![]() In the projects that form this tentative counter-history, agricultural production is conceived as a formative element of the city’s structure, rather than being considered adjunct to, outside of, or inserted within traditional urban forms. This essay proposes a history of urban form conceived through the spatial, ecological, and infrastructural implications of agricultural production. For those interested in the city as an object of study and subject of design, this suggests the need for further inquiry into the possibilities for an agricultural urbanism. While both of these remain viable and laudable goals, they shed little light on the implications of such transformations on the shape and the structure of urban form. Equally, this enthusiasm for urban agriculture has been based on the rededication of greenfield sites peripheral to the city, focusing valuable ecological assets on food production rather than suburban sprawl. Much of the enthusiasm for slow and local food in the context of urban populations has been predicated on the assumption that abandoned or underused brownfield sites could be remediated and repurposed with productive potential. This alternative history of the city seeks to construct a useful past from three urban projects organized explicitly around agricultural production as inherent to the economic, ecological, and spatial order of the city. While this may remain an alternative or even marginal counter- history, it may be useful as architects and urbanists grapple with the implications for urban form attendant to their renewed interest in the agricultural. While much has been written on the implications of these tendencies for agricultural production, public policy, and food as an element of culture, little has been written on the potentially profound implications of these transformations for the shape and structure of the city itself. These tendencies have been most clearly articulated through the so-called ‘slow food’ and ‘locavore’ movements. ![]() ![]() This renewed interest in food production and consumption has been shaped by a variety of authors and interests, but has been most forcefully felt as a call for more renewable or sustainable agricultural practices associated with local food production, reduced carbon footprint, increased public health, and the associated benefits of pre-industrial farming techniques including increased biodiversity and ecological health. Equally this renewed interest in the relation of food production to urban form has been made possible by increased public literacy about food and the forms of industrial food production and distribution that characterize globalization. ![]() Enthusiasm for agricultural production in and around cities has grown through an increased environmental literacy on behalf of designers and scholars. Across many disciplines, and for many centuries, the city and the country have been called upon to define one other through binary opposition.Ĭontemporary design culture and discourse on cities are, by contrast, awash in claims of the potential for urban agriculture. The agrarian and the urban are two categories of thought that have more often than not been opposed to one another.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |