The Detroit Dilemma - Ruminations

I recently finished up the draft text that summarized the land use and open space portions of the Detroit Sustainable Design Assessment Team (AIA SDAT) that I participated in a few months back. It gave me a chance to revisit some of the thinking around my initial thoughts and reactions - with some distance and further reading that has illuminated both the potential of what we proposed, as well as how much we could've/should've done to provide an actual 'vison' for the community.

There has been some more recent coverage of Detroit, mostly focused around the blatant ridiculous giveaway, bailout for the car companies in Detroit - (save the big 3, save the world, right?) One such article, via Bloomberg, mentions the connection between industrial dissipation and the large amount of vacant lands. "GM's Bust Turns Detroit Into Urban Prairie of Vacant-Lot Farms" discusses vacancy, land banking, and urban farming, to name a few items. These photos come from the local group and their vacant farmland Urban Farming.

:: image via Bloomberg News

Some of the highlights of the article align with the common thinking we came up with in the SDAT. A diversified economy, urban agriculture, land banking, reclaiming vacant lands, concentration of resources, and streamlining parks operations. Overall, there is the paradigm shift - the hard thinking that comes from the acknowledgement of a Shrinking City and how to realistically approach change. "Now, business coalitions such as Detroit Renaissance are moving forward with plans to identify neighborhoods where resources should be concentrated and help the area diversify away from cars. The organizations want to use local research hospitals to attract health-care and biotech startups, according to Doug Rothwell, president of Detroit Renaissance, as well as foster a creative community around the city's legacy of advertising agencies. "

:: image via Bloomberg News

One aspect we discussed was how to spend some money that had been allocated for renewal... not enough to solve problems but to make a real statement. There was definitely a strong desire to make right some of the woes that come with the distributed leftovers of wide-spread vacancy: "On Nov. 25, the City Council passed a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan that seeks $47 million from the federal government to address the city's problem of vacant buildings and empty land. An estimated 55,000 lots are considered unproductive because they bring in no taxes and cost money to maintain. ... The grant would pay for knocking down 2,350 of Detroit's tens of thousands of abandoned homes and clear the sites for development. If no buyers materialize, planners would consider adding the space to public parks or land reserved for recreation or environmental preservation."

We were definitely on the right track, but did we really tell Detroit something they already didn't know. Maybe, maybe not... but it was definitely reinforcing some of the strong trends already in place, for instance the strong push to move urban agriculture from a small scale to a larger scale operation. From Bloomberg: "With enough abandoned lots to fill the city of San Francisco, Motown is 138 square miles divided between expanses of decay and emptiness and tracts of still-functioning communities and commercial areas. Close to six barren acres of an estimated 17,000 have already been turned into 500 "mini- farms,'' demonstrating the lengths to which planners will go to make land productive. ...Harvests are sold in markets or donated to soup kitchens. This year's produce was picked ``quickly because people need food so badly,'' said Sevelle. ...The farms may also raise home values. In many neighborhoods, nearby gardens could add as much as $5,000 to selling prices, said real estate broker Russ Ravary, who works in the city and surrounding suburbs. The average price of a home dropped 55 percent to $18,578 in the first nine months of the year, according to the Detroit Board of Realtors."

Another article from this month in the Detroit Free Press follows a similar theme, 'Acres of barren blocks offer chance to reinvent Detroit' provides some of the same thinking, and specifically relates some of the recommendations of our SDAT. "Earlier this fall, some out-of-town planners recruited by the American Institute of Architects visited Detroit for a brainstorming session. The leader, Alan Mallach, research director of the National Housing Institute in Maplewood, N.J., concluded that Detroit needs no more than about 50 square miles of its land for its current population. The remaining 89 square miles could be used entirely for other purposes, he said. ...Mallach's group liked the suggestion of large-scale commercial farming, both as a way to put the space to good use and to generate new income and jobs for the cash-starved city."

The article paints a similar picture as well: "Detroit, where the population peaked at 2 million in the early 1950s, is home to about 900,000 today and is still losing people. The depopulation and demolition of abandoned properties has left the city dotted with thousands of vacant parcels, ranging from single home lots to open fields of many acres."

:: image via Detroit Free Press

And comes up with some similar thinking: "This abundance of vacant land has people talking about new uses, such as urban farming, reforesting the city, and large-scale recreational areas. Urban farming is getting the most buzz. Michigan State University's College of Agriculture and Natural Resources is among the groups touting urban farms as a solution for Detroit's vacant land. ... Given the amount of open land, I think there's a real opportunity for Detroit to provide a significant amount of its fruits and vegetables for its population and the surrounding area," said Mike Hamm, the C.S. Mott Chair of Sustainable Agriculture at MSU."

