5 ms·

Urban farming is one of those things that "feels" good, but doesn't make any economic sense. Why would you move farms, which are currently on the cheapest land

Urban farming is one of those things that "feels" good, but doesn't make any economic sense. Why would you move farms, which are currently on the cheapest land available, into cities, where the most expensive land is? I agree that more vegetation in cities is a good thing, but the allure of an "urban farm" is misguided. If these people are serious about providing food for as low a price as possible, they should move their farm out of the city.

maxerickson 10y ago
They displaced blight, not expensive downtown land. Overall I think you are right, but it seems like a non issue in a (relatively) stagnant depopulated city.
jelliclesfarm 10y ago
Carbon food print. Less storage and transport and middle men. Green lungs for the city. Many urban farms have minimal fossil fuel needs. There is a case to be made here.
- carleverett 10y ago
  In the short term maybe, but once our transportation is electric (and our electricity isn't coming from coal or gas), the difference in environmental impact is negligible. Some trees and a nice garden would provide the same environmental benefit to a city, and look nicer too. There's no case to be made that there is any economic benefit to farming in the city. By all measures, it's much more expensive.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    To add a slight positive to urban farming - where I live used to be the agricultural heart of the region. It was settled partly because of this and the volcanic soil is very good. Move 100-150 years forward and urban sprawl has completely swallowed the good soil and we mainly farm further out on worse land. The same can be said of other places I'd have thought?
  - felipellrocha 10y ago
    > here's no case to be made that there is any economic benefit to farming in the city. By all measures, it's much more expensive. I think that is a bit myopic. A small farm can look nice too. And even with electric transport, there's the fact that cities have to bulldoze over miles and miles of nature in order to accommodate the kind of transport you're talking about, mainly cars. Which is why some cities are moving away from cars and into more dense kinds of environments. Once that's done, transporting your crop of the day from the farm into the city becomes a bit of a hassle
athenot 10y ago
There's also enjoyement and quality. Some of us enjoy gardening, just like others enjoy tinkering on their cars, their computers, their open-source software... It's a manual activity like any other. And then there is the quality aspect. Mass-produced food in the US does not taste good. The varieties you can buy in the store are optimized for 3 things: high yield, long shelf life / tolerance to travel & warehousing and appearance. When you grow your own food, you can optimize for taste. You can have a tomato that is actually sweet, not something that tastes like a cucumber. You can grow varieties that won't do well in transit (ie. fragile or easily bruised) because you're handling the vegetable from the garden to the kitchen. Most of the time, it is impossible to even buy produce with high quality characteristics. When it is, it is often very expensive. This increases the value proposition of a personal/urban garden.
jly 10y ago
Urban farming is in early days so ideas are still be attempted that may not make sense for the long term. That may change. There are many things we do in our worldwide agriculture system precisely because they make economic sense. That doesn't mean they are a good idea. We are going to pay the price for that lack of judgement. I am excited to see anything that bucks that trend.
oh_sigh 10y ago
You're ignoring psychological benefits (or maybe that's what you were getting at with the 'more vegetation in cities is a good thing'). These kinds of operations can have very big impacts on children who are very separated from the natural world in their concrete jungles. I agree though that producing cheap food shouldn't be the goal, but it does help that this farm produces something.
gyrgtyn 10y ago
I think it makes sense for fragile veggies like greens. Potatoes do fine on the truck ride in from the countryside, but baby arugula, not so much. Potatoes are also a lot easier to plant and harvest by machine. Lawns don't make any economic sense; convert them to leafy greens and fancy perennials that are not economic to grow at a scale. Deliver greens to your neighborhood via bike. They are light. Sell them to fancy restaurants for $15 a pound and not have to pay for trucking them in from 50 miles away. Then, convert equal amount of farmland being used for green, back into wildish stuff, so birds, bees, etc have room to live and improve (pollinate) the staple crops.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Lawns don't make any economic sense; Yes, they do; the fact (if this is the case) that you don't personally gain utility from them doesn't mean they don't make economic sense, neither does.the fact that they generally aren't part of the production chain for a product for sale.
  - Inthenameofmine 10y ago
    US style lawns definitely don't make economic sense. That stuff only happened because of cheap energy, which in term is artificially cheaper/subsidized due to not including negative externalities. In Europe lawns don;t make sense, Asia neither.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Staple crops mostly wind/self pollinate. (corn, wheat, soy, others)
aaron695 10y ago
Yes, and the carbon footprint is huge (An even longer commute to drive past farms in the middle of the city) But if it makes people happy, it might be worth it.
Inthenameofmine 10y ago
On empty plots, yes it makes no sense. On rooftops with greenhouses it adds the benefit of additional insulation. That alone is already enough to make it worth it.

