Article - Plowing Over: Can Urban Farming Save Detroit and Other Declining Cities?

This article appears in the latest issue of the American Bar Association Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...g_cities_will/

The article references the GSCC twice in captions to accompanying pictures.

Quote:

---

But the most intriguing role for agriculture may be as an antidote to urban blight in cities that have been pummeled by a changing economic climate. Simply put, the idea is this: When vast swaths of land in cities like Detroit and Cleveland are abandoned by residents and businesses headed elsewhere, it’s better to grow something on it than to let it just sit there.

---

Urban farming will not save Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Urban farming will not save Detroit.

---

Needed to be said again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Urban farming will not save Detroit.

---

I think it's naive to think that any one idea is going to save a city or for that matter, a country. It's the implementation of a number of good ideas that will make a city, region or country a better place to live. I happen to think that urban farming/gardening is one of those good ideas.

Hats off to the GSCC too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

I think it's naive to think that any one idea is going to save a city or for that matter, a country. It's the implementation of a number of good ideas that will make a city, region or country a better place to live. I happen to think that urban farming/gardening is one of those good ideas.

Hats off to the GSCC too.

---

Um ... the quote "Urban farming will not save Detroit" isn't from my lips, it's from the GSCC's Mark Covington.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Um ... the quote "Urban farming will not save Detroit" isn't from my lips, it's from the GSCC's Mark Covington.

---

Again, I'm not saying that urban farming will save Detroit. I think that idea is naive. I just think that urban farming could be good for Detroit. I think it could be good for any city with a large, empty land mass.

Then we agree to agree. If that quote sounds harsh, it is the reply of a person who has too often been asked the question, "Will urban farming save Detroit." He said it with a tender, tolerant smile. I, however, am growing a little intolerant of people asking what will "save" Detroit. I mean, I work here, I live here. I'm right here! Please, whatever you do, don't try to save me.

Yep, I would have to agree that we are agreeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

Yep, I would have to agree that we are agreeing.

---

Now, there is where I disagree. ;)

The act of growing food in itself needs to be part of a larger plan to integrate more services and amenities in areas that were formerly populated. It is a good start but it is not and should not be the end. Even though there is vacant land, underneath it are still water pipes, sewers, gas lines, and overhead are electrical, cable, and telephone wires. On the surface you still have roads, sidewalks and transit that needs to be maintained. Farming will not sustain or maintain this level of infastructure. That is why you find large successful farms located in places with miimal infastructure and minimal costs needed to upkeep the infrastructure.

I agree with what DP is saying too. I also think you have to consider toxic soil. I've just always been impressed with the documentary, The Garden. The story about the 14 acre community garden in South Central L.A. Sad ending, but it was a beautiful garden and produced a lot of good food for a large number of people in that community. It also created a great place for people to get together.

I don't see urban farming on a large scale working. I do think that some mid-sized projects would be a positive addition to any city.

Thank you for the kind words about GSCC!

You are right...Mark himself said that urban farming is not the answer. What we are trying to build is a better sense of "community"...neighbors helping neighbors...not for political reasons, but just because we are all a part of the human family.

Thanks for posting the article cman...and for being a great friend and supporter of GSCC.

How about greenhouses? I remember being between Windsor and Leamington and stopping off at some huge greenhouses. Maybe we can put that infrastructure [[power grid, etc) to some use since it's in place. You could have 12 months of growth, instead of only late spring to fall.

Not really serious on this idea... but just a thought.... on second thought, they better use plexiglass...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

The act of growing food in itself needs to be part of a larger plan to integrate more services and amenities in areas that were formerly populated. It is a good start but it is not and should not be the end. Even though there is vacant land, underneath it are still water pipes, sewers, gas lines, and overhead are electrical, cable, and telephone wires. On the surface you still have roads, sidewalks and transit that needs to be maintained. Farming will not sustain or maintain this level of infastructure. That is why you find large successful farms located in places with miimal infastructure and minimal costs needed to upkeep the infrastructure.

---

DetroitPlanner, I don't understand you and others who worry about what's left underground or over head when an area is abandoned due to housing demolitions. In my old neighborhood when they tore down a house the City shut off the water and gas and disconnected the electricity. I really don't know if sewer pipes were removed. I never witnessed that. However, the fact that no one is using the house means that no one is using the toilet. Sewer pipes dry out or are closed off once the basements of the houses are filled in with dirt.

Others also worry about soil contamination. Well, it can't be due to the house being torn down in my opinion. It would have to be contaminated based on the basement/foundation. However, that's mostly brick or cinder block. When the house itself is torn down it may lay on top of the surface, but in many cases that surface is the basement. The remaining bits of the house get carted off into a truck. Although the remnants of the house may contain lead from lead paint and asbestos from piping, these items again fall into the basement and are usually carted off within a week. So, if there is any contamination of the soil, it can't be from this brief encounter with contaminated elements from the house touching the top soil. Besides when a house's debris is cleared from the site, new soil is added to fill the basement. Maybe this soil is the source of contamination, but it's not from simply tearing down the house.

Also, in most backyards of houses in the city of Detroit there was very good soil for growing flowers and a small garden. If someone today is so worried about the soil being contaminated, grow gardens or urban farms near the back of the property beyond where the house stood. It shouldn't have a high degree of contamination unless the contamination came from the new soil, acid rain, or decades of polluted air. I just don't buy the argument that the tearing down of a house leaves that much contamination.

In addition, DetroitPlanner you worry about side walks and streets and electrical and telephone poles. Well, if you shut down an area, urban farms can grow between the sidewalks and the alleys. Since farm workers would be the only people using the area, roads wouldn't need to be repaved as often, if at all. The farms would resemble the ribbons farms from which the borders of many eastside streets derived. If lighting was needed, the urban farms could still be lit by the street lights and alley lights. Now, these areas would be fenced off and probably would need a guard to prevent looting. Also, many urban farms could be planted along the Detroit River in some of the eastern riverfront parks. Gabriel Richard, Owen, Henderson, Maharas-Gentry, Albert Ford, and Ford Brush could all be used as urban farms since they're near the water.

Continuing, I think some vacant areas could be turned into large man-made lakes. The City could place urban farms along these lakes. Also, the lakes could be used for recreation, where houses would back up to the lake and Detroiters who owned boats or jet skis could launch them from their own backyards.

In conclusion, I think urban farms could do a lot to feed Detroiters. If not profitable as commerical farming, then at least as subsistence farming, where families of Detroiters create co-ops and work the farms for their own benefit, saving money that would otherwise go to the grocery stores. However, if urban farms can be profitable, then they could also offer many unemployed Detroiters employment. It's not a cure-all, but at least it's worth a try if it improves the lives of Detroiters. I think Detroit could be the example of how to turn an decaying urban area back into a productive agrarian area. Remember, before the industrial age, most Americans were farmers. With globalization and technology putting masses of people out of work, maybe the simple solution is to return to a simpler time when Americans worked the land to survive. So, bring on the chickens and cows.

Royce. Its less expensive to provide housing where infastructure currently exists than building new infastructure. Sewers and water are all interconnected. Farms will need irrigation and all the old ways of getting water to the site were removed when it became developed. I supose you could get rid of many pipes or just leave them fallow, but you have to be darned sure that development is never going to happen again or that the pipes don't service any housing left in the area. Like it or not, even if we convert say 50 percent of a nieghborhood to urban farming there will still be need to access 50 percent of the remaining homes as well as the farms themselves.

Even in places with large population loses like Brightmoor you would be hard pressed to assemble pieces of land large enough to construct resevoirs and farms. There are too many homes still scattered about. You would need to move those people and to engineer resevoirs would be very costly. The city is broke how do you propose funding that?

The loss of population does not directly correlate with the loss of houses. Even places that built houses in the last 10 years have lost population due to reduction in family sizes. It may not seem like much to go from 3.1 to 2.8 residents per home, but it means that more houses are needed to keep the same level of population.

I like the idea of working with public-private partnerships to infil with greenhouses. If they can do that down by Ruthven and Leamington we should be able to do that here.

Here is an article on urban agricultural potential in Detroit from a Montreal blog and another one on a young entrepreneur who started this greenhouse near the Central Market which is where most of the indy wholesale produce is distributed in Montreal. But beyond the idea of agriculture I still think that Detroit could benefit from its relatively high density, if horticulture and botanical gardens on a large scale were implemented in a sort of necklace around town. Themed gardens would attract tourists and provide education in self-sustaining practices to everybody. There are few cities with the available landmass to carry this out on the continent. I can imagine corporations like Kellogg's getting in on the act, once they see their consumer base rely on proximity...

I already mentioned this on another thread but I want to rehash this as a probable scenario because the idea of a series of themed gardens from different climates and cultures is something that although labor intensive, not without a chance at profitability. The economic potential is tourism and horticultural and agricultural production. A streetrail system based on village hubs along main arteries and park/industrial nodes along existing and future city parks. For people who are less attracted to the Disney/MGM type venues, this city venture would definitely compete internationally because there is very little offer for this kind of attraction anywhere outside smaller botanical gardens and arboretums. I am sure that 20 years from now, a lot would have been established within mature treed parkland. I am not suggesting the city of Detroit become a huge monoindustrially themed park. My contention is that this opportunity is granted few places that have the population size Detroit and metro have. If a series of well programmed parks were connected by streetrail, and downtown and New Center had a large park imprint, the idea of a Garden City could renasce.


http://spacingmontreal.ca/2011/05/20...culture-a-fad/
http://www.montrealmirror.com/wp/201...fe-from-above/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Royce.
I like the idea of working with public-private partnerships to infil with greenhouses. If they can do that down by Ruthven and Leamington we should be able to do that here.

