Many plants like spinach leech toxins from the soil so over time the soil could heal.
I think the biggest obstacle to this sort of thing would be that it would be seen as "giving up" by the government. They have the ability to block it too because of zoning laws.
Agree with you re: government, but maybe Detroit is a special case:
"This piece also highlights the absolutely crucial advantage of Detroit. It’s possible to do things there. In Detroit, the incapacity of the government is actually an advantage in many cases." (From the New Geography article linked to above)
What would you do with the spinach though? Presumably it couldn't be eaten by man or beast. Or does it convert the toxins into less harmful substances?
Oh, but it could. My assumption is that it's a near certainty that some enterprising contractor would sell this stuff as feed, regardless of the damage to animals and humans.
From the article:
"Not all contaminants, however, are easily treated by bioremediation using microorganisms. For example, heavy metals ...
Phytoremediation is useful in these circumstances, because natural plants or transgenic plants are able to bioaccumulate these toxins... [heavy metals in biomass] may be further concentrated by incineration or even recycled for industrial use."
Even if the land itself is un-arable, one could always do raised-bed gardening with fresh topsoil.
I do wonder about the economics: many of farms that currently supply Detroit are presumably hundreds of miles away, so Detroit consumers have to pay for shipment, but they are also established businesses with economies of scale (large dairy farms without any neighbors to complain about the smell of manure, or whatever). How can urban farmers find niches where they could compete? How many Detroit residents could be put to work with this kind of project?
That's an interesting idea especially given some of the Detroit land prices that have been discussed here on HN over the last few months.
There are urban/suburban farmers who currently supply fresh crops to upscale restaurants, the same could probably be done on a local scale at lower cost given more cheap land. The smaller plots mean that farm automation is cheaper. e.g., there are scaled down farm implements (plows, disks, seeders, etc) designed to be towed by ATVs or riding mowers instead of the larger ones designed for full size tractors and they cost a fraction of the commercial varieties. Not to mention that an ecosystem around repair and small scale manufacture would rise up to support the farmers.
It's possible to grow some animals at reasonable densities with minimal pollution. Chickens come to mind: raising them doesn't require the horrific conditions of "industrial" production. Lots of people raise meat & egg chickens on pasture and the costs are low, animal welfare and food taste is demonstrably better.
I raise poultry as a hobby, and while I've considered making it break even, I've never bothered to actually run the numbers since I really don't want to turn a fun pastime into a part time job. However, my gut tells me that with low cost of real estate, proper management (software tools to help here) and relaxed zoning, it's possible to be self sufficient in the city doing small scale agriculture.
I grew up in Detroit, so I'm a bit jaded, but I wouldn't recommend it. Many of the people who live in Detroit don't see the blight as a problem and actively fight anyone who tries to change Detroit.
I was actually in Detroit over the summer visiting some extended family, and was awestruck. It's really quite remarkable... within maybe ten blocks of the (surprisingly nice) Renaissance Center and re-developed waterfront area, there were entire city blocks that were completely overgrown with ivy and other such plants. It felt like I was inside the pages of "The World Without Us". I can totally see the urban agriculture thing working out in Detroit, except for the industrial contamination problem.
Of course, what really struck me was the abrupt transition we saw driving to the north and east along Jefferson Ave. For block after block, it's nothing but abandoned factories, vacant lots, and eerily empty and overgrown neighborhoods, with the only operational (i.e., not boarded up) businesses being convenience stores and the occasional bait shop. Then, all of a sudden, without any transition, the scenery changes to a ritzy suburb. I swear, it was a sharp enough contrast that my mind was reeling from psychic whiplash for the rest of the day.
It was like the NYC good-block/bad-block phenomenon, only on a massive geographic scale and with the volume turned up to 11.
Government could take an active role and redefine zoning laws to allow for agricultural areas in some formerly urban areas. Other cities in Michigan have done something similar: Flint started a program to assist moving residents out of sparsely populated, heavily foreclosed areas, into more densely populated areas, consolidating people and turning abandoned neighborhoods into parkland.
