Gardening Up A Wall

These succulent tapestries exemplify artistic vertical gardening.

Like so many fads often do, the vertical gardening fad has become trendier than it really should be. It certainly has practical applications, and is very appealing in the right situations. However, in the wrong situations, it can be more problematic than it is worth.

Vertical gardens can shade and insulate exposed walls, but really do little more than strategically placed shade trees, large shrubbery or even trellised vines can do in that regard. The disadvantage of vertical gardening is that it can hold moisture against the affected walls, and can promote rot if the planters are not installed properly. Planters over windows or decks drip just like any other planters do, staining or dirtying whatever is below. Only free standing vertical gardens (that are not attached to a wall) or those on concrete walls that are not susceptible to rot will not cause such problems.

Water borne pathogens (diseases that disperse in water) can proliferate more in vertical gardens because they get carried with the natural flow of water from top to bottom. Wherever any such disease gets established on a vertical garden, it will likely get carried to everything below. In the ground, such diseases spread slower since they only travel as far as water flows or gets splashed.

The obvious advantage to vertical gardening is that it makes it possible to grow many more plants in very limited space, which is excellent if there is no open ground for vegetable gardening. It can also be a great way to display plants like orchids and certain bromeliads that are more appealing if they hang from above. Staghorn ferns cling to walls naturally.

Another advantage is that vertical gardening can be so aesthetically appealing and unique. Vertical gardens of small, densely foliated succulents hung like tapestries to adorn exterior walls are so much more interesting than simple vines or shrubbery used to obscure such walls. Northern exposures that are too dark for most plants can be adorned with ferns.

Horridculture – CH CH CH CHIA!

P80829Skyscrapers are already very efficient. They fit more usable floorspace into their ‘footprint’ than any other type of building does. They conserve energy that gets used for heating and cooling by exposing less of that floorspace to the outside weather. For all that usable floorspace, they need only a single roof.
Think about it. A relatively short ten story building contains as much floorspace as ten single story buildings that occupy the same area individually, but collectively occupy ten times as much area! Nine of those stories loose heat during cold weather, and collect heat during hot weather, only around the exterior walls. Only the top floor loses and collects heat through the roof, and only if there is not an upper utility ‘attic’ floor that insulates it. Ten single story buildings of the same area are all exposed on top, as well as all the way around. Of course, ten single story buildings of the same area need ten roofs comparable to the single roof of the ten story skyscraper.
Skyscrapers certainly need more infrastructure to support all of their floors, and they lose a bit of their floorspace to that infrastructure, as well as to the elevators needed for access to the upper floors. It also takes significant energy to pump water up to upper floors. Regardless, skyscrapers are still the most efficient of buildings. They have nothing to prove to the treehuggers who dislike them so.
‘Green roofs’ on top of skyscrapers are a fun concept. They utilize space that is otherwise useless, and they really do help to insulate the top and most exposed floor of big buildings. However, they are no more ‘green’ than landscapes that are at ground level. In fact, they necessitate the incorporation of extra infrastructure into their respective buildings in order to sustain their synthetic environments, and to support the extra weight of the soil, water and flora. Pumping water to irrigate green roofs takes more energy than irrigating landscapes at ground level. Generally though, they are probably worth the effort, as long as they are not too elaborate,
Chia Pet Skyscrapers are what happens when they get too elaborate. The vertical landscapes incorporated into the facades of these buildings consume more resources and energy than they conserve. Although less energy is needed for cooling the buildings during warm weather, more energy is used to pump water for irrigation. Not only must the buildings be constructed to sustain these landscapes, but they require much more specialized maintenance than conventional skyscrapers need. Because the flora in these vertical landscapes can not disperse roots into real soil, the growing medium must be fertilized very regularly with more synthetic fertilizer than conventional landscapes in the ground need, and all this fertilizer eventually leaches into the drainage systems of the landscape. Insects might enjoy these vertical landscapes, but the necessary regular maintenance would prevent much other fauna from getting established like they could in conventional landscapes at ground level.
Although the skyscraper within this spectacular Chia Pet Skyscraper benefits the environment, the vertical landscape that adorns the exterior only benefits those who live and work in and around it.