Verticality
- Posted by ryan on July 14th, 2008 filed in Cities
I’ll be the first to say that the idea of vertical farms is cool. Indeed, the incorporation of green things into urban settings is something we should be doing a lot more of (green roofs for everyone!).
But I’d like to suggest that pursuing this at the expense of new urban housing is a terrible mistake. At present, hardworking households have to choose between paying a fortune for tiny apartments in places like New York and San Francisco and paying a lot less for homes in places with lower wages and bigger carbon footprints. If we want to think radically and push envelopes, then let’s talk about how to increase density in the face of rampant nimbyism. That’s the final frontier. Let’s talk about creating desirable density that appeals to a range of tastes, ages, incomes, and lifestyles. If you’re nervous about food, start by pricing carbon and encouraging vegetarianism.
We shouldn’t let faddishness trump sound policy. I understand why eating locally and organically is all the rage, but the truly progressive, truly compassionate policy choice is to increase urban density in the nation’s richest and greenest cities.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I’m all for density, especially around our already-built Metrorail and along future streetcar lines. I’m certain that our current density is too low, but I’m curious what the optimal density might be.
Has anyone done (credible) modeling along the lines of: looking at the energy and food demands as a function of density (as a first approximation, I imagine as a function of building height), then calculating how much land that would require, assuming solar/wind power and Sustainable-Organic-Local-Ethical farming, and looks at the energy required to transport the energy/food to the dense population centers, and so on.
I’m a huge fan of A Pattern Language, which suggests city-counrty fingers (#3) and a four-story limit (#21), and I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be optimal.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Well, isn’t this the definition of mixed-use? You get residential and commercial and office and entertainment AND a Hanging Garden of Babylon-style high-rise farm. Or would you just rather have a block of flats that doubles as an abbatoir? Because they tried that in Southeast and it took them forty years to replace them with offices.
Affordable housing downtown should be a priority, but there has to be something else to do downtown besides eat small plates and buy boutique vegetables. I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop for Whole Foods. People aren’t going to blow $90 for a single bag of organic food where you can’t even make two meals out of your purchase.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I don’t think vertical farms sound cool. In fact, they give me the existential heebie-jeebies. Divorcing agriculture from the land like this is just a little too close to Brave New World for me.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Perhaps if these vertical farms had a ground floor grocery store? One leel of the freshest possibly foods, grown on the 7 floors above… Your neighborhood Giant/Safeway/Whole Foods/Harris Teeter. Might that suffice to support urban density?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I tried to estimate the opportunity cost of these farms in a city like NYC a few months ago. It didn’t seem to pencil out. austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2007/05/very_very_expen.html
(forgive the plug)