Food Urbanism - A Sustainable Design Option For Urban Communities

As designers and planners of urban landscapes, landscape architects hold a vital tool in the growth of any Iowa community.
Both
locally and globally food, has become a common theme in many discussions. Motivations include the lack of productive urban land,
lack of societal knowledge of food growing and preparation, urban/rural conflict at the urban fringe,
food insecurity, lack of stable urban markets and uncontrolled urban growth. As a senior thesis in landscape architecture, the goal
was to research and design based on the theory Food Urbanism; how food relates to the organization of a city and how it becomes
infrastructure that transforms the urban experience. Continuous productive landscapes could become a tool and or mechanism to
FOOD URBANISM
sustainable growth in urban communities. As infrastructure in a city or town, continuous urban agriculture (UA) has the potential of
being a thread that is sewn through a community creating a rigid and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods, open
spaces, and urban markets. Research is based on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and studies of
a UK.sustainable
UA in London, design
Productive landscapes as option
tools to sustainable growth havefor urban
only recently communities
been written about in the U.S. and Canada.
This research demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially
and economically productive communities in Iowa. and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods,
open spaces, and urban markets. Research is based on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, landscape
architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism
Productive landscapes as tools to sustainable growth have only recently been written about in the U.S. and Canada. This research
demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially and economically productive communities in
Iowa. landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism As designers and
planners of urban landscapes, landscape architects hold a vital tool in the growth of any Iowa community. Motivations include the lack of
productive urban land, lack of societal knowledge of food growing and preparation, urban/rural conflict at the urban fringe, food insecurity,
lack of stable urban markets and uncontrolled urban growth.As a senior thesis in landscape architecture, the goal was to research
Food Urbanism; how food relates to the organization
and design based on the theory
of a city and how it becomes infrastructure that transforms the
urban experience. Continuous productive landscapes could become a tool and or mechanism to sustainable growth in
urban communities. As infrastructure in a city or town, continuous urban agriculture (UA) has the potential of being a thread that is
sewn through a community creating a rigid and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods, open spaces, and
urban markets. Research is based on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and studies of UA in London, UK.
demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially and economically productive
communities in Iowa. landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism
and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods, open spaces, and urban markets. Research is based
on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and studies of UA in London, UK. Productive landscapes
as tools to sustainable growth have only recently been written about in the U.S. and Canada. This research demonstrates
that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially and economically productive communities
in Iowa. landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism
As designers and planners of urban landscapes, landscape architects hold a vital tool in the growth of any Iowa community. Both
locally and globally food, has become a common theme in many discussions. Motivations include the lack of productive urban
land, lack of societal knowledge of food growing and preparation, urban/rural conflict at the urban fringe, food insecurity, lack of
stable urban markets and uncontrolled urban growth.As a senior thesis in landscape architecture, the goal was to research and
Abstract
The goal of this project was to research urban food systems and design based on the theory
Food Urbanism; how food relates to the organization of a city and how it becomes infrastructure
that transforms the urban experience. Productive landscapes as tools to sustainable growth have
only recently been written about in the U.S. and Canada. Continuous productive landscapes have
the potential to become a tool and or mechanism to sustainable growth in urban communities.
As infrastructure in a city or town, continuous urban agriculture (UA) has the potential of being
a thread that is woven through a community creating a rigid and ecological backbone for
growth connecting neighborhoods, open spaces, and urban markets. Research is based on
case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and observations of UA in
London, UK. This research demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating
environmentally, socially and economically productive communities.
Key Words: landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory,
sustainable agriculture, urbanism
JASON GRIMM BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Studies

146 College of Design. Iowa State University. Ames, IA 50010
319.270.3890. jason.greenarch@gmail.com
Advisor: MIMI WAGNER, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture
146 College of Design. Iowa State University. Ames, IA 50010
Special thanks to:
RICH PIROG, Associate Director of Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
RANDY BOECKENSTEDT, Transporation Research Specialist at ISU Center For Transportation

Research And Education
Spring 2009
Research funded in part by the Iowa State University Foundation and

Landscape Architecture Barbara King Scholarship
page 2 food urbanism

p7 introduction
P I.......... the urban food system
p 10 why urban food systems?
environmentally productive
economically productive
sociologically productive
p 15 the urban case study
research process
policy + local controls + structure
fundamentals of current local food system
urban markets + nodes
grocery + speciality food store + farmer’s market
restaurant + convenience + food pantry
landcover
P II......... how can an urban food system organize a city?

p 30 the urban food system typology
land inventory
urban food system typology
urban food system prototypes
p 50 the urban food system typology in the future urban fabric
typology of urban circulation within urban food system

future urban circulation patterns
a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 3

p 61 the potential of an urban food system
calculating the potential of an urban system based on yield + scale of production

calculating the potential of an urban system based on demand + yield ratio
the potential of an urban farm + neighborhood farm + allotment garden
how many acres to support 50% of urban population
P III........ urban food system proposals and case studies

p 66 implementation of urban food system
department/non-profit that implements urban system

proposals of the urban food system typology in the urban case study
the urban food system in 2025
p 78 case studies of city + county + state policies and

guidelines of local food system
vancouver, british columbia

cleveland, oh
p 82 definitions
p 84 bibliography

appendixes, tables and figures
appendix a: community officials’ sample interview questions

appendix b: local producers’ sample interview questions
appendix c urban farm capita calculations table
appendix d: neighborhood farm capita calculations table
appendix f: allotment/community garden capita calculations table
table 1: C02 emissions of different distribution models in a food system
figure 1: Urban Food System

figure 2: South Chicago food deserts
figure 3: urban food system outcomes
figure 4: senior thesis research process
figure 5: Ames urban fringe plan
figure 6: urban case study urban markets and nodes
figure 7: urban case study groceries, speciality food stores, and farmers’ markets
figure 8: urban case study restaurants, convenience, food pantry
figure 9: urban case study landcover
figure 10: current urban food system flow diagram
figure 11: urban case study land inventory
figure 12: urban food system typology
figure 13: private residence garden prototype
figure 14: allotment/community garden prototype
figure 15: food blvd prototype
figure 16: non-profit institution prototype
figure 17: religious institution prototype
figure 18: neighborhood farm prototype
figure 19: urban farm prototype
figure 20: proposed urban food system flow diagram
figure 20: typology of circulation within the future urban fabric
figure 22: circulation within the future urban fabric guidelines
figure 23: market blvd within the future urban fabric
figure 24: private residence garden within the future urban fabric

figure 25: allotment/communty garden within the future urban fabric
figure 26: food blvd within the future urban fabric
figure 27: institution within the future urban fabric
figure 28: neighborhood farm within the future urban fabric
figure 29: urban farm within the future urban fabric
figure 30: urban food system typology within the future urban fabric
figure 31: calculating the potential of an urban system based on yield and scale of
production
figure 32: the potential of an urban farm, neighborhood farm and allotment garden
figure 33: how many acres to support 50% of urban case study population with fruits and
vegetables
figure 34: organizational chart of Community Agriculture and Design Center (CADC)
figure 35: organizational chart of City of Ames
figure 36: proposal of urban food system and circulation typologies in urban case study
figure 37: Stange Market Blvd and Kingston Food Blvd section
figure 38: Kingston Food Blvd section
figure 39: Stange Market Blvd and Kingston Food Blvd aerial perspective
figure 40: Kingston Food Blvd aerial perspective
figure 41: Northridge Pkwy and Northridge Lane allotment garden aerial perspective
figure 42: Neighborhood Farm and Elementary School aerial perspective

introduction
Food has been the center of civilization and cultures since the formation of the first nomadic
societies. In the next 20 years the global population is going to be 60% urban (Girardet 2004,
3) and food access is going to become a primary issue. In 2007, the globe became an urban
society by passing the rural/urban threshold, while the U.S. has been primarily urban since
1910 (Kulikowski 2007).
As designers and planners of urban landscapes, landscape architects hold a vital tool in the
growth of any Iowa community. Food is both a local and global issue. The lack of productive
urban land, food insecurity, uncontrolled urban growth, the lack of stable local food markets,
land use conflicts in the peri-urban areas, and a general lack of societal knowledge of food
growing and preparation fuel these discussions.
Cleveland, Ohio and Vancouver, B.C. are prime examples of how legislation can impact the
growth of urban food systems while improving other sectors of the community. Cleveland has
implemented an urban garden zoning district and the program “Gardens to Greenbacks.” The
Vancouver Food Policy Council has created their Vancouver Food Charter to identify goals and
has also assisted in creating guidelines for urban agriculture in private development. Urban
communities in Iowa have a agricultural heritage and urban food systems have an enormous
potential. This report is meant to be a urban case study of the city of Ames’ food system and a
manual about food urbanism; including proposals for the city of Ames.

P I: the urban food system
An urban food system has the agenda to guide the development of a sustainable and integrated
system of food production, processing, distribution, marketing, consumption and waste
management in an urban landscape. An urban food system integrates live, work, and play into
the activities of a productive landscape. Through infrastructure developments of roads, railroad
lines, municipal utilities, walking and biking trails, and bike commuter lanes an integrated
urban system can be created. Food infrastructure is the underlying foundation of a sustainable
community. By utilizing the development of urban food production infrastructure as criteria for
urban growth, a community can have urban growth while still on a sustainable path.
The success of an urban food system relies on differing pieces of infrastructure to utilize
each other’s resources. An urban transportation system should be in conjunction with the
distribution of both products and residents in an urban landscape. Institutional and community
food processing must be common amongst different schools, churches, NGOs, agencies, and
governments. Food production must be integrated into the daily activities of all community
residents through recreation and communal gatherings. Positive personal development can be
achieved by integrating food production into community recreation parks. Marketing must be
the common thread amongst all urban food producers and consumers. Through cooperative
market outlets a larger series of food access points can be developed supplying healthy fresh
and affordable food. And finally a sustainable community is based on an ongoing never ending
system with little input. Waste management is the sector of an urban food system that must be
integrated with a waste recycling and reuse program in a community to recycle the nutrients in
the food production system.
A healthy urban food system means a healthy and sustainably growing community that is
economically, environmentally and most importantly a socially productive community.

planting, washing,
management,
URBAN FOOD SYSTEM

Production Processing drying, canning,
harvesting... freezing, ...
storage,
composting, Waste logistics
reuse... Distribution trucking, rail,
Mgmt
ship...
farmer’s
cooking,
markets, coops,
meals, slow
Consumption Marketing retail, CSA,
food,
direct,
events...
pantries...
festivals, pubic
transportation, recreation,
municipal utilities, religion,
dining, education, bicycle
commuting, work,
recycling...
figure 1

why urban food systems?
Last October in the New York Times Michael Pollen addressed the future new president as
the Farmer in Chief (Pollen 2008). In his letter Pollen explained to the next president that food
policy will become a leading issue above others during the next four years. He explained to
him that by reinventing the entire food system it would
reduce the impact of many other issues. He was trying to
explain how every issue today is linked some how to the
food system. These are the same issues that are being
shared by organizations and individuals in the farming,
health, human welfare and many other sectors. Access
to healthy food is a critical issue. Chicago is only one
city of many combating food deserts. Food deserts are
populations either urban or rural that do not have access to
grocery or food market stores. Convenience stores instead
fill this void. These stores though only provide beer, soda,
potato chips and other highly processed foods. Figure 1
represents food deserts present in South Chicago (Group
2006, 8).
Environmentally Productive
As diabetes and other chronic diseases increase, health

care costs will continue to rise. Last fall the Henry
J. Kaiser Family Foundation released that employer
figure 2
sponsored health plan premiums are rising drastically and
workers are paying on average $3,354 annually toward family coverage out of their own pay
checks (Singh 2008).
Environmental health is an enormous concern of many organizations and individuals in the

local food system movement. On average food travels 1500-2500 miles from field to plate
and in return is producing extreme levels of carbon dioxide at the same time. Rich Pirog in
the Leopold Center has written about Iowa’s food system and, more specifically, the food
system’s impact based on food miles. Pirog compared the impacts of a conventional system,
Iowa-based regional system and a local system (Pirog 2001). He analyzed each system based
on fuel consumption, value of the fuel consumed, C02 emissions and distance traveled. Table
1 shows Pirog’s findings for each food system and its impact on the climate based on food
miles. His findings support that an urban food system would be environmentally productive as
it would shorten the span between field and plate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Pirog
2001, 33). The conventual agricultural sector in 2005 produced 8.2% of the CO2 emissions
based out of all the U.S. economic sectors. Transportation (27.5%), industry (18.6%) and
electric power (33.5%) were the sectors ahead of the agricultural sector (Hofstrand 2008).
The current agricultural sector is the primary cause of these other industries’ impact. For
example the transportation sector releases many CO2 emissions because it must ship the
agricultural products across the country.
In addition to food miles, food deserts, and

