Next Article in Journal
Differential Impact Analysis for Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study from Nepal
Next Article in Special Issue
Digital Technologies and Sustainability Assessment: A Critical Review on the Integration Methods between BIM and LEED
Previous Article in Journal
Attitude, Self-Control, and Prosocial Norm to Predict Intention to Use Social Media Responsibly: From Scale to Model Fit towards a Modified Theory of Planned Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/su14169824
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sky Gardens, Public Spaces and Urban Sustainability in Dense Cities: Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Singapore

by
Yan Li
1,2,
Hongwu Du
1,3,* and
Ceren Sezer
2
1
School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
2
Institute for Urban Design and European Urbanism, RWTH Aachen University, 52062 Aachen, Germany
3
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 9824; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169824
Submission received: 10 July 2022 / Revised: 4 August 2022 / Accepted: 6 August 2022 / Published: 9 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart Solutions and Technologies for Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Buildings)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper studies the spatial characteristics of sky gardens as public spaces to explore their potential to support urban sustainability in dense cities. This research understands public spaces as spaces that are open and available in different levels of access and use. The research focuses on 982 sky gardens in Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore. It adopts a mixed methodology, including site visits and observations, statistic measurements (based on SPSS software), and Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) methods. The research follows three steps: first, it studies the urban context, including urban density, land uses, and policy regulations regarding sky gardens and sustainability. Second, it examines sky gardens’ spatial characteristics in terms of form (morphology, typology, size, affordances, configuration), openness quality (accessibility, ownership, permeability), and geometry (open space ratio, height of space-to-building, void-to-solid ratio, shape index). Third, the research compares the findings in three case cities and discusses their potential to support urban sustainability. The results suggest that despite the limitations of sky gardens, they may play, to different degrees, fundamental roles as open public spaces in high-density urban environments supporting cities’ sustainability. High-density environments offer more opportunities for the sustainable development of sky gardens, which creates a new spatial paradigm for compact vertical greenery in high-density cities.

1. Introduction

With the rapid urbanization process, the investigation of environmental sustainability is a critical issue in fostering sustainable social development [1].The availability and accessibility of public spaces in dense urban settings are fundamental to promoting sustainability in dense urban environments, such as Asian cities, where public spaces have been drastically shrinking in the last decades [2]. Urban sustainability contains various aspects. According to existing studies, people widely consider urban sustainability as a coordinated development among three main systems: economic, social, and environmental [3]. This research understands sustainability as the ability to maintain or support the livability and well-being of cities over time through three perspectives. It is undeniable that urban sustainability is not limited to the three aspects described in this paper.
Fueled by the importance to adapt the public spaces to the impacts of urbanization and population expansion, there is presently a concern in increasing the know-how on the adaptation of the alternative public spaces to the substantial increase in socio-environmental implications brought by high-density urban environments. The chances created for people to be engaged in daily activities in public spaces should deal with the extent to which occupants can fit their personal requirements with the densification of urban environments.
Built environment designers and city governments put particular emphasis on integrating open spaces into the cities through various strategies such as by adding sky gardens, sky terraces, vertical parks, and green facades in high-rise buildings. Among them, sky gardens emerged as a new spatial paradigm for developing compact vertical greenery in dense cities. Sky gardens are potentially alternative open and green spaces located above ground level, on intermediate floors, and rooftops [4,5,6].
Sky gardens may potentially support urban sustainability from the environmental, social, and economic aspects. They contribute not only to climate change but can also offer new (semi-)public spaces for communities with limited public spaces due to high population density, high land values, or similar factors [7]. They integrate the vertical public realm, landscaping, and community facilities [8], and are scattered in high-rise buildings to bring recreational activities closer to the occupants [9]. In addition, sky gardens establish a branding effect for buildings and whole districts within growing location competition, increasing the rental prices and saleable areas of adjacent buildings [10].
The benefits of sky gardens are manifold, and people do perceive to obtain certain benefits from sky gardens in urban areas. However, not enough studies address the spatial characteristics of sky gardens, which would help to analyze their potential to maintain or support the livability and well-being of cities, and there are no adequate guidelines that promote sustainable development of sky gardens. As alternative public spaces, sky gardens can increase community cohesiveness in high dense cities. Sky gardens can offer valuable green open spaces in dense cities to provide a precious alternative to supplement the shortage of public space at the ground level [11,12].
This study studies sky gardens as potential public spaces to promote urban sustainability. It focuses on the spatial characteristics of sky gardens to explore the threshold range (based on the quantitative spatial analysis) of their sustainability as alternative public spaces at the effects of urban densification. The study focuses on three Asian cities: Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore. Forty-four high-rise buildings with sky gardens (totaling 982) have won worldwide and widespread attention for their achievement in introducing open green spaces into dense urban environments. Then, based on the conceptual framework, intensity context, spatial form, public attributes, and geometric characteristics of sky gardens are evaluated, and their significant factors in sustainable development are identified.
The paper is organized as follows. Following the introduction, it presents a literature review on sky gardens and their potential role in supporting urban sustainability. After the section on methodology, the paper presents the fieldwork and research findings. It concludes by discussing the potential of sky gardens to promote sustainable cities.

2. Sky Gardens as Public Spaces for Sustainable Dense Cities

In dense urban environments, such as Asian cities, achieving sustainable urban development is a challenge. Although dense urban planning and development has been the preferred response to development challenges [13], it also exacerbates problems in terms of economic, environmental, and social sustainability: (1) The environmental dimension, including the related loss of open green spaces [14], pollution, increased energy consumption, resource depletion, and toxic waste disposal [15]; (2) The social dimension challenges are mostly related to public physical and mental health, such as poor housing and working conditions, saturated transport networks, endemic congestion, social density, social isolation, and social inequality [16,17]; and (3) Economic goals remain intrinsically central to urban sustainability [13], while environmental and social sustainability face challenges that require economic benefits to feed into environmental and social matters to some extent.
Sky gardens appeared as a crucial element of urban fabric in sustainable urban development debates [12,18,19]. Sky gardens are a form of open public space located above ground level and integrate the vertical public realm, landscaping, and community facilities into architecture to enhance livability [6,8,20]. The dense urban form has inherent physical, social, and institutional constraints to the achievement of sustainability in urban green spaces [21,22]. Sky gardens are an effective strategy to counteract the negative effects of urban sprawl and expansion [23] from environmental, economic, and social aspects.
Regarding the environmental perspective, sky gardens present the advantage of alternative green spaces [23,24]. Sky gardens can reduce rooftop temperatures and pedestrian-level air temperatures through vegetation shading and evaporation, provide feasible strategies for mitigating urban heat islands, improve neighborhood microclimates, and enhance human thermal comfort [25,26,27,28]. Vertical greenery systems are a key element in addressing noise pollution [29] and can improve air quality and reduce respiratory diseases [30]. Sky gardens enhance the natural ventilation performance of adjacent spaces [31], reduce urban rainfall runoff [32] and carbon dioxide emissions [33], and improve the quality of roof runoff water [34] and the overall biodiversity of the urban environment [35].
From the social perspective of sustainability, sky gardens provide transitional, social, and environmental greenery spaces to their occupants [36], improve the overall performance of buildings [37,38], and ultimately benefit urban habitats [4,5]. Sky gardens integrate the vertical public realm, vertical landscaping, and vertical community facilities [8] and scattered in high-rise buildings bring recreational activities closer to the occupants and provide convenient access [9], which has considerable potential as an alternative strategy for recreational effects on occupants’ health, attitudes, and perceived stress levels [39,40].
Sky gardens’ economic benefits are reflected mainly in the benefits of energy savings, emissions reduction, and indirect income generation [41,42]. Green roofs offer an extension of roof life, reduce maintenance costs [43], strengthen thermal insulation performance, and consequently reduce cold production energy consumption and operating costs [44]. They even increase rental prices and saleable areas of adjacent buildings because a sky courtyard improves the living environment, thus endowing a building with enhanced economic significance.
Urban design and architecture literature has explored spatial characteristics related to sky gardens’ various aspects. Previous studies have studied the spatial characteristics of sky gardens in terms of type, design typology, open spaces’ attributes, urban form, and the high-rise buildings in which sky gardens are located. Depending on the location, the types of sky gardens are classified as roof gardens, podium gardens, and gardens at the intermediate level of the building [18,45]. To be combined with the refuge floor to form the layout of the space is typical of sky gardens’ design typology [45,46]. The land use, building area, and building story types have great effects on the development of sky gardens. The age of urban development has little impact on sky garden areas [21], but the land uses have higher potential for sky gardens in commercial, residential, and comprehensive development areas [12,18]. Sky garden areas are influenced by the dense urban development mode and the location of the sky gardens [12,21]. The building area has the most significant effect, building height has the least effect on a roof garden, and the effects of building story types is not currently apparent. As the open space properties of sky gardens have been demonstrated, affordance and functional attributes play an important role, among which spatial behaviors such as relaxation, leisure, play, and exercise are predominant [4,20,45]. Spatial function is the main attraction, and connectivity to sky gardens is crucial [12,18]. In addition, the visual access to the sky garden also has a positive impact in promoting healthy lifestyles and emotional experiences for the users [18].
However, there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive assessment of the sustainable performance of sky gardens implemented in dense urban environment [12], and studies proposing strategies to overcome the development constraints of sky gardens are also scant [21]. The literature review indicates that current research on high-rise sky gardens primarily focuses on individual evaluation of design, environment, behavior, and social factors.

3. Methodological Approach

The research investigates the relations between urban form, building factors in which sky gardens are located, and different spatial characteristics. For this, the research studies the high-rise buildings intensity characteristics, spatial qualities of sky gardens (form characteristics, public attributes, geometric characteristics), and evaluates the crucial factors affecting the sky gardens’ sustainable performance and effectiveness. It then provides information that can inspire decisions about planning developments continuation, expansion, reduction, or termination.

3.1. Data Collection and Processing

Using integrated methods (descriptive analysis and relation analysis) to demonstrate the sky gardens’ spatial characteristics, utilization, sustainability, and performance in high-rise buildings through a comparative study of sky garden cases in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore, (1) SPSS is used in descriptive analysis to characterize several aspects of sky gardens, including high-rise buildings’ density characteristics (intensity of construction, height, functionality, and energy efficiency), sky gardens’ form characteristics (type, configuration, and affordance), openness attributes (accessibility, privateness and permeability), and geometric characteristics. (2) Grey Relation Analysis is used to find the correlations between the aspects of sky gardens, in order to understand the primary variables influencing the sustainable growth of sky gardens.
The study focuses on sky gardens in Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The selection criteria for the sky gardens are: (1) the buildings in which the sky gardens were located are high rise; (2) the high-rise buildings are located in dense urban environments; (3) the architectural projects received international and public recognition in terms of their success to introduce green public spaces into the dense urban fabric and their positive image and attractiveness among city inhabitants.
To answer the research questions, we followed the steps presented below.

3.1.1. Formulate an Analysis Model

Formulate an analysis model that integrates elements across the previous research regarding green spaces and open/public spaces (Extend this in reference to Table 1).

3.1.2. Data Collection

The sky gardens’ spatial characteristics data based on the model from Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The high-rise building data were obtained from the Skyscraper Center database in the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), ArchDaily, Dezeen, and other architectural design websites. The sky gardens’ form characteristics data and public characteristics data were obtained based on virtual built environment audits (Google Street View) and field researches. The sky gardens’ geometric characteristics data were calculated and collected using CAD software based on architectural drawings, and some drawings with missing scales were verified by comparing with Google Earth.

3.1.3. Analysis

The analysis adapts statistics analysis with SPSS to understand the existing situation from urban form, the building factors in which sky gardens are located, and different spatial characteristics, and using Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to perform a quantitative analysis of the association between the variables of sky gardens. GRA is a quantitative analysis tool of grey system theory for analyzing the similarity and dissimilarity between a reference series and other series of the parameters [62]. It was employed to analyze the main factors such as building height, Gross Floor Area, Plot Ratio, garden area, and public attributes on the sky gardens. The process of the analysis includes: (1) normalizing the original data; (2) computing the absolute different values of the standard data from the mean; (3) calculating the grey relational coefficient; and (4) calculating the grey relational grade.

3.1.4. Synthesis

Explore the crucial characteristics affecting the sustainability and performance for providing useful strategies, approaches, and recommendations for sky gardens’ planning based on the comparation and integration of the results of grey correlation analysis.

3.2. The Sites: Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Singapore

Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as highly urbanized and densely populated cities with many high-rise buildings, have relatively good contexts, opportunities, and incentives for the development of sky gardens. The central district of Shenzhen has the highest population density (19,872 per km2), followed by Hong Kong (14,957 per km2) and Singapore (8076 per km2). Meanwhile, living area per person of Hong Kong and Shenzhen are less than 20 m2, and Singapore’s park/green area per person is the highest with 7.9 m2 (Table 2).
Over the last 20–30 years, these three cities have developed sky gardens in varying degrees to mitigate the conflict between open space and high-density urban environments (Figure 1). The sustainable development of sky gardens can be divided into three stages, from decorating cities with greening, integrating greenery with architecture, and shifting towards biophilia [69]. There are many examples of sky gardens in Shenzhen, driven by the concept of sustainable urban development. Indeed, Shenzhen’s sky gardens display vertical forms morphologically, but their spatial organization, utilization, and eco-effectiveness remain limited, which is in the preliminary stage of “integrating greenery with architecture” in the journey of the sky gardens. Hong Kong launched the Joint Practice Note No. 1 and No. 2 [70,71]; sky gardens become one of the design features of high-rise buildings by providing the basic requirements and fundamental principles. Singapore has developed into a high-density, vertical “city in a garden” with the widely adopted “vertical green space” model with public, quasi-public, and communal spaces in various high-rise buildings [72]. Singapore’s sky gardens have evolved to the stage of “shifting towards biophilia”, through the BCA Green Mark Scheme, Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme (SGIS) [73,74], Green Plot Ratio (GnPR), and Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) [75,76,77]. Singapore’s sky gardens offer opportunities to improve occupants’ health and well-being, and provide respite from the density of the urban environment.
In the three cities, namely Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore, 982 sky gardens in 8, 14, and 22 high-rise buildings and 37, 247, and 698 sky gardens located mainly in the city center were selected as the study site, and the selection of cases focuses on the period since the beginning of the 21st century, particularly since 2010. It is an important period for sustainable urban development and the integration of sky gardens into high-rise buildings.

4. Results

The following sections presents the fieldwork findings for (1) the high-rise building characteristics of where sky gardens are located, (2) the spatial quality of sky gardens according to form characteristics, openness attributes, and geometric characteristics (See Appendix A for the detailed indicator results), and (3) the association among the parameters to distill general hints, approaches, and recommendations for future sustainable planning of sky gardens in similar urban forms.

4.1. High-Rise Building Characteristic of Sky Gardens

High-rise buildings, high density urban environments, provide the opportunity for the sustainable development of sky gardens. Sky gardens have been introduced into high-rise buildings since it was realized that the vertical green/open spaces are important complements for high density urban living. The intensity, height, and story of high-rise buildings that sky gardens are located in are generally high; PR of 5–12 accounts for 79.54%, with an average height of 149.43 m and 35.44 stories. Affected by the implementation time of the incentive, policy, and approaches, the main construction period is between 2014 and 2018. Furthermore, sky gardens mainly located in residential and office high-rises account for 64.90%, and the energy award is one of the most important features in high-rise buildings, especially the awards of BCA Green Mark (37.5%) and LEED (17.5%) (Figure 2).

4.2. Form Characteristic of Sky Gardens

4.2.1. Size Scale and Type

Figure 3 shows the type, size, and the difference of the sustainable development of sky gardens in Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore. As the usage areas are contested by high-rise building functional services and room for profit, sky garden areas are limited. The result showed that sky court typology accounted for the higher proportion (41.90%) and the mini scale (<50 m2, 48.27%) and small scale (50–200 m2, 26.27%) of sky gardens accounting for 74.54% in total.
The differences in area between the sky garden types is significant. The podium gardens, roof gardens, and sky bridge are of relatively large scale (>1000 m2 and 500–1000 m2), sky setback are mainly medium scale (200–500 m2), sky courts are predominantly small scale (50–200 m2), and sky terraces are mini scale (<50 m2). With the launch of some policies and incentives, the private real estate sector has also realized the importance of public space and greening space for image branding of buildings and whole districts within growing location competition. Thus, the flexible spatial types of sky gardens have some applicability in accommodating alternative uses to meet the more environmental, behavioral, and psychological needs of occupants in high-rise buildings.

4.2.2. Configuration and Affordance

Common spatial configurations of sky gardens were extracted (Figure 4) through analyzing their plan prototypes based on the existing cases of sky garden. Figure 5 indicates that the sided prototype of sky gardens has the highest proportion in high-rise buildings, followed by configuration with hollowed-out and corner. Chimney prototypes have the lowest. Hollowed-out prototypes are dominant in Shenzhen, and Singapore has the most diverse configurations.
Sky gardens’ affordance is distinctly hierarchical: (1) nature; (2) recreation, socializing, sightseeing; and (3) transition, entertainment, and exercising. Besides, the affordance of nature is concentrated in mini-scale sky gardens; small-scale sky gardens are the most flexible and contain varieties of functions to encourage usages and activities; the upper-medium and large-scale sky gardens can be beneficial in terms of entertainment and exercising activities. The differences in affordance among cities are insignificant, except for Shenzhen, in which the gardens are comparatively less endowed.

4.3. Openness Attributes of Sky Gardens by Cities

Figure 6 shows the accessibility, privacy, and permeability for the development of sky gardens. Permeability is the highest public attribute, where interaction is enhanced by great openness through providing some visual guidance of sky gardens into high-rise buildings. The difference in public attributes among sky garden types are insignificant—permeability > privacy > accessibility—except for the sky terrace. Sky gardens have been influenced by the originally intended design of Privately Owned Public Space, which does not encourage use by outsiders and seems to cater only to the users who live/work in the complex [78]. Thus, the spatial type has little effects on public attributes in most sky gardens except for the sky terrace.
Singapore’s sky gardens present more varied and higher spatial qualities than Shenzhen and Hong Kong, as shown in Figure 7. Among them, Hong Kong PTUCC Hung Hom Campus (9.00), Shenzhen Architectural Design & Research Institute (9.00), Scotts Tower (8.33), and The oliv (8.03) record the higher overall scores (Figure 8).

4.4. Geometric Characteristic of Sky Gardens

The geometric characteristics reflect that sky gardens are mostly located away from the ground, with low spatial coverage, poor visibility, and linear ribbon shapes. Figure 9 shows: (1) Sky gardens’ OSR is less than 10%, accounting for 74.7%, which restricts the usage of open space in the vertical realm by occupants; (2) The height locations of sky gardens are mainly concentrated in the high-medium zone; (3) A W-shaped distribution of sky gardens’ VSR (peak interval 0–0.2 (44.5%), 0.5–0.6 and 0.9–1.0); (4) Sky gardens have relatively high SI (SI value is 1.0 for a perfect circle, 1.128 for squares, 1.286 for square triangles), indicating the spaces are long, skinny polygons.

4.5. Factors on Development of Sky Gardens

Under the influence of high-density urban form, the development stage and concept of sky gardens, the sustainable development of sky gardens, is affected by different factors. The analyses of grey relation grade (Figure 10) indicate that (1) the factors about high-rise buildings intensity (site areas, GFA) have an important effect on sky gardens’ sustainability and performance, (2) and among the factors influencing the quality of sky gardens, size scale has the most significant effect, followed by VSR, OSR, and configuration. In contrast, located city, constructed year, and permeability relatively have little influence on the sky gardens’ sustainability.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Government-Led Management and Control Measures Play an Important Role

The costs of sky gardens pose one of the biggest barriers for implementation. Governments can implement various types of instruments in sky garden policies, through direct/indirect financial incentives, regulations, communication, and information provision and leading by example. The government of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore have enacted numerous measures to improve the conditions of vertical green spaces in high density cities. Compared with sky garden construction in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, Singapore’s policies are comprehensive and clear. There are both macro planning objectives and micro control indicators [73,79,80], both mandatory regulations and guidance initiatives [73,74,76,77,81]. In terms of management and operation mechanisms, Singapore has multiparty collaborations and orderly construction management. The joint participation of many departments, clear construction management procedures, power and responsibility, and supervision involve good operability and are highly effective (Figure 11). Government-led management and control measures play an important role in the conduct and intervention of sky gardens.

5.2. High-Density Urban Environment Provides More Opportunities to Create Compact Vertical Greenery

This research studied the context of SGs in high-density urban environments, general information on high rises with SGs and SGs’ qualities regarding spatial, openness, and geometric characteristics. The peak construction period for SGs in high-rise buildings was between 2014 and 2018; PR > 8 accounts for 72.73%, and several buildings received more than one energy label, reflecting the importance of SGs as open spaces and green areas for the public in a high-rise, high-density environment. These research results corroborated previous studies showing that higher building density provides more opportunities for development [82] and creates a new spatial paradigm for compact vertical greenery in high-density cities [10].

5.3. Sky Gardens Are Complementary to the Green Space on the Ground for Foundational Activities

The spatial characteristic results show that sky gardens are complementary to the green space on the ground for foundational activities rather than precisely replicating and replacing them [12]. Sky gardens, as open green spaces in the vertical realm, have small scale, high permeability, and natural functions and provide fundamental recreational activities for occupants in high-rise buildings. Sky gardens are mainly sized on a mini scale (<50 m2) and small scale (50–200 m2) and can be considered similar to miniparks or pocket parks [83], which are more suitable for daily and stop-over recreational activities for occupants. The configuration and permeability of sky gardens both indicate high openness, which is more conducive to green spaces integrated with the building interior and urban environment to provide livable urban habitats for citizens. Nature (97.76%) is the most typical affordance of sky gardens, indicating that it is an important functional representation of urban green space systems in high-rise buildings. Leisure is the most dominant spatial activity in sky gardens, including recreation (74.95%), socializing (74.95%), and sightseeing (70.57%), indicating that sky gardens’ spatial identity is green spaces used for routine relaxation.
In terms of sky gardens’ openness, the order is permeability > accessibility > privateness. Sky gardens’ privateness is relatively high and may have been influenced by the originally intended design of POPS; they do not encourage use by outsiders and seem to cater only to users who live/work in the complex [78]. However, sky gardens still provide alternative open spaces and, to some extent, mitigate the lack of public spaces caused by dense cities.
Moreover, the geometric characteristics reflect that sky gardens are mostly located away from the ground, with low spatial coverage, poor visibility, and linear ribbon shapes. Although the open space ratio in the sky is not clearly defined, sky gardens’ OSR is less than 10%, accounting for 74.7%, which restricts the usage of open space in the vertical realm by occupants. Previous research has shown that tall buildings’ lower public spaces impact the health and behavior of the public in the street [84,85], but the association between the vertical position of sky gardens and occupants’ spatial perception and preferences in tall buildings is not yet clear.

5.4. Size Scale, Configuration and Accessibility Are the Crucial Factors for the Sky Gardens Sustainable Development

Based on the result of Grey Relation Analysis, it was found that there are differences in the association of factors affecting the sustainability of the sky gardens. Specifically, a sky garden is an alternative strategy to increase the outdoor living environment and a solution for inadequate ground-level land. High-rise buildings and dense urban environments can provide more opportunities for sky garden development through creating a new spatial paradigm for compact vertical greenery in high-density cities [10]. Size scale, configuration, and accessibility are the crucial factors for the sky gardens’ sustainable development. The location of sky gardens and their familiarity to occupants can also be attributable to this behavior [12]. Accessibility is one of the key factors in sustainable development, enhancing the interactive behavior of occupants as a complementary to green spaces on the ground for foundational activities. When openness and accessibility are not given enough attention, people do not have the freedom to experience and practice sky gardens, even though social infrastructure is provided [18].

5.5. Limitations and Future Research

In high-density urban environments, sky gardens have become prevalent, and their spatial forms are considerable. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of contact with green spaces for the ability of communities to cope with the stress of the threat, and the role of these spaces as alternative places for physical activity and social interaction [86]. High-density urban environment has spawned more privately owned public spaces (POPS) that become an important part of the urban open/green space system in compact cities [20,21,87]. Meanwhile, a sky garden is an architectural solution for buildings and part of the urban green infrastructure network and an integrative Nature-based Solutions (NBS) strategy to adapt to urban sustainable development [88]. Although it has been proven that the presence of vegetation and facilities [45], visibility and accessibility [12], stringent rules and stewardship [12,18], and restoratives [85] can impact people’s perceptions of and preferences for sky gardens, research on the impact of sky gardens’ spatial forms is scarce. This paper has further clarified that a high-density urban environment provides more opportunities for sky garden development, which in turn creates a new space paradigm for compact vertical greenery in high-density cities. In addition, sky gardens provide fundamental recreational activities for occupants. Sky gardens are complementary to green spaces on the ground with foundational activities, rather than precisely replicating and replacing them.
The approach does have certain drawbacks. Cases were chosen based on their influence (widely known, awards, etc.) rather than equal samples in cities to effectively extract the relevant information regarding typical sky gardens, which may undermine the comparative results of sky gardens at the city level. It was inevitable that more sky gardens from Singapore would be chosen because they have shown to be more successful than Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Furthermore, the difference in major functions of high-rise buildings have some influence on the outcomes that require detailed further examination of their features. Sky terraces, for example, are more widespread in residential typologies than in offices, while roof gardens are popular in hotel buildings. This information is helpful for further understanding the spatial attributes and performance of sky gardens in various high-rise building functions.
Our research will continue further on the basis of this paper. First, more in-depth fieldwork should be carried out to confirm the sustainability findings of sky gardens. Furthermore, detailed environment–behavior studies should be conducted to understand the perceptions, requirements, and expectations of sky gardens by occupants. It is important to explore which aspects of open space at ground level could be substituted by sky gardens. To establish connections with ground-level green/open spaces, we should enhance their openness, permeability, accessibility, and availability through spatial interventions and investigate the effects. In order to further determine the spatial value, spatial perception, and user satisfaction of sky gardens in high-density urban habitats, new technologies and data [89] can be used to explore the multiple properties of sky gardens and the correlation with occupant perceptions, such as smart devices, wireless sensors, systems, social network, etc. Third, the mutual effect of open spaces and public perception of sky gardens should be clarified, an environment–behavior bidirectional relationship for vertical open green spaces should be built, and the optimal mechanism for sky gardens should be defined depending on people’s preferences.

Author Contributions

Y.L.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing; H.D.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing—review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition; C.S.: Writing—review & editing, Methodology, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [510378209]; Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2021A1515011619]; and China Scholarship Council under Grant [2020061150096].

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study considered mainly secondary data and experts’ opinions. It did not require any specific Institutional Review Board Statement.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China, Science and Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation and China Scholarship Council.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Results of the Indicators Related to the Sky Garden

Table
Table A1. Results of descriptive analysis of indicators related to sky gardens.
Table A1. Results of descriptive analysis of indicators related to sky gardens.
IndicatorDescription of IndicatorNMeanS.D.Variance
City1 = Shenzhen; 2 = Hong Kong; 3 = Singapore 9822.460.870.75
FloorFloor of the high-rise building 98235.4414.55211.72
Site AreaSite Area of the high-rise building 98220,150.8827,061.5678,129.98
GFAGross Floor Area of the high-rise building98213,628.4949,333.52501,529.03
Building HeightHeight of the high-rise building 982149.4357.383292.32
YearContributed year of the high-rise building 9822014.343.8414.74
Type1 = podium gardens, 2 = sky courts, 3 = sky terraces, 4 = sky setbacks, 5 = sky bridges, 6 = roof gardens9823.031.221.49
Size Sky garden area982277.17773.3498,059.70
Configuration1 = hollowed-out space, 2 = corner space, 3 = sided space, 4 = interstitial space, 5 = chimney, 6 = infill space, 7 = bridge space, 8 = full space9822.341.371.87
Accessibility1 = low, access from inside the space; 2 = medium, access via public spaces; 3 = high, direct access via stairs and lifts9821.790.760.58
Privacy1 = low, used by the public; 2 = medium, used by residents or staff (communal); 3 = high, privately owned9822.200.660.43
Permeability1 = low, not openness to cities and buildings; 2 = medium, openness to cities or buildings; 3 = high, openness to cities and buildings9822.860.410.17
Floor AreaFloor area where the sky garden is located9822645.152407.8097,488.88
OSR OSR = Sky   garden   area Total   floor   area 9820.120.210.04
Located HeightThe sky garden’s Located Height98267.1344.942019.20
HSB HSB = Sky   garden   located   height Building   height 9820.460.240.06
Façade AreaSky garden Façade Area982157.53262.4168,859.55
Floor Façade AreaFloor Façade Area where the sky garden is located982546.75706.85499,636.59
VSR VSR = sky   garden   Fa ç ade   Area Floor   Fa ç ade   Area 9820.330.270.07
PerimeterSky garden perimeter98283.7179.076251.77
SI SI = perimeter 4 π A 9821.201.111.23
Table
Table A2. Multiple Response Output of building function, energy label and sky garden affordance.
Table A2. Multiple Response Output of building function, energy label and sky garden affordance.
IndicatorNResponse RatePercent of Cases
Building Function aResident1831.6%40.9%
Office1933.3%43.2%
Hotel915.8%20.5%
Business35.3%6.8%
Education610.5%13.6%
Other23.5%4.5%
Total57100.0%129.5%
Energy LabelAsia Pacific Green Building12.5%3.6%
BCA Green Mark1537.5%53.6%
BEAM Plus Platinum410.0%14.3%
EIC Sustainable Event Standards12.5%3.6%
Excellence Skyrise Greenery12.5%3.6%
Green Building25.0%7.1%
Green Good Design12.5%3.6%
Green Star37.5%10.7%
LEED717.5%25.0%
SGBC-BCA Sustainability25.0%7.1%
SIA-NParks Skywise Greenery Award25.0%7.1%
WELL Platinum12.5%3.6%
Total40100.0%142.9%
Sky Garden AffordanceTransition43311.5%44.1%
Recreation73619.5%74.9%
Sighting69318.3%70.6%
Socializing73619.5%74.9%
Entertainment1193.1%12.1%
Exercising1012.7%10.3%
Nature96025.4%97.8%
Total3778100.0%384.7%
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

References

  1. Zhang, D.; Chen, Y. Evaluation on urban environmental sustainability and coupling coordination among its dimensions: A case study of Shandong Province, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. UN-Habitat. Global Public Space Programme Annual Report 2021; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, W.; Yi, P. Assessment of city sustainability—Coupling coordinated development among economy, society and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, Y.; Du, H. Research on the spatial characteristics of sky gardens based on networked pictures: A case study of Singapore. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hadi, Y.; Heath, T.; Oldfield, P. Vertical Public Realms: Creating Urban Spaces in the Sky. In Proceedings of the CTBUH 2014 Shanghai Conference Proceedings, Shanghai, China, 16–19 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  6. Osmundson, T. Roof Garden: History Design and Construction; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1999; p. 318. [Google Scholar]
  7. Frandsen, P.C. Rethinking Rooftops—The Culture-Driven Transformation of Rooftops in Rotterdam. Master’s Thesis, Urban Geography. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yeang, K. Reinventing the Skyscraper: A Vertical Theory of Urban Design; Academy Press: Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pomeroy, J. Greening the Urban Habitat Singapore. CTBUH J. 2012, 1, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  10. Schröpfer, T.; Menz, S. Dense and Green Building Typologies; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Law, C.M.Y.; Hui, L.C.; Jim, C.Y.; Ma, T.L. Tree species composition, growing space and management in Hong Kong’s commercial sky gardens. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Samant, S.; Hsi-En, N. A tale of two singapore sky gardens. CTBUH J. 2017, 3, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J.; Kärrholm, M. Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Dev. Built Environ. 2020, 4, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Haase, A. Endless urban growth? On the mismatch of population, household and urban land area growth and its effects on the urban debate. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Muhammad, S.; Long, X.; Salman, M.; Dauda, L. Effect of urbanization and international trade on CO2 emissions across 65 belt and road initiative countries. Energy 2020, 196, 117102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bibri, S.E. Big Data Science and Analytics for Smart Sustainable Urbanism. In Unprecedented Paradigmatic Shifts and Practical Advancements; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gruebner, O.; Rapp, M.A.; Adli, M.; Kluge, U.; Galea, S.; Heinz, A. Cities and mental health. Dtsch. Ärztebl. Int. 2017, 114, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hadi, Y.; Heath, T.; Oldfield, P. Gardens in the sky: Emotional experiences in the communal spaces at height in the Pinnacle@Duxton, Singapore. Emot. Space Soc. 2018, 28, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheng, V. Designing High-Density Cities: For Social and Environmental Sustainability; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pomeroy, J. Room at the Top—The Roof as an Alternative Habitable/Social Space in the Singapore Context. J. Urban Des. 2012, 17, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tian, Y.; Jim, C.Y.; Tao, Y. Challenges and Strategies for Greening the Compact City of Hong Kong. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2012, 138, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jim, C.Y. Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities 2004, 21, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haaland, C.; van den Bosch, C.K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yuliani, S.; Hardiman, G.; Setyowati, E. Green-Roof: The Role of Community in the Substitution of Green-Space toward Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Spala, A.; Bagiorgas, H.S.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; Kalavrouziotis, J.; Matthopoulos, D.; Mihalakakou, G. On the green roof system. Selection, state of the art and energy potential investigation of a system installed in an office building in Athens, Greece. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, K.-S.; Hsueh, S.-L.; Wu, W.-C.; Chen, Y.-L. A DFuzzy-DAHP Decision-Making Model for Evaluating Energy-Saving Design Strategies for Residential Buildings. Energies 2012, 5, 4462–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Peng, L.; Jim, C. Green-Roof Effects on Neighborhood Microclimate and Human Thermal Sensation. Energies 2013, 6, 598–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Taib, N.; Abdullah, A.; Ali, Z.; Fadzil, S.F.S.; Yeok, F.S. Trends in the air temperature of transitional spaces of a high-rise office building: The effects of season and location. Indoor Built Environ. 2014, 23, 1117–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wong, N.H.; Kwang Tan, A.Y.; Tan, P.Y.; Chiang, K.; Wong, N.C. Acoustics evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rowe, D.B. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2100–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Niu, J.; Tang, Y.; Mak, C. The Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics to the Assessment of Green Features in Buildings: Part 2: Communal Sky Gardens. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2005, 48, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mentens, J.; Raes, D.; Hermy, M. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alexandri, E.; Jones, P. Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 480–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Berndtsson, J.C.; Emilsson, T.; Bengtsson, L. The influence of extensive vegetated roofs on runoff water quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 355, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wong, N.; Cheong, D.; Yan, H.; Soh, J.; Ong, C.; Sia, A. The effects of rooftop garden on energy consumption of a commercial building in Singapore. Energy Build. 2003, 35, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pomeroy, J. The Skycourt and Skygarden: Greening the Urban Habitat; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pomeroy, J. The Skycourt–A Comparison of Four Case Studies. CTBUH J. 2009, 1, 28–36. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ong, B.L. Green plot ratio: An ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nielsen, T.S.; Hansen, K.B. Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health Place 2007, 13, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Clay, A. Green is good for you. Monit. Psychol. 2001, 4, 40. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lokman, H.I.; Magda, S.; Izudinshah, A.W. Bioclimatic Technology in High Rise Office Building Design: A Comparison Study for Indoor Environmental Condition. J. Sci. Technol. 2011, 3, 89–104. [Google Scholar]
  42. Clements Croome, D.; Baizhan, L. Productivity and indoor environment. Proc. Healthy Build. 2000, 1, 629–634. [Google Scholar]
  43. Castleton, H.F.; Stovin, V.; Beck, S.B.M.; Davison, J.B. Green roofs: Building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1582–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Teemusk, A.; Mander, Ü. Greenroof potential to reduce temperature fluctuations of a roof membrane: A case study from Estonia. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chan, S.-t. Social Performance of Communal Sky Garden in a Dense Urban City—Hong Kong. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of HongKong, HongKong, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ip, T. Typology of Sky Gardens for High-rise Urban Living. In Proceedings of the Cities & Regions as Catalysts forSmart & Sustainable Innovation 2014—Towards Sustainable Product Design: 19th International Conference, KADK, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3–4 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Alnusairat, S. Approaches to Skycourt Design and Performance in High-Rise Office Buildings in a Temperate Climate. Ph.D. Thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  48. Prosser, S. Affordances and Phenomenal Character in Spatial Perception. Philos. Rev. 2011, 120, 475–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to the Visual Perception of Pictures. Leonardo 1978, 11, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pasaogullari, N.; Doratli, N. Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities 2004, 21, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Whyte, H.W. How to Turn a Place Around; Projects for Public Space Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000; Volume 52. [Google Scholar]
  52. Radović, V. The skyscraper and public space-An uneasy history and the capacity for radical reinvention. In Companion to Public Space; Mehta, V., Palazzo, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  53. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Privatisation of Public Open Space: The Los Angeles Experience. Town Plan. Rev. 1993, 64, 139–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alonso De Andrade, P.; Berghauser Pont, M.; Amorim, L. Development of a Measure of Permeability between Private and Public Space. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yavuz, A.; Kuloğlu, N. Permeability as an indicator of environmental quality: Physical, functional, perceptual components of the environment. World J. Environ. Res. 2014, 4, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pont, M.B.; Haupt, P. The Spacemate—Density and the Typomorphology of the Urban Fabric; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pont, M.B.; Haupt, P. The relation between urban form and density. Urban Morphol. 2007, 11, 62–65. [Google Scholar]
  58. Tao, Y.; Lau, S.S.Y.; Gou, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tablada, A. An investigation of semi-outdoor learning spaces in the tropics: Spatial settings, thermal environments and user perceptions. Indoor Built Environ. 2019, 28, 1368–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Schumaker, N.H. Using Landscape Indices to Predict Habitat Connectivity. Ecology 1996, 77, 1210–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Baker, W.L.; Cai, Y. The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landsc. Ecol. 1992, 7, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Krummel, J.R.; Gardner, R.H.; Sugihara, G.; O’Neill, R.V.; Coleman, P.R. Landscape Patterns in a Disturbed Environment. Oikos 1987, 48, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, S.; Forrest, J.Y.-L. Advances in Grey Systems Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  63. National Bureau of Statistics. China City Statistical Yearbook; China Statistic Press: Beijing, China, 2020.
  64. Shenzhen Statistic Bureau; NBS Survey Office in Shenzhen. Shenzhen Statistical Yearbook; China Statistic Press: Shenzhen, China, 2020. Available online: http://tjj.sz.gov.cn/nj2020/nianjian.html?2020 (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  65. Census and Statistics Department. Population Overview. 2020. Available online: https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/page_8000.html#menu_action4 (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  66. Development Bureau. Greening, Landscape & Tree Management Section. 2020. Available online: https://www.greening.gov.hk/en/home/index.html (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  67. Department of Statistics Singapore. Statistics on Singapore’s Population Are Compiled by the Singapore Department of Statistics. 2020. Available online: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-and-population-structure/latest-data (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  68. National Parks Board. The Vegetation of Singapore. 2020. Available online: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/ (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  69. National Parks Board. A Handbook on Developing Sustainable Highrise Gardens. 2017. Available online: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/-/media/srg/files/handbook-1.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2022).
  70. Buildings Department; Lands Department; Department Planning. Joint Practice Note No. 2. 2002. Available online: https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_sc/tech_doc/joint_pn/index.html (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  71. Buildings Department; Lands Department; Department Planning. Joint Practice Note No. 1. 2001. Available online: https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_sc/tech_doc/joint_pn/index.html (accessed on 2 November 2021).
  72. Samant, S. Cities in the Sky: Elevating Singapore’s Urban Spaces. Int. J. High-Rise Build. 2019, 2, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. National Parks Board. Singapore’s Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme 2.0. 2015. Available online: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/skyrisegreenery/incentive-scheme (accessed on 26 November 2020).
  74. National Parks Board. Singapore’s Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme. 2009. Available online: https://www.skyrisegreenery.com (accessed on 26 November 2020).
  75. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Circular Package: LUSH Programme—Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High Rises. 2009. Available online: http://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Circulars/lushprogramme (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  76. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) 2.0 Programme: Landscape Replacement Policy for Strategic Areas. 2014. Available online: http://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Circulars/dc14-12-original (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  77. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Updates to the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) Programme: LUSH 3.0. 2017. Available online: http://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Circulars/dc17-06 (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  78. Rossini, F.; Yiu, M.H.-L. Public open spaces in private developments in Hong Kong: New spaces for social activities? J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemak. Urban Sustain. 2021, 14, 237–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Urban Redevelopment Authority. The Concept Plan 2001; Urban Redevelopment Authority: Singapore, 2001.
  80. Urban Redevelopment Authority; Singapore Government. Singapore Master Plan 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Planning/Master-Plan (accessed on 26 November 2020).
  81. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) and Incentive. 2020. Available online: http://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Guidelines/Development-Control/Non-Residential/SR/Greenery (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  82. Tian, Y.; Jim, C.Y. Factors influencing the spatial pattern of sky gardens in the compact city of Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Marcus, C.C.; Greene, N.H. Miniparks and vest-pocket parks. In People Place: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 149–208. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ye, Y.; Wang, Z.; Dong, N.; Zhou, X. Tall Buildings’ Lower Public Spaces: Impact on Health and Behavior. CTBUH J. 2020, 1, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
  85. Lotfi, Y.A.; Refaat, M.; El Attar, M.; Abdel Salam, A. Vertical gardens as a restorative tool in urban spaces of New Cairo. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020, 11, 839–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Braubach, M.; Kendrovski, V.; Jarosinska, D.; Mudu, P.; Andreucci, M.B.; Beute, F.; Davies, Z.; de Vries, S.; Glanville, J.; Keune, H.; et al. Green and Blue Spaces and Mental Health: New Evidence and Perspectives for Action; World Health Organization: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  87. Raji, B.; Tenpierik, M.J.; van den Dobbelsteen, A. The impact of greening systems on building energy performance: A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 610–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Enzi, V.; Cameron, B.; Dezsényi, P.; Gedge, D.; Mann, G.; Pitha, U. Nature-based solutions and buildings–the power of surfaces to help cities adapt to climate change and to deliver biodiversity. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 159–183. [Google Scholar]
  89. Joshi, M.; Selmi, W.; Binard, M.; Nys, G.-A.; Teller, J. Potential for Urban Greening with Green Roofs: A Way towards Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Smart Data and Smart Cities, Nice, France, 30 September–2 October 2020; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/2268/251142 (accessed on 2 August 2022).
Sustainability 14 09824 g001 550
Figure 1. Timeline showing the correlation between sky garden development and planning ordinances in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore.
Figure 1. Timeline showing the correlation between sky garden development and planning ordinances in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore.
Sustainability 14 09824 g001
Sustainability 14 09824 g002 550
Figure 2. The diagram of high-rise building functions and energy label. (a) R, resident; O, office; H, hotel; B, business; E, education; other. (b) 1, Asia Pacific Green Building; 2, BCA Green Mark; 3, BEAM Plus Platinum; 4, EIC Sustainable Event Standards (Gold Level); 5, Excellence Skyrise Greenery; 6, Green Building; 7, Green Good Design; 8, Green Star; 9, LEED; 10, SGBC-BCA Sustainability; 11, SIA-NParks Skywise Greenery Award; 12, WELL Platinum.
Figure 2. The diagram of high-rise building functions and energy label. (a) R, resident; O, office; H, hotel; B, business; E, education; other. (b) 1, Asia Pacific Green Building; 2, BCA Green Mark; 3, BEAM Plus Platinum; 4, EIC Sustainable Event Standards (Gold Level); 5, Excellence Skyrise Greenery; 6, Green Building; 7, Green Good Design; 8, Green Star; 9, LEED; 10, SGBC-BCA Sustainability; 11, SIA-NParks Skywise Greenery Award; 12, WELL Platinum.
Sustainability 14 09824 g002
Sustainability 14 09824 g003 550
Figure 3. Percentage of sky garden areas and types (a,b), sky garden types for the size scale and cities (c,d), and the percentage of sky garden size scales and types by cities (e,f).
Figure 3. Percentage of sky garden areas and types (a,b), sky garden types for the size scale and cities (c,d), and the percentage of sky garden size scales and types by cities (e,f).
Sustainability 14 09824 g003
Sustainability 14 09824 g004 550
Figure 4. The common spatial configurations of sky gardens in high-rise buildings.
Figure 4. The common spatial configurations of sky gardens in high-rise buildings.
Sustainability 14 09824 g004
Sustainability 14 09824 g005a 550Sustainability 14 09824 g005b 550
Figure 5. Configuration (a,b), affordance (c,d) characteristic of sky gardens and their correlation (e).
Figure 5. Configuration (a,b), affordance (c,d) characteristic of sky gardens and their correlation (e).
Sustainability 14 09824 g005aSustainability 14 09824 g005b
Sustainability 14 09824 g006 550
Figure 6. The sky gardens’ openness attribute characteristics.
Figure 6. The sky gardens’ openness attribute characteristics.
Sustainability 14 09824 g006
Sustainability 14 09824 g007 550
Figure 7. The radar diagram of sky gardens organized by accessibility, privateness, and permeability in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore.
Figure 7. The radar diagram of sky gardens organized by accessibility, privateness, and permeability in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore.
Sustainability 14 09824 g007
Sustainability 14 09824 g008 550
Figure 8. The highest score of sky gardens in the assessment (from the left: Hong Kong PTUCC Hung Hom Campus; Shenzhen Architectural Design & Research Institute; Scotts Tower; The oliv).
Figure 8. The highest score of sky gardens in the assessment (from the left: Hong Kong PTUCC Hung Hom Campus; Shenzhen Architectural Design & Research Institute; Scotts Tower; The oliv).
Sustainability 14 09824 g008
Sustainability 14 09824 g009 550
Figure 9. The distribution histogram of the sky gardens’ geometric characteristics: OSR, HSB, VSR, and SI.
Figure 9. The distribution histogram of the sky gardens’ geometric characteristics: OSR, HSB, VSR, and SI.
Sustainability 14 09824 g009
Sustainability 14 09824 g010 550
Figure 10. Grey relational grades (calculated from Gray Relational Analysis) between high-rise building intensity characteristic, qualities of sky gardens in terms of form characteristics, openness attributes and geometric characteristics and the factors.
Figure 10. Grey relational grades (calculated from Gray Relational Analysis) between high-rise building intensity characteristic, qualities of sky gardens in terms of form characteristics, openness attributes and geometric characteristics and the factors.
Sustainability 14 09824 g010
Sustainability 14 09824 g011 550
Figure 11. An overview of the Singaporean government agencies and management mechanisms for skyrise greening.
Figure 11. An overview of the Singaporean government agencies and management mechanisms for skyrise greening.
Sustainability 14 09824 g011
Table
Table 1. The spatial characteristic indicators of sky gardens.
Table 1. The spatial characteristic indicators of sky gardens.
AspectsIndicatorsDescription
High-rise building characteristicsCityHong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore.
YearCompletion year of high-rise buildings with sky garden.
HeightBuildings’ height.
Floor Building story number.
Function Buildings’ use function for occupants.
Building AreaTotal Gross Floor Area of building.
Site AreaSite Area of building.
PRPlot Ratio (PR) determines the intensity of land usage and is the determinant in calculating the maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA).
Energy LabelsReceived awards of energy efficiency for understanding the development potential of sky gardens.
Qualities of Sky GardensForm characteristicsTypeClassification of sky gardens in high-rise buildings according to their height.
Size ScaleSky garden area.
ConfigurationThe figure ground diagrams of sky garden on floor plan [36,45,47].
AffordanceSpace or place can afford the function for human activities [48,49].
Openness attributesAccessibilitySpace supports the ability of different people to come and do many different things, and is an accessible node and place [50,51].
PrivatenessPOPS are accessible to the public and available for individual or community activities. The private sector has played a role in shaping public space in the past [52,53].
PermeabilityThe quality indicator that increases the value of space in terms of physical, functional, and perceptual characteristics [54,55].
Geometric characteristicsOSROpen Space Ratio (OSR) is the amount of non-built space at ground level per square meter of floor area [56,57].
HSBHeight of Space-to-Building (HSB) measures the sky garden’s relative height in high-rise buildings, with smaller values closer to the ground level.
VSRVoid-to-Solid Ratio (VSR) is defined as the area of openings on the façade divided by the solid area of the façade [58] and has been described as the ratio of transparency to opacity, lightness to heaviness, or openness to enclosure (void/solid).
SIShape Index (SI) is the corrected Perimeter-Area Ratio (PAR) [59,60] that overcomes size-dependence by comparing the PAR to a standard shape [61].
Table
Table 2. Area, population, population density, urbanization, and related area per person of the center area in Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
Table 2. Area, population, population density, urbanization, and related area per person of the center area in Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
CityShenzhenHong KongSingapore
Center areaFutian districtHongkong islandCentral area
Area (km2)78.6680.72132.7
Population density (per km2)19,87214,9578076
Urbanization100%100%100%
Area per person (m2/per)Park/Green 5.62.77.9
Living19.71530
Source[63,64][65,66][67,68]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Du, H.; Sezer, C. Sky Gardens, Public Spaces and Urban Sustainability in Dense Cities: Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Singapore. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169824

AMA Style

Li Y, Du H, Sezer C. Sky Gardens, Public Spaces and Urban Sustainability in Dense Cities: Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Singapore. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):9824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169824

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yan, Hongwu Du, and Ceren Sezer. 2022. "Sky Gardens, Public Spaces and Urban Sustainability in Dense Cities: Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Singapore" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 9824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169824

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop