HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2020, 9:42 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
That's funny. I was working on research about urban agriculture with a professor of mine recently and pretty much told her I wasn't going any further with it. I just don't agree with it. Sure, they are a nice idea. If you have a yard, please, go for it. But I don't think cities like NYC should be purposively encouraging these farms on lots that could otherwise be developed. It makes no sense. They produce barely anything(most of them), they create semi-dead spots most of the time, and they produce very little of the social benefit supporters pretend they provide. Of course, as with anything in academia, race comes into the picture. The literature tries to paint the picture that black people "controlling" their food supply is one of the most important ways to get past the racist food supply system...or something. It all gets really silly the futher you get into it.


Just put the farms in the burbs if you must have farms as close to people as possible.

I can’t speak to the conditions of urban gardens in New York but urban gardens in Sacramento’s midtown are very active. Granted Sacramento is not New York, neither in size or density. But one thing we see is a diversity of people and cultures coming together to grow food and flowers.

Far from creating “semi dead spots” urban farms here create green spots (oasis) wonderful sanctuaries in the middle of the urban jungle that allow people to slow down and connect with nature and have a hand in growing their food.

I would disagree that they belong in the burbs.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2020, 10:13 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
^^New York is also unsuitable for growing pretty much anything in ''Urban Gardens'' for probably 6-9 months a year. That means that during this time the community gardens are more likely trash heaps, from garbage that flows into it during the winter winds.

Sacramento is blessed with a much friendlier climate to plants, as is San Francisco. San Francisco is frost and heat free, which is peculiar, but offers a great climate for many plants. Even so, San Francisco should promote rooftop gardens and develop the space on ground level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2020, 11:08 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Rooftop gardens (and roof decks) are VERY expensive. They require a partial additional story...the ADA requires handicapped access. So the elevator core goes up higher, plus stairs, plus a lobby for that level.

A green roof doesn't require all of this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2020, 2:49 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
So you're a big fan of Aaron Peskin, no doubt.
He was my supervisor for a time when he became a supervisor once again. One of my least favorite people. I used to go to the land committee meetings at City Hall on Mondays when he and Scott Wiener sat side by side, so I used to see him in action quite a bit. I'll just say it again, one of my least favorite people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2020, 2:56 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Rooftop gardens (and roof decks) are VERY expensive. They require a partial additional story...the ADA requires handicapped access. So the elevator core goes up higher, plus stairs, plus a lobby for that level.

A green roof doesn't require all of this.
Rooftop open space accessible to building residents and/or the public is, IMHO, an absurdity in San Francisco. The fog comes in in summer around 4 PM, the wind howls in front of the fog bank and nobody would want to hang outside on top of a building in late afternoon (say after work) or evening in spite of various barriers attempting to provide shelter, fire pits and all the other stuff developers provide.

Green roofs just for plants, not people, are fine. There are plants that love this microclimate, but few homo sapiens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2020, 11:51 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
I can’t speak to the conditions of urban gardens in New York but urban gardens in Sacramento’s midtown are very active. Granted Sacramento is not New York, neither in size or density. But one thing we see is a diversity of people and cultures coming together to grow food and flowers.

Far from creating “semi dead spots” urban farms here create green spots (oasis) wonderful sanctuaries in the middle of the urban jungle that allow people to slow down and connect with nature and have a hand in growing their food.

I would disagree that they belong in the burbs.
They are active, for the few people farming but for everyone else, it's just a green patch. Listen, I don't hate them. Maybe for a place like Sacramento it's a nice fit. But I don't think they should be anywhere near centers of our largest cities. That land can be used for housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2020, 6:18 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
They are active, for the few people farming but for everyone else, it's just a green patch. Listen, I don't hate them. Maybe for a place like Sacramento it's a nice fit. But I don't think they should be anywhere near centers of our largest cities. That land can be used for housing.
I think urban farms are a good temporary use of blighted land (places like https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7909...7i16384!8i8192). If these areas become desirable enough for new development again, the farms should be the first to go of course.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2020, 11:18 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
I think urban farms are a good temporary use of blighted land (places like https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7909...7i16384!8i8192). If these areas become desirable enough for new development again, the farms should be the first to go of course.
Absolutely. I don't think they should be promoted all over Lincoln Park, for example though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.