Ryerson University

Digital Commons @ Ryerson

Theses and dissertations

1-1-2011

Agri-town: Combining Urban Agriculture and

Affordable Housing for Food, Farm and Fortune
Stanley Lung Wai Cham
Ryerson University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/dissertations

Part of the Other Architecture Commons

Recommended Citation
Lung Wai Cham, Stanley, "Agri-town: Combining Urban Agriculture and Affordable Housing for Food, Farm and Fortune" (2011).
Theses and dissertations. Paper 1225.

This Thesis Project is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Ryerson. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and
dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Ryerson. For more information, please contact bcameron@ryerson.ca.
 Agri-town
Combining Urban Agriculture and Affordable Housing
for Food, Farm and Fortune

By

Lung Wai Cham, Stanley

Bachelor of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, 2008

A Design Thesis Project

presented to Ryerson University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Architecture
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2011

©(Stanley Lung Wai Cham) 2011

Author’s Declaration

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this Thesis Project.

I authorize Ryerson University to lend this Thesis Project to other institutions or
individuals for the purpose of scholarly research Stanley Lung Wai Cham.

I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this Thesis Project by photocopying

or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for
the purpose of scholarly research Stanley Lung Wai Cham.

iii
Abstract

Agri-town: Combining Urban Agriculture and Affordable Housing for Food, Farm and
Fortune
Lung Wai Cham, Stanley
Master of Architecture, 2011
Architecture, Ryerson University

As global population and migration to cities continue to increase, urban poverty

and shortages of affordable housing have become significant issues in Toronto,

making it necessary to develop a model to mitigate these issues. This book focuses

on incorporating urban agriculture with affordable housing, and proposes a building

typology that combines the two. The idea is to provide accommodation along with space

for low-income households to grow their own food. It is expected that by making these

elemental needs accessible and affordable, the problem of food security will be offset,

improvements will be made to the food system, and housing shortages will be alleviated

within the city of Toronto.

v
 I dedicate this thesis to all my friends, family, and supervisor.

This work would not have been possible without your infinetly support.

Thank you.

vii
Table of Contents
Author’s Declaration
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Illustration

1.0. Introduction 2
1.1. Background 3
1.2. Food Related Issues in Toronto 6
1.3. Issues on Housing in Toronto 12
1.4. Research Questions 14
1.5. Methodology 15
1.6. Location 16

2.0. Urban Agriculture and Food Security 18

2.1. Definition of Urban Agriculture 19
2.2. Benefits of Urban Agriculture 21
2.3. Food Security 23

3.0. Urban Agriculture and Theories 30

3.1. Urban Agriculture in Urban Scale 30
3.2. Urban Agriculture in Community Scale 37
3.3. Urban Agriculture in Building Scale 42
3.4. Urban Agriculture Strategies 47

4.0 Food, Farm, and Housing Standards 52

4.1. Food Consumption 53
4.2. Food Types 55
4.3. Food Serving 57
4.4. Farm Yield 62
4.5. Current Agricultural System 68
4.6. Vertical Agriculture Urbanism 69

5.0. Design Proposal 76

5.1. Urban Context 77
5.2. Site Selection 78
5.3. Existing Urban Conditions 82
5.4. Zoning and Connectivity 84
5.5. Programing 88
5.6. Circulation Loop 92
5.7. System Integration 102
Conclusion 114

Appendix 133

Bibliography 148

ix
List of Illustration

Figure 1.0.1. World Population Growth & City Migration

Figure 1.1.1. Average Canadian Spending Pattern
Figure 1.2.1 Cause of Death 2004, Statistic Canada
Figure 1.2.2 Toronto Food System
Figure 1.2.3 Food bank users and expenditure for low-income family in Toronto
Figure 1.2.4 Toronto Food Miles Distance
Figure 1.3.1 Toronto Governmen-assisted Housing Production
Figure 1.5.1 Research Conceptual Model Diagram

Figure 2.1.1 Rural-Urban-Transect Diagram

Figure 2.2.1 Urban Agriculture Streams and Benefits
Figure 2.3.1 Map of Energy consumption (kcal/person/day) per country
Figure 2.3.2 Global Status of Biotech Crops in 2004

Figure 3.1.1 The Phalanstere Floor Plan

Figure 3.1.2 The Phalanstere by Charles Fourier
Figure 3.1.3 The Garden Cities Planning by Ebenezer Howard
Figure 3.1.4 Broadacre City Plan View
Figure 3.1.5 Broadacre City Perspective by Frank Lloyd Wright
Figure 3.2.1 Victory Garden Posters
Figure 3.2.2 Wychwood Green Art Barns Greenhouse Interior & Exterior
Figure 3.2.3 Brickworks Discovery Garden in winter
Figure 3.2.4 Brickworks Discovery Garden Aerial
Figure 3.2.5 Brickworks Discovery Garden in summer

Figure 3.3.1 60 Richmond East Community Garden

Figure 3.3.2 60 Richmond East Exterior & Sectional Perspective
Figure 3.3.3 Rotterdam Market Hall interior
Figure 3.3.4 Rotterdam Market Hall by MVRDV
Figure 3.3.5 Public Farm 1 in P.S.1 Program Distribution
x
Figure 3.3.6 Public Farm 1 in P.S.1 MoMa New York by WORK AC
Figure 3.4.1 Vertical Farming Proposal & Water System
Figure 3.4.2 Continuous Productive Urban Landscape
Figure 3.4.3 Food City Study by MVRDV, the Why Factory
Figure 4.1.1 Daily Average Calories Intake of Male and Female Canadians- Trends
Figure 4.1.2 Daily and Annual Total Calories Intake of Male and Female Canadian
Figure 4.2.1 Ontario Availability of Food Groups and Greenbelt
Figure 4.2.2 Ontario’s Seasonal Availability Calendar
Figure 4.3.1 Food Serving Count Unit in Food Guide
Figure 4.3.2 Food Pyramid
Figure 4.4.1 Food Crop Yielding
Figure 4.4.2 Annually arable area per person
Figure 4.5.1 Current Agriculture System
Figure 4.5.2 Agricultural Urbanism
Figure 4.5.3 Vertical Agricultural Urbanism
Figure 4.5.4 Transact Estimation

Figure 5.1.1 Chinatown statistic

Figure 5.1.2 Potential area for Agricultural production
Figure 5.3.1 Site Photos Location
Figure 5.3.2 Site Photos
Figure 5.3.3 Connections with urban condition
Figure 5.3.4 Proposed Street Functions
Figure 5.4.1 Zoning and Massing
Figure 5.4.2 Site Plan
Figure 5.5.1 Unit Arable Space
Figure 5.5.2 Building Section
Figure 5.6.1 Loop Circulation
Figure 5.6.2 Residential Units
Figure 5.6.3 Loop Circulation Interior Perspective
Figure 5.6.4 Loop Circulation Exterior Perspective
xi
Figure 5.6.5 Agricultural Production Area
Figure 5.6.6 Commercial & Retail Area
Figure 5.6.7 Low-rise Rooftop Perspective
Figure 5.7.1 Water Flow & Irrigation System
Figure 5.7.2 Vertical Circulation & Distribution System
Figure 5.7.3 Central Promenade & Water Channel Perspective
Figure 5.7.4 Social & Recreational Area
Figure 5.7.5 Technical & Service Area
Figure 5.8.1 Low-rise Sectional Experience
Figure 5.8.2 Mid-rise Sectional Experience
Figure 5.8.3 High-rise Sectional Experience
Figure 5.8.4 Aerial View Perspective
Figure 5.6.5 Queen Street Entranceway Perspective
Figure 5.6.6 Mid-rise Courtyard Perspective
Figure 5.6.7 Dundas Street Entranceway Perspective
Figure 5.6.8 Grocery Store & Rooftop Farm Perspective
Figure 5.6.9 Community Sky Garden Perspective
Figure 5.6.10 Hydroponic Sky Garden Perspective
Figure 5.6.11 View from Context Rooftop Perspective

Appendix 1 Local Crops Type in Toronto

Appendix 2 Agricultural Land Type in Canada
Appendix 3 Daily Food Severing & Calories Intake
Appendix 4 Food Cost Calculation
Appendix 5 Spending Pattern Breakdown
Appendix 6 Alexandra Park Revitalization Masterplan Proposal
Appendix 7 Chinatown Yielding Calculation Exercise
Appendix 8 Transect Zone Design Studies
Appendix 9 Yielding Calculation & Design Exercise

xii
1
1.0 Introduction

Food and shelter are two basic necessities for every person. These essentials
are in acute shortage both regionally and globally, due to the exponential growth of
population and migration towards cities. In the City of Toronto, nearly 1 million people
are food bank users as of 2010 (DBFB, 2010). Government-assisted housing has been
in short supply for fourteen consecutive years since 1997 (City of Toronto, 2004). The
city has struggled to resolve these two critical issues throughout the past decade. This
study focuses on incorporating urban agriculture with affordable housing as a building
typology in order to create architectural models that not only provide shelter, but allot
space for low-income households to grow their own food. It is expected that by making
these elemental needs available, accessible, and affordable, the problem of food
security will be met, the food system will improve, and the housing shortage within the
City of Toronto will be eased.

Urban agriculture has facilitated self-sustenance for both developing and

developed cities, as demonstrated by case studies of cities such as Havana and
Sydney. The capital of Cuba managed to produce 3 million tons of vegetables in 2003
(which was 1.3 million tons more than their previous year’s produce) and created
35,000 new jobs in that same year (Steel, 2009). Sydney regional agriculture produced
and supplied 8 percent of mushrooms, 70 percent of tomatoes, and 95 percent of spring
onions within the Sydney region for consumption within the city (TFPC 1999, 8). The city
of Toronto has a policy of promoting urban agriculture within the metropolitan area, yet
this has not proved to have any significant impact on food productivity, distribution and
security. On the contrary, what has been on an increase in recent years is the reliance
on food banks and imported foods and the emission of greenhouse gases. Along with
fourteen years of shortage in government-assisted housing supply (City of Toronto,
2001), this data illustrates that the City of Toronto is not self-sustaining in terms of
meeting the two basic needs of food and shelter for low-income Torontonians.

2
1.1 Background

As of 2008, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has been home to over 6 million
people. The province of Ontario alone is projected to receive 125,000 foreign
immigrants each year, which makes up more than half of Canada’s total annual
immigration (Statistic Canada 2006). The census trend shows that over 50 percent of
new Ontario immigrants decide to live in Toronto (Statistic Canada 2006). According to
the Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal Schedule (Lister 2007), the GTA’s
projected population by 2031 will reach close to 8.6 million. This makes the GTA one
of the fastest growing metropolitan cities in North America. Furthermore, from 2001
to 2006, 46 percent of new immigrants were considered as low income (Finance &
Administration 2006).

Shelter, food, and transportation are the main expenses for a Canadian family (see
Figure 1.1). The lowest-income Canadian household with an average income of
$17,064 spends an average of over 32 percent of their total income on shelter, over
18 percent of their income on food, and about 13 percent on transportation. The
percentage of income saved by the wealthy class is a positive 13.1 percent and 3.1
percent for the average income class in Canada; for the low-income group, it is a
negative 30.9 percent. For the latter group, after expenses are deducted from earnings,
there is little or no money left to be saved, which makes this group vulnerable to crisis
and at higher risk of poverty. Over the years, urban poverty in Toronto has increased
to such an extent that about 1 in 5 people live in poverty. About 552,300 households
have incomes under the poverty line (Toronto Real Estate Board 2003) and many of
these are new immigrants. In 2004, 95,750 Toronto households spent more than 50
percent of their income on rent (City of Toronto 2004). Consequently, a new affordable
housing typology must be developed which not only provides accommodation, but also
generates opportunities for employment and self-sufficiency in food production. It would
help the city overcome its housing shortage, scale up urban agriculture, offset food
expenses for the low-income population, and provide opportunities for these groups to
improve their quality of life.

3
 Norway
Sweden Finland Estonia
7.6 Latvia

Canada
UK Lithuania
Denmark Belarus
26.3 Ireland
54.0 Netherlands
13.3 Poland
80%
90% 81% 23.9
Ukrain
Belgium 62%
10.2 Germany 30.9
London 97%
US 12.0 62.0 Czech
RepublicSlovakia
7.4
68%
Mo
France 75% Romania
246.2M New York 46.9 Switzer-
Austria Hungary

Slovenia
11.6
54%
CroatiaSerbia &
21.8 77% land
Italy Mont
Bulgar
Bosnia Macedonia
81% 39.6 Albania

Greece
LA Spain 68%
17.9 Portugal
33.6
77%
Cairo
15.9 Lebano
Mexico Cuba
Tunisia
Algeria Palesti
84.392 8.5
Morocco 22.0 Libya Egypt
Haiti Dominican Puerto 19.4 I
77% Jamaica Republic Rico
Gambia 65% 33.1
Guinea-Bissau Senegal 60% Niger
Sierra Leone
Mauritania Lagos 43%
Guate- Guinea 10.0
Mexico mala Liberia Mali Burkina Chad
Eritrea
City El
Honduras Trinidad & Tobago
Ivory Nigeria Sudan Eth
Salvador Coast Ghana 16.3 1
22.1 Nicaragua 8.6 68.6
11.3 43% 1
Venezuela 49%
Costa Rica
Panama
26.0 Togo 50% DR Congo
Uganda
K
94%
Colombia Benin
CAR
20.2 Rwanda
Cameroon
33% Burundi
Tanza
34.3 9.5 Congo
Zambia
9.9
73% Gabon Angola 25%
Ecuador
8.7
Brazil Namibia
9.3 Malawi

Botswana b
Mo

Zimbabwe
Peru
21.0 162.6 Sao Paulo
20.4 S Africa
73% Swa

Bolivia
85% Rio de
28.6
60%
Les

Janeiro
Paraguay
Chile 12.2
14.6
88%
Argentina Uruguay
35.6 Buenos
90% Aires
13.5

Legend
Predominantly urban
75% or over

4
 Russia
Moscow
103.6 13.4
73% Shanghai
17.3
Canton
ne 14.5

Beijing
oldova
Mongolia 12.7
a
Istanbul
11.7
Georgia Tehran
Kazakh-
stan
8.6
China N Korea
14.1
ria Armenia Uzbekistan
12.1 10.1 62%
Turkey
Azerbaijan
Turkmenistan 37%

Iran
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Afghan-
559.2 S Korea
39.0
Japan
84.7
51.1 istan
7.8
68% 48.4 81% 66%
on
68%
Pakistan
42% Hong
Kong
Seoul
Syria Iraq Osaka
10.2 23.2
ne 51%
20.3
67%
59.3 Vietnam 16.6 Tokyo
Jordan Kuwait 36% 23.3 33.4
Israel
27%
Saudi Arabia UAE Karachi Burma
Laos
20.9 14.8
Bhutan 16.5 Cambodia

81% Oman
Nepal
32% Philippines Manila
Bangladesh Thailand
hiopia Yemen 21.5 55.0 15.4
13.0
16%
Somalia
India 38.2
26%
33% 64%
Kenya
7.6
329.3 Dacca
13.8
Malaysia
18.1
69%
ania
9
% 29% Singapore
Indonesia
Papua New Guinea
ozam-
bique
Mada- Mauritius
114.1 Melanesia
gascar Bombay
21.3 50%
ziland
Sri Lanka E Timor
otho
Delhi Jakarta
21.1 Calcutta 14.9 Australia
15.5 18.3
89% New
Zealand

TOTAL WORLD’S URBAN POPULATION IN 2030

6,615,900,000
(SOURCE: UNFPA _United Nation Population Fund)

Predominantly urban Predominantly rural Predominantly rural Cities over 10 million peo
50—74% 25—49% urban 0—24% urban (greater urban area)

Figure 1.0.1 - World Population Growth & City Migration

5
1.2 Food Related Issues in Toronto

average canadian spending pattern

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

average households
($72,654)
3%

LEGEND
misellaneous
games of chance
wealthest households tabaco and alcohol
($165,024) education
13% reading materials
recreation
clothing
personal care
health care
transportation
household furnishing & equipments
household operations
lowest income households shelther
($17,064) food
-30% saving

Figure 1.1.1 - Canadian Spending Pattern

The following is a brief definition of some terms that will be used in this paper.
A food system is defined as a complex set of activities and relationships related to
every aspect of the food cycle, including production, processing, distribution, retail,
preparation, consumption and disposal (TPH 2010). A food shed is defined as the place
that collects the food products grown in local farms surrounding a given urban area, and
routes them into the city to be made available to the population that will consume them
(Lister 2007).

The current food system in Toronto is ridden with many issues which make
it unsustainable, especially in relation to food import and accessibility problems.
Production occurs in the GTA, mainly around the peripheral cities within a 200-kilometer
radius. However, there is no significant scale of crop production within the City of
Toronto. This illustrates the city’s reliance on imported food, and it follows that food
availability, accessibility and adequacy are not under control. Adequate food and health
are directly related (see Fig 1.2.1).

6
 cause of death

Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 29.6%

(69,595)
Diseases of heart (heart disease) 21.5%
(50,499)
Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) 5.9%
(13,981)
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 4.5%
(10,659)
Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.2%
(9,951)
Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) 3.1%
(7,394)
Alzheimer’s disease 2.5%
(5,903)
child obesity
Influenza and pneumonia 2.3%
(5,452)
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome
and nephrosis (kidney disease)
1.6% diabetes at over age 40
(3,803)
1.5%
Total death = 235,217
Intentional self-harm (suicide)
(3,611)

Figure 1.2.1 - Cause of Death 2004, Statistic Canada

Toronto’s residents and government spend $7 billion on food annually (FHAC

2001). Though the city is located on the best agricultural land in Canada, $4.8 billion
worth of food is actually imported (OMAFRA 2007), and 50 to 60 percent of produce
imports come from Florida, California, and Mexico (McCartney 1998). Ontario had a
$3 billion deficit in fruits and vegetables in 1998 (TFPC 1999, p. 8) since many crops
could not be delivered and were wasted before they reached the marketplace. Canada’s
average food module travels about 2000 kilometers (TFPC 1999, p. 29). In Toronto
the average food item travels nearly 4,500 km (Xuereb, 2005), which is double the
Canadian average. Also, the city’s food system contributes 30 percent of the pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions of the city (Tukker, Huppes, Geerken, Nielsen, et al.,
2006). Furthermore, the agriculture industry in Canada takes up almost two-thirds of
the overall fresh water consumption (see Figure 1.2.2 & 1.2.4).

