Urban Agriculture
 

City Votes To Tread Cautiously On Push For Backyard Gardens

December 2, 2009
Calgary Herald
Herald Staff

Calgary won't be painting the town romaine-lettuce green as quickly as advocates hoped, after council voted this week to move cautiously toward devising a local food policy.

Aldermen Joe Ceci and Bob Hawkesworth proposed that Calgary begin work toward a policy that promotes more affordable and locally grown food. It likely would include an aggressive expansion of the city's community and backyard gardens.

Other cities from San Francisco to Saskatoon have council "food charters" and related policies.

But many Calgary council members thought agricultural policy was best left to federal or provincial levels of government-- and larger-scale food growing to warmer climates.

"There's a good reason they don't grow bananas in Airdrie," Ald. Joe Connelly quipped.

Council didn't dismiss the idea entirely.

Aldermen instead asked city officials to study the municipal government's role in the local food system, with no action necessarily stemming from that.

Several communities and local associations are doing work to ramp up local food production, in the absence of a city-driven push.

So, what's your opinion?

Personally, I think that the City should play a role in enabling citizens to grow produce locally (i.e. in their back gardens and community gardens) and should also encourage it. I don't think they are getting involved in serious Agricultural policies and see them saying it is a Federal and Provincial matter as a cop out. If the city were to get involved I believe it would be an example of a city being proactive and embracing its new roles that cities are being asked to play in today's World, which our Council has a habit of shying away from. Once again, Connelly is being a proper and ignorant little cunt by not taking it seriously as I don't think anyone is planning on growing bananas.

"But many Calgary council members thought agricultural policy was best left to federal or provincial levels of government"

An absolute refusal to take on a noble cause that can lead to a healthier population.

"-- and larger-scale food growing to warmer climates."

It is incredible to see how out of touch some people are. Certainly, we aren't going to attempt to grow products that do not grow in northern climates. Yet, to see northern climates us unproductive is utterly foolish. There are very real reasons why people settled at the confluence of the Bow and the Elbow, and it wasn't to debate over pedestrian bridges.

Furthermore, cities provide excellent growing micro-climates (they are warmer than rural areas), effectively extending the growing season on both ends (earlier spring start, later fall finish).

Fortunately, many people in Calgary have not waited for some of the laggards on council to pass progressive policy

Numerous community gardens exist around the city (though, the number should be higher than it is). When I first got involved in community gardening, I was amazed at how much a small piece of land can produce (I am talking about a couple of hundred square feet producing hundreds of pounds of produce).

Also, people are ethically raising small numbers of hens (for eggs) in a far more sustainable fashion than industrial farms (this is not allowed under current city bylaws).

Urban, and peri-urban, agriculture are fantastic avenues to explore, and community gardens are just the first step. Paul Hughes (Chair, Calgary Food Policy Council) and others introduced me to the idea of urban farming using Transit and Utility Corridors (TUC). Imagine the effective use of space, and the development of a sense of community if people were able to buy into Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) located right by their homes. Imagine receiving a box of fresh produce weekly in the summer months, and knowing that the food hasn't been shipped across the planet. Imagine having true diversity again (not the pseudo-diversity that is offered to many people), dozens of beans growing, dozens of potatoes, dozens of whatever you want to grow!

The more people that get behind initiatives that create a better city, the more likely the council will listen. And when council listens, they need to go big and build a framework that enables more people to become involved. They need to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare that perpetuates more of the same.

For me, the future is bright green, and people like Connelly will be the individuals struggling to keep up with the rest of us.

Just a couple of thoughts,
Dak

Here are some links:

http://calgaryfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/

http://www.2011calgary.ca/

http://site.btcalgary.ca/video/?bcpi...id=33698053001

http://www.spinfarming.com/

http://www.growingpower.org/

http://www.newseedadvisors.com/

http://www.urbanhens.com/

https://www.greenpeople.org/csa.htm

One of the best quotes of the year.

Our school has a community garden that the 1/2 students plant in each year and the 3/4 harvest it in the fall. It's cool to see how surprised the students are that they could grow their own food that they usually buy. We donated it all to the food bank which the kids were really excited about. I think community gardens are important in many ways.

Ditto!! The city council is a bunch of "Tube-steaks". The same bunch of morons that come up with crap like shadowing over certain areas , and other so-called nonsense because we have to respect the environment, and then they can't OK something that "is" freindly to the environment in a small way. But also, helps in ways to soilidify a neighborhoods social fabric.

I'm a gardener myself, so I support any initiative for more gardening :)

I've got a patch of Raspberry, Boysenberry, and Blueberry bushes which I make use of. I grow the same vegetables every year; Peas, Potatoes, Cucumbers and Tomatoes. The tomatoes are the ones I enjoy growing.

Some pics of my tomatoes from this past summer. Not the best year for growing, but still not bad.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/...531ac7000e.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2662/...b0b4c2f45f.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/...9bf460ce9f.jpg

Gardening is great however I think the localvore movement is based on truthiness rather than truth. Like most things best applied in moderation and without coercion.

City allowing empty land to be used on a temporary basis for local farms = good. Must not allow continuous cultivation however to avoid entrenching interests so would be best to allow permits for only 5 years with no renewal. while only permitting at most 25% of applicable land.

Requiring city facilities (like the convention centre) to serve a certain percentage of local food = bad.

IMHO, the city ought to refine its current land use which relate to urban agriculture. There currently exists an Extensive/Intensive Agriculture use which is allowable as a permitted use in a relatively small number of districts (such as the Transportation Utility Corridor, on Direct Control sites, on Future Urban Development land, in floodways, etc.).

The current land use is as follows:

191 “Extensive Agriculture”

(a) means a use:

(i) where land is used to raise crops or graze livestock;
(ii) where crops and livestock are not covered by
structures;
(iii) where trees and shrubs are intensively grown; and
(iv) that may have agricultural buildings required for the
operation of the use;

(b) is a use within the Agriculture and Animal Group in Schedule A
to this Bylaw;
(c) does not require motor vehicle parking stalls; and
(d) does not require bicycle parking stalls – class 1 or class 2.

As far as I can tell from the LUB, there is no other use related to community gardening. It seems to be an ill-defined area which is not explicitly permitted but at the same time not prohibited either. Just to be clear, I am not talking about you growing food in your backyard plot either (which is also an ill-defined use of a use, but it's current ambiguity is probably fine anyways).

I also can't seem to find a proper definition of what the city considers "intensively grown."

If I was going to update the uses (work with me here, I'm just brainstorming while I type), I would probably make a clear distinction between High Intensity Agriculture vs. Low Intensity Agriculture. The level of intensity could be decided on a variety of factors, such as the percentage of the parcel dedicated to agriculture, allowing/disallowing use of large motorized equipment in cultivation (ie. your average zamboni-sized tractors and larger), allowance/disallowance for an ancillary business on site, type of irrigation system used, etc.

With the definitions in place, it's simply a matter of figuring out which districts they slot into best. The more intensive urban agriculture uses would probably still be permitted uses only on Special Purpose districts and similar. The less intensive agricultural uses could be allowed as permitted uses in parks, low-density residential and commercial districts, direct control districts. I can see low-intensity agriculture as being discretionary on medium-density residential uses as well (for example, a situation where there might be a midrise complexes bordering an enclosed plot). And yes, also temporary permits for plots on unoccupied land that is otherwise zoned for more intensive development, as the post above has suggested.

After that, I think the next thing would be to try and promote development of and access to our farmer's markets, as Currie Barracks woefully has not.

Other than these kinds of points, I can't say I really buy much into these food charters, and I understand why Council members are a little tepid about it. IMHO, the City should be about as invested into making sure schools don't sell junk food as much as they ought be regulating what kind of fuel you can use in your vehicle. Which is to say, not really at all. Those just aren't really urban issues, but rather public health (and/or education) and environmental issues.

Surrealplaces - you must be mistaken as everyone knows that Calgary is too cold for tomatoes! ;)

PS. No pictures, but this year from one of my tomotoes pots alone (I live in an apt) I harvested 2 dozen full size tomatoes!

Vertical Farms
 

This is a super interesting article I read in Scientific American. It is such a simple concept it begs the question how can we afford NOT to do this?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...vertical-farms

^ Transportation is really cheap, and we have more than enough land to grow enough food.

My neighbour was raising ducks in the backyard. On a quiet night, you could hear a little muffled quacking very softly now and then. There was never an odour problem.

But someone bitched and they had to get rid of them.

^ Why bother raising ducks when there are so many big, fat rabbits in this city free and easy for the taking. Hasenpfeffer, anyone?

First, I speak as someone in the Agriculture industry (cereal and oilseed variety development). The idea that the city can pass the buck is bullshit. Growing locally fits nicely within any city, town or village's jurisdiction (mandating the buying is another matter). I don't see why the city can't grow some nice perennial food crops at least. I grow strawberries at home and they nicely fill in the area with only a bit of weeding required. Grow some strawberries rather than flowers in some areas. Berry shrubs and small fruit trees strategically placed with volunteers to pick any remaining fruit to donate to the food bank. I expect the homeless and anyone just interested in some free food to come and pick some as well. I also think the city could find some lesser used corners of the "parks" (read: big empty field of grass in many neighborhoods) and turn some of that space into community run gardens. I can think of several acres of land in my neighborhood that would look better with a garden on them rather than crappy lawn. Most of this wouldn't even cost the city much money - just different plantings, and management decisions.

I must be mistaken...all those baseball sized beefsteaks I had last year were just my imagination ;)

I'd like to see more of the lowrise condos build in rooftop terraces for gardening.
I lived in Barcelona one summer and we had a rooftop terrace that was about 2/3 used for vegetable garden. It was awesome.

Clearly you must be yanking my chain or you never read the article.

I read it. Transportation is really cheap. Most of the carbon footprint is in the last mile getting product into stores.

City agriculture is great, and the city isn't doing enough to allocate underused public lands to community gardens, or allowing backyard animal husbandry. Moving from allowing agriculture to the further moves the localvore movement wants (mandated local content in food supplied at city facilities, subsidies for local food) is a step too far.

I'm not sure if the online version was more abbreviated, but the actual magazine featured some nice diagrams and statistics. A one square block 30 story farm could spare the equivalent of 2400 outdoor acres. Also, the projected world population for 2050 will need double the land we currently have. Besides all the environmental implications, competition for available farmland is growing with cannola, ethanol and palm oil plantations eating up available land to grow food on.

But one of the coolest features of one of these buildings would be the ability to re-use gray water for irrigation of crops. There is also the potential to use plant and human waste to create energy. Cities like New York would probably embrace this before Calgary simply because there is more waste and less available storage space. But one can always dream.

^ The article assumes that we will not be able to increase yields or decrease waste and spoilage. The material cost for these farms alone is crazy - a society that has to build them will be paying a lot more than we do now for food. Perhaps if we press every square inch of land into production, and press ever piece of land to maximum production it would make sense, but the world would have to be much more populated that any projection to make it worthwhile. It would be cheaper to irrigate distant unproductive deserts than to build these things.

You do realize we currently use 70% of the world's fresh water to irrigate crops and what comes out is undrinkable. And sure we could produce more land to cultivate crops, let's just continue to chop down all the rain forests for cheap, inefficient agriculture that denudes and degrades the land. Clearly we have different values, so let's elave it at that.

BTW, these towers could be readily built with existing technology and the savings on fuel transporation and harvesting costs alone would be worth the difference. That and being able to grow crops continually year round far outweigh any initial expenses. Go join the rest of the rabble that bitches and moans anytime city hall invests in future sustainable infrastrusture.