IMO every city should have public cafeterias that:

A) Grow / process ingredients onsite (greenhouse), or source through a local network.

B) Provide nutritional food free of charge

C) Create entry level jobs that teach practical skills such as cooking and horticulture.

D) Increase food security. Global agriculture supply chains are about to be completely disrupted by climate change.

Sorry, we’d rather keep paving over farmland to make unaffordable mcmansions because our leaders cannot fathom a country that is self sufficient where values aren’t constantly increasing

IMO every city should have public cafeterias that:

A) Grow / process ingredients onsite (greenhouse), or source through a local network.

B) Provide nutritional food free of charge

C) Create entry level jobs that teach practical skills such as cooking and horticulture.

D) Increase food security. Global agriculture supply chains are about to be completely disrupted by climate change.

A) is just rediculous, the space required to feed even a suburban block is orders of magnitude more than a greenhouse onsite could provide. It may be able to grow enough herbs, but that’s about it.

I’m fine with the rest of the idea.

A) is just rediculous, the space required to feed even a suburban block is orders of magnitude more than a greenhouse onsite could provide. It may be able to grow enough herbs, but that’s about it.

I’m fine with the rest of the idea.

Ground floor is the community grocery, and the next 3-5 floors are a hydroponics farm. It’s really not that ridiculous.

Ground floor is the community grocery, and the next 3-5 floors are a hydroponics farm. It’s really not that ridiculous.

My vision is

Ground floor: Cafeteria / service kitchen

2nd Floor: Production Kitchen / food packaging

3rd Floor : Aquaponics & fertigation

4+ : greenhouse.

It’s a nice utopian idea, but it just doesn’t do anything. The aquaponics and greenhouse are just a bad utilization of such prime real estate space, the amount of food produced would be so low as to be a rounding error for the food they would still need to import and you could use that same floor space to house hundreds of more people.

Go look at my comment from a few minutes ago showing the production math for 5 stories of hydroponics.

or source through a local network.

Vertical vs. Traditional Farming: Yield Per Acre Comparison | Eden Green

Discover how vertical farming offers superior crop yields with less environmental impact compared to traditional methods. Explore sustainable solutions with Eden Green. Dive in now!

Eden Green (www.edengreen.com)

We’re talking about 2 different things. I have zero interest in debunking all your strawmans and assumptions about a completely different concept.

Your article says it’s 40:1 instead of the 10:1 I assumed, but that’s still far too little to matter.

Your two floors of farming would still feed less than a hundred people full time, even if they hit those lofty idea targets.

You’re the one inserting the assumption that this has to become the only source of food for people.

I said:

or source through a local network.

If you can’t read those words and comprehend them than why would I consider anything you have to say?

You could have 5 floors, and it still wouldn’t be enough. You could have 30 floors and it wouldn’t be enough.

I don’t think you understand the scale of farming to human. Even if you’re entirely vegetarian it’s on the order of 0.5-1 acre per person to grow the required food. That’s 20,000-40,000 square feet. Even if hydroponics were involved and cut that by a factor of 10, you’d still be at 2000 square feet per person. A typical grocery store is 25-50,000 square feet, so let’s go with the most generous and say 5 floors of 50,000 square feet you could produce enough food for… 125 people.

The math doesn’t math. No reasonable amount of food growth is ever going to be possible inside a city.

I just replied to your other comment, but even a local network can’t feed a city. Let’s do some more math.

Los Angeles has about 18 million people, and on average they take about 2 acres of land to feed (it can be less for vegetarians, but lets assume they are just normal people here)

That’s 36 million acres needed, which is about 56,000 square miles, which is an area of 280 miles by 200 miles of nothing but farmland.

You quite literally can’t even feed Los Angles with a 100 mile diet, even if it was surrounded by nothing but farms (which it isn’t)

In fact, California only has about 25 million acres of farmland in total (8 million irrigated, and the rest for animal grazing)

Source local food sounds good, but we import food for a reason. Cities require a ridiculous amount of farm land to feed.

What you said:

typical grocery store

What I said:

IMO every city should have public cafeterias

We’re not talking about the same thing. You’re arguing with yourself.

IMO every city should have public cafeterias that:

A) Grow / process ingredients onsite (greenhouse), or source through a local network.

B) Provide nutritional food free of charge

C) Create entry level jobs that teach practical skills such as cooking and horticulture.

D) Increase food security. Global agriculture supply chains are about to be completely disrupted by climate change.

Our local school opened up one of these programs during the pandemic. It’s a blessing but it only is for kids and only lasts 8 weeks during the summer

How would this change the price?

The bloat is in the middle of the supply chain so unless these people avoid the middle man such as people who control the meat processing… There is limited impact having the retail handled by the state