7
 4,500km 30% GHG
$3.0B

2/3 H2O

$4.0B $7.0B
food spending = $7.0 billion
food imported = $4.8 billion
food deficit = $3.0 billion
food miles average = 4,500 km
food bank users = 997,000

Figure 1.2.2 - Toronto Food System

Overall food bank access has steadily increased each year in Toronto (see
Figure 1.2.3). In 2010, the count went up to 997,000 users (DBFB 2010, p. 12).
Community food programs serve almost 20,000 meals per day in order to cater to
those in need (DBFB 2007). Among food bank users, 54 percent of individuals do not
eat for a whole day in a week due to the lack of money. The duration of their reliance
on food banks is an average of 18 months (DBFB 2010, p. 5). Amongst regular food
bank users, 34 percent are children and youth under the age of eighteen (DBFB 2010,
p. 4). However, more than 1 in 3 Toronto children are overweight or obese (TPH 2004)
and many are from poor families and suffer from drastic imbalances in nutrition. In
Toronto, 1 in 14 residents over the age of 40 is affected by a heart-related disease,
and 1 in 15 has diabetes (TPH 2005). This indicates that poverty and poor health are
interconnected. Inadequate nutrition is related to a predisposition to obesity among the
poor (Laurie, 2008). Thus poverty leads to both malnourishment and obesity and access
to healthy food is an essential part of any solution.

8
 2030?
(with 8.6 million people)

low-income cut off = $17,570 / year

average income = $1464 / month
food & expenses = $550 / month
(per person) = $18.3 / day
1,187,000
(overall GTA food bank users)
low-income cut off = $33,221 / year
997,000
(with 6 million people)
average income = $1,384 / month
food & expenses = $463 / month
(per person) = $15.4 / day

Figure 1.2.3 - Food bank users and expenditure for low-income family in Toronto

The difficulty with providing food access is further demonstrated in the food
desert map of Toronto. Food deserts are defined as large areas in the city where it is
difficult or impossible to find a grocery store or supermarket within walking distance,
thus making fast-food outlets and higher-priced convenience stores the most frequented
places for food purchases (Lister 2007). This means there is unsatisfactory food
distribution in some neighborhoods in Toronto. On the other hand, many downtown
areas have food available within walking distance, though it may not necessarily be
affordable for the local residents. Hence, low-income groups, especially near the city
center, still suffer as a consequence of high food prices.

9
 2,000 km 4,500 km

10
Figure 1.2.4 - Toronto Food Miles Distance

11
1.3 Issues on Housing in Toronto

government-assisted housing production

city of toronto, 1984 - 2010

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Annual Target 1984 - 1996 total units = 24,468

1997 - 2010 total units = 3,439
Non-Profit housing programs
14-year shortfall units = 24,561
Additional national housing program (from aniticipation)
housing wait-list (2010) = 60,197
housing wait-list (2011) = 76,549

Figure 1.3.1 - Toronto Government-assisted Housing Production

The lack of affordable housing in Toronto also contributes to inadequate food

and nutrition for a part of the population (Lister 2007) One of the effects of decreased
availability of arable land within the city and rising rent prices is that low-income families
struggle to pay for food. Toronto Policy Food Council (TPFC) estimated that the GTA
would lose 40 percent of its farmland between 1976 and 2026 (Cheema, G. S., Smit,
J., Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. 1996). By 2001, 47 percent of farmland was already lost, far
exceeding TFPC’s original estimation. Farmland was bought and used for development,
especially of a residential type, in order to meet the needs of the population growth
and migration to the city. Furthermore, urban farmers have been facing severe
challenges to the structure operation of their business because of extreme highland
costs (TFPC,1999, p. 9). For the farmer who owns a piece of farmland in the city area,
it is far more profitable to sell the land than it is to try and maintain the farmland at
unreasonably high costs that will only increase the debt.)

12
 According to the notes of the Mayor’s Affordable Housing Summit in 2004,
Toronto has endured a consistent 14-year shortfall of government-assisted housing
production since 1997 (City of Toronto 2004). The government has failed to satisfy the
demand for affordable housing, and this gap has been widening every year. Between
1997 and 2010, this shortfall of government-assisted housing has accumulated to
24,561 units (see Figure 1.3). There were 76,549 households on the social housing
wait list in 2010; this was an increase of 5,051 more households than the previous
year (City of Toronto 2010). These are modest estimates; in reality there could be more
Torontonian families who are at risk of facing the realities of poverty and homelessness.

At a national level, the Canadian lowest income household spends 32 percent of

income on shelter, whereas at the regional level, 95,750 households in Toronto spend
more than 50 percent of their income on rent (City of Toronto 2001). As for the GTA food
bank users, the rental costs account for an average of 73 percent of their income, which
is double the proportion for the country.

ARCHITECTURE

ORGANIZING

SPACE

FOOD HOME

FARMING LIVING

AGRICULTURE ACCOMODATION

Figure 1.5.1 - Research Conceptual Model Diagram

13
1.4 Research Questions

The research documented here investigates how the ideas of agriculture

and housing could be integrated into urban areas. There are two critical dimensions
of information on food, agriculture, and housing to be assessed and analyzed.
The synthesis should be evaluated against quantifiable measures and qualitative
considerations in order to determine a set of evidence and approaches that will structure
the design response and validate the development of arguments for further research
and development.

The first premise raises questions regarding quantifiable parameters of typical

food consumption, agricultural production and affordable housing in terms of volume,
types and sizes:

a. What are the measuring units for foods and farms?

b. What are the foods that can be grown in different seasons in the climatic
conditions of the site?
c. How much yield could be expected for each food item if conventional farming
methods were used?
d. How much food is required in order to feed the focus group?
e. How much space is required to grow all the food types needed by the focus
group?
f. What is the ratio between public and private edible space?
g. What is the ideal size of the housing complex and of individual units?
h. Can urban agricultural productivity reach the yield levels of rural agriculture?

The second premise raises questions regarding qualitative factors that will
reinforce the quantifiable data on spaces for growing, eating and living, in terms of
program, system, and technology implementations:

a. What are the possible programs to enrich the integration and relationship
between farming and living space?
b. What are the possible technologies that can be integrated?
c. How can we grow a variety of crops and provide safe food with multiple

14
nutrients to users?
d. How can we make a closed-loop system in the building community and the city
for self-sustainability?
e. How can a strategy be developed in order to secure the viable combination
of urban agriculture and affordable housing, covering both short-term and long-term
prospects?

1.5 Methodology

This research project involves establishing a strategy and system to amalgamate

food and shelter as one single force to counter urban poverty and housing shortages
in a city. The process of analysis, exploration and synthesis is conducted in the urban,
community and building scales. The research methodology employs selected theories
on agriculture, case studies, and data from various sources. Such information is used to
support the research intention and provide a design framework for the thesis.

The report is structured into three parts consisting of nine chapters. The first part
provides background information, summarizes basic knowledge and theories past and
present, and puts forth a proposal for urban agriculture. The second part explores a
set of design considerations and parameters, and synthesizes a strategy to define the
typical design requirements for food production spaces and low-income housing. The
third part focuses on site investigation, consolidates the findings and parameters into a
design proposal, and concludes the research with a design intervention.

This research will develop a conceptual framework (see Figure 1.5) to integrate
knowledge and principles of agriculture and architecture in an urbanized district of a
city; this frames the design intention of maximizing agricultural productivity along with
affordable accommodation in an urban setting, thus making food and shelter available,
accessible, and affordable for low-income groups. This thesis demonstrates a model
that could help cities alleviate concerns of urban poverty, improve food security and
increase the supply of housing wherein both agriculture and housing could co-exist.

15
1.6 Location

Toronto’s Chinatown neighborhood has been chosen as the study area for this
research investigation, based on its income statistics: this neighborhood has the lowest
median income and the highest average percentage of low-income families and single
adults below Low-Income Cut-Off Rate (LICO), as well as the highest percentage of
households within downtown Toronto that spend over 30 percent of income on rent. In
addition, 41 percent of homes in this neighbourhood require major and minor repairs,
one of the highest figures in this category (Statistic Canada 2006).

Chinatown is the poorest district near the urban core of Toronto. Implementation
of urban agriculture and new affordable housing development in the neighborhood will
provide safe food access and shelter for the individual low-income household. Further,
the growing and harvesting process promotes farming education, social engagement,
and cultural exchange within the community. At a macro level, the model scales up
local food production, supplying local food market and restaurants with fresh food and
reducing their dependence on imported food. The design is also intended to be a closed
loop system, recycling waste and water, minimizing the environmental impact, and
enabling the district to sustain itself.

16
2
2.0 Urban Agriculture & Food Security

civic distrcit

urban core zone

urban center zone

general urban zone

sub-urban zone

rural zone

natural zone

intra-urban agriculture

peri-urban agriculture

extra-urban agriculture
Figure 2.1.1 - Rural-Urban-Transect Diagram

After gaining an understanding of the food and housing issues in the current urban
conditions, Chapter 2 addresses the essential elements that will determine design
objectives. This chapter is structured into two sections. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 define
the term urban agriculture and explain its benefits. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 elaborate on
the elements that need to be considered for food security. This chapter is intended to
develop a conceptual framework by addressing the basic criteria of the design project,
in order to identify the future role and potential of urban agriculture in architecture.

18
2.1. Definition of Urban Agriculture

The idea of urban agriculture has been previously explored. The concept of
growing food in urban areas has been reintroduced in the years after WW2. Many
urban thinkers have begun to wonder how to continue feeding the population that
throngs cities. Perhaps the answer is literally embedded within the cities, in the form
of a new system of urban agriculture. There is no rigid definition of urban agriculture;
it could mean something as simple as the growing of plants and the raising of animals
for food and other uses within and around cities and towns (Veenhuizen 2006). Urban
agriculture is defined as an industry that produces, processes, and markets food and
fuel within a town, city or metropolis on land and water dispersed throughout the urban
and peri-urban area (Cheema, Smit, Ratta, & Nasr, 1996). Urban agriculture as a
system is concerned with urban culture, use of natural resources, land-use planning,
food production and security, education and leisure, social relationships and income
generation (TFPC 1999, p/ 6).

These processes may take place in locations that are within intra-urban and
peri-urban zones within a rural-urban-transect (see Figure 2.1.). A transect is defined as
a geographical cross-section, which has distinct characteristics of a region and reveals
a sequence of environments. Urban agriculture can be viewed as a continuum with
landscape stretches from backyard and community gardens to small, medium or large-
scale commercial farming facilities (TFPC 1999, p. 6). In short, there is no restriction
of place nor limitation in size for urban agriculture, allowing it to be accommodated
anywhere within a city or town.

The majority of players involved in urban agriculture are the urban poor. These
groups include immigrants, HIV-AIDS affected households, disabled people, single,
divorced or widowed women with children, elderly people without pensions and
unemployed youngsters. The integration of these groups into an urban agricultural
network helps to provide decent livelihood and prevent social problems (Veenhuizen,
2006).

19
 In both urban and peri-urban zones, agricultural land could take on a significant
role in providing educational and recreational functions and in rejuvenating natural
landscape biodiversity in a larger context (Veenhuizen, 2006). The three main streams
of urban farming are ecologically, socially or economically oriented (Veenhuizen, 2006).

Urban farming, in any of these orientations, not only facilitates food provision
and generating income, but also yields other advantages besides the basic functions
(see Figure 2.2). Ecologically oriented urban agriculture (Environmental Healthy City)
typically has a multi-functional character. The farm design encompasses features
like decentralized composting, reuse of organic wastes, wastewater treatment,
economic use of water and nutrients, pollutant reduction, shading, improvement of
urban climate, and provision of leisure and recreational activities (Vennhuizen 2006).
The social function of an urban agricultural model refers to a subsistence-oriented
approach (Inclusive City), which focuses on producing food and medicinal plants
for home consumption (Vennhuizen 2006). The households involved in this type of
farming usually need other sources of income to survive. Any surpluses of production
are sold to generate additional income for the family’s food and medical expenses
(Vennhuizen 2006). Although this model demonstrates only an indirect profitability to
the disadvantaged group, it does make a more positive social impact on their livelihood.

The economically driven urban agricultural model refers to a market oriented

system (Productive City). It comprises both small-scale family-based enterprises as
well as larger scale entrepreneurial farms run by private investors or associations of
producersl (Vennhuizen 2006). This commercial system involves delivery, processing,
and marketing, all planned for profit and efficiency. However, the intensive production
pace and scale of these farms are associated with the risks of soil and water
contamination and intensive use of agro chemicals on crops (Vennhuizen, 2006),
inevitably affecting the safety and quality of the food.

20
2.2. Benefits of Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture requires systems synergies, efficiencies and cost-savings; the

potential benefits cover a broad range of multiple inter-linked aspects influencing a city
environmentally, socially, and economically (TFPC, 1999). This section illustrates some
of the environmental, societal and economical benefits of urban farming in relation to
the overall framework (see Figure 2.2.1).

In the environmental context, urban agriculture can reduce the overall ecological
footprint of a city. By shortening the distances between the locations of production
and consumption, energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be
reduced. This subsequently lowers costs of storage and transportation of produce. By
using farms and organic soils as carbon sinks, the local microclimate is also improved.
Urban waste such as organic matter and wastewater can be recycled as compost and
biogas (TFPC, 1999).

According to a study conducted by ICF International along with the Toronto

Atmospheric Fund and Toronto Environment Office in 2007, the City of Toronto released
23.4 megatons of CO2 (IFCI, 2007, 38). Buildings and other facilities represented 76
percent of the overall GHG emission (IFCI, 2007, 8). Statistics Canada Census 2006
recorded that the City of Toronto had a land surface area of about 63,180 hectares; the
total carbon footprint extended to about 370 times the city space. The Greater Toronto
Area (GTA) had over 6 million of people as of 2008; with the projected GTA population
to reach 8.6 million people by 2031 (Lister, 2007). the situation will only worsen, as
densification continues and the settlement of new immigrants accelerate the rate of
consumption, use of resources and pollution.

In the social context, urban agriculture can facilitate employment opportunities,

diverse cultural integration, education and sharing of knowledge. In addition, green
spaces provide scenic, lifestyle, and recreational value at the community level (TFPC
1999). At the domestic and personal levels, urban farming makes fresh and safe food
available, securing nutrition and health. This could ensure nutritious food for children,
enhance health status and empower women, as most of the urban farmers are female.

21
 SOCIAL
(INCLUSIVE CITY)

TRADITION

R S

OC
ND

IAL
GE
SUBSISTENCE ORIENTED
- production of food for self consump-
tion

CULTURE
- savings on food & health expenditures

H
ALT
- some income from selling of surpluses

HE
- part of livelihood strategies of the
urban poor

BIO FOOD TRADE

ATE DIV EX
IM ER PRODUCTION IN
G
CL ET C

HA
SI
MULTIFUNCTIONAL

RK
TY

NG
MARKET ORIENTED

MA
R

E
WATE

- organic & diverse agriculture and (argo-)

forestry close to consumers - income generation form producing food
and non-food products for the market
LANDSCA

INCOME

PROFIT
- combination with other functions
(recreation, urban greening, microclimate, - small scale family based and larger scale
park management, entrepreneurial enterprises
ILS

water storage, education)

- part of market chain
PE
SO

- decentralised reuse of composted urban

wastes - higher input use / more externalities

- link with eco-sanitation

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC
(ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHY CITY) (PRODUCTIVE CITY)

Figure 2.2.1.- Urban Agriculture Streams & Benefits

In the economic context, urban agriculture can reduce a family’s expenditure,

allocating more income for healthcare and education (Cheema, Smit, Ratta, & Nasr
1996). Urban agriculture thus influences a broad range of inter-linked aspects of
ecological, social, and economic well-being. The benefits will also positively affect
various interconnected levels of the population, from the individual to the nation, in both
short-term and long-term. Therefore urban agriculture influences the health and well
being of both individuals and the community as a whole.

Food quantity, quality, stability, and nutritional balance (Cheema, Smit, Ratta, &
Nasr, 1996) are the four major determinants that have been classified as measuring
factors for the quality of urban agriculture. Furthermore, these measurements are
assessed by both quantitative and qualitative parameters in order to determine the
effectiveness of urban agriculture within a specific site. The term urban agriculture in
this research paper applies to food productivity, security, and distribution related to the
urban, community, and building scale. This research thesis provides both quantitative
and qualitative measuring factors for food quantity, quality, regularity, and nutritional
balance, to design a new typology that benefits low-income communities socially,
economically, and environmentally.
22
2.3. Food Security

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Food Security “exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic
access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food
preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO 2006). Food insecurity “exists when
people do not have adequate physical, social or economic access to food as defined
above.” (FAO 2006).

In order to achieve food security for each person, there are three major criteria
that need to be met both qualitatively and quantitatively. The three criteria are quantity,
safety and quality. These three factors must be evaluated, based on the physical, social,
and economic aspects of food. The Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson
University (RU, 2009) has subdivided the definition of food security further into five
interconnected yet distinguishable components. The five components that form the
framework of food security are availability, accessibility, adequacy, acceptability, and
agency (RU 2009). Each component is further defined to explore the several facets in
depth. The following discussion will address some factors that affect each component of
food security both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Food Availability

Food availability is defined as sufficient food for all people at all times (RU
2009); it also means sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis (FAO
2006). Availability refers to supply and consumption. An average estimated minimum
daily energy requirement for a human is 2,200 kcal / day (calories per day), according
to FAO. The calorific intakes are uneven in a global perspective (see Figure 2.3.1);
some countries suffer from malnourishment or over-consumption, leading to obesity.
Food consumption around the world ranges from below 1600 kcal / day to over 3600
kcal / day. Therefore, it is essential to quantify what is a sufficient amount of food to be
produced and consumed, in order to ensure that sufficient amounts of food are made
available equitably.

23
 Other factors that affect the availability of food are directly related to the climate
and weather, resulting in the varying of the yield and harvests each year. Food types
and choices also differ according to the geographic location. Furthermore, inadequate
storage facilities in most circumstances lead to heavy product losses, significantly
affecting the seasonal availability of food.

Food Accessibility

Even if a city can ensure food availability and consumption, it cannot be assumed
that people have access to the food. Food accessibility is defined as having sufficient
resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet (FAO 2006). Food accessibility
exists when physical and economic access to food for all at all times is ensured (RU
2009). Physical and economic accessibility of food refer to distance and price, and are
both quantifiable in numbers.

The physical aspect of food access is determined by the distance between

the consumer’s location and the place where food is available. A food desert, as
mentioned in Chapter 1, is one where healthy food is unreachable for the people.
Furthermore, food security from the economic aspect of accessibility means that food
also needs to be affordable for people. (Refer back to the food deserts map in Toronto
for examples). Downtown areas have various opportunities for creating accessibility to
healthy food; however the green zone does not necessarily mean that the foods offered
are affordable for everyone, especially for the urban poor. Therefore, food security is
concerned with the question of whether foodstuffs are socially accessible. The average
weekly cost of basic nutritious food for a family of four in Toronto in 2008 was $136.28
(this is equivalent to $590.09 per month). This is an increase of 2.4% since 2007. The
cost of the Nutrition Food Basket has increased by approximately 9.4% over the past
two years (NBF 2008).

24
Food Adequacy

Even if people are able to access affordable food, it does not necessarily follow
that the food is adequate in quantity or contains all of the required nutrients (FAO 2006).
Food adequacy exists when people have access to food that is nutritious and safe,
and produced in environmentally sustainable ways (RU 2009). Individual citizens need
knowledge of basic nutrition and care, adequate water consumption and sanitation.
Inadequate, inopportune selling in an unfavorable market can have a detrimental effect
on food security (FAO 2006).

Food quality depends a great deal on the food distribution system. In the case
of an imported food item, the longer the item travels, the higher the risk of that item
losing its freshness and nutrients. For urban farming, it is important that households
use adequate water for irrigation and grow food organically. Thus, eliminating the use of
chemicals and pesticides could also ensure food adequacy.

Food Acceptability

A component of food adequacy is food acceptability, which is defined as culturally

acceptable food which is produced and obtained in ways that do not compromise
people’s dignity, self-respect or human rights (RU 2009). Different ethnic groups hold
different traditions and religious beliefs, so ethno-specific food might not always be
available. Therefore, it is important to provide specific alternatives for a community to
choose from. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, the Global Status of Biotech Crops data for 2004 (see Figure 2.3.2) shows
that a total of 13.3 million acres of land in Canada produce genetically modified crops.
This makes Canada the third largest producer of genetically modified crops in the world.
If urban areas are used for food production to grow a variety of crops, this could make
organic food produce in urban areas a more acceptable agriculture method.

25
 no data
<1600
1600-1800
1800-2000
2000-2200
2200-2400
2400-2600
2600-2800
2800-3000
3000-3200
3200-3400
3400-3600
>3600

26
Figure 2.3.1 - Map of Energy consumption (kcal/person/day) per country in 2001-2003

27
 Figure 2.3.2 - Global Status of Biotech Crops in 2004

Food Agency

Food agency, in brief, is defined as the policies and processes that enable the
achievement of food security (RU 2009). The City of Toronto introduced the Green Roof
policy by-law in May 2009, stipulating that all commercial, institutional and residential
developments with a minimum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 2,000m2 must have green
coverage on the roof of the building. The requirement applies to 20 to 60 percent of
buildings that have more than 6 floor levels or 20m in height (City of Toronto 2009). This
legal stipulation opens up a huge potential for urban agriculture to expand, by making
the building roof a productive and edible landscape.

28
3
3.0. Urban Agriculture and Theories

In the context of urban agricultural design, a farm is defined as a site where

architects develop new concepts for sustenance and sustainability and find new
physical connections between people and the products they consume (Tenhoor 2010).
This engagement started from utopian architectural farm-cities during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. This section documents several agricultural and urban models
that have been proposed. The intention is to establish a framework for the design of
a self-sustaining and self-sufficient community and society on an urban scale. The
following section describes each model’s vision and layout; it also indicates the land
area, population, density and the agricultural products associated with each proposal.
Furthermore, the information will be summarized and compared, to evaluate what data,
principles and characteristics can be adopted and implemented in the current and future
urban settings.

3.1 Urban Agriculture in Urban Scale

This section examines several visions on an urban scale which have

incorporated agriculture and food into their proposed plan, influencing the social,
environmental and economic performance for different communities in the city. Through
the analysis, this section intends to establish the criteria to be applied in the final design
intervention.

The Phalanstere (1808) – Charles Fourier

The Phalanstere was proposed by Charles Fourier, a French utopian socialist and
philosopher. Fourier envisioned a model with a single building complex comprising all
types of agricultural and manufacturing work to build a utopian community (see Figure
2.3.1), that could be self-sufficient (England 2009). He believed in a collective social
order, where individuals create mutual benefits through shared effort. He described
diverse types of working facilities and environments for different groups of individuals in

30
 Figure 3.1.1 - The Phalanstere Floor Plan

the Phalanstere. These activities included agriculture, manufacture and applied science
and arts (England 2009).

Fourier used the term Phalanx, meaning a rectangular military-like formation,

to describe the community of Phalanstere. The organization of the building is capable
of integrating kideal urban and rural features (England 2009). The Phalanstere is
constructed in three compartments with a central core and two lateral wings (see
Figure 3.1.1). The central compartment, surrounded with apartments, dining rooms,
meeting rooms, libraries, study areas and winter garden space planted with trees in the
courtyard area, is designed for quiet activities.

One lateral wing consists of units to accommodate labor and noisy activities, whereas
the other lateral wing is used for visitors, and has venues for social activities such as
ballrooms (England 2009). The middle of the plan is a grand square for large-scale

31
 Figure 3.1.2 - The Phalanstere by Charles Fourier

events. The backyard section holds workshops, warehouses, sheds, barns and farming
facilities. The farming facilities are ideal for growing a variety of crops on hilly slopes
(see Figure 3.1.2).

The size of the Phalanstere is about 1920 acres (7.770, 000 m2) and houses
1620 individuals, with a density of 0.21 units per acre. The model includes all types
of agricultural products (England 2009). The vision of Phalanstere suggests designing
a community where different classes live in proximity and harmony. The organizing
principle is to distribute programs and functions according to the individual labourer’s
skills and aptitude. It creates opportunities for different classes and occupations to
interact and share efforts and ideas. In the plan, the housing units are laid out as a ring
that wraps around the area forming perimeter blocks with courtyards. This formation
reserves spaces for growing in both the exterior and interior sections of the complex.

32
 Figure 3.1.3 - The Garden Cities Planning by Ebenezer Howard

The Garden City (1902) – Ebenezer Howard

The Garden City was proposed by Ebenezer Howard, a British urban planner
and philosopher. He envisioned that people in a utopian city should live in harmony with
nature. In his publication, Garden Cities of To-morrow, he deemed that the current ideals
of town and country themselves created social tragedy and argued for a human scale.
As a remedy, Howard proposed the concept of “Town-Country”, a combination of the
two ideals, which would create a balanced environment (England 2009).

His Three Magnet Diagram (see Figure 3.1.3), illustrates the advantages and
disadvantages of town and country. With the combination of town-country, new cities
could adopt the social advantages of cities while the design’s countryside atmosphere
eliminates their disadvantages (England 2009). This in turn would create slum-free,
smokeless cityscapes.

33
 The Garden City addresses land ownership, population and functions as the
three key points of its vision. Firstly, land development should be held by common
authority and not parceled out for individual ownership. In other words, the Garden City
must be reserved for the community (England 2009). Secondly, growth and population
of the city must be controlled and limited. The city must contain areas that are
permanently reserved for open country, which is used for agriculture and recreation. The
agricultural belt not only serves as a green wall against encroachment of surrounding
communities, it also provides opportunity for local food production (England 2009).
Thirdly, the region’s political, social, and recreational functions should be in balance,
with the internal developments addressing home, industry and market areas (England
2009).

The size of a Garden City is about 6000 acres (24,281,000m2), housing

32,000 individuals, with a density of 1.3 units per acre. The model includes all types
of agricultural products (England, 2009), with 5000 acres reserved for agricultural
production. In the detailed plan of a Garden City, there are four offset green zones
illustrated in between human settlements; from the inner to the outer zones they
are garden, park, grand avenue and farms. Farms have always been pushed to the
periphery of the city. However, going by the Garden City design, it is possible to plan
farm space and productive landscape in the inner urban areas instead of only in the
outer zones of a city. Green patches of space are difficult to find in the current urban
setting, but the radial organization of Garden City suggests that green space could be
subdivided and deconstructed into smaller rings and bands. This strategy seems more
suitable for the context of the GTA.

Figure 3.1.4 - Broadacre City Plan View

34
 Figure 3.1.5 - Broadacre City by Frank Lloyd Wright

Broadacre City (1932) – Frank Lloyd Wright

Broadacre City was a utopian vision for America proposed by Frank Lloyd Wright.
The Broadacre City model suggests a new community plan for America, by providing
each citizen with at least one tillable acre of land, a homestead for the household
and their own car for transportation. This model aims to develop a community where
members would be partially, if not wholly, responsible for their own-self-sufficiency
(England 2009). Standardized machines, radio, telephone, telegraph, and automobiles
were the inventions that built the old cities (Wright 1935). Wright foresaw that, in the
future, individuals would not be limited in range. The proposal is to view the whole
country as a continuous grid, and thus restore citizens to a fundamentally agrarian
landscape (England 2009). According to this model, each family would require one acre
within a confined boundary (see Figure 3.1.4).

Broadacre City has attempted to bring about social equality and interaction
between classes by empowering the citizens with three inherent social rights,

35
which were: the use of gold as a commodity for exchange; land held for use and
improvements; and the public ownership of inventions and scientific discoveries
concerning the life of the people (Wright 1935). The land could be developed with the
occupants’ freewill as the coordinating and organizing principle; the land could become
“little farms, little homes for industry, little factories, little schools, a little university going
to the people mostly by way of their interest in the ground, little laboratories on their
own ground for professional men” (Wright 1935), which allows the Broadacre to expand
and evolve organically and naturally. In this model, each household would be allotted
one acre of land for accommodation, while ensuring that the development does not
overshadow the biosphere. “Here architecture is landscape and landscape takes on the
character of architecture by way of the simple process of cultivation” (Wright 1935)

The size of a Broadacre City is about 2,560,000 acres (10,359,950,000m2),

housing 5,600,000 individuals, with a density of 0.55 unit per acre. The model
accommodates all types of agricultural products (England 2009). The Broadacre City
introduces a self-sufficient, self-productive, and self-governing system for a person and
household. The household or person could be self-sufficient by growing their own food
and thus securing food quality and choices according to their preference. A person or
a family could be self-productive, since the land could be developed according to the
interest of the occupants. The idea is that if the person is doing something that he or
she likes or wants, this will lead to self-motivation and better productivity. The land also
gives enormous freedom and control for an individual, and this self-governing system
could change its appearance based on the individual’s freewill from time to time.

In retrospect, the self-sufficient, self-productive, and self-governing model

promoted in the Broadacre City model has certain flaws in its conception. Due to the
size of land required for all the possible activities to take place within their own acre of
land, the distance separating each unit is relatively vast. The transit system was heavily
dependent on the automobile, as Wright proposed that each person would have his or
her own car (see Figure 3.1.5). Consequently, this system not only negatively impacts
the environment, but also limits the opportunity for each unit to interact with neighbours.
This decentralized vision, while promoting individuality, has the risk of leading people to
social disorder and isolation.
36
3.2 Urban Agriculture in Community Scale

This section examines different cases in which agriculture and food have been
integrated as part of the design, making an impact socially, environmentally, and
economically at the community level. The aim for this section is to analyze and identify
the possibilities and potential ingredients of the final design response, such as programs
and systems that could be incorporated as well as their direct and indirect benefits to
the community.

Victory Gardens

During the world war periods, Victory Gardens largely contributed to the food
supply of different countries. During WW1 in 1917, Europe was facing food shortages
and Americans were asked to voluntarily reduce their consumption of exportable
foods through conservation, substations, buying from local growers, and gardening
(Lawson, 2005). By the end of 1918, there were 5,258,000 gardens planted. The name,
Victory Gardens, celebrated the success of the scheme in producing food, promoting
civic involvement and patriotism (Snowdon 2010). After the war, those lands were
repurposed to their former functions and eventually they became vacant (Lawson
2005). During WW2, the Americans re-launched the Victory Gardens campaign. (see
Figure 3.2.1) It is estimated that there were about 20 million Victory Gardens providing
approximately 40 percent of all vegetable production for the entire nation (Snowdon
2010).

In the City of Toronto, there were similar movements during the Great Depression
and World War periods. In 1934, Toronto Mayor William James Stewart turned an
8-hectre plot on St Clair Avenue into community gardens, providing land for 5,000
unemployed families to grow food. In 1918, the Toronto Vacant Lots Cultivation
Association had 2,000 gardens and managed to grow $75,000 ($980,000 in 2009
dollars) worth of food in profits (Palassio& Wilcox, p. 60).

In 1934, Toronto Mayor Fred Conboy encouraged Torontonians to “dig for

victory” by planting vegetables on every available bit of land (Palassio & Wilcox 2009,
p. 58). Throughout the Ontario province, there were 700 gardens. The Ontario Hydro

37
 Figure 3.2.1 Victory Garden Posters

Horticultural Club’s Victory Garden Committee cultivated 425 gardens in Toronto. The
land donated by municipal and private owners grew $26,000 ($331,000 in 2009 dollars)
worth of food. Major streets, such as Bayview Avenue, Queen Street, Keele Street
and Cosborne Ave, together cultivated food equivalent to $30,940 ($385,741 in 2009
dollars). During these periods, Canada had more than 200,000 wartime gardens, each
producing an average of 225 kilograms (Palassio & Wilcox 2009, pp. 58-59).

These data demonstrate that if people work together as a community during

difficult periods and crisis, the collective force manages to produce unimaginable
results. The bonding between individuals in the community is also strengthened as the
entire group is working towards common goals.

38
Artscape Wychwood Barns (2008) – du Toit Allsopp Architects Ltd

The Wychwood Green Art Barns is a community multi-use park located at

Christie Street in the St Clair and Bathurst neighborhood of Toronto. It was designed
by du Toit Allsopp Architects Ltd. The project is intended to foster art and culture,
environmental leadership, heritage preservation, urban agriculture and affordable
housing, site remediation and revitalization of the neighborhood. The barn was originally
a maintenance facility for TTC streetcars. It was redesigned using adaptive reuse and
passive sustainability approaches, maintaining connection to the site’s past through
conserving resources and reusing the site’s materials (RU 2010). The sustainable
system combines passive adaptation and high-tech applications, using computer-
controlled windows for venting, drip-watering system and maximized natural light in the
1,000m2 greenhouse within the barn, which is designed for year-round food production
(RU, 2010).

The total area of the complex is about 5600m2. This area contains public
green space, a greenhouse, farmer’s market, a beach-volleyball court and an office
for community groups and housing for artists. In addition, there is a compost area,
an industrial kitchen that can accommodate both indoor and outdoor events and
gatherings, as well as a sheltered court that houses fruit trees and sensitive large plants
(RU 2010).

Figure 3.2.2 - Wychwood Green Art Barns Greenhouse Interior & Exterior

39
Everygreen Brick Works (2010) – Claude Cormier, du Toit Alsop Hillier,
Diamond+Schmidt Architects Inc., E.R.A. Architects Inc.

Toronto’s Everygreen Brickworks is a 40-acre multi-use park located near the

ravine system of the city, showcasing urban sustainability and heritage preservation.
Brickworks introduce extensive landscaping within the complex, which incorporates
urban agriculture as a core design element to encourage community engagement,
education and recreation, and promote a healthy lifestyle (RU 2010). Buildings and
pavilions have been repurposed into spaces reserved for a farmers’ market, plant
nurseries and a playground for children with fruit trees and berry bushes.

Discovery Garden (see Figure 2.3.11) is an open-air pavilion, incorporating

landscape designs and a year-round garden which accommodates various activities
during the different seasons, throughout which its appearance naturally transforms the
space. The Demonstration Garden is not only a place to buy plants, seeds, organic
soils and fertilizers; here visitors can also learn about growing plants and vegetables
organically (RU 2010).

Figure 3.2.3 - Brickworks Discovery Garden in winter

40
 Figure 3.2.4 - Brickworks Discovery Garden Aerial

Figure 3.2.5 - Brickworks Discovery Garden in summer

41
3.3. Urban Agriculture in Building Scale

This section examines buildings that have incorporated agriculture and food
as key elements of their design. The intention is to investigate how spaces for food
and accommodation could be integrated to benefit the users of the buildings socially,
environmentally, and economically.

Figure 3.3.1 - 60 Richmond East Community Garden

60 Richmond East – Teeple Architects

60 Richmond East is a co-operative housing project located in downtown

Toronto. The building consists of 85 units with one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom
apartments distributed throughout the 12-storey complex. There are 59 units in the
complex dedicated to the relocation of Regent Park residents. Most of the residents are
employed in the hospitality and restaurant industry. This affordable housing project is an
example of environmentally and socially sustainable development. It is an exploration of
an urban form that integrates in its food-growing spaces urban permaculture along with
other green technologies.

The community garden located on the sixth floor is one of the key features of
the building. The terrace space is a productive garden tended by the residents. A metal
framework placed on the east side of the central void is used as a vertical growing

42
 Figure 3.3.2 - 60 Richmond East Exterior & Sectional Perspective

wall for landscaping and contributes to natural ventilation by having climbing vines
cascading down the atrium space. These designs demonstrate one effective way in
which community space could be used for dual functions.

The garden space is not only utilized for social interaction, it is also a productive
garden where fresh herb, fruits, and vegetables are grown. 60 Richmond East has
been designed to consider the occupations of the resident group. The elevated, linear,
productive gardens eventually supply food for the restaurant and training kitchen on
the ground floor. The organic waste from the restaurant is compost and is re-used as
nutrients for the garden, making it a small-scale full cycle ecosystem. Other spaces
such as classrooms, conference halls and amenities support social activities and
interactions, as well as offering opportunities for the residents to share and exchange
their skills and knowledge.

43
 A ventilation stack effect has been created in the building to eliminate the need
for air conditioning. The building is made up of 60% solid matter, with mostly insulating
fiber cement panel cladding, and 40% glass. The green roof also minimizes the gain
of heat island effect. 60 Richmond East demonstrates how social housing and food
production could be planned concurrently in the present urban conditions. However, the
limited amount of green space in this model can only contribute to a small scale of food
production.

Rotterdam Market Hall (2009) – MVRDV

The Rotterdam Market Hall designed by MVRDV is a residential project

combined with a food market hall. The design uses a synergetic and sustainable
approach combining food, leisure, living and parking together. The building responds
to the new hygienic stipulations of Dutch law that require market spaces to be covered.
It also responds to the challenge of whether a city can use a market hall typology to
densify the city, providing housing and food at the same time. The complex is designed
for 246 residence units, with kitchen, dining and storage rooms positioned close to the
market hall, establishing a connection. The ground floor provides a 3,000m2 retail space
along with a 1,600m2 catering area. The first level houses a 1,800m2 supermarket.
The building is designed in an arch shape, using the housing units as a shelter for
the food market. The interior façade of the hall is covered with LEDs, which could be
interchanged for future advertisement purposes. The hall is multifunctional; during the
opening hours the building serves as a central market hall, and at night it is animated by
the restaurant on the ground level.

Figure 3.3.3 – Rotterdam Market Hall interior

44
 Figure 3.3.4 – Rotterdam Market Hall by MVRDV
Public Farm / P.F, 1 (2008) – Work AC

The Public Farm 1 (PF1) is designed by WORK Architecture Company as a

public installation piece for the New York Museum of Modern Art and its sister institute,
the PS1 Contemporary Art Center. PF1 is an experiment in “rurbanization”, a model
in which rural, high-density and open spaces, food production and consumption,
town life and cosmopolitanism could all coexist (RU 2010). The design of PF1 is an
attempt to densify a city by bringing together the different systems and infrastructure
that sustain the city from its periphery to its heart. It appropriates and transforms these
elements in order to create social interaction and engaged play. and thus reinvents
the city (RU, 2010). The design of PF1 consists of 6 unconventional components and
materials—structure, planting, program, power, irrigation, and livestock. The design
uses cardboard tubes that are recyclable and biodegradable as the structural material. A
grouping of seven planter-tubes in hexagonal pattern, with the middle one purposely left
out to allow access to the crops by the urban farmers, act as structural columns. Each
tube is planted with a single species, with a total mixture of 23 types and 51 varieties.
PF1 uses eighteen arrays of photovoltaic modules for power supply and a drip irrigation
system fed by a 6,000-gallon rainwater cistern to deliver controlled amounts of water
for the plants. Chickens have been introduced on site for the duration of the exhibition
period to demonstrate how livestock could be incorporated.

45
 Figure 3.3.5 - Public Farm 1 in P.S.1 Program Distribution

Figure 3.3.6 - Public Farm 1 in P.S.1 MoMa New York by WORK AC

46
3.4 Urban Agriculture Strategies

This section focuses on the three food-oriented theories. The three distinctive
models are theoretical-oriented, conjectural-oriented, and factually-oriented. The
first model is the Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL), developed by
architects Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen, using an interlinking strategy to connect edible
landscapes in urban areas as a green infrastructure network that is spread across
the city. The second model is Vertical Farming developed by Dickson Despommier.
Agricultural production in a vertical format will not only solve food shortage issues but it
also fits appropriately into the urban setting. The third model, the Food City developed
by architects MVRDV and Why Factory, proposes a systematic approach to estimate
food produced and consumed. These methods will collectively help qualify and quantify
parameters to design Agri-town.

Vertical Farming (2010) – Dickson Despommier

Vertical farming, proposed by Dickson Despommier (2010), is intended to solve

the food, water, and energy crises. The idea is to adopt a closed loop agricultural
system. All the water and nutrients are recycled within the building by using suitable
applications and technologies. One of the original forms used in current vertical framing
is the hydroponics method, which strategically stacks greenhouses in a logical manner,
based on site requirements.

There are multiple social, environmental, and economic benefits to adopting

vertical farming in urban areas, whereby agriculture and development could coexist.
Vertical farming allows food be produced 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Crops and
livestock are protected from unpredictable and harmful weather, preventing agricultural
runoff, which secures availability of food for the neighborhood (Despommier 2010).

From the environmental perspective, vertical farming reduces the ecological

footprint of agriculture, especially in urban areas where land availability may be limited.
Having agricultural production centralized in one area of the site at a time allows the
damaged ecosystem to naturally restore and replenish itself (Despommier 2010). Since
the environment is under controllable conditions, organic growing is possible and the

47
 Figure 3.4.1 - Vertical Farming Proposal & Water System

need for pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides is eliminated. The food miles and hence
dependence on fossil fuels could also be reduced drastically (Despommier 2010).

Vertical farming introduces a water collection system where water from an

indoor environment and grey water are collected and recycled into potable water. The
difference in water consumption between vertical farming and conventional farming is
70 to 95 percent (Despommier 2010). Animal and livestock are fed from post-harvest
plant materials. Waste produced by humans and livestock could be treated and re-used
as an energy source to contribute to the generation of power (Despommier 2010).

Vertical farming facilitates food safety and security. It also prevents crop
loss due to shipping or storage, thus improving food adequacy. From the social
perspective, vertical farming provides employment opportunities for the local residents
as they actively participate in their community’s efforts to create a sustainable living
environment. (Despommier 2010).
48
 Figure 3.4.2 - Continuous Productive Urban Landscape

The Edible City (2005) – Katrin Bohn and André Viljoen

Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL) is a coherent design strategy

that introduces interlinked productive landscape into cities (Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., &
Howe 2005). CPUL is a sustainable urban infrastructure that uses both spatial and
occupational components in order to redefine open urban space usage. Some key
features of CPUL are urban agriculture, leisure outdoor space, commercial outdoor
space, natural habitats, ecological corridors and circulation routes for non-vehicular
traffic (Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., & Howe 2005). CPUL recognizes that each site requires
a distinct solution due to their unique site conditions. The concept impacts a city
qualitatively in respect to citizens‘ experience as well as quantifiably by reducing
negative environmental impacts (Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., & Howe 2005). In a city such as
London, for instance, simply introducing urban agriculture on all the abandoned and
leftover space within the city could produce about 30 percent of all fruit and vegetable
needed to feed their current population. Growing fruit and vegetables is the most high-

49
yield and space-efficient method in this instance. In Western Europe and North America,
urban agriculture takes the form of urban farms, community gardens, or allotments
(Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., & Howe 2005).

Figure 3.4.3 - Food City Study by MVRDV, the Why Factory

Food City (2009) – MVRDV + Why Factory

The Food City is an experiment proposed by MVRDV with the Why Factory in
response to the current food crisis. The model estimates the food mass that an average
person needs for a year, the land required to grow all of the food for that person, as well
as the requirements for livestock and its feed and laydown in a flat area. The model
has also shown that significant diet changes take place based on available land area.
In the United States, for example, areas where people consume a lot of beef require
about double the area of land to grow animal feed, compared to that of Japan. The
Food City study used the city of Hangeul in Netherlands as an example to test whether
urban agriculture would be feasible as an application. The proposal has been tested in
2 formats: first, by occupying all available vacant land, the city would require about 41.5
storeys to grow all of the necessary food to feed the city. In the second format, tower
formations, the city would require multiple towers as tall as 35km. The conclusion of
the experiment is that it may not be feasible for a city to achieve total food self-reliance.
Although Food City is just an experiment, it provides a framework and outlines the
factors to consider when executing an estimation of food consumption, as is done in the
following chapter.

50
4
4.0 Food, Farming, and Housing Standards

1500 cal 1850 cal 2825 cal 3000 cal 2900 cal 2650 cal 2500 cal

0 04y - 09y 10y - 18y 19y - 30y 31y - 50y 50y - 71y 71y+

1400 cal 1700 cal 2000 cal 2350 cal 2250 cal 2100 cal 2000 cal

Figure 4.1.1 - Daily Average Calories Intake of Male and Female Canadians- Trends

This chapter is divided into three parts, each addressing the general standards
and measurements pertaining to food, farm and housing. The following data is
intended to establish a set of typical rules and design criteria for incorporating food,
farm, and housing together as building typology. It is interpreted to demonstrate how
this concept could improve food security, productivity and living conditions in order to
ensure healthy food access, self-grown food to offset food expenditure, and provide
opportunities for cultural exchanges for the low-income groups living in the city. Sections
4.1– Food Consumption, 4.2 – Food Types, and 4.3 – Food Servings determine the
quantity and quality of crops and livestock to be consumed and produced, based on
dietary recommendations. Ensuring the right amount and types of food promotes the
individual’s health. Sections 4.4 – Farm Yield, 4.5 – Farm Types, and 4.6 – Farm Sizes
address conventional farming and determine what new possible farming methods and
technologies could be implemented. Sections 4.7 – Affordable Housing Types, 4.8 –
Affordable Housing Unity Sizes, and 4.9 – Affordable Housing Program, assess the
current low-income housing designs and structures, laying out possible modifications,
adjustments and improvements.

52
4.1 Food consumption

Food consumption is the first determinant that influences building design, and
is concerned with food, farming, and housing. The daily food consumption of a person
is measured in terms of energy intake. The unit of energy in the International System
of Units (SI) is the joule (J), and large amounts of energy are measured in kilojoules
(kJ = 103J). However, nutritionists and food scientists use calories and kilocalories to
measure food energy in a regulatory framework. The conversion factors between joules
and calories are as follows: 1kJ is equal to 0.239 kcal, and 1kcal is equivalent to 4.184
kJ (FAO 2002). The mass of food is expressed in grams (g). Food contains multiple
components that provide energy to body; the main components are protein, fats and
carbohydrates and other components, which include alcohol, polyols, organic acids and
vitamins and minerals (FAO 2002). The number of calories contained in a unit varies
from component to component within food. For example, the energy value of 1 gram
of carbohydrate is 16 kJ (4 cal); 1 gram of fat is equivalent to 37kJ (9 calories); 1 gram
of protein provides 17kJ (4 calories) and 1 gram of alcohol contains 29kJ (7 calories)
(Otten, Hellwig, & Meyers 2006).

By determining the amount of food energy an individual or a household needs

each day, the data suggests the amount of food that needs to be grown within the
residential site. According to Health Canada’s statistics (see Table 4.1), the average
calorie intake for a male Canadian is about 2441 calories per day; for a female
Canadian, it is about 2016 calories per day. This rate pertains to a moderately
active person who carries out typical daily living activities for at least 60 minutes per
day (Health Canada 2007). The average calorie intake varies between individuals
depending on age, height, weight, gender, activity levels, genetics and body constitution
(Health Canada 2007).

The nutrient ratio is fairly similar across genders and different age groups; the
proportion curve does not change. Only the total food consumption per individual varies,
depending on geographic location, ethnic background and eating habits. Individual food
consumption in developed countries is usually much higher than the consumption for
people living in the developing countries. However, the required intake could be similar;
perhaps there are omissions in the available data regarding wasted or excessively

53
 2,441
calories / day
2,016
calories / day

890,965
calories / year
735,840
calories / year

Figure 4.1.2 – Daily and Annual Total Calories Intake of Male and Female Canadian

consumed food. In general, the required calorie intake per day has a significant increase
from the stage of childhood into teenage years. After the age of 18, or upon reaching
adulthood, the energy requirement gradually decreases with age. For children, women
of childbearing age and men and women over 50, it is vital to ensure proper nutrition
(Health Canada, 2007).

As stated earlier in this chapter, an active male requires an average total of 2441
calories intake per day (890,965 calories per year), and an active female requires an
average of 2016 calories intake per day (735,840 calories per year) to acquire enough
energy to perform typical daily activities. Using the annual average intake per person,
the amount of food that needs to be grown for a person can be determined. In later
sections of this chapter, in-detail analysis of farm sizes will be conducted to calculate
the area of cropland required per head.

In summary, if a property or living unit can harvest 890,965 calories of food

each year, this could provide enough energy for daily activities and offset the food
expenditure of a single male Canadian. The target for a single female Canadian is
735,840 calories per capita. However, simply securing the quantity of energy intake
does not necessary ensure that the person is eating well and receiving the proper
nutrients. A person needs to absorb different kinds of nutrients from various kinds
of food each day in order to stay healthy and maintain proper functioning of bodily
metabolic processes.

54
4.2 Food Types

This section determines the possible food types that can be produced in sufficient
quantities within the City of Toronto to establish food availability and accessibility during
different seasons. As well as the quantity of food, the quality of food is essential to
an individual’s health. One healthy meal should include a portion of each category of
food—vegetables and fruits, grain products, milk or alternatives and meat or alternatives
(Health Canada 2007). This is explained in detail in the food-serving chapter. The ideal
scenario is to grow and harvest all four types of food within a property. However, this
may not be feasible and one needs to identify what can be grown under the climate
conditions.

According to statistics issued by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and

Rural Affairs (OMAFRA),there are 22 community groups of agri-food trading business
in Ontario (OMAFRA 2010) (see appendix for details of groups). The statistics also
show that the proportions of food export and import are imbalanced within the province.
Ontario has exported over $9.3 billion (35 percent) of food outside the province, and
imported over $16.8 billion (65 percent) of food from other places. The province made
more than one third of its potential local food inaccessible to the people living in Ontario.

Foodland Ontario, a consumer promotion program of OMAFRA, has partnered

with producers to achieve maximum penetration of the Ontario market for local
agricultural products. The program indicates 70 different kinds of crops and livestock
that can be grown either on fields or greenhouses within the province (see Figure 4.2.1).
Among the wide range of available foods in the region are 40 types of vegetables, 18
types of fruits, 7 types of meat and fish, 3 types of dairy and eggs products, and 2 types
of specialty food (see appendix for details) (Foodland Ontario, 2010). The wide range
of food types commonly grown in Ontario demonstrates that ecological and natural
conditions are conducive to providing a good variety of local food supply.

The calendar of Ontario’s seasonal availability (see Figure 4.2.2) illustrates

the growing seasons of each type of crops and livestock. This calendar indicates that
several vegetables and fruits can be grown during different seasons, making them
accessible throughout the year. Some recommended foods that can be grown in the

55
 Figure 4.2.1 – Ontario Availability of Food Groups and Greenbelt

time frame of 6 months or more within the region are: bok choy, carrots, cauliflower,
mushroom, onions, potatoes and rutabaga in the vegetable group, and apples and
rhubarb in the fruit group (Foodland Ontario 2010). Further, some vegetables that can
be easily grown in a greenhouse environment are cucumbers, lettuce and tomatoes.
Chicken, duck, geese, and goat are the common livestock and poultry in the region. The
breeding and gestation periods for these cover two seasons (England 2007). Therefore,
choosing one of the mentioned animals for a domestic diary/poultry farm, egg, meat
and dairy product supply can be ensured for a certain period of time for each year. The
chart shows that there are food items from each 4 major categories that can be made

56
available locally for more than half of a year. This way, the food and nutrient supply for
each individual in a household can be secured by better managing of food cultivation.

Apart from climatic constraints and weather conditions, which dictate all types
of agriculture productions, the most challenging part of urban agriculture is finding
open spaces to grow food in a city with high population density. Finding spaces to grow
vegetables and fruits is relatively easy, as these are more flexible in size and scale
requirements. However, it is more difficult to accommodate animal, livestock, feedstock
and farming equipment, as land values in urban area are very high. In summary, the
food items possible to be grown locally within individual residential spaces are bok choy,
carrots, cauliflower, mushroom, onions, potatoes and rutabaga, apples and rhubarb.
Chicken and duck farming can be incorporated for dairy, egg and meat in control
conditions. The items that could be grown in indoor spaces are cucumbers, lettuce, and
tomatoes. However, further investigation is needed to determine whether these food
choices alone could make a good serving for an individual’s health.

4.3 Food Serving

To further reinforce the adequacy in food security, it is important to determine
whether the food grown locally would be enough to supply healthy food servings per
meal, fulfilling the nutrients and energy requirements of each individual. This section
addresses the recommended quantity and quality of food that a person needs in each
meal in order to maintain a nutritious diet. Furthermore, it will suggest how many healthy
servings and volumes of food each person needs to produce in their living unit either
individually or as a community in larger garden spaces, in order to offset their food bills
without compromising their balanced diets.

Much like calorie intakes, the definition of a good serving varies depending on
individual‘s age, height, weight, gender, and activity levels as well as genetics and
body consumption (Health Canada 2007). The healthy food pyramid (see Figure 4.3.1)
shows the food products and the proportion of different food types a person needs to

57
vegetable fruit grain* meat*

*harvesting season
*livestock breeding season

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

58
JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Figure 4.2.2 – Ontario’s Seasonal Availability Calendar

59
vegetable 125 mL
= 1 SERVING

grain 125 mL
= 1 SERVING

fruit x1
= 1 SERVING

meat 75 g
= 1 SERVING children teens adults children teens adults

2-3 4-8 9-13 14-18 19-50 51+ 2-3 4-8 9-13 14-18 19-50 51+

vegetable 4 5 6 8 8-10 7 4 5 6 7 7-8 7

fruit

grain 3 4 6 7 8 7 3 4 6 6 6-7 7

dairy 2 2 3-4 3-4 2 3 2 2 3-4 3-4 2 3

meat 1 1 1-2 3 3 3 1 1 1-2 2 2 3

Figure 4.3.1 – Food Serving Count Unit in Food Guide

eat per day in order to stay healthy. One should eat more foods from the bottom part of
the pyramid, such as vegetables and whole grains products, and less from the top such
as red meat, sugary drinks, salt and refined grains. A certain amount of alcohol and
additional vitamins might be necessary for some people as optional or supplemental
products, but are not applicable to everyone (Willett, Skerrett, Giovannucci, & Callahan
2001).

The quantity of food servings is calculated differently for each food item. Food-
measuring units are expressed in milliliters and grams. The quantity and the number
of servings in the recommended chart guide are determined based on the volume
contained per serving cup(s). Each serving of vegetables is equivalent to 125 milliliters
(mL) or half a cup, 1 serving of meat is equivalent to 75 g and 1 serving of fruit is
equivalent to 1 fruit in quantity (see Figure 4.3.2).

Following the recommended food guide will help meet the daily-required intake
for vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. In addition, eating well could reduce the risk
of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain types of cancer and osteoporosis,

60
and contribute to the individual’s overall health and vitality (Health Canada, 2007).
However, males and females require different amounts of food servings per day, as
do children, teens and adults (see Figure 4.3.3). A typical adult male between the age
ranges of 19 to 50 needs 8 servings of vegetables; 8 servings of grain; 2 servings
of dairy and 3 servings of meat per day. Converting to food volume and mass, this
amounts to 1000mL of vegetables, 1000mL of grain, 250mL of dairy and 225g of
meat each day. A typical female in the age ranges of 19 and 50 needs 7 servings of
vegetables; 6 servings of grain; 2 servings of dairy, and 2 servings of meat per day.
When converted to food volume and mass, this equals 875mL of vegetables, 750mL of
grain, 250mL of dairy, and 150g of meat.

For practical purposes, (since 1mL of water has a mass of 1 g, let us assume
similar density for all the food types) we may conclude that a male Canadian needs
to consume about 2475g per day (903,375g per year), and a female Canadian needs
to consume about 2025g per day (739,125g per year) (see Figure 4.3.4). With this
information, the arable area each person needs to secure for food production so that his
or her food requirements can then be determined.

Figure 4.3.2 – Food Pyramid

61
4.4 Farm Yield

The quantity and quality of food per person have been determined in previous
sections. The following section will address the yield for each local food type in order
to estimate the area a person would need to secure for food production to meet their
daily and annual energy intake and volume of food. Each food item requires different
amounts of space to grow and to process. The area considerations for the growth
and harvest of vegetables, fruits, grains and livestock differ from species to species.
This section will use a number of charts as reference to explain the growth and time
requirements for each of the food types that are cultivable in Ontario through the
conventional agricultural method of field growing and harvesting. This guide will provide
rough estimations of area that one needs to reserve in order to grow multiple foods
within the city, that will meet the energy intake and amount of food required per person.

The reference charts are separated according to their food groups. For
vegetables, fruits and grains, each label identifies the common and biological name,
class, seeding season, time to maturity, harvest period, water requirement level, ratio of
calories input and output, as well as conventional yield, from top to bottom respectively.
In a similar format for livestock and poultry, each label identifies the common
and biological name, class, breeding seasons, gestation period, time to maturity,
temperature, ratio of calories input and output, average water requirement, and average
feed requirement (see Figure 4.4.1 to 4.4.4).

Space is one of the four basic considerations in growing food, in addition to

sunlight, water and nutrients. There are no specific restrictions for plant growing, as long
as a container or pot holds the growing medium, accepts and drains water and gives the
plant sufficient space to grow (Tracey 2011). Seed spacing is the only consideration that
differs for each species; this estimation can be calculated based on their yield, which is
expressed in kilograms per square meter (kg/m2) in the charts.

Food production under Canada‘s cold climate could start in early February, and
plants could be transplanted easily from outdoor to indoor and vice versa throughout
different seasons (Tracey 2011).

62
Based on prevailing conditions, the potential for including livestock in urban agriculture
is relatively low. This is because their water consumption, feedstock, nutrient, and waste
storage require ample space and energy. In addition to the space required for growing
crops, animals also need space to exercise. Thus, poultry like chicken and ducks, which
are small in size and require the least amount of water and food per day, are the easiest
livestock that can be included in domestic farming.

In this section, the required space and yield for each agricultural product that is
available in Ontario are determined. This data can further be explored to compare
between the productivity of the conventional field lawns growing method in the rural
areas and the compact growing method in the urbanized districts.

Making the assumption that an adult male and an adult female will eat only rice in a
year for every meal, to produce the amount of rice to cover all the energy for their daily
activities, the male requires 477 m2 of growing space and the female requires 395m2 of
growing space (see Figure 4.4.6).

Calculations are shown below:

Given: kcal / year for male = 890,965 kcal / year for female = 735, 840 kcal ratio (output
: input) of rice = 2.5 : 1 rice yield = 747g / m2 Formula: growing area = [(person kcal /
year) / (crop kcal ratio)] / crops yield]
Male scenario: (890,965 / 2.5) / 747 = 477.0896921017403m2 = (477m2)
Female scenario: (735,840 / 2.5) / 747 = 394.0240963855422m2 = (394m2)

However, in order to calculate the required growing area with multiple crops for each
person, both the food mass and the ratio of caloric input and output of the crop item
must be taken into consideration. If we consider only the overall average of food mass,
the answer will be inaccurate with figures either over or below the food energy level
standard for each person.

63
 Cauliflower Beans Zucchini Cucumber
Brassica botrytis Phaseolus spp Cucurbita pepo Cucumis sativus

C L V V
ND - 24 8 32 0.345:1
- 24 8 32 ND - 24 8 32 0.35:1
- 24 8 32
1880 g/ m2 859 g/ m2 1318 g/ m2 1918 g/ m2

Tomato
Lycopersicon
Pepper Corn Eggplant
Capsicum Zea mays Brassica oleracea
esculentum
annuum

F F M C
0.60:1
- 24 8 32 0.14:1
- 24 8 32 2.5:1
- 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
3720 g/ m2 3354 g/ m2 1318 g/ m2 2690 g/ m2

Sweet Potato Carrot Radish

Potato Solanum tuberosum Daucus carota Raphanus sativus
Brassica botrytis

C R R R
1:1 - 24 8 32 1.23:1 - 24 8 32 ND - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
2825 g/ m2 4110 g/ m2 3540 g/ m2 2475 g/ m2

Blueberry Raspberry Strawberries Grapes

Vaccinium Rubus idaeus Fragaria virginiana Vitis spp
corymbosum

P P P P
0.075:1
- 24 8 32 0.34:1
- 24 8 32 0.21:1
- 24 8 32 0.174:1
- 24 8 32
430 g/ m2 600 g/ m2 5000 g/ m2 1543 g/ m2

Cranberries Gooseberries Nectarines Apples

Vaccinium Ribes uva-crispa Prunus persica Malus domestica
macrocarpon

P P T T
1:1 - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32 1.1:1
- 24 8 32
1680 g/ m2 336 g/ m2 1408 g/ m2 2510 g/ m2

Pear Plum Apricots Peaches

Pyrus communis Prunus domestica Prunus armeniaca Prunus persica

T T T T
0.51:1 - 24 8 32 0.765:1
- 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
3250 g/ m2 1303 g/ m2 2225 g/ m2 2607 g/ m2

64
 Onion Rutabaga Garlic Mushroom
Allium spp Asparagus Allium sativum Agaricus
officianale bisporus

O R O P
ND - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32 ND - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
4950 g/ m2 2450 g/ m2 1997 g/ m2 3000 g/ m2

Lettuce Spinach Celery Leek

Latuca spp Spinacea oleracea Apium graveolens Allium ampelo-
prasum

S G S G
0.14:1
- 24 8 32 0.23:1 - 24 8 32 0.599:1
- 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
4189 g/ m2 1690 g/ m2 7845 g/ m2 8220 g/ m2

Broccoli Rhubarb
Brassica botrytis Rheum
rhabarbarum

C S
0.33:1 - 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
1655 g/ m2 1730 g/ m2

Watermelon Muskmelon
Citrullus edulis Cucumis melo

V V
0.07:1
- 24 8 32 1:1 - 24 8 32
2866 g/ m2 1928 g/ m2

Beef Pork Lamb Veal

Bos taurus Sus scrofa Ovis aries Bos taurus
domestica

R (l) S R (s) R (l)

0.029:1
- 24 8 32 0.015:1
- 24 8 32 0.005:1
- 24 8 32 ND - 24 8 32
110 lbs/head 8 lbs/day 3.5 lbs/day 3.7 lbs/day

Chicken Eggs Turkey Milk

G. gallus domesti- G. gallus domesti- Meleagris Bos taurus
cus cus gallopavo

P P P R (l)

0.063:1
- 24 8 32 0.063:1
- 24 8 32 ND - 24 8 32 0.053:1
- 24 8 32
0.3-0.8 lbs/day ND 1.2 lbs/day 72 lbs/day
Figure 4.4.1 – Food Crop Yielding

65
 Male Serving Vegetables (g) Fruits (g) Grain (g) Dairy (mL) Meat (g) Fish (g) ApproximaƟon
How much food does 1 6 (1500g) 2 (500g) 8 (1000g) 2 (500mL) 2 (150g) 1 (75g) 3650g
Canadian consume per
day?
How much food does 1 547,500 182,500 365,000 182,500 54,750 27,375 1,332,250
Canadian consume per
year?
Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2)
[Volume (m3)]
How much land do 1 0.48 0.27 2.82 0.38 2.92 3.48 [0.2] 10.35
Canadian need to
grow their
consumpƟon per day?

How much land do 1 175.2 (7.0%) 97.6 (4%) 1031 (40%) 139.8 (6%) 1066 (43%) 1271 [71.2] 3780 (100%)
Canadian need to
grow their
consumpƟon per
year?

1,066 m2

97.6 m2 1 031 m2 139.8 m2

175.2 m2

2,510 m2

66
Female Serving Vegetables (g) Fruits (g) Grain (g) Dairy (mL) Meat (g) Fish (g) ApproximaƟon
How much food does 1 5 (1250g) 2 (500g) 6 (750g) 2 (500mL) 1 (75g) 1 (75g) 3650g
Canadian consume per
day?
How much food does 1 456,250 182,500 273,750 182,500 27,375 27,375 1,332,250
Canadian consume per
year?
Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2) Area (m2)
[Volume (m3)]
How much land do 1 0.40 0.27 2.12 0.38 1.46 3.48 [0.2] 8.11
Canadian need to
grow their
consumpƟon per day?

How much land do 1 146.9 (7.0%) 97.6 (4%) 773.3 (40%) 139.8 (6%) 532.9 (43%) 1271 [71.2] 2510 (100%)
Canadian need to
grow their
consumpƟon per
year?

532.9 m2

97.6 m2 773.3 m2 139.8 m2

146.9 m2

1,690 m2

Figure 4.4.2 – Annually arable area per person

67
 civic distrcit

urban core zone

urban center zone

general urban zone

sub-urban zone

rural zone

natural zone

rdens s
w boxe s
yard ga ens windo y garden s
s front tchen gardrdens
r farm ki
unity
ga rdens balconroof garden intra-urban agriculture
tracto rmstead comm mmon ga
nd fa co
able la
forage

ousesics
greenh on cs
hydrop ni peri-urban agriculture
aeropo ens
al gard
vertic

extra-urban agriculture

Figure 4.5.1 – Current Agriculture System

civic distrcit

urban core zone

urban center zone

general urban zone

sub-urban zone

rural zone

natural zone

s
ardenns s
w boxe s
yard g e windony garden ns
s front tchen gardrdens
r farm ki ga rdens balco roof garde intra-urban agriculture
tracto rmstead unity
comm mmon g
a
fa
land co
eable
forag

s
house
green roponics s
hyd roponic s peri-urban agriculture
ae garden
al
vertic

extra-urban agriculture

Figure 4.5.2 – Agricultural Urbanism

68
4.5 Current Agricultural System

The current agricultural system for a city resembles a unidirectional flow from
the rural zone to the urban core (see Figure 4.5.1). Food and waste travel the same
distance before they are processed. Thus, the current system and processes end up
adding food miles and greenhouse gas emissions as the city expands. Agricultural
Urbanism is a theory that proposes to bring all the agriculture processes into closer
proximity. Here, food serves as the prime infrastructure element that connects the
various activities together. The idea of agricultural urbanism may be applied to
different scales and sizes of food production zones along the transect. The concept of
agricultural urbanism is subdivided into 3 streams; extra-urban agriculture, peri-urban
agriculture and intra-urban agriculture (see Figure 4.5.2). The flow of product and
processes will emerge from both directions and food production and waste treatment
will take place locally in both the rural and urban zones.

4.6 Vertical Agriculture Urbanism

Vertical agricultural urbanism is the stream that explores agricultural systems

in the vertical manner within the urban zone of a city. This concept is an extension
of the transect model proposed by Andre Duany, which stacks different zones with
unique characteristics together, to allow food production to occur in three directions—
horizontally, vertically and diagonally. With the integration of greenhouse technologies
and farming applications such as hydroponics and aeroponics growing methods, as
well as living wall systems, vertical agricultural urbanism would alter the appearance of
buildings, regardless of whether it uses a high-tech or low-tech solution. This organizing
principle enables food production and inhabitable space to be shared within the same
site, thus optimizing spaces for food and shelter to make up a new lifestyle together.

In order to investigate the idea further, a simple study (see Figure 4.5.3) is
conducted by comparing the different zones along the transect proposed by Andre
Duany. The objective of this study is to determine how urbanization affects arable
space by estimating the maximum productive surfaces and planes based on a typical
100 meter by 100 meter block on each zone along the transect. The determinants are
categorized into building coverage, building footprint areas, service and road area,

69
productive coverage and total productive surface area. These are estimated by adding
building façades, open spaces and side walks within the block. The findings of this
experiment suggest that the agricultural opportunities of a site increase in correlation
with its density. This proves that agricultural production can co-exist with spaces
for habitation without any conflicts. The concept of vertical agricultural urbanism is
subdivided into 3 major areas as follows: low-urban agriculture, mid-urban agriculture,
and high-urban agriculture (see Figure 4.5.4). If different zones are stacked and mixed
together in three different directions on each floor, the level creates its own microclimatic
conditions, which are suitable and controllable for a variety of different programs and
growing strategies.

natural zone rural zone sub-urban zone general

building coverage = 0% building coverage = 2.25% building coverage = 15.25% building covera
building footprint area = 0 m2 building footprint area = 225 m2 building footprint area = 1525 m2 building footpr
service area = 0 m2 service area = 975 m2 service area = 3,904m2 service area =
productive coverage = 100% productive coverage = 90.25% productive coverage = 45.70% productive cov
productive area = 10,000 m2 productive area = 9,025 m2 productive area = 4590 m2 productive are

maximum productive surface area maximum productive surface area maximum productive surface area maximum prod
= 15,000 m2 = 10,000 m2 = 14,483 m2 = 14,800 m2

70
an zone urban centre zone urban core zone special zone

21.4% building coverage = 29.75% building coverage = 40% building coverage = 6.80%
a = 2140 m2 building footprint area = 2975 m2 building footprint area = 4000 m2 building footprint area = 680 m2
m2 service area = 3904m2 service area = 3,904m2 service area = 5978m2
= 39.55% productive coverage = 31.20% productive coverage = 20.95% productive coverage = 33.41%
55 m2 productive area = 3120 m2 productive area = 2095 m2 productive area = 3341 m2

surface area maximum productive surface area maximum productive surface area maximum productive surface area
= 21,746 m2 = 39,150 m2 = 12,000 m2

Figure 4.5.3 – Transact Estimation

71
 urba

general urban zone

sub-urban zone

rural zone

natural zone

s
ardenns es
w box s
yard g e windony gardenens
s front itchen gardrdens
r farm k
unity
ga rdens balco roof gard
tracto rmstead commommon g
a
fa
land c
eable
forag

s
house
greendroponics s
hy roponic s pe
ae garden
al
vertic

extra-urban agriculture

72
 civic district

high-urban
urban core zone agriculture

urban center zone

civic distrcit
general urban zone
mid-urban
urban core zone agriculture

sub-urban zone
an center zone

rural zone

low-urban
agriculture
natural zone

intra-urban agriculture

eri-urban agriculture

Figure 4.5.4 – Vertical Agricultural Urbanism

73
74
5
5.0 Design Proposal

The research proposal is to design a self-sufficient Chinatown for the City of

Toronto, called Agri-town. The study area is located between University Avenue to
Bathurst Street in east-west direction, and College Street to Queen Street West in north-
south direction. The design incorporates elements from continuous productive urban
landscape (CPUL) and vertical farming models, and will be executed at three different
scales: urban, community, and building.

Firstly, for the urban scale design investigation, the factors being considered
must be evaluated for viability vis-à-vis the low-income population as well as the total
population of Chinatown. The design will proceed by first following the Food City
estimation method and then will use the nutrition and yield information determined in
Chapter 4 as a reference guide to estimate the food energy intake, food mass, food
choices and required area for agricultural production.

Secondly, for a community-scale investigation, the study area will consist of

a 1-hectare block (100m x 100m). Reference will be made to the studies covered in
chapter 4.5. The aim here is to investigate possible functions and programs the block
could incorporate for the focus group, as well as to determine the program distribution
and proportion between productive areas and occupant activity areas. The investigation
would determine the location of the productive landscape on the city block as well as
the basic massing for different buildings.

Finally, for the building scale investigation, the focus is to develop a sustainable
closed-loop system incorporating elements from the different sustainable systems
discussed earlier. The model illustrates how food production and housing could be
integrated within a building design, to conclude the Agri-town research.

76
5.1 Urban Context

y
AGE AND GENDER

Child (13.5% T.O.17%) Child (12% T.O. 16%)

Youth (15% T.O. 13%) Youth (15% T.O. 13% )
Working age: 57% Working age:57%
Senior (16%) Senior: 16%

Chinatown has a total population of 17,090.

PRIMARY LANGUAGES

Chinese
19% of Chinatown residents do not have any knowledge of English or French.

English
and French 54.3% are immigrants, and

Vietnamese
Portuguese
13% are recent immigrants

Arabic
Tagalog
Other
More than one language

INCOME AND POVERTY

17% of whole Toronto,

Toronto median family income: $72 000 $39 963 : Chinatown median family income 39% of Chinatown
residents live in poverty
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

RENTERS VS OWNERS

Toronto 43% 57%

Chinatown 70%

Properties Rented
30%
Toronto average monthly rent: $914 $892 : Chinatown average rent

21%

39% 21%
(302 834) 39%
(2 985)
of residents in Chinatown spend over 30% of their income on shelter, compared to in Toronto.

41% of homes in Chinatown are in need of major or

minor repairs,compared to 17 % for Toronto overall.

Figure 5.1.1 – Chinatown statistic

77
5.2 Site Selection

The site chosen to test the research is the Alexandra Park neighbourhood in
Toronto’s Chinatown district. The site is bounded by Dundas Street West and Queen
Street West in the north-south direction and Augusta Avenue to Cameron Street in the
east-west direction. This site is one of the locations selected to implement the new
revitalization plan.

The new master-plan is proposed by the staff of Toronto Community Housing

Committee and Urban Strategies Inc. The revitalization plan includes the development
of new housing, community facilities and recreational park spaces at the basic program
level. The proposed plan has an estimated 2346 units to be accommodated within
the site. It has been proposed that 40 percent of the newly developed property will be
distributed as public housing and 60 percent will be market housing.

The site is designated to become a food sourcing center, as the surrounding

areas within walking distances are full of street markets such as: Kensington Market
towards the north; Spadina Avenue’s Chinese Street Market towards the east; affluent
park spaces towards the west; and small scale restaurants and grocery stores towards
the south. In addition, the adjacent area across Queen Street was where the erstwhile
Saint Andrews Market was located. The Market was demolished due to the lack of
use over time, early in the twentieth century. The market hall is intended to serve the
western downtown district, in a similar way to how the St. Lawrence Market acts as an
anchor point and food destination in the eastern downtown district. Therefore, focusing
food production within Alexandra Park would be the ideal way to service and support the
current market.

The current master-plan addresses the issues of housing shortages and the
dire need for building repairs. However, the large numbers of low-income families and
households that are going to move in to the Alexandra Park neighbourhood require
the supply of basic necessities, especially food. In order to prevent urban poverty and
slum-like conditions to take place in this redevelopment, it is necessary to develop an
infrastructure system oriented to food. The infrastructure system must be designed
in such a way as to support the large amount of residents with food, shelter and job
availability.
78
 14 times of the size of Chinatown to supply the whote district

Figure 5.1.2 – Potential area for Agricultural production

1
ST
EET WE
STR
DAS
DUN
8
7
CAM
ERO
VAN

6
N ST
A
AUG

ULE

5
REE

DRA
XAN
UST

Y WA

ALE RK
T

PA 2
A AV

NUE
LK

AVE
NGE
ENU

GRA 12
E

11

DY
RAN RE 10
MO
9 PAD K
P R
A
3 16
T
REE
R ST 15
CAR
VAN
A
ULE

14
Y ST

13 A/
UST
REE

AUG ELEY
S
WOL G LOT
T

ET KIN
TRE PAR
EY S
SEL
WOL 4
EST
RE ET W
E N ST
QUE

Figure 5.3.1 – Site Photos Location

79
 1) 2)

5) 6)

9) 10)

13) 14)

80
3) 4)

7) 8)

11) 12)

15) 16)

Figure 5.3.2 – Site Photos

5.3 Existing Urban Condition

T
WES
EET
STR
DAS
DUN

CAM
ER
VAN

ON S
A
AUG

ULE

TRE
DRA
XAN

UST

Y WA
ALE RK

ET
PA

A AV
NUE

LK
AVE
NGE

ENU
GRA

E
DY
RAN RE
MO
PAD K
PAR

T
REE
R ST
CAR

VAN
A
ULE
Y ST
A/
UST

REE
AUG ELEY
S
WOL G LOT

T
ET KIN
TRE PAR
EY S
SEL
WOL
EST
ET W
TRE
EN S
QUE

Figure 5.3.3 – Connections with urban condition

The current Alexandra Park neighbourhood has adopted typical town planning
principles observed in the suburbs. Due to inaccessibility along the street edges, the
site has become isolated, separating the community physically and socially from the
rest of the city fabric and major roads. Vanauley Street and Vanauley Walk have isolated
the site, preventing direct north-south access with their meandering structure (see
Figure 5.3.1 & 5.3.2). The streets in between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street,
running in an east-west direction, only make ambiguous connections with the city block.
Furthermore, the lack of social presence and lively activities on Grange Avenue, Carr
Street, and Wolseley Street have created an impression of an encroaching Community
Center and school. The inconvenient approach has kept people from fully using the
facilities and services of the Community Center. Therefore, a new infrastructure system
needs to be implemented in order to improve the current urban condition and connect
important junctures and neighbourhoods within the city (see FIgure 5.3.3 & 5.3.4) .

82
 CAM
ERO
VAN

N
AUL

STR
AUG

EY S

EET
UST
NUE
AVE

TRE
NGE
GRA

A AV

ET
ENU
E
T
REE
R ST
CAR

ET
TRE
EY S
SEL
WOL

Figure 5.3.4 – Proposed Street Functions

Agricultural urbanism, as the core strategy in the design development, will not
only benefit the residents living in the new Alexandra Park neighbourhood by offsetting
food expenses through growing their own food, it will also support other food-related
industries beyond Chinatown. Its benefits will also affect the financial district and other
downtown areas of the city. Placing food at the core of the program organization and
system approach, the closed loop system would develop from considerations of how
food is produced, processed, transported, stored, distributed, consumed and celebrated.
Waste recovery would complete the sequence of the closed loop sustainable system at
the individual, community and urban scales.

83
5.4 Zoning and Connectivity

22 o

As optimization of local food production is one of the major goals of this design
experiment, new zoning should focus on taking full advantage of natural resources,
particularly natural daylight, and simultaneously, should push the boundary to increase
site density. The orientation of the sun angle for Toronto is approximately 70 degrees
Celsius in the summer and 22 degrees during winter. If we apply the winter angle
throughout the site as the zoning requirement for building design, the height differences
of the volume, starting at ground from the south phase, incrementally progress to the
tallest point of the north phase at 150 meters (see Figure 5.4.1).

Further, cutting out the street grid and terracing of the volume would prevent
over-shading issues for the building complex. In addition, these moves would create
courtyard spaces on each plot for balconies towards the center, as well as extra edible
surfaces for food production and circulation. Carrying on with the principle of continuous
edible landscape, Grange Avenue, Carr Street and Wolseley Street will be extended

84
 Figure 5.4.1 – Zoning and Massing

east-west from Bathurst Street to Spadina Avenue. They will be widened and dedicated
to become a 15-meter farm strip with bike paths and pedestrian trails. Furthermore, this
will connect the Community Center and school in Alexandra Park and Randy Padmore
Park with the rest of the city.

In addition, it is suggested that the parking lot at the intersection of Augusta Avenue and
Wolseley Street could also contribute to the food system as well as improve connectivity
throughout Alexandra Park in east-west direction. In the north-south direction, Vanauley
Street will be widened to 40 meters and developed as a promenade with sufficient
spaces reserved as temporary venues for events, with the landscape component acting
as a spine anchoring the design. This would improve connectivity and alleviate the
site isolation. Augusta Avenue and Cameron Street would become the service streets
with entrances for loading and parking underground, to facilitate the transportation and
delivery of food from the site to the stores and restaurants along Spadina Avenue.

85
86
 pedestrian acce
loading + parkin
pv cells
water tanks + ch

private garden
community rooft
public farm

Figure 5.4.2 – Site Plan

5.5 Programing

The proposed functions and space layout of Agritown will be an ultra-mixture of

conventional housing development programs with agricultural related systems as the
utopian concept. The design of Agritown has assumed that the future residents of the
site would acquire similar needs and lifestyles, resulting in the application of a modular
unit throughout the entire site. The position of this modular system is designed to blend
the public units and market units together without projecting any initial differentiations
in terms of size, space, and status. All residents would be treated equally with the
same amount of living and growing space. The only differentiation among each of
the units and spaces would be the variation in food types and species that are grown
on the different surfaces. Vegetables, fruits, grain products, and herbs will be placed
depending on the species’ growing properties and nursery environment required. The
design has used food crop as the core material that changes the appearance of each
unit; this natural aesthetic will contribute to the transformation of the complex’s overall
appearance over time, as the plants flourish.

Agritown has adopted an interest-based model similar to that learned from the
Broadacre city and Phalanstere as a social structured model. The development is a
type of co-operative housing in which all the residents carry a social responsibility and
social duty of contributing to the overall farm productivity and yield. With this mandate
becoming a part of their daily jobs and leisure activities, this model resonates a cultural
movement like that of the Victory Gardens during the World War periods. Each unit
is a simple rectangular volume with the dimension of 4.5 meters in width; 9 meters in
depth; and 4.5 meters in height. The total floor area of each unit is 81 square meters.
Surfaces within the units are subdivided into 3 distinct spaces with a collective of
residential (60.75 m2), commercial (20.25 m2), and agricultural (324.2 m2, maximum)
compartments provided, including balconies, front yard, a rooftop and courtyard spaces
(see Figure 5.5.1).

88
 In the current design, 2906 units can be provided. Another 560 units could
be provided, in addition to the original masterplan proposed by Toronto Community
Housing Committee for the same site. If the density and amount of units are to be
maintained, the additional areas can be turned into open-air and enclosed community
gardens, as well as hydroponic and aeroponics greenhouses, contributing to the overall
agricultural production of the site. This would provide extra amenities spaces within
the buildings, thus encouraging the exchange of knowledge and interaction amongst
residents.

corn
40.5 m2

tomatoes
40.5 m2

spinach
20.25 m2

tea strawberry
20.25 m2 20.5 m2

chili pepper
10.12 m2

lettuce
40.5 m2

total growing area = 324.2

total living area 81m2

Figure 5.5.1 – Unit Arable Space

89
90
Figure 5.5.2 – Building Section

91
5.6 Circulation Loop

Figure 5.6.1 - Loop Criculation

The main circulation system of Agritown is based on a loop system. The network
consists of a series of ramps that are linked together into a single barrier-free corridor,
where people can circulate from the grade level at the south end of the Queen Street
entranceway, and travel along this path to reach the rooftop garden of the towers,
located at Dundas Street on the north. The terracing and sloping of the buildings’
volumes create two routes, with an outdoor ramp and an indoor ramp. As the ramps
wrap around the perimeter of the plot, they create different vistas from within, offering
interesting views and varying experiences in all directions along their journey. The
corridor’s width of 4.5 meters is consistent throughout the whole system. With the
clearance height of the ceiling at 4.5 meters, the inner side of the ramp becomes an
indoor strip mall where people will pass by the commercial components of each unit.
These commercial spaces become storefronts on the inner surface of the corridor.
Each unit will be converted into different working spaces and stores depending on the
residents’ skills or household interests.
92
 Figure 5.6.2 - Residential Units

On the outer side of this corridor, towards the exterior, the building façade has
incorporated hydroponic tubes for the growing of vegetables and plants, such as lettuce
and bok choy. The walking surface is a green lawn with fixed planters and movable
trays, to allow growth of a variety small-scale food crops, such as chilli peppers and
tomatoes. The transitional spaces between each turn of a ramp are areas that are
used as nodes within the loop. These nodes become significant hubs of interchanging
functions, accommodating a mix of animated programs similar to that of the Public
Farm 1 project. In addition to the generous airspaces in this circulation system, the
lush greenery provides a human-altered landscape in the city that uses food as
the alternative to typical landscaping material such as trees, grasses and flowers.
Furthermore, the food hydroponic façade on the outer boundary functions as a natural
shading device.

93
94
loop corridor interior

95
96
loop corridor exterior

97
 Figure 5.6.5 - Agriculture Production Area

Large-scale commercial agriculture production that requires certain food

processes before being transported to consumers, requires a continuous landscape
in which to grow. This type of growth, for grain products for instance, could take place
on the connected rooftops of buildings, which can be allocated to become a series
of wetlands like corn or rice fields. Crops that are tall by nature are more suitable for
growth in outdoor climatic conditions. Thus, they will not only benefit from this system
and contribute to the food production, but will also help in sustaining the building design
environmentally. Due to the tall nature of the species, this layer of camouflage on
rooftops could reduce the heat island effect of the building, while providing an elevated
landscape with accessible trails for people, insects, animals, and birds. In this sense,
the rooftop becomes a tractor point that encourages biodiversity to occur within the site.

98
 Figure 5.6.6 - Commercial + Retail Area

The entire loop system serves various functions including a greenhouse and
a continuous linear park. Similar to the Wynchwood Barn and Evergreen Brickworks,
Agritown’s circulation is a complex and diverse system composed of farm, market, retail,
office, social, and recreational activities. Functions of daily life in work, play, growth, and
eating are fully compacted and integrated as a holistic integrated system.

99
100
low-rise rooftop

101
5.7 System Integration

Figure 5.7.1 - Water Flow + Irrigation system

The transportation, storage, distribution, and waste recovery of the food system
typically stretches along an entire transact from the rural to urban core. Agritown has
attempted to integrate these systems together by organizing them into layers within the
site.

The rooftops of each of the buildings will be integrated with storm water collection
tanks. Through the façade system of water pipes, sprinkler heads and metal, the storm
water is filtered and cleansed by way of the looped ramp system. The vegetables will
also contribute to the filtration system, cleansing while being irrigated at the same time.
The greater the distance the water travels through the hydroponic system, the cleaner
the water will become. Therefore, the 400m-long water channel along Vanauley Street is
very clean and safe for people to swim in during the summer and doubles as a skating
rink during the winter.

102
 Figure 5.7.2 - Vertical Circulation + Distribution System

As mentioned in the above sections, the vegetables growing on the water

channels are used as a natural shading system. During the summer, with high seasonal
availability and yielding, the growth rate and cycle of crops are generally faster. Due
to the climatic condition in which the crops receive more natural light, the sunlight will
stimulate the growing process, resulting in a more opaque façade and thus becoming
a passive shading device for the buildings. On the contrary, during the winter when the
productivity of plants is much lower, the slower growth of the food crops will result in a
more transparent façade, allowing more desired light to enter through the buildings.

The building envelope of the towers’ façades will integrate photovoltaic films in
between the layers of glazing. The building rooftop will also be dedicated for hot water
solar panel systems that will harvest solar energy to provide additional shading of the
interiors as well as generate electricity for the dwelling units.

103
104
central promenade & water channel

105
 Figure 5.7.4 - Social + Recreational Area

The rooftops of the midrise buildings are programmed for grain and corn
production. The elevator cores, besides serving use by residents, will provide extra shaft
spaces for distributing the harvest to the basement level where they will be processed.
After processing is complete, the crops are stored in another shaft. These vertical shafts
act like silos, storing food crops within the vertical distribution system for Agritown.
These shafts will be also linked with the loading corridor along Augusta and Cameron in
order to distribute food to further locations in the city.

106
 Figure 5.7.5 - Technical + Service Area

To accommodate for waste treatment, the basement levels on each plot will have
a series of incinerators as part of the mechanical system to process methane from both
human and food waste. The waste is reused and regenerated into energy, supplying
electricity for the neighbourhood. This method is an example of repurposing waste as an
input resource and regenerating nutrients as the output resource.

107
 Figure 5.8.1 – Low-rise Sectional Experience

108
Figure 5.8.2 – Mid-rise Sectional Experience

109
110
Figure 5.8.3 – High-rise Sectional Experience

111
112
Figure 5.8.4 – Plan Experience

113
Conclusion

In the previous chapters and design proposal of Agritown, a conceptual

framework has been established by demonstrating several elements that need to be
considered in order to incorporate agriculture together with architecture. The elements
have both qualitative and quantitative parameters.

First of all, Agritown bases its estimates on the target population that needs
to be fed. It has been found that an average Canadian requires about 2100 square
meters of farmland to grow all the food that meets their annual energy and nutritional
requirements.. The research explored whether livestock and meat processing is feasible
on site and found that, for this specific design, livestock such as cattle and pigs need to
be eliminated on account of space constraints.

Secondly, In the Agritown proposal, each suburbia style units with 81 square
meters of floor area could provide about 324 square meters of surface area dedicated
for food production. With the amount of surface area available, the unit can produce
about 1.2 times an individual’s annual vegetable and fruit consumption (272.8m2). If the
unit is only designed for one person, this could in result cover 12% of his or her total
annual food expense. However, if each unit accommodates a family, more service areas
need to be discovered, as all the interior flooring, wall and ceiling areas will be fully
dedicated to food production. This also raises a further question as to what is the most
ideal and effective building geometry and orientation for food growing in urban areas.
Since this investigation applies to vertical agricultural urbanism, a simple rectangular
structuring has been found to be the best match to farm effectively and efficiently.

Thirdly, Agritown suggests the relationship between space and the location for growing
different types of food. Further investigation is required to evaluate how much energy
is required in order to produce the targeted quantity of food. If technical systems
and material selection could be better integrated, it is expected that factors such as
material properties and lighting illuminations can have a positive effect on a household’s
expenses on energy and utilities. This could further enable them to make savings from
food expenditure and rent.

114
In conclusion, Agritown as a Utopian experiment integrates the parallel systems of
agriculture and housing development closer together. It systematically develops the
argument that both agriculture and other activities could share the same spaces and
take place simultaneously without conflict. . Further, Agritown provides a model by
whereby food system and living spaces could coexist in the urban areas of a city,
offsetting a portion of food expenditure and housing shortages for the low-income
demographic. Vertical agricultural urbanism thus provides precisely the solutions the city
needs in order to solve the problems of food production and housing due to population
growth and city migration that a city will continue to face in the future.

115
116
aerial view

117
118
queen street entranceway

119
120
mid-rise courtyard

121
122
dundas street entranceway

123
124
grocery store& rooftop farm

125
126
community sky garden

127
128
hydroponic sky garden

129
130
view from context rooftop

131
appendix
Appendix - Local Crops Type in Toronto

Good Things Grow in Ontario

Nutrition Guide
FOOD GROUPS SERVING CALORIES CARBO- DIETARY A SOURCE OF ONTARIO AVAILABILITY
HYDRATES FIBRE
(grams) (grams)

VEGETABLES J FMAM J J A S ON D
Artichoke 125 mL 45 10 3 Magnesium,
cooked Folate
ššš
Asparagus 125 mL 21 4 2 Vitamin C,
cooked Folate
šš
Bok Choy 125 mL 11 2 1 Vitamin A,
cooked Folate šš š š š š
Broccoli 125 mL 16 3 1 Vitamin C,
raw Folate ššššš
Carrots 125 mL 28 8 2 Vitamin A,
raw Folate
ššššš ššššš
Cauliflower 125 mL 13 3 1 Vitamin C,
raw Folate š š š š
š
Corn 125 mL 70 17 2 Vitamin C,
cooked Folate šššš
Cucumbers 125 mL 9 2 1 Vitamin C,
Field Folate ššššš
Greenhouse ššššššššššš š
Lettuce 250 mL 9 2 1 Vitamin A,
Assorted Folate ššššš
Greenhouse ššššššššššš š
Mushrooms 125 mL 11 2 1 Niacin
raw
ššššššššššš š
Onions 125 mL 36 9 1 Vitamin C,
raw Folate
ššššššššššš š
Potatoes 125 mL 63 15 2 Vitamin C,
cooked Folate
ššš ššššš š
Rutabaga 125 mL 35 8 2 Vitamin C,
cooked Folate ššššššššššš š
Tomatoes 125 mL 17 4 1 Vitamin C,
Field raw Folate šššš
Greenhouse šššššššššš
FRUITS J FMAM J J A S ON D

Apples 1 med 72 19 3 Vitamin C šššššš šššš š

Blueberries 125 mL 44 11 2 Vitamin C ššš
Cherries 125 mL 78 20 3 Vitamin C šš
Grapes 125 mL 55 15 1 Vitamin C šš
Nectarines 1 fruit 60 14 2 Vitamin C šš
Peaches 1 med 38 9 2 Vitamin C ššš
Pears 1 med 96 26 5 Vitamin C,
Folate šššš š
Plums 1 fruit 30 8 1 Vitamin C šššš
Raspberries 125 mL 34 8 4 Vitamin C ššš
Rhubarb 125 mL 14 3 1 Vitamin K,
Vitamin C šššššš
Strawberries 125 mL 28 7 2 Vitamin C šš
Watermelon 125 mL 24 6 Lycopene š š š

Note: 250 mL = 1 cup

134
FOOD GROUPS SERVING CALORIES PROTEIN FAT IRON VITAMIN CARBO- CALCIUM
(grams) (grams) (milligrams) B12 HYDRATES (milligrams)
(micrograms) (grams)

MEATS
Beef
Inside Top 75 g 123 24 2 2.0 1.71
Round Roast
Eye of Round 75 g 148 24 5 2.0 1.44
Sirloin Tip 75 g 156 25 5 3.0 1.84
Roast
Pork
Tenderloin 75 g 108 21 2 1.0 0.41
Veal
Leg 75 g 11 2 21 3 1.0 0.88
Shoulder 75 g 142 23 5 1.0 2.5
Lamb Leg 75 g 184 19 12 2.0 1.95
POULTRY
Turkey
Dark Meat 75 g 140 21 6 2.0 0.28
Cooked
(Skinless)
Light Meat 75 g 118 22 2 1.0 0.28
Cooked
(Skinless)
Chicken
(Skinless) 75 g 119 25 2 0.5 0.26
FISH
Fish
Fresh Trout 75 g 127 18 5 0.3 3.73
DAIRY
Cheese
Reduced Fat 50 g 141 14 9 0.83 452
Cheddar
Cheddar 50 g 202 12 17 0.42 360
Eggs 2 large 155 13 11 1.0 1.11
Milk 2% 250 mL 129 9 5 1.19 12 302
GRAINS
Bread 1 slice 88 4 1 1.0 16
Whole Grain
LEGUMES
Beans
Lentils 175 mL 135 11 1 4.0 23
Kidney 175 mL 161 10 1 2.0 30

š

7bb
i[hl_d]
i_p[i
Wb_]d
m_j^
9WdWZWÊi
<eeZ
=k_Z[
š

7i
ÉOekh
<h_[dZ
_d
j^[
A_jY^[dÊ"
<eeZbWdZ
EdjWh_e
e\\[hi

recommendations, while all nutrition information wonderful recipes, tips and food facts, and cooking
aligns with the Canadian Nutrient File. l_Z[ei
\[Wjkh_d]
\h[i^
EdjWh_e
\eeZi$
š

Je
^[bf
_cfhel[
oekh
^[Wbj^
gkWb_jo
WdZ
cWa[ š

;WjH_]^j
EdjWh_e
_i
oekh
Óhij
ijef
\eh
jhkij[Z

^[Wbj^_[h
\eeZ
Y^e_Y[i"
fb[Wi[
l_i_j
WdZ%eh
YedjWYj
_d\ehcWj_ed
WdZ
WZl_Y[
ed
dkjh_j_ed
WdZ
^[Wbj^o
[Wj_d]

EatRight Ontario and Foodland Ontario. from Registered Dietitians, including meal planning
and healthy eating tips and recipes.

Contact a Registered Dietitian for free.

EatRight Ontario | 1-877-510-510-2
www.Ontario.ca/EatRight

1-888-428-9668 | foodlandontario.ca

135
Appendix - Agricultural Land Type in Canada

Table 1. Amount of Dependable Agricultural Land, Canada and Provinces

Province / Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Dependable Total Dependable agricultural land

Territory land land - as percent of - as percent of
(Class 1-2-3) area total land within Canada's total
*** square kilometres *** each province agricultural land

Newfoundland - - 19 19 405,720 - -
Prince Edward Island - 2,616 1,415 4,031 5,660 71.2 0.9
Nova Scotia - 1,663 9,829 11,492 55,490 20.7 2.5
New Brunswick - 1,605 11,511 13,116 73,440 17.9 2.9
Quebec 196 9,071 12,772 22,039 1,540,680 1.4 4.8
Ontario 21,568 22,177 29,088 72,833 1,068,580 6.8 16.0
Manitoba 1,625 25,306 24,407 51,338 649,950 7.9 11.3
Saskatchewan 9,997 58,745 94,247 162,989 652,330 25.0 35.9
Alberta 7,865 38,371 61,053 107,289 661,190 16.2 23.6
British Columbia 211 2,355 6,920 9,486 947,800 1.0 2.1
Yukon .. .. .. .. 483,450 .. ..
Northwest Territories .. .. .. .. 3,426,320 .. ..
Canada 41,461 161,908 251,261 454,630 9,997,610 4.5 100.0
Notes:
Figures may not add up due to rounding.
The Canada Land Inventory soil capability classes:
Class 1 - Soils in this class have no significant limitations for crops.
Class 2 - Soils in this class have moderate limitations that restrict the range of crops or require moderate conservation
Classi 3 - Soils in this class have moderately severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or require special conservation
i
Sources:
McCuaig, J.D. and E.W. Manning (1982)
Statistics Canada. Environment Accounts and Statistics Division.

Urban land use

Canada’s cities and towns expanded steadily between 1971 and 1996, consuming more than
12 thousand square kilometres in this 25-year period (Table 2). This expansion is equivalent
to more than twice the land area of Prince Edward Island and represents an increase of 77
percent in urban land over the 25-year period. Much of the expansion occurred around
smaller cities (cities with populations less than 100 thousand persons) where it was not un-
common to record a doubling in the area of urban land. In terms of sheer size, Ontario and
Quebec contain over 55 percent of Canada’s urban land, and not surprisingly between 1971
and 1996, these two provinces also grew the most in terms of the absolute increase in land
used for urban purposes. In fact, Ontario’s urban area grew by 3,472 square kilometres –
this amount is larger than the total urban area found in any province outside Quebec.

136
Appendix - Daily Food Severing & Calories Intake

Recommended Number of Food Guide Servings per Day What is One Food Guide Serving? Make each Food Guide Serving count…
Look at the examples below. wherever you are – at home, at school, at work or when eating out!
Children Teens Adults
Age in Years 2-3 4-8 9-13 14-18 19-50 51+
Eat at least one dark green and one orange vegetable each day.
• Go for dark green vegetables such as broccoli, romaine lettuce and spinach.
Sex Girls and Boys Females Males Females Males Females Males
• Go for orange vegetables such as carrots, sweet potatoes and winter squash.
Choose vegetables and fruit prepared with little or no added fat, sugar or salt.
Vegetables
4 5 6 7 8 7-8 8-10 7 7
• Enjoy vegetables steamed, baked or stir-fried instead of deep-fried.
and Fruit Fresh, frozen or canned vegetables Leafy vegetables Fresh, frozen or 100% Juice
125 mL (1⁄2 cup) Cooked: 125 mL (1⁄2 cup) canned fruits 125 mL (1⁄2 cup) Have vegetables and fruit more often than juice.
Raw: 250 mL (1 cup) 1 fruit or 125 mL (1⁄2 cup)

Make at least half of your grain products whole grain each day.
• Eat a variety of whole grains such as barley, brown rice, oats, quinoa and wild rice.
• Enjoy whole grain breads, oatmeal or whole wheat pasta.
Grain
Products 3 4 6 6 7 6-7 8 6 7 Choose grain products that are lower in fat, sugar or salt.
• Compare the Nutrition Facts table on labels to make wise choices.
Bread Bagel Flat breads Cooked rice, Cereal Cooked pasta • Enjoy the true taste of grain products. When adding sauces or spreads, use small amounts.
1 slice (35 g) 1
⁄2 bagel (45 g) 1
⁄2 pita or 1⁄2 tortilla (35 g) bulgur or quinoa Cold: 30 g or couscous
125 mL (1⁄2 cup) Hot: 175 mL (3⁄4 cup) 125 mL (1⁄2 cup)
Drink skim, 1%, or 2% milk each day.
• Have 500 mL (2 cups) of milk every day for adequate vitamin D.
• Drink fortified soy beverages if you do not drink milk.
Milk and
Alternatives 2 2 3-4 3-4 3-4 2 2 3 3 Select lower fat milk alternatives.
• Compare the Nutrition Facts table on yogurts or cheeses to make wise choices.
Milk or powdered Canned milk Fortified soy Yogurt Kefir Cheese
milk (reconstituted) (evaporated) beverage 175 g 175 g 50 g (1 1⁄2 oz.)
250 mL (1 cup) 125 mL (1⁄2 cup) 250 mL (1 cup) (3⁄4 cup) (3⁄4 cup)

Have meat alternatives such as beans, lentils and tofu often.

Meat and Eat at least two Food Guide Servings of fish each week.*
Alternatives 1 1 1-2 2 3 2 3 2 3 • Choose fish such as char, herring, mackerel, salmon, sardines and trout.
Select lean meat and alternatives prepared with little or no added fat or salt.
Cooked fish, shellfish, Cooked legumes Tofu Peanut or nut butters Shelled nuts • Trim the visible fat from meats. Remove the skin on poultry.
Eggs
poultry, lean meat 175 mL (3⁄4 cup) 150 g or 2 eggs 30 mL (2 Tbsp) and seeds • Use cooking methods such as roasting, baking or poaching that require little or no added fat.
The chart above shows how many Food Guide Servings you 75 g (2 1⁄2 oz.)/125 mL (1⁄2 cup) 175 mL (3⁄4 cup) 60 mL (1⁄4 cup) • If you eat luncheon meats, sausages or prepackaged meats, choose those lower in salt (sodium) and fat.
need from each of the four food groups every day.

Having the amount and type of food recommended and

following the tips in Canada’s Food Guide will help: Oils and Fats Satisfy your
• Include a small amount – 30 to 45 mL (2 to 3 Tbsp) – of unsaturated fat
• Meet your needs for vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.
each day. This includes oil used for cooking, salad dressings, margarine
Enjoy a variety thirst with water!
• Reduce your risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and mayonnaise. of foods from Drink water regularly. It’s a
certain types of cancer and osteoporosis.
• Contribute to your overall health and vitality.
• Use vegetable oils such as canola, olive and soybean. the four calorie-free way to quench
• Choose soft margarines that are low in saturated and trans fats. food groups. your thirst. Drink more water
in hot weather or when you
• Limit butter, hard margarine, lard and shortening.
are very active.

* Health Canada provides advice for limiting exposure to mercury from certain types of fish. Refer to www.healthcanada.gc.ca for the latest information.

Males (Calories per day) Females (Calories per day)

1 2 3 1 2 3
Age Sedentary Low Active Active Age Sedentary Low Active Active
Level Level Level Level Level Level
2-3 y 1100 1350 1500 2-3 y 1100 1250 1400
4-5 y 1250 1450 1650 4-5 y 1200 1350 1500
6-7 y 1400 1600 1800 6-7 y 1300 1500 1700
8-9 y 1500 1750 2000 8-9 y 1400 1600 1850
10-11 y 1700 2000 2300 10-11 y 1500 1800 2050
12-13 y 1900 2250 2600 12-13 y 1700 2000 2250
14-16 y 2300 2700 3100 14-16 y 1750 2100 2350
17-18 y 2450 2900 3300 17-18 y 1750 2100 2400
19-30 y 2500 2700 3000 19-30 y 1900 2100 2350
31-50 y 2350 2600 2900 31-50 y 1800 2000 2250
51-70 y 2150 2350 2650 51-70 y 1650 1850 2100
71 y + 2000 2200 2500 71 y + 1550 1750 2000

These values are approximations calculated using Canadian median heights and weights that were derived from the median normal BMI for
different levels of physical activity. Your individual values may be different. The requirement for energy varies between individuals due to factors
such as genetics, body size and body composition. These values are not for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

1 Sedentary: Typical daily living activities (e.g., household tasks, walking to the bus).
2 Low Active: Typical daily living activities PLUS 30 - 60 minutes of daily moderate activity (ex. walking at 5-7 km/h).
3 Active: Typical daily living activities PLUS At least 60 minutes of daily moderate activity.

Estimated Energy Requirements - Canada's Food Guide - Health Canada, 2007

137
Appendix - Food Cost Calculation

Weekly Cost of the Nutritious Food Basket in Toronto (May 2010)

How to Calculate Your Food Costs Using the Nutritious Food Basket*

Follow the steps below to find out the cost of a weekly nutritious
food basket for your household.
Table 1
Cost Per
Gender/Age (Years)
STEP 1: Week
Write down the age and gender of all the people you are 2–3 $21.91
feeding. For example: 4–8 $28.24
Man, 37 years old and Woman, 37 years old 9 – 13 $37.44
Boy, 15 years old and Girl, 8 years old
14 – 18 $52.75
Males
STEP 2: 19 – 30 $50.92
Refer to Table 1 to find the cost of feeding each person. Write 31 – 50 $46.04
down the cost of feeding each person. 51 – 70 $44.49
Over 70 $44.03
STEP 3: 2–3 $21.49
Add these costs together to find your subtotal.
4–8 $27.39
STEP 4: 9 – 13 $32.08
Since it costs a little more to feed a small group of people and 14 – 18 $38.29
Females
less to feed a large group, the total weekly cost may need to be 19 – 30 $39.43
adjusted using the following factors: 31 – 50 $39.01
Household Size Adjustment Factor 51 – 70 $34.61
1 person multiply by 1.20 Over 70 $33.98
2 people multiply by 1.10 Pregnant 18 & younger $42.68
3 people multiply by 1.05 Women 19 - 30 $43.08
4 people make no change
5-6 people multiply by 0.95
31 - 50 $42.04
7 or more people multiply by 0.90 Breastfeeding 18 & younger $44.46
Women 19 - 30 $45.67
STEP 5: 31 - 50 $44.63
To determine the cost per month, multiply by 4.33

Example Use the following chart for your household

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Gender Age (Years) Cost per week ($) Gender Age (Years) Cost per week ($)
Man 37 $46.04
Woman 37 $39.01
Boy 15 $52.75
Girl 8 $27.39
Step 3 Subtotal $165.19
Step 4
Multiply your subtotal by the adjustment factor. Step 3 Subtotal
(4 people – make no change) Step 4
Multiply your subtotal by the adjustment factor.
$165.19 x no adjustment = $165.19
Step 5 Step 5
Multiply your total weekly cost from Step 4 by 4.33. Multiply your total weekly cost from Step 4 by 4.33.
$165.19 x 4.33 = $715.27/month

*The cost of the Nutritious Food Basket is based on the 67 food items collected from 12 stores across the City. The software program
automatically adds 5% to the basket cost to cover the cost of miscellaneous foods used in meal preparation, e.g. spices,
seasonings, condiments, baking supplies etc.

138
Appendix - Spending Pattern Breakdown
TABLE THREE: SPENDING PATTERNS FOR AVERAGE CANADIAN HOUSEHOLD AND LOWEST INCOME QUINTILE, 2007

 

 
  

 


     
   

+'
#$"      
$)!
,%# )*'
(


$
#$"      
 


  
$$     
!)'     
$*($!
%') $#    
$*($!
*'# ( #(
#
&* %"#)

!$) #








FACT
'#(%$')) $#    

 EXPENDITURE
!)
'    
PATTERNS
'($#!
'    
') $#    
 #
)' !    
Low-income
*) $#     households spend
$$
#
!$$! 
+'(     more of their income
"(
$
#     and buy local
(!!#$*(
,%# )*'     The import leakage from
$)!
*''#)
$#(*"%) $#    spending by households in
 

 
'($#!
,(
   
the lowest income quintile
'($#!
#(*'#
#
#( $#
$#)' *) $#(   
is a relatively low 10.7 pe
)(
$
$#-
#
$#)' *) $#(    cent.
 (') $#'-
+ #(     
Wealthy households
holds that have lost an adult earner to ill- full description of the determination of im- spend less of their
ness or death during the year; by households port penetration in expenditure categories income and buy fewer
that have lost a job during the year; and by a can be found in Appendix One. local goods and
statistical quirk resulting from the fact that Together our estimates, as outlined in the
Statistics Canada does not count the subsidy appendix, suggest that the import leakage
services
built into subsidized housing as income. from spending by low-income households is The import leakage from
But even if the high rate of dissavings for a relatively low 10.7 per cent. Carrying out spending by households
the lowest income quintile as a whole can be a similar process for the average Canadian in the highest income
explained away by these special factors, the household yields a rate of import leakage of quintile is over twice the
large proportion of income needed to pro- 15 per cent. rate of the lowest income
vide the basic necessities of life suggests that This difference in import leakage rates
very few households in the bottom income suggests that increases in income from the
quintile at 23.5 per cent.
quintile can afford to save. Indeed, given the $17,064 average for the bottom quintile
heavy reliance of low-income households on would cause imports to grow slightly faster
food banks to get by, they cannot even afford than current consumption. For a small in-
to meet their basic needs on the incomes that crease in income, in the order of say five (5)
average just over $17,000 a year. per cent, imports would grow less than one
Precise estimates of import leakages per cent faster, and thus, 89 per cent of a mod-
associated with spending by low-income est increase in transfer payments to the aver-
households unfortunately are unavailable as age low-income Canadian household would,
the necessary underlying data does not ap- in the first instance, end up being spent on
pear to exist. Accordingly, we were forced to Canadian-made goods and services.
take a more conjectural approach based on By contrast, only 82 per cent of an identi-
what is known about the spending patterns cal transfer to an average household would,
of low-income households and the break- in the first instance, wind up being spent on
down that exists for imports by spending Canadian goods and services. And for the av-
category. erage household in the highest income quin-
The last column of Table Three provides tile only 66 per cent of the same transfer pay-
a qualitative assessment of the import con- ment would, in the first instance, be spent on
tent of the goods and services purchased by domestic goods and services. These impact
households in the low-income quintile. A differences imply that the overall increase

FIGHTING POVERTY

139
Appendix - Alexandra Park Revitalization Masterplan Proposal

Alexandra Park Revitalization

Recommended Master Plan

Site Plan
GFA and No. of Units by Block:
18.5 m
DUNDAS STREET WEST
DUNDAS STREET WEST

N28°56'50"E
BLOCK A N74°09'20"E
BLOCK B N73°30'40"E
BLOCK C Block A
5 8.5 m
5 5 5 • 315, 640 sq. ft. / 29, 324 sq. m.

N16°32'20"W
7 7 7 • 367 units (proposed)
UE

10
N16°15'30"W

Block B
A AVEN
AVENUE

4 15
• 379,641 sq. ft. / 35, 270 sq. m.

N16°02'00"W
13
7 • 392 units (proposed)
DENISON

5 19
AUGUST

LANEWA

4 4

N16°13'50"W
3.35
WILLISON PLACE
Block C

N15°23'20"W
N15°47'10"W
10

0.20

5.95
PRIVATE

5
N16°16'30"W

N73°41'40"E

N6
0.54

1°1
2'4
• 264, 457 sq. ft. / 24, 569 sq. m.

8.6

0"W
N74°17'50"E

3
N74°11'40"E

N16°06'50"W
N16°21'30"W

N16°04'20"W

9.12
N73°41'40"E
9.14
• 292 units (proposed)
4

N16°06'20"W
N60
°51
'40

N74°33'20"E
"W

Block D/E
1'30"E
N06°3

GRANGE
8.5 m

AVENUE
18.5

GRANGE COURT • 240, 131 sq. ft. / 22, 309 sq. m.

E
'40"
°15
N20

T
E
• 271 units (proposed)
E
R
T
S
"E
55'00
N00°

5 15
N

Block F
RO
ME

BLOCK M
CA

• 104, 377 sq. ft. / 9, 697 sq. m.

Y
N16°09'10"W

DRIVEWA

• 77 units (proposed)
4 9 5
10.6 m

Block G
BLOCK D/E 15.0 m
• 96, 617 sq. ft. / 9, 004 sq. m.
• 97 units (proposed)
N17°15'50"W

CAMERON STREET 6.0 m

PRIVATE LANEWAY Block H/ I

• 186, 441 sq. ft. / 17, 320 sq. m.
AUGUSTA AVENUE
DENISON AVENUE

• 209 units (proposed)

BLOCK L
BLOCK F
Block J
N16°09'10"W

• 14,004 sq. ft. / 1, 301 sq. m.

8 5 • 139 units (existing)
7.2
13.5

CARR STREET
Block K
• 138, 300 sq. ft. / 12, 848 sq. m.
N16°09'10"W

DRIVEWAY

N74°16'00"E
• 128 units (proposed)
9 5
N16°09'10"W
7.92

N74°16'00"E
BLOCK G
BLOCK K Block L
N17°15'50"W

• 7,992 sq. ft. / 742 sq. m.

N16°09'10"W

PRIVATE LANEWAY
• 77 units (existing)
8.0 m

16.5 m

9 VANAULEY STREET
5
CAMERON

N73°53'00"E 11 Block M
N15°58'00"W
N16°30'40"W
7.08

5 BLOCK H/I • 53, 291 sq. ft. / 4, 950 sq. m.

9.58

STREET

N74°28'10"E

14
N74°01'20"E
N15°58'00"W

• 257 units (existing)

5
N16°36'50"W

• 40 units (proposed)
N15°56'50"W

5 8
N16°36'50"W

VANAULEY

LEGEND
N16°58'20"W
0.79

Total existing units: 473

N29°15'2
1.11

N74°14'50"E
0"W

N74°57'30"E
N16°37'30"W

Site Boundary
N73°24'20"E
N19°50'10"W
1.44

BLOCK J Total units proposed: 1873

N15°11'10"W
N16°36'50"W
STREET

3.54
N73°33'00"E

Proposed Parcel
N74°14'50"E
N16°37'50"W

N73°21'20"E
Total units on site: 2346
Proposed Right-of-way
N16°08'10"W
8.16

Proposed roadway N76°53'30"E

N74°14'50"E

5 Height in storeys

SCALE 1: 1000

QUEEN STREET WEST

Alexandra Park
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION | March 16, 2011 Building Great Neighbourhoods

140
Appendix - Chinatown Yielding Calculation Exercise
CHINATOWN SITE AREA: CHINATOWN TOTAL GREEN SPACE:

1 559 870 SQ. M 147 740 SQ. M

CHINATOWN TOTAL VEHICLE ROAD AREA: CHINATOWN TOTAL VACANT AREA:

267 460 SQ. M 402 490 SQ. M

CHINATOWN TOTAL ROOF COVERAGE: CHINATOWN TOTAL LOW-RISE FACADE AREA:

546 620 SQ. M 742 510 SQ. M

CHINATOWN TOTAL MID-RISE FACADE AREA: CHINATOWN TOTAL HIGH-RISE FACADE AREA:

245 750 SQ. M 395 230 SQ. M

141
Appendix - Transect Zone Design Studies

142
Appendix - Yielding Calculation & Design Exercise

CROP & LIVESTOCK REFERENCE GUIDE

Fruits, Vegetables, & Field Crops

Class Notations
Common Name Water requirements Fruits & Vegetables Field Crops
Botanical Name low C - Cole/Cabbage Ce - Cereal

C
medium F - Fleshy-fruited F - Forage
Class high G - Greens L - Legumes
O - Onion group Gr - Grain
Seeding Season X.xx:1 kcal output/kcal input P
S
- Perennials
- Salad
O - Other
Livestock
Time to Maturity
V - Vine RL - Ruminant, large
Harvest Period L - Legumes RS - Ruminany, small
Companion plants
XX.x lbs/100 sq.ft Conventional yield
T
R
- Tree
- Root
P - Poultry
W - Waterfowl
M - Miscellaneous S - Swine
A - Alternative

Livestock
Letter Codes
Seasons
Common Name Land requirements SP - Spring
Scientific Name low SU - Summer
FA - Fall
C
medium
Class high WI - Winter

Other
Breeding Season X.xx:1 kcal output/kcal input ND -Not Determined
Gestation Period
Time to Maturity X.x L/day Water Requirements (Avg.)
Secondary Products
XX.x lbs/day Feed Requirements (Avg.)

4.17 Crop & Livestock Reference Guide - Legend

143
 Carrots 1ml = 1gram1 Tilapia 1lbs = 453.59237gram1
Daucus carota Tilapia mariae
1 lbs / (sq. ft) = 4 882.42764 g / (sq. m)2 1 lbs / cubic feet = 16018 g / cubic metres1

R 125ml = 28 calories3

Food energy
A 113g = 93 calories3

Food energy
According to Foodland Ontario data, every According to fish farming manual1, the grow-
SP
ND SU
FA
10 4 M 125ml of raw carrots corn contains 28
calories. Therefore, 1 square meter of carrots
1:1 - 24 8 32 ing capacity of talipia is 8 pounds per cubic
foot. 500 talipia require about 62 cubic feet.
contains about 793 calories. If 2.5 cycles of which is 1.75 cubic meters approximately.
growing and harvest period is possible for Meeting the energy consumption for daily
3540 g/ m2 each year, the area requires to provide all the 128147 g/ m3 activity, a male requires 1,082,574 g of tilapia,
energy for a male and female Canadian is and a female requires 894,085 g of tilapia.
450m2 and 371m2 respectively serving with The volume requires to grow the amount of
1 http://www.convertunits.com/from/ml/to/gram only carrots every meal. 1 http://www.convertunits.com/from/ml/to/gram tilapia is 8.5m3 for male, and 8.5m3 for female.
2 http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_k.htm 2 http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_k.htm3 http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-market-day-tilapia-fillets-i85509
3 http://www.foodland.gov.on.ca/english/index.html 4 Hatchery Manual Fish Farming at home for Fun and Profit, By Mike Sipe Tilapia Aquaculture International
3 AGRARIA an agrarian vision Palmetto, Florida, USA

3.07m2 per day

2.55m2 per day
0.023m3 per day
0.019m3 per day

450m2 per year

371m2
per year
8.45m3 per year
6.97m3
per year

9m

40m

N
2m 6m
S
site volume building volume inhabitable area
width = 6m LxWxH Living (L) = 360m2
depth = 40m = 1200m3 Farming (F) = 120m2
height = 9m site coverage is 50% of space for food growing
(2m depth front yard) plot area; orientation is is under utilize in the
not design for growing typical condition

north east

maximum growing surface area

4 1) front facade = 60m2
2) roof top = 120m2
5 3) back facade = 60m2
3 4) backyard = 120m2
5) right facade = 200m2 (attached with adjacent building face)
6) left facade = 200m2 (attached with adjacent building fac
2
total surface area = 360m2 (760m2)

1
6
south

west

144
option 1 option 2 option 3 option 4

option 5 option 6 option 7 option 8

option 9 option 10 option 11 option 12

option 1 option 2 option 3 option 4

L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 360m2

option 5 option 6 option 7 option 8

L = 306m2 L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 373m2

option 9 option 10 option 11 option 12

L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 340m2 L = 324m2

145
 option 1 option 2 option 3 option 4
L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 360m2
F = 294m2 F = 414m2 F = 326m2 F = 604m2

option 5 option 6 option 7 option 8

L = 306m2 L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 373m2
F = 626m2 F = 573m2 F = 371m2 F = 436m2

option 9 option 10 option 11 option 12

L = 360m2 L = 360m2 L = 340m2 L = 324m2
F = 627m2 F = 646m2 F = 430m2 F = 439m2

planting trays will be used for

vegetables that could grow vertically
and with less space

hydroponic & aeroponic

growing surface

the location of vegetables will be

placed depend on their water
requirement for its grows. the higher
the more water is required; the lower
the less water is needed.

crops beds & walls

live stocks area
146
 summer season
sun angle = 70oC

winter season
sun angle = 23oC

rainwater flow
irrigation system

tilapia tank cool resevor flitration channel warm water resevior greywater & blackwater
recycle system

147
Bibliography

• Bentley, S. (2005). Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer’s Market: The Role of Local Food
Systems in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Toronto: Education and Research Office.

• Calculations done by Toronto Public Health using the Canadian Community Health Survey 2.2
(2004).

• Calculations done by Toronto Public Health using the Canadian Community Health Survey
3.1(2005).

• Carrot City - Designing for Urban Agriculture. (n.d.). Ryerson University. Retrieved August 1,
2011, from http://www.ryerson.ca/carrotcity

• Cheema, G. S., Smit, J., Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. (1996). Urban agriculture: food, jobs and
sustainable cities. New York, N.Y.: United Nations Development Programme.

• Despommier, D. D. (2010). The vertical farm: feeding the world in the 21st century. new york, new
york: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press.

• Duany., Plater., & Zyberk. (2003). Smart Code. United States: The Town Paper.

• Eating well with Canada’s Food Guide: a resource for educators and communicators.. (2007).
Ottawa: Health Canada.

• England, C. (2009). AGRARIA an agrarian vision.. Ottawa: Library and Archives Canada Biblioth
que et Archives Canada.

• Feeding the city from the back 40: a commercial food production plan for the City of Toronto..
(1999). Toronto: Food Policy Council.

• Food Basket (NFB). (2008). Cost of the Nutritious Food Basket - Toronto 2008. Toronto: City of
Toronto.

• Food energy methods of analysis and conversion factors; report of a technical workshop, Rome,
3 - 6 December 2002.. (2003). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• Food Security Defined What is Food Security - Centre for Studies in Food Security - Ryerson
University . (2009, October 16). Ryerson University (RU). Retrieved July 31, 2011, from http://
www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity

• Howard, E., & Osborn, F. J. (1960). Garden Cities of tomorrow ((4. impr.). ed.). London: Faber &
Faber.

• ICF International, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, and Toronto Environment Office. (2007).
Greenhouse gases and air pollutants in the city of Toronto: toward a harmonized strategy for
reducing emissions. (2007). Toronto: s.n.].

• Laurie, N. (2008). The cost of poverty an analysis of the economic cost of poverty in Ontario.
Toronto, Ont.: Ontario Association of Food Banks.

• Lawson, Laura. 2005. City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

• Lister, N-M. (2007). Placing Food: Toronto’s Edible Landscape. In J. Knechtel (Ed.), FOOD:
Alphabet City Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

148
• Mayor’s affordable housing summit, an agenda for action: summit highlights.. (2004). Toronto:
City of Toronto.

• Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2007). Ontario Agri-food Trade by Commodity
Group, January through December 2006.

• Otten, J. J., Hellwig, J. P., & Meyers, L. D. (2006). DRI, dietary reference intakes the essential
guide to nutrient requirements. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

• Palassio, C., & Wilcox, A. (2009). The edible city: Toronto’s food from farm to fork. Toronto: Coach
House Books.

• Snowdon, C. (2010). Urban Agriculture and City Farms and their Role in Community
Engagement. Murdoch University: Murdoch University Institute for Sustainability and Technology
Policy (ISTP).

• Steel, Carolyn. 2009. Hungry City: How Food Shapes Our Lives. London: Vintage Books.

• The state of Toronto’s food discussion paper for a Toronto food strategy. (2008). Toronto, Ont.:
Toronto Public Health.

• The Toronto report card on homelessness 2003: executive summary. (2001). Toronto, Ont.: City
of Toronto, Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force.

• See International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Global Status of Biotech
Crops in 2004

• Tracey, D. (2011). Urban Agriculture Ideas and Designs for the New Food Revolution.. Gabriola
Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

• Trade reforms and food security: conceptualizing the linkages. (2003). Rome: FAO.

• Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Geerken, T., Nielsen, P., et al. (2006). Environmental Impact of Products:
Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25.
European Commission Report.

• U.S Department of Agriculture., & U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (2010).
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

• Veenhuizen, R. (2006). Cities farming for the future urban agriculture for green and productive
cities. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre ;.

• Viljoen, A., Bohn, K., & Howe, J. (2005). Continuous productive urban landscapes: designing
urban agriculture for sustainable cities. Oxford: Elsevier.

• Who’s hungry: 2008 profile of hunger in the GTA. (2008). Toronto, Ont.: Daily Bread Food Bank.

• Willett, W., Skerrett, P. J., Giovannucci, E. L., & Callahan, M. (2001). Eat, drink, and be healthy
the Harvard Medical School guide to healthy eating. New York: Simon & Schuster Source.

• Work — Work Architecture Company. (n.d.). Work Architecture Company. Retrieved August 1,
2011, from http://work.ac/category/work/

• World population to 2300 . (2004). New York: United Nations.

• Wright, F. L. (1935). Broadacre city: a new community plan.. New York:

149