Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

USDA funds research on local food potential in northeast US

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM PDT


Bookmark and Share
The USDA will spend $230,000 on research "to assess the capacity of the northeastern United States to produce enough food locally to meet market demands, rather than relying on food transported long distances to feed the burgeoning East Coast population," Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced on September 17.

These studies will be conducted as part of the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative launched this week by USDA to connect people more closely with the farmers who supply their food, and to increase the production, marketing and consumption of fresh, nutritious food that is grown locally in a sustainable manner.

"This research project will help identify and quantify the capacity to produce food locally that meets the needs of large urban populations in different seasons of the year," said Agriculture Secretary Vilsack. "The lessons that we learn and the information that we glean from this project also will give us important insights into how we build and sustain local production systems elsewhere in the United States and abroad."

Scientists in Maine and Maryland will "model and determine the suitability of East Coast soils for agricultural production, as well as land availability in the Northeast for local production of fruit and vegetables." Researchers at Tufts University will study "marketing and processing options for local food production, and also [...] how land-use policies could further encourage such production."

More details are in the full text of the press release, which I've posted after the jump. I wish the USDA had funded this kind of research two or three decades ago, but better late than never.

desmoinesdem :: USDA funds research on local food potential in northeast US
AGRICULTURE SECRETARY VILSACK ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR RESEARCH ON FOOD SECURITY IN NORTHEAST

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17, 2009 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced $230,000 in funding for studies to assess the capacity of the northeastern United States to produce enough food locally to meet market demands, rather than relying on food transported long distances to feed the burgeoning East Coast population. These studies will be conducted as part of the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative launched this week by USDA to connect people more closely with the farmers who supply their food, and to increase the production, marketing and consumption of fresh, nutritious food that is grown locally in a sustainable manner.

"This research project will help identify and quantify the capacity to produce food locally that meets the needs of large urban populations in different seasons of the year," said Agriculture Secretary Vilsack. "The lessons that we learn and the information that we glean from this project also will give us important insights into how we build and sustain local production systems elsewhere in the United States and abroad."

Although low fuel prices have contributed to the globalization of the U.S. food system, with food transported to market over long distances, the ARS scientists contend that relying more on the strategic production of locally grown food can counter the challenges of rising transport costs, growing population demands and vanishing farmlands.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA's principal intramural scientific research agency, will provide $200,000 in additional funding to its laboratories in Orono, Maine, and Beltsville, Md., to hire two scientists to model and determine the suitability of East Coast soils for agricultural production, as well as land availability in the Northeast for local production of fruit and vegetables.

ARS is also providing $30,000 to Tufts University in Boston for a new cooperative agreement to conduct an assessment of marketing and processing options for local food production, and also to determine how land-use policies could further encourage such production.

ARS scientists at the Orono and Beltsville laboratories are mapping an array of county-level data from Maine to Virginia on factors such as weather, soil, land use, water availability, which they will use to model potential crop production along the Eastern Seaboard to find out where local food production could meet current and projected demand, and where it might fall short.

In addition to the work conducted at the Orono and Beltsville laboratories, ARS' laboratory at University Park, Pa., is participating in the research. Two other USDA agencies-the Economic Research Service and the Agricultural Marketing Service-will also participate in this project. The team is modeling actual crop production practices and the flow of agricultural products into supply chains, including all the associated handling and transportation costs, from farm field to market. This will help identify how the costs and benefits of locally grown produce compare with product transported over long distances to the Eastern Seaboard market.

ARS funded cooperative research agreements in 2008 totaling $47,000 with university partners at Tufts University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop databases on local production and consumption of 130 agricultural products, and to assess cost-effectiveness of government conservation programs on organic dairy production. Other research partners in this work include Pennsylvania State University, Cornell University and Iowa State University.

#

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yeah, exactly... (4.00 / 2)
I wish the USDA had funded this kind of research two or three decades ago, but better late than never.

And maybe they would have even come to realize (and convince other government agencies at all levels) back then that we can't eat asphalt, strip malls and hideous subdivisions.

It would probably give me a stroke or something if I could see side-by-side satellite maps of the New Jersey I was born in (1979), and the New Jersey I left a few years back...


Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


Well, when you speak of 'hideous subdivisions' (4.00 / 1)
perhaps a better way of looking at things is to stop the cities from growing.