:: image via Detroit Free Press

There is also the inevitable discussion of the politics of Detroit - which from our experience there, if one of the major sticking points. A quote from some past leadership leaves it open: "If it comes to pass that there is a development that would be in the best interest of the city, then it could always be redeveloped," former Mayor Dennis Archer said last week. "But in the meantime you could have great pocket parks, you could have children understanding how to raise a garden, harvest a fruit, vegetables. Those are invaluable things. I think it has a lot of merit."

An interesting comment was from a group that seemed like a perfect ally to the idea. The group Greening of Detroit was a major informative group in our SDAT process, but the following quote leaves me a bit perplexed: "Ashley Atkinson, director of project development in urban agriculture at the nonprofit Greening of Detroit, supports small family and neighborhood plots of no larger than 3 acres. But she says that commercial farming would exploit Detroiters and their land. Instead, she supports widespread use of open spaces for recreation, hobby gardens and other uses."

It's curious - although I don't want to neglect this viewpoint - the idea that commercial farming would exploit Detroiters and their land is just plain silly. The way to make the endeavor viable and profitable is not 3 acre plots... period. These work for self-sufficent homestead gardens, but not agriculture - and would dissipate the productivity of the land in ways that minimize the overall impact. We're not talking agribusiness, but cooperative and hands-on farming on a scale of 1000+ acres that provides an economy of scale to make it viable economically and provide resilience - without exploitation. It's also clear that residents don't want hobby gardens, recreation, and other uses - because there isn't the economics to maintain them to be safe and workable... I agree that the entire 80 sq.miles is not going to be farmed - the key is a It's a new model, and my only thought is that it would perhaps take away some of the great work that Greening of Detroit is doing - which is flatly not the case. They, and other successful groups in Detroit, are the pioneers that can take the reins and lead the way in making the urban agriculture/productive landscape approach work.

Another part of the article that I was really interested in, was the juxtaposed map of land areas of Boston (49 sq.mi.), Manhattan (23 sq.mi.), and San Francisco (47 sq.mi.) laid neatly within the 139 square mile footprint of the City of Detroit. Prepared by Dan Pitera, a professor of architecture at University of Detroit Mercy and one of the more involved local participants, this really shows an indication of the immensity of the problem.

:: image via Detroit Free Press

Looking at the graphic is staggering. It's one of those simple ways to show a relationship that would make Edward Tufte proud - simple, concise, and totally provocative. It got me thinking about Portland, for instance... and I was literally floored with the information I found that the City of Portland occupied 134 square miles (almost equal to Detroit) and had even less population and density. I was dumbfounded - as you could probably to a same graphic for Portland (and believe me, I will!) - it will blow people away...

The article ends with the big question, and one that means that Detroit may be able to shift from being the poster boy for shrinking urbanism to the one that figured it out. "Whatever happens, clearly Detroit is evolving early in the 21st Century as a sort of blank slate. Instead of looking at shrinkage as a problem, many planners see it as an opportunity. Detroit has a chance to invent an entirely new urban model, they say. Whether it's farming or greenways or a network of thriving urban villages connected by transit lines, the solution could be uniquely Detroit's. And the likelihood is that the rest of the world, already fascinated by Detroit's urban drama, would take notice."

And finally, an amazing resource that I've been trying to track down that has been an amazing find (gotta love Interlibrary Loan...) - 'Stalking Detroit' by Jason Young (editor), Georgia Daskalakis (editor), and Charles Waldheim (editor) is chock full of prescient Landscape Urbanism theory and writings - as well as much more applied thinking that we did in our four days in Detroit.

:: image via TCAUP

From the Univ. of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning site, a quick synopsis: "Published in late 2001, the book subtly blends sixteen stand-alone features with over one hundred color photographs and duotones to bring the reader right to the center of Detroit itself. The energy of its design and in its words articulates the former power of Detroit and questions the myriad revitalization efforts to date."

:: image via TCAUP

And from the books introduction (p.10): "Detroit is the most thoroughly modern city in the world. Modern, not of course for its great works of architecture or its progressive social advancements, but modern in the sense that this city has exemplified the assumptions of enlightened modernity like no other. Among those assumptions was a tacit belief that technological advances stemming from empirical knowledge of the world could necessarily lead to social progress. From our perspective at the turn of the century, Detroit, rather than corroborating modernity's faith in progress through technology, affords an extraordinarily legible example of post-Fordist urbanism and its attendant forms of human subjectivity as shaped by the city's continuously and rapidly transforming economic, social, and operational conditions."

With writings from James Corner, Charles Waldheim, Georgia Daskalakis, Patrik Schumacher and Christian Rogner - amonst others - this tome is worthy of a further exploration once I have a chance to get through it. Now if only I had access to that before heading to Detroit.

From Mowing to Growing

Via BLDGBLOG, a competition announcement about one of the most intriguing competitions recently. This one investigates the ideas related to food and urban agriculture, the hot topic of the last year. One Prize is Organized by Terreform 1 with a subtheme: "From Mowing to Growing is not meant to transform each lawn into a garden, but to open us up to the possibilities of self-sustenance, organic growth, and perpetual change. In particular, we seek specific technical, urbanistic, and architectural strategies not simply for the food production required to feed the cities and suburbs, but the possibilities of diet, agriculture, and retrofitted facilities that could achieve that level within the constraints of the local climate."


:: image via BLDGBLOG

Perusing the One Prize website, it looks like another open-form (i.e. siteless) competition, which seems all the rage nowadays - allowing folks to envision a range of ideas around many themes... some listed in question format on the site include:

• How can we break the American love affair with the suburban lawn?
• Can green houses be incorporated in skyscrapers?
• What are the urban design strategies for food production in cities?
• Can food grow on rooftops, parking lots, building facades?
• What is required to remove foreclosure signs on lawns and convert them to gardens?

The jury is quite a collection, and should yield some interesting visions of answers for these questions. The real wonder for me is what the relevance of these visions will be in exploring new ways of thinking about food, agriculture, lawns, urban patterns, and economics in today's society. Many of these ideas have been tossed out in the past 12-18 months - so none of these are earth-shattering questions, and most (edible estates, vertical farming, urban agriculture, building-integrated agriculture, and vacant/ephemeral gardens) are based on older or simple ideas which have emerged and re-emerged and have become part of the overall dialogue.

I hope the competition entries will look beyond what we're already talking about in recent references and think, explore, expand, with the innate lack of competitional constraints, on the true nature and essence of these questions - not just with eye-popping visuals or new terms applied to the old... should be fun.

Questioning EcoMetropolitanism

Perhaps I missed the memo regarding a new found integration of 'wildness' into our cities as the 2009 topic to watch. Maybe it started with Fritz Haeg's Animal Estates - jumping to Tomorrow's Thoughts Today and the idea of City Zoo, shifting to the more expansive concept from _urb about Post Humanist Rewilded Eco Ethical Urbanism (PHREE) - and now sitting firmly in the realm of EcoMetropolitanism (or EcoMet) - from UBC Architecture profs Mari Fujita and Matthew Soules.

I got a heads up to EcoMet via the newly retooled and great-looking urbanism.org site - which often aggregates a number of interesting posts - but now does it in a way that is pleasurable to view. The site links to an article in The Tyee (from BC) 'Is Your City Boring? Make It Wild' - which outlines the concept in some detail along with commentary from Soules. Alas, I question whether it is something really groundbreaking, or another of those not new ideas that is getting the innovation treatment (or maybe both).

The idea of EcoMet involves seven key points outlined in the article. So some context (all images from The Tyee, and I've included their captions for clarity).

1. "Make EcoMAX: Measure not just simple human density but also plant and animal life and diversity."



2. "Invert the View Cone: EcoMet proposes Urban Habitat Cones, Urban Agriculture Cones, Density Release Cones, and Mixer Cones to view our newly exciting city."



3. "Intensity Use: Fujita and Soules re-imagine Vancouver's downtown tower-on-podium template to serve much richer and more varied purposes: wildlife corridors slice through the commercial space at ground level; bridges and platforms host bird habitats and micro-agriculture."



4. "Exploit Co-Existence: Don't just make a "green roof" that no one can see or feed from; design it as a source of animal food and human entertainment."



5. "Broaden Structure: EcoMet augments structure and infrastructure's extant function of supporting humans by capitalizing on their potential to service the city's expanded population."



6. "Maximize Envelope: Take the dull, predictable condo tower envelope and fold it, warp it, substract and protrude until you come up with a visually exciting and highly interactive architecture: all those new ledges and crevicess will allow plant and animal integration."



7. "Ecologize the Interior: Soules and Fujita suggest mainstreaming Vancouver's time-tested "interior agriculture" (a.k.a. grow-ops) into new crops--say, hydroponically-grown tomatoes-- that not only provide a source of fresh local food but could also generate a colourful "living wallaper" and other aesthetic qualities for the inhabitants."



All of these things sound great... and I'm 100% on board. I'm just asking the question: Is something amazingly inventive, or just a new name for many of the same things that designers, planners, and the like have been working with and integrating over many years, neatly packaged in (a weak, perhaps due to the eco-) new name, to provide a competing viewpoint to Vancouver's existing dialogue on EcoDensity - which has been devoid of many of these tenets? If so, that's great, and necessary. But there's little reference to some of the precendents that are drawn on HEAVILY in constructing this manifesto - and there's nary a word about some of the origins - many of which have been around for a while, and also similarly genericizes the concepts in manifesto form.

Some more info from the article: "EcoMet espouses a more interconnected, animated, multi-use and motley-crittered urban landscape. Specifically, it proposes a re-think of the modern city as a true ecological system, its human inhabitants balanced with plant and animal populations in a kind of sustainable symbiosis."

So the ideas of urban habitat, redefinition of public/private space delineation, proximity to urban nature, urban agriculture in public spaces and indoors for subsistence - and many other tenets they discuss are . Is the success in the integration and packaging? More from the article: "But what the Soules/Fujita team has done is conflate all these discrete sectors -- urban agriculture, animal habitat, vibrant entertainment -- into one unified field theory, literally shaped and effected by this broad new architectural paradigm. Architecture -- often the window-dressing final step in so many urban schemes -- is in this case the first step, what makes everything else possible."

There are also some major issues to address (which are brought up in the article) - the first being integration of urban habitat - particularly what is the line we as society will draw in cohabitation with urban wildlife - specifically in human/animal conflicts that have increased exponentially as we've destroyed habitat through sprawl and displacement of existing habitat. While nature in the city is laudable, we're not talking about significant habitat areas for large mammal species - and many potential issues with pest species. This is just one of the myriad challenges that would need to be addressed in the future phases. Again, a snippet from the article: "A fantastical scheme like EcoMetropolis will require not only an ace team of architects and planners, but also the experts in botany, wildlife, economics and pretty much every other professional domain you can think of."

So there's some very good ideas combined into a manifesto and visuals - that indeed need a lot of fleshing out and expertise to realize. Sounds like a litany of many other utopias or visionary proposals - many of which sputter, but all of which enlight our imagination and give us a glimpse of a better future. Again, it's our fascination with the next new things that keeps us interested - even if it's sprucing up the old and giving it a shiny new name. Not that it's a bad thing... and the repeated reinforcement of the vision is the point. "For now, such churlish reality-checks aren't the point. The issue is to paradigm-shift our collective attitudes away from the glass-tower-on-plinth-surrounded-by-green formula. ... "There's a very limited imagination of what architecture can be in the city," says Fujita. "But we live on the west coast, man! Nature is urban. Nature is eco-metropolitan. And it's our job to cultivate vibrant communities."

Agro-Urban Resources

A recurring theme for sure... both on the web and media at large and within the confines of Landscape+Urbanism, urban agriculture has received short shrift lately (here) due to other ideas and concepts on the front burner. I have recently been delving through my new copy of CPULs (Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes) and will be posting some ideas from that soon (it's a pretty dense book, but worth tackling). In the interim, some interesting urban-related agricultural ideas and resources that have been accumulating during the fallow season.

There has been a lot of talk about Michael Pollan's article 'Farmer in Chief' in the New York Times, which is a good (and comprehensive) read for some global politics of food policies. The urging of Pollan to address food policy on multiple levels bodes well for all of us pushing for more integrated food policies and proactively planning for peak oil impacts. A while bigger government may not be the answer - the White House as a visible model for urban ag would mean a lot to both our motivation and our perception in the world. More change you can believe in?

:: image via Urbanity Sanity

As Pollan mentions: "Since enhancing the prestige of farming as an occupation is critical to developing the sun-based regional agriculture we need, the White House should appoint, in addition to a White House chef, a White House farmer. This new post would be charged with implementing what could turn out to be your most symbolically resonant step in building a new American food culture. And that is this: tear out five prime south-facing acres of the White House lawn and plant in their place an organic fruit and vegetable garden."


:: ...and we can do it for peanuts - image via New York Times

I've mentioned City Farmer News as a great resource, and Urbanity Sanity is a another spot for good urban agriculture thinking. From the site, a simple message: "Urban agriculture is not a fad, not a hipster activity or pastoral landscaping. It is a means to create local agronomic systems, address food insecurity and access in low-income communities and respond to global climate and food changes."

A recent post led to City Slicker Farms which "...increases food self-sufficiency in West Oakland by creating organic, sustainable, high-yield urban farms and back-yard gardens... Our farms and gardens demonstrate the viability of a local food-production system, serve as community spaces, empower children and adults who want to learn about the connections between ecology, farming and the urban environment, and give West Oakland residents tools for self-reliance."


:: images via City Slicker Farms

See also: Silver Lake Farms (Los Angeles); and an interesting article about a proposal in Cincinnati to push for more urban farms using unused lands. One amazing resource gleaned off Urbanity Sanity is this study from 2002 with the amazing long title: Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States:Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe, a very dense report on, well - the name says it all...


:: Urban Vineyard in Switzerland - image via City Farmer News

The report is produced by the Community Food Security Coalition, a Portland-based ground that is: "...dedicated to building strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems that ensure access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food for all people at all times. We seek to develop self-reliance among all communities in obtaining their food and to create a system of growing, manufacturing, processing, making available, and selling food that is regionally based and grounded in the principles of justice, democracy, and sustainability."

Another great resource (again via Urbanity Sanity) is a blog called Civil Eats... with some heady dialogue of a wide-range of food topics... case in point, this great post on The Next Generation of Farmers... 90% of why I grow food and work in landscape architecture is from a childhood of being outdoors and working in the land... how can we pry a new generation back into nature and growing food, and away from the Xbox?


:: image via Civil Eats

A mark of a paradigm shift is definitely some formalization of concepts... making the sub-culture or agri-cultural more aligned with mainstream culture. Urban ag taught in universities is a start. Another such idea is a school of urban farming. The Vancouver Sun recently had an article about one such program in British Columbia - a first in North America. "Instruction would be based on intensive farming on small plots, a heavy dependence on physical labour, ecological sustainability and meeting local market demands, including the food needs of ethnic and immigrant communities. ... the program would require about two hectares of land to start, and could partner with the Richmond Fruit Tree Sharing Project, which already has a presence at the proposed city sites and is growing food for local food banks."


:: image via City Farmer

And finally, because my girlfriend and I are finally diving into the phenomenon of urban chickens... a few resources out there on the topic - all fun. A good resource for starting out is The City Chicken, which summarizes a bunch of info, as well as local regulations for keeping chickens... FYI: "Portland, OR. Three hens allowed without a permit. No roosters. Permit for more costs $31. Keep 25ft. from residences."

:: image via LA Times

And what would an urban phenomenon be without a good design problem. Next task, the coop. Many factors to decide, least of which is the design ( A local event is the Tour de Coops (see the Portland Chickens site on Growing Gardens for more) - which offers a glimpse into the options of coop design in Portland.

:: image via Portland Chickens

So what to decide...? modern, mid-century, blobitecture, or interactive... (maybe veg.itectural?) the eco-coop, if you will.

:: image via Dwell

Then, we just need to find out what to do with an endless supply of eggs... I can't wait!

:: image via The City Chicken

Vertical Agriculture (Back to Earth)

Digging through the archives based on the last couple of posts, I was definitely struck by the myriad shapes and sizes that these vertical farming proposals take and the overall excitement that has grown in a short amount of time. This caused me to want to dissect them a bit further in terms of form and function for growing food in efficient ways. First a bit of background from the 'invention' of vertical farming on this video featuring Dr. Dickson Despommier.



Discounting for a second those proposals that incorporate indoor hydroponics using artificial light - the idea of growing in buildings using sunlight is the focus (some info about the indoor varieties) of many other projects out there. A few additional proposals worth noting - just to include them in the overall catalogue (as previously mentioned, the best assortment of ideas in this genre is found at the Vertical Farms site - under the auspices of Despommier - which has been interviewed multiple times (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to name but a few) - call him the mother of this particular invention.

These proposals include this one from last year which got a lot of attention, Harvest Green by Romses Architects, featuring vertically integrated food production.


:: image via Treehugger

Via Treehugger: "The concept of 'harvest' is explored in the project through the vertical farming of vegetables, herbs, fruits, fish, egg laying chickens, and a boutique goat and sheep dairy facility. In addition, renewable energy will be harvested via green building design elements harnessing geothermal, wind and solar power. The buildings have photovoltaic glazing and incorporate small and large-scale wind turbines to turn the structure into solar and wind-farm infrastructure. In addition, vertical farming potentially adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals. Furthermore, a large rainwater cistern terminates the top of the 'harvest tower' providing on-site irrigation for the numerous indoor and outdoor crops and roof gardens."



:: images via Treehugger

Another smaller scale example from Romses Architecture features the idea integrated into a eco-community. From Arch Daily: "“Harvest Green Project-02′ as a part of Vancouver ‘The 2030 Challenge’. Harvest Green Project is rooted in a concept that challenges the status quo of how energy and food is produced, delivered and sustained in our city, neighbourhoods, and individual single-family homes. Taking cues from the citys eco-density charter, and in particular, it’s new laneway housing initiatives, the Harvest Green Project proposes to overlay a new ‘green energy and food web’ across the numerous residential neighborhoods and laneways within the city as these communities address future increased densification. The city’s laneways will be transformed into green energy and food conduits, or ‘green streets’, where energy and food is ‘harvested’ via proposed micro laneway live-work homes."




:: images via Arch Daily

Some others you've probably seen over the years:

Vertical Farm by Mithun
"Architects at Mithun, a Seattle architectural firm, proposed a small-scale vertical farm design for a Center for Urban Agriculture in downtown Seattle. The design won an award in the Living Building Challenge of the Cascadia Region's chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council in 2007."


:: image via NY Times

Food Pyramid (Eric Ellingsen & Dickson Despommier)


:: image via NY Times

Atelier SOA Vertical Farm
Via NY Times: "A vertical farm has to be adapted for a specific place," said Augustin Rosenstiehl of Atelier SOA Architects in Paris, whose firm has created renderings of the crop-filled skyscrapers."


:: image via NY Times

Another version from Atelier SOA - with a woven ribbon of gardens throughout the slick black facade.


:: image via NY Times

Gordon Graff's Skyfarm for Toronto
Via Inhabitat: "Instead of soil, Skyfarm’s plants float on trays of nutrient-rich water, growing hydroponically over 59 stories stacked half a dozen storeys deep. Farmed within a controlled environment, crops will no longer be subject to the vagaries of climate, infestation, or disease and the dense hydroponic agriculture can guarantee considerable yields. With the potential to operate year round, one indoor acre has been estimated to be able to yield the equivalent of between four and six outdoor acres, or enough food for 50,000 people a year. With the installation of several Skyfarms in the neighborhoods of especially large cities, the prospect to dramatically transform local food production is there."




:: images via Inhabitat

“The Living Skyscraper: Farming the Urban Skyline” by Blake Kurasek




:: images via Urban Greenery

Urban Agriculture: Hybridized Farm Bridge as City Garden - Kenny Kinugasa-Tsui & Lorene Faure


:: image via Bustler

A more technical proposal, I covered this previously, but the breakdown of the elements of a vertical farm as imagined in NY Magazine - which shows the interrelated elements of a possible project - complete with robots to maintain them on a 24-hours a day basis.


:: image via NY Mag

I think the much more exciting news is the implementation of large-scale rooftop farms (more on this soon) - which seem to be analoguous to terrestrial farming. As other bloggers may have noticed, any post related to urban agriculture and vertical farming will inevitably lead to a comment by Charlie - there's been a few, who undoubtedly is paid to plug Valcent whenever the opportunity arises. The message is simple and sweet: "“I can’t think of any technology that addresses more urgent issues than Valcent’s vertical farming system”, says Robert F Kennedy Jr. http://bit.ly/cPb00g; Reuters Video features Valcent’s VertiCrop vertical farming system: http://bit.ly/a9p47W" Not that I'm wholesale against this form of promotion, but 1) is shameless promotion, and 2) it's not applicable to the content that was posted. Regardless - there will be more of this as companies fight for market share and prominence in this fledgling territory.


:: image via Inside Urban Green

Finally, as I mentioned there's some interesting (and necessary) debate happening, which is worth a read as the pendulum of vertical farming swings back to reality. There's the debate on Treehugger"Vertical Farms, a Tower of B.S." about high-rise farming. Also of note is this recent article in Fast Company entitled which references a story on EcoGeek with some cautionary lessons entitled: "Let's Make This Clear: Vertical Farms Don't Make Sense ".

The vertical farming movement isn't useless by any stretch - but it's important to realize that these proposals - although provocative, aren't the only answer to our issues of feeding people in ever growing urban areas. The discussion is good, although interesting that - not as a mode of discounting the concept - but of placing it in it's proper context around the viability of growing food in cities - and by most importantly making it a catalytic movement in inspiring actual small-scale solutions that will actually work.

Urban Ag: The Buzz

If it's not landscaping on buildings or ecologically planning communities around the globe, it must be the buzz-concept of Urban Agriculture - and it's had a lot of press lately. A lot of press. And deservedly so - as the new face(s) of agriculture seem to be collecting into teeming masses with some traction towards big changes. Rather than focus on the new press, let's starting with an art/ag piece from a few years ago, 'Not a Cornfield' by Los Angeles based artist Lauren Bon.




:: image via Not a Cornfield

"Not A Cornfield is a living sculpture in the form of a field of corn. The corn itself, a powerful icon for millennia over large parts of Central America and beyond, can serve as a potent metaphor for those of us living in this unique megalopolis. This work follows a rich legacy of radical art during the 20th century on a grand scale. I intend this to be an event that aims at giving focus for reflection and action in a city unclear about where it's energetic and historical center is. With this project I have undertaken to clean 32 acres of brownfield and bring in more than 1,500 truck loads of earth from elsewhere in order to prepare this rocky and mixed terrain for the planting of a million seeds. This art piece redeems a lost fertile ground, transforming what was left from the industrial era into a renewed space for the public. ... By bringing attention to this site throughout the Not A Cornfield process we will also bring forth many questions about the nature of urban public space, about historical parks in a city so young and yet so diverse. About the questions of whose history would a historical park in the city center actually describe, and about the politics of land use and it's incumbent inequities. Indeed, "Not A Cornfield" is about these very questions, polemics, arguments and discoveries. It is about redemption and hope. It is about the fallibility of words to create productive change. Artists need to create on the same scale that society has the capacity to destroy.”

These ephemeral installations are great opportunities to both occupy blighted lands as well as the ability to reconnect residents to their agricultural pasts. A Portland project endeavoring to identify urban agriculture opportunities is the Diggable City, which identified available lands within the city for production. As I have mentioned previously, the opportunities to occupy available lands in urban areas for agriculture (on land, rooftop, and perhaps even facade) is a great multi-functional chance to provide self-sufficiency and interpretation.

As far as buzz goes, the terminology zipping around the, for lack of a better pun, crop circles - includes a number of new members of the agri-lexicon. One of my favorites is locavore, and a variant, the "100-mile diet" were recently profiled on Treehugger in a great post: "Green Basics: Local Food"


:: image via Treehugger

The post is worth a close read, and also has links to a number of local food resources. While we often use these terms, it's good to re-evaluate the ecological values embodied in the concept. The article adds: "The concept is also defined in terms of ecology, where food production is considered from the perspective of a basic ecological unit defined by its climate, soil, watershed, species and local agrisystems; everything together is defined as as "ecoregion" or "foodshed."

Ah, a couple of other terms, one that is getting much use is "foodshed". A new term, right? Well, not exactly. Adapted from the ecological concept of watershed, the term was coined in 1929 to: "...describe the flow of food from the area where it is grown into the place where it is consumed." (via Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project). The exact radius varies for the distance of acceptable food miles traveled, but just for kicks, strike a 100 mile circle around your house, and consume from just this area. Now do this in Houston - or Phoenix - or Fargo. It is possible, but not necessarily easy.


:: image via Treehugger

Another term that was pointed out to me in a comment to previous post involving the significant carbon sequestration potential in soils. The latest term picked up recently by Treehugger, involves biochar (aka agrichar, terra preta) not just for Simply put it is: "...what you get when biomass is heated in the absence of oxygen through a process called pyrolysis. When incorporated into soil, biochar provides the structural habitat needed for a rich community of micro-organisms to take hold. Incorporating biochar into soil can also act as a way to sequester carbon."

What's the big deal? Again, multi-functional solutions. (via Treehugger): "Biochar is a classic win-win scenario, a solution that can provide us with a valuable tool for fighting climate change, world hunger, poverty, and energy shortages all at the same time." A number of new initiatives are capitalizing on the phenomenon, including the International Biochar Initiative and the Biochar Fund, both with some great additional resources.

:: image via Biochar Fund

Finally, let's marry a couple of buzz-concepts - urban agriculture and vertical greening. A different scale than some of the featured rooftop ag gardens, this project preceded a multi-part post on My Urban Garden Deco Guide and the companion site 'My Urban Farm' as blogger Anne Robert bemoans the lack of aesthetics in the new wave of planters focussed around Grow Your Own veggies as new urban trend. One exception is a previous post on 'Salad Bar' which provides a new vision for facade-grown veggies in a more refined container.

:: image via My Urban Garden Deco Guide

:: image via Turf Design

Now that is tasty!

Vertical Farming: In Depth

I have a fascination with Urban Agriculture, more recently so due to the strategies that are being considered for implementation that either maximizes production per land acre, or maximizes the amount of acres used in the City for ephemeral or permanent farm operations. A recent post by WebUrbanist, '5 Urban Design Proposals for 3D City Farms: Sustainable, Ecological and Agricultural Skyscrapers' had some interesting prototypes summarized as well - which will undoubtedly show up later in L+U in greater detail, building upon a number of previous posts on rooftop/building urban ag models.

On a related note - have you ever run across a couple a stories that provide such depth and understanding of a subject that you pretty much have to share it with everyone, practically verbatim? Here's a great example, an article in New York Magazine entitled 'Skyfarming: Turning Skyscrapers Into Crop Farms' is one of those pieces that seems to be almost a primer on the subject. I myself had some questions prior to going in - the following is a step-by-step guide to some of the essential components that managed to answer all of my questions (almost!).

Either way, it's a good story and good storytelling - even if a bit much. All quotes and images via the article, authored by Lisa Chamberlain with graphics support via: Architectural Designs by Rolf Mohr, Modeling and Rendering by Machine Films; Interiors by James Nelms ­Digital Artist @ Storyboards Online.



The article focuses on the work of Dr. Dickson Despommier: "...a professor of environmental sciences and microbiology at Columbia University, who believes that “vertical farm” skyscrapers could help fight global warming... Imagine a cluster of 30-story towers on Governors Island or in Hudson Yards producing fruit, vegetables, and grains while also generating clean energy and purifying wastewater. Roughly 150 such buildings, Despommier estimates, could feed the entire city of New York for a year. Using current green building systems, a vertical farm could be self-sustaining and even produce a net output of clean water and energy."

The Basics
(well as basic as possible...)



1. The Solar Panel Most of the vertical farm’s energy is supplied by the pellet power system (see over). This solar panel rotates to follow the sun and would drive the interior cooling system, which is used most when the sun’s heat is greatest.

2. The Wind Spire: An alternative (or a complement) to solar power, conceived by an engineering professor at Cleveland State University. Conventional windmills are too large for cities; the wind spire uses small blades to turn air upward, like a screw.

3. The Glass Panels: A clear coating of titanium oxide collects pollutants and prevents rain from beading; the rain slides down the glass, maximizing light and cleaning the pollutants. Troughs collect runoff for filtration.

