urban agriculture: design principles for enhancing
TRANSCRIPT
URBAN AGRICULTURE:
DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR ENHANCING SUSTAINABILITY
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
by
BRYAN DOUGLAS MCPHERSON
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Landscape Architecture
May, 2011
© Bryan Douglas McPherson, 2011
1*1 Library and Archives Canada
Published Heritage Branch
395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada
Bibliotheque et Archives Canada
Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition
395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-79993-2 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-79993-2
NOTICE:
The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
AVIS:
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.
In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis.
Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
1+1
Canada
ABSTRACT
URBAN AGRICULTURE: DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR ENHANCING SUSTAINABILITY
Bryan McPherson Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2011 Professor K. Landman
Urban agriculture (UA) is one way in which designers and planners can address the
sustainability of food supply in cities. A well-designed UA site contributes to urban
ecosystem health, and provides social and economic benefits to residents. This research
aims to create a set of UA design principles that enhance the environmental, social and
economic services at the site and community level by examining the interplay of
sustainability, aesthetics and associated values.
Methods include reviewing UA literature, examining exemplary case studies, conducting
site inventories, and performing key informant interviews. The data is presented in a
sustainability criteria matrix, as aesthetic principles, and in a design element inventory.
Analysis of the criteria contributed to guiding design principles that can enhance site
and community level sustainability services. The research examines the proposed
design principles in the context of Agricultural Urbanism principles, and outlines
suggested research opportunities integrating UA and aesthetic consideration.
Keywords: Urban agriculture, aesthetics, sustainability, food hub, community design
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Karen Landman for allowing me to explore various
research avenues and, for her enthusiasm and knowledge in urban agriculture. Her
exceptional guidance and kind manner helped to keep me grounded and on course -
and for this I am truly grateful. I thoroughly enjoyed learning from, and developing
ideas with her.
I would also like to thank my committee member Dr. Rob Corry for his insightful
suggestions on ecology and aesthetics. His observations and recommendations helped
strengthen the research process, and his teachings in class helped me to develop my
research voice.
I am also grateful to all the Landscape Architecture faculty members, and to my fellow
classmates for their collective role in shaping my educational experience while at the
University of Guelph. It has been an amazing journey filled with memories of learning,
laughter, landscapes and friendship.
Lastly, a very large kudos to Masako and my family members for their encouragement
and steadfast support in helping me reach the finish line. Thank you!
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Justification of Research 4
1.2 Research Goal and Thesis Overview 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Why Urban Agriculture? 6
2.2 Food Security, Food Deserts and Food Assessments 10
2.3 Food Planning, Policy and Community Participation 12
2.4 Nutrient Cycles and Agro-ecological Considerations 13
2.5 UA Constraints and Land-Use Opportunities 16
2.6 The Scaling of UA in Cities 18
2.7 Infrastructure and Cooperatives 20
2.8 Agricultural 'Space' and UA Typology 21
2.9 UA Sustainability, Aesthetics and Urban Form 23
Chapter 3 Methods 26
3.1 Research Goal and Objectives 26
3.2 Research Definitions 28
3.3 Determining UA Sustainability and Aesthetic Criteria 29
3.4 Procedure for Formulating UA Design Principles 31
ii
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis 33
4.1 Sustainability Criteria Overview 33
4.2 Cities and Sustainability 34
4.3 Social Sustainability 36
4.4 Environmental Sustainability 37
4.5 Economic Sustainability 39
4.6 UA Sustainability Criteria Matrix 41
4.7 Aesthetic Principles 46
4.8 Case Study Overview 49
4.9 Case Study 1 - The Stop, Toronto, Ontario 50
4.10 Case Study 2 - Growing Power, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 52
4.11 Interviews and Design Considerations 55
4.12 Inventory and Analysis of Design Elements 60
Chapter 5 Design Principles and Discussion 64
5.1 UA Design Principles 64
5.2 Discussion of the Proposed Design Principles 74
5.3 Context of Agricultural Urbanism and Community Design 75
Chapter 6 Conclusion 79
6.1 Limitations of Research 80
6.2 Opportunities for Future Research 82
6.3 Role of Landscape Architecture 83
Literature Cited 84
Appendix 90
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of the Reported Sustainability Benefits from UA 8
Table 2. Limitations and Barriers in Urban Agriculture and Food Systems 17
Table 3. UA Production and Site Types with Listed Characteristics 22
Table 4. Vancouver Sustainability Goals and Strategies Connected to UA 35
Table 5. UA Components and Associated Values 40
Table 6. Sustainability Criteria Matrix - Environmental Services 43
Table 7. Sustainability Criteria Matrix - Social Services 44
Table 8. Sustainability Criteria Matrix - Economic Services 45
Table 9. Conventional Aesthetic Principles 48
Table 10. Agricultural Urbanism principles and complementing strategies 76
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. UA Contribution in Reducing the Agricultural and Waste Footprint 2
Figure 2. Example UA Contributions to Site, Community and City 3
Figure 3. Environmental Impacts Typically Associated with Open Loop Approaches
in Industrial Agriculture 14
Figure 4. Practice of Organoponico or Raised Bed Farming in Cuba 16
Figure 5. Creative use of rooftop UA space 21
Figure 6. Methodological Approach in Formulating UA Design Principles 27
Figure 7. Analysis and synthesis methodology 31
Figure 8. Local Food Evaluation in Sustainability Rankings 34
Figure 9. Photo Inventory and Design Element Legend 60
Figure 10. Photo Inventory and Associated Design Elements - Part 1 61
Figure 11. Photo Inventory and Associated Design Elements - Part II 62
Figure 12. Design Principles Legend Overview 64
v
Chapter 1 Introduction
To some, urban agriculture (UA) is a sustainable alternative food supply that aims to
strengthen food security and improve health in cities. To others, UA congers up images
of unkempt and scattered community gardens occupying lands of untapped economic
gain. Whichever the perception, UA has been an integral part of urban form for many
civilizations, and continues to exist as a viable food production strategy throughout
cities in the modern world. The notion of an agrarian urban synergy is not new, and
often presents itself as a food supply solution to address food security concerns during
times of suffering. Examples include the battle call for Victory Gardens amid wartime
rationing, the advent of UA production throughout Cuba to counter import shortfalls
and, more recently, the appearance of community food hubs as a mechanism to tackle
food insecurity resulting from the rise of food deserts in developed cities.
In North America, a rigid dichotomy persists between city and agriculture. It is a
division that supports locating agricultural production outside of urban boundaries.
Industrial agriculture is now the dominant food supply source for many municipalities,
but growing concerns over increasing food miles, food inflation, waste accumulation,
habitat loss and social inequities is prompting many to question the sustainability of
this system. UA is a medium that reintroduces food production and distribution back
into the city core. It creates a means of reducing the footprint of agriculture through
1
providing local food alternatives, and lessens dependency on landfill space through the
processing of waste organics to supplement urban food production (Figure 1). UA can
be defined as a production activity located within the boundaries of a city that involves
the growing, processing and distribution of food and non-food products to supply goods
and services mostly to the same urban area (Mougeot, 2000).
Figure 1. UA Contribution in Reducing the Agricultural and Waste Footprint
A city containing an integrated fabric of UA pockets can provide for an array of
environmental, social and economic services (Figure 2 illustrates several of each).
Services that can operate at the site level, visible in the remediation of soil and the
conservation of UA lands, at the community level, evident in the form of empowerment,
awareness, education, and employment, and at the regional level, as a municipal food
production and waste mitigation strategy.
2
Tourism
Employment O
Remediation
Nutrient Cycling
O Nutrition
Food Access
Empowerment Conservation
Environmental O Social O Economic
Figure 2. Example UA Contributions to Site, Community and City
Community based organizations are leading the charge to offer citizens food choice
alternatives with a common agenda of increasing food access, interaction and visibility.
A growing phenomena stemming from the efforts of these organizations is that of the
community food hub - central facilities that incorporate advocacy, planning and design
strategies to increase food security and visibility at a community level. Food hubs
typically support a main production and processing site with satellite operations
located throughout the local community, but are also involved with UA outreach at the
city level. This thesis highlights UA sustainability services resulting from community
food hub organizations and the aesthetic values associated with their design.
3
1 .1 JUSTIFICATION OF RESEARCH
This research aims to examine the reciprocal relationship between food, sustainability,
aesthetics and urban form. In 1987 the Brundtland Commission defined sustainability
as development that meets current needs without jeopardizing the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. Conversation regarding sustainable community
design should begin with food at the core, as this is essential in addressing present and
future needs. This requires designers and planners to critically ask several essential
questions. Will the design foster food security? Can the elements of design work
toward equilibrium? Will it enrich aesthetic values and experience of food?
This study was prompted by the author's observation on the polarity of UA experience.
It can appear attractive, inviting and recreational, or it can appear scattered, distracting
and give rise to a perceived unpleasant experience. Academic literature surrounding
UA routinely illustrates the environmental, social and economic contributions but rarely
frames associative aesthetic values and its contribution to urban form. Pearson, et al
(2010) point out that research into sustainability goods and services from UA is
deficient when relating to opportunities for its influence on urban form, and that a
research priority exists towards identifying principles of sustainable UA that can assist
in the design and planning of resilient cities. Some might argue that aesthetics is a form
of a social service of sustainability. But does this approach accurately frame aesthetic
values? It almost appears that UA and its role as an aesthetic entity has been neglected.
This research looks to separate aesthetics from sustainability, deconstructing them as
separate components, examining their interplay as tangible UA design elements, and
reintegrating them as a set of design principles with potential to influence urban form.
4
1.2 RESEARCH GOAL AND THESIS OVERVIEW
The question prompting the research is: What criteria are needed to create design
principles to enhance community-based UA from a combined sustainability and
aesthetic perspective?
The research pursues the following goal: To create a set of site design principles to
guide designers and planners in implementing sustainable and aesthetic approaches to
UA at the community level.
The following objectives are employed to achieve this goal:
o Identify UA criteria pertaining to the three pillars of sustainability, and frame the
criteria in a matrix highlighting contributions as goods, values and services.
o Identify UA aesthetic principles that enhance urban form.
o Develop a design element inventory to examine the interplay of UA
sustainability and aesthetics.
o Create a set of UA guiding design principles relating to the sustainability and
aesthetic criteria.
The research is an exploratory investigation with the aim of synthesizing data to inform
a set of guiding UA design principles. This research is pertinent to urban designers,
landscape architects, planners, advocacy groups and non-profit groups with interest in
UA design at the site and community levels - with a primary focus on the design of
community food hubs in the urban environment.
5
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2 . 1 WHY URBAN AGRICULTURE?
To answer the question 'why UA?' one must examine the modern day approach to how
cities are supplied with food products. Technological advances in the 19th and 20th
centuries have substantially changed how people in cities obtain and perceive food
supply. The advent of mechanized agriculture, the invention of chemical-based
fertilizers, advances in refrigeration and packaging, and the development of
transportation networks opened up opportunities for industrial agriculture to establish
itself as the dominant food supply system in developed countries. Localized food
production once prevalent in North American and European cities has been replaced by
a system of industrialization, compartmentalization and convenience (Nasr etal., 2010;
Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999). This transformation has led to dependence from
municipalities on a subsidized agricultural system with food products travelling across
continents and oceans.
The negative externalities associated with this food supply system include: the
depletion of non-renewable resources, habitat loss, exploitation of workers, economic
hardship for smaller-scale farms, and a systematic breakdown in the social, cultural and
spiritual connection to food (Feenstra, 2002; Pothukuchi, 2004). An average urban
consumer now purchases food products in grocery outlet stores with little knowledge of
where the product originated or the production processes that it incurred. The
6
mounting health costs stemming from poor diet choices related to the marketing and
distribution of refined foods in cities have contributed to an associated obesity
epidemic, a higher incidence of type II diabetes and a growing concern over hunger and
food security (Mougeot, 2006; Toronto Public Health Consultation Report, 2010).
In North America, agriculture is typically viewed as a rural matter resting outside the
boundaries of cities. Although urban food systems persist in cities there is often a low
visibility due to municipal priorities placed on housing, employment, economic
development and transportation (Leewen et al., 2010; Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999).
Another factor accounting for a low visibility is the tendency for people to take food for
granted. Urbanites see a wide range of options ranging from restaurants, food stores
and supermarkets to food banks and pantries for the urban poor (Pothukuchi and
Kaufman, 1999). The perception is that if the shelves at the grocery stores are stocked
and affordable, then the production-supply mechanism is working effectively. This is a
limited view in that it does not factor in the social and environmental costs associated
with food production and distribution.
In recent years a series of events have increased consumers awareness surrounding
food - including illnesses and deaths associated with bacterial infections found in meat,
dairy and vegetable products (lysteria, E. coli and salmonella); controversy over factory
farming and monoculture production ("mad cow", growth hormones and genetically
modified foods); and inflation due to food scarcity and catastrophic disasters in
agricultural regions. The positive outcome of these food scares is that it is creating a
change in our everyday 'food consciousness'. People are purchasing alternative
agriculture products - foods that are either organic, or that promote a more sustainable
7
approach to production and distribution. It represents a move away from competition
and specialization to an approach that supports community and diversity (Sumner et al.,
2010). UA is one way of addressing the sustainability needs sought by consumers
looking for an alternative food choice. Urban agriculture enhances food production in
cities, while providing a host of social and economic benefits for city residents, and
ecological / environmental benefits in the urban ecosystem (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of the Reported Sustainability Benefits from UA.
Social Benefits
UA can be used to alleviate hunger while improving food security (Mougeot, 2006).
The growing and consuming of a local food supply provides health and nutritional benefits not
always obtained in food insecure areas (Nasr et al., 2010; Toronto Public Health, 2010).
Health, relaxation and therapeutical associations have been documented for community garden
projects. It also provides an opportunity for recreational activity to citizens (Leeuwen et al., 2010;
Toronto Public Health, 2010).
Community gardens improve social relations as it provides an opportunity for people to build
community relationships and connect people to their city (Leeuwen et al., 2010; Toronto Public
Health, 2010).
UA provides opportunities to educate consumers and teach youth about local foods, organic waste
management and community-based food programs (Feenstra, 2002).
The social well-being of neighbourhoods are improved as waste sites and abandoned areas are
transformed into gardens and food production centres that enhance community livelihood
(Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security, 2010).
8
Ecological / Environmental Benefits
The shortening of distances for food distribution results in fuel and energy savings, which also
reduces the carbon footprint associated with refrigeration and processing (Mougeot, 2006).
Food waste accounts for a third of total waste in city landfills. This organic waste is seen as a
valuable resource in UA as a properly managed site can re-circulate nutrients from food products
into productive soil (Nasr et al., 2010).
UA provides opportunities for greenspace creation, preservation and beautification. It can have a
positive impact in the greening of cities by turning derelict spaces into greenspace (Mougeot,
2006; Nasr etal., 2010).
UA helps improve air quality as fewer trucks are required for transporting food products into
cities (Mougeot, 2006).
Community gardens and associated greenspace help moderate the surrounding microclimate and
reduce urban heat island effect (Leeuwen et al., 2010).
UA contributes to the conservation of arable soil for food production in urban environments that
may otherwise be lost to development (Mougeot, 2006; Nasr et al., 2010).
Economic Benefits
UA increases employment opportunities for those involved in the food sector of cities, including
jobs in production, distribution, social programs, cooking, and more (Nasr et al., 2010; Pothukuchi
and Kaufman, 1999).
The transportation and storage costs associated with a centralized, long distance food system are
reduced through distributing fresh local produce (Toronto Public Health, 2010).
UA aims to connect the local economy by bringing farmers and consumers together as seen in
neighbourhood farmer's markets (Feenstra, 2002).
Local food production provides opportunities to diversify economic opportunities to include retail,
social programs, agro-tourism, and education (La Salle and Holland, 2010).
Organic waste used as a nutrient input for UA sites can have an economic return to processing
facilities (Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security, 2010).
9
The benefits from UA are magnified when looking at the rapid growth of cities. The
United Nations estimates that 70 percent of the world's population will be living in
cities by 2050, with an increase of up to 3 billion in urban centres worldwide (UN
Population Database, 2007). A system dependent on subsidies, high inputs and low
fuel prices is not sustainable. Cities will need to be adaptive to respond to increasing
energy prices, resource scarcity and rapid urbanization (Pearson et al., 2010). Urban
agriculture is a proactive approach that addresses food insecurity resulting from these
concerns, while also providing for a nutritional, environmentally sound and economic
alternative to food supply in cities.
2.2 FOOD SECURITY, FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD ASSESSMENTS
A large number of low-income families in North America rely on food banks, community
kitchens, and charitable food sources. In Canada alone, over one million people
accessed a food bank during a one-year period from March 2009 to March 2010 (Food
Bank Canada, 2010). In conjunction with these essential services, UA is a tool that can
help alleviate food insecurity through the production and distribution of a nutritional
food supply that may not always be available or affordable to the urban poor (Mougeot,
2000). The Community Food Security Coalition defines community food security as "a
condition in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable,
nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes
community self-reliance and social justice" (CFSC Website, 2010). Essentially, food
security ensures food access, while reducing hunger and improving the health of
individuals, families and communities.
10
A growing concern in cities related to food insecurity is a concept known as 'food
deserts' - an area of a city that has limited access to healthy and affordable food.
Typical characteristics of a food desert include: transportation constraints for residents
without vehicles; a lack of neighbourhood supermarkets resulting in residents paying
more for nutritional food; reliance on corner grocery or fast food stores; and social
disparities and health concerns resulting from inadequate diet (Short et al., 2007;
Larsen and Gilliland, 2008). In a review of food desert assessments, Beaulac, et al.
(2009), discuss that low-income and minority areas are often subjected to limited
access to healthy food in food deserts located in the Unites States. In Canada, a study
conducted in London, Ontario reveals that similar socioeconomic inequities occur as a
result of food deserts located in that city (Larsen and Gilliland, 2008).
A Community Food Assessment is another activity used by planners, non-profit
organizations and policy makers to measure and enhance community food security. It
is often based on community characteristics, food production, demographic analysis,
store surveys, market trends and socioeconomic status (Pothukuchi, 2004). The
information provided by a community food assessment can be used as a yardstick to
develop food system strategies and community projects. In 2002, the United States
Department of Agriculture created a standardized Community Food Assessment toolkit
to identify food insecurity and hunger in cities. The toolkit provides an inventory
procedure to assist community decision makers in understanding the local food
systems, and to establish goals to improve policy and action related to the food security
of these systems.
11
2.3 FOOD PLANNING, POLICY AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Inventory and quantification of food security concerns in communities is an essential
component in identifying areas of concerns, but it is up to the people to make a positive
change. Food security in communities needs to be addressed through strategies
involving partnerships, advocacy, support and programming (de la Salle, 2010).
Building relationships between residents, community groups and government is a
critical step in creating food systems that are both equitable and accessible. When
relationships and strategies are in place then productive UA outcomes can ensue. This
section looks at the role of planning, policy and participation in building food systems.
The incorporation of UA into planning requires both political support and the
"acknowledgement of the food systems as a vital urban system" (Pothukuchi and
Kaufman, 1999). Changes in regulations, by-laws and policy can play a pivotal role in
reshaping the UA landscape in North American cities. The acknowledgement of food
systems as an essential service needs to be recognized by local government to make
changes, however, to be recognized as 'essential', citizens and action groups need to
vocalize views on food security and sustainable agriculture. Feenstra (2002)
articulated the 3 P's as themes emerging from community spaces: 1) public
participation, 2) partnerships, and 3) principles (a commitment to social, economic and
environmental health). This process enables community representatives to have a
voice in policy and planning circles, which can help establish the language of Official
Plans, food policies and zoning by-laws (Mougeot, 2006; Nasr et al., 2010).
Food policy councils have been established in several Canadian cities as a mechanism to
foster food security, develop policy, and facilitate research and education. The Toronto
12
Food Policy Council, a sub-committee of the Board of Health, is a City supported
organization with the mission of partnering "with business and community groups to
develop policies and programs promoting food security. Our aim is a food system that
fosters equitable food access, nutrition, community development and environmental
health" (TFPC Website, 2010). Food policy councils enable the community members to
have input into the planning and policy discussions. Other mechanisms that can
provide a community forum for policy solutions include focus groups, food action
coalitions and food roundtables. Largely due to the work of these organizations food
policy is being implemented in cities across Canada. Policy and planning success stories
include by-law changes to allow chickens in backyards, land-tenure accommodations
for UA sites, and the inclusion of UA into regional food system strategies (as seen in the
Greater Toronto Area and Metro Vancouver).
2.4 NUTRIENT CYCLES AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Agriculture can be viewed as the intricate practice of managing nutrient inputs and
balancing soil fertility to optimize plant and livestock production. Most material flows
in large-scale agriculture are based on open loop systems in which nutrients are
imported into the site, and outputs are exported off-site. For example, a typical
vegetable crop will require inputs from petroleum based fertilizers and irrigated water,
with the food product being shipped to cities for consumption. As the organic waste is
handled off-site the ability to re-circulate the nutrients is lost. This is compounded
further by organic nutrients in cities being processed as 'garbage' and consequently
13
shipped to landfills. Figure 3 illustrates the effects of an open loop system on
production and waste processing if not managed properly.
Imported Food
Food Food Crops and Fodder
-K.onironea ana Uncontrolled
Disposal
p
m<
• ^ •
roblems ft
inagemen
ind enviro
> \jrgamc3ona
Waste, Wastewater and Sludge
ir waste
t, health,
nment
Urban Areas
• • • # •
r ^
Soil Nutrients
^ • 1 Fertilizer
Soil Nutrient
Mining
Rural Areas
Figure 3. Environmental Impacts Typically Associated with Open Loop
Approaches in Industrial Agriculture (from Drechsel and Kunze, 2001)
An alternative approach gaining attention in UA practice is that of a closed loop system
in which nutrients are re-circulated in a feedback mechanism1. Smit and Nasr (1992)
write that UA is an opportunity to create closed loops that facilitate a "consume-
process-reuse" strategy where organic waste is not valued as refuse but rather a
1 Closed loop systems can also be found in sustainable agriculture practices on organic farms. The symbiosis of grasses, cattle, and free-range chickens is well documented in Michael Pollan's account of his experience with Joel Salatin at Polyface Farm (Omnivore's Dilemma, 2006].
14
"resource for sustainable development". Since many urban farms are intensive
vegetable production sites occupying limited space, as seen in small-plot-intensive
farming, there is a constant export of the site's nitrogen supply contained within the
plant material. The return of nutrients or biomass can be a valuable resource to
growers looking to increase the productivity of agricultural sites.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) estimates that 29% of the municipal
solid waste stream is composed of food scraps and yard trimmings. The collection of
organic waste offers the following environmental benefits to cities: 1) the municipal
waste stream is reduced, 2) it can be processed and used as a source in UA production,
3) it can be utilized as a heat source, and 4) it can be used as a possible measure in the
remediation of contaminated sites (Nasr et al., 2010; RUAF Foundation, 2010). If the
proper municipal infrastructure and policies are in place for organic waste processing
then there appears to be strong potential for an economic return on this resource.
In agroecological farming the flows of a system are examined within the context of a
surrounding ecosystem. The premise of agroecology is to understand flows of energy
and matter in agricultural ecosystems to optimize outputs while minimizing the use of
external inputs (Altieri, 1983). The reuse of organic materials in an urban setting
decreases the need for the application of fertilizers at UA sites, which would also reduce
associated run-off into the surrounding watershed.
Cuba is a remarkable example of a country that has successfully implemented UA
garden plots based on agroecological principles. The country supports 8,000 garden
plots by utilizing organic inputs to maintain a nutrient rich soil supply and eliminating
15
the need for pesticides and fertilizers through innovative integrated pest management
strategies (Altieri et al., 1999). At a regional scale they have set up agricultural centres
that provide beneficial insects and microorganisms to farmers, as well as a network of
seed houses to support sustainable agriculture in peri-urban and urban environments.
UA approaches in Cuba clearly demonstrate that infrastructure can be planned,
designed and maintained at varying scales to support food production in cities. Figure 4
illustrates the conventional practice of Organoponico, or raised bed farming in Cuba.
Photo Source: www.cityfarmer.info
Figure 4. Practice of Organoponico or Raised Bed Farming in Cuba
2 . 5 UA CONSTRAINTS AND LAND-USE OPPORTUNITIES
Urban agriculture is not without its share of constraints, and a critical evaluation of
these constraints can lead to practical and implementable solutions. Many UA
operations fail to sustain themselves and this has led to questions regarding their
viability for food production (Feenstra, 2002). Table 2 outlines common barriers and
limitations found in UA and community food system projects. It should be noted that
constraints provide for creative planning and design resolutions, and they are
presented again as both sustainable criteria and design principles in this thesis.
16
Table 2. Limitations and Barriers in Urban Agriculture and Food Systems
Source: Mougeot, 2006; Altieri et al., 1999; Nasr et al., 2010.
Category
Policy
Health
Physical
Environment
Economic
Associated Constraint
o Contravening of zoning regulations and conflicts between adjacent land uses
o Lack of policy structure to facilitate UA sites
o Concerns over land access and land tenure
o Health concerns from pesticide and fertilizer application
o Transfer of zoonotic diseases from livestock
o Contaminated soil and irrigated water
o Nutrient loading and run-off into adjacent sites
o Noise concerns from livestock or machinery
o Pest infestation concerns
o Poor quality of topsoil in urban environment
o Profitability of sites and attracting private investors
o High costs associated with land and irrigation
o Difficulties in selling produce at major food retailers
o Theft and vandalism concerns on UA sites
Perhaps the largest perceived constraint is that of land availability. However, in many
circumstances it is the access to land and land tenure that is the major constraint in the
effective development of UA sites (Mougeout, 2006, Nasr et al., 2010). This limited
17
access is a result of conflicting land-use concerns, land taxations and regulations that
favour long-term land tenures. UA opportunities exist from land parcels that are odd-
shaped, idle, available in parks and conservation authority lands, hydro corridors,
rooftops and on institutional properties (Nasr et al., 2010). A few examples of providing
alternatives that would allow for increased access to these sites include:
o Developing systems in which citizens could request use right if the land is sitting
idle (Altieri etal., 1999);
o Allotment model of land tenure where gardeners have an "exclusive right" to the
land (Pearson etal., 2010);
o Providing for "long-term and stable access to land" by developing temporary-use
bylaws, or through permanent land use designations as seen in Montreal's
Permanent Agriculture Zones (PAZ) designation (Nasr et al., 2010).
2.6 THE SCALING OF UA IN CITIES
The suburbanization of Western cities led to development practices that saw the
allocation of superstores on large land parcels located in suburbs or city edge. This
change in planning practice gave prominence to large-scale supermarkets that
benefited from 'economies of scale' by providing consumers with a diversity of food
options available at wholesale prices (Short et al., 2007). Economic interest is a major
contributing factor in the location of these stores as they are typically in close proximity
to residents with the greatest spending power (Pearson et al., 2010). Superstores may
now be the dominant food supply mechanism in the U.S.A. and Canada, but there still
exists an abundance of retail and food alternatives available to consumers.
18
In alternative food systems the supply mechanisms generally have more variety. It
comes in the form specialized food stores and suppliers, food cooperatives, farmer's
markets, community supported agriculture (CSAs), backyard sharing and community
gardens. Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) suggest that the focus of these supply
mechanisms provide for a direct connection between growers and consumers, while
also creating for a greater self-reliance in the provisioning of food. However, there is
often a tendency for these alternative food systems to be small-scale, unevenly
distributed and lacking in visibility.
In the 2010 report Scaling Up Urban Agriculture in Toronto, Nasr et al., contend that the
scaling of UA in cities requires two approaches: 1) extending growing strategies to the
entire city, and 2) "enhancing the sophistication, productivity and potential financial
viability of UA practices". Many of the existing UA projects are non-profit, volunteer
based and operate with the assistance of government subsidies. In order to challenge
the dominant food supply mechanism current UA approaches will need to be integrated
with profit-based food production strategies to allow for a stronger UA market
association between growers, distributers and retailers, while also magnifying the
visibility of food production systems for consumers. This will require a move towards
balancing non-profit and private UA endeavors to meet distribution and supply needs.
19
2 . 7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND COOPERATIVES
The base resources to support UA production sites are that of land (or space), water,
sunlight and some type of growing medium - and many growers are able to implement
spirited and productive sites when given these necessities. But the base resources may
not be enough to support urban locations with constraints in place. Additional
considerations may include seedling supply, organic matter, electricity, lighting,
refrigeration, storage, security, equipment and washroom facilities. In a survey
conducted on the essential needs of growers in Toronto, Nasr et al., (2010) found that
seeds, seedlings, water, soil, compost, funding and staff were among the top ranked
necessities to support the start-up and the on-going usage of UA sites. To equip
growers with the required resources then relationships need to be fostered to support
shared infrastructure and resources within the growing community.
Cooperatives are one method of helping to share resources and infrastructure among
organizations and community members. Growers and producers will often band
together to develop efficient and cost effective management strategies of resources.
