food urbanism

7/30/2019 food urbanism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/food-urbanism 1/92

FOOD URBANISMa sustainable design option for urban communities


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/food-urbanism 2/92food urbanism page 2

The goal of this project was to research urban food systems and design based on the theory

Food Urbanism; how food relates to the organization of a city and how it becomes infrastructure

that transforms the urban experience. Productive landscapes as tools to sustainable growth have

only recently been written about in the U.S. and Canada. Continuous productive landscapes have

the potential to become a tool and or mechanism to sustainable growth in urban communities.

As infrastructure in a city or town, continuous urban agriculture (UA) has the potential of being

a thread that is woven through a community creating a rigid and ecological backbone for growth connecting neighborhoods, open spaces, and urban markets. Research is based on

case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and observations of UA in

London, UK. This research demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating

environmentally, socially and economically productive communities.

Key Words: landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory,

sustainable agriculture, urbanism

Abstract

JASON GRIMM BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Studies

Advisor: MIMI WAGNER, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture

Special thanks to:

RICH PIROG, Associate Director of Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

RANDY BOECKENSTEDT, Transporation Research Specialist at ISU Center For Transportation

Research And Education

146 College of Design. Iowa State University. Ames, IA 50010319.270.3890. [email protected]

146 College of Design. Iowa State University. Ames, IA 50010

Spring 2009

Research funded in part by the Iowa State University Foundation and

Landscape Architecture Barbara King Scholarship


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/food-urbanism 3/92a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 3

introduction

the urban food system

why urban food systems?

environmentally productive

economically productive

sociologically productive

the urban case study

research process

policy + local controls + structure

fundamentals of current local food system

urban markets + nodes

grocery + speciality food store + farmer’s market

restaurant + convenience + food pantry

landcover

how can an urban food system organize a city?

the urban food system typology

land inventory

urban food system typology

urban food system prototypes

the urban food system typology in the future urban fabric

typology of urban circulation within urban food system

future urban circulation patterns

p 7

p 10

p 15

p 30

P II.........

P I..........

p 50



the potential of an urban food system

calculating the potential of an urban system based on yield + scale of production

calculating the potential of an urban system based on demand + yield ratio

the potential of an urban farm + neighborhood farm + allotment garden

how many acres to support 50% of urban population

urban food system proposals and case studies

implementation of urban food system

department/non-profit that implements urban system

proposals of the urban food system typology in the urban case study

the urban food system in 2025

case studies of city + county + state policies andguidelines of local food system

vancouver, british columbia

cleveland, oh

definitions

bibliography

p 61

p 66

p 78

p 82

p 84

P III........



appendixes, tables and figures

appendix a: community officials’ sample interview questions

appendix b: local producers’ sample interview questions

appendix c urban farm capita calculations table

appendix d: neighborhood farm capita calculations table

appendix f: allotment/community garden capita calculations table

table 1: C02emissions of different distribution models in a food system

figure 1: Urban Food System

figure 2: South Chicago food deserts

figure 3: urban food system outcomes

figure 4: senior thesis research process

figure 5: Ames urban fringe plan

figure 6: urban case study urban markets and nodes

figure 7: urban case study groceries, speciality food stores, and farmers’ markets

figure 8: urban case study restaurants, convenience, food pantry

figure 9: urban case study landcoverfigure 10: current urban food system flow diagram

figure 11: urban case study land inventory

figure 12: urban food system typology

figure 13: private residence garden prototype

figure 14: allotment/community garden prototype

figure 15: food blvd prototype

figure 16: non-profit institution prototype

figure 17: religious institution prototype

figure 18: neighborhood farm prototype

figure 19: urban farm prototype

figure 20: proposed urban food system flow diagram

figure 20: typology of circulation within the future urban fabric

figure 22: circulation within the future urban fabric guidelines

figure 23: market blvd within the future urban fabric

figure 24: private residence garden within the future urban fabric



figure 25: allotment/communty garden within the future urban fabricfigure 26: food blvd within the future urban fabric

figure 27: institution within the future urban fabric

figure 28: neighborhood farm within the future urban fabric

figure 29: urban farm within the future urban fabric

figure 30: urban food system typology within the future urban fabric

figure 31: calculating the potential of an urban system based on yield and scale of

production

figure 32: the potential of an urban farm, neighborhood farm and allotment garden

figure 33: how many acres to support 50% of urban case study population with fruits and

vegetables

figure 34: organizational chart of Community Agriculture and Design Center (CADC)

figure 35: organizational chart of City of Ames

figure 36: proposal of urban food system and circulation typologies in urban case study

figure 37: Stange Market Blvd and Kingston Food Blvd section

figure 38: Kingston Food Blvd section

figure 39: Stange Market Blvd and Kingston Food Blvd aerial perspective

figure 40: Kingston Food Blvd aerial perspectivefigure 41: Northridge Pkwy and Northridge Lane allotment garden aerial perspective

figure 42: Neighborhood Farm and Elementary School aerial perspective



P I: the urban food systemAn urban food system has the agenda to guide the development of a sustainable and integrated

system of food production, processing, distribution, marketing, consumption and waste

management in an urban landscape. An urban food system integrates live, work, and play into

the activities of a productive landscape. Through infrastructure developments of roads, railroad

lines, municipal utilities, walking and biking trails, and bike commuter lanes an integrated

urban system can be created. Food infrastructure is the underlying foundation of a sustainable

community. By utilizing the development of urban food production infrastructure as criteria for urban growth, a community can have urban growth while still on a sustainable path.

The success of an urban food system relies on differing pieces of infrastructure to utilize

each other’s resources. An urban transportation system should be in conjunction with the

distribution of both products and residents in an urban landscape. Institutional and community

food processing must be common amongst different schools, churches, NGOs, agencies, and

governments. Food production must be integrated into the daily activities of all community

residents through recreation and communal gatherings. Positive personal development can be

achieved by integrating food production into community recreation parks. Marketing must be

the common thread amongst all urban food producers and consumers. Through cooperative

market outlets a larger series of food access points can be developed supplying healthy fresh

and affordable food. And finally a sustainable community is based on an ongoing never ending

system with little input. Waste management is the sector of an urban food system that must be

integrated with a waste recycling and reuse program in a community to recycle the nutrients in

the food production system.

A healthy urban food system means a healthy and sustainably growing community that iseconomically, environmentally and most importantly a socially productive community.



Production Processing

Distribution

Marketing

Waste

Mgmt

Consumption

festivals, pubic transportation, recreation,municipal utilities, religion,dining, education, bicycle

commuting, work,

recycling...

planting,management,harvesting...

washing,drying, canning,

freezing, ...

composting,reuse...

storage,logistics trucking, rail,

ship...

cooking,meals, slow

food,events...

farmer’smarkets, coops,

retail, CSA,direct,

pantries...

figure 1



why urban food systems?Last October in the New York Times Michael Pollen addressed the future new president as

the Farmer in Chief (Pollen 2008). In his letter Pollen explained to the next president that food

policy will become a leading issue above others during the next four years. He explained to

him that by reinventing the entire food system it would

reduce the impact of many other issues. He was trying to

explain how every issue today is linked some how to the

food system. These are the same issues that are being

shared by organizations and individuals in the farming,

health, human welfare and many other sectors. Access

to healthy food is a critical issue. Chicago is only one

city of many combating food deserts. Food deserts are

populations either urban or rural that do not have access to

grocery or food market stores. Convenience stores instead

fill this void. These stores though only provide beer, soda,

potato chips and other highly processed foods. Figure 1

represents food deserts present in South Chicago (Group2006, 8).

Environmentally Productive

As diabetes and other chronic diseases increase, health

care costs will continue to rise. Last fall the Henry

J. Kaiser Family Foundation released that employer

sponsored health plan premiums are rising drastically and

workers are paying on average $3,354 annually toward family coverage out of their own pay

checks (Singh 2008).

Environmental health is an enormous concern of many organizations and individuals in the

local food system movement. On average food travels 1500-2500 miles from field to plate

and in return is producing extreme levels of carbon dioxide at the same time. Rich Pirog in

the Leopold Center has written about Iowa’s food system and, more specifically, the food

system’s impact based on food miles. Pirog compared the impacts of a conventional system,

figure 2



Iowa-based regional system and a local system (Pirog 2001). He analyzed each system based

on fuel consumption, value of the fuel consumed, C02 emissions and distance traveled. Table

1 shows Pirog’s findings for each food system and its impact on the climate based on food

miles. His findings support that an urban food system would be environmentally productive as

it would shorten the span between field and plate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Pirog

2001, 33). The conventual agricultural sector in 2005 produced 8.2% of the CO2 emissions

based out of all the U.S. economic sectors. Transportation (27.5%), industry (18.6%) andelectric power (33.5%) were the sectors ahead of the agricultural sector (Hofstrand 2008).

The current agricultural sector is the primary cause of these other industries’ impact. For

example the transportation sector releases many CO2 emissions because it must ship the

agricultural products across the country.

In addition to food miles, food deserts, and

health care; urban land use is a common issue

in urban communities. Manicured lawns, in

the U.S., are out of control. Today manicured

lawns are the largest crop in the U.S. There are

three times more acres of lawn than irrigated

corn covering an area of about 330,000 square

miles (Lindsey 2005).

Economically Productive

In 1929 Americans spent $4 out $5 at independent retailers but by the mid-50’s many

consumer’s patterns were being drastically affected (Mitchell 2006). Af ter WWII when a larger

portion of the population was able to move and live in suburbs of American cities it opened up

new land for chain stores to grow. Today chains have become the dominate market in all areas

of the economy. In 2005 the top ten retail chains had a hold of 30% of consumer spending.

Twenty percent of this spending was in food sales and 46% was dominated by 5 companies:

Walmart, Kroger, Albertson’s Safeway, and Ahold. Independent groceries only had 17% of

the sales. Even the clothing sales were being dominated by a few. Target along with specialty

stores like GAP Inc. are leading the market. Forty percent of the prescription sales are by

Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid (Mitchell 2006, 11). This can be seen in many other areas such

as books, restaurants/entertainment, and even on the World Wide Web. This narrowing of the

market is even apparent in agriculture.

In the U.S. we have 4 million fewer farmers today than we did in the 1930’s. Farms have

gotten larger and are owned by a smaller group of people everyday (GRACE 2008). In 1910,

table 1



42 cents of every dollar spent on food went to farmers and 59 cents went to marketers

and input providers. By 1998 farmers only received 9 cents, input providers 24 cents, and

marketers 67 cents (Shuman 1998, 58).

In the mid 1940’s Walter Goldschmidt along with two other sociologist C. Wright Mills and

Melville J. Ulmer each studied the effects of a local vs. nonlocal business base in similar

communities (Mitchell 2006). Their studies compared two communities that were similar in population, climate, and distance from major urban centers. Goldschmidt compared the

two communities of Arvin and Dinuba both located in the Sun Joaquin Valley in California.

Goldschmidt’s findings allowed him to conclude that Dinuba had a higher standard of

living because it had a base of local businesses instead of non local. His analysis of two

communities showed that Arvin had a handful of large agri-businesses and Dinuba was only

small family owned farms. Arvin’s farms were 9 times as large and had a larger median

income. Dinuba though had much more impressive stats (Mitchell 2006 73-4). There was

less income inequality and there were many farmers, small business owners, and independent

processors. In addition compared to the one elementary school and tiny private playground in

Arvin, Dinuba’s community infrastructure was enormous. It had better streets, sidewalks, and

garbage services that were better in both quality and quantity. It had 4 elementary schools, 1

high school, 3 public parks, and twice the civic and social organizations. Its two newspapers

were each larger than Arvin’s one paper (Mitchell 2006 73-4).

Urban areas would be the best place to implement production without competing with the

production of commodity crops outside of urban areas. Today in Iowa Dave Swenson from

the Economics Department and the Leopold Center at Iowa State have combined forces todevelop evidence of the positive economic impacts of increased fruit and vegetable production

and consumption in Iowa. Swenson created a multiple of scenarios each varying in the

amount of produce grown in Iowa, amount of consumption in Iowa, and the amount marketed

directly vs. indirectly (Swenson 2006). In his second scenario he models 25% of the 37 fruits

and vegetables consumed in Iowa as produced by Iowa farmers. The produce is then 50%

direct marketed by farmers to consumers and the other half is indirect marketed through

the wholesale distributors and conventional grocery stores. He concluded that there would

be a total industrial output of $104.5 million, a labor income of $38 million made by 1,345

jobs. Swenson then concluded that this increased production had a net impact of $92 million

of industrial output and $33.5 million in labor income made by 1,183 new jobs (Swenson

2006,17). By designing our communities around food production and only increasing fruit and

vegetable production in Iowa by 25%, our Iowa economy would be benefited greatly.



Sociologically Productive

In Dinuba and Arvin Goldschmidt concluded that since the residents had a higher standard of

living they were more willing to engage in public affairs because they had built up community

equity to the point where they felt they owned a piece of the community and should have

a right to make decisions for its future. Thus the local economics of Dinuba created a

sociologically productive community.

Sociological productivity is more difficult to measure. Jan and Cornelia Flora of the North

Central Regional Center for Rural Development have developed their Community Capitals

Framework (Development 2008). This framework defines the seven types of capital in a

community. Their framework explains that one local dollar protects natural capital and adds to

cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built capital (Development 2008). By increasing

social capital the Flora’s explain that a community will have a strong foundation and become

a sustainable community. They argue that social capital creates the binds throughout the

community and into the surrounding region. Jane Jacobs in her book, Death and Life of Great

American Cities, calls local businessman public characters (Jacobs 1993). They are what bind

communities together. When they talk to many people throughout the day they become like a

news cast that spreads information between individuals (Mitchell 2006,78). Even though the

relationships that are created between local businessman and other residents are informal

they become personal and multifaceted and gain an interest in each other’s well being. As

these relationships grow social capital is created. People learn many new faces and create

informal relationships that reduce social diversions and foster empathy and friendship (Mitchel

2006, 80). When local residents speak with each other and create relationships between largegroups of people social webs are created. These webs become avenues where job openings

are advertised and filled, innovative ideas created, skills traded, and business trades made

(Mitchell 2006, 80).



urban food system outcomes

figure 3



The first step in developing an urban food system is to conduct a urban food system audit. The

city of Ames was chosen as the urban case study based on a criteria developed for selection.

The case study is meant to evaluate the current status and flow diagram of the urban food

system. Case study selection criteria included population (60,000 - 10,000), diverse ethnicity,

access to base data, presence of linear ecological landscapes, land area, population density,

home ownership, stable urban centers, stable local markets, population of local farmers,

forward-thinking officials, population growth, and per capita median income. Ames was

chosen both on the criteria and personal knowledge of the community.

In addition to case studies and background knowledge (included in Continuous Productive

Urban Landscapes: a sustainable design option to growing urban communities in Iowa,

phase one report) interviews were conducted

with city officials on the local controls,

policy, and structure of Ames. To understand

the fundamentals of the current local food

system, local producers were asked basicinterview questions about the fundamental

aspects of their food production. Figure 3

on the left represents the research process

followed to obtain an understanding of

Ames and the theory of Food Urbanism.

Appendixes A and B include interview

questions conducted with officials and

producers.

Additional research and analysis was then

conducted on the number and location

of the city’s urban markets and nodes,

grocery, speciality food stores, and farmer’s

markets, restaurants and convenience

stores and landcover within the city limits

the urban case study

Wilbers

Northside

Market

Picket FenceCreamery

DeMossPumpkin

Farm

Blacks

HeritageFarm

Rinehart’s

Family Farm

Full Circle

Farm

OnionCreek Farm

Growing

Harmony

Farm

Story CountyProducers

S t o r

y C o u n

t y P l a n n i n g

A m e s P a r k s D e p

a r t m e n t

C i t y o f A m

e s P l a

n n i n g

S t r a t

e g y f o r I d e

n t i f y i n g

a n d E v

a l u a t i n g

S i t e s f o

r U r b a

n

A g r i c u l t u r

e : A C a

s e S t u d

y o f G a

i n e s v

i l l e , F L

C o n t i n u o u s P r o d u c t i v e U r b a n L a n d s c a p e s : D e s i g n i n g

U r b a n A g r i c u

l t u r e f o r S u s t a i n a b l e C i t i e s

A S t u d y o

f t h e C o n t e x t s w i t h i n w h i c h U r b a n V a c a n t

L a n d i s a c c e s s e d f o r C o m

m u n i t y O p e n S p a c e L o

n d o n

, U K U r b a

n A g r i c u l t u r

e C a s e

S t u d i e s

i n t h e

L e a R i v e

r V a l l e y

research process

figure 4



policy + local controls + structure

It is important to understand the local controls, policy and structure of both Ames and

unincorporated Story County. By interviewing local planners and officials data was gathered

about Ames’ controls on temporary markets, urban growth strategies, the urban fringe plans, the local approach at managing vacant land, strategies used to manage park land, and controls

on current community gardens within in Ames. In addition to current data and information a

dialogue was created, with the local planners and officials, on designing communities around a

framework of urban agriculture.

Managing Urban Growth/Urban Fringe Planning

Ames and Story County planners have a long term agreement to work together on all urban

growth planning strategies. After working together for a long period of time the two cities

along with the city of Gilbert have completed an Urban Fringe Plan. On the following page is

the current Urban Fringe Plan for the city of Ames. After speaking with the planning directors,

it was determined that planning is based on current utilities and services. Urban growth

areas are first determined based on whether current utilities and services are able to support

any new development. Utilities and services are defined as sewer, water, electricity, gas,

emergency service, and etc. Other criteria that are considered are environmental constraints

and current traffic patterns.

City and county planners each agreed that the appropriate places to consider while studying

food urbanism would be the Urban Service Areas, within the urban fringe plan. They agreed

that urban food system infrastructure would be able to guide future growth into these areas.

These areas are projected to be areas of future urban development based on urban growth

plans. Within the city of Ames these areas are primarily located on the west and southwest

edges of Ames along Hwy 30, Nor th and South Dakota Avenues, and West Lincoln Way.

Figure 4 represents the city of Ames urban fringe plan. County planners also recommend

conservation easement lands and any land that is classified as agriculture or farm service

areas. The planners recommended conservation easement lands because low impact peri-

urban agriculture could be utilized as a management tool for these lands while conserving the

parcels.



GILBERT

CITY OF AMES

KELLEY

G E O R G E W C

A R V E R A V E

N O R T H

D A K

O T A

A V E

W 190TH ST E 190TH ST

180TH ST

S T A G E C O A C H R

D

U S H I G H W AY 3 0 US HIGHWAY 30

I N T E R S T A T E H I G H W A Y 3 5

U S H I G H W A Y 6 9

S O U

T H

D A K O T A

A V E

LAND USE FRAMEWORK MAPAmes Urban Fringe Plan

S t o r y C o .

B o o n e C o .

LEGEND

Approved by Story County, City of Amesand City of Gilbert, July 17, 2006

1 0 1 20.5

Miles

Rural Service and Agricultural Conservation Area

Rural Residential

Agriculture and Farm Servic e

Parks and Recreation Areas

Urban Service Area

Conveneince CommercialCommunity Commercial Node

Planned Industrial

Urban Residential

Ames Urban Fringe Area Located in 'Story CountyStudy Area'. Future Land Use t o be d etermined following

the completion of Story County's study and discussionwith other governments.

Story County Study Area

Boone County Future Land Use

Ames Urban Fringe Area Located in Boone County.Future Land Use to be determined following completion

of Boone County's Comprehensive Plan Update anddiscussion with other goverments.

Rural Urban Transition Area

Airport Protection Area

Transportation Corridor Protection Area

Watershed Protection Area

Gateway Protection Area

Agricultural/Long-term Indust rial Reserve

Agricultural/Subsurface Mi ning

Industrial Reserve/Research Park

Natural Areas

General IndustrialRural Transitional Residential

Highway-Oriented Commercial

Priority Transitional Residential

Ames Urban Fringe Planning Boundary

Government Owned Land

Iowa State University Property

figure 5



Managing Vacant Land

City planners in inteviews indicated that vacant land is seen as a valuable resource. Vacant

land in the city of Ames was defined as parcels that are of nuisance to adjacent land uses or

are hard to develop. The city assessor uses a existing use code in their parcel data to define

vacant as empty parcels or empty structures. Planning staff expressed that studying existing

aerials and current parcel data was the best way to locate vacant or underutilized parcels.

Temporary Markets

Since a urban food system would be economically productive and grow and harvest products,

it is important that markets be created within the system. It is important though that these

markets are regulated to prevent negative effects on the health and well being of the public

population. Examples include the sale of contaminated food or illegal the sighting of a vending

trailer in the public right of way. The central Iowa climate does not allow crops to be grown

and harvested year around outdoors thus some markets within the system would only be

temporary for 8-10 months of the year. In addition to understanding planning goals and

strategies for the city of Ames it was also important to know any current regulations or laws

that would regulate any form of a temporary market. Within the City of Ames Municipal Code

there are many requirements for markets and vendors. Section 22.4 of the municipal code has

restrictions on temporary obstructions. These requirements are meant to control the issuing

of permits for obstructions and limit them so they don’t cause any harm to the public. Section

17.26 thus places requirements on specific outdoor markets. The code reads:

that any person who, for the purpose of selling goods or services, occupies a place out of

doors, other than on public property, or who for said purpose occupies an indoor place on

an intermittent or temporary basis only, and who does not have any indoor place in the city

where the same selling of goods and services is done by said person on a continuous and

permanent basis, shall obtain and wear, in a manner plainly visible, a valid registration and

identification badge issued by the City Clerk.

It is required that all markets apply for a permit from the City Clerk so that all markets can be

inventoried and regulated to avoid any potential harm to the public population. In addition to

markets vending has many requirements. Their requirements in Section 22.11 – 22.23 read:

It shall be unlawful to sell, or offer for sale, any food, beverage or merchandise on any street,

sidewalk, alley, city parking lot or other thoroughfare without first obtaining the applicable

license or permit, such as a Vendor’s License, a Newspaper Dispenser Permit, or a Sidewalk

Cafe Permit.



The following requirements and standards are placed on all vendors:

1. The vending stand shall be of such a size and so placed that it does not

obstruct the orderly flow of pedestrian and/or vehicular movement(s).

2. The vending stand shall be placed so as not to obstruct visibility at street

intersections or to obstruct driveway entrances.3. All vending stands shall provide a litter receptacle which is available for the

vendor’s patron’s use.

4. All vending stands shall be attended at all times and removed during hours of

non-operation.

5. Upon removal of the stand, all litter and trash shall be picked up.

6. Vending items shall be only those stated in the application.

7. The vending stand shall be placed so as not to obstruct the view of

merchandising displays of other businesses abutting the sidewalk.

8. All vending from motor vehicles shall be conducted in such a way as not

to restrict or interfere with the ingress or egress of the abutting

property, create a public nuisance, increase traffic

congestion or delay, constitute a hazard to traffic,

life, or property, or be an obstruction to adequate access to fire, police,

or sanitation vehicles.

Strategies in Managing Park Land

It is also important to understood the strategies of the parks and recreation department. A

urban food system will utilize current open space and it will act as the missing piece that

creates a network of open spaces. Within the parks department all future planning is done

through the park master plan and the city’s Capital Improvement Plan. Mowing and controlling

weeds and invasive plants is the primary management strategy for each park.

Currently within the city there is one example of community gardens. Thir ty-six plots are

located south of the Department of Transportation service yards along Squaw Creek on park

land. The plots are 10’x40’ and are on an annual rent cycle of $15/year. They are managed

by the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. Even though there is interest in more community

gardens there is a concern by the city of the hours needed to manage a system.



fundamentals of current local food system

In order to design a urban food system in the case study community it was impor tant to

understand the fundamental systems and infrastructure that make the local food system

operate. Through interviewing eight local producers a better understanding was gathered

of current producers, markets, and products in the local supply chain. During a three week

interview process producers were interviewed on their mechanics, storage, markets,

processing, products, labor, size, their struggles, and their input on programs to bring farmers

into urban areas.

Interviews were with:

Picket Fence Creamery

Onion Creek Farm

Black Heritage Farm

Growing Harmony Farm

Rinehart’s Family Farm

Wilber’s Northside Market

Full Circle Farm

DeMoss Pumpkin Farm

Story County, Iowa: Local Food System

As part of an increasing rise in local food awareness, the Story County Planning and Zoning

department completed a study on the county food system (Department 2008). They found

that the county was very diverse with 18 growers and 50 producers counting the surrounding

counties. These producers are marketing their products in the region. In 2006 there were 17

CSAs in the region, 2 farmers markets in Ames, grocery stores that were selling local products

(Wheatsfield Coop, HyVee, and Fareway), and a handful of restaurants using local goods in

their menus (Department 2008, 13-14).

In a survey that was administered by the depar tment producers replied saying they were

looking to expand production or to build greenhouses. Many though replied explaining the

hardest issues of local production. Many explained that there was enough labor but the access

to land was limited. This restricted the number of new farmers. The largest concern in Story

County as with other counties is the lack of regional food processing or meat lockers to add



value to their goods before market. Livestock producers were the most concerned because

there are few federally or state inspected processors in the region. This limits their ability to

market their meat for resale and to have it certified organic. This is a concern because by law

in order to sell beef, pork, chicken or any other meat in a resale market the carcass has to be

inspected by a certified individual before it can be divided into its respectful parts and stamped

for resale.

The senior thesis interviews focused on the fundamentals of the local producers’ operations.

In order to design and plan a local urban food system it was important to understand where

current producers are farming, what mechanics they are using and the markets they are selling

their products at. Each interview was conducted at each of the producers farms.

Peri-urban/Rural Production

Of the eight producers interviewed, four were located slightly outside of city limits. The four

producers located near any city limits were in prime locations. Their locations allowed them to create direct markets so that their customers could purchase their products directly on the

farm. This allowed the farmers to create a transparent system so that customers understood

how their products were being produced. The other four producers were located in rural

areas that were primarily row crop agriculture. One of these four produced grass fed beef just

outside of Ledges State Park. Since the producer was using rotational grazing his farm acted

as a buffer between the State Park and the row crop agriculture that surrounding the farm.

The smallest producers ranged about 2 – 5 acres while the largest producer had 100 acres for vegetables and 700 for row crops. This represents the scale of local producers in the region

very well. Even between the two producers that market grass-fed beef each is at opposite ends

of the spectrum. One producer has 160 acres of pasture and is looking to expand this part of

his business; in addition to his dairy production. The other producer outside of Ledges State

Park has 40 acres and 15 head of cattle. Both producers agreed that two acres per head is a

suitable planning calculation per year. All producers expressed the importance of some land

being laid fallow every year as part of a crop rotation system. They expressed this because

it allowed the soil to rest between production years. To return fertility to the soil all of the

producers either add organic matter or compost and some will plant green manure crops after they harvest. These crops then are tilled into the soil and added to the organic matter content

in the soil. Since the price of land is high currently many producers mentioned how hard it is

to expand. One producer has recently just started to rent 20 acres and grows produce, as a

voluntary agreement between the landowner and themselves, on another acre parcel.

Mechanics/Infrastructure of the Regional Food System



A urban food system will be commercially productive and will incorporate parks and

community gardens into its network. To be able to design commercially productive areas, it

is important to understand what infrastructure is required. All producers explained that most

of the labor is done by hand instead of by equipment. The crops that are primarily grown

cannot be harvested by equipment efficiently for the small quantity produced. Many if not all

farmers though did use roto-tillers to prepare their land for planting and to control weeds. Thendepending on the scale of production and crops produced some producers owned small utility

tractors, mowers, skid loaders, planters, and other tillage equipment. In addition to the larger

equipment every producer had some form of a wheel barrel or garden cart and all the shovels

and rakes one could want. Many producers expressed the constant battle with weeds and

ways they control them. Many explained by using straw or plastic barriers many weeds can be

prevented. For those weeds that did grow though stir-up hoes, propane torches, and/or natural

products were sprayed to control weeds and pests.

Storage, Processing, and Delivery

Since many producers sold to farmers markets or had their own direct markets they needed

a place to store and process their products. Every producer had some form of a storage

building. Some were simply lean-tos that protected one from the elements and others had

garages and sheds. Within these small structures producers would use coolers to store

produce that needed to be cool and others would use old refrigerators or shelves as storage.

After products had been harvested producers washed all products to remove soil from root

crops or remove any pests or soil from greens. After washing the products they would bepackaged in cardboard boxes or plastic crates by weight. Whether the producer was putting

together shares for their CSA members or getting ready to make a shipment to

Hy-Vee, this system allowed him/her to quickly and easily sell his product at a certain unit

per pound. Each producer had a different system of getting products to their customers. For

those producers selling to re-sale markets the grocery store produce manager would contact

them when they were ready for a new shipment. Producers otherwise would either prepare for

farmer’s markets the day before hand or early the morning of. CSA producers would deliver

their shares to their members or have their members pick up their own shares at the farm.

Producers would use small trucks and sometimes enclosed trailers. One farmer just outside of

Ames used an electric truck to make his deliveries to the restaurants he sold to.

For those producers that had livestock or dairy they would either do their own processing

or take their livestock or milk to a processing plant. Many producers expressed the issue of

the lack of a regional meat processing facility. One producer that sells free range chickens

expressed that because he has to haul his livestock to an inspected facility in far southwest

Iowa it about offsets him producing his chickens in a free range system.



Local Markets

All producers had found their own niche in the local markets. Many producers marketed their

products to Hy-Vee, Fareway, Wheatsfield, and ISU Dining’s program, Farm to ISU. Producers

rarely marketed their products in a single fashion. Between the CSAs the number of shares

varied between 15-64 families. Others sell at farmer’s markets in Ames, Johnston, DesMoines, and other communities. As was mentioned earlier some producers direct market their

goods from the farm. This allows them to market their products everyday of the week. Direct

marketing goods also creates other avenues for producers to work together and sell each

other’s products. And finally, some producers also sell to restaurants like the Café in Ames or

the Raccoon River Brewery in Des Moines.

The Potential of Programs to Create Inventories of Land within City Limitsfor Production; To Assist In the Management of Vacant or Underutilized

Land

As a part of each interview each producer was asked about their thoughts and ideas about

a program that would create an inventory of urban parcels that are vacant or underutilized

that could be used for production. Each producer thought this was a great idea as it would

decrease the distance that products would have to be delivered, it utilized land to its potential,

and helped managed land within the city. The producers expressed that to make it efficient to

be farmed commercially the site would have to be half an acre or greater. The smaller sites

could be used for community gardens instead. In addition to the question many producers also

recommended that old schools or other vacant buildings could be used as processing centers,

job training centers, other education programs or housing.



urban markets +nodesUrban markets and nodes create the foundation to the marketing of products within an urban

food system. This evaluation within the urban case study evaluated the location of each urban

market and node within the city of Ames. These nodes and market centers are important to the

food system because they are the centers were products within the urban food system can be

marketed to the greater city population. Outdoor markets, grocery stores, speciality stores, and

other commercial activities can be located at these nodes because they are intersections of

circulation. Diverse nodes and markets create an active streetscape at every hour.

This evaluation informed the site chosen as a existing urban fabric to be used as a case study

to implement the proposed urban food system typology and circulation.

*radii = 10 min. walk at average speed

figure 6



grocery + specialty food store + farmer’smarketWith the rise of food deserts and food insecurity becoming an issue it was important to

evaluate the location of current points of access to healthy food. In 2006, in Story county

there were 13 grocery stores, 36 convenience stores, 6 specialty food stores and 2 farmer’s

markets. There were 6,446 people per the 13 grocery stores and 13,967 per the 6 specialty

food stores (Eathington 2008). It is important to understand the number and location of these

markets today in addition to the outdoor farmer’s markets. Since Ames is the home of Iowa

State University and since Ames has a very diverse population it is important that food itemsare available for each culture. For example the Indian culture is very large within the community

thus it is important that Pammel Grocery is a source of food items specific to their food

culture.


figure 7



restaurant + convenience + food pantrySince 2000 households receiving food assistance has more than doubled (720-2,048)

in Story county. The average benefits per person have nearly doubled as well ($75.16 -

$148.96) (Iowa State Data Center). Food assistance (recently changed from food stamps)

supports families and individuals near or below poverty. Without an ample supply of fresh

food items it is important that households have supplementary access points to sources that

accept food stamps. Restaurants including fast food, convenience stores and food pantries

become the second tier following grocery stores and markets. It is important though that

fast food restaurants and convenience stores do not become the first tier of food access asin food deserts. In 2007, in Story county it was estimated that 34.4% of the population was

overweight, 24.9% obese and 5% diabetic (Eathington 2008).


figure 8



landcoverSprawl and a monoculture of a few land uses are a rising concern by researchers. Part of this

concern is the ever larger expanses of lawn and larger single family homes. Below the GIS

analysis of the urban case study has found that 4,500 acres of manicured lawn, grasslands,

and agricultural land exists within the city limits. This excludes floodplains and steep slopes

because for ecological reasons it is important that these areas area protected and kept intact.

If one assumes that only half of these 4,500 acres are productive it still means that about

2000 acres of underutilized land could possibly be used to support the fruits and vegetables

demanded by the Ames population.

figure 9



community member/ consumers

local producer

urban market/ coop/grocery store/

restaurant/processing

current urban food system flow diagram

As for the urban case study of Ames there is many issues and opportunities present in both

Story county and the city. Interviews have concluded that producers are stable and wanting

to expand but land prices and the lack of local processing restricts their growth. The local

controls, policy and structure is in a stable but flexible state. Land development concerns

are presently related to urban growth and the ample amount of underutilized land. City

departments though are concerned about expanding the current small community garden

program to a much larger community wide system.

Aside from the physical and productive sectors of the current food system food access and

health is a serious concern both in the county and city. As the food system flow diagram

represents below there is very few points of food access for community members. This is

both a concern for the consumer and the producer as the distributor and the processor has

much of the control over the system. The producer has very few points at which to market

new products after a production expansion. Producers also have few local sources to process

meats and for added agriculture. Valued added means to process vegetables and fruit into

sauces, jams, and other additives through canning, drying, freezing, etc.

Even though there are many issues, analysis of landcover and land use within the city limits

represents a high amount of potential of meeting the city’s fruits and vegetables demands

within the city limits. Earlier calculations determined that 970 acres for vegetables and 930

acres for fruit would be needed to supply the fruits and vegetables for 6 months of the year

for the city’s approximate 2007 population of 55,000. As stated earlier the landcover analysis

found 4,500 acres of mown lawn, grassland and current agricultural land within the city limits.

This represents that there is an enormous potential of food production within the city of Ames.

figure 10



P II: how can an urban foodsystem organize a city?



the urban food system typology

The first step to organizing a city based on the theory food urbanism is to develop a land

inventory of the city. This report explains how a land inventory of the urban case study

allowed for the development of a typology and vocabulary of a productive urban landscape. As

part of the land inventory of the city of Ames potential sites were compiled that were classified

based on their size and potential user group. From these potential sites a typology was then

created explaining the characteristics of each type of food production within the theory of food

urbanism. This typology can thus be used to classify sites within future land inventories inother Iowa communities.

The following pages and chapters provide examples and tools in developing an urban food

system.



U R B A N

C A S E S T U D Y L A N D I N V E N T O R Y

figure 11



urban food system typology

o p t i o n a l

d i r e c t t y

p o l o g y

u s e r / p r o d u c e r /

m a n a g e r

s c a l e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

p r o d u c t i o n t y p e s

d i s t r i b u t i o n /

m a r k e t s

p r i v a t e

r e s i d e n c e

g a r d e n

c o m m u n i t y /

a l l o t m e n t

g a r d e n

f o o d b l v d .

i n s t i t u t i o n

r e l i g i o u s / e d u

c a t i o n /

n o n - p r o

f i t

n e i g h b o r h o o d

f a r m

u r b a

n f a r m

1 - 3 . 5 a c r e s

> 1 / 2 a c r e s

v a r i e s

v a r i e s

v a r i e s

p r o d u c t i v e

s p a c e

i n d e p e n d e n t

u s e r

l o c a l

p r o d u c e r

i n s t i t u t i o n

( r e l i g i o u s , e d u c a t i o n , n o n - p r o f i t )

3 . 5 a c r e s

3 . 5

+ a c r e s

$

p r e s e n t

s t r u c t u r e

% p u b l i c

s t a f f

$

s u p p o r t i n g

f a c i l i t y

h o t h o u s e

m a r k e t

c i r c u l a t i o n

# o f c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e s

& u t i l i t i e s / i n f r a s t r u c t u r e

p r o v i d e d

figure 12



After creating a land inventory the urban food system typology can be used to classify sites.Each types then have their own attributes. The typology can also be used to help find a site

that meets a certain criteria. For example if a community organization is wanting to develop

a new community garden the typology specifies that the site needs to be under .5 an acre in

size. It will then be the organizations responsibility to manage that community garden based on

citywide policies of management. As specified in the typology, renters of plots in community

gardens have the option to utilize the ability to market their goods in the larger food system;

most typically at a farmer’s market. These members would be required to meet all inspections

as other producers and community members to be able to sell food at a market.

This example is the same if a municipality is interested in providing fruits and vegetables for a

higher percentage of the cities population. The city could meet this requirement either through

a new urban or neighborhood farm. They would then ask for RFQs from urban farmers that are

interested in managing the new proposed farm. This farm manager and their staff would then

have the requirement to provide community services such as farmer training or educational

courses for example on food processing.

The following 7 prototypes are examples of each type within the urban food system typology.The page leading each prototype explains the attributes of each. It is important to understand

how designers/officials of a local CADC would provide assistance in each instance of a new

prototype.



+Private Residence Garden

User/Producer/Stakeholder:

Managed by a private homeowner or independent user

Location/Scale:

All production will be provided by the landowner/user within the property boundaries. This

production is possible at many scales. An entire private residence could be retrofitted to

produce food or just the rear 20 ft of a lot could be managed.

Characteristics/Scenario:

Special instances that create prime scenarios to have a productive landscape as a homeowner

are large lawn expanses, the presence of an alley, large street setbacks and/or clear solar

exposure. Street setbacks are good examples because these spaces usually are not intended

for use but are meant to provide a visually pleasing setting on approaching the entrance.

Production Types:

The type of production and items being produced are dependent on the homeowner/users

ambitions/goals. Chickens, fish, and/or fruit and vegetables could be produced or managed.

These activities could be primarily within a greenhouse, a plot or multiple of pots, raised beds

or a combination of these and others.

Designers Role:

The designer would be able to assist in constructing or developing plans for a private

residence. Plans could be created that best utilize the entire property for food production.

Examples: using permaculture techniques to maximize production, rainwater harvesting,

circulation amongst production plots, or rotation plans. He/she could assist in developing

goals/objectives of an independent production operation.



figure 13



+Community/Allotment Garden


Managed by a neighborhood organization. Plots rented to community members and managed

independently by renter. Rents are paid annually and set by the neighborhood organization incharge of management. The neighborhood organization will follow rules and guidelines created

by the local CADC.

Location/Scale:

The site of a community/allotment garden would be equal or less than ½ an acre. The site

could be on private property, within a public park, on vacant land, or a school yard.


A community/allotment garden would characterized by a multiple of individual plots ranging

within a variety of scales. Plots are rented on an annual growing year for the private use of the

renter. Tools, storage, and composting would be managed independently or collectively based

on the structure created at the time of implementation of the community/allotment garden.

Water access and security would be provided as part of the annual fee to rent a plot. Security

would be provided by fencing and locked gates.

Production Types:

The plot could consist of food production and/or an ornamental garden. Production wouldbe within raised beds, plots, pots and/or on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed

independently for personal consumption/revenue or the community/allotment garden user

population could collectively market products for revenue.

Designers Role:

The designers role would be to assist in locating an appropriate site for a community/allotment

garden. Plans would be created based on the neighborhood organization’s goals/objectives

or their garden space. The designer would organize the growing techniques, circulation,

materials, hardware and storage and composting systems.



figure 14



+Food Blvd


Managed by a municipal, neighborhood or non-profit organization. Plots rented to community

members or local producer and managed independently by renter.

Location/Scale:

A food blvd is a street retrofitted or designed as a productive landscape. Prime scenarios of

streets that could be retrofitted are not arterial streets, do not have parking along them, are

excessively wide, have excessive parking along them, or are streets where parking is located at

the rear of the property. The scale of the productive landscape is dependent on the scale of the

food blvd.


A food blvds function is to provide a source of circulation for pedestrians and cyclists in

addition to a continuous productive landscape. A food blvd is able to more intensively use

a linear landscape that is designed primarily for the car. A food blvd can consist of multiple

scales as long as production and both modes of transportation are able to coexist. Fencing

or other trespassing measures would be dependent on the designer and the client of the food

blvd. Vertical growing walls could be used in instead of fencing as an example of other options

to create boundaries separating the different users of the blvd. All fencing or barriers though

are required to be transparent to allow for clear site lines of activities. Small structures meetinglocal food production guidelines are allowed but are provided by the builder.

Production Types:

The plot could consist of food production and/or an ornamental garden. Production would

be within raised beds, plots, pots and/or on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed

independently for personal consumption/revenue or for commercial marketing by a local

producer. In order for a food blvd to be farmed commercially the production space must

be larger than ½ an acre. Dependent on the renter it would be their responsibility to supply

storage, tools, and composting facilities. Water access would be provided as part of the

design of the food blvd.

Designers Role:

The designer’s role in retrofitting streets would be to actively search out prime cases and

prepare plans for the local CADC. Designers and developers would have the responsibility to

implement food boulevards. Cycle and pedestrian lanes, fencing and/or other mechanisms of

creating edges to the production spaces are the responsibility of the developer and designer.



figure 15



+Institution

Non-profit Institution

User/Producer/Stakeholder:Owned/rented by a non-profit organization. Production is managed and organized by the non-

profit organization that owns/rents the land or in agreement with a local producer.

Location/Scale:

A non-profit productive landscape is a productive landscape that is either owned or rented by

a non-profit organization. Dependent on the goals/objectives of the non-profit organization the

amount of production will be determined.

Characteristics/Scenario:A non-profit organization’s goal/objectives of food production would be based on the mission

of the association. After submission of a tax-exempt status, a cer tification as a non-profit, it is

the organization’s responsibility to provide programs and services that are of public benefit that

are not otherwise provided by local, state or federal entities. Examples of possible services

would be farmer training, home food processing/cooking training, or housing. In addition to

these services the non-profit would produce foods and/or materials that would be consumed

internally or externally for example through a CSA.

Production Types:

Production would be within hot houses, rotational plots, aquaculture, raised beds, pots and/

or on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed independently for internal consumption

or for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers market or a local food market. It would

be the non-profit organization’s responsibility to supply water, storage, tools, and composting

facilities.

Designers Role:

The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance and help in securing funding for operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the NPO. The plans would

layout the production operations dependent on the types of production.



Religious Institution


Owned by a religious organization. All production is managed and organized by the religious

institution and/or a local producer or other joint stakeholder organization.

Location/Scale:

A religious productive landscape is a productive landscape that is part of a religious

institution’s grounds. Dependent on the goals/objectives of the institution the amount of

production will be determined. In order for a local producer to have all or some part of theresponsibilities in managing production the site must be greater than ½ an acre.


A religious organization’s goal/objectives of food production will determine the scale of

production possibly determined by how the produce will be marketed and/or consumed. The

institution could also provide the services of farmer training, home food processing/cooking

training just as a non-profit organization. Produce foods and/or materials that would be

consumed internally or externally for example through a CSA.

