C
cozzyd
Guest
fixing up old houses has to be cheaper than building new SRO's etc.
Urban Trends We Hope Die in 2013
- Thread starter JohnAKeith
- Start date
1) "Open space" as a "public benefit" that is demanded by "the community" whenever anyone wants to build something on his own land.
"Open space" = Le Corbu = towers in the park = mid-century housing projects = destruction of a dense, traditional urban environment = bad
2) Use of the term "the community," with its creepy, quasi-mystical connotations, in place of "neighborhood"
"Open space" = Le Corbu = towers in the park = mid-century housing projects = destruction of a dense, traditional urban environment = bad
2) Use of the term "the community," with its creepy, quasi-mystical connotations, in place of "neighborhood"
rinserepeat
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2012
- Messages
- 267
- Reaction score
- 6
"urban farming" isn't a trend - it's something that has been around since the dawn of civilization - it's only been in the past few decades that we've zoned it out of our cities.
Well, besides the fact of lead in our soil making it unsafe (that can be mitigated, usually by bringing in protected soil), urban farming is quite possibly the least productive use of urban land possible. Well, besides leaving it vacant and blighted. Although, at least in the latter case, you can hope for improvement, whereas once the farm goes in, you can forget about ever doing anything more productive.
I suppose that in the big city, you can find plots of land for which urban farming isn't too bad. But I really worry that some crazies are going to get it into their head that they should run rampant with urban-renewal-by-farming and refuse to allow development on T-adjacent land. Which would be a complete disaster. Like this:
(Roxbury Crossing)
I suppose that in the big city, you can find plots of land for which urban farming isn't too bad. But I really worry that some crazies are going to get it into their head that they should run rampant with urban-renewal-by-farming and refuse to allow development on T-adjacent land. Which would be a complete disaster. Like this:
(Roxbury Crossing)
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,859
- Reaction score
- 7,510
Isn't this just a trendier re-branding of community gardens?
I have no problem with more of that as an alternative to more useless tracts of greenspace. People at least spend a good number of hours tending to the gardens...and socializing while they do it. That's way better utilization than a patch of grass that the planners intend to be pretty to look at but never use. Plus it's space-efficient.
But if "urban farming" is supposed to be some massive expansion of land space used for community gardening, or some sort of NIMBY wedge against development...forget it. That's a textbook trojan horse. Blighted properties that used to have buildings shouldn't get targeted for agriculture for the expressed purpose of precluding replacement buildings. That's as dumb and exclusionary as "greenspace" where you can't use the green...space.
For blighted properties it's better for parcels where building infill is too uninviting or invasive. Example: this little one on a side street a few blocks from Central Sq. Clearly used to be a triple-decker on that parcel. But building a new one on it would block the sun and be uncomfortably close to the more recently built condos behind it. Hence, it was turned over to a nicely utilized little community garden. Odds of somebody finding a construction use for that lot are small and likely to run into opposition from the neighbors...so this is way better than a permanent grass lot. But only because it's a very low-interest lot for redevelopment, and the surrounding density encourages utilization (really...where else in Cambridgeport is there enough space between buildings for a couple blocks worth of residential to play in the dirt?). Selective use. It's not nice to use that as a wedge issue.
This one by Fresh Pond rotary is also pretty nice. Absolutely useless narrow strip of grass for any other purpose wedged between the two paths and backstopped by the abandoned RR tracks. The only people otherwise using this strip are the joggers and bikers passing by on the path next to the busy parkway. This garden (which does have healthy amount of veggie plantings) is the only thing that'll actually get people to stop and stay awhile on that particular strip of reservation. That's good land use too we ought to see more of. Especially along parkways in neighborhoods dense enough where they'll get utilization and enough TLC for the garden itself to not become blighted.
I have no problem with more of that as an alternative to more useless tracts of greenspace. People at least spend a good number of hours tending to the gardens...and socializing while they do it. That's way better utilization than a patch of grass that the planners intend to be pretty to look at but never use. Plus it's space-efficient.
But if "urban farming" is supposed to be some massive expansion of land space used for community gardening, or some sort of NIMBY wedge against development...forget it. That's a textbook trojan horse. Blighted properties that used to have buildings shouldn't get targeted for agriculture for the expressed purpose of precluding replacement buildings. That's as dumb and exclusionary as "greenspace" where you can't use the green...space.
For blighted properties it's better for parcels where building infill is too uninviting or invasive. Example: this little one on a side street a few blocks from Central Sq. Clearly used to be a triple-decker on that parcel. But building a new one on it would block the sun and be uncomfortably close to the more recently built condos behind it. Hence, it was turned over to a nicely utilized little community garden. Odds of somebody finding a construction use for that lot are small and likely to run into opposition from the neighbors...so this is way better than a permanent grass lot. But only because it's a very low-interest lot for redevelopment, and the surrounding density encourages utilization (really...where else in Cambridgeport is there enough space between buildings for a couple blocks worth of residential to play in the dirt?). Selective use. It's not nice to use that as a wedge issue.
This one by Fresh Pond rotary is also pretty nice. Absolutely useless narrow strip of grass for any other purpose wedged between the two paths and backstopped by the abandoned RR tracks. The only people otherwise using this strip are the joggers and bikers passing by on the path next to the busy parkway. This garden (which does have healthy amount of veggie plantings) is the only thing that'll actually get people to stop and stay awhile on that particular strip of reservation. That's good land use too we ought to see more of. Especially along parkways in neighborhoods dense enough where they'll get utilization and enough TLC for the garden itself to not become blighted.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
I think the difference between 'urban farm' and 'community garden' is that the owners of a 'farm' are allowed to sell their products for profit.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
This.
If you want a small "farm" (garden) on your roof, patio, deck, whatever, then by all means, go ahead. But I'm tired of this "local" horseshit. There's nothing sustainable about low-density.