Urban agriculture has been practiced in the United States for a couple of decades now. More and more community organizations and grassroots are recognizing the importance of food sovereignty and food justice. Though “hunger” does not seem to be an issue in the Unites States, poverty has a different character than the developing world; one of the manifestations of such poverty is lack of access to healthy food. USDA published a document on U.S. food security, stating that 31 million Americans were food insecure in 1999, including approximately 12 million children. (A millennium free from hunger. 2000 U.S. National Progress Report on Implementation of the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security and the World Food Summit Commitments)
In this context I decided to categorize the lessons learned from the American experience on local food production in cities. In the next few paragraphs, I outline some of these lessons, which could be applied to the developing countries context.

Urban Agriculture Plans and Interactive Maps of Vacant Lots with Urban Farming Potential
In recent years, many cities across the United States are assessing their food production potential and creating special legislation for promoting urban agriculture. From east to west coasts of America, cities are creating food policy councils, urban agriculture plans, and maps of potential locations for urban farms.

For example, Oakland, California has an outstanding urban agriculture plan which has been downloaded by visitors to their website from 110 countries. The plan includes a preliminary assessment of Oakland’s privately owned vacant land, slope analysis of the identified sites, and food policy recommendations. It concludes that more than 800 acres of public land with slopes under 30% were identified, which can contribute to up to 5% of Oakland’s vegetable needs if only half of this land were used. This plan is called “Transforming the Oakland Food System: A Plan for Action”.

There are many other examples of such inventories, which can be replicated in urban agriculture projects internationally. Some examples include Portland, Oregon, Vancouver, BC, Canada: Seattle, Washington, Somerville, MA, Cleveland, Ohio, and New York City.

Policy Interventions
Recently, the State of Maryland introduced House Bill 1062 legislation, authorizing local governments to give a five-year property tax credit for urban agricultural property. The State has defined priority areas, qualifying for the credit, to promote smart growth. These are developed communities, with existing infrastructure, in which the State wishes to concentrate new investment as a way to combat sprawl and the negative environmental impacts of Greenfield development. Qualifying sites must also be between one-eighth of an acre and two acres and be used exclusively for urban agricultural purposes.

The State also recognizes urban agriculture as a collection of various actions including: stormwater abatement and groundwater protection; community development activities, including recreational activities, food donations, and food preparation and canning classes; economic development activities, including employment and training opportunities; direct sales to restaurants and institutions; and temporary produce stands used for the sale of produce raised on the premises.

The bill has a provisional sunset clause. The tax credit can be ended after three years if local governments find that it is ineffective in promoting urban agriculture. If the credit is effective, the legislation allows it to be extended for an additional five years. Another example of successful policy intervention in the United States goes back to the 1930s, when production control was imposed on tobacco farming. 1n 1938, the United States Federal government established an Agricultural Adjustment Act, which also included a federal tobacco production control program, aiming at raising and stabilizing tobacco prices by restricting production.

Through this Act, American tobacco farmers agreed to reduce tobacco supply in exchange for a minimum price guarantee from the government. The federal government established Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to help the grower cooperatives purchase the surplus tobacco from the farmers. So, if farmers produced less tobacco and increased the minimum price, the cooperatives could buy the produce should it fail in achieving market prices. While the major goal of the program was to restrict supplies in order to keep the prices high, it also reduced the total land under tobacco cultivation.

Urban Planning Tools to Support Urban Agriculture and Food Production in Cities
American cities are acknowledging the role of urban planning in encouraging urban food production. Cities in the United States –one after the other– are passing amendments to their zoning regulations in order to allow cultivation of local food in urban areas. Depending on the city, these zoning amendments are envisioning urban farms in all parts of cities, while allowing for the sales of excess produce in local markets.

Urban planners are also experimenting with other tools such as conservation easements, land trusts, and the notion of “productive urban public space”. In many cities, small CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture: when a group of people buy seasonal or yearly shares in a farm, before the crops are planted) have emerged in backyards in residential neighborhoods and are demanding the city governments the permission to sell their produce. Various cities are establishing novel zoning overlays to enable such entrepreneurial approach to urban food production. Two examples of this are Boston and San Francisco. Boston Redevelopment Authority has established an Urban Agriculture Rezoning Project to explore ways to amend the Zoning Code to better support Urban Agriculture. The city of San Francisco has passed a zoning amendment to facilitate greater food production within the city.

These days, when I sit at my desk in Washington DC to investigate policies on how to conserve historic urban cores in the process of urban revitalization and upgrading, I look back at when I was a naïve architecture student in my early 20s in Tehran. Apparently, I have progressed throughout the years to analyze issues that concerned me a decade ago.

At that time, the dilemma for me was conserving an old neighborhood, which is considered to be the core of Tehran: the “Siroos” district. Located on southern side of Tehran’s bazaar, Siroos district was experiencing a population decrease unlike any other neighborhood of constantly expanding Tehran. The vacant buildings were invaded by drug-addicts and the homeless, while drug-dealers climbed up and down the streets.

And the question remains: how can planners conserve historic urban cores, threatened to be destroyed in process of urban revitalization?

As a general rule, there have been two approaches to urban revitalization in the developing world. The middle-income countries have generally used the late 19th century European development style of clearing up the historic core and building new structure in its place. On the other hand, the low-income countries have neglected the urban core and have focused on developing new housing stock on the periphery. This has resulted in the decay of historic urban core where generally the poor reside and squat.

The lack of a local civic system and powerful local governments plus the general neglect of historic heritage in such cultures have contributed to the decay of historic urban fabric. This is why establishment of accountable local governments (including a sound municipal finance structure) plus building up on communities’ social and political capital to empower decision-making should be an integral part of any urban conservation policy.

One of the most important issues in conservation of historic neighborhoods is the linkage between the private ownership and public supervision based on each country’s governance system. A mechanism should be created to impose a policy framework on private ownership in countries where most heritage sites are owned by private entities. Accordingly, in countries where centralized large governments are primary owners of heritage, public policy tools should aim to transfer some of the government’s authority to non-profits and private enterprises in order to distribute the costs of heritage preservation across different sectors.

Aside from these generalizations, I also wanted to write about a thesis, developed by the same naive architecture student in Tehran, during the years of 2002-2003. “Siroos”, the core neighborhood of Tehran, is about 200 years old, and has some of the most beautiful intact historic structures in Tehran. But today, it is a home for the homeless, drug-addicts, and prostitutes. Throughout the neighborhood there were only 8 new buildings under construction. The whole neighborhood was covered by drug-dealers during the day and the heroin addicts (who occasionally died on the streets) at nights. On the edges, the neighborhood was surrounded by commercial real-estate, some of the most valuable in Tehran. However, since there was so cross-subsidization mechanism in place, this commercial edge did not benefit the neighborhood in any shape.

I went on many site visits in Siroos district, interviewed people and residents, with hopes of developing a method to conserve the neighborhood in a sustainable manner. In the end, my proposal included marketing the area as an IT focused neighborhood of Tehran, so this new pursuit can become a generator of economic activity and local economic development. The video uploaded here is selected from hours of footage I caught in those years and lays out the conditions of “Siroos” and its problems (with invaluable help of my friend, Sina Ahmadi for edits).

At that point, no one on my thesis committee asked about the complexities of revitalization process including the very famous “gentrification”. Good that no one asked. I still don’t have a practical solution.

Monsanto's Advertisement in a Washington DC Metro Station

I saw this advertisement in a metro station in Washington DC, a few days before I heard Monsanto was donating seeds to Haitian farmers to somehow help them stand on their feet. Since Monsanto’s good deed was not very convincing to me, I did a bit more research.

I realized that Ronnie Cummins, the founder and director of Organic Consumers Association calls Monsanto’s donation “poison pills”. Haitian peasant farmer leader, Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) calls it “a new earthquake”. The reaction from Haitians was so bad that Monsanto had to confirm the seeds were not GMOs, they were hybrid seeds.

I was a little relieved to know the seeds were hybrid and not Genetically Modified. But still, this is bad news for Haiti: 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn seeds and vegetable seeds donated by Monsanto to help Haitian farmers after the earthquake. Interesting: Disaster Risk management with Disastrous Agriculture systems.

The main threat to Haitian farmers is that Monsanto does not just “donate” hybrid seeds. No, there is no donation involved. Monsanto’s seeds are like dope. You gotta have more of it, and not because it makes you feel good at the time. But because it is almost impossible to save hybrid seeds after harvest. According to Ronnie Cummins in Huffington Post: “Hybrid seeds usually do not “breed true” or grow very well in the second season, forcing the now-indentured peasant to buy seeds from Monsanto or one of the other hybrid/GMO seed monopolies in perpetuity.”

Additionally, the seeds donated by Monsanto are apparently toxic. They are treated with a chemical from ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs) family. EPA has indicated that such chemicals are so dangerous to farmers that they have to wear special protective outfits while using it. Also, Hybrid seeds require a lot of water, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides, which make farmers more dependent on Monsanto products. And yet, another US governmental organization –USAID– is responsible for distributing the “poison” among Haitian farmers.

Now, here is some good news: Haitian farmers will burn Monsanto seeds. They also have organized a march against Monsanto’s arrival in Haiti on June 4, the World Environment Day. Jean-Baptiste calls Monsanto’s donation “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds, and on what is left our environment in Haiti.” Haitians are smart, and liberated.

If you think any of the above makes sense, you can help Haitian farmers too. Click here to tell Obama and USAID what you think. It will have an impact, believe me.

In any case, I am so excited about this project. Not only it provides the general public with any map of NYC you can imagine, but it also provides tools to edit the maps in order to put them in whatever use you would want. It enables people to see how their city has transformed by overlapping old and new maps and decide what direction of growth they want for their future. I wish to be alive in the next 50 years to see how the future of urban planning and management will defer by all these new informational tools. And I am very curious to see how communities will take advantage of these. However, it is sad to admit that such projects [at least for now] only work in the developed countries with democratic governance systems. Even if these tools were available in some developing countries, the positive use of it in the shadow of a top-down centralized urban governance system is questionable.

These five-year boundaries never materialized. The first five-year growth boundary, which foresaw the city, to expand to 230 square kilometers remained the only legal boundary of the city until 1991. This caused the land prices to increase rapidly and the squatters to invade the land outside the city boundaries and build houses illegally. The major problem with Gruen’s plan was the incorrect estimation of population growth and the incorrect estimation of the city boundaries. The final estimation of the city’s surface was 630 square kilometers, which is less than the city’s boundaries today.

After the 1979 revolution, which resulted in establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the shape and structure of the city did not change much; the growth continued towards north and west, which spread out the city more than before. Additionally, new immigrant communities started to shape in the western and southern edges of the city. The growth of the city today is not limited to Tehran. Tehran shapes an irregular urban space that includes rural and agricultural areas, industrial zones, satellite towns and suburbs. These elements are all separated from each other and create a sense of disconnection and incompleteness between the urban elements. (Habibi, Mohsen. & Hourcade, Bernard. Atlas of Tehran Metropolis.)

One of the biggest impacts of the 1979 revolution on urban planning systems in Tehran was ignoring the 25-year growth limit that was mentioned in Gruen’s Master Plan. This resulted in illegal constructions and a period referred to as “revolutionary housing” which was based on the extreme assumption that “the land is God’s” and whoever develops it can own it. This period ended in 1981. In 1993 the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development ordered a new Master Plan to ATEC, an Iranian consulting company. The review of the 1968 Master Plan showed that the city has not developed in the direction Gruen’s plan had predicted. The ATEC plan did not get implemented even though a new urban policy was suggested.

“Tehran 1380” was another plan that initially was intended for a 5 year period from 1996-2001. This plan, which later was extended for another 25 years, was produced by Tehran Municipality and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The major goals of this plan were extension of infrastructure and transformation of military precincts in to green and cultural spaces. Management and preservation of historic building and urban fabric was envisioned as well. At the same time, the municipality decided to legally sell permits of higher density to individuals in order to sustain itself economically. This resulted in extremely higher densities specially in the northern quarters of the city. (Habibi, Mohsen. & Hourcade, Bernard. Atlas of Tehran Metropolis.)

The built environment of Tehran has changed dramatically since its establishment two centuries ago. This has happened while the country and its capital were struggling with modernization and were trying to find their place in the global economy. Tehran today is the manifestation of social and political change.

At the same time, changes happened in the street system, which caused them to transform from traditional to modern. The traditional movement, originally based on the pedestrian movement, followed a hierarchy from bazaar and the main street to narrower streets, then to cul-de-sacs, and finally to a cluster of buildings. This pattern changed over time to a more organized pattern, but still accommodated the pedestrian movements. These two patterns that had very strong social and environmental reasons during the Reza Shah’s period then began to change to an open matrix system.

There were several political and economic reasons behind this. The main market reason was the increasing use of automobiles and the establishment of an automobile factory that made the first assembled automobiles in Iran using imported parts from England.

The political aspects of this act were important, too. Tehran as the capital city of Iran had to be secure. This was specifically a goal for Reza Shah since he had observed the constitutional revolution and how traditional urban spaces had helped the demonstrators succeed. By opening up the urban fabric, the goal was to ease the movement of troops, in case of a political oppositions and demonstration. According to Madanipour: “It was to create a unified, homogenous space to overcome the divide between urban quarters and their factionalism, in line with the emerging integrative nationalism.” At the same time, this new matrix was providing a basis on which a new social stratification, as associated with the new economic relationships, could find geographical expression.”

This change in the urban street system tells us stories about many cultural, psychological, and economic evolutions in the city at that point in time. It shows the degree that the urban social structure was changing to fulfill the rationality and individualism that was entering the Iranian mentality as the country had started to modernize. The new system was borrowed from modern movements in architecture and city design, such as examples in post-war Germany and the United States, as well as older movements in France and Russia.

In correspondence with the new street system, building typologies started to change rapidly as well. This change was from inward-looking, low-rise courtyard typologies to high-rise constructions. This change in building typologies was also a response to Westernization of the nation and their capital city.

Transformation is, to a great degree, similar to what happened to Paris during Haussmann, the famous city planner. Both cities were experiencing similar political and social changes. Napoleon III and Reza Shah both were trying to establish absolute power after a revolutionary period. Benevolo puts it excellently: ”The Paris of Louis Napoleon and Haussmann was a post-liberal city which was super-imposed on the earlier city tending to destroy it.” This was also the case in Tehran during the Pahlavi period.

Both Pahlavi kings tried to achieve a western model of governance and therefore many new administrative roles were created which required new buildings to house the different activities such as ministries and offices. The new constructions initially took place in or around the old royal complex. At the same time new commercial institutions started to be established as the traditional trade system was yielding to the new forms of commerce and trade with more interaction with the world economy. This changed the role of the bazaar as a social, commercial and sometimes political backbone of the city although even today; the bazaar still has an important role in structuring the city.

Mohammad Reza Shah (1941-1979), the son of the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, tried to continue his father’s role after Reza Shah was abdicated following the World War two and invasion of Iran by the Allies in 1941. He began to industrialize the country, which happened mostly in and around Tehran and increased the population considerably. This fact, plus the increasing oil revenue, population growth and migration to the city led to a further expansion of Tehran, which changed its shape to the metropolis it is today.

Again, wait for more info about my city, very soon.

19th century view of Tehran, courtesy of Rotch Visual Collection, MIT

Two years ago at MIT I wrote a paper for Larry Vale’s class, Urban Design Politics, and in that paper I described how Tehran was formed based on market and political forces of the time. I am borrowing some of the concepts used in that paper here. There are a couple of really great books written on this subject that I recommend reading: one is “Tehran: The Making of a Metropolis “ by Ali Madanipour and the other is “Bazaar and State in Iran: The Politics of the Tehran Marketplace” by Arang Keshavarzian. I have used both their arguments in these pieces.

In any case, why is Tehran important besides being the capital city of one of the rather important and somehow problematic countries in the Middle East? I think Tehran is worth reading about since its story embodies the story of modernization of one of the ancient countries of the world. It is also important because it is the representation of the ongoing debate about globalization and a country’s struggle to be a part of the world politics and economy.

Tehran has more history than it may seem at the first glance. It was built on the ruins of the very ancient city of Raga, which was located on the Silk Road and even more important on the Khorasan highway, which connected east to west in the Iranian plateau. The strategic geographic situation and market forces of the time made the city of great importance in ninth and tenth centuries. After the Mongol raids, the city was ruined and never regained its importance until the eighteenth century when it was selected as the capital city of Iran.

Tehran was selected as the capital city of the newly established kingdom of Qajar in 1795. Like other Iranian cities, Tehran was composed of three main elements: state, religion, and market. The physical representation of these elements were the Friday mosque, the royal palace, and the bazaar. The affiliation between the bazaar and the royal family or the government is what determines the shape and story of Iranian cities. Nader Ardalan puts it this way:

“The Friday mosque and the place of government were symbolically placed at the center of the city in concentric planning concepts, as the top or head of the town in anthropomorphic plans, which relate to the slope of the land and the natural flow of water. Within these ideal plans, the public spaces of gathering were situated in an orderly and mutually self-supporting manner according to a hierarchy, commencing with the major elements of the city center and continuing to the minor nodes of residential districts.”

When Tehran became the capital in the Qajar period, this triangle started with the creation of a bazaar on remains of the Silk Road and was surrounded by a city wall. The bazaar at Tehran started from the southern gate and continued to the western gate, working as the backbone of the city. It was located on the south of the royal complex, which was walled as well. On the other hand, the Friday mosque, located on the north-south axes, was connecting the two major gates.

A simple diagram showing different components of the old Tehran, courtesy of Madanipour

Wait for the upcoming posts about my city, very soon.

The problem arises when you want to promote qualities which could not be quantified, and could not be exchanged based on a monetary value system. For example, culture. How do you quantify cultural benefits? How can you assess culture economically? How can you argue that expenditures on culture will pay back? How can one convince the developing countries to formulate culture in their national policies? On the development agencies side, maybe the reason that culture has not so much been incorporated in their development projects/agendas is the fact that it is quite difficult to make the connection between culture and changes in socioeconomic factors. At the very least, we can say that these implicit positive effects are not easily measurable by the existing methodologies.

Can’t remember the source, but David Thorsby wrote somewhere something like this: “The problem arises when the economic agenda is at odds with the cultural needs and aspirations of human kind. What if an economic agenda tends to sacrifice equity and social justice?”

When economics has become so dominated by market ideologies, how can you argue that cultural assets are a form of capital and thus have to be preserved and promoted? One argument that cultural economists have used in the past few decades is the idea of presenting culture as a public good. In its pure economics term, public good has two specifications: it is non-excludable and non-rival. Non-excludable in a sense that it is impossible to prevent users from enjoying it, and it is non-rival in its quality of being enjoyed by several users. Thus, it is necessary to be supported by the governments, like other public goods such as the environment.

But there is hope for the world. There are economists who are trying to link between quality and quantity. One of the best examples is the Nobel laureate, Robert Solow, who brought up [one of the first] noble ideas about the new forms of capital. He specifically talked about culture and identity and its linkage to development. I particularly like to quote him on his idea about identity of the place:”Over the long term, places with strong, distinctive identities are more likely to prosper than places without them. Every place must identify its strongest most distinctive features and develop them or run the risk of being all things to all persons and nothing special to any…Livability is not a middle-class luxury. It is an economic imperative.”  

Yes, the idea of an economist who parts a little bit from Adam Smith’s production/consumption theory and talks about different forms of capital and consumption patterns is very refreshing.

While talking about the need to increase the development banks’ capital, John Kerry also emphasized the 21^st century approach to development. Kerry stressed that the world did benefit from the development banks of the 20^th century, but now there is a need for new thinking and creative leadership to create a proper vision for the development bank of the 21st century.  And of course, his underlying purpose was to highlight the need for better energy projects funded by these banks.

While on this subject, Kerry said, “Several months ago, the Inter-American Development Bank chose to fund two subcritical coal fired plants in Brazil, a country among the richest in Latin America, and a world leader in its use of renewable and clean energy.   There is no excuse for this.  We need to be far more involved, far earlier, to ensure that alternatives are found for projects like this, and to avoid allocating limited funds toward projects that risk undermining our long-term development goals.

Let me remind you:  These decisions don’t take place in a vacuum.  All of you here—the World Bank—constitute the gold standard for all other development banks, and that’s one more reason why you have an obligation to exercise leadership.

Second, we need to assess energy projects and the costs and benefits of various energy technologies more accurately.   No matter how efficient the plant, no matter what it replaces, and no matter how important it may be to the energy future of a given country, a coal plant without technology to capture and sequester the carbon it emits is not a clean energy project– and it shouldn’t be funded as one. “

In comparison, Kerry mentioned the solar house systems project, implemented by the World Bank in Bangladesh as a good example of a 21^stcentury approach to development. While reading about this project in Bangladesh, I noticed that it is an interesting one aiming to increase access to electricity in remote rural areas of Bangladesh and to reduce carbon emissions by overcoming market barriers for renewable energy development. This project also has a nice private sector development section, which requires the project to be implemented through sixteen NGOs. These Participating NGOs select project areas and potential customers, extend loans, install the systems, and provide maintenance support for these solar homes.

The moral of this post is to highlight how projects can be so different in terms of their environmental footprint. I sometimes have a feeling that the smaller the development project, the more socially and environmentally sustainable it is. Just a thought.

Chinese oranges in an informal settlement around Tehran

UN says that food production must double by 2050 to meet the demand of the world’s growing population. One billion people are in extreme hunger and malnutrition as I am sipping my tea and typing these words. Fair. But I read an article today that got me into thinking about the giant corporations controlling the world food market, genetically modified crops, and the role of urban and peri-urban agriculture in fighting the world hunger.

The idea of using food production as a means for community development, and as a form of productive public space, first came to me when I started my thesis research in an informal settlement called Mianabad, located on the outskirts of Eslamshahr, a city (or a former informal community) on the southwest of Tehran, Iran. What was shocking was the fact that while this informal settlement is surrounded by agriculture land, there are many street vendors selling imported oranges from China and elsewhere for very cheap price. And even worse, while most of Mianabad’s male population is working as middlemen or basic laborers, the great potential of the unused nearby land is ignored by the people and the authorities.

Creation of green food production cycles should be a concern for all urban and rural planners active in regional or local level, as an interdisciplinary task that bridges between public policy, food policy, community planning, urban design, land-use planning, and agricultural engineering.

Worldwide, many cities use urban agriculture for food production purposes only. Large cities like Shanghai continue a tradition of urban farming despite a fifteen percent growth rate per year. Urban agriculture takes place in many cities in African countries, particularly those cities with a medium-density urban fabric. Kenya, Ghana and Tanzania, have successful practices, as well as Cuba. (Vijoen, Andre, et al. 2005, Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes. Burlington MA. Architectural Press. P 36.)

Now, back to the article I was talking about today; apparently Monsanto, this giant agriculture and crops company is trying to use genetically modified crops to [sort of] fight hunger in Africa.  According to Reuters: “The company spends an estimated $2 million a day on agriculture research and development — more than any other company.” What I understand is that the company uses cross-subsidization, in a way that they sell high-priced seeds and agricultural chemicals to farmers in wealthy nations and after taking a good share of the profit (net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2009) they spend a bit of it on farmers in Africa and as a part of the global fight against hunger.

I think I will need to do way more research on this company to know their real intention, but the idea of fighting hunger with genetically modified crops, and by a profit-driven corporation scares the hell out of me. In the article, there is a part about possible intentions of Monsanto:” Critics say the nonprofit work is a way for Monsanto to get even the world’s poorest farmers hooked on pricey patented seed technology. But Monsanto and biotech supporters say it is the only way to grow enough food to feed a world population expected to hit 9.4 billion by 2050.”

Do we really want such a giant corporation and other similar ones to take control of food security in the world?

I strongly recommend reading this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN10423605