GREEN, THE NEW GOLD Does the current fever for greenery-embellished architecture require a more critical approach for a more rewarding outcome? Are wider potential benefits being missed in the rush for fast returns?

Since the announcement of the iPhone in 2007, a decade of smartphone proliferation has led us to a global ubiquity of digital personal devices. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the architectural field with the rise of dense and green architecture.

There are several associated factors. For developers, the economic success of such projects has shown that the cost of implementation is outweighed by the attractive returns to be made. The intangible benefits are significant too. Such buildings are often regarded as having an avant garde and environmentally sensitive character – a valuable image to portray at a time when people are awakening to our environmental crises.

But the seemingly benign trend is not without risks. Behind the positive image that greenery imbues on its host building, we are likely to find a calculated work of engineering and a labourintensive maintenance regime. This ends-to-means, mechanical reduction of greenery into a system to be exploited, as pointed out by Daniel A. Barber and Erin Putalik in their essay ‘Forest, Tower, City: Rethinking the Green Machine Aesthetic’,1 needs further and sharper inquisition in order to avoid missed opportunities of greater aspirations.

Planners, who wield significant sway in the green building movement, have largely decided on the benefits of vertical greening.2 They also study and learn from their international counterparts.

For example, planners from Guangzhou have studied the policies of Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and adapted them in their home city. This has aided the spread of the dense and green approach around the globe.

While the positions held by developers and planners are straightforward, things are not so clear for designers and building users. While vertical greenery provides direct and indirect benefits to users, there are risks as well. Dr Tan Puay Yok, an Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, has noted how unchecked vegetation growth in the tropical climate could lead to increased humidity as well as pests.3

Indeed, despite the success of the vertical green typology, Ng

Lang (the former CEO of the URA and the National Parks Board in Singapore) has shared that it is still very much a model in development. Work is needed in areas such as better integration of architecture and greenery; qualitative improvements in terms of enhanced biodiversity; cost reduction to ensure long-term sustainability; and the fostering of community ownership.4

For designers, it is imperative to be wary of the vertical green typology and to engage in critical dialogue, because the need to adapt to local context is vital – just as it was with tropical regionalism.

One can gain a sample of the possibilities through the contextually sensitive works of architects in the region such as Ng Sek San, Kevin Mark Low and WOHA Architects (WOHA).

As such work demonstrates, tremendous development has been achieved with the typology. We have progressed from the early green facade to landscaped balconies and roof gardens where users can experience lush greenery ‘in the sky’. WOHA, working with Sitetectonics (now STX Landscape Architects), achieved a 1,000-per-cent landscape replacement ratio in their recent highrise project Oasia Hotel Downtown (2016), which reflects an almost ten-fold improvement from their first high-rise greenery project Newton Suites (with landscape architect Cicada, 2007).5

The highly anticipated CapitaSpring tower designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG , and BIG Landscape) in collaboration with Carlo Ratti Associati (CRA) and RSP Architects Planners & Engineers for CapitaLand, continues this development trajectory. In this iteration, greenery is used to support a core intention of community building, softening and breaking down the large-scale public spaces inserted on various levels. Combined with the introduction of hi-tech solutions such as IOT and AI, the Singapore project aims to create the office of the future.6 However, in some ways, it may also affirm the subservient role of greenery as mentioned earlier (Barber and Putalik, 2018) in this text.

As our species becomes increasingly aware of the magnitude of the climate-change crisis, few would argue against the urgent need for more trees and more greenery. The question is: how? With humankind’s engineering ingenuity, we have no problem developing solutions when stakeholder interests are aligned and resources become available. It is crucial to thoroughly question if the current development direction is the right one. In the seemingly unrelenting trend of dense and green architecture, we do not want to miss the beauty of the rainbow while searching for a pot of gold.

As our species becomes increasingly aware of the magnitude of the climate-change crisis, few would argue against the urgent need for more trees and more greenery. The question is: how?