Social considerations of urban farming

1. URBAN FARMING
Social considerations (all of the
following statements, declarations,
deductions and sentences can be
queried).

2. Life on traditional farms
• In case of traditional farms the the terriotory produced much greater
amount of food, than that was consumed there. Traditionally food
producing areas.
• Before industrializing the agriculture, there was a wll-known pattern
of farms:
• There was a main sector of food producing. In case of the USA, and
many european countries, this was stock-farming, basically cattle-
breeding.
• Besides the main sector all other agricultural production was
represented in a small rate (vegetables, fruit trees, corn-, or wheat
production, poultry). These were basically for supporting the people
of the farm.
• Before industrialization the people of the farm usually belonged to
the same family, or they were at least relatives. The social
connections were extremely strong among relatives, moreover also
among neighbouring farms (wedding).

3. Traditional farm life I.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

4. Traditional farm life II.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

5. Traditional farm life III.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

6. Life on traditional farms
• After the industrialisation of the agriculture, the main sector usually
changed, it became plant production instead of cattle-breeding.
Moreover the pastures turned into corn-fields, or wheat-fields.
• Basically these crops were also used for stock-breeding, but not on
that farm.
• The specialisation appeared, basically there were no more other
sectors around the farm (only the production of one kind of crop).
• Due to industrialization, the mobility also increased, so the center of
social activities moved into cities, or greater settlements.
• Due to industrialization, specialisation and high rate of mobility, there
presence of a family on the farm is not necessary any more. It
became simply a workplace, the workers can live somewhere else (in
a city).

7. Industrialized farm life I.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

8. Industrialized farm life II.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

9. Industrialized farm life III.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

10. Life in traditional cities
• City is traditionally a place, where the consumption of food is greater
(much greater) than the rate of production.
• In case of a traditional city it is absolutely normal that there is not
food prodution at all.
• Specialisation is absolutely normal. Everyone has her/his own job,
and deal only with that. Overproduction of that specialized good,
selling the surplus, and buying everything else (food), which is
necessary for life.
• Much greater popultion density is allowed (medieval cities),
• The settlement is more injurable, not self-sustaining.
• The social structure is more complex (great rate of surplus
production, greater density of people, greater variety of professions).
• None of the people, or the families can sustain themselves, they
need each other and all of them need nonurban areas.

11. Traditional city life I.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

12. Traditional city life II.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

13. Traditional city life III.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

14. Life in traditional villages
• Similarly to traditional farmlands in traditional villages the rate of
food production is greater than the food consumption.
• Basically they can be considered as a cluster of farms.
• Considering history of some villages, it is clear that from the
sociological point of view, it consist of a few great family.
• Great family means the same common ancestor (practically, same
grandfather, or great-grandfather and sharing the surname).
• There are some adantages of villages as against farms:
– The cluster provided greater number of people, which provided
increased defense abilities.
– The social life could have been more intense, due to the closeness
– As a consequence of both, there could be made such activities,
which would be unable on a simply farm, and which is quite
similar to that of cities: building churches, social sites(village
halls), protecting establishments (walls etc.).

15. Traditional village life.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

16. Traditional village life II.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

17. Traditional village life III.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

18. Greater sociological structures
• Before industrialization, the cities and clusters of villages were basic
elements of the state.
• A cluster of villages produced similar economic and warrior
capacities, than that of a city. In case of villages, such a cluster
provided enough food for a castle, with a leader and some soldiers.
They protected the villagers (if they paid their taxes).
• In case of a city, it could have hire mercenaries, who were
comparable force to such a castel „crew”.
• City leaders and castle owners were the main subjects of medieval
states.
• Some cluster of states, or provinces could have formed empires.
• The cities were rich, had great number of people, and greater
amount of money, thus they were more versatile, than that of a
castle owner.
• Industrialisation eventuated increased rate of urbanisation, which
even today have not reached a new balance.

19. Villages after industrialisation
• Villages were more vulnerable, than farms.
• In case of greater farms it was a logical decision not to give up the
entire farm, keeping buldings and „only„ the lack of families and
social life and connections were the problem.
• In case of a village, the problem is greater, because due to the
increased mobility even all families can live in a city, and only a small
number of workers have to stay there by day, during worktime.
• This appears as the slowly decay of the village, because elder people
want to stay in the village, while younger people want to move into
the city.
• Other kind of villages are those, which lay close to cities. These
become agglomeration settlements and mostly turn into so called
„sleeping settlements”. Although in this case the structure of the
society is quite normal, but the whole social life of these people is
conducted in an other settlement, in the city.

20. Villages after industrialisation I.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

21. Villages after industrialisation II.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

22. Villages after industrialisation III.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

23. Cities after industrialisation I.
• After industrialisation the cities has grown in an enormous rate.
• City walls disappeared, urban landscapes emerges.
• After the appearance of public utilities, elevators and automobiles
the size of the cities increased in a much greater rate, both
horizontally and vertically.
• After the Garden City Concept of Ebenezer Howard and the Athens
Charter (declarations of modernism in the field of urban planning)
the specialisation of people in cities appeared also in the urban form.
• The professions were already specialised in the medieval (ancient)
cities.
• In the 20th Century the specialisation emerged also on the level of
urban planning.
• But this kind of functionalism proved to be dogmatic. It consequently
neglected (deined) the existence of social demands, which should
have been taken into consideration by real functionalists.

24. Sheffield (England) in the 19th Century.
• They are practiaclly the cores of future megacities.

25. The Garden City Concept.

26. Paris concept of Le Corbusier I.

27. Paris concept of Le Corbusier II.

28. Germania plan by Albert Speer I.

29. Germania plan by Albert Speer II.

30. Cities after industrialisation II.
• In the 1960ties everything were denied 
• Revolutions, which were not political (gender, students, peace
movements etc.)
• The families could have been planned, which was basically a huge
step, moreover women could have been considered individuals, not
only a potential future attachment to a man.
• Nevertheless, these revolutions denied bad things, bad processes,
bad institutes and bad customs.
• The lack of these changes is the constructivity. There did not emerged
a really functioning new model for social life.
• Even in present day some fragments of old methods are tried to be
composed into a new combination.
• Moreover the urbanisation rate further increased, the technology
further emerged and the technology increased the possible ways of
communication.

31. New York, Times Square

32. Shanghai, Bund

33. Sao Paulo

34. Cities in present days.
• In the 1960ties everything were denied 
• Revolutions, which were not political (gender, students, peace
movements etc.)
• The families could have been planned, which was basically a huge
step, moreover women could have been considered individuals, not
only a potential future attachment to a man.
• Moreover the urbanisation rate further increased, the technology
further emerged and the technology increased the possible ways of
communication.
• The specialisationin professions further increased due to the
appearance of new professions.
• Both professions, and spatial complexity increased due to
technological develpoment, moreover this technical development
attached these spatial and social structures due to the appearance of
virtual spaces.

35. Internet activity map: the silhouettes of
megacities

36. The megacities

37. Urban farming I.
• Individuals became absolutely individual (solitaire, lonely).
• The possible ways of communication radically increased.
• The possible ways of mobilisation radically increased
(intercontinental travelling).
• The possible achievable knowledge about the whole society radically
increased (media).
• The vulnerability of the cities increased, the vulnerability due to
specialisation increased (Which citizen can stay alive in a forest ?).
• In the Stone Age only groups could stay alive in the nature. But
individualism made very difficult to create effective groups (creating
an effective group is very difficult nowadays even by absolutely actual
professions).
• There are a lack of nature, a lack of green, a lack of physical work, a
lack of group work, a lack of social life by urban people.

38. Urban farming II.
• Some kind of urban farming can be very useful from these
considerations.
• Urban farming with high technology (like hydroponic farming with
artifical lights) is simply a new kind of profession, which can be simply
added to the existing (already too complex and too vulnerable)
stucture, and due to the principle of specialisation, it solves only one
problem, the food problem.
• As against social garden movements and urban gardening has a lot of
benefits.
– it produces food
– it produces additional urban green surfaces
– it provides the necessary physical work for urban people
– it provides the necessary team work for urban people
– It gives basic knowledge about natural processes to urban people.

39. Food production

40. Additional urban green surface

41. Physical work

42. Education

43. Team work

44. Thank you for your attention!