Spiraling Skyscraper Farms For a Future Manhattan

Mike writes "One of three finalists in this year's Evolo Skyscraper Competition, Eric Vergne's Dystopian Farm project envisions a future New York City interspersed with elegantly spiraling skyscraper farms. The biomorphic structures harness cutting-edge technology to provide the city with its own self-sustaining food source while dynamically altering the fabric of city life."

Comments

Pretty Pictures with Little to No Functionality

[eldavojohn]

One of three finalists in this year's Evolo Skyscraper Competition, Eric Vergne's Dystopian Farm project envisions a future New York City ...

So that's what they're aiming for these days? A dystopian future? Well, at least the architects are catching on to the trend our government's been setting.

I don't know if it's Slashdotted or what but from what I can see in other sources, these are really just photoshopped images some dude made while tripping balls.

I may have been raised a dumbass farmboy but here's a few hints to architects like this guy:

• Plants (especially plants like alfalfa or grasses as depicted) have massive root systems requiring literally tons of soil to be healthy.
• Tons of soil weigh a lot.
• Soil has no architectural integrity.
• Buildings don't like tons of weight with no architectural integrity.
• Plants need water. Lots of water.
• Buildings don't like water.
• Plants die & rot (it's natural). Rotting plants smell. People don't like smelly buildings.
• Currently we use large machines to cultivate plants because it sucks, none of these images look like that would be possible.

I could go on for hours about how completely unrealistic this bad idea is. These pictures indicate that the architects have little to no idea of how top soil and nutrient cycles work.

There's no better way to put a million people into a square mile than skyscrapers in a city. Leave Manhattan as Manhattan and instead focus your efforts on controlling waste and returning the Northeast to massive forests (for some reason Americans love to overlook the ridiculous logging that took place here while we bitch and moan about the rain forests).

Re:Pretty Pictures with Little to No Functionality

[Anonymous Coward]

Tons of soil weigh alot? By my calculations it should only weigh a few tons..

and no, you do not need soil to grow plants.. Hydroponics and Aeroponics do not use soil and have impressive yields.

The rest of your argument is just as poorly thought out, the major down side I see to farming in the city is the toxins the plants will absorb from the air making it into the food supply.

Re:Pretty Pictures with Little to No Functionality

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you have never been to the Living Earth at Epcot. They have plants growing quite successfully with absolutely zero soil. In the air. On rotating armatures.
For a closer to home example, go two houses down and ask the indoor pot growers how many plants they have going in that converted home.
Also, look into biofilm farming technology.

Or, better yet, you could ACTUALLY research some of your points before you jump on the "this could never happen, just destroy the communities outside NYC" rant train.

It is all technologically feasible, if not likely in the way the entrant envisions. If you believe half of the futurists in the country, it's almost inevitable unless someone finds a way to regulate the human birth rate.

In short: STFU, read more dystopian novels, and think outside of your cube.

Re:Pretty Pictures with Little to No Functionality

[eln]

unless someone finds a way to regulate the human birth rate.

That's easy, just give everyone a Slashdot account.

Re:Pretty Pictures with Little to No Functionality

[Belial6]

As repugnant as it may be, it is physically impossible for the population to outstrip the food supply.

Economics

[pavon]

And even if they could solve all the engineering problems, there is no way it will ever be economically viable to use prime real estate in the middle of Manhattan for farming. It will always cost more to farm in a sky scraper than on the ground, so they won't be able to compete in the global market against traditional farms. Furthermore, using it locally won't matter either. New York is a major shipping hub, and has more fresh food passing through it than the vast majority of the country, and as a consequence has lower grocery prices than many parts of the country.

The only point at which something like this would make sense is if we've transformed the vast majority of the planet into a giant city, like Tantor.

So far removed from basic common sense

[Wrath0fb0b]

Land on Manhattan remains some of the most valuable land on the planet. And he wants to use it for the most land-intensive production imaginable? For the price of an acre on Manhattan, you could buy 100 acres in the Midwest, plus the equipment and personnel to operate it, plus transportation of the final product to NYC. That's the market trying to give you a hint that allocating Manhattan real estate to agriculture is not the most efficient thing to do.

Even more damning, the whole damned point of having a civilization is to allow a small minority of farmers to produce enough food for everyone so that the rest of us can do things like engineering, science, art, law, politics, philosophy and all those other things that many of us find more satisfying than toiling in a field.

Disclosure: I have a garden in my backyard and I enjoy growing food in it. I don't, however, delude myself into thinking that it's anything other than a hobby -- one that is not economically sound (in the sense that I can buy the finished products much cheaper than I can grow them myself). Since I have to bring in soil, water and fertilizer, I'd be lucky if the whole thing was carbon neutral.

Bees

[snspdaarf]

Maybe we are supposed to wait for the bees to fill the thing with honey, then eat the building.