I just got through with working on the Urban and Rural Reserves process in Clackamas county. I learned a lot, even though I do have some very real issues with how we were required to look at things, principly, that we looked at a lot of land that Clackamas county and the planning department ultimately decided that we didn't really need to look at after all - oh nice, lets go ahead and waste the better part of a year of country time, wages, and all the time of the volunteers on the committee.

Anyway, getting back to my point. If we're going to conitue to allow and encourage people to move into cities those cities need to grow. Contrary to popular beliefe, not everyone wants to live in condos, although many do - there's a reason the Pear is so popular in Portland. However, there are a lot of people who want and/or need to live close in to a city, but who would like a yard, be it for the elbow room it gives them, to grow their own food through gardening, or to have a safe place for their kids to play and their dog to roam. Also, if cities don't grow out, land prices get so high that many families can't afford to live in anything other than appartments, which I personally think are not the best environment to raise kids in.

I'm not saying that everything should be paved over, but I am saying that for well managed growth, subdivisions are a vital segment of that growth.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
that should have been (4.00 / 1)
'waste a year of county time' not country.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

[ Parent ]
Also that should have been (4.00 / 1)
'there is a reason that the Pearl is so popular in Portland'.

I really do need my coffee this morning.....

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
The subdivisions aren't in cities... (4.00 / 2)
Well, maybe Dallas and Houston and Phoenix, but those aren't the places I'm talking about.  They're as much a problem as what happened to Hunterdon County, NJ over the past 20 and 39 years.

Development in a city does not automatically equal just Phoenix-style gated communities or Pearl condos.  Infill works fine (although it has a knack for being pretty ugly these days, but that's an aesthetic issue more than anything else), and still leaves room for yards and gardens.  Although I'd also argue that you don't necessarily need much yard in cities with welcoming public space.

Beautiful abundant parks like here in Portland, or sidewalks in Manhattan and other such denser, older cities.  Jane Jacobs made the case in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, almost half a century ago, for the fact that wide sidewalks and nooks and crannies resulting from varying setbacks between buildings from the street in lively mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods can create better play spaces for children than even large neighborhood parks.  And not to mention sidewalk cafes, pleasant gathering spots, etc...

Around here, it would be nice if much of the development took the form of Orenco Station (TOD, where fwiw and contrary to popular belief, most residences are single family homes), rather than the horrific plan that Washington County just came up with last week.  

There's also like 13 miles of new MAX (Green Line) track that just opened a few days ago, which presents plenty of development opportunity in already established urban(-ish) areas.  Plenty of room for sustainable growth in Lents (amongst others), and that could once again be a great neighborhood if we take advantage of it.

And then, of course, there's also the fact that, sorry to say it, but if we truly want to be a sustainable society, we have to learn to sometimes say "no" to paving over farmland to plop down half-acre homes for people who think Portland is "cute" or "trendy" enough to live by, but not in.  Am I a hypocrite here myself?  I don't know, I struggle with that thought sometimes.  I'm certainly not a native here, but at least I moved to an established urban neighborhood in the inner city that dates back (1880's) almost to the beginning of Oregon's statehood.  If I didn't live in this tiny apartment, someone else would.  And this building was already here long before I was born...

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
Well, (4.00 / 2)
most people don't live near Portland because it's cute or trendy. They live near Portland because they have a job in Portland, but don't want to live 'in' the city for a variety of reasons. That describe me to a 'T'. The bulk of my work is in the Portland Metro area, but when my dad asked me if I wanted to inherit the house I told him to leave it to my brother. If he left it to me I'd sell it because there's no way I'll ever move back to Portland if I can avoid it.

It's not because Portland is bad in and of itself, but even if I wasn't farming, I'm not a city person. Don't like cities, never have.

Now my brother, on the other hand, seems to like city living just fine. So to keep the property in the family, and to keep the lot next to the house from being developed, Pete will get the house. Although, eventually, someone will probably make him an offer he can't refuse, or some kind of penalty will be handed down for keeping a piece of property from being developed. I can see that happen if density gets too high in a given area.

The whole point of the reserves process I just spent the last year involved in up to my eyebrows was about specifically growth. Planned growth around the cities in the part of Clackamas county that's in the Metro UGB buffer. Cities gotta expand, that happens through subdivisions as well as infill. It's actually more logical to put subdivisions immediately adjacent to a city, as that's where all of the support infrastructure is - water, sanitary sewer, roads, etc.

For someone to put in a subdivision out here, you'd have to put in an independant dedicated sewage treatment plant. We don't have sewer service out here, although we do have water, but it's a small water district that was put in in the 30's I think.

In short, regardless of what people say about development in Oregon, at least in the tri-county area, it isn't going to happen unless there are dedicated systems in place to hook into, and that's right next to the city. It would be cost prohibitive to run those services out 10 miles from a city.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
I wasn't... (4.00 / 1)
referring to you in that last part, I hope you realize that.  If I was unclear there, sorry about that.  

Rather, I was talking about people like me who move there midlife... but who, rather than doing what I did, choose to live 15 or 20 miles outside the city (as well as bring a spouse and 1 or 2 kids with them, too...).

That's not sustainable by any definition, and can't go on.  And we shouldn't assume that's just a natural part of growth.  It's been said before, cancer is a natural growth as well.  The "growth at all costs" mentality is a large part of what's wrong with America these days in the first place, in our urban development patterns, our food system, and etc...

Yes, developments will always go first where such municipal services (sewer, water...) already exist... but what form should they take?  

Auto sprawl is a disastrous relic from a long-gone era, and is the least effective way to maximize use of existing services in future developments.  Like I said, I'd prefer we build more Orenco Station-like places in the future, and less 1950's-style Back to the Future-type Hill Valley sprawl......

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know you weren't refering to me (4.00 / 1)
however, what I'd like to see happen when new developments go in, is that jobs go in alongside them. One of the members of the committee I was on asked a significant question - "Why do we always have to assume that everyone works in Portland?"

The point he was making was that all the development going in around the Portland Metro area is put in place with the assumption that everyone will work in Portland. Well, if you're going to do that then you have to have transportation, and most of it's not going to be public transit. Public transit is fine and dandy if you live on the same line as your work place, and your work place is in a fixed location. A substantial portion of the work force doesn't work at a fixed location. Then we need to assume that people won't have much in the way of tranportation/mobility needs other than work.

How long does it take you to get to the Hillsdale Farmers Market? If you were to take the bus only out to my place in Mulino it would probably take you a couple hours, and there's a bus stop in front of the shop building next door to us, litterally a couple hundred feet from my front door.

When I went to highshcool I used Tri-Met for transportation. If I took the bus it took 45 minutes to get to school (one transfer), if I walked it took 45 minutes and I put the bus fare in my pocket. When my dad drove me it took 15 minutes.

That's why public transportation isn't viable for people who have to do a lot of moving around in the city.

There are a lot of people who would like to live outside of the city but who have to work in the city simply because there are not very many jobs outside the city. There are a lot of people who don't want to live in appartments or condos. Those are the people who drive the market for new developments. And the cities constantly allow and encourage growth as far as population, while discouraging the formation of new, complete communities, outside of their boundaries.

Building more places like Orenco-Station is all well and good if you assume that people will only live and work on the line, that they will shop on the line, and that their non-work activities will be on that line. As soon as you have to transfer from one line to another you've just blown the efficiency as far as the ammount of time it takes to get from A to B, and that is what encourages people to keep driving.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
And that's exactly the point of... (4.00 / 1)
pushing for dense, mixed-use neighborhoods.

Those places are illegal today due to "zoning" regulations and such.

One of the members of the committee I was on asked a significant question - "Why do we always have to assume that everyone works in Portland?"

I agree there, I'm not arguing with that at all.  But in order for new developments to be self-sustainable (i.e. - become actual neighborhoods) with their own industry and commerce, etc... there needs to be a certain critical mass of density which will never be reached by following 'traditional' post WWII development patterns.

Well, if you're going to do that then you have to have transportation, and most of it's not going to be public transit.

Why not?  The infrastructure is already there (and let's not forget there's going to be a major expansion of the streetcar system onto the Eastside soon, and not just Inner SE - 122nd Ave, 102nd Ave, and many other outer Eastside streetcar lines are already well into the planning stage), and it's currently underutilized.  On the same principle that we'll build according to where sewer and water lines already exist, shouldn't we also do the same for where transit lines already exist and in neighborhoods in which the system is already underused?

TriMet's cutting bus service because there aren't enough riders on certain routes, and yet we're considering expanding Forest Grove's auto sprawl?  Makes no sense to me.

How long does it take you to get to the Hillsdale Farmers Market?

Via bus, about 50 minutes.  But that's on the completely opposite end of the city.  To get to the year-round farmers' market at People's, it takes me about 15 minutes.  And I can walk it.

I'm gonna disagree that public transit isn't viable for people who move around the city, because I do it all the time myself.  Via public transit.  Could I get places faster by car?  Probably (but not always).  But then I'd be quadrupling (at least) my footprint, and I'd also be spending hundreds of dollars a month on gas, car payments, insurance, maintenance.  Stress from driving, worrying about parking, paying for parking, etc.

An extra 15 or 20 or even 30 minutes on public transit is well worth it to me.  It's time of my own, and time I can use reading, talking to people, etc...

Those who drive the "market" for new developments really can't complain.  They've made their own bed, now they have to lie in it.  Cities can't control what goes on outside their own borders, and we can't blame Portland for what Beaverton's business interests do.

How does Portland discourage smart growth outside of its own boundaries?

"Efficiency" when comparing public transit to cars is a nonstarter in the first place, because without the 60 years of massive government subsidies thrown out like candy towards coast-to-coast suburban infrastructure (highways, development incentives, etc) and the private motoring system, the entire automobile-dependent system would have been completely impossible in the first place, let alone 'efficient'.

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
Remember Jay (4.00 / 1)
when you speak of subsidies for automobile transportation infrastructure that when you ride the bus and light rail most of that cost is subsidized by taxpayers too. If you had to pay the full rate for that bus ticket or light rail pass you wouldn't be able to afford it, just as if I had to pay for the full cost of the streets by myself I couldn't afford it either.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

[ Parent ]
Not even close... (4.00 / 1)
Sorry, there is absolutely no comparison as to which system receives more favorable funding.  And they don't close McLoughlin down forever if traffic doesn't keep up.  And those people driving down 205 don't have to buy a ticket or show their pass every time they get on the road...

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!

[ Parent ]
dense, mixed-use neighborhoods (4.00 / 1)
Those places are illegal today due to "zoning" regulations and such.

Please write more about that, Jay. The idea of discouraging dense mixed-use neighborhoods startles me.


[ Parent ]
Mixed use neighborhoods (4.00 / 1)
at least in Portland are prohibited, depending on the type of uses, such as some manufacturing, etc. because neighborhoods are considered residential areas, not commercial areas. Conversely, I'm not sure if you can build residences in an industrial area. Of course, most people would say "Who would want to?" When the Pearl neighborhood of Portland was developed there was a big hoo ha over delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. running around early in the morning. People were aghast that such noisy activity would be taking place in an industrial area. Who'd a thunk it.

We have similar zoning regulations out here in the sticks. I'm involved with our Hamlet out here in Mulino. The Hamlet (originally a Citizen Planning Organization, or CPO) was formed for the specific purpose of keeping the citizens in rural areas in the loop, so to speak, regarding land use issues and zoning, as well as to give us more standing than we had. CPOs, Hamlets and Villages are all a part of the land use system in Oregon and are codified either into law or administrative rule.

To give you an idea of what we go through out here in the rural areas of Clackamas county, there is a gal in the hamlet who repairs horse blankets and launders them for horse owners in the area. She has to get a conditional use permit to operate her business because she's either in a residential area or an EFU (exclusive farm use) zoned area. Can't be working from home now....

There was a farm in another area, I think they were in Washington county, that grows blue berries. They could make blueberry preserves, sell fruit, etc. but when they opened a little farmstand restaurant to sell blueberry pancakes the county either shut them down or tried to. Can't be selling pancakes to your customers now, even though you're growing the berries on your own farm. You're EFU, which means that unless there's already a residence on the property, you're not even allowed to live on the property you're farming unless you gross $80,000/year from farming for at least a year.

Land use and zoning laws are really a double edged sword. It helps protect lands and how those lands are used, but they can also prohibit more beneficial uses as well sometimes.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
We're actually not far off at all... (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, I've been kinda distracted but meant to reply here yesterday...

My ideal landscape is a lively, dense and attractive visually stimulating medium-sized town built on a human scale with a comprehensive mixture of all possible uses located as close as possible to each other, surrounded by working farmland.  A place where the commons takes precedent over the car-lands, and the public realm is as much a built-in priority as the private.