health care; urban land use is a common issue
in urban communities. Manicured lawns, in
the U.S., are out of control. Today manicured
lawns are the largest crop in the U.S. There are
three times more acres of lawn than irrigated
corn covering an area of about 330,000 square
miles (Lindsey 2005).
table 1
Economically Productive
In 1929 Americans spent $4 out $5 at independent retailers but by the mid-50’s many
consumer’s patterns were being drastically affected (Mitchell 2006). After WWII when a larger
portion of the population was able to move and live in suburbs of American cities it opened up
new land for chain stores to grow. Today chains have become the dominate market in all areas
of the economy. In 2005 the top ten retail chains had a hold of 30% of consumer spending.
Twenty percent of this spending was in food sales and 46% was dominated by 5 companies:
Walmart, Kroger, Albertson’s Safeway, and Ahold. Independent groceries only had 17% of
the sales. Even the clothing sales were being dominated by a few. Target along with specialty
stores like GAP Inc. are leading the market. Forty percent of the prescription sales are by
Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid (Mitchell 2006, 11). This can be seen in many other areas such
as books, restaurants/entertainment, and even on the World Wide Web. This narrowing of the
market is even apparent in agriculture.
In the U.S. we have 4 million fewer farmers today than we did in the 1930’s. Farms have
gotten larger and are owned by a smaller group of people everyday (GRACE 2008). In 1910,
42 cents of every dollar spent on food went to farmers and 59 cents went to marketers
and input providers. By 1998 farmers only received 9 cents, input providers 24 cents, and
marketers 67 cents (Shuman 1998, 58).
In the mid 1940’s Walter Goldschmidt along with two other sociologist C. Wright Mills and
Melville J. Ulmer each studied the effects of a local vs. nonlocal business base in similar
communities (Mitchell 2006). Their studies compared two communities that were similar
in population, climate, and distance from major urban centers. Goldschmidt compared the
two communities of Arvin and Dinuba both located in the Sun Joaquin Valley in California.
Goldschmidt’s findings allowed him to conclude that Dinuba had a higher standard of
living because it had a base of local businesses instead of non local. His analysis of two
communities showed that Arvin had a handful of large agri-businesses and Dinuba was only
small family owned farms. Arvin’s farms were 9 times as large and had a larger median
income. Dinuba though had much more impressive stats (Mitchell 2006 73-4). There was
less income inequality and there were many farmers, small business owners, and independent
processors. In addition compared to the one elementary school and tiny private playground in
Arvin, Dinuba’s community infrastructure was enormous. It had better streets, sidewalks, and
garbage services that were better in both quality and quantity. It had 4 elementary schools, 1
high school, 3 public parks, and twice the civic and social organizations. Its two newspapers
were each larger than Arvin’s one paper (Mitchell 2006 73-4).

Urban areas would be the best place to implement production without competing with the
production of commodity crops outside of urban areas. Today in Iowa Dave Swenson from
the Economics Department and the Leopold Center at Iowa State have combined forces to
develop evidence of the positive economic impacts of increased fruit and vegetable production
and consumption in Iowa. Swenson created a multiple of scenarios each varying in the
amount of produce grown in Iowa, amount of consumption in Iowa, and the amount marketed
directly vs. indirectly (Swenson 2006). In his second scenario he models 25% of the 37 fruits
and vegetables consumed in Iowa as produced by Iowa farmers. The produce is then 50%
direct marketed by farmers to consumers and the other half is indirect marketed through
the wholesale distributors and conventional grocery stores. He concluded that there would
be a total industrial output of $104.5 million, a labor income of $38 million made by 1,345
jobs. Swenson then concluded that this increased production had a net impact of $92 million
of industrial output and $33.5 million in labor income made by 1,183 new jobs (Swenson
2006,17). By designing our communities around food production and only increasing fruit and
vegetable production in Iowa by 25%, our Iowa economy would be benefited greatly.

Sociologically Productive
In Dinuba and Arvin Goldschmidt concluded that since the residents had a higher standard of
living they were more willing to engage in public affairs because they had built up community
equity to the point where they felt they owned a piece of the community and should have
a right to make decisions for its future. Thus the local economics of Dinuba created a
sociologically productive community.
Sociological productivity is more difficult to measure. Jan and Cornelia Flora of the North
Central Regional Center for Rural Development have developed their Community Capitals
Framework (Development 2008). This framework defines the seven types of capital in a
community. Their framework explains that one local dollar protects natural capital and adds to
cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built capital (Development 2008). By increasing
social capital the Flora’s explain that a community will have a strong foundation and become
a sustainable community. They argue that social capital creates the binds throughout the
community and into the surrounding region. Jane Jacobs in her book, Death and Life of Great
American Cities, calls local businessman public characters (Jacobs 1993). They are what bind
communities together. When they talk to many people throughout the day they become like a
news cast that spreads information between individuals (Mitchell 2006,78). Even though the
relationships that are created between local businessman and other residents are informal
they become personal and multifaceted and gain an interest in each other’s well being. As
these relationships grow social capital is created. People learn many new faces and create
informal relationships that reduce social diversions and foster empathy and friendship (Mitchell
2006, 80). When local residents speak with each other and create relationships between large
groups of people social webs are created. These webs become avenues where job openings
are advertised and filled, innovative ideas created, skills traded, and business trades made
(Mitchell 2006, 80).

urban food system outcomes
figure 3

the urban case study
The first step in developing an urban food system is to conduct a urban food system audit. The
city of Ames was chosen as the urban case study based on a criteria developed for selection.
The case study is meant to evaluate the current status and flow diagram of the urban food
system. Case study selection criteria included population (60,000 - 10,000), diverse ethnicity,
access to base data, presence of linear ecological landscapes, land area, population density,
home ownership, stable urban centers, stable local markets, population of local farmers,
forward-thinking officials, population growth, and per capita median income. Ames was
chosen both on the criteria and personal knowledge of the community.
In addition to case studies and background knowledge (included in Continuous Productive

figure 4
Urban Landscapes: a sustainable design option to growing urban communities in Iowa,
research process phase one report) interviews were conducted
D GE
LE with city officials on the local controls,
Co
n
W
FL rba
nti
O
le, U
nu Urb
N policy, and structure of Ames. To understand

vil for
i ng
ou an
s P Ag
K
es es
nn
ain Sit
the fundamentals of the current local food

D
ro ric
Pla
UN
du ult
f G ng
cti ur
y o ati
O
ty
ve e f
system, local producers were asked basic

ud lu
GR
n
St Eva
Ur or S
ou
ba u
se d
K
yC
n L sta
interview questions about the fundamental

Ca g an
BAC
an ina
Wilbers
or
e: yin
ds ble
Northside
St
ur tif
ca C
aspects of their food production. Figure 3

LO
ult en
Market
pe iti
A
ric r Id
CA
s: es
CY
De
Ag y fo
on the left represents the research process

LC
sig
LI
eg
Picket Fence Rinehart’s

ON
PO
FUNCTIONAL
nin
rat
Family Farm
Creamery
followed to obtain an understanding of
g
St
TR
OL
Ames and the theory of Food Urbanism.

S
Blacks
ELEMENTS OF
DeMoss
Heritage Full Circle
Pumpkin
Farm
Am
Farm Farm
Appendixes A and B include interview
es
SYSTEM questions conducted with officials and

Pa
Growing Onion
rks
A
the
Harmony Creek Farm

St and
ing
Farm
producers.
in
ud is
De
L
nn
ies
y o ac
pa
ud
Pla
f t ce
r tm
he ss
St
Story County
ey e
es
Co ed
all as
en
Producers
nte for
Am
rV C
Additional research and analysis was then

t
e
xts Co
ive ltur
of
wi mm
a R icu
thi u
conducted on the number and location

ty
Le Agr
n w nit
ST
Ci
n
hic y Op
ba
of the city’s urban markets and nodes,

UC
h U en
Ur
TU
K
rb Sp
,U
an ac
grocery, speciality food stores, and farmer’s

RE
n
Va e
do
ca
n
Lo
nt
markets, restaurants and convenience
=
stores and landcover within the city limits

policy + local controls + structure
It is important to understand the local controls, policy and structure of both Ames and
unincorporated Story County. By interviewing local planners and officials data was gathered
about Ames’ controls on temporary markets, urban growth strategies, the urban fringe plans,
the local approach at managing vacant land, strategies used to manage park land, and controls
on current community gardens within in Ames. In addition to current data and information a
dialogue was created, with the local planners and officials, on designing communities around a
framework of urban agriculture.
Managing Urban Growth/Urban Fringe Planning
Ames and Story County planners have a long term agreement to work together on all urban
growth planning strategies. After working together for a long period of time the two cities
along with the city of Gilbert have completed an Urban Fringe Plan. On the following page is
the current Urban Fringe Plan for the city of Ames. After speaking with the planning directors,
it was determined that planning is based on current utilities and services. Urban growth
areas are first determined based on whether current utilities and services are able to support
any new development. Utilities and services are defined as sewer, water, electricity, gas,
emergency service, and etc. Other criteria that are considered are environmental constraints
and current traffic patterns.
City and county planners each agreed that the appropriate places to consider while studying
food urbanism would be the Urban Service Areas, within the urban fringe plan. They agreed
that urban food system infrastructure would be able to guide future growth into these areas.
These areas are projected to be areas of future urban development based on urban growth
plans. Within the city of Ames these areas are primarily located on the west and southwest
edges of Ames along Hwy 30, North and South Dakota Avenues, and West Lincoln Way.
Figure 4 represents the city of Ames urban fringe plan. County planners also recommend
conservation easement lands and any land that is classified as agriculture or farm service
areas. The planners recommended conservation easement lands because low impact peri-
urban agriculture could be utilized as a management tool for these lands while conserving the
parcels.

LAND USE FRAMEWORK MAP
Ames Urban Fringe Plan figure 5
GILBERT
180TH ST
W 190TH ST E 190TH ST
GEORGE W CARVER AVE

NORTH DAKOTA AVE
STAGECOACH RD
CITY OF AMES
US
HIG
HW
A Y3
0
US HIGHWAY 30
SOUTH DAKOTA AVE
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35
US HIGHWAY 69
Boone Co.
Story Co.
KELLEY
LEGEND
Rural Service and Agricultural Conservation Area Rural Urban Transition Area
Agriculture and Farm Service Priority Transitional Residential Approved by Story County, City of Ames
Rural Residential Highway-Oriented Commercial and City of Gilbert, July 17, 2006
Parks and Recreation Areas Rural Transitional Residential
Urban Service Area General Industrial
Natural Areas
Urban Residential
Industrial Reserve/Research Park
Planned Industrial
Community Commercial Node Agricultural/Subsurface Mining 1 0.5 0 1 2
Conveneince Commercial Agricultural/Long-term Industrial Reserve
Gateway Protection Area
Miles
Boone County Future Land Use Watershed Protection Area
Ames Urban Fringe Area Located in Boone County. Transportation Corridor Protection Area
Future Land Use to be determined following completion Airport Protection Area
of Boone County's Comprehensive Plan Update and
discussion with other goverments.
Ames Urban Fringe Planning Boundary
Story County Study Area Iowa State University Property
Ames Urban Fringe Area Located in 'Story County
Study Area'. Future Land Use to be determined following Government Owned Land
the completion of Story County's study and discussion
with other governments.

Managing Vacant Land
City planners in inteviews indicated that vacant land is seen as a valuable resource. Vacant
land in the city of Ames was defined as parcels that are of nuisance to adjacent land uses or
are hard to develop. The city assessor uses a existing use code in their parcel data to define
vacant as empty parcels or empty structures. Planning staff expressed that studying existing
aerials and current parcel data was the best way to locate vacant or underutilized parcels.
Temporary Markets
Since a urban food system would be economically productive and grow and harvest products,
it is important that markets be created within the system. It is important though that these
markets are regulated to prevent negative effects on the health and well being of the public
population. Examples include the sale of contaminated food or illegal the sighting of a vending
trailer in the public right of way. The central Iowa climate does not allow crops to be grown
and harvested year around outdoors thus some markets within the system would only be
temporary for 8-10 months of the year. In addition to understanding planning goals and
strategies for the city of Ames it was also important to know any current regulations or laws
that would regulate any form of a temporary market. Within the City of Ames Municipal Code
there are many requirements for markets and vendors. Section 22.4 of the municipal code has
restrictions on temporary obstructions. These requirements are meant to control the issuing
of permits for obstructions and limit them so they don’t cause any harm to the public. Section
17.26 thus places requirements on specific outdoor markets. The code reads:
that any person who, for the purpose of selling goods or services, occupies a place out of
doors, other than on public property, or who for said purpose occupies an indoor place on
an intermittent or temporary basis only, and who does not have any indoor place in the city
where the same selling of goods and services is done by said person on a continuous and
permanent basis, shall obtain and wear, in a manner plainly visible, a valid registration and
identification badge issued by the City Clerk.
It is required that all markets apply for a permit from the City Clerk so that all markets can be
inventoried and regulated to avoid any potential harm to the public population. In addition to
markets vending has many requirements. Their requirements in Section 22.11 – 22.23 read:
It shall be unlawful to sell, or offer for sale, any food, beverage or merchandise on any street,
sidewalk, alley, city parking lot or other thoroughfare without first obtaining the applicable
license or permit, such as a Vendor’s License, a Newspaper Dispenser Permit, or a Sidewalk
Cafe Permit.

The following requirements and standards are placed on all vendors:
1. The vending stand shall be of such a size and so placed that it does not
obstruct the orderly flow of pedestrian and/or vehicular movement(s).
2. The vending stand shall be placed so as not to obstruct visibility at street
intersections or to obstruct driveway entrances.
3. All vending stands shall provide a litter receptacle which is available for the
vendor’s patron’s use.
4. All vending stands shall be attended at all times and removed during hours of
non-operation.
5. Upon removal of the stand, all litter and trash shall be picked up.
6. Vending items shall be only those stated in the application.
7. The vending stand shall be placed so as not to obstruct the view of
merchandising displays of other businesses abutting the sidewalk.
8. All vending from motor vehicles shall be conducted in such a way as not
to restrict or interfere with the ingress or egress of the abutting
property, create a public nuisance, increase traffic
congestion or delay, constitute a hazard to traffic,
life, or property, or be an obstruction to adequate access to fire, police,
or sanitation vehicles.
Strategies in Managing Park Land
It is also important to understood the strategies of the parks and recreation department. A
urban food system will utilize current open space and it will act as the missing piece that
creates a network of open spaces. Within the parks department all future planning is done
through the park master plan and the city’s Capital Improvement Plan. Mowing and controlling
weeds and invasive plants is the primary management strategy for each park.
Currently within the city there is one example of community gardens. Thirty-six plots are
located south of the Department of Transportation service yards along Squaw Creek on park
land. The plots are 10’x40’ and are on an annual rent cycle of $15/year. They are managed
by the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. Even though there is interest in more community
gardens there is a concern by the city of the hours needed to manage a system.

fundamentals of current local food system
In order to design a urban food system in the case study community it was important to
understand the fundamental systems and infrastructure that make the local food system
operate. Through interviewing eight local producers a better understanding was gathered
of current producers, markets, and products in the local supply chain. During a three week
interview process producers were interviewed on their mechanics, storage, markets,
processing, products, labor, size, their struggles, and their input on programs to bring farmers
into urban areas.
Interviews were with:
Picket Fence Creamery
Onion Creek Farm
Black Heritage Farm
Growing Harmony Farm
Rinehart’s Family Farm
Wilber’s Northside Market
Full Circle Farm
DeMoss Pumpkin Farm
Story County, Iowa: Local Food System
As part of an increasing rise in local food awareness, the Story County Planning and Zoning
department completed a study on the county food system (Department 2008). They found
that the county was very diverse with 18 growers and 50 producers counting the surrounding
counties. These producers are marketing their products in the region. In 2006 there were 17
CSAs in the region, 2 farmers markets in Ames, grocery stores that were selling local products
(Wheatsfield Coop, HyVee, and Fareway), and a handful of restaurants using local goods in
their menus (Department 2008, 13-14).
In a survey that was administered by the department producers replied saying they were
looking to expand production or to build greenhouses. Many though replied explaining the
hardest issues of local production. Many explained that there was enough labor but the access
to land was limited. This restricted the number of new farmers. The largest concern in Story
County as with other counties is the lack of regional food processing or meat lockers to add
value to their goods before market. Livestock producers were the most concerned because
there are few federally or state inspected processors in the region. This limits their ability to
market their meat for resale and to have it certified organic. This is a concern because by law
in order to sell beef, pork, chicken or any other meat in a resale market the carcass has to be
inspected by a certified individual before it can be divided into its respectful parts and stamped
for resale.
The senior thesis interviews focused on the fundamentals of the local producers’ operations.
In order to design and plan a local urban food system it was important to understand where
current producers are farming, what mechanics they are using and the markets they are selling
their products at. Each interview was conducted at each of the producers farms.
Peri-urban/Rural Production
Of the eight producers interviewed, four were located slightly outside of city limits. The four
producers located near any city limits were in prime locations. Their locations allowed them
to create direct markets so that their customers could purchase their products directly on the
farm. This allowed the farmers to create a transparent system so that customers understood
how their products were being produced. The other four producers were located in rural
areas that were primarily row crop agriculture. One of these four produced grass fed beef just
outside of Ledges State Park. Since the producer was using rotational grazing his farm acted
as a buffer between the State Park and the row crop agriculture that surrounding the farm.
The smallest producers ranged about 2 – 5 acres while the largest producer had 100 acres for
vegetables and 700 for row crops. This represents the scale of local producers in the region
very well. Even between the two producers that market grass-fed beef each is at opposite ends
of the spectrum. One producer has 160 acres of pasture and is looking to expand this part of
his business; in addition to his dairy production. The other producer outside of Ledges State
Park has 40 acres and 15 head of cattle. Both producers agreed that two acres per head is a
suitable planning calculation per year. All producers expressed the importance of some land
being laid fallow every year as part of a crop rotation system. They expressed this because
it allowed the soil to rest between production years. To return fertility to the soil all of the
producers either add organic matter or compost and some will plant green manure crops after
they harvest. These crops then are tilled into the soil and added to the organic matter content
in the soil. Since the price of land is high currently many producers mentioned how hard it is
to expand. One producer has recently just started to rent 20 acres and grows produce, as a
voluntary agreement between the landowner and themselves, on another acre parcel.
Mechanics/Infrastructure of the Regional Food System

A urban food system will be commercially productive and will incorporate parks and
community gardens into its network. To be able to design commercially productive areas, it
is important to understand what infrastructure is required. All producers explained that most
of the labor is done by hand instead of by equipment. The crops that are primarily grown
cannot be harvested by equipment efficiently for the small quantity produced. Many if not all
farmers though did use roto-tillers to prepare their land for planting and to control weeds. Then
depending on the scale of production and crops produced some producers owned small utility
tractors, mowers, skid loaders, planters, and other tillage equipment. In addition to the larger
equipment every producer had some form of a wheel barrel or garden cart and all the shovels
and rakes one could want. Many producers expressed the constant battle with weeds and
ways they control them. Many explained by using straw or plastic barriers many weeds can be
prevented. For those weeds that did grow though stir-up hoes, propane torches, and/or natural
products were sprayed to control weeds and pests.
Storage, Processing, and Delivery
Since many producers sold to farmers markets or had their own direct markets they needed
a place to store and process their products. Every producer had some form of a storage
building. Some were simply lean-tos that protected one from the elements and others had
garages and sheds. Within these small structures producers would use coolers to store
produce that needed to be cool and others would use old refrigerators or shelves as storage.
After products had been harvested producers washed all products to remove soil from root
crops or remove any pests or soil from greens. After washing the products they would be
packaged in cardboard boxes or plastic crates by weight. Whether the producer was putting
together shares for their CSA members or getting ready to make a shipment to
Hy-Vee, this system allowed him/her to quickly and easily sell his product at a certain unit
per pound. Each producer had a different system of getting products to their customers. For
those producers selling to re-sale markets the grocery store produce manager would contact
them when they were ready for a new shipment. Producers otherwise would either prepare for
farmer’s markets the day before hand or early the morning of. CSA producers would deliver
their shares to their members or have their members pick up their own shares at the farm.
Producers would use small trucks and sometimes enclosed trailers. One farmer just outside of
Ames used an electric truck to make his deliveries to the restaurants he sold to.
For those producers that had livestock or dairy they would either do their own processing
or take their livestock or milk to a processing plant. Many producers expressed the issue of
the lack of a regional meat processing facility. One producer that sells free range chickens
expressed that because he has to haul his livestock to an inspected facility in far southwest
Iowa it about offsets him producing his chickens in a free range system.
Local Markets
All producers had found their own niche in the local markets. Many producers marketed their
products to Hy-Vee, Fareway, Wheatsfield, and ISU Dining’s program, Farm to ISU. Producers
rarely marketed their products in a single fashion. Between the CSAs the number of shares
varied between 15-64 families. Others sell at farmer’s markets in Ames, Johnston, Des
Moines, and other communities. As was mentioned earlier some producers direct market their
goods from the farm. This allows them to market their products everyday of the week. Direct
marketing goods also creates other avenues for producers to work together and sell each
other’s products. And finally, some producers also sell to restaurants like the Café in Ames or
the Raccoon River Brewery in Des Moines.
The Potential of Programs to Create Inventories of Land within City Limits

for Production; To Assist In the Management of Vacant or Underutilized
Land
As a part of each interview each producer was asked about their thoughts and ideas about
a program that would create an inventory of urban parcels that are vacant or underutilized
that could be used for production. Each producer thought this was a great idea as it would
decrease the distance that products would have to be delivered, it utilized land to its potential,
and helped managed land within the city. The producers expressed that to make it efficient to
be farmed commercially the site would have to be half an acre or greater. The smaller sites
could be used for community gardens instead. In addition to the question many producers also
recommended that old schools or other vacant buildings could be used as processing centers,
job training centers, other education programs or housing.

urban markets +nodes
Urban markets and nodes create the foundation to the marketing of products within an urban
food system. This evaluation within the urban case study evaluated the location of each urban
market and node within the city of Ames. These nodes and market centers are important to the
food system because they are the centers were products within the urban food system can be
marketed to the greater city population. Outdoor markets, grocery stores, speciality stores, and
other commercial activities can be located at these nodes because they are intersections of
circulation. Diverse nodes and markets create an active streetscape at every hour.
This evaluation informed the site chosen as a existing urban fabric to be used as a case study
to implement the proposed urban food system typology and circulation.
figure 6
*radii = 10 min. walk at average speed

grocery + specialty food store + farmer’s
market
With the rise of food deserts and food insecurity becoming an issue it was important to
evaluate the location of current points of access to healthy food. In 2006, in Story county
there were 13 grocery stores, 36 convenience stores, 6 specialty food stores and 2 farmer’s
markets. There were 6,446 people per the 13 grocery stores and 13,967 per the 6 specialty
food stores (Eathington 2008). It is important to understand the number and location of these
markets today in addition to the outdoor farmer’s markets. Since Ames is the home of Iowa
State University and since Ames has a very diverse population it is important that food items
are available for each culture. For example the Indian culture is very large within the community
thus it is important that Pammel Grocery is a source of food items specific to their food
culture. figure 7

restaurant + convenience + food pantry
Since 2000 households receiving food assistance has more than doubled (720-2,048)
in Story county. The average benefits per person have nearly doubled as well ($75.16 -
$148.96) (Iowa State Data Center). Food assistance (recently changed from food stamps)
supports families and individuals near or below poverty. Without an ample supply of fresh
food items it is important that households have supplementary access points to sources that
accept food stamps. Restaurants including fast food, convenience stores and food pantries
become the second tier following grocery stores and markets. It is important though that
fast food restaurants and convenience stores do not become the first tier of food access as
in food deserts. In 2007, in Story county it was estimated that 34.4% of the population was
overweight, 24.9% obese and 5% diabetic (Eathington 2008).
figure 8

landcover
Sprawl and a monoculture of a few land uses are a rising concern by researchers. Part of this
concern is the ever larger expanses of lawn and larger single family homes. Below the GIS
analysis of the urban case study has found that 4,500 acres of manicured lawn, grasslands,
and agricultural land exists within the city limits. This excludes floodplains and steep slopes
because for ecological reasons it is important that these areas area protected and kept intact.
If one assumes that only half of these 4,500 acres are productive it still means that about
2000 acres of underutilized land could possibly be used to support the fruits and vegetables
demanded by the Ames population.
figure 9

As for the urban case study of Ames there is many issues and opportunities present in both
Story county and the city. Interviews have concluded that producers are stable and wanting
to expand but land prices and the lack of local processing restricts their growth. The local
controls, policy and structure is in a stable but flexible state. Land development concerns
are presently related to urban growth and the ample amount of underutilized land. City
departments though are concerned about expanding the current small community garden
program to a much larger community wide system.
Aside from the physical and productive sectors of the current food system food access and
health is a serious concern both in the county and city. As the food system flow diagram
represents below there is very few points of food access for community members. This is
both a concern for the consumer and the producer as the distributor and the processor has
much of the control over the system. The producer has very few points at which to market
new products after a production expansion. Producers also have few local sources to process
meats and for added agriculture. Valued added means to process vegetables and fruit into
sauces, jams, and other additives through canning, drying, freezing, etc.
Even though there are many issues, analysis of landcover and land use within the city limits
represents a high amount of potential of meeting the city’s fruits and vegetables demands
within the city limits. Earlier calculations determined that 970 acres for vegetables and 930
acres for fruit would be needed to supply the fruits and vegetables for 6 months of the year
for the city’s approximate 2007 population of 55,000. As stated earlier the landcover analysis
found 4,500 acres of mown lawn, grassland and current agricultural land within the city limits.
This represents that there is an enormous potential of food production within the city of Ames.
current urban food system flow diagram

community member/
consumers
local producer
urban market/
coop/grocery store/
restaurant/processing
figure 10

P II: how can an urban food
system organize a city?

the urban food system typology
The first step to organizing a city based on the theory food urbanism is to develop a land
inventory of the city. This report explains how a land inventory of the urban case study
allowed for the development of a typology and vocabulary of a productive urban landscape. As
part of the land inventory of the city of Ames potential sites were compiled that were classified
based on their size and potential user group. From these potential sites a typology was then
created explaining the characteristics of each type of food production within the theory of food
urbanism. This typology can thus be used to classify sites within future land inventories in
other Iowa communities.
The following pages and chapters provide examples and tools in developing an urban food
system.

figure 11
URBAN CASE STUDY LAND INVENTORY

page 32
private community/
typology residence allotment food blvd. institution neighborhood urban farm
garden garden religious/education/ farm
non-profit
user/producer/
manager
independent
user
local
producer
institution
(religious, education, non-profit)
scale
urban food system typology
productive
space
3.5 acres
figure 12
varies >1/2 acres varies varies 1-3.5 acres 3.5 + acres
characteristics
staff
& utilities/infrastructure
provided
# of community services
% public
production types
present
structure
supporting
facility
hothouse
$ market $
circulation
distribution/
markets
optional
food urbanism
direct
After creating a land inventory the urban food system typology can be used to classify sites.
Each types then have their own attributes. The typology can also be used to help find a site
that meets a certain criteria. For example if a community organization is wanting to develop
a new community garden the typology specifies that the site needs to be under .5 an acre in
size. It will then be the organizations responsibility to manage that community garden based on
citywide policies of management. As specified in the typology, renters of plots in community
gardens have the option to utilize the ability to market their goods in the larger food system;
most typically at a farmer’s market. These members would be required to meet all inspections
as other producers and community members to be able to sell food at a market.
This example is the same if a municipality is interested in providing fruits and vegetables for a
higher percentage of the cities population. The city could meet this requirement either through
a new urban or neighborhood farm. They would then ask for RFQs from urban farmers that are
interested in managing the new proposed farm. This farm manager and their staff would then
have the requirement to provide community services such as farmer training or educational
courses for example on food processing.
The following 7 prototypes are examples of each type within the urban food system typology.
The page leading each prototype explains the attributes of each. It is important to understand
how designers/officials of a local CADC would provide assistance in each instance of a new
prototype.

+Private Residence Garden
User/Producer/Stakeholder:
Managed by a private homeowner or independent user
Location/Scale:
All production will be provided by the landowner/user within the property boundaries. This
production is possible at many scales. An entire private residence could be retrofitted to
produce food or just the rear 20 ft of a lot could be managed.
Characteristics/Scenario:
Special instances that create prime scenarios to have a productive landscape as a homeowner
are large lawn expanses, the presence of an alley, large street setbacks and/or clear solar
exposure. Street setbacks are good examples because these spaces usually are not intended
for use but are meant to provide a visually pleasing setting on approaching the entrance.
Production Types:
The type of production and items being produced are dependent on the homeowner/users
ambitions/goals. Chickens, fish, and/or fruit and vegetables could be produced or managed.
These activities could be primarily within a greenhouse, a plot or multiple of pots, raised beds
or a combination of these and others.
Designers Role:
The designer would be able to assist in constructing or developing plans for a private
residence. Plans could be created that best utilize the entire property for food production.
Examples: using permaculture techniques to maximize production, rainwater harvesting,
circulation amongst production plots, or rotation plans. He/she could assist in developing
goals/objectives of an independent production operation.

figure 13

+Community/Allotment Garden
Managed by a neighborhood organization. Plots rented to community members and managed
independently by renter. Rents are paid annually and set by the neighborhood organization in
charge of management. The neighborhood organization will follow rules and guidelines created
by the local CADC.
Location/Scale:
The site of a community/allotment garden would be equal or less than ½ an acre. The site
could be on private property, within a public park, on vacant land, or a school yard.
A community/allotment garden would characterized by a multiple of individual plots ranging
within a variety of scales. Plots are rented on an annual growing year for the private use of the
renter. Tools, storage, and composting would be managed independently or collectively based
on the structure created at the time of implementation of the community/allotment garden.
Water access and security would be provided as part of the annual fee to rent a plot. Security
would be provided by fencing and locked gates.
Production Types:
The plot could consist of food production and/or an ornamental garden. Production would
be within raised beds, plots, pots and/or on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed
independently for personal consumption/revenue or the community/allotment garden user
population could collectively market products for revenue.
Designers Role:
The designers role would be to assist in locating an appropriate site for a community/allotment
garden. Plans would be created based on the neighborhood organization’s goals/objectives
or their garden space. The designer would organize the growing techniques, circulation,
materials, hardware and storage and composting systems.

figure 14

+Food Blvd
Managed by a municipal, neighborhood or non-profit organization. Plots rented to community
members or local producer and managed independently by renter.
Location/Scale:
A food blvd is a street retrofitted or designed as a productive landscape. Prime scenarios of
streets that could be retrofitted are not arterial streets, do not have parking along them, are
excessively wide, have excessive parking along them, or are streets where parking is located at
the rear of the property. The scale of the productive landscape is dependent on the scale of the
food blvd.
A food blvds function is to provide a source of circulation for pedestrians and cyclists in
addition to a continuous productive landscape. A food blvd is able to more intensively use
a linear landscape that is designed primarily for the car. A food blvd can consist of multiple
scales as long as production and both modes of transportation are able to coexist. Fencing
or other trespassing measures would be dependent on the designer and the client of the food
blvd. Vertical growing walls could be used in instead of fencing as an example of other options
to create boundaries separating the different users of the blvd. All fencing or barriers though
are required to be transparent to allow for clear site lines of activities. Small structures meeting
local food production guidelines are allowed but are provided by the builder.
Production Types:
The plot could consist of food production and/or an ornamental garden. Production would
be within raised beds, plots, pots and/or on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed
independently for personal consumption/revenue or for commercial marketing by a local
producer. In order for a food blvd to be farmed commercially the production space must
be larger than ½ an acre. Dependent on the renter it would be their responsibility to supply
storage, tools, and composting facilities. Water access would be provided as part of the
design of the food blvd.
Designers Role:
The designer’s role in retrofitting streets would be to actively search out prime cases and
prepare plans for the local CADC. Designers and developers would have the responsibility to
implement food boulevards. Cycle and pedestrian lanes, fencing and/or other mechanisms of
creating edges to the production spaces are the responsibility of the developer and designer.
figure 15

+Institution
Non-profit Institution
Owned/rented by a non-profit organization. Production is managed and organized by the non-
profit organization that owns/rents the land or in agreement with a local producer.
Location/Scale:
A non-profit productive landscape is a productive landscape that is either owned or rented by
a non-profit organization. Dependent on the goals/objectives of the non-profit organization the
amount of production will be determined.
A non-profit organization’s goal/objectives of food production would be based on the mission
of the association. After submission of a tax-exempt status, a certification as a non-profit, it is
the organization’s responsibility to provide programs and services that are of public benefit that
are not otherwise provided by local, state or federal entities. Examples of possible services
would be farmer training, home food processing/cooking training, or housing. In addition to
these services the non-profit would produce foods and/or materials that would be consumed
internally or externally for example through a CSA.
Production Types:
Production would be within hot houses, rotational plots, aquaculture, raised beds, pots and/
or on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed independently for internal consumption
or for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers market or a local food market. It would
be the non-profit organization’s responsibility to supply water, storage, tools, and composting
facilities.
Designers Role:
The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance and help in securing funding for
operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the NPO. The plans would
layout the production operations dependent on the types of production.

Religious Institution
Owned by a religious organization. All production is managed and organized by the religious
institution and/or a local producer or other joint stakeholder organization.
Location/Scale:
A religious productive landscape is a productive landscape that is part of a religious
institution’s grounds. Dependent on the goals/objectives of the institution the amount of
production will be determined. In order for a local producer to have all or some part of the
responsibilities in managing production the site must be greater than ½ an acre.
A religious organization’s goal/objectives of food production will determine the scale of
production possibly determined by how the produce will be marketed and/or consumed. The
institution could also provide the services of farmer training, home food processing/cooking
training just as a non-profit organization. Produce foods and/or materials that would be
consumed internally or externally for example through a CSA.
Production Types:
Production would be within hot houses, rotational plots, aquaculture, raised beds, pots and/or
on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed independently for internal consumption or
for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers market or local food market. It would be
the organization’s responsibility to supply water, storage, tools, and composting facilities.
Designers Role:
operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the organization. The
plans would layout the operations dependent on the types of production.

Education Institution
Owned by a private/public school/university. All production is managed and organized by the
institution and/or a local producer or other joint stakeholder organization.
Location/Scale:
A school/university productive landscape is part of the institution’s land. Dependent on the
goals/objectives of the institution the amount of production will be determined. In order for a
local producer to have all or some part of the responsibilities in managing production the site
must be greater than ½ an acre.
The school/university goal and objectives of food production will determine the scale of
production by how the produce will be marketed and/or consumed. The institution could also
provide services for example as farmer training or home food processing/cooking training.
Produce foods and/or materials would be consumed externally or for example internally in a
school dining center.
Production Types:
Production would be within hot houses, rotational plots, aquaculture, raised beds, pots and/or
on vertical surfaces. Production could be managed independently for internal consumption or
for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers market or local food market. It would be
the organization’s responsibility to supply water, storage, tools, and composting facilities.
Designers Role:
operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the school. The plans
would layout the operations dependent on the types of production.

figure 16

figure 17

+Neighborhood Farm
Owned by a neighborhood organization, local institution, municipality or private landowner. All
production is managed and organized by a local producer.
Location/Scale:
A neighborhood farm ranges between 1-3 ½ acres or equal to a city block. The farm would be
located within a residential neighborhood.
A neighborhood farm would be a source of food production and recreation. Playgrounds and
sports courts/fields would be required per neighborhood farm. Community members would be
allowed to assist in production with the local producer. Annual neighborhood organization dues
would supplement operation costs of the farm.
Production Types:
or on vertical surfaces. Production would not be limited to crops but also small livestock (ex:
poultry). Production could be managed for commercial marketing as part of a CSA, farmers
market or local food market. It would be the farm’s responsibility to supply water, storage,
tools, and composting facilities.
Designers Role:
The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance and help in securing funding
for operations. Plans would be created based on the goals/objectives of the neighborhood
organization and local producer. The plans would layout the operations dependent on the types
of production.

figure 18

+Urban Farm
Owned by a local institution municipal government or local landowner. All production is
managed and organized by a local producer.
Location/Scale:
A city farm would be greater than 3 ½ acres or a city block. The farm would be located within
diverse urban area of multiple land uses. This would provide equal access by community
members and provide a substantial amount of fresh produce and goods to the community.
A city farm would be a source of food production and as a center for a farmers market or local
food processing hub. Playgrounds, sports courts/fields, trails, and other recreation could be
additional amenities per city farm. The local producer and farm management staff would be
in control of all operations. Annual municipal taxes would supplement operation costs of the
farm.
Production Types:
or on vertical surfaces. Production would not be limited to crops but also small livestock
(ex: poultry and sheep). Production would be managed for commercial marketing as part of
a farmers market or local food market. It would be the farm’s responsibility to supply water,
storage, tools, and composting facilities.
Designers Role:
The designer’s role would be to provide technical assistance for all operations. Plans would be
created based on the goals/objectives of the farm management staff and municipal agriculture
department. The plans would layout the operations dependent on the types of production.

figure 19

The proposed urban food system flow diagram represents how implementation of the
urban food system typology would increase food access points for community members.
Community members would have the option to purchase food directly from the farmer at the
farm store or by a share in a CSA. The consumer could also buy food at a neighborhood or
urban farm of their choice. The consumer could then also go to their favorite grocery store
or farmer’s market just as they do today. In the proposed food system there will be a greater
quality of local products since local producers, neighborhood farms, urban farms, institutions,
and allotment renters all have the ability to market their goods at a store.
CONTINUOUS PRODUCTIVE URBAN

By increasing the number LANDSCAPE:
of access points of fresh products food insecurity will be reduced
urban food system flow diagram
and food deserts will disappear. The transparency and resiliency of the local food system will
be much stronger than the current conventional food system.
private community/
typology residence allotment food blvd. institution neighborhood urban farm
garden garden religious/education/ farm
non-profit
proposed urban food system flow diagram

user/producer/
market/distribution channels
manager
independent community member/
user
local institution institution consumers
producer urban/neighborhood farm
institution
scale
local producer
productive
space
3.5 acres urban market/

coop/grocery store/acres
1-3.5 3.5 + acres
varies >1/2 acres varies varies
restaurant/processing
allotment/
characteristics community garden
staff
figure 20
& utilities/infrastructure
provided
# of community services
% public
distribution/markets of urban food system types
production types
present
private community/
structure
typology
supporting residence allotment food blvd. institution neighborhood urban farm
facility
hothouse garden garden religious/education/ farm
non-profit $
$ market
circulation
user/producer/
distribution/
manager
markets
independent
user
optional
local
producer
direct
institution
scale
productive
space
3.5 acres
varies >1/2 acres varies varies 1-3.5 acres 3.5 + acres
the urban food system typology in the future
urban fabric
Market Blvds would be implemented before new development begins. The market blvds would
be implemented by the local CADC along with sewers and storm systems. Developers would
be required to pay up-front for any infrastructure costs. Within new development all developers
would be required to implement the urban food system typology and the typology of circulation
within the future urban fabric. The local CADC would create new guidelines for private
development. (Ex: New urban private developments must provide growing plots for more than
50% of all residential units that do not have access to 100 sq ft of private outdoor space (City
of Vancouver, B.C.)). The following typology of streets would fit within a block structure of
250’wide blocks for pedestrian and bicyclist circulation and 500’ wide blocks for auto and
transit circulation. Pages 51-58 represent the urban food system typology implemented into
the typology of circulation within the urban fabric of a hypothetical site.
Typology of Circulation
Market blvd– major arterial for transit, emergency, and bicyclist circulation incorporated along
a continuous productive landscape organized into community/allotment gardens and/or plots
managed by local producers. Outdoor markets and activities associated are the core of market
blvds.
Major Arterial – for auto and transit circulation; typical section dependent on traffic capacity
Minor Arterial – for auto, transit and bicyclist; typical section – two lanes + bike lanes; max.
speed 35 mph
Local Street – local auto and bicyclist; circulation barriers limit use of local street to auto for
more than four blocks; typical section – one-two lanes + bike lanes; max. speed 25 mph
Food Blvd – pedestrian and bicyclist; food blvds function is to provide a source of circulation
for pedestrians and cyclists in addition create a connection to the nearest market blvd.

market blvd major arterial minor arterial local street food blvd
mode of
transportion
level of traffic
25mph 45 mph 35 mph 25mph

max speed
street cross
section
a sustainable design option for growing urban communities

pedestrian
production
bicycle lane
transit/auto lane
landscaped median auto + transit
typology of circulation within the future urban fabric
circulation 500’
bicycle + pedestrian
circulation 250’
figure 21
page 51
minor arterial minor arterial
major arterial
food blvd local street
minor arterial
market blvd
local street food blvd
major arterial
figure 22
The circulation diagram above for the typology of circulation represents the levels of traffic
intensity on each type of circulation. By implementing this typology the core of the 250’
blocks is much more pedestrian friendly. The food blvds are protected from vehicular traffic
and create a continuous landscape that connects areas of the community together create a
walkable community. The food blvds, local streets, and market blvds would provide safe routes
to school. The diagram represents how a market blvd is the core of pedestrian and bicyclist
circulation. Each are able to safely reach a market blvd with very little confrontation with cars.

figure 23
The market blvd as the core of the typology of circulation would become the core of the urban
food system and would guide new development. By implementing market blvds as a piece of
leading infrastructure in new development it would have the same impact as a transit oriented
development but also be productive. The level of activity would be consistent to that of a busy
business district, bike path, and linear park like that along the Lea River navigational channel in
East London.

figure 24
Just as important as any piece of the urban food system typology guidelines would require that
private development use edible landscaping and provide private outdoor space to a required
percent of residential units. Private residence owners could supplement their vegetables and
fruits with those they grow in their own yard.

figure 25
Just as guidelines for new development would require a set percent to be for private outdoor
use; community gardens could be a form of this requirement. Community/allotment gardens
would allow individuals to work and socialize together while working on each others plots.

figure 26
The food blvd is the heart and soul of the pedestrian and bicyclist movement. Instead of
walking along a busy street and a harsh building edge pedestrians can follow a food blvd and
purchase items at market stands along the food blvd. The food blvd would create a safe route
for children walking to school.

figure 27
The institution would provide a long list of services to the community including beginning
farmer training, home food processing classes, and etc. The institution would range in scale
depending on the institutions site and mission statement.

figure 28
Neighborhood farms with the capability of supporting 112 people with their fruit and
vegetables would be an enormous asset to neighborhoods. In addition to producing food
neighborhood farms would also be a community park. By connecting neighborhood and urban
farms together to active parks with food blvds a continuous productive landscape network of
alternative routes would be created. The neighborhood farm would provide many community
services and also be busy with activities.

figure 29
The urban farm would be like a city park with bike trails, wildlife areas, playgrounds, and active
recreation fields and courts. As part of these activities food production would be intermixed in
the web of activities. A family would be able to spend an entire day at an urban farm because
they could have breakfast at the restaurant in the farm and spend time helping the farmer pick
apples in the morning and then play soccer as part of an organized league in the afternoon.

figure 30
Every piece of the urban food system typology implemented together in this diagram begins to
represent the continuous productive urban landscape that begins to form. Forget the car today
and maybe the bus and walk over to the community garden and work for an hour and then
bike along the food blvd and hit up Gary’s market along the market blvd since he said he would
have carrots this morning.

the potential of an urban food system
Earlier landcover analysis has created signs that an urban food system has a huge potential
but how many people could a typical urban or neighborhood farm and a community garden
plot support? The Economic Research Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture
annually publishes per capita demands of fruits and vegetables. Calculations can decipher the
potential of a urban food system.
As tools both for producers and local CADCs there are two ways of calculating the capita that
could be supported by a specific scale of production. The following calculations on the next
page are examples of each and are based on tomatoes and potatoes grown on a 5 acre urban
farm. The first example calculating the potential of an urban system based on yield + scale
of production is inefficient. As the example shows two different sizes of groups of consumers
have to be marketed to be able to sell all the potatoes and tomatoes grown on an urban
farm to prevent waste. In this example a producer or grocerer is able to market potatoes and
tomatoes to 252 people both at the same time. This means that when a consumer comes to
the urban farm or grocery store they can purchase both their potatoes and tomatoes that they
demand annually. There is still tomatoes remaining after all the potatoes have been sold. Now
a producer or grocer needs to find and market just tomatoes to another 414 individuals. This
requires more time and money on their part.
The second example calculating the potential of an urban system based on the demand +
yield ratio is the correct and most efficient way of calculating the potential of an urban food
system. Opposite from the first example calculations are now based on the demand and yield
ratio rather than only yield. By basing calculations on this ratio a producer is able to determine
a specific amount of land that should be designated to a certain crop so that after marketing
all the grown product there is very little or no amount of a certain product left over. This saves
money and time and prevents waste. Appendixes C-E are spreadsheets that would assist a
CADC official or producer in calculating the potential of a known scale of production.

calculating the potential of an urban system based
on yield + scale of production figure 31
demand/capita
1 acre yields 13,333 lbs
potatoes
37 lbs .7 acre yields 9,333 lbs

9,333 lbs / 37 lbs = 252 people
tomatoespotatoes
37 lbs capita
666 people
-252 people
20 lbs
1 acre yields 44,444 lbs 414 more people
tomatoes
20 lbs .3 acre yields13,333 lbs needed to be marketed

13,333 lbs / 20 lbs = 666 people to sell remaining
capita
tomatoes before
spoiling
calculating the potential of an urban system based

on demand + yield ratio
calculation based on a 5 acre urban farm
demand/capita
potatoes
37 lbs 37 lbs
capita / 13,333 lbs
acre = .002790
capita
acre
= 11% of 5 acres will be dedicated to
capita growing potatoes
Total capita/acre .026430
acre
tomatoes
20 lbs
.55 acres x 13,333 lbs/acre = 7,333 lbs
potatoes
37 lbs = 200 people

37 lbs/capita

tomatoes
20 lbs 20 lbs
capita / 44,444 lbs
acre = .000448 capita
acre = 2% of 5 acres will be dedicated to
capita growing potatoes
Total capita/acre .026430
acre
.1 acres x 44,444 lbs/acre = 4,444 lbs
= 200 people
20 lbs/capita
the potential of a urban farm + neighborhood farm +
allotment garden figure 32
5 acre urban farm
189 PEOPLE
2.5 acre neighborhood farm
112 PEOPLE
300 square feet allotment
.4 PEOPLE

The graphics on page 61 represent the potential of a 5 acre urban farm, 2.5 acre neighborhood
farm and a 300 sq foot community garden plot. Calculations were based on the demand and
yield ratio example from page 60 and were based on the fruits and vegetables represented
within the graphic on page 61. These calculations represent a large potential of both the urban
and neighborhood farm and support the assumption that a 300 sq foot community garden
would only be able to provide just below half of the vegetables needed by an individual.
The graphic below represents how the potential of the urban and neighborhood farm can be
used to inform an urban food systems potential. The city of Ames’ 2007 population minus
the approximate 8,500 students that live within ISU dorms, was 46,245. thus to support 50%
of the population of Ames with fruit and vegetables there would need to be approximately 62
urban farms and 103 neighborhoods; assuming that half of the produce is grown at urban
farms and half at neighborhood farms. These farms would require approximately 570 acres of
land within the city limits.
189
figure 33 112
189
112
112
189 112 189

189
112
112 112 112
112 112 112
112
189 112 112 189
112 112 189
189 112
112 112 189 112 112
112
112 112
189 189 112 189 189

112
112 urban farm
189 112
112 5 acres
112 112
112
112 189
neighborhood farm
112
2.5 acres
population 54,745 (2007)
- population in ISU residence halls 8,500
= population minus ISU halls 46,245
x 50% of population
= 23,124 population supported by urban farms and neighborhood farms
x 50%
= 11,562 capita supported by urban farms
/ 189 captia supported per urban farm
= 62 urban farms
x 5 acres per urban farm
= 310 acres dedicated to urban farms
= 11,562 capita supported by neighborhood farms
/ 112 captia supported per neighborhood farm
= 103 neighborhood farms
x 2.5 acres per neighborhood farm
= 258 acres dedicated to neighborhood farms
= 568 acres dedicated to urban and neighborhood farms
* calculations do not include community plots within community gardens
and food blvds. plus private residence gardens
to support 50% of the population of Ames minus ISU residence halls
with their annual fruit and vegetables
P III: urban food system
proposals and case studies

implementation of urban food system
department/non-profit that implements urban system
Community Agriculture and Design Center (CADC)

In order for research to be applicable to growing urban communities it is important that duties
and responsibilities be established for the organization/department that would have jurisdiction
over developing an urban food system. Using Ames as an example for other communities,
Ames (pg 67) and other community structures were studied to determine where such an
organization/department would be best housed in the community governance structure. Every
community management structure is different so Ames was only an example.
CADC would have the responsibility of the planning and design of a productive urban
landscape in a urban food system. Within Ames the CADC will be located within the
Department of Community Development, currently planning and housing. The CADC will be in
the same department as planning, housing and economic development. In this location they
would have a direct connection to the city governance system that is partially funded by the
city and produces additional funding from its own work sector.
Responsibilities
The organization’s responsibilities would be to develop UA proposals, strategize with existing
stakeholders, provide technical design assistance and provide grants and funding to:
• Institutions
• Grocers
• Neighborhood Organizations
• Individual Community Members/Local Producers
• Municipal Departments
That want to develop a:
• Urban farm
• Neighborhood Farm
• Non-profit CSA/production gardens
• Community/allotment garden
• Urban market

• Local food processing center
• Grocery store
• Restaurant
• Local producer wanting product marketing assistance
• CSA (community supported agriculture)
Additional responsibilities of the CADC will be to develop a community land inventory

establishing a catalog of appropriate sites that are suitable to be developed for urban
agriculture. With this inventory the organization will establish a relationship with the city
planning and development office, community school districts, religious organizations,
community gardening organizations and the housing, planning, and economic development
departments. After establishing these relationships, staff with the CADC will develop
proposals, strategize with existing stake holders, provide technical design assistance and
provide grants and funding. Assistance will be provided to stakeholders developing productive
landscape retrofits or for new urban private developments.
The CADC will with current stakeholders in the community food system establish continuous
production, processing and distribution channels, and develop goals that set standards
for access to local food within the community. These goals will be achieved through new
development policies that create guidelines for new development and retrofits of existing
underutilized urban land.
Figure 1 represents the organizational chart within the CADC including its responsibilities and
some example stakeholders.

organizational chart of the Community Agriculture and Design Center
neigborhood farm
ur
en
ba
rd
n
m
ga
ar
t
ke
en
t
m
/g
local producers
t
r
lo
oc
al
er
y/
in
ts
y/
it
di
en
un
vi
re
m
du e
st
rt
m
al mb
m
pa
au
m
co er
de
co
m s
ra
al
nt
ip
un
ic
it
un
y
g
in
m
private food production garden

de
nd
ve
s fu
lo
ur s +
p
UA
so ant
ce
pr
gr
op
e
id
os
ov
al
CADC
pr
s
CSA
Community Agriculture
+
Design Center
te
g
ch
n
rs sti
ni
de xi
ca
ol e
ld
eh ith
es
ak w
ig
st gize
n
as
te
sis
ra
ta
st
nc
e
on d
ti oo
s
in
za h
st
ni or
it
ga hb
ut
or eig
io
fo
ns
n
od
A
pr
S
C
oc
grocers
es
i
of
si
pr
ng
n-
no
ce
n te
r
urban farm
figure 34

organizational chart of the city of ames
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE CITY OF AMES MARCH 2005
figure 35
CITIZENS OF AMES
Hospital Library Mayor & Transit Conference

Board1 Board2 City Council1 Board3 Board4
Mary Greeley City City City

Medical Center Attorney5 Manager5 Assessor

Human Fleet Parks & Ames Public Legal Finance City Manager’s Public Electric Water & CyRide Planning & Ames Fire Police
Resources Services Recreation Library Department Department Office Works Services Pollution Housing Department Department
Control
Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative
Staffing Fleet Services Ames/ISU Ice Services: Accounting Public Relations: Engineering Distribution Water Plant Operations Planning: Inspection Animal Control
Arena •Circulation •Cable TV •Current
Employee Fleet •Information Budget (Channel 12) Operations: Engineering Water Meter Maintenance •Long-Range Rental Housing Financial Crimes
Relations Replacement Aquatics •Media (Channel 16) •Facilities •G.I.S.
•Outreach Customer Service: •Grounds Meter Water Pollution Sanitation General
Employee Community Center •Technical •Meter Readers Records •Streets Control Plant Housing: Investigation
Development Services Management/ •Utility Production •Affordable Fire
Center Homewood Golf •Youth Services Information City Clerk Maintenance Laboratory •Leased Suppression Juvenile
Course Services Plant Control
Risk Resource Economic Fire Narcotics
Management Parks Maintenance Purchasing: Recovery Development Prevention
•Print Shop Parking
Employee Recreation •Warehouse Traffic Enforcement
Benefits Parking Signs
& Meters Patrol
Records &
page 69
Dispatch
proposals of the urban food system typology in the urban
case study
Within the theory of food urbanism, the urban food system typology and the typology of
circulation both form the guidelines and backbone to a community’s organization that is
related to food. The following proposals are examples of the implementation of the urban food
system typology and typology of circulation. The proposals are focused within the Somerset
neighborhood in Northwest Ames. Guidelines and plans provide an example of how UA can
be established in new urban development. This example is a representation of how the food
relates to the organization of new development. The proposals are signs of how development
could progress north and west on the urban fringe of Ames and be guided by UA guidelines.
The plan of Somerset on the following page diagrammatically inserts the urban food system
typology. Stange Rd has been retrofitted into a market blvd with public transportation and
bicyclists commuting along the production plots managed by urban farmers and community
members. The new residential development north of Aspen Road and west of Stange Rd has
been developed along food blvds where community members are managing plots they rent
annually. The food blvds provide safe routes to the proposed elementary school in the heart
of Somerset. Children during science, history and health class could use the neighborhood
farm to learn about the natural cycles of the earth, agriculture and where their food comes
from. The community garden at Northridge parkway and Northridge lane is managed by the
neighborhood organization made up by the residents that live within the condos, townhomes,
and apartments in the southwest corner of Somerset.
George Washington Carver Ave and Bloomington Rd are major arterials directing auto traffic
along with the minor arterials of Northridge Pkwy, Aspen Rd, and Stange Rd. Local streets
within the residential area are local traffic only because of limited access from major arterials
and minor arterials. Bicyclists and pedestrians are still able to circulate along the food
blvds and market blvds. As new development progresses north across Bloomington Rd the
extension of food blvds and Stange Market Blvd will create the framework that development
will infill around.

proposal of urban food system
and circulation typologies -
Somerset, Ames, IA
bloomington road
stange market blvd extension
multi-family housing
existing single family housing

george washington carver ave
food blvd
private production gardens
stange market blvd cpul
proposed commerical + retail +

office + housing
AA
BB kingston food blvd
allotment gardens
existing apartments
asp
en
road aspen food blvd
neighborhood farm
proposed elementary school
existing commercial + office
ark way
rid ge p allotment gardens
h
nort
stange road
existing apartments/townhomes
figure 36
0 150 300 600ft
figure 37
kingston street
the urban food system in 2025
There are many activities happening today Friday June 5th

near the intersection of Stange Market Blvd and Kingston
Food Blvd. Stange is the center of activity in Ames from the
processing/storage/
beginning of spring to the first snow fall of the year. The core
market stand
of the all the activities are the urban farmers and community
members growing fruits and vegetables for personal
consumption and/or commercial resale in the urban food
system.
20ft
The urban farmers are managing parcels half an acre
or larger and processing their crops in their own market
vegetables/fruit trees
10
building. The farmer and their staff are washing the produce
5
and then canning, drying or freezing items. As community
0
members circulate along the bike trails and food blvds they
can stop at the market and purchase items from the urban
STANGE MARKET BLVD + KINGSTON FOOD BLVD

farmer. The urban farmer though also sells his products at
stormwater/vegetation
the grocery store across the street from his parcel. There is
buffer
no need for any truck because his garden cart is faster.
Across the food blvd’s bike path community members, that

rent plots, have organized themselves into a CSA. Today
Stange Road
they are picking the weekly shares for their members to pick
up in a couple of hours. Each of their 10 plots of 300 sq ft
are producing about 10 different items from salad greens,
onions, tomatoes, and eggplant. As part of their rental fee
they use a small space in the storage building to wash all
their produce and box it up in the CSA crates. When their
CSA members pick up their crates they will bring back an
section AA
kingston food blvd
empty crate in exchange of the new weekly share.
Its about 10 am this Friday morning. Bicyclist and CyRide

buses have been going up and down Stange just on the
figure 38
housing/office/commercial
other side of the vegetated stormwater buffer. The buffer
helps catch any emissions that may drift from the street and
it also helps capture all the stormwater from the surrounding
streets and buildings. The buffer sure makes the production
plots a lot quieter and attracts a lot of bird species and
wildlife.
Tomorrow is our annual beginning of the summer
pedestrian
community food festival. The festival is meant to celebrate
the new year and meet the urban farmers that are farming
along the market blvds, food blvds, and city farms. The
CADC holds community garden clean up days throughout
the year and tomorrow they are having their second of the
production/processing/market stand
year. Tomorrow’s clean up day will be meant to clean up

any waste from the year’s first crops and condense all
the compost in the community at a few of the city farms.
Community members and urban farmers all are able to get
compost from the CADC throughout the year that has been
collected.
Saturdays are always very busy on the market blvd. The

blvd is a continuous landscape that families and individuals
bike and walk along. The blvd is a safe route to the city
farms, parks and schools where the more active recreation
activities are centered. Today Saturday June 6 as part of the
bike trail
8ft
festival the food blvds are busy with community members

selling produce at the stands. Small market buildings can
4
be rented from the CADC to sell produce to community

2
0
members. Today though as part of the festival CADC

removes the fee to rent the small market buildings so many
KINGSTON FOOD BLVD
pedestrian
community members rent them together in advance.
Every Saturday morning is the same. When you walk done

housing/office/commercial
the market blvd cafes and restaurants have their doors

section BB
open and have set up tables and chairs outdoors. You can
smell the sweet butter milk pancakes and peppery sausage.
The smells always seem much richer when the milk and
sausage are grown on the urban farms from the peri-urban
Stange Road
processing + Kingston Food Blvd public transportation + bicyclists only managed by
storage community plots fruit trees urban farmer
composting
rentable market
stand
storage + processing +
market stand
figure 39
STANGE MARKET
BLVD+ KINGSTON
edges of the city. At the peri-urban edge livestock and small grains are
FOOD BLVD
produced. Today though because of the festival the streets and businesses are overflowing
looking west
with community members. Farmers are giving tours and children are running up and down
the rows of carrots, lettuce and cabbage. Most of the community members always go to The perspective above
one neighborhood farm or urban farm. As community members part of their taxes go to represents Stange Road.
support the farmers at these farms. The tours allow community members to meet their The current road would
be retrofitted into market
farmers and create a relationship with each other.
blvd in Somerset from
Northridge Pkwy to
For the rest of the morning community members will be coming and going from the local Bloomington Rd. The
cafes and restaurants and visiting with community members and farmers at the small road would then continue
north from Bloomington
market stands along the market blvd and food blvds. Today as part of the festival the as a backbone that
afternoon is filled with events from the clean up day to sports games at the neighborhood development would
farm and school. Within the neighborhood along the food blvds neighborhood organizations follow. Community plots
would be created and
have recently in the last two years created block garden parties. Many of the blocks have
rented by individuals
organized themselves and have been holding these parties to show off their beautiful annually and .5 acre and
gardens and in some cases sell many of their products that they are growing in their larger parcels would be
gardens. Colors along the food blvds are vibrant blues, pinks, yellows and violets. managed for commercial
production by new urban
Community members have begun to market fresh cut flowers and many individuals along farmers.
the blocks have even created businesses out their own backyards.

You would think that you were in a ghost town on the weekends if you would happen to
drive down one the streets. During the weekend when families are not off to work or school
the food blvds and market blvds are the primary route to and from places either by bike or
walking. The paths are lined with edible landscaping such as gooseberries and apples trees.
5 years ago the CADC had inventoried all the fruit trees in the city. Community members
KINGSTON FOOD can list their fruit trees so that others may come and share in on the harvest every year.
BLVD
looking west During the week you can always pick out the urban farmers because during the weekend
these parcels become empty and the community gardens are crawling with members
The perspective below managing their plots. The food blvd is a linear community garden. Within the food blvd
represents the food
members are able to share tools or bring their own. Washing stations and composting
blvd connecting Stange
Road with the proposed areas are provided for members to share. The community garden is basically the same
residential development except all the storage and processing happens in one building. Plots are 300 sq ft or larger
in Somerset. The food so that community members can choose how large of plot they would like to have. All
boulevard is only
for pedestrians and the rents each year support the upkeep of the community gardens such as new raised
bicyclists. Community beds, weed control, and new tools. The community gardens are ran by the neighborhood
plots would be created
along the boulevard to
be rented by individuals
annually. figure 40
private fruit trees private production
private lots composting
plots
pedestrians +
bicyclists only
washing station +
private storage tool storage
300 sq ft
community plots

processing +
storage
composting + shared community

300 sq ft
rainwater harvesting plot
community plots
secure fencing
wy
Pk
Nor
ge
thri
rid
dge
rth
Lan
No
e
figure 41
NORTHRIDGE
organizations in the city and recently many of them have begun to
PKWY +
NORTHRIDGE
capture the rainwater from the rooftops of the small buildings and washing stations. All the
LANE ALLOTMENT
members then share the rainwater to be used in the garden.
GARDEN
looking southwest
Just like the community gardens the neighborhood and urban farms are flourishing with
activity on the weekends. Neighborhood farms act as neighborhood parks and the urban The perspective below
farms are destination parks. An urban farm was started 5 years ago on the southeastern represents a community
corner of Somerset and now today it competes with Ada Hayden park near the north garden in the existing
residential neighborhood
central edge of town. Community members walk the trails, along the prairie pothole
of Somerset. Community
wetlands that are historic to this area of Iowa, on the farm and visit the cafe at the farmer’s plots would be created to
market. Each neighborhood farm and urban farm has their own processing facilities and be rented by individuals
market on the farm. annually.
The farms offer classes from urban farmer training, composting 101, aquaculture, and food
preservation. Many of the neighborhood farmers also provide employment opportunities
for school children and low income individuals. The farmers teach them many skills from
growing your own food to simple skills as time management, business etiquette, and other
life skills.
The neighborhood farm today in Somerset as part of the festival is offering special
classes on things such as how to build a raised bed and how to start a vermiculture box
NEIGHBORHOOD at your home. The neighborhood farm in Somerset is part of the elementary school. The
FARM + farmer here works with the teachers and students on their own garden at the school. The
ELEMENTARY students are able to help plant in the spring and harvest vegetables from the gardens
SCHOOL throughout the year. Today students are showing their parents the garden as they head to
looking south the soccer field. The community soccer league is wrapping a spring soccer season. The
This neighborhood farm neighborhood farm and school is a community park.
(1-3.5 acres) in Somerset
would be sited adjacent
to a new elementary Tonight as a special event during the festival the CADC as organized a community wide
school. With 2.5 acres outdoor film festival. A big screen will be assembled on the soccer field at the elementary
of productive growing
school and community members and their children are invited to the event. The focus of
area the neighborhood
farm would be able to the film festival is the Ames food system. CADC has gathered a set of films from the last
supply 112 residents with 15 years from community members. The films are created by urban farmers, community
their fruit and vegetables members, and students all on true stories of events they have each been involved in.
based on demand and
The most important aspect of the urban food system is how the community has come
yield. The farm would
be managed as a together around food.
commercial business
by a urban farmer. The
farmer’s staff would
assist in production,
processing and
marketing. Hoop houses
would allow year around figure 42
production of a select
number of crops. trail connection to
customer parking elementary school fruit & berries buffer
storage,processing,
fruit trees school
rotational production indoor market
hoop houses plots

case studies of city + county + state policies
and guidelines of local food systems
The City of Vancouver, B.C. and Cleveland are important case studies to be evaluated when
developing urban food system policies and guidelines. The City of Vancouver intiated their
policies early while Cleveland has just recently enacted their programs out of response to the
enormous amount of urban agriculture occurring voluntarily and the amount of vacant land
within the city.
Vancouver, B.C.
The city of Vancouver is a leader in the local food system movement because of their
municipal supported urban agriculture. Their intiative began in 2003 with the Food Policy Task
Force that was given the task of developing a Food Action Plan to foster the development of a
just and sustainable food system for the City of Vancouver. The first action item that the task
force recommended to the city was the creation of their first elected Food Policy Council. In the
2004 the council began to integrate and build upon items in the Food Action Plan. Their first
step was the creation of the Vancouver Food Charter that identified the five principles of the
cities food system (Council 2007,2).

• Community Economic Development
• Ecological Health
• Social Justice
• Collaboration and Participation
• Celebration
Recently in 2009 the Managing Director of Social Development and Director of Planning
along with Manager of Sustainability and the Director of Development Services recommended
to the City Council to approve their urban agriculture guidelines for the private realm. At the
time two developments were encouraging urban agriculture thus the city felt it was important
to have guidelines for future developments and to require private outdoor space for residential
units. The guidelines specified specific design considerations, facilities, number and size of
plots, and plant species as part of edible landscaping (Services, 2009).

The following is Design Considerations 3.1.3 Number and Size of Garden Plots
A: Where a consolidated common outdoor amenity space is provided, garden plots should be
provided for 30% of the residential units that do not have access to private outdoor space of
more than 100 square feet.
Cleveland
The City of Cleveland has acted out of response and concern of the thousands of acres of
vacant land and the enormous potential that urban agriculture has shown in the city. The city’s
first policy enacted was meant to protect the current urban agriculture activities in the city. The
city thus established the Urban Garden District Zoning Code to unsure that urban agriculture
is “appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local food production, community
health, community education, garden-related job training, environmental enhancement,
preservation of green space, and community enjoyment on sites for which urban gardens
represent the highest and best use for the community” (Cleveland, 2008).
The following is an excerpt from the city’s zoning code.
336.01 Urban Garden District

The “Urban Garden District” is hereby established as part of the Zoning Code to ensure
that urban garden areas are appropriately located and protected to meet needs for local
food production, community health, community education, garden-related job training,
environmental enhancement, preservation of green space, and community enjoyment on sites
for which urban gardens represent the highest and best use for the community.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)
336.02 Definitions
(a) “Community garden” means an area of land managed and maintained by a group of
individuals to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as
flowers, for personal or group use, consumption or donation. Community gardens may
be divided into separate plots for cultivation by one or more individuals or may be farmed
collectively by members of the group and may include common areas maintained and used by
group members.
(b) “Market garden” means an area of land managed and maintained by an individual or group
of individuals to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as
flowers, to be sold for profit.
(c) “Greenhouse” means a building made of glass, plastic, or fiberglass in which plants are
cultivated.
(d) “Hoophouse” means a structure made of PVC piping or other material covered with
translucent plastic, constructed in a “half-round” or “hoop” shape.
(e) “Coldframe” means an unheated outdoor structure consisting of a wooden or concrete

frame and a top of glass or clear plastic, used for protecting seedlings and plants from the
cold.(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)
336.03 Permitted Main Uses

Only the following main uses shall be permitted in an Urban Garden District:
(a) community gardens which may have occasional sales of items grown at the site;
(b) market gardens, including the sale of crops produced on the site.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)
336.04 Permitted Accessory Uses

Only the following accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in an Urban Garden
District:
(a) greenhouses, hoophouses, cold-frames, and similar structures used to extend the growing
season;
(b) open space associated with and intended for use as garden areas;
(c) signs limited to identification, information and directional signs, including sponsorship
information where the sponsorship information is clearly secondary to other permitted
information on any particular sign, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05;
(d) benches, bike racks, raised/accessible planting beds, compost bins, picnic tables,
seasonal farm stands, fences, garden art, rain barrel systems, chicken coops, beehives, and
children’s play areas;
(e) buildings, limited to tool sheds, shade pavilions, barns, rest-room facilities with
composting toilets, and planting preparation houses, in conformance with the regulations of
Section 336.05.
(f) off-street parking and walkways, in conformance with the regulations of Section 336.05.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07)
336.05 Supplemental Regulations

Uses and structures in an Urban Garden District shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with the following regulations.
(a) Location. Buildings shall be set back from property lines of a Residential District a
minimum distance of five (5) feet.
(b) Height. No building or other structure shall be greater than twenty-five (25) feet in height.
(c) Building Coverage. The combined area of all buildings, excluding greenhouses and
hoophouses, shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the garden site lot area.
(d) Parking and Walkways. Off-street parking shall be permitted only for those garden sites
exceeding 15,000 square feet in lot area. Such parking shall be limited in size to ten percent
(10%) of the garden site lot area and shall be either unpaved or surfaced with gravel or similar
loose material or shall be paved with pervious paving material. Walkways shall be unpaved
except as necessary to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.
(e) Signs. Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area per side and shall not exceed six
(6) feet in height.
(f) Seasonal Farm Stands. Seasonal farm stands shall be removed from the premises or
stored inside a building on the premises during that time of the year when the garden is not
open for public use.
(g) Fences. Fences shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, shall be at least fifty percent
(50%) open if they are taller than four (4) feet, and shall be constructed of wood, chain link,
or ornamental metal. For any garden that is 15,000 square feet in area or greater and is in
a location that is subject to design review and approval by the City Planning Commission
or Landmarks Commission, no fence shall be installed without review by the City Planning
Director, on behalf of the Commission, who may confer with a neighborhood design review
committee. If one exists, so that best efforts are taken to ensure that the fence is compatible
in appearance and placement with the character of nearby properties.
(Ord. No. 208-07. Passed 3-5-07, eff. 3-9-07
In addition to the Department of Planning that intiated the new zoning code last year the
Department of Economic Development just began a new program titled “Gardening to
Greenbacks” The program is meant to provide low interest loans and grants up to $3,000 for
members of farmer cooperatives and other community supported agriculture programs that
produce and sell local food. The grants are meant to assist in start up costs that may include
tools, irrigation systems, rain barrels, greenhouses and signage (Development, 2009).
definitions
agricultural conservation easements - deed restrictions landowners voluntarily place on their

property to keep land available for agriculture
agricultural urbanism - prescribes the full integration of the agri-food system within the
planning, design, development and function of cities and vice-versa. Agricultural Urbanism is
a mechanism to connect urbanites to their environment and to their agri-food system, reduce
their dependence on an ecologically unsound and increasingly vulnerable global-scale agrifood
system and create a significant regional economic sector. (Kent Mullinix 2008)
city manager - appoints all department heads and is responsible to the city council for proper
administration of all city business and for all the annual budget; hired by the city council (city
of Ames)
community agriculture and design center (CADC) - the organization/department that

would have jurisdiction over developing an urban food system; duties and responsibilities
would be to develop UA proposals, strategize with existing stake holders, provide technical
design assistance and provide grants and funding to institutions, grocers, neighborhood
organizations, individual community members, local producers and municipal departments
community design center - non-profit organization that offers grants and technical assistance
to help organizations/individuals/neighborhoods use professional architectural and planning
services (Pittsburgh CDC)
community supported agriculture (CSA) - form of marketing by a producer where a family

or individual purchases a share annually at the time of planting in return for a share during the
harvest each week; producer and shareholders shares the risk together in this agreement
continuous landscape - a network of planted open spaces in a city which are literally spatially
continuous, such as linear parks or inter connected open spaces that are virtually car free
allowing for bicyclists and pedestrian movement (Andre Viljoen 2005)
continuous production - community scale; all individuals managing community gardens up to

urban commercial farms are involved in food production, processing and marketing
market blvd - a form of circulation within an urban community specially for public
transportation and/or bicyclists and pedestrians; this form of circulation is incorporated with a
continuous productive landscape managed by individuals and/or local producers
food access - both geographical and monetary degree of access to food, determined by
income, supply, transport, storage and other factors (Andre Viljoen 2005)
food council - group of stakeholders that provides support to governments and citizens in
developing policy and programs related to the local food supply
food district - geographical sector of an urban community centered around the facilities
and activities of production and processing including retail, institutions, education, office,
architectural and landscape character and community events
food miles - the average distance that food travels from field to plate
food security - giving populations both economic and physical access to a supply of food,
sufficient in both quality and quantity social level and income (Andre Viljoen 2005)
food urbanism - how food relates to the organization of a city and how it becomes
infrastructure that transforms the urban experience
land trust - an agreement where by one party (trustee) agrees to hold ownership of a piece of
real property for the benefit of another party (beneficiary)
local food system - chain of activities connecting food production, processing, distribution,
consumption and waste management including the regulatory institutions and activities
non-profit organization (NPO) - solely to provide programs and services that are of public
benefit that are otherwise not provided by local, state and federal entities
peri-urban agriculture - agriculture occurring on the urban/rural fringe of a city usually at

larger scales than urban agriculture
urban agriculture (UA) - high yield market gardens for fruit and vegetable growing found
on the ground rooftops, facades and fences sometimes including nuts, timber, animals, and
aquaculture

bibliography
Adams, Don, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of Full Circle Farm (November 6, 2008).
Andre Viljoen, Katrin Bohn and Joe Howe. Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban
Agriculture for Sustainable Cities. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005.
Bailkey, Martin. A Study of the Contexts within which Urban Vacant Land is Accessed for Community
Open Space. Dissertation, Madison: ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 2003.
Benson, Jeff, interview by Jason Grimm. City of Ames Planning and Housing: Planner (October 23,
2008).
Bhattarya, Shefali. Strategy for Identifying and Evaluating Sites for Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of
Gainesville, FL. Dissertation, Gainesville: University of Florida, 2005.
Black, Norine, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of Blacks Heritage Farm (November 4, 2008).
Bowman, Ann O’M. Terra Incognita: Vacant Land and Urban Strategies. Washington D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 2004.
Burkhart, Jeff and Jill, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Picket Fence Creamery (October 5, 2008).
Cleveland, City of. Chapter 336 Urban Garden District. June 30, 2008. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
clevelandcodes/cco_part3_336.html (accessed March 25, 2009).
Council, Vancouver Food Policy. Vancouver Food Charter: Context and Background. professional report,
Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2007.
DeMoss, Richard, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of DeMoss Pumpkin Farm (November 1, 2008).
Department, Story County Planning and Zoning. The Story County Local Food System. Professional
Report, Nevada: Story County Planning and Zoning Department, 2008.
Development, City of Cleveland Department of Economic. Small Businesses and Retail. 2009. http://
www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/EconomicDevelopment/Sm
allBusinessandRetail#gardening (accessed March 25, 2009).
Development, North Central Regional Center for Rural. Community Capitals. June 23, 2008. http://
www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/commcap/7capitals.htm (accessed November 11, 2008).
Girardet, Herbert. Cities People Planet. Chicheaster: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2004.
GRACE. Sustainable Table. 2008. http://www.sustainabletable.org (accessed November 10, 2008).
Group, Mari Gallagher Research & Consulting. Examing the Impact of Food Deserts on Public Health in
Chicago. professional report, Chicago: LaSalle Bank, 2006.
Guthrie, Gary and Nancy, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Growing Harmony Farm (November
11, 2008).
Hofstrand, Eugene Takle and Don. Global warming - agriculture’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
April 2008. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/TakApr08.html (accessed December
3, 2008).

Kent Mullinix, Deborah Henderson, Mark Holland, Janine de la Salle, Edward Porter, and Patricia
Fleming. Agricultural Urbanism and Municipal Supported Agriculture: A New Food System Path for
Sustainable Cities. professional report, Vancouver B.C.: Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2008.
Kulikowski, Dr. Ron Wimberley and Mick. “Mayday 23: World population becomes more urban than
rural.” NC State University News Service, May 22, 2007.
Lindsey, Rebecca. Looking for Lawns. scholarly report, California: NASA’s Ames Research Center,
2005.
Lynch, Joe and Lonna, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Onion Creek Farm (Oct 29, 2008).
Mitchell, Stacy. Big-Box Swindle: the true cost of mega-retailers and the fight for America’s independent
businesses. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.
Newstrom, Ryan, interview by Jason Grimm. Story County, Iowa: County Planner/Long Range Planning
Manager (October 23, 2008).
Pirog, Rich. Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and
greenhouse gas emissions. Scholarly Report, Ames: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2001.
Pollen, Michael. “Farmer in Chief.” New York Times, October 10, 2008.
Rinehart, Greg, interview by Jason Grimm. Owner of Rinehart’s Family Farm (November 1, 2008).
Services, City of Vancouver Community. Urban Agriculture Guidelines for the Private Realm.
professional report, Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 2009.
Shawgo, Steve, interview by Jason Grimm. City of Ames Parks and Recreation: Super Intendent of
Parks (October 23, 2008).
Singh, Craig Palosky and Rakesh. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. September 24, 2008. http://
www.kff.org/newsroom/ehbs092408.cfm (accessed March 24, 2009).
Swenson, Dave. The Economic Impacts of Increased Fruit and Vegetable Production and Consumption
in Iowa: Phase II. Scholarly Report, Ames: Regional Food Systems Working Group: Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture, 2006.
Wilber, Scott and Julie, interview by Jason Grimm. Owners of Wilber’s Northside Market (October 7,
2008).

Community Officials
1. What is the current city boundary?
2. What are your requirements on temporary markets?
3. What requirements does your health inspector have on farmers market?
4. How do the planning office and the municipal comprehensive plan address sites for
urban growth?
5. Does your parks department or the city manage any type of agriculture within
municipal boundaries?
6. How has your parks department funded management of park land?
7. Does your parks department see any future growth in the foreseeable future?
8. Does the community have any community gardens currently?
9. How do you define vacant land or developable land?
a. Zero building value
b. No structure
c. City owned property considered vacant + developable
10. How do you feel about vacant land negative/positive?
11. What are your intentions or policies of vacant land?
12. What planning practices are involved in the process of passing over control of vacant
parcels?
13. Please define the status of your park land and how you see it changing in the future?
14. What are your strategies in managing open space/park land and how do you define its
potential or user group?
15. Revenue sources
16. Own programs
17. Do you see a program of urban agriculture being a vital source of your parks program?
page 86 appendix a food urbanism

Local Producers
1. What type of products do you produce or harvest on your land?
2. How many laborers do you require to manage your farm?
3. What type of markets do you sell your goods too?
4. Do your goods require any processing before resale? If so do you do your own
processing or do you take your goods somewhere else?
5. What infrastructure does your business require for you to plant, manage, harvest,
process, and market your goods?
6. How many acres of land or livestock are you able to manage?
7. In your first hand perspective what are the hardest issues local farmers are being faced
with?
8. Where do you produce your goods? Rural/Urban, Miles from market
9. If a RFP was sent out to local farmers to manage and harvest open space with an Iowa
Community what type of infrastructure would be required?
a sustainable design option for growing urban communities appendix b page 87

Urban Farm Enter Total Acres Available Here:
page 88
square feet
lbs/acre lbs/capita "capita"/acre % of total acres acres dedicated pounds produced consumers needed dedicated
Potatoes 13333 37.2 0.002790 11% 0.00 0 0 0
Sweet Potatoes 8888 4.6 0.000518 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Asparagus 3888 1.1 0.000283 1% 0.00 0 0 0
appendix c
Tomatoes 44444 19.9 0.000448 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Carrots 18883 8.7 0.000461 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Green Beans 13333 2.1 0.000158 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Eggplant 14444 1 0.000069 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Garlic 3888 2.8 0.000720 3% 0.00 0 0 0
Bell Peppers 3000 7 0.002333 9% 0.00 0 0 0
Broccoli 12000 6.1 0.000508 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Cabbage 13000 8.2 0.000631 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Cucumbers 8000 6.3 0.000788 3% 0.00 0 0 0
Collard Greens 3333 0.5 0.000150 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Kale 3333 0.3 0.000090 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Lettuce (leaf) 3333 15 0.004500 17% 0.00 0 0 0
Mustard Greens 3333 0.4 0.000120 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Spinach 4000 2 0.000500 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Onions 16000 19.8 0.001238 5% 0.00 0 0 0
Radishes 11000 0.5 0.000045 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Cauliflower 13000 1.7 0.000131 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Pumpkin 20000 4.8 0.000240 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Squash 15000 5 0.000333 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Basil 2000 0.3 0.000150 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Snow Peas 12222 3 0.000245 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Sweet Corn 8000 8.6 0.001075 4% 0.00 0 0 0
Raspberries 4000 0.4 0.000100 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Watermelon 30000 15.9 0.000530 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Apples 9000 17.8 0.001978 7% 0.00 0 0 0
Apricots 645 0.1 0.000155 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Cherries 1053 4.6 0.004368 17% 0.00 0 0 0
food urbanism
Plums 5000 1 0.000200 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Peaches 8000 4.6 0.000575 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Total "capita"/acre 0.026430 100%
Neighborhood Farm Enter Total Acres Available Here:
square feet
lbs/acre lbs/capita "capita"/acre % of total acres acres dedicated pounds produced consumers needed dedicated
Potatoes 13333 37.2 0.002790 13% 0.00 0 0 0
Sweet Potatoes 8888 4.6 0.000518 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Asparagus 3888 1.1 0.000283 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Tomatoes 44444 19.9 0.000448 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Carrots 18883 8.7 0.000461 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Green Beans 13333 2.1 0.000158 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Eggplant 14444 1 0.000069 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Garlic 3888 2.8 0.000720 3% 0.00 0 0 0
Bell Peppers 3000 7 0.002333 11% 0.00 0 0 0
Broccoli 12000 6.1 0.000508 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Cabbage 13000 8.2 0.000631 3% 0.00 0 0 0
Cucumbers 8000 6.3 0.000788 4% 0.00 0 0 0
Collard Greens 3333 0.5 0.000150 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Kale 3333 0.3 0.000090 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Lettuce (leaf) 3333 15 0.004500 20% 0.00 0 0 0
Mustard Greens 3333 0.4 0.000120 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Spinach 3333 2 0.000600 3% 0.00 0 0 0
Onions 16000 19.8 0.001238 6% 0.00 0 0 0
Radishes 11000 0.5 0.000045 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Cauliflower 13000 1.7 0.000131 1% 0.00 0 0 0

Pumpkin 20000 4.8 0.000240 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Squash 15000 5 0.000333 2% 0.00 0 0 0
Basil 2000 0.3 0.000150 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Snow Peas 12222 3 0.000245 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Raspberries 4000 0.4 0.000100 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Watermelon 20000 15.9 0.000795 4% 0.00 0 0 0
Apples 9000 17.8 0.001978 9% 0.00 0 0 0
Apricots 5000 0.1 0.000020 0% 0.00 0 0 0
Cherries 5000 4.6 0.000920 4% 0.00 0 0 0
Plums 5000 1 0.000200 1% 0.00 0 0 0
Peaches 8000 4.6 0.000575 3% 0.00 0 0 0
appendix d page 89
Allotment/Community Garden
page 90
Enter Total Square Feet of Plot Available Here:
square feet
lbs/acre lbs/capita "capita"/acre % of total sq ft dedicated pounds produced consumers needed
Potatoes 13333 37.2 0.002790 16% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Sweet Potatoes 8888 4.6 0.000518 3% 0.0 0.0 0.00
appendix e
Asparagus 3888 1.1 0.000283 2% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Tomatoes 44444 19.9 0.000448 3% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Carrots 18883 8.7 0.000461 3% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Green Beans 13333 2.1 0.000158 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Eggplant 14444 1 0.000069 0% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Garlic 3888 2.8 0.000720 4% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Bell Peppers 3000 7 0.002333 13% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Broccoli 12000 6.1 0.000508 3% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Cabbage 13000 8.2 0.000631 4% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Cucumbers 8000 6.3 0.000788 4% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Collard Greens 3333 0.5 0.000150 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Kale 3333 0.3 0.000090 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Lettuce (leaf) 3333 15 0.004500 26% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Mustard Greens 3333 0.4 0.000120 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Spinach 3333 2 0.000600 3% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Onions 16000 19.8 0.001238 7% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Radishes 11000 0.5 0.000045 0% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Cauliflower 13000 1.7 0.000131 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Pumpkin 20000 4.8 0.000240 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Squash 15000 5 0.000333 2% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Basil 2000 0.3 0.000150 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
Snow Peas 12222 3 0.000245 1% 0.0 0.0 0.00
food urbanism
locally and globally food, has become a common theme in many discussions. Motivations include the lack of productive urban land,
lack of societal knowledge of food growing and preparation, urban/rural conflict at the urban fringe, food
insecurity, lack of stable urban markets and uncontrolled urban growth.As a senior thesis in landscape architecture, the goal was to
research and design based on the theory Food Urbanism; how food relates to the organization of a city and how it becomes infrastructure
that transforms the urban experience. Continuous productive landscapes could become a tool and or mechanism to sustainable growth
in urban communities. As infrastructure in a city or town, continuous urban agriculture (UA) has the potential of being a thread
that is sewn through a community creating a rigid and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods, open spaces,
and urban markets. Research is based on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and studies of UA in
London, UK. Productive landscapes as tools to sustainable growth have only recently been written about in the U.S. and Canada. This
research demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially
and economically productive communities in Iowa. and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods,
open spaces, and urban markets. Research is based on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, landscape
architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism
demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially and economically productive communities in
Iowa. landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism As designers and
planners of urban landscapes, landscape architects hold a vital tool in the growth of any Iowa community. Motivations include the lack of
productive urban land, lack of societal knowledge of food growing and preparation, urban/rural conflict at the urban fringe, food insecurity,
lack of stable urban markets and uncontrolled urban growth.As a senior thesis in landscape architecture, the goal was to research
Food Urbanism; how food relates to the organization
and design based on the theory
of a city and how it becomes infrastructure that transforms the
urban experience. Continuous productive landscapes could become a tool and or mechanism to sustainable growth in
urban communities. As infrastructure in a city or town, continuous urban agriculture (UA) has the potential of being a thread that is
sewn through a community creating a rigid and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods, open spaces, and
urban markets. Research is based on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and studies of UA in London, UK.
demonstrates that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially and economically productive
communities in Iowa. landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism
and ecological backbone to growth that connects neighborhoods, open spaces, and urban markets. Research is based
on case studies, interviews of producers and city officials in Ames, IA and studies of UA in London, UK. Productive landscapes
as tools to sustainable growth have only recently been written about in the U.S. and Canada. This research demonstrates
that urban food systems have a potential of creating environmentally, socially and economically productive communities
in Iowa. landscape architecture, planning, urban food systems, urban land inventory, sustainable agriculture, urbanism
locally and globally food, has become a common theme in many discussions. Motivations include the lack of productive urban
land, lack of92societal knowledge of food growing and preparation, urban/rural conflict at the urban fringe, food insecurity, lack of
page
stable urban markets and uncontrolled urban growth.As a senior thesis in landscape architecture, the goal was to research and

Food Urbanism - A Sustainable Design Option For Urban Communities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Urbanism - A Sustainable Design Option For Urban Communities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

As designers and planners of urban landscapes, landscape architects hold a vital tool in the growth of any Iowa community.

JASON GRIMM BLA, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Studies

Special thanks to:

RICH PIROG, Associate Director of Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

RANDY BOECKENSTEDT, Transporation Research Specialist at ISU Center For Transportation

Research funded in part by the Iowa State University Foundation and

page 2 food urbanism

p 15 the urban case study

P II......... how can an urban food system organize a city?

p 50 the urban food system typology in the future urban fabric

typology of urban circulation within urban food system

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 3

calculating the potential of an urban system based on yield + scale of production

P III........ urban food system proposals and case studies

department/non-profit that implements urban system

p 78 case studies of city + county + state policies and

vancouver, british columbia

page 4 food urbanism

appendix a: community officials’ sample interview questions

table 1: C02 emissions of different distribution models in a food system

figure 1: Urban Food System

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 5

page 6 food urbanism

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 7

page 8 food urbanism

URBAN FOOD SYSTEM

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 9

As diabetes and other chronic diseases increase, health

Environmental health is an enormous concern of many organizations and individuals in the

In addition to food miles, food deserts, and

page 12 food urbanism

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 13

page 14 food urbanism

In addition to case studies and background knowledge (included in Continuous Productive

N policy, and structure of Ames. To understand

the fundamentals of the current local food

system, local producers were asked basic

interview questions about the fundamental

aspects of their food production. Figure 3

on the left represents the research process

Picket Fence Rinehart’s

Ames and the theory of Food Urbanism.

SYSTEM questions conducted with officials and

Harmony Creek Farm

Additional research and analysis was then

conducted on the number and location

of the city’s urban markets and nodes,

grocery, speciality food stores, and farmer’s

markets, restaurants and convenience

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 15

Managing Urban Growth/Urban Fringe Planning

page 16 food urbanism

GEORGE W CARVER AVE

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 17

page 18 food urbanism

Strategies in Managing Park Land

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 19

Story County, Iowa: Local Food System

Mechanics/Infrastructure of the Regional Food System

Storage, Processing, and Delivery

The Potential of Programs to Create Inventories of Land within City Limits

a sustainable design option for growing urban communities page 23

*radii = 10 min. walk at average speed