Vertical Farms Wrong On So Many Levels

TreeHugger has had some trouble digesting vertical farms for a decade, as has Stan Cox of Alternet, who wrote in 2010 that “Although the concept has provided opportunities for architecture students and others to create innovative, sometimes beautiful building designs, it holds little practical potential for providing food.” Now he is at it again, refining his points in a new article in Alternet that was picked up and retitled in Salon as Enough with the vertical farming fantasies: There are still too many unanswered questions about the trendy practice.

Cox is particularly critical of the original Vertical Farm concepts of Dickson Despommier, who wrote the book on the subject. His images all have floor upon floor of farm, all lit by artificial light and a bit of natural light that comes in from the windows. Vertical farm proponents claim that this can be done with renewable energy; Cox notes that this does not make a lot of sense.

And while the yield under artificial light is higher, it is still not as good as growing under natural sunlight.

Cox also dismisses the idea that we don’t have enough farmland, even though so much land that was farmed has returned to forest because right now it is more economical to ship produce long distances by rail and truck. But in fact there’s lots of farmland around; we have just been using it really badly.

Also, anyone in real estate will tell you that there is a highest and best use for land, and in the city, farming ain’t it. As Adam Stein noted years ago,

Cox is not against urban farming; like TreeHugger, he likes rooftop greenhouses.

But that does not include vertical farms. “But thanks to their hefty electric bills and limited crop range, they will have a hard time venturing beyond the elite market, let alone reducing their climate impact.”