I don’t agree that these are an eyesore, they are not as pretty as a tree, no, but disgustingly ugly? Nah.
Seems like a decent idea if you have an over developed location where you can’t plant a tree.
Comment on [deleted]
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Devil’s advocate:
These cost far less to maintain than having a team or two dedicated to upkeep for the trees.
That said, I also think trees are the better option. These are an eyesore.
stoy@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
superkret@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
The “cost” of maintaining trees is paid by the city to people living, buying things and paying taxes in the city.
People who don’t have a college education and get to make a living working outside, improving their neighborhood.The fake trees are likely put up and maintained by a tech corporation.
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Yes, yes, and yes.
jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Someones gunna break it too.
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Oh absolutely.
nesc@lemmy.cafe 2 weeks ago
These probably require more maintenance and not less, glass needs to be regularly cleaned and water changed and fertilized, what will happen when company stops supporting this proprietary algae aquariums?
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
All valid points.
I was going off the assumption that these are a sort of self-sustaining terrarium.