maxerickson 10y ago

They displaced blight, not expensive downtown land. Overall I think you are right, but it seems like a non issue in a (relatively) stagnant depopulated city.

jelliclesfarm 10y ago

Carbon food print. Less storage and transport and middle men. Green lungs for the city. Many urban farms have minimal fossil fuel needs. There is a case to be made here.

carleverett 10y ago
In the short term maybe, but once our transportation is electric (and our electricity isn't coming from coal or gas), the difference in environmental impact is negligible. Some trees and a nice garden would provide the same environmental benefit to a city, and look nicer too. There's no case to be made that there is any economic benefit to farming in the city. By all measures, it's much more expensive.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  To add a slight positive to urban farming - where I live used to be the agricultural heart of the region. It was settled partly because of this and the volcanic soil is very good. Move 100-150 years forward and urban sprawl has completely swallowed the good soil and we mainly farm further out on worse land. The same can be said of other places I'd have thought?
- felipellrocha 10y ago
  > here's no case to be made that there is any economic benefit to farming in the city. By all measures, it's much more expensive. I think that is a bit myopic. A small farm can look nice too. And even with electric transport, there's the fact that cities have to bulldoze over miles and miles of nature in order to accommodate the kind of transport you're talking about, mainly cars. Which is why some cities are moving away from cars and into more dense kinds of environments. Once that's done, transporting your crop of the day from the farm into the city becomes a bit of a hassle

athenot 10y ago

There's also enjoyement and quality. Some of us enjoy gardening, just like others enjoy tinkering on their cars, their computers, their open-source software... It's a manual activity like any other. And then there is the quality aspect. Mass-produced food in the US does not taste good. The varieties you can buy in the store are optimized for 3 things: high yield, long shelf life / tolerance to travel & warehousing and appearance. When you grow your own food, you can optimize for taste. You can have a tomato that is actually sweet, not something that tastes like a cucumber. You can grow varieties that won't do well in transit (ie. fragile or easily bruised) because you're handling the vegetable from the garden to the kitchen. Most of the time, it is impossible to even buy produce with high quality characteristics. When it is, it is often very expensive. This increases the value proposition of a personal/urban garden.

jly 10y ago

Urban farming is in early days so ideas are still be attempted that may not make sense for the long term. That may change. There are many things we do in our worldwide agriculture system precisely because they make economic sense. That doesn't mean they are a good idea. We are going to pay the price for that lack of judgement. I am excited to see anything that bucks that trend.

oh_sigh 10y ago

You're ignoring psychological benefits (or maybe that's what you were getting at with the 'more vegetation in cities is a good thing'). These kinds of operations can have very big impacts on children who are very separated from the natural world in their concrete jungles. I agree though that producing cheap food shouldn't be the goal, but it does help that this farm produces something.

gyrgtyn 10y ago

I think it makes sense for fragile veggies like greens. Potatoes do fine on the truck ride in from the countryside, but baby arugula, not so much. Potatoes are also a lot easier to plant and harvest by machine. Lawns don't make any economic sense; convert them to leafy greens and fancy perennials that are not economic to grow at a scale. Deliver greens to your neighborhood via bike. They are light. Sell them to fancy restaurants for $15 a pound and not have to pay for trucking them in from 50 miles away. Then, convert equal amount of farmland being used for green, back into wildish stuff, so birds, bees, etc have room to live and improve (pollinate) the staple crops.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Lawns don't make any economic sense; Yes, they do; the fact (if this is the case) that you don't personally gain utility from them doesn't mean they don't make economic sense, neither does.the fact that they generally aren't part of the production chain for a product for sale.
- Inthenameofmine 10y ago
  US style lawns definitely don't make economic sense. That stuff only happened because of cheap energy, which in term is artificially cheaper/subsidized due to not including negative externalities. In Europe lawns don;t make sense, Asia neither.
maxerickson 10y ago
Staple crops mostly wind/self pollinate. (corn, wheat, soy, others)

aaron695 10y ago

Yes, and the carbon footprint is huge (An even longer commute to drive past farms in the middle of the city) But if it makes people happy, it might be worth it.

Inthenameofmine 10y ago

On empty plots, yes it makes no sense. On rooftops with greenhouses it adds the benefit of additional insulation. That alone is already enough to make it worth it.