Which is pretty much exactly the type of human environment we built and equally thrived in from when we first began to settle down as a species at the advent of agriculture, up until we eventually let greed and personal wants take ultimate precedence over community.  We have literally hundreds and hundreds (maybe more) of towns along these lines in Europe as a testament to their timelessness, as well as even a few decent examples here in America from our (very) early beginnings.

Even though we come at it from different angles, we're both largely on the same page here I think.  

I have a book I think you might be interested in, if you want to take a look at it after I (finally!) finish it.  Leon Krier's The Architecture of Community.  Let me know what you think...

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
they could build up, not out (4.00 / 2)
and most cities have many residential and business districts in need of redevelopment, but properties in those area continue to decay as sprawl eats up more and more good farmland.

Densely populated, mixed-use neighborhoods have a high quality of life and are better for human health and the environment than car-dependent suburban sprawl areas.


[ Parent ]
That's fine for people who (4.00 / 1)
enjoy living in that type of high density environment. It's an unmitigated hell for those of us who don't.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

[ Parent ]
Urbanity (4.00 / 1)
I think, very generally, there are two points of view about urban living. They have both been ably expressed in this discussion, and I have nothing to add. As someone who has lived in Baltimore City for decades, I appreciate the views of a Newark guy. As someone who was born and raised in Big Sky country, and whose grandparents were farmers in Minnesota and Montana, I understand Joanne. Bless them both.

Some sidebar information that is intended to be informative and not persuasive in either direction - it might even be interesting to people who, like me until 1963, have never seen or experienced row home communities:

Baltimore is a low-silhouette city, but in a different way than Los Angeles is, for example. Row homes are like horizontal condos with small patches of grass. Baltimore's oldest row home neighborhoods date from the Federal period. In those days, individual houses were outside the (then) city, the homes of plantantion owners and farmers, and places built as summer homes for rich people who lived in (palatial) city row houses. Betsy Ross lived in an extant row house. Fort McHenry is surrounded by row homes. When Baltimore burned in 1904, row homes were rebuilt with row homes - somewhat more fire resistant, and with a better fire department.

If you were to drive north from our Inner Harbor, all you would see would be row homes, until about 33rd Street east of Charles Street. Specifically, one bold developer built stand-alone houses in a long stretch that now is the 600 block of East 34th Street, in the middle 1890s. Row homes resume north of there for several blocks. That is, the Govans and Homeland neighborhoods of stand-alone homes weren't built until considerably later in the twentieth century. (This vertical slice of Baltimore includes the geographically anomalous very upscale Guilford neighborhood, brick-and-marble edifices, columned porticos, manicured landscaping, etc. - I don't know when Guilford was built, I should research this. Guilford is north of the western end of University Parkway, whose eastern extremity diagonally intersects East 33rd Street at about the 400 block. University Parkway is named after the Homewood campus of The Johns Hopkins University.)

Elements of our past are wonderful models for elements of our future. Millions and tens of millions of wonderful North Americans are products of dense urban environments, but it is for naught without the support and leavening of our neighbors from different environments and backgrounds. We aren't confronted with an either/or question. Our conundrum is, where is the right balance, how do we maximize the contributions of both historical streams for a better future.


[ Parent ]
There is a beautiful mixed use (4.00 / 1)
(more or less) neighborhood on the back side of Portland's West Hills. I did tile work in 2 or 3 of them a few years back, both had leaky showers even though the houses were only a couple years old, but that was bad workmanship on the part of the tile contractor. Anyway, these are row houses, and while this type of habitat isn't to my taste, the houses are all occupied by people who seem to be very happy with them. The overall look of the homes in the neighborhood I was working in were reminiscent of an Italian high end neighborhood. It had a very european look to it with lots of nice wrougt iron work on the homes. The floor plans were pretty small be the houses all had 2-3 stories plus a garage underneith, so for me, parking on the street, I had to pack everything up 3 flights of stairs, which meant that I didn't have to watch the victuals when I was working on those projects. They had maybe 10'-15 square feet of grass in front, and a 10'X20' 'back yard'.

The development didn't have much in the way of employment opportunities unless you wanted to work for the store, dry cleaner, etc. but it did have that, so that people could shop close by, and with the shopping pretty close to the entrance to the part of the development I was working in, you could at least litterally stop and shop on your way home as you'd have to drive right past the store.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
New Jersey and New York (4.00 / 1)
It would probably give me a stroke or something if I could see side-by-side satellite maps of the New Jersey I was born in (1979), and the New Jersey I left a few years back...

I grew up in Northern('upstate') NJ and every time I go back to visit family, I get ill when I see yet another office complex, mall, or condo development carved out of the hills and woods that existed when I was a kid.

Now I live in Upstate NY and hope this research will be a boost to NY agriculture, especially organic farming and food production. Perhaps there will be even a chance at keeping what's left of the 'Garden State' intact.

Having spent many years in NJ/NYC, I feel there is a country mouse - city mouse disconnect regarding food.

NY State is home to a 'culinary bounty' - produce, honey, maple syrup, wine, cheese, grain products - much of which never get past local festivals, co-ops, or non-chain stores. I know people in NYC who don't even realize there are wineries in the  Finger Lakes Region.

I know there is a lot involved in food distribution and marketing. I know it isn't as easy as saying, "There are  perfectly good apples in NY state, let's just ship them down to NYC instead of hauling in apples from out of state (or even out of the country!)

But, I think the 'disconnect' I am speaking of is a good example of why this funding is needed.

RIP Martin H Bosworth @martinboz 1975-2010...Consumer Advocate, Progressive, blogger (ConsumerAffairs.com,HuffingtonPost.com), my brother, your friend.  


And yet it's also New Jersey, as well... (0.00 / 0)
NY State is home to a 'culinary bounty' - produce, honey, maple syrup, wine, cheese, grain products - much of which never get past local festivals, co-ops, or non-chain stores. I know people in NYC who don't even realize there are wineries in the Finger Lakes Region.

I criticize the state and the direction it took over the past 40 years because I'm a native who loves the place to no end... but despite that, there's also an incredible bounty in New Jersey that relatively few people know of.  

I guarantee you there are Brooklynites and others currently living near Flemington that don't realize a five mile drive in any direction on the "back roads" will take them past roughly 36 small family farm stands.  Hell, their "development" probably sits on one of those families' properties from the 1700's or 1800's in the first place...

I'd love for this to bring about a local food awakening in New Jersey, as well.  After all, the stuff is there in the first place, and always has been!

The Garden State has always been The Garden State.

It really struck especially hard a few years back, just before I moved here to Oregon when I used to pass through Madison (Morris County) in the middle of summer and see the Whole Foods downtown absolutely packed full of people doing lunch or grocery shopping, etc...; while at the exact same time, the Madison Farmers' Market one block to the north had maybe a dozen people milling around, and even those were only apparently there to kill time or to pick up some soap or wool or something.

The Northeast (specifically, the NYC area) has a long way to go to even catch up with the rest of country, let alone the world.  And I have a theory that it's because the northeast has always been catered to by the rest of the country throughout its history.  But those times are over now, and there really needs to be a concerted effort towards localism and sustainability back there.  Started, like yesterday.

The "sustainability" polls and features that fawn all over Manhattan are fundamentally flawed in that Manhattan isn't a city.  It's only part of one.  New York City as a whole certainly is a city, but it contains five boroughs.  Can't forget that.  And most of Staten Island and parts of Queens are some of the ugliest and most unsustainable "urban" neighborhoods in the world.

Pardon the rant, heh...

I know people in NYC who don't even realize there are wineries in the  Finger Lakes Region.

You'll find the same thing everywhere, really.  They may think wine just comes from France or California, much like many people in New Jersey believe that apples only come from New Zealand and cheese only comes from Wisconsin...

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
I'm going to do this as a new comment cause things're getting squished... (0.00 / 0)
Anyway, Jay, I'm replying to your comment about community planning, the one with the link to the architect.

Community planning is fine, and I do think that communities are better planned than unplanned. However, one of the problems with planning is that people are dead set on doing what they want to do, not what the planners intend for them to do.

One good example of that is the planning that went into the South Waterfront Development, also famously known as the SoWat development. It was originally planned as a mostly carless community. High end income earners were expected to purchase those condos, I think they were hoping that moslty it would be doctors working up at OHSU. With prices like $1,400-$7,000/month for a lease or $300,000-$1,000,000+ to purchase, probably residents will probably not be wanting to bus, light rail or tram it everywhere. They'll most likely be driving around in beamers and Porches, although perhaps some will. If you lived in one of those condos, it would certainly be convenient to take the tram to OHSU if that was where you worked. Plus, parking up at OHSU is a pain in the hind end anyway.

Similarly, from what I understand, most of the people living on the light rail line out in Beaverton don't use it to go to work. They drive.

The only way you're going to get so called 'complete' communities to work is if you force people to live a certain way, work for certain employers, and forcibly remove their ability to get around on anything other than public transportation.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


I think at this point... (0.00 / 0)
...we need a new diary for this, by now.

:)

Anyways...

Who are "the people" driving the development?  It would actually be a good thing if people had a real choice as to how they live, but Democracy in architecture and urban planning has been sorely lacking since at least WWII, and some would say long before that.

Since the first cars started rolling off the lines in Detroit, and since business interests began to plot ways to kill the streetcars and local rail systems.

Once upon a time, not too long ago, it was possible to take streetcars from Boston to St. Louis and beyond, in roughly as much time as Amtrak could get you there today.  That was only 70 years ago.

Even here in Portland, look at my street - Gladstone Street used to host the Woodstock streetcar (it turned off Clinton onto 28th and then ran down Gladstone until it turned down 42nd into Woodstock, the last car ran in circa 1955 I believe), and the odd intersection down at the corner of Gladstone & SE 42nd only exists because that's where the Clinton-Woodstock streetcar used to make its big turn.

50-plus years later, and here we are talking about figuring out how to work running another line down Powell.

Back to Democracy in urban planning...

The basis of democracy is working things out through pluralism.  There's no absolute "right" or "wrong" way.  But when we decide to build something somewhere, the way it works in America for the past 60 years is that some architectural firm slithers in to a town hall meeting and shows some maps and drawings.  Council votes, yay or nay.  Some citizens talk, but ultimately what they think doesn't matter.  It gets built the way some firm says, or it goes back to the drawing board and gets built the way some other firm says.

But the fundamental flaws here are that "communities" can never be built in the middle of nowhere on former farmland out of whole cloth in a single design style.  The dominant style of which, these days, is of course "modernist suburban".  These places have destroyed our commons for at least six decades now, from "sea to shining sea", and it's time that they stop.  Democracy isn't a factor here, in that people just might choose other ways to live if there were incentives and regulations which made other methods possible.  But those other methods and styles are the exception rather than the rule.  Orenco Station could have only happened in Portland, plus maybe 4 or 5 other American metro areas.  If that.  The rest of the time, it's Toll Brothers or Hovnanian bulldozing a farm, and building 18 "homes" out on 30 acres, 25 miles outside the city selling for $499,000 to start.

Do you really know anybody who loves the American "Compulsory Commuting Lifestyle"?

I reject the notion that people "choose" to live that way.  Rather, it's because they don't know, nor can they imagine, anything else here in America in 2009.

And for that matter, I don't know of any New Urbanist who even comes close to being as dictative as the board of a suburban Homeowners Association...

Funny you mention South Waterfront, I strongly dislike what's happened there.

:)

That has, imo, been "the least Portland" of Portland development initiatives over the past couple decades.

The irony is that the area is replacing a true classically urban carless community, which was bulldozed in the 1950's.  Just before the City of Portland and the State of Oregon (God Bless Tom McCall, and I'm an atheist!) woke up and decided to buck the "urban renewal" trend in America, three neighborhoods down there were wiped out.  Those were classical late-19th century working class Jewish, Irish and Italian neighborhoods housing the folks who worked at the old sawdust-fired power plant on the edge of downtown, as well as other industries in the area.

As for the people in Beaverton along MAX, it isn't fair to use their preferences to judge the utility of West Side MAX.  Rather, the fact that they live in Beaverton in the first place might be the factor that leads to their choice to drive into downtown for work.  

I'm not at all disputing the fact that some people would rather live far out and drive into the city for work, but I am going to make the case that such a lifestyle is unsustainable and should not be subsidized or worked into regional planning strategies.  Rather, we should discourage it by all means at our disposal.

We never had to "force" people to live sustainably before, and frankly I'm not interested in "forcing" people to do so now.  But the fact remains that American style "development" was only ever made possible by massive cheap amounts of rotted dinosaur juice, and that supply is running out.

I want sustainable communities built now, so that people actually have a reasonable choice where to live when the crash comes.  It's about choice, despite the motives some may assign to us.  We're not deigning to control people's lives here, Joanne.  :)

Much like what we're fighting for in the food system right now.  Choice.  You can choose to eat McDonald's and live in Aloha while working in Hillsboro... but that shouldn't be the only option.  Bulldozing more farmland will only exacerbate the fact that well over 90% of suburbanites in America these days have no other choice but to remain where they are.  

And as long as "the city" remains a place for Pearl highrises; Clackamas and Washington County farmland development will remain the only places to which many families can reasonably move or settle.

Sprawl itself is the problem, a self-perpetuating one.  And "planning" which allows for incremental buildouts every few years only exacerbates the problem, and feeds the monster.

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!


[ Parent ]
Our current lifestyle as far as driving (0.00 / 0)
was made possible by Eisenhower building the interstate highway system. Remember, before WWII there was no interstate highway system, and precious few roads around the cities. It took Eisenhower 30 days to cross America, mostly on rutted dirt and gravel roads.

That and the fact that people made enough money to afford a personal vehicle. When my dad was growing up, you couldn't afford a personal vehicle. It was the same reason lots of people didn't own a horse, they walked (Shank's Mare). Or if they did own horses for farming, you had one set of horses that did it all, heavy draft work, light draft work, saddle work, etc. That's the way it was on Harold's folks farm. Same horses pulled the farm equipment, pulled the wagon when they went into town, were ridden when a saddle horse was needed. The neighbor's horse was even more versitile, being a stallion, he was used for breeding in addition to working. Mares have to be pulled from work a month or so before foaling, although after a week or so they can be put back to work under the right circumstances.

As far as a people liking driving and commuting, I can't speak for others, but I do like driving and commuting, I also like working at home. People don't live away from a city and then commute because they like the commute, you're right in that. They live away from where they work because they either can't afford to live in the city where they work, or they don't like the city where they work. At least for the people working at fixed locations. As for  those of us who work in construction, it really doesn't matter where you live as long as it's not too far away from where most of your work is. There have been times when I was doing pick up work, that is detailing one job, doing punch list on another, etc. when I went to 3 or 4 different locations in one day. If you don't like driving, or at least are able to tolerate driving, you have no business doing that kind of work. If you're working big commercial jobs doing masonry, it doesn't even help to move close to the shop, because you're usually only ever temp work, and the shop you work for this week may not be the one you work for next week.

That's why I don't like things like the congestion/corridor pricing that Portland would like to implement. Let's take fairly low paid construction workers (union workers are paid very well, but the majority of construction done in the Portland area is non-union, lets face it, most homeowners can't afford to pay someone $100/hour to install tile in their homes) who have no choice as to what time of day they'll be driving, and penalize them for having a job. I'm self employed. You don't tell me when to show up, I tell you when I'll be there. I can get around the pricing, and if I can't I can charge that to my clients. If they don't want to pay me what it costs to do business in town, they can find another contractor. Those employees don't have that choice, they just get to eat it.

Sprawl itself is the problem, a self-perpetuating one.  And "planning" which allows for incremental buildouts every few years only exacerbates the problem, and feeds the monster.

One of the problems I see with this is that, for one thing, lots and lots of people don't want to live in highpriced fancy appartments, which is what a condo is. A lot of people do like those, otherwise they woulnd't be built, but there is a reason why homes with a lot are popular too. The other problem is that the more demand there is for land with a house on it the higher the value. I think it's Springfield, Oregon that's having this problem right now. They're complaining that all the families with kids are moving out of the city, and the schools are loosing pupils because of it, also loosing matching federal funding which is based on attendance.

The city has refused to expand, people without kids continue to move into the city, demand for homes has pushed the prices up to the point that the families with kids can no longer afford to live in town, even though that's where they work. The answer to that problem, if they are not going to expand, is to stop growing, but without a totalitarian regime, that's not possible.

One of the profound ironies of the situation in Springfield is that the bulk of the people moving into the city and driving up the property prices are retieries. They don't really have to drive, at least not for work purposes. Their income is independant of their daily activities.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
Hey, gotta run for a bit... (4.00 / 1)
I'll read and answer later this evening.

Coming soon to a Philadelphia near you!

[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox