This document is a thesis submitted by Tammy L. Parker in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science in Landscape Architecture at Washington State University in August 2010. The thesis examines the case for urban agriculture and how elements of regenerative, human-scale food production systems in urban landscapes can influence landscape architecture designs. Through site visits to longstanding public school and prison gardens, the author analyzes aspects of grassroots, human-scale food production projects that can be applied to landscape architecture design. The thesis also provides historical context on the development of urban agriculture in different places and time periods and discusses some of the social, economic and health benefits that urban agriculture can provide.

1. THE
CASE
FOR
URBAN
AGRICULTURE:
REGENERATIVE,
HUMAN-­‐SCALE
FOOD
PRODUCTION
SYSTEMS
IN
URBAN
LANDSCAPES
By
TAMMY
L.
PARKER
A
thesis
submitted
in
partial
fulfillment
of
the
requirements
for
the
degree
of
MASTERS
OF
SCIENCE
IN
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
WASHINGTON
STATE
UNIVERSITY
Department
of
Landscape
Architecture
August
2010

2. ii
To
the
Faculty
of
Washington
State
University:
The
members
of
the
Committee
appointed
to
examine
the
thesis
of
TAMMY
L.
PARKER
find
it
satisfactory
and
recommend
that
it
be
accepted.
__________________________________________
Jolie
B.
Kaytes,
M.L.A.,
Chair
__________________________________________
Jessica
Goldberger,
Ph.D.
__________________________________________
Preston
Andrews,
Ph.D.

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
wish
to
thank
Professor
Jolie
Kaytes
for
her
creative
and
professional
assistance
and
support
throughout
the
writing
process.
I
also
want
to
thank
my
committee,
Assistant
Professor
Jessica
Goldberger
and
Associate
Professor
Preston
Andrews
for
their
advice
and
guidance,
as
well
as
Associate
Professor
David
Greenwood
for
his
counsel.
For
his
professional
guidance
and
support
I
wish
to
thank
Robert
Crawley
and
for
her
patience
and
understanding,
my
boss,
Randi
Croyle.
Finally,
I
want
to
thank
my
loving
and
supportive
family
and
friends
for
believing
in
me.
iii

4. THE
CASE
FOR
URBAN
AGRICULTURE:
REGENERATIVE,
HUMAN-­‐SCALE
FOOD
PRODUCTION
SYSTEMS
IN
URBAN
LANDSCAPES
Abstract
By
Tammy
L.
Parker,
M.S.
Washington
State
University
August
2010
iv
Chair:
Jolie
Kaytes
Urban
agriculture
has
a
long
history
and
has
seen
a
great
resurgence
in
the
past
few
years.
For
the
first
time
since
Eleanor
Roosevelt
planted
her
victory
garden
during
World
War
Two,
the
White
House
lawn
is
sporting
a
garden
(Burros
n.
pag.).
School
gardens
and
prison
gardens
are
becoming
more
common
and
community
garden
plots
have
wait
lists
of
would
be
gardeners.
The
American
Community
Garden
Association
web
site
lists
among
the
many
benefits
of
community
gardening:
community
development
and
social
interaction,
increased
self-­‐reliance,
reduction
of
family
food
budgets,
production
of
nutritious
food,
beautification
of
neighborhoods
and
creation
of
opportunity
for
exercise,
recreation,
therapy
and
education.
Any
one
of
these
benefits
would
be
an
asset
to
a
landscape
architect’s
urban
design
project,
but
how
does
a
landscape
architect,
trained
to
design
mainstream
commercial

5. projects
using
ornamental
plants,
introduce
elements
of
food-­‐production
systems
into
their
v
designs
successfully?
This
thesis
examines
how
elements
of
urban
agriculture
can
influence
landscape
architecture
designs
for
the
betterment
of
the
practice.
Through
site
visits
to
longstanding
public
school
and
prison
gardens
I
analyze
aspects
of
grassroots,
human-­‐scale
food
production
projects
that
can
be
put
to
use
in
landscape
architecture
design.

6. TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.………………………………………………...………………………...
iii
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………...
iv
LIST
OF
TABLES..............................................................................................viii
LIST
OF
FIGURES............................................................................................
ix
vi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................
1
Connections..........................................................................
2
2. METHODOLOGICAL
FRAMEWORK........................................…..
6
Implications………………………………………………………………………
7
Research
Methodology.........................................................8
3. HISTORY.....................................................................................
13
England.................................................................................
13
Alternate
English
Thinking..........................................
14
France...................................................................................
15
Alternate
French
Thinking..........................................
16
United
States........................................................................
18
Garden
Based
Learning..............................................
19
Historic
Movements
in
Urban
Agriculture............................
20

7. War
Gardens..............................................................
22
Post
War
Industrialization..........................................
23
Urban
Agriculture
as
a
Social
Movement...................
24
4. PRISON
GARDENS......................................................................
28
Washington
State
Sustainable
Prisons
Project.....................
32
Stafford
Creek
Corrections
Center.......................................
34
Narrative....................................................................
38
Mother
Earth
Farm...............................................................
41
Narrative....................................................................
46
5. SCHOOL
GARDENS.....................................................................
50
School
Garden
Visits.............................................................
55
Orca
Garden...............................................................
56
Narrative..........................................................
64
Montlake
Elementary
School.....................................
66
Narrative..........................................................
73
6. CONCLUSION.............................................................................
76
Findings................................................................................
80
WORKS
CITED...............................................................................................
84
vii

8. LIST
OF
TABLES
1. Seven
Movements
of
Community
Gardens..............................................
21
2. Summary
Table
of
Findings.......................................................................
79
viii

9. LIST
OF
FIGURES
1.
Detroit
Appropriation
Garden...............................................................17
2.
Garden
Based
Learning.........................................................................
19
3.
Relief
Garden........................................................................................
20
4.
Victory
Garden......................................................................................
22
5.
Stafford
Creek
Correction
Center.........................................................
34
6.
Stafford
Creek
Greenhouse
..................................................................35
7.
Retaining
Wall
Behind
a
Greenhouse....................................................36
8.
Inmate
at
Work.....................................................................................
37
9.
Mother
Earth
Farm................................................................................41
10. Orca
Elementary
Garden......................................................................56
11. Montlake
Elementary
Garden..............................................................66
ix

10. Dedication
This
thesis
is
dedicated
to
my
parents
for
teaching
me
I
could
accomplish
anything
I
set
my
mind
to
and
for
their
love
and
emotional
support.
x

11. CHAPTER
ONE
Introduction
In
this
paper
I
consider
the
links
between
landscape
architecture
and
urban
agriculture
and
explore
opportunities
for
landscape
architecture
to
learn
from
the
different
forms
of
urban
agriculture.
Through
my
research
I
will
determine
social
and/or
organizational
structures
within
the
diverse
field
of
urban
agriculture
that
create
outcomes
that
would
be
beneficial
or
1
informative
to
landscape
architecture.
Urban
agriculture
includes
any
process
that
produces
or
markets
food
throughout
an
urban
or
peri-­‐urban
(urban
edge)
area
to
consumers
within
that
area.
It
is
an
intensive
system
of
production
that
uses
and
reuses
urban
resources
and
wastes
to
yield
diverse
crops
to
meet
the
demands
of
local
consumers.
For
the
purposes
of
this
paper
I
will
define
urban
agriculture
as
the
production
of
any
food
product
that
is
grown
close
enough
to
market
to
go
from
harvest
to
market
on
the
same
day
(Cheema
et
al.
3).
Urban
agriculture
is
closely
linked
to
multiple
urban,
ecological,
social
and
economic
systems.
It
offers
economic
benefits
for
both
the
farmers
and
their
communities.
It
enhances
the
quality
of
life
and
contributes
to
improved
public
health
(Cheema
et
al.
xviii).
Urban
agriculture
draws
people
outdoors
to
work
on
a
common
cause
and
connect
with
their
neighbors.
Over
time,
this
deepens
community
ties
and
reconnects
people
to
the
natural
cycles
of
the
earth-­‐
planting,
growing
and
harvesting.

