Live data from Hacker News

A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

bbc.com

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#141

>> Around 60% of Oosterwold is set aside to support "urban agriculture", cutting the climate-change impact of food miles I don't see how this helps. An urban farm is not nearly as efficient as a true industrial farm. They don't have the economies of scale. They are limited as to chemical use (both pesticides and fertilizer) and have to deal with noise complaints. Urban farms are also, nearly universally, fed by potab…

It drastically helps. Each little unit producing food is less food required to be made by a commercial farm. 1000 little farms might not be as efficient as one commercial farm, but it is still less impact and less run off environmentally.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#142
post #129
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question here that might lie at the core of the disagreement here might be: what advantages do you think a 'properly' walkable city has, that a city designed for both walking and cycling does not have? (i.e. if walking is not a goal in and of itself?)

Not exactly. Almere is not walkable but it is bikable. The main issue is whether or not bikability can supplant walkability in terms of providing everything an urban area needs to thrive. For me, walking > biking > cars and you cannot create the same dynamic urban environment if an area is not walkable.

Yes, that's why I asked what a "walkable" city can provide in terms of providing everything an urban area needs to thrive, that a city with Almere's infrastructure can't?

The way I see it, the city centre is perfectly walkable and thus can provide everything needed (the reasons it doesn't have more to do with Almere's history), while being accessible to everyone in the "suburbs" with practically zero of the downsides of cars (accidents, pollution, noise pollution, etc.). So I'm really curious what you think Almere cannot provide due to its being so bikable.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#143
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's people that have the highest impact milage. We can pack food tightly into a truck and they don't mind waiting when the packing takes some time. We can't easily pack humans more densely into trucks, so reducing their miles traveled has a much bigger effect (and if the distances are shorter they can also walk/bike/bus instead of single occupancy vehicle).

Regardless, the relative price of food is usually a reasonable proxy for the amount of energy that went into its production. If the food from the urban farm is more expensive than equivalent food from an industrial farm, it probably took more energy to produce (and consequently probably released more greenhouse gases during its production).

I find your message confusing, when you say price, do you talk about final retail price or production cost? (fruits and vegetable are high margin products in food distribution) When you talk about energy, do you take into account human labour? Natural ressources are considered free in our current economic system, that is why it is cheaper to grow food by damaging the amazonian forest with nasty coal/oil fed machine rather than doing local permaculture with more human beings and passive tools.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#144

>> Around 60% of Oosterwold is set aside to support "urban agriculture", cutting the climate-change impact of food miles I don't see how this helps. An urban farm is not nearly as efficient as a true industrial farm. They don't have the economies of scale. They are limited as to chemical use (both pesticides and fertilizer) and have to deal with noise complaints. Urban farms are also, nearly universally, fed by potab…

It helps by being exactly the kind of nonsense that attracts votes and money from well-meaning but ignorant people. Virtue signaling is always more powerful than actual virtue.

Well-meaning ignorant person here, but always willing to learn. I'll take your comment in good faith.

Some of my ignorance may be because the knowledge has been abstracted away, deprived of its nuance, and physically kept at a distance from where I have lived and worked.

My view is that most people are not fully opposed to industrialized farming. But rather I don't want there to be farms (or companies for that matter) that exploit workers, pollute the environment, bribe politicians (in essence, rigging the once free market) [1]. That's my main gripe. We live in a society, and profits should not justify treating others like they were less than equal to ourselves.

In my opinion, some of those companies are too large to properly behave like well-run businesses (not too large to fail), and they have accrued a critical size and mass that they bully away competition, and no longer have the interests of the customer in mind.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams:

If it maintains high prices like a cartel, and restricts competition like a cartel, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a large association of nefarious manufacturers or suppliers on our hands.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#145

>> Around 60% of Oosterwold is set aside to support "urban agriculture", cutting the climate-change impact of food miles I don't see how this helps. An urban farm is not nearly as efficient as a true industrial farm. They don't have the economies of scale. They are limited as to chemical use (both pesticides and fertilizer) and have to deal with noise complaints. Urban farms are also, nearly universally, fed by potab…

Why use potable water on a farm that literally sits on a canal?

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#146
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space-efficient, energy-efficient, and labor-efficient are three different things. A tiny "elderly" farm might create lots of food per square-foot, but only through increased labor. Too much labor and the farm simply cannot produce enough to feed the workers working it.

Additionally, if this urban farm plot exists to the exclusion of several stories of apartments, and those apartments must instead be located further away from where people want to be, the net carbon emissions (not to mention the effect on housing prices) are definitely higher than that of a regular rural industrial farm.

I do not definitely think that urban farms AND urbs at a whole can be sustainable, IMVHO the sole sustainable model in the present time is the Riviera ones, where people work and live in low density areas with a small distributed economy that can evolve instead of creating mega-structures and mega-infrastructures that serve a purpose for a certain period of time, perhaps well, but can't evolve and so cyclically became equally giant issues but my point is totally different and it's that actual farming is effective in economical terms at today social organization notnature. In the actual mass distribution of foods model a classic tiny "elderly" farm is unsustainable economically, but that's not by nature.

Actual way we live is evidently untenable, but actual way of living does not means the sole possible, the sole civilized etc. In practical terms my own personal classic veg-garden is far to satisfy my needs, but having it is nice, do not impede me from being a connected sysadmin, do not even demand much time: irrigation is automated, I only need a bit of manual hours at start and end of the season, little time for harvesting even less to surveil. Of course, I do not achieve self-sufficiency, I just made few month worth of fresh tomatoes and salad to make salads at home, a bit of potatoes and beans+peas again just to be used few months, the former fresh (boiled, fried, oven-ed) and the rest normally frozen, some aromatic plants (sage, rosemary, thyme etc) and sparse red fruits. To harvest enough to be self-sufficient I need more land than a small slice of terrain in the back of my home, I need animals for manure (so far I get it for free from some neighbors who have horses, so that's anyway self-sufficient) etc. Not an easy business and not my own business, but in my region there are still few small farms that sell their product in not so small quantity, not enough for self-sufficiency of the territory but still a significant surplus. For poultry it's not much different, it's untested for me but I think producing some crops+insects to nourish them can be done at a very small scale in space, energy and labor terms, the keeping them do not demand much work: a weekly clean up of the henhouse with a pressure washer in 10', a bit of regular fresh water supply, regular harvesting of eggs, perhaps once an year a bit of work to incubate some eggs and when it's about time to slaughter some chickens, a thing that does not demand much again 1/2h for some, a knife, a simple kind-of-open-washing-machine with hot water and few rubber teethes to quickly remove plumage (a very simple and cheap stuff, energy produced by p.v. also), a bit of butcher works to empty them, a bit of time to make the blood drain, some final touch and they can go to the freezer. When needed a simple scale, plunging them in water + right dose of salt (14/15g per kg) for a night, an oven or a smoker and they are ready to eat. Again not self-sufficiency but still enough to not needing buy eggs and a bit of extra meat per year. Just that at a certain scale lower significantly the need of third party food.

Since the target should be local/regional self-sufficiency, talking about my latitudes, trout farms can be planted in so many places here, enough cereals and fruits are already produced in the plains in the center of the country (France), seas offer a bit of foods etc. Not really a distributed self-sufficiency at the actual overall population but almost there, if well done on scale. In the end in the entire world that was what our ancestors have done for millennia and since we are here is have evidently worked well enough...

Surely modern tech help, especially in a climate change scenario to ensure ability of amassing foods for long time, surpassing locale climate events etc I do not think about classic hoe and pitchfork by bare hands, of course, but that's is. The issue is far more the actual economical model than nature or technical.

Just a BIG load of things we need today is needed only because people mostly have forget how to preserve foods at home. Just knowing how to salt the meat (produce sausages and dried meat products at home) and making preserves in jars + using freezers ENORMOUSLY lower a big set of actual food needs. That's is personally tested, when I was living in a big city I usually buy food constantly and that means crapload of packaging AND relevant processing/supply chain behind, now I buy food once a month in quantity having space to stock, I have better quality food and far less industrial/supply chain work needs behind. Just frozen bread and some kind of cheese who can be frozen issueless was game changing with essentially no effort. On scale that means pushing riviera model, with individual homes and enough space, WFH for eligible jobs etc cut perhaps 1/5 of our actual food supply chain needs, not enormous but very significant to start a new economy.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not cutting the climate-change impact of food. It's cutting the climate-change impact of food miles. As you say, overall it's making things worse, e.g. increasing the climate-change impact of every other delivery but food.

Food-miles sound good, but the reality of modern shipping is that it takes far less energy to move food than grow it. The carbon/energy cost of bringing a plant product from a hot country to a cold country is far less than the energy needed to grow that product in a cold country. That's why nobody grows bananas in new york. We could, but the cost/energy to do so is hugely more than the energy to ship bananas from pla…

> If we want to address global climate change, then we need to look into minimizing total energy put into things like food. Often that will mean growing things where they can grow most easily, with the least amount of energy.

The big issue with agriculture and environmental disasters like climate change and biodiversity loss is land use patterns. That implies a need to drastically replace consumption of very land-inefficient uses like beef with mostly plant based foods.

But yes, I completely agree with you that 'food miles' is largely a distraction.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#148
post #8

To give a Dutch perspective: Lots of Dutch people would not be found dead in Almere (founded in '76), for a long time it was basically a satellite city of Amsterdam where people went to sleep. Then in the mid 90's it started to change: companies realized that the daily traffic jam to Amsterdam in the morning and to Almere in the evening was a major obstacle, so why not relocate the company to Almere? And this caused…

I found an area of Almere that has a cluster of really weird unique architecture from around 1987 along De Realiteit: Google Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3921571,5.2180409,3a,90y,176... (look up and down De Realiteit to see many freaky houses) Polderblik: http://polderblik.nl/ Campus (1987) -- Vertical Red Shipping Containers: https://www.architectuurgidsalmere.nl/almere/campus Cargo (1987) -- Yellow…

No post body was provided.

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#149
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think anybody is thinking of corn fields here. But replacing spruce, plaintaint and ornamental chestnut with cherry trees, walnuts and edible chestnut. Instead of having fireball, rhododendron or snowball hedges planting black berries, currants and maybe elderberries. And finally giving families a small allotment garden where they can grow some vegetable. Besides that, it's easily possible (as in: I have don…

> But replacing spruce, plaintaint and ornamental chestnut with cherry trees, walnuts and edible chestnut. Instead of having fireball, rhododendron or snowball hedges planting black berries, currants and maybe elderberries. Sounds great to the uncritical hearer, but it's a recipe for a rodent and/or bird plague and lots of disease outbreaks. Unless someone is employed to deal with all of the rejected part of the crop…

Yup, better get ahead of the problem, and get rid of them animals then. You know, in the name of sustainability and all..

Wait what?

Re: A Dutch city testing the future of urban life

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't easily pack humans more densely into trucks We basically can, with decent urban transit and rail services.

How many pounds of people can fit in a bus? How many pounds of potatoes? People need vastly more room than produce.

Maximum tractor-trailer weight in the US is 80,000 lb, with typical weight closer to 44,000 lb. Dry weight is about 32,000 lb, for a maximum payload of 48,000 lb.

An articulated bus has a curb weight of about 35,000 lb and a capacity of up to 92 passengers. At 177 lb each, that's a gross weight of 51,284 lb. (net: 16,284 lb of passengers).

I'd presume a potato's density is close to that of water. As such, capacity is actually mass rather than volume-constrained --- you'd be unable to fill a truck to its volumetric carrying capacity before exceeding gross vehicle weight limits.

Many grocery products have much lower density: chips, bread, paper products, etc.

I still tend to agree it makes more sense to move goods than people, but the differential may not be quite as great as you might think.

Post reply on HN