This leads to collaboration among cooperative members and strengthening of
community relationships. Cooperatives can be developed to support measures for
increased access to seeds and seedlings (seed exchange events and communal
greenhouses), compost or organic matter distribution, and the provision of shared
equipment and storage facilities. To further improve the availability of resources
neighbour relations can be established to allow access to backyard space and water taps
in exchange for fresh produce or gardening services.
20
2 . 8 AGRICULTURAL 'SPACE* AND UA TYPOLOGY
Some UA sites focus on food production and profitability, whereas others may focus on
food security, environmental sustainability, education or other objectives. But in most
sites there is a common theme that connects the urban agriculture space of cities. It
contributes to the connections between people, food and the environment while also
factoring into overall design of a city. The foundation of UA space is dependent on a
combination of the following criteria: site size, ownership, land tenure, geographic
location, product type and destination, existing infrastructure, available resources,
development status (built or open
space), and land-use zoning (Nasr
et al., 2010). Mougeout (2006,
p.54) outlines that space may be
as essential as land for UA
production, as conveyed in the
following quote:
Photo Source: inspirationgreen.com
Figure 5. Creative use of rooftop UA space
"Space, after all, is three-dimensional and space embraces the built-up area as
much as the unbuilt area. Space in this context encompasses rooftops, walls,
fences, sheds, shelves, basements, ponds, and even window boxes. There are
production systems designed for all environments - indoor and outdoor."
UA typology is dependent on this operational space as it reflects a 'best fit' solution for
the food system involved. Figure 5 illustrates the creative use of rooftop space in China
to meet UA production needs, and Table 3 presents a typology of the common UA
production and site types.
21
Table 3. UA Production and Site Types with Listed Characteristics (adapted from
Altieri et al., 1999; Nasr et al., 2010; and Mougeot, 2006)
UA Production Type Characteristics
Intensive Gardens: Seeds planted directly into arable soil for the production of both
fruit and vegetables.
Raised Beds: Constructed beds filled with soil and organic matter for fruit and
vegetable production.
Greenhouse / Hoophouse: Enclosed structures providing vertical space for fruit and vegetable
production, as well as for the propagation of seedlings.
Hydroponics: Plants produced by a nutrient rich growing solution. Typically a
controlled environment found indoors.
Livestock / Aquaponics: Supports various types of livestock production including poultry,
rabbits, apiaries, etc. Fish grown in holding tanks located in
buildings or greenhouses.
UA Site Types Characteristics
Community Food Centre: Focuses on food security, empowerment, outreach and education.
Integrates production, distribution, access and marketing of food.
Community Gardens: Garden operations managed by community groups or families.
This method can include backyard sharing initiatives, rooftop
gardens, community plots, and small plot intensive operations.
Urban Farms: Peri or Inter Urban farm properties typically exceeding a 1-acre
land base and supporting a highly integrated form of production.
Industrial Facilities: Industrial space and derelict buildings that are converted into
integrated production facilities.
Organic Waste Facilities: Management of food wastes as a resource. Turning a profit from
the organic matter created from compost.
22
Each category is distinct on its own, but many successful UA sites integrate two or more
site and production types from the listed typology. In urban environments businesses
need to be unique to make small-scale approaches to agriculture profitable. Creative
approaches in marketing, agro-tourism and education are some examples that help to
diversify economic opportunities and ensure financial stability (de la Salle, 2010).
2 . 9 UA SUSTAINABILITY, AESTHETICS AND URBAN FORM
UA is as much about sustainability, aesthetics and its contribution to urban form as it is
about food and production. UA space is represented in various mediums in the city,
ranging from land features that form community gardens in parks and right-of-ways, or
integrated into structures, such as in rooftop gardens and productive greenhouses. The
way in which UA is represented is a reflection on the urban image regarding quality of
life - as it encompasses health, social justice, environmental stewardship and other
facets surrounding the notion of sustainability (Imbert, 2010). The UA elements and
their associated contributions impart an environmental, social and economic aesthetic
operating at levels that span site, community and region.
The language of design is of great value when incorporating agrarianism into the urban
environment, and the relationship between aesthetics and UA sustainability can be used
to shape perception and form. The idea of an ecological aesthetic, as presented by
Gobster et al. (2007), is founded on the belief that ecological process may not always
conform to visual qualities associated with a pleasurable appearance, and that this
disjuncture can sometimes facilitate a damaging landscape change. The authors
23
propose a 'normative' approach that encompasses aesthetic pleasure to serve as a
mutually beneficial function2. This approach can also be used to facilitate UA design
through framing sustainability services along with aesthetic associations to nurture
food-community consciousness. In Everyday Aesthetics, Saito (2007) discusses the
crucial role of aesthetics in promoting sustainability, and how this can be used to affect
everyday attitudes. Saito contends that the promotion of sustainability will be more
effective if aesthetic response is aligned with elements and spaces that are attractive
and sustainably sound.
The concept of landscape aesthetic is generally situated in a cultural context, and
aesthetic choices are often ingrained in meaning stemming from experience, socio-
cultural context, and larger political and economic influences. Jorgensen (2011, p. 354)
conveys that the role of the landscape architect in the 21 s t century will inevitably be
connected to influences that promote "multifunctionality, ecosystem services and
resilience", and that aesthetics will play an important role in shaping landscape change,
and, as a result, urban form. Several third-party sustainability certification programs
have been developed in the last decade that promote services resulting in change to
urban form, including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for
green buildings, LEED-ND for Neighbourhood Design, and the Sustainable Sites
Initiative (SITES) for landscapes. Although their involvement in UA and aesthetics are
negligible, they do bring forth an indispensible toolkit outlining green and socially
responsible criteria for designers, planners and developers.
2 Normative is defined as a way in which the landscape should look given 'cultural norms' associated
with landscape appearance (Nassauer, 2011).
24
The renewed interest in sustainable urban food production has triggered a wave of food
inspired urbanisms comprising of Agri-Urbanism, Nourishing Urbanism and
Agricultural Urbanism (Knight and Riggs, 2010; De La Salle and Holland, 2010). Purists
of New Urbanism may look upon these as newfangled approaches to community design,
and they may have an argument with respect to overlapping objectives. Nevertheless,
food-driven urban theory has a collective vision of including food production in the
discourse of community design - a key factor not incorporated in the original Charter for
New Urbanism (1996). Responding to criticism over the exclusion of food and
agricultural preservation, the Congress for New Urbanism developed the Canons of
Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism (2008) as a companion document to the Charter.
This document outlines a set of'operating principles' that includes provisions for food
production. Several of the principles responding to food include:
o Design that preserves the proximate relationships between urbanized areas
and agricultural lands to provide a source for local food;
o Promoting food production at the neighborhood scale; and
o Regional design that strives to be self-sustaining for food goods and services.
Although generic, the inclusion of these principles provides a starting point for
integrating UA and sustainability objectives into community design. The UA
components must work together to increase visibility, contribute to sustainability and
provide an aesthetic that shapes urban form. Due to its exposure to public view, city
agriculture needs to be well designed and appropriately located, and it is the role of
both designers and planners to successfully integrate UA space and design elements
with sustainability and aesthetic considerations in the urban environment.
25
Chapter 3 Methods
3.1 RESEARCH GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
This research aims to create a set of UA site design principles as it pertains to the
ecological, environmental and social services of sustainability, and aesthetic values
contributing to urban form. This research focuses on the interplay of UA sustainability
and aesthetic criteria, and develops a set of design principles.
The goal of this research is to:
Create a set of site design principles to guide designers and planners in implementing
sustainable and aesthetic approaches to UA in North American municipalities.
The question driving the research is:
What criteria are needed to create design principles to enhance community-based urban
agriculture from a combined sustainability and aesthetic perspective?
The following objectives are employed in achieving the research goal:
o Identify UA criteria pertaining to the three pillars of sustainability, and frame the
criteria in a matrix highlighting contributions as goods, values and services.
o Identify UA aesthetic principles that enhance urban agriculture form.
o Develop a design element inventory to examine the interplay of UA
sustainability and aesthetics.
o Create a set of UA guiding design principles relating to the sustainability and
aesthetic criteria.
26
The research is an exploratory investigation with the aim of analyzing, synthesizing and
visualizing data to develop a set of guiding UA design principles. Figure 6 illustrates the
methodological approach of the research. An overview of the methods for sustainability
criteria, aesthetic principles, design considerations, design element inventory, analysis
and synthesis, and the formulating of proposed design principles are presented in the
following sections.
Focused Literature Review Sustainability Criteria
Focused Literature Review Case Studies Review Aesthetic Principles Design Considerations
and Element Inventory
Analysis & Synthesis
Key Informant Interviews
Design Considerations
Implications for Future Research
Urban Agriculture Design Principles
Contribution to Community Design
Figure 6. Methodological Approach in Formulating UA Design Principles
27
3.2 RESEARCH DEFINITIONS
Urban Agriculture is defined as an industry or a community hub located within the
boundaries of a city "which grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of
food and non-food products, (re-)using largely human and material resources, products
and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and
material resources, products and services largely to that urban area" (Mougeot, 2000, p.
10). In this definition the word 'services' is interpreted as those that offer social,
economic and environmental contributions.
Sustainability for this study is a combination of three definitions. In 1987 the
Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as "development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs". The Charter for New Urbanism (2000, p. 182) adds that sustainability must
account for "diversity, complexity, and inclusivity". Feenstra (2002, p. 100) defines a
sustainable food system as one in which production, processing, distribution and
consumption are "integrated to enhance the economic, environmental and social health
of a particular place". The three definitions are interpreted to express the following:
UA sustainability addresses the needs of both present and future generations through
integrating production, distribution and consumption with the overarching goal of
improving economic, environmental and social well-being, and is inclusive in approach.
NOTE:
o The focus of the research is on the environmental and social services provided at
site and community levels. Economic contributions are examined, but to a lesser
extent, as quantifying economic sustainability is outside the scope of research.
28
Community Food Hub is a combination of two definitions. The Vancouver Regional
Food Strategy (2011, p. 42) defines a food hub as a centrally-located facility that
"provides space for assembly, storage, distribution of goods, processing and
development of local food products" and brings together programming elements to
increase access and "support sustainable urban food systems". In the 2010 publication
titled Agricultural Urbanism the food hub concept is extended to include land use,
design, programming, visibility and regional food system experience. This thesis
proposes a definition of food hub that incorporates a community level context, as
presented in the following: A Community Food Hub is defined as a central community
facility that provides for the production, processing, storage, distribution and retail of
sustainable food products, serves to increase visibility and access to equitable food, and
incorporates land use, programming and design strategies to achieve this goal.
NOTE:
o Community refers to the social commonalities shared by neighbourhoods, and
may or may not be defined by a geographic boundary.
o Community gardens are included in the research but are examined as part of an
integrated hub or UA production network that facilitates distribution, while also
contributing to sustainability services at the community level.
3 . 3 DETERMINING UA SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC CRITERIA
A focused literature review is investigated to establish UA sustainability criteria.
Relevant UA sustainability literature from journal articles, theses, books, essays and
websites are evaluated to inform the sustainability matrix. The matrix is built on the
29
three pillars of sustainability incorporating environmental, social and economic
contributions. For the purpose of this thesis, environmental and ecological services are
grouped in the same category. The matrix presents each criterion as a preexisting
understanding of a good, service or value that could be implemented as design solution,
or as a planning objective that could influence UA design.
A focused literature review is conducted on conventional aesthetic principles with
consideration of their role in enriching the experience and understanding of urban
form. Literature is reviewed from publications on aesthetic principles, form, art, design,
and landscape architecture. Aesthetic and design considerations not accounted for
under the umbrella of sustainability services will be informed through key informant
interviews of two selected case studies from North American municipalities.
The cases studies are selected by: 1) Framing criteria from the sustainability matrix
that provide an overall contribution to the site and surrounding community; and 2)
Examining two UA organizations in North American cities that serve as exemplary
models operating as community food hubs that provide social, environmental and
economic services to the larger community. The key informants will be selected based
on their knowledge of UA production, sustainability services, and ability to comment on
UA aesthetics and design.
30
3 . 4 PROCEDURE FOR FORMULATING UA DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The UA design principles are founded on an analysis and synthesis of: 1) criteria
presented in the sustainability matrix; 2) aesthetic principles; 3) a design element
inventory; and 4) design considerations from key informant (KI) interviews. Figure 7
illustrates the component analysis and synthesis process. The principles are intended
to provide designers and planners with a comprehensive set of guidelines to assist in
the implementation of UA hubs that achieve sustainability and aesthetic services
operating at the site and community levels.
Sustainability
Criteria
Aesthetic
Principles
J v
7~\
v J
Design
Considerations
Design Element
Inventory
J v.
• Review of UA literature • Review of aesthetics • Case study review • Photo Inventory
• Case study review and design literature • KI interviews • Case study review
• Design and planning • KI interviews
Analysis & Synthesis
Sustainability contributions • Inventory of design elements from • Account of additional design
Aesthetics / design considerations site visits, photos and observations elements from KI interviews
y t t y
UA Design Principles
Figure 7. Analysis and synthesis methodology.
31
The sustainability criteria, analysis and design principles and are illustrated with
consistent graphic symbols and a legend for quick reference. The design principles are
presented as succinct one to two sentence quick-reference guidelines that encompass
the environmental, social and economic criteria and aesthetic considerations. In
addition, design element suggestions are presented with each proposed principle.
Where applicable, associated constraints are represented with a mitigating strategy,
trade-off or alternate opportunity. The design principles are targeted for landscape
architects and urban designers, but can also be utilized by planners, food system
advocates and UA practitioners working towards the implementation of UA design
solutions.
32
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis
This chapter is divided into: 1) a synthesis of sustainability criteria based on a focused
literature review, 2) a synthesis of aesthetic criteria based on a focused literature
review, 3) presentation of a case study review of two community food hubs, 4) a
summary of design considerations provide by key informants from the case studies, and
5) an inventory and synthesis of design elements extrapolated from the case studies.
The data and analysis presented in this chapter will be used to inform the proposed UA
design principles.
4 . 1 SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA OVERVIEW
The concept of sustainability provides designers and planners with a common reference
when aiming to achieve a balance between social, ecological and economic services.
Municipal objectives are now commonly developed in terms of sustainability, and it is
key that designers and planners include UA contributions in the same realm. Including
UA sustainable contributions instills a food consciousness into the design and planning
of communities, reduces dependency on external inputs, and facilitates an integrated
approach to food distribution and waste management. Pothukuchi (2004, p. 366) states
that when planners, community designers and food security advocates have similar
objectives they "bring shared understandings on sustainability that can be put to
mutually productive use". The focused literature review looks at the shared
33
understandings of the social, environmental and economic services of UA from
municipalities, food policy councils, academics and food security advocates.
4 . 2 CITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY
Cities vary in approaches to achieving sustainability, ranging from policy guidelines set
from best practice standards to creating indicators for comparison against other
municipalities. Access to local and equitable food is emerging as a sustainability
objective of many cities, and it is now included as an indicator of how cities are
measured for sustainability rankings. In 2011 the Corporate Knights ranked the
sustainability of Canadian cities using an indicator weighting for Local Food Production
and Access. In 2008, a similar peer-reviewed ranking of U.S. cities also incorporated a
Local Food and Agriculture category as part of the evaluation criteria (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Local Food Evaluation in Sustainability Rankings (SustainLane, 2008)
34
Ranking systems help to evaluate sustainability and are instrumental in assessing best
management practices. There are numerous noteworthy sustainability initiatives that
can be cited from cities worldwide. However, to limit the scope to one exemplary city,
the municipal sustainability criteria are extrapolated from initiatives in the Metro
Vancouver, BC that provide a linkage to UA and food production. Justification of this
selection is due to Vancouver achieving the top Canadian municipality sustainability
ranking in 2011, as well as the its progressive mandate of integrating food systems
planning into the municipal agenda. The City of Vancouver lists ten goals to meet its
sustainability objectives for Greenest City 2020, four of which are associated with UA
and food production. Each goal on the City's Sustainability website (2011) offers
strategies to help guide designers, planners, advocates and city residents. Table 4 is a
summary of the goals and strategies, with 'Local Food' strategies in Vancouver
constituting the municipal attributes informing the UA sustainability matrix.
Table 4. City of Vancouver Sustainability Goals and Strategies Connected to UA
Goal Strategies
Green Economy
Zero Waste
Lighter Footprint
Green research, education and training.
Foster a local closed-loop economy (opportunities for
organic waste recycling facilities connecting to UA).
Local food procurement ('eco footprint' market
opportunities connecting to UA).
Local Food Creation of jobs and infrastructure; access to food in local
areas and neighbourhoods; dissemination of information;
advocacy; food policy and action; 'set by example' action;
and future research.
35
4.3 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
The combined role of partnerships, advocacy, support and programming has been
discussed in the Food Planning and Community Participation section of this thesis. The
objective of this section is to examine UA social sustainability services presented in the
form of principles and strategies by various levels of government and public interest
groups, specifically those that can be integrated into a site level or community design.
Social services are those that contribute to the health and wellbeing of community
residents. Social sustainability, as defined by the City of Vancouver Sustainability
website (2011), meets the basic needs of residents and has the ability to build human,
social and community capacity. Resources that help build capacity include those of
health, values, empowerment, skills and education - all of which overlap capacity
objectives when examined in the context of food policy councils or public interest
groups. UA encompasses a range of social goods and services encompassing food
security, recreation, health, sense of place, aesthetics, community building, social
interaction, employment and equity (Pearson et al., 2010; Leeuwen et al., 2010).
Social criteria informing the sustainability matrix are derived from resources that
increase capacity and provide for social goods and services. Examination of academic
literature and UA publications pointed to common references that contain strategies
with the aim of empowering communities towards self-sustaining food systems while
providing for the social services listed above. The literature cited for the sustainability
matrix illustrates advocacy and partnerships that foster food security and policy
change, and present strategies that can be realized in a community design.
36
The key literature informing the social criteria includes:
o Sustainable UA: Stocktake and Opportunities (Pearson et al., 2010)
o Vancouver Regional Food System Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2010)
o UA and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City
Centre to the Urban Fringe (Community Food Security Coalition, 2003)
o In Every Community a Place for Food: The Role of the Community Food Centre in
Building a Local, Sustainable, and Just Food System (Metcalf Foundation, 2010)
The UA social services found in literature comprise the social attributes of the
sustainability criteria matrix.
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Environmental sustainability incorporates management strategies that reduce
environmental impact while providing for environmental goods and services. Proper
environmental management of urban food systems can reduce ecological footprint and
enhance ecosystem services. In return, a healthy urban ecosystem provides
environmental goods and services to humans and other living things. For example,
producing local food as an environmental management strategy to reduce food miles,
and an improvement in air quality through decreased auto emissions are resulting
benefits to both residents and the urban ecosystem. The objective of this section is to
examine UA environmental sustainability as indicated in academic literature,
specifically those that can be realized as a site level or community design strategy.
37
Ecological footprint, a measure introduced by William Rees in 1992, compares the
Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate to human consumption. It is the "sum of all
land and water required to meet material consumption and waste discharge of a
defined population" (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000, p. 44). Municipal governments often
point to this measure when establishing environmental sustainability initiatives to
reduce environmental impacts, and it is frequently cited in UA literature.
Ecosystem services as defined by SITES Performance Benchmarks (2009, p.6) are
"benefits to humans produced by ecosystem processes involving the interaction of
living elements, such as vegetation and soil organisms, and non-living elements, such as
bedrock, water, and air." It is an anthropocentric measure, but it provides a way of
evaluating ecosystem services, and how these services can be implemented as
benchmark standards. In contrast, ecological goods and services is a measure of
benefits that incur from that of a healthy ecosystem to all living organisms, including
humans and other biota. An example of an ecological service is illustrated in ensuring
the survival of a native heirloom variety that provides pollinator habitat.
For the purpose of this study, UA environmental goods and services collectively
includes that of 1) environmental contributions, 2) ecosystem goods and services, and
3) ecological goods and services. UA literature indicates the following as environmental
sustainability objectives for food production in cities: localized production, waste
management, waste water recycling, nutrient cycling of organic materials, soil
conservation, biodiversity, pesticide management, environmental awareness, carbon
sequestration, and measures to mitigate source pollution (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000;
Leeuwen et al., 2010). The literature cited in the sustainability matrix illustrates
38
strategies that reduce ecological footprint and enhance environmental goods and
services. The key literature informing the environmental criteria includes:
o Sustainable UA: Stocktake and Opportunities (Pearson et al., 2010)
o Growing Better Cities: UAfor Sustainable Development (Mougeot, 2006)
o Agronomic Considerations for UA in Southern Cities (Hamel and Danso, 2010)
o UAfor Sustainable Cities: Using wastes and idle land water bodies as resources
(Smitand Nasr, 1992)
o The Greening of the "barrios": UAfor food security in Cuba (Altieri et al., 1999)
Several of the resources cite international UA environmental sustainability objectives,
some of which are discussed in the section titled Nutrient Cycles and Agro-ecological
Considerations. With proper support and resources, the international objectives can be
realized as environmental design strategies in North America cities. The UA
environmental and ecological services reviewed in the cited literature comprise the
associated attributes in the environmental criteria of the matrix.
4.5 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
The focus of this thesis is on the social and environmental sustainability contributions
that influence design. However, the notion of sustainability rests on 3 pillars - that of
environmental, social and economic. The economic facet is not excluded from this
research, but rather it is integrated as criteria that: 1) supplement environmental and
social values, and 2) encourage financial stability.
39
Economics can be defined as a branch of knowledge based on the production and
consumption of goods and services. Economic sustainability is an approach that makes
the best use of resources to provide for long-term benefits. This definition is not
restricted to monetary gain, as goods and services can also be interpreted as values.
Wistowsky (2007) discusses the concepts of use values and non-use values for
evaluating the worth of Canadian National Parks. The same concepts can be applied to
UA environmental and social goods and services. Use values are those that have a value
attached to either a direct use that can be readily consumed (paying for food), or an
indirect use that serves a functional benefit (nutrient cycling). Non-use values are
elements not related to current or future value but are benefits based on the existence
of the good of services. An example of this is demonstrated in one's sense of satisfaction
in knowing that a food hub is providing for food security, even if the person never visits
the site. Table 5 illustrates a subjective evaluation of components and associated values
for with UA sites.
Table 5. UA Components and Associated Values (adapted from Wistowsky, 2007)
UA Component Values
Community Gardens Aesthetic, Recreational, Cultural, Spiritual,
Biodiversity, Biophilic, Therapeutic, Awareness
Industrial Building Historical Preservation, Restoration, Retrofitting
Community Food Centre Food Security, Capacity Building, Education
Organic Waste Facility Nutrient Cycling, Remediation
40
Most businesses operate in monetary terms and economic sustainability involves
efficiently managing resources to maintain a yearly profit. To many entrepreneurs, UA
may appear as a non-lucrative business adventure as there is direct competition with
wholesalers, difficulties in finding production sites, high start-up costs and high markup
costs on production items. However, there are many UA business models that serve as
economic success stories and offer insight into strategies for returning a profit - for
example, Sweet Water Organics in Milwaukee. Profitable UA strategies include specialty
markets, diversification of services, integration of value-added or artisan products and
services, catering and culinary services, small plot intensive farming practices,
aquaponics, non-food plant production (ornamentals), and the reuse and selling of
organic material (Pearson etal., 2010; Metcalf Foundation, 2008; Mougeot, 2006).
Use values and non-use values are integrated into the social and environmental criteria
of the sustainability matrix, and business strategies that enhance opportunities for
profitability inform the economic criteria. In addition, economic criteria presented in
the matrix are derived from the literature previously cited in the environmental and
social sections.
4.6 UA SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA MATRIX
The focused literature review provides an overview of sustainability indices, municipal
strategies and academic resources related to UA and associative environmental, social
and economic goods, values and services. The sustainability criteria matrix is a
composition of the key points derived from these resources. The intent of the matrix is
to provide sustainability criteria that inform the development of UA design principles.
41
The appearance of the sustainability matrix is adapted from a sustainability overview
summarizing "key scientific UA knowledge" of environmental, social and economic
contributions as presented by Pearson et al. (2010, p. 10-11) in their publication titled
Sustainable Urban Agriculture: Stocktake and Opportunities. The logic behind
redeveloping the authors' summation into a new sustainability criteria matrix is
twofold. First, the literature provides an academic evaluation of UA social services;
however, the primary influencers for food hubs come from food security groups
recognizing a need to increase food access and visibility operating at a community level.
The social criteria presented in this evaluation stems from both academic literature and
community advocate groups that document UA considerations for social sustainability
services. Second, there are some gaps in the form of values, as the summary lists
contributions as recognized 'goods and services' in academic literature. Where
possible, these gaps have been addressed and added to the sustainability criteria matrix
in this study. Lastly, Pearson et al. (2010) present aesthetics as a social service.
However, this study evaluates aesthetics as a separate entity altogether, with the
objective to review the combined contributions of aesthetics towards influencing design
arising from of all three pillars of sustainability.
The matrix is constituted of the relevant goods, services and values along the vertical
axis, and associated opportunities and constraints on the horizontal axis. The three
sustainability pillars are each represented with a graphic symbol (circle, square and
triangle), and overarching criteria are evident with the appearance of multiple symbols.
The evaluation level is categorized into two discrete categories: physical level
contributions that can influence a change in urban form, and key planning strategies
that facilitate food systems integration in the urban environment.
42
Table 6. Sustainability Criteria Matrix - Environmental Services
DA O P P O R T U N I T I E S C O N S T R A I N T S
E N V I R O N M E N T A L S E R V I C E S
Ecological Footprint & Conservation
Waste Recycling
Stormwater Management & Water Recycling
Biodiversity
• A Use of under-utilized urban space for food production. Local food reduces food miles travelled, conserves urban land and soil, and reduces pressure on external land and water resources (Smit & Nasr, 1992; Mougeot, 2006)
/ \ Reduce accumulation of organic waste; facilitate closed-loop systems to reuse nutrients on site (Smit & Nasr, 1992; Altieri et al., 1999; Mougeot, 2006)
Capture of rainwater and potential use of filtered wastewater for UA irrigation (Smit & Nasr, 1992; Mougeot, 2006)
Survival of heritage species; UA gardens support pollinator habitat (Metcalf, 2008)
Remediation O A . Conversion of contaminated sites; & Restoration retrofitting and restoration of derelict
industrial sites (Mougeot, 2006; Miguel et al., 1999; Altieri et al., 1999)
Air Quality & Microclimate
Awareness •
Potential for reducing urban heat island and improving microclimate surrounding production sites; improve air quality through transporting food shorter distances (Mougeot, 2006)
Foster awareness of environmental, food and agricultural connections (Altieri et al., 1999)
Production is dependent on seasonal variations, pests, and weeds. Require adequate buffers for noise, light and odour control (Metcalf, 2008; Altieri et al., 1999)
Deficiencies in micronutrients for some crops; potential for nutrient loading into adjacent sites (Hamel & Danso, 2010)
Health risks from pathogens, parasites, metals and toxins; potential for nutrient loading (Hamel & Danso, 2010)
Restrictions in the direct plantings of some crops due to soil contaminants (Hamel & Danso, 2010)
E N V I R O N M E N T A L P L A N N I N G
Overarching Services
| | Social
A Economic
Planning strategies that preserve existing productive land in cities and develop land use policies that make use of rezoning to build new food infrastructure (Mougeot, 2006; VRFS, 2010)
Planning approaches that create spatially closer links among food system activities - from production, processing, consumption to disposal (Pothukuchi, 2004; VRFS, 2010)
43
Table 7. Sustainability Criteria Matrix - Social Services
OHA O P P O R T U N I T I E S C O N S T R A I N T S
S O C I A L S E R V I C E S
Food Security
Diet & Health A
Community Building
Capacity Building
Sense of Place
O A Alleviate hunger and increase access to nutritious and affordable food; provision for a variety of UA sites, facilities and distribution networks to create food access and income opportunities (Metcalf, 2008; VRFS, 2010; CFSC, 2003)
Gardens and community kitchens facilitate recreation and exercise, provide therapeutic benefits and help build nutrition into the community fabric (CFSC, 2003; Metcalf, 2008)
O A UA programs, markets and events contribute to social cohesion; central food hubs provide assembly - which builds relations and fosters advocacy on food, equality and environment (VRFS, 2010; Metcalf, 2008)
Q A Enhances food literacy through building skills to grow and prepare food; kitchens, gardens and markets are venues for education services (Metcalf, 2010)
Preserves person, place and food connections in the form of historical, biophillic, spiritual and cultural values (Metcalf, 2008)
Individuals or groups may not be equipped with adequate funding and 'know how' to start up or secure UA sites (Metcalf, 2008; CFSC, 2003)
Safety concerns to growers and food handlers; access to UA sites; need for monitoring food quality (CFSC, 2003)
S O C I A L P L A N N I N G
Overarching Services
Q Environment
A Economic
Participatory approach required to build partnerships, develop UA infrastructure, and ensure food retail access to all partners (Mougeot, 2006; TFPC, 2000; VRFS, 2010).