4. The Control Room: The vertical-farm environment is regulated from here, allowing for year-round, 24-hour crop cultivation.

5. The Architecture: Inspired by the Capitol Records building in Hollywood. Circular design uses space most efficiently and allows maximum light into the center. Modular floors stack like poker chips for flexibility.

6. The Crops: The vertical farm could grow fruits, vegetables, grains, and even fish, poultry, and pigs. Enough, Despommier estimates, to feed 50,000 people annually.

Further Detail
Aside from the massing and program elements - there are ample opportunities for high tech innovation as well in the vertical farm - including power generation and on-site sewage treament. Some detail on this system:



1. The Evapotranspiration Recovery System: Nestled inside the ceiling of each floor, its pipes collect moisture, which can be bottled and sold.

2. The Pipes: Work much like a cold bottle of Coke that “sweats” on a hot day: Super-cool fluid attracts plant water vapors, which are then collected as they drip off (similar systems are in use on a small scale). Despommier estimates that one vertical farm could capture 60 million gallons of water a year.

3. Black-Water Treatment System: Wastewater taken from the city’s sewage system is treated through a series of filters, then sterilized, yielding gray water—which is not drinkable but can be used for irrigation. (Currently, the city throws 1.4 billion gallons of treated wastewater into the rivers each day.) The Solaire building in Battery Park City already uses a system like this.



4. The Crop Picker: Monitors fruits and vegetables with an electronic eye. Current technology, called a Reflectometer, uses color detection to test ripeness.

5. The Field: Maximization of space is critical, so in this rendering there are two layers of crops (and some hanging tomatoes). If small crops are planted, there might be up to ten layers per floor.

6. The Pool: Runoff from irrigation is collected here and piped to a filtration system.

7. The Feeder: Like an ink-jet printer, this dual-purpose mechanism directs programmed amounts of water and light to individual crops.

8. The Pellet Power System: Another source of power for the vertical farm, it turns nonedible plant matter (like corn husks, for example) into fuel. Could also process waste from New York’s 18,000 restaurants.

9 to 11. The Pellets: Plant waste is processed into powder (9), then condensed into clean-burning fuel pellets (10), which become steam power (11). At least 60 pellet mills in North America already produce more than 600,000 tons of fuel annually, and a 3,400-square-foot house in Idaho uses pellets to generate its own electricity.

So... the question is not whether we can do this. I have the utter faith in our ability to make anything work technologically. The bigger issue should be: Is this the best way to build, grow, and feed ourselves? I understand the utopian vision of wanting to explore these visions, but a big question - is this sustainable? While defining the concept is difficult, there are certain limitations with technological solutions to things that i fear is that the human element of food production get's lost in the search for more production on less land.

Some rationale the article: "Why build vertical farms in cities? Growing crops in a controlled environment has benefits: no animals to transfer disease through untreated waste; no massive crop failures as a result of weather-related disasters; less likelihood of genetically modified “rogue” strains entering the “natural” plant world. All food could be grown organically, without herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers, eliminating agricultural runoff. And 80 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2050. Cities already have the density and infrastructure needed to support vertical farms, and super-green skyscrapers could supply not just food but energy, creating a truly self-sustaining environment."

While maximizing production to available acres is good - and reducing food miles by producing (in a sustainable way) food as close to the consumer as possible - we provide a good basis for fundamental sustainability. I applaud and understand this idea - but there are a few issues missing from the discussion.

One: decentralization of food supplies offers us flexibility in dealing with potential problems associated with local conditions. I don't mean growing all of our food in one spot - but concentrating production to a small set of buildings makes them susceptible to failure and blight on a grand scale.

Two: the automation of the facility loses one of the essential components of agriculture - job creation and economic stability for rural regions. Instead of concentrating farming in small scale operations with few humans, maybe we can efficiently manage production using more eyes and hands on the product... leading to better management of soils, water and other resources.

Three: Elimination of agricultural lands as both a cultural and ecological system - and missing the benefits of both of these contributions to human beings and nature. Industrial agriculture has tainted what used to be both a noble and beneficial profession that had a strong land ethic, shaped our landscape with 'amber waves of grain' and provided a place and purpose for many people worldwide.

The concentration and use of buildings and new forms of agriculture will be a necessary component to our overall food production system - but these should never be seen as the panacea for sustainable agriculture. Changing from more local production, in a variety of means, done in a sustainable manner - is the real key to a truly sustainable agriculture. In dense areas where there are certain limitations to growth of adequate food supplies, supplementing production with vertical farming makes sense. In others, it just becomes a knee jerk and grandiose reaction to a system that is fatally flawed and inherently unsustainable (agribusiness). If we really look around and are smart about it, we can supply all of the needs of our residents with available lands, rooftops, and occasionally building - but it will really take a paradigm shift in how we both produce, transport, consume - and more vitally, think about our daily meals.