Thank you.

I’ll play devil’s advocate.

PERHAPS (and since there is no sectional elevation I can’t tell), those green swaths of ambiguous vegetation act as:

1) storm water infiltration/attenuation features

OR

2)the assumption is the greenery acts as a heuristic device to educate the residents of their integration in/affect on nature

OR

3)by some sheer leap of faith the belief is that they provide solar insulation and reduce energy consumption for heat and cooling (ok that’s a stretch, but it seems oh so faux-green)

An Aside: Is anyone else sick of photoshop renderings in-lieu of actual plans/elevations/sections? I know it’s conceptual. I know it’s landscape design. But seriously, looking at a faked perspective with hyper-colors only obfuscates and confuses a design. It’s mostly on purpose I assume to hide the lack of actual design (I know, I went through design school).

roadkill - what makes a building “green” has been for some time now a very blurry topic. I would argue that any project that makes as great efforts as those of Francois to connect people in an urban condition to plants (growth/seasons/decay) is a worthwhile investigation. When we eventually decide what “green” means we may find that it’s something more than the pursuit of new materials (which is arguably the current “green” mainstream’s m.o.).