Taking Farming To The Skies

[Dover]

Taking farming to the skies


This drawing by Kubala Washatko Architects Inc. shows a five-story farm that Growing Power is considering building at its existing 2-acre property on W. Silver Spring Drive. Led by Will Allen, the nonprofit is close to launching a $7 million to $10 million fund-raising campaign for the project.

Milwaukee’s proposed 5 story urban farm

By Karen Herzog
the Journal Sentinel
April 29, 2010

Excerpts:

Now all Allen and Growing Power’s board of directors must do is find $7 million to $10 million to build the farm that Allen has been envisioning for nearly two decades to take his nonprofit enterprise to the next level.

Backers say the futuristic urban farm designed to intensively produce vegetables and fish could become an icon for Milwaukee, and a model for cities around the world to grow affordable, healthful food close to consumers. It also could create a whole new industry with thousands of jobs for urban farmers and those who design and build city farms around the world, Allen said Thursday.


The vertical farm – dramatic in shape and with an expansive, sloped glass front to absorb natural light – would be built at Growing Power’s existing 2-acre farm at 5500 W. Silver Spring Drive through local and federal donations and grants. A half-dozen existing greenhouses would be preserved as historic structures.

It would have 23,000 square feet for classrooms, a demonstration kitchen, offices, staff locker room, retail store, food processing, loading dock and freezers. An additional 15,000 square feet of sloped area, facing Silver Spring Drive, would be devoted to growing vegetables and fish. Fish tanks for perch and tilapia would be trenched into the ground. The building would have a rooftop solar panel, would capture rainwater to be recycled for watering plants, and would transfer heat from the building top to a thermal mass underneath to store for future use...cont'd


http://www.cityfarmer.info/2010/04/30/taking-farming-to-the-skies/

--
TIME Magazine Names Proponent of Vertical Farms a Hero
04/30/2010
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Apr. 30--It's hard to imagine a five-story farm in the middle of a city, but if Milwaukee urban farmer Will Allen is behind the idea, anything's possible.

After all, Allen is a world hero, according to an issue of Time magazine that hits newsstands Friday. He's among 100 individuals and small groups picked by Time editors for the annual "Time 100: The World's Most Influential People," which honors ideas, innovations and actions that are "shaping our world."

Allen already has been dubbed a genius by the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation, which awarded him a $500,000 "genius grant" in 2008.

Now all Allen and Growing Power's board of directors must do is find $7 million to $10 million to build the farm that Allen has been envisioning for nearly two decades to take his nonprofit enterprise to the next level.

Backers say the futuristic urban farm designed to intensively produce vegetables and fish could become an icon for Milwaukee, and a model for cities around the world to grow affordable, healthful food close to consumers. It also could create a whole new industry with thousands of jobs for urban farmers and those who design and build city farms around the world, Allen said Thursday.

"It's something a bit counterintuitive with the economy going south, but we've come to the conclusion that Growing Power is going north," Jerry Kaufman, board president for Growing Power and a professor emeritus of urban planning, said Thursday. "There aren't too many Will Allens around, and so far we haven't developed the science to clone him.

"I see the decade of 2010 as potentially explosive for what Will calls, 'The Good Food Revolution.'"
http://archrecord.construction.com/yb/ar/article.aspx?story_id=144370292

--

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Great idea. Hope it spreads.

[Oregone]

2. Because what value is there in sustainable farming if it doesn't require a rise in production

Gug. Bulldoze the fuckn golf courses first.

Eh. Whatever. Maybe this Luddite just doesn't fuckn get it.

Well, I don't think this will fly unless they encase it in shiny LED lights that remind every one how fantastic our brave new world really is.

[zeemike]

3. 7-10 million...you could probably buy a drone or missile for that

but just a small one.
And this would give life for many years instead of destroy it....it is a bargain.

[The Croquist]

4. Does anyone really think this is practical?

For $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 they will create about 1/3 of an acre (15,000 sq ft) of growing space. I just found 35 acres in Wisconsin for $3,500 per acre of which 17.8 acres is already being farmed.

Maybe the "5 story urban farm" will be more efficient and transportation cost will be lower but in effect you are paying 6000 times as much per acre (or sq ft) of farm land.

Furthermore, How many jobs are going to be created to handle a 1/3 of an acre of farm land? Sure the "23,000 square feet for classrooms, a demonstration kitchen, offices, staff locker room, retail store, food processing, loading dock and freezers" is nice but is it really worth it?

The Milwaukee school district is meeting tonight to look at next years budget. They are talking about cutting 260 teacher, 420 other positions. Do you really think that this should be a priority?

[Ready4Change]

5. While a cool project, I tend to agree.

How long will it take to recover the investment? How many harvests to earn 10 million dollars? I suppose in a more northern clime you might get an additional winter harvest you wouldn't otherwise get, but is that really enough?

[The Croquist]

6. Wisconsin Agriculture Statistics

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_WI.pdf

Corn is the number 1 crop grown in Wisconsin and yields 153 bushels per acre at 3.70 per bushel. With a third of an acre they will gross $566.10 per year (before expenses of course). At that rate it will take about 17,665 years to earn back the ten million. If the cost of corn goes up however they may be able to do it in just 10,000 years or so.

[Kolesar]

7. In Cleveland, we combine urban residential lots and create produce farms

There is one that occupies about six blocks on the east side of downtown Cleveland.

[The Croquist]

11. Interesting

A lot of cities have vacant areas and there's no reason to not use it. A few questions:

Who works them?
Are they kind of a "rental" garden or are they operated as a business?
Was the land ever developed? If so, I wonder if anyone checked for soil contamination.
Is the land charged a lower tax rate or is it treated as regular property? Since nobody lives on it, it doesn't use too much in public services.

I can't remember the name of the program but I have 22 acres in Georgia that I promised not to develop for 10 years in exchange for lower taxes.

[kristopher]

8. That is an inappropriate, inane, and meaningless application of information

This is a demonstration and education project on farming, not a farm designed to turn a profit. Vertical farming in cities has a lot going for it, including a significant reduction in carbon emissions.

Your ridicule show that you simply haven't a clue about the challenges we are facing in this world.

[The Croquist]

9. Say what?

Spending 7 to 10 million dollars for a third of an acre while laying off hundreds of teachers is supposed to provide education on farming? About the best we could hope for would be to show the importance of thinking about something before spending money on it. Further, how much CO2 reduction do you expect to get out of a third of an acre? My croquet course alone is bigger then that and when I bought it in 1986 it came with a house, a pool, a shed, a garage another acre of land and cost about 1 percent of what they are talking about spending.

It doesn't matter where you absorb CO2. It doesn't have to be in a city. The wind will mix the atmosphere for us. That's why they measure CO2 on top of Mauna Loa and not in downtown Milwaukee.

You want to reduce CO2? Try buying some of the Amazon forest. You can buy it here.

http://www.staro.org/index.php?id=faq039s

An acre of the amazon costs $98.19 (65 pounds). For 7 million dollars you can buy 71,289 acres or 111 square miles. What do you think will absorb more CO2, a third of an acre in downtown Milwaukee of 71 thousand acres in a rain forest?

[kristopher]

10. More inappropriate, inane and misapplied information,

Appealing to budgeting problems has nothing to do with your earlier idiocy about payback.

The CO2 reductions are from wide-scale implementation of the concept in urban areas, not as CO2 draw down but in avoided emissions from the farming technique and the elimination of transportation.

Poor little feller, you ain't got a clue, do you?

[The Croquist]

12. Poor little feller, you ain't got a clue, do you?

No I ain't got a clue.

I'm clueless enough to think that spending 7 - 10 million dollars for a third of an acre of farmland when you can buy it for 3,500 an acre in the same state is stupid.

I'm clueless enough to think that spending 7 - 10 million dollars for a third of an acre of farmland when you are laying off 260 teachers is stupid.

I'm clueless enough to think that spending 7 - 10 million dollars for a third of an acre of farmland that won't grow enough corn to fill a single truck won't save a significant amount of CO2.

I'm clueless enough to think that the fact that it will take 17,000 years for a return on investment is important.

I'm clueless enough to think that facts are important and that they are not an "inappropriate, inane, and meaningless application of information" just because they get in the way of something that one would like to see.

I'm clueless enough to think that spending 7 - 10 million dollars for a third of an acre of farmland because "Vertical farming in cities has a lot going for it" isn't a good enough reason nor do I see exactly why "Vertical farming in cities has a lot going for it".

