Zoning for urban agriculture and a more transparent shade of green - Metropolitan Planning Council

Skip to main content

Zoning for urban agriculture and a more transparent shade of green

I happened to get a quick tour of Braddock, Penn., this past Monday.  I've never seen the post-industrial challenge facing many North American cities—Detroit, Newark, Youngstown, and closer to home in Gary—more acutely than on the main strip of Braddock, which is a stone's throw from Pittsburgh (which has reinvented and reinvested in itself in recent years by cultivating a nascent biomedical and ecoindustrial economy, combating brain drain through the work of groups like the Pittsburgh Urban Magnet Project, and adapting its architectural legacy to create rich, vibrant places like the new public market). 

Braddock's creed is "Reinvention is the Only Option," and if you've seen it in person or in a current series of Levis commercials, you understand why.  Braddock's population has dropped from around 20,000 to around 3,000 in the last few decades.  It's got the street grid, infrastructure, and building stock of a decent sized-town town, but for a first-time visitor there's an inescapable feeling that it's been left behind by time, history, and society.  It didn't help that I was there in the dead of winter, on a holiday, and that most folks were still recovering from the Steelers' playoff win.  The streets were quiet, and the only two signs of activity were telling: a wrecking ball was methodically knocking down the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and a few blocks away some cabbage and Swiss chard were quietly growing at Braddock Farms, a small commercial farm occupying lots on both sides of the main street, making use out of vacant lots produced by one of the wrecking ball's peers. 

Growing Home's Wood Street Urban Farm, in the Englwood neighborhood on Chicago's south side.

A farm.  Not a community garden, but an active, working farm producing crops and flowers for sale at local restaurants, shops, and public markets.  A farm is an economic enterprise resulting in the sale of produce; gardening is more a pursuit, philosophy, or pastime.  That's not just my opinion, it's the working rationale behind the City of Chicago's ordinance proposing changes to the city's zoning code to reflect the rise of both commercial and community gardening.  The latter, neighborhood gardens for primarily recreational uses, are sprouting all over the place, providing fresh food, a social outlet, and activity for young and old.  But across the country—from the relatively small-scale farming efforts in Braddock to Detroit's more sweeping aspirations, and across Chicago, from Englewood's Wood Street Urban Farm to Chicago Lights Urban Farmnear the vestiges of Cabrini-Green—urban farming for the purpose of making economic use out of vacant, underutilized land, is not just on the rise, but a real and growing part of a the new green economy. 

At least in Chicago, starting an urban farm has required a lengthy, complicated, no-guarantees process of working around the existing zoning code.  Urban farms were once new and different, an experiment in using dormant land to put people to work and improve access to fresh produce.  But now?  They're approaching normal, and with that normalcy comes a need to streamline the process for establishing commercial gardening enterprises throughout the city.  The proposed ordinance would allow for urban farming "by right," precluding the need for variances and exemptions and making the process a lot more transparent for everyone involved.  Because commercial gardens are businesses—employing people, selling goods, generating revenue, etc.—the proposed ordinance largely treats them as such.  They must be in areas zoned for business activity.  Community gardens, however, can be basically anywhere, but do face size restrictions.

The ordinance is obviously more detailed than that, but rather than address every facet of it here, I encourage you to read "Urban Agriculture Zoning in Chicago: Navigating the Rules" (and better yet, attend Advocates for Urban Agriculture's winter meeting and potluck dinner on Feb. 2).  We should be making it easier to establish urban farms, and the best way to do that is through a cooperative process between practitioners, neighbors, and the City.  The long and short of it is that this ordinance is a step forward for both recreational and commerical agriculture in Chicago.  Does it change how and where future gardens will be built? Yes. Does it create a new framework for farming in the city?  Absolutely. Does it create standards that, had they been applied years ago, would have changed how some current gardens are configured?  Sure. Is it perfect?  Nope.  But people are pretty adaptive, and given new rules to a game, they'll figure out how to play it (e.g., the shot clock and 3-pointer didn't exactly kill basketball).       

Whatever your opinion of the ordinance—and I encourage you to share yours here—the fact is that urban farming, for profit or for fun, is here to stay.  Whether in Braddock or in Hyde Park, where I live,urban farming is both symbolic of rebirth and a practical way to create jobs and career tracks, improve quality and accessibility of available food, remediate soils, manage stormwater, reduce the transportation cost and carbon footprint of produce, beautify neighborhoods, reconnect people with the land... the list goes on and on.  In more affluent areas community gardening can signal a shift away from strict consumption and toward productivity.  Some gardens will become an integral part of the neighborhood and amenity for decades to come. For disinvested communities like Braddock, urban farming is part of reinvention.  It's a transformative shift from decay to growth.  Perhaps market conditions will improve, and more desirable uses will emerge.  Some gardens may be temporary efforts.  But those market transformations take time, whereas urban farms can, in theory, be launched relatively quickly.  Chicago's proposed zoning changes seek to make that reality in practice as well. 

PS - The city council zoning committee meets next Thursday, Jan. 27 at 10AM—the zoning ordinance is near the top of the agenda (which they note is "subject to change").  Here is the link specific to the urban ag ordinance. Keep in mind that this will only show the portions of the ordinance for which there have been suggested additions or edits.

Comments

  1. 1. B from Chicago on January 19, 2011

    Can you explain how urban farming remediates soils? I can think of a few urban farms that have not remediated the soil their produce is growing on. In fact, all they did was cover up unmediated soil - soil that has tested positive for toxic chemicals and other contaminants. This was achieved by importing compost from elsewhere and inserting a physical barrier between the old soil and the new. I can't think of an instance in Chicago where a remediation project happened prior to the production of produce, which is concerning. A good urban ag policy would not only say that commercial farms must be in certain zones and community gardens must be elsewhere, good policy should also protect the health of the people who are provided jobs and foods by these farms. A better policy for Chicago would require the remediation and annual testing for these sites, and definitely not allow covering them up.

  2. 2. Josh Ellis from MPC on January 20, 2011

    Thanks B. Whether urban framing in Chicago has led to remediated soils is a different question than whether it could. Urban environments certainly have a long history of either active (dumping) or passive (air and rain) pollution, resulting in concentrations of lead and other heavy metals in the soil. Those can be removed by excavating out the contaminated soil, but that's a costly exercise, especially for some of the neighborhood and non-profit groups looking to start gardens. The other solutions I know of are covering it up, intense washing of the soil, and various forms of bioremediation.

    You're right, all the gardens I know of have covered up contaminated soil with fresh topsoil, and I believe some have use a combination of raised beds and liner materials to further distance roots from possible toxins. I don't know of any that have excavated out contaminated soils or done any soil washing, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

    Bioremediation is promising, and back in Braddock, Penn., they're experimenting with sunflowers to see if successive plantings can clean the soil sufficiently. Lead is a stubborn element, much more so than other heavy metals, but sunflowers seem to do a decent job of extracting it from the soil. It's pretty easy (and colorful) to imagine a citywide sunflower-planting campaign to clean up prospective garden sites.

    So remediation is possible and you're right, needs to be a concern of city officials, farmers, and neighbors alike. The ordinance doesn't really address it.

    There would seem to be a couple feasible ways to go. The city could require certain soil standards before permitting or as part of the permitting process, which would put the onus on the farmers themselves to get the soil up to snuff. That, however, might be too costly for some groups, and end up preventing the establishment of some gardens. Perhaps the city could work with county and state officials to identify brownfield remediation money for this purpose, or there might be philanthropic givers interested. Another option would be for the city to work with stakeholders to create an inventory of likely farm sites, whether for commercial or community gardening, and then set about remediating them itself (through whatever means are most cost-effective, I personally like the idea of fields of sunflowers throughout the city). As sites are cleared, they would become available for new gardens. Several other permutations come to mind, most of which include cost-sharing and partnership across sectors.

    Either way, we can't be growing lead-filled tomatoes and pretending they're great just because they're local, you're totally right. So we need to ensure public health, but simultaneously ensure that we don't squelch the desire for new gardens. As the city and practitioners get more experience, I'm sure that standards for remediation and soil health will emerge, and the onus is on all of us that care to make sure they do.

    If anyone knows of gardens in the city or elsewhere that have done innovative soil remediation, please share it here.