---

In a city that demands so much respect; the citizens seem to lack it themselves, especially in how they treat one another. I would imagine a greenhouse going up and the next week all the glass being broken.
It is why Mark C and the GSCC are so right about what they are doing. Instilling pride and ownership of ones actions goes a long way in making people productive members of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

How about greenhouses? I remember being between Windsor and Leamington and stopping off at some huge greenhouses. Maybe we can put that infrastructure [[power grid, etc) to some use since it's in place. You could have 12 months of growth, instead of only late spring to fall.

Not really serious on this idea... but just a thought.... on second thought, they better use plexiglass...

---

Why disclaim brilliance with that tripe, "Not really serious on this..."?!


Of course building greenhouses is the way...SAND is one of Michigan's plentiful raw resources. Anything we can do to create industry using our raw materials is where we need to direct our attention. We NEED a flat glass plant here as soon as possible. Make it able to produce the v-e-r-y thin glass necessary for solar panels, and the thicker stuff for storm protection and artwork. ALSO, able to process recycled materials, since BROKEN GLASS is also unfortunately in abundance here.


THEN, the city government needs to get off their fat, ignorant asses and move on forcing anyone who uses GM crops to do so ONLY under sealed environments. This will do a few things...keep GM crops from infecting their neighbors who have souls and brains and do things truly the OLD way, honest-organic [[not the bullshit organic certification that is purchased from the FDA)...AND have the corporate interests [[are you listening Mr. Hantz?!) pay for the infrastructure...and job creation in waves beyond the meager minimum of those working the land and those running the office. [[you can read that as land-slaves and office-slaves, for proper effect).


Every piece of land that has been abandoned should AUTOMATICALLY be classified as OPEN TO GARDEN. We need as MUCH food production as possible, if only for the deep rooting of community which Cub fully and deeply understands. Gas is going above $4 per gallon again, and it seems WAR is coming to the entire world very soon. Will Urban Farming Save Detroit?! Obiquely, yes...absolutely yes. It is not the only answer, as others have proclaimed more clearly than I am able in this thread...but it IS one of the more foundational actions we can invest our time, energy, and efforts upon.



I've got more, but know I've got to take a breath to keep this from becoming another novella.


Sincerely,
John

Oh, and HOPEFULLY it is quickly becoming case law that an individual can sue corporations who make GM seeds, and those who use them, IF their land becomes infected with such.

http://www.myhealthytown.com/forum/s...ad.php?tid=296

This is something that should be codified into law very clearly in our state and city. It has almost NOTHING to do with Interstate Commerce, save the fact that GM seeds come in from outstate, usually, so it should be above the Federal Statutes and illegally-created FDA memorandum.


Cheers!

Old Guy, we've already figured out the 'toxic land' distraction.

Capillary action in some plants makes their 'fruit' immune to most heavy metals.

For some toxicity, a few seasons of remediation is necessary. IF we have that much time, I guess.

The food grown on Detroit soil has been feeding some people for many years now, since this explosion in popularity has happened in the past eight years or so. Heck, the Capuchins and Greening folk have been doing their due for WAY longer than that!!


Cheers!

From another article, "[["Best incentives in the country," one producer says. "Worst crew.")"

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/29/news...troit.fortune/

WTF??!! Has anyone EVER heard anything like this before?! Why did THAT have to be included in the article, anyways?!

From what I gleaned from the sidelines, MUCH of the 'crew' were shipped in from Hellywood anyways!


No Cheers on that bullshit...

A few folks have touched on it but I think it bears deeper exploration.

Will gardening and or urban farms save Detroit? I think the answer is a resounding no, not by itself.

However, the experience and lessons people gain from gardening and farming will play a vital role in saving our city. The lessons young people learn while being a part of Georgia Street and other community gardens will serve them well in life.

These groups should be heralded for planting more than one type of seed.

I've been pondering some form of local awards for diversity in production...since the State Fair is now gone. Surely run by the Greening of Detroit folk, since they probably have the greatest reach into the urban gardener population, as IF they want an additional 'task'...but it should be a fixture of our harvest celebrations.

Financially, it would make a lot more sense to develop a farm outside of city limits. Streets, sewer lines, and water lines would not have to be torn up to make way for a farm. The infra structure is a valuable asset.

I always draw flack when I mention this but it would make more sense to allow gated communities of perhaps up to 50,000 residents than to grow apple in the middle of the city. The gated communities should be expected to have twice as dense a population as Detroit once had with their own schools, basic shopping, and police services. The property tax raised on such gated communities could help fill the coffers of the city of Detroit and provide a range of jobs; something apple trees won't do.

in the short term, gardening is an excellent use of vacant land within the city. but in the long term, metro Detroit will need to become dense at its core, and outer suburbs must return to farmland.

but the trajectory set by the state and federal government is one of continued deterioration of the urban core, higher unemployment, less services, fewer schools and libraries. in other words, more suffering. the only way to turn around Detroit is to radically alter the face of America and the global economy in general.

there may be a little pocket of wealth around downtown [[aka whole foods), but Detroit will never be a great city again unless we do away with capitalism