© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/z-axis-urban-agriculture-the-vertical-farm-project/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
At humankind’s current rate of growth, it is estimated that by the year 2050, the planet will be host to three billion more people than it is today, making for a 40% increase over Earth’s current population. Yet at present, over 80% of the planet’s arable land is already in use, which leaves one to wonder how such a large number of people will be fed. No doubt improvements will be made in the efficiency of farming techniques, but only so many calories can be coaxed out of the fertile portions of the Earth each year.
Dr. Dickson Despommier of Columbia University has been leading an effort to address that very problem before it becomes a crisis, and his proposed solution is interesting and well-researched… it involves a series of high rises in urban areas where fruit, vegetables, and livestock can be raised by utilizing greenhouse growing methods and recycled resources year-round, allowing cities of the future to become self-sufficient. This concept is called the Vertical Farm.
From the site:
The Vertical Farm is a concept that seeks to address the major concerns of the environmental degradation of the modern city by composting, recycling waste and farming in a standard tenement building. The “ecological footprint” of the city will be lessened and therefore the city will become a more sustainable setting. The reduction of wastes and the production of foods for consumption will in turn increase the quality of life for all those within the city and its surrounding area. The reduction in transportation of both wastes and of food products and the use of abandoned buildings will directly increase the quality of the urban settling.
The Vertical Farm Project website goes into great detail on how such a structure could feed up to 50,000 people year-round, assuming 2,200 calories per person. Plans are currently underway to establish a prototype of the Vertical Farm in New York City in order to further investigate the feasibility of the project, and to address the negative consequences as they might arise.
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/z-axis-urban-agriculture-the-vertical-farm-project/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Certainly a challenge .Trucking in feeds and fertilizer for crops and animals and getting rid of wastes.Maybe more to the point to preserve agrcultural land for that purpose and encouraging growth in the urban areas which could use renewal.
I just want to know where our Bubble Cities they promised us in the 60’s are. Shouldn’t we be in flying cars by now instead of just prototypes?
Well, the article was very interesting and I just want you to know I do appreciate the hard work that goes into summarizing these articles as the articles you draw your information from are cryptic at best for me.
THANKS FOR ALL OF YOU WORKING HARD ON THESE ARTICLES!!!!
I sure would like to know how anyone arrived at the “80% of the planet’s arable land is already in use” calculation.
ritewing said: “I sure would like to know how anyone arrived at the “80% of the planet’s arable land is already in use” calculation.”
The number is provided on the front page of the linked-to site (“At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use”), but there is no indication of how that number was determined.
I believe that the number is pulled directly from their asses.
I checked the website ‘Vertical Farm Project’. It’s so scary to know that something like this can happen in such near future. I hope we go the right way.
It doesn’t seem practical. Where do you get the soil from if 80% of the worlds arable land is already put to use and the remaining 20% will be exhausted by 2050? How are you supposed to provide water in 2050, considering the worlds clean water supply is another big problem? Wouldn’t the air be full of pollution in 2050? What do you expect the crops to breathe? Isn’t it true that if the worlds population increases to approximately 10 billion? Everybody will pile into the cities which are already too crowded and there won’t be any room to put the bloody vertical farms in the first place.
I think we’re on the right track…before Vertical Farms for now we have wonderful Horizontal Suburbs…
If there really are that many people, then a ton will starve. I vote to stop exporting food from the U.S. now, and let everyone else deal with it.
Secret Ninja, you have the most perplexing ideas. I don’t quite understand where you are coming from. Have you travelled outside of your own country ? Do you have any friends from foreign countries ? Are you aware there is a huge world out there that you are intricately part of ? Do you realize this fact directly affects the economy you rely on for subsistence ? Yet i must bow down to the fact that ignorance truly is bliss. Yet ignorance, saddly enough, can also be very dangerous. Current events proves this daily.
As for the article, it’s about time we brought a major dose of green into the cities.
The main problem facing us, is not lack of space but running out of energy. Agriculture is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and ‘z axis’ farming does nothing to address that. In fact this method of production would be even more dependant on energy. Where is it all going to come from? Bio fuels? It’s going to have to be nuclear, it is the only real choice.
Alan Bellows said: “The number is provided on the front page of the linked-to site (“At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use”), but there is no indication of how that number was determined.”
The number is complete baloney, even if it’s true. Millions of acres of land are now in cultivation that would not have been considered “suitable for raising crops” just a generation ago. Technology and new knowledge of water supplies constantly increase the amount of land for cultivation. That said, this new concept could be a good idea. But waste disposal sounds like a real problem.
Uh just a note there is no chance of this structure being cost effective. Unless we create a whole new level of prices making “organic” seem cheap. this will not work!
it says right after the 80% figure on the original article that it came from both the food and agriculture organization of the UN and from NASA
Soil is a mix of sand particles and organic bits basically… easy enough to produce…
– a visionary project that is so radical and daring that it might just work.
I say find a way to solve overpopulation first. Then again, by 2050 the bird flu might have already taken a toll on us humans and this project wouldn’t be necessary. Nature always finds a way of balancing things out.
Hello, This picture is a production to my office http://www.ateliersoa.fr
you can see the whole of the French version of the vertical project farm on the site http://www.livingtower.new.fr
Ragtime333 said: “Uh just a note there is no chance of this structure being cost effective. Unless we create a whole new level of prices making “organic” seem cheap. this will not work!”
The premise for this idea is that there will eventually be a point in time in which there will be more demand for food than the current capability for production – as limited by the available arable land. Simple economics takes over at that point. You have a *needed* product in undersupply. The cost will begin to skyrocket.
In such a situation, the implementation of these “Z-Axis Urban Agriculture” facilities ARE cost effective. The cost of the “tower” hasn’t change. What changes is the cost of the competing alternative (current methods of agriculture). In that situation, the competition cost has risen past the cost of the “tower”.
The world is witnessing this right before their eyes with the ongoing “oil crisis”. How much does the gas for your car cost now? What about now? And now? It’s pretty funny isn’t it that alternatives has begun to look a lot more “cost effective” now. The cost of those alternatives have not changed (much). It’s just the cost of the current source that has rapidly increased from its previous “dirt cheap” level that makes those alternatives “cost effective”.
Start getting ready for the days when food prices begin to become as unstable as fuel prices. And then how everyone begins obsessing about “alternative sources” for their food.
alipardiwala said: “It doesn’t seem practical. Where do you get the soil from if 80% of the worlds arable land is already put to use and the remaining 20% will be exhausted by 2050?”
Ever heard of hydroponics?
To put it bluntly: growing without soil.
What’s the only real disadvantage of hydroponics versus geoponics? The increased costs. See my previous post to understand why that will not be an issue in the future situation being addressed in this topic.
alipardiwala said: “How are you supposed to provide water in 2050, considering the worlds clean water supply is another big problem? Wouldn’t the air be full of pollution in 2050? What do you expect the crops to breathe?”
How are any of these issues any different than the same ones other forms of agriculture (and society) would have to face? Nowhere dose this proposed idea imply it will magically solve the problems you are asking about – and neither do the traditional agricultural methods for which it plans to replace.
alipardiwala said: “Isn’t it true that if the worlds population increases to approximately 10 billion? Everybody will pile into the cities which are already too crowded…”
No, it is not true.
If it was, there would not be the massive suburbian sprawls extending for dozens to hundreds of miles around major urban areas. Los Angeles, Denver, Pheonix, Dallas, Houston, Washington D.C., the list goes on and on. As populations increase, people spread outward. If that wasn’t true, all those cities listed above would be concentrated vertical centers (like New York City on its little island) surrounded by spartan farmland. Of course, that is not true. As each of those regions have gained in population, they’ve sprawled outward.
alipardiwala said: “…and there won’t be any room to put the bloody vertical farms in the first place.”
That line seems to be uttered every year when people talk about a heavily populated urban area. And yet, the buildings just keep getting bigger. New York, Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong – they have a funny way of finding room to put more and more buildings (often by knocking down the older and smaller ones and replacing them with newer and larger ones). These vertical farms will be no different in that respect.
It’s funny that, while knowing that the world’s population is going to continue increasing to a point that we can’t cope with, this country (australia) is offering cash incentives for people to have babies… Our aging population may be bad for economy, but I find the fate of the world far more important.
I am in no way educated in the field of agriculture, but back in elementary school I was taught how to read so let me clear some things up. Almost all of your arguments are useless because you decided to debate a topic that you educated yourself about minimally. (and to fight an entire universitys collective efforts to make a positive change in our world.) First of all, the article stated it will be run off of inedible biomass, solar and wind power. Secondly the reason you dont understand the 80% figure is because you are only thinking of the country you live in. This product is being created for global use. The land in most of Africa is probably a lot less productive in the area of agriculture than say for example, Virginia in the United States maybe? The reality of this project is that it is being made to feed nations where starvation and poverty are a problem more than anything. and guess what secret ninja our government is going to put up millions to make it happen. because the average US citizen cares about humanity as a whole. We are doing pretty well here no matter how much we like to complain about where the US is at. I would also love to know all of your education histories and what makes you more knowledgable in this area than the people who have dedicated much of their lives to making this happen.
I believe the food crisis has already been solved. They made a movie about it. It’s called Soilent Green. Ten million people=ten million plus meals. We are just wasting the dead as it is now, we’re not even using them as any sort of fertalizer.
There are starving children in foreign countries who would just love to eat your grandma!
Great idea. Would be nice to see rather than some crumbly old building. One question though. Is organic foods out-the-window so to speak? Hydroponics definitely has potential to help hunger. It’s amazing how much can come from so little space.
I really want to see this project succeed because I think this is could be a solution to are rising food shortage…I am trying to get the first working tower built: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/vertical-farm-in-new-york-city
These things are never never NEVER going to take off. To solve the food crisis, food must be made in the absolute most economical fashion possible. Is land prices really going to get so high that this becomes the necessary alternative? If it ever does, the private sector will build these all on their own without this nutjob professor’s help.
There is huge room for improvement in crop yield per acre. The answer is in genetically engineered crops designed to increase output per acre, and thrive in harsher climates. In other words, you can forget that 80% arable land statistic because we’ll be able to use the other land that isn’t considered arable.
This doesn’t address the original problem that causes the farm shortage problem in the first place: overpopulation. The most rampant population growth happens in backward 3rd world countries that can’t afford fancy projects like Z-axis farms in the first place. If we can just address the social forces that pressure women to have 4 kids or more, we can get growth under control, reduce sprawl, reduce poverty, and we won’t have the strain on land that would necessitate this stupid farm tower in the first place. The wealthy countries are better off because they don’t have rampant pop growth, so their land isn’t strained, so cities like New York don’t need these towers at all.
Btw, urbanization is rising. 51% of humans live in urban areas now, not rural. So there is room for everyone in the cities. Better land management can keep land use efficient so we will have enough land to produce, and still have land to
well… first off i dont think the air would be full of pollution in 2050. Secondly if it was, plants inhale CO2 and breathe out O2, so i think the plants will do just fine, thrive even. And if you think the air is going to be that full of pollutants then you should probably be more concerned with what the humans will breathe ;)
uh, yes it would. I mean think of a modern day sky scraper. Obviously it’s cost effective, and yet what does it do? Nowthink of a building devoted to producing a product that everyone needs. Im pretty sure it would do just fine.
It won’t work. If anything it will make the population problem worse. An increase in food production will always lead to an increase in population.
We won’t be fixing the problem, we’ll be making it worse.
“An increase in food production will always lead to an increase in population.”
Have you ever heard about demography? That’s not how it works!