Let's make this clear: Vertical farms don't make sense

comments from our community

• 
  Posted by David Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:40pm PDT

  Could not agree more. Although vertical farms are great spacesavers in yards, greenhouses, and rooftop gardens, they are not a good idea inside of buildings. I have had several vertical garden setups in my yard and they work very well, but it is not worth the cost for high dollar real estate to grow things inside a large building.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by DavidS Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:24am PDT

  Although I agree with your overall point regarding the cost, there are always other solutions. For instance, instead of pumping water up, you could collect water on the rooftop and irrigate the crops with a gravity fed system.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Jessica Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:33am PDT

  I understand why it could be a costly venture to build a building entirely dedicated to vertical farming but several points were missed in this article. For one, if the building is built appropriately for this purpose the plants would not need to be "bathed in artificial sunlight all day long." A major benefit to using skyscrapers is their high amount of exposure to natural light and large number of windows. And two, pumping water through the building may cost money--yes but there are a couple ways to deal with that issues. If solar panels are covering many square feet of the building, your electrical costs go down. And if you use a rooftop/basement cistern system, you can avoid pumping water out from the ground by using rainwater and grey water for irrigation. Three, vertical farming doesn't have to be entire skyscrapers built into a "farm." Using current infrastructure to produce food this way can be done. Why not utilize rooftops of commercial and residential properties to produce food (again using cisterns for water and the like). Why not dedicate several feet in front of all windows in newly constructed city buildings to growing vegetables? I'm amazed at the limitations of this article. I feel like the writers are dragging atvs through the streets behind SUV's throwing trash out the window right now laughing about how they write "EcoGeek" articles. How could a person claim to be a geek or ecologically conscious and overlook all of the points mentioned above?

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by I dont want to talk about it. Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:21am PDT

  I found your ideas intriguing right up until the last few sentences, which I found right on the edge of verbally abusive. The "obvious" is often overlooked when dealing with new ideas, precisely because they're new. If you read the history of inventions, you're often tempted to think "How simple! I could have thought of that." But the pattern indicates that most of us would not have thought of "that". The authors raised valid concerns and you raised valid responses. Please focus on the issues and avoid insulting those who are making an effort.

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by pahump1 Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:31am PDT

  there are always naysayers in this world. This is a novel idea, yes there are some obstacles, but so what, if the floor space is available ; do it. Why not make the most of this idea , like teaching students and young kids the subject, making them aware of future ideas and new approaches to the future lifestyles of living in the big city. Great ideas usually start out poorly , then proceed into being fantastic later on. The taste of homegrown food is a big incentive also. There are numerous good reasons that this should be continued and perfected. Wake up people!

  Report Abuse
• 
  Posted by Jessica Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:53am PDT

  I agree--I was being vindictive by the end of my response to the article but for pete's sake the article is called "Let's make this clear: Vertical farms don't make sense." That's a pretty concrete statement written by someone who obviously didn't do his homework before writing it. Vertical farming could be quite successful and even if it didn't produce the volume of food we currently produce on typical farmlands--that wouldn't make it a worthless effort. How about before we discredit a "green" innovation so publicly and so definitely, we look at it from all 360 degrees? My point is that articles like this that flaunt total ignorance on such a subject add fuel to the fire of those of us who don't see anything wrong with the direction we're headed (destroying ecosystems and draining all of our resources with total disregard to future generations).

  Report Abuse