Notes on Vertical Urban Farming

I was at the City Hall area yesterday when the haughty edifice by architect Moshe Safdie caught my eye. This edifice comprises of three imposing towers standing adjacent to the other towering maybe 60 stories into the air. On their common top straddles a vast, cantilevering plateau of steel and concrete. The next thing that I noticed was its still unadorned, unpainted and likely unfinished skin. Then an idea struck me: what if some of the skin of this vast building complex is used for vertical, urban farming?

* * * * * * * *

Imagine that we have 3,000 buildings in Singapore. Further imagine that each of these buildings is 10 stories high and the height between each storey is 2m. Lets also assume that each building has a linear footprint of 100m. And for simplicity’s sake lets also assume that this footprint is rectangular in shape and with the longer sides measuring 40m each. Hence without including the shorter sides, each building has 40m x 20m x 2 vertical surfaces, which is 1,600 square meters. If we add this number up for all 3,000 buildings in Singapore, then the aggregate number is 1,600 x 3,000, which is 4.8 million square meters.

4.8 million square meters is also 4.8 square kilometers of surface. This is still a tiny number in tiny Singapore with about 710 square kilometers of total land area.

But my calculations are erring on the conservative side. It is likely that we have much more vertical surface aggregating beyond 3,000 buildings of 10 storey each. I take into consideration all the public housing estates, the private estates and most of the commercial, public and private, non-classified buildings in this city-state.

It is in fact worthwhile to discover the exact number. But for argument’s sake lets imagine that my margin of error is 100% lower than the actual number.

If so, then in land-scarce Singapore, we have nearly 10 untapped square kilometers of surface now. This number is sure to increase with a continuous increase in population density. And you know what, as far as air space is concerned, there is no upper limit on this number…

* * * * * * * *

Sometimes ideas are weak and discounted as fictional or unrealistic because they stand in isolation to other ideas. But when these ideas are put together like hands and feet, things can work.

* * * * * * * *

Assuming that we dedicate these 10 square kilometers to intensive, high-yield urban, vertical farming. Lets further assume that about 51% of the citizens buy into this idea and would willingly—and profitably—contribute some of their time in the week (instead of shopping) to organize and work in this effort. Even so, we are talking of 1.6 million people working on this farming venture at any one time—would this not be the largest industry, spurring domestic demand then in Singapore? With a rising grey population and a longer but uncertain retirement livelihood in the world today, urban farming can become a sustainable source of income and psychological fulfillment for the golden years.

* * * * * * * *

I am not an agricultural expert. But I am an architectural designer who realizes that there is a problem of cladding buildings in plastic, granite and glass when the world is increasingly growing hungrier and (will become) bloodier from food conflicts. While my Hobbesian inclinations are clear, it is also clear to me that only architects and urban designers are trained—with support from public administrators and urban agricultural experts—to provide the aesthetical and technical spatial answers for this growing social and global problem.

* * * * * * * *

I have grown some tomatoes, potatoes and lady’s fingers successfully (in my garden). From this experience in primary school, I realized that Singapore has a full year of growing season.

Critics of urban farming may suggest that the use of water will surely increase exponentially for water-scarce Singapore. They are right. But equally true is that all vertical urban farms can capture rainwater that is lost right now through run-offs from these vertical surfaces. Imagine that half a centimeter of rain falls daily in Singapore for the whole year. That’s an incredible amount of water that can then be channeled for sustaining these farms.

Besides, depending on how these vertical farms are designed together with the façade, they are likely to reduce heat gain and at the same time, also reduce ambient temperatures. Indeed, these vertical farms present before us is a choice between the positive reinforcing cycle of air-conditioning use, or a negative feedback cycle of reducing air-conditioning use.

* * * * * * * *

I mentioned earlier that ideas ought to work together. Here we can begin to count the perks of this proposal:

 

(1)  Reduced emissions from food transportation. With a reduced demand for imported food—especially tonnage heavy agricultural products—we also reduce emissions attributed to trucks and planes carrying these products.

(2)  Eating healthier. This is subjective. But with an available local supply of agricultural products we may come to depend less on processed foods and more on natural foods, thereby also cutting down on paper, plastic and synthetic material wastes. This also means major cuts in emissions.

(3)  Hunger is on the rise in the world today. In a soon to be food-scarce world, increasing a domestic supply of food means food security if and when the barn-houses of the world reduce their exports for a near 100% imported-food dependent Singapore.

(4)  It may even be possible to have surpluses from this effort and to export some of these surpluses. With the market for organic agricultural products expanding in the world, vertical farming, because of its proximity to human activity, must be as organic as it can be. Is this not another place to explore the combination of these two ideas: between organic farming and vertical farming?

(5)  Communities in the city-state can be organized into self-sufficient communities specializing in different produce and strengthening local identities and trusts between people. All said, I do not hold onto a romantic ideal of socially edifying agricultural work. What I am suggesting is a much more modest and pragmatic vision where this can become another avenue for community involvement with tangible perks.

(6)  The probability of a universal carbon credit system is high in the near future. When this finally becomes reality, contributors to this system can exchange rebate-credits based on their individual production yields. This serves as an incentive for working in this socially ameliorative ‘industry’.

* * * * * * * *

What are some of the problems with this vision? Here, I count a few of them:

 

(1)  Not all buildings can be used for vertical farming. For example, buildings with a security nature; or buildings used for communication purposes and so on.

(2)  Architectural conformity. This is not so much a problem as it is still an open question. Architects have always been able to provide answers that have yet to be imagined. Imagine entire housing estates covered with trellis of tomatoes, lady’s fingers and other vegetables…It may strike some as delicious while some may find it a perverted version of the witch’s house in a new Hansen and Gretel story. But because no effort has been expended in envisioning a cityscape like this, there is still ample room for improvement and compromise.

(3)  Free-riding. Like all public goods, there will be some who would literally want to do nothing yet receive the same pay-offs as those who work on these vertical farms.

(4)  Initial high costs from public investment and private cooperation. But if we build it well and if it can last a long time, how is this different from building a subway or an effective airport?

* * * * * * * *

Many years ago, an American psychologist by the name of Abraham Maslow came up with a hierarchy of needs. For Maslow, food, water and sleep are foundational needs. Luxury, circus and entertainment(-gambling) for him are surely aspiration wants.

All around the world today we see more trade-offs along this trend: competitive advantages in agriculture traded for tourist-inducing golf-courses and thus, foreign exchange; resources that can be invested in sustainable production being consumed rapidly for higher immediate dividends but poorer longer term returns; and finally, a vast material investment in our visual and spatial productions that have nearly no relevance or gravity to the human condition today.

 

If there is preponderant attention paid on aspiration wants today, surely some attention—and vision—ought to be allocated to foundational needs as well?