A. Hubert Undergraduate Thesis by Alison Hubert

THE FOOD COOPERATIVE SOLUTION A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT ON THE SUBJECT OF URBAN AGRICULTURE BY ALISON HUBERT

THE FOOD COOPERATIVE SOLUTION A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT ON THE SUBJECT OF URBAN AGRICULTURE BY ALISON HUBERT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AT BALL STATE UNIVERSITY APRIL 26, 2013 CHRIS MARLOW JOHN MOTLOCH ADVISOR: SCOTT TRUEX

acknowledgements To Leonard Barrett and Mark Lakeman who sparked the ideas in the first place; To Sarah Hubert-Stillman for sharing an equally enthusiastic opinion on the subject matter; To Jon and Kevin, for putting time and energy to a similar goal; To my family, my colleagues, and everyone who has had any part in the struggles and successes of this project; To my students, a breath of fresh air; To you, the reader, who I get to share this work with, and these ideas; I owe big thanks. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s have dinner.

abstract This design addresses access to high-quality, organic food for members of a low-income community and post-industrial dead-zone. Limitations to overcoming these issues are the general “removed” attitude people have about food and their environments, sedentary lifestyles, and the idea of economic growth as “mass production.” This affects the overall health of the community and individual’s knowledge about their environments and also creates empowerment regarding the food they produce and eat. The research methodology was based on case studies of urban gardens throughout time, and led to permaculture as a source of positive change for people. In this design, permaculture is applied to design three spaces that educate, provide access, and improve health of people and landscape. By increasing community resiliency through food, this project is a study of supporting the local economy, healthier ecological systems, and strengthening community connections of Muncie, IN.

“URBAN FARMING IS A UNIqUELY POWERFUL TOOL FOR CHANGE, IN THAT IT CAN SIMULTANEOUSLY RESHAPE THE PLACES WHERE WE LIVE AND THE WAY WE EAT ,” - SARAH RICH

Table of Contents sectIon 1: backgroUnd INTRODUCTION BACkGROUND

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

WHY URBAN AGRICULTURE?

CASE STUDIES DEFINITIONS

PROBLEM STATEMENT SIGNIFICANCE

PROJECT REqUIRMENTS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES SITE PROGRAM

sectIon 2: desIgn

DESIGN METHODOLOGY MAJOR ELEMENTS

FORSEEABLE PROBLEMS

SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

1 2 2 5

19 20

DESIGN CONCEPTS

MASTER PLAN PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3

soUtHVIew elementarY scHool

SITE PROGRAM

SITE CONCEPT

CONSTRUCTION DETAIL

SITE PROGRAM

SITE ANALYSIS ZOOM-IN PLAN

ball corPoratIon Park ANALYSIS

SITE CONCEPT

SECTION I SITE PLAN

MASTER PLAN

PLANTING PLAN

SECTION II: SITE PLAN

SITE INVENTORY SITE ANALYSIS

madIson street co-oPeratIVe

SECTION III: SITE PLAN

conclUsIon

sectIon 3: aPPendIces

APPENDIX A: PERMACULTURE PRINCIPLES APPENDIX B: GIS MAPS (INVENTORY)

47 49 50

52 53

APPENDIX C: PLANTS USEFUL IN THIS AREA 61 APPENDIX D: LIST OF FIGURES

bIblIograPHY

vii

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION This project is the design of urban agriculture in Muncie, Indiana’s south side industrial neighborhood. The neighborhood currently has little access to high-quality produce, which leads to many limitations, which will be discussed in the “background” section of this document. A large portion of this project is education about how to maintain a garden, and distribution to the many people within a “food desert.” To begin, readers should consider this set of questions: Do you know where your last meal came from? Do you know how much money went into the production of each food item? Do you know how much transportation was required, or what machineries were used? What about chemicals involved, including pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, fertilizers, or potentially leeched pollutants? Instead of answering the questions about the last meal, let’s jump forward. What if your future meals were not produced in these ways? What if, instead, you grew them yourself, or worked with a group to grow them? People have indeed grown their own foods; humans have been doing it since as long as we abandoned the nomadic lifestyle to adopt agriculture. The food production in Muncie, let alone, has also been noteworthy, as we have a name in canning thanks to the Ball Brothers. Now, Muncie even has a network of urban food gardens called the Urban Gardening Initiative, managed and eaten by volunteers within the network itself. Furthermore, the people who are involved are very empowered by their abilities to source at least a portion of their own food and feed their families with organic produce, as is the typical sentiment from many food-producers. This project looks at permaculture design as a guiding force in the environmental, social, and economic components of food production. The main purpose is to increase access to high-quality food for people in the area, while simultaneously teaching individuals the many different ways to produce, conserve, and use food to help build more resilient communities. 1

background review of literature why urban agriculture? Urban agriculture is a movement that has gained a lot of attention in the past few years, as people begin to realize the benefits of eating healthy, the community interaction, and the small moneymaking businesses like farmer’s markets have been springing up. Michelle Obama has taken on her “Let’s Move” campaign, which helps to promote healthier eating in the United States; Seattle WA declared 2010 “The Year of Urban Agriculture,” and the numbers of organic farmers are increasing every year. There are a number of problems that growing food in cities helps to overcome. This review of literature discusses the need for a solution, beginning with the environmental issues of industrial agriculture, urban food deserts, rising levels of disease in American culture, and a lack of food identity in this country. These are all topics that can be discussed for an incredibly long time, and that will require a big change in regulations. The topic matter is sensitive, and it applies to everyone. Provided in this section, as well as the sections that follow, are solutions where food production has become the answer, why, and how it has benefitted. The solutions provided do not represent the extent of food production standards, however they offer the reader with a more positive outlook on a very bleak issue. They also fed the designs later to come in this report.

Figure 1.1 conventional agriculture

There are many issues with the current industrial practices of agriculture (Brown). Economic, environmental, and social limits are being reached from the practices that are discussed. There are many methods of conventional agriculture, all of which vary greatly depending on what is produced, and where. The author of this report is primarily discussing the process of producing one or two kinds of crops on a very large scale; using chemical fertilizers insecticides, fungicides, and pesticides; using massive pieces of machinery in order to harvest at a large scale that removes the value of the products;; animal production that is harmful to the health of individual animals, and

to the people they feed; transporting goods hundreds and thousands of miles to be sold at subsidized prices; support from a government that treats farms like a business and not as a need for individuals nor a right to freedom of choice; and finally, paying the hardworking labor at a very low price. Without naming any specific farms, or companies, this process is very typical amongst production, all in the interest of “feeding the world.” Society has supported many of these harmful practices, sometimes unknowingly, just by going to the grocery store because we are all very removed from our food systems. There are problems with every single stage mentioned above, but in the interest of remaining as concise as possible while still giving enough background, only a few are discussed. The first issue discussed is the environmental damage caused by the use of monocultures in planting. These monocultures (in the Midwest, a prime example is cornfields) were created with the rise of the industrial revolution (Something New Under the Sun), which changed the world, as we knew it. It was the beginning of large-scale farming, which only figured out how to produce more and more. The next thing farmers knew, they were experiencing issues like pests on large scales that would destroy their crops. They developed different pesticides and fertilizers in order to combat this. Unforeseen at the time, this eventually led to a humongous dependence on petroleum-based fertilizers, machinery, and even seeds, with Genetically-Modified Crops. Now, companies are creating crops like “Roundup Ready Soybeans,” which are loaded with the pesticide Roundup, which kills weeds, also known as native plants. The environmental damage that has been caused by all of these issues is immense. The use of petroleum fertilizers and chemicals is causing poisonous runoff into our watersheds (Brown). The heavy machinery compacts soil, and because it is so unnaturally farmed with little diversity, erosion is happening on massive scales around the world (Brown). Water is being sourced from far-away locations and irresponsibly used to irrigate large-scale crops, only to wash away more soil. Because 70% of potable water on this planet is used for agriculture needs, any shortages of water will result in shortages of food. (Brown, 57) Any petroleum-based products going onto food should be something that is a little bit unnerving, especially considering peak oil as a common concern in today’s society (Brown). What is more unnerving is that society completely supports industrial agriculture. On March 29, 2013, Congress passed a bill that keeps the federal government from banning the sales of genetically-modified foods, where if a court charge

caused a problem, the win would automatically go to agribusiness (You). The issue with this bill is that it was snuck into another, larger bill, relating to immigration. Later known as The Monsanto Protection Act, this protects the agribusinesses in circumstances where the smaller, more localized farms are becoming more and more at risk. To date, this is the most recent law passed, but many more have been passed by the USDA (the same people who certify “organic”) that have put more money into agribusinesses, and less into local businesses for local economies. The local farms and farmers across the globe are being hounded by agribusiness. The practices on the large scale of agriculture are done for profit, without considering any aspects of sustainability, but instead focusing on profit, because the more people they feed, the more money they make. And the federal government supports it.

These two examples are worst-case scenario in terms of food access. The African family highlights that food access is a difficult thing to come by, as income levels are small and so are the rations of foods available. The author wrote “no comment” beneath the photograph and it’s statistics, as he felt this despair for the situation of these people. The American family has a very large palette of processed foods that they spent a pretty high amount of money on, which could indicate a need for quantity over quality (carbohydrates over healthy proteins); it could also indicate whether or not the family lives in a food desert. To contrast these, a family of 11 in Bhutan spent the American equivalent of $5.03, and was able to provide its members with quite a diverse and healthy-looking palette.

Figure 1.3 A family in chad, africa

Figure 1.2 a very typical food desert

Access Agribusiness has some other extremely unfortunate byproducts. Food security affects everyone, but particularly in economically depressed areas (Brown). If environmental issues continue pressing, how are people with limited access to resources going to continue producing food? How are they supposed to buy food? In 2005, Peter Menzel, a photo-journalist created an article highlighting the different amounts of food an average family representing a single country can purchase in one week. He traveled to twenty-four different countries around the world, and looking at the average income, found a family who could live off of that amount. He asked each family to take that amount of money to the grocery store, and in an artistic way, laid out the different things they would buy. Results differed from simple grains for $1.23 feeding an African family of 6, to an average American family of 4 who spent $341.98 on processed and fast foods.

Figure 1.4 A family in North carolina

Figure 1.5 A family in bhutan 3

URBAN AGRICULTURE HISTORY IN MUNCIE This study shows that food access for people varies depending on the population of a city or country, depending on what is able to grow in the region, depending on income of family, how many mouths must be fed, and many other factors. In this report, let it go stated that no matter the factor, food needs to be more accessible to more people if people are planning on surviving. The global population is rising (Brown.) This means that accessibility will decrease, unless production dramatically increases. Given the earlier report that considered the environmental impacts of conventional farming, the practices of agriculture need to dramatically change. Looking a little closer at the United States, the discussion of food deserts begins. A food desert is defined by Michael Pollan as “an area that has access to food, but not the kind of food that is healthy. These accessible foods are the things that one could purchase from a gas station, or the ever-dreaded fast food (both of which are a product of industrial agriculture.)” Generally, in a food desert, impoverished people lack access to food either because of the cost, or because of their physical location in proximity to a grocery store (food deserts usually exist in the inner city, where most people do not have a car, but rely on public transportation.) Because of food deserts, and because of American habits, the numbers of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease have risen tremendously since the industrial revolution (Pollan). According to the United States Department of Agriculture (Food), Muncie has food deserts too. The map asks the user to type in an address, and the result is a map indicating whether the address is in a food desert. For the Southview Elementary School, the USDA claimed the space with ½ mile-10 miles from the nearest grocery store. This is shown in map-form with Figures 1.12-13, on pages 12 and 13. The nearest grocery store is Marsh, which is just short of one-half mile away. This is the nearest grocery. The same results exist for the Ball Corporation. To synthesize the information of this section, there are very big problems with food production in its most common forms that will be impossible to sustain. These problems have caused environmental damage, which has reduced the quality of the foods produced. They have also led to gross evolution of corporations for the sake of money in factory farming. People have a difficult time accessing healthy foods, and they often do not even know what to do once they have the access. People are grossly disconnected due to these issues. Common production needs to change drastically. 4

Muncie, Indiana has a very rich history relating to food production. The city has taken on many iterations of urban gardening, but some historical records of it do exist, as food production eventually shaped the layout of the city of Muncie. Through World War II, and even in small occasions in times of depression of the later 20th century, Muncie has gone back to gardening and canning in times of need. It was made very accessible to citizens because the Ball jar was first manufactured in the city by the Ball Corporation. The Ball family later went on to purchase what is now known as Ball State University from foreclosure. They also started the Ball Memorial Hospital, and Minnetrista, in Muncie. Ball State and Ball Memorial, to this day, are the largest employers in the city of Muncie. They both reside along the north side of the river, leaving the south side for industry. As the 20th century continued, industry kept moving out and the south side has become a depressed area in Muncie. The group of neighborhoods in the south side is the focus of the design project proposed in this report. The Ball family began the Ball Corporation, whose factory still exists on South Macedonia Avenue, in the south side of Muncie, now known as Spartech Plastics since the Balls moved out. When they left, their legacy remained. Their name is synonymous with canning. What is often overlooked is that food production in the city of Muncie created the need for canning in the first place. This need was perpetuated in World War I, when Muncie established its first Victory Garden program to support troops overseas, and the families at home. There was a lot of propaganda and motivational posters, which helped lead Muncie to a lot of success. The Victory Gardens in Muncie were a successful means of distribution and of building the local economy (Plan). They also implemented practices of canning and selling the goods grown, which resulted in longer use of foods and more money moving into the local system (Middletown). In 1918, 7050 war gardens were created in Delaware County (McPhetridge, 38). The income from that success was $44,650.00 for the county, not including what went overseas to soldiers. That dollar value would equal $735,493.05 in 2012, determined by an inflation calculator online. Programs affiliated with War and Victory gardens were home economics and food administration also helped to influence the credibility of Muncie’s food security from the war eras. Women’s committees were formed on the home front, as a special service in case of prolonged war (McPhetridge, 14). Most

noteworthy to this project is the Home Economics and Food Administration Committee (15). It was a very aggressive group of women teaching one another how to use their foods grown in the gardens in the most economic ways; beginning with demonstrations about non-conventional techniques like baking without sugar or making meals without meat. Next noted in Muncie’s history came the Great Depression. In 1931, underemployed families started gardens under a program called the Muncie Plan; prior to WWII the practices of this branch of urban gardens in Muncie lasted for about twelve years under the governor’s unemployment committee. Prizes were offered as incentive for the best gardens, rating both quality and quantity of the food produced (Plan). Once again, Muncie returned to canning as a means of support, and had 1506 community gardens, resulting in approximately 120 quarts of canned goods per family (Potter) (Preston lecture). This gave community members something to be proud of. Muncie did not fall the way that many cities fell during the Great Depression; in fact, they proved to be in high standing compared to a lot of places. Finally, World War II began, leading to much of the same kinds of propaganda that WWI had produced. People considered canning their food as “ammunition” (Preston 61) against the war. Muncie had land donated to the efforts of community gardens, for families to produce on the properties for only a small fee (Preston 62). The sense of both community and economic strength are infallible. There was a strong sense of pride in Muncie because of this feat. As automobiles became more accessible, so did a higher standard of living. In Muncie, this meant that gardening slowed down for most of the population, as it was no longer a necessity. Gardening, canning, and being thrifty to save money is a fantastic example of using one’s resources, interacting with surroundings, and making a means off of what one has access to. In our current world, with the economic crisis of 2008 and residual worries about housing crashes, turning back to our roots of growing and canning makes a lot of sense. Underserved neighborhoods in cities all over the United States are doing this right now, as the food movement is still spreading across the country. Why does this practice have to be limited to only the economically depressed? In reality, it is going to take much more than half of society changing behaviors to make positive change that is necessary. People of all classes should be doing this kind of work. If the last few years of economic crisis have taught us anything it is instead of spending money that we don’t have, we should be living within our means. This report can be a “how-to” document of beginning this kind

of lifestyle. It would benefit all people to become educated in ways to better source materials, or to better understand how to use the ones that exist in our natural ecosystems. The above documentations indicate that without spending too much, three totally different cultures of people in Delaware County, were able to work within a local means at very individual scales. This is strong evidence that contemporary culture can do it here too. case studies How can permaculture transcend from urban agriculture and what are the benefits? The following are case studies of different ways to live with permaculture principles. In many situations, permaculture designs also result in a much broader connection to communities and sustainable practices. When a designer begins a project with permaculture as its basis, it often results to design larger than the landscape itself. People come together and take pride in their awareness of the land, their connections, the productivity, and the beauty they were able to create. With the main ethics of permaculture design as Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Share (Holmgren 3-9), it becomes difficult for designs to not interconnect people as well. In Hood River Oregon, schoolteacher and permaculture designer Michael Becker was able to do just that. Schoolyard Gardens: The Project at Hood River Middle School began as a small food garden on this Oregon school’s campus that eventually evolved to become an outdoor classroom with a hands-on focus on a new permaculture-inspired curriculum. Designed initially by Becker in 2007, the new curriculum meets all of its needs in the garden, better known as the outdoor classroom. The results were tremendous; students became more inspired and involved, and parents brought in more funding. The students now engage in hands-on learning, with a created farmers’ market on the school campus as their economics classroom, the garden as their ecology lessons, and many more. The curriculum used the permaculture approach of “turn your problems into solutions” to create the possibility of outdoor classrooms, which ended up changing the curriculum of the entire school district. The school eventually gained so much popularity and obtained funding enough to hire a design firm to create LEED Platinum certified building to replace the old Music and Science building on their campus. This project is a useful case study for the programming behind the Southview Elementary School because it shows how empowering a garden 5

can be for a schoolyard. In 2010, Opsis Architecture of Portland, OR completed the major design work, with supplemental concepts from the students of Hood River Middle School as methods of systems education. As a result, the Hood River Middle School acquired a new Music and Science building. Becker’s example of getting children involved and integrated with their landscape and food garden was able to teach a lot to the people of Hood River, OR. By changing the little ones in the family’s perspectives, communities came together to help find the funding for this building, and overall, a significantly better school. Michael Becker was named Oregon teacher of the year in 2007 for his work. Much like the project at Hood River Middle School, Edible Schoolyard operates under the belief that gardening needs to be a part of education. Alice Waters created the organization after being a restaurantowner and seeing the terrible, broken shape of the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, in Berkeley, CA. Her idea to solve the problem was food. In 1996, he got in contact with the principal and a few good friends for donations; within just a few months and after a few trial dinners, the first garden was planted. Parents and teachers saw a lot of opportunity to give hope to the school, and they started raising money for a delivery from Terra Firma, a local farm. A few teachers began offering cooking classes with the produce. They toured farms to learn new techniques, and the gardens continued growing. Students and teachers alike began taking notice of the positive change. Students began implementing the next phases of the gardens during summer programs held by the school, eventually leading to a standard, once-weekly curriculum. The faculty and parents involved noticed more and more changes in their students, and the students learned basic connections that they never would have learned in a classroom (2-42). Much like Hood River Middle School, the Edible Schoolyard at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School really changed the school for the better. Since this first schoolyard was done in 1996, over 2099 garden classrooms, 419 academic classrooms, 333 kitchen classrooms, and 214 school cafeterias have changed for the better, thanks to Edible Schoolyard (Waters, website). The Southview Elementary School designs with a much better-utilized piece of land with better access to community members, outdoor education, and resources at the Maring Hunt Library Garden. Educating diverse age groups about growing food and community becomes a powerful tool on many different levels. One way this is possible is an integrated volunteering and childcare programs within the garden center and the senior housing to encourage outdoor 6

education. Some of the children at HRMS were also able to create a CSA with the produce they grew. This work taught them business skills in their garden, and in turn, made them money. In the same way, a CSA can be implemented for this garden, or the system of gardens within UGI. Together, each garden could operate by selling different, varying produce items to customers to help boost local economy and to diversify the diet of community members of Muncie.

Figure 1.6 Edible schoolyard, brooklyn ny

Community Interaction: In Portland, Oregon, permaculture has created a very different way of living for some people. Architect Mark Lakeman with his non-profit organization called City Repair Project is about to host their thirteenth Village Building Convergence in May of 2013. This is a ten-day event to bring together different communitybuilding (and building-community) projects. Mark Lakeman refers to this as “social permaculture,” where he brings people together and does projects that benefit the community, and not just the individual. In VBC, citizens provide a plan for some kind of project they want to see done in their neighborhood, and City Repair will help them to refine the plan. VBC is the 10-day implementation of the plan as a “workshop,” where hundreds of volunteers get together to help build the plan as one of many projects throughout Portland. VBC also hosts classes, dinners, and a small festival during these few days. In 2012, VBC did 46 projects throughout the city of Portland that included the painting of intersections, small-scale projects like mushroom-log inoculation, building community gardens, creating benches out of natural materials, and planting a food forest outside of Lakeman’s architecture office, Communitecture. Mark Lakeman began the Village Building Convergence in 2000 when he and a group of others painted the intersection of Share-It Square (SE Sherret and SE 9th, Portland). On this site, he created a small library for neighbors to give and take books, a teastation where someone puts out hot water and offers

tea to neighbors every day, a cobb bench created for the purpose of interacting with neighbors, and a small playground for the kids of the neighborhood. Lakeman used natural and locally-found materials to create all of this, and since then, the neighborhood has been working on combining their individual gardens and backyards into a connection of gardens by simply knocking down backyard fences and acknowledging that they have the space and materials to share. Not only does the neighborhood shares larger things like lawnmowers, they also look at their neighborhood with pride and opportunities to move toward resiliency. Every year since 2000, they have gotten together to recreate the painting on Share-It Square, and this has inspired hundreds of other neighborhood projects throughout Portland. With opportunities for overtaking vacant lots, and with the need of many basic resources, the Southside neighborhood of Muncie could benefit greatly from projects like this. This project can be treated as a guide for creating community strength in interaction. Perhaps sharing a garden and backyard with one’s neighbors is a radical notion for people now, but sharing a garden in the vacant lots outside of ones property is a very positive way to begin this kind of interaction. The projects that go on in Muncie will relate to the history here, but become something more long-term and useful than not.

and facilitation made it work for the city. Jenny Pell, a co-instructor of the course, decided the space must fulfill 3 of the 7 layers of a native forest to create a food forest, based up on a book called Forest Gardens, by David Jacke. As the project developed, they created a polyculture planting plan, which sold the project. Eventually, a landscape architect named Margarett Harrison took the lead position for the project and it is currently being implemented by members of the Beacon Hill Community The Beacon Food Forest is applicable to this design project because it has taken into consideration the creation of jobs around the basis of food-production and harvesting. It also illustrates urban food forestry, which is a much more radical idea in comparison to basic urban farms. With designs like this, it seems easy to propose jobs and food sourcing for people in need. This project also looks at the connection between permaculture and the profession of landscape architecture very positively.

Figure 1.8 beacon food forest, plan

Figure 1.7 Share-it-square, year 2000

Public Parks: The Beacon Food Forest, located in Seattle, WA is a 7-acre food forest adjacent to a park. The design was prompted initially by a permaculture design course, where two students curious about permaculture created the design. They had primarily considered education, health, and job creation as a result of their project. Their design received so much excitement from the instructors that they applied for a grant from the city. Seattle declared the year 2010 as the “Year of Urban Agriculture,” where many new laws were passed to empower urban agriculture. That same year, the Beacon Food Forest design was handed to the office of Seattle. They began with hesitation but with patience

Industry: Growing Power is a national non-profit organization with headquarters located in Milwaukie, WI. Their main goal is to provide high-quality food for people of all incomes produced with the standards of urban sustainable agriculture. Projects include urban farms, community gardens, aquaculture research and renewable energy with techniques to create these opportunities at the lowest possible cost to the user. Every food production site is eligible for year-round production. The facility itself is an educational center, having trained over 1000 people in urban sustainable agriculture and more than 4000 people contributed work hours to make the place a better one. Growing Power began with one person and his idea to share high-quality food with others. This kind of idea is exactly how changes are made in systems – someone decides it needs to change and works with it until it’s successful, or the idea is passed around until it is made possible. Will Allen’s passion for returning to the land made Growing Power possible, and the economic opportunity made it thrive. His work makes evident that sustainable changes in our society require integration of people and ideas. 7

CPULS Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs) are a concept developed by London architects Katrin Bohn and Andre Viljoen as a strategy to begin a green 21st century. They take the concept of a food-producing (otherwise known as productive) landscape, and combine it with a continuous landscape (or ecological corridor) for inter- and intra-city production (11). The CPUL aims to address mitigating CO2 emissions all while feeding the ever-growing population. The CPUL is defined by a number of things: “a theme of this book, and do not yet exist in cities; a coherently planned and designed combination of Continuous Landscape and Productive Urban Landscape; an open urban landscape; productive in economical and socicultural and environmental terms; placed within an urban-scale landscape strategy; constructed to incorporate living and natural elements; designed to encourage and allow urban dwellers to observe activities and processes traditionally associated with the countryside, thereby re-establishing a relationship between life and the processes required to support it. (xvii)” Also, a CPUL does not begin as a “tabula rasa,” “they will build on and over characteristics inherent to the city by overlaying and interweaving a multi-user landscape strategy to present and newly reclaimed open space. Very importantly, they will exist alongside a wide range of open urban space types, complimenting their designation and design and adding a new sustainable component to the city.”

Figure 1.9 diagram “how to make a cpul” from bohn and viljoen’s book

The spaces Bohn and Viljoen have imagined include any large amount of land “allocated, reclaimed, recycled, or imaginatively found (15).” Their book also discusses the presence of CPULs from over 4000 years ago, from archaeological data found in Persia and Machu Picchu. These utilized aqueducts for intensive food production in cities. CPULS are an effective, environmentally sensitive way to continue food production. In Muncie, the connecting spaces can act as (but are not limited to) bioretention, remediation, people-movers, parks, or ecological zones.

Figure 1.10 Todmorden, England: a cpul case study

Figure 1.11 character details of incredible edible

Figure 1.12 the many ways cpuls can be represented

DEFINITIONS Conventional agriculture The process of producing one or two kinds of crops on a very large scale; using chemical fertilizers insecticides, fungicides, and pesticides; using massive pieces of machinery in order to harvest at a large scale that removes the value of the products;; animal production that is harmful to the health of individual animals, and to the people they feed; transporting goods hundreds and thousands of miles to be sold at subsidized prices; support from a government that treats farms like a business and not as a need for individuals nor a right to freedom of choice; and finally, paying the hardworking labor at a very low price. Monoculture Using industrial farming techniques to produce one crop on a very large scale. The United States does this in their mission to “feed the world” without acknowledging the notion that this is causing massive environmental damage. Food Desert Like a real desert that lacks diversity, a food desert is void of the “life” of good food. They are the convenience stores that actually do not sell any kind of food that one’s grandmother would recognize as food, only very cheap and low quality “snacks.” Most people who live in very dense urban areas have access to these convenience stores, but no legitimate grocery. They result in little choice for people in terms of access, and in most scenarios, require the users to access via a car [which if you live in a neighborhood like that, you probably do not have a car]. Food Miles The amount of distance food moves to go from seed to plate Victory Gardens/War Gardens Efforts of community gardening in the WWI-II eras.

Permaculture Holistic, ecologically-based design within a local means. Coined by Bill Mollison as a combination of the words “Permanent + Culture + Agriculture,” its pillars are care for earth, care for people, and equal share for all. Social Permaculture Breaking down fences, building community, sharing within local means, and creating resiliency within the groups of people in closecontext. Food Forest Mimics a natural forest with a minimum of three of the seven layers of an ecosystems producing food. The seven layers of a food forest include the canopy, low tree layer, shrub layer, herbaceous layer, rhizosphere (root vegetables), groundcover, and the vertical layer of vining plants. Productive Landscape Any Food-Producing landscape. Continuous Landscape Ecological corridor in a city. Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPUL) Continuous Landscape meets Productive Landscape, as termed by Katrin Bohn and Andre Viljoen

PROBLEM STATEMENT The Southside of Muncie is an economically depressed, disconnected neighborhood with almost no access to high-quality food, human interaction, or sustainable opportunities to change. This project is a study of the potential opportunities for the neighborhood by looking at three very different spaces as a network to create connection. The solution provided within this document is the conceptual design of these connections, along with detailed ideas of how each space can be used. This report should be read as an instruction manual of how to use space to speak for oneself with food. The atypical design considers a very financially accessible way to make change happen within a community, as opposed to a high-end and very expensive means of creating physical change. If this manual were to get into the hands of every homeowner in the South Side, perhaps they could make these changes happen on their own, with very little cost to them. Major focal points include a very intensive study of permaculture prior to the advent of the project; a deeprooted appreciation of organic food and the opportunities it can create for people to connect; a very strong need in the neighborhood for sustainable practices; and three very socially rich locations to retrofit for the organic production of food. This project is designed to not only enrich a community with healthy food, but to give the community and opportunity to connect on a very â&#x20AC;&#x153;realâ&#x20AC;? level.

FIGURE 1.13 INFORMATION ABOUT EXISTING GROCERIES IN CONTEXT OF SITE

FIGURE 1.13 INFORMATION ABOUT EXISTING RESTAURANTSS IN CONTEXT OF SITE

SIGNIFICANCE In the past few years, urban agriculture has increased nationally in cities as a means of empowering communities, educating people, and bringing in a little bit of income. 2010 was named “The Year of Urban Agriculture,” and many projects were set afoot throughout cities as new gardens and farms were created and older projects were better maintained. Gardens become the kind of projects that are healthfully beneficial but also give people a sense of pride and personal strength. Perhaps starting a garden for a city will not be the only solution, but people connecting within a garden amd becoming empowered as active members of a community will begin a shift of thought and societal norms. Currently, not enough people understand the value of being directly connected with their food. People are disconnected, or better said “removed” from acts involved in every day life. The design of these gardens is a not only a means of giving people a reason to be outdoors, but also to teach individuals everything they need to know about the different phases of food production from seed to plate. People will learn how to use a landscape in sustainable ways for their own benefits, and work together to determine ways in which distribution can best support them. The location of this site, the southside of Muncie, IN was chosen based on it’s proximity to elementary schools, old (yet historic) industry, about 512 gardeners (Preston) and another a rate of about 17% vacant lots (Preston). Bisecting 13th street is Madison Avenue, one of two streets that runs the entire north-south line through the whole city of Muncie. In the south of Muncie, Madison Ave is lined with fast food and chain restaurants, but no grocery or local restaurants (see maps on previous page). In fact, the nearest one is just less than one mile away. This leaves community members with very little “good food” to eat. Finally, the urban garden at Ball Community Park will help promote better health in the community members.Eating well makes people live well, and historically, food has been known to bring people together. It increases quality of life, but also peoples’ sense of worth. It helps individuals and communities combat diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Following are maps indicating food access in comparison to the sites in this report. Each site has a one-half mile radius around the site representing a walking distance of about five minutes. The highlighted groceries do not include anything resembling a gas station, and the restaurants do not include fast food or franchises, as neither of those lead to impeccable health.

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

Alleys, Buildings, Parking Lots, Rail lines, Recreation Trails and Vacant Properties taken over as urban agriculture + Existing Green Spaces

FIGURE 1.14 ALLEYS, BUILDINGS, PARkING LOTS, RAIL LINES, RECREATION TRAILS AND VACANT PROPERTIES TAkEN OVER AS PRODUCTIVE SPACE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF MUNCIE

The significance of this project lies primarily in the potential of numbers. The food movement has helped much of society to learn again that they are able to grow food. Not only is organic produce being grown on typical farms and gardens, but in alleys (Todmorden), in vacant lots (Muncie’s history), rooftops (Brooklyn Grange), in old factories and parking lots (Growing Power). These methods are atypical, and necessary if we are going to “feed the world.”

FIGURE 1.15 THE BROOkLYN GRANGE, IN NEW YORk, HAS 2.5 ACRES ON A ROOFTOP THAT FEED RESTAURANTS, MARkETS, AND A CSA

Figures 1.14 and 1.19 (respectively) indicate that if all of the alleys, rooftops, recreation trails, parking lots, and vacant properties were considered productive space, the Southside neighborhood could feed a total of 22,048 people 3 meals a day of fresh, organic, local produce for 1 year (this makes up for 2.1X the diet of the south side population, or feeds 27% of the city of Muncie’s population) and the entire city of Muncie could feed 10.5 million people, compared to the existing population of 70,800 people. These calculations were based off of a formula, shown in Figure 1.15 that takes inventory of the information based off the USDA’s determination of yields. This formula assumes that 1996.3 servings are consumed per person, per year and that .445 pounds of food are grown per square foot, on average. The calculation indicates an average amount of food needs for the people in the space. For ease of calculating, the author included this information in a spreadsheet, however the data was slightly manipulated for a deeper understanding of the information. 15

GIS LAYER

QTY. AREA (SQ. FEET)

AREA (ACRES)

SIDEWALKS 651 532,216.83 RECREATION TRAILS 5 101,180.29 RAIL 16 30,026.87 ALLEYS 216 604,230.94 BUILDINGS 4464 6,874,860.04 PARKING LOTS 98 3,083,858.07 VACANT LOTS 402 3,575,727.78 TOTAL 5852 14,802,100.81

20.40 4.60 2.80 17.30 157.80 70.80 82.10 355.80

ANNUAL YIELD (LB/FT^2) *1 228,853.24 43,507.53 12,911.55 259,819.30 2,956,189.82 1,326,058.97 1,537,562.94 6,364,903.35

ANNUAL YIELD (LB/FT^2) *2 236,836.49 45,025.23 13,361.95 268,882.77 3,059,312.72 1,372,316.84 1,591,198.86 6,586,934.86

*BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE STUDIES: 1: INDY URBAN ACRES .43 2: THE CALCULATION GIVEN .445 3: GROWING POWER 7.65 4: AVERAGE 2.84

**BASED ON THE CALCULATION:

ANNUAL YIELD ANNUAL ANNUAL YIELD PEOPLE SERVED (LB/FT^2) *3 YIELD (SERVINGS/ACRE) PER YEAR** (LB/FT^2) *AVERAGE (AVERAGE) *AVERAGE 4,071,458.77 1,511,495.81 10,094,769 1,264.19 774,029.25 287,352.03 2,276,271 285.06 229,705.52 85,276.30 1,385,556 173.52 4,622,366.70 1,716,015.87 8,560,760 1,072.08 52,592,679.29 19,524,602.51 78,086,004 9,778.87 23,591,514.20 8,758,156.90 35,034,785 4,387.48 27,354,317.49 10,155,066.88 40,626,495 5,087.74 113,236,071.21 42,037,966.31 176,064,641 22,048.93 11737642.75 3,337.40 3,451.26 59,383.02 22,048.93

(SERVINGS CONSUMED ANNUALLY)*(POPULATION)-(SERVINGS/FT^2)*(AREA)= PEOPLE FED

Figure 1.16 if all of muncie’s southside neighborhood produced food, they would feed an average of 22,046 people three meals a day of organically produced food for a year.

Upon researching, my colleagues Kevin Snyder and Jon Tiemen, and I found yields that did not quite correspond with the given figure of .445 pounds per square foot. For example, Indy Urban Acres, a farm created by the Indianapolis Parks Department that grows food in rows, but organically, produced 150,000 servings on 2 acres in the year 2012. Based on the assumption that a serving is 4oz, we were able to determine that .43 pounds per square foot can be produced on a square foot of their property. These numbers are close, so the results did not vary much when these numbers were plugged in (see corresponding numbers on the charts in Figures 1. 15 and 1.17). We used the same calculation in translating the yield from Growing Power from 3 million pounds of food on 2 acres. Their result was 7.65 pounds per square foot. This was completely perplexing. What is the difference between these two places? The differences are humongous. Growing Power uses as much vertical space in their production methods as possible. They have intercropped foods, and they have many different types of food, compared to Indy Urban Acres’ row crops that only exist on the ground plane. Most importantly, Growing Power produces fish at a very high quantities, which weigh more than any plant. Growing Power has included this in their calculations, but our formula has not. Because the given formula is lacking the production of animal products on land, we chose to include it when calculating. Note on the charts in Figures 1.16 and 1.20 the very different colors along the titles “Annual Yield.” These colors represent 16

Figure 1.17 indy urban acres’ row crops

Figure 1.18 Growing Power’s vertical production system (without fish)

Legend Alleys Major Roads Sidewalks Streets Rail RecreationTrails Building Footprints Green Space Parks Vacant Land

ÂŻ

Figure 1.19 if the entire city of muncie were producing food as a cpul, 10.5 million people could eat 3 meals a day of organic foods by using vertical space, or animal production (both of

a different yield rate, in pounds per square foot, depending on the growing methods. These rates are sorted by amount, where Indy Urban Acres, with the smallest rate, comes first and is highlighted in pink. The given calculation comes second, and is highlighted in orange. Growing Power came third and is highlighted in green The category in blue represents the average of these three numbers, shown by 2.84 pounds per square foot. This number represents a production method that is more intensive than Indy Urban Acres, either GIS LAYER SIDEWALKS RECREATION TRAILS RAIL ALLEYS GREENSPACE BUILDINGS PARKING LOTS VACANT LOTS TOTAL

QTY. 1095131.35 173798 305736.4 463571.61 0 0 0 2038237.36

AREA (SQ. FEET)

AREA (ACRES)

532,216.83 101,180.29 30,026.87 604,230.94 1,552,212,560.50 102,699,448.99 252,422,829.34 5,500,800,218.25 7,409,402,712.01

ANNUAL YIELD (LB/FT^2) *1

12.22 2.32 0.69 13.87 35,702.76 2,356.97 5,794.83 126,281.00 170,164.66

228,853.24 43,507.53 12,911.55 259,819.30 667,451,401.02 44,160,763.07 108,541,816.61 2,365,344,093.85 3,186,043,166.16

which were considered in pieces of this project.) These figures are an approximation based on many averages. There will be problems leading to diffrentiation in terms of actual values, but it offers a lot of hope for this area. Diffrentiations from these given numbers (as well as the numbers shown later in this report) could occur due to pests, problems with specific sites, the types of foods produced, the production methods, climate change, where the food is grown, and when it is planted. A greenhouse is going to produce much different results than the open ground. ANNUAL YIELD (LB/FT^2) *2

ANNUAL YIELD (LB/FT^2) *3

236,836.49 45,025.23 13,361.95 268,882.77 690,734,589.42 45,701,254.80 112,328,159.05 2,447,856,097.12 3,297,184,206.84

4,071,458.77 774,029.25 229,705.52 4,622,366.70 11,874,426,087.83 785,650,784.77 1,931,034,644.42 42,081,121,669.61 56,681,930,746.87

ANNUAL YIELD (LB/FT^2) *AVERAGE 1,511,495.81 287,352.03 85,276.30 1,716,015.87 4,408,283,671.82 291,666,435.13 716,880,835.31 15,622,272,619.83 21,042,703,702.11

ANNUAL YIELD PEOPLE SERVED (SERVINGS/ACRE) PER YEAR** *AVERAGE (AVERAGE) 6,046,964 757.27 1,148,033 143.77 340,946 42.70 6,863,453 859.52 17,667,210,883 2,212,500.04 1,166,326,806 146,061.43 2,867,522,949 359,105.62 62,489,092,090 7,825,633.57 84,204,552,123 10,545,103.92

*BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE STUDIES: 1: INDY URBAN ACRES .43 2: THE CALCULATION GIVEN .445 3: GROWING POWER 7.65 4: AVERAGE 2.84 **BASED ON THE CALCULATION:

1,596,144.50 1,650,597.19 28,400,481.59 10,545,103.92

(SERVINGS CONSUMED ANNUALLY)*(POPULATION)-(SERVINGS/FT^2)*(AREA)= PEOPLE FED

Figure 1.20 calculation chart for the city of muncie yields BALL CORP SOUTHVIEW ELEM.

479160 479160 479160 43560

11 11 11 1

206038.8

213226.2

3665574

18730.8

19384.2

333234

1360814.4 206038.8 3665574 123710.4

5443257.6 5443257.6 5443257.6 494841.6

681.67 681.67 61.97

project REQUIRMENTS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Raise awareness of “How to Use a Landscape” TRANSPARENT LAND TECHNIQUES TEACH USERS ABOUT METHODS SITE AS AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY PROMOTE ALTERNATIVES TO INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE PERMACULTURE “GOING LOCAL” ORGANIC PRODUCTION METHODS IMPROVE MUNCIE’S ACCESS TO DIVERSE AND HIGH-QUALITY FOODS REDUCE THE USE OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS DISTRIBUTE TO LOWER-INCOME FAMILIES INCREASE DISTRIBUTION HUBS CREATE A NETWORK OF “PRODUCTIVE” SPACES CONTINUOUS PRODUCTIVE URBAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVE UGI’S NETWORK OF GARDENS CONNECT TO LOCAL FARMS, GARDENS, AND DISTRIBUTORS SHARE AMENITIES [COMPOST, TOOLS] INCREASE SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN MUNCIE ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC SOCIAL

SITE PROGRAM MASTER SITE PROGRAM CONNECTED SITES: 1. Maring Hunt Library Community Garden 2. Maring Hunt Library 3. Wilson Senior Housing 4. Southview Elementary School (yard) 5. Madison Street vacant lots and parking lots 6. Ball Corporation Park 7. Ball Corporation CONNECTING CORRIDORS: 1. 13th Street a. Needs bike lanes implemented b. Productive space can span up to 8’ along the side of the road in most places 2. Cardinal Greenway a. Under the Muncie Action Plan (MAP), the Cardinal Greenway extends into Ball Corporation Park. This extension shall be fully implemented for this project. b. Productive space shall span between 3-20’ from greenway borders 3. Abandoned Rail a. Rail shall be adopted by the Rails to Trails program b. Spaces adjacent to the rail, including vacant lots, shall become productive. c. The remaining length of greenway shall become ecologically restored. 4. Madison Street a. Vacant lots and oversized parking lots shall become gardens with b. Cooperative shall go on Madison Street, as it is the middle of Ball Corporation and

ALL SPACES WILL INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: 1. Retrofits for better closed-loop connections a. Compost b. Raised beds, or soil “built-up” c. Access to productive space d. Organic growing practices e. “Gathering” Space 2. Education a. Workshops about growing, preserving, and using food crops b. Internship opportunities for farms and students to grow c. Hands-on learning with a knowledgable staff 3. Access 4. Membership within the co-operative a. Work-Trade Opportunities b. Local economy support

