How the future of farming lies in our inner-cities

Urban farming in Chigaco. Image: Wikipedia/Creative Commons.

Farming, it almost goes without saying, is not typically associated with cities. In fact, it’s near enough the opposite: very much a rural pursuit, rather than an urban one. Yet this longstanding perspective may be about to change, because we’re on the edge of seeing agriculture brought back into our metropolises. New technologies, coupled with clever design ideas, are beginning to challenge the age-old wisdom that to farm productively requires a lot of space.

Urban farming is as old as cities themselves, but the practice is only widely used in times of difficulty. In WW2, as the British government sought to decrease reliance on food imports, the ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign saw inner-city gardens and green spaces, including London’s Royal Parks, transformed and used for agriculture. By the end of the war there were 1.3 million allotments in Britain; although only 250,000 remain.

Fast-forward to the geopolitical turbulence of Cuba in the 1990s, which had a disastrous effect on the food supplies, but which encouraged a strong urban farming movement. In Havana, a whopping 90 per cent of the city's fresh produce comes from local urban farms.

The most obvious problem faced when considering urban farming is space – or, indeed, a lack of it. Although in some cities, like New Orleans and Detroit, urban decay has freed up inner-city land that is ripe for farming; this dubious advantage is rarely seen in denser, wealthier cities .

Moreover, the economies of scale of larger, rural farms means that unless their urban competitors can up their game, city-grown produce will remain privilege of the wealthy. Technology to the rescue.

Vertical farming allows the growing power of those old quaint horizontal farms to be fitted into space a fraction of the size: stacked vertically, obviously. This controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) – which essentially means that it takes place in a space-age greenhouse – combined with a complex mix of new technologies and methods, such as computer-managed hydroponics and fertigation, means these farms can be far more productive than regular farms relying on flaky weather. Beyond facilitating agriculture in cities, CEA technology could allow for growing food in hostile environments like Mars. No wonder Elon Musk’s brother is getting into it.

We now have the ability to bring agriculture into the city in a meaningful way, reducing the environmental impact of transporting produce from rural areas. Technology has rendered cities’ traditional space limitations irrelevant, while also allowing for farming to be practiced by individuals. Water and green waste produced by a city’s inhabitants can be used as fertilisers, making the whole process ring with a fantastic synergy. Perhaps this is the next step in Jane Jacobs’ urbanism – city streets where people do not just live, work and relax but where their food is grown as well.


“Stop worrying about hairdressers”: The UK government has misdiagnosed its productivity problem

We’re going as fast as we can, here. Image: Getty.

Gonna level with you here, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I’m a huge fan of schadenfreude, so learning that it the government has messed up in a previously unsuspected way gives me this sort of warm glow inside. On the other hand, the way it’s been screwing up is probably making the country poorer, and exacerbating the north south divide. So, mixed reviews really.

Here’s the story. This week the Centre for Cities (CfC) published a major report on Britain’s productivity problem. For the last 200 years, ever since the industrial revolution, this country has got steadily richer. Since the financial crash, though, that seems to have stopped.

The standard narrative on this has it that the problem lies in the ‘long tail’ of unproductive businesses – that is, those that produce less value per hour. Get those guys humming, the thinking goes, and the productivity problem is sorted.

But the CfC’s new report says that this is exactly wrong. The wrong tail: Why Britain’s ‘long tail’ is not the cause of its productivity problems (excellent pun, there) delves into the data on productivity in different types of businesses and different cities, to demonstrate two big points.

The first is that the long tail is the wrong place to look for productivity gains. Many low productivity businesses are low productivity for a reason:

The ability of manufacturing to automate certain processes, or the development of ever more sophisticated computer software in information and communications have greatly increased the output that a worker produces in these industries. But while a fitness instructor may use a smartphone today in place of a ghetto blaster in 1990, he or she can still only instruct one class at a time. And a waiter or waitress can only serve so many tables. Of course, improvements such as the introduction of handheld electronic devices allow orders to be sent to the kitchen more efficiently, will bring benefits, but this improvements won’t radically increase the output of the waiter.

I’d add to that: there is only so fast that people want to eat. There’s a physical limit on the number of diners any restaurant can actually feed.

At any rate, the result of this is that it’s stupid to expect local service businesses to make step changes in productivity. If we actually want to improve productivity we should focus on those which are exporting services to a bigger market.  There are fewer of these, but the potential gains are much bigger. Here’s a chart:

The y-axis reflects number of businesses at different productivities, shown on the x-axis. So bigger numbers on the left are bad; bigger numbers on the right are good. 

The question of which exporting businesses are struggling to expand productivity is what leads to the report’s second insight:

Specifically it is the underperformance of exporting businesses in cities outside of the Greater South East that causes not only divergences across the country in wages and standards of living, but also hampers national productivity. These cities in particular should be of greatest concern to policy makers attempting to improve UK productivity overall.

In other words, it turned out, again, to the north-south divide that did it. I’m shocked. Are you shocked? This is my shocked face.

The best way to demonstrate this shocking insight is with some more graphs. This first one shows the distribution of productivity in local services business in four different types of place: cities in the south east (GSE) in light green, cities in the rest of the country (RoGB) in dark green, non-urban areas in the south east in purple, non-urban areas everywhere else in turquoise.

The four lines are fairly consistent. The light green, representing south eastern cities has a lower peak on the left, meaning slightly fewer low productivity businesses, but is slightly higher on the right, meaning slightly more high productivity businesses. In other words, local services businesses in the south eastern cities are more productive than those elsewhere – but the gap is pretty narrow. 

Now check out the same graph for exporting businesses:

The differences are much more pronounced. Areas outside those south eastern cities have many more lower productivity businesses (the peaks on the left) and significantly fewer high productivity ones (the lower numbers on the right).

In fact, outside the south east, cities are actually less productive than non-urban areas. This is really not what you’d expect to see, and no a good sign for the health of the economy:

The report also uses a few specific examples to illustrate this point. Compare Reading, one of Britain’s richest medium sized cities, with Hull, one of its poorest:

Or, looking to bigger cities, here’s Bristol and Sheffield:

In both cases, the poorer northern cities are clearly lacking in high-value exporting businesses. This is a problem because these don’t just provide well-paying jobs now: they’re also the ones that have the potential to make productivity gains that can lead to even better jobs. The report concludes:

This is a major cause for concern for the national economy – the underperformance of these cities goes a long way to explain both why the rest of Britain lags behind the Greater South East and why it performs poorly on a

European level. To illustrate the impact, if all cities were as productive as those in the Greater South East, the British economy would be 15 per cent more productive and £225bn larger. This is equivalent to Britain being home to four extra city economies the size of Birmingham.

In other words, the lesson here is: stop worrying about the productivity of hairdressers. Start worrying about the productivity of Hull.

You can read the Centre for Cities’ full report here.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook