Group items tagged

The new up-and-coming trend in landscape architecture? Redesigning streets and sidewalks to be more "people-friendly" by creating public spaces. This article focuses on Viva Vancouver, an organization advocating for the creation of mini-parks in urban areas and whose most recent accomplishment is transforming two parking spots into a shiny new deck with seating for 4-8 people. Portland organizations like City Repair have been into this idea of placemaking for a long time, touting the benefits of creating public spaces to facilitate gathering between strangers and to make the rough urban landscape a bit more homey. Good idea? Or is spending $18,000 to make a wood structure in a parking lot absurd?  

We all have heard the phrase "job-killing" applied to environmental regulations, and many may roll their eyes. But how exactly does one assess benefits and costs of regulations, and what sort of time/space frame will various interests allow in calculating benefits/costs? This takeoff on recent Obama decisions suggests some complexities.

This highlights the rare but occassional shrinking city. Detroits population and economic state is declining, and the city - structurally - may actually have to get smaller. This is, as the article notes, not exactly what urban planning is traditionally oriented towards. But that does not mean it will never happen. Imagine fuel prices increasing without a good alternative coming in - people will likely begin to abandon hinterlands and outskirts and suburbs for cities, and this problem will occur even without dramatic and rare economic decline. Or just the general appeal of cities. Or Stewart Brand's defused population bomb comes true, and economic decline due to aging populations strikes many more aging cities. So it is worth paying attention to, especially since it offers space, which I like to see as opportunity. You can do a lot with that - Detroit gets a lot of urban agriculture press, and some of the first urban farms did emerge from reclaimed abandoned property where buildings had been burned down for insurance money. And the size of the space emptying out might even make it functionally scalable, which has been a major problem. Empty neighborhoods that are structurally intact are also really interesting to me - that is a lot of initial capital set up that could be utilized in the future, allowing for some groups with very little amassed wealth or capital to potentially do something with it. Who knows what, but there looks to be a lot to play with here, and it could be really cool.

Sure, its a word that can mean a lot of things, but it sure looks like the US Army is taking a more situated approach to their tactics in the coming years. They're combining many means of approaching an area or situation (special ops, disaster relief, conventional combat, etc...) and combining teams to focus on regional areas (they'll receive language training, cultural training, and even equipment specific for regions where they can develop expertise). Even their training has the "mixed up" look of situated studies: "The training will focus on what the military calls 'hybrid' scenarios, in which a single battle space may require the entire continuum of military activity from support to civil authorities to training local security forces to counterinsurgency to counterterrorism raids to heavy combat." It isn't exactly academia, but I see some similarities...

Light pollution? As in real pollution? Interestingly, this article was sent in a weekly email from the Environmental Protection Agency, which means they actually take this as a legitimate environmental concern.

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

The ramifications for biology and ecology of life on other planets is neat - a science until now fundamentally based in one overarching context finding a whole new one? That's crazy. But the question I always hear from folks concerned about environmental issues when something like this pops into the conversation is "shouldn't we figure out how not to destroy our own planet before we start looking into moving onto others?" And so, technologically unfeasible tasks aside, presuming we could do this, I'm curious as to whether or not others think we should. Should we?

Grasshopper, anyone? This article expands upon a notion I have heard about several times before, but haven't considered its possibilities on large-scale. Many countries, such as Japan and Mexico, are already comfortable with bug consumption. It has proven to be extremely nutritious in amino acids and protein. It is also very efficient space-wise, as discovered in Japan. No matter the practicality of bugs in curbing global warming, the consumers must be willing to eat them. In American culture, bugs are perceived as dirty and disease-ridden. What would it take to reshape citizens' attitude around bugs to allow this expansion?