SECTION 2: Design

DESIGN METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION This project began with very thorough research on the topic of urban agriculture. Research began with studies on permaculture and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship to landscape architecture, for basic philosophies of each. It went through topics such as how permaculture can transcend from just urban agriculture into something more community-based, and then how urban agriculture can be fit into spaces that are atypical for food production, such as within city limits, like backyards and alleys. Much of the findings from this research are located within the Background section of this report. Many of Muncieâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s codes and laws were considered, but much of this project goes off of the assumption that some zoning codes were changed when the benefits were realized by the city. Design process began with visits to the south side, and selections of which pieces would be most beneficial if they got involved. The initial intent was to design only Ball Corporation Park, but it evolved into a larger-scale project, as different methods of design were explored further. This changed the scope of the project and how many people it affected, but the project has maintained its significance, and gained more integrity because of its increased scale. Selected were also the corner of Madison Street and 13th Street, Southview Elementary School, and their adjacent open spaces. To create a network, a method of transportation must have also been selected, as well as any adjacent open spaces, so that the project could resemble a Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL). Because it has minimal traffic, 13th Street was selected as the direct route between the three sites. The pages that follow describe with imagery the remainder of the design process, beginning with design concerns and considerations of each site, followed by inventory and analysis, continuing through concept design, and into master planning. Detailed concepts of Southview Elementary, Madison Street, and Ball Corporation show the circulation of people within those spaces and recommended structures. Also, these designs include recommendations of education and distribution

to site users. The detail drawings and engineering components include planting design of Ball Corporation as a food forest, a typical compost bed, and a typical raised bed. Please note that the design process of this project has been a very cyclical pattern. Large-scale designs preceeded small-scale, but the details helped to refine the sweeping concepts more as time went on. MAJOR ELEMENTS The original intent of this project was to include major design elements such as food production, a resource center, and a community-supported agriculture distribution facility on a single site. The scope of this project, however, has evolved and has split these functions onto multiple sites, much like CPULs. The purpose for including this lengthier and linear site is to be able to 1) integrate a more active lifestyle into food production and 2) integrate ecological restoration by weaving native plants in and out of the food design. This helps to benefit both the people using these gardens and their ecosystems. Housed amongst the community gardens on Madison is a resource center and cooperative. This is a place where people are able to rent and share garden tools, distribute food (perhaps local to these sites but also possibly from other gardens and farms within Muncie), and if the community determines any other programming elements on their own, they should be added, organically. Also at the co-operative shall be volunteer options for members to work a few hours as an exchange for food or money. Jobs can include but are not limited to maintaining the shop, distributing food, and working in any of the gardens that need maintenance. This food co-operative, once in place, should consider Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) as a means of distributing food. Also, the co-operative has the opportunity to distribute food from gardens taken up on vacant lots in surrounding neighborhoods, as the food grown there can be sold to the co-operative or exchanged for something of equal or lesser value (determined by the co-operative). Expanding the project throughout the remaining

FIGURE 2.1 a view within ball corporation park. shown is the lone structure and parking lot, bisected by the walking trail.

industry and commerical areas nearby is a possibility for future developmental phases of this project. In the pages that follow, it is proposed, but is not the forebearing portion of the design. It is worth discussing in the case of this site, as of the designer’s request, but may only be suitable for some of the highlighted locations. In most cases, it will require permission from the property owners, or likely an already-abandoned facility, and much site remediation. Though these conditions are not probable on every location, thorough inventory of properties should precede implementation. FORSEEABLE PROBLEMS With the introduction of new projects and practices usually come complications, which should be dealt with in the most proactive ways possible. The complications dealt with in this design include flexibility of the co-operative, failing food production, volunteer problems, and vandalism on the site which could damage foods. One overarching solution that this project can take is to remain flexible with these designs, and be sensitive to the necessary and innovative changes that can occur with the developments of time and peoples’ ideas. To begin with, the co-operative can remain useful if its design and planning take community needs and innovative ideas into consideration together. Because this is already a space that capitalizes on transportation (for distribution) and will likely house many needs, its users could simply be selective and anticipate what comes next as time goes on, and allow the process to be an organic design instead of the one prescribed in this report. This might mean selling some tools, or holding

a workshop, instead of building new gardens. Another example is to introduce a CSA. Success of a CSA not only depends on how the food production yields, but also who would be interested in investing in a CSA, and how many of them. Under the worst circumstances, one might consider hosting a farmer’s market if a CSA were to fail, and that is highlighted in the programming for Ball Corporation Park. Those more detailed programming elements have also been left very flexible. The most important thing to consider with this CSA is that the community is able to have access to food. Food production, unfortunately, can host a number of issues. These range from pests, to disease, weeds, unhealthy soils, drought, temperature, maintenance, and improper harvesting to name a few. The best practices possible to meet the goals of food production at high yields and quality are to keep a knowledgeable group of people on staff to maintain the site, and lead volunteers. All people involved will need to do thorough observation of conditions frequently to determine best practices. The two final complications are due to people’s misuse and carelessness while on site. Ethics will play a humongous role in the success of these projects. Luckily, there is more than one site being proposed, so if one fails, it does not mean the others will. If people understand and take advantage of the fact that they are getting food out of this project, they will be more likely to care for it well.

FIGURE 2.2 SITE CONTEXT MAP

sIte descrIPtIon and conteXt The Ball Corporation and Park have an adjacent space between them. The total acreage is approximately 18, and already has a fence surrounding the property. This space is in zoning section II, which has no regulations against housing animals. Maring Hunt Library has one adjacent space suitable for food production to the immediate west, which currently houses a community garden, managed by different members of the community and owned by the Urban Gardening Initiative. There is about 3.5 acres to work with and the land is owned by the library, but is also very near the senior housing just north of the library and can provide seniors with an opportunity to have access to good food. Southview Elementary School has one space toward the southeast side of its property. This space is owned by Muncie Community School Systems and could easily house a garden and outdoor classroom for schoolkids. In its current state, it houses a playground, which could be relocated. The space is about 2 acres. Food production design implements as many sustainable

land practices as possible; including composting on all sites, soil-building, partial rainwater harvesting where possible (to save money on a municipal water supply), hoophouses and cold frames to extend the growing season, and multi-cropping to help maintain healthy soil levels and plants. Determining many of these amenities depends on finances, materials available, and helping hands to create the garden. An organized event hosted by the co-operative could take place to bring in volunteers to establish the garden once proper planning is in place, and similar events can occur regularly to maintain it. Site programming on the planning level includes education, community gathering, and building new gardens in other nearby neighborhoods. All of these could take place within each site. Some education possibilities include canning, cooking, skill-sharing, gardening and food distribution. The two sites chosen were the Ball Corporation Park and the Maring Hunt Library, highlighed in green on the map above. A walkability study was done on this area, shown in large yellow circles, which measured 1/2

mile radius from the center of each space. Within that half mile, there was one grocery store (Marsh) within walking distance of Maring Hunt Library, and one restaurant (12th Street Cafe) within walking distance of Ball Corporation Park. Both of these are on Memorial drive, which is a hostile environment to pedestrians, as it has no sidewalks and is heavily trafficked. Along Madison Avenue are also restaurants to be noted, but every single one of them is either a fast food franchise, and it is safe to say that they do not support local production. To begin was a survey of the restaurants and grocery stores within that location.

sIte InVentorY Inventory maps created from Ball State University’s Geographical Information System (GIS) database are included in Appendix B. They cover human patterns, natural patterns, and neighborhoods. Figure 2.3 indicates which layers of the GIS maps were used in the creation and realization of the design concepts for this project. Some other noteworthy findings are that Memorial Street has very little pedestrian access, and if travelling along this street, it is one mile distance between Ball Corporation Park and Maring Hunt Library. Madison Street has a lot of fast food and coould be considered a “commercial corridor.” The north-south corridor adjacent to the Ball Corporation is industrial. After taking inventory and understanding what components fit properly within this project’s perameter, analysis of these pieces took place to determine how things should work together. Figure 1.15 on page 15

GREEN SPACES GREEN SPACES

VACANT LOTS VACANT LOTS

PARKING LOTS PARKING LOTS

BUILDING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS FOOTPRINTS

FIGURE 2.3 THE GIS LAYERS THAT HELPED FEED T DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT

EXISTING RAIL EXISTING RAIL

ALLEYS

STREETS

PAVEMENT EDGE PAVEMENT EDGE

sIte analYsIs

Garfield Elementary School

NEEDS CONNECTION

HOSTILE TO PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS POTENTIAL FOOD DELIVERY ROUTE

Existing Community Garden Walgreens CVS

Existing Community Garden

Rich Gas Save-On Liquor

NEEDS CONNECTION POTENTIAL BIKE ROUTE

Auto Parts Mutual Bank Family $

Maring Hunt Library

AutoZone

Southview Elementary School

Spartech Plastics

COMMERCIAL ZONING NOT CONDUCIVE TO HEALTH OF COMMUNITY

1 Merchant Joker’s Bank Wild

Ball Corp. Park

Papa John’s Taco Bell Arby’s KFC Mac’s Rest. Old Natn’l Bank Swifty Gas INDUSTRIAL ZONING NOT CONDUCIVE TO HEALTH OF COMMUNITY

Wendy’s

RAILS TO TRAILS OPPORTUNITY

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

FIGURE 2.4 SITE ANALYSIS

highlights all of the potential green spaces that could potentially become food production. As mentioned in the Background section of this report, these spaces could include rooftop farms; raised beds in parking lots; alleys, abandoned rail lines, and recreation trails planted with foraging plants; and vacant lots becoming community gardens. With this potential in mind, some of the things noted were the potential spaces that could become productive sites in an early iteration of that goal. Considering the site programming that is necessary to create some kind of CPUL in Muncie, it was necessary to highlight the spaces that would be affected by the design. This began with the two sites in question and their immediate contexts. Any potential transportation sites were next. This included 13th Street for a main pedestrian and cyclist axis Heekin Park’s recreation trails, the abandoned rail line, and Madison Street. Madison is a very good asset, as it is one of the only streets in the city of Muncie that runs the entire north-south corridor. However, it is one of the biggest hurdles of this project, as it has corporate funding

for nearly all of its businesses, and people love the conveniences of fast food. Because of this, the design of this project very carefully chose sites surrounding Madison as the first iterations of the design. The spaces highlighted in dark green on Figure 2.4 are all very accessible potential spaces to create a productive landscape on. From analysis, concepts were created to address certain patterns and their relationships between the sites and designs.When a concept was chosen, the process shifted to master planning. Representations of these, and elaboration of their ideas are on the pages that follow. The concepts in this project move under the assumption that this site and final design product will resemble a CPUL. Most of the drawings in the Master Planning phase of this project, however, do not clearly indicate that the spaces adjacent to 13th Street are either productive, or help support the ecological corridor. Let this disclaimer give the reader the assumption that this will be the case. 25

desIgn concePts

FIGURE 2.5 CONCEPT 1

Uses Memorial Drive as a main access road between the two major sites. There is also a hint of site development along the trails of Heekin Park. Ideally, these sites would have complementary elements and landscape features, and could utilize one anothersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resources. 0

295 0

590

0.05

0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

FIGURE 2.6 CONCEPT 2

295 0

590

0.05

0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

Highlights both 13th street (a minor connector) and the retired rail line to pull together the sites on the east and west sides of this network. A garden at Heekin Park has been removed from this concept. These connecting lines of transportation would be for non-motorized vehicle access for transportation of food, and could double as foraging paths. FIGURE 2.7 CONCEPT 3

Expands on previous concepts by highlighting alleys and vacant lots as spaces for production. This concept greatly increases yield of production, but also requires very radical community members, willing to take on the project.

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

FIGURE 2.8 CONCEPT 4

Considers a few of those vacant lots along Madison Avenue. The circled points are major nodes along the rail and Madison. These can become different parts of the sitesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; co-operative, or potentially garden spaces. Each phase of the design is a very low-budget retrofit on an existing infrastructure. 0

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

proposed community gardens proposed public productive space recreation trails bicycle lanes affected streets

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

master Plan PHASE 1 Phase one is the design that the zoom-in plans and detailed drawings on the following pages are based on. In this iteration, the community garden at Maring Hunt is larger than existing, a garden is developed along the east side of Southview Elementary, and an orchard and park are created adjacent to Ball Corporation. Also proposed are community gardens along the vacant lots within the community that are adjacent to 13th street, or the rail. Along Madison Avenue, a few small developments are taking place in vacant lots and parking lots. Much of the design along Madison will remain conceptual, as urban agriculture is a very organic process, and much of the development needs to remain sensitive to and evolve with the community. Pedestrian or cyclist access into these spaces can come from the rail line, the Cardinal Greenway, or Heekin Park, and the spaces connect to one another via 13th Street.

FIGURE 2.9 MASTER PLAN PHASE 1 27

proposed community gardens proposed public productive space recreation trails bicycle lanes affected streets

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

PHASE 2

Phase two takes place within a minimum of ten years down the road, under the assumption that the school program, the Co-operative on Madison Street, and design at Ball Corporation work. In this iteration, distribution is occuring along the abandoned rail line, and the industrial areas of this site become food production. This includes parking lots, abandoned factories or green roofs, and anything along 8-10â&#x20AC;&#x2122; off the edge of the rail line. Also along Madison Avenue are the beginnings of a small network between vacant lots and parking lots beginning to form. This scenario will only take place once the city has seen positive feedback from the school, the community garden, and the urban farms in Phase one.

FIGURE 2.10 MASTER PLAN PHASE 2 28

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

proposed community gardens proposed public productive space recreation trails bicycle lanes affected streets

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

PHASE 3

Much like Phase two, Phase three takes place under the assumption that Phase two is successful. In this phase, the fast food locations begin allowing rooftop access for food production, and their parking lots as well. Everyone in this community is biking for a primary means of transportation, and these sites are able to be interconnected. Also included are necessary landscape elements for natural water retention and detention, more seed banks, more animal production (including aquaponics), greenhouses for year-round production, and more facilities like the co-operative which are able to offer opportunities processing and distributing the locally grown goods.

FIGURE 2.11 MASTER PLAN PHASE 3 29

MADISON STREET CO-OPERATIVE

proposed community gardens proposed public productive space recreation trails bicycle lanes affected streets

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

FIGURE 2.12 ENTRY INTO HEEkIN PARk

FIGURE 2.13 GAS STATION

FIGURE 2.14 FROM HEEkIN PARk, FACING SOUTH.

The Madison Street Co-operative design began with programming, and inventory and analysis helped to determine which space was best suited for the retrofit. The Co-operative initially was to be located along the Ball Corporation property, but as the project grew, the design changed. As mentioned previously, the corridor along Madison street is one of the only streets in Muncie running north and south through the entire city. Moving perpendicular to Madison is 13th Street, which will be connecting as part of a larger bicycle route through the southside. The site on the northeast corner of Madison and 13th was the chosen design location. The design potential of Madison Street relies heavily on the acceptance of the local food movement along the corridor, but upon it gaining foothold, it can become an incredible asset for the community. People can come from all over the city and spend money, allowing more to circulate within that neighborhood.

For people who live closer to the Co-operative, they have the option of becoming members. The membership program will give special discounts and offers for people based on their commitment to the farms included. The Co-operative is located in place of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Save-On Liquors.â&#x20AC;? This new space is designated for users to have access to fresh food from the land, tools to rent for their gardens, a small cafe, a small kitchen for processing foods, an educational space within, and a series of a few small raised bed gardens outdoors. Shown on the map in Figure 2.15 are also four potential community garden spaces that could be taken on parking lots. These spaces, along with any others on Madison, are optional for community members to use. The intent is that the Co-operative will be in charge of facilitating them, but community members shall be in charge of managing and upkeep. The Co-operative will offer opportunities to do work/trade, where members work on the gardens, including those on Ball

sIte Program

FIGURE 2.15 MADISON STREET CO-OPERATIVE SITE PROGRAM 31

Corporation, or possibly an educational workshop on Southview Property. This is an economic incentive for community members to get involved with working on the property and learn how to use the land. This center is the main distribution hub from the two other sites, holding the space to become a processing facility for sheepâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s milk and by turning berries into pies. Also involved on this site is a food delivery truck, operating like a Community Supported

Agriculture (CSA) where people buy in and have a produce delivery every other week. The new Co-operative has the potential to change the community in very positive ways. It reinforces the work being done on the farms through distribution, economic opportunity, and programs to benefit the social interaction between community members, whether or not they are members of the Southside community.

FIGURE 2.16 existing conditions of parking on 13th and madison

FIGURE 2.17 post-design conditions of the space in figure 2.16 32

southview elementary school

proposed community gardens proposed public productive space recreation trails bicycle lanes affected streets

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

FIGURE 2.18 MARING-HUNT COMMUNITY GARDEN

FIGURE 2.19 SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOLYARD SOUTHEAST LOT

The Southview Elementary School design process began with site programming, followed by inventory and analysis. Inventory was initially taken of the sites adjacent to Southview Elementary (See Appendix B, figure 3.4), and helped to determine the topography and existing conditions of the space in terms of human circulation and natural land systems. Again, this project had an idea that was programmed, and the site was selected to be retrofitted. Site programming elements included a definite connection between the two garden sites, as owned beneath a larger parent company, or the Co-operative. Any remaining crops from either site could be donated to the Co-operative, but more importantly, the Cooperative would offer volunteers for these spaces. Also, their role is to implement a seed exchange within the library, where users can rent seeds, borrow them for a growing season, and return the investment the following planting season. Also, a CSA dropoff shall exist between the school and the library.

The analysis determined first which site should be used, and how it was going to connect to other spaces. Considering that 13th was already designated as a main street for pedestrian and bicycle travel, the ease of getting to 13th was also considered. It was determined that the existing circulation of sidewalks and people-movers was sufficient to get people between the community garden at Maring-Hunt and Southview Elementary School. Next, the site was chosen. The school was selected for it’s opportunity to connect children to food and enrich their lives at a young and influential age. Maring-Hunt was not selected because their community garden design is sufficient, and can be added to by the children later on. (The garden at Maring-Hunt agreed to do an interview, and their practices are self-reliant for the community members involved. They offer a 10’x10’ plot for a small seasonal fee, and users are allowed to plant what they want.) More impact would come from the design of the schoolyard. 33

sIte Program

FIGURE 2.20 SITE PROGRAM

MARING-HUNT LIBRARY SPACE 1. EDUCATE a. CHILDREN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS b. SENIORS ABOUT NEW TECHNIqUES c. COMMUNITY GARDEN USERS 2. DISTRIBUTE a. TO SCHOOL b. TO SENIOR HOUSING c. TO CO-OPERATIVE COMMUNITY GARDEN o CREATED FOR THE COMMUNITY o MAINTAINED BY COMMUNITY AND UGI o FOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AND UGI MEMBERS § ALSO SOLD AT FARMSTANDS, OR MARkET o COMPOSTING SYSTEM

COMMUNITY GATHERING CENTER (LIBRARY AND ADJACENT SPACE) o MEETING SPACE o COMMUNITY DINNER 1X WEEk o SEED-SHARE SPACE SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLYARD GARDEN o MEETING SPACE o EDUCATION WITHIN THE GARDEN BECOMES PART OF THE CURRICULUM o CHILDCARE AFTER SCHOOL o SMALL “WORkSHOPS” § COMPOSTING § MULTI-CROPPING § SEED SAVING

sIte analYsIs

MEMORIAL HOSTILE TO PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS POTENTIAL FOOD DELIVERY ROUTE

Existing UGI Garden offers shares for $20/season

POTENTIAL BIKE ROUTE CONNECTS TO BALL CORPORATION (1 MILE)

EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDEN CAN SHARE WITH LIBRARY AND SENIOR HOUSING

VACANT LOTS CAN OFFER CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SPACES

EFFECTIVE SPACE TO START A GARDEN STEEP GRADE CHANGE NOT SUITABLE FOR GARDEN

0 50 100

200

Feet 300

POSSIBLE GARDEN SPACES OTHER GREEN SPACES EXISTING BUILDINGS PARKING LOTS EXISTING STREETS EXISTING SIDEWALKS EXISTING ALLEYS EXISTING RAIL

WILSON SENIOR HOUSING MARING HUNT LIBRARY SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY

2FT CONTOURS

FIGURE 2.21 SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ANALYSIS

sIte concePt

Existing UGI Garden

0 50 100

200

Feet 300

POSSIBLE GARDEN SPACES OTHER GREEN SPACES EXISTING BUILDINGS PARKING LOTS EXISTING STREETS EXISTING SIDEWALKS EXISTING ALLEYS EXISTING RAIL

WILSON SENIOR HOUSING MARING HUNT LIBRARY SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY

2FT CONTOURS

FIGURE 2.22 SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY CONCEPT

Zoom-In Plan

EDUCATION PAVILION RAISED BEDS: MIXED HERBS, GREENS, VEG’S

BERRIES

FRUIT TREES

0 10 20

FIGURE 2.23 ZOOM-IN PLAN

60 Feet

constrUctIon detaIl The conceptual design of the Southview Elementary Schoolyard was based off of the concentric rings of the Brooklyn Edible Schoolyard. The shape of the garden gives focus to whomever is in the center. This 15’ in diameter space is left open for teachers, or students. The concentric ring shape is a series of paths that moves through the space, all connecting back into the center in a radial pattern. Figure 2.23 gives a more detailed description of this concept. Along the concentric paths, along the inside of the circle, are raised beds. These are designated for food crops, particularly mixed herbs, greens, and vegetables. These are the more sensitive plants, in need of clean, predictable soil (unlike the existing soil of this space, which is “Urban Land”. See Figure 2.24 for a more detailed idea of what this might look like.) The next set of rings moving outward are planted with mixed berry shrubs, and the final ring are planted with fruit trees and under-croppings of mixed perennials for ultimate soil health. The trees provide a privacy border to keep neightbors out. The specific selections of plants are to be left up to the students, property owners, and faculty.

TYP. RAISED BED 4X4 RECYCLED WOOD, FINISHED

SEE TYP. SHEET MULCH

EXISTING GROUND

FIGURE 2.24 A TYPICAL RAISED BED DETAIL WITHIN THE THE SCHOOLYARD GARDEN 37

BALL CORPORATION PARK

proposed community gardens proposed public productive space recreation trails bicycle lanes affected streets

295 0

0.05

590 0.1

1,180 0.2

1,770 0.3

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

The Ball Corporation property, located on South Macedonia Avenue, went into the hands of Spartech Plastics in 1984, under the name Ball Plastics. The company went from a glass manufacturer to a plastics manufacturer, and was sold to Spartech after the Ball family moved out. The design of the property adjacent to their factory began with inventory and analysis. As the original site for this project, much of the very early study was on the Ball Corporation Park itself, but has instead shifted to the greenspace surrounding. The park is a valuable asset to the community, and that land shall remain public park space. The site inventory and analysis that took place on this adjacent space began with a context study. By

FIGURE 2.25 THE BALL CORPORATION PROPERTY ENTRANCE, INCLUDING FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE

doing this study, all of the maps in the background section of this project in this project were created, and the other sites were selected. The Ball Corporation could stand alone as a solid design that can be a tremendous asset to the community, but an economic incentive will reinforce the program of the project as a whole. GIS inventory highlighted the existing streets, sidewalks, rail, recreation trails, building locations, vacant lots, parking lots, and topography (See Appendix B, Figure 3.5). The analysis, then, combined the overall master planning with this GIS data, with an ideal program in mind.

FIGURE 2.26 BALL CORPORATION PARk PARkING LOT AND OPEN LAWN

FIGURE 2.27 BALL CORPORATION PARk RECREATION TRAIL 38

sIte Program

FIGURE 2.28 BALL CORPORATION SITE PROGRAM

1. EDUCATE A. INFLUENCE A GREEN FABRIC TO “CLEAN UP” INDUSTRIAL AREAS B. INVITE THE INDUSTRY TO BECOME MORE GREEN 2. DISTRIBUTE A. FARMER MARkET IN BALL CORP. PARk B. CO-OPERATIVE CREATE A PERMANENT, YEAR-ROUND SET UP 1. REMEDIATE SITE (YEARS 1-3) 2. PLANT ORCHARD (YEARS 3-8) - USE COMPOST TO REBUILD SITE - CREATE A HEALTHY SOIL LIFE 3. INTRODUCE ANIMALS

- BEES (YEAR 8) • help to support the plants • honey makes for eXcellent BYPRODUCT - SHEEP: GRAZING SYSTEM, GATES (YEAR 8) • 4 orchard/pastures to ROTATE • sheep-shares • sheep-rental - CHICkENS (YEAR 9) • introduced to come in after SHEEP, “TILL SOIL” AND ALSO INCLUDE EXCREMENT FERTILIZER 39

Analysis of the site highlighted the spaces that can act as different entrances, different lots that can connect to the site as community garden spaces, how the people-moving trails can align with the master plan, and how social connections within the site can relate to the park and the greater plan vision. This site is within a half mile from the Cardinal Greenway, a bike route in Muncie that goes through most of the city. Becuase the train tracks along the west edge of the site are very wild looking, the new design will implement changing the tracks into a new recreation trail. This trail will travel through the west boundary of the site, even beyond edges of the new design of the park, and down into the community to follow the remaining rail line south.

From the analysis came a three-section plan of the Ball Corporation property. The sections were treated first with the design of human and bicycle circulation (shown in Figures 2.31 and 2.32). Then, green spaces with their functions were chosen, and finally, how this new space would identify and relate to the Ball Corporation Park. Section one of the park is a food forest that is the entry for users accessing from the west. Section two is a nut orchard with sheep that graze the groundcover layer. This relationship is shown below, in Figure 2.29. Section three is a dense planting of mixed berries, used for the connection between the Cardinal Greenway entrance and the Ball Corporation.

FIGURE 2.29 the sheep and orchard relationship 40

analYsIs

CAR ENTRY FROM MEMORIAL

BIKE/PED ENTRY FROM 13TH STREET SHARE LOT WITH SPARTECH

EXISTING FENCE LENDS TO ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (ZONING CODES DON’T ARGUE AGAINST IT)

PROVIDE CONNECTIONS WITHIN PARK

CONSOLIDATE MESSY TRAILS AND TRACKS

CONNECTION POINTS

Feet 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 FIGURE 2.30 BALL CORPORATION PARk ANAYLSIS

POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE OF DESIGNED SPACE

sIte concePt

SECT. 2

SECT. 1

SECT. 3

PRODUCTIVE SPACE OTHER GREEN SPACES EXISTING BUILDINGS PARKING LOTS EXISTING STREETS EXISTING SIDEWALKS BICYCLE ROUTE/GREENWAY

0 50 100

200

300

400

F t Feet 500

FIGURE 2.31 BALL CORPORATION CONCEPT

sectIon 1. [2.75 acres] ENTRY TO FOOD FOREST SPACE FROM HEEkIN OR 13TH STREET IS PLANTED WITH MIXED FRUIT ORCHARDS AND SUPPORTIVE PLANTING MIXTURES sectIon 2. [5.5 acres]MIXED NUT ORCHARD AND ROTATIONAL SHEEPGRAZING PASTURE sectIon 3. [2.75 acres] A TRANSITIONAL SPACE FOR CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS TO CONNECT BETWEEN BALL CORPORATION AND OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN SOUTH MUNCIE IS PLANTED WITH MIXED BERRIES AND SUPPORTIVE PLANTS

FIGURE 2.32 PHYSICAL LAYERS DIAGRAM OF BALL CORPORATION PARk 43

master plan

FIGURE 2.33 final plan of ball corporation park

Section I site plan

FIGURE 2.34 ball corporation food forest plan

The design of section one of the Ball Corporation Park was imagined as a spiral, initially, where the many rings and layers of the shape would take on a different type of fruit tree. This shape remained, but took a more concentric shape. The new greenway extentions push through this site (shown in Figure 2.34 as the dark yellow path). The north-south greenway are planted with apricot trees. The east-west are circulating directly from 13th street to the west and right into the Ball Corporation Park original space. This is planted with plums through the edge of section 1. The concentric rings are planted with cherry, apple, pear, and peach trees, respectively. These trees provide small protection along the path, as well as provide access to the fruits directly from the greenway. The paths have small gaps in some spaces that lead

to an open pasture, planted with mixed natives and groundcovers. This gives the food forest an opportunity for native plants to grow in over time, and keeps the food production layers nearest to the paths for access. Figure 2.35 on page 46 indicates what this site may look like. Beneath the fruit trees are planted with perennials in the style of a guild, as represented in permaculture. A guild is a group of plants that help to support one another’s growth in a mutualistic relationship. All of the fruit trees have a “typical guild” associated with them, though the plants beneath them may vary based on what is available. These are represented on page 47-8 with Figure 2.36.

FIGURE 2.35 the ball corporation food forest typical character

PlantIng Plan DAYLILY [GRASS SUPPRESSING] Hemerocallis fulva LAVENDAR [ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Lavandula angustifolia

CARAWAY [PHOSPHORUS ACCUMULATOR] Carum carvi

PLUM TREE

Prunis domestica

QUINOA [CREATES MULCH] Chenopodium quinoa

APPLE MINT [BENEFICIAL INSECTS] Nasturtium tropaeolum

DAYLILY [GRASS SUPPRESSING] Hemerocallis fulva

APPLE MINT [BEN. INSECTS] Mentha suaveolens PEAR TREE

Pyrus communis

SORGHUM [CREATES MULCH] Sorghum bicolor RYE [CREATES MULCH, ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Secale cereale LAVENDAR [ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Lavandula angustifolia

NASTURTIUM [GRASS SUPPRESSING] Nasturtium tropaeolum GOLDENROD [ATTRACTS BENIFICIAL INSECTS] Solidago canadensis

BLACKBERRY [ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Rubus macropetalus

PEACH TREE Prunis persica

QUINOA [CREATES MULCH] Chenopodium quinoa

CLOVER [NITROGEN ACCUMULATOR] Trifolium spp.

FIGURE 2.36 PLANTING DEMONSTRATIONS FOR THE BALL CORPORATION FOOD FOREST

LAVENDAR [ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Lavandula angustifolia

CARAWAY [PHOSPHORUS ACCUMULATOR] Carum carvi

APRICOT TREE Prunis armeniaca

SORGHUM [CREATES MULCH] Sorghum bicolor RYE [CREATES MULCH, ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Secale cereale CLOVER [NITROGEN ACCUMULATOR] Trifolium spp.

DAYLILY [GRASS SUPPRESSING] Hemerocallis fulva HORSERADISH [N-ACCUMULATOR, BEN. INSECT] Armoracia rusticana

BLACKBERRY [ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Rubus macropetalus

CHERRY TREE Prunis dulcis

ALFALFA [N-ACCUMULATOR, BEN. INSECTS] Medicago sativa

CLOVER [NITROGEN ACCUMULATOR] Trifolium spp.

DAFFODIL [GRASS SUPPRESSING] Narcissus pseudonarcissus RYE [CREATES MULCH, ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Secale cereale

SORGHUM [CREATES MULCH] Sorghum bicolor APPLE TREE Malus pumila

RASPBERRY [ATTRACTS BENEFICIAL INSECTS] Rubus ideaeus

CARAWAY [PHOSPHORUS ACCUMULATOR] Carum carvi

FIGURE 2.36 PLANTING DEMONSTRATIONS FOR THE BALL CORPORATION FOOD FOREST

sectIon II: sIte Plan

WALNUT CHESTNUT

HAZELNUT PECAN

FIGURE 2.37 THE ROTATIONAL ORCHARD

Because zoning against agricultural animals in residential areas of Muncie is still outlawed, section two of Ball Corporation Design is a nut orchard with rotational sheep within the fences. This site is zoned as “industry” and does not ban animals. In the center of this design is a barn with access to all four pastures from within, for the sheep as well as storage on-site. Each of the four pastures is planted with a different nut tree, and supported by a different grouping of plants. The plants on the ground level are all palatable to sheep for grazing, though some of their diet can be supplemented with feed, within the barn. Figure 2.38 highlights what a typical planting might look like.

FIGURE 2.39 A VIEW INTO THE ORCHARD

WILDFLOWERS

[ATTRACTS BEN. INSECTS] Poppy, Daisy, Black-Eyed Susan

CANARYGRASS

[SHEEP LOVE IT] Phalarus canariensis

NUT TREE Chestnut, Hazelnut, Pecan, Walnut LADY’S MANTLE [PERENNIAL GROUNDCOVER] Alchemilla mollis

CLOVER

[NITROGEN ACCUMULATOR] Trifolium spp.

FIGURE 2.38 A TYPICAL NUT TREE PLANTING

sectIon III: sIte Plan

FIGURE 2.40 SECTION THREE PLAN

Because section three of the Ball Corporation design is accessible to park users, greenway users, and users of the edible spaces, this design deals primarily with interrelating the Cardinal Greenway with Ball Corporation Park, and the remainder of the designs. This space will have berries along its western end for harvest all summer long. On the east end of the greenway are more opportunities to pick from fruit tree guilds (Figure 2.36), but in less of a closely-planted space. These spaces are more open for more users to enjoy while in the park. As the existing soil in this site is questionable, figure 2.42 covers how to create a typical sheet mulch to rebuild soil health (which can also be duplicated on any other site.) Finally, Figure 2.43 gives an idea of what this space might look like. 50

FIGURE 2.41 THE CURRENT TRAILHEAD TO THE CARDINAL GREENWAY, FACING WEST

TYP. SHEET MULCH: COMPILED IN FALL, WATERED, AND PLANTED IN SPRING OR SUMMER

STRAW, LEAVES, OTHER SEEDLESS D.O.M MIN. 3" COMPOST FROM WORM BINS 8-12" CARBON MATERIAL [BROWN COMPOST] 1" NEWSPAPER OR CARDBOARD 1/2" MANURE [OPTIONAL] SOIL AMENDMENTS LIKE MINERALS, CHARCOAL, OR FISH EMULSION[OPTIONAL] EXISTING GROUND FIGURE 2.42 A TYPICAL SHEET MULCH

figure 2.43 the “after” condition of the greenway’s new design 51

CONCLUSION

The designs enclosed in this package were created with the intention of the southside community in mind. Every piece of this project is meant to be as low-maintenance and low-budget as possible. If the community is in support of it, they can implement the pieces as they please. These are merely ideas for what order and methods might be the best fit given the current economic, environmental, and social circumstances. They are a solution to the problem of food insecurity for people in the United States as a whole, starting with the Southside of Muncie. None of these sites would be as effective without the help of the others. Each of them is supporting a different social group of users, but the intention is that each person within the community will interact with another person from the community within a day. They will discuss different aspects of food production or distribution, and food will become a part of daily interaction on a much more conscious level than it currently is. Even if one is not using a site on a specific day, they may still be affected by its existence. The people who already do participate in the practices of eating well, supporting their local economy, or riding bicycles through town will have better access to other pieces of the story they may not be familiar with. The benefits that this project has on each space are immense. Beginning with the Madison Street Cooperative, the the new corridor could have an opportunity to become a wealth of local goods distribution, as opposed to very far sourced and unsustainably harvested. This gives Madison Street the chance to be a positive vehicle for change of the entire city, and not just the Southside.

Southview Elementary School will produce a wealth of children who are curious, who interact, who eat well, and are active in their interests. This legacy can continue to live on, perhaps as more sustainable practices emerge. The next generation will always be able to look at their roots of growing their own foods. The Ball Corporation, beginning with its rich history in the city, and evolving through food into another very valuable asset for the city, has the opportunity to become a very large asset. Perhaps this site can be the first of an agri-tourism opportunity in Muncie? This site is intended to draw people in from around the city for foods, and given its historical background, should make people very proud of their roots here. Whether the project is in phase 1, phase 2, or phase 3, food offers the opportunities to help. Any of the designs in this project are free to change as needed throughout the phases of the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life. This process was to remain organic, so as to always be used. As mentioned before, these were the best solutions at the time the project was created. Food has a very natural way of bringing people together. If people can work together to create the kind of food landscape that works the best for their social and economic needs, they will lead a rich life, even if it is void of material expenses. It is never too late for one to begin enriching their lives with positive health. Even if the circumstances are not perfect with every day life, this kind of project offers people a much different sense of vitality.

“PERMACULTURE IS A REVOLUTION DISGUISED AS ORGANIC GARDENING,” -GRAHAM BURNETT

Section 3: appendices

APPENDIX A: PERMACULTURE PRINCIPLES The following sets of principles are based on the author’s data collection from experience in permaculture design coursework but also research in books. Each subheading is a different source. Notice how the principles vary slightly between each source. This is because of permaculture’s view as a “framework” of design tools, and not necessarily a concrete practice, as it is often viewed. TOBY HEMENWAY Observe. Use protracted and thoughtful observation rather than prolonged and thoughtless action. Observe the site and its elements in all seasons. Design for specific sites, clients, and cultures. Connect. Use relative location: Place elements in ways that create useful relationships and time-saving connections among all parts. The number of connections among elements creates a healthy, diverse ecosystem, not the number of elements. Catch and store energy and materials. Identify, collect, and hold useful flows. Every cycle is an opportunity for yield, every gradient (in slope, charge, heat, etc.) can produce energy. Re-investing resources builds capacity to capture yet more resources. Each element performs multiple functions. Choose and place each element in a system to perform as many functions as possible. Beneficial connections between diverse components create a stable whole. Stack elements in both space and time. Each function is supported by multiple elements. Use multiple methods to achieve important functions and to create synergies. Redundancy protects when one or more elements fail. Make the least change for the greatest effect. Find the “leverage points” in the system and intervene there, where the least work accomplishes the most change. Use small scale, intensive systems. Start at your doorstep with the smallest systems that will do the job, and build on your successes, with variations. Grow by chunking. Principles for Living and Energy Systems Optimize edge. The edge—the intersection of two environments—is the most diverse place in a system, and is where energy and materials accumulate or are transformed. Increase or decrease edge as appropriate. Collaborate with succession. Systems will evolve over time, often toward greater diversity and productivity. Work with this tendency, and use design to jump-start succession when needed. Use biological and renewable resources. Renewable resources (usually living beings and their products) reproduce and build up over time, store energy, assist yield, and interact with other elements. Principles for Attitudes Turn problems into solutions. Constraints can inspire creative design. “We are confronted by insurmountable opportunities.”—Pogo (Walt Kelly) Get a yield. Design for both immediate and long-term returns from your efforts: “You can’t work on an empty stomach.” Set up positive feedback loops to build the system and repay your investment. The biggest limit to abundance is creativity. The designer’s imagination and skill limit productivity and diversity more than any physical limit. Mistakes are tools for learning. Evaluate your trials. Making mistakes is a sign you’re trying to do things better.

DAVID HOMLGREN Observe and Interact - beauty is in the eye of the beholder Catch and Store Energy - make hay while the sun shines Obtain a Yield - you can’t work on an empty stomach Apply Self-Regulation and Accept Feedback - the sins of the fathers are visited on the children unto the seventh generation Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services - let nature take its course Produce No Waste - a stitch in time saves nine. Waste not, want not. Design from Patterns to Details - can’t see the wood for the trees Integrate Rather than Segregate - many hands make light work Use Small and Slow Solutions - the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Slow and steady wins the race. Use and Value Diversity - don’t put all your eggs in one basket Use Edges and Value the Marginal - don’t think you are on the right track just because it’s a well-beaten path Creatively Use and Respond to Change - vision is not seeing things as they are but as they will be PLANET REPAIR INSTITUTE Observe Multiple Functionality Design for Resiliency and Redundancy Use and Value Diversity Look for relative locations Use biological resources Catch and store energy Collaborate with succession Start small and expand incrementally Use edges and value the marginal The problem is the solution our perception Obtain a yield

LA’AKEA Observe our garden Connecting to the specific place to maximize Catch and Store Energy and Materials Each element performs multiple functions Each function is supported by multiple elements Make the least change for the greatest effect by using “leverage points” Use small scale, intensive systems Stability through diversity Use the edge effect Accelerate succession using design Use biological and renewable resources Recycle energy Turn challenges into solutions Get a yield Abundance is unlimited Mistakes are tools for learning Local focus Relinquishing power

ÂŻ

FIGURE 3.1: HUMAN PATTERNS

0.05

295

0.1

590

0.2

1,180

0.3

1,770

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

RecreationTrails

RailroadLines

AlleyWays

BuildingFootprints

MuncieParks

ParkingLots

vacant_parcels

GreenSpace

Community_Gardens(2011)

MITSShelters

MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

Urban_Collector

RAMP

Principle_Arterial

None

Minor_Collector

Minor_Arterial

Major_Collector

Interstate

Freeway_Expressway

<Null>

FUNCTIONAL

StreetsMaster

& &

Legend

APPENDIX B: GIS MAPS (INVENTORY)

FIGURE 3.2: NATURAL PATTERNS

ÂŻ

0.05

295

0.1

590 0.2

1,180 0.3

1,770

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

Soils

TenFootContoursUSGS

TwoFootContours

Williamst

Wawaka

Water

Wapahani

Urban lan

Udorthent

Treaty

Strawn

Southwest

Sloan

Shoals

Ross

Rensselae

Rawson

Pits, qua

Pits, gra

Pewamo

Pella

Ockley

Muskego

Muncie

Mountplea

Morley

Mississin

Millgrove

Milford

Miamian

Miami

Martinsvi

Lybrand

Losantvil

Lickcreek

Lash

Houghton

Haney

Glynwood

Fox

Eldean

Eel

Crosby

Casco

Blount

Benadum

Belmore

Bellcreek

COMPNAME_C

SoilSurvey

FIGURE 3.3: NEIGHBORHOODS

ÂŻ

0.05

295

0.1

590

0.2

1,180

0.3

1,770

Feet 2,360 Miles 0.4

GreenSpace

MuncieParks

BuildingFootprints

AlleyWays

RailroadLines

RecreationTrails

MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

MITSShelters

Community_Gardens(2011)

SchoolLocations

Whitely

Westside

Westridge

Thomas Park / Avondale

Southside

Southeast

South Central

Skyway

Riverside / Normal City

Pettigrews Acres

Orchard Lawn

Old Westend

Norwood

Northview

Morningside

Minnetrista

McKinley

Kenmore

Industry

Gilbert

Forest Park

Eastside

East Central

Blaine

Aultshire

Anthony

NH_NAME

MuncieNeighborhoods

# & &

Legend

Legend TwoFootContours MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

StreetsMaster FUNCTIONAL <Null>

Legend

Freeway_Expressway TwoFootContours Interstate

MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

Major_Collector StreetsMaster Minor_Arterial FUNCTIONAL Minor_Collector<Null> None

Freeway_Expressway

Principle_Arterial Interstate RAMP

Major_Collector

Urban_CollectorMinor_Arterial RecreationTrailsMinor_Collector RailroadLines None AlleyWays

0 50 100

200

Feet 300

RecreationTrails

Legend

0 50 100

200

Feet 300

vacant_parcels

StreetsMaster FUNCTIONAL

Minor_Collector None Principle_Arterial RAMP Urban_Collector RecreationTrails RailroadLines AlleyWays BuildingFootprints MuncieParks

figure 3.4 gis inventory of southview elementary school and context

MuncieParks ParkingLots

Minor_Arterial

200

BuildingFootprints

MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

Major_Collector

Feet 300

AlleyWays

TwoFootContours

Interstate

Urban_Collector

ParkingLots

GreenSpace

Freeway_Expressway

0 50 100

MuncieParks

vacant_parcels RailroadLines

<Null>

Principle_Arterial

BuildingFootprints RAMP

ParkingLots vacant_parcels GreenSpace

GreenSpace

Legend TwoFootContours MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

StreetsMaster FUNCTIONAL <Null> Freeway_Expressway Interstate Major_Collector

LegendMinor_Arterial Legend

TwoFootContours Minor_Collector TwoFootContours MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB None MuncieSidewalkInventoryGASB

StreetsMaster Principle_Arterial StreetsMaster FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL RAMP

0 50 100

200

300

0 0 50 50 100 100

400

200 200

300 300

Feet 500

400 400

Feet Feet 500 500

figure 3.5 gis inventory of ball corporation and context

<Null> <Null> Urban_Collector Freeway_Expressway Freeway_Expressway Interstate RecreationTrails Interstate Major_Collector RailroadLines Major_Collector Minor_Arterial AlleyWays Minor_Arterial Minor_Collector BuildingFootprints Minor_Collector None None MuncieParks Principle_Arterial Principle_Arterial ParkingLots RAMP RAMP vacant_parcels Urban_Collector Urban_Collector RecreationTrails GreenSpace RecreationTrails RailroadLines RailroadLines AlleyWays AlleyWays BuildingFootprints BuildingFootprints MuncieParks MuncieParks ParkingLots ParkingLots vacant_parcels vacant_parcels GreenSpace GreenSpace

62 Perennial Annual Tree

Onion Garlic Common Chives

Allium cepa

Allium sativum

Allium schoenoprasum

Allium tuberosum Garlic Chives Basella alba Malabar Spinach Corylus avellana/americana Hazelnut

Raphanus sativus

Armoracia rusticana

Brassica hirta

Brassica oleracea

Brassica rapa

Brassica oleracea

Brassica napus

Crambe maritima

Brassica nigra

Brassica oleracea

Brassica juncea

Eruca sativa

BRASSICACEAE (BRASSICAS)

Beetberry Orach (Mountain Spinach) Annual Quinoa Spinach

Chenopodium capitatum

Atriplex hortensis

Chenopodium quinoa

Spinacia oleracea

Lamb's Quarters

Chenopodium album

Lactuca sativa

Tragopogon porrifolius

Tragopogon pratensis

Scorzonera hispanica

Cynara cardunculus

Cichorium intybus

Cichorium endivia

Cynara scolymus

Helianthus tuberosus

COMPOSITAE (COMPOSITES)

Jerusalem Artichoke

Globe Artichoke

Escarole

Endive

Chicory

Cardoon

Black Salsify

Wild Salsify

Salsify

Lettuce and Celtuce

Perennial

Good King Henry

Perennial

Biennial

Annual

Perennial

Biennial

Beets and Swiss Chard

Beta vulgaris Chenopodium bonushenricus

Annual

Radish Annual

Perennial

Biennial

Annual

Rorippa microphylla

Sea Kale

Mustard Greens

Kale and Collards

Black Mustard

Turnip

Rutabaga

Kohlrabi

Chinese Cabbage and Chinese Mustard

Cabbage

Brussels Sprouts

Broccoli

White Flowered Mustard

Horseradish

Annual

Bulb

Biennial

CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS) CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS) CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS)

BRASSICACEAE (BRASSICAS) CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS) CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS) CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS) CHENOPODIACEAE (FLOWERING PLANTS)

Perennial

Leek

Allium ampeloprasum

Garden Cress

Japanese Bunching Onion Biennial

Allium fisulosum

Perennial

Amaranth

Amaranthus spp.

AMARANTHACEAE AMARYLLIDACEAE (ALLIUMS) AMARYLLIDACEAE (ALLIUMS) AMARYLLIDACEAE (ALLIUMS) AMARYLLIDACEAE (ALLIUMS) AMARYLLIDACEAE (ALLIUMS) AMARYLLIDACEAE (ALLIUMS) BASELLACEAE BETULACEAE

CLASSIFICATION

COMMON NAME

BOTANICAL NAME

April (Ground)

April - July

Mid-April

Flowers

Leaves

Sprouts

Leaves

Tubers

Leaves

Tuber and Greens

Leaves

Seeds

Leaves

Tubers

Tuber

Leaves

All Year

Early Spring

January (G.House), April (Ground)

Early Spring

Early Spring to Early Summer

Early Spring

April

Early Spring

Anytime in the Growing Season

April (Ground)

April

Mid-July to Early August (Ground)

None

Peas

None

INCOMPATIBLE WITHâ&#x20AC;Ś

All Year

Late Fall

All Year

Fall

All Year

July

All Year

Summer

All Year

Before November

Vegetables, Squash, Strawberry, Tomato

Broccoli, Onion

Peas

Peas Before November, or All Year - Winter in a frame Peas

Light Water

Drought Tolerant

Average Water

Drought Tolerant

WATER TOLERANCE

Average Water

Light Water

Average Water

Full Sun

Partial Sun

Full Sun

Partial Sun

Full Sun

Partial Sun

Full-Partial Sun

Full Sun

Partial Sun

Drought Tolerant

Average Water

Drought Tolerant

Average Water

Full Sun - Partial Shade Average Water

Full Sun

Average Water

Full Sun - Partial Shade Average Water

Partial Shade

Full Sun

Partial Shade

Full Sun

Partial Sun Light Water Full Sun Average Water Full Sun - Partial Shade Medium

Partial Sun

Full Sun

SUN TOLERANCE

Peas Full Sun Chamomile, Dill, Garlic, Mint, All Year - Winter Nasturtium, Peas, Rosemary, in a frame Sage, Tansy, Tomato Pole Beans, Strawberry, Tomato Full Sun

Peas Before November, or All Year - Winter in a frame Peas

7-8 Weeks

Peas

All Year - Winter in a frame Peas

Early Fall

All Year - Winter in a frame Peas

May 1 (Ground); March (G-House) and April (Ground) Early Fall

March (G-house), April (Ground)

March (G-House), April (Ground)

April

Spring

April

Grind Seeds into Mustard April (Ground) Leaves

Early Fall

Late August (Ground) Spring Thaw March (G-house), April (Ground) March (G-house), April (Ground) Early Summer Late Summer n/a Late Summer

April (Ground) March (G-house), April (Ground) March (G-house), April (Ground)

Mid Spring

Leaves or Roots April (Ground)

Bulb

Root

Leaves

Baby Cabbages

Flower

Leaves

Root

Leaves and Stalks

Stalk Leaves Nut

Stalk

Root

Seed

WHAT PART DO WHEN DOES IT GET WHEN DOES IT ALLIES YOU EAT? PLANTED PRODUCE SPACING

12-18"

60-72"

8-12"

60-72"

4-8" 2" for root, 12" for greens 2" for root, 12" for greens 2" for root, 12" for greens

4" beets, or 12" chard

8-12"

1-2"

18"

8-12"

12"

8-12"

4-8"

6-8"

36"

8-12"

24-36"

8-12"

6-8"

4-6"

N/A 12-18" 15'

N/A

18-24"

Seed

Cutting

Seed

Trellis

Seed

ROOT

Yes Yes

Yes

SAVE SEEDS?

Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Yes Plant in Groups

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups Yes

Wind-Pollinated

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Yes Plant in Groups Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups, Frost Tolerant Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups, Observe Carefully for Optimal Planting Time Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Yes Plant in Groups

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Yes Plant in Groups

Hand- pollinate, pair with insects

NOTES

APPENDIX C: PLANTS USEFUL IN THIS AREA

Chrysanthemum coronarium Shungiku

Ipomoea batatas

COMPOSITAE (COMPOSITES)

CONVULVACEAE

Annual Annual

Casaba Honeydew Muskmelon Smooth Luffa Snake Melon

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Cucumus melo

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Luffia aegtiaca

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS)

Black Walnut Pecan Basil Perilla Chinese Artichoke Adzuki Bean Black Gram Cowpea, Asparagus Bean Garbanzo Moth Bean Mung Bean Peanut Rice Bean Soybean

Runner Bean Fava Bean Jicama Winged Bean and Aspargus Pea Asparagus Okra Rhubarb French Sorrel Garden Sorrel Miner's Lettuce Blackberry

Juglans nigra

Ocimum basilicum

Perilla frutescens Stachys affinis

Vigna angularis Vigna mungo

Vigna unguiculata Cicer arietinum Vigna aconitifolia Vigna radiata

Arachis hypogaea Vigna umbellata Glycine max Phaseolus acutifolius car. Latifolius Phaseolus vulgaris

Pisum sativum Phaseolus lunatus

Phaseolus coccineus Vicia faba

Pachyrhizus erosus Psophocarpus tetragonolobus Asparagus officinalis Abelmoschus esculentus Rheum rhabarbarum Rumex scutatus Rumex acetosa Claytonia parvifolia

Rubus procerus

JUGLANACEAE JUGLANACEAE

LABIATAE

LABIATAE LABIATAE

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes)

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes)

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes)

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes)

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes)

ROSACEAE

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LILIACEAE MALVACEAE POLYGONACEAE POLYGONACEAE POLYGONACEAE PORTULACECEAE

Tepary Bean Common Bean Garden Pea and Edible Podded Pea Lima Bean

Sorghum and Broom Corn Perennial

Sorghum bicolor

GRAMINEAE

LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes) LEGUMINOSAE (Legumes)

Jelly Melon (African Horned Cucumber) West Indian Gherkin (Burr Cucumber) Blueberry Blueberry Blueberry Chinese Chestnut Corn

Cucumus anguria Vaccinium acorymbosum Vaccinium angustifolium Vaccinium ashei Castanea mollisima Zea mays

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) ERICACEAE ERICACEAE ERICACEAE FAGACEAE GRAMINEAE

Cucumis metuliferus

Hard-shelled Gourd

Biennials

Perennial Perennial Annual Annual Perennial Perennial Annual

Perennial

Annual/Perennial Hardy Annual

Annual/Perennial Annual/Perennial

Annual Annual/Perennial

Annual Annual Annual

Annual Annual Annual Annual

Annual Annual

Annual Perennial

Annual

Tree Tree

Shrub Shrub Shrub Tree Annual

Outbreeding

Fruit

Seed Stalks Seeds Stalks Leaves, Flowers Leaves, Flowers Leaves

Seed

Seed Seed

Seed Seed Seed

Seed Seed Seed, Pod Seed

Seed Seed

Leaves Flower

Leaves

Fruit Nut

Seeds

Fruit Fruit Fruit Nut Seeds

Fruit

Outbreeding

Cucumber

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Lagenaria siceraria Outbreeding

Fruit Fruit

Annual

Watermelon and Citron

Late Summer

All Year

Late Summer

n/a

Late Spring All Year Late Spring All Year Early Spring Very Early Spring Very Early Spring

Early Spring (Greenhouse)

Late Spring Early Spring

Early Spring Late Spring

Late Spring Late Spring

Late Spring Early Summer Early Spring

Early Summer Early Spring Late Spring Early Summer

Late Spring Early Summer

n/a n/a Early Spring Greenhouse, Ground Early Summer Spring Greenhouse, Late Spring Ground Early Summer

Late Spring

n/a n/a n/a n/a Late Spring

Late Spring

July/August

Late Summer Late Summer Late Summer Late Summer Late Summer

Early Autumn

Summer Late Summer Mid Summer and Late Summer Mid Summer

Late Summer

Summer Late Summer

Late Summer Early Fall

Late Summer

Early season

Late Summer

Late Spring Late Summer Late Spring in Ground, Early Spring in Greenhouse When Mature

Early Summer

Late Spring

Fruit

Early Summer

Late Spring

Early Summer

Late Spring

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Cucurbita maxima CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Citrullus lanatus CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Cucumus sativa

Late Summer

Early Spring Greenhouse, Ground Early Summer Late Summer Mid Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Late Summer

Early Summer

Fruit

Squash (Acorn, Cocozelle, Crookneck, Scallop, Small Striped and Warted Gourdeds, Vegetable Marrow, Zucchini) Annual Squash (Butternut, Cheese, Golden Cushaw) Annual Squash (Green Striped Cushaw, White Cushaw, wild Seroria Squash) Annual

Annual

Fruit

Leaves

Tubers

Flowers, Seed

Grape, peas/beans, Fruit Trees

Vegetables

Brussels sprouts, Corn, Cucumber, Eggplant, Potato

black wanut, nightshades

Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun

Partial Sun Partial Sun

Partial Sun Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun Partial Sun

Asparagus, Vegetables, Tomato

Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun

SUN TOLERANCE

Full Sun Full Sun

None None None None

INCOMPATIBLE WITHâ&#x20AC;Ś

Weedy Groundcover, Authumn olive, Black Locust, European Alder, Raspberry, Soybean Apple, Azalea, Potato, Tomato None None

None None None None

WHAT PART DO WHEN DOES IT GET WHEN DOES IT ALLIES YOU EAT? PLANTED PRODUCE

Squashes (Banana, Buttercup, Winter Marrow, Hubbard, Turban) Annual

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Cucurbita mixta

CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Cucurbita pepo CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Cucurbita moschata

Annual

Cantaloupe

Annual

Perennial, Aquatic Annual

Water Spinach Angled Luffa

Perennial

CLASSIFICATION

CONVULVACEAE Ipomoea aquatica CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) Luffa acutangula CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS) CUCUBIRTACEAE (SQUASHES AND GOURDS)

Sweet Potato

Gobo (Japanese Burdock)

Articum lappa

Sunflower

Helianthus annuus

COMPOSITAE (COMPOSITES)

COMMON NAME

COMPOSITAE (COMPOSITES)

BOTANICAL NAME

Medium

Average Water Average Water Average Water Average Water Average Water Average Water Average Water

Average Water

Average Water Average Water

Drought Tolerant Average Water

Drought Tolerant Average Water Average Water

Average Water Drought Tolerant Average Water Average Water

Average Water Average Water

Average Water

Medium Medium

Drought Tolerant

Heavy and Evenly Moist Heavy and Evenly Moist Heavy and Evenly Moist Medium to Drought Tolerant Average Water

Drought Tolerant

Average Water

Very Wet

Drought Tolerant

WATER TOLERANCE

2-3'

12" 12" 4-6"

8-12" 10-24" 12-18"

12"

6-12" 4-6"

1-2" 4-6"

3" 3"

10-12" 3-4" 3-4"

3-6" 12-18" 3" 5"

3-5" 5"

10" 6-8"

10"

20-40' 25'

4-6"

20' 6-8"

18"

36-72"

18-24"

12-24"

18-30"

12-18"

18"

12-18"

18"

12-18"

SPACING

espalier

Seed

Seed Seed

Seed

Seed Seed Seed Seed

Seed

Trellis

Seed

ROOT

SAVE SEEDS?

Trellis

Bean Beetles

Vining Plant, low to ground

Can be Trelliced Grows well on Trellice, Probably should be in containers

Grows well on Trellice, needs shade

Insects Cause Many Problems

Insects Cause Many Problems Insects Cause Many Problems

Insects Cause Problems

Should be trellised

Insects Cause Problems

Should be trellised

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Not in this region

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Require Insect Pollination, Yes Plant in Groups

Require Insect Pollination, Plant in Groups Yes

NOTES

64 Blackberry Strawberry Raspberry Apple Apricot

Peach Pear

Plum

Sour Cherry

Sweet Cherry

Rubus macropetalus

Fragaria x ananassa

Rubus idaeus, occidentalis,

Malus pumila

Prunus armeniaca

Prunus persica

Pyrus communis

Prunus domestica

Prunus dulcis

Prunus avium

Solanum nigrum

Physalis pubescens

Solanum melongena

ROSACEAE

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

Solanum integrifolium

Physalis philadelphica

Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium

Capsicum annuum

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

Coriander Fennel Carrot Parsnip Dill

Parsley and Parsley Root Perennial Common Corn Salad Annual Italian Corn Salad Annual American Grape

Coriandrum sativum

Foeniculum vulgare

Daucus carota

Pastinaca sativa

Anethum graveolens

Petroselinum crispum Valerianella locusta Valerianella eriocarpa

Vitis labrusca

VITACAE

Vine

Perennial

Biennial

Annual Annual, Biennial, Perennial

Annual

Chervil

Annual

Celery

Anthriscus cerefolium

Perennial

as annuals

Perennials grown as annuals grown Perennials

Perennials grown as annuals

Annual

Apium graveolens

Chinese Lantern New Zealand Spinach

Tabasco and Squash Pepper

Tomato

Sweet Pepper and Chili Pepper

Tomato-Fruited Eggplant

Tomatillo

Sunberry

Strawberry Tomato

Annual

Tree

Shrub

Fruit

Leaves Leaves Leaves

Flower

Tuber

Leaves

Flower

Stalk

Fruit/Flower Leaves

Fruit

Fruit/Flower

Fruit or leaves (cooked)

Fruit

Tuber

Fruit or leaves (cooked)

Fruit

Fruit or leaves (cooked)

Fruit

Fruit Fruit

Biennials

n/a

Mid Spring Early Spring Early Spring

Mid Spring

Early Spring

Late Spring

Early Spring

Mid Spring

Late EarlySpring Spring Greenhouse, Early Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Summer Late Winter Greenhouse, Mid Spring Ground

Late Spring

Late Spring Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground

n/a Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground Early Spring Greenhouse, Early Summer Ground

n/a

n/a Full Sun

Full to Partial Sun

Full Sun

SUN TOLERANCE

None

Full Sun

Walnut and potatoes Full Sun persian melon, plum, eggplant, oats, pepper, potato, raspberry, strawberry, tomato Partial Sun

Nightshades

Brassicas

black walnut, nightshades

INCOMPATIBLE WITHâ&#x20AC;Ś

Late to Very Late Blackberries, Johnson Grass, Summer Sudan Grass, Chives, Hyssop None

Late Fall

All Year

Late Fall

Late Summer

Late Summer Late Summer

Late Summer

Alder, Buckwheat Rye Mulch, July-September Sorghum Mulch, Wheat Mulch, Alfalfa, bromegrass, clover (Variety) None

Medium

Heavy and Constant

Medium

WATER TOLERANCE

Full Sun

Full Sun Partial Sun Partial Sun

Full Sun

Partial Sun

Partial Shade

Full Sun

Full Sun Full Sun

Full Sun

Filtered Sun

Full Sun

Low to Dry

Average Water Average Water Average Water

Average Water

Heavy Water

Average Water

Average Water Drought Tolerant

Average Water Average Water

Average Water

Well drained soil, heavy and even supply

Full Sun - Partial Shade Heavy and Evenly Moist

None Full Sun Coclebur, Eggplant, Ground Cherry, Horse Nettle, Lamb's Quarters, Pepper, Pigweed, Alder, Brambles, Buckwheat, Potato, Raspberry, Strawberry, Mid-Late Season Rye,Sorghum or Wheat Mulch Tomato, Nightshades Full Sun

Late Summer

Midseason Late season

July

Alder, buckwheat, rye, sorghum Alder, Brambles, Buckwheat, Goldenrod, Lanb's-quarters, Ragweed, Rye Mulch, Smartweed, Sorghum Mulch, Strawberry, Wheat Mulch BIRD CONTROL: Dogwood, Mulberry, other aromatic fruit Alder, Brambles, Buckwheat, Rye or Sorghum or Wheat Mulch

Grape, peas/beans, Fruit July/August Trees Borage, Thyme, Bush Beans, Lettuce, Onion Family, Sage, Early to Late Season (Variety) Spinach Early to Late Beans and Peas (First year Season only) Fruit Trees Buckwheat, Eryngium herbs, Phacelia, Weedy August-Sep. Groundcovers

WHAT PART DO WHEN DOES IT GET WHEN DOES IT ALLIES YOU EAT? PLANTED PRODUCE

Perennial Groundcover

CLASSIFICATION

UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) UMBELLIFERAE (CARROT, PARSLEY) VALERINANACEAE VALERINANACEAE

Physalis alkekengi Tetragonia tetragonioides

Physalis ixocarpa

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES) TETRAGONIACEAE

Solanum Burbanii

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

Lycopersicon lycopersicum

Physalis pruinosa

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

Capsicum frutescens

Wild Tomatillo Currant Tomato

Physalis subglabrata

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES) SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

Potato

Solanum tuberosum Purple Ground Cherry

Garden Huckleberry

Solanum melanocerasum

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES) SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADES)

Eggplant

Downy Ground Cherry

Common Nightshade, Poisonberry

COMMON NAME

BOTANICAL NAME

8-10" 4-9" 4-9"

3-4"

2-3"

1-1.5"

4-6"

3-4"

6-8"

12-24" 12-20"

12-24" 12"

12-24"

12"

12-24"

12-18"

12-24"

10-12"

12-24"

12"

10-12"

12-18"

12-24"

10-12"

6-40'

6-20'

8-25'

5-30'

12-25'

8-30'

8-40'

2-4'

8-15"

6-20'

SPACING

Seed

Seed Seed

Seed

espalier

Espalier

ROOT

Cage or Trellis

Cage or Trellis Cage or Trellis

Cage or Trellis

NOTES

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

SAVE SEEDS?

APPENDIX D: LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES Figure 1.1 conventional agriculture 2 Figure 1.2 a very typical food desert 3 3 Figure 1.3 A family in chad, africa Figure 1.4 A family in North carolina 3 3 Figure 1.5 A family in bhutan Figure 1.6 Edible schoolyard, brooklyn ny 6 Figure 1.7 Share-it-square, year 2000 7 7 Figure 1.8 beacon food forest, plan Figure 1.10 Todmorden, England 8 8 Figure 1.9 diagram “how to make a cpul” Figure 1.11 character of incredible edible 8 Figure 1.12 the ways cpuls can be represented 9 12 FIGURE 1.13 existing groceries FIGURE 1.13 existing Restaurants 13 Figure 1.14 productive space for the south side 15 Figure 1.15 The brooklyn grange 15 Figure 1.16 southside calculation chart 16 Figure 1.17 indy urban acres’ row crops 16 Figure 1.18 Growing Power’s vertical productio 16 Figure 1.19 Muncie productive space 17 17 Figure 1.20 calculation chart for the city FIGURE 2.1 a view within ball corporation park FIGURE 2.2 site context map FIGURE 2.3 The gis layers FIGURE 2.4 site analysis FIGURE 2.5 concept 1 FIGURE 2.6 concept 2 FIGURE 2.7 concept 3 FIGURE 2.8 concept 4 FIGURE 2.9 master plan phase 1 FIGURE 2.10 master plan phase 2 FIGURE 2.11 master plan phase 3

22 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 27 28 29

BALL CORPORATION PARK FIGURE 2.26 ball corporation photo 1 38 38 FIGURE 2.27 ball corporation photo 2 FIGURE 2.25 ball corporation entrance 38 FIGURE 2.28 ball corporation program 39 FIGURE 2.29 sheep/orchard relationship 40 FIGURE 2.30 ball corp. park anaylsis 41 42 FIGURE 2.31 Ball corp. concept FIGURE 2.32 layer diagram of ball corp. 43 44 FIGURE 2.33 final plan of ball corp. FIGURE 2.34 ball corp. food forest plan 45 FIGURE 2.35 the ball corp. food forest 46 FIGURE 2.36 planting demonstrations ball 47-8 FIGURE 2.37 the rotational orchard 49 49 FIGURE 2.39 a view into the orchard FIGURE 2.38 A typical nut tree planting 49 FIGURE 2.40 Section three plan 50 FIGURE 2.41 cardinal greenway 50 FIGURE 2.42 a typical sheet mulch 51 FIGURE 2.43 greenway’s new design 51 Section 3: appendices FIGURE 3.1: HUMAN PATTERNS FIGURE 3.2: NATURAL PATTERNS FIGURE 3.3: NEIGHBORHOODS figure 3.4 southview elementary figure 3.5 ball corporation

56 57 58 59 60

MADISON STREET CO-OPERATIVE FIGURE 2.14 From heekin park, facing south. 30 FIGURE 2.12 Entry into heekin park 30 FIGURE 2.13 gas station 30 FIGURE 2.15 Madison co-operative program 31 FIGURE 2.16 existing conditions on 13 and madison 32 FIGURE 2.17 post-design conditions of the space 32 southview elementary school FIGURE 2.19 Southview elementary scholyard FIGURE 2.18 maring-hunt community garden FIGURE 2.20 site program FIGURE 2.21 SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY ANALYSIS FIGURE 2.22 SOUTHVIEW ELEMENTARY CONCEPT FIGURE 2.23 zoom-in plan FIGURE 2.24 A typical raised bed detail

33 33 34 35 36 37 37

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Will. Urban and Small Farm Conference, September 2012, Milwaukie, WI. Unpublished conference paper, 2012. Print. Becker, Michael. Guest Lecture. Portland Permaculture Design Course. St. David’s of Wales Episcopal Church, Portland, OR. 15 September 2012. Birkeland, Janis. Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook of Integrated Eco-Logical Solutions. London: Earthscan Publications Limited, 2002. Print. Bohn, Katrin and Andre Viljoen. CPULs: Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes. London: Elsevier, 2005. Print. Brooklyn Grange. 12 Mar. 2013. <http://www.brooklyngrangefarm.com/>. Brown, Lester R. Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity. New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. Print Cortese, Amy. Locavesting: The Revolution in Local Investing and How to Profit From it. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print. “Delaware History.” 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.tolatsga.org/dela.html>. “Food Access Research Atlas.” USDA Economic Research Service. 28 Feb. 2013. 6 Apr. 2013. <http:// www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx#UXdeLitga9x>. “Food Consumption in America.” Visual Economics. 4 Apr. 2013. <http://visualeconomics. creditloan.com/food-consumption-in-america_2010-07-12/>. Hemenway, Toby. Gaia’s Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture (2nd Ed). White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Greene Publishing Company, 2009. Print. Hemenway, Toby. Portland Permaculture Design Course. St. David’s of Wales Episcopal Church, Portland, OR. 21 July 2012. Holmgren, David. Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Australia: Holmgren Design Services, 2002. Print. Kent, Fred. “The Upside of a Down Economy: Going Local.” Urban Land. 68.5. (2009): 38-45. In Print. Matfin, Tracey. La’akea Permaculture Community: Permaculture Class. Pahoa, HI. June July 2011. McPhetridge, Lannes. Delaware County in the World War: 1917-1918. Indianapolis, 1919: Enquirer Printing and Publishing Co, 1919. P 15-16. In Print. Menzel, Peter . “Global Food Disparity: A Photo Diary.” Daily Kos. 26 May. 2008. 18 Sep. 2012. <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/26/102458/137/70/522670#>. “Middletown - Ten Years After 1.” Business Week (1934): 15-16. 23 Oct. 2012 <http://www.beautifulmuncie.org/images/UGI/businessweek19340526_middletown1.pdf>. Mollison, Bill. Permaculture: A Designers’ Manual (2nd Ed). Tyalgum, Australia: Tagari Publications, 1988. In Print. Nairn, Michael and Domenic Vitiello. “Lush Lots: Everyday Urban Agriculture.” Harvard Design Magazine 31. (2009/10): 94-100. In Print. “Plan Gardens for the Needy.” The Muncie Sunday Star 25 Jan. 1931. 23 Oct. 2012 <http://www.beautifulmuncie.org/images/UGI/munciesundaystarp17_plangardens.pdf>. “Plants by Hardiness Zone.” The Old Farmer’s Almanac. 2012. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.almanac.com/plants/hardiness-zone/5?page=4>.

Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. New York: The Penguin Press, 2008. In print. Potter, Paul. “Gardens Solve Food Problem For the Needy.” Chicago Tribune 21 Aug. 1931. 23 Oct. 2012<http://www.beautifulmuncie.org/images/UGI/chicagotrib une19310821p17_gardensmuncie.pdf>. Rankin, Bill. “Local Food is not Always the Most Sustainable.” Harvard Design Magazine 31. (2009/10): 101-104. In Print. Rich, Sarah C. Urban Farms. New York, NY: Abrams, 2012. 14. In Print. Shigley, Paul. “When Access is the Issue: What Cities are Doing to Get Food Into Underserved Neighborhoods.” Planning. 75.8. (2009): 26-31. Simpson, Mighk and Mark Lakeman. Planet Repair Institute Permaculture Design Course. Planet Repair Institute, Portland, OR. July 2012. Thayer, Robert Jr. L.. “The Experience of Sustainable Landscapes.” Landscape Journal 8 (1989): 101-110. “The Brooklyn Showcase School.” Edible Schoolyard NYC.<http://esynyc.org/explore/brooklyn-showcase-school/>. Thomas, Jamie and Colin Drukker. “Returning to Their Roots: A Look at How Scalable Agriculture Can Create More Sustainable Suburban Communities.” Urban Land. 68.5. (2009): 43-47. “Urban Gardening Initiative.” Muncie-Delaware Beautiful. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.beautifulmuncie.org/beautification-projects/urban-gardening-initiative>. Ward, Andrea. “Urban Agriculture: Asphalt Garden.” GreenSource: Magazine of Sustainable Design. 2010. 90-97. In Print. Warhurst, Pam. 2012, May. Warhurst, Pam: How We Can Eat Our Landscapes. TED. http:// www.ted.com/talks/pam_warhurst_how_we_can_eat_our_landscapes.html. Online. Waters, Alice. Edible Schoolyard: A Universal Idea. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2008. Print. Waters, Alice . The Edible Schoolyard Project. 4 Apr. 2013. <http://edibleschoolyard.org/>. “You Stuck What Where Now?” The Daily Show. Comedy Central. 3, April 2013. Television. Photographs courtesy of the author, taken at Growing Power’s Urban and Small Farming Conference in September of 2012, unless otherwise noted.