Strategies should begin with a Community Food Assessment to illustrate existing food and community relationships, and "mobilize efforts to improve the food system" (CFSC website, 2010; TFPC, 2000)
44
Table 8. Sustainability Criteria Matrix - Economic Services
on O P P O R T U N I T I E S C O N S T R A I N T S
E C O N O M I C S E R V I C E S
Food O O Proper use of UA space and resources Production can maximize production of food
(backyard sharing, SPIN farming on community lands, aquaponics in industrial spaces, etc); establish CSAs to sell at restaurants and markets (CFSC, 2003; Metcalf, 2008)
Non Food O Produce ornamentals where conditions Production do not support food products; develop
facilities that support the collection and conversion of organic waste as a marketable commodity (CFSC, 2003)
Value Added [JJ Buying local needs to be attractive and Products & convenient; community kitchens, pizza Services ovens, prepared meals and artisan
products are specialty features that entice consumers (Mougeot, 2006; Metcalf, 2008)
Cooperatives O D Cooperative infrastructure to store tools, farm equipment and learning resources; sharing of greenhouse facilities for seedling propagation (VRFS, 2010; Miguel et al., 1999)
Tourism & O IZI Workshops, classes and tours provide a Education steady source of income (The Stop, 2011)
E C O N O M I C P L A N N I N G
Mark up costs higher than wholesale food products; risk of losing UA space; theft of food items (Mougeot, 2006; CFSC, 2003)
Varying levels in the quality of compost (Miguel et al., 1999)
Low visibility due to scattered and intermittent service; viewed as an inconvenience (Metcalf, 2008)
Overarching Services
Q Environment
| | Social
Establish cooperative service centres that provide business planning, marketing and administrative support to new food sector businesses (VRFS, 2010)
Connect to the market by creating new supply chains that link producers to incubator space (processors and packaging facilities), distributors, restaurants and caterers, retailers, and consumers (Metcalf, 2008)
45
4.7 AESTHETIC PRINCIPLES
Design has many connotations. It is a plan towards solving a particular problem. It is a
creative process that responds to conditions, values and meanings. At its core, design is
the process of carefully selecting and arranging elements in order to achieve a specific
intent, either functional or aesthetic, or a combination of the two (Faimon and Weigand,
2004). Good design is not purely subjective, nor does it occur by chance. In Art and
Form, Gotshalk (1947, p. 109) comments that form in art pulls from ubiquitous "cosmic
forms" and, at its best, art purifies and vivifies cosmic forms to create an "intrinsic
perceptual interest". A common precept is that a set of principles can facilitate this goal,
aesthetic principles that are applicable to art, design, architecture, music and theatre
alike. This section categorizes conventional design and aesthetic principles that
enhance perception, experience and understanding through their presentation and
composition with specific consideration for application in urban form.
Gotshalk (1947, p. 115) presents the idea of aesthetic appreciation operating on two
levels: that of presentational, reflected in the composition of elements, or that of
representational, reflected in attitudes, perception and meaning. Similarly, in Everyday
Aesthetics, Saito (2007) contends that aesthetic experience goes beyond art
appreciation, referred to as 'art-centred' aesthetic, but is also composed of elevated
experience, or 'experience-oriented' aesthetic. It is the intersection of both reflections
that provides for a greater overall aesthetic experience. Designers and architects are
inherently visual thinkers, but often their creations operate on levels beyond the purely
visual. The intent here is to examine the two levels of aesthetic experience by
separating operative elements and principles.
46
The challenge to designers is to assemble elements into a cohesive and meaningful
whole. Elements constitute the ingredients of design: the contour of a line, shape, hue,
value, texture and materials are all examples of visual design elements. Whereas,
principles provide direction and inform the assembly of elements. Gotshalk (1947)
postulates that the aesthetic principles of harmony, balance, centrality and development
have universal application to enhance aesthetic experience operating on both
presentational and representational levels. The principles are further woven together
by the common design threads of grouping, symmetry, hierarchy, recurrence, contrast,
dominance, rhythm and progression (Gotshalk, 1947; Faimon and Weigand, 2004).
On a representational level aesthetic is also about building narrative, or a cohesiveness,
that binds values, perception and understanding. It is built on relationships between
setting and context, physiological and psychological influences, and on observers'
experience (Fleming, 2007). Aesthetic experience is connected to values that can "shift
perceptions of how we perceive and appreciate the beauty of landscapes" (Jorgensen,
2011, p. 353). Landscape aesthetic and its linkage to environmental, ecological and
cultural values are well documented in academic literature - landscape aesthetic values
that are associated with care, perception, awareness and experience (Gobster et al.,
2007; Jorgensen, 2011). Nassauer (1995) posits that cultural aesthetics are governed
by broad principles of human perception, cultural conventions that influence pattern
and form, and landscape appearance that conveys cultural values. Table 9 provides a
summary of combined presentational and representational aesthetic principles and
associative threads for design consideration that can be used towards enhancing
aesthetic experience through urban form.
47
Table 9. Conventional Aesthetic Principles. Adapted from Gotshalk, 1947; Faimon
and Weigand, 2004; Gobster et al., 2007; Nassauer, 1995.
Aesthetic Principles
Harmony
Balance
Centrality
Development
Rhythm & Pattern
Grouping & Order
Contrast
Connection & Context
Experience
Perception &Care
Description
Represented in the repetition or recurrence of similar elements. Found in the
engraving patterns repeated in architecture. Illustrated through variation,
restating colours, shapes, etc.
Represented in symmetry through the balance of the 'similar', or in asymmetry
in the balance of'dissimilar". The logical placement of objects along a visual axis
in a visual field.
A connection to one item or group that gives a feature an aesthetic dominance.
Often associated with hierarchical order, towards which everything converges.
Elements are set in a pattern to imply directional change or movement. The
advance to non-similar, moving towards something new. Unified by a
succession of steps (progression).
Occurrence of elements suggesting movement, through uniform placement
(regular beats), syncopated placement (off-beats) and accents.
Clear organization of parts conveying order or intent. Achieved through the use
of proximity, repetition, framing (borders) and the use of like parts.
Renders objects clearer by drawing attention or attraction. Achieved through
the use of prominence, focus and hierarchy.
Integration of elements relating to each other, and appropriate to context.
Functioning as part of a larger whole - suitable to surroundings and scale.
Engaging with environment at the human scale or the 'perceptible realm'.
Perceived values connected with the care of landscapes including: order, crisp
edges, delineation, use of colour, straight row plantings, efficient use of space,
maintenance, and promoting awareness of ecological and / or social function.
48
Nassauer (2011) communicates that humans value characteristics of landscapes that
reveal care, and presents a list of perceptible cues that include: order, visible and 'crisp'
edges, fencing between patches of different texture, maintained structures, trimmed
trees and shrubs, colourful flowers, straight row plantings, and signs illustrating
function. The list contains many cues that can help inform the development of UA
design principles. Gobster et al. (2007) states that agricultural landscapes are generally
perceived with order that is congruous with nature, but this perception may not be
compatible with ecological benefits. This same argument can be made of perceptions of
UA and sustainability. Although an urban production site may look attractive, or have a
perception of care, it may be inconsistent with sustainability objectives. The promotion
of UA sustainability services will be more effective if aesthetic attraction is aligned with
design elements and UA spaces that are sustainably sound, and the user aesthetic
response will have a large influence over the success and longevity of these sites.
4.8 CASE STUDY OVERVIEW
Academic literature and food security groups frequently point to The Stop Community
Food Centre, in Toronto, Ontario and Growing Power, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as
exemplary models of community food hubs that provide UA sustainability services. A
case study review of each underlines the associated values illustrated in the
sustainability matrix, and examines the interrelation of UA sustainability services,
aesthetics and design. Data collection consists of an inventory of design elements, a
review of organizational publications, site visits and key informant interviews. A
review of the case studies explores how UA sustainability services are implemented as
design solutions, and how these solutions can be used to inform UA design principles.
49
4.9 CASE STUDY 1 - THE STOP, TORONTO, ONTARIO
Overview: The Stop consists of two main sites in Toronto - a community food centre
located at 1884 Davenport Road, and the Green Barn located at Wychwood Barns. The
Stop nurtures community garden initiatives at Ealscourt Park and Hillcrest Park and
promotes a backyard sharing initiative in residential yards.
Mission: "The Stop strives to increase access to healthy food in a manner that maintains
dignity, builds community and challenges inequality" (The Stop website, 2011).
Community Food Centre
Situated in a Toronto food desert, the 1884 Davenport Community Food Centre (CFC)
provides 'frontline services' to the Davenport community. The surrounding community
is comprised of many low-income families and is home to the highest immigrant
population in the City. The CFC addresses food security through increasing access and
empowering residents with programs and services to develop food skills. The
Davenport CFC integrates the following programming and infrastructure elements: an
emergency food bank offering a 3-day supply of food; drop-in services, such as dietetic
counseling and food prep demonstrations; a 'Good Food Market' ensuring equitable
access to local sustainable food, a kitchen for drop-in meals and cooking classes; a
community outdoor bake oven and pizza days; and sustainable food systems education.
Wychwood Barns & The Green Barn
In 2008, Architect Joe Lobko and City Councilor Joe Mihevc transformed the historical
Toronto Transit Commission landmark from that of a derelict industrial site into a
multifunctional community space. Wychwood Barns is now a designated multiuse park
50
that serves as an exceptional model of adaptive reuse design. The site contains 5 barns
supporting live-work studios for artists, a theatre, gathering space, office space for non
profit organizations, and The Stop's Green Barn - a community kitchen and greenhouse
facility. The Green Barn facility and programming strategies aim to provide just and
sustainable food, enhance food security, and increase food visibility in the community.
Environmental Design and UA Production:
The Stop's UA program includes the Green Barn's greenhouse facility, an 8,000 square
foot garden at Earlscourt Park, a Global Roots Garden, and a community garden at
Hillcrest Park. Collectively the UA production sites produce 4,000 pounds annually of
fresh produce for The Stop's programs, while engaging community members of all ages
and culture groups in learning how to use sustainable methods to plant, grow and
l i a n / o c i - n r n H n r o f . a r H o n Mmrl^cVirinc C P P H o y r l i a n a p c anH n t h p r ca rv i rpQ a r p n f f p r p H a«
additional UA initiatives.
The environmental design and UA production features include:
o Greenhouse facility for growing year-round produce, used for drop-in meals,
markets, and for propagating seedlings in support of UA sites.
o A compost demonstration centre at the Green Barn provides a nutrient-rich
growing medium for greenhouse seedlings.
o Wychwood Barns retrofit modifications include a geothermal system, reflective
roof materials, and a cistern for stormwater management.
o 'Yes In My Backyard' (YIMBY) program that connects people who would like to
garden, but do not have space, to homeowners willing to lend space in their yards.
o Community and cultural gardens that connect a diversity of user groups.
51
Social and Economic Services:
The Stop's approach rests on the four pillars of food skills, access, education, and civic
engagement. 1) Food Skills: community kitchens to educate on health and nutrition,
and provide a space for social cohesion; 2) Access: immediate food needs or drop-in
meals to enjoy food and connect with others; 3) Education Programs: after-school
programs that aim to promote preparing and eating nutritious food, engaging children
with "food system issues" and sustainable food systems education; and 4) Civic
Engagement through creating a forum for advocacy. Social enterprise is developing as
the 5th pillar, and includes chef-led initiatives and a catering company that generates 10-
15% of yearly revenue. The CFC and Green Barn model is to be kept "as open source as
possible" as The Stop intends to replicate the model in other Canadian municipalities
(quoted from Green Barn tour in February, 2011).
4.10 CASE STUDY 2 - GROWING POWER, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
Overview: Growing Power is a non-profit organization, CFC and land trust with
headquarters located at 5500 West Silver Spring Drive in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The
property is zoned as the last functional farm in the City. It is a multifarious organization
comprised of UA operations and partnerships in Milwaukee and Chicago. Growing
Power has blossomed into a symbol for the 'Good Food Revolution' with a national and
global commitment to just and sustainable food systems.
Mission and Vision: Growing Power's mission is to support "people from diverse
backgrounds, and the environments in which they live, by helping to provide equal
access to healthy, high-quality, safe and affordable food for people in all communities"
52
(GP website, 2011). Growing Power's vision is to empower communities to build
sustainable food systems that are food-secure, equitable and ecologically sound.
Growing Power, Silver Spring Drive
In 1993, founder and CEO Will Allen designed a program offering teens an opportunity
to work at a 2-acre farm site located on 5500 Silver Spring Drive in the north side of
Milwaukee. The program aimed to empower youth with the goal of renovating the site
and creating a community food hub. The surrounding area has many characteristics of
a food desert, as it is located in a low-income community that is devoid of grocery
retailers selling healthy food options. The farm and market site provides the
community with a place to grow, process and purchase local and nutritious food. In
1999 the site evolved into a CFC and began providing space for training, outreach and
ai^titro H o m A n c h r a t i n n It- i c o l a n ^ m a r t cii-o i-Vioi- i n t o n r a i - p c fr»nri cor'iir'itw o n i n n i A j o r m f l n t US-V.1VV, U V 1 I I U I I J U U U U 1 I . »V W I* l U U V l l l l U l ** J A W U l U t . H l M - ^ l M l C j l\J\J\A J V- \. Vt» 1 LjT , V l l l [ / U T) V I l l l V l l b ,
UA production and sustainability services in the United States.
Environmental Design and UA Production:
Growing Power integrates UA production with innovative environmental design
strategies that include closed-loop nutrient cycling technologies (aquaponic systems),
energy conservation, stormwater management and large-scale composting services.
Some of the environmental services are beneficial at the site level, while other services
benefit the larger region. For example, a large volume of brewery sludge is collected by
Growing Power from Milwaukee area breweries. The sludge acts as a nitrogen source
for compost and helps establish a nutrient-rich medium for vermiculture processing.
The compost is then sold as a resource at the main site, or used in site remediation and
community garden projects for other UA initiatives.
53
The environmental design and UA production features include:
o Six greenhouses producing over 12,000 pots of herbs, salad mix, beet greens,
arugula, mustards, sprouts and seedlings. The greenhouses support integrated
hydroponic and aquaponic systems (producing tilapia, perch and watercress) and
compost production areas for worm castings and compost tea.
o Hoop houses that support fish runs, growing beds for salads and seedlings, a worm
depository, and poultry runs for laying hens and ducks.
o Outdoor pens for livestock including goats, rabbits, and turkeys.
o Apiary boxes for honey production, and to facilitate plant pollination.
o Dedicated space for the organization's innovative composting operation.
o Retrofit enhancements including: an anerobic digester to produce energy from food
waste; solar panels for energy supply and heating of aquaponic beds; and a
stormwater collection tank for supplying water to plants and aquaponic tanks.
o Secured rural agricultural land in close proximity to the city to increase production.
o Community garden initiatives located throughout Milwaukee and Chicago.
Social and Economic Services:
Many of Growing Power's social initiatives are built on partnerships with external
organizations. The partnerships aim to increase food security, empower residents to
build healthy communities, and strengthen food distribution networks. The economic
services are listed together with social services as most of the income filters back to
social programming.
The social programs and services offered through Growing Power include:
o Youth apprenticeship and volunteer programs.
54
o A farmer's cooperative that links small-scale farmers to market opportunities.
o Donating produce directly to organizations serving individuals and families in need.
o Outreach programs in Milwaukee and Chicago. An example is the Los Cultivadores
de Paz Community Garden, where Growing Power partnered with a community
group to create garden and education initiatives for soil remediation, nutrition, land
stewardship and health.
o 'Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative' program for innovation and leadership
with a vision of "dismantling racism" through the strengthening of community food
systems (GP Website, 2011).
o Market Basket Program, providing a weekly basket of fresh produce grown by the
Farmer's Cooperative to low-income urban residents at a reduced cost.
o A small retail store with market stands to sell produce, meat, worm castings,
compost and value-added items to the community.
o Vendors selling at farmer markets and to local area restaurants.
o Daily tours and monthly workshops that generate income and cultivate awareness.
4.11 INTERVIEWS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental features, UA production, social programming and economic services
listed in the case studies incorporate elements and principles of design. It may be
design intent, as seen with the integration of the Green Barn and the Global Roots
Garden at a multifunctional park site in Toronto, or it may evolve over time, as seen
with the Growing Power site in Milwaukee. This section examines considerations for
UA design, and the interplay of sustainability and aesthetics in UA design elements.
55
Design considerations are summarized from key informant interviews, site tours and
from dialogue with volunteer and staff. Two key informant interviews were conducted:
Rhonda Teitel-Payne, Urban Agriculture Manager for The Stop in March, 2011 and Erika
Allen, Chicago and National Outreach Manager for Growing Power, Inc in May, 2011.
The key informant interview questions for each interviewee are attached in Appendix A.
In addition, considerations were accounted from question and answer periods from site
tours at the Growing Power, Inc site in Milwaukee, The Stop's Community Food Centre
on Davenport, and The Stop's Green Barn at Wychwood Barns. The considerations are
grouped into the five categories of 1) creating a draw, 2) site attractiveness, 3) user
groups, 4) perceptions, and 5) future design suggestions.
Creating a draw: People are drawn to where others are congregating, and where there
are signs of activity, as found in gardens and bake ovens, and to features that let
individuals explore curiosity (Payne, 2011). The greenhouse is viewed as a main
attraction as it "offers year-round warmth, and signs of life" (Payne, 2011). A draw is
created through integrating the sites into pre-existing public spaces, such as in parks
and markets, and ensuring that they are visible (Payne, 2011). Visitors are drawn to the
sheer volume of plant material and the different systems in place. At Growing Power
there is a tremendous amount of integrated production on many levels: vegetables, fish,
compost, worms, etc., and these technologies highlight productivity (Allen, 2011). Since
the focus is on production, people are drawn to those features that emphasize or exhibit
this characteristic where they can see the "appropriateness of the technology - grasp it,
and they can replicate it" (Allen, 2011). In some features a draw is created in learning
opportunities and awareness, but may not be design intent.
56
Often the sites are a "remedy to an issue" where design is not intended to create a draw
but developed for another function (Allen, 2011). For example, the Grant Park
installation titled Art on the Farm was created to address how UA production could be
integrated into public land, in this case a city park. The key considerations were how to
maintain a certain aesthetic while balancing UA production needs. Since the space is
typically used for ornamentals, the design attempts to integrate or complement the
surroundings while also maximizing UA production. In Grant Park the UA site
incorporated artistic elements and patterns for beautification (Allen, 2011).
Site attractiveness: Attractiveness incorporates a variety of aesthetic considerations,
some in the form of conventional aesthetic principles, and some in the form of values,
'cues to care', perception and understanding. The features and elements accounted in
f n o V Q I T i n f n r m i n t - itrl-oi-iriaTAro 1 n r*! 11 ri £* * " i c ' l O i l " in4-£ir'£»c,l-i r»rr n n H Q i ' n c l-r»Tl- i*ro*"t" t"*"»i*'*3 *"•'•** inx^ i^^jr nkiKJi i n a t i b u n C i v i\* « V J l i i v i w v i C t v u t i a i i j f m l v i ^ o u i t g u c i l l v i i u u i a t » v u i i \ i v v v t i t u o
balance and unity; perimeter plantings that accentuate borders; aesthetic
considerations for views looking in and out of UA sites; signage and murals that reflect
community identity; use of colour to enrich site elements; an appearance of lushness by
plants in full bloom and in production technologies that appear relatively weed-free;
appearance of maximizing production through efficient use of space and growing
technologies; repetition of features; orderly appearance of production space; organized
and structured planting beds; raised beds; and integration into surrounding context are
all elements that complement overall aesthetic (Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011).
User Groups: UA sites need to be somewhat neutral by not catering the overall design
to one user group in order to avoid 'branding' of the site; various features should work
together to increase comfort, provide for a safe environment, and limit distraction
57
among the different user groups; incorporating planting design that facilitates cultural
identity (Payne, 2011). Raised beds make gardens more accessible to a wider audience
(Payne, 2011; Allen, 2011). At Growing Power, there is an aim to create multicultural,
multigenerational, and multi-ability level sites that are accessible, and to develop
technologies that are straightforward (Allen, 2011). For example, as long as you "can
hold a drill" then one should be able to replicate the technology (Allen, 2011).
Perceptions: A general perception is that the connection to local food provides a
service to the community, even if the residents are not directly involved - as it offers a
perceived social and environmental aesthetic (Payne, 2011). Successful UA sites foster
a sense of community invitation, through incorporating space for events such as
community BBQs, parties, tours and workshops (Payne, 2011). Some negative
perceptions of the sites include disorderly appearance, concern over wasteful
production, and artistic elements that conflict with the surrounding aesthetic - but
these perceptions could be alleviated through ensuring clean and orderly design,
production that does not appear wasteful, and year-round maintenance of the sites
(Payne, 2011). UA sites situated in communities tend to be more aesthetic, but this is
not always the case. Growing Power in Milwaukee site did not initially incorporate an
aesthetic component as it was set up to be more farm-oriented, but the residents are
very supportive of the site (Allen, 2011). This is likely due to the visibility of the site,
and its contribution towards increasing food security in the surrounding community.
Future Design Suggestions: The key informant interviews and discussions from site
tours provided an account of suggested design enhancements from site operators.
58
Suggestions include a need to instill a sense of mystery through progression; features
that encourage interaction and provide for enhanced sensory experience - such as a
suggested New Adventures in Sound Art installation allowing individuals to listen to the
sound of bees; design that maximizes UA production space - in land, rooftops, vertical
space, etc., and in facility space for food preparation (community kitchens); better
integration of the UA space and processing infrastructure; adequate seating areas; and
design that takes greater consideration into balancing shade for human comfort needs
and sun requirements for plant needs (Payne, 2011). In Milwaukee they are looking to
construct a new CFC building, and would like to integrate place(s) to eat to enhance
visitor experience - potentially a cafe, restaurant or other feature (Allen, 2011). This
would complement a food experience in which prepared food items are coming from
place(s) of production.
The key informant interviews also provided insight into several other considerations.
Erika Allen (2011) comments that "maybe people would prefer a blank slate, but this is
often not the case" and describes how every site is unique and circumstantial. For
example, at Growing Power there tends to be a lot of retrofitting of existing buildings,
and production and design tends to revolve around this. Although aesthetics is not
always a primary concern there still tends to be a lot of production strategies that
contributes on an aesthetic level. This is often the case with the production of edible
flowers, herbs and ornamentals; at apiary production sites, they are conscious about
growing flora that the bees need for nectar while also producing flowers that offer an
aesthetic appeal (Allen, 2011). Rhonda Teitel-Payne (2011) provides a suggestion of
"adjustment periods" for various UA uses as the sites generally take form over time.
59
4.12 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF DESIGN ELEMENTS
Design elements from Growing Power are illustrated from a photo inventory of the
Silver Spring Drive CFC and farm site in Milwaukee, and from community gardens
located in Grant Park and Jackson Park, Chicago. Design elements from the Stop are
illustrated from a photo inventory of the Green Barn and Davenport CFC in Toronto.
Additional elements are added from organizational websites to fill gaps in the
inventory. Attributes of the design elements are compiled from data collected from site
visits, facility tours, and informed by sustainability criteria, aesthetic principles, and
design and aesthetic considerations summarized from the key informant interviews.
Figure 9 provides a legend overview of a sample design element highlighting the
inventory and attribute synthesis. The photo illustrates the design element; the
sustainability contribution mirrors symbol representation in the sustainability criteria
matrix; and the attribute listing comprises the identified criteria, principles and
considerations. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate a synthesis of attributes from the two sites.
Design Element Image
UA Sustainability Contribution
O Environmental f j Social / \ Economic
Listing of sustainability services, aesthetic principles, and design considerations
Figure 9. Photo Inventory and Design Element Legend
ODA
• Environmental awareness • Social cohesion
• Production • Central attraction
60
Industrial Restoration Greenhouse Community Kitchen
ODA • Restoration and retrofitting
• Historical connection • Harmony • Visibility
• Centrality
Outdoor Bake Ovens
Human scale experience • Connection to context
• Community imagery • Social cohesion
$0&v&:f4»i'
ODA Environmental awareness
• Social cohesion • Production • Centrality
Murals
u Connection to context • Community imagery • Contrast and colour
DA • Human scale experience
• Food prep for retail • Social cohesion • Skills building
Community Food Hub
^ *V I 1 A
U U Z i Education and awareness
• Production and retail • Community outreach
• Visibility / access
Aesthetic & Cultural Gardens Learning Areas Outdoor Infrastructure
ODA • Integration with surroundings
• Grouping, rhythm and colour • Balance, harmony and order
• Social cohesion • Views in / out
ODA Education / social cohesion • Environmental awareness
• Human scale experience • Agri-tourism
ODA Borders, edges and framing • Comfort (seating / shade)
• Progression and order • Raised beds
• Grouping
Figure 10. Photo Inventory and Associated Design Elements - Part I
61
Aquaponic Beds Stormwater Collection Vertical Space
ODA • Environmental awareness
• Nutrient Cycling • Production
Fencing
Environmental awareness • Water recycling • Water savings
Integrated Design
DA • Efficient use of space
• Sense of order • Production
Garden Beds
• Division and protection • Sense of care and order
• Visual border
Markets
O A • Environmental awareness
• Nutrient cycling • Energy savings
Buffers
ODA • Sense of care and order
• Repetition / rhythm • Production
Signage & Barriers
ODA Visibility and access Local food economy
• Social cohesion
on Visual / olfactory buffers • Sense of care and order
on Education and awareness • Division and protection
All photos by Bryan McPherson during site visits except Learning Areas [Growing Power, Inc website 2011), Markets and Outdoor Infrastructure {The Stop website 2011)
Figure 11. Photo Inventory and Associated Design Elements - Part II
62
Design elements from The Stop and Growing Power show that community food hubs
deliver both sustainable and aesthetic contributions that can be used towards
enhancing UA design at the site and community levels. The design elements
demonstrate a convergence of sustainability and aesthetic criteria. Many of the
examples provide both functional and aesthetic components that can be aimed at
enriching UA sites. For example, the Growing Power installation titled 'Art on the Farm'
located in Grant Park, Chicago, illustrates that UA can operate on the levels of
production, social demonstration and aesthetic integration (shown in the Aesthetic and
Cultural Garden design element). The overarching objectives of identifying UA
sustainability criteria, aesthetic criteria, design considerations and illustrating the
interplay in a design element inventory help inform a set of guiding UA design
principles. The next chapter introduces the principles and their potential role of
informing designers and planners to help vivify community, provide for positive
aesthetic experience and enrich understanding.
63
Chapter 5 Design Principles and Discussion
The following chapter unifies identified criteria, design elements and considerations
into a set of informed UA design principles and presents an illustration of the principles.
The discussion examines the validity of the proposed design principles, and investigates
how the principles can be used to inform Agricultural Urbanism and community design.
5.1 UA DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The difference between an element and principle was introduced in the Aesthetic
Principles section. Elements are analogous to ingredients, and principles provide
direction in the assembly of elements. In this study sustainability criteria are presented
in a matrix, and aesthetic ruminations are presented as aesthetic principles and design
considerations. The design elements illustrate tangible features showing the interplay
of aesthetics and sustainability. The combination of all data is presented here as a set of
fourteen guiding UA design principles. Figure 12 provides a legend overview, with
design principles listed in sequence on the following pages.
PRINCIPLE #: d p O D A PRINCIPLE TITLE AND Focus I , 1 c
Focus Area UA Sustainability Contribution
Cj Design f~) Planning O Environmental f j Social ^ \ Economic
Figure 12. Design Principles Legend Overview
64
PRINCIPLE # 1 : O P O D A LAYOUT AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP
Situate central food hubs within close proximity to production sites, processing and
distribution infrastructure, market and retail, and nutrient cycling facilities. Locate
food hubs and related services in communities where food security is a priority,
and use community and municipal resources to determine underutilized space.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Cooperatives, shared greenhouses and processing facilities,
community gardens on public land, and conversion of derelict sites.
SOURCE: Considerations for spatial relationships are provided in 1) Growing Power and The
Stop case study reviews, 2) accessibility concerns resulting from food deserts in cities, and 3)
Grouping & Order aesthetic principle (Faimon and Weigand, 2004). Shared infrastructure
consideration is documented in the Sustainability Matrix [Smit and Nasr, 1992; Mougeot, 2006;
Altieri et al., 1999). Underutilized space is accounted in the case study review, the Sustainability
Matrix and in KI interviews (Mougeot, 2006; Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011). Working with
community and municipal resources is accounted in the Sustainability Matrix (Mougeot, 2006).
PRINCIPLE # 2 : O P O D INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
Facilitate transparent integrated environmental design that incorporates
production and closed-loop nutrient cycling, and provides for energy conservation.
Foster the perception of an environmental aesthetic through promoting awareness
of their function, and ensure the design elements are both safe and accessible.
65
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Aquaponic beds, compost facilities, stormwater tanks, energy
conservation features, gathering areas, safety barriers and educational signage.
SOURCE: Transparent design is accounted in the case study reviews, and in a key informant (KI)
interview (Allen, 2011). Production, nutrient cycling and energy conservation is documented in
the Sustainability Matrix (Smit & Nasr, 1992; Mougeot, 2006; Altieri et al., 1999). Integrated
environmental design is accounted for in retrofit and cost saving considerations from case
studies, site tours and KI correspondence (Allen, 2011). Perception of environmental aesthetic
is interpreted from Saito (2007) and Gobster et al. (2007), and is apparent in the case studies.
PRINCIPLE #3: C J P O BIODIVERSITY
L'SSign to protect, mimic anu ennance the biodiversity Oi tnc region whiic ensuring
production needs are met. Engage users at the human scale, while also fostering
awareness that ecological services are connected to, and enrich, a larger system.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Native plant species, displays illustrating traditional ecological
knowledge, and production systems that mimic ecosystem interactions (aquaponic,
vermicompost solutions, etc).
SOURCE: Consideration for biodiversity is accounted for in the Sustainability Matrix (Metcalf,
2008), in case studies, and in a KI interview (Allen, 2011). Human scale interaction is accounted
for in aesthetic principles (Gobster et al., 2007) and from correspondence on 'interactive'
displays (Payne, 2011). Perception of environmental aesthetic to promote awareness is
interpreted from Saito (2007).
66
PRINCIPLE #4: d O D A USER EXPERIENCE
Design to enrich user experience. Create multifunctional space that is attractive,
develops an appreciation for aesthetic values associated with food production and
consumption, promotes awareness, invites community, and fosters interaction with
people, design and environment.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Value-added services, community bake-ovens, community
kitchens, education areas, signage illustrating function, murals, art installations,
interactive displays and sensory-enhanced features (tactile, sound, fragrance).
SOURCE: User experience consideration is accounted for in the aesthetic principles, and in KI
interview (Gobster et al., 2007; Allen, 2011). Multifunctional space integration into UA sites is
mentioned in both KI interviews (Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011). Environmental and food
awareness is highlighted in Sustainability Matrix (Altieri et al., 1999); social awareness is
accounted for in KI interview (Payne, 2011). Considerations for inviting community and to
foster interaction found in KI interview (Payne, 2011).
PRINCIPLE #5: d p O D A LEARNING AND ASSEMBLY
Provision for space to allow for assembly, capacity building, agri-tourism,
educational and awareness opportunities. Distribute learning and assembly space
to avoid conflicting use with UA production, processing and distribution.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Community kitchens, education facilities, dedicated gathering and
learning areas, event space, and indoor and outdoor group seating areas.
67
SOURCE: Learning, education and assembly considerations are documented in the case study
review, site tours and KI interviews (Payne, 2011; Allen, 2011). Capacity building is documented
in the Sustainability Matrix (Metcalf, 2010). Distributing space to avoid conflicting use is reported
in KI interview (Payne, 2011).
PRINCIPLE # 6 : d • USER GROUPS
Design to cater to a variety of user groups. Unify elements to increase access, limit
distraction, delineate usage and provide for a safe environment.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Neutrality in multifunctional gathering space can avoid branding,
raised beds, ramps, delineation between visitor space and UA worker space (colour
schemes), and cultural gardens.
SOURCE: Consideration for multiple user groups is accounted for in case study review and in the
KI interviews (Payne, 2011; Allen, 2011). User groups include multicultural, multigenerational
and multi-ability level, with consideration for staff, volunteers, visitors and surrounding
residents Distraction and safety considerations observed while conducting facility tours, from
conversations with onsite staff and volunteers and in KI interview (Payne, 2011).
PRINCIPLE # 7 : Q P D COMMUNITY IDENTITY
Reflect community identity through design, and repeat this theme in a variety of
design elements. Preserve person, place and food connections from historical,
ecological, and cultural food values.
68
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Cultural gardens, cross-cultural and heirloom fruits or vegetables,
murals, art, community kitchens, community based products at market and retail.
SOURCE: Reflecting community identity in design is evident in case studies - as seen in murals,
tile arrangement in bake ovens and cultural gardens. This aspect is mirrored in KI
considerations for community and cultural identity (Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011). Repetition is
evident in several elements in the case studies, and could be developed further to enhance the
aesthetic experience; this is highlighted as a thread for the Aesthetic Principles.
PRINCIPLE #8: d O D FOOD NARRATIVE
Design for a food narrative - with central features showcasing the interactions of
community and food. Attract users to central features that display values
associated with local food and sustainability services using the design strategies of
hierarchy, focus and convergence.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Community kitchens and bake ovens, learning areas, murals,
greenhouses, community gardens, nutrient-cycling systems and art installations.
SOURCE: Consideration for a food narrative is interpreted from case study reviews, KI interviews
and on-site observations. KI interviewees point to the importance of highlighting food as a
resource to be consumed at the site of production (Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011). A food narrative
can illustrate cyclical connections from organic waste -> to production -> to preparation -> to
consumption. Food literacy, capacity building and awareness are documented in the
Sustainability Matrix (Metcalf, 2008). Regard for design strategies are from Aesthetic Principles
on 'Centrality" and 'Contrast*.
69
PRINCIPLE #9: d O D POSITIVE PERCEPTION
Group and frame design elements to facilitate perceptions of care, efficiency and
overall benefit to the surrounding community. Ensure design that is orderly, well
maintained, contains buffers and builds in proper views (in and out) of UA space.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Visually attractive garden beds, straight row plantings, pattern
plantings, crisp edges between production types, fencing, tree or hedge buffers, and
murals, signage and art installations blending into the surrounding context.
SOURCE: Consideration for grouping, framing and orderly appearance to facilitate perceptions of
care is documented by Nassauer (2011). Perception of efficiency is evident in case study review,
and provided as an aesthetic consideration in the KI interviews (Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011).
Buffer controls are accounted as a mitiCTatinCT stratem/ for constraint listed in the Sustainability
Matrix, and views in / out of UA space is provided in KI interview (Payne, 2011).
PRINCIPLE #10: d • PROGRESSION
Create a sense of progression and movement through a unified succession of steps,
pathways and connections, and by delineating boundaries. Instill a sense of
mystery and adventure by allowing users to explore curiosity through advancing to
new and hidden objects.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Paths, stepping stones, repetition of elements suggesting rhythm,
holding ropes or other features guiding users through site, changes in colour,
varying subthemes, hidden objects and central features that capture interest.
70
SOURCE: Regard for progression is founded on site observations, as consideration for movement
was evident in certain places but not always unified. Restrictions or bottlenecks often occurred.
Development is a Conventional Aesthetic Principle, and a unified succession can foster a sense of
logical movement though the site. Consideration for 'instilling a sense of mystery" and allowing
users to 'explore curiosity' was provided in KI interview (Payne, 2011).
PRINCIPLE #11: d O D MICROCLIMATE AND COMFORT
Integrate design elements to enhance comfort at the human scale, while balancing
UA production requirements for sun exposure. Design microclimate environments
to provide shade and shelter areas for human comfort needs, and to reduce urban
heat island effect to the surrounding area.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Reflective materials, green roof production, plantings and design
features with seasonal considerations for wind protection, sun exposure and shade.
SOURCE: 'Human scale' comfort consideration provided in case study review, and illustrated in
the Aesthetic Principles (Gobster et al., 2007). Proper balance of production needs (sun) and
human comfort needs (shade) is accounted for in KI interview (Payne, 2011). Suggestion to
reduce urban heat island to surrounding area is from the Sustainability Matrix (Mougeot, 2006).
PRINCIPLE # 1 2 : d p O D A ACTIVITY AND ATTRACTION
Design to capture attention and highlight activity. Create a draw by integrating
sites into pre-existing or neighbouring public spaces and ensuring that production,
outreach and retail have prominence and are visible to residents and visitors alike.
71
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Optimized production strategies, public markets, retail stands,
staging areas, public greenspace, cultural gardens, and multifunctional landmarks.
SOURCE: Highlighting activity is accounted for in site observations and in KI interview (Payne,
2011). Integration into public spaces is a factor in both case studies, and appearance and
visibility of sites are key considerations (Allen, 2011; Payne, 2011). NOTE - Production
prominence is case dependent, as some circumstances may require visibility buffers.
PRINCIPLE #13: d p O D A PRODUCTION AND RETAIL DIVERSITY
Facilitate a diversity of production and retail strategies. Maximize food and non
food production and retail opportunities through creative integration of UA space.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Stacked vertical production, livestock, apiaries, aquaponic beds,
compost, worm castings, rooftop production, rural land procurement, value-added
products, ornamentals, CSAs, catering services, restaurants, and farmers' markets.
SOURCE: Production and retail diversity considerations are accounted for in the Sustainability
Matrix under the categories of food production, awareness, non-food production and value
added products (Altieri et al, 1999; CFSC, 2003; Metcalf, 2008). Maximizing yield through
production is provided in the case study review, and highlighted in the KI interview as a main
contributing factor for attracting site visitors (Allen, 2011). Creative integration of UA space is a
main consideration for type of production, distribution or retail strategy, and often the aesthetic
consideration is secondary to meet these primary needs (Allen, 2011). However, production
and retail contributes to aesthetic values and perceptions associated with food, community and
sustainability (Aesthetic Principles; Sustainability Matrix - multiple citations).
72
PRINCIPLE #14: d P O • A COHESIVENESS AND CONTEXT
Unify design elements through a logical arrangement that achieves balance, clear
organization of parts and is appropriate to context. Aim to harmonize features that
enhance awareness, experience, and understanding of values associated with food,
community and sustainability.
DESIGN ELEMENTS: Applicable to all elements and planning strategies. Integrate
components to relate to each other and reflect this in the overall design.
SOURCE: Cohesion as described in the literature review is a characteristic that binds values,
perceptions and understanding; it is built on observers' experience and on relationships
between setting and context. Balance, harmony, clear organization of parts, and connection to
context are provided as Aesthetic Principles, accounted for as design considerations in the KI
interviews, and are demonstrated as aesthetic components in the design element inventory and
cross reference analysis.
Design Principles Summary
The intention of the proposed principles is to better equip designers and planners
with a 'toolkit' of documented UA sustainability services and aesthetic considerations
to be incorporated into design at the site and community levels. The proposed
principles are not a panacea to meet all urban food needs, nor are they a definitive
set of UA design and planning strategies. However, the proposed principles do offer
a clear approach of how to design, integrate and assemble UA elements to function as
a cohesive whole in the urban environment.
73
5 . 2 DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The proposed fourteen design principles offer a way of intervening through design
intent. They are both evident and identifiable, with an intention of shaping perception,
experience and understanding. The evolution of principles is not an absolute science -
as they do not prove or disprove a given hypothesis. Nonetheless, derived principles
are expected to have a sound and informed basis. They provide a foundation that can
be challenged, but at the same time provide for a clearer understanding of how design
can be used as a mechanism of intervention.
Gobster et al., (2007) present a model of 'interventions through design' with an aim of
aligning ecological goals with positive aesthetic experience. The principles presented
here offer a similar type of design intervention through aligning sustainability goods,
values and services with positive aesthetic associations. The authors suggest that the
most important element of the model is found within the 'perceptible realm' because
actions "demonstrate the potential for aesthetics to motivate and direct landscape
change" (Gobster et al., 2007, p. 964).
Since the proposed UA design principles are informed by the actions of community food
hubs and the interplay of sustainability and aesthetics, one could deduce that the
principles could correspondingly serve to inspire and inform landscape change in cities.
There are two assumptions with this deduction: 1) the model is transferable to the
'perceptible realm' of the urban environment, and 2) the notion of sustainability, can be
interchanged with that of ecological goals. This study weighed heavily on the social and
environmental contributions from UA, and framed economic criteria as functional
74
benefits and non-use values. This does warrant future investigation on the applicability
of the principles. Nevertheless, there appears to be validity in the approach used to
inform the proposed design principles.
The development of a set of design principles is not new. However, this research offers
a methodological approach that is both replicable and transferable for consideration
towards the creation of design principles. Specifically, it can help others towards the
formation of design principles looking to integrate sustainability and aesthetics with
'intervention through design' intent.
5 . 3 CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL URBANISM AND COMMUNITY DESIGN
In 2010 HB Lanarc released a publication titled Agricultural Urbanism. The authors
frame many food systems planning, UA and sustainability concepts and propose them as
a unified urbanism construct. Agricultural Urbanism (AU) is presented as "planning,
policy and design framework for developing a wide range of sustainable food and
agricultural system elements into community scales" that incorporates a set often
guiding principles and associated strategies for planners and designers to operate
within this framework (La Salle and Holland, 2010, p. 30).
Upon examination of the AU framework several new research possibilities and
questions for this study were revealed. Should the research path be redirected?
Should the goal be revised to work towards supporting this new framework? Indeed
these possibilities were explored and it was felt there was an opportunity to help
inform the proposed principles in AU - an opportunity to integrate sustainability,
75
aesthetics and design, and frame a methodology to inform the development of design
principles. The principles developed for this research were formulated with specific
design intent: to enhance sustainability services through highlighting the interplay of
sustainability and aesthetics. The AU principles are very much about sustainability,
food systems planning and community design, but could be enhanced through a greater
aesthetic understanding of these systems. Table 10 is a listing of the AU principles (La
Salle and Holland, 2010, p. 30).
Table 10. Agricultural Urbanism principles and complementing strategies
o Take an integrated, food and agriculture system perspective
o Create a rich experience of food and agriculture
o Build the food and agriculture economy
o Increase access to food
o Educate about food
o Manage to support sustainable food systems
o Provide food and habitat for other species
o Organize for food
o Construct sustainable infrastructure for food and agriculture
o Bring food and agriculture into the full suite of climate change solutions
In addition to the AU principles, La Salle and Holland (2010) group and itemize
strategies to support the implementation of AU principles into city planning and design.
These include: 'food production strategies'to preserve parcels, create production space
and integrate land-use; 'food processing strategies' to foster production diversity
76
opportunities and build in transparency; 'food sales strategies' to support and cluster
small and medium wholesalers, avoid food deserts and foster better integration of
supermarkets; 'restaurant and food services strategies' to enhance retail opportunities
and connect to suppliers; 'food educations strategies' to develop a diversity in education
opportunities; and food celebration strategies' to enhance visibility in the public realm.
A comparison of the design principles presented in this research against AU principles
and corresponding strategies is not the scope of this study, but observations and
comments can be made about the two approaches, and are presented in the list below.
• The AU principles and strategies tend to have a planning and design focus, whereas
the design principles proposed in this study have a design focus.
