Tokyo is one of the most amazing places in the world.  Sure, it's not for everyone (it's got more crime, bad smells, crowds, etc), but it also has art, culture, communities, history, etc.  There is nothing Judge Dred-ish about it.  It's the density of people that makes the city so great.  Anything to encourage cities to densify without increasing poverty (American, Canadian, and Australian cities in particular) I take as a good thing.

Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca

Dagget argues that we have become aliens on our own planet. Once upon a time, he argues, humans enjoyed a mutualistic relationship with nature. In much the way that bees depend on flowers, beavers on creeks, and wolves on elk, ecosystems evolved in the presence of humans and began to depend on them, over time, to set fires, apply hunting pressure, and cultivate the soil. We were gardeners in Eden -- natives living with, and using, nature symbiotically (despite the occasional mega fauna extinction).

... "If removing wolves or some other predator does harm to an ecosystem," he continues, "if causing a species such as the red-legged frog or the tiger salamander to become extinct threatens the security of all other species, as some of us claim, then it stands to reason that removing humans who have played a more widespread, more impactive role must cause even greater problems."

One way of viewing the human species is like a disease on the face of the planet that should be corralled and minimized. The misanthropic view.

A different way of viewing the human species is that we are endowed with intelligence and the ability of foresight. We are as much a part of the planetary ecosystem as the bison, the polar bears, the cheetahs, the lichen and the beetles, and like those species, we have our role to play. We may play it wisely or we may play it destructively; the choice is ours for we are also endowed with free will.

Ped Shed Blog

The skyscraper farm looks like a neat idea to me. I don't see how this separates us from nature any more than current industrial farming practices. If anything it would bring people a little closer to the food they eat. And if it allows us to lessen the impact of cities, all the better.

How is what I wrote misanthropic?  It's not like living in Tokyo is a death sentence or anything -- quite the opposite.  And the whole point of skyfarming is to give humans a life-support mechanism that doesn't hurt the planet as much.

The question is how do we meet humanity's needs without imposing ourselves on the rest of the world unduly -- minimizing our footprint.  Seems to me that megacities would be the way to do that.

I do think the reference to "gardeners in Eden" hits at the basic distinction I think I failed to make here between "nature" and "wilderness".  The basic question is whether you think the natural role of the technological human species is to tend to the world or disrupt it.  I think it's the latter.

The other thing is that I think you will need some sort of multiplier if you want to truly close the fertilization loop.  Note the assumption that you have a skyscraper feeding 50,000 getting scraps and sewage from a lot more than that. If you really were going to feed NY, sewage, table scraps plus waste from crops fed to directly to people and animals, plus waste from the animals would not quite provide all your fertilizers. However there is a solution. You can use one third to one half of your capacity to grown nitrogen fixing grass -Alfalfa, Switchgrass or whatever. So that does bring us up to $8,000 per person in capital costs. But that is still cheaper than the farmland and equipment it takes to feed a typical American. (Farms do cost at least a few thousand per acre I believe and it takes around ten or fifteen acres to feed a typical American.)

I definitely think someone should build a test case, see if it works in practice.

But if this were to become widespread, then no it would no longer be a net energy producer. You would be converting wind and   solar energy into food  - mostly wind and  solar other than that directly reaching the building. But since you could produce light mostly in the ranges used for photosynthesis, you be converting that energy into food with better efficiency than just planting crops on the land that produces it would. By how much is another question. Organic farming can produce net energy too - especially if it is organic no-till. I would like to see a life cycle analysis to figure out how much you reduce the footprint. However even if total land is not reduced, in the face of global warming you are isolating agriculture from weather changes. You can use wind from the plains and sun from the deserts to produce food in the cities.

Actually, bringing a truly green building like this into the downtown core of many cities would be a significant connection to nature I think, and provide a nice addition to the cityscape.

This company has a neat system that works on rotating drums in which plants grow.  Apparently it works great, from what I saw when they exhibited at a local trade show.  Why not put a greenhouse on top of every apartment building with rows of these, providing fresh produce all year round?

In terms of food production, if you live in Alberta, Canada, like I do, if you stuck to a 100 mile diet you would be A LOT of cabbage and potatoes.  It snowed yesterday, FGS.  So, you need some kind of artifical growing system, but why not close to the demand center instead of trucking in from far away?  Wouldn't the energy balance from a greenhouse still be less than trucking in food from a far?

OK--this is not an entirely serious argument, since it is built around an extreme case. But shipping by rail takes about one nineth the BTUs per ton mile of shipping by truck. Even if you have do the first and last mile by truck still to get from farm to rail station and from rail station to destination, you can cut shipping fuel consumption by 80%.

I actually think farmscrapers are still a good idea. Screw net energy; we have plenty of wind power. If we can grow our food in a tiny footprint, using benign  wind electricity, that is a very worthwhile. I'm find with it for plants and fish. I'm not sure it is such a good idea to keep chickens in such conditions. We have health threats from the way we keep chickens now; I'm not sure concentrating them more is the best way to get our chicken dinners. Actually there should be post soon with more on the question of how to get food sustainably with todays technology. But that does not mean we should stop considering this sort of thing.

(1) Where do the materials for contructing these abominations come from? You might reduce that land devoted to a strawberry crop from 30 acres to 1 acre, but where does the concrete, glass, metal, and other material come from. This would definitely be a boon for the mining industry. And all of that material has to be shipped from around the globe to urban centers. Better build them while there is still fossil fuel to burn for manufacture, shipping, and construction.

(2) Recycling nutrients from sewage sludge is fine, but I'm concerned about the notion of feeding it directly into the farms that feed the people that feed the farms and so on and so on. I don't really know how to express my concern here. But isn't there the potential for accumulation of toxic material -- drugs, cleaning products, miscellaneous stuff going down the drain -- or loss of important nutrients? There seems to be an excess reliance on technology for constantly monitoring the system and the need to add or remove chemicals. I can't imagine this being organic.

(3) What about crops that depend on insect and wind pollination? Can this be done efficiently in a greenhouse? Or will the corporate owners -- who else could afford the investment -- hire guest workers to do this?

(4) It looks like a system designed for catastrophic failure. If the power fails, the water circulation fails, the air circulation fails, a fungal pest gets  into the system, an earthquake occurs, et cetera, one could lose hundreds  of acres of production in one fell swoop. I recognize that farmers are at the mercy of the elements already, but this seems even more risky.

(5) ON THE BRIGHT SIDE... the towers would be a GREAT place to grow my favorite plants -- GMOs! -- all contained in their biohazard units, unable to cross with other plants or escape into the wild. Indeed, there will be an excellent opportunity for folks like myself to engineer plants that can thrive in these structures! We'll be able to do things we would never be allowed to do now. Under such tight controls, it might even be safe to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals in plants.

Just my five cents.

DISCLAIMER: The person writing these comments is not intellectually invested in the accuracy or relevance of the material. Any criticism of the comments is welcome, but do not necessarily expect a defense of the comments. They are for your intellectual pleasure only. Do not drink alcohol or operate heavy machinery while reading this.

The researcher acknowledges that there is further study needed, but I guess the main point is that to sustain the likely inevitable population growth, we need to change food production (and many other things).  Our environmental footprints are just too large.

thoughts on your questions:

1) You'd need to do a life cycle analysis to check out how the materials for construction balance against the benefits, but I'm willing to bet that with sustainable building techniques it could be done very efficiently.  Around 20% of a building's environmental footprint is in its construction, whereas 80% is in the energy used during its lifecycle (UN - dont have the link now).  

2)Proper filtration could address all of these concerns - wastewater for agriculture is already in use.  The researcher also specifies that all production would need to be organic.

3)Not sure, but the research is detailed, so I am sure this was taken into account.

4)This seems alarmist.  Certainly many critical systems in buildings around the world have backup power.  Especially with onsite renewables, this shouldnt be a problem with proper design.

5)I'd rather avoid GMOs, but of course if that's your thing then it would be possible.  Not necessarily tied to the concept, though.

I find this kind of stuff incredibly interesting and creative...  good to discuss.

We could eat less meat, but the whole world is not going to go vegetarian.  And the system mainly produces veggies.  

I sense a conflict of values emerging if this moves forward. I visited their website to find a few details regarding how this is going to be financed... the following is from their website...

"Obtaining sufficient capital to initiate the Vertical Farm venture requires seeking a range of sources within two broad investor categories: corporate and institutional. On the corporate side, food production and processing companies and retail food outlet chains present a potential capital source because the future of Vertical Farming may very well prove to be the future of food production for humankind. As such, licensing Vertical Farm technology in a limited [LIMITED??!!] fashion creates an opportunity for forward-thinking corporations to capitalize on a technology that will not become available to the public [NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC??!!] for some years to come. The two important institutional sources of potential monies are private venture capital firms and philanthropic foundations.  In presenting the Vertical Farm Project to these respective groups, different attributes need to be emphasized or deemphasized in order to make the project as attractive as possible and maximize the probability that each group will invest.

CORPORATE INVESTORS: FOOD PRODUCERS & RETAILERS

Food producers and retailers will find vertical farming to be a cost-effective and sustainable method for producing and sourcing fresh produce, as well as an important public image and marketing mechanism for appealing to consumers. [AND CUT FAMILY FARMS OUT OF THE LOOP??!!] Vertical Farming will decrease the need for both packaging and transporting foods. Food production companies could grow raw ingredients "on-site" along with packaging and administration facilities. Companies will save money by reducing fuel costs, a rapidly increasing expense.  Money will also be saved by  having a secure and consistent source for products that traditionally vary greatly in availability and price. [NO FARMERS TO DEAL WITH??!!]

Many food production companies are already interested in developing practices which are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable . For example, in May 2002, three large food production companies (UniLever, Groupe Danone, and Nestle) launched the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform.  Seventeen other members have since joined the platform, including big names such as Dole, Kraft, CocaCola, and McDonalds.  The members are able to share costs of developing sustainable agricultural practices with other members.  The SAI supports sustainable agricultural practices which secure adequate food supplies, protect and improve the natural environment and resources, and economically viable and responsible farming systems.  [BUT AVOID HAVING TO PAY FARMERS A LARGER SHARE OF THE PROFIT??!!] These companies also plan to further develop sustainable agricultural practices by testing them through pilot projects .  The Vertical Farm venture is an ideal test project for developing a truly self-sustaining food growing process.

As the world's largest producer of fresh fruit and vegetables, Dole is a likely investor in the Vertical Farm venture.  Having generated revenues of $5.3 billion in 2004, Dole is financially capable of committing to large capital financing projects .  Dole has shown growing interest in sustainable practices, employing over 40 senior scientists to research irrigation, pest control, and organic farming.  Plus, they already source products from greenhouses such as the SABA laboratory in Sweden which produces lettuce.  Highlighting the competitive benefits of vertical farm technology is a key selling point to corporations. [IS WALMART GOING TO INVRST IN THIS??!!]  While the Vertical Farm Project aims to make the technology available to all in the future, the Entrepreneurship must capitalize on exclusivity during the startup phase. The potential to profit unchallenged from an expensive, patent-protected process or product is a viable business strategy critical to the pharmaceuticals industry, and readily adaptable to food producers. [CONTROL VIA PATENT PROCESS??!!]

The food markets can benefit from investing in the Vertical Farm venture by knowing that fresh produce will be available year-round available.  A Vertical Farm in New York City will decrease the necessity to transport out-of-season crops by growing them indoors throughout the year. [NOW WE CAN COMPLETELY DETACH OURSELVES FROM SEASONAL VARIATION??!! AND TOMATOES WILL ALWAYS TASTE AWFUL??!!] Consumers generally favor paying consistent prices on food items and easier grocery budgeting could lead to healthier eating by decreasing fast food consumption in some populations."

I'm thinking of Saturn 3.  I'm thinking of Kirk Douglas, and how he's married to Farrah Fawcette.  And how she runs around in the greenhouse and...

Uh, ok, I'll be back in about 30 minutes...

For example:

• Montreal study: http://rooftopgardens.ca/files/Making_Rooftops_Bloom_Fina ...

• Discussion of Singapore: http://www.greenroofs.com/archives/gf_nov-dec05.htm  

A survey by Ngee Ann Polytechnic students ... found that four suburban areas of northern Singapore -- about one tenth of the total built environment -- had about 212 hectares of apartment and commercial rooftops to grow fresh vegetables, using inorganic hydroponics. ...

... about 39,000 tonnes of vegetables a year could be produced from the 212 hectares [at] $2/kg - the value of produce would be ... approximately U.S. $ 23.5 million a year.

Given that the Singapore Government's objective is to displace around 20% of the annual consumption of 380,000 tonnes of fresh vegetables consumed each year with local production (currently at only 5% pa of the total), this Ngee Ann Polytechnic study is significant justification for more serious analysis of rooftop production of fresh vegetables across the whole of Singapore.

It is reduction of so-called "food miles" writ large!

My point is that, while the idea of freeing up farmland for nature has merit (see some of the previous discussions about the idea of the Buffalo Commons, etc.), in today's policy climate, any "freed up land" previously used for growing food will more likely be turned to growing fuel. Indeed, even the mere possibility of skyscraper greenhouses will have some biofuel enthusiasts I know itching to add the land thereby "freed" to their spreadsheet inventories of land potentially available for fuel farming.

These are only my personal opinions.

Corporations will be able to lower their labor costs and ensure a stable price for the raw food going into their processing plants. The final human connection to the land will be severed and it will allow corporations to consolidate control over our political processes. No one would dare protest corporate influence as it might jeopardize the availablity of food. Elimination of laws restricting corporate influence and profiteering will be justified as essential for maintaining our food supply. Anyone who wants to grow food out in the natural world will be viewed as wacky at best, but more likely as a threat to the environment and national security.

As we become more dependent on corporate-owned vertical farms, the knowledge required for growing food in a natural environment will be lost, further strengthening coroporate control. Once we are no longer able to purchase food from the farmer down the road, the corporations will be free to further reduce their costs by filling their towers with GMOs. But because it is all privately owned, citizen oversight will not be permitted -- it would be a breach of corporate or national security. We will have no idea what actually goes on in the vertical farms. We will not know whether they are functioning as expected or whether something is going wrong. If something does go wrong, our leaders in Washington will not let us know out of fear of causing panic.

Corporate excecutives, interested in maximizing profits, will start to cut costs further. Perhaps they won't bother testing for certain toxins or bacteria because there is such a low risk of anyone being hurt. Or maybe they'll cut back on routine maintenance. When someone does get hurt we we'll find out only because millions have suddenly perished from consuming the tainted produce from one of farms providing food to their district.

The entire system collapses. And we don't even have sufficient knowledge and experience to fall back on conventional agriculture in time to prevent global famine.

I prefer distributed control over something as important as food.

Why not just design and use them for growing biofuel right where it is needed? The corporations already control energy.

Oh... I get it... the corporations SAY they are going to grow food. But if energy becomes more profitable, they can just switch from growing food in their towers to growing biofuel in their towers. In fact, they can carefully balance food and fuel production to maximize their profits! BRILLIANT! Total control over every basic human need.

Consider this. The towers are a very good idea -- just go to the website for supporting documentation -- because they liberate our food supply from environmental problems. By growing food in a contained and managed environment, there is no need to worry about harsh weather, drought, insect pests (supposedly), the presence of pollinators, et cetera. Okay. Perhaps that is good, especially if there is a net reduction of our agricultural footprint.

But... what if this also pulls the rug out from under the already minimal public suppport for protecting the environment from our industrial society. Will anyone care about protecting pollinators if there is no longer of threat to our food? Will anyone care about protecting our water resources if they are not required for agriculture? Will anyone care about the loss of the Menhaden essential for ocean health if we no longer get food from the ocean? You folks can probably come up with better examples. I'm in a hurry right now.

I just wanted to put this out for discussion. I think this is what is meant when people suggest that the towers will detach people from nature. Just because urbanites will have food growing in their concrete jungles, just because they might be able to visit the farms on the weekends or fertilize them when they die, it does not mean they will actually care more about nature (whatever that might mean). They might lose their last awareness that nature is even important. They might lose their last inkling of what nature even is.

I sense that people -- in general, not the vastly more intelligent and altruistic Grist audience -- care more about the natural world when their lives depend on it.

But surely the Columbia professor's plan is well thought out.

As well it should be, given that, whatever that fine professor's department is, Columbia classicists are reduced to gnawing on plaster applied to the walls of 6 Hamilton in the 1920s for sustenance ...

What a blast from the utterly useless past.  You know the sort: "Oh, Mater, do teach me that very neat knot that you were talking about with Aunt Kate during gins and tonics yesterday evening.  I shall want to use it for our jib, tomorrow, when we round the point."  Et cetera, et cetera.

Anyway ... aesthetically, as much as I like this idea (but I still think the concept sounds spooky and murderish), it is possible that a somewhat broader footprint and a pyramidal structure might be more satisfactory.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

And lest we forget, our beloved little cousins the birds, in their confusion -- they have so much going on in those little heads of theirs -- , are constantly crashing fatally into glass towers as it is now.  Whatever we build which is high, we want to do what we can to make such unfortunate events as infrequent as possible.

My guess is, my pyramid idea might be helpful, for starters.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

If this is considered to be the future of agriculture then I'm ready to check out now.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

But, as with nearly everything else our society does, I expect there is a way that this could be done to minimize nearly all of those concerns.  Ie., it doesn't necessarily have to follow that people will wantonly trash water basins if they are no longer needed to grow food, but sigh, the sad reality is that they might/probably will.

Being an optimist, I hope that enormous threats such as climate change and freshwater depletion will spark a worldwide eco-revolution.

For me, I would rather live out my days on a small farm, growing what I can and buying the rest nearby, and reading Huxley or Orwell, laughing at how eerily similar our world now is to their stories.  

But I still worry about solutions for the other 8,999,999,999 people that are going to be around in a few decades...