Anyone interested in this really should read Aaron Renn's blog The Urbanophile http://www.urbanophile.com/ - he wrote the New Geography article. He writes mainly on the Midwest but uses it as a lens to examine urban issues. He's one of the sharpest urban thinkers out there.
Thanks for the recco. I appreciate it. I hope you'll all check out the blog.
By the way, I'm a hacker myself. I wrote the only utility in the world I'm aware of that will actually recover data out of corrupted tarballs, gzrecover:
25 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 58.9 ms ] thread-----
edit: wonder what fraction of this land is contaminated by previous industrial activity? (per: http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/plowing-detroit-in...)
I think the biggest obstacle to this sort of thing would be that it would be seen as "giving up" by the government. They have the ability to block it too because of zoning laws.
"This piece also highlights the absolutely crucial advantage of Detroit. It’s possible to do things there. In Detroit, the incapacity of the government is actually an advantage in many cases." (From the New Geography article linked to above)
Oh, but it could. My assumption is that it's a near certainty that some enterprising contractor would sell this stuff as feed, regardless of the damage to animals and humans.
From the article: "Not all contaminants, however, are easily treated by bioremediation using microorganisms. For example, heavy metals ... Phytoremediation is useful in these circumstances, because natural plants or transgenic plants are able to bioaccumulate these toxins... [heavy metals in biomass] may be further concentrated by incineration or even recycled for industrial use."
I do wonder about the economics: many of farms that currently supply Detroit are presumably hundreds of miles away, so Detroit consumers have to pay for shipment, but they are also established businesses with economies of scale (large dairy farms without any neighbors to complain about the smell of manure, or whatever). How can urban farmers find niches where they could compete? How many Detroit residents could be put to work with this kind of project?
There are urban/suburban farmers who currently supply fresh crops to upscale restaurants, the same could probably be done on a local scale at lower cost given more cheap land. The smaller plots mean that farm automation is cheaper. e.g., there are scaled down farm implements (plows, disks, seeders, etc) designed to be towed by ATVs or riding mowers instead of the larger ones designed for full size tractors and they cost a fraction of the commercial varieties. Not to mention that an ecosystem around repair and small scale manufacture would rise up to support the farmers.
It's possible to grow some animals at reasonable densities with minimal pollution. Chickens come to mind: raising them doesn't require the horrific conditions of "industrial" production. Lots of people raise meat & egg chickens on pasture and the costs are low, animal welfare and food taste is demonstrably better.
I raise poultry as a hobby, and while I've considered making it break even, I've never bothered to actually run the numbers since I really don't want to turn a fun pastime into a part time job. However, my gut tells me that with low cost of real estate, proper management (software tools to help here) and relaxed zoning, it's possible to be self sufficient in the city doing small scale agriculture.
Plus the city council is beyond dysfunctional... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TvgtGlcdTE&eurl=http://c...
Of course, what really struck me was the abrupt transition we saw driving to the north and east along Jefferson Ave. For block after block, it's nothing but abandoned factories, vacant lots, and eerily empty and overgrown neighborhoods, with the only operational (i.e., not boarded up) businesses being convenience stores and the occasional bait shop. Then, all of a sudden, without any transition, the scenery changes to a ritzy suburb. I swear, it was a sharp enough contrast that my mind was reeling from psychic whiplash for the rest of the day.
It was like the NYC good-block/bad-block phenomenon, only on a massive geographic scale and with the volume turned up to 11.
Jim takes lots of pictures of Detroit. He's also got his more original site, which is less bloggy and I like it better: http://jamesgriffioen.net/index.php?/prairies/feral-houses/
By the way, I'm a hacker myself. I wrote the only utility in the world I'm aware of that will actually recover data out of corrupted tarballs, gzrecover:
http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/coding/gzrt/gzrt.html
Along with other free software. Cheers!