• AU is site, community and regional in approach, whereas the design principles have a
site and community emphasis (with specific attention to community food hubs).
• AU principles can better inform several design considerations presented in this
research with respect to access, visibility and walkability at the community level, as
there is a greater integration with New Urbanism principles.
• Economic considerations are evident in AU; this was not the case with this research.
• There are multiple commonalities found in both sets of principles, as seen in
considerations for user experience, visibility, access, production and retail diversity,
transparency, education, integrated infrastructure, habitat and UA space.
• There is an apparent sustainability motif realized in both set of principles.
• The focus of both sets of principles is to foster understanding and awareness on the
connections amongst people, environment and food in the urban realm.
77
There are multiple implications for urban community design by the AU principles that
range from food-centred communities to regional food planning. The principles are
already being used to assist community design in the West Coast [Southlands, in
Tswwassen, BC). Within the Agricultural Urbanism publication there are several design
and location variables. The design levels of the most consequence for this research
include that of the Urban Village with mixed use and multi-family residential buildings;
the Inner-city Residential Neighbourhood with mixed use buildings and residential
apartments; and the Food and Agriculture Precinct operating as a distinct area with
activities focused on food and agriculture. Each design level exhibits characteristics
that could support community food hub interactions and satellite UA operations.
The benefits and services associated with community food hubs are illustrated in the
literature review and case study overview. The integration of AU principles into the
design, planning and policy process will contribute to the physical character of these
sites. The AU principles are exactly what they state to be - a framework for developing
sustainable food at the community scale. It is difficult to deny the importance of the AU
principles as they lay a foundation and establish clear direction towards planning and
design that brings food to the centre. However, aesthetic considerations from this study
could help further enhance the AU principles, and this could have an implication
towards fostering perception and understanding associated with urban agriculture at
the site and community level.
78
Chapter 6 Conclusion
UA can play a central role in the sustainability of communities. It is founded on a
synergetic relationship between food production and consumption, associative social,
environmental, and economic services, and aesthetic values. An observation on the
polarity of UA experience prompted this research, and an evaluation on the
interconnections of communities, sustainability services and aesthetics ensued.
The research outlined an initial goal of creating a set of UA design principles to guide
designers and planners to implement both sustainable and aesthetic values at the
community level. This goal was clearly met. The study was further prompted by the
question: What criteria are needed to create the design principles from a combined
sustainability and aesthetic perspective? This established a framework to separate
sustainability and aesthetic associations, deconstructing each into their constituent
elements, and presenting them in a matrix form. Additionally, the research illustrates
how to reintegrate the constituent elements through a presentation of tangible UA
design elements that can be used towards design at the site and community level.
Many cities are now faced with a reality in which inhabitants are disconnected from
food values, often due to inequities felt at the community level. The two case studies
presented in this research bring food action to the forefront of communities, and
incorporate elements of design to reach this goal. It may be design intent, as illustrated
79
in the multifunctional park site located at The Green Barn in Toronto, or through design
that is responsive and adaptive, as seen in the organic transformation of the Growing
Power site in Milwaukee.
Cities, varied in land and space, support a variety of aesthetic experience types. Design
helps to translate values to shape landscape form and spaces, and can be a vehicle to
shape the perceptions of the beauty contained within them. The aesthetic experience
often plays an undervalued role for understanding and awareness, and the challenge to
designers is to create active and engaging sites that shape perceptions of ecosystem
function, social values and economic viability.
6 . 1 LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH
Limitations to this research came from various constraints, oversights, omissions, and
assumptions. Each limitation is accounted below:
1. Perhaps the largest limitation was due to the exploratory nature of the research, as
this involved a dependency on accurate and reliable sources of literature. A great deal
of effort was put into obtaining primary sources and peer-reviewed literature on the
subject matter, but this did not always capture sustainability services at the ground
level. As a result some data was pulled from secondary sources or grey literature.
2. UA is frequently exposed to scrutiny from the academic community and this can lead
to apprehension over research projects. This was evident in the request for interviews
regarding design considerations, as only one respondent was willing to follow through
80
with a structured questionnaire. However, every attempt was made to fill information
gaps through discussions at facility tours and designated Q & A periods.
3. Aesthetic values were informed predominantly by what is considered as acceptable
standards to designers. Due to the complexity of the urban environment, there are
often conflicting views on the aesthetic perceptions of any given landscape or urban
space. Some of this information was captured in academic literature, site visits and
questionnaires - but there is an apparent need for more research into this area.
4. The number of case studies was limited to two exemplary community food hubs.
Both case studies represent iconic UA sites in both the U.S. and in Canada, and great
effort was given in preparing an accurate representation of each site.
5. The research focused on environmental and social sustainability services and largely
interpreted economic criteria as non-use values. However, attempts were made to
derive criteria from retail opportunities and cost savings strategies.
6. The potential negative externalities associated with these sites were not explored.
Although the cases studies highlight a sustainability agenda, several observations were
made that could lead one to question the 'balance' of these services. This was an
intentional omission due to concerns over the scrutiny of these sites (see point 2).
81
6 .2 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The research outlined a methodology of informing design principles through identifying
sustainability criteria and aesthetic considerations. Along each step new questions
arose with respect to future research possibilities. The limitations of research hint at
some possibilities, and several more are presented here as plausible avenues to explore.
First, consideration for aesthetic values associated with experience, awareness, care
and perception warrant empirical evaluation and representation from a variety of user
groups, including site visitors, practitioners and surrounding residents. This could
come in the form of user-surveys or an evaluation through visitor-employed
photography to quantify aesthetic values associated with elements of UA sites.
Second, the research examined case studies that operate as non-profit organizations
with emphasis on environmental and social services. Future investigation could
examine a private, or combined private / non-profit organization with emphasis on
economic services (for example, Sweetwater Organics in Milwaukee, WI).
Third, the applicability of the proposed design principles needs to be assessed and peer-
reviewed. Several possibilities include presenting the design principles to practitioners
for review and feedback, visualizing the principles in the form of a design proposal, or
realizing their potential contribution in a pilot project.
82
6.3 ROLE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Opportunities abound for UA and its role in landscape architecture. Many firms are
incorporating UA into their design agenda, some of which have gone on to receive
accolades and to win awards. For example Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects
received the ASLA Honour Award in 2010 for Rooftop Haven for Urban Agriculture, an
innovative green roof production site for vegetable production and youth education.
Other firms are utilizing UA as a planning and design framework for communities (HB
Lanarc, BC). Further, many self-employed LAs promote the benefits associated with UA,
aid in shaping the aesthetics of UA sites, and work with municipalities and other
decision makers to support policies and secure lands for new sites. The reintegration of
food in communities will continue to grow, and landscape architects will play a large
role moving forward.
d p O D A
83
Literature Cited
Altieri, Miguel A., et al. "The Greening of the "barrios": Urban Agriculture for Food Security in
Cuba." Agriculture and Human Values 16.2 (1999): 131-40.
Altieri, Miguel A. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Boulder, Colo.;
Boulder, Colo.: London: Westview Press; Westview Press; IT Publications, 1987.
American Society of Landscape Architects, and The University of Texas. The Sustainable Sites
Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks., 2009.
Barbara Cohen. "Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit." July 1,2002. Web.
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EFAN02013/>.
Beaulac, Julie, Elizabeth Kristjansson, and Steven Cummins. "A Systematic Review of Food
Deserts, 1966-2007." Preventing Chronic Disease 6.3 (2009).
"Canons of Sustainable Architecture and Urbansim: A Companion to the Charter of New
Urbanism." 2008. Web. <http://www.cnu.org/canons>.
Charter of the New Urbanism. Eds. Michael Leccese, Kathleen McCormick, and Congress for the
New Urbanism. New York; London: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
City of Toronto: Public Health. "Toronto Food Policy Council." February, 2011 Web.
<http://www.toronto.ca/heaIth/tfpc index.htm>.
Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC). Web. <http://www.foodsecurity.org/>.
Community Food Security Coalition. Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the
United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe., 2003.
84
Cosgrove, Sean. Food Secure City. Ed. Toronto Food Policy Council., 2000.
De La Salle, Janine M., and Mark Holland. Agricultural Urbanism : Handbook for Building
Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Century Cities. Ed. Winnipeg, Manitoba;
Sheffield, Vt: Chicago, 111.: Green Frigate Books; Distributed by Independent Publishers
Group, 2010.
Deelstra, Tjeerd, and Herbert Girardet. Urban Agriculture and Sustainable Cities - Thematic Paper
2., 2000.
Faimon, Peg, and John Weigand. The Nature of Design : How the Principles of Design Shape our
World. Ed. st ed. Cincinnati, OH: How Design Books, 2004.
Feenstra, Gail. "Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons from the Field."
Agriculture and Human Values 19.2 (2002): 99-106.
Gobster, Paul H., et al. "The Shared Landscape: What does Aesthetics have to do with Ecology?"
Landscape Ecology 22.7 (2007): 959-72.
Gotshalk, Dilman Walter. Art and the Social Order. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1947.
"Greenest City 2020: Goals and Strategies." Web. <http://talkgreenvancouver.ca/goals>.
"Growing Power, Inc." Web. <http://www.growingpower.org/>.
Hamel, Nikita, and George Danso. "Agronomic Considerations for Urban Agriculture in Southern
Cities." International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8.1-2 (2010): 86.
Hunger Count 2010: A Comprehensive Report on Hunger and Food Bank use in Canada, and
Recommendations for Change. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Food Banks Canada, 2010.
85
Imbert, Dorothee. "Let them Eat Kale: The Growing Interest in Urban Agriculture Means we
Need to Think about the City in a Whole New Way." Architecture Boston August 4,2010.
Jorgensen, Anna. "Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research."
Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (2011): 353-355.
Knight, Lewis, and William Riggs. "Nourishing Urbanism: A Case for a New Urban Paradigm."
International Journal ojAgricultural Sustainability 8.1-2 (2010): 116.
Larsen, Kristian (1), and Jason (1) Gilliland. "Mapping the Evolution of'Food Deserts' in a
Canadian City: Supermarket Accessibility in London, Ontario, 1961-2005." International
Journal of Health Geographies (2008).
Leeuwen, Eveline, Peter Nijkamp, and Teresa de Noronha Vaz. "The Multifunctional use of Urban
Greenspace." International Journal ofAgricultural Sustainability 8.1-2 (2010): 20
Marchington, Erin. "5th Annual Sustainable Cities Ranking." February 9, 2011.
Mareio Rodrigues, and J. Lopez-Real. "Urban Organic Wastes, Urban Health And Sustainable
Urban And Peri-Urban Agriculture Linking Urban And Rural By Composting." May 5,1999.
Web. <http://www.cityfarmer.org/urbanwastes.html>.
Metro Vancouver. Regional Food Systems Strategy., 2011.
Motloch, John. Introduction to Landscape Design. Ed. nd ed. New York: Wiley, 2001.
Mougeot, Luc. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks - Thematic Paper 1.,
2000.
Mougeot, Luc J. A. Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa:
International Development Research Centre, 2006.
86
Nasr, Joe, Rod MacRae, and James Kuhns. Scaling Up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the
Infrastructure. Toronto: Metcalf Foundation, 2010.
Nassauer, Joan. "Care and stewardship: From home to planet." Landscape and Urban Planning
100 (2011): 321-323.
Nassauer, Joan. "Culture and changing landscape structure." Landscape Ecology 10.4 (1995):
229-337.
Pearson, Leonie J., Linda Pearson, and Craig J. Pearson. "Sustainable Urban Agriculture:
Stocktake and Opportunities." International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8.1-2
(2010): 7.
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari, and Jerome L. Kaufman. "Placing the Food System on the Urban
Agenda: The Role of Municipal Institutions in Food Systems Planning." Agriculture and
Human Values 16.2 (1999): 213-24.
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari. "Community Food Assessment." Journal of Planning Education and
Research 23.4 (2004): 356-77.
RUAF Foundation. "Why is Urban Agriculture important?" Web.
<http://www.ruaf.org/node/513>.
Scharf, Kathryn, Charles Levkoe, and Nick Saul. In Every Community a Place for Food: The Role of
the Community Food Centre in Building a Local, Sustainable, and just Food System. Metcalf
Foundation, 2010.
Short, Anne, Julie Guthman, and Samuel Raskin. "Food Deserts, Oases, Or Mirages? Small
Markets and Community Food Security in the San Francisco Bay Area." Journal of planning
education and research 26.3 (2007): 352-64.
87
Short, Anne, Julie Guthman, and Samuel Raskin. "Food Deserts, Oases, Or Mirages?" Journal of
Planning Education and Research 26.3 (2007): 352-64.
Smit, Jac, and Joe Nasr. "Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities: Using Wastes and Idle Land
and Water Bodies as Resources." Environment and Urbanization 4.2 (1992): 141-52.
"The Stop Community Food Centre." Web. <http://www.thestop.org/mission>.
Saito, Yuriko. Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sumner, Jennifer, Heather, Mair, and Erin, Nelson. "Putting the Culture Back into Agriculture:
Civic Engagement, Community and the Celebration of Local Food." International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability 8.1-2 (2010): 54-61.
SustainLane. "The 2008 U.S. City Sustainability Rankings." Web.
<uttp.//www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/>.
Toronto Public Health. Food Connections: Toward a Healthy and Sustainable Food System for
Toronto. City of Toronto, 2010.
United Nations Population Division. "World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision
Population Database." 2007.Web. <http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?paneI=l>.
Waste Composting for Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture: Closing the Rural-Urban Nutrient Cycle
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Eds. Pay Drechsel and Dagmar Kunze. Wallingford, UK; New York:
International Water Management Institute; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations; CABI Pub, 2001.
"What is community food security?" December 2nd, 2010. Web.
<http://www.foodsecurity.org/views cfs faq.html>.
88
Will Allen. "Good Food Manifesto." Web. <http://www.growingpower.org/about us.htm>.
Wistowsky, William Joseph. School of Environmental Design and Rural Development. Canada's
National Parks: What are they Worth to Canadians and Why? Unpublished PhD thesis.
University of Guelph, 2007.
Wrigley, Neil. "'Food Deserts' in British Cities: Policy Context and Research Priorities." Urban
Studies 39.11 (2002): 2029-40.
89
Appendix
Key Informant Questionnaire - 8 Questions
1) How does the site(s) function in order to create a draw?
2) How is the site attractive?
3) How is the site functional?
4) What are the features that people are drawn to when they visit the site(s)?
Why do you think they are drawn to those features?
5) What are some features that could potentially enhance a visitor's experience?
6) If you could change one site feature what would it be, and why?
7) How is the site designed to facilitate different user groups?
8) How do the neighbours feel about the look of the site(s)?