly
for all benchmarks on the Dutch Practical Municipal Building
Guideline (GPR Building) scale.6 Overall, the development aims to
achieve an Energy Performance Coefficient (EPC) of -0.30.7
1. “City of Amsterdam Project Zuidasdok,” Fluor, accessed January 14, 2019,

https://www.fluor.com/projects/amsterdam-project-zuidasdok.
2. “Who is OVG Real Estate?,” OVG Real Estate, accessed January 15, 2019,
http://ovgrealestate.com/about-us.
3. “Valley,” MVRDV, accessed January 17, 2019, https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/233/
valley.
4. Ibid.
5. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method),
first published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 1990, is the
longest-established method of assessing, rating, and certifying the sustainability of
Sky gardens. buildings. For more information on BREEAM-NL, see https://www.breeam.nl.
6. Hein Van Bohemen, “(Eco)System Thinking: Ecological Principles for Buildings,
Roads and Industrial and Urban Areas,” in Ellen van Bueren, Hein van Bohemen,
Laure Itard, Henk Visscher (eds.), Sustainable Urban Environments: An Ecosystem
Approach (Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2012).
7. “The Evolution of City Life: Valley,” OVG Real Estate, accessed January 14, 2019,
http://ovgrealestate.com/cases/valley.
Circulation.
Opposite: rendering, view from the northeast.
262

263

1Hotel Paris and
Architect: Kengo Kuma and Associates/ Site Area: 2,580 m²
Marchi Architects Gross Floor Area: 12,700 m²
Landscape Architect: Atelier Georges Number of Units: Hotel with 140 and
Slo Living
Developer: Compagnie de Phalsbourg youth hostel with 44 rooms
Building Type: Mixed-Use Landscaped Area: 692 m² (ground floor),
Climate Zone: Oceanic 1,142 m² (terraces), 156 m² (facades)
Location: 173P Avenue de France, 75013, Gross Plot Ratio: 4.9
Paris, France Green Plot Ratio: 9.2
Coordinates: 48°50’3.7’’N, 2°22’22.1’’E
Height: 37 m/11 floors
1Hotel Paris and Slo Living are part of an ambitious urban

development above the railroad corridor leading to Gare
d’Austerlitz in the Rive Gauche area of southeast Paris. Located
between Avenue de France and Rue Ada Lovelace and in close
proximity to the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Site François
Mitterrand, and the River Seine, the project includes a hotel with
Building footprint 29% 140 rooms and a youth hostel with 44 rooms.1
The project occupies a former industrial site in Paris’

13th Arrondissement and is part of an approx. 130 ha area that
Grey landscape 27%
since the early 1990s is part, in turn, of the largest urban planning
exercise conducted in the French capital since Haussmann’s
Road 13% renovation of Paris in the 19th Century. The area of the
Rive Gauche redevelopment extends from Gare d’Austerlitz in
Green landscape 12%
the northwest of this area to the municipal limits of the City of
Park 10% Ivry-sur-Seine in its southeast, bordering on the River Seine on
River 9% one side and on Rue du Chevaleret on the other.
The area surrounding 1Hotel Paris and Slo Living features

largely new mixed-use developments with office, residential,
commercial, as well as institutional programs. At the time of
0m
100 200
400 writing, the Rive Gauche redevelopment area has approx. 10,000
residents. With more developments under way, this number will
Kengo Kuma and Associates/Marchi Architects, 1Hotel Paris and Slo Living, Paris, France,
under construction, site plan, ground coverage. increase to 20,000 in the coming years and feature office space
Opposite page: rendering, courtyard and balconies with greenery. for 60,000 workers by 2028. To date, the developments around
1Hotel and Slo Living include 7,500 housing units, 745,000 m2
of office space, 405,000 m2 of commercial programs and
665,000 m2 of public facilities.
The client of 1Hotel and Slo Living is the Paris-based Compagnie

de Phalsbourg, a real estate company that develops office,
commercial, and residential space, shopping centers, as well
as parking areas throughout France.2 Founded in 1989 by
Philippe Journo, Compagnie de Phalsbourg focuses on projects
of high design and environmental quality, highlighting exceptional
architecture, ecology, and well-being as key goals of its projects.3
Urban Scale
The Rive Gauche redevelopment will feature extensive

greenery on an area of approx. 10 ha that has been reserved for
urban parks to mitigate negative effects of high urban density.
In addition, 2,000 new trees will be planted along its streets.4
Unlike much of central Paris that largely consists of 19th
Century Haussmann blocks, Rive Gauche will feature a broader
264

Rendering, aerial view from the southwest.
range of buildings that also allow for the inclusion of greenery on Landscape Space
multiple levels. For example, developments along the Avenue
de France will feature many smaller and larger parks. Parc de la The average distance of 1Hotel Paris and Slo Living to urban
Hauteur in the northwest and Parc de Bercy in the northeast of green spaces will be less than 200 m. A total of approx. 3 ha of
this area are the two most significant green spaces within the landscape space in the project area adds to the 10 ha of green
200 ha zone (10 min walk radius) around 1Hotel and Slo Living, space. For example, across the railway lines, the extension of
followed by the linear green spaces along the River Seine in Square Marie-Curie to the limits of Boulevard de l’Hôpital will add
the north. The gross built coverage in the 200 ha zone is 69%, approx. 0.7 ha of landscape space with a series of landscaped
which includes buildings, grey landscape and roads. 31% of the walkways along the quays of the station. Overlooking Rue du
zone consists of parks, public landscape space, and the rivers. Chevaleret, a first such walkway is already built along Avenue
Spatially, the project connects to the tree-lined Avenue de de France. Once completed, the walkways will provide a green
France. Its central public green space echoes the garden of the network in the area. An additional approx. 3 ha of landscape
close-by National Library. space will be provided along the banks of the River Seine.5
266

267

Rendering, view from the northwest.
Rendering, common space and courtyard.
268

1Hotel Paris and Slo Living were designed to work as part of

larger networks of green and blue infrastructure. An extensive
garden in the center of the development provides a retreat from
the busy Avenue de France and connects the development
to the larger system of green spaces in the area. A large roof
garden on the top of the development will offer spectacular
views of the surrounding neighborhood and the City of Paris.
The development’s various green facades and landscaped
balconies feature substantial amounts of greenery.
Architecture
1Hotel Paris and Slo Living have a total Gross Floor Area of
approx. 12,700 m2 on a site area of 2,580 m².
Massing and Layout
The massing of the development combines the U-shaped

volume of 1Hotel Paris designed by Kengo Kuma and
Associates and the adjacent rectangular block designed by
Marchi Architects, resulting in a complex with a large open
central green space.
According to Kengo Kuma, “In the dense urban context of the

Avenue de France, we felt the need to create a green lung for the
city.”6 The faceted multi-angled timber facade of the project blurs
the compact volumes behind, creating a sponge-like appearance
that differs from the clean geometry of the surrounding buildings.
Rendering, common space and courtyard.
1Hotel Paris and Slo Living’s exteriors are covered with extensive
greenery. The overlapping timber elements of the facade 1. “1Hotel Paris,” Kengo Kuma and Associates, accessed March 30, 2019, https://kkaa.
co.jp/works/architecture/1hotel-paris/.
extend over the top and edges of the building to further soften 2. “Cie De Phalsbourg Sarl,” Bloomberg, accessed March 30, 2019, https://www.
its appearance.7 The changing angles of the facade shields the bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/7677535Z:FP-cie-de-phalsbourg-sarl.
3. “Aurore,” Compagnie de Phalsbourg, accessed March 30, 2019, http://www.
interior from views and direct sunlight. compagniedephalsbourg.com/portfolio_page/aurore/.
4. “L’opération d’urbanisme - Paris Rive Gauche,” Paris Rive Gauche, accessed March 30,
2019, http://www.parisrivegauche.com/L-operation-d-urbanisme.
The central space of 1Hotel Paris is a large open volume that 5. “Le Programme - L’opération d’urbanisme - Paris Rive Gauche,” Paris Rive Gauche,
allows many of the hotel rooms to have a private balcony that accessed April 6, 2019, http://www.parisrivegauche.com/L-operation-d-urbanisme/
Le-programme.
overlooks the hotel lobby below. The lower levels feature a 6. “Kengo Kuma Plans To Set A New Standard For Eco-Luxury
series of public and common spaces including gardens, sports Hotels,” Medium, July 23, 2017, https://medium.com/@pionic/
kengo-kuma-plans-to-set-a-new-standard-for-eco-luxury-hotels-bcc1e5a2617.
facilities, and business centers, a restaurant, and a co-working 7. “Kengo Kuma Unveils Design for Eco-Luxury Hotel Comprised of Wooden and Plant
space. The intermediate levels include the hotel and various Covered Facade,” World Architecture, March 30, 2019, https://m.worldarchitecture.org/
architecture-news/cvefg/kengo_kuma_unveils_design_for_ecoluxury_hotel_comprised_
supporting rooms. Their balconies on the street-facing side are of_wooden_and_plant_covered_facade.html.
placed behind the timber elements of the facade. The top level 8. Yosra M. Ahmed, “Kengo Kuma & Associates Design Eco-Luxury Hotel in Paris
Featuring Wood and Greenery,” Arch2O, accessed March 30, 2019, https://www.arch2o.
accommodates a restaurant which opens up to a roof garden at com/kengo-kuma-associates-design-eco-luxury-hotel-paris-featuring-wood-greenery/.
32 m, with a publicly accessible bar. The staggered facade walls
allow a range of spaces for large terraces and a swimming pool.
Hotel rooms here provide access to terraces and guests can
enter their rooms from the pool area.
The development comprises extensive greenery throughout,

often in conjunction with public and common areas. The lush
green garden in the center of the building features a public
nature pathway that connects the space with the adjacent
streets. The double-height, fully glazed spaces of the garden
visually open up the interior to the green exterior. According to
Kengo Kuma, “Nature finds a place at the core of the scheme,
translated into the intimate public garden where all senses
are awoken.”8
269

Mille Arbres
Architect: Sou Fujimoto Architects/ Site Area: 13,338 m2
Manal Rachdi Oxo Architectes Gross Floor Area: 59,514 m2
Landscape Architect: Moz Paysage/ Gross Plot Ratio: 4.5
Atelier Paul Arène/Pierre-Alexandre
Risser Horticulture & Jardins
Developer: Compagnie de Phalsbourg/
OGIC
Location: 16/24 Boulevard Pershing,
Avenue de la Porte des Ternes, 75017
Paris, France
Coordinates: 48°52’43.4”N 2°17’05.3”E
Mille Arbres, or “Thousand Trees,”1 is a mixed-use project

located on the Pershing site near Porte Maillot, adjacent to the
historical axis linking the heart of Paris to La Défense. The project
aims to provide a new type of residential typology that
reinterprets the 19th Century Haussmann block.
Building footprint 34% Mille Arbres is part of the larger “Reinventing Paris” initiative
that was launched by Mayor Anne Hidalgo in 2014. The initiative
called for innovative urban projects to give teams from around
the world the opportunity to build the Paris of tomorrow. A total
Road 20%
of 372 projects were submitted for 23 different sites.2 They
were proposed by multidisciplinary teams, bringing together
Grey landscape 18% architects, city planners, real estate developers, artists,
designers, landscape architects, and civic associations with
Green landscape 17% the aim of redeveloping underused sites throughout the city.3
17 developer teams submitted their ideas in a subsequent
Park 11% competition for the Pershing site that was won by a team led
by OGIC, a real estate company based in Boulogne-Billancourt,
France. OGIC, a subsidiary of Norbert Dentressangle, provides
real estate management and development services, focusing on
commercial and residential projects, including offices, technology
0m
100 200
400 parks, and restaurants.4, 5 Sou Fujimoto Architects and
Manal Rachdi OXO Architectes were subsequently appointed to
Sou Fujimoto Architects/Manal Rachdi Oxo Architectes, Mille Arbres, Paris, France,
site plan, ground coverage. design the project for the Pershing site.6
Urban Scale
Mille Arbres aims to bring nature to the city by providing a project

that provides a connection and contribution to larger green
urban networks including Bois de Boulogne in the southwest
of the site, the greenery along Boulevard Pereire in the east and
a series of smaller urban green spaces in the northeast of the
site. As part of a larger urban regeneration plan for the dense
Porte Maillot area, the project further aims to connect central
Paris to its suburbs along the Boulevard Périphérique, the Paris
ring road, with programs including residential, commercial, office,
and infrastructure components.
Landscape Space
With its relatively low site coverage and many green spaces,
Mille Arbres contributes significantly to the landscape space
within the 200 ha (10 min walking radius) area around the project,
which amounts to 17% of the area. The residential program is
located on the top two floors of the building that also comprise
270

Rendering, view from the northeast.
Rendering, roof.
271

Massing and Layout
The reversed pyramid shape of the building, with a height of

approx. 36 m, maximizes the surrounding public space on the
ground level and the planted areas by minimizing the building
footprint. Multiple pathways cross the permeable building, which
partially bridges the sunken adjacent Boulevard Périphérique.
The topography of the urban park at the ground level is
modulated in multiple places to facilitate circulation while
allowing for programs underneath. Large courtyards bring natural
light deep into the building, connecting it visually to the street
below and the sky above.
The lower levels feature flexible spaces with a mix of commercial

programs, offices, a hotel with 250 rooms, a childcare center as
Rendering, public space, interior.
well as shared functional rooms, and garden spaces.9 “La Rue
Gourmande” or “Street of Chefs” on the lower levels activate
the street frontally, in conjunction with a food court. The office
spaces are located in two separate parts of the building,
each with its own access and lobby space. 127 residential units or
“houses” on the top two floors are laid out as a “village” around
pedestrian paths that feature extensive greenery. The roof is
shared among the residents and offers spectacular views of the
city, bringing together Paris and Neuilly.10
Mille Arbres combines architecture and landscape architecture

as a way to introduce a human scale throughout the project.
Its greenery and community provisions include public and
common spaces on multiple levels as well as educational
elements such as a “biodiversity path,” where residents and
visitors can experience the ecosystem of a forest in the city.
These programs connect to the street level through a series of
large public amphitheaters.
The project’s childcare center features extensive greenery and

a large indoor playground; it is planned to offer workshops on
biodiversity, beekeeping, gardening, botany and the construction
Rendering, interior.
of huts made of recycled materials.11 Many spaces throughout
a large roof park that will enhance the biodiversity of the urban the project provide opportunities for relaxation, interaction,
area. The park will feature a number of related projects including and recuperation allowing for living in a green environment along
the House of Biodiversity, managed by the Paris League of the Paris ring road.
Bird Protection (LPO), which will provide courses and educational
workshops on the subject.7 1. The fact that Heatherwick Studio’s project in Shanghai, China, also featured as a case
study in this book, is called “1000 Trees” as well seems to be a coincidence.
2. “Reinventing Paris,” Marie de Paris, accessed March 23, 2019, http://www.reinventer.
Green and Blue Systems paris/2015-2016/en/.
3. Ibid.
4. “Company Overview of OGIC SA,” Bloomberg, accessed March 23, 2019,
The project was designed to work as part of larger urban green https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=22948017.
5. “Découvrir OGIC,” OGIC, accessed March 23, 2019, https://www.groupe-ogic.fr/
and blue systems. Its various landscape spaces accommodate decouvrir-ogic/.
a substantial amount of vegetation that augments the existing 6. “Mille Arbres,” archello, accessed March 24, 2019, https://archello.com/project/
mille-arbres#stories.
ecosystem of the neighboring parks and urban green spaces. 7. “Mille Arbres,”Arcadis, accessed March 24, 2019, https://www.arcadis.com/en/global/
Of the 1,000 trees that will be planted as part of the project, what-we-do/our-projects/europe/france/mille-arbres/.
8. “Réinventer Paris: OGIC et la compagnie de Phalsbourg Lauréaats avec le project
391 are planned to be placed on the roof, 503 on the lower ‘Mille Arbres,’” Esteval Editions, accessed March 24, 2019, www.esteval.fr/article.11807.
levels in response to the tree-lined adjacent roads that link the reinventer-paris-ogic-et-la-compagnie-de-phalsbourg-laureaats-avec-le-projet-mille-arbres.
9. “Les bureaux ‘1000 Arbres’ à Paris en vente... avant d’avoir le permis de construire,”
development to the larger urban green network, and 106 in two Challenges, accessed March 30, 2019, https://www.challenges.fr/immobilier/
courtyards within the building.8 les-bureaux-1000-arbres-a-paris-en-vente-avant-d-avoir-le-permis-de-construire_566172.
10. “Mille Arbres,” Let It Grow, accessed March 23, 2019,
https://letitgrow.org/green-initiatives/mille-arbres/.
Architecture 11. “Mille Arbres,”Arcadis, accessed March 24, 2019, https://www.arcadis.com/en/
global/what-we-do/our-projects/europe/france/mille-arbres/.
Mille Arbres is a mixed-use building with a total constructed

gross floor area of approximately 59,500 m2. It features nine
floors and two basements.
272

Following pages: rendering, view from the southwest.
273

274

275

Les Lumières Pleyel
Architect: Snøhetta/Baumschlager Site Area: Approx. 4.5 ha
Eberle Architekten/Chaix & Morel et Gross Floor Area: Approx. 178,000 m²
Associés/Ateliers 2/3/4//Mars Architectes/ (buildings designed by Snøhetta)
Maud Caubet Architectes/Moreau Kusunoki Landscaped Area: Approx. 1.5 ha
Landscape Architect: Snøhetta
Developer: Sogelym Dixence
Location: Pleyel, Saint-Denis, France
Coordinates: 48°55’05.5”N 2°20’46.0”E
In 2014, the French Government started the “Grand Paris”

initiative to improve the living environments in the Île-de-France
region by addressing infrastructure, housing, economic
development, and governance needs.1 Today, the initiative
features a total of 51 projects, including Les Lumières Pleyel as
one of its largest, intended to transform the Paris region in the
Grey landscape 34% years to come.
Les Lumières Pleyel is a large-scale mixed-use development

that includes offices, housing, a hotel, student hostels, shops,
Building footprint 26% community and sports facilities. It is located in the Pleyel district
of Saint-Denis in the northern suburbs of Paris, France, on a site
at a distance of 9.4 km from the city center located between
Green landscape 18% the Stade de France and the docks of Saint-Ouen and adjacent
to the future Saint-Denis Pleyel Station, that, once completed,
Road 15% will be the largest station of the Grand Paris Express metro.
Park 7% Les Lumières Pleyel is expected to transform the current
industrial area and to help increase the attractiveness of Saint-
Denis by creating a lively and creative neighborhood and an
important urban hub for residents and commuters.2
0m
100 200
400 Currently under development, Les Lumières Pleyel is scheduled
for completion in 2028. The design team includes Snøhetta as
Snøhetta/Baumschlager Eberle Architekten Chaix & Morel et Associés/Ateliers 2/3/4/
Mars Architectes/Maud Caubet Architectes, Les Lumières Pleyel, Saint-Denis, France, the lead architect as well as Baumschlager Eberle Architekten,
under development, site plan, ground coverage. Chaix & Morel et Associés, Ateliers 2/3/4/, Mars Architectes,
Opposite page: rendering, view from the north.
Maud Caubet Architectes and Moreau Kusunoki. Snøhetta’s
projects for Les Lumières Pleyel include an approx. 1.5 ha urban
park located at the heart of the development as well as L8 and
R3, two of its main buildings. Snøhetta also designed the visual
identity of Les Lumières Pleyel.3 The client of the overall project
is Sogelym Dixence, a Paris-based developer of national and
international housing and commercial real estate projects.4
Urban Scale
Les Lumières Pleyel’s site is defined by transition. Located next

to the new Saint-Denis Pleyel Station, designed by Kengo Kuma
and Associates and under construction at the time of writing, it is
surrounded by a mix of infrastructure, residential, institutional,
and commercial programs of varying density and with some
greenery, largely in the form of street trees and rail embankments
with vegetation. Once completed, Les Lumières Pleyel will
feature a large range of greenery in a variety of public and
common spaces distributed throughout the development.
276

