Campbell - Major Research Paper - Vertical Farming In An Urban Environment: A Toronto Perspective

RUNNING HEAD: A TORONTO PERSPECTIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

VERTICAL FARMING IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT: A TORONTO PERPSPECTIVE

Major Research Paper

Joshua Campbell Ryerson University Student Number: 500378575

Prepared for: Professor Dale Carl & Professor Joseph Shaw

Monday, April 22, 2013

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

2

Executive Summary It is widely accepted that the expected growth of the world’s population will continue to have a negative impact on the availability of food to certain portions of the population. This is primarily the result of increased demand combined with the reduction of farmland, due in large part, to urbanization. In order to provide sustainable food security, the world requires new methods of growing produce with sustainable infrastructure. One plausible solution is a form of urban agriculture known commonly as vertical farming.

Dickson Despommier’s (2009) vision of filling sky scrapers with plants may seem like something out of a futuristic movie. Although novel, this concept should be considered the next necessary manifestation of agricultural practice.

For example, major urban areas such as

Singapore and Beijing are restricted to obtaining their produce from distant suppliers. The result of this practice leads to increased food and transportation costs to the consumer along with negative health consequences, due to the fact that the availability of quality produce is limited.

How could vertical farming be implemented and what is required to facilitate this approach? For the purpose of this paper, the City of Toronto is evaluated, in its current state, to evaluate the candidacy and suitability of vertical farming. In addition, alternative technologies of wind turbines, solar energy and water recycling are discussed as comparable initiatives along with required human capital. Current land use planning issues and stakeholder concerns are discussed and recommendations are provided to assist with the appropriate implementation methodology. Further, real estate is discussed at length along with possible site locations.

Two business models are proposed that include both a commercial sales farm and a personal allotment garden where individuals lease space for personal consumption. A financial evaluation is discussed to better understand how funding for a vertical farm could be provided.

A detailed qualitative cost-benefit analysis is presented to provide realistic insight towards the potential development of such a project.

There are many ongoing projects that utilize the resources and technologies discussed in this paper but none compile them to fulfill the vision of a sustainable vertical farm. The proposing of an accurate methodology is pivotal to its successful implementation. The definition of success is also discussed as it does not necessarily equate to profitability. Success should be defined by achieving long term global food security.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

3

Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................5 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................5 1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................6 2.0 Background and Motivation ...................................................................................................6 3.0 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................7 4.0 Review of the Literature ..........................................................................................................8 4.1 Population and Geography .....................................................................................................8 4.2 Pollution and Land Use Planning ...........................................................................................8 4.3 Climate and Economy ............................................................................................................9 4.4 Nutrition and Contamination ..................................................................................................9 4.5 Energy and Resources ..........................................................................................................10 4.6 Modern and Traditional Farming .........................................................................................10 4.7 Technology and Current Case Studies .................................................................................11 5.0 Research Objectives ...............................................................................................................12 6.0 Research Approach and Methodology .................................................................................12 6.1 Deductive Approach .............................................................................................................12 6.2 Research Methodology .........................................................................................................13 7.0 Challenges and Limitations...................................................................................................14 8.0 Potential Contribution ad Significance of Study.................................................................14 9.0 Business Model Propositions.................................................................................................15 10.0 Resource Capability .............................................................................................................15 10.1 Wind Energy ......................................................................................................................15 10.2 Solar Energy .......................................................................................................................17 10.3 Water Recycling .................................................................................................................20 10.4 Labour Market ....................................................................................................................23 11.0 Social and Legal ...................................................................................................................25 11.1 Land Use Planning .............................................................................................................25 11.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................28 12.0 Market Research ..................................................................................................................30

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

4

12.1 Real Estate Perspective ......................................................................................................31 12.2 Product Demand .................................................................................................................33 13.0 Financial Study.....................................................................................................................35 13.1 Financial Accommodation .................................................................................................36 13.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................38 14.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................40 14.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................40 14.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................43 15.0 Reflection ..............................................................................................................................44 References .....................................................................................................................................48 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................62 Appendix 1: Location Propositions ............................................................................................62 Appendix 2: Benefits and Costs .................................................................................................63

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

5

List of Tables Table 1: Research Studies With Key Search Terms .................................................................64 Table 2: Master Level Agriculture Programs in Canada ........................................................68

List of Figures Figure 1: Research Methodology ................................................................................................70 Figure 2: Exhibition Place Wind Turbine .................................................................................71 Figure 3: Bahrain World Trade Center.....................................................................................72 Figure 4: San Francisco Utilities Commission ..........................................................................73 Figure 5: Guangzhou Pearl River Tower ..................................................................................74 Figure 6: Wind Tunnel at Guangzhou Pearl River Tower ......................................................75 Figure 7: Darrieus Quiet Revolution (QR) Wind Turbine ......................................................76 Figure 8: PAC-H Wind Turbine.................................................................................................77 Figure 9: Windspire Wind Turbine ...........................................................................................78 Figure 10: International Conference Centre at Dezhou, China ..............................................79 Figure 11: Conserval’s Solar Heating Systems .........................................................................80 Figure 12: Margot and Harold Schiff Residences .....................................................................81 Figure 13: Don Lands Map .........................................................................................................82 Figure 14: Financial District Map ..............................................................................................83 Figure 15: Liberty Village Map ..................................................................................................84

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

6

1.0 Introduction The continuing growth of the world's population is a noted concern to urban planners and professionals in related fields. One issue of particular significance is the increasingly limited availability of land that can be devoted to sustainable agricultural production. In addition, the price of food continues to rise in both domestic and international markets due to the rising cost of fuel and transportation among other factors. Despommier's (2009) proposal of utilizing skyscrapers in heavily populated urban locales is one possible solution. Considerations should include factors specific to resource capability, legality, social, demand and financing. All of these factors have a measurable impact on the practicality of Despommier’s idea. The purpose of this study is to examine vertical farming and propose a methodology in the City of Toronto.

Primary research is obtained through public disclosure documentation including official city plans, by-laws, zoning controls and case studies. Additional information is gained through private entities and other relevant resources critical. A discussion of the research material is conducted to examine the factors which contribute to the possible implementation of a proposed vertical farming project in Toronto. In addition, current research is assessed to identify the present candidacy of the subject municipality as it directly relates to the suitable implementation of vertical farming.

2.0 Background and Motivation This research is intended for those interested in the notion of sustainable growth, specifically in Toronto. The impact of urban sprawl on available cropland negatively impacts farmers and local communities that rely on food production to sustain their local economy.

Rising land values and transportation fees have contributed to increased prices for agricultural products. Another issue that has recently arisen is the safety and sustainability of genetically

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

7

modified produce (GMF). While GM science has shown some benefit in raising crop yields, it has also led to concerns about the impact on consumer health and the potential negative impact on the natural environment.

Urban farming is also of interest to the business world. As reported by Industry Canada, the agricultural sector contributed nearly $30 billion of Canada's gross domestic product in 2011 (Industry Canada, 2012). Corporations have noticed such profit trends in the industry, and as a result, major agricultural conglomerates have grown substantially. Investors seeking diversification are investing in agricultural land, potentially increasing the valuation of land (Dubuis, 2011). As population grows, the need for food will increase. The workforce related to agriculture will continue to adapt to become higher skilled. To that end, food production will play an increasingly important role, and the related industries will gain further investment by the private and public sectors.

3.0 Research Questions The contribution of this paper is to answer following general question: How could vertical farming be successfully implemented in the City of Toronto?

Additional inquires will also provide insight for the following secondary questions: i)

What role does technology serve towards the implementation and maintenance of a vertical farming project?

ii)

Does the populace of the City of Toronto possess the general skills, education and training required for an urban agriculture project?

iii)

What precautions need to be taken to ensure that detrimental impacts on public health are minimized?

iv)

What are the possible funding sources for a vertical farming project?

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

8

4.0 Review of the Literature The practice of urban agriculture has been a milestone of our species’ development and urban agriculture appears to be the next logical step that is yet to be realized. A review of relevant research that discusses the issues and challenges related to the large-scale implementation of urban agriculture follows. All research findings were conducted utilizing key search terms listed in Table 1.

4.1 Population and Geography The global population is rapidly advancing towards seven billion and it is projected to reach nearly ten billion by 2050 (The World Bank, 2012). The growth in world population has resulted with the expansion of urban settlement and increased food demand. The public concern for sufficient food supply is of utmost importance. Historically, archaeologists attribute the fall of major civilizations to famine (Webb, 1998). Moreover, agriculture as either a product or as a means to providing a sustainable family income is potentially becoming fiscally unfeasible.

Much of the planet’s accessible arable land is simply becoming scarce and that which is still available has become less affordable for the common farmer (Mowbray, 2012).

4.2 Pollution and Land Use Planning The majority of air pollution is the result of increasing energy consumption due to rapid metropolitan growth (Agrawal, Singh, Rajput, Marshall, & Bell, 2003; Bell, Power, Jarraud, Agrawal, & Davies, 2011). In the last century, urbanization has expanded from an estimated 15% to 50% of world’s total population density (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000). Land use planners have been encouraged by their empowering bodies to focus on ‘smart growth’ as an effort to curb such adverse effects (LaCroix, 2010; Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler, & Rhoads, 2008). As a barrier, the rapid advancement of developing countries over the past half century has limited the

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

9

capabilities of individual nations to allocate the proper resources necessary for sustainable land use planning. One instrumental goal of responsible planning in the present context is to have agricultural products travel shorter distances, thus reducing transportation costs along with mitigating negative impact on the environment (Nasr & Smit, 1992; Nasr, et al., 2010).

4.3 Climate and Economy Global warming, arguably the result of ozone depletion from greenhouse gas emissions, is a growing public concern. The combination of deforestation as a remedy to increase farmable land and swift industrialization of developing nations are accelerating this problem (Bell, Power, Jarraud, Agrawal, & Davies, 2011; Despommier, 2009). This amounts to significant losses in agricultural productoin for farmers worldwide (Agrawal, Singh, Rajput, Marshall, & Bell, 2003).

Consequently, economic theories of supply and demand suggest that limitation in supply will lead to higher prices. Limited access to nutritous food, especially for the urban poor, has been increasing at dramatic rates since the early 1980’s (Webb, 1998).

4.4 Nutritition and Contamination One significant issue inherent to agricultural practice concerns the impact of toxic chemicals on both the environment and consumer health. Some chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides contain carcinogens. Not only is the labour force that handle’s these subtances at risk, but so is the general population, especially in densely settled areas (Brown & Jameton, 2010; Goss, 2010). For example, toxic contaminates are known to be easily transferred geographically by wind, water run-off, and direct transfer during transportation. Vertical farmers could be subject to short and long term risks if proper percautions are not taken during food production. There are, however, many benefits to having farmland exist within a urban setting.

In particular, it would help with the absorption of carbon emissions. It has been estimated that

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

10

the ecological carbon footprint of major cities could be cut in half with installation of agricultural facilities (Nasr, et al., 2010).

4.5 Energy and Resources Nutrient rich waste water, also known as ‘brown water’ is currently being filtered and returned to our waterways as ‘grey water’. Moreover, seventy percent of the earth’s water used by man is currently being expended for traditional agriculture irrigation (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2007). This may negatively impact water resources in developing countries (Despommier, 2009). Some researchers (Ehrenberg, 2008; Nasr & Smit, 1992) propose that this water should be rerouted to urban agricultural facilities for irrigation purposes. Modern methods of irrigation reduce the amount of waste water generated and reduce the occurrence of drought that has an adverse effect on crop yield and earning potential within the farming industry. In addition, brown water energy in the form biogas can also be utilized to power these facilities. These alternative energy resources, combined with caputring solar and wind energy could enable vertical farms to be sources of power (Goulding & Whitmore, 2012).

4.6 Modern and Traditional Farming On a smaller and more local scale, household vegetable gardens which have been widely popular since the end of the second world war, have been suggested as a necessity for low income familly units (Brown & Jameton, 2010). Recent research suggests that there are nearly one in six (i.e., approximately 50 million) individual produce gardeners in the United States.

These gardeners typically reside in urban areas and grow fruits and vegetables for personal consumption (Brown & Jameton, 2010).

There is s consensus that the same phenomena exists throughout most of the developed world (Mougeot, 2005). This supports the notion that urban agriculture is a widely accepted

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

11

practice conducted privately, only in smaller settings. Growing food indoors is also becoming common practice with the use of small irrigation systems. The process is known as hydroponics.

This form of growing often does not require the use of soil and thus reduces the likelihood of produce becoming contaminated. Besides requiring soil, traditional farming methods cultivate fields using crop rotation in cycles as the soil deteriorates to the point that it is no longer arable (Francis, et al., 2012). Growing produce indoors enables year round growth with the ability to locate agricultural business near its consumer base. Given this, large scale urban agriculture is certainly worth consideration.

4.7 Technology and Current Case Studies Advances in science have enabled researchers to refine the technological feasibility of vertical farming. City planners and architects have embraced incorporating the natural environment into urban development (Ehrenberg, 2008). Urban gardens increase a city’s biodiversity which further enhances the ecosystems functionality with the attraction of animals, insects and microorganisms (Brown & Jameton, 2010). Moreover, municipalities are revising their plans to incorporate urban agriculture into their official plans as a means to achieve local food sustainability. Some cities are developing inventory systems of properties that would be more suitable as a modern agricultural farm as compared to its current designated use (Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler, & Rhoads, 2008). For example, case studies of New York, Toronto, Kamloops, Vancouver and Portland have now been completed (City of Kamloops, 2007; Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler, & Rhoads, 2008; Nasr, et al., 2010; Sorkin, 2012). The environmental consequences of this research extend beyond the geographical boundaries of urban centres (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000).

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

12

5.0 Research Objectives What strategies will provide a sustainable solution for agricultural demand as the world becomes increasingly urbanized? This question is of utmost importance given that global demand for food has already reached a point of instability and will continue to destabilize if a solution is not discovered (Despommier, 2009). A number of researchers have contributed towards possible solutions that would support eco-friendly development and organic growth alternatives (Deelstra & Girardet, 2000; Despommier, 2009; Ehrenberg, 2008; Goss, 2010).

Many researchers have stated how such projects are beneficial in more ways than just supporting hunger associated problems. Vertical farming could also contribute solutions towards a number of concerns: usage of energy saving technologies; reduction in the use of harmful pesticides and herbicides; decreased costs to the consumer; improved gains in organic produce output; and improved water management to address limited supplies and reduction in farmland drought.

Previous alternative energy research has contributed to the realization of rooftop gardens, solar power and wind energy solutions. These accomplishments have led municipal planners to reconsider their official plans and incorporate sustainable green energy alternatives within their respective communities. Previously mentioned case studies have also furthered the practical knowledge of the subject topic. There is however a lack of research that references a proposed vertical farming project for the City of Toronto.

6.0 Research Approach and Methodology Figure 1 (on page 72) illustrates the framework utilized for this paper.

6.1 Deductive Approach A deductive approach was used. That is, by outlining a theoretical situation that directly relies on current information, laws and models with a pre-determined outcome proved the

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING success of this study and its potential for future application. The consideration of significant factors such as resource capability, legal, social and product demand are necessary to create an efficient and effective business methodology. Furthermore, a funding analysis was outlined to understand the proposed feasibility of such a project (Brent, 1996; Boardman, 2006; Adler, 2006). If the proposal did not yield a favourable outcome, there would be little reason to dedicate capital and resources to such a project at this time.

6.2 Research Methodology In order to accurately outline the methodology, the following are discussed: 

Resource Capability o Wind Energy o Solar Energy o Water Recycling o Labour Market



Legal & Social o Land Use Planning o Stakeholders



Market Research o Real Estate Perspective o Product Demand



Financial Study o Financial Accomodation o Cost-Benefit Analysis

13

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

14

7.0 Challenges and Limitations There are many potential challenges to completing the proposed study of vertical farming. The challenges commence with the initial collection of data. If the data is not accurate, relevant or interpreted correctly, the study will be flawed from the onset. The risk of bias that is inherent in individual correspondence was addressed by adopting the multiple observation approach. Moreover, the variables analyzed must be sufficient to support the case. These include property values, weather predictability, continual pollution degeneration and technological capabilities. The property values in the City of Toronto can be considered among some of the highest in the world depending on location. As a result, financial requirements may render a negative outcome regarding the feasibility of this project. Changes in wind patterns could also limit the projective outcomes of the selected site as it will require a degree of consistency for wind energy. The degree to which pollution continues to have an effect on a crops yield is also a considerable factor. Lastly, assumptions regarding the degree of technological capability that the proposed site must encompass to ultimately be successful, must be made.

8.0 Potential Contribution and Significance of Study Furthering the knowledge of sustainable agriculture is the overall goal of this paper. By advancing current research, one could examine the possibility and practicality of a proposed vertical farm in the City of Toronto. Given the infancy of vertical farming and its implementation, describing new methods and improving upon those from previous case studies will advance the opportunities that municipalities and sustainable real estate developers can utilize in order to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

15

9.0 Business Model Propositions Two possible business models of vertical farming will be considered. The models include a community garden approach in which individuals may rent space within an established facility to plant and grow their own produce for personal consumption. Consumers would essentially lease a portion of space on a per square foot basis. Costs could be reduced if the consumer was willing to maintain the garden independently. If however, the consumer sought to have additional services supplied such as irrigation, temperature adjustment, pest/insect control, and other maintenance-related functions for the subject garden, premiums could be charged.

Alternatively, the entire vertical farming facility could be developed for the purpose of mass production and commercial sales. This proposition would include a business entity managing the entire produce operation with the intent to sell direct or supply distributors with produce to be sold at the retail level. While both models vary slightly in their purpose, they are viable alternatives that should be considered for a vertical farming project. They both compliment sustainable growth and could possibly coincide together to form a hybrid approach.

10.0 Resource Capability Similar to all commercial real estate projects, a vertical farm will require substantial resources to construct and maintain such a facility. In order to operate a vertical farm in an urban setting, multiple resources are required. In order to narrow the scope of this study however, only the variables of wind energy, solar energy, water recycling and labour markets will be examined.

10.1 Wind Energy In 2003, the City of Toronto built the first wind turbine in a North American urban setting. The collaborative efforts of the municipality, Toronto Hydro and Windshare (a community-based cooperative) erected a 750 kilowatt wind turbine (see Figure 2). The project

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

16

provides 1400 megawatt hours of power per year, which is enough energy to power 250 homes (City of Toronto, 2013). Initiatives such as these demonstrate the unique ability for Toronto to host a sustainable project such as a vertical farm.

The country of Bahrain has taken wind energy one step further and integrated wind turbines directly into the design of skyscraper buildings (Inhabitat, 2007). For example, the Bahrain World Trade Center has three wind turbines tying together two 50 story buildings, supported by three 30 metre bridges (see Figure 3). This project is pivotal to the realization of developing a sustainable zero-net energy building. The proximity of the City of Toronto to Lake Ontario is similar to that of the Bahrain World Trade Center’s waterfront location making it an possible site for wind power technology.

Another initiative worth mentioning is the University of California Davis Wind Energy Collaborative (Price, 2013). Their first project is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission building (see Figure 4). This building is curved in shape, directing the wind towards a column of wind turbines which are covered by a glass facade to hide the disturbing presence of large wind turbines in the city core. It is noted by Price (2013) that the proposed wind component of the building will provide 7% of the necessary energy to power the building. Moreover, the building has additional capabilities including a ‘solar chimney’ ventilation system and solar panels that collectively provide an additional 32% towards energy needs.

One of the most intriguing forms of wind energy has been demonstrated at the Guangzhou Pearl River Tower in China which involves collaboration with Windside Technologies (see Figure 5). The 309 metre tall building has four pass-through, wind tunnels that reportedly contribute towards 5% of the building’s energy needs (Windside, 2013) (see Figure 6). The marvel of the building’s design eliminates the displeasing view and sound of

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

17

traditional wind turbines. A vertical farm designed utilizing a similarly innovative concept would be ideal for an urban location.

All of the wind turbine examples described work most effectively with a one direction wind shear (Cochran & Damiani, 2008). If the wind direction is less predictable, the following wind turbines should be considered: Darrieus Quiet Revolution (QR), PAC-H wind turbines (Cochran & Damiani, 2008) or the Windspire turbine (Windpsire, 2013) (see Figure 7, 8, 9). All three turbines are used in various locations and climates. Such turbines are constructed to allow wind from any direction to continue movement. There is one notable limitation attributed to the Darrieus design, that being its inability to self-start (Turbines Info, 2013).

Incorporating wind energy into a vertical farm is an important consideration for its financial feasibility. All potential energy saving technologies should be utilized to meet the approval of financiers and maintain stakeholder support. There still remain common complaints for wind turbines including audible noise, physical vibration and public safety that all need to be minimized. The lack of data for actual performance of such technologies also contributes to the questionable success of wind energy (Wilson, 2009). Wilson (2009) opines that the operators and/or developers of such technologies either do not have the data or do not wish to share the data publicly, which may lead one to believe that the benefits may not outweigh the negative features. If a vertical farm in Toronto is to maintain public support, full disclosure is vital regardless of the perceived cost-benefit relationship.

10.2 Solar Energy Toronto’s Exhibition Place is also host to Canada’s largest solar installation. The 100 kilowatt project generates approximately 120,000 kilowatt hours of energy per year, enough to power 35 homes (City of Toronto, 2013). Moreover, the City of Toronto offers financial

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

18

incentives for solar hot water installations and promotes the use of solar energy equipment for community-owned buildings (City of Toronto, 2013). As such, the municipality has clearly demonstrated its support and acceptance of solar energy production.

The Federal Government of Canada has also demonstrated support for solar energy with the creation of the Solar Buildings Research Network (2005-2010) (SBRN), an initiative of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, 2012). The SBRN was Canada’s initial research effort with its vision focused on developing solar-optimal buildings that strive for zero-net energy consumption. These solar initiatives incorporate technology that allows for the independent regulation of temperature within the entirety of commercial buildings (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, 2012). In 2011, the SBRN transformed into the Smart Net-Zero Energy Buildings Strategic Research Network (2011-2016) (SNEBRN) to form a collaboration of fifteeen universities across Canada to collectively improve upon the development of zero-net homes and commercial buildings. Their vision is to facilitate the widespread adoption of zero-net technology in the commercial building sector across Canada by 2030 (Smart Net-Zero Energy Buildings Strategic Research Network, 2013).

Examples of solar technology with high potential include: window glazing, hot-water rooftop collection, solar air collectors, rooftop/building integrated photovoltaic systems (PV), and day lighting technologies (Anthientis & Robertson, 1997). Many of these solar technologies are found in the largest solar building in the world which is located in Dezhou, China (see Figure 10). This 75,000 square meter fan shaped structure is host to a conference centre, hotel, and meeting and training facilities, all of which is powered by self-sustaining solar technologies (Yoneda, 2011).

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

19

An international organization based out of Toronto, Conserval Engineering, offers a product line of high efficiency solar technologies (see Figure 11). Conserval’s trademark SolarWall has been sold internationally since 1977 (Conserval, 2013). In order to achieve public support, working with a local supplier such as Conserval could be viewed as a valuable strategy, as the local labour economy would stand to benefit. The SolarWall technologies have been utilized by large corporate entities such as Enbridge Gas, FedEx and Walmart, all in conjunction with the Federal Government’s renewable energy incentive program (CanMetEnergy, 2013).

The SolarWall systems incorporate energy conservation technologies with an aesthetic finish, which may be more publicly accepted.

Two major studies conducted in the United States discuss the proposition of passive solar heating. Fosdick (2012) along with Haglund and Rathmann (1996) discuss the concept of heat collection through solar collectors which is then transferred into a thermal mass (i.e. concrete floor) which is then distributed to the end user through conduction, convection or radiation. The substantial benefit of passive solar technologies is that no mechanical resources are required for collection or distribution of energy, which require minimal maintenance. Moreover, an example of passive cooling would be a green roof or a trellis with vines growing on the side of a building to reduce the head absorption (Fosdick, 2012). Both of these technologies would be a large benefit to a vertical farm’s financial feasibility through the reduction of heating and cooling costs.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has created a dedicated website entitled Integration of Renewable Energy on Farms (IREF) as a resource to facilitate and support farmers who are considering the usage of solar energy. The site discusses forms of technologies, energy storage, process design and financing opportunities (Integration of Renewable Energy on Farms,

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

20

2013). The website also allows farmers to discuss the benefits and costs of various products through the incorporation of blog communication. The average payback of solar energy is considered very reasonable once 5 to 15 years have passed (Integration of Renewable Energy on Farms , 2013).

10.3 Water Recycling Rainwater collection and grey water reuse is an intriguing form of sustainability technology. Having water recycling capability within an urban agricultural project would reduce water consumption and sewage charges while reducing the load placed on regional water treatment facilities. Several European countries already practice rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling on a large scale (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2002). Canada increased its initiative to better understand North America’s current practices and the future opportunities by establishing the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA). Its purpose was to understand the regulations and standards that are currently implemented by governing agencies (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2002). This study concluded that Canada lags behind relative to the rest of the world in this respect. This is widely due to the lack of government rebates and incentives offered for installing such technologies. It is also noteworthy that nine percent of Canada’s total land equivalent to nearly one million square kilometres is covered by freshwater (Environment Canada, 2013). This has contributed to the perceived lack of need for advancing such technologies.

The consideration of grey water recycling must be further examined to understand its suitability for an urban farm. Grey water is defined as the liquid waste produced from washroom sinks, showers and laundry machines. It is not to be confused with black water, which is the waste water, generated from toilets, dishwashers and kitchen sinks (Sustainable Sources, 2013).

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

21

In order to reuse grey water within a facility, proper independent plumbing systems must be constructed. While this may be relatively simple during the building and design phase, it is much more difficult to complete on an existing building through retrofit. To be clear, the purpose of the project discussed in this paper is specific to new buildings wherein retrofitting would not apply.

Rainwater harvesting is similar to grey water recycling in its application towards the end user but differs by its collection method. In the commercial setting, it is collected through roof top cisterns and holding troughs. The water is then distributed to the toilets and irrigation systems. This method has only recently become popular in North American commercial developments (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2002). In the residential setting, the use of rain water barrels allows individuals to water lawns, gardens and fill swimming pools.

This has long been practiced in other regions around the globe (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2002).

There are two recent commercial projects worthy of discussion. Helmut Jahn, an architect based out of Chicago designed a supportive housing facility, namely the Margot and Harold Schiff Residences (see Figure 12) (Dwell, 2013). In addition to the integration of solar panels that are used to heat the facilities’ water supply, rain water is also collected to hydrate the property’s vegetable gardens. Grey water is also collected, filtered and redistributed to the showers, sinks and toilets. The Quayside Village (QV) housing complex in Vancouver, British Columbia was originally designed to filter both grey water and black water, however municipal restrictions led to last minute design changes to eliminate the black water recycling (Simon Fraser University, 2006). The system included a septic tank to remove coarse solids, a bio-filter to recirculate, sand filters to remove further solids and ozone generators are to complete the

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

22

overall process (Simon Fraser University, 2006). The capital cost for the equipment was approximately $115,000 with as little as $100 being required as a monthly maintenance fee (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2013). Ideally, a similar system could be utilized in an urban farm to assist with irrigation.

The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is home to multiple suppliers for the above mentioned technologies such as Clean Flush Systems and Zenon Environmental (Sustainabile Building, 2013). Water Recycling Systems (WRS), a company operating out of California has introduced water recycling in schools, hotels and commercial properties to help them achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification (Water Recycling Systems, 2013).

Waterfront Toronto, a public advocacy group, is working closely with public and private organizations to ensure the waterfront and local wetlands remain safe and sustainable.

Furthermore, Waterfront Toronto supports the recycling of grey and black water so long as they are restricted to irrigation objectives (Waterfront Toronto, 2013). One of their primary goals is to maintain a pleasing landscape for Toronto’s waterfront.

Toronto has an opportunity to reduce water filtration management requirements with the construction of a vertical farm. A great example of a modern water treatment facility combined with an urban farm is taking place in Shenzhen, China. The Organica Greenhouse project has taken a typical water treatment facility and turned it into a beautiful intercity garden (Greywater Action, 2013). The black water from the town is filtered and utilized for irrigation purposes.

This is an ideal design for an inter-city farming project.

Hauber-Davidson of the Water Conservation Group (2006) from Australia states that large office buildings can consume between 15,000 and 50,000 litres per year and that close to 75% of this can be reused. According to a study at Stanford University by Leggett and

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

23

colleagues (2001), recycling of grey water must still be conducted cautiously to ensure public health is ultimately protected. The report also suggests that the paybacks of such technologies are projected to occur by the 20 year mark with a minimal functional lifetime of approximately 15 years. It is also mentioned that service efficiency levels are rapidly depleted during down times (Leggett, Brown, Stanfield, Brewer, & Holiday, 2001). Alternatively, several schools and private Ontario-based organizations use Quebec-based Brac Systems which offers water recycling technologies that calculate their payback by considering projections in both energy and water consumption. Brac Systems yield a maximum payback by the 7 to 10 year mark (Monster Commercial, 2013). These limitations and the associated hesitancies of municipal governments need to be addressed in order to proceed with such proposals.

10.4 Labour Market The agriculture industry demands a specialized set of skills and knowledge. In the past, these skills could be acquired through simply working on the family farm. Although this still may be the case today, expansive advances in technology and business skills have led to postsecondary education as a valuable asset for agriculture professionals. Universities from Canada have consequently implemented agricultural components in their program offerings. For example, there are currently fifty-five domestic master level agricultural associated programs in Canada (Grad School Finder, 2013) (see Table 2), eight of which are offered within in the Province of Ontario.

The University of Guelph offers a wide variety of agriculture-based learning programs.

One of Guelph’s undergraduate economics degree programs (i.e., Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics) gives students the opportunity to study the global economics of agriculture (University of Guelph, 2013). Their Bachelor of Commerce program (i.e., Food and Agricultural

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

24

Business) offers students the necessary training and management skills required to run commercial agricultural operations (University of Guelph, 2013). In addition to these and other undergraduate programs opportunities at the University of Guelph, they offer all eight of Ontario’s master-level degree programs.

In Toronto, Ryerson University has also increased its course offerings related to the agricultural industry. Ryerson has a dedicated Centre for Studies in Food Security that provides a higher education for those interested in pursuing a career in urban agriculture (Ryerson University, 2013). Established in 1994, the focus of the centre is to promote food security, environmental sustainability and public health through education and cooperation with public and private organizations at the international level. Moreover, students can earn a certification in “food security” while completing their degree. Many of the centre’s founding organizers have contributed to research for the subject topic, namely Dr. Fiona Yeudall and Dr. Joe Nasr (Ryerson University, 2013).

Two other relevant projects at Ryerson University include the Urban Agriculture Summit and Carrot City. In 2012, Toronto hosted a four day international event that was sponsored by Ryerson University that enabled developers, planners, social advocates, educators, homeowners, growers and other members of the community to meet and discuss the future of agriculture in an urban setting (Urban Agriculture Summit, 2013). Carrot City is a research initiative created in 2008 by Ryerson University’s Department of Architecture Design. Initially organized as a onetime symposium, the project has grown to be exhibited all over the world across three different languages (Ryerson University, 2013). Its purpose is to continually strive towards best practices in urban agriculture through idea generation and knowledge dispersion to those interested in the field.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

25

Outside of Ontario, three other schools in Canada have dedicated substantial resources to the study of agriculture. The University of Saskatchewan offers both undergraduate and graduate programs in agriculture economics that allows students to specialize in bio-resource policy, business and economics. They also offer post graduate diplomas in agri-business (University of Saskatchewan, 2013). In 1940, the University of British Columbia established the Faculty of Agriculture to provide education and foster research specific to the economic and social issues related to the agriculture industry (University of British Columbia, 2013). Lastly, Concordia University’s undergraduate and graduate students collaborated to organize a group called ‘City Farm School’ (Concordia University, 2013). The City Farm School facilitates knowledge in crop planning, marketing and medicinal training with a strong focus on sustainable urban farming.

11.0 Legal & Social Within the scope of sustainable food production lies the decision making of two important groups: policy makers and stakeholders. In order to achieve an ideal outcome, there needs to be a balance of powers between these two entities. The following discussion will outline current land use planning strategies and implications for vertical farming in Toronto.

Additionally, the position of stakeholders will discussed as in pertains to establishing such a project.

11.1 Land Use Planning The City of Toronto’s Planning Department is made up of five sections: community planning; policy & research; urban design; transportation planning; and zoning, bylaw & environmental planning (City of Toronto, 2013). It is further separated into four districts: Etobicoke York District, North York District, Scarborough District and Toronto & East York

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

26

District. This study will focus on the ‘Toronto & East York District’ due to its inclusion of the downtown urban core.

A recent research paper from the office of Toronto city councillor Peter Milczyn, suggests that the city should identify underutilized lots for neighbourhood gateway projects, urban agriculture and/or energy farms (Faria, 2011). Although urban agriculture is discussed, there is no mention of vertical farming within the paper. An additional article by Werkele (2002), although written approximately ten years ago, indicates a level of disappointment for Toronto’s lagging attitude towards supportive policy and regulation supporting urban agriculture (Werkele, 2002). Although it may be expected that these particular position papers lack an innovative idea such as vertical farming, it should still be noted how far Toronto is from other major cities such as Vancouver or Montreal. Furthermore, it is not that City of Toronto policy makers did not have any such proposals submitted for future land use planning regulations. In fact, in 1999, the Toronto Food Policy Council submitted a detailed recommendation that aimed to lay the foundation for carrying the City of Toronto well into the millennium with regard to urban agricultural planning (Toronto Food Policy Council, 1999). All of which have still failed to be written into policy and subsequently implemented.

With the density of the downtown core growing, the proposal of vertical farming should be considered by policy makers working for the City of Toronto. A recent paper prepared by the Metcalf Foundation (2010) continues this voice of concern regarding the lack of policy support towards urban agriculture stating that it virtually does not exist. Moreover, to further the progress of land use regulations, there needs to be further education to improve our collective understanding of this potential initiative which would presumably mobilize legislative bodies.

This would hopefully lead to greater access to production space for urban growers, creating

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

27

physical infrastructure, strengthening supply chains, sharing knowledge and creating new models of governance to assist with attracting financial investments (Nasr, et al., 2010). The Metcalf Foundation has also provided an entire growth plan for the Golden Horseshoe Area that proposes how all respective regions and municipalities should be working together to achieve a unified goal (Metcalf Foundation, 2010).

The City of Toronto in collaboration with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority established an urban farm at the southeast corner of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue in the area of Black Creek Pioneer Village (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2013). The objectives of the project are very similar to the ones proposed in this paper regarding a vertical farm in the downtown core. This urban farm in particular offers youth employment, locally grown produce, promotion of healthy lifestyles, education, community involvement and tourism. There are also similar initiatives in neighbouring municipalities, particularly those involved with the Greater Toronto Area Agriculture Action Committee (GTAAAC). The GTAAAC is a conglomerate organization consisting of Halton, York, Durham, Toronto, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the private food sector (Greater Toronto Area Agriculture Action Committee , 2013). Furthermore, the Ontario Government is contributing its part through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAFRA) that mandates the protection of current agricultural land along with future planning for sustainability (Ontario Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2013).

Through the evidence discussed here, it appears that the downtown core requires a more precise plan for vertical farming to be fully realized. As per Lovell (2010), the challenge is to design multifunctional urban agriculture spaces that meet the needs of its residents while also protecting the environment. Official plans and zoning bylaws need to be updated to incorporate

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

28

the local agriculture industry. This is pivotal for the future generations of an ever growing urban community. The collaborative efforts of participating parties need to identify themselves and unify their language so that policy makers will listen. Moreover, the introduction of directly involving the local community through public meetings, learning seminars and open summits will enable the growth of this important sustainable growth strategy.

11.2 Stakeholders The support of stakeholders is important for the establishment of a vertical farm in the City of Toronto. Although the city may have multiple groups in support of sustainable foodgrowth, there is little enthusiasm from the municipality towards having current policies amended (Toronto Food Policy Council, 2012). This may be the case due to the unpleasing visualisations and odours that urban farming can bring. Those in support of such initiatives need to speak with a cohesive voice in order to create change. Recently, in October 2012, a large group of stakeholders presented an action plan to the city titled the GrowTO Action Plan (Toronto Food Policy Council, 2012). This plan described the potential framework for urban agriculture to strive in Toronto. It discusses commercial farming, market gardens, edible landscaping for city owned land, schools, institutions and private land. Such initiatives are of great importance to inform and gain the support of the public.

Many of the public’s concerns are also shared by the government and corporate entities.

The most significant is public health. Given the movement towards organic produce, the public has truly shown resistance towards genetically modified products and the use of chemicals for improved crop yield. This is especially important with the potential implementation of urban farming. This non-traditional form of growing produce will require modern technological methods which will likely raise public concern. Although pesticides can be necessary to ensure

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

29

sufficient crop yield, growers must understand effects of overuse as related to air and water pollution (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Further consideration and research regarding the resources mentioned in this paper (i.e., wind energy, solar energy and water management) is required to fully understand the health implications associated each technology. For example, minimal research exists regarding the health effects of utilizing human waste for the purposes of fertilization (Koc, MacRae, Mougeot, & Welsh, 1999).

The Urban Agriculture Summit hosted by Toronto in 2012 created the opportunity for international stakeholders to meet and discuss the relevant issues. Ordinary citizens in Toronto had a first-hand glimpse through media coverage for the potential of growing produce within the city. The summit was largely the collaborative efforts of Ryerson University and the Metcalf Foundation. Speakers presented current projects such as the Toronto Urban Farm and the Everdale Organic Farm, both located just outside downtown Toronto. There was also discussion of the devastating need for help in cities such as Detroit, where scarcity is rampant due to minimal produce supply (Concordia University, 2012).

In addition to public learning events, mass media promotion can be of tremendous aid.

One well-known environmentalist, David Suzuki, is a very large supporter of such initiatives. In a recent television episode of “The Nature of Things”, David Suzuki explored the Lufa Farms project in Montreal (City Farmer, 2012). Lufa Farms is a private organization whose vision is to cover many of the rooftops in downtown Montreal with urban farms (Lufa Farms, 2013). Lufa’s approach to operating rooftop greenhouses begins with a seeding process which then progresses to plant growth in coordinated sub climate areas within the facility. Suzuki also toured the Community Gardens of Detroit and Inner City Farms of Vancouver (Canadian Broadcasting Council, 2012). To augment the dissemination of knowledge, David Suzuki added Sarah Elton’s

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

30

book ‘Locavore’ to his foundations book club (David Suzuki Foundation, 2013). Locavore discusses the passion of individuals striving to consume locally grown produce.

In order for municipalities to adopt urban agriculture into official plans, they need the direction and support of government at both the provincial and federal level. A recent proposal paper written by a collaboration of non-governmental organizations called the Lifestyles Project Society, discusses multiple case studies from across Canada (Lifecycles Project Society, 2013).

The paper identifies the successes and failures of current projects in Canada, from the required support networks, distribution channels, education to health objectives (Lifecycles Project Society, 2013). Initiatives such as these should be considered the building blocks for top down support from upper levels of government. It is not an issue as to whether the federal government mandates a collective legislative proposal but more so the recognition of urban agriculture as the next logical step towards sustainability. In order to move forward with urban agriculture, education and training need to increase as per the GrowTO paper (2012). Moreover, value needs to be promoted and policies need to be written. An example of provincial support is documented in a British Columbia’s Real Estate Foundation – Urban Farming Guidebook: Planning for the Business of Growing Food in BC’s Towns and Cities (Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, 2013). This guidebook provides municipal governments insights into setting up supportive policy for urban farming.

12.0 Market Research The practicability of a proposed vertical farm needs to be evaluated with a discussion of location and product demand. The proximity to populated areas is key for the funcationality of the vertical farm. The demand for urban agricultural products must be realistic and attainable to

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

31

justify a project at this time. The following will outline three possible vertical farm locations for the city of Toronto and discuss the demand for its produce.

12.1 Real Estate Perspective The commercial real estate market in Toronto has become a sought after location for international business (Dmitrieva, 2013). Toronto is home to some of the world’s most expensive real estate prices (TD Economics, 2012). Moreover, the City is also attracting an extensive number of immigrants, leading to expansive growth in population and property demand (Moloney, 2013). A large amount of the City’s population is housed in downtown condominium dwellings. These fore mentioned factors previously cited drive the demand for organic produce and locally grown foods. With the City’s and surrounding regional population expected to rise to nearly 9 million by 2036 (Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2012), Toronto is an optimal location for a vertical farm. For the purpose of this study, we will examine three areas in Toronto that may be suitable sites for the development of a vertical farm. This was determined through the evaluation of proposed locations for the City of Toronto (see Appendix 1). They are the Don Lands, the Financial District and Liberty Village.

The Don Lands are comprised of 125 hectares in the city’s downtown southern east side (see Figure 13) (Waterfront Toronto, 2013). This area has been and continues to undergo an evaluation by the city to revitalized water front that will feature innovative building with mixed use communities. This could be an optimal location to implement the city’s first vertical farm.

This location will experience noteworthy redevelopment as Toronto prepares to host the Pan Am Games in 2015. Fortunately, there still remains a substantial portion of available raw land that could be utilized for the purpose of a vertical farm. Although the location may not be currently ideal to operate a retail market, it will definitely become a part of the city’s future residential

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

32

growth plans. This parcel of land is also host to a natural river system, ideal for irrigation and drainage. The excellent supply routes for the Don Lands include the Don Valley Parkway highway, Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore municipal roads. Given that this land has faced controversy in the past with regards to its environmental cleanliness, a vertical farm would be a welcome choice to contribute to its revitalization. This project could potentially assist with building stakeholder support and hence, further develop other vertical farming opportunities.

Moreover, the raw parcel could obtain its own zoning by-laws that would encourage the building of a vertical farm.

The Financial District in the City of Toronto roughly encompasses the area between Queen Street to the north, Front Street to the south, Yonge Street to the east and University Avenue to West (see Figure 14) (City of Toronto, 2011). This area is host to Canada’s major financial, legal and corporate headquarters. Additionally, it has some of the tallest buildings in the city’s landscape. The area is connected through the world’s largest underground walkway, which combines over 28kms of pathway (City of Toronto, 2013). This financial district in Toronto is considered the twelfth most influential financial centre of the world by the Global Financial Centre Index (City of Toronto, 2013). The increased disposable income of such individuals creates a perfect opportunity for a vertical farm’s market to prosper. Of the two business models proposed, a commercial farm and allotment farm, the financial district may be a more ideal location for the latter. To this end, individuals would have access to their personal farms which they could tend during lunch or after work. They then transport the food home to their families. The cost of land in the financial district would be more costly and the amount of potential space is limited relative to the other two areas being discussed. Alternatively, a retail

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

33

grocery store within the area may be a more suitable alternative for distribution where profit margins could be lucrative.

Liberty Village is home to a large portion of Toronto’s most recent downtown condo boom. This unique district is also a known for its modern urban infrastructure and a high tech boutique industry. The area is roughly bound by King Street to the north, the Gardiner Expressway to the south, Dufferin Street to the west and east to Strachan Avenue (see Figure 15) (City of Toronto, 2013). With the downtown core mostly built out, outward development has naturally progressed to areas like Liberty Village. Exhibition Place is also home to the city’s first wind turbine, a common destination for Liberty Village residents. Expansion of wind technology in this location could potentially assist the start-up of a vertical farm along with solar technology where suitable. The area residents are largely young urbanites believed to be more concerned about environmental issues and progressive activities within their local community (Liberty Village Toronto, 2013). The availability of produce from a local vertical farm would be appealing to this community. Consequently, Liberty Village may serve as the home of downtown Toronto’s first vertical farm.

12.2 Product Demand The demand for urban agriculture is only continuing to grow with the rapid expansion of urbanization worldwide. By 2020, developing countries in the regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America will host 75% of their respective populations in an urban setting (Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security, 2012). The geographic sprawl of cities is eliminating farmland that is within local proximity of the consumer. The world’s cities are going to have difficulty sustaining viable food and nutrition options for their people. Unless the consumer base

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

34

is able and willing to spend more on produce due to transportation costs, the only other opportunity currently available is to bring the produce production back to the city.

The ability to offer sustainable food security to a region or city’s population is a strong driver of demand for urban agriculture. Urban agriculture is not just about offering commercial forms of production, it is about changing the way people think about how produce is grown and distributed as per GrowTO (2012). The traditional thought of growing vegetables in fields outside the city and transported by truck, train or boat to feed urban residents needs to be revised.

Urbanites need to embrace the idea of the development of private urban-commercial farms, city owned farms, community gardens, school gardens and personal gardens.

A recent organic food conference hosted at the University of Toronto in February 2013 demonstrated the growing demand of organically grown produce. This is the sixth year in a row that the Canadian Organic Growers – Toronto Chapter (COG) has organized such an event (Canadian Organic Growers, 2013). The conference attracted a large number of participants who attended to seek knowledge about sustainable food systems that enhance the well-being of the public and health of the environment. Similar events have been occurring in other locations in Ontario such as Guelph Organic Conference & Expo which just hosted its 32nd annual event in January of this year (Guelph Organic Conference, 2013). A recent article remarked that organic food sales were up nearly 20% per year since the turn of the millennium with projections for the trend to continue well into the future (Canadian Broadcasting Council, 2009). This is largely demonstrated by the expansion of local municipal farmer’s markets across the country. The growth of organic food demand has clearly been demonstrated in Ontario. Accordingly, it is vitally important to ensure that organic produce is grown and offered to consumers as a proposed vertical farm.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

35

The detrimental effect of growing produce on rural land has also contributed to the growing demand for alternate produce growth. With the pressure of growing cities and their respective populations, land is being over cultivated to the point that soil erosion is becoming a major problem which is decreasing the land’s productivity and ability to continually grow produce (Metcalf Foundation, 2010). This problem will only lead to further depletion of available arable land.

The total effects of urban agriculture are still to be determined through the evaluation of future projects and their outcome, both negative and positive. It should be noted, however, that in addition to the possible decrease in costs and more readily available produce, municipalities can also gain from the creation of employment opportunities and less pollution. This added benefit would help to alleviate the burden of poverty in city centres and potentially increase the integration of cultures (Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security, 2012). Local universities stand to benefit from increased international exposure and higher learning opportunities in this new field. Major metropolitan areas are always looking for ways to integrate green space into their city planning. The implementation of a responsible and economically productive venture such as vertical farming would support this goal. A comprehensive urban agricultural initiative may lead to increased tourism for the City of Toronto.

13.0 Financial Study Funding for such projects needs to be sufficiently allocated or earmarked in advance.

The business community will become involved if the perceived risk can be lowered and reasonable returns can be projected. Governments should demonstrate commitment through offering grants and tax incentives (Toronto Food Policy Council, 2012). This would further

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

36

contribute to promotion by encouraging competition and crowd sourcing. Options include coordinating local funding conferences and fundraisers informing interested groups of this modern sustainable approach. The following is a discussion of possible sources of capital for vertical farming along with a qualitative cost-benefit analysis.

13.1 Financial Accommodation There are multiple ways to raise capital for what is now known as ‘green funding’. The first two that will be discussed are offered through two large Canadian financial institutions, namely, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) and Toronto Dominion Bank (TD). RBC Blue Water is a funding project aimed to help provide communal access to fresh clean drinking water. They recognize how dramatic increases in the world’s population have negatively impacted on the availability of safe water. Although a vertical farm may not directly provide clean drinking water, the storm water contributions are in-line with Blue Water’s mission. RBC Blue Water is seeking to fund projects that improve the control and management of storm water along with raising awareness to create more efficient uses of water (Royal Bank of Canada, 2013). Finally, it should be noted that Blue Water offers grants that amount to nearly $100,000 within their leadership program.

TD Friends of the Environment Foundation is a similar funding project but with a wider array of project investments. These projects range from community gardens, tree planting, habitat restoration, wildlife protection, energy conservation and environmental education and research funding (TD Financial Group, 2013). The supported projects are more limited in eligibility as organizations must be registered charities, education institutions, municipalities and aboriginal groups. A vertical farming project could only have access to these funds if they worked in collaboration with one of these groups which is not a significant barrier. Relative to

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

37

Blue Water, however, TD’s grants are less lucrative as they amount to an average of $2,500 per annum.

There are further funding possibilities from local, provincial and federal governments.

One of the major funding resources is from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).

The Canadian government endowed $550 million to the FCM for the purpose of creating the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2013). Farm Credit Canada (FCC), a Crown Corporation, primarily a funding resource for rural farms could also serve as a potential source of funding. The FCC has provided nearly $100 million in venture capital to attract private investors to collaboratively assist with further financing opportunities (Farm Credit Canada, 2013). The federal government has also set up additional funding resources through the Province of Ontario that pertain to the great lakes, eco-sustainability, climate change and schools to name a few (Environment Canada, 2013). Lastly, the City of Toronto created the Live Green Toronto Community Investment Program (CIP) to assist local neighbourhoods and organizations with projects that support the reduction of greenhouse gases and air quality improvement (City of Toronto, 2013). In collaboration with the Toronto and Region Conversation Authority, the CIP would be a suitable fund particularly because it serves to improve public relations (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2013).

Private companies have only recently started developing urban agricultural businesses as profit centres. Businesses are looking to partner with other forward thinking organizations throughout Canada and internationally. One particular company is Lufa Farms, which was mentioned earlier in this paper. Lufa Farms, a Montreal based firm will work with likeminded organizations to help them achieve funding to develop urban farms (Lufa Farms, 2013). An American example is Bright Farms from New York City that has been involved in urban farming

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

38

since 2006. The company has developed distribution networks between grocers throughout North America with a steady flow of continual and incoming investors (Bright Farms, 2013).

Additional funding sources for Ontario based, urban agriculture businesses can be found on the Toronto Live Green website including the Metcalf Foundation, Home Depot Canada Foundation, Ontario Trillium Foundation and The Weston Family Parks Challenge, amongst others (Live Green Toronto, 2013).

There are significant opportunitie to work with planning firms and educational institutions. For example, the Knafo Klimor Architects helped design the Agro-Housing facility in Wuhan, China (Knafo Klimor Architects, 2013). This organization worked with the municipality at a reduced cost in order to complete the project. Ryerson University’s Carrot City is a non-profit research initiative established by the Architecture Department. Carrot City has long been involved with public and private organizations interested in agricultural sustainability (Ryerson University, 2013). One organization of particular local importance is the Toronto based ‘Green Roofs for Healthy Cities’. Green Roofs is non-for-profit industry association dedicated to promote the urban farming industry. Many of their members are lawyers, architects, planners and developers who are stepping forward to see such projects come to fruition (Green Roofs, 2013).

13.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis A financial feasibility study of a vertical farm is outside the scope of this paper. The purpose of this cost-benefit analysis is to provide a qualitative point of view. The demand for locally grown produce only continues to grow. That is largely due to the benefits which urban agriculture offers (see Appendix 2). As per GrowTO (2012), urban agriculture offers unique economic opportunities for the surrounding neighbourhoods, including employment growth,

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

39

community enrichment and cost reductions for organically grown produce. Moreover, it creates a balanced community with green growth, education and the promotion of a healthy lifestyle with increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. In addition to nutrition benefits, the allotment garden model would encourage the physical activity of community participants.

The environmental benefits of vertical farming include a reduction in air pollution through carbon dioxide elimination. The water recycling opportunities for grey and brown water will lead to cleaner waterways for swimming, storm water management and water treatment efficiencies. The most important benefit would be that of food security and the nurturing of local bio-diversity (Urban Farmer, 2013). This creates a self-sustainable environment for which the municipality and its people take pride in enhancing and maintaining.

Along with the benefits, there also remains some hesitation from individuals embracing the practice of urban agriculture. There are arguments of theft and violence due to the open concept required for some portions of vertical farming. There still remains little infrastructure with regards to composting at a retail level. In addition, natural aquifers could disappear with the creation of an urban farm especially if water management is not properly coordinated (Metcalf Foundation, 2010). Further, health concerns remain important with the use of fertilizers and pesticides which are almost unavoidable if sufficient crop yield is to be met.

The monetary costs also remain a major detriment to moving forward. A University of Waterloo master’s student in architecture proposed that a large vertical farm in the City of Toronto could incur initial building costs in excess of a billion dollars (Metzger, 2013).

Significant investment is essential at the outset including infrastructure demands such as concrete requirements. One of the major drawbacks of trying to retrofit rooftops as urban farms is the cost of installing weight baring components. Alternatively, real estate developers could be

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

40

mandated to include areas of urban farming into their planning, however, these costs would presumably be largely offloaded to the consumer.

The growth of urban populations all over the globe will undoubtedly lead to the need for more locally grown food. The support for such initiatives is becoming more common among public stakeholders and legislative bodies. The pivotal lack of endorsement remains with the business community. In the eyes of private enterprise, the profitability of such a proposal is still unknown. The fact is that the financial feasibility of a vertical farm needs to be evaluated and presented to businesses. Moreover, the additional benefits of philanthropy and goodwill need to be promoted to encourage businesses to support such costly initiatives.

14.0 Conclusion There is significant opportunity for current and future generations to harness sustainable urban farming projects to assist with the growth of produce. This is particularly true in wealthy urban areas of the world where most produce is consumed. The greatest challenge to date is combining the necessary resources in an optimal way to sustain profitability. At least that is the perspective of the business world. Perhaps the governments of the major urbanized nations need to recognize that the benefits of vertical farming may only be realized with their support. For example, if the founding government of Canada elected not to pursue the enormous cost of building the railway, the confederation of our great nation may not have occurred. Moreover, the business perspective of feasibility needs to transform from narrow minded profitability to the creation of something more powerful, a legacy for future generations.

14.1 Research Questions As noted at the outset of this paper, four initial questions were to be addressed:

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

i)

41

What role does technology serve towards the implementation and maintenance of a vertical farming project?

The two models for vertical farming proposed in this paper were commercial growing for mass sales and an allotment farm for personal gardens. Both could demand the same scales of technology depending on consumer demand. An ideal vertical farm would include all of the resources presented in this paper. Wind turbines and solar panels to reduce energy requirements and waste water recycling to reduce water consumption. Both wind turbines and solar panels are relatively straightforward by way of acquiring the technology and installation. Water recycling requires a lot more infrastructure to achieve adequate integration. In order to utilize grey and brown municipal water, there is a need to establish the proper infrastructure to tap into the city’s existing storm water runoff. Additionally, a union of sewage and water treatment facilities would be necessary to harvest brown water for fertilization. At the very least, the waste created by employees or customers of a vertical farm could be utilized. In summary, technological advancements in sustainable energy are continually changing the way buildings are constructed.

With a vertical farm, technologically advanced and innovative components will be a key requirement to building and supporting the daily operations for this form of urban agriculture. ii)

Does the City of Toronto possess the general skills, education and training required for an urban agriculture project?

The geographic proximity of City of Toronto to one of the most renowned agricultural universities in the world, Guelph University gives the city a great advantage towards the development of such a project. Encouraging the growth of undergraduate and master level programs across the country, specifically in the Toronto area will give rise to the demand of this forward thinking industry. Moreover, collaboration between Ryerson University and the

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

42

University of Toronto would provide a vertical farming project ample opportunity to conduct primary research. Both schools have already set up specialized post graduate certifications, extracurricular activities and hosted international events with the collective aim to address urban malnutrition.

Toronto is one of the largest populated municipalities in the world and the largest in Canada. This would suggest that there is enormous opportunity to access low, mid and high skilled labourers. Moreover, the growth of downtown Toronto in the form of high rise commercial and residential towers would suggest that the city also has copious amounts of a labour force in the construction industry which would be required for this project. The dedication of well renowned professors and seasoned professionals through their active roles with private organizations such as the Metcalf Foundation or municipal initiatives such as the Toronto Food Policy Council would also suggest that the city has the necessary resources to plan and facilitate such an operation. iii)

What precautions need to be taken to preserve the public health and nutritious value of the produce?

The rationale behind urban agriculture is to have it occur directly within major city centres. For the purpose of this paper, the areas of the Toronto Don Lands, Financial District and Liberty Village were evaluated. For these proposed locations or any other for that matter, the same precautions would need to be taken to ensure the public’s health is not placed at undue risk.

This would include the reduction, if not elimination, of pesticide and fertilizer use. Both could be detrimental to the health and lifestyles of the city’s residents. Toxins could be dispersed through by-products of the vertical farm’s emissions and water. Moreover, the detrimental

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

43

effects of wind turbines should also be studied further to ensure that the noise pollution created would not harm residents’ wellbeing.

As discussed throughout this paper, the demand for organically grown food is continually rising. This trend will likely not reverse in the future. It is thus vitally important for the vertical farm to offer such organic products. Further, one potential issue that will need to be addressed in advance is the concern for safety from theft and violence. Due to the exposed nature of vertical farming, there may be opportunity for crime to occur. A further study into this topic is needed to understand the security required for such a facility. iv)

What are the possible funding avenues for a vertical farming project?

The financial requirements for a vertical farm could be prohibitive in certain scenarios.

One study discussed in this paper suggested a price tag over one billion dollars (Metzger, 2013).

That being said, all possible venues for financing, from the financial institutions to local and federal governmental programs should be approached for funding. Additionally, there are private companies looking for partnerships and universities looking to expand research capabilities. It appears that the answer will not lie with just one or two financing solutions. It will take a large collaborative financial effort in order to successfully implement a vertical farm. Once again, it cannot be stressed enough that financially sustainability may be too short sighted for a proposal such as this. This project is going to require a long term commitment from all investors as the importance of establishing an inaugural farm in the City of Toronto is crucial to the development of sustainable urban agriculture and serve as model for other suitable locations around the world.

14.2 Methodology In order to facilitate a large vertical farming project for the City of Toronto, stakeholder groups need to organize and speak with a unified voice. Local, provincial and federal

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

44

governments need to work together to establish the proper guidelines and planning policies.

Developers and construction firms need to work closely with the city to discover the most economical approach to integrating wind power, solar energy and water recycling for use with vertical farms. Both private and public organizations need to travel the globe to understand projects currently underway or completed and understand how to translate this knowledge into an optimal approach for the City of Toronto. Financing needs to be socially unified and provided as a long term commitment to demonstrate that such a project is for the betterment of the people and not for access to profits. Universities should continue to develop agricultural based programs to ensure sufficient labour force is available for this expanding industry. Proposed locations should be studied further to identify an optimal site. Lastly, distribution networks need to be evaluated to determine the best business model for the vertical farm.

At this time, the City of Toronto does not have the same issues as other cities in smaller more densely populated areas such as Southeast Asia. Toronto is ideally located near plenty of natural resources to meet infrastructure demands. Additionally, Ontario is host to some of the world’s most nutrient based soil and unused lands that make it seem illogical to build a vertical farm at this point in time. A vertical farming project in the City of Toronto would be more of a symbol as to where the world’s urban centres need to advance in order to build the infrastructure required for the ever growing global population.

15.0 Reflection By completing this research paper, I have developed tremendous respect for those who engage in scholarly research. I believe that I have developed a level of patience in trying to understand published research. That is, you may not be able to find exactly what you are looking for with your individual sources, but this forces you to see how all of this information can be

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

45

synthesized into a unique position that one hopes will be informative to the intended audience.

While the internet has made it possible for one to conduct an entire research project without leaving their personal computer, there is, however, great benefit to speaking and meeting with those who are directly involved with the research topic. For the present paper, I made an effort to communicate directly with professors, relevant professionals and other students. I have found that a brief but meaningful conversation with an individual provides the opportunity to appreciate other points of view that guided the development of this work.

This is the first time that I have written a paper of such length. I would never have imagined that I would be writing a paper upwards of fifty pages while completing a business degree. As far as I know, this is the only MBA program in the country that demands such a project of its graduating students. I believe that writing this paper gives me more confidence in terms of conducting comprehensive research in the future whether it be for academic or professional purposes. I also believe, through the feedback of my mentors, that my writing skills have notably improved since entering the MBA program and for that I am grateful.

In terms of recommendations for the MRP, I believe it would be beneficial to provide early orientation at the onset of the program so that students can start to consider topics which they may be interested in researching for the purpose of this paper. Additionally, sample papers provided to all students early on in the program would also be very helpful with communicating the expectations for the MRP during their last term.

The idea of conducting research for vertical farming first entered my mind while I was in Chicago during the summer of 2012. The Museum of Science and Industry had an exhibit on display illustrating the vertical farm proposal of Dickson Despommier. The image of a vertical farm with multiple forms of reusable energy really intrigued me. If we as a people have learned

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

46

how to populate cities by locating them in the air through condo buildings and commercial towers, why not incorporate the same train of thought into how we conduct farming. I understand that there could be a lot of controversy with such a project including sights and smells. Moreover, large monetary costs would be incurred and planning policies would need to change, but it may be worth it. As previously mentioned in this paper, Toronto may not be in a current position required to build such a facility due to its geographic location and the resources Canada has to offer. There are however countries and cities around the world where produce is only available by shipments from foreign countries. Sooner or later, these foreign countries may only be able to provide food for their own people, which is detrimental to other consumer nations. I believe it is very important for nations to provide food security for its people. This leads me back to one of the main points of my paper. Even though a project such as this may not be profitable today, it could be the only answer to solving global food issues for the future.

As for my future, I would love to consider moving forward with a project such as this.

My current employment as a Real Estate Broker has given me a true inside view of how real estate values are determined along with how development and construction occurs. I have also acquired a network of individuals within the field of urban agriculture that express the same passion that I have for the subject. Once my MBA is completed, I intend to contact many of the individuals referenced and discussed in this paper to discover whether this career path is possible. On a smaller scale, I intend to plant an entire vegetable garden in my back yard this spring.

To conclude, I am extremely proud that I completed my MBA degree at Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management (TRSM). Their location and ingrained culture within the City of Toronto is admirable. The ability to take specialized courses in a particular

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

47

field of one’s interest is the major reason why I considered TRSM in the first place. Every one of my instructors had real life experience which was a benefit to my learning experience. I also felt that all of my professors took great pride in teaching the MBA students. They have all become friends of mine whom I know I can contact in the future for anything. Ryerson, I commend you for implementing the MBA program. I only wish the program will continue to build in terms of size and notoriety. I for one will always encourage students to consider TRSM and proudly state that I am a graduate of the program.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

48

References Adler, M. D. (2006). New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Agrawal, M., Singh, B., Rajput, M., Marshall, F., & Bell, J. (2003). Effect of Air Pollution on Peri-Urban Agriculture: A Case Study. Environmental Pollution, 126(3), 323-329.

Agri Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore. (2012, November 22). Statistics. Retrieved from Agri Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore: http://www.ava.gov.sg/Publications/Statistics/ Anthientis, A., & Robertson, K. (1997). Solar Energy for Buildings. CMHC. Bell, J., Power, S., Jarraud, N., Agrawal, M., & Davies, C. (2011). The Effects of Air Pollution on Urban Ecosystems and Agriculture. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(3), 226-235.

Boardman, A. E. (2006). Cost Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Brent, R. J. (1996). Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar Publishing.

Bright Farms. (2013, March 13). About Us. Retrieved from Bright Farms: http://brightfarms.com/s/#!/our_story Brown, K. H., & Jameton, A. L. (2010). Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture.

Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(1), 20-39.

Canadian Broadcasting Council. (2009, July 29). Going Organic: Growing Demand, Tougher Regulations. Retrieved from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/05/07/f-foodorganic.html Canadian Broadcasting Council. (2012, September 6). Suzuki Diaries: Future City. Retrieved

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

49

from Canadian Broadcasting Council: http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/suzukidiaries-future-city.html Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2002). Report on Rainwater Harvesting and Grey Water Reuse for Potable and Non-Potable Uses, 2002. Retrieved from CMHC: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/03-100-e.htm Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2013, March 1). Water Conservation Case Studies: Quayside Village. Retrieved from CMHC: http://www.cmhcschl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/waho/waho_007.cfm Canadian Organic Growers. (2013, March 14). 2013 Organic Consumer Conference. Retrieved from Canadian Organic Growers: http://www.cogtoronto.org/COG_Toronto/About_Us.html CanMetEnergy. (2013, Februar 28). CanMetEnergy. Retrieved from Natrual Resources Canada: http://canmetenergy.nrcan.gc.ca/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, March 9). Land Use Planning and Urban/Peri-Urban Agriculture. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/healthyfood/landuse.htm Central Intelligence Agency. (2012). The World Factbook. Retrieved from CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ City Farmer. (2012, February 16). A Look at Urban Agriculture in Montreal. Retrieved from City Farmer: http://www.cityfarmer.info/2012/02/22/a-look-at-urban-agriculture-in-montrealon-cbcs-the-nature-of-things-with-david-and-sarika-suzuki/ City of Kamloops. (2007). Best Practices in Urban Agriculture. Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada: City of Kamloops.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

50

City of Toronto. (2011). City of Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/2011/pdf1/alltoronto.pdf City of Toronto. (2013, March 11). Bloor-Yorkville BIA. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/toronto/content?vgnextoid=e9f71c8ab77da310VgnVC M10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=10eb7f43c001b310VgnVCM10000071d60f8 9RCRD&vgnextfmt=default City of Toronto. (2013, March 11). Financial District BIA. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/toronto/content?vgnextoid=2d52ad51a40ea310VgnV CM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=10eb7f43c001b310VgnVCM10000071d60f 89RCRD&vgnextfmt=default City of Toronto. (2013, March 11). Liberty Village BIA. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/toronto/content?vgnextoid=6ad746aa794fa310VgnVC M10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=10eb7f43c001b310VgnVCM10000071d60f8 9RCRD&vgnextfmt=default City of Toronto. (2013, March 13). Live Green Community Investment Program. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/greenneighbourhood_rebates_cip.htm City of Toronto. (2013, March 11). PATH Facts. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/path/ City of Toronto. (2013, March 7). Planning Department. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/ City of Toronto. (2013, March 1). Renewable Energy. Retrieved from City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/environment/energy.htm#wind_ex Cochran, B., & Damiani, R. (2008). Integrating Wind Energy into the Design of Tall Buildings -

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

51

A Case Study of the Houston Discovery Tower. Fort Collins, CO: Wind Power.

Concordia University. (2012, August 29). City Farm School presents at Toronto Urban Agriculture Summit. Retrieved from Concordia University: http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/blogs/20120829/city-farm-school-presents-attoronto-urban-agriculture-summit-1.php Concordia University. (2013, March 7). City Farm School. Retrieved from Concordia University: http://concordialoyolacityfarm.wordpress.com/ Conserval. (2013, February 28). SolarWall Products. Retrieved from SolarWall: http://solarwall.com/en/products.php David Suzuki Foundation. (2013, March 9). Reading Guide. Retrieved from David Suzuki Foundation: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/downloads/Reading_GuideLocavore.pdf Deelstra, T., & Girardet, H. (2000). Urban Agriculture and Sustinable Cities. Thematic Paper.

Resource Center on Urban Agriculture. Leusden.

Despommier, D. (2009). The Rise of Vertical Farms. Scientific American, 301(5), 80-87.

Dmitrieva, K. (2013, February 1). Toronto to Pass New York in Commercial Property Boom.

Retrieved from Financial Post: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/01/toronto-topass-new-york-in-commercial-property-boom/?__lsa=ed50-35e6 Dubuis, E. (2011, October 27). Le Temps. Retrieved from Le Temps: http://www.worldcrunch.com/twenty-first-century-land-grab-rich-buy-farm-landdeveloping-world/world-affairs/twenty-first-century-land-grab-as-rich-buy-farm-land-indeveloping-world-/c1s3971/ Dvorsky, G. (2012, October 25). i09. Retrieved from World's First Commercial Vertical Farm

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

52

Opens in Singapore: http://io9.com/5954847/worlds-first-commercial-vertical-farmopens-in-singapore Dwell. (2013, March 1). All Aboard. Retrieved from Dwell: http://www.dwell.com/housetours/article/all-aboard Ehrenberg, R. (2008). Let's Get Vertical. Science News, 174(8), 16-20.

Environment Canada. (2013, March 13). Funding Programs. Retrieved from Environment Canada: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/funding_e.html Environment Canada. (2013, April 9). Water Publications. Retrieved from Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=51E3DE0C-1 Faria, K. (2011). Balanced and Bolder: Recommendations for Strengthening Toronto's Official Plan. Toronto: Office of Councillor Peter Milczyn.

Farm Credit Canada. (2013, March 15). FCC Ventures. Retrieved from Farm Credit Canada: http://www.fccfinancing.ca/en/VentureCapital/index.asp Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2013, March 13). Green Municipal Fund. Retrieved from Federation of Canadian Municipalities: http://www.fcm.ca/home/programs/greenmunicipal-fund.htm Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2007, March 27). FAO Urges Action to Cope with Increasing Water Scarcity. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000520/ Fosdick, J. (2012, August 24). Passive Solar Heating. Retrieved from Whole Building Design Guide: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/psheating.php Francis, C. A., Hansen, T. E., Fox, A. A., Hesje, P. J., Nelson, H. E., Lawseth, A. E., & English,

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

53

A. (2012). Farmland Conversion to Non-Agricultural Uses in the US and Canada: Current Impacts and Concerns for the Future. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 10(1), 8-24.

Goss, L. (2010, December 5). Eco-Friendly Alternatives for Feeding 9 Billion People. St. Louis: Washington University. Retrieved from http://ucollege.wustl.edu/files/ucollege/iap_goss.pdf Goulding, K., & Whitmore, A. (2012). Commentary: Developing Sustainable Farming Systems

By Valuing Ecosystem Services. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 10(1), 5-7.

Grad School Finder. (2013, March 7). Master Level Agriculture Programs. Retrieved from Grad School Finder: http://www.gradschoolfinder.com/schools/result.asp?FOSKeywords=&SearchType=&CI PFamilyCode=01&degreetype=Master Greater Toronto Area Agriculture Action Committee . (2013, March 9). About Us. Retrieved from GTAAAC: http://www.gtaaac.ca/about/ Green Roofs. (2013, March 13). About Us. Retrieved from Green Roofs: http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php/about Greywater Action. (2013, March 1). Commercial Scale Greywater Applications. Retrieved from Greywater Action: http://greywateraction.org/content/commercial-scale-greywaterapplications Guelph Organic Conference. (2013, March 14). 32nd Annual Guelph Organic Conference & Expo. Retrieved from Guelph Organic Conference: http://www.guelphorganicconf.ca/tag/toronto/

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

54

Haglund, B., & Rathmann, K. (1996). Thermal Mass in Passive Solar and Energy-Conserving Buildings. Vital Signs, 1-71.

Haider, D., Helbling, E., Williamson, C., & Worrest, R. (2011). Effects of UV Radiation on Aquatic Ecosystems and Interactions with Climate Change. Official Journal of European Photochemistry, 10(2), 242-260.

Hantz Farms Group. (2012, November 21). Hantz Farms Group. Retrieved from Hantz Farms Group: http://www.hantzfarmsdetroit.com/ Hauber-Davidson, G. (2006). Towards a Greater Sustainable Water Supply for our Office Buildings through Grey Water Recycling. Retrieved from Water Group: http://www.watergroup.com.au/download/P_GreyWatrOficBldgGHD07.pdf Heerkens, G. R. (2012). The Social Cost-Benefit Analysis. PM Network, 26(4). 24-25.

Industry Canada. (2012, September 12). Industry Canada. Retrieved from Canadian Industry Statistics: http://www.ic.gc.ca/cis-sic/cis-sic.nsf/IDE/cis-sic11vlae.html Inhabitat. (2007, March 28). Inhabitat. Retrieved from Architecure: http://inhabitat.com/bahrainworld-trade-center-has-wind-turbines/ Integration of Renewable Energy on Farms . (2013, February 27). IREF. Retrieved from Integration of Renewable Energy on Farms: http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/ Knafo Klimor Architects. (2013, March 13). Projects. Retrieved from Knafo Klimor Architects: http://www.kkarc.com/projects.aspx Koc, M., MacRae, R., Mougeot, L. J., & Welsh, J. (1999). For Hunger Proof Cities - Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Toronto: IDRC. LaCroix, C. J. (2010). Urban Agriculture and Other Green Uses: The Shrinkin City. The Urban Lawyer, 42(2), 225.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

55

Leggett, D., Brown, R., Stanfield, G., Brewer, D., & Holiday, E. (2001). Rainwater and Greywater Use in Buildings: Decision Making for Water Conservation. Ciria, 1-13.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 34-46.

Liberty Village Toronto. (2013, March 11). Residents of Liberty Village. Retrieved from Liberty Villlage Toronto: http://www.libertyvillagetoronto.com/category/residents/ Lifecycles Project Society. (2013, March 10). Urban Agriculture and Food Security Initiatives in Canada: A Survey of Canadian Non-Governmental Organizations. Retrieved from Lifecycles Project Soceity: http://lifecyclesproject.ca/resources/downloads/food_security_survey.pdf Live Green Toronto. (2013, March 13). Grants & Incentives. Retrieved from Live Green Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/livegreen/greenneighbourhood_rebates.htm Lovell, S. T. (2010). Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States. Sustainability, 2 (8), 2499-2522.

Lufa Farms. (2013, March 9). About Us. Retrieved from Lufa Farms: https://lufa.com/en Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1998). Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries. Nature, 392, 779-787.

Mendes, W., Balmer, K., Kaethler, T., & Rhoads, A. (2008). Using Land Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 435-449.

Metcalf Foundation. (2010). Planning Regional Food Systems. Retrieved from Metcalf Foundation: http://www.growourregion.ca/images/file/Planning_Regional_Food_Systems_FinalJanua ry25.pdf Metzger, P. (2013, Janaury 7). Public Works: Vertical Farming. Retrieved from Torontoist:

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

56

http://torontoist.com/2013/01/public-works-urban-greenhousing/ Milly, P. C., Dunne, K. A., & Vecchia, A. V. (2005). Global Pattern Trends in Streamflow and Water Availability in a Changing Climate. Nature, 438(7066). 347-351.

Moloney, P. (2013, March 5). Toronto’s Population Overtakes Chicago. Retrieved from Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/03/05/torontos_population_overtakes_chica go.html Monster Commercial. (2013, March 1). Reclaimed Water Improves Cashflow. Retrieved from Monster Commercial: http://www.monstercommercial.com/reclaimed-water-improvescash-flow/ Mougeot, L. J. (2005). Agropolis: The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. London, England, United Kingdom: Earthscan.

Mowbray, M. (2012, February 4). Muck and Brass. Retrieved from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21546032 Nasr, J., & Smit, J. (1992). Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities: Using Wastes and Idle Land and Water Bodies as Resources. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 141-152.

Nasr, J., MacRae, R., Kuhms, J., Danyluk, M., Kaill-Vinish, P., Michalak, M., & Snider, A. (2010). Scaling up Urban Agriculture in Toronto. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Metcalf Foundation.

Nasr, J., MacRae, R., Kuhns, J., Danyluk, M., Kaill-Vinish, P., Michalak, M., & Snider, A. (2010, June). Agriculture in Toronto: Building The Infrastructure. Toronto.

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. (2012, January 19). NSERC Solar Buildings Research Network. Retrieved from NSERC Partnerships:

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

57

http://www.nsercpartnerships.ca/How-Comment/Networks-Reseaux/Solar-Solaireeng.asp Ontario Ministry of Finance. (2012). Ontario Population Projections Update . Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Finance: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/ Ontario Ministry of Food and Agriculture. (2013, March 9). Agriculture Landuse. Retrieved from OMFRA: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/index.html Price, A. (2013, March 1). Windy City: Putting Turbines Inside Buildings. Retrieved from Fast Company: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678877/windy-city-putting-turbines-insidebuildings Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia. (2013, March 9). Urban Farming Guidebook.

Retrieved from Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia: http://69.89.31.205/~refbccom/userfiles/Urban-Farming-Guidebook-2013.pdf Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security. (2012, March 14). Why is Urban Agriculture Important. Retrieved from RUAF: http://www.ruaf.org/node/513 Royal Bank of Canada. (2013, March 11). RBC Blue Water Project. Retrieved from Royal Bank of : http://www.rbc.com/community-sustainability/environment/rbc-bluewater/index.html Ryerson University. (2013, March 7). Carrot City. Retrieved from Ryerson University: http://www.ryerson.ca/carrotcity/ Ryerson University. (2013, March 7). Centre for Studies in Food Security. Retrieved from Ryerson University: http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/index.html Ryerson University. (2013, March 7). Our People. Retrieved from Ryerson University:

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

58

http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/who/people/index.html Score, M. (2012, January 8). Hantz Farms: Detroit's Saving Grace. Retrieved from Hantz Farms: http://www.hantzfarmsdetroit.com/introduction.html Simon Fraser University. (2006, June 14). Quayside Village. Retrieved from Simon Fraser University: http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/resources/water&cities/NS_FT.pdf Sky Greens Farms. (2012, November 25). Sky Greens Farms. Retrieved from Sky Greens Farms: http://skygreens.appsfly.com/ Smart Net-Zero Energy Buildings Strategic Research Network. (2013, February 27). NSERC Smart Net-Zero Energy Buildings Strategic Research Network. Retrieved from Solar Buildings: http://www.solarbuildings.ca/index.php/en/ Sorkin, M. (2012). New York City (Steady) State. Architectural Design, 82(4), 102-109.

Sustainabile Building. (2013, March 1). Greywater Recycling. Retrieved from Sustianable Building: http://www.sustainablebuilding.com/Advanced%20Buildings/Greywater%20Recycling.ht m Sustainable Sources. (2013, March 1). Water Irrigation. Retrieved from Sustainable Sources: http://greywater.sustainablesources.com/ TD Economics. (2012, July 12). Canada's Commercial Real Estate. Retrieved from TD Economics: http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/sg0712_commercial.pdf TD Financial Group. (2013, March 11). TD Friends of the Environment Foundation. Retrieved from TD Financial Group: http://www.fef.td.com/funding.jsp The World Bank. (2012, October 12). The World Bank - Data, Population. Retrieved from The

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

59

World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL Thoft-Christensen, P. (2012). Infrastructures and Life Cycle Cost Benefit Analysis. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8(5). 507-517.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2013, March 13). The Living City. Retrieved from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: http://trca.on.ca/ Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2013, March 9). Toronto Urban Farm. Retrieved from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: http://www.trca.on.ca/the-livingcity/programs-of-the-living-city/near-urban-agriculture/toronto-urban-farm.dot Toronto Food Policy Council. (1999, November 1). Feeding the City from the Back 40: A Commercial Food Production Plan for the City of Toronto. Retrieved from Toronto Food Policy Council: http://www.toronto.ca/health/tfpc_feeding.pdf Toronto Food Policy Council. (2012, August 15). Grow TO Urban Agriculture Action Plan Launched. Retrieved from Toronto Food Policy Council: http://tfpc.to/news/growtoaction-plan Toronto Food Policy Council. (2012, October). GrowTO Action Plan. Retrieved from Toronto Food Policy Council: http://tfpc.to/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/GrowTO_ActionPlan_Oct161.pdf Turbines Info. (2013, March 1). Darrieus Wind Turbines. Retrieved from Turbines Info: http://www.turbinesinfo.com/darrieus-wind-turbines/ University of British Columbia. (2013, March 7). Department of Agricultural Economics.

Retrieved from University of British Columbia: http://www.landfood.ubc.ca/departmentagricultural-economics University of Guelph. (2013, March 7). Food and Agriculural Business. Retrieved from

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

60

University of Guelph: https://admission.uoguelph.ca/template.aspx?SiteID=e5a074492864-421d-8504-7866ab28b258 University of Guelph. (2013, March 7). Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics. Retrieved from University of Guelph: https://admission.uoguelph.ca/template.aspx?SiteID=0d83b8f3-3da6-4eb9-9d3a6e5395e44a26 University of Saskatchewan. (2013, March 7). College of Agriculture and Bioresources.

Retrieved from University of Saskatchewan: http://agbio.usask.ca/index.php?page=bioresource-policy Urban Agriculture Summit. (2013, March 7). 2012 Urban Agriculture Summit: Toronto.

Retrieved from Urban Agriculture Summit: http://urbanagsummit.org/ Urban Farmer. (2013, March 11). About. Retrieved from Urban Farmer: http://theurbanfarmer.ca/about-2/ Water Recycling Systems. (2013, March 1). Commercial Systems. Retrieved from Water Recycling Systems: http://reusegraywater.com/commercial-system/ Waterfront Toronto. (2013, March 9). Lower Don Lands. Retrieved from Waterfront Toronto: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/lowerdonlands Waterfront Toronto. (2013, March 1). Our Future is Green: Healthy Environment. Retrieved from Waterfront Toronto: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/our_waterfront_vision/our_future_is_green/healthy_envi ronment Webb, N. (1998). Urban Agriculture - Environment, Ecology and the Urban Poor. Urban Forum, 9(1), 95-107.

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

61

Werkele, G. R. (2002). Presentation to the Regional Agriculture Subcommitee. Ontario Planning Journal, 17 (4).

Williams, B. (2008). Cost-Benefit Analysis Methods Explained. Economic & Labour Market Review, 2(12). 67-72.

Wilson, A. (2009). The Folly of Building Integrated Wind. Environmental Building News, Vol 18, No 5. Retrieved from http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2009/4/29/TheFolly-of-Building-Integrated-Wind Windpsire. (2013, March 1). Retrieved from Windspire Energy: http://www.windspireenergy.com/ Windside. (2013, February 27). Green Buildings. Retrieved from Windside: http://www.windside.com/customers_markets/green_buildings World Atlas. (2010). Countries of the World. Retrieved from World Atlas: http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm Yoneda, Y. (2011, August 15). The World's Largest Solar Energy Office Building Shines in China. Retrieved from Inhabitat: http://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-energy-officebuilding-opens-in-china/

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Appendix 1: Location Propositions

Location

Favourability

Liberty Village

1

Don Lands

2

Financial District

3

St. Lawrence

4

Yorkville

5

Harbourfront

6

Garden

7

Queen West

8

Scale: 1 Best, 8 Worst Rated: Building Height, Density, Land Cost, Population, Redevelopment Potential, Proximity to Water, Market Demand, Employment and Lifestyle.

62

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Appendix 2: Benefits and Costs

Benefits

Costs

Economic

Economic



Employment



Funding Challenges



Tourism



Energy Consumption



Community Enrichment



Lack of Business Support



Cost Reduction



Cost of Land



Food Security



Cost of Employment

Health

Safety



Organic Produce



Theft



Lifestyle



Violence



Education



Physical Activity



Fertilizers



Reduction of Air Pollution



Pesticides/Herbicides

Community

Health

Construction



Green Space



Increased Load Requirements



Bio-Diversity



Expensive Technology



Storm Water Management



Infrastructure Upgrades



Water Recycling

63

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

64

Table 1: Research Studies with Key Search Terms i)

Vertical Farming

ii)

Urban Agriculture

iii)

Agricultural Sustainability

iv)

Urban Ecosystems

v)

Urban Ecosystems

Research Study Adler, 2006

Objective Cost-benefit (CBA) as it relates to government bodies

Key Concepts/Claims Welfare-enhancing policies and its practicality related to equal treatment

Agrawal, Singh, Rajput, Marshall & Bell, 2003

The effect of air pollution on peri-urban agriculture

Air pollution as a result of rapid metropolitan growth

Bell, Power, Jarraud, Agrawal & Davis, 2011

The effect of air pollution on urban ecosystems

The pollution effects on urban ecosystems in developed and developing regions The importance of urban ecosystems as it relates to nutrition and filtration

Boardman, 2006

Cost-benefit framework

A thorough study as it relates to common cost-benefit analysis

Brown & Jameton, 2010

Public health implications related to urban agriculture

Information about chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other carcinogenic properties

Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, 2012

Updated information regarding countries of the world

Provides information on history, geography, economy, climate, politics, transportation etc.

City of Kamloops, 2007

A background report prepared for the City of Kamloops regarding best practices of urban agriculture

Outlines infrastructural needs, department coordination, land use planning, policy framework and community

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

65

support Deelstra & Girardet, 2000

Geographic development and its impact on urban agriculture

Provides information on urban agriculture demand, soil preparation, climatic issues, water management, biodiversity and global warming

Despommier, 2009

Vertical farming ideology

Provides the vision of vertical farms in an urban environment

Dvorsky, 2012

Recent article explaining vertical farming in Singapore

Provides observational opportunities for real life examples of vertical farming

Ehrenberg, 2008

Further exploration into Despommier’s ideology

Provides financial and sustainability benefits of urban agriculture

Francis, Hansen, Fox, Hesje, Nelson, Lawseth & English

Insight into farmland erosion in Canada

Conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses presents challenges to future food production

Goss, 2010

General overview of urbanization and the effects of rapid population growth

Discusses the costs/benefits of genetically altered production of agricultural products

Goulding, Whitmore, 2012

Developing sustainable farming systems

Discusses the compromises current civilizations take at the expense of future life

Haider, Helbling, Williamson & Worrest

Effects of UV radiation on ecosystems and climate change

General discussion of the impact and potential stress factors of UV radiation

Heerkens, 2012

Cost-benefit framework in a social setting

Outlines the social costbenefit analysis of urban expansion

Industry Canada, 2012

Current statistics related to the Country of Canada

Current information related to population density, economic and other relative information

LaCroix, 2010

Challenges of land use

An overview of land use

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

66

planning for redevelopment of municipalities

planning and the tactics employable to assist with rezoning and community support

Mann, Bradley & Hughes, 1998

Temperature patterns and global warming

Reconstruction of surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries

Mendes, Balmer, Kaethler & Rhoads, 2008

The largely overlooked benefits of urban agriculture

Outlines experiences in Portland and Vancouver for urban agriculture

Milly, Dunne & Vecchia, 2005

Global patterns of stream flow and water availability

The importance of water availability as it relates to economic activity, ecosystem function and geophysical processes

Mougeot, 2005

The social, political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture

Seminal research findings on city farming in various case studies

Mowbray, 2012

The rising cost of farmland

A detailed description of variables effecting the cost of agricultural land

Nasr & Smit, 1992

Using waste water and idle land to contribute to urban expansion

Overview of waste water filtration systems and community involvement

Nasr, MacRae, Kuhms, Danyluk, KaillVinish, Michalak & Snider, 2010

Urban agriculture in Toronto

An in-depth look into the infrastructure requirements for sustainable agricultural development in the City of Toronto

Score, 2012

Detroit’s urban agricultural project

Discussion about the Hantz Farms Group

Sorkin, 2012

Concept design of New York City engulfed with vertical farming

Depiction of New York City with vertical farms

The World Bank, 2012

Updated information regarding countries of the

Provides information on history, geography, economy,

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

67

world

climate, politics, transportation etc.

Thoft-Christensen, 2012

Design and maintenance of infrastructures using life-cycle cost benefit analysis

Emphasis on society (user’s costs)

Webb, 1998

Benefits of urban agriculture

Soil improvement, promotion of self-reliance, general environmental improvement and heightened awareness

Williams, 2008

Cost-benefit analysis with labour market implications

Further research into costbenefit analysis taking into account labour markets

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

68

Table 2: Master Level Agriculture Programs in Canada Program Agricultural Biotechnology Agricultural Studies Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics (M.Sc.) Agricultural Economics (MSc) Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science Agriculture Agroéconomie (avec mémoire) Agroéconomie - consommation (avec mémoire) Animal and Poultry Science Animal and Poultry Science Animal Science Animal Science (M.Sc.) Animal Science (MSc) Aquaculture

Level Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master

School Lethbridge Lethbridge Winnipeg Saskatoon Montréal Vancouver Edmonton Halifax Québec Québec Guelph Saskatoon Winnipeg Montréal Vancouver St. John's

Biologie végétale Biologie végétale (avec mémoire) Business Administration for a Better Planet Business Administration in Food and Agribusiness Management Business Administration in Food and Agribusiness Management Business/Agriculture (MBA/MAg) Canadian Plains Studies Économie rurale (avec mémoire) Food Safety and Quality Assurance Food Science Food Science

Master Master Master Master

Québec Québec Guelph Guelph

Province Alberta Alberta Manitoba Saskatchewan Québec British Columbia Alberta Nova Scotia Québec Québec Ontario Saskatchewan Manitoba Québec British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador Québec Québec Ontario Ontario

Master

Guelph

Ontario

Master Master Master Master Master Master

Edmonton Regina Québec Guelph Guelph St. John's

Food Science Food Science Food Science (MFS) Food Science (MSc) Food Science and Agricultural Chemistry (M.Sc.) Food Science Technology

Master Master Master Master Master

Saskatoon Winnipeg Vancouver Vancouver Montréal

Alberta Saskatchewan Québec Ontario Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador Saskatchewan Manitoba British Columbia British Columbia Québec

Master

Halifax

Nova Scotia

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Large Animal Clinical Sciences Master of Technology Management (Aquaculture) MBA / Master of Agriculture MBA Gestion agroalimentaire Microbiologie agroalimentaire (avec mémoire) Pest Management Plant Agriculture Plant Science (M.Sc.) Plant Science (MSc) Plant Sciences Population Medicine Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology (Formerly Rural Economy) Resource Economics/Business Administration (MAg/MBA) Sciences animales (avec mémoire) Sciences et technologie des aliments Sciences et technologie des aliments (avec mémoire) Small Animal Clinical Sciences Soil Science Soil Science Soil Science (MSc) Sols et environnement Sols et environnement (avec mémoire) Source: www.gradschoolfinder.com

69

Master Master

Saskatoon St. John's

Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master Master

Edmonton Québec Québec Burnaby Guelph Montréal Vancouver Saskatoon Guelph Edmonton

Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador Alberta Québec Québec British Columbia Ontario Québec British Columbia Saskatchewan Ontario Alberta

Master

Edmonton

Alberta

Master Master Master

Québec Québec Québec

Québec Québec Québec

Master Master Master Master Master Master

Saskatoon Saskatoon Winnipeg Vancouver Québec Québec

Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Manitoba British Columbia Québec Québec

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

70

Figure 1: Research Methodology

Research Methodology Resource Capability

Legal

Social

Market Research

Financial Study

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING

Figure 2: Exhibition Place Wind Turbine

Source: www.toronto.ca

71

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 3: Bahrain World Trade Center

Source: www.inhabitat.com

72

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 4: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Source: www.fastcoexist.com

73

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 5: Guangzhou Pearl River Tower

Source: www.windside.com

74

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 6: Wind Tunnel at Guangzhou Pearl River Tower

Source: www.buildinggreen.com

75

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 7: Darrieus Quiet Revolution (QR) Wind Turbine

Source: www.windspireenergy.com

76

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 8: PAC-H Wind Turbine

Source: www.windspireenergy.com

77

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 9: Windspire Wind Turbine

Source: www.windspireenergy.com

78

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 10: International Conference Center at Dezhou, China

Source: www.inhabitat.com

79

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 10: Converval’s Solar Heating Systems

Source: www.solarwall.com

80

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 11: Margot and Harold Schiff Residences

Source: www.dwell.com

81

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 12: Don Lands Map

Source: www.waterfrontoronto.ca

82

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 13: Financial District Map

Source: www.toronto.ca

83

A TORONTO PERSPECIVE FOR VERTICAL FARMING Figure 14: Liberty Village Map

Source: www.toronto.ca

84