Production Types:

Production would be within hot houses, rotational plots, aquaculture, raised beds, pots and/or

on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed independently for internal consumption or

for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers market or local food market. It would be

the organization’s responsibility to supply water, storage, tools, and composting facilities.

Designers Role:

The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance and help in securing funding for operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the organization. The

plans would layout the operations dependent on the types of production.



Education Institution


Owned by a private/public school/university. All production is managed and organized by the

institution and/or a local producer or other joint stakeholder organization.

Location/Scale:

A school/university productive landscape is part of the institution’s land. Dependent on the

goals/objectives of the institution the amount of production will be determined. In order for a

local producer to have all or some part of the responsibilities in managing production the sitemust be greater than ½ an acre.


The school/university goal and objectives of food production will determine the scale of

production by how the produce will be marketed and/or consumed. The institution could also

provide services for example as farmer training or home food processing/cooking training.

Produce foods and/or materials would be consumed externally or for example internally in a

school dining center.

Production Types:

Production would be within hot houses, rotational plots, aquaculture, raised beds, pots and/or

on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed independently for internal consumption or

for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers market or local food market. It would be

the organization’s responsibility to supply water, storage, tools, and composting facilities.

Designers Role:

The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance and help in securing funding for

operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the school. The plans

would layout the operations dependent on the types of production.



figure 16



figure 17



+Neighborhood Farm


Owned by a neighborhood organization, local institution, municipality or private landowner. All

production is managed and organized by a local producer.

Location/Scale:

A neighborhood farm ranges between 1-3 ½ acres or equal to a city block. The farm would be

located within a residential neighborhood.


A neighborhood farm would be a source of food production and recreation. Playgrounds and

sports courts/fields would be required per neighborhood farm. Community members would be

allowed to assist in production with the local producer. Annual neighborhood organization dues

would supplement operation costs of the farm.

Production Types:


or on vertical surfaces. Production would not be limited to crops but also small livestock (ex:

poultry). Production could be managed for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers

market or local food market. It would be the farm’s responsibility to supply water, storage,

tools, and composting facilities.

Designers Role:

The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance and help in securing funding

for operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the neighborhood

organization and local producer. The plans would layout the operations dependent on the types

of production.



figure 18



+Urban Farm


Owned by a local institution municipal government or local landowner. All production is

managed and organized by a local producer.

Location/Scale:

A city farm would be greater than 3 ½ acres or a city block. The farm would be located within

diverse urban area of multiple land uses. This would provide equal access by community

members and provide a substantial amount of fresh produce and goods to the community.


A city farm would be a source of food production and as a center for a farmers market or local

food processing hub. Playgrounds, sports courts/fields, trails, and other recreation could beadditional amenities per city farm. The local producer and farm management staff would be

in control of all operations. Annual municipal taxes would supplement operation costs of the

farm.

Production Types:


or on vertical surfaces. Production would not be limited to crops but also small livestock

(ex: poultry and sheep). Production would be managed for commercial marketing as part of

a farmers market or local food market. It would be the farm’s responsibility to supply water,

storage, tools, and composting facilities.

Designers Role:

The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance for all operations. Plans would be

created based on the goals/objectives of the farm management staff and municipal agriculture

department. The plans would layout the operations dependent on the types of production.



figure 19



community memberconsumers

local producer

urban market/ coop/grocery store/

restaurant/processing

market/distribution channels

institution institution

allotment/ community garden

urban/neighborhood farm

The proposed urban food system flow diagram represents how implementation of the

urban food system typology would increase food access points for community members.

Community members would have the option to purchase food directly from the farmer at the

farm store or by a share in a CSA. The consumer could also buy food at a neighborhood or

urban farm of their choice. The consumer could then also go to their favorite grocery storeor farmer’s market just as they do today. In the proposed food system there will be a greater

quality of local products since local producers, neighborhood farms, urban farms, institutions,

and allotment renters all have the ability to market their goods at a store.

By increasing the number of access points of fresh products food insecurity will be reduced

and food deserts will disappear. The transparency and resiliency of the local food system will

be much stronger than the current conventional food system.

optional

direct

distribution/ markets

typology

privateresidence

garden

community/ allotment

garden food blvd. institutionreligious/education/ non-profit

neighborhoodfarm urban farm

proposed urban food system flow diagram

distribution/markets of urban food system types

figure 20



the urban food system typology in the futureurban fabric

Market Blvds would be implemented before new development begins. The market blvds would

be implemented by the local CADC along with sewers and storm systems. Developers would

be required to pay up-front for any infrastructure costs. Within new development all developers

would be required to implement the urban food system typology and the typology of circulation

within the future urban fabric. The local CADC would create new guidelines for private

development. (Ex: New urban private developments must provide growing plots for more than

50% of all residential units that do not have access to 100 sq ft of private outdoor space (City

of Vancouver, B.C.)). The following typology of streets would fit within a block structure of

250’wide blocks for pedestrian and bicyclist circulation and 500’ wide blocks for auto and

transit circulation. Pages 51-58 represent the urban food system typology implemented into

the typology of circulation within the urban fabric of a hypothetical site.

Typology of Circulation

Market blvd– major ar terial for transit, emergency, and bicyclist circulation incorporated along

a continuous productive landscape organized into community/allotment gardens and/or plots

managed by local producers. Outdoor markets and activities associated are the core of market

blvds.

Major Arterial – for auto and transit circulation; typical section dependent on traffic capacity

Minor Arterial – for auto, transit and bicyclist; typical section – two lanes + bike lanes; max.

speed 35 mph

Local Street – local auto and bicyclist; circulation barriers limit use of local street to auto for

more than four blocks; typical section – one-two lanes + bike lanes; max. speed 25 mph

Food Blvd – pedestrian and bicyclist; food blvds function is to provide a source of circulation

for pedestrians and cyclists in addition create a connection to the nearest market blvd.



m a

r k e t b l v d

m o d e o f

t r a n s p o r t i o n

l e v e l o f t r a f f i c

m a x s p e e d

s t r e e t c r o s s

s e c t i o n

p e d e s t r i a n

p r o d u c t i o n

b i c y c l e l a n e

t r a n s i t / a u t o l a n e

l a n d s c a p e d m e d i a n

m a j o r a r t

e r i a l

m i n o r a r t e r i a l

l o c a l s t r e e t

f o o d b l v d

b i c y c l e +

p e d

e s t r i a n

c i r c u l a t i o n

2 5 0 ’

a u t o +

t r a n s i t

c i r c u l a t i o n 5 0 0 ’

2 5 m p h

4 5 m p h

3 5 m p h

2 5 m p h

typology of circulation within the future urban fabric figure 21



The circulation diagram above for the typology of circulation represents the levels of traffic

intensity on each type of circulation. By implementing this typology the core of the 250’

blocks is much more pedestrian friendly. The food blvds are protected from vehicular trafficand create a continuous landscape that connects areas of the community together create a

walkable community. The food blvds, local streets, and market blvds would provide safe routes

to school. The diagram represents how a market blvd is the core of pedestrian and bicyclist

circulation. Each are able to safely reach a market blvd with very little confrontation with cars.

major arterial

minor arterial

food blvd

food blvd

minor arterial

local street

local street

minor arterial

m a j o r a r t e r i a l

m a r k e t b l v d

figure 22



The market blvd as the core of the typology of circulation would become the core of the urban

food system and would guide new development. By implementing market blvds as a piece of

leading infrastructure in new development it would have the same impact as a transit orienteddevelopment but also be productive. The level of activity would be consistent to that of a busy

business district, bike path, and linear park like that along the Lea River navigational channel in

East London.

figure 23



Just as important as any piece of the urban food system typology guidelines would require that

private development use edible landscaping and provide private outdoor space to a required

percent of residential units. Private residence owners could supplement their vegetables andfruits with those they grow in their own yard.

figure 24



Just as guidelines for new development would require a set percent to be for private outdoor

use; community gardens could be a form of this requirement. Community/allotment gardens

would allow individuals to work and socialize together while working on each others plots.

figure 25



The food blvd is the heart and soul of the pedestrian and bicyclist movement. Instead of

walking along a busy street and a harsh building edge pedestrians can follow a food blvd and

purchase items at market stands along the food blvd. The food blvd would create a safe routefor children walking to school.

figure 26



The urban farm would be like a city park with bike trails, wildlife areas, playgrounds, and active

recreation fields and courts. As part of these activities food production would be intermixed in

the web of activities. A family would be able to spend an entire day at an urban farm because they could have breakfast at the restaurant in the farm and spend time helping the farmer pick

apples in the morning and then play soccer as part of an organized league in the afternoon.

figure 29



Every piece of the urban food system typology implemented together in this diagram begins to

represent the continuous productive urban landscape that begins to form. Forget the car today

and maybe the bus and walk over to the community garden and work for an hour and thenbike along the food blvd and hit up Gary’s market along the market blvd since he said he would

have carrots this morning.

figure 30



calculating the potential of an urban system basedon yield + scale of production

calculating the potential of an urban system basedon demand + yield ratiocalculation based on a 5 acre urban farm

37 lbs

p o t a t o e s

37 lbs

p o t a t o e s

t o m a t o e s

20 lbs

t o m a t o e s

20 lbs

1 acre yields 13,333 lbs

= 11% of 5 acres will be dedicated togrowing potatoes

= 200 people

= 200 people

.55 acres x 13,333 lbs/acre = 7,333 lbs

.1 acres x 44,444 lbs/acre = 4,444 lbs

= 2% of 5 acres will be dedicated togrowing potatoes

=

=

.002790

.000448

1 acre yields 44,444 lbs

-252 people

414 more peopleneeded to be marketed

to sell remaining

tomatoes before

spoiling

666 people

demand/capita

demand/capita

1 acre yields 44,444 lbs.3 acre yields13,333 lbs

13,333 lbs / 20 lbs = 666 people

capita

1 acre yields 13,333 lbs.7 acre yields 9,333 lbs

9,333 lbs / 37 lbs = 252 peoplecapita

37 lbscapita acre

13,333 lbs /

20 lbscapita acre

44,444 lbs /

capitaacre

capitaacre

.026430capitaacre

.026430capitaacre

37 lbs/capita

20 lbs/capita

Total capita/acre

Total capita/acre

figure 31



189 PEOPLE

5 acre urban farm

2.5 acre neighborhood farm

300 square feet allotment

112 PEOPLE

.4 PEOPLE

the potential of a urban farm + neighborhood farm +allotment garden figure 32



112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112 112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112112

112

112112

112

112

112

112

112

189189

189189189

189

189

189

189

189

189

189

189189

189

189

= 23,124 population supported by urban farms and neighborhood farms

neighborhood farm2.5 acres

urban farm

5 acres

population 54,745 (2007)

- population in ISU residence halls 8,500= population minus ISU halls 46,245

x 50% of population

x 50%

= 11,562 capita supported by urban farms

/ 189 captia supported per urban farm

= 62 urban farms

x 5 acres per urban farm

= 310 acres dedicated to urban farms

= 11,562 capita supported by neighborhood farms

/ 112 captia supported per neighborhood farm

= 103 neighborhood farms

x 2.5 acres per neighborhood farm

* calculations do not include community plots within community gardensand food blvds. plus private residence gardens

= 258 acres dedicated to neighborhood farms

= 568 acres dedicated to urban and neighborhood farmsto support 50% of the population of Ames minus ISU residence hallswith their annual fruit and vegetables

The graphics on page 61 represent the potential of a 5 acre urban farm, 2.5 acre neighborhoodfarm and a 300 sq foot community garden plot. Calculations were based on the demand and

yield ratio example from page 60 and were based on the fruits and vegetables represented

within the graphic on page 61. These calculations represent a large potential of both the urban

and neighborhood farm and support the assumption that a 300 sq foot community garden

would only be able to provide just below half of the vegetables needed by an individual.

The graphic below represents how the potential of the urban and neighborhood farm can be

used to inform an urban food systems potential. The city of Ames’ 2007 population minus

the approximate 8,500 students that live within ISU dorms, was 46,245. thus to support 50%

of the population of Ames with fruit and vegetables there would need to be approximately 62

urban farms and 103 neighborhoods; assuming that half of the produce is grown at urban

farms and half at neighborhood farms. These farms would require approximately 570 acres of

land within the city limits.

figure 33



P III: urban food systemproposals and case studies



proposals of the urban food system typology in the urbancase study

Within the theory of food urbanism, the urban food system typology and the typology of

circulation both form the guidelines and backbone to a community’s organization that is

related to food. The following proposals are examples of the implementation of the urban food

system typology and typology of circulation. The proposals are focused within the Somerset

neighborhood in Northwest Ames. Guidelines and plans provide an example of how UA can

be established in new urban development. This example is a representation of how the foodrelates to the organization of new development. The proposals are signs of how development

could progress north and west on the urban fringe of Ames and be guided by UA guidelines.

The plan of Somerset on the following page diagrammatically inserts the urban food system

typology. Stange Rd has been retrofitted into a market blvd with public transportation and

bicyclists commuting along the production plots managed by urban farmers and community

members. The new residential development north of Aspen Road and west of Stange Rd has

been developed along food blvds where community members are managing plots they rent

annually. The food blvds provide safe routes to the proposed elementary school in the heartof Somerset. Children during science, history and health class could use the neighborhood

farm to learn about the natural cycles of the earth, agriculture and where their food comes

from. The community garden at Northridge parkway and Northridge lane is managed by the

neighborhood organization made up by the residents that live within the condos, townhomes,

and apartments in the southwest corner of Somerset.

George Washington Carver Ave and Bloomington Rd are major arterials directing auto traffic

along with the minor arterials of Northridge Pkwy, Aspen Rd, and Stange Rd. Local streetswithin the residential area are local traffic only because of limited access from major arterials

and minor arterials. Bicyclists and pedestrians are still able to circulate along the food

blvds and market blvds. As new development progresses north across Bloomington Rd the

extension of food blvds and Stange Market Blvd will create the framework that development

will infill around.



the urban food system in 2025

There are many activities happening today Friday June 5th

near the intersection of Stange Market Blvd and Kingston

Food Blvd. Stange is the center of activity in Ames from the

beginning of spring to the first snow fall of the year. The core

of the all the activities are the urban farmers and community

members growing fruits and vegetables for personal

consumption and/or commercial resale in the urban food

system.

The urban farmers are managing parcels half an acre

or larger and processing their crops in their own market

building. The farmer and their staff are washing the produce

and then canning, drying or freezing items. As community

members circulate along the bike trails and food blvds they

can stop at the market and purchase items from the urban

farmer. The urban farmer though also sells his products at the grocery store across the street from his parcel. There is

no need for any truck because his garden cart is faster.

Across the food blvd’s bike path community members, that

rent plots, have organized themselves into a CSA. Today

they are picking the weekly shares for their members to pick

up in a couple of hours. Each of their 10 plots of 300 sq ft

are producing about 10 different items from salad greens,

onions, tomatoes, and eggplant. As part of their rental fee

they use a small space in the storage building to wash all

their produce and box it up in the CSA crates. When their

CSA members pick up their crates they will bring back an

empty crate in exchange of the new weekly share.

Its about 10 am this Friday morning. Bicyclist and CyRide

buses have been going up and down Stange just on the

k i n g s t o n

f o o

d b l v d

0

5

1 0

2 0 f t

k i n g s t o n s t r e e t

S t a n g e

R o a

d

s t o r m w a t e r / v e g e t a t i o n

b u

f f e r

v e g e t a

b l e s

/ f r u i t t r e e s

p r o c e s s

i n g

/ s t o r a g e

/

m a r k e t s t a n

d

S T A N G E M A R K E T B L V D + K

I N G S T O N F O O D B L V D

s e c t i o n

A A

figure 37



p e

d e s t r

i a n

p e

d e s t r i a n

b i k e t r a

i l

p r o

d u c t i o n

/ p r o c e s s

i n g

/ m a r k e t s t a n

d

h o u s

i n g

/ o f f i c e

/ c o m m e r c

i a l

h

o u s

i n g

/ o f f i c e

/ c o m m e r c

i a l

0

2

4

8 f t

K I N G S T O N F O O D B L V D

s e c t i o n

B B

other side of the vegetated stormwater buffer. The buffer

helps catch any emissions that may drift from the street and

it also helps capture all the stormwater from the surrounding

streets and buildings. The buffer sure makes the production

plots a lot quieter and attracts a lot of bird species andwildlife.

Tomorrow is our annual beginning of the summer

community food festival. The festival is meant to celebrate

the new year and meet the urban farmers that are farming

along the market blvds, food blvds, and city farms. The

CADC holds community garden clean up days throughout

the year and tomorrow they are having their second of the

year. Tomorrow’s clean up day will be meant to clean up

any waste from the year’s first crops and condense all

the compost in the community at a few of the city farms.

Community members and urban farmers all are able to get

compost from the CADC throughout the year that has been

collected.

Saturdays are always very busy on the market blvd. The

blvd is a continuous landscape that families and individualsbike and walk along. The blvd is a safe route to the city

farms, parks and schools where the more active recreation

activities are centered. Today Saturday June 6 as part of the

festival the food blvds are busy with community members

selling produce at the stands. Small market buildings can

be rented from the CADC to sell produce to community

members. Today though as par t of the festival CADC

removes the fee to rent the small market buildings so many

community members rent them together in advance.

Every Saturday morning is the same. When you walk done

the market blvd cafes and restaurants have their doors

open and have set up tables and chairs outdoors. You can

smell the sweet butter milk pancakes and peppery sausage.

The smells always seem much richer when the milk and

sausage are grown on the urban farms from the peri-urban

figure 38



fruit trees

managed byurban farme

Stange Roadpublic transportation + bicyclists only

composting

community plots

rentable market

stand storage + processing +market stand

Kingston Food Blvdprocessing +storage

STANGE MARKETBLVD+ KINGSTONFOOD BLVD

looking west

The perspective aboverepresents Stange Road.The current road wouldbe retrofitted into marketblvd in Somerset fromNorthridge Pkwy toBloomington Rd. Theroad would then continuenorth from Bloomingtonas a backbone thatdevelopment would

follow. Community plotswould be created andrented by individualsannually and .5 acre andlarger parcels would bemanaged for commercialproduction by new urbanfarmers.

edges of the city. At the peri-urban edge livestock and small grains are

produced. Today though because of the festival the streets and businesses are overflowing

with community members. Farmers are giving tours and children are running up and down

the rows of carrots, lettuce and cabbage. Most of the community members always go to

one neighborhood farm or urban farm. As community members part of their taxes go to

support the farmers at these farms. The tours allow community members to meet their

farmers and create a relationship with each other.

For the rest of the morning community members will be coming and going from the local

cafes and restaurants and visiting with community members and farmers at the small

market stands along the market blvd and food blvds. Today as part of the festival the

afternoon is filled with events from the clean up day to sports games at the neighborhood

farm and school. Within the neighborhood along the food blvds neighborhood organizationshave recently in the last two years created block garden parties. Many of the blocks have

organized themselves and have been holding these parties to show off their beautiful

gardens and in some cases sell many of their products that they are growing in their

gardens. Colors along the food blvds are vibrant blues, pinks, yellows and violets.

Community members have begun to market fresh cut flowers and many individuals along

the blocks have even created businesses out their own backyards.

figure 39



washing station +

tool storage

300 sq ft

community plots

pedestrians +bicyclists only

private production

plotscompostingprivate lots

private fruit trees

private storage

KINGSTON FOOD

BLVD

looking west

The perspective belowrepresents the foodblvd connecting StangeRoad with the proposedresidential development

in Somerset. The foodboulevard is onlyfor pedestrians andbicyclists. Communityplots would be createdalong the boulevard tobe rented by individualsannually.

You would think that you were in a ghost town on the weekends if you would happen to

drive down one the streets. During the weekend when families are not off to work or school

the food blvds and market blvds are the primary route to and from places either by bike or

walking. The paths are lined with edible landscaping such as gooseberries and apples trees

5 years ago the CADC had inventoried all the fruit trees in the city. Community memberscan list their fruit trees so that others may come and share in on the harvest every year.

During the week you can always pick out the urban farmers because during the weekend

these parcels become empty and the community gardens are crawling with members

managing their plots. The food blvd is a linear community garden. Within the food blvd

members are able to share tools or bring their own. Washing stations and composting

areas are provided for members to share. The community garden is basically the same

except all the storage and processing happens in one building. Plots are 300 sq ft or larger

so that community members can choose how large of plot they would like to have. All

the rents each year support the upkeep of the community gardens such as new raised

beds, weed control, and new tools. The community gardens are ran by the neighborhood

figure 40



case studies of city + county + state policiesand guidelines of local food systems

The City of Vancouver, B.C. and Cleveland are important case studies to be evaluated when

developing urban food system policies and guidelines. The City of Vancouver intiated their

policies early while Cleveland has just recently enacted their programs out of response to the

enormous amount of urban agriculture occurring voluntarily and the amount of vacant land

within the city.

Vancouver, B.C.

The city of Vancouver is a leader in the local food system movement because of their

municipal supported urban agriculture. Their intiative began in 2003 with the Food Policy Task

Force that was given the task of developing a Food Action Plan to foster the development of a

just and sustainable food system for the City of Vancouver. The first action item that the task

force recommended to the city was the creation of their first elected Food Policy Council. In the

2004 the council began to integrate and build upon items in the Food Action Plan. Their first

step was the creation of the Vancouver Food Charter that identified the five principles of the

cities food system (Council 2007,2).

Community Economic Development•

Ecological Health•

Social Justice•

Collaboration and Participation•

Celebration•

Recently in 2009 the Managing Director of Social Development and Director of Planningalong with Manager of Sustainability and the Director of Development Services recommended

to the City Council to approve their urban agriculture guidelines for the private realm. At the

time two developments were encouraging urban agriculture thus the city felt it was important

to have guidelines for future developments and to require private outdoor space for residential

units. The guidelines specified specific design considerations, facilities, number and size of

plots, and plant species as part of edible landscaping (Services, 2009).



The following is Design Considerations 3.1.3 Number and Size of Garden Plots

A: Where a consolidated common outdoor amenity space is provided, garden plots should be

provided for 30% of the residential units that do not have access to private outdoor space of

more than 100 square feet.

ClevelandThe City of Cleveland has acted out of response and concern of the thousands of acres of

vacant land and the enormous potential that urban agriculture has shown in the city. The city’s

first policy enacted was meant to protect the current urban agriculture activities in the city. The

city thus established the Urban Garden District Zoning Code to unsure that urban agriculture

is “appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local food production, community

health, community education, garden-related job training, environmental enhancement,

preservation of green space, and community enjoyment on sites for which urban gardens

represent the highest and best use for the community” (Cleveland, 2008).

The following is an excerpt from the city’s zoning code.

336.01 Urban Garden District

The “Urban Garden District” is hereby established as part of the Zoning Code to ensure

that urban garden areas are appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local

food production, community health, community education, garden-related job training,

environmental enhancement, preservation of green space, and community enjoyment on sites

for which urban gardens represent the highest and best use for the community.(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.02 Definitions

(a) “Community garden” means an area of land managed and maintained by a group of

individuals to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as

flowers, for personal or group use, consumption or donation. Community gardens may

be divided into separate plots for cultivation by one or more individuals or may be farmed

collectively by members of the group and may include common areas maintained and used by

group members.

(b) “Market garden” means an area of land managed and maintained by an individual or group

of individuals to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as

flowers, to be sold for profit.

(c) “Greenhouse” means a building made of glass, plastic, or fiberglass in which plants are

cultivated.



(d) “Hoophouse” means a structure made of PVC piping or other material covered with

translucent plastic, constructed in a “half-round” or “hoop” shape.

(e) “Coldframe” means an unheated outdoor structure consisting of a wooden or concrete

frame and a top of glass or clear plastic, used for protecting seedlings and plants from the

cold.(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.03 Permitted Main Uses

Only the following main uses shall be permitted in an Urban Garden District:

(a) community gardens which may have occasional sales of items grown at the site;

(b) market gardens, including the sale of crops produced on the site.

(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.04 Permitted Accessory Uses

Only the following accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in an Urban Garden

District:

(a) greenhouses, hoophouses, cold-frames, and similar structures used to extend the growing

season;

(b) open space associated with and intended for use as garden areas;

(c) signs limited to identification, information and directional signs, including sponsorship

information where the sponsorship information is clearly secondary to other permitted

information on any particular sign, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05;

(d) benches, bike racks, raised/accessible planting beds, compost bins, picnic tables,

seasonal farm stands, fences, garden art, rain barrel systems, chicken coops, beehives, and

children’s play areas;

(e) buildings, limited to tool sheds, shade pavilions, barns, rest-room facilities with

composting toilets, and planting preparation houses, in conformance with the regulations of

Section 336.05.

(f) off-street parking and walkways, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05.

(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)

336.05 Supplemental Regulations



Uses and structures in an Urban Garden District shall be developed and maintained in

accordance with the following regulations.

(a) Location. Buildings shall be set back from property lines of a Residential District a

minimum distance of five (5) feet.

(b) Height. No building or other structure shall be greater than twenty-five (25) feet in height.

(c) Building Coverage. The combined area of all buildings, excluding greenhouses and

hoophouses, shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the garden site lot area.

(d) Parking and Walkways. Off-street parking shall be permitted only for those garden sites

exceeding 15,000 square feet in lot area. Such parking shall be limited in size to ten percent

(10%) of the garden site lot area and shall be either unpaved or surfaced with gravel or similar

loose material or shall be paved with pervious paving material. Walkways shall be unpaved

except as necessary to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.

(e) Signs. Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area per side and shall not exceed six

(6) feet in height.

(f) Seasonal Farm Stands. Seasonal farm stands shall be removed from the premises or

stored inside a building on the premises during that time of the year when the garden is not

open for public use.

(g) Fences. Fences shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, shall be at least fifty percent

(50%) open if they are taller than four (4) feet, and shall be constructed of wood, chain link,

or ornamental metal. For any garden that is 15,000 square feet in area or greater and is in

a location that is subject to design review and approval by the City Planning Commission

or Landmarks Commission, no fence shall be installed without review by the City Planning

Director, on behalf of the Commission, who may confer with a neighborhood design review

committee. If one exists, so that best efforts are taken to ensure that the fence is compatible

in appearance and placement with the character of nearby properties.

(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07

In addition to the Department of Planning that intiated the new zoning code last year the

Department of Economic Development just began a new program titled “Gardening to

Greenbacks” The program is meant to provide low interest loans and grants up to $3,000 for

members of farmer cooperatives and other community supported agriculture programs that

produce and sell local food. The grants are meant to assist in start up costs that may include

tools, irrigation systems, rain barrels, greenhouses and signage (Development, 2009).



definitions

agricultural conservation easements - deed restrictions landowners voluntarily place on their property to keep land available for agriculture

agricultural urbanism - prescribes the full integration of the agri-food system within theplanning, design, development and function of cities and vice-versa. Agricultural Urbanism isa mechanism to connect urbanites to their environment and to their agri-food system, reduce their dependence on an ecologically unsound and increasingly vulnerable global-scale agrifood

system and create a significant regional economic sector. (Kent Mullinix 2008)

city manager - appoints all department heads and is responsible to the city council for proper administration of all city business and for all the annual budget; hired by the city council (cityof Ames)

community agriculture and design center (CADC) - the organization/department thatwould have jurisdiction over developing an urban food system; duties and responsibilitieswould be to develop UA proposals, strategize with existing stake holders, provide technicaldesign assistance and provide grants and funding to institutions, grocers, neighborhood

organizations, individual community members, local producers and municipal departments

community design center - non-profit organization that offers grants and technical assistance to help organizations/individuals/neighborhoods use professional architectural and planningservices (Pittsburgh CDC)

community supported agriculture (CSA) - form of marketing by a producer where a familyor individual purchases a share annually at the time of planting in return for a share during theharvest each week; producer and shareholders shares the risk together in this agreement

continuous landscape - a network of planted open spaces in a city which are literally spatiallycontinuous, such as linear parks or inter connected open spaces that are virtually car freeallowing for bicyclists and pedestrian movement (Andre Viljoen 2005)

continuous production - community scale; all individuals managing community gardens up tourban commercial farms are involved in food production, processing and marketing

market blvd - a form of circulation within an urban community specially for public transportation and/or bicyclists and pedestrians; this form of circulation is incorporated with a



continuous productive landscape managed by individuals and/or local producers

food access - both geographical and monetary degree of access to food, determined byincome, supply, transport, storage and other factors (Andre Viljoen 2005)

food council - group of stakeholders that provides support to governments and citizens indeveloping policy and programs related to the local food supply

food district - geographical sector of an urban community centered around the facilitiesand activities of production and processing including retail, institutions, education, office,architectural and landscape character and community events

food miles - the average distance that food travels from field to plate

food security - giving populations both economic and physical access to a supply of food,sufficient in both quality and quantity social level and income (Andre Viljoen 2005)

food urbanism - how food relates to the organization of a city and how it becomesinfrastructure that transforms the urban experience

land trust - an agreement where by one party (trustee) agrees to hold ownership of a piece ofreal property for the benefit of another party (beneficiary)

local food system - chain of activities connecting food production, processing, distribution,consumption and waste management including the regulatory institutions and activities

non-profit organization (NPO) - solely to provide programs and services that are of publicbenefit that are otherwise not provided by local, state and federal entities

peri-urban agriculture - agriculture occurring on the urban/rural fringe of a city usually atlarger scales than urban agriculture

urban agriculture (UA) - high yield market gardens for fruit and vegetable growing foundon the ground rooftops, facades and fences sometimes including nuts, timber, animals, andaquaculture



bibliographyAdams, Don, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of Full Circle Farm (November 6, 2008).

Andre Viljoen, Katrin Bohn and Joe Howe. Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing UrbanAgriculture for Sustainable Cities. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005.

Bailkey, Martin. A Study of the Contexts within which Urban Vacant Land is Accessed for CommunityOpen Space. Dissertation, Madison: ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 2003.

Benson, Jeff, interview by Jason Grimm. City of Ames Planning and Housing: Planner (October 23,2008).

Bhattarya, Shefali. Strategy for Identifying and Evaluating Sites for Urban Agriculture: A Case Study ofGainesville, FL. Dissertation, Gainesville: University of Florida, 2005.

Black, Norine, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of Blacks Heritage Farm (November 4, 2008).

Bowman, Ann O’M. Terra Incognita: Vacant Land and Urban Strategies. Washington D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity Press, 2004.

Burkhart, Jeff and Jill, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Picket Fence Creamery (October 5, 2008).

Cleveland, City of. Chapter 336 Urban Garden District. June 30, 2008. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ clevelandcodes/cco_part3_336.html (accessed March 25, 2009).

Council, Vancouver Food Policy. Vancouver Food Charter: Context and Background. professional report,Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2007.

DeMoss, Richard, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of DeMoss Pumpkin Farm (November 1, 2008).Department, Story County Planning and Zoning. The Story County Local Food System. ProfessionalReport, Nevada: Story County Planning and Zoning Department, 2008.

Development, City of Cleveland Department of Economic. Small Businesses and Retail. 2009. http:// www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/EconomicDevelopment/SmallBusinessandRetail#gardening (accessed March 25, 2009).

Development, North Central Regional Center for Rural. Community Capitals. June 23, 2008. http:// www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/commcap/7capitals.htm (accessed November 11, 2008).

Girardet, Herbert. Cities People Planet. Chicheaster: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2004.

GRACE. Sustainable Table. 2008. http://www.sustainabletable.org (accessed November 10, 2008).

Group, Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting. Examing the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health inChicago. professional report, Chicago: LaSalle Bank, 2006.

Guthrie, Gary and Nancy, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Growing Harmony Farm (November 11, 2008).

Hofstrand, Eugene Takle and Don. Global warming - agriculture’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.April 2008. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/TakApr08.html (accessed December 3, 2008).



Kent Mullinix, Deborah Henderson, Mark Holland, Janine de la Salle, Edward Porter, and PatriciaFleming. Agricultural Urbanism and Municipal Supported Agriculture: A New Food System Path for Sustainable Cities. professional repor t, Vancouver B.C.: Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2008.

Kulikowski, Dr. Ron Wimberley and Mick. “Mayday 23: World population becomes more urban thanrural.” NC State University News Service, May 22, 2007.

Lindsey, Rebecca. Looking for Lawns. scholarly report, California: NASA’s Ames Research Center,2005.

Lynch, Joe and Lonna, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Onion Creek Farm (Oct 29, 2008).

Mitchell, Stacy. Big-Box Swindle: the true cost of mega-retailers and the fight for America’s independentbusinesses. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

Newstrom, Ryan, interview by Jason Grimm. Story County, Iowa: County Planner/Long Range PlanningManager (October 23, 2008).

Pirog, Rich. Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, andgreenhouse gas emissions. Scholarly Report, Ames: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2001.

Pollen, Michael. “Farmer in Chief.” New York Times, October 10, 2008.

Rinehart, Greg, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of Rinehart’s Family Farm (November 1, 2008).

Services, City of Vancouver Community. Urban Agriculture Guidelines for the Private Realm.professional report, Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2009.

Shawgo, Steve, interview by Jason Grimm. City of Ames Parks and Recreation: Super Intendent ofParks (October 23, 2008).

Singh, Craig Palosky and Rakesh. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. September 24, 2008. http:// www.kff.org/newsroom/ehbs092408.cfm (accessed March 24, 2009).

Swenson, Dave. The Economic Impacts of Increased Fruit and Vegetable Production and Consumptionin Iowa: Phase II. Scholarly Report, Ames: Regional Food Systems Working Group: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2006.

Wilber, Scott and Julie, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Wilber’s Northside Market (October 7,2008).


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/food-urbanism 87/92a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 87 appendix b

1. What type of products do you produce or harvest on your land?

2. How many laborers do you require to manage your farm?

3. What type of markets do you sell your goods too?

4. Do your goods require any processing before resale? If so do you do your own

processing or do you take your goods somewhere else?

5. What infrastructure does your business require for you to plant, manage, harvest,

process, and market your goods?

6. How many acres of land or livestock are you able to manage?

7. In your first hand perspective what are the hardest issues local farmers are being faced

with?

8. Where do you produce your goods? Rural/Urban, Miles from market

9. If a RFP was sent out to local farmers to manage and harvest open space with an Iowa

Community what type of infrastructure would be required?

Local Producers



U r b a n F a r m

E n t e r T o t a l A c r e s A v a i l a b l e H e r e :

l b s / a c r e

l b s / c a p i t a

" c a p i t a " / a c r e

% o

f t o t a l a c r e s

a c r e

s d e d i c a t e d

p o u n d s p r o d u c e d

c o n s u m e r s n e e d e d

s q u a r e f e e t

d e d i c a t e d

P o t a t o e s

1 3 3 3 3

3 7 . 2

0 . 0

0 2 7 9 0

1 1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S w e e t P o t a t o e s

8 8 8 8

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 0 5 1 8

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

A s p a r a g u s

3 8 8 8

1 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 2 8 3

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

T o m a t o e s

4 4 4 4 4

1 9 . 9

0 . 0

0 0 4 4 8

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C a r r o t s

1 8 8 8 3

8 . 7

0 . 0

0 0 4 6 1

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

G r e e n B e a n s

1 3 3 3 3

2 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 8

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

E g g p l a n t

1 4 4 4 4

1

0 . 0

0 0 0 6 9

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

G a r l i c

3 8 8 8

2 . 8

0 . 0

0 0 7 2 0

3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

B e l l P e p p e r s

3 0 0 0

7

0 . 0

0 2 3 3 3

9 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

B r o c c o l i

1 2 0 0 0

6 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 5 0 8

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C a b b a g e

1 3 0 0 0

8 . 2

0 . 0

0 0 6 3 1

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C u c u m b e r s

8 0 0 0

6 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 7 8 8

3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C o l l a r d G r e e n s

3 3 3 3

0 . 5

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

K a l e

3 3 3 3

0 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 0 9 0

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

L e t t u c e ( l e a f )

3 3 3 3

1 5

0 . 0

0 4 5 0 0

1 7 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

M u s t a r d G r e e n s

3 3 3 3

0 . 4

0 . 0

0 0 1 2 0

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S p i n a c h

4 0 0 0

2

0 . 0

0 0 5 0 0

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

O n i o n s

1 6 0 0 0

1 9 . 8

0 . 0

0 1 2 3 8

5 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

R a d i s h e s

1 1 0 0 0

0 . 5

0 . 0

0 0 0 4 5

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C a u l i f l o w e r

1 3 0 0 0

1 . 7

0 . 0

0 0 1 3 1

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

P u m p k i n

2 0 0 0 0

4 . 8

0 . 0

0 0 2 4 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S q u a s h

1 5 0 0 0

5

0 . 0

0 0 3 3 3

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

B a s i l

2 0 0 0

0 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S n o w P e a s

1 2 2 2 2

3

0 . 0

0 0 2 4 5

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S w e e t C o r n

8 0 0 0

8 . 6

0 . 0

0 1 0 7 5

4 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

R a s p b e r r i e s

4 0 0 0

0 . 4

0 . 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

W a t e r m e l o n

3 0 0 0 0

1 5 . 9

0 . 0

0 0 5 3 0

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

A p p l e s

9 0 0 0

1 7 . 8

0 . 0

0 1 9 7 8

7 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

A p r i c o t s

6 4 5

0 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 5

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C h e r r i e s

1 0 5 3

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 4 3 6 8

1 7 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

P l u m s

5 0 0 0

1

0 . 0

0 0 2 0 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

P e a c h e s

8 0 0 0

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 0 5 7 5

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

2 6 4 3 0

1 0 0 %

T o t a l " c a p i t a " / a c r e

appendix c



N e i g h b o r h o o d F a r m

E n t e r T o t a l A c r e s A v a i l a b l e H e r e :

l b s / a c r e

l b s / c a p i t a


% o

f t o t a l a c r e s

a c r e s d e d i c a t e d

p o u n d s p r o d u c e d

c o n s u m

e r s n e e d e d

s q u a r e f e e t

d e d i c a t e d

P o t a t o e s

1 3 3 3 3

3 7 . 2

0 . 0

0 2 7 9 0

1 3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0


8 8 8 8

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 0 5 1 8

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

A s p a r a g u s

3 8 8 8

1 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 2 8 3

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

T o m a t o e s

4 4 4 4 4

1 9 . 9

0 . 0

0 0 4 4 8

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C a r r o t s

1 8 8 8 3

8 . 7

0 . 0

0 0 4 6 1

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

G r e e n B e a n s

1 3 3 3 3

2 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 8

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

E g g p l a n t

1 4 4 4 4

1

0 . 0

0 0 0 6 9

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

G a r l i c

3 8 8 8

2 . 8

0 . 0

0 0 7 2 0

3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0


3 0 0 0

7

0 . 0

0 2 3 3 3

1 1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

B r o c c o l i

1 2 0 0 0

6 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 5 0 8

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C a b b a g e

1 3 0 0 0

8 . 2

0 . 0

0 0 6 3 1

3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C u c u m b e r s

8 0 0 0

6 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 7 8 8

4 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0


3 3 3 3

0 . 5

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

K a l e

3 3 3 3

0 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 0 9 0

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0


3 3 3 3

1 5

0 . 0

0 4 5 0 0

2 0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0


3 3 3 3

0 . 4

0 . 0

0 0 1 2 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S p i n a c h

3 3 3 3

2

0 . 0

0 0 6 0 0

3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

O n i o n s

1 6 0 0 0

1 9 . 8

0 . 0

0 1 2 3 8

6 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

R a d i s h e s

1 1 0 0 0

0 . 5

0 . 0

0 0 0 4 5

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0


1 3 0 0 0

1 . 7

0 . 0

0 0 1 3 1

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

P u m p k i n

2 0 0 0 0

4 . 8

0 . 0

0 0 2 4 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S q u a s h

1 5 0 0 0

5

0 . 0

0 0 3 3 3

2 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

B a s i l

2 0 0 0

0 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

S n o w P e a s

1 2 2 2 2

3

0 . 0

0 0 2 4 5

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

R a s p b e r r i e s

4 0 0 0

0 . 4

0 . 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

W a t e r m e l o n

2 0 0 0 0

1 5 . 9

0 . 0

0 0 7 9 5

4 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

A p p l e s

9 0 0 0

1 7 . 8

0 . 0

0 1 9 7 8

9 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

A p r i c o t s

5 0 0 0

0 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 0 2 0

0 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

C h e r r i e s

5 0 0 0

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 0 9 2 0

4 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

P l u m s

5 0 0 0

1

0 . 0

0 0 2 0 0

1 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

P e a c h e s

8 0 0 0

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 0 5 7 5

3 %

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

2 2 1 3 7

1 0 0 %


appendix d



A l l o t m e n t / C o m m u n i t y G a r d e n

E n t e r T o t a l S q u a r e F e e t o f P l o t A v a i l a b l e

H e r e :

l b s / a c r e

l b s / c a p i t a


% o

f t o t a l s q f t

s q u a r e f e e t

d e d i c a t e d

p o u n d s p r

o d u c e d

c o n s u m e r s n e e d e d

P o t a t o e s

1 3 3 3 3

3 7 . 2

0 . 0

0 2 7 9 0

1 6 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0


8 8 8 8

4 . 6

0 . 0

0 0 5 1 8

3 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

A s p a r a g u s

3 8 8 8

1 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 2 8 3

2 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

T o m a t o e s

4 4 4 4 4

1 9 . 9

0 . 0

0 0 4 4 8

3 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

C a r r o t s

1 8 8 8 3

8 . 7

0 . 0

0 0 4 6 1

3 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

G r e e n B e a n s

1 3 3 3 3

2 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 8

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

E g g p l a n t

1 4 4 4 4

1

0 . 0

0 0 0 6 9

0 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

G a r l i c

3 8 8 8

2 . 8

0 . 0

0 0 7 2 0

4 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0


3 0 0 0

7

0 . 0

0 2 3 3 3

1 3 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

B r o c c o l i

1 2 0 0 0

6 . 1

0 . 0

0 0 5 0 8

3 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

C a b b a g e

1 3 0 0 0

8 . 2

0 . 0

0 0 6 3 1

4 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

C u c u m b e r s

8 0 0 0

6 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 7 8 8

4 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0


3 3 3 3

0 . 5

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 0

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

K a l e

3 3 3 3

0 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 0 9 0

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0


3 3 3 3

1 5

0 . 0

0 4 5 0 0

2 6 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0


3 3 3 3

0 . 4

0 . 0

0 0 1 2 0

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

S p i n a c h

3 3 3 3

2

0 . 0

0 0 6 0 0

3 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

O n i o n s

1 6 0 0 0

1 9 . 8

0 . 0

0 1 2 3 8

7 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

R a d i s h e s

1 1 0 0 0

0 . 5

0 . 0

0 0 0 4 5

0 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0


1 3 0 0 0

1 . 7

0 . 0

0 0 1 3 1

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

P u m p k i n

2 0 0 0 0

4 . 8

0 . 0

0 0 2 4 0

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

S q u a s h

1 5 0 0 0

5

0 . 0

0 0 3 3 3

2 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

B a s i l

2 0 0 0

0 . 3

0 . 0

0 0 1 5 0

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

S n o w P e a s

1 2 2 2 2

3

0 . 0

0 0 2 4 5

1 %

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

1 7 5 4 9

1 0 0 %


appendix e

food urbanism

Documents