← Back to context

Comment by aziaziazi

4 hours ago

I’m not sure to understand the design you’re talking about. The one I usually see have big supports each ~10/20 parking spot and the roof cover the spots but also overhang them by a few meters. Almost all space is exploited and you basically can’t see the sun anymore, which is the intent I suppose.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bw4PGRxDvQKSmDB3A

Notice how there are trees planted on the grassy strips between the rows of parking?

The solar panel supports take up a parking space at each end of the rows of bays with a lot of gaps in between.

Google Streetview is from 2009 - nothing newer, weirdly - but if you nose about you'll see what an insanely cool building it is. You can walk around in those roof gardens.

  • That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there! But it serves a very different context and real-estate economics than the high-density examples linked by Troupo. A suburban insurance HQ in a mid-sized city doesn't face the same constraints as a retail hub in a capital. The target demographics and land pressure aren't comparable.

    In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance. The fact that they chose this integration suggests that cost was secondary to corporate signaling and employee experience. For most parking lots density isn't a design choice, it's a financial necessity.

    The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb. The few trees were tightly packed between the parking spaces and the new roof's supports are as well placed mostly in-between spots. They cuter the tree because the shade and the impossible maintenance. The shaded rosebush were kept but are now dying.

    Before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MtNm2Ln846gQXgbq6 and After: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8HAHF6xjrwMsz1cRA