Vertical Farm
May 12, 2004 9:47 PM   Subscribe

VerticalFarm. Highrise Urban Farm (conceptual).
posted by stbalbach (10 comments total)
 
I'm just looking through this but I can't see an obvious answer: where does the light come from? Is the whole thing based on electric lights for photosynthesis? Or is sunlight "piped in" somehow? Given the wattage required, I can't see this as being a very sustainable environmental solution, and in fact is seems quite inefficient: particularly if you want to use, say, solar energy to provide the electricity, you will need paddocks full of solar cells instead of farmland.

Personally, I'm a fan of high-rise cemetaries.
posted by Jimbob at 9:55 PM on May 12, 2004


This idea seems much better suited for use in underground cities, where the necessary (and significant) structural support framework is already largely in place - it's just a matter of what bits to remove.

If you look at my posting history, though, you'll notice a strong bias towards moving all human structures underground (for a variety of reasons: total living volume, environmental concerns, security of living in a natural bunker, etc. etc.), so my comments on the matter should be taken with a grain of salt.

Jimbob: yes, electric light in the spectrum most beneficial for the plants in question is generally suggested in this fairly old and much bandied-about idea. For now, one would assume the use of nuclear power - which really is the cleanest way, on the whole, to produce large amounts of energy until wind/tidal power infrastructure can be built out to the needed levels (don't hold your breath - we'll likely see fusion before then, rendering it moot).
posted by Ryvar at 10:58 PM on May 12, 2004


Surely the benefit, whatever that may be, of this system would be far outweighed by the harm that generating all that electricity to provide light would do (even if you use that clean-except-for-the-one-accident-that-wipes-out-a-country nuclear power). Unless you "piped-in" the sunlight using fibre-optics or something similar, perhaps. Also, how much of the earth's resources does creating that building take up and how long before any benefits have paid back that cost?
posted by dg at 12:29 AM on May 13, 2004


See also: pig city (flash).
posted by adamrice at 7:09 AM on May 13, 2004


i like this--and why couldn't all the neighboring buildings give roofspace to solar cells for this building, in return for a discount on the produce produced there? (or something like that?)
posted by amberglow at 7:41 AM on May 13, 2004


Integral Urban House (non-conceptual)

Anyway, the single most significant agricultural problem for the rich nations is that they cannot compete (without that everpresent and often hidden government protection) with the third world. Highrise farming sounds a lot more like a "distraction" than a solution to that critical issue.
posted by magullo at 8:03 AM on May 13, 2004


This is pure genius. All your questions about energy are answered in the PDF.

According to the flowcharts, the only input is "blackwater", which is raw sewage I guess. From that you get food, clean water, and surplus energy. All this through the magic of anaerobic biogas reactors. It's an incredible masterpiece of conceptual design.
posted by sfenders at 8:39 AM on May 13, 2004


Cool link magullo! Integral Urban House is great.
posted by stbalbach at 8:59 AM on May 13, 2004


I don't know how much of a "doer" are you, stbalbach, but just so you know, there is a (very thick and large and detailed) book explaining each individual detail of the house so that you can replicate the different mechanisms and techniques. I can't find it online, but I know it well: my dad has a copy of it.
posted by magullo at 10:45 AM on May 13, 2004


Wow magullo, I have to carve out some time to go research this and see if the house is still there and still functioning like that 30 years later. If so, that's bloody brilliant and I want one! Imagine what could be done now with the improvements that have been made in both solar and wind generated power.

As to the vertical farm, I might quibble with their premise that we're already using 85% of the areable land in the world. There's lots and lots of land that isn't being used, or isn't being used efficiently.

The concept is good, but you know...so were gull wing car doors. I'd like to see even a small scale model do what the concept claims. I find the likelyhood of being able to turn blackwater into clean water unlikely unless the plants themselves become incredibly toxic. Most wastewater now is heavily laced with poisons like dioxins and pcbs, chemicals and drugs, heavy industrial pollutants, etc. Thus far, nobody has found an organic method of cleaning those toxins without making the filter (in this case, crops) polluted.

And as long as we continue to subsidize agribusinesses like Monsanto and ADM, there is no financial method by which a farming concern can turn a profit. Just ask all the small farmers who used to be where ADM is now.

This concept would cost a small fortune to create, and I don't see a strong business case for it having much return on investment.

As a dreamer, I love the idea. As a realist, I think there are some serious drawbacks.
posted by dejah420 at 1:31 PM on May 13, 2004


« Older for want of a pen a kid was lost?   |   Toxic livers vs. toxic minds Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments