Skyfarming: A Columbia professor vision of “vertical farm” skyscrapers

[Aleks]

no we will se this in our time just not as much as in the future

i think healthy or big cities will have this like New York, Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco and maybe Atlanta

[Lecom]

That's amazing on so many levels (no pun intended).

[Windex]

Originally Posted by Raraavis

Wouldn't global warming open up Northern Canada and Siberia for farming. It would also allow the southern part of the current farm belt to have two growing seasons. Food production should increase because of Global Warming.

Yes, but no. Northern Canada generally has pretty terrible soil conditions, so although the growing season would be longer, you'd still have growing conditions which are much less than favourable. I don't know for certain if it's the same in Northern Siberia, but I'd assume it would be similar.

As far as farm towers go, they'd be pretty amazing. The $200 million price tag is definitely high, but I wonder what the cost of maintenance and running costs would be on these compared to a standard skyscraper. I almost think it would be cheaper, simply because they would be producing their own power, possibly even surplus. They'd also be able to process sewage to some extent and a few other interesting things according to the article.

And to anyone who says we won't see these simply because they won't make a return on the initial investment, that's like saying investing in roadways is a waste of money because it doesn't make any money. Consider how quickly the world population is growing and how little arable space we have to add additional farmland to feed people. We may not see them, but not for that reason.

For the record, my money is on China building one of these first.

[brickell]

We make plenty of food as it is. I really don't see the economics working for one of these unless you're growing something illegal.

[ReginaGuy]

It seems like a great idea, but I get the feeling that the Columbia professor has never actually been on a farm before.

Is there a real need for multibillion dollar skyscraper farms? Would there really be a noticable benifit over a traditional farm? And finally, most farmers prefer living in the country, they're not typically the skyscraper-loving type

[You Need A Thneed]

There's no way something like that is going to be economically feasible in my lifetime. To make money, a place like that would have to sell crops for at least 10 times as much money as regular crops, but most likely at least 100 times as much - or more.

It is an interesting thing to study though, and probobly worthwhile.

[TheMeltyMan]

Take a single "vertical farm" and imagine an ear of corn it might produce. I could personally go to a roadside Amish stand and buy a single ear for 50 cents. By no means will this replace the traditional farm, but place one or two of these in the city and you'll have rich New York healthy living liberals jumping all over these expensive corn knobs. Some exclusive, high-end hippie grocery will sell these things for retarded prices and all the yoga clubs in NYC will be humping the produce stand. One or two could easily be economically feasible but it certainly couldn't replace existing farm output for a long long time. Its too bad that popular economics is too underdeveloped to recognize the long-term social benefit of such an experiment.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Raraavis

Wouldn't global warming open up Northern Canada and Siberia for farming. It would also allow the southern part of the current farm belt to have two growing seasons. Food production should increase because of Global Warming.

If you want to go into more radical schemes like this, there are better and cheaper plans that include energy production, farming and aquaculture on huge ocean platforms.

Excellent point. This is overly idealistic way of growing food. Great for dreams but would not work in reality. How could these building compete with millions of hectares of farmland currently supplying the food for the nation and abroad. Transportation costs would be significantly less than building brand spanking new farm skyscrapers. This tech may be viable in 100+ years or so, so draw up the blueprints and about 70 years after whoever came up with this plan to save the planet is dead than we can debate this again.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

It seems like a great idea, but I get the feeling that the Columbia professor has never actually been on a farm before.

Is there a real need for multibillion dollar skyscraper farms? Would there really be a noticable benifit over a traditional farm? And finally, most farmers prefer living in the country, they're not typically the skyscraper-loving type

I was thinking the same thing so now I will not have to make a new post. Thanks.

[bnk]

Ok now the shit has really hit the fan. Do you guys realize this pic of the corn could not feed even one head of cattle for a year or even produce one gallon of etoh; Or a fifth of Bourbon for that matter..

But than again there is a pretty lady under that white lab coat stroking the corn silk, at least I think.

Get some real loam under your nails first before you bite back.



How would one get a Combine, Tractor, and Tractor trailor into a sky scraper to harvest all of the grain?













Just one farm.






It may seem hard to realize for city folk but most farms go on for miles and miles and miles.... Like the Who.

Some exurban farms may go under but farms are what feed the nation. Still in this day in age farmers are paid subsidies not to plant crop on their land to support crop prices. There is still an enormous amount of cropland still available to plant if needed.

[TheMeltyMan]

There are plenty of farms in Pennsylvania that are 10 acres or less. The midwest is a different story.

[bgwah]

These things will be useful when we colonize Mars!

[aVegetable]

original article:
"At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA).
...
By 2050, demographers estimate there will be an additional 3 billion people (a global total of 9.2 billion). If current farming practices are maintained, extra landmass as large as Brazil would have to be cultivated to feed them."

verticalfarm.com
"...What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate)."

I can tell you with absolute conviction and certainty that the market share of aero/hydroponic crops will skyrocket within the next 20 years. They are faster, cheaper and easier to use and maintain with less risk than conventional farming methods; when you consider a less developed farming economy these benefits increase exponentially.

These towers are intended for worldwide use - the NY times article which brought it to your attention perhaps doesn't make this point clear. As somebody has already pointed out this is more likely to be developed in Japan (althought real estate prices are high) or Central Europe (where they are considerably lower). The pressing need for food is in Africa, but private entrepreneurs are currently the only persons with the power to build these. China have invested heavily in the continent (especially in Zambia), however low wages and poor working conditions make it improbable that their investment is anything other than economic.

The likelihood that it is done in Trump Tower style is remote; these buildings will be subsidised, carbon positive (which will lend entitlement tax breaks in the coming century), recycling micro-economies of their own. They are intended to feed 50,000 people each (again a university study):
http://verticalfarm.com/plans-2k4.htm

They will fulfill an urgent, growing need for food worldwide; it may have escaped readers' notice that 1 in 7 people worldwide suffer from malnutrition:
http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduc...&sub_section=1

And those of us concerned with the combine harvester require a brief lesson in farming. The combination harvester: harvest, thresh, process. The floors growing grain would be harvested (perhaps robotically) and the sheaves threshed in a processing plant - you would not thresh the harvest in the environmentally controlled grow area. This would be an uncombined harvester. Please wake up.

Those who wish to dispute these facts are welcome to.

[otto]

Looks like a copy of "pig city", the plan/ study by Dutch MVRDV. Of course that ar a Rotterdam based archtects. That design was made in 1999 and figured some 76 towers of 622 meter high. It was dedicated to pig farming and would be capable of housing 16 million pigs.

That plan was really original.
Here`s some Dutch language link:
http://www.classic.archined.nl/news/...y/pigcity.html
with photos.

Here`s another link:
http://www.mvrdv.nl/_v2/projects/181_pigcity/index.html

[Owlhorn]

Some of you are going of of the world today and making cost analysis. What happens when the scenario they create happens and there are 9 billion people on the planet. It took a while for conventional skyscrapers to become cost-effective. This is the same and I've thought this will have to happen eventually for a long time.

[cornholio]

^I think it could be cost effective today for some crops but as far as grains and peas go etc. I think we will have to wait a bit longer.