Food and the City

FOOD A N D

B Y

J E S S M I N E J A N

2 0 2 0

B A T H

Soil based roof top growing, looking out to Manhattan B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , S u n s e t Pa r k , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

03_INTRODUCTION 07_IMPORTATION EXPORTATION EXPLOITATION 11_CHEMICAL FERTILISER 13_PESTICIDES 14_MONOCULTURE POLY-CULTURE

16_GROWING IN THE CITY 33_BROOKLYN GRANGE 45_OKO FARMS 53_THE WESTLANDS 57_URBAN FARMERS 65_KENTISH TOWN CITY FARM 69_BIGH

77_COMPARATIVE STUDIES 81_CONCLUSION

Soil based roof top growing B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , S u n s e t Pa r k , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Post-industrial revolution, the connection between cities and food production is in a state of isolation, with the geographical locations of food transported to cities being ambiguous to consumers. However, the current construct of food production has benefits, including an abundance of food unconstrained by seasonality, and relative ease of purchase with the introduction of supermarkets and delivery services. If the connection is not established food production and the city will remain as separate entities, rather than being apart of a symbiotic relationship. With mass migration to cities, the constructs governing them have never been more imperative to review.

This thesis aims to re-evaluate current food systems, understanding the history of our now prevalent import culture and striving to navigate towards a city life intertwined with food production. With this reconnection between food production and human settlement, pressing issues such as climate change, obesity, waste, and mental/ physical health will be addressed. Through critical analysis of initiatives striving to connect food and the city, there will be an evaluation of the necessity for connection, taking inspiration from all case studies to propose a new food paradigm. This ‘new’ food system strives to address contemporary issues with environmental and social impact, in which architecture is able to play a more active role within shaping food production and consumption.

F i g u r e 0 1 : Large Scale Urban Supermarket (2005) Photography : Andreas Gursky

FOOD AND THE CITY Through critically analysing the contemporary paradigms of agricultural production, on both industrial and local scales, this thesis develops an understanding of how food has shaped cities, and in parallel the planet.

The current food system attempts for complete control and artificialisation of nature, with only 100 retailers controlling 40% of total global grocery market, our planet is being dominated by large-scale corporate agribusiness (Magnaghi, 2005, 25; ETC Group, 2008; Miazzo and Minkjan, 2013, 53). For example, 85% of global tea trade is controlled by 3 companies, and 95% of grain trade is under the control of 5 companies (Bryce, 2010, 21). Within these constructs it is processed food accounting for three-quarters of global food sales (Patel, 2007, 8), demonstrating a dysmorphia of localised systems, void from our food culture.

In extension, agriculture has become completely isolated from constraints of geography and seasonality, arguably positive factors, although this has been achieved through the implementation of chemical fertiliser, pesticides, monoculture, fossil fuel transportation advances and closed environments for growing (Miazzo and Minkjan, 2013, 53; Steel, 2008, 40). The mentality within our food network is reminiscent of Henry Ford’s infamous Model T (see figure 02), ‘The car for the great multitude’, designed with the intent of supplying the masses with a product ‘constructed of the best materials, by the best men, after the simplest designs’ (Batchelor, 1994, 20), translated in our food system in terms of mass production of genetically modified mono-cultures, controlled by large-scale agribusiness, at competition to provide the lowest possible price for consumers.

These constructs give overall value to profits and yields, whilst nullifying the negative impacts of their agricultural practices; impacts such as soil

desertification, fertiliser contamination, excessive use of antibiotics, fossil fuel consumption and poor, low-wage work conditions (Miazzo and Minkjan, 2013, 53)(see figure 03 : conveyor belt like production, in poor working conditions). In extension to the overwhelming trends in food production emulating the ideologies of ford, the means of acquiring produce in the city idealizes a factory centric approach. With the introduction of the bar-code in the mid-1970s, giving supermarkets the means to cheaply and more accurately decipher the trends in consumer choice, rather than a daily inventory check (Patel, 2007, p226227). Allowing producers to present consumers with the trending stocks within retail constructs, a conveyor belt like production, with the whims of consumer trends trumping seasonality, geography, human health and environmental impact (see figure 01 : supermarket filled with processed goods, unaffected by seasonality).

Our current agricultural paradigm, within the Anthropocene, presents itself as being devoid from large human settlements, however, there are initiatives being implemented within the most prominent cities of the world (London, New York, The Hague, Brussels), and architectural proposals forming symbiotic relationships between food production and cities, with reference to CJ Lim’s ‘Food City’ and Micheal Sorkin’s interpretation of what a self-sufficient New York would look like (see appendix 1.3 & 1.4). The analysis of both imagined and real projects will determine whether making cities internally self-sufficient is a necessity for future architectural planning or if it is wise to rely upon methods of acquiring food from outside of city bounds. The case studies of real projects range from large to small-scale new practices include rooftop growing (Brooklyn Grange, NY, The New Farm, Hague

& BIGH, Brussels), aquaponics (Oko Farms, NY, Urban Farmers, Hague & BIGH, Brussels), city farms (Kentish Town, London), vertical farming, and large-scale greenhouse agriculture (Westlands, Netherlands). Through first hand site studies, and interviews this thesis aims to critically analyse the paradigm in which these initiatives exist, and strives to question a hybrid approach to growing in the city, where technology and nature maintain a symbiotic relationship. In conjunction, the context of agricultural practices in the city lends itself to reaching not only a greater connection to nature and food, but instigates a network of social actors imperative to the growing process, with business models such as Brooklyn Grange utilizing the waste from local businesses, using coffee grid, coco husk and spelt grain as mulch, creating a closed loop economy, in parallel, connecting with community. Additionally, the study of large-scale vertical and indoor farming will be explored in the Westlands region of the Netherlands, where a mirage of greenhouses exist as if in a dystopian future, with impressive statistics : ‘twice as much food using half as many resources’, reducing the use of antibiotics on livestock by 60%, and almost completely eliminating the use of chemical pesticides (Viviano, Sep 2017). In extension to the case study of the Westlands region of the Netherlands, rooftop farming in The Hague will be explored, with the introduction of an aquaponics system first initiated by Urban Farmers, beginning in 2016 and becoming bankrupt by 2018 (TheHagueOnLine, 2018). To understand the reasons for the farms failure, an interview with Paul Jeannet, one of the urban farmers, outlines the key factors leading to the closure of the project. Proceeding the Urban Farmers bankruptcy ‘The New Farm’ now occupies the space, utilizing three levels of the building (including the rooftop) as growing space, with two lower

levels dedicated to offices and the ground floor housing a food market / restaurant (TheNewFarm, Mar 2018). Critically analysing the similarities and differences between the Urban Farmers approach, The New Farm, Brooklyn Grange, Oko Farms, BIGH and Kentish town city farm, to synthesize parameters for a large-scale growing projects in the city.

Proposing a holistic agriculture approach combining permaculture and cities. The final section of the thesis utilises two contrasting forms, with the vast improvements in technology during the 21st century, it is fitting to appreciate its complexities, yet initiate it into architectural design and our agricultural paradigm through studying and working with nature, rather than using technology in an industrialist human-centric mentality. Taking inspiration from the improvements in farming practices of the Westlands greenhouses of the Netherlands, whilst aiming for an agricultural approach where control is not key, rather an observation of the natural order is the prevalent driving force for a new paradigm. In terms of permaculture, as outlined in the work of Fukuoka, Molison and Chester (Fukuoka, 1978; Molison, 1981; The Biggest Little Farm, 2018), once the ‘forest farm’ is in a state of sufficient complexity, in which there is a balance in soil, poly-culture and environment, the system will become self regulating, creating a self-sustaining food forest, an ecosystem, and a welcoming environment for city dwellers to enjoy.

F i g u r e 0 2 : 1924 Model T Assembly Line: The 10 millionth Model T was produced on June 4, 1927.

Source: <https://motorcitymusclecars.wordpress.com/>

F i g u r e 0 3 : Chicken Processing Plant (2005) Photography : Andreas Gurksy

I M P O RTAT I O N E X P O RTAT I O N E X P LO I TAT I O N

Food has always shaped the construct of cities.

From humble beginnings in pre-aztec society AD 600-1300, with a localized food production using raised beds in order to feed a population of 5000 (Morehart, 2016, 532), to the Roman Empire AD 1000-1400 and the introduction of an import / export culture to supply the first city of 1 million people. For large cities there has never been a time when all food was produced locally. Even before the industrial revolution, food was being transported via sea vessels. Currently, the USA is the leading exporter of agricultural products, almost doubling the quantity exported by Germany, the second largest exporter of produce (see figure 04), with destinations of the food being global (China, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Canada) (Dillinger, 2017). Reference to the historical civilizations which have characterized our now global food system, is key to understanding our current agricultural paradigm.

Athens is a great example of this, with light, sandy loam soil unsuitable for cultivating grain, the city imported grain upon the Black Sea, from the seventh century BC (Steel, 2008, p72). The use of ships as food transport translated to the production of fleets, which were also used as a weapon of war. In the ancient world, food and war were reciprocally connected. The import of food to Rome is admirable in terms of diversity and quantity, as the city grew the amount of food necessary to sustain life in the city correlated with this growth. Its grain came from Sicily and Sardinia, and when further supply of fresh produce was needed the empire was forced to expand, waging war for fertile territory (Cartwright, May 2014). First there was the war of Carthage in 146 BC, then in 50 BC was the expansion onto vast lands of northern Africa, subsequently creating trade routes with Egypt. Once north Africa was under Roman rule, there were over 6 000 Roman farmers whom were gifted with land to grow grain for the capital (Steel, 2008, p73).

There was no city to match the metropolis that was Rome, until London, which became a bustling shipping town, a ‘celebrated centre of commerce’, the words of Tacitus, talking of Londinium in AD 43 (Baker et al., 1974, p9). The Thames provided the perfect means to access a world of commerce, and give access to British farmers for export of produce from their rich farmland in the south-east.

London was fast becoming a town in which food was provided by a ‘hidden hand’, with cattle travelling in to the livestock market at Smithfield, geese from Essex, Tea transported via shipping vessels. Then came the industrial revolution, when in 1855 the first railway line was established in London, the start of a new agricultural age. Before this time the capacity and location of the city was determined by the relative access to food, but the railway line transformed transportation, giving cities the opportunity to expand and inhabit almost any region (Steel, 2008, p90).

In the words of George Orwell, ‘It is no coincidence that Dickens never writes about agriculture and writes endlessly about food… London is the centre of the earth in rather the same sense that the belly is the centre of the body. It is a city of consumers’ (Orwell, 1939, p35).

By the mid-nineteenth century London was drawing in many rural people with ‘the promise of variety and excitement’, as people moved to cities the disconnection from how food is grown became ever more dissociated from our livelihoods (Ward, 1978, p7). Those who ventured out to the cities returned to their rural origins ‘bringing the hard-earner consumer goods of the big city’, items unattainable when living in small villages, where produce would be locally sourced and often grown upon one’s land (Ward, 1978, p10). According to Ward the unfamiliarity of these items bought with them a sense of anticipation of what is to come, giving those in the village

the option to hold onto the lives they have grown into or explore the promise of the big city.

This food unappreciation is prevalent in our waste, with ‘roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year - approximately 1.3 billion tonnes - gets lost or wasted’ (FAO, n.d.) As written by Carolyn Steel, ‘the fact that American fast food has a place in Asia at all, is symptomatic of the power of industrial food to appeal to those uprooted from their rural lifestyle’ (Steel, 2008, p239).

Figure 04: Largest Food Exporters Source: FAO 2019 Study

When looking at figures 04, it is obvious to notice the vast difference between the USA and other leading countries of export, making the global intake of food massively reliant upon the US for food production, a worrying fact. Also, amongst the food exported, the most farmed crops are barley, cereals and grain (see figures 05, 06 & 07) it is interesting to note the vast differences between the amount of production and exportation of each crop. Overall, the graphs demonstrate the reliance our global food trade has on very few countries and very few variations of crop, as seen in nature the less complex a system the more likely it is to fail, as there is a strain put on few, and if these few fail the whole system fails.

Figure 05: World Food Stats, Barley Source: FAO 2019 Study

Figure 06: World Food Stats, Cereals Source: FAO 2019 Study

Figure 07: World Food Stats, Course Grain Source: FAO 2019 Study

F i g u r e 0 8 : Factory Food From Above, Satellite Images of Industrial Farms S o u r c e : <https://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/4786-factory-food-from-above-satellite-images-of-industrial-farms>

C H E M I C A L F E RT I L I S E R

The introduction of chemical fertilisers and pesticides became the catalysts for a monoculture farming matrix spanning the globe. It is imperative to contemplate the origins of our trending agricultural paradigm, based on control over a singular species upon acres of soil, and in parallel highlighting the effects of our current practice and consumption, upon the planet and human health. Chemical fertilisers initial debut can be traced to Justus Von Liebig’s simplification of the components necessary for healthy soil (Smil, 2004, 8-11). Prior to the introduction of chemical fertilisers, soil nutrients was provided by natural decomposition of organic waste. Similar, is the decomposition of autumn leaves upon the ground of a deciduous forest, revitalising the nutrients in the soil.

Yet, in mid-nineteenth century London food supply had reached a state of relative abundance, meaning previous worries of starvation were no longer as prevalent, instead worries were directed towards cost. This new paradigm, where the connection between producer and consumer is lost, initiated a blinkered focus upon low cost production and constant yields. Emulated through a mentality of seeing nature as the enemy, and unruly force which needs to be controlled.

The ‘answer’ for the farmers lay in science.

The German scientist, Justus Von Liebig, whom sought to regulate soil nutrients, establishing greater control and ensuring reliable growth and increased yields, in theory. In 1863, Liebig concluded the ingredients necessary for plant life to thrive (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium)(Steel, 2008, 38). This lead to the first mineral fertiliser, with promising initial results producing higher yields, leading to an increased use in America and Europe (Heitmann, 1989).

We can now deduce that Liebig’s methods were seriously flawed, as after years of using the fertiliser farmers found that yields began to fall, instigating an increasingly detrimental cycle of applying ever more potent artificial fertiliser (Smil, 2004, 8-11). Paradoxically Liebig questioned his work, by the end of his life writing ‘I have sinned against the creator’ (Sams, 2003, 23). Unfortunately, a reliance upon fertilisers was already prevalent, as cities demanded an unrelenting supply of grain.

‘The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself’ Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1935.

Contrasting studies by Lady Eve Balfour confounded Liebig’s work, highlighting the adverse effects of chemical fertilizers in contrast to organic farming practices (Balfour, 1943). In 1939, a century after Liebig’s discovery, Lady Eve Balfour, utilising her farm in Haugley, Suffolk, conducted a series of tests questioning the use of chemical fertiliser in the agricultural industry. The tests were conducted on two plots of land, one plot was organically farmed, and the other, farmed with chemical fertiliser. The results of the experiments revealed the organic farm produced a far healthier soil, as it maintained nutrients whilst peaking during growing season. Whereas, the fertilised counterpart was extremely reliant upon the fertiliser to acquire and maintain its nutrients, in Balfour’s words, ‘a manner suggestive of drug addiction’ (Balfour, 1943).

Figure 09 & 10: Propaganda Poster, Britain, 1940s. Source: <https://www.antikbar.co.uk/> Figure 11: Growing our way out of crisis Source: <https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/>

PESTICIDE REVOLUTION

The ‘pesticide revolution’ is a product of Liebig’s work, as a result of chemically fertilised monoculture fields being vulnerable to disease and overpopulation of one insect, making it necessary to solve the problem of ‘pests’, leading to the production of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), a harmful chemical causing the death of thousands of people (UNEP, 2000). Common place in the 21st century are pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and disinfectants, causing negative effects on not only those exposed to the products first hand but us as consumers, with the residue of chemicals upon the food we buy (not only non-organic but organic produce too) exterminating healthy intestinal flora consequently weakening our immune function, and over time accumulating dire effect (Samsel and Seneff, 2013, 1443; Kim, Hong, Gil, Song and Hong, 2013).

Then DDT, first synthesized by a graduate student in 1873. It was undiscovered as a pesticide until 1939, when Paul Hermann Muller, working for Geigy, a Swiss company, noticed the potential application as an insecticide (Zubrin, 2012).

Leading to Victor Froelicher, an American representative for Geigy, revealing Muller’s findings to the US Military, in 1942. Due to WWII causing a barrage of insect-borne disease with German forces employing insects as weapons of death, DDT was immediately manufactured on a mass scale by Geigy and DuPont (Stapleton, 2000, 3441), sending 6 tonnes to Italy, and within days the epidemics plaguing the civilian was over (Stapleton, 2000, 448). Later, the Nobel Prize was presented to Muller, acclaiming him for preserving ‘the life and health of hundreds of thousands’ (Fischer, 1964).

Post WWII (1946), America was the first to begin a mass implementation of DDT as a pesticide in agriculture, and in eradicating Malaria, with only

two confirmed cases in the US by 1952 (Bate, 2007). Instigating the world to follow, with Europe eradicating Malaria by the mid-1950s, 80% of malaria cases declined in South African, and in India malaria death rates dropped close to zero (Attaran, 2000, 729).

For London, the introduction of DDT to agricultural land was instigated by German U-boats during WWII. The U-boats prevented Atlantic supply to Britain, leaving the country exposed to food shortages, due to a reliance upon a vulnerable importation system. This lead to the UK government implementing the famous ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign (see figures 09 & 10), in which men and women across the country were growing their own produce out of necessity, to survive the war. During this time the most unlikely plots of land were cultivated, from domestic gardens and public parks, to lawns outside the Tower of London (Steel, 2008, 41; British Library, n.d.).

Demonstrating the possibility of mass growing in cities, but only with the support of government (see figure 11).

Post war Britain, saw the government implementing the 1947 Agriculture Act, to ensure the country would not be left vulnerable to food shortages again. The act permitted citizens to slash, burn and spray in an attempt to increase the yields of the land (Steel, 2008, 40).

The British countryside began a drastic transformation, the land was eradicated of all obstacles, from woodlands to wetlands. Leading to Britain losing an estimated 190 000 miles of hedgerow, 97% of flower meadows and 60% of ancient woodland (Vidal, May 2003). Although, this prosperous time was short lived, when, in 1962, Silent Spring by biologist Rachel Carson was published, crusading the detrimental effects of DDT. The publication by Carson outlaws the chemical, framing the knock on effects of massacring insects, as the carcases of the fallen ‘pests’ are consumed by birds, travelling through the food chain, and finally reaching humans, and causing a range of diseases including cancer (Carson, 1964).

M O N O C U LT U R E

P O LY - C U LT U R E

Monoculture farming practices are the norm, devoid of biodiversity, reflected in the food we consume, with only 150 to 200 of the 250 000 to 300 000 known edible plant species consumed by humans, and an astounding 12 plants and 5 animal species accounting for 75% of total food generated globally (FAO, 2004). During the 20th century this transition from varied crop to genetically modified high-yield plant species began, leading to approximately 75% of local varieties being lost (FAO, 1999). This monoculture society has been a catalyst for mass biodiversity loss, driving species to extinction at a rate up to 1000 times that of the natural rate, with contagion effects to our vulnerable agricultural practices (Stearns, 2009, 542; Adebayo, Jun 2019). For example, there has been an overall decline in wild and honey bees over the past 50 years (Downing and Sutherland, Nov 2017, 5), a concerning fact when taking into consideration bees account for pollinating more than one third of the food consumed by humans (Rountree, Feb 2015). These facts make it credible to insist for an importance to be placed upon re-framing our current agricultural system, and in extension the city paradigm. To rethink how we consume, and what we consume. At a global level the most farmed crops, in terms of bi yearly yield, are soy-bean, wheat and corn, and two thirds of this soy-bean crop is crushed into meals to be used in feed (FAO, 2019, Sep 10). Demonstrating the imbalanced appetite of the city, instigated by an over indulgence of livestock, leading to inefficient land use.

In contrast to monoculture, poly-culture agricultural practices have been implemented with positive outcome, however not applied in mass farming practices, mainly due to the initial difficulties of reaching a self regulating system, and the laborious task of picking produce without machinery. Examples of poly-culture farming practices can be seen in case studies such as Masanobu Fukuoka permaculture forest farm, a practice demonstrating the possibility of allowing nature to prevail, and negating the need for chemical fertilisers and pesticides, with yields, not only matching but higher than neighbouring farms (Fukuoka, 1978). Apricot Lane Farms 40 miles north of Los Angeles, founded in 2011 is another fantastic example of the benefits of allowing a farming ecosystem with biodiversity in balance (The Biggest Little Farm, 2018).

‘It will provide for our needs & also heal the earth and the human spirit’ (Fukuoka, 1978, 137) ‘The rebirth of nature is not simply a return to the primitive, it is a return to its true form’ (Fukuoka, 1978, 140).

The ideal journey Upon the soil is a varied and complex ecosystem inhabited by both edible and inedible crop (such as marigolds or sunflowers) to maintain a healthy soil, & deter an overpopulation of insects without the need for chemical fertiliser. The care of the soil is taken by members of the community willing and able, as more people witness the outcome of the crops, the number of members increases, instigating an opportunity for expansion of produce variety. The crops are consumed by those who work on the land and surplus is sold to those in close proximity. The production of surplus by the community farms gives opportunity for a weekly market to exchange goods. The food waste produced from peels etc. this will be given back to the soil to recycle the nutrients.

F i g u r e 1 2 : Precision Farming in Minnesota : Satellite Imagery S o u r c e : <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Precision_Farming_in_Minnesota_-_Natural_Colour.jpg>

GROWING

Butter fly and Bee facilitated by roof top growing environment, ecosystem within the city B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , L o n g I s l a n d , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Looking out from greenhouse onto Manhattan B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , S u n s e t Pa r k , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Growing beds covered with plastic sheets to prevent weed growth and to deter insect infestation B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , L o n g I s l a n d , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

To m a t o a n d s u n f l o w e r g r o w t h u p o n r o o f t o p B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , S u n s e t Pa r k , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

View within greenhouse, housing seedling growth B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , S u n s e t Pa r k , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Ro w s o f g r o w t h u p o n r o o f t o p g r o w i n g b e d s B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , L o n g I s l a n d , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

From within Greenhouse, facilitating growing of seedlings B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , L o n g I s l a n d , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

View of roof top growing beds looking onto city B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , L o n g I s l a n d , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

4. OPEN ENVIRONMENT

3 . VA R I E D C R O P

2.SOIL BASED GROWING

1 . R O O F TO P

D i a g r a m o f B r o o k l y n G r a n g e â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s S e t- u p Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

B R O O K LY N G R A N G E , N E W YO R K

Brooklyn Grange, Long Island, 37 - 18 Northern Blvd, NY 11101, is a rooftop farm upon an industrial building, the basis for growing is soil, which contains a percentage of aggregate to decrease the overall weight of the soil. The farm grows a large variety of crop species helping to maintain the health of the soil, with constant integration of new plants to test the most suitable crop for the environment, and to align with market trends. The growing environment is open to the elements, decreasing energy costs of the system as there is not a reliance upon controlled environments, although there are greenhouses but only to provide a space for seedlings to bud, ready to be transplanted to the soil. Overall the project is relatively low tech, with the agricultural process relying upon the health of the soil, rather than complex systems.

The project was founded in 2009 by co-founders Ben Flanner, Anastasia Cole Plakias and Gwen Schantz. Two key problems addressed by urban agriculture is the logistical challenges of food distribution accumulating substantial usage of fossil fuels, and the implicit lack of greenspace in cities, which is an unlikely investment via government bodies due to the more pressing necessity for housing. Urban agriculture tackles these issues and more, by reducing food miles whilst providing a productive greenspace for city dwellers, improving both air quality and quality of life (Plakias, 2016, 15).

The agricultural space for the long island farm spans 1 acre, utilizing 1.4 million pounds of soil (at full saturation). The soil was craned on top of the roof over a 4 day period, providing a layer of soil upon the roof with a depth between 8-10 inches. To find the initial roof space to crane the

was no easy feat for the team, as Plakias explains the difficulty in â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;convincing a landlord to let a couple of twentysomethings dump a million-plus pounds of soil on top of their buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; would be unnerving, however as Brooklyn Grange have been successfully farming for over a decade, rooftops are much easier to acquire (Plakias, 2016, 35). The soil has not been directly dumped onto the roof, under the soil is a green roof system, the system is comprised of an initial layer immediately under the soil, with drainage holes nestled between filter paper designed to prevent water pooling and disperse the immense weight.

Beneath this is a layer of thin plastic lining, acting as a root barrier to deter the growth of the produce penetrating the roofs structure. To assist with maintaining moisture in the soil upright sprinklers span the rooftop, connected to rain detectors installed in 2015, decreasing the water usage by 25% since installation, maintaining the projects low energy consumption.

The founders of Brooklyn Grange began by growing produce on top of restaurants made from shipping containers, and using the produce grown within the restaurant. The aim, to greenscape the city whilst connecting with the food we consume. To expand the founders looked into industrial architecture to house the rooftop farm, as the robustness of this architecture lends itself to holding heavy loads without the need for costly modifications to structure. In addition to structural integrity, the team needed to find a site with long leases to make the project financially viable, so have managed leases of 10-20 years for the farms. In short the three factors determining the site of the farm is Space (1 acre minimum to retain profit), Time (lease for space of at least 10 years) and Structural Integrity (industrial space).

Brooklyn Grange aims for a triple bottom line business plan, with three factors determining their practice: Profit, through selling produce, events and design+build program; Planet, by adding a beautiful ecosystem, providing greenspace for the city, improving air quality, temperature control for the city and managing grey-water runoff; People, community supported agriculture (CSA) connecting the local community, giving surplus produce to members and volunteers, and greenspace is accessible to the public. Brooklyn Grange, Long Island, produces approximately 80 000 pounds of produce per year, this comprises of 25% cut greens and 75% vegetables. The produce is sold with localised intent, only selling to restaurants in a 5 mile radius, from edible flowers to squash blossoms. In extension to growing on there own rooftop Brooklyn Grange aims to inspire and implement with their Design + Build projects, run by a team of landscape architects, with the intent to spread the ideologies of Brooklyn Grange, assisting with its expansion, whilst raising awareness of its presence and providing further cash flow into the business. Additionally events upon the rooftop is imperative for Brooklyn Grange to maintain a profit, with 7,000 people visiting the rooftop yearly, the events being held are a success, hosting yoga, urban bee-keeping workshops, natural dye workshops from food waste, weddings, parties and dinners.

When in correspondence with Anastasia Plakias (co-founder of Brooklyn Grange) she explains ‘urban farms will never feed entire cities… we will always need our rural food production systems, and it is critical to support them’ (Plakias, 28 Aug 2019)(see appendix 1.1). Posing the question, what is the need for urban agriculture? According to Plakias the need is to educate the growing

population residing in urban areas, to make visible, ‘the importance of making thoughtful choices about their food’, and in my opinion leading to improvement of human health physically and mentally, with studies showing ‘children’s food preferences are highly determined by their experience’, for example, ‘repeatedly exposing children to foods, for example vegetable soup, increases preference and consumption’ (Van Meer F., et al., 2016). With this in mind, Brooklyn Grange seems a fantastic necessity for the city and an imperative grounds for learning amongst urban educational facilities, and for the education of city dwellers in general, for the opportunity to witness the growth of the food we consume is imperative for a healthy mentality towards food.

Demonstrating the social and educational aspects agriculture can bring to the city.

Brooklyn Grange has a definite emphasis on connecting with local business, joining with community. The project does this through utilizing ‘waste’ to regenerate the soil, this is done with coco husks from local independent chocolate makers, spelt grain from breweries and other food waste from nearby restaurants. Through re-purposing the waste Brooklyn Grange succeeds in creating circular economy within their business model, and furthering their environmental goals of the agricultural practice. Also, this gives greater reason to emphasise growing in the city, as Brooklyn Grange’s methodology reduces food waste, turning waste into a valuable productive material.

A quality of Brooklyn Grange’s farming practices to take note of is the primary value of soil-based urban agriculture, as this allows the project, ‘to monetize the creation and maintenance of the

green spaces that cities sorely need’ (Plakias, 28 Aug 2019). In comparison to other case studies analysed in this thesis, it is only Brooklyn Grange practicing soil based urban agriculture, a factor giving the project a much wider impact than a means of providing food with reduced food miles, as the rooftop spaces initiate the reintroduction of natural systems within urban landscapes, from visiting the rooftops it is beautiful to witness the presence of a multitude of species enjoying the agricultural space, from dragonflies, bees, birds and butterflies. Additionally the use of soil not only creates an ecosystem but mitigates urban heat island effects, and reduces combined sewage overflow. With reference to permaculture, it seems Brooklyn Grange initiates the practice of caring for soil through urban agriculture, acting to revitalise the soil footprint lots to the building and relocating it upon its rooftop.

This idea of relocating the lost soil buried under the concrete and asphalt of the city can be seen in the imagined projects of CJ Lim’s ‘Food City’ and Micheal Sorkins ‘self-sufficient New York’ (see appendix 1.2 & 1.3). With regards to CJ Lim’s ‘Food City’ the new agricultural paradigm dubbed ‘The Food Parliament’ is a secondary infrastructure laid onto the existing city, the aim to radicalise parliamentary function by framing food as the soul actor driving legislation (Lim, C. J., 2014, 185-186). Although, Lim’s radial approach to imagining the city of the future has, in the words of Lim, ‘physical absurdity’, the proposals aim is not to be realistic rather it raises ‘serious questions about the priorities of our governing bodies and to engage with individuals with issues of food sovereignty and climate change’ (Lim, C. J., 2014, 187). The Food Parliament, raises the question of connection between city and food, posing the

problem of how to reconnect and why to reconnect. According to Lim the question of ‘why to reconnect’ comes down to former government attempts to change economic, social and environmental fortune of our nation can be seen as frivolous when manipulating ‘the same old tired economic mechanisms of adjustment’, and with regards to the question of ‘how to reconnect’ Lim’s proposal is ‘dramatic and all-encompassing’ to realign the perception of food as simply sustenance, rather it is to be seen as ‘the primary social capital at the very heart of our economy and our society’ (Lim C. J., 2014, 177). Whereas, when looking at the ‘self-sufficient New York’ renders

by Micheal Sorkin, there is less of an absurdity to the imagery, however there is little in terms of how to achieve the proposal, especially upon buildings without the structural integrity to hold the kind of loads instigated by rooftop growing.

Therefore, in the case of both imagined projects there is little achieved in terms of actually change for the constructs of the city, whereas Brooklyn Grange as a real project succeeds in achieving a palpable business model for urban agriculture, which can be implemented upon existing structures, or pre planned into architectural design.

Although Brooklyn Grange is not able to provide substantial food for city dwellers, its importance lies in its community connection, education value and environmental impact.

F i g u r e 1 3 : O k o Fa r m s , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Figure 14 : Growing Beds from above O k o Fa r m s , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Figure 15 : Growing Beds, connected to pipes in constant flow O k o Fa r m s , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

Figure 16 : Butter fly upon floating growing beds O k o Fa r m s , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

F i g u r e 1 7 : F i s h Ta n k s w i t h i n e n c l o s e d s t r u c t u r e O k o Fa r m s , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

4. OPEN ENVIRONMENT

3 . VA R I E D C R O P

2 . A Q UA P O N I C S G R O W I N G

1. GROUND BASED

D i a g r a m o f O k o Fa r m s Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

O KO FA R M S , N E W YO R K

Oko Farms located in Brooklyn, New York, is a 2500 square foot outdoor aquaponics system housing a variety of fresh water fish (catfish, tilapia, crayfish, freshwater prawns, goldfish, koi and bluegill), and cultivating a number of plant species (rice, lemon-grass, mint, okra, peppers, spinach, beans, garlic, chamomile, tomatoes, eggplant etc.). The project it based on the ground, nestled between two buildings on a busy Brooklyn side street (see figure 13), upon the soil are the tanks housing fish and floating on the fresh water are boards made from chipboard and scattered with pots for the plants to grow within, some pots are filled with aggregate others with sponge (see figures 14 & 16).

The system is in an open environment, reducing energy usage with no lighting or heating necessary, the only closed space is a small enclosure housing further fish tanks (see figure 17). However, there is a greater influx of energy needed for Oko Farms growing project in comparison to Brooklyn Grange, as the aquaponics system requires the constant pumping of water (see figure 15).

Most likely the energy is provided by fossil fuel consumption, and with this need for constant energy the project requires constant funding, which seems unlikely to achieve when witnessing the amount of crops produced. Secondly, a very potent absurdity to Oko farms is the need for the aquaponics system at all, as the system sits upon soil. Hence, with soil prevalent and ready for crops to be grown upon with sufficient care the need for the costly aquaponics system and constant embodied energy of the project becomes unnecessary.

The circular loop relationship between the fish, fruits and vegetables is seen in the management of wastewater from the tanks, being pumped through several of the growing beds to provide nutrient rich fertiliser to the plants. Once passed through the plant beds the water has been filtered and can be returned to the fish tanks. The symbiotic relationship between fish and plants negates toxic environmental run-off prevalent in aquaculture practices, instead there is an efficient water and waste recycling system.

In comparison to Brooklyn Grange, Oko Farms seems to fall short of what urban agriculture can become, especially the disregard for regeneration of the soil. Oko Farms resonates as more of a testing ground to experiment with the abilities of an aquaponics system, rather than a community environment for enjoying, or a space to regenerate soil. Overall, the project may be conceived with positive intent there is little in the way of environmental or social impact the system is providing. In my opinion to reconsider the projects agricultural practice would be wise, in this sense if asked to re-model the design for the site it could be much less laborious and energy intensive to simply utilise the sites ground cover and grow directly in the soil.

When visiting Oko farms a few questions about the methods of there practice became prevalent.

The first being, where is the energy to run the constant water pumps coming from?

Although, positive factors of the project are still noticeable, with an ecosystem created for insects, due to the project being outdoors. Also, there are still educational benefits of Oko Farms with many visits from local schools. However, these factors still do not counteract the unnecessary use of the aquaponics system, when a soil based growing practice would be just as successful in achieving an ecosystem and space for education, without the embodied energy created by Oko farms.

F i g u r e 1 8 : We a t h e r i s l i t t l e w o r r y f o r f a r m e r s i n We s t l a n d s , w h e r e 80 percent of cultivated land is under greenhouse glass. The region accounts for nearly half of the Netherlandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; hor ticultural production.

S o u r c e : Av a i l a b l e a t < h t t p s : / / w w w. n a t i o n a l g e o g r a p h i c . c o m / m a g a zine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/> Photography: Luca Locatelli

Figure 19 : With demand for chicken increasing, Dutch firms are developing technology to maximize poultr y production while ensuring humane conditions. This high-tech broiler house holds up to 150,000 birds, from hatching to har vesting.

S o u r c e : a v a i l a b l e a t < h t t p s : / / w w w. n a t i o n a l g e o g r a p h i c . c o m / m a g a zine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/> Photography: Luca Locatelli

F i g u r e 2 0 : A r e a l v i e w o f a t N i g h t o f We s t l a n d s G r e n n h o u s e c o m p l e x , Netherlands. Furrows of ar tificial light lend an other worldly aura to We s t l a n d s , t h e g r e e n h o u s e c a p i t a l o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s . C l i m a t e - c o n trolled farms such as these grow crops around the clock and in ever y k i n d o f w e a t h e r.

S o u r c e : a v a i l a b l e a t < h t t p s : / / w w w. n a t i o n a l g e o g r a p h i c . c o m / m a g a zine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/> This photo was originally published in â&#x20AC;&#x153; This Tiny Countr y Feeds the Wo r l d â&#x20AC;? i n S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 7 .

4 . C LO S E D E N V I R O N M E N T

3 . S O M E VA R I E T Y

2 . V E RT I C A L FA R M I N G

1. GROUND BASED

D i a g r a m o f We s t l a n d s Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

WESTLANDS, NETHERLANDS

Dutch farming has seen a remarkable change since 2000 with a commitment to produce ‘twice as much food using half as many resources’ (Vivino, Sep 2017). Leading to the Westlands greenhouse complex, where a massive area of the Netherlands, almost 175 acres, has been populated with a barrage of high-tech greenhouses (see figures 18 & 20), with the banner of ‘precision farming’. The agricultural methodology of the Westlands poses impressive statistics, with a 90% reduction of dependence on water, 60% reduction in the use of antibiotics when producing poultry and livestock, and an almost completely elimination of chemical pesticides, as within the closed greenhouse environments insects are not able to penetrate (Vivino, Sep 2017).

As seen in figure 19, the precision farming goes as far to vertical farm poultry, an extremely efficient way of housing the animals. Although the scale and control of the environment seems to negate change within our agricultural paradigm, as this model still strives for complete artificialisation of nature. The main focus of the Westlands is commercial production, utilising hightech facilities to improve productivity and create closed environments allowing a country without the environment necessary for growing produce such as tomatoes, to become the second largest exporter of vegetables in the world (Vivino, Sep 2017).

Overall, the facilities are undeniably efficient, however it is still detached from city life, therefore failing in creating a connection with growing and the city. Although, with efficiency the products grown can be sold at competitive prices, making it an extremely successful business model for growing in environments not suited for tropical plants.

There is little in the ways of regenerating soil, and creating ecosystem, as the Westlands is a complex of closed environments, although with massively reduced use of fertilisers and pesticides the production system shows massive potential for a more environmentally conscious agricultural paradigm. Also, as the greenhouses energy usage is great there are fields of solar panels on its roofs, again showing its ambition to environmentally conscious design, and massively reducing its carbon footprint, whilst counteracting the embodied energy from the construction of the greenhouses.

To improve the projects connection to community it would be fantastic to see more relation to local businesses, in terms of selling and use of waste from these businesses, in a similar manner to Brooklyn Grange. Also, there seems to be an opportunity to provide space for open growing environments, where native species could be grown, providing space for ecosystems, meaning the project would not only serve human activity but become a space for nature to thrive.

F i g u r e 2 1 : A r e a l v i e w o f U r b a n Fa r m e r s r o o f t o p g r o w i n g f a c i l i t y, Hague, Netherlands S o u r c e : a v a i l a b l e a t < h t t p : / / w w w. s p a c e a n d m a t t e r. n l / u r b a n f a r m e r s >

4 . C LO S E D E N V I R O N M E N T

3 . L I T T L E VA R I E T Y

2 . A Q UA P O N I C S G R O W I N G

1 . R O O F TO P

D i a g r a m o f U r b a n Fa r m e r s Fa c i l i t y Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

U R B A N FA R M E R S , T H E H A G U E

Aquaponics in the built environment is an increasingly growing practice, with 142 commercial aquaponics projects and 17 research centres currently in North America (see appendix 1.4), 50 research centres and 45 commercial companies across Europe (see appendix 1.5). It seems an advantageous practice in the city due to an expanding market for organic, local, fresh produce, and higher average temperatures in cities in theory reducing the heating cost for the system (Quagrainie et al., 2018; Konig et al., 2016). With further reduction in terms of transportation and refrigeration, and due to refrigerant management being the number one solution for reducing climate change (see appendix 1.0) it seems imperative to find the means to reduce its use. Additionally, aquaponics has been dubbed as one of ‘ten technologies which could change our lives’ (Van Woensel et al., 2015), therefore Urban Farmers aquaponics aspirations seem relevant within growing trends of excitement towards this ‘new’ field of agricultural production within the city.

Urban Farmers began their aquaponics journey in 2011, pioneers in the field with the company operating the first commercial-scale aquaponics rooftop farm in 2012 (The Hague Business Agency, Oct 2015). Similarly to Brooklyn Grange’s beginnings, the first Urban Farmer’s aquaponics greenhouse was conceived on top of a shipping container. Succeeding the implementation of the greenhouse the Urban Farmers received funding from a private foundation in Basil to implement the aquaponics practices upon a 300sqm rooftop, initiating ‘Lolita’, Urban Farmers first large-scale rooftop farm. Although, conceived with farming intentions, the project became a ‘showroom’ (Jeannet, 2019). The system itself was ‘difficult to manage’ with its complexities leading to short

term fixes, and further injections of funds needed. The produce being sold were measly boxes of salad leaves to restaurants per week, making the project questionable as a source of food production. Instead profit was being made from renting as an event space, again reminiscent of Brooklyn Grange with the rooftops being hired every weekend.

‘If we didn’t have enough visits the place would not be profitable that month.’ (Jeannet, 2019) Lolita, in Jeannet’s words, was ‘a place to show politicians, tourists, and possible investors what a green house looks like’, with much of his time whilst working there being spent cleaning, to ensure it was presentable, rather than time spent on farming. With time spent on presentation, the aims of the initiative seem to become for educational than commercial, which is a massively important part of urban farming, as “it’s sometimes said that children who live in the city believe tomatoes grow in the supermarket or fish are born in the freezer,” says Joris Wijsmiller, head of sustainability at The Hague city council (Boztas, Apr 2016). Therefore as a place for tours, the project succeeds in providing the education and exposure to food growing.

Proceeding work at Lolita, Jeannet was transferred to the Hague to work on the much larger project Lola. The building, designed by modernist architect Dirk Roosenburg, was built in 1956 as a Philips television and telephone factory, then during the 1980s the building was transferred to the City of The Hague, whom instead of taking on the costly task of demolishing the industrial structure decided to initiate a start-up competition.

Urban Farmer’s entered this competition, winning the 6th floor and rooftop. Leading to the construction of the impressive greenhouse upon the rooftop, the largest commercial urban rooftop farm in Europe, costing 2.7 million Euros, funded by a Swiss Franc funding round from private investors with assistance from Impact Hub Zurich and WWF (The Hague Business Agency, 2019; WWF, n.d.).

Jeannet’s describes his experience of working at Lola as being ‘lost on Mars’, he explains the complexity of being a pioneer in these practices with protocols written without having first hand experience of using the technology, with much of the system in use either being given for free or low-cost by other start-up companies wanting to test their prototypes.

Working at Lola were two operators, misunderstood by media sources as being efficient, Jeannet explains the 75 hour work weeks. Within the circular loop system problems affecting one part of the system would in turn affect the whole system, with the most recurring problem being a barrage of alarms (from 5-25 per day), and more often than not occurring due to over sensitivity rather than any problem with the system. Further to this Jeannet explained that himself and his partner operating the system were not trained to do so, and at all times one of the two had to be within a 15 minute radius, as ‘if something went wrong it could go extremely wrong’ (Jeannet, 2019). For example, overnight 2 tonnes of tilapia were lost due to a faulty motor.

Lola was initially designed with two growing environments, a warmer climate for tomatoes and a much cooler space growing leafy greens.

However, after 8 months the restaurants buying the tomatoes had found a more efficient supplier (the Westlands) providing the same quality, at a much cheaper cost, with constant efficiency due to the closed environment in which they are grown, and negating the need for outsourcing further produce, with the massive variety grown in the Westlands complex of greenhouses. Although, media articles frame the presence of the Westlands as being an ‘ideal strategic position for UrbanFarmers’ (The Hague Business Agency, Oct 2015) it is clear that this is not the case. Leading to the Urban Farmers sales team initiating more variety to be grown, with the introduction of 3 cucumbers, 2 eggplant, 2 pepper and 5 tomato varieties, to the environment designed for one species of tomato. Once implemented Jeannet witnessed complete fluctuations in the growing patterns. Yet, if the decision of what was to be grown was executed from the beginning ‘it would have been possible’, whereas attempting to implement after this stage was ‘extremely hard’.

The intention for the project: ‘thousands of customers can now buy vegetables and fish that are grown only a few hundred meters away, significantly cutting down on both food transportation and water usage in agriculture.’ (WWF, n.d.). In reality it seems the aim of the project to provide food for the local community became too costly as a viable means of producing food at a competitive price.

F i g u r e 2 2 : V i e w w i t h i n U r b a n Fa r m e r s r o o f t o p g r o w i n g f a c i l i t y, T h e H a g u e , I m a g e o f Pa u l J e a n n e t S o u r c e : a v a i l a b l e a t < h t t p s : / / w w w. n a t i o n a l g e o g r a p h i c . c o m / m a g a zine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/> Photography: Luca Locatelli

What Jeannet would do if given the opportunity to re-do the project.

‘A project for the people by the people’

A low tech version, devoid of millions worth of investment, a huge amount of embodied energy in the greenhouse construction, and a continuous need for energy to run the system, with Lola needing constant large sums of money pumped into the project, for example, Lola’s winter electricity bill per month was in the region of 5000 Euros, further to this were large water bills for maintaining the tilapia tanks and massive gas bills to maintain temperature. In extension, due to the need to fix broken machinery, to ensure all of the living organisms in the system would not perish, a constant reinvestment of money was needed. Further to substantial bills was the need to fix broken machinery, an extremely costly undertaking to ensure the living organisms in the system would not perish.

Waste ‘Per week around 800kg of tomatoes were being thrown away’ ‘4 tonnes of tilapia in the freezer, not selling as nobody wanted it, so must be thrown away’ Hence, the project was not as perfect as perceived by media, framing it as ‘a closed-loop water system’ (WWF, n.d.) when in reality there was a substantial amount of waste, from energy to product.

Future of Farming?

Jeannet’s opinion on this matter is a refreshing balance between optimism and scepticism. The most prominent point gathered is the need for ‘a political will to grow food inside the city’, for the connection between food and the city to become symbiotic. For example, for London, the introduction of mass farming in the city was instigated by German U-boats during WWII. The U-boats prevented Atlantic supply to Britain, leaving the country exposed to food shortages, due to a reliance upon a vulnerable importation system.

This lead to the UK government implementing the famous ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign (see figure 00), in which men and women across the country were growing their own produce out of necessity, to survive the war. During this time the most unlikely plots of land were cultivated, from domestic gardens and public parks, to lawns outside the Tower of London (Steel, 2008, 41; British Library, n.d.). Demonstrating the possibility of mass growing in cities, but only with the support of government, as Jeannet says ‘you cannot simply throw seed and expect it to grow’. In addition, an example of political acts changing the connection between food and the city is the passing of the Green Roof Bill in New York, as previously discussed in the Brooklyn Grange chapter.

Another of the points made by Jeannet is to view the implementation of rooftop farms to be for those living in the building, to become a community space supervised by full-time farming staff with an understanding of growing. Extending the use of the rooftop farm as not only a food production environment, but a social, relaxation environment with similar environmental positives as Brooklyn grange, in terms of improved air quality, increased wildlife and ecosystem etc.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;There are examples of viable commercial urban farms, but also growth in allotment gardens in the Netherlands and across Europe â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which are not interested in being commercial but have a huge, indirect effect on mental health and liveability in cities,â&#x20AC;? says Jan-Eelco Jansma, a researcher in urban-rural relations at Wageningen University (Boztas, Apr 2016). Through conversation with Jeannet, the implementation of soil based growing projects, which are low tech seem to be the most viable option for a sustainable, low cost, reduced transportation method of growing in the city.

F i g u r e 2 3 : A r e a l i m a g e r y, K e n t i s h To w n C i t y Fa r m , L o n d o n Source: Drone Images, DJI Mavic Pro, available at < http://lwi.co.uk/ kentish-town-city-farm/>

4. OPEN ENVIRONMENT

3. ANIMAL GRAZING

2. CONCRETE COVERED

1. GROUND BASED

D i a g r a m o f K e n t i s h To w n C i t y Fa r m Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

K E N T I S H TO W N C I T Y FA R M , LO N D O N

Kentish Town City Farm (KTCF), located in London is primarily an educational project with some community members involved in the running of the facility, but mostly designed to provide a space for city dwellers to be exposed to a ‘farm’ environment, although the space is more of a hybrid between farm and city rather than showing the actualities of a farming landscape. The farm was founded in 1972, and has a total area of five acres, the site is nestled between two railway lines and is surrounded by housing estates (see figure 23). The project aims to demonstrate ‘how nature can reside harmoniously within the inner city’, unlike previous projects discussed the focus of KTCF is not growing produce, rather housing animals, from pigs to sheep (Kalache, 2009, 18).

A large portion of the site is concrete covered, with the stables for the donkeys and one cow residing on the hard concrete floor. When visiting KTCF (Feb 2019), the concrete felt out of place in a farm setting, and almost cruel to the animals on site, as there quality of life seemed questionable under such conditions. However, after walking further into the site, there was some areas of exposed soil, with some small scale growing practices, and a portion of grass left untouched upon which the sheep grazed.

Also, with the only produce grown on the farm being more of a homage to growing, the farm is not designed to be commercial in the slightest, its soul purpose as a space for community activities and educational programmes. Hence, the farm is dubbed a charity, making the project extremely financially uncertain, with no constant income, those working on the farm are mainly volunteers.

Similarly to comments on Oko Farms, it seems a waste to neglect the opportunity to expose the soil, and look to regenerate the land, as it is lucky to have a site so large on ground level. In my opinion, it is as if the abstraction of what a farm is has become so detached that the connection between the land, soil and farming has been disregarded. Instead the soul focus of KTCF is the animals, making it an almost zoo for farmed animals.

Overall, Kentish Town City Farm remains a community hub, with ceramic workshops, and constant visits, especially for families and primary schools. Therefore, there is a positive impact to be perceived, with the space allowing for productive community / educational sessions, improving the well-being of those visiting. Although, there is little impact on the environment provided by KTCF, yet the opportunity exists for the farm to do more in terms of growing, regenerating soil and connecting with local businesses, with Brooklyn Grange as a helpful model to follow where these factors are being achieved.

Once again, it seems Brooklyn Grange is the business model for urban agriculture with the greatest ability to achieve positives in terms of education, environment and community, whilst being profitable.

Figure 24 : BIGH “Ferme Abattoir ” in Anderlecht, roof top aquaponics system, greenhouse, solor panels and outdoor growing S o u r c e : < w w w. b i g h . f a r m >

4 . C LO S E D / O P E N

3 . S O M E VA R I E T Y O F C R O P

2 . A Q UA P O N I C S G R O W I N G

1 . R O O F TO P

Diagram of BIGH system Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

B I G H FA R M S , B R U S S E L S

BIGH (Building Integrated GreenHouses) located in Brussels is a large-scale aquaponics farm, set up in 2015 on the roof of a food market (Foodmet).The rooftop provides a 4000 sqm space, divided into a 2000 sqm greenhouse and aquaponics system, and a 2000 sqm produce garden for the on-site kitchen. The project is designed with circular economy principles, as Steven Beckers (Founder of BIGH) is a cradle-to-cradle certified architect. There are minimised waste streams, with ‘limited energy inputs’, which seems positive in comparison to the prodigious waste and energy practices within the UrbanFarmers aquaponics greenhouse system (Beckers, 2019, p78).

The projects relationship to both the city and current occupation of the building was key in the BIGH design process, with the city offering close proximity to both labour force and consumers, and the greenhouse in return reducing carbon dioxide, whilst utilising the 100-200 ppm increase of carbon dioxide in cities compared to the countryside, storing rainwater to prevent flooding, and solar panels provide a clean source of energy to the building and city. For the building, the rooftop farm maintains heat, giving insulation and thermal protection, in turn reducing energy needed for heating Food-met. Also, similarly to all the projects previously discussed the introduction of a greenhouse upon the roof maintains a temperature below 26 degrees celsius, due to the humidity emitted by the plants (Beckers, 2019, p80).

From Beckers description of the farm is seems highly efficient in comparison to the failed UrbanFarmers approach, with the farm pre-planning all aspects of its approach, the project daily intake of water is 20 cubic meters which supplies the 200 cubic meter tanks, greenhouse plants and outdoor growing environment.

Although, there is still the question of the ‘burdensome task of constantly monitoring the parameters’ for the extensively sensitive technology regulating the aquaponics system, but as described by Beckers as being ‘a guarantee of the healthiness and quality of the fish and plants’ (Beckers, 2019, p81). Additionally to the cost and increased energy intake implications associated with running the high-tech aquaponics system, the greenhouse which houses it also creates further cost and would have a large embodiment of energy through its construction and maintenance. These factors pose the question of the necessity for growing in the city, if the project is using more energy than it is saving, when compared to outer city low tech agriculture. However, it seems in the case of BIGH, due to its focus upon circular economy, the projects thoughtful design counteracts the embodied energy, and constant energy requirements through keeping inputs and outputs of the system within a closed-loop.

The concept of circular economy is prevalent in the projects attitude to inputs and outputs, with implementations taken to ensure outputs such as heat and carbon dioxide are captured and re-utilised in the system. BIGH have taken a different approach in fish management with the use of 60,000 striped bass, rather than the tilapia fish used in the UrbanFarmers aquaponics system, due to the bass being a protected species in the wild, and the cessation of antibiotics, it is sold for premium prices (15 to 25 Euros per kilo). A similar story with the production of tomatoes, with the farm growing two varieties with flavourful characteristics, and biological benefits as the tomatoes nitrate absorption exceeds that of the standard supermarket variety,

F i g u r e 2 5 : B I G H Ro o f t o p o u t d o o r g r o w i n g b e d s S o u r c e : < h t t p s : / / w w w. a g a r i s . e u / e n / n e w s / i n n o v a t i o n s / e u r o p e % E 2 % 8 0 % 9 9 s - l a r g e s t- r o o f t o p - c i t y - f a r m - o p e n s - i t s - d o o r s . h t m >

therefore the retail value of the product is between 15 to 25 Euros per kilo (Beckers, 2019, p82).

BIGH business model takes a completely different approach to previously discussed initiatives located in the heart of the city, the projects income relies upon the sale of produce, rather than relying upon event and visitation earnings, or branding the project as an experimental start-up.

The economic model for BIGH â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;involves truly producing food in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; a vast difference in ideologies, with education or technological innovation being secondary factors (Beckers, 2019, p82). The focus upon commercialising food production in the city is an aim within Brussels, with sources explaining an aim for 30% of food consumed in the city to be grown within its bounds (MacArthur, 2019, 12). Making BIGH the only initiative discussed to be striving for a truly altered agricultural paradigm within cities. Although, it could be argued that the Westlands are also redefining our farming paradigm, yet in this case due to its location there is little connection to community or education, meaning the ideal to re-connect city dwellers with the growing process is not achieved. Whereas, in the case of BIGH, due to its central location within Brussels, and connection to the food market below, the project succeeds in making the growing process visible to city dwellers, although with less focus on the educational aspects of the project, the site is accessible helping to redefine the position of food within the minds of consumers.

C o m p a r a t i v e D i a g r a m s o f U r b a n A g r i c u l t u r e Sy s t e m s Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

B R O O K LY N G R A N G E

U R B A N FA R M E R S

O KO FA R M S

1 . R O O F TO P

1 . R O O F TO P

1. GROUND BASED

2.SOIL BASED GROWING

2. AQUAPONICS GROWING

2. AQUAPONICS GROWING

3 . VA R I E D C R O P

3 . L I T T L E VA R I E T Y

3 . VA R I E D C R O P

4. OPEN ENVIRONMENT

4 . C LO S E D E N V I R O N M E N T

4. OPEN ENVIRONMENT

K E N T I S H TO W N FA R M

WESTLANDS

BIGH

1. GROUND BASED

1. GROUND BASED

1 . R O O F TO P

2. CONCRETE COVERED

2 . V E RT I C A L FA R M I N G

2. AQUAPONICS GROWING

3. ANIMAL GRAZING

3 . S O M E VA R I E T Y

3 . S O M E VA R I E T Y

4. OPEN ENVIRONMENT

4 . C LO S E D E N V I R O N M E N T

4 . C LO S E D / O P E N

C o m p a r a t i v e D i a g r a m s : S i z e o f Fa r m Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

B R O O K LY N G R A N G E U R B A N FA R M E R S O KO FA R M S K E N T I S H TO W N C I T Y FA R M WESTLANDS BIGH

C o m p a r a t i v e D i a g r a m s : Va r i e t y G r o w n Source : Jessmine Bath [Author]

B R O O K LY N G R A N G E U R B A N FA R M E R S O KO FA R M S K E N T I S H TO W N C I T Y FA R M WESTLANDS BIGH

E D U C AT I O N A L

C O M M U N I T Y I N V O LV E M E N T

COMMERCIAL

C O M PA R AT I V E S T U D I E S

The comparative diagrams of the 6 initiatives explored in this thesis (p72-3) demonstrates the different techniques of approach when designing urban agriculture.

Rooftop / Ground Brooklyn Grange (BG), Urban Farmers (UF) and BIGH, are three rooftop based urban farms, all utilising concrete structures to house the heavy loads their agricultural practices facilitate. BIGH’s location is the most connected to the production of its food, as it resides above a large food market in Brussels, creating a symbiotic relationship between production and consumption. UF can also be argued as having an appropriate building programme, as the Philips centre the rooftop aquaponics systems exists upon is home to a variety of start-up urban agriculture businesses, i.e. a vertical mushroom farm, also at the lowest level is a restaurant where some of its produce can be sold, however, as previously discussed due to the cost of the food grown by UF the restaurant was not able to sustain purchase. With regards to BG, the industrial buildings housing the rooftop growing are detached from the function of BG, as they are used as offices, apartments and a shopping mall. However, BG’s implementation upon buildings unlikely to partake in urban agriculture makes the project more interesting as it show the wider scope of existing architecture that could house rooftop farms.

Oko Farms, Kentish Town City Farm (KTCF), and the Westlands are all based on ground level, yet all three systems seem to detach themselves from the soil they have access to. In the case of Oko farms this is due to its growing taking place upon water tanks rather than the soil, meaning there is no regeneration of the soil, which is so important

in sustaining our agricultural practices. KTCF also exists at ground level, in an awkwardly shaped site, there is again a lack of connection between soil and agriculture, except for the grazing patch for the sheep, other animals are left to reside upon concrete. The Westlands does utilize its access to soil in some cases, as the greenhouses do facilitate some soil based growing, however the focus of the project is not regeneration of soil, rather its aim to control its environment.

Soil Based Growing / Aquaponics / High Tech System / Animal Grazing Brooklyn Grange (BG) and the Westlands are two of the initiatives explored which partake in growing in soil, although BG’s practice is completely reliant upon this means of producing, whereas the Westlands utilise more high-tech forms of growing, making the soil an almost secondary commodity. BG’s soil based system seems highly logical as it cares for the soil, and considers the ground footprint taken by the building and re-purposes the footprints function on the rooftop.

Urban Farmers (UF), Oko Farms and BIGH all focus on aquaponics system, believing them to be the future of urban farming. Oko farms is the smallest out of the three, becoming more a testing ground for the aquaponics system, but having the lowest embodied energy in construction due to its comparatively low-tech practice. Then there is Urban Farmers, when first established the largest aquaponics rooftop farm in Europe, its embodied energy in construction being extremely large, and the complexity of the aquaponics in time made its running cost sky rocket, overall as an aquaponics project UF was not able to sustain

itself with the substantial costs associated with running the system. BIGH is a similar size to UF, the project however is running in a much more efficient and cost effective way, this is due to a combination of factors, one being the circular-economy approach which has reduced their running costs, also the use of solar panels reducing energy costs and improving its environmental design. Also, BIGH does not only grow using aquaponics, there are also outdoor soil based growing, giving the project a more all encompassing quality in terms of urban farming practice.

Open / Closed Environment Brooklyn Grange (BG), Oko Farms and Kentish Town City Farm (KTCF) are all examples of urban farming in an open environment, meaning the projects are more connected to their respective climates. Also, with the openness of the farms comes the opportunity for ecosystems to flourish, inviting insects and birds to the site, which would otherwise find it difficult to find refuge within the city. In the case of BG the creation of an inner city ecosystem seems most effective, as when visiting the sites there was a constant hum of bees, dragonflies, butterflies, and birds flying and nesting upon the roof. Whereas, Oko Farms had some refuge for insects it was not as inviting as the soil based growing of BG. KTCF is also an open environment, however due to there being little vegetation grown by the farm, the ecosystem created falls short of its potential, with concrete dominating the site.

Urban Farmers (UF), Westlands, and BIGH exist in closed environments, with all three being within laboriously constructed greenhouses. The greenhouses are positive in terms of providing a

controlled space, deterring the effects of uncontrollable weather conditions, so the projects are unaffected by seasonality, however this comes at a great cost in terms of energy needed to sustain the environments at optimum temperature. Further to energy costs, are the embodied energy costs the greenhouses construction implement, making it a questionable option when aiming for environmental design. Finally, the introduction of closed environments fails to create an ecosystem serving any insect species or birds, who have little refuge in cities, therefore it seems with closed environments the urban agricultural paradigm fails to facilitate nature within the city.

Size The projects discussed in this thesis range in size from small to large (see graph, p74). It is clear to see the vast size of the Westlands in comparison to the other initiative, although the Westlands almost sit within a separate category to urban farming as it exists at the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge rather than within it, as the other projects do. The second biggest project is Brooklyn Grange the largest of the inner city urban agriculture initiatives, however it is important to note the size is based on the accumulative sqm of the three sites the organisation runs within New York. Urban Farmers, Kentish Town City Farm and BIGH, sit within a similar size range yet all perceive the urban agricultural paradigm in completely different ways, with Urban Farmers focus on high-tech growing techniques with a complex system, Kentish Town striving for connection between farmed animals and the city consumers who rarely see them alive, and BIGH Brussels based urban farm, with the intention of commercialising growing within the city to contribute to the cities aim of producing 30% of food in the city within the city.

Amount of Variety Grown Focusing on the produce grown (see graph on p75), Brooklyn Grange is the most varied, with a multitude of crop varieties grown upon the soil, which not only gives greater variety to consumers but helps to maintain the health of the soil without the introduction of chemical fertilisers.

Then there is the Westlands, due to its vastness there is a great variety of produce grown, however within each greenhouse there is little variety, with monoculture tendencies prevailing. BIGH also have a wide variety of crops grown, as there was a focus to provide the environment for this at the initial design stage, additionally due to the outdoor growing environment more variety is able to grow. Urban Farmers, with a similar system to BIGH was not able to grow as much variety, as previously discussed, this is due to there only being two types of environment within the system, therefore to grow more variety would mean creating new spaces, a costly undertaking if not implemented from the beginning. Oko Farms has a substantial variety of crop when considering its size, however due to its size it does not compete with the abilities of other initiative discussed. Finally, Kentish Town City Farm has the least varied crop, this is due to lack of focus on growing, instead the focus is on animal grazing.

Education / Commercial / Community Involvement Urban agricultural practices lends itself to not only having commercial value, but there is opportunity for community involvement, and a definite need for education which the projects are able to provide for city dwellers (see diagram, p76).

Brooklyn Grange (BG) is a project with connection to all three opportunities, although its main

focus is its educational and community involvement, with connection to local schools, constant visits from city dwellers and much of the produce is sold to local community, also, there is the relationship to local business instigating community involvement, and creating closed loop systems through the exchange of waste from these businesses. BG does not aim to be commercial, however due to its thoughtful business model, it has been able to expand as a business and a brand, with enough produce sold to give it some notion as being commercial. Urban Farmers (UF) is much less community driven, as there is little interaction with local businesses and a very small percentage of produce was being sold to the local community. Whereas, the project was more of a test for commercial urban farming, in which educational visits became a large part of keeping the company profitable. Kentish Town City Farm (KTCF) and Oko Farms, are not a commercial operations in the slightest, with almost no focus on selling produce to the local community, the projects are more educational sites for visitations so that those within the city can understand how farms work, and how food is grown. Oko Farms has slightly more community involvement as some of its produce is sold to local businesses.

The Westlands is by far the most commercial enterprise of all the projects discussed, it is massively successful in this area, as previously mentioned it has helped to make the Netherlands the second largest exporter or vegetables worldwide, although with prime focus on commercializing its agricultural production the Westlands fails to work with local community and educational facilities as much as it could with its close proximity to cities. Finally, BIGH is a more balanced operation, similarly to the Westlands its focus is commercial production, however, due to it being situated inner city the project does have

greater connection to education with many visits taking place on site, helping to create the lost connection between food and how it is produced. Also, BIGH has community involvement, with its products being sold to local community, and local businesses, especially due to the aim of making Brussels 30% self-sufficient, in terms of producing food within the city.

CONCLUSION

We now reside in a global city of sorts, with access to the same supermarkets, containing the same food, provided by the same companies. A dystopian existence if taking the perspective of Sir Thomas More, with the word Utopia being first coined by More in 1516. He dubbed the utopia’s relation to agriculture as follows: ‘Agriculture is that which is so universally understood among them that no person, either man or woman, is ignorant of it; they are instructed in it from their childhood, partly by what they learn at school and partly by practice; they being led out often into the fields, about the town, where they not only see others at work, but are likewise exercised in it themselves’(More, 1516, p32).

As a 21st century city dweller, I am unable to say that More’s perception of agricultural utopia is applicable. Within the city nature is almost completely lost to a solely human environment. There is little diversity of species, just as we grow much of our produce with little diversity of crop.

The pathway towards the global import / export culture, seems to correlate with the ideology that the rural lifestyle of the farmer was less than that of the city dweller, with words like ‘clodhopper, bumpkin, yokel and hayseed’(Ward, 1988, p10) used to stereotype those from the countryside.

Therefore, the city became detached from its rural counterpart, although still reliant, it was out of sight, and out of mind. The city was and still is a place for innovation, a place for the mind, not for physical labour, a human centric environment where progress can be made. With the intent for progress, humans have disregarded the natural order, to better, defeat and dominate.

Science provided the tools; through observation of nature, then manipulation to create an

environment where only the effects of human life are considered, weapons (chemical fertilisers and pesticides) to defeat the ‘enemy’. Yet in doing this what has truly been gained?

It is clear that the use of such weapons to control yield or pests is frivolous, when observing how the soil and crop reacts to natural / organic methods of farming. Although, due to massive demand for crop, farmers / companies are forced to cover vast areas of land in one crop, if this is the basis of the land, then yes pesticides and fertiliser would be the most cost effective way to achieve a high yield.

To alter the current practice of the majority of farming, the execution of growing food would need to become smaller and more diverse in species; within cities, instigated through architecture. Allowing nature in, whilst providing the opportunity for reconnection with food. With this in mind, it seems the most successful project studied in this thesis is Brooklyn Grange, as with its agricultural practice it is also an ecosystem, an educational facility, business connector, and community hub for events and workshops.

Although, initiatives such as BIGH are also fantastically ingenuitive in successfully integrating a growing environment within the city, which can be commercially viable, educational and community driven. The Westlands is also a project to take great inspiration from, with its mass production of produce within a more environmentally conscious practice, where pesticides and chemical fertilisers are devoid from the system. It would seem fitting to perceive the Westlands greenhouse complex as an ideal counterpart within our global agricultural paradigm, as it seems far removed to think we can grow all the food for the city in the city, therefore outer city growing

Healthy Soil B r o o k l y n G r a n g e , S u n s e t Pa r k , N e w Yo r k S o u r c e : I m a g e t a ke n S e p 2 0 1 9 Photography: Jessmine Bath [Author]

facilities such as the Westlands are necessary, and its practices are a great improvement from those that rely upon pesticides and fertilisers to maintain yields. Although, to achieve the ideal food journey for city dwellers consumption, it seems the two most successful models are Brooklyn Grange and BIGH. Whereas, when considering Oko farms, Urban Farmers as aquaponics systems, both have failed to become sustainable businesses, due to their business models failing to encompass commercial use, educational value and community connection. Additional, Kentish Town City Farm, although fantastic as a community hub and educational facility, it fails to produce food for city dwellers, meaning its business model is relatively weak, and is more of a charity than business, with little income available to sustain the farm.

Therefore, BIGH, Brooklyn Grange, and the Westlands, seem the most viable options for further implementation into our global agricultural paradigm, as they appreciate the importance of profit to sustain the businesses. Once again, it seems Brooklyn Grange is the business model for urban agriculture with the greatest ability to achieve positives in terms of education, environment and community, whilst being profitable. Secondary to this BIGH, as an aquaponics system is the most viable within the city, with its focus on commercial value, the business is able to sustain itself, whilst acknowledging the importance of educational visits and community involvement.

Overall, when contemplating the role of architecture to implement these projects, it seems the built environment has a duty to facilitate growing spaces. For example, to ensure buildings are designed with the ability to hold the structural load imposed by rooftop farms. Also with reference to

Jeannet, to ensure new apartment buildings have rooftop farms / community spaces, as when implemented with close proximity to peoples livelihoods it is much more viable for community members to become prevalent social actors in maintaining the growth of the plants. Although, with reference to CJ Limâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Food Parliamentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, it is not only the role of architecture to facilitate growing in the city, but also a necessity for government bodies to instigate change through regulations, i.e. the Green Roof Bill passed in New York, which subsidises the implementation of green roofs on new apartment buildings.

To combine Food and the City, there are two main actors with the ability to initiate a new agricultural paradigm; government bodies and architecture. Government bodies role, to implement legislation which ensures new development within the city is more environmentally conscious, educational and community driven, and achieved through urban agriculture. Architectures role, to ensure structural integrity when designing new projects, and to find ways of integrating growing space to new developments with similar all encompassing value to projects such as Brooklyn Grange or BIGH.

APPENDIX

1.0 This table provides the detailed results of the Plausible Scenario, which models the growth solutions on the Drawdown list based on a reasonable, but vigorous rate from 2020-2050. Results depicted represent a comparison to a reference case that assumes 2014 levels of adoption continue in proportion to the growth in global markets.

Project Drawdown. <drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management>

1.1 Email correspondence with Anastasia Plakias (co-founder of Brooklyn Grange) Received : 29 August 2019, 14:39

1.2 CJ Limâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Food City Proposal Available at <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/news/nov/2014/cj-lims-food-city-tops-bestsellers-list>

1.3 Micheal Sorkin Studios self-sustaining New York, Greening the City Available at <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-design-future-of-new-york-as-seen-by-urbanist-michaelsorkin-69432576/>

1.4 Existing aquaponics practitioners in North America, 142 commercial companies (red) and 17 research centres (blue), (CITYFOOD, July 2018)

1.5 Aquaponics across Europe: 50 research centres (blue) and 45 commercial companies (red). (EU Aquaponics Hub 2017)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adebayo, Oladimeji. (2019, Jun) Loss of Biodiversity: The Burgeoning Threat to Human Health. Editorial, Ann Ibd. Vol 17, No.1.

Attaran, Amir. (2000). Balancing Risks on the Backs of the Poor. Nature Medicine 6, no.7.

Balfour, Lady Eve. (1943). The Living Soil. Soil Association Ltd, 2006.

Batchelor, Ray. (1994). Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism, and Design. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Bate, Roger. (2007, Nov). The Rise, Fall, Rise and Imminent Fall of DDT. AEI Health Policy Series, no. 14.

Beckers, Steven. (2019, Sep 24). Aquaponics: a positive impact circular economy approach TO feeding cities. Institut Veolia, Field Action Science Reports [online]. <http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5757> [accessed 02 December 2019] Botaz, Senay. (2016, Apr 27). Greenhouse in the sky: inside Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biggest urban farm. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2016/apr/27/inside-europes-biggest-urban-farm> [accessed 2019, 27 Nov] Bryce, Robert. (2010). Power Hungry. Public Affairs, United States.

Cartwright, Mark. (2014, May 06). Food in the Roman World. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/article/684/ [viewed 11 May 2019] Collingham, Lizzie. (2011). The Taste of War : World War Two and the Battle for Food. London, Allen Lane.

Dillinger, Jessica (2017). Which Countries Export the Most Food?. WorldAtlas, viewed 7 November 2019, <https://www.worldatlas.com/ articles/the-american-food-giant-the-largest-exporter-of-food-in-the-world.html/>. [accessed 2019, 3 Nov] Downing, Emma and Sutherland, Nikki. (2019, Nov 10). The UK bee population. House of Commons Library. <https://www.parliament.uk/ commons-library> [accessed 2019, 2 Nov]

ETC Group. (2008). Who owns nature? Corporate power and the final frontier in the commodification of life. ETC Group, Winnipeg, MB.

Fischer, G. (1964). The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1948 Presentation Speech. Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 19421962, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1964.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (1999). Women: users, preservers and managers of agrobiodiversity.

Rome, Italy. <www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/Women/Biodiv-e.htm> [accessed 2019, 28 Oct]

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2004). Building on Gender, Agrobiodiversity and Local Knowledge : What is Agrobiodiversity?. Rome, Italy. <http://www.fao.org/3/y5609e/y5609e02.htm> [accessed 2019, 28 Oct] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2019). Food Outlook - Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. Rome, Italy. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2019, Sep 10). Global food consumption growth and changes in consumer preferences. Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels, Belgium. <https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/global-food-consumption-growing-faster-population-growth-past-two-decades-2019-sep-10_en> [accessed 2019, 1 Nov] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). (n.d.). SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. <http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/> [accessed 01 December 2019] Fukuoka, Masanobu. (1978). The One-straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.

Heitmann, John Alfred. (1989). Justus Von Liebig. History Faculty Publications. Paper 91.

Kalache, Pedro. (2009). City Farm Ceramics. ProQuest LLC, Issue 235, p18. ISSN: 0144-1825.

Kim, Y.H.; Hong, J.R.; Gil, H.W.; Song, H.Y.; Hong, S.Y. (2013). Mixtures of glyphosate and surfactant TN20 accelerate cell death via mitochondrial damage-induced apoptosis and necrosis. Toxicol. In Vitro, 27, 191–197.

König B, Junge R, Bittsanszky A, Villarroel M, Komives T. (2016). On the sustainability of aquaponics. Eco Cycles 2(1):26–32. <https://doi. org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i1.50> Lim, C. J. (2014). Food City. Studio 8 Architects. Routledge, 771 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

MacArthur, Ellen Foundation. (2019). The Cities and Circular Economy for Food: Brussels, Belgium. <https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/our-work/activities/cities-and-circular-economy-for-food> [accessed 05 January 2020] McDonough, William; Braungart, Michael. (2002). Cradle To Cradle: Remaking The Way We Make Things. North Point Press, New York.

Miazzo, F. & Minkjan, M. (ed.)(2013). Farming the City. Food as a Tool for Today’s Urbanisation. Valiz/Trancity, Amsterdam.

More, Sir Thomas. (1516). Utopia. Penguin Books 1984, London.

Orwell, George. (1939). Critical Essays 1903-1950. London, Secker & Warburg, 1946.

Patel, R. (2007). Stuffed and starved: Markets, power and the hidden battle for the world food system. Portobello Books, London.

Plakias, Anastasia Cole. (2016). The Farm on the Roof. Brooklyn Grange, LLC. Penguin Random House LLC, New York 10014.

Proksch G., Ianchenko A., Kotzen B. (2019, Jun 22). Aquaponics in the Built Environment. In: Goddek S., Joyce A., Kotzen B., Burnell G. (eds) Aquaponics Food Production Systems. Springer, Cham.

Quagrainie KK, Flores RMV, Kim H-J, McClain V. (2018). Economic analysis of aquaponics and hydroponics production in the U.S. Midwest. J Appl Aquac 30:1–14. <https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10454438.2017.1414009> Rothwell A, Ridoutt B, Page G, Bel. Rountree, Robert. (2015, Feb 18). Roundoc Rx: Monoculture and Loss of Biodiversity: Effects on Human Health. Mary Ann Libert Inc. <https://doi.org/10.1089/act.2015.21110> [accessed 2019, 2 Nov] Sams, Craig. (2003). The Little Food Book. Alastair Sawday Publishing.

Samsel, A., and Seneff, S. (2013). Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy, 15, 1416–1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416.

Smil, Vaclav. (2004). Enriching the Earth : Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production . MIT Press.

Stapleton, Darwin. (2000). The Short-Lived Miracle of DDT. American Heritage Invention and Technology Magazine 15, no. 3.

Stearns S. C. (2009). Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(6), A266.

The Biggest Little Farm. (2018). [online]. Directed by John Chester. USA: Parkland Entertainment. [Viewed 14 November 2019].

TheHagueOnLine. (2018, Jul 4). Urban Farmers Declares Bankruptcy. Economy, News. <https://www.thehagueonline.com/ news/2018/07/04/urbanfarmers-declares-bankruptcy> [accessed 2019, 11 Nov] The Hague, Business Agency. (2015, Oct 29). Company of the Month October / Urban Farmers. <https://businessagency.thehague.com/ about-us/news/1618/company-of-the-month-october-urbanfarmers/> [accessed 2019, 27 Nov] TheNewFarm. (2018, Mar 2). 20180301 NewFarm01. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0M6Hn1Fqqc&feature=emb_logo> [accessed 2019, 11 Nov] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2000). Childhood Pesticide Poisoning. UNEP Chemicals, Switzerland, 2004.

Van Meer, F., Charbonnier, L., & Smeets, P. A. (2016). Food Decision-Making: Effects of Weight Status and Age. Current diabetes reports, 16(9), 84. doi:10.1007/s11892-016-0773-z

Van Woensel L, Archer G, Panades-Estruch L, Vrscaj D, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services.

(2015). Ten technologies which could change our lives: potential impacts and policy implications: in depth analysis. European Commission/EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels.

Vidal, John. (2003, May). Unfair Trade Winds: What do Ecuadorian bananas, Ugandan coffee and English apples, have in common? No power. The Guardian, London.

Viviano, Frank. (2017, Sep). This Tiny Country Feeds the World. National Geographic Magazine. <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/> [accessed 2019, 5 Nov] Ward, Colin. (1978). The Child in the City. Freedom Press, London.

Ward, Colin. (1988). The Child in the Country. Freedom Press, London.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (n.d.). UrbanFarmers: Sustainable Food Production on City Rooftops at Scale. <https://wwf.impacthub.net/ story/urbanfarmers/> [accessed 2019, 27 Nov] Zubrin, Robert. (2012, Sep 27). The Truth About DDT and Silent Spring. New Atlantis. <https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/thetruth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring> [accessed 2019, 14 Nov]