277

Rendering, aerial view from the northeast.
Landscape Space Architecture
The design of the landscape space of the development follows Les Lumières Pleyel is a mixed-use development with a total
an overarching “green” strategy for the site developed by constructed gross floor area of approximately 178,000 m2.
Artelia, a Lyon-based multidisciplinary design consultancy group.
It features green spaces of varying sizes on multiple levels of the Massing and Layout
development, including sky and roof gardens as well as a large
central park that includes areas for urban farming. The design of Les Lumières Pleyel’s overall massing was inspired
by the form of waves. Its buildings and landscape in its central
Green and Blue Systems park form crests and troughs, the former in heights ranging from
30 to 120 m. The park stretches from the Tour Pleyel in the north
Les Lumières Pleyel was designed to work as part of larger across the rail corridor in the east. The landscape formations
urban green and blue systems. Its various landscape spaces create quiet, intimate spaces for leisure while also directing
accommodate a substantial amount of vegetation that augments and controlling the flow of people around them. The “waves”
the existing ecosystem around the site. The continuous are transversally interrupted by spaces that offer residents of
green and blue systems connect the whole development. adjacent neighborhoods easy access to the central park while
In the east, Les Lumières Pleyel borders on a rail corridor with also letting in light to the center of the development.
embankments with vegetation that link to the green spaces of
Saint-Ouen Cemetery in the south. In the west, the development Snøhetta’s L8 houses the Maison du Parc, a compact building
borders on the partially tree-lined Rue Pleyel that connects to the that serves as an entry point to Les Lumières Pleyel, features
larger urban public green spaces of the Allée de Seine and the an information hub and a ticket sales spot for the cultural and
River Seine in the northeast. sporting activities offered on the site. At ground level, which is
open to the public, the Maison du Parc features a transparent
278

Exploded isometric, green space. Following pages: rendering, view from the west.
facade. On the upper levels, the facade is clad with wood. the site by capping the polluted soil underneath and adding new
The building’s volume is perforated and interrupted by terraces soil to the surface of the park.
and whitened concrete blocks that support a series of sky
gardens and their vegetation. The various green spaces of Les Lumières Pleyel include a variety
of plant species so as to address the different microclimatic
The R3 is the tallest and one of the most prominent buildings conditions found in the development. Areas that require shade
of the development. Its sky gardens, placed at multiple and protection from the wind feature woodland vegetation
levels, offer a visual continuity of the green recreational areas while areas with more sunlight and exposure to wind are largely
that surround the building at ground level. R3’s massing is made up of prairie vegetation. The park features fruit trees and
composed of two large vertical volumes. The volume in the vegetables according to the availability of sunlight. Other trees
north features an assembly of shapes reflecting light in multiple include maple, plane, and beech trees. The main pedestrian
ways. The volume in the south is characterized by the use of paths are paved with light concrete tiles and the secondary paths
light-diffusing and transparent facade materials. The roof gardens are covered with gravel.6
of R3 offer spectacular views of the overall development and the
city beyond.5 1. “Greater Paris: Turning Promises into Reality,” Gouvernement.fr., accessed February 4,
2019, https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/greater-paris-turning-promises-into-reality.
2. “Les Lumières Pleyel,” manifesto.paris, accessed February 4, 2019, http://manifesto.
Greenery and Community Provisions paris/en/projet/les-lumieres-pleyel/.
3. “Les Lumières Pleyel,” Snøhetta, accessed February 5, 2019, https://snohetta.com/
projects/355-les-lumieres-pleyel#.
The topographic variation of the landscape in the development’s 4. “Company Overview of Sogelym Dixence Holding SAS,” Bloomberg, accessed
February 5, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.
central park creates a range of spaces with different qualities, asp?privcapId=211099533.
from intimate to large open spaces for gathering. The creation of 5. “Les Lumières Pleyel,” Snøhetta.
6. Ibid.
a varied topography is also a strategy to address the pollution on
279

280

281

DENSE GREEN
FUTURE

Future Trajectories
Thomas Schröpfer
The introduction to this book examined historical precedents for This includes those between inside and outside, building envelope
the contemporary dense and green city; other contributions to the and building structure, vertical and horizontal, street and building,
Agendas and the Dimensions explored important aspects of the building and park, and park and forest, just to name a few.
topic, and the case studies analyzed exemplary developments Effective and dynamic planning and design in successful dense
that signal the crystallization of the Dense and Green paradigm and green developments should, in other words, think not only
in Asia, the Americas, and Europe. But the work cannot stop in terms of the sustainable integration of ecology, economy,
there. In order to fully grapple with the ever-changing dynamics infrastructure, water, waste, food, mobility, culture, energy in
of climate, urbanism, technology, and design, it is important to quantitative terms but also in qualitative and formal terms.
think prospectively and critically so as to best prepare cities for
the constancy of change and the resiliency necessary to face The Valley in the Zuidas district in Amsterdam is an excellent
it. The imperative to think prospectively has been at the center example of architecture conceived as part and parcel of an
of work at the Future Cities Laboratory (FCL) and has been the urban ecosystem. This development points the way forward
backbone of the Dense and Green research. towards a dynamic way of how designers can both execute this
conception and formally articulate it in the future. The project’s
Key to this is understanding the many aspects of planning, design, massing rejects a more typical programmatic strategy in favor
and technology outlined in this book not as discrete strategies but of articulating a cascading, scalar strategy, transitioning from the
rather as components of a more global kind of systems thinking. smaller-scale buildings of the inner city to the larger volumes that
Paramount in this way are two different forms of systems thinking define an entire section of Amsterdam’s skyline. The massing
that can be extrapolated from the Agendas, the Dimensions, concept is rooted in the theme of transition, which is key to
and the Case Studies. The first is understanding architecture as an the dense and green paradigm. Another great example for this
urban ecosystem, following a kind of systems thinking that embeds theme is Punggol Waterway Terraces I in Singapore with its
the quality of urban and architectural design in the scientific and hexagonal arrangement to form courtyards that are open and
analytical thinking that informs best practices in infrastructure, volumes that gradually step down towards the adjacent linear
sustainability, and urban planning. The second is the recognition of park and waterway. The Spiral, which is supported by the overall
the role of comprehensive green and blue urban networks, systems infrastructure of the Hudson Yards development in New York
of water and greenery that seamlessly transition our natural City, is a study in contrasts and yet equally effective. The Spiral
environment into our built one. Insisting upon this kind of thinking makes a formal and demonstrative gesture to blend with its
about future dense and green cities is a core message of this book. surroundings by extending the greenery of the adjacent High Line
upwards. The gesture is not merely one of connection, it is also
Architecture as Urban Ecosystem one that signals the project’s own dynamism, as if it too is in
motion, and affirms its status as a sort of demonstration object of
One of the dominant trends evident in the case studies featured in the idea of architecture as an urban ecosystem.
this book is the holistic way in which planning, design, technology,
and ecology are integrated. They typify a progressive approach The Spiral and Hudson Yards are not, however, an unalloyed
to the ways in which the work of urban planners and designers, success, despite their quantitative and qualitative
architects, landscape architects, and systems engineers are accomplishments; the points at which the project fails are equally
no longer siloed and coordinated at a later phase of a project, instructive, as they underline what aspects of dense and green
but rather are integrated at its outset. To call this a holistic cities designers must wrestle with in serious and innovative
approach across scales would be the simplest way of describing ways. The main point of failure of the overall development is the
the way in which projects can become part of urban ecosystems. way in which it extends and accelerates the severe gentrification
But this would not be fully descriptive of the intrinsic changes of New York City in general, and the area around the High Line in
at play, as this is not merely about how planners and designers particular. For many New Yorkers who are feeling both the spatial
(and their allied collaborators) work but also about what they make. and financial pinch of projects like it, Hudson Yards represents a
blind faith in shiny new developments (whether they be green
The dissolution of boundaries is not only a metaphorical concept or not) that barely, if at all, grapple with the social woes of a city
about how professions and constituents work with one another but from which more and more people feel dispossessed. As Forbes
also a literal design trope where actual boundaries blur and obscure. articulated it: “At a time when wealth inequality is increasingly
284

Arup, Cities Alive, London, UK, 2019, rendering, aerial view.
285

WOHA, Permeable Lattice City of the Future, Singapore, 2011, rendering.
286

Snøhetta/Baumschlager Eberle Architekten/Chaix & Morel et Associés/Ateliers 2/3/4/
Mars Architectes/Maud Caubet Architectes, Les Lumières Pleyel, Saint-Denis, France,
under development, rendering, aerial view from the northeast.
group8asia/AEDAS, Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Singapore, 2015, aerial view.
acute and apparent, however, the most withering criticism of

Hudson Yards is that it’s essentially an enclave for the ultra-wealthy,
an island refuge for the 0.1%. In the face of such skepticism,
Stephen Ross, the billionaire real estate developer at the helm of
the project, maintains that Hudson Yards is not only for the rich,
pointing out that the dining and retail options include Shake Shack
and H&M.”1 The attitude expressed here, one step shy of “Let
them eat cake,” fails to understand that a fully successful dense and
green project is not one that makes facile and classist gestures to
the public, but rather one that makes active strides to remedy the
social woes that make urban life, if only economically, increasingly
difficult for large sectors of their populaces.
Green and Blue Networks
A particularly important aspect of this quantitative and qualitative

integration is that of green and blue networks, the two most
vital natural systems to any ecology. Many of the Singaporean
case studies featured in this book, including Punggol Waterway
Terraces I, Solaris, The Interlace, and Skyville@Dawson,
are excellent examples of how this concern is made paramount.
In Europe, an outstanding example is Les Lumières Pleyel.
One sees here how the transition from a form of infrastructure—
in this case a rail corridor—need not be abrupt or disconnected
but can be connected with embankments replete with vegetation
that form a lucid connection between the railway, an adjacent
cemetery, and the development itself on one side, tree-lined
vehicular corridors to the west and northeast and, also in the
northeast, to the River Seine.
The connectivity between the actual architecture and the green

and blue networks around and in it is instructive not only regarding
the advantages to wildlife, air quality, and passive energy that it
presents but also, almost counter-intuitively, regarding the visuality
it offers to the viewer. The application of bio-morphological and
biomimetic qualities to cities, in this case Paris, is a clear solution
to a host of problems that dense cities face in the 21st Century.
It is also a strategy that benefits tremendously from being legible
as such: the connectivity, integration, and diffusion of green and
blue systems in organic-like compositions (as opposed to formally
divided ones) presents a visual language that naturalizes, rather
than fetishizes, these systems into the way in which most people
perceive and experience everyday spaces. This eschews the more
admirable yet more superficial treatment of earlier high-density
developments where greenery was applied as a kind of final layer,
like green elements on an architectural substructure, something
that Christophe Girot addresses in his contribution to this book.
287

JDS Architects, Shenzhen Logistic City, China, 2010, rendering.
One could argue that the most innovative examples of the future more intimate scale of the building interior and mechanical details,
will posit greenery as structure. the visual culture of connectivity is important as well. In this sense
the building operates as a sort of demonstration project of how
Situated in a site that is arguably even denser and more restrictive, the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the city, could look if
Google King’s Cross is instructive for how it effectively integrates they were to be designed as integrated through systems thinking.
green and blue systems in an area that is ostensibly cut off from
any hint of those systems. This project creatively and deftly Coda
approaches the paradigm of greenery as structure. With its
connections to the linear green spaces along Regent’s Canal, Dense and green cities stand to offer solutions to real problems.
it almost miraculously ties in green systems amidst the concrete At the same time, they present the imperatives for venues,
jungle of central London. Once integrated, the continuous green from professional degree programs to civic institutions,
and blue systems connect the various components of the overall that prioritize transdisciplinary and collaborative research dedicated
development, which includes a rigorously engineered stormwater to sustainable approaches to a rapidly urbanizing world with a
management system as well as soft- and hardscape systems. high diversity of urbanization patterns and specifics of place.
Although largely discrete, and perhaps less visually perceptible The transnational cooperation demonstrated by many of the
to the everyday viewer of the building than the integrative projects presented in this volume is also not without its challenges.
systems of, for example, Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Solaris, The world’s future largest cities and highest levels of growth
The Interlace, Skyville@Dawson, and Les Lumières Pleyel, will predominantly be in Asia. The translation of the lessons
the green and blue systems within the building are enhanced learned from the projects featured in this book, for example,
by their articulation through subtle changes in level that create those in Singapore, stand to be rarely, if ever, seamless when one
a continuous frontage at street level, almost as if the building factors into the equation the extraordinarily different dynamics
itself was an entity with its very own topography. The embedded of urbanization processes in places as different as Lagos,
green, and particularly blue, systems also demonstrate that, at the Guangzhou, São Paulo, and Bangkok. International collaborations,
288

Grant Associates/Wilkinson Eyre Architects/CPG Consultants, Gardens by the Bay,
Singapore, 2012, and Marina Bay, aerial view from the southeast.
so important to the holistic approach of design expertise that our traditional development patterns and strategies for building
advocated here, need to very carefully consider the ways in which cities can no longer be so deeply embedded in a reliance on
imported knowledge can be epistemically and methodologically fossil fuels. We can no longer jettison the issues of urban poverty
open to the traditions and knowledge on the ground, so to speak. or environmental degradation that function as the verso to the
heroic economic growth so often associated with an increasingly
Different places and regions present the distinct challenge of the urbanized planet. And yet cities, particularly dense cities, represent
so-called “urban archipelagos,” with their own diffuse boundaries our best hope in drastically reducing our average carbon footprint.
between urban and rural settings.2 Rather than perceiving Cities, too, are ripe for the wholesale renovation and optimization
this as a problem, why not take inspiration from these diffuse that big data, new green technologies, and communications will
boundaries and see this as an opportunity? As Dieter Läpple continue to allow us. The city could be said to be a conundrum.
noted, “studying these urban-rural linkages has to be placed high The dense and green city is a proposition, of both existing examples
on the agenda. Not only to face environmental issues — such as and novel systems thinking, that disambiguates that conundrum
degradation of land, water and forest resources — but also to and points the way forward towards a fairer and more beautiful way
understand the complex patterns of migration processes and of living in harmony with both nature and people.
to promote food security. With the in-migration — especially of
rural poor — food security becomes a pressing challenge in many
cities. Additionally, urban food security will in many regions be 1. Ellis Talton and Remington Tonar, “Hudson Yards: Open to All But Not For All,” Forbes,
March 15, 2019.
affected by the ongoing climate change.”3 In other words, as with 2. For more information on FCL’s Archipelago Cities research, see, for example,
Hudson Yards, the problems that continue to require our attention Stephen Cairns and Devisari Tunas (eds.), Future Cities Laboratory Indicia 01
(Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2017); and Stephen Cairns and Devisari Tunas (eds.),
are predominantly social and cultural, not technological and formal. Future Cities Laboratory Indicia 02 (Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2019).
3. Dieter Läpple, “Foreword,” in Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory
(Singapore: Singapore-ETH Centre, 2018), 3. Läpple is Professor Emeritus of International
In 2019, we have a front row seat to the transition of a predominantly Urban Studies at HafenCity University Hamburg and Scientific Advisory Committee
urban world. This is as exciting as it is perilous. We must recognize Member of FCL.
289

APPENDIX

About the Author and the Contributors
Thomas Schröpfer Sacha Menz

Thomas Schröpfer is Full Professor and Founding Associate Sacha Menz has been Full Professor for Architecture and Building
Head of Pillar of Architecture and Sustainable Design at the Process at ETH Zurich since October 2004. He served as
Singapore University of Technology and Design. He obtained Dean of the Department of Architecture and founded and over
his doctoral and master’s degrees with distinction from ten years led the Institute of Technology in Architecture (ITA),
Harvard University, where he was appointed Assistant where he designed and coordinated the building process of the
Professor of Architecture in 2004 and Associate Professor Arch_Tec_Lab, the institute’s new home. His publications include
of Architecture in 2008. Since 2015, he has been a member Three Books on the Building Process (ETH Zurich/VDF Verlag,
of the Core Research Team and Steering Committee of 2014) and Public Space Evolution in High-Density Living in
the Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory (SEC-FCL). Singapore (Future Cities Laboratory, 2014). He has lectured at
His work investigates the increasingly complex relationship international conferences and participated in architectural juries.
between design and technology in architecture with a focus In 1997, he founded SAM Architects and Partners, where he has
on advances in environmental strategies, structure and been actively engaged in architectural competitions throughout
form, performance and energy, and building processes. the world. He recently joined the Reviewing Board for Clusters
He has published extensively on his work, which has of Excellence of the DFG (German Research Foundation) and the
been exhibited at important international venues including Strategy Commission of ETH Zurich, and is a member of the
the Venice Biennale and the World Architecture Festival. Strategic Board of ETH Zurich.
His books have been translated into several languages and
include Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for Sustainable Peter Edwards
Urban Architecture (Birkhäuser, 2016), Ecological Urban Peter Edwards studied botany at Cambridge University in
Architecture (Birkhäuser, 2012) and Material Design: Informing England and obtained his Ph.D. degree, also from Cambridge,
Architecture by Materiality (Birkhäuser, 2011). Since 2014, for a thesis entitled “Nutrient cycling in a New Guinea montane
he is series editor of SpringerBriefs in Architectural Design forest.” He was a lecturer in ecology at the University of
and Technology, published by Springer Nature. Thomas Southampton from 1973-1993, and was subsequently appointed
Schröpfer is the recipient of prestigious awards and recognitions Professor of Plant Ecology at ETH Zurich. From 2013 until
including The Chicago Athenaeum and The European Centre 2017 he was Director of the Singapore-ETH Centre for Global
for Architecture Art Design and Urban Studies International Environmental Sustainability. Peter Edwards has always had
Architecture Award, the President’s Design Award, Singapore’s a strong interest in the application of science and technology
highest honor accorded to designers and designs across all for better management. While at Southampton he was a
disciplines, the German Design Award, and the Asia Education director of the GeoData Institute, a contract agency undertaking
Leadership Award. environmental research and consultancy work. He was also a
founder and first executive secretary of the Institute for Ecology
and Environmental Management, a professional organization
for environmental scientists in the UK. At ETH he was Dean of
Environmental Systems Sciences and a member of the executive
board of the Alliance for Global Sustainability, a research
partnership between several leading universities. He retired
from ETH in 2017 but continues to serve on several advisory
boards and chairs the Sustainability Research Initiative of the
Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences. He is also a trustee of the
Seychelles Island Foundation.
Christophe Girot
Christophe Girot is Professor and Chair of Landscape Architecture
at ETH Zurich since 2001 and Dean of the Department of
Architecture since 2017. He holds a Bachelor of Science in
Environmental Planning from the University of California, Davis
292
501 About the Author and Contributors.indd 292 11/10/19 12:31 PM

as well as a Master of Architecture and Master of Landscape the preparation of texts and case study materials. His interests
Architecture from the University of California, Berkeley. He has center on issues of geopolitics and multiculturalism. He also
directed the ETH Institute of Landscape Architecture since maintains a strong interest in infrastructure and its history.
2005 and the ETH LVML (Landscape Visualization and Modeling He served as Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter at the Technical
Laboratory) since 2009. His emphasis in research and teaching University of Munich from 2012 to 2014 and Curatorial Assistant
is on large-scale landscape design and modeling with particular in the Department of Architecture and Design at the Museum
attention to the topology of natural systems in cities. This has of Modern Art (MoMA) New York from 2005 to 2008. He holds
enabled significant ecological design improvements through a Ph. D. as well as a Master of Design Studies in the History
advanced point cloud modeling techniques. He holds a practice and Theory of Architecture, with distinction, a Master of Arts,
in Zurich with projects that test the current limits of topological from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Architecture from
design and modeling. Christophe Girot has published extensively, Cornell University.
including The Course of Landscape Architecture (Thames &
Hudson, 2016). Emek Erdolu
Emek Erdolu is a researcher at FCL. He analyzes dense and
Michelle Jiang Yingying green developments on the urban scale in terms of density
Michelle Jiang Yingying is a post-doctoral researcher at FCL and greenery, landscape space provisions, as well as their
and Coordinator of Dense and Green. She investigates the contributions to larger urban ecosystems, such as green and
relationship of greenery provisions, space use, and pedestrian blue networks. Prior to FCL, he worked as an architect and urban
movement in dense and green developments through onsite designer for seven years in the USA, China, and Singapore on
observations with a focus on public and shared spaces. Prior to various projects, and taught at Bilkent University. He holds a
Dense and Green, she worked on the FCL Research Module Master of Urban Design with Distinction from the University of
Housing on the socio-spatial qualities of elevated public spaces Michigan and a diploma in Landscape Architecture and Urban
in housing in Singapore, and at the Smart Living Lab at the Design from Bilkent University.
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), where she
developed a program on building space flexibility and usability. Srilalitha Gopalakrishnan
She holds a Ph. D. from the University of Hong Kong, a Master of Srilalitha Gopalakrishnan is a Ph. D. researcher at the Singapore
Engineering in Architecture, History and Theory from Shenzhen University of Technology and Design. She analyzes construction
University, and a Bachelor of Engineering in Architectural Design and maintenance costs associated with the provision of green
from Zhejiang University. spaces in dense and green developments and quantifies the
benefits of integrated landscape design in high-density urban
Richard Belcher environments. Prior to SUTD, she worked as a landscape
Richard Belcher is a researcher at FCL, where he investigates architect on a number of award-winning residential, commercial,
the environmental and economic value of greenery in dense hospitality, institutional, recreational, and master-planning projects
and green buildings using post-occupancy data. He holds a in Singapore, Malaysia, China, Hong Kong, and India for more than
Master of Science in Environmental Management from the 15 years. She holds a Master of Landscape Architecture from the
National University of Singapore (NUS), where he quantified the School of Planning and Architecture New Delhi and a Diploma in
influence of neighborhood green space on the selling price of Architecture from Shushant School of Art & Architecture.
public housing, and a Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Forestry from
Bangor University. Prior to FCL, he worked as an environmental Mayank Kaushal
consultant in Singapore, conducting pollution control studies, Mayank Kaushal is a researcher at FCL and the Singapore University
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), and emissions of Technology and Design. He examines and visualizes the
inventory studies. spatial organization of dense and green developments in
terms of massing, layout, as well as greenery and community
Peter Christensen provisions, and analyzes information provided by dense and
Peter Christensen is Associate Professor of Art History at green stakeholders, including building owners, clients, architects,
the University of Rochester. His specialization is modern landscape architects, and contractors. Prior to FCL and SUTD,
architectural and environmental history. At FCL, he assisted with he worked as an architect and urban designer for eight years
293

on various projects in the public and private sector. He holds a
Master of Science in Integrated Sustainable Design from the
National University of Singapore and a Bachelor of Architecture
from Chandigarh College of Architecture in India.
Thibault Pilsudski
Thibault Pilsudski is a researcher at FCL. He investigates
maintenance and accessibility aspects of dense and green
developments and analyzes them in terms of Green Plot Ratio
(GNPR) as a measure of density and greenery. Prior to FCL,
he worked at the Ministry of National Development Singapore
Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) on urban research projects.
He holds a Master of Urban Studies and Public Policy from
Sciences Po Paris and a Master of Urban Planning from the
National University of Singapore.
Prashanth Raju
Prashanth Raju is a researcher at FCL. He examines the variations
in spatial configurations of green components in dense and
green developments and quantifies their urban design benefits.
Prior to FCL, he worked as an architect for two years in India on
residential, commercial, and master-planning projects. He holds
a Master of Urban Design from the University of Michigan and a
Bachelor of Architecture from MEASI Academy of Architecture.
Ester Suen Yun Ju

Ester Suen Yun Ju is a researcher at FCL. She investigates the
benefits of greenery on buildings in Singapore with regard to
biodiversity and microclimate. Her broader research interests
lie in urban ecology, sustainability, and conservation. Prior to
FCL, she worked in a forest ecology and restoration laboratory
at Yale-NUS College, where she studied the functional traits of
plants in relationship to their environment. She holds a Bachelor
of Science in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation from the
University of Guelph, Canada.
Jonathan Tan Koon Ngee

Jonathan Tan Koon Ngee is a researcher at FCL. He analyzes
the thermal benefits of urban greenery by using infrared
thermography, image classification, and statistical modeling.
Prior to FCL, he worked at the Botany Laboratory at the National
University of Singapore (NUS), where he surveyed secondary
forests to detail the population dynamics of exotic tree species
and their native ecological analogues. He holds a Bachelor of
Science in Environmental Studies (Biology) from NUS.
294

Bibliography
1000 Trees Shanghai. “1000 Trees.” Accessed April 5, 2019. Archina. “1000 Trees.” Accessed March 29, 2019. http://www.
http://www.1000trees.com.cn/. archina.com/index.php?g=works&m=index&a=show&id=195.
Abraham, John. “New Study Links Global Warming to Arifin, Hadi Susilo, and Nobukazu Nakagoshi. “Landscape Ecology
Hurricane Sandy and Other Extreme Weather Events.” and Urban Biodiversity in Tropical Indonesian Cities.”
The Guardian, June 22, 2015. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 7, no. 1 (January 1, 2011):
33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0145-9.
Arch2O. “Kengo Kuma & Associates Design Eco-Luxury Hotel in
Paris Featuring Wood and Greenery.” Accessed March 30, 2019. Arrhenius, Thordis. “Restoration in the Machine Age:
https://www.arch2o.com/kengo-kuma-associates-design-eco- Themes of Conservation in Le Corbusier’s ‘Plan Voisin’.”
luxury-hotel-paris-featuring-wood-greenery/. AA Files 38 (Spring 1999): 10–22.
Al Jazeera. “Hundreds of Bats Die in Sydney Heatwave.” Arup. “Bosco Verticale, Milan: How do you engineer a forest in
Accessed March 31, 2018. https://www.aljazeera. the sky?” Accessed February 31, 2019.
com/news/2018/01/hundreds-bats-die-sydney- https://www.arup.com/projects/bosco-verticale.
heatwave-180109070833282.html.
Arup. “Porta Nuova Isola, Milan: Redevelopment of an area for
Alexandri, Eleftheria, and Phil Jones. “Temperature decreases residential and commercial use.” Accessed January 31, 2019.
in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in https://www.arup.com/projects/porta-nuova-isola.
diverse climates.” Building and Environment, Part “Special:
Building Performance Simulation,” 43, no. 4 (April 1, 2008): Ateliers Jean Nouvel. “One Central Park.” Accessed February 10,
480–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.055. 2018. http://www.jeannouvel.com/en/projects/one-central-park/.
Alvarado, Francisco. “First mixed-use project in Allapattah scores Ateliers Jean Nouvel. “Torre Rosewood.” Accessed February 12,
first commission approval,” The Real Deal, March 29, 2019. 2019. http://www.jeannouvel.com/en/projects/torre-rosewood/.
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). Austin, Gary. Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning:
“2015 ASLA Professional Awards.” Accessed April 16, 2019. Integrating Human and Natural Systems. Abingdon:
https://www.asla.org/2015awards/89062.html. Routledge, 2014.
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. “AWI Master Plan.” Báldi, András. “Edge effects in tropical versus temperate
Accessed April 15, 2019. https://www.anacostiawaterfront.org/ forest bird communities: Three alternative hypotheses
awitransportationmasterplan. for the explanation of differences,” Acta Zoologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42, no. 3 (1996): 163–72.
Anderson, David E. “Hypothesis testing in hedonic price
estimation – On the selection of independent variables.” Barbaux, Sophie. Sponge City: Water Resource Management.
The Annals of Regional Science 34, no. 2 (July 1, 2000): 293–304. Mulgrave, Australia: Images, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001689900010.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. A History of Babylon, 2200 BC–AD 75.
Arcadis. “Mille Arbres.” Accessed March 24, 2019. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2018.
https://www.arcadis.com/en/global/what-we-do/our-projects/
europe/france/mille-arbres/. Belcher, Richard N., et al. “Birds use of vegetated and
non-vegetated high-density buildings—a case study of Milan,”
archello. “Mille Arbres by Manal Rachdi Oxo Architectes + Journal of Urban Ecology 4, no. 1 (January 1, 2018).
Sou Fujimoto Architects.” Accessed March 24, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juy001.
https://archello.com/project/mille-arbres#stories.
295

Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward 2000–1887. New York: Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Singapore.
Houghton Mifflin, 1889. “Strata Living in Singapore.” Accessed January 4, 2018.
https://www.bca.gov.sg/bmsm/others/strata_living.pdf.
Bettencourt, Luís M.A. “The origins of scaling in cities.” Science 340
(2013): 1438–1441. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235823. Building Bridges Across the River. “11th Street Bridge Park
Competition: Design Principles, Values and Facilities
BIG. “Mipro – Miami Produce.” Accessed April 5, 2019. Description.” Accessed April 15, 2019. https://bbardc.org/
https://big.dk/#projects-mipro. wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bridge-Park-Principles.pdf.
Blanc, Patrick. The Vertical Garden from Nature to the City. Building Bridges Across the River. “BBAR – Building Bridges
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. Across the River.” Accessed April 15, 2019.
https://bbardc.org/partner/bbar-building-bridges-across-the-river/.
Bloomberg. “Cie De Phalsbourg Sarl.” Accessed March 30, 2019.
https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/ Busse Nielsen, Anders, et al. “Species richness in urban parks and
7677535Z:FP-cie-de-phalsbourg-sarl. its drivers: A review of empirical evidence,” Urban Ecosystems 17,
no. 1 (March 1, 2014): 305–27.
Bloomberg. “Company Overview of OGIC SA.” Accessed March
23, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/ Cairns, Stephen. “Technical Medium, Hyper-Medium,
snapshot.asp?privcapId=22948017. Design Medium.” In Future Cities Laboratory Indicia 02, edited by
Stephen Cairns and Devisari Tunas, IX-XXI. Zürich: Lars Müller
Bloomberg. “Company Overview of Sogelym Dixence Publishers, 2019.
Holding SAS.” Accessed February 5, 2019.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot. Cameron, Ross W. F., Jane E. Taylor, and Martin R. Emmett.
asp?privcapId=211099533. “What’s ‘cool’ in the world of green façades? How plant choice
influences the cooling properties of green walls.”
Botta, Mario. Architetture del Sacro. Bologna: Editrice Building and Environment 73 (March 1, 2014): 198–207.
Compositori, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.12.005.
Botta, Mario. The Complete Works, Volume 3, 1900–1997. CapitaLand. “CapitaLand Global Sustainability Report 2017.”
Basel: Birkhäuser, 1998. Accessed May 22, 2018. https://www.capitaland.com/sites/
SustainabilityReport/2017/introduction.html.
Brander, Luke M., and Mark J. Koetse. “The value of urban open
space: Meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing CapitaLand. “The Interlace Wins the Prestigious Inaugural
results.” Journal of Environmental Management 92, no. 10 Urban Habitat Award.” Accessed May 22, 2018.
(October 2011): 2763–73. https://www.capitaland.com/international/en/about-capitaland/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019. newsroom/news-releases/international/2014/jun/nr-20140627-the-
interlace-wins-the-prestigious-inaugural-urban-habitat-award.html.
Broder-Singer, Rochelle. “Pérez Art Museum Miami proves to be
a work of art,” Florida Trend, January 31, 2014, Central Park Sydney. “Foster + Partners’ Broadway Corner,
https://www.floridatrend.com/article/16740/prez-art-museum- Now on Exhibition.” Accessed June 15, 2018.
miami-proves-to-be-a-work-of-art. https://www.centralparksydney.com/what-s-on/news-events/
2013-march-foster-partners-broadway-corner,-now.
Brook, Barry W., Navjot S. Sodhi, and Peter K. L. Ng.
“Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore,” Chan, Edwin Hon-Wan, et al. “Private space, shared space and
Nature 424, no. 6947 (July 24, 2003): 420–26. private housing prices in Hong Kong: An exploratory study.”
Habitat International 32, no. 3 (September 2008): 336–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.11.004.
296

Chang, Jiat-Hwee. A Genealogy of Tropical Architecture: City of Sydney. “Draft Open Space, Sports and Recreation Needs
Colonial Networks, Nature, and Technoscience. Abingdon: Study 2016.” Accessed June 15, 2018. https://www.cityofsydney.
Routledge, 2016. nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/138720/Adopted-Open-
Space-Sport-Rec-Needs-Study-2016-Vol-1_Part1.pdf.
Cheong, Koon Hean. “Creating Liveable Density through a
Synthesis of Planning, Design and Greenery.” In Dense and City of Sydney. “Greening Sydney Plan.” Accessed June 15, 2018.
Green Building Typologies: Research, Policy and Practice https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/
Perspectives, edited by Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha Menz, pdf_file/0009/135882/GreeningSydneyPlan.pdf.
7–12. Singapore: Springer, 2018.
City Population. “Punggol Planning Area in Singapore.”
Chih, John Mun Sha, et al. “Macaque-human interactions Accessed January 4, 2018. https://www.citypopulation.de/php/
and the societal perceptions of macaques in Singapore,” singapore-admin.php?adm1id=303.
American Journal of Primatology 71, no. 10 (October 2009):
825–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20710. Compagnie de Phalsbourg. “Aurore.” Accessed March 30, 2019.
http://www.compagniedephalsbourg.com/portfolio_page/aurore/.
Chiquet, Caroline, John W. Dover, and Paul Mitchell. “Birds
and the urban environment: the value of green walls,” Corner, James, and Alison Bick Hirsch. The Landscape Imagination:
Urban Ecosystems 16, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 453–62. Collected Essays of James Corner, 1990–2010. Princeton, NJ:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0277-9. Princeton Architectural Press, 2014.
Cho, Seong-Hoon, et al. “Amenity values of spatial Dalley, Stephani. The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of
configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced 1st Edition. Oxford:
Southern Appalachian Highlands.” Ecological Economics 68, Oxford University Press, 2015.
no. 10 (August 15, 2009): 2646–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2009.04.017. De Moncan, Patrice. Les jardins du Baron Haussmann. Paris:
Les Éditions du Mécène, 2012.
Cho, Seong-Hoon, et al. “Spatial and Temporal Variation in
the Housing Market Values of Lot Size and Open Space.” De Portzamparc, Christian. “Château d’Eau à Marne la
Land Economics 85, no. 1 (February 2009): 51–73. Vallée.” In Christian de Portzamparc, 50–54. Milan, Paris:
Electa Moniteur, 1984.
Cho, Seong-Hoon, J. M. Bowker, and William M. Park.
“Measuring the Contribution of Water and Green Space De Portzamparc, Christian. Les dessins et les jours, L’architecture
Amenities to Housing Values; An Application and Comparison of commence avec un dessin. Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2016.
Spatially Weighted Hedonic Models.” Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 31, no. 3 (December 2006): 485–507. Deng, Huijuan, and C. Y. Jim. “Spontaneous plant
colonization and bird visits of tropical extensive green roof,”
Cho, Seong-Hoon, Neelam C. Poudyal, and Roland K. Roberts. Urban Ecosystems 20, no. 2 (April 1, 2017): 337–52.
“Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space,”
Ecological Economics 66, no. 2–3 (June 15, 2008): 403–16. Department of Statistics Singapore. “Statistics Singapore –
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.012. Latest Data.” Accessed December 4, 2018.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#22.
Choumert, Johanna and Julien Salanié. “Provision of urban green
spaces: Some insights from economics.” Landscape Research, Der Hagopian, Manuel. “Punggol Waterway Terraces,
33 (3) (2008): 331–34. Singapore.” In Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research,
Policy and Practice Perspectives, edited by Thomas Schröpfer
Cidade Matarazzo. “Cidade Matarazzo.” Accessed February 11, and Sacha Menz, 27–34. Singapore: Springer, 2018.
2019. http://www.cidadematarazzo.com.br/site/en/projeto/.
297

Design Build Network. “11th Street Bridge Park, Washington, Far East Organization. “Four Far East Organization’s
D.C.” Accessed April, 15 2019. https://www.designbuild- Developments Awarded at FIABCI Singapore Property Awards
network.com/projects/11th-street-bridge-park-washington-dc/. 2017.” Accessed December 4, 2018. https://www.fareast.
com.sg/-/media/fareast/aboutus/newsroom/press-release-
Di, H. F., and D. N. Wang. “Cooling effect of ivy on a wall.” pdfs/20171006-Four-Far-East-Organization-developments-
Experimental Heat Transfer 12, no. 3 (July 1999): 235–45. awarded-at-FIABCI-Singapore-Property-Awards-2017.ashx?la=e
https://doi.org/10.1080/089161599269708. n&hash=385D7B97F0999FA3A47B7845395B76F6F1480DBA.
Dochinger, Leon S. “Interception of Airborne Particles by Fishman, Robert. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century:
Tree Plantings.” Journal of Environmental Quality, 9 (2) (1980): Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier. Cambridge,
265–268. doi:10.2134/jeq1980.00472425000900020020x. MA: The MIT Press, 1982.
Dwyer, John F., David J. Nowak, Mary Heather Noble, Fluor. “City of Amsterdam Project Zuidasdok.”
and Susan M. Sisinni. “Connecting People with Ecosystems Accessed January 14, 2019. https://www.fluor.com/projects/
in the 21st Century: An Assessment of Our Nation’s amsterdam-project-zuidasdok.
Urban Forests.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Frasers Property. “Central Park, Retail NSW.” Accessed February
Pacific Northwest Research Station (2000): 483–490. 18, 2018. https:// www.frasersproperty.com.au/retail/nsw/
central-park/register.
Edelman, Alexandra, et al. “State of the Tropics 2014 Report.”
Accessed December 18, 2018. https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/ Frasers Property. “Central Park.” Accessed February 18, 2018.
35471/. https://www.frasersproperty.com/what-we-do/our-portfolio/
aus_central-park-nsw.
Edwards, Peter. “Foreword.” In Future Cities Laboratory Indicia
01, edited by Stephen Cairns and Devisari Tunas, VI-VII. Zürich: Frasers Property. “Explore Our Diverse, Multi-National Property
Lars Müller Publishers, 2017. Company.” Accessed February 18, 2018. https://www.
frasersproperty.com/who-we-are/overview.
Elmich. “Elmich Green Roof at Solaris Fusionopolis.”
Accessed April 27, 2018. http://elmich.com/asia/elmich-green- Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.
roof-at-solaris-fusionopolis/. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1992.
Engler, Mira. Cut and Paste Urban Landscape: The Work of Fry, Maxwell, and Jane Drew. Architecture and the Environment.
Gordon Cullen. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. Crow’s Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1976.
Esteval Editions. “Réinventer Paris: OGIC et la compagnie Fry, Maxwell, and Jane Drew. Tropical Architecture in the
de Phalsbourg Lauréaats avec le project ‘Mille Arbres.’” Humid Zone. London: Batsford, 1956.
Accessed March 24, 2019. www.esteval.fr/article.11807.
reinventer-paris-ogic-et-la-compagnie-de-phalsbourg-laureaats- Fry, Maxwell, and Jane Drew. Village Housing in the Tropics with
avec-le-projet-mille-arbres. Special Reference to West Africa. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013.
Fairchild Ruggles, Dede. Gardens, Landscape, and Vision in Gandy, Matthew. “The Paris Sewers and the Rationalization of
the Palaces of Islamic Spain. College Station, PA: Penn State Urban Space.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
University Press, 2003. 24:1 (1999): 23–44.
Gaston, Kevin J., et al. “Population Abundance and

Ecosystem Service Provision: The Case of Birds,” BioScience 68,
no. 4 (April 1, 2018): 264–72, DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy005.
298

George, Henry. Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry Into the Cause Gui, Jooseng, et al. “Impact of Pavement Thermophysical
of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Properties on Surface Temperatures.” Journal of Materials in
Wealth: The Remedy. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1881. Civil Engineering 19, no. 8 (August 2007): 683–90. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:8(683).
Giacomello, Elena, and Massimo Valagussa. Vertical Greenery:
Evaluating the High-Rise Vegetation of the Bosco Verticale, Milan. Guo, Daiheng. China’s Lost Imperial Garden: The World’s Most
Chicago: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2015. Exquisite Garden Rediscovered. Shanghai: Shanghai Press, 2016.
Gibson, Eleanor. “BIG reveals Miami Produce Center Gurevitch, Jessica, and Dianna K. Padilla. “Are invasive species
raised on stilts above former warehouses.” dezeen, a major cause of extinctions?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution
August 8, 2018, https://www.dezeen.com/2018/08/08/ 19, no. 9 (September 2004): 470–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
miami-produce-center-big-warehouse-housing-offices/. tree.2004.07.005.
Gill, S. E., et al. “Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of Hails, Christopher J., and Mikaail Kavanagh. “Bring Back the
the Green Infrastructure,” Built Environment 33, no. 1 Birds! Planning for Trees and Other Plants to Support Southeast
(March 13, 2007): 115–33. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115. Asian Wildlife in Urban Areas,” The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology
(November 2013).
Givoni, B. “Impact of planted areas on urban environmental
quality: A review,” Atmospheric Environment. Part B. Handel Architects. “Pérez Art Museum.” Accessed February 28,
Urban Atmosphere 25, no. 3 (January 1, 1991): 289–99. 2019. https://handelarchitects.com/project/perez-art-museum.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0957-1272(91)90001-U.
Harr, Sara. EcoArchitecture: The Work of Ken Yeang. Hoboken:
Global Generation. “About Us.” Accessed March 26, 2019. Wiley, 2011.
https://www.globalgeneration.org.uk/about-us.
Heatherwick Studio. “Google King’s Cross.” Accessed March
Godfrey, Miles. “Hellish Scenes as 5000 Dead Bats Drop.” 26, 2019. http://www.heatherwick.com/projects/buildings/
Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2018. google-kings-cross/.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., et al. “Urban ecosystem services,” Heinzle, Stefanie Lena, Augustin Boey Ying Yip, and Melissa Low
Chapter 12. In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Yu Xing. “The Influence of Green Building Certification Schemes
Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment, edited on Real Estate Investor Behaviour: Evidence from Singapore.”
by T. Elmqvist et al. Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London: Urban Studies 50, no. 10 (August 1, 2013): 1970–87.
Springer, 2013.
Henderson, Joan C. “Urban parks and green spaces in
González-García, Alberto, and Antonio Gómez Sal. “Private Urban Singapore.” Managing Leisure 18, no. 3 (2013): 213–25.
Greenspaces or ‘Patios’ as a Key Element in the Urban Ecology https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2013.796181.
of Tropical Central America.” Human Ecology 36, no. 2 (2008):
291–300. Hern, Alex. “Google submits plans for ‘landscraper’ London
headquarters.” The Guardian, June 1, 2017.
Gouvernement.fr. “Greater Paris: “Turning promises into reality.”
Accessed February 4, 2019. https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/ Herzog & de Meuron. “Pérez Art Museum Miami.”
greater-paris-turning-promises-into-reality. Accessed February 28, 2019. https://www.herzogdemeuron.
com/index/projects/complete-works/301-325/306-perez-art-
Grafius, Darren R., et al. “A bird’s eye view: using circuit museum-miami.html.
theory to study urban landscape connectivity for birds,”
Landscape Ecology 32, no. 9 (September 1, 2017): 1771–87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0548-1.
299

Hobson, Benedict. “Green wall pioneer Patrick Blanc: Jackson, Iain, and Jessica Holland. The Architecture of
Now everybody is doing vertical gardens.” dezeen, January 8, 2014, Edwin Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew: Twentieth Century Architecture,
https://www.dezeen.com/2014/01/08/patrick-blanc-herzog-and- Pioneer Modernism, and the Tropics. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
de-meuron-perez-art-museum-miami-vertical-gardens/.
Jacques, Michel, and Armelle Lavalou. Christian de Portzamparc.
Hotel Properties Limited. “Corporate Profile.” Accessed Bordeaux and Basel: Arc en Rêve Centre d’Architecture and
November 12, 2018. Birkhäuser, 1996.
https:// www.hotelprop.com.sg/corporate-profile/.
Jianguo Tan, et al. “The urban heat island and its impact on heat
Housing & Development Board (HDB) Singapore. “Public Housing waves and human health in Shanghai.” International Journal of
in Singapore: Residents’ Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Biometeorology 54, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 75–84.
Preferences.” Accessed December 4, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-009-0256-x.
https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-us/
news-and-publications/publications/hdb-publications. Jim, C. Y., and Lilliana L. H. Peng. “Weather effect on thermal
and energy performance of an extensive tropical green roof.”
Housing & Development Board (HDB) Singapore. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11, no. 1 (January 2012): 73–85.
“Queenstown - Housing & Development Board.” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.10.001.
Accessed March 3, 2018. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/
about-us/history/hdb-towns-your-home/queenstown. Jim, C. Y., and Wendy Y. Chen. “Impacts of urban environmental
elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China).”
Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. London: Landscape and Urban Planning 78, no. 4 (November 28, 2006):
Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1902. 422–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.003.
Howard, Ebenezer. To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. Jim, C. Y., and Wendy Y. Chen. “External effects of neighbourhood
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value,”
Land Use Policy 27, no. 2 (April 2010): 662–70.
Hudson River Park. “Explore the Park.” Accessed April 6, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.027.
https://hudsonriverpark.org/explore-the-park.
Jones, Colin. “Theodor Vacquer and the Archaeology of Modernity
Hudson River Park. “Vision & Progress.” Accessed April 6, 2019. in Haussmann’s Paris.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
https://hudsonriverpark.org/vision-and-progress. 17 (2007): 157–83.
Hudson Yards Development Corporation. “Hudson Park & Jordan, Harriet. “Public Parks, 1885–1914.” Garden History, 22, 1
Boulevard.” Accessed April 5, 2019. (1994): 85–113.
http://www.hydc.org/html/project/hudson-park.shtml.
JTC Corporation. “one-north: JTC - Creating Tomorrow’s
Hunt, John Dixon. Gardens and the Picturesque: Studies in the Industry Spaces.” Accessed January 4, 2018. https://www.jtc.gov
History of Landscape Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT .sg/industrial-land-and-space/pages/one-northone-north.aspx.
Press, 1994.
Justus, James, et al. “Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus
Hunt, John Dixon. The Venetian City Garden: Place, Typology, instrumental value.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, no. 4
and Perception. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2005. (April 1, 2009): 187–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.011.
Irwin, Elena G. “The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Kengo Kuma and Associates. “1Hotel Paris.” Accessed March
Values.” Land Economics 78, no. 4 (November 2002): 465–80. 30, 2019. https://kkaa.co.jp/works/architecture/1hotel-paris/.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3146847.
300

Khew, Joanne Yu Ting, Makoto Yokohari, and Toshinori Tanaka. Komara, Ann. “Concrete and the Engineered Picturesque
“Public Perceptions of Nature and Landscape Preference in at the Parc des Buttes Chaumont (Paris, 1867).” Journal of
Singapore.” Human Ecology 42, no. 6 (December 2014): 979–88. Architectural Education 58, 1 (September 2004): 5–12.
Khoo, Teng Chye. “Building a City in Nature.” In Dense and Green Kowarik, Ingo. “Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and
Building Typologies: Research, Policy and Practice Perspectives, conservation.” Environmental Pollution Volume 159, Issues 8–9,
edited by Thomas Schröpfer and Sacha Menz, 13–19. Singapore: 1974–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.022.
Springer, 2019.
Kowarik, Ingo. “Overcoming Obstacles to Sustainability and Quality
Killcoyne, Hope, and Mary Lee Majno. The Lost Village of of Life.” In Environmental Pollution: Selected papers from the
Central Park. New York City: Silver Moon Press, 1999. conference Urban Environmental Pollution: Overcoming Obstacles
to Sustainability and Quality of Life (UEP2010), 20–23 June 2010,
King’s Cross Central. “Green Buildings.” Accessed March 26, 2019. Boston, USA, edited W.J. Manning. Boston, USA, Volume 159,
https://www.kingscross.co.uk/sustainable-building-design. Issues 8–9, 1963–2210.
King’s Cross Central. “A Green King’s Cross.” Accessed March 25, Kowsky, Francis R., and Andy Olenick. The Best Planned City in
2019. https://www.kingscross.co.uk/green-infrastructure. the World: Olmsted, Vaux, and the Buffalo Park System. Amherst
and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2018.
King’s Cross Central. “About the Development.” Accessed
March 25, 2019. https://www.kingscross.co.uk/about-the- KPF. “Hudson Yards.” Accessed April 4, 2019.
development. https://www.kpf.com/projects/hudson-yards.
King’s Cross Central. “KXC Overview October 2018.” La Sorte, Frank, Michael L. McKinney, and Petr Pyšek.
Accessed April 1, 2019. https://www.kingscross.co.uk/media/ “Compositional similarity among urban floras within and across
KX-Overview-October-2018.pdf. continents: biogeographical consequences of human-mediated
biotic interchange.” Global Change Biology 13, no. 4 (April 1, 2007):
Kjelgren, Roger, and Thayne Montague. “Urban Tree Transpiration 913–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01329.x.
over Turf and Asphalt Surfaces.” Atmospheric Environment.
Conference on the Benefits of the Urban Forest, 32, no. 1 Lambertini, Anna, and Jacques Leenhardt. Vertical Gardens.
(January 1, 1998): 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352- London: Thames and Hudson, 2007.
2310(97)00177-5.
Landezine. “PAMM - Pérez Art Museum Miami.” Accessed
Klem, Daniel, et al. “Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors February 28, 2019, http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2014/
Associated with Bird-glass Collisions in an Urban Environment.” 07/pamm-perez/.
The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121, no. 1 (February 24, 2009):
126–34. https://doi.org/10.1676/08-068.1. Läpple, Dieter. “Foreword.” In Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities
Laboratory, edited by Gerhard Schmitt et al., 3, Singapore:
Kmiec, Maria. “Green Wall Technology.” Technical Transactions Singapore-ETH Centre, 2018.
Architecture 10-A (2014): 47–60.
Le Dantec, Jean-Pierre. Christian de Portzamparc. Paris: Editions
Köhler, Manfred, et al. “Green roofs in temperate climates du Regard, 1995.
and in the hot-humid tropics – far beyond the aesthetics.”
Environmental Management and Health 13, no. 4 (October 1, 2002): Le Merdy, Patrick. “A la recherche du végétal urbain.” Urbanisme
382–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/09566160210439297. 209 (1984): 77–81.
Let It Grow. “Mille Arbres.” Accessed March 23, 2019.

https://letitgrow.org/green-initiatives/mille-arbres/.
301

Let It Grow. “Transforming Shanghai’s Skyline with 1000 Trees.” Mansfield, C., et al. “Shades of Green: Measuring the value of
Accessed December 27, 2018. https://letitgrow.org/city-culture/ urban forests in the housing market.” Journal of Forest Economics
transforming-shanghais-skyline-1000-trees. Volume 11, Issue 3 (2005): 177–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.
2005.08.002.
Levin, Ayala. “Basic Design and the Semiotics of Citizenship:
Julian Beinart’s Educational Experiments and Research on Marie de Paris. “Reinventing Paris.” Accessed March 23, 2019.
Wall Decoration in Early 1960s Nigeria and South Africa.” http://www.reinventer.paris/2015-2016/en/.
ABE Journal 9–10 (December 2016). Accessed January 31, 2019.
http://journals.openedition.org/abe/3180 . McKinney, Michael L. “Urbanization as a major cause of biotic
homogenization.” Biological Conservation 127, no. 3 (2006):
LMN Architects. “How Vancouver Greened Its Waterfront.” 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005.
Accessed February 28, 2019, http://lmnarchitects.com/
case-study/vancouver-greened-waterfront. McMichael, Anthony J., Rosalie E Woodruff, and Simon Hales.
“Climate change and human health: present and future risks.”
LMN Architects. “Vancouver Convention Centre West.” The Lancet 367, no. 9513 (March 11, 2006): 859–69.
Accessed February 28, 2019, https://lmnarchitects.com/project/ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68079-3.
vancouver-convention-centre-west.
McPherson, E. Gregory. “Cooling Urban Heat Islands with
London Natural History Society. “Home.” Accessed December Sustainable Landscapes.” In The Ecological City: Preserving
12, 2018. http://lnhs.org.uk. and Restoring Urban Biodiversity, edited by Rutherford H. Platt,
Rowan A. Rowntree, and Pamela C. Muick, 151–71. Amherst,
Loomis, John. “2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994.
Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.”
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39, no. 1 (2014). Meinhold, Bridgette. “LEED Platinum Vancouver Convention
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/agsjlaare/168258.htm. Centre Takes Home Top Ten AIA COTE Award.” inhabitat,
April 26, 2004, https://inhabitat.com/leed-platinum-vancouver-
López-Hoffman, Laura, et al. “Ecosystem Services from convention-centre-takes-home-top-ten-aia-cote-award/.
Transborder Migratory Species: Implications for Conservation
Governance.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42 Miller, James R. “Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of
(2017): 509–39, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ- experience.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, no. 8 (August 1,
110615-090119. 2005): 430–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013.
Ludwig, Karl. Compendium of Landscape Architecture and Minelli, Alessandro. The Botanical Garden of Padua 1545–1995.
Open Space Design. Berlin: Braun Publishing, 2018. Venice: Marsilio Editori, 1995.
Lye, Lin Heng. “A Fine City in a Garden – Environmental Law Moeller, Nadine. The Archaeology of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt:
and Governance in Singapore.” Singapore Journal of Legal From the Predynastic Period to the End of the Middle Kingdom.
Studies, 2008: 68–117. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24869352? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Mueller, Erin C., and Thomas A. Day. “The effect of urban ground
Mairs, Jessica. “Heatherwick releases new video of 1000 Trees cover on microclimate, growth and leaf gas exchange of oleander
under construction in Shanghai.” dezeen, accessed December 27, in Phoenix, Arizona.” International Journal of Biometeorology
2019, https://www.dezeen.com/2017/08/10/thomas-heatherwick- 49, no. 4 (March 1, 2005): 244–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/
studio-1000-trees-video-photographs-shanghai-china/. s00484-004-0235-1.
Manifesto. “Les Lumières Pleyel.” Accessed February 4, 2019. Müller-Boscaro, Melanie. “A Vertical Forest in Milan.” Topos
http://manifesto.paris/en/projet/les-lumieres-pleyel/. “Plants and Design” 83 (2013): 43–47.
302

Munro, Nicola T., David B. Lindenmayer, and Joern Fischer, “Faunal Ng, Lang. “Interview: Ng Lang, CEO, Urban Redevelopment
response to revegetation in agricultural areas of Australia: A review.” Authority (URA).” Architecture and Urbanism, Special Edition
Ecological Management & Restoration 8, no. 3 (December 1, 2007): (May 2012): 50.
199–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00368.x.
Nilsson, Kjell et al., eds. Forests, Trees and Human Health.
MVRDV. “Valley.” Accessed January 17, 2019. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011.
https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/233/valley.
O’Shea, Thomas J., et al. “Multiple mortality events in bats:
Nagendra, Harini, and Divya Gopal. “Tree diversity, distribution, A global review,” Mammal Review 46, no. 3 (18 January 2016):
history and change in urban parks: studies in Bangalore, India,” 175–90.
Urban Ecosystems 14, no. 2 (June 1, 2011): 211–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0148-1. OGIC. “Découvrir OGIC.” Accessed March 23, 2019.
https://www.groupe-ogic.fr/decouvrir-ogic/.
Nastaran, Makaremi, et al. “Thermal comfort conditions of
shaded outdoor spaces in hot and humid climate of Malaysia.” OMA. “11th Street Bridge Park.” Accessed April, 15 2019.
Building and Environment 48 (February 2012): 7–14. https://oma.eu/projects/11th-street-bridge-park.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.024.
OMA. “The Interlace.” Accessed May 22, 2018.
National Park Service. “Anacostia Park.” Accessed April 15, http://oma.eu/projects/the-interlace.
2019. https://www.nps.gov/anac/learn/nature/index.htm.
One Design Company. “Hines Italy.” Accessed July 13, 2018.
National Parks Board (NParks) Singapore. “one-north Park: https://www.hines.com/locations/italy.
Biopolis.” Accessed January 5, 2018. https://www.nparks.
gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/ Orillard, Clément. “Tracing Urban Design’s ‘Townscape’ Origins:
one-north-park-biopolis. Some Relationships Between a British Editorial Policy and an
American Academic Field in the 1950s.” Urban History 36:2
National Parks Board (NParks) Singapore. “Singapore Index (August 2009): 284–302.
on Cities’ Biodiversity.” Accessed December 14, 2018.
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/urban-biodiversity/ Ott, Jennifer. Olmsted in Seattle: Creating a Park System for a
the-singapore-index-on-cities-biodiversity. Modern City. Seattle: HistoryLink, 2019.
National Parks Board (NParks) Singapore. “The Southern OVG Real Estate. “Who is OVG Real Estate?” Accessed January
Ridges.” Accessed March 29, 2018. https://www.nparks. 15, 2019, http://ovgrealestate.com/about-us.
gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/
hortpark-southern-ridges. Paris Rive Gauche. “L’opération d’urbanisme - Paris Rive Gauche.”
Accessed March 30, 2019, http://www.parisrivegauche.com/
National Parks Board (NParks) Singapore. “Wildlife in Singapore. L-operation-d-urbanisme.
Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/
biodiversity/wildlife-in-singapore. Paris Rive Gauche. “Le Programme - L’opération d’urbanisme
- Paris Rive Gauche.” Accessed April 6, 2019. http://www.
Ng, Jun Sen. “HDB unveils landscape masterplan to spruce up parisrivegauche.com/L-operation-d-urbanisme/Le-programme.
Dawson estate.” The Straits Times, December 18, 2016,
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/hdb-unveils- Parker, Will. “Tishman Speyer picks up Pfizer as anchor tenant
landscape-masterplan-to-spruce-up-dawson-estate. for Spiral, lands mammoth construction loan.” The Real Deal,
April 10, 2018.
303

Patz, Jonathan A., et al. “Impact of Regional Climate Change on Public Utilities Board (PUB) Singapore. “Active, Clean,
Human Health.” Nature 438, no. 7066 (November 2005): 310–17. Beautiful Waters Programme.” Accessed December 14, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04188. https://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/about.
Pearson, Clifford A. “Skyville@Dawson: Gardens in the Sky.” Related Companies. “Related City Centers.” Accessed April 4,
Architectural Record, March 16, 2013. 2019. https://www.related.com/city-centers.
Pérez Art Museum Miami. “Who We Are.” Accessed February Richards, Daniel R., and Bige Tunçer. “Using image recognition to
27, 2019. https://www.pamm.org/about. automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social
media photographs.” Ecosystem Services Volume 31, Part C:
Pinkney, David H. Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris. 318–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958.
Rosen, Sherwin. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets:
Pionic. “Kengo Kuma Plans To Set A New Standard For Eco- Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.” The Journal of
Luxury Hotels,” Medium, July 23, 2017, https://medium.com/ Political Economy, 1974, 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/260169.
@pionic/kengo-kuma-plans-to-set-a-new-standard-for-eco-
luxury-hotels-bcc1e5a2617. Rosewood Hotel Group. “Rosewood Hotel Group: Us.”
Accessed February 12, 2019. https://www.rosewoodhotelgroup.
Poon, Hong Yuen. “Interview: Poon Hong Yuen, CEO, com/en-us/.
National Parks Board (NParks).” Architecture and Urbanism,
Special Edition (May 2012): 106. Roth, Matthias, and Winston T. L. Chow. “A historical review
and assessment of urban heat island research in Singapore.”
Porta Nuova. “New Door.” Accessed December 13, 2017. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 33, no. 3 (November 1,
http://www.porta-nuova.com/area/spazi-verdi/parco/. 2012): 381–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12003.
Porta Nuova. “Porta Nuova.” Accessed May 15, 2018. Roxburgh, Helen. “China’s ‘Sponge Cities’ are Turning Streets
http://www.porta-nuova.com. Green to Combat Flooding.” The Guardian, 27 December 2017.
Pousse, Jean-François. “Pour la Ville, Cathédrale d’Evry.” Rybczynski, Witold. A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law
Techniques et Architecture, “Architectures Sacrées” 405 (1993): Olmsted and America in the 19th Century. New York, NY:
34–37. Scribner, 2000.
Prasad, Vina Jie-Min. “Jurong Town Corporation: Infopedia.” Schmitt, Gerhard. “Foreword.” In Future Cities Laboratory Indicia
Accessed January 6, 2018, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/ 02, edited by Stephen Cairns and Devisari Tunas, VI-VII. Zürich:
infopedia/articles/SIP_553_2004-12-31.html. Lars Müller Publishers, 2019.
Property Guru. “Singapore Real Estate: CapitaLand and HPL Schröpfer, Thomas. Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for
unveil The Interlace.” Accessed December 4, 2018. Sustainable Urban Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016.
http://www.property-report.com/detail/-/blogs/
singapore-real-estate-capitaland-and-hpl-unveil-the-interlace. Singapore Government. “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic
Singapore: Population White Paper”. Accessed December 12, 2018.
Public Utilities Board (PUB) Singapore. “Active, Beautiful, https://www.mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/Resources/
Clean Waters Design Guidelines.” Accessed January 8, 2018. Feature-Articles/2012/MTI-Occasional-Paper-on-Population-
https://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/Documents/ABC_ and-Economy/FAQs-for-White-Paper.pdf.
DG_2014.pdf.
304
502 Bibliography.indd 304 11/11/19 10:29 AM

Singapore Government. “Estimated Singapore Resident Population Steed, Henry. “Taking Urban Greening to a Higher Level.”
in HDB Flats.” Accessed January 4, 2018. https://data.gov.sg/ In Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research, Policy
dataset/estimated-resident-population-living-in-hdb-flats? and Practice Perspectives, edited by Thomas Schröpfer and
view_id=d9174d5e-e811-4235-b150-feb869fa1f49 Sacha Menz, 71–78. Singapore: Springer, 2018.
&resource_id=a7d9516f-b193-%204f9b-8bbf-9c85a4c9b61b.
Suarez-Rubio Marcela, and John R. Thomlinson. “Landscape and
Singapore Government. “Remaking Our Heartland – Rejuvenating Patch-Level Factors Influence Bird Communities in an Urbanized
Singapore.” Accessed November 6, 2017. https://www.gov.sg/ Tropical Island.” Biological Conservation 142, no. 7 (July 2009):
news/content/%20remaking-our-heartlands-rejuvenating-singapore. 1311–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.035.
Singh, Bryna. “Oasia Hotel Downtown, luxury resort Amanemu Sue, Eddie D. W., and Wei-Kang Wong. “The Political Economy
clinch top prize at the SIA Architectural Design Awards.” of Housing Prices: Hedonic Pricing with Regression Discontinuity.”
The Straits Times, October 7, 2017, https://www.straitstimes. Journal of Housing Economics 19, no. 2 (June 2010): 133–44.
com/lifestyle/home-design/delightful-designs. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2010.04.004.
Snøhetta. “Les Lumières Pleyel.” Accessed February 5, 2019. Talton, Ellis and Remington Tonar. “Hudson Yards: Open to All But
https://snohetta.com/projects/355-les-lumieres-pleyel#. Not For All.” Forbes, March 15, 2019, https://www.forbes.com/
sites/ellistalton/2019/03/15/hudson-yards-open-to-all-but-not-for-
Sodhi, Navjot S. et al. “Bird use of linear areas of a tropical city: all/#16961f8a1afa.
implications for park connector design and management.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 45, no. 2 (October 30, 1999): Tan, Chun Liang, Nyuk Hien Wong, and Steve Kardinal Jusuf.
123–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00028-6. “Effects of vertical greenery on mean radiant temperature in the
tropical urban environment.” Landscape and Urban Planning 127
Soga, Masashi, and Kevin J. Gaston. “Extinction of experience: (July 2014): 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
the loss of human-nature interactions,” Frontiers in Ecology and 2014.04.005.
the Environment 14, no. 2 (March 1, 2016): 94–101.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225. Tan, Puay Yok, James Wang, and Angelia Sia. “Perspectives on
five decades of the urban greening of Singapore.” Cities 32,
Soilbuild Group Holdings. “Soilbuild Group Holdings Ltd.” Supplement C (June 1, 2013): 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Accessed July 7, 2018. http://www.soilbuild.com/ j.cities.2013.02.001.
Corporate-Information.
Tan, Puay Yok. “What does Vertical Green Mean.” Architecture and
Solecki, William D., and Cynthia Rosenzweig. “A Metropolitan Urbanism, Special Edition (May 2012): 138–141.
New York Biosphere Reserve?” In The Humane Metropolis:
People and Nature in the 21st-Century City, edited by Taylor Lovell, S., and Taylor, J. R. “Supplying urban ecosystem
Rutherford H. Platt, 103. Amherst and Boston: University of services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the
Massachusetts Press, 2006. United States.” Landscape Ecology 28 (2013): 1447–1463.
Song, Xiao Ping, Daniel Richards, Peter Edwards, and Tan Puay Yok. Testa, Caterina. “Vertical Forest Residential Complex.”
“Benefits of Trees in Tropical Cities.” Science 356, no. 6344 (2017): The Plan Magazine 10 (2015): 81–87.
1241. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan6642.
The Crowded Planet. “Neighbourhood Spotlight: Isola, Milan.”
Song, Xiao Ping, Tan Puay Yok, Peter Edwards, and Daniel Richards. Accessed December 12, 2017, https://www.thecrowdedplanet.
“The economic benefits and cost of trees in urban forest com/neighbourhood-spotlight-isola-milan/.
stewardship: A systematic review.” Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 29 (2018): 162–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug. Thermtest Instruments. “Materials Thermal Properties Database.”
2017.11.017. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://thermtest.com/materials-database.
305

Tian An China. “1000 Trees.” Accessed March 28, 2019. http:// Van Bohemen, Hein. “(Eco)System Thinking: Ecological Principles
www.tiananchina.com/en/projects_developments.php?pid=14. for Buildings, Roads and Industrial and Urban Areas.”
In Sustainable Urban Environments: An Ecosystem Approach,
Tishman Speyer. “Firm.” Accessed April 5, 2019. edited by Ellen van Bueren, Hein van Bohemen, Laure Itard,
https://tishmanspeyer.com/firm/organization. and Henk Visscher. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York:
Springer, 2012.
Tishman Speyer. “The Spiral.” Accessed April 5, 2019.
https://tishmanspeyer.com/properties/the-spiral. Vancouver Convention Centre. “About Us.” Accessed February 28,
2019. https://www.vancouverconventioncentre.com/about-us.
Top China Travel. “M50 Creative Garden.” Accessed March 28,
2019. https://www.topchinatravel.com/china-attractions/m50- Wainwright, Oliver. “Bjarke Ingels on the New York Dryline:
creative-garden.htm. ‘We think of it as the love-child of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs’.”
The Guardian, March 9, 2015.
Treguier, Eric. “Les bureaux ‘1000 Arbres’ à Paris en vente... avant
d’avoir le permis de construire.” Challenges, February 9, 2018, Wainwright, Oliver. “China’s Syndrome.” RIBAJ: The RIBA Journal,
https://www.challenges.fr/immobilier/les-bureaux-1000-arbres- January 18, 2018, https://www.ribaj.com/culture/china-s-
a-paris-en-vente-avant-d-avoir-le-permis-de-construire_566172. syndrome-wiles-wainwright.
Tyrvainen, L. and A. Miettinen. “Property Prices and Urban Forest Walsh, Niall Patrick. “Construction Begins on BIG’s Spiral
Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Skyscraper in Manhattan.” archdaily, February 13, 2019,
Management 39, no. 2 (March 2000): 205–23. https://doi.org/ https://www.archdaily.com/911425/construction-begins-on-bigs-
10.1006/jeem.1999.1097. spiral-skyscraper-in-manhattan.
Tzannes. “Designing Central Park, Chippendale.” Accessed Wang Zhen, Yang Bo, Shujuan Li, and Chris Binder,
September 3, 2018. http://tzannes.com.au/wp-content/uploads/ “Economic Benefits: Metrics and Methods for Landscape
2016/09/AB-Tzannes-Sept-2016.pdf. Performance Assessment.” Sustainability 8, no. 5 (2016): 424.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050424.
University of Miami Business School. “Real Estate Impact
Conference February 10, 2012 – Robert S. Wennett.” Wang, D. N., and H. F. Di. “Cooling effect of ivy on a wall.”
Accessed April 3, 2019. https://umbfc.bus.miami.edu/re2012/ Experimental Heat Transfer 12, no. 3 (July 1, 1999): 235–45.
speakers/robert-wennett.html. https://doi.org/10.1080/089161599269708.
Urban Land Institute. “King’s Cross Central.” Accessed March 25, Wang, James Wei, et al. “Building biodiversity: drivers of bird and
2019. https://casestudies.uli.org/kings-cross/. butterfly diversity on tropical urban roof gardens.” Ecosphere 8,
no. 9 (September 1, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1905.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Singapore.
“Development Control Parameters for Residential Development.” Washburn, Brian E., et al. “Composition and Diversity of Avian
Accessed January 4, 2018. https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/ Communities Using a New Urban Habitat: Green Roofs,”
Guidelines/Development-Control/Residential. Environmental Management 57, no. 6 (June 1, 2016): 1230–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0687-1.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Singapore. “Master Plan
2014.” Accessed January 4, 2018. https://www.ura.gov.sg/ Wenny, Daniel G., et al. “The Need to Quantify Ecosystem
maps/?service=mp. Services Provided By Birds.” The Auk 128, no. 1 (January 1, 2011):
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2011.10248.
Valley. “The Evolution of City Life: Valley.” Accessed January 14,
2019, https://www.valley.nl.
306

Wong, Mun Summ, and Richard Hassell. “High Density, Yuen, Belinda. “Romancing the high-rise in Singapore.” Cities 22,
High Liveability.” In Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for no. 1 (February 2005): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.
Sustainable Urban Architecture, by Thomas Schröpfer, 271–72. 2004.10.002.
Basel: Birkhäuser, 2016.
Yuen, Belinda. “Use and Experience of Neighborhood Parks in
Wong, Nyuk Hien, et al. “Life cycle cost analysis of rooftop gardens Singapore.” Journal of Leisure Research 28, no. 4 (1996): 293–311.
in Singapore,” Building and Environment 38, no. 3 (March 2003):
499–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00131-2. Zaitzevsky, Cynthia. Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston Park
System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University/Belknap Press, 1982.
Wong, Nyuk Hien, et al. “Investigation of thermal benefits
of rooftop garden in the tropical environment.” Building and Zhou, Decheng, et al. “The rapid but ‘invisible’ changes in
Environment 38, no. 2 (February 1, 2003): 261–70. urban greenspace: A comparative study of nine Chinese cities.”
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00066-5. Science of The Total Environment, 62 (2018): 1572–1584.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.335.
Wong, Nyuk Hien, Tan Puay Yok, and Chen Yu. “Study of thermal
performance of extensive rooftop greenery systems in the tropical
climate.” Building and Environment 42, no. 1 (January 1, 2007):
25–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.07.030.
World Architecture. “Detailed Plans Unveiled for Google’s

First UK Headquarters by BIG and Heatherwick Studio.”
Accessed March 25, 2019. https://worldarchitecture.org/articles/
cvcne/detailed_plans_unveiled_for_google_s_first_uk_
headquarters_by_big_and_heatherwick_studio.html.
World Architecture. “Kengo Kuma Unveils Design for Eco-

Luxury Hotel Comprised of Wooden and Plant Covered Façade.”
Accessed March 30, 2019. https://m.worldarchitecture.org/
architecture-news/cvefg/kengo_kuma_unveils_design_for_
ecoluxury_hotel_comprised_of_wooden_and_plant_covered_
facade.html.
Yang, Jian. “Hanging Gardens with 1,000 Trees Take Shape Along
Suzhou Creek.” Shine, March 11, 2018, https://www.shine.cn/
news/metro/1804112941/.
Yeang, Ken. “Emulating and Replicating Ecosystems Ability

to Provide ‘Ecosystem Services’ by the Built Environment.”
In Dense and Green Building Typologies: Research, Policy and
Practice Perspectives, edited by Thomas Schröpfer and
Sacha Menz, 89–96. Singapore: Springer, 2018.
Yeo, Jun-Han, and Harvey Neo. “Monkey business: human-animal

conflicts in urban Singapore.” Social & Cultural Geography 11,
no. 7 (November 2010): 681–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/146493
65.2010.508565.
307
502 Bibliography.indd 307 11/10/19 12:34 PM

308

Acknowledgments
This book is a result of the Dense and Green research project Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl, Rodrigo Oliveira, RSP Architects
that was launched at the Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Planners & Engineers, SLP International Property, Snøhetta,
Laboratory (SEC-FCL) in 2015. FCL was established by Sogelym Dixence, Soilbuild Group, Sou Fujimoto Architects,
ETH Zurich and the National Research Foundation Singapore Stefano Boeri Architetti, STX Landscape Architects, T. R.
in collaboration with key academic partners including the Hamzah & Yeang, Tian An China Investments, Tierra Design
Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). and PODesign, Tishman Speyer, Tropical Environment,
UIA Management, the University of New South Wales,
Dense and Green brought together a multidisciplinary the Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore, Urbis,
team with expertise in urban planning, urban design, and WOHA. Without their generous input and sharing of
architecture, landscape architecture, ecology, and social information and material, this book would not have been possible.
science, including Thomas Schröpfer (Principal Investigator),
Sacha Menz (Co-Principal Investigator), Michelle Jiang Yingying Some of the themes presented in this volume were discussed
(Coordinator), Richard Belcher, Peter Christensen, Emek Erdolu, during the international “Dense and Green Building Typologies:
Srilalitha Gopalakrishnan, Mayank Kaushal, Thibault Pilsudski, Architecture as Urban Ecosystem” symposium held at the
Prashanth Raju, Ester Suen Yun Ju, and Jonathan Tan Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Singapore on August
Koon Ngee, all of whom contributed to the success of the 30, 2017. We would like to thank Ng Lang, CEO of URA from
research and the making of this book. 2010 to 2017, for hosting the event and his opening address,
SEC-FCL for its generous support, as well as the many speakers
We would like to thank our many wonderful colleagues at and participants for sharing their knowledge and offering
FCL for providing a stimulating environment for our work. inspiring discussions.
In particular, we would like to thank Peter Edwards, Director of
SEC from 2013 to 2017, Gerhard Schmitt, the Centre’s current We are grateful to Peter G. Rowe for his insightful foreword,
Director, and Stephen Cairns, Program Director of FCL, for their as well as Peter Edwards and Christophe Girot for their important
continued support of our project. We would further like to thank contributions to this book.
ETH Zurich for supporting our participation in the Venice Biennale
2018 as well as SUTD and in particular Chan Heng Chee, Finally, we would like to thank the editor for the publisher,
Ambassador-at-Large and Chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre Andreas Müller, who accompanied us with his great expertise
for Innovative Cities, for supporting prior research that Dense and throughout the making of this volume, Elizabeth Kugler for her
Green at FCL builds on. conscientious proofreading, as well as Yoshiki Waterhouse and
Steve Engert of Waterhouse Cifuentes Design for their support
Beyond FCL, we have been fortunate to work with many in developing the illustrations and for their beautiful layout of
important stakeholders from academia, government, this book.
and practice, including AEDAS, ArchitectonicaGEO,
Atelier Georges, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, BC Pavilion Corporation,
BIG, the Building & Construction Authority Singapore, Büro Ole
Scheeren, CapitaLand Residential and Hotel Properties,
Compagnie de Phalsbourg, CPG Consultants, DeltaVorm Groep
& Piet Oudolf, Emanuela Borio and Laura Gatti, Far East SOHO,
Frasers Property Australia, Gillespies, Google UK, group8asia,
OMA, Groupe Allard, Heatherwick Studio, Hines Italy,
the Housing & Development Board Singapore, ICN Design
International, JLL Asia Pacific, Kengo Kuma and Associates,
LMN Architects, the Ministry of National Development Centre
for Liveable Cities Singapore, MKPL Architects, Moz Paysage,
MVRDV, the National Parks Board Singapore, OLIN, OVG Real
Estate, Patrick Blanc, the Politecnico di Milano, PUB, Singapore’s
National Water Agency, PWL Partnership Landscape Architects,
309

Illustration Credits
Foreword Dense+Green Agendas
Armin Grün / Rongjun Qin / Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Dense and Green: An Alternative History of the City
Laboratory 8 North Wind Picture Archive / Alamy Stock Photo 13 top
Kelvin Jay / iStock Photo 13 bottom left
Zhao Junyu / Shutterstock 13 bottom right
Cabinet 14
Wikimedia Commons 15
Boris Horvat / Getty Images / AFP 16
David Jones / Alamy Stock Photo 17 top
Eric James / Alamy Stock Photo 17 bottom
Wikimedia Commons 18 / 19 top, 22 top, 23
Boston Public Library Digital Collections 18 / 19 bottom
Andrew Bertuleit / iStock Photo 20 / 21
Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies 22 bottom
Fondation le Corbusier 24 top, 24 middle, 24 bottom
Manuel Herz 25 top
T. R. Hamzah & Yeang 25 bottom
Iwan Baan 26 top, 26 middle, 26 bottom, 27
BIG 28, 29
Jui-Chi Chan / Alamy Stock Photo 30 / 31
Patrick Bingham-Hall / WOHA 32, 33 top, 33 bottom, 36 / 37
Noah Sheldon / Studio Heatherwick 34 top, 34 bottom
The Collective Power of the Single Building

Duccio Malagamba 39
PPP Study Guide 40
Patti McConville / Alamy Stock Photo 42
WOHA 43
Sacha Menz 44 top, 44 middle, 45
Marc Zürcher 44 bottom
Jonathan Ng Ming-En 46
Fumihiko Maki 47 top
Paolo Monti 47 bottom
Patrick Bingham-Hall / group8asia 48 / 49
Richard Skinner / Alamy Stock Photo 50 / 51
Green Spaces and Ecosystem Services

Photo 12 / Alamy Stock Photo 52 / 53
Peewam / Dreamstime 54
Xinhua / Rex / Shutterstock 55
Bill Brooks / Alamy Stock Photo 56
Renzo Piano Building Workshop 57
Iwan Baan 58
Urban Architecture Now 59 top
Natchamol Siriwatwimol / blog.nus.edu.sg 59 bottom
Arcaid Images / Alamy Stock Photo 61
310

Dense+Green Dimensions
Young Nautilus 62 The infographics on the following pages have been prepared
Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl 63 top, 63 bottom by the researchers as mentioned in the front matter, with the
Rolf Richardson / Alamy Stock Photo 64 / 65 support of the graphic designers, and under the direction of the
principal investigators of the Dense and Green research project at
Green Buildings and the Ecological Picturesque the Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory, ETH Zurich,
Geoffrey Taunton / Alamy Stock Photo 67 and the Singapore University of Technology and Design:
Christian de Portzamparc 68, 69 top, 69 bottom 89, 92, 95, 96, 99, 103, 104, 108–111
Mario Botta Architetti 70
John Kellerman / Alamy Stock Photo 71 Learning from Singapore
Image Professional / Alamy Stock Photo 72 Patrick Bingham-Hall 82 top, 82 bottom, 83 top, 83 bottom
Luc Boegly / Musée du quai Branly 73 top Tim Griffith / WOHA 84 / 85
Susan Cohen Gardens 73 bottom
Dimitar Harizanov / Stefano Boeri Architetti 75 Dense and Green at the Future Cities Laboratory
Stefano Boeri Architetti 76 Carlina Teteris / Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities
Marco Garofalo / Stefano Boeri Architetti 77 Laboratory 86 top, 86 middle
Roland Halbe 78 top, 78 bottom Samuele Cherubini / Dense and Green / Singapore-ETH Centre
Future Cities Laboratory 86 bottom
Biodiversity
Albert Lim 91 top, 97 middle
Patrick Bingham-Hall 91 middle, 93
Iwan Baan 91 bottom
Roland Halbe 97 top
Stefano Boeri Architetti 97 bottom
Surface Temperature
Giovanni Nardi / Stefano Boeri Architetti 100
Dimitar Harizanov / Stefano Boeri Architetti 101
Construction and Maintenance Costs of

Integrated Green Spaces
Iwan Baan 102 top
Patrick Bingham-Hall 102 bottom, 105 top, 105 bottom
Economic Benefits of Vegetation On and

Around Residential Developments
group8asia 106
311

Dense+Green Case Studies
The drawings, infographics, and photographs on the following Solaris

pages have been prepared by the researchers as mentioned CPG Consultants 119 top, 119 bottom, 122 top left, 122 top right
in the front matter, on the basis of drawings kindly provided by Albert Lim 122 bottom left, 122 bottom right
the architects and landscape architects, with the support of
the graphic designers, and under the direction of the principal One Central Park
investigators of the Dense and Green research project at the Roland Halbe 125, 128, 132
Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Central Park Sydney 126 / 127
and the Singapore University of Technology and Design:
120, 121, 124, 129, 131, 133, 136, 139, 141–145, 147, 148, Punggol Waterway Terraces I
151, 152, 157, 158 top, 159–166, 168, 173–175, 177, 179, Patrick Bingham-Hall 135, 137 top, 137 middle, 137 bottom,
180, 182, 185–187, 189, 191, 194, 197, 198, 201, 204, 207, 138 bottom, 146 top, 146 bottom
212, 217, 220, 223, 228, 231, 234, 237 top, 240, 243, 245, Darren Soh 138 top
247, 248, 249 right, 250, 253, 258, 261, 262, 264, 267, 270, group8asia 149 top, 149 bottom, 150 top, 150 bottom
273, 276, 279
The Interlace
Iwan Baan 153, 154, 155, 156 top, 156 bottom, 158 bottom,
164 top, 164 bottom
Skyville@Dawson
Patrick Bingham-Hall / WOHA 169, 170 left, 170 right, 171, 172,
176 top, 176 second from top, 176 second from bottom,
176 bottom, 178 top, 178 bottom
Oasia Hotel Downtown

Patrick Bingham-Hall / WOHA 183, 184 bottom, 188 top,
188 bottom, 190 top right, 190 bottom left, 190 bottom right,
192 / 193
K. Kopter / WOHA 184 top, 190 top left
1000 Trees
Heatherwick Studio 195
Noah Sheldon / Heatherwick Studio 196
Vancouver Convention Centre West

LMN Architects 199, 200 top, 200 bottom left, 200 bottom right,
202 top, 202 middle, 202 bottom, 203 top, 203 bottom
Pérez Art Museum Miami

Ian Dagnall / Alamy Stock Photo 205
Francisco Blanco / Alamy Stock Photo 206
Robin Hill 208, 209 left, 209 right
Iwan Baan / Pérez Art Museum Miami 210 / 211
312

Dense+Green Future
Torre Rosewood Future Trajectories

Ateliers Jean Nouvel 213, 214 / 215, 216 top, 216 bottom, Arup 285
218 / 219 top, 218 / 219 bottom WOHA 286
Snøhetta 287 top
The Spiral Darren Soh / group8asia 287 bottom
BIG 221, 222, 225 top, 225 bottom, 226 / 227 JDS Architects 288
dbimages / Alamy Stock Photo 289
Miami Produce Center
BIG 229, 230, 232 top, 232 second from top,
232 second from bottom, 232 bottom, 233 top, 233 bottom
11th Street Bridge Park

OMA 235, 236 / 237, 238 top, 238 bottom, 239 top,
239 second from top, 239 second from bottom, 239 bottom
Bosco Verticale
Giovanni Nardi / Stefano Boeri Architetti 241, 249 top, 249 bottom
Dimitar Harizanov / Stefano Boeri Architetti 242 top
Laura Cionci / Stefano Boeri Architetti 242 bottom, 244 bottom
Paolo Roselli / Stefano Boeri Architetti 244 top
Stefano Boeri Architetti 246 top, 246 bottom
Google King’s Cross

BIG / Heatherwick Studio 251, 252, 254–256 / 257
Valley
MVRDV 259, 260, 263
1Hotel and Slo Living

Kengo Kuma and Associates 265, 266, 268 top,
268 bottom, 269
Mille Arbres
Sou Fujimoto Architects 271 top, 271 bottom, 272 top,
272 bottom, 274 / 275
Les Lumières Pleyel

Snøhetta 277, 278, 280 / 281
313

Index of Names
of persons, institutions, buildings, projects, plants, animals, and locations
1000 Trees, Shanghai, China 194–197 Atelier Paul Arène 270–275

1111 Lincoln Road, Miami, Florida, USA 228 Ateliers 2/3/4 276–281, 287
11th Street Bridge Park, Washington, DC, USA 234–239 Ateliers Jean Nouvel (see also Nouvel, Jean) 78, 97, 124–133,
11th Street Bridges, Washington, DC, USA 234 212–219
14th Street Park, New York, New York, USA 224 AustralianSuper 250
1Hotel Paris and Slo Living, Paris, France 264–269 Australian White Ibis 130
3 Hudson Boulevard, New York, New York, USA 223 Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil 212
66 Hudson Boulevard, New York, New York, USA 220 Avenue de France, Paris, France 264, 266, 269
AARP Foundation 41 Axonopus compressus (Cow Grass) 140, 158, 174
Acridotheres javanicus (Javan Myna) 144 Ayer Rajah Expressway, AYE, Singapore 152, 154
AEDAS 48, 49, 91, 106, 134–151 Balsamina 74
Albizia saman (Rain Tree) 176 Banfi, Gianluigi 43
Alexandra Canal, Singapore 120, 170 Bangkok, Thailand 288
Alexandra Canal Linear Park, Singapore 168, 170 Barringtonia asiatica (Fish-Killer Tree) 157, 186
Alexandra Hill, Singapore 152 Battery Park City, New York, New York, USA 224
Alhambra, Granada, Spain 12, 13 Battery Place, New York, New York, USA 224
Allapattah, Miami, Florida, USA 230 Battle Bridge Place, London, UK 250, 252
Allapattah Produce Market, Miami, Florida, USA 228 Baumschlager Eberle Architekten 276–281, 287
Allée de Seine, Paris, France 278 Bayfront Park, Miami, Florida, USA 206
Allies and Morrison 250, 252 BBPR, Gruppo BBPR 43, 47
Alphand, Jean-Charles 17 BC Pavilion Corporation 198–203
Alpinia purpurata (Red Ginger) 158 Beatrixpark, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258
American Airlines Arena, Miami, Florida, USA 206 Beeches 77
American Society of Landscape Architects, ASLA 208 Begonias 74
Amstelpark, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 260 Beijing, China 12, 98
Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258–263, 284 Bella Abzug Park, New York, New York, USA 223
Amsterdam Zuid Station, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258 Berberis 74
Anacostia, Washington, DC, USA 236, 239 Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, France 264, 266
Anacostia Park, Washington, DC, USA 234, 236, 239 Bicentennial Park, Miami, Florida, USA 204
Anacostia Riverwalk Trails, Washington, DC, USA 239 BIG 26, 28, 29, 220–233, 250–257
Anhui Province, China 196 Biophilic Town 134, 168
Antigonon leptopus (Coral Vine) 186 Biopolis, Singapore 118
Apple trees 77 Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida, USA 204, 206, 208
Apus nipalensis (House Swift) 176 Bishan Park, Singapore 60, 61, 63
Aquatic Gardens, Washington, DC, USA 236 Blackstone 223
Aracea 74 Blanc, Patrick 72, 73, 74, 124–133, 204–211
ArchitectonicaGEO 204–211 Boeri, Stefano (see also Stefano Boeri Architetti) 75, 77, 78, 97,
Ardisia elliptica (Shoebutton Ardisia) 140, 142 100, 101, 240
Areca catechu (Betel Nut Palm) 158 Bois de Boulogne, Paris, France 270
Argent King’s Cross, London, UK 250–257 Bonsais 77
Argyreia nervosa (Elephant Climber) 186 Borio, Emanuela 240–249
Artelia 278 Bosco Verticale 62, 74–77, 79, 89, 90, 93, 97, 98, 100, 101,
Arup 262, 285 240–249
Ashes 77 Boston, Massachusetts, USA 22
Aspect Oculus 124–133 Botanic Gardens, Singapore 54, 55, 62
Atelier Dreiseitl 61, 63 Botanical Gardens of Padua, Italy 12, 14
Atelier Georges 264–269 Botta, Mario 67, 70, 71
314

Boulevard de l'Hôpital, Paris, France 266 Cinnyris jugularis (Olive-Backed Sunbird) 91, 176
Boulevard Pereire, Paris, France 270 Cities Alive 285
Boulevard Périphérique, Paris, France 270 “City in a Garden” 47, 82
Boulogne-Billancourt, France 270 Clement Clark Moore Park, New York, New York, USA 224
Brazilian Atlantic Forest 216 Clichy-Batignolles, Paris, France 52, 53
Bromeliads 74 Climbing Ivy 66
Buffalo, New York, USA 22 Clusia rosea (Pitch Apple) 173
Building Bridges Across the River 234 “Collective Form” 41
Bukit Merah Planning Area, Singapore 152 Common Myna 130
Buona Vista, Singapore 118 Common Pigeon 130
Büro Ole Scheeren 91, 102, 153–167 Commonwealth Avenue, Singapore 120
Burrard Inlet 200 Compagnie de Phalsbourg 264–275
Caixa Forum, Madrid, Spain 39, 74 Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne, CIAM 38, 43, 44
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, USA 57 Connexis, Singapore 118
Camden, London, UK 250, 252 Connor, Singapore 124
Camley Street Natural Park, London, UK 252, 254 Cordia sebestena (Geiger Tree) 140
Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia 98 Corso Como, Milan, Italy 240
Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise, Corypha umbraculifera (Talipot Palm) 140
CREATE, Singapore 86 Costus woodsonii (Red Button Ginger) 158
Canarium vulgare (Chinese Olive) 158 Cotoneaster 74
Canelinhas 216 Cox Richardson 124
Canelinhas, São Paulo, Brazil 216 CPG Consultants 46, 118–123, 289
CapitaLand Singapore 152–167 Cratoxylum formosum (Pink Mempat) 158
Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, USA 234 Cullen, Gordon 24
Carlton United Breweries 124 DA Architects + Planners 198
Caryota mitis (Fishtail Palm) 157 de Portzamparc, Christian 66–67, 68, 69, 79
Casino, New South Wales, Australia 98 Delonix regia (Red Flame) 140
“Cathedrale de la Résurection,” Évry, France 69–71, 73, 75 DeltaVorm Groep 258–263
Center for the Fine Arts (CFA) Miami, Florida, USA 204 Demetri Porphyrios 250
Central Park, Chippendale, Sydney, Australia 124 Dentressangle, Norbert 270
Central Park, New York, New York, USA 17, 20, 21, 224 Depot Road, Singapore 152
Central Region, Singapore 152 Diller Scofidio + Renfro 26, 27, 58, 220, 223
Chaix & Morel et Associés 276–281, 287 Dishui Lake, Shanghai, China 30
Changhua Road, Shanghai, China 194 District of Columbia Route (DC 295) 295, 234
Channel Tunnel Railway Link 250 District Yacht Club, Washington, DC, USA 234
Chavannes-Près-Renens, Switzerland 77 Dodge Island, Miami, Florida, USA 204
Cheilocostus speciosis (Crepe Ginger) 174 Domus Aurea 52
Chelsea, New York, New York, USA 224 Drew, Jane 24, 25
Chelsea Park, New York, New York, USA 224 Drybalanops aromatica (Kapur) 158
Cherry trees 77 “Dryline” 26, 30
Chesapeake Bay, Maryland and Virginia, USA 239 Duranta erecta (Sky Flower) 173
Chicago, Illinois, USA 228 Duxton Hill Park, Singapore 182
China Square, Singapore 182 Dypsis lutescens (Yellow Cane Palm) 158
Chinatown, Singapore 182 East Coast Main Line 250
Chippendale, Sydney, Australia 124, 128, 130 East Potomac Park, Washington, DC, USA 236
Chippendale Green, Sydney, Australia 124, 128 Eco-Town 134, 139, 149, 168
Cidade Matarazzo, São Paulo, Brazil 212, 216 Edwards, Peter 25, 34, 52–65
315

Elaeocarpus grandifloras (Fairy Petticoat) 140 Guangzhou, China 288
Elaeocarpus mastersii (Small-Leafed Oil Fruit) 140 Guoco Tower, Singapore 182
Ellis Island, New York, New York, USA 41 Hanging Gardens of Babylon 12, 13
English Bay, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 198 Harbour Green Park, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 198
Epiphytes 73 Haussmann, Georges-Eugène 14, 17, 264, 270
ETH Zurich 8, 86 Havas 250
Eucalyptus tree 174 Hazelnuts 77
Evergreen ivy 67 Heatherwick Studio 33, 34, 194–197, 250–257
Évry, France 67, 70, 71 Heatherwick, Thomas 33, 196
Fagraea fragrans (Tembusu) 157 Hell’s Kitchen, New York, New York, USA 224
Far East Organization Singapore 182 Hemiprocne longipennis (Grey-Rumped Treeswift) 176
Far East SOHO 182–193 Herzog & de Meuron 39, 74, 204–211, 228
Ferns 73, 74 Heuchera 73
Ficus deltoidea (Mistletoe Fig) 140, 144 Hidalgo, Anne 270
Financial District, New York, New York, USA 224 High Line, The High Line, New York, New York, USA 26, 27, 58,
Forbes 284 220, 223, 224, 284
Forbidden City, Beijing, China 12, 13 Hines Italy 240
Foster + Partners 124 Hirundo tahitica (Pacific Swallow) 176
Fragraea fragrans (Tembusu) 158 Hong Kong, China 88, 98, 106, 109, 194
Frasers Property Australia 124–133 Hort Park, Singapore 152
Fry, Maxwell 24, 25 Hosta 73
Fuchsia 73 Hotel Pershing Hall, Paris, France 72–74
Fulton Market, Miami, Florida, USA 228 Hotel Properties Limited Singapore 152–167
Fusionopolis, Singapore 118 Hotel Rosewood, São Paulo, Brazil 212
Future Cities Laboratory (FCL (see also Singapore-ETH Centre House of Biodiversity, Paris, France 272
Future Cities Laboratory) 8, 12, 41, 86, 284 Housing & Development Board, HDB, Singapore 108, 134–151,
Garden City 22, 23, 38, 47, 82 168–181
Gardens by the Bay, Singapore 289 Howard, Ebenezer 22, 23, 38, 47
Gare d’Austerlitz, Paris, France 264 Hudson Boulevard, Hudson Boulevard Park, Hudson Park,
Garibaldi Station, Milan, Italy 240 Hudson River Park, New York, New York, USA 220, 223, 224
Gatti, Laura 240–249 Hudson River, USA 220, 224
George, Henry 22 Hudson Spire, New York, New York, USA 223
Giardini di Porta Nuova, Milan, Italy 240, 244 Hudson Yards, New York, New York, USA 220, 223, 224,
Gillespies 250–257 284, 287, 289
Girot, Christophe 34, 66–79, 287 ICN Design International 134–181
Goiabeiras, São Paulo, Brazil 216 Ingels, Bjarke (see also BIG) 26
Google King’s Cross 250–257, 288 Interlace, The Interlace, Singapore 89, 91, 102, 103, 152–167,
Google UK 250–257 257, 287, 288
Granada, Spain 12 International Highrise Award 77
Grand Paris 276 Interstate 195, USA 228
Grand Paris Express 276 Interstate 295, USA 234
Grant Associates 289 Interstate 395, USA 228
Greenmark 108 Invertebrates 160
Greenwich Village, New York, New York, USA 224 Islington, London, UK 250, 252
group8asia 48, 49, 91, 106, 134–151, 287 Isola, Milan, Italy 240
Groupe Allard 212–219 Ixora cultivars (Jungle Geranium) 173
Guangdong, China 106 Ixora congesta (Ixora) 91
316

Jacarandás, São Paulo, Brazil 216 Living Landscape 252
Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida, USA 230 Livistonia rotundifolia (Footstool Palm) 158, 186
Jacobs, Jane 26 LMN Architects 198–203
James Corner Field Operations 26, 27, 58 Lodovico Barbiano di Belgiojoso 43
Jardin du Luxembourg, Paris, France 17 London, UK 44, 52, 55, 59, 250–257, 285, 288
Jatobás, São Paulo, Brazil 216 London Natural History Society, LNHS 52
JDS Architects 288 London Wildlife Trust 252
Jewel, The Jewel 45, 50, 51 Longwood Gardens, Pennsylvania, USA 75
Journo, Philippe 264 Los Angeles, California, USA 230
JTC Corporation 118 Louis Vuitton 250
Kahn, Louis 44 Lower East Side, New York, New York, USA 30
Kallang Basin, Singapore 55 Lynch, Kevin 38, 40
Kampung Admiralty, Singapore 30, 33 M50 Art District, Shanghai, China 194
Kengo Kuma and Associates 264–269 M50 Art District Park, Shanghai, China 196
Kenilworth Marsh, Washington, DC, USA 236 MacArthur Causeway, Miami, Florida, USA 206
Kenilworth Park, Washington, DC, USA 236 Madrid, Spain 74
Kent Ridge Park, Singapore 118, 152, 170 Magnolia champaca (Orange Champaca) 157, 158
Key Biscayne, Miami, Florida, USA 208 Maison du Parc, Saint-Denis, Paris, France 278
Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore 46 Maki, Fumihiko 41, 47
Kimley Horn Associates 228–233 Manal Rachdi Oxo Architectes 270–275
King’s Boulevard, London, UK 250, 254 Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, New York, New York, USA 224
King’s Cross Central, KXC, London, UK 250, 252, 255 Manhattan, New York, New York, USA 26, 41, 220–227
King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership 250 Marchi Architects 264–269
King’s Cross Station, London, UK 250, 252, 254, 255 Margaret Pace Park, Miami, Florida, USA 206
Kohn Pedersen Fox, KPF 220, 240 Marina Bay, Singapore 289
Königsberger Vannucchi 212–219 Mark, The Mark, Sydney, Australia 124
Kuma, Kengo (see also Kengo Kuma and Associates) Mars Architectes 276–281, 287
La Biblioteca degli Alberi, Milan, Italy 240 Matarazzo Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil 212
La Défense, Paris, France 270 Maud Caubet Architectes 276, 287
La Tour Verte, Noisiel, France 66–69 Maurice A. Ferré Park, Miami, Florida, USA 206
Labrador Nature Reserve, Singapore 152 Meatpacking District, New York, New York, USA 224, 228
Laced Woodpecker 162 MediaCorp Singapore 118
Lagerstroemia speciose (Rose of India) 140 Mediterranean Evergreen Oaks 77
Landscape Excellence Assessment Framework, LEAF 83 Megaskepasma erythrochlamys (Brazilian Red Cloak) 157
Landscape for Urban Spaces in High-Rises, LUSH 83 Melaleuca cajuputi 186
Lanius schach (Long-Tailed Shrike) 142 Menz, Sacha 34, 38–51
Läpple, Dieter 289 Miami, Florida, USA 43, 100, 204–211, 228–233
Latin America 24, 240 Miami Art Museum, Florida, USA 204–211
Le Corbusier 24, 38 Miami Beach, Florida, USA 206
League of Bird Protection, LPO 272 Miami Heat and National Basketball Association, Miami, Florida,
Learning Forest, Singapore 62 USA 206
Lee, Kuan Yew 82 Miami International Airport, Florida, USA 228
Les Lumières Pleyel, Saint-Denis, France 276–281, 287, 288 Miami Museum of Science, Miami, Florida, USA 204
Libidibia ferrera (Leopard Tree) 186 Miami Produce Center, Miami, Florida, USA 228–233
Lincoln Tunnel, New York, New York, USA 220 Miami River, Miami, Florida, USA 228
Linden trees 71, 73 Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA 204
Lingang, Shanghai, China 30 Midtown West, New York, New York, USA 220, 224
317
505 Index of Names.indd 317 11/10/19 12:38 PM

Midtown, New York, New York, USA 224 OMA 91, 102, 152–167, 234–239
Milan, Italy 43, 62, 74–78, 240–249 One Central Park, Sydney, Australia 62, 74, 78, 89, 90, 93, 94,
Mille Arbres, Paris, France 270–275 97, 98, 124–133
Mitterrand, François 264 one-north Business and Science Park, Singapore 118, 168
MLA Architects 194–197 one-north Park, Singapore 118, 123
Moganshan Road, Shanghai, China 194 Orchids 74
Monocle 40 Oriental White-Eye 160
Monstera deliciosa (Swiss Pepper Plant) 140 Otterlo, The Netherlands 43
Moreau Kusunoki 276–281 Oudolf, Piet 258–263
Moses, Robert 26 Outram Planning Area, Singapore 182
Mount Faber Park, Singapore 152 OVG Real Estate 258–263
Moz Paysage 270–275 Palazzo Mora, Venice, Italy 86
Mumford, Lewis 38 Pancras Square, London, UK 250
Muntingia calabura (Japanese Cherry) 142 Pancras Square Leisure Centre, London, UK 252
Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, USA 26 Pandanus tectorius (Pandanus Palm) 140
Museum Park, Miami, Florida, USA 204, 206 Parc de Bercy, Paris, France 266
Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership 198–203 Parc de la Hauteur, Paris, France 266
MVRDV 258–263 Parc des Buttes-Chaumont, Paris, France 17
Napoleon III 14 Paris, France 14, 24, 72–74, 264–281, 287
National Parks Board, NParks, Singapore 118, 123, 151 Park Lane, Sydney, Australia 124
National Research Foundation Singapore 86 PARKROYAL on Pickering, Singapore 79, 82, 83
National University of Singapore 168 Parque Prefetto Mário Covas, São Paulo, Brazil 212
Nero, Emperor 52 Parque Tenente Siqueira Campos, São Paulo, Brazil 212
Neuilly, France 272 Passer montanus (Eurasian Tree Sparrow) 144
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 17 Patricia and Philip Frost Museum of Science, Miami, Florida,
New York Harbor, New York, USA 26 USA 206
New York, New York City, New York, USA 17–19, 26–29, 41–43, Pau Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil 216
58, 220–227, 228, 230, 284 Pearl’s Hill, Singapore 182
Nieuwe Meer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258, 260 Pearl’s Hill Park, Singapore 182
Noisiel, France 66–69 People’s Park, Singapore 182
Noisy Miner 130 Peressutti, Enrico 43
North East Line, Singapore 134 Pérez Art Museum Miami, PAMM, Florida, USA 204–211
North Eastern Riverine Park Connector Loop, Singapore 134 Permeable Lattice City of the Future 286
North Shore Mountains, Canada 200 Pershing site, Paris, France 270
Northwest 12th Avenue, New York, New York, USA 230 Pfizer 223
Northwest 13th Avenue, New York, New York, USA 230 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 75
Northwest 20th Street, New York, New York, USA 230 Phoenix, Arizona, USA 98
Northwest 24th Street, New York, New York, USA 230 Phyllanthus myrtifolius (Mousetail Plant) 158
Northwest 27th Avenue, New York, New York, USA 228 Pierre-Alexandre Risser Horticulture & Jardins 270–275
Nouvel, Jean (see also Ateliers Jean Nouvel) 74 Pinnacle@Duxton, The Pinnacle@Duxton, Singapore 182
Oasia Hotel Downtown, Singapore 79, 89–91, 93–94, 102–105, Piper samentosum (Wild Pepper) 140
182–191 Pitangueiras, São Paulo, Brazil 216
OLIN 234–239 PLANT Architects 56
Olive-Backed Sunbird 186 Plateau de Brie, France 66
Olive trees 77 Pleyel, Saint-Denis, France 276
Oliviera, Rodrigo 212–219 Plum trees 77
Olmsted, Frederick Law 14, 17–19 Po Plain, Italy 78
318

Porta Nuova, Milan, Italy 75, 240, 243 San Francisco, California, USA 230
Porte Maillot, Paris, France 270 Sanchezia speciose (Gold Vein Plant) 157
Potomac River, USA 236 Santa Clara Metrorail, Miami, Florida, USA 228
Praça 14 Bis, São Paulo, Brazil 212 São Paulo, Brazil 212–219, 288
Practical Municipal Building Guideline, GPR Building 262 Saribus rotundifolius (Fan Palm) 140
Prouvé, Jean 24 Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree) 174
PRS for Music 250 Schiphol Airport, The Netherlands 258
PTW Architects 78, 97, 124–133 School of the Arts, SOTA, Singapore 82, 84, 85
Punggol, Punggol Planning Area, Singapore 89–92, 97, 103–105, Seine, River, France 24, 264, 266, 278, 287
134–167 Sekisui House Australia 124–133
Punggol Reservoir, Singapore 134 Sennett, Richard 41, 47
Punggol Town Centre, Punggol Town, Singapore 134 Serangoon River, Singapore 134
Punggol Walk, Punggol Way, Punggol Waterway, Seurat, Georges 14, 15
Singapore 134, 137, 146 Shalima Bagh, Srinagar, India 12
Punggol Waterway Terraces I, Singapore 48, 49, 89–91, 97, 106, Shanghai, China 30, 33, 194–197
134–151, 284, 287, 288 Shenzhen, China 288
Putman, Andrée 72, 73 Shenzhen Logistic City, Shenzhen, China 288
PWL Partnership 198–203 Sibipurinas, São Paulo, Brazil 216
Quai Branly Museum, Paris, France 74 Silver Gull 130
Queen Amytis 12 Singapore, Singaporean 8, 30, 34, 41, 47, 55, 59–65, 79, 82,
Queenstown, Singapore 118, 168 83, 85, 86, 88, 93, 98, 100, 106–108, 109, 112, 118–123,
Rail Corridor, Singapore 59 134–193, 172, 176, 182, 286–288
Rain trees 172 Singapore Institute of Architects, SIA 123
Reading, UK 98 Singapore Park Connector Network, Singapore 168
Redhill, Singapore 152 Singapore Polytechnic 168
Regent’s Canal, London, UK 252, 254, 288 Singapore University of Technology and Design 8, 12, 86
Renzo Piano Building Workshop 57 Singapore-ETH Centre Future Cities Laboratory, SEC-FCL (see also
Residential and Hotel Properties Limited Singapore 152 Future Cities Laboratory, FCL) 8, 12, 34, 41, 86, 284
Revell, Viljo 56 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) 220
Rive Gauche, Paris, France 264 Skyville@Dawson, Singapore 89, 92, 97, 103, 105, 168–181,
Rockefeller Center, New York, New York, USA 220 287, 288
Rogers, Ernesto 43, 47 Smithson, Peter 44
Rome, Italy 52 Smooth-Coated Otter 55
Rosewood, São Paulo, Brazil 216 Snøhetta 276–281, 287
Royal Institute of British Architects, RIBA, Sogelym Dixence 276–281
International Award 123 SoHo, New York, New York, USA 41–43
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers 91, 102, 152–167 Soilbuild Group 118–123
Rue Ada Lovelace, Paris, France 264 Solaris, Singapore 89–91, 93, 97, 104, 105, 118–123, 287, 288
Rue du Chevaleret, Paris, France 266 Sou Fujimoto Architects 270–275
Rue Pleyel, Paris, France 278 Southern Ridges, Singapore 152, 154, 155, 157
Russelia equisetiformis (Firecracker Plant) 91, 140, 144 Sphagneticola trilobata (Singapore Daisy) 140, 142, 174
Safdie Architects 45, 50, 51 Spilopelia chinensis (Spotted Dove) 176
Saint-Denis, France 276 Spiral, The Spiral, New York, New York, USA 220–225, 284
Saint-Denis Pleyel Station, France 276 Spirea 74
Saint-Ouen, France 276 Spokane, Washington, USA 17
Saint-Ouen Cemetery, France 278 Spotted Dove 130
Samanea saman (Rain Tree) 174 Springfield, Illinois, USA 17
319

Square Marie-Curie, Paris, France 266 Urban Land Institute 250
Srinagar, India 12 Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA, Singapore 118, 134, 152,
St. Pancras Station, London, UK 250, 252, 255 182
Stachyurus 74 Urbis 194–197
Stade de France, Paris, France 276 US National Arboretum, Washington, DC, USA 236
Stanley Park, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 198, 200 US Navy 234
Star Vista, Singapore 118 Valley, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258–263, 284
Stefano Boeri Architetti (see also Boeri, Stefano) 74, 75, 97, 100, van Eyck, Aldo 44
101, 240–249 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 198
Studio Heatherwick (see also Heatherwick, Thomas) 33, 197, 220 Vancouver Convention Centre West, Vancouver, British Columbia,
STX Landscape Architects 182–193 Canada 198–203
Sungei (River) Ulu Pandan, Singapore 170 Vancouver Downtown Waterfront, British Columbia, Canada 198
Suzhou Mengqing Garden, Shanghai, China 196 Vancouver Harbor, British Columbia, Canada 198
Suzhou River, China 196 Vanda Miss Joachim Park, Singapore 182
Sydney, Australia 43, 62, 74, 78, 98, 124–133 Varesine, Milan, Italy 240
Sydney Central Railway Station, Sydney, Australia 124 Vaux, Calvert 18, 19
Syzgium myrtfifolium (Kelat Oil) 173, 186 Venice Biennale, Italy 86
T. R. Hamzah & Yeang 25, 91, 97, 118–123 Venice, Italy 86
Taipei, Taiwan 98 Victoria and Prince Alfred Park, Sydney, Australia 128
Telok Blangah Hill Park, Singapore 152 Village Green, Singapore 172
Telok Blangah, Singapore 152 Vitex trifolia (Arabian Lilac) 174
Thames, River, UK 52 Washington, DC, USA 234–239
Thaumatococcus daniellii (Miracle Berry) 158 Waterway Point, Singapore 134
Tian An China Investments 194–197 Wennett, Robert S. 228
Tiong Bahru, Singapore 152 West 59th Street, New York, New York, USA 224
Tishman Speyer 220–227 West Side Highway, New York, New York, USA 220
Toronto City Hall, Ontario, Canada 56 West Side Yard, New York, New York, USA 220
Torre Diamante, Milan, Italy 240 West Village, New York, New York, USA 224
Torre Rosewood, São Paulo, Brazil 212–219 Wilkie, Kim 75
Torre Velasca, Milan, Italy 43, 44, 47 Wilkinson Eyre Architects 289
Tour Pleyel, Saint-Denis, France 278 Willows 73
Tower of Babel 12 WOHA 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 43, 79, 82, 83, 91, 93, 102, 105,
Townshend Landscape Architect 250, 252 168–193, 286
Tras Link Park, Singapore 182 World Architecture Festival 30
Treron vernans (Pink-Necked Green Pigeon) 176 World Trade Center, New York, New York, USA 224
Tricyrtis 73 Wynwood, Miami, Florida, USA 228
Triptyque 212–219 Xanthostemon chrysanthus (Golden Penda) 173
Tristellateia australasiae (Maiden’s Jealousy) 140 Yeang, Ken 25
Tropical Environment 118–123 Yellow Mountain, Anhui Province, China 196
Two Pancras Square, London, UK 252 York Way, London, UK 250, 252
Tzannes Associates 124 Yungipicus moluccensis (Sunda Pygmy Woodpecker) 176
UIA Management 228 Zaha Hadid Architects, ZHA 118
Ultra Music Festival 204 Zoysia japonica (Turf Grass) 158
“Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte” 15 Zuidas, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258, 260, 284
Unicredit Tower, Milan, Italy 240 Zuidasdok, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 258
Universal Music 250
University of Sydney, Australia 124, 130
320

Subject Index
3D-modeling 86 Cooling, cooling effect, cooling strategy 43, 60, 66, 74, 98,
Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters, ABC Waters 60 100, 112, 171, 176, 188, 200, 208, 255,
Aesthetic dimension 188 Cost-benefit analysis, CBA 102
Air pollution, air quality 8, 59, 63, 112, 287 Cost 60, 74, 77, 78, 87, 90, 97, 102–106, 112, 132, 150, 151,
Albedo effect 9, 99, 100 164, 167, 181, 188, 191, 249
Antiquity 73 Cross-ventilation 139, 155, 171
ArcGIS/QGIS 86 Dense+Green: Innovative Building Types for Sustainable Urban
Architectural Review 24 Architecture 33
Athens Charter 38 Diffusivity 99
Atmospheric humidity 79 Drone videography 86
Auto-fertilization 105 Eco-deck 139, 154, 155, 157, 158, 162, 164
Auto-irrigation 103, 105, 167, 191 Eco-region 97
Bio-morphological qualities 287 Eco-Town 134, 139, 149, 168
Biodiversity 8, 12, 34, 41, 52, 55, 56, 58, 78, 83, 87–91, 94, 97, Eco-zone 8, 9, 98, 106, 107
104, 107, 112, 140, 144, 157, 168, 173, 174, 186, 206, 244, 272 Ecological services 74, 88
Biomimetic qualities 287 Ecology, ecological 8, 25, 26, 33, 34, 59, 62, 63, 66, 69, 71,
Biophilia, biophilic design 56, 58 73–75, 78, 79, 88–90, 94, 102, 118, 120, 168, 198, 200, 208,
Biophilic Town 134, 168 234, 239, 264, 284
Bioswale 172 Economic benefits, economic value 34, 107
Biotic homogenization 88 Ecosystem, ecosystems, ecosystem services 8, 9, 26, 43, 52,
Blue networks 34, 134, 137, 154, 170, 182, 196, 198, 206, 55, 56, 58–60, 62, 63, 83, 86–88, 94, 97, 112, 118, 123, 137,
216, 224, 230, 236, 254, 260, 269, 272, 278, 284, 287, 288 154, 170, 198, 200, 206, 208, 216, 239, 244, 254, 260, 272,
Blue systems 118 278, 284
Blueways 62 Elevated garden, elevated green space, elevated greenery,
BREEAM-NL 262 elevated landscape space 12, 33, 86, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 97,
Brise-soleil 25 103–105, 118, 128, 134, 136, 139, 151, 152, 154, 155, 158,
Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City 47 160, 167, 170, 171, 181, 182, 186, 188, 223, 230, 243
Building Better Communities program 204 Emissivity 99
Carbon sequestration 112 Energy Performance Coefficient, EPC 262
Celtic tribes 71 Energy-efficient building 255
Chicago Athenaeum International Architecture Award 123 Environment, environments, environmental 9, 12, 25, 26, 34,
Climate, climatic change, climatic requirements 77, 82, 208, 284 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 52, 56, 58, 60, 63, 74, 79, 82, 83, 86, 87,
Climbers 130 88, 91, 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 112, 118, 123, 130, 134, 137, 140,
Club Sandwich Approach 33 146, 148–150, 154, 158, 164, 168, 170, 174, 176, 181, 188, 198,
Co-living units 230, 232 230, 234, 239, 249, 252, 255, 258, 262, 264, 272, 276, 284, 289
CO2 emissions 78 Evapotranspiration 98, 106, 176
Common areas, common space 123, 130, 157, 164, 167, Facade screens 104
181, 184, 188, 244 Fauna 17, 44, 78, 83, 87, 88, 90, 97, 98, 112, 252
Common greens 134 Floating gardens 216
Community, community areas, community gardens, community Flora Fauna Web 87
provisions, community spaces 32, 41, 43, 47, 48, 71, 82, 87, 123, Flora, floral 74, 83, 87, 89, 91, 98, 140, 172, 173, 252,
130, 139, 140, 155, 171, 172, 197, 200, 209, 224, 232, 239, Foliage 66, 69, 88, 130, 140, 157, 158, 172, 173, 174, 186,
243, 255, 262, 269, 272 Food 22, 56, 69, 91, 107, 109, 110, 112, 160, 168, 172, 173, 176,
Connectivity 62, 88, 93, 94, 112, 118, 136, 142, 168, 174, 181, 179, 272, 284, 289
186, 249, 287 Gated communities 44
Conservation 59, 60, 88, 97, 107, 109–112, 142, 200, 252 Germanic tribes 71
Construction cost 102, 103, 105 GFA Exemption for Communal Planter Boxes 83
321

GFA Exemption for Communal Sky Terraces 82, 83 Incident solar radiation 99
Global Generation 252 Industrial Revolution 14
Global warming 98 Industrialization 38, 82
Google Earth Pro 86 Integrated planting 197
Green building 8, 9, 66, 73, 82, 83, 88, 90, 94, 97, 98–100, International Highrise Award 77
102, 105, 107, 108, 112 Introduced tropical species 186
Green components 128, 130, 188, 191 Invasive species 88
Green concept 66, 73 Irrigation 66, 74, 79, 102–105, 118, 151, 167, 181, 191, 200, 206, 209
Green corridor 59, 62, 83, 168, 182 Land use 60, 112
Green facade 58, 130, 184, 188, 269 Landscape building 212
Green network 91, 93, 94, 123, 128, 170, 196, 244, 266, 272 Landscape deck, landscaped deck 89, 90, 92, 134, 155, 158, 166
Green plot ratio 87, 118, 134, 264 Landscape Excellence Assessment Framework, LEAF 83
Green ramp 90, 123 Landscape for Urban Spaces in High-Rises, LUSH 83
Green roof 30, 56, 58, 62, 88, 93, 94, 102, 139, 171, 203, 252 Landscape installation cost 151, 167, 181, 188, 191
Green system 120, 137, 288 Landscape Replacement Area, LRA 155
Green wall 9, 73, 74, 79, 88–91, 94–98, 102, 128, 130, 155, Landscape structure 173
167, 171, 184, 186, 191, 252 Landscaped balconies 269
Greenery provision 87, 252 Landscaped park 172, 174, 179
Greenhouse 73, 74 Leaf Area Index 123, 139, 157, 172
Greenmark 108 LEED 198, 209, 224
Greenwashing 34 Light shelves 120
Greenway 62, 224 Ligneous fibers 77
Greywater 74, 105, 200 Ligneous perennials 74
Ground coverage 120, 124, 136, 152, 168, 182, 194, 198, 204, Linear park 120
212, 220, 228, 240, 234, 250, 258, 264, 270, 276 Livability Index 41
Ground garden, ground-level green space, ground-level Livable, livability 12, 17, 34, 41, 52, 82, 86, 240, 252, 258, 262,
landscape 9, 88–91, 93–97, 102–105, 112, 118, 120, 122, Living Landscape 252
124, 128, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 151, 152, Living roof 198, 200, 202
154, 155, 160, 167, 170–174, 176, 179, 181, 182, 184, 186, Louvers 120, 123
191, 196, 209, 216, 223, 224, 232, 243, 244, 255, 279 Maintenance cost 34, 77, 87, 102, 104, 105, 167, 151, 164,
Habitat 8, 55, 58, 63, 71, 83, 88, 90, 91, 94, 112, 152, 200, 167, 181, 188, 191
202, 206, 208, 236, 255 Mammals 63, 91, 94, 112
Habitat corridor 88, 94 Managed landscapes 108
Habitat reclamation 208 Managed trees 118, 120, 137, 152, 154, 168, 170, 182, 184
Habitat requirements 88 Managed turf 144
Habitat specialist 91, 94 Managed vegetation 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112
Hardscape 17, 93, 96, 139, 140, 144, 146, 155, 187, 171, 184, Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST 167, 191
255, 288 Mediterranean forests 106
Hedonic pricing 60, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112 Metabolism 200
Heliostat 128 Microclimate, microclimatic 56, 66, 77, 100, 123, 209, 232, 279
Herbaceous perennials, herbaceous shrubs, herbaceous Migratory birds, migratory species 94, 176
species, herbaceous plants 73, 74, 140, 157, 172, 174, 186 Mixed-Effects Model 87
Human well-being 58 Moisture sensors 105
Human-animal encounters 97 National Geographic 41
Human-wildlife conflict 109 Native abundance 94
Hydroponic, hydroponic green walls, hydroponic nature, Native birds 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 130, 142, 144, 160,
hydroponic system, hydroponic transfusion 73, 74, 79, 130 162, 174, 176, 188
322

Native plant, native plant species 88, 90, 92, 97, 104, 140, 157, Rainforest 55
158, 173, 186, 206, 209 Rainwater 56, 74
Native species 8, 88–93, 140, 142, 143, 157, 160, 161, 172, 175, Recreation, recreation space, recreational 14, 30, 41, 43, 44,
186, 187, 200, 245 56, 60, 62, 63, 106, 108, 109, 112, 118, 137, 154, 158, 170, 171,
Native urban fauna 97 224, 230, 234, 236, 239
Natural capital 63 Recycle, recycled 63, 74, 88, 118, 272
Nature reserve, nature reserves 55, 83, 109, 152, 252, 258, 260 Recycling 104, 105, 154, 255
Nature Ways 59 Reinventing Paris 270
Non-synanthropic bird species 91 Remaking Our Heartland, ROH 168
Non-vegetated roofs 94 Renaissance 12
Nutrient recyclers 88 Resilience, resiliency, resilient 56, 90, 206, 208, 284
On-site documentation 87 Roadside verges 58, 60
Open Street Maps, OSM 86 Roof garden, rooftop garden 43, 62, 83, 88–91, 93, 94, 98, 103,
Outline Planning Permission 252 112, 118, 120, 123, 128, 134, 136–140, 142, 144, 146, 149,
Parametric tools 262 150, 154, 155, 158, 160, 164, 167, 171, 172, 174, 176, 179,
Passive climate control 155, 243 151, 176, 181, 184, 186, 188, 212, 216, 254, 255, 258, 269, 278
Passive energy 287 Root growth 71
Pedestrian movement 87 Runoff, runoff water 120, 137, 154, 170, 216, 255, 170
Perception analysis 164, 188 Scandinavian sod roofs 79
Plant diversity 104 Scavengers 88
Plant dynamics 74 Secondary forest 94, 108, 112, 174
Plant irrigation 105 Seed disperser 88, 94
Plant provision 144 Shading structures 100
Plant replacement 77, 105 Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (SI) 59, 82
Plant selection 73, 74, 104, 151, 181 Singapore Sustainability Blueprint 168
Plant species richness 88, 89, 92 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) 55
Planter, planter box 66, 74, 77, 104, 128, 130, 140, 151, 154, Sky bridge 43, 46, 88
158, 171, 173, 174, 184, 186, 188, 191, 196, 216, 243, 244, 260 Sky garden 9, 89, 90, 94, 104, 112, 118, 120, 123, 128, 132,
Planting system 74 139, 164, 171–174, 179, 181, 184, 186, 188, 212, 278
Podium deck 136, 170, 171 Sky terrace 43, 58, 62, 120, 171, 172
Political planning 38 Sky Village 171, 172
Pollination agents 88 Skyrise Greenery 83, 123
Population growth 88 Skyrise Greenery Award 123
Practical Municipal Building Guideline, GPR Building 262 Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme 83
Precinct landscapes 134 Slavic tribes 71
Primary forest 94, 112 Social connectivity 181, 249
Pritzker Prize 66 Social planning 38
Private housing market 108 Social quality 164, 181
Project mappings 86 Softscape 139, 155, 171, 184, 255
Property price 80, 106, 108, 110 Soil 30, 71, 73, 74, 89, 90, 105, 118, 137, 167, 279
Property value 109, 111, 112 Soil depth 89
Public development 33 Soil substrate 73, 74
Public housing 26, 107, 109, 111, 134, 137, 139, 147 Solar radiation 79, 87, 90, 98–100, 144, 186, 188
Public space 12, 14, 38, 40, 44, 124, 137, 146, 149, 150, 162, Space use 87, 130, 132, 133, 146–150, 162, 164–166, 179, 180,
171, 179, 181, 188, 200, 202, 208, 209, 220, 223, 230, 232, 188, 191, 248, 249
233, 238, 239, 252, 258, 272 Space use heat maps 87
Railway corridors 58 Spatial complexity 87, 104
323

Species composition 88, 173 Urban heat island (UHI) effect 8, 56, 88, 98, 100, 106, 146
Species patch 89 Urban morphologies 86
Species richness 88–92, 94, 95 Urban neighborhood revitalization 197
Species-specific connectivity 94 Urban planning 25, 38, 44, 48,168, 264, 284
Sponge City 30, 33 Urban streams 58
Spontaneous vegetation 109 Urban synanthropic species 130
Statistical model, statistical modeling 87, 98, 112 Urban systems 196
Stormwater, stormwater management 8, 60, 88, 118, 137, Urban warming 59
154, 170, 184, 196, 200, 206, 216, 255 Urbanization patterns 288
Structural complexity 89 User perception 132, 150, 164, 181, 188, 248
Structural loading capacity 89 Vegetated walls 98
Subtropical trees 209 Vegetation installation cost 151, 167, 181, 188
Surface temperature 9, 34, 87, 98–100, 144, 162, 188, 244 Vegetation structure 87, 88, 90, 140, 158, 173, 174, 186
Sustainability, sustainable 12, 33, 34, 63, 79, 86, 123, 134, 168, Vegetation survey 9, 89, 140, 157, 172, 186
284, 288 Venturi effect 66, 78
Sustainable Eco-Town 134 Vertical biotope 74
Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 134 Vertical catchment elements 184
Swale 154, 170, 172 Vertical complexity 88, 93, 97
Synanthropic native bird species 130 Vertical cooling 171
System approach, systems thinking 60, 284, 289 Vertical forest, vertical garden, vertical green, vertical greenery,
“The African Experiment” 24 vertical landscaping, vertical park 12, 43, 62, 66, 78, 79, 83,
The City in History 38 88, 90, 120, 130, 206, 209, 244
The Conscience of the Eye 41 Vertical village 33
The Image of the City 38 Village Green 172
Thermal comfort 74, 78, 100 Vines 73
Thermal conductivity 99 Visual appearance 244
Thermal diffusivity 100 Visual balance 184
Thermal images 87 Visual connection, visual connections 171, 184
Thermal performance, thermal performances 98–100, 144, 176 Visual connectivity 118, 136
Thermo-physical properties 99 Visual impact 186
Thermodynamics 78 Visual language 287
Tidal wetlands 239 Void deck 146, 148, 149
Total leaf area 89 Volumetric heat capacity 99
Transportation, transportation networks 12, 107 Water regulation 60
Tropical, tropics 8, 24, 25, 55, 73, 79, 82, 88, 91, 97–100, 106, 107, Wetland 52
139, 140, 155, 158, 171, 173, 182, 186, 206, 209, 232 Wildlife 59, 60, 109, 200, 252, 287
Tropical Architecture in the Humid Zone 24, 25 Zero carbon 26
Urban archipelagos 289 Zoning 12, 107, 112, 223, 224
Urban catchment 60
Urban core 59
Urban density analysis 128, 136, 152, 170, 182, 243
Urban development 40, 88, 98, 112, 250, 252, 264
Urban environment 12, 25, 26, 34, 43, 52, 56, 60, 63, 79, 83,
87, 88, 91, 98, 100, 108, 112, 130, 188, 252
Urban farming 228, 232, 278
Urban forest, urban forests 78, 106
Urban green network 91, 93, 94, 123, 170, 196, 272
324

506 Subject Index.indd 325 11/11/19 10:38 AM
Thomas Schröpfer. Dense+Green: Innovative Building
Types for Sustainable Urban Architecture. 2016.
23 x 30 cm, 304 pages. Birkhäuser.
ISBN 978-3-03821-579-0.


Dense+Green Cities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dense+Green Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DENSE GREEN CITIES

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 1 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 2 11/5/19 11:01 AM

This publication is also available as an e-book

© 2020 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel

Printed on acid-free paper produced from chlorine-free pulp.

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 4 11/5/19 11:01 AM

Dense and Green: An Alternative History of the City 12

The Collective Power of the Single Building 38

Green Spaces and Ecosystem Services 52

Green Buildings and the Ecological Picturesque 66

Learning from Singapore 82

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 5 11/5/19 11:01 AM

Solaris 118 Vancouver Convention Centre West 198

One Central Park 124 Pérez Art Museum Miami 204

Punggol Waterway Terraces I 134 Torre Rosewood 212

The Interlace 152 The Spiral 220

SkyVille@Dawson 168 Miami Produce Center 228

Oasia Hotel Downtown 182 11th Street Bridge Park 234

1000 Trees 194

001 Front Matter.indd 6 11/10/19 12:25 PM

Europe Future Trajectories 284

Mille Arbres 270

Les Lumières Pleyel 276

001 Front Matter.indd 7 11/10/19 12:25 PM

The book Dense+Green Cities: Architecture as Urban Ecosystem,

The urban ecosystems under analysis are several-fold, as the

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 8 11/5/19 11:01 AM

002 Foreword.indd 9 11/10/19 12:23 PM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 11 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 12 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 13 11/5/19 11:01 AM

Padua from 1543 are an example of this, as they were open to

The dawn of the Industrial Revolution brought with it an

Two quite different designers, on either side of the Atlantic,

In Paris, Napoleon III commissioned Haussmann to begin a

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 14 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 15 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 16 11/5/19 11:01 AM

in the new neighborhoods of the expanding city. The Emperor

The English-garden-in-the-city model also served as inspiration

Olmsted did not, however, have equally dogmatic principles

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 17 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 18 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 19 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 20 11/5/19 11:01 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 21 11/5/19 11:02 AM

nature as a planned park on mostly uninhabited land, anticipating

Nothing, however, embodies a thoroughly holistic approach

Howard’s book was a massive success, read by specialists

The Vicissitudes of Green in the 20th Century

It would not be long after the impact of Howard’s ideas began

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 22 11/5/19 11:02 AM

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 23 11/5/19 11:02 AM

were seeking alternative approaches to city and town planning,

The intense rethinking of man’s relationship with nature in

In the 1950s, as the rate of global decolonization accelerated,

A fascinating moment showing the uneasy transition from

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 24 11/5/19 11:02 AM

broad brushstroke type of proposal for an architecture that could

Prospective Green in the 21st Century

Since the 1970s, many ecologists have turned their interest

999 Dense + Green Cities.indb 25 11/5/19 11:02 AM

a common, shared language between the two disciplines has