project_GRAFT: Cultivating a Healthy Community

project_GRAFT: CULTIVATING A HEALTHY COMMUNITY WILL ROWLAND - PROFESSOR AKERMAN - SPRING 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Abstract Research Readings & Film Synopsis Drawings Reflection

PROJECT ABSTRACT THE PROBLEM:

THE PROPOSAL:

The issue of health and nutrition is a prominent one in the United States, and especially in the South. Rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes are at all time highs, and the American diet has been trending towards one based on excess and convenience since the end of World War II.

The proposed intervention acts as a precedent for a community based on general wellness. An architecture that promotes wellness is based on three primary factors: encouraging a healthy diet, plenty of physical activity, and a healthy psychological environment based on social interaction. The site at the corner of Gay Street and Summit Hill Drive is an ideal location for creating a beacon for healthier living thanks to its high visibility and the immense amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic that passes by on a daily basis. The programmatic elements of the proposed intervention include:

While nutrition is an important factor in considering why Americans are living less healthy lifestyles, physical activity (or the lack thereof) plays an equally important role in shaping a healthy lifestyle. The absence of walkable infrastructure, a major flaw of the built environment in most Southern cities, combined with a particularly hot and humid climate means that most people are more likely to drive to a desired destination than to walk, bike, or take public transit. As a result, Americans are more willing to pick up a fast food meal while driving from one place to the another rather than simply making something at home because going through a drive through is that much faster. This combination of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and a diet predicated on speed and convenience means that typical Americans are doing less and less to maintain a healthy lifestyle, opting instead to focus other aspects of their lives.

Architecture can play an important role in helping to remedy this issue by raising awareness of healthier lifestyle choices and creating spaces that inspire a better type of living. This is particularly applicable in Knoxville, a sprawling expanse relative to its population, with limited food choices and walkable infrastructure outside of the denser urban core, which includes the downtown and UT campus. By providing an example of a healthy environment built around wellness and community, architecture can begin to reverse the trend of the last seventy years and provide a template for Americans to live a healthier life.

-an urban farm, in this case a hydroponic, lamp fed system, maintained by a dedicated staff, growing different varieties of tomatoes year round, which would otherwise be flown or trucked in from, on average, 1500 miles away during the offseason for growing them in Knoxville, -a public market, where the tomatoes grown within the building are sold in addition to the wares brought in by local farmers, and which also acts as a space that promotes social interaction is a catalyst for chance encounters, -a fitness facility, which serves not only the residents of the building but also the public at large, encouraging regular physical activity and communal interaction catalyzed by an open exercise space, -private residences, occupied by people seeking a healthier way of life, which occupy the upper floors of the building and provide community spaces that encourage social interaction through the use of common space centered around views to different parts of downtown, as well as common growing spaces located on the balconies.

Each of these components takes into account at least one of the three defining factors that contributes to an architecture that promotes wellness, and as a whole they create a community predicated on a common interest in living a healthier life.

WHY DO WE EAT THE THINGS WE EAT? Fats & Oils 85.5 lbs

Despite knowing that many foods are bad for us, Americans continue to make bad food choices that have dire health consequences. THE

Poultry 73.6 lbs

Fruits 273.2 lbs

Fish & Shellfish 16.1 lbs Eggs 32.7 lbs Cheese 31.4 lbs

Coffee, Cocoa, & Nuts 24 lbs The Average American

AVERAGE AMERICAN EATS 1,996.3 LBS OF FOOD PER YEAR AND AROUND 2,700 CALORIES PER DAY, including 29 lbs of french fries, 23 lbs of pizza, 24 lbs of ice cream, and over 53 gallons of soda.1 WHY?

Red Meat 110 lbs

MORE THAN 1/3 OF AMERICANS (35.7%) ARE OBESE, with rates of obesity in different states ranging from 20.5% in Colorado to 34% in Louisiana.2

Dairy Products (non-cheese) 600.5 lbs

Age: 36.6 Height: 5’9” (m) 5’4” (f) Weight: 190 lbs (m) 164 lbs (f) Recommended daily intake: 2500 calories (m) 2000 calories (f) Vegetables 415.4 lbs

21% Caloric Sweeteners 141.6 lbs

1. activistpost.com/2012/05/what-is-average-american-diet.html

Flour & Cereal Products 193.2 lbs

2. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

27.5%

34%

THE ISSUE OF DIABETES

THE ISSUE OF HEART DISEASE

NEARLY 1/10 OF AMERICANS (9.7%) ARE DIABETIC, with rates of diabetics in different states ranging from 7% in Alaska to 13% in West Virginia.3

1 IN 25 AMERICANS (4.3%) HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH HEART DISEASE, with rates of diagnosis ranging from 2.6% in Utah to 7.2% in Tennessee.4

7%

3. http://www.americashealthrankings.org/all/diabetes

10%

2.6%

13%

4. http://www.americashealthrankings.org/all/CHD

4.9%

7.2%

CHANGE IN AMERICAN DIET

FAST FOOD VS HOME COOKED MEAL in Ameri A Am can Di from Diet fro from r 1950 9 Ͳ2000 950 00 ChangesChanges in American Diet 1950-2000

THE AMERICAN DIET HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY since the 1950s, with Americans eating more meat, fruits, and vegetables across the board while also significantly increasing our use of caloric sweeteners and added fats.5

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP CORN (lb pe per capita) apita) High Fructose Corn Syrup (lb/capita)

5.5 5 5.

0 0

CORN N SWEETENE ERS (lb per capita) Corn Sweeteners (lb/capita)

37 3 37.3

63.

63.8 56.8 8

56.8

26.

26 6.3 14.

4.9 .

11

5.

5.5 0 0

85.3 79.9 79

63.8 3 56 56.8

McDonald’s Big Mac Meal Big Mac: 563 calories, 33 g of fat Medium Fries: 384 calories, 20 g of fat Medium Vanilla Milk Shake: 733 calories, 21 g of fat

152.4 24 145.9

126.5 6 123.7 3 1 144.4

TOTAL AL CALORIC SWEETENE E(lb/capita) RS (lb per capita) Total Caloric Sweeteners

109.6

TOTA GRAIN TOTAL RA A PRODUCTS TS (lb per capita) a Total Grain Products (lb/capita)

157.4 138.2 3 142.5 155.4

199.9 9 190.6

Total for one meal:

Total Fruits and Vegetables (lb/capita) TOTAL OTA FRUITS & VEGETABL VE ES (lb per capita)

587.5

0 0

707.7 7

29 29.8 26 26.7 21 21.5 14.4 1 9.5 7 7.7

CHEES (lb per capita) CheeseCHEESE (lb/capita)

ALL DAIRY RY (lb per capita) Total Dairy (lb/capita)

548 8

571 573

593 9 93

619

703 3

195.2 9 1 189 182.2 177.2 161.7 1 188.2 100

2000 000

195 50-5 - 9 188 188.

88.

82 7 703 7.7 7.7 36 4 36.

44.6 4 no da data avaailaable e 155 55.4 55 .4 4 109.6 109.6 9 11 0

688.3 6 68 8.3

2 22.6 24.3 26.5 26.5 2 29 29.8 3 32.6 36.4 4

MIL (gal MILK al per capita) Milk (gal/capita)

0

TOTA MEA TOTAL MEAT T (lb (lb per pe e caapit pita) a) ALL DAI DA RY Y (lb pe er capi pita) t C ESE CHE SE (l( b per per cap capita ita)) ita M K (gal MIL (ga pe perr capi ap ta) a TOT TAL A ADD DD DED FAT FATS S & CO COOKI KING NG OIL OILS S (lb per p ca capit p a)) TOTAL FRU TOT RUITS U & VEG V ETA ABLE ES (lb per er ca capit p a) TOTAL TOT AL GRA RA AIN I PRO RO ODUC U TS T (lb b pe er capi p ta) pi TO AL CAL TOT CALORI O C SWEE ORI W TEN TENERS ER (l( b per cap ERS ap pitaa) CORN COR N SWEE W TEN EN NERS E (l(lb b perr cap ap pita tta) H H FRUC HIG F UCTOS T E CORN TO TOS RN SY RN YRUP P (l(b per cap c ita ca t ) ta

6 62 622.1

1680 calories, 74 g of fat

74.5 5 65 65.5 60 60.8 53.4 47.8 44.6 4.6

Total Added Fats &TOTAL Cooking A E FATS ADDED ATS & Oils COOKING(lb/capita) OILS (lb OIL lb per pe capita)

Total Meat (lb/capita) TOTAL AL MEAT M MEA (lb per pe capita) ap

5. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

37 37.3

1 0-6 196 0 9 161.7 1.

1.

6 619 9.5 9.5 32.6 6 47.8 47.

8 n dat no d a avail ai abl a e 142.

142.5 5 14 .4 144 14.

49 0

200

1990 0Ͳ99

300

1 1980 Ͳ89

19701 70 79 177 177.2 77 2 548 14 4.4 4 2 29.8 9.8 8 53.4 5 4 587.5 5 5 138.2 1 2 123.7 7 26.3 2 5 5.5

400

1970 1 197 97 Ͳ79 7

500

1960 96 6 Ͳ69 9

1980 1 980-89 89 182.

22 573 3 2 21.5 1.5 26.5 26.

5 60.8 622.1 622 .1 157 57.4 .4 126.5 65 56.8 .8 .8 37 3 37.

600

700

Simple Home Cooked Meal: 1/2 Roasted Chicken Breast: 142 calories, 3 g of fat Medium Baked Potatoes: 130 calories, 0 g of fat 1/2 Cup of Green Peas: 67 calories, 0 g of fat 8 oz glass of Milk: 102 calories, 3 of fat 1 cup of unscented Applesauce: 105 calories, 0 g of fat

800

1950 50Ͳ59 59

199 19 1 90-9 0 9 018 1 9 57 571 26 26.

67 24.3 65 65.

55 688.

88 83 190.

90 06 145.9 14 145 9 79 9 79.

56 56.8 .8

2000 2000 195.2 5.

593 9 29.8 22.6 2.

74.5 707 7 707.7 199.9 9.

152.4 52.4 85 3 85.3 63.8 63.8

Total for one meal: 546

6. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934642.html

calories, 6 of fat

From 2007-2010, American adults consumed AN AVERAGE OF 11.3% OF THEIR DAILY CALORIES FROM FAST FOOD, even though a home cooked meal is much healthier.6

INFLUENCING FACTORS: TIME Assuming 3 meals a day, AMERICANS SPEND ON AVERAGE LESS THAN 24 MINUTES PER MEAL for preparation and eating. This would seem to indicate Americans prioritize most things over food, especially TV (avg 2.8 hours/day).7

7. http://www.bls.gov/tus/current/eating.htm

The average amount of time Americans spend on preparing and eating their meals on any given day is only 1 hour and 11 minutes.

The average amount of time Europeans spend on preparing and eating their meals on any given day is 2 hours and 22 minutes, exactly double the time spent by Americans.

8. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-58-04-998/EN/KS-58-04-998-EN.PDF

Assuming 3 meals a day, EUROPEANS SPEND ON AVERAGE 34 MINUTES PER MEAL for preparation and eating. This would seem to indicate that Europeans are more thoughtful about their food, and have a lower obesity rate (21.5%) than Americans (35.7%) as a result.

INFLUENCING FACTORS: MONEY AMERICANS SPEND ONLY 6.9% OF THEIR INCOME ON FOOD, the lowest in the world. This would seem to indicate that Americans are more inclined to choose the faster, cheaper option instead of one that is more expensive but healthier.9

9. http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/calorie-viz/

11.8% of income 6.9% of income

EUROPEANS SPEND, ON AVERAGE, 11.8% OF THEIR INCOME ON FOOD. This would seem to indicate that Europeans are willing to spend more on food that is better for them rather than spend less on a cheaper, less healthy meal.9

INFLUENCING FACTORS: SOURCES OF FOOD FOOD DESERTS POSE A HUGE PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS EVERYWHERE, as 4.1% of the American population (11.5 million people) live in low income areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket. Food deserts are equally important issues in both rural and urban contexts, especially if those living within the food desert have limited access to a car.10 10. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences United States Department of Agriculture

Studies done by the USDA have found that BETTER ACCESS TO A SUPERMARKET IS ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCED RISK OF OBESITY. They also found that better access to convenience stores is associated with increased risk for obesity.10

INFLUENCING FACTORS: MOTIVATION

AMERICANS EAT OUT 4-5 TIMES PER WEEK. There are many different motivating factors that influence our food choices, including a desire for social interaction, a lack of interest in cooking, and the ability to pay someone else to do the cooking for us.11

11. http://www.ers.usda.gov

EUROPEANS SPEND, ON AVERAGE, AROUND 20 MINUTES PER DAY IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS, but this time is devoted less to the act of eating out and more to social interaction in a location that serves food. Europeans are much more inclined to do most of their eating at home.11

CONCLUSION: CAN AMERICANS MAKE BETTER FOOD CHOICES? AMERICANS CAN MAKE BETTER FOOD CHOICES, but it requires fundamental changes in how we perceive food. We must be willing to spend more time on preparing and eating our food, cut down on fast food and foods with unneccessary fat, and must make healthy food choices available in low income areas.

AMERICANS CAN MAKE BETTER FOOD CHOICES, In addition to those changes, Americans must learn to reduce portion sizes to reflect the nutrition our body actually requires as opposed to the amount of food we “think” we need. By simply reducing the amount of food we eat, Americans can significantly reduce instances of Type II diabetes and the percentage ```of our population that is obese.

GENERAL SOURCES

READINGS & FILM SYNOPSIS

“American Time Use Survey: Eating and Drinking.” Http://www.bls.gov/tus/current/eating.htm. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 June 2013. Web. “Disparities Visualization.” 2013. Americasheathrankings.org, n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

FOOD, INC.

“How Europeans Spend Their Time Everyday Life of Women and Men.” Http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. N.p., 2004. Web. “Fat and Calorie Content of Fast Food Versus a Home-Cooked Meal.” Infoplease. Infoplease, 2007. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

“Overweight and Obesity Data and Statistics: Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Aug. 2013.

Web. 04 Feb. 2014.

“Related Measures.” 2013. Americasheathrankings.org, n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

“Visualizing the World’s Food Consumption.” Food Service Warehouse. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

Food, Inc. sought to expose the American public to the processes used to produce much of the food that comes to their tables. The film focuses specifically on following corn from planting to consumption, but also covers the issues surrounding meat production and the ethical treatment of the animals involved in this process.

Corn plays a large role in modern cattle, pig, and poultry operations as these animals are fed a diet that consists almost entirely of corn despite the fact that they are not evolutionarily adapted to such high levels of corn consumption. This has led to several major complications in regards to the health of the animals involved and shows a clear lack of interest from the industry to create a healthy atmosphere for the creatures being raised for slaughter.

This was never more apparent in the film than when Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s), where livestock is corralled into overcrowded and unhealthy conditions for the sake of maximizing the rate of return for the industrial food industry. The willingness by the industry to genetically adapt animals to be more receptive to an all corn diet also shows a complete disregard for the natural processes involved in the raising of these animals.

Relevance: This film opened my eyes to the obsession with maximizing production, no matter the cost, within the industrial food industry. The less than ethical behavior that seems to permeate the entire process astounded me and gave me pause when perusing the aisles at Kroger as I now had seen the environment within which much of that food was produced.

CARROT CITY

ABOVE THE PAVEMENT - THE FARM!

Carrot City explores the history and potential future of agriculturally productive cities. This reading points out plenty of examples of successful integration of growing space into urban environments and goes on to explain the need to limit the separation of cities from their food sources, which would in turn help mitigate several of the most pressing issues humanity currently faces: climate change, obesity, pollution, and poverty. By bringing the farm back into the city, the need for elaborate transportation networks requiring massive amounts of energy is suddenly massively reduced, people are able to see exactly where their food is coming from and so would tend to be more thoughtful about their food choices, the pollution produced by the industrial food industry is eliminated, and the impoverished people living within these cities will be able to find work maintaining the food supply for the city.

This reading explores the evolution of farming and the various stages of that evolution, pointing out the strengths, weaknesses, potentials, and failings of each of these stages. In the end, the purpose of the article is to ask “aren’t there more transformative ways that architects can use farms today?� The rationale behind this question is grounded in a belief that architects, as creative problem solvers, should be able to find a better way to maximize the efficiencies of the growing process while also mitigating the environmental impact of agriculture. This call for architects to step up and solve this problem is compelling and inspires aspiring architects to make their impact by fundamentally altering the means by which we are able to produce our food.

Relevance:

Relevance: This reading showcases solid evidence of successful urban farm projects and sheds light on possible design strategies which can in turn be applied to our project. By studying past projects and embracing the possibilities of urban agriculture, we as designers will be able to advance the capabilities of farms within the city and continue to push for a more sustainable way of life through architecture.

The challenge put forward by the author is meant to push architects into action and, in regards to project_ GRAFT, this challenge adds fuel to the fires of inspiration that are being fanned by the need for a better agriculture. By understanding the possibilities of a more intelligent agricultural system, architects are able to push the boundaries of what has been tried in the past for the sake of creating an architectural construct that produces food in a manner that is sustainable, efficient, and safe.

THE OMNIVORE’S DILEMMA

WASTE EQUALS FOOD

The Omnivore’s Dilemma draws the reader through three different methods of agriculture: the industrial method, the organic method, and the method of foraging. Each one of these methods offers different advantages and disadvantages, but the issues raised and processes exposed give the reader a in depth look at the various ways that food can be produced. The personal experience that Michael Pollan shares with the reader provides unique insight into each of these processes and brings some of the major issues, such as genetic modification and the ethical issues of animal treatment, to light.

The “cradle to cradle” method was the only one used to manage natural resources prior to the Industrial Revolution, at which point the natural processes utilized by the cradle to cradle method were set aside and natural materials were broken into two distinct groups: biological and technical nutrients. Technical nutrients were materials that had been synthesized and processed to a point that they are no longer able to be safely decomposed and reused. This has led to agricultural practices, such as using nitrogen based fertilizers, that ignore the natural, cyclical process of the cradle to cradle method, and instead pollute the soil required to grow our food for the sake of maximizing crop yields in the short term.

By breaking the book into three parts (Industrial-Corn, Pastoral-Grass, and the Personal-Forest), Pollan immerses the reader into his experience of exploring the food industry. Through his exploration, the reader learns of the misconceptions surrounding food production, such as the American belief that we have to sacrifice our ecosystem to have a good economy, and is able to come to the realization that we have to change how we handle the process of growing food or we’re damning ourselves to a dangerous situation where we’ve eliminated our ability to effectively, safely, and healthily grow food.

Relevance: This reading provides in depth understanding of the food industry as it currently exists and exposes the reader to the realities of food production. It also provides a wake up call in regards to how we grow our food and how we need to rethink this process in order to provide a future for our society.

The issue that stands out from this reading is how to return to a cradle to cradle society, where what comes out of the earth is able to be returned and recycled, and if it is not able to be returned to the earth, then it is able to be reused in some other capacity. By designing products and buildings to have a cyclical life cycle, designers would be able to help eliminate excess and waste, leading to a much more sustainable way of life for humanity.

Relevance: The wasteful, greedy, and uncompromising way that humans have attacked Earth is coming back to haunt us in the form of scarcity of natural resources and pollution. By adopting a more intelligent, natural, and ecologically conscious means of resource management, humanity may be able to create a future where we’re able to live in harmony with the earth instead of robbing the soil of its resources and leaving what’s left to rot.

DRAWINGS Final Presentation Drawings

REFLECTION As I look back on this project, I find that there are a multitude of things to take away. First, in looking at my approach to the research, I wish I had been able to find more compelling analysis of the nutritional issues I was exploring to supplement the raw data I had found. This would have accelerated the process of applying the research to the proposed design and could have led to a stronger project. Second, I wish that I had been able to identify a more diversified spectrum of precedents. Because of the specificity of the concept behind the building, it was impossible to find a precedent with similar program that was trying to achieve the same goals, and so the pool of precedents to draw from was rather limited. Third, I regret that I was not more flexible in terms of manipulating the form of the building to remedy some of the issues brought about by the track of the farm spiraling around and through it. Had I been more willing to disrupt the regularity of the spiral for the sake of producing more efficient use of space, the design process would have been a much more streamlined process. Instead, fear of corrupting the rigor of the spiral led to indecisiveness and doubt about how to move forward to the next iteration, robbing me of additional opportunities to improve the design.

As far as studio evaluation is concerned, I thought this was an excellent offering for a diploma studio, providing graduating students with a project that challenged us to rethink how we look at the world and granting us an opportunity to apply personal interests to a compelling and inventive design problem. The amount that I learned in this studio is immeasurable, with the subject matter ranging from the specific process of various growing cycles to innovations in structural systems to social and cultural issues. The variety of topics explored in this studio broadened my horizon in terms of how I think about food, nutrition, social interaction, and, design. In particular, the challenge of in depth research on our topics of interest pushed me to think about the application of research to design in a whole new way and opened my eyes to another means of producing a design. I do wish that there had been more time to refine the final project and that there had been more time between reviews to allow for multiple explorations into various design solutions, but in the end, this was an excellent studio and I am extremely thankful that I was able to spend my last semester working on such a fascinating design problem.

project_GRAFT