URBAN FARMING

Social considerations (all of the following statements, declarations, deductions and sentences can be

queried).

Life on traditional farms • In case of traditional farms the the terriotory produced much greater

amount of food, than that was consumed there. Traditionally food producing areas.

• Before industrializing the agriculture, there was a wll-known pattern of farms:

• There was a main sector of food producing. In case of the USA, and many european countries, this was stock-farming, basically cattle-breeding.

• Besides the main sector all other agricultural production was represented in a small rate (vegetables, fruit trees, corn-, or wheat production, poultry). These were basically for supporting the people of the farm.

• Before industrialization the people of the farm usually belonged to the same family, or they were at least relatives. The social connections were extremely strong among relatives, moreover also among neighbouring farms (wedding).

Traditional farm life I.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Traditional farm life II.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Traditional farm life III.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Life on traditional farms • After the industrialisation of the agriculture, the main sector usually

changed, it became plant production instead of cattle-breeding. Moreover the pastures turned into corn-fields, or wheat-fields.

• Basically these crops were also used for stock-breeding, but not on that farm.

• The specialisation appeared, basically there were no more other sectors around the farm (only the production of one kind of crop).

• Due to industrialization, the mobility also increased, so the center of social activities moved into cities, or greater settlements.

• Due to industrialization, specialisation and high rate of mobility, there presence of a family on the farm is not necessary any more. It became simply a workplace, the workers can live somewhere else (in a city).

Industrialized farm life I.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Industrialized farm life II.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Industrialized farm life III.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Life in traditional cities • City is traditionally a place, where the consumption of food is greater

(much greater) than the rate of production.• In case of a traditional city it is absolutely normal that there is not

food prodution at all.• Specialisation is absolutely normal. Everyone has her/his own job,

and deal only with that. Overproduction of that specialized good, selling the surplus, and buying everything else (food), which is necessary for life.

• Much greater popultion density is allowed (medieval cities), • The settlement is more injurable, not self-sustaining.• The social structure is more complex (great rate of surplus

production, greater density of people, greater variety of professions).• None of the people, or the families can sustain themselves, they

need each other and all of them need nonurban areas.

Traditional city life I.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Traditional city life II.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Traditional city life III.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Life in traditional villages • Similarly to traditional farmlands in traditional villages the rate of

food production is greater than the food consumption.• Basically they can be considered as a cluster of farms.• Considering history of some villages, it is clear that from the

sociological point of view, it consist of a few great family. • Great family means the same common ancestor (practically, same

grandfather, or great-grandfather and sharing the surname).• There are some adantages of villages as against farms:– The cluster provided greater number of people, which provided

increased defense abilities.– The social life could have been more intense, due to the closeness– As a consequence of both, there could be made such activities,

which would be unable on a simply farm, and which is quite similar to that of cities: building churches, social sites(village halls), protecting establishments (walls etc.).

Traditional village life.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Traditional village life II.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Traditional village life III.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Greater sociological structures • Before industrialization, the cities and clusters of villages were basic

elements of the state. • A cluster of villages produced similar economic and warrior capacities,

than that of a city. In case of villages, such a cluster provided enough food for a castle, with a leader and some soldiers. They protected the villagers (if they paid their taxes).

• In case of a city, it could have hire mercenaries, who were comparable force to such a castel „crew”.

• City leaders and castle owners were the main subjects of medieval states.

• Some cluster of states, or provinces could have formed empires.• The cities were rich, had great number of people, and greater amount

of money, thus they were more versatile, than that of a castle owner.• Industrialisation eventuated increased rate of urbanisation, which even

today have not reached a new balance.

Villages after industrialisation • Villages were more vulnerable, than farms.• In case of greater farms it was a logical decision not to give up the

entire farm, keeping buldings and „only„ the lack of families and social life and connections were the problem.

• In case of a village, the problem is greater, because due to the increased mobility even all families can live in a city, and only a small number of workers have to stay there by day, during worktime.

• This appears as the slowly decay of the village, because elder people want to stay in the village, while younger people want to move into the city.

• Other kind of villages are those, which lay close to cities. These become agglomeration settlements and mostly turn into so called „sleeping settlements”. Although in this case the structure of the society is quite normal, but the whole social life of these people is conducted in an other settlement, in the city.

Villages after industrialisation I.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Villages after industrialisation II.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Villages after industrialisation III.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

Cities after industrialisation I. • After industrialisation the cities has grown in an enormous rate.• City walls disappeared, urban landscapes emerges.• After the appearance of public utilities, elevators and automobiles

the size of the cities increased in a much greater rate, both horizontally and vertically.

• After the Garden City Concept of Ebenezer Howard and the Athens Charter (declarations of modernism in the field of urban planning) the specialisation of people in cities appeared also in the urban form.

• The professions were already specialised in the medieval (ancient) cities.

• In the 20th Century the specialisation emerged also on the level of urban planning.

• But this kind of functionalism proved to be dogmatic. It consequently neglected (deined) the existence of social demands, which should have been taken into consideration by real functionalists.

Sheffield (England) in the 19th Century.

• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

The Garden City Concept.

Paris concept of Le Corbusier I.

Paris concept of Le Corbusier II.

Germania plan by Albert Speer I.

Germania plan by Albert Speer II.

Cities after industrialisation II. • In the 1960ties everything were denied • Revolutions, which were not political (gender, students, peace

movements etc.)• The families could have been planned, which was basically a huge

step, moreover women could have been considered individuals, not only a potential future attachment to a man.

• Nevertheless, these revolutions denied bad things, bad processes, bad institutes and bad customs.

• The lack of these changes is the constructivity. There did not emerged a really functioning new model for social life.

• Even in present day some fragments of old methods are tried to be composed into a new combination.

• Moreover the urbanisation rate further increased, the technology further emerged and the technology increased the possible ways of communication.

New York, Times Square

Shanghai, Bund

Sao Paulo

Cities in present days. • In the 1960ties everything were denied • Revolutions, which were not political (gender, students, peace

movements etc.)• The families could have been planned, which was basically a huge

step, moreover women could have been considered individuals, not only a potential future attachment to a man.

• Moreover the urbanisation rate further increased, the technology further emerged and the technology increased the possible ways of communication.

• The specialisationin professions further increased due to the appearance of new professions.

• Both professions, and spatial complexity increased due to technological develpoment, moreover this technical development attached these spatial and social structures due to the appearance of virtual spaces.

Internet activity map: the silhouettes of megacities

The megacities

Urban farming I. • Individuals became absolutely individual (solitaire, lonely).• The possible ways of communication radically increased.• The possible ways of mobilisation radically increased

(intercontinental travelling).• The possible achievable knowledge about the whole society radically

increased (media).• The vulnerability of the cities increased, the vulnerability due to

specialisation increased (Which citizen can stay alive in a forest ?).• In the Stone Age only groups could stay alive in the nature. But

individualism made very difficult to create effective groups (creating an effective group is very difficult nowadays even by absolutely actual professions).

• There are a lack of nature, a lack of green, a lack of physical work, a lack of group work, a lack of social life by urban people.

Urban farming II. • Some kind of urban farming can be very useful from these

considerations.• Urban farming with high technology (like hydroponic farming with

artifical lights) is simply a new kind of profession, which can be simply added to the existing (already too complex and too vulnerable) stucture, and due to the principle of specialisation, it solves only one problem, the food problem.

• As against social garden movements and urban gardening has a lot of benefits.– it produces food– it produces additional urban green surfaces– it provides the necessary physical work for urban people– it provides the necessary team work for urban people– It gives basic knowledge about natural processes to urban people.

Food production

Additional urban green surface

Physical work

Education

Team work

Thank you for your attention!