  3. 3. Kevin Pierce from Chicago on January 24, 2011

    Regarding remediation, its really important to understand that both the source of contamination and the use of the site are key factors in determining appropriate remediation techniques. For example a superfund site with nuclear waste is completely different that a residential lot in Chicago contaminated by 100 years of coal fired power. Every lot in Chicago has some level of contamination. If the end use is a kindergarten playground, the remediation approach is different than if the site will be covered 100% by a building.

    Farms and gardens are temporary uses -- almost by definition, and certainly for some of the Chicago urban ag leaders (like the Resource Center). For these uses, capping a site with 4" of clay and growing in compost has proven to be an effective means of managing the kinds of contamination on typical urban infill sites. This is an established and widely accepted remediation technique for many site types.

    Until the final use of a site is known, it generally doesn't make economic sense not does it promote greater food safety to employ a greater level of remediation just because there might be a sensitive use in the future.

    Disclosure: I'm a board member with the Resource Center.

    We have written an alternative to the proposed legislation that addresses, we feel, several key weaknesses. The Mayor's proposal
    1. Limits ag benefits to the economy. Our farms generate $100,000/acre/yr in economic activity (compare to IL corn farm at $900/ac/yr).
    2. Screening requirements in the code prevent urban ag from helping to beautify neighborhood and engage residents in the process.
    3. Street tree requirements shade growing area -- reducing yields.
    4. Requirements for ornamental fencing increase costs exorbitantly.
    5. Does not recognize the difference between non-profit community oriented gardens/farms and for profit operations.

    We hope to have the alternative ordinance considered at the next Zoning Meeting.

  4. 4. Debbie Hillman from Evanston, IL on January 28, 2011

    I think it might be useful to add some of the additional policy frameworks that (1) have been already put in place (supporting urban agriculture), and (2) are in the works, all of which would affect the City of Chicago as well as other parts of the Chicago metro area, Illinois, the Midwest.

    a. City of Chicago "Eat Local, Live Healthy". I would start analyzing the new urban ag ordinance by asking whether and to what extent it implements the "Eat Local, Live Healthy" plan adopted by Chicago's Plan Commission in 2007.

    b. Regional. CMAP's Go to 2040 Plan included (for the first time in Chicago's planning history I believe) a "Promote Sustainable Local Food" recommendation. One of the key strategies identified to promote local food is urban agriculture. Obviously, since the Plan was just adopted in October 2010, implementation has barely begun.

    c. Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area. A Technical Assistance workshop is in the works for the (13 counties in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to bring practicing planners and urban farmers together to learn from each other. This initiative started at CEED Chicago@UIC (www.CEEDChicago.org) and is being organized inn collaboration with the American Planning Association, which is about to release (within a week or two) its first major report on urban agriculture ("Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places"). CEED's "Food Equity Policy Committee" includes members of Advocates for Urban Agriculture, CMAP, etc.

    d. State of Illinois. In 2009, the state of Illinois adopted an economic development plan (Local Food, Farms, and Jobs: Growing the Illinois Economy) that also identifies urban agriculture as a particular kind of farming (both food and non-food) that has added leverage power to localizing the Illinois food economy. The plan was initiated and written to address the fact that although Illinois is a farm state (80% of our land is working farmland), we import 95% of the food that Illinois people spend money on.

    e. Midwest: Regarding soil remediation, EPA's Region 5 Chicago office has been holding webinars and workshops on developing protocols for re-use of vacant land for food production. The good news, as reported at the October 2010 workshop and on the webinars, is that (according to researchers at Ohio State University), the major toxicity problem with contaminated soil is ingestion of the soil itself. While certain plants (such as leafy greens) do take up some toxins, compared to the "background" level of toxins (present everywhere in a given geography), the amount is not as high as originally thought. Other food crops, such as fruit trees, show almost no uptake of toxins.

    Obviously the conversation is still going on, but progress is being made to develop protocols to minimize risk when creating new food production sites in urban areas.

    I would agree with anyone who is reading this and thinking that the goal should be to ELIMINATE risk. That is the larger picture of the local food movement, which includes asking the same questions (not currently being asked by government officials) about the farms that are now providing most of our food -- in China, California, South America, wherever.

    For disclosure purposes, I have been involved with most of these initiatives, on a leadership level with the Illinois Food, Farms, and Jobs Act and more recently the workshop being planned by CEED's Food Equity Policy Committee.

    One final comment about Kevin Pierce's statement that "farms and gardens are temporary uses -- almost by definition." I think that some local food systems practitioners would suggest that that thinking is the crux of the current disfunctional food system. How food production can be considered a "temporary" use -- even in dense urban areas (or maybe especially in dense urban areas ?) strikes some people (such as myself) as pure folly. I do certainly believe, as a practical matter, that the Resource Center's model is a good interim step. We at The Talking Farm (in Evanston) have discussed this possibility and promoted this model Better to have SOME food production in urban areas as soon as possible, while we're learning how to PLAN for more permanent food production and soil rebuilding on a neighborhood level.

    I look forward to additional discussions.

    Debbie Hillman
    Evanston Food Policy Council

  5. 5. Josh Ellis from MPC on January 28, 2011

    Thanks Debbie, and everyone else, for contributing to a good, civil discussion on this. Debbie, the contextual framework you've provided is extremely helpful, and to be honest, a better job of articulating it than I could have done, so thank you.

    On remediation, eliminating risk in local, urban agriculture (your point about the risk inherent in our global food chain is well taken) seems to be a combination of assessing the characteristics of the soil and possible contaminants before commencing agricultural production, undertaking appropriate and cost-effective measures to actually remediate the soils (not just cover them up), and then being vigilant about monitoring how the plants actually behave. Determining who bears the cost for those may well determine how quickly and broadly urban ag moves toward mainstream. If urban ag is going to part of the urban fabric, and is indeed a national/state/regional/local goal, than we need to establish just who is paying is going to pay for what so that we can establish a level of certainty for all involved. In the case of brownfield remediation, what we've seen is national/state money being used by local units of government to prepare sites for private development. It hasn't worked perfectly - often the sites are selected based only on environmental contamination, not on whether they are prime for redevelopment - but it's a model to perhaps learn from and adopt here. It's an opportunity for government to establish a safe, standard playing field for the private actors (non-profit and for-profit) to act in.

    I think there is a distinction to make on the issue of permanency. Saying that all urban farms are temporary, and that they will eventually be replaced by higher and better uses, is a little sweeping for my tastes too. Many park and library sites probably have the right property values to merit redevelopment by the private sector, but we protect them for long time, if not permanently, because we value them as public goods and quality-of-life amenities. I think urban ag is here to stay, and I think that some community gardens and some commercial gardens will likely stay with us just like our parks and libraries do. If that's going to be the case, we may well have a greater need for remediation on those sites.

    However, there are certainly cases where a garden is a temporary use, either to get some value out of a stagnant property, or as a symbolic gesture of community resurgence (or both). If the property is only destined to be in agricultural use for a decade, is there a need to fully remediate, or is covering it up sufficient if the next use is simply going to cover it up anyway? Or, is a decade of urban farming, plus our overarching socioenvironmental goal of addressing past contamination, sufficient justification for real remediation even if the use is temporary?

    And, if indeed we do want to simultaneously pursue temporary ag uses in some cases, and permanent ones in others, does that mean the former needs to declare an intention to redevelop after X years, and the latter necessitates something like an agricultural easement?

More posts by Josh

  1. Budgets are a reflection of our policy priorities

  2. Keep Asian carp out of Lake Michigan

    • By Josh Ellis and Molly Flanagan, vice president for policy at the Alliance for the Great Lakes
    • Mar 21, 2019
    • Post a comment

All posts by Josh »

MPC on Twitter

Follow us on Twitter »


Stay in the loop!

MPC's Regionalist newsletter keeps you up to date with our work and our upcoming events.?

Subscribe to Regionalist


Most popular news

Browse by date »

This page can be found online at http://archive.metroplanning.org/news/6075

Metropolitan Planning Council 140 S. Dearborn St.
Suite 1400
Chicago, Ill. 60603
312 922 5616 info@metroplanning.org

Sign up for newsletter and alerts »

Shaping a better, bolder, more equitable future for everyone

For more than 85 years, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) has partnered with communities, businesses, and governments to unleash the greatness of the Chicago region. We believe that every neighborhood has promise, every community should be heard, and every person can thrive. To tackle the toughest urban planning and development challenges, we create collaborations that change perceptions, conversations—and the status quo. Read more about our work »

Donate »