Should we build agricultural skyscrapers in-or-near our major cities? It's certainly a cool idea. I think I'm going to put the notion that this is actually environmentally sound and feasible in my "too good to check" file. More plausibly, green roofs really are an environmentally sound idea, though not something with a good prospect for replacing farms.
« Nothing is Over! | Main | The Easy Cases »
Skyfarming
19 May 2008 01:41 pm
Comments (15)
It sounds like this professor played a little too much SimCity ...
Water?
Depends on the city. Many of the problem cities these days were brilliantly built in or near deserts and have serious water issues already.
This doesn't sound very sensible. Better to bring the people into the skyscrapers to live and work. Grow the food on the ground around the city where all the low-density housing used to be.
"Who wouldn't love the idea of a roof top garden? It seems to counter all of this awesomeness there must be some compelling negatives to explain why it never happens."
1) Soil is heavy. So putting a bunch of soil on
top of a building requires a stronger - and
thus more expensive - structure throughout.
2) Plants need water. A bunch of water sitting
around on top of a roof tends to cause leaks.
The usual strategy for roofs is to get the
water off them as quickly as possible.
3) You can't get heavy equipment up on the roof,
so any gardening work up there is going to be
labor-intensive and thus expensive (at least in
a high-wage society like the USA).
The advantages are real: but it isn't a free
lunch.
I was skeptical of skyfarming at first. Though the article is fairly well written (I see many benefits from this), I also think that it is impractical as a specialized stand alone unit in many big cities (how can this possibly offset the costs of building and maintaining in NYC?). Still, I believe one of these are being built in Las Vegas and another in Dubai (in that city within a city called the source but in Arabic).
Still, as far as rooftop gardens goes, Chicago is already doing it. It reduces rooftop temperatures, which decreases the amount of air conditioning needed. So there is another offshoot benefit.
As always, "green" initiatives need a way to generate "green", as in green money. If they can do that, they will catch on.
On the plus side, rooftop gardens do provide natural insulation which can result in significant heating and cooling savings.
Ultimately, I agree with Richard's conclusion.
After we bury all the trees, we can build skyscraper gardens to take their place.
There is a good TEDtalk about our eating habits. The talk makes a lot of sense, but not our habits.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/263
In my mind's little eye I see farmers with jet packs zooming around like bees.
I think this would be really cool, but I can't imagine this being economically feasible, except under extreme circumstances.
1. To locate this in a dense city would mean it would compete for land with the most expensive office and residential properties, where developers pay huge land prices to build in those locations. They build there because the most productive companies and individuals desire to locate there and can pay for it. The competition from farms, of all things, would drive prices for office and residential even higher.
Perhaps, it might make sense to locate on less desirable urban land such as near highways or industry.
2. Construction costs of building vertical are enormous. Especially compared to the construction cost of traditional farms: nearly 0.
3. Labor costs: city labor is much more expensive than rural labor. Perhaps the skyfarm will be fully automated, but you'll need engineers on site and other staff a typical farm does not require.
4. Traditionally, farms locate on land that is much less productive than agglomerative cities, which is why land is cheaper and farming can become profitable. Add in extraordinary construction costs, and it makes little economic sense. I can't imagine farms competing with urban offices in productivity or profit per square foot.
5. The skyfarm probably isn't so good for the environment. The construction materials used to build the structure must be transported from somewhere and required significant energy and resources to produce. This compared to a traditional farm, which requires little construction. The skyfarm would displace other productive uses such as offices, causing them to locate in less ideal places, and encouraging sprawl and transportation inefficiencies.
One should be skeptical of any "environmental" solution that costs significantly more than conventional alternatives, because there are often less obvious environmental costs reflected in the production costs of a higher-priced good.
The price of food would have to be really tremendous to justify the rent and production costs of food in this facility. I suppose, if it is good at generating energy, that would offset some of the costs.
Or, the costs of transporting goods would have to astronomically higher than today, making it reasonable to have food grown nearby. However, if that were the case, land prices would be even higher in big cities and transporting construction materials would be more expensive.
Nonetheless, farming, or at least recreational green roofs could be effectively done in underutilized space, such as rooftops or building atriums. However, a green roof requires more structural material and construction than a conventional roof. But, where greenspace is scarce, it is often worth the cost.
The next step will be to replace our water supply with Brawndo (the thirst mutilator!).
I think this would be really cool, but I can't imagine this being economically feasible, except under extreme circumstances.
1. To locate this in a dense city would mean it would compete for land with the most expensive office and residential properties, where developers pay huge land prices to build in those locations. They build there because the most productive companies and individuals desire to locate there and can pay for it. The competition from farms, of all things, would drive prices for office and residential even higher.
Perhaps, it might make sense to locate on less desirable urban land such as near highways or industry.
2. Construction costs of building vertical are enormous. Especially compared to the construction cost of traditional farms: nearly 0.
3. Labor costs: city labor is much more expensive than rural labor. Perhaps the skyfarm will be fully automated, but you'll need engineers on site and other staff a typical farm does not require.
4. Traditionally, farms locate on land that is much less productive than agglomerative cities, which is why land is cheaper and farming can become profitable. Add in extraordinary construction costs, and it makes little economic sense. I can't imagine farms competing with urban offices in productivity or profit per square foot.
5. The skyfarm probably isn't so good for the environment. The construction materials used to build the structure must be transported from somewhere and required significant energy and resources to produce. This compared to a traditional farm, which requires little construction. The skyfarm would displace other productive uses such as offices, causing them to locate in less ideal places, and encouraging sprawl and transportation inefficiencies.
One should be skeptical of any "environmental" solution that costs significantly more than conventional alternatives, because there are often less obvious environmental costs reflected in the production costs of a higher-priced good.
The price of food would have to be really tremendous to justify the rent and production costs of food in this facility. I suppose, if it is good at generating energy, that would offset some of the costs.
Or, the costs of transporting goods would have to astronomically higher than today, making it reasonable to have food grown nearby. However, if that were the case, land prices would be even higher in big cities and transporting construction materials would be more expensive.
Nonetheless, farming, or at least recreational green roofs could be effectively done in underutilized space, such as rooftops or building atriums. However, a green roof requires more structural material and construction than a conventional roof. But, where greenspace is scarce, it is often worth the cost.
Didn't want to be too negative about this: green roofs are often a good idea. Part of the problem is that they work two ways: all the costs of the green roof accrue to the owners of the building;
some of the benefits - less heating and cooling, pleasant environment - accrue to the owners or inhabitants; but some of the benefits - improving the microclimate, absorbing particulates - are
externalities. Higher energy costs will certainly make direct benefits more attractive: but if we want to get the optimum amount of greenery in our cities, public policy needs to provide incentives in line with the positive externalities.
I don't have much idea how the economics of green
roofs stack up against using the roof space for
photovoltaic or solar thermal (hot water).
Any of these options is going require capital
investment to get reduced running costs.
More la-la land. Spend $200/SF for "land" where you can grow tomatoes? I don't think it makes sense.
Comments closed June 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I certainly would love it if I had the opportunity to have a vegetable garden on the top of my apartment building... and hell, just having usable space up there would be awesome. Who wouldn't love the idea of a roof top garden? It seems to counter all of this awesomeness there must be some compelling negatives to explain why it never happens.
Anti-rooftop gardening Laws? Liabilities for gardeners tumbling to their deaths? Too little return on investment?
Maybe it is something that you could really only accomplish in a condo association of like minded members or in a luxury building for Greens.
Posted by J.W. Hamner | May 19, 2008 2:03 PM