I'm clueless enough to think that at $98 an acre it would be a better value to save land in the Amazon then spending 21,000,000 to 30,000,000 an acre in Milwaukee.

PS: I mentioned Milwaukee's budget problems in my first post.

[Ready4Change]

13. I can see some part of the extra expense.

Educational facilities, maybe a high level appropriate presentation hall, to impress politicos, etc. I can see those adding a fair bit to the cost of this structure. Let's say, 9 million of the 10 million cost for a city block sized building. You still have the economic necessity of raising enough income from crops to pay off that one million dollars. And do it before building maintenance issues require a rebuild of the structure.

I think there's a sunlight density fantasy going on here. You get very little gain from tiers of crops, simply because the lower tiers are shaded by the upper tiers. You are limited by the square footage of the buildings footprint. One wide tier, or 10 narrow tiers, the total available light is unchanged. Sure you seem to get a little extra from the building sides. But that extra is sunlight stolen from the building next door.

You can look at a city, in total, as a large solar collector. It has a finite solar budget, based on it's footprint. Collect it with a few tall buildings (expensive), or with many shorter buildings (more economically viable). But at some point you will have to make a choice. House people, or house farming tiers. EXPENSIVE farming tiers. Looked at that way I think we'll find that, in solar terms, the population density of most large cities is unsustainable. You'd probably need 9 of 10 buildings to be farm buildings to feed your population year round.

Look at any city on, say, Google. Now zoom way, way out. See all the surrounding farms? They effectively extend the solar collection footage of a city. There is your 9 to 1 ratio. A ratio that is required simply because sunlight is a thinly distributed resource. To make viable use of it, you need inexpensive square footage. Like that found in rural farmlands.

[kristopher]

14. ANd you think those that are involved in this are too ignorant to consider those issues?

Or are you just letting YOUR imagination create a scenario that YOU are then saying will not work.

Wouldn't a more appropriate response be based on actual knowledge of the proposals rather than conjecture?

I'm not saying your objections lack merit, only that until you know what actual proposals are being put forward you don't know if they are applicable nor how the proposal may have been constructed to deal with those and similar problem areas.

[The Croquist]

15. Excellent point kristopher!!!!

Ready4Change questions the economics about the project and your response is to toss an insult. Not that I'm surprised because that is your standard response. I've received two such insulting responses in this thread alone.

Why don't you explain to us why you think that Ready4Change and I don't get it? You say that I "ain't got a clue" and say that Ready4Change's concerns should be "based on actual knowledge of the proposals rather than conjecture" but I notice that you don't show any actual knowledge or address any of our questions except for hurling insults.
Do you really think that this project can pay for itself?
Do you think that this project will make a dent in CO2 emissions?
Do you really think that 15,000 square feet spread out over 5 tiers will get significantly more sunlight then 15,000 square feet on level ground?
Do you really think that it makes sense to spend 21 - 30 million dollars an acre when you can get one for $3,500 just a few miles outside of town?
Do you really think that spending this kind of money makes sense?
Do you really think?

[kristopher]

16. Are you really that dense?

[The Croquist]

17. You call me dense?

You want to spend 7 - 10 million dollars to create a one-third acre farm and you call me dense.

Keep digging.

[Ready4Change]

18. I'll admit I don't kow everything.

And I'm willing to be found wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

I can even start. You could make these 3 stories tall, tier the top 2 and use the bottom for living/retail/office space. If the second tier is too shaded use it for mushrooms. Make the upper most level so that it has very tall ceiling and hang vine type plants up there, creating a multi-level growing area similar to most forests. I still don't see it paying for itself. But, as I say, I'm willing to be found wrong.

I've pondered this sort of thing for a long time. I love science fiction, and without faster than light travel methods you pretty much HAVE to grow your own food to get from star system to star system (and be willing to spend generations in space to do so.) That is a case where you MUST use a solution like this. Not something to do if you have any alternatives.

[kristopher]

19. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

[bemildred]

20. 2 cents:

Given the large quantities of high-quality arable land that have been urbanized, I can see how this idea could have possiblities. Having a farm on top could help with heating and cooling costs too. And greenhouses do extend what you can grow and when. And growing things close to market has real advantages. But then, you need a stronger frame to hold the farm up. And lots of other pros and cons come to mind. Hmm ...