12. While
urban
agriculture
is
the
overarching
term
for
growing
and
marketing
food
in
urban
areas,
gardening
is
a
more
personal
term
that
an
individual
might
use
in
referring
to
herself
or
himself
as
a
participant
in
an
urban
agricultural
system.
Gardening
empowers
people
and
enhances
self-­‐sufficiency.
Gardeners
often
save
money
while
growing
their
own
food
and
enhance
their
health
by
eating
more
fresh,
healthy
produce
and
getting
plenty
of
exercise
in
the
act
of
gardening
(Cheema
et
al.
6).
There
are
also
political
benefits
from
gardening,
as
newly
empowered
citizens
become
involved
in
civic
life
and
forge
groups
to
stand
up
for
their
own
need
for
access
to
land
and
resources
(Durlach
22).
In
growing
their
own
food,
these
communities
begin
to
experience
a
greater
resiliency
to
the
vagaries
of
the
economy.
By
producing
food
on
a
human
scale,
people
are
better
able
to
relate
to
their
food
and
where
it
comes
from.
2
Connections
The
health
problems
associated
with
food,
such
as
obesity
and
diabetes,
suggests
a
disconnect
between
people
and
their
food.
Food
ecologist
Kloppenburg
tells
us
that
“distancing
disempowers”
(36)
and
that
“Provided
with
an
apparent
cornucopia
of
continuously
available
foods,
few
consumers
have
much
knowledge
of
the
biological
.
.
.
implications
of
food”
(36).
By
reconnecting
with
the
process
of
food
production,
including
the
growing
of
their
own
food,
people
can
begin
to
see
the
linkages
between
their
food
and
themselves.
In
an
evaluative
study
of
community
gardens
in
the
Madison,
Wisconsin
area
it
was
determined
that
participants
in
community
garden
projects
consumed
over
twice
the
amount
of
vegetables
as
the
non-­‐gardening
control
group
(Lackey
n.
pag.).

13. Similarly,
instances
of
social
isolation
also
suggest
a
need
to
reconnect
people
to
a
social
network
within
their
community.
In
the
book
Loneliness:
Human
Nature
and
the
Need
for
Social
Connection,
Patrick
and
Cacioppo
state
“social
isolation
has
an
impact
on
health
comparable
to
the
effect
of
high
blood
pressure,
lack
of
exercise,
obesity,
or
smoking.”
(5).
They
state
that
at
any
one
moment
roughly
twenty
percent
of
the
population
of
the
United
States
“feel
sufficiently
isolated
for
it
to
be
a
major
source
of
unhappiness
in
their
lives.”
(5).
Later
the
authors
mention:
“You
are
fundamentally
a
social
being.
The
key
to
it
all
is
to
form
strong
social
ties
that
are
meaningful
and
satisfying,
both
to
you
and
to
those
around
you,
near
and
far”
(220).
They
also
offer
“the
idea
of
promoting
connection
is
rarely
discussed
alongside
the
heated
issues
of
the
cost
of
pharmaceuticals
and
other
medical
interventions
necessary
to
deal
with
an
increasingly
lonely,
isolated,
and
aging
population.”
(251).
If
one
of
five
people
in
the
United
States
feels
isolated
enough
for
it
to
be
a
major
source
of
unhappiness
in
their
life,
then
it
is
clear
that
social
isolation
is
a
problem.
This
is
a
need
that
could
be
addressed
by
community
gardens
and
similar
concepts
such
as
Community
Supported
Agriculture
enterprises.
In
a
study
on
the
role
of
connection
to
nature
by
3
psychologist
Frantz
et.
al,
we
learn
that:
When
practitioners
[designers]
think
of
how
to
create
settings
to
help
clients
feel
better,
they
may
want
to
think
of
more
than
simply
how
nature
can
restore
depleted
attentional
capacity
and
reduce
stress.
They
may
also
want
to
think
of
how
people
need
to
feel
a
sense
of
belonging
to
something
larger
than
themselves
and
that
this
need
may
be
fulfilled
through
a
sense
of
belonging
or
connectedness
to
the
natural
world.
(635)

14. What
can
urban
agriculture
offer
to
a
frequently
lonely,
isolated
urban
populace?
Urban
gardens,
in
any
context,
are
bastions
of
social
interaction.
They
offer
places
for
neighbors
to
congregate
and
get
to
know
one
another.
The
shy
are
able
to
occupy
themselves
with
their
tasks
in
the
garden
until
they
are
comfortable
enough
with
the
people
they
see
around
them
each
day
to
form
friendships,
and
more
sociable
types
are
immediately
afforded
a
ready
group
of
new
friends.
As
political
leaders
talk
about
the
health
care
crisis
going
on
in
the
United
States,
we
need
to
address
not
just
the
health
value
of
the
exercise
and
fresh
food
grown
in
the
U.S.,
but
the
happiness
grown
in
the
garden
as
well.
In
a
society
that
is
so
frequently
busy
and
isolated,
urban
gardens
are
a
place
for
people
to
reconnect
socially,
as
well
as
nutritionally.
In
Lackey’s
community
garden
study
it
was
learned,
“Many
gardeners
found
social
and
psychosocial
benefits
through
participation
in
the
program.
Some
clients
described
how
the
gardens
had
become
social
hubs
in
their
neighborhoods,
drawing
the
support
of
formal
and
informal
groups”
(n.
pag.).
While
these
gardens
meet
a
significant
social
need,
they
do
so
while
concurrently
meeting
an
important
health
and
nutrition
need,
making
them
all
the
more
effective
a
tool
for
urban
improvement.
Robert
Thayer,
Professor
Emeritus
of
Landscape
Architecture
at
the
University
of
California
at
Davis,
writes
“The
landscape
of
the
next
four
or
five
decades
will
undergo
considerable
rapid
evolutionary
change
as
a
strange
admixture
of
global
and
local
affairs
tugs
on
the
formative
dimensions
of
our
wild,
rural,
and
urban
landscapes”
(20).
He
refers
to
the
way
in
which
our
world
has
become
a
global
marketplace
and
yet,
for
the
first
time
we
are
facing
an
energy
crisis,
which
threatens
the
system
through
which
we
currently
procure
the
things
we
need.
As
petroleum
becomes
increasingly
expensive
we
will
need
and
want
to
buy
more
items
from
within
our
local
area
and
urban
agriculture
is
an
important
part
of
that
4

15. picture.
This
is
not
a
minor
role
for
local
food
systems
to
play.
By
providing
a
source
of
fresh,
local
food
gardens
serve
to
increase
community
resilience,
or
“the
ability
of
a
system,
from
individual
people
to
whole
economies,
to
hold
together
and
maintain
their
ability
to
function
in
the
face
of
change
and
shocks
from
the
outside”
(Hopkins
12).
If,
as
Rob
Hopkins,
the
founder
of
the
Transition
movement
claims,
the
Age
of
Cheap
Oil
is
in
fact
at
hand,
then
“for
a
society
utterly
dependent
on
it,
this
means
enormous
change;
but
that
the
future
with
less
oil
could
be
preferable
to
the
present,
if
we
plan
sufficiently
in
advance
with
imagination
and
creativity”(17).
Urban
agriculture
is
a
logical,
creative
response
to
the
changes
currently
at
5
hand.
Urban
agriculture
has
the
ability
to
address
current
social,
economic,
recreational,
emotional,
health
and
nutrition
needs
all
at
once.
For
one
social
response
to
fill
so
many
niches
for
such
a
relatively
minor
cost
as
is
associated
with
a
garden,
this
is
an
issue
that
landscape
architecture
needs
to
give
due
consideration
to
and
examine
where
our
role
within
it
might
lie.

16. Chapter
Two
Methodological
Framework
The
primary
question
underlying
this
study
is
what
are
the
implications
of
urban
agriculture
for
landscape
architecture?
The
following
questions
assist
in
understanding
the
preceding
question
and
will
be
explored
through
research
and
site
visits.
What
are
the
goals
of
urban
agriculture
projects?
How
are
those
goals
met?
How
are
urban
agriculture
projects
managed
and
funded?
Do
these
forms
of
management
create
any
of
their
own
problems?
What
is
the
role
of
volunteers
and
paid
employees
in
an
urban
agriculture
project?
How
is
the
seasonal
nature
of
urban
agriculture
addressed?
What
is
the
impact
of
these
projects
on
their
surrounding
communities?
How
do
these
projects
impact
people?
What
is
the
impact
of
these
projects
on
the
sense
of
place
in
their
community?
What
is
the
impact
of
these
programs
on
the
nutrition
of
their
surrounding
communities?
Each
urban
agriculture
project
has
its
own
reason
for
being
and
each
typically
addresses
multiple
goals
within
its
community.
For
many
urbanites,
these
projects
are
the
only
opportunity
they
have
for
daily,
personal
interaction
with
nature,
their
food
and
their
neighbors.
The
long
history
of
urban
agriculture,
coupled
with
the
recent
resurgence
of
interest
in
it,
bear
witness
to
the
significance
of
this
movement
on
American
culture.
Landscape
architecture
seeks
to
create
designs
that
impact
people
and
communities
and
through
an
analysis
of
these
more
understandable,
human-­‐scale
food
production
systems
we
can
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
elements
that
make
these
projects
successful
and
that
might
be
transferable
to
the
discipline
of
landscape
architecture.
From
my
literature
review
I
6

17. have
concluded
that
little
research
has
been
done
on
the
impact
of
urban
agricultural
systems
7
on
the
discipline
of
landscape
architecture.
Implications
By
increasing
understanding
of
specific
urban
agriculture
projects,
this
study
will
show
specific
methods
of
increasing
community
and
cultural
relevancy
of
landscape
architecture
projects.
Through
the
lens
of
food
production
systems
on
a
scale
com
parable
to
a
human
being,
it
will
be
possible
to
look
at
landscape
architecture
and
see
opportunities
to
increase
a
project’s
relevancy
to
the
community
in
which
it
is
placed.
I
am
not
suggesting
that
every
urban
landscape
must
be
based
in
a
food
production
design,
merely
that
elements
of
food
production
systems
have
the
ability
to
enhance
a
design
and
increase
its
importance
to
the
community
it
is
designed
to
serve.
I
suspect
that
by
including
food
systems
in
a
design
it
is
possible
to
address
a
broader
range
of
societal
issues
than
have
been
traditionally
confronted
by
landscape
architecture.
The
study
of
urban
agriculture
may
introduce
us,
as
designers,
to
a
more
organic
means
of
site
design
than
we
have
considered
previously.
As
I
shall
use
the
term
in
this
paper,
by
“organic”
I
refer
to
a
system
of
design
analogous
to
living
forms
and
possessing
a
structure
or
plan
that
perfectly
fulfills
the
functional
requirements
of
the
original
design
purpose
(Dictionary
n.
pag.).
Since
urban
agriculture
is
difficult
to
measure
and
takes
many
frequently
changing
forms,
organic
is
a
design
concept
that
seems
especially
appropriate
here.

18. 8
Research
Methodology
Originally
I
envisioned
this
project
as
being
about
the
creation
of
a
food
systems
curriculum
for
landscape
architecture
students.
I
began
with
a
need
to
know
about
any
landscape
architecture
programs
that
offered
any
level
of
training
in
food
systems.
I
considered
surveying
university
landscape
architecture
programs
in
the
United
States,
but
quickly
realized
that
this
was
too
broad
for
the
time
I
had
available
in
which
to
complete
this
project.
I
instead
chose
to
utilize
an
e-­‐mail
list
serve
for
landscape
architects.
I
sent
out
a
request
for
information
on
landscape
architecture
programs
that
offered
classes
or
curriculum
on
food
systems.
I
heard
back
from
six
programs
that
offered
some
type
of
food
systems
coursework
within
their
landscape
architecture
curriculum,
but
I
also
heard
from
many
more
landscape
architects
who
expressed
interest
in
such
training
and
a
feeling
that
such
training
was
lacking
in
their
own
backgrounds
and
would
be
useful.
From
this
initial
inquiry
I
again
decided
to
narrow
my
focus
and
look
at
food
systems
and
their
possible
implications
for
landscape
architecture.
Considering
the
burgeoning
growth
of
urban
agriculture
in
the
United
States,
with
all
that
that
term
covers,
I
decided
to
concentrate
on
public
sites
of
urban
agriculture.
I
engaged
in
an
extensive
literature
review,
beginning
with
the
history
of
urban
agriculture
as
it
related
to
the
United
States.
From
that
point
I
chose
to
conduct
site
visits
focused
on
prison
gardens
and
school
garden
projects.
I
determined
I
wanted
to
conduct
instrumental
site
visits
because
I
wanted
my
study
to
be
an
investigation
that
would
allow
me
insight
into
underlying
principles
of
each
type
of
garden
I
studied
that
I
could
then
apply
back
to
landscape
architecture
(Stake,
1995).
I
wanted
to
find
out
what
people
actively
involved
in
each
of
these
gardens
had
learned
along
their

19. way
and
what
advice
they
would
offer
to
someone
else
interested
in
a
similar
undertaking.
I
wanted
to
look
outside
the
landscape
architecture
profession,
to
see
what
was
being
done
by
urban
agriculturalists
who
did
not
possess
eyes
influenced
by
years
of
design
training,
but
created
from
their
own
experience
and
the
experience
of
those
they
worked
with,
their
9
intended
end
users.
I
chose
the
two
categories
of
gardens
because
as
I
studied
urban
agriculture
I
saw
interesting
things
happening
in
these
areas
that
I
did
not
feel
were
being
addressed
in
any
of
the
landscape
architecture
literature
I
encountered
or
classes
I
had
taken.
I
wondered
what
these
grassroots
forms
of
gardening
had
to
offer
to
landscape
architecture
as
a
discipline.
I
focused
my
literature
review
further
on
these
topics
and
from
what
I
discovered
in
that
process
I
began
to
narrow
down
each
field
to
choose
sites
that
interested
me
and
that
I
could
visit
personally,
to
better
aid
my
own
growth
and
understanding
of
the
topic
at
hand.
I
determined
that
I
wanted
my
sites
to
be
in
Washington
state,
or
at
least
the
Pacific
Northwest.
I
wanted
my
sites
to
each
be
a
grassroots
occurrence
that
had
not
had
the
influence
of
a
landscape
architect
in
their
planning
or
creation
and
I
wanted
each
site
to
have
an
established
history
that
spoke
of
its
success
in
accomplishing
its
purposes.
I
did
not
determine
a
set
length
of
history,
as
I
wanted
to
study
the
best
practices
of
some
of
the
longest
established
programs
that
met
my
other
criteria
without
being
bound
by
an
arbitrary
measure
of
time.
Once
I
established
my
sites
I
determined
that
I
wanted
to
allow
for
snowballing;
if
in
studying
one
site,
I
learned
of
another
related
site
that
met
my
other
criteria
I
wanted
to
be
able
to
increase
my
understanding
by
including
these
secondary
sites
as
well.
I
determined
to

20. conduct
my
on
site
analysis
through
visual
observation
of
a
typical
moment
in
the
life
of
that
site
and
its
users.
Since
my
primary
goal
with
each
case
was
to
increase
my
understanding
of
that
site,
I
wanted
to
allow
for
an
organic
ability
to
stray
from
my
planned
inquiry
and
follow
any
new
observations
I
came
across
during
the
course
of
the
site
visit.
I
developed
a
general
list
of
questions
I
needed
to
find
answers
to
at
each
site,
and
another
list
that
was
more
specific
to
each
type
of
site.
When
I
visited
a
site
I
took
notes
on
paper
as
I
toured.
I
was
looking
to
answer
the
following
questions
for
myself:
10
• What
motivated
involvement
for
the
participants
in
this
project?
• What
is
this
project's
mission/goal?
• What
are
the
key
roles
of
participants
in
this
site?
• What
are
the
project's
primary
funding
sources?
• How
far
ahead
do
they
budget
for
this
project?
• What
sort
of
managerial
hierarchy
does
the
project
employ?
• Has
that
hierarchy
ever
created
problems
in
achieving
the
project's
objectives?
• What
have
been
the
project's
biggest
successes
/
challenges?
• Have
there
been
any
unusual
outcomes
that
were
not
expected?
• What
are
the
future
goals
for
the
project?
My
prison
specific
list
included
these
additional
inquiries:
• Who
does
the
work
at
the
site?
• How
are
participants
selected
for
involvement?
• Have
there
been
any
Institutional
impacts
on
inmate
behavior
as
a
result
of
this
project?
In
either
the
participants
or
non-­‐participants?

21. 11
• What
various
projects
are
a
part
of
this
sustainability
program,
both
at
this
site
and
at
other
sites
in
the
system?
• Has
this
project
proven
to
be
cost
efficient?
How
so?
• Are
there
any
related
programs
for
post-­‐release
participants?
• How
does
this
program
impact
inmate
nutrition?
What
percent
of
an
inmate's
diet
typically
comes
from
food
produced
on-­‐site?
My
school
specific
inquiries
included
the
following,
in
addition
to
the
general
queries:
• Who
does
the
work?
(oversight,
planning,
actual
gardening,
upkeep,
etc.)
• How
does
the
site
continue
to
operate
over
the
summer
break?
• What
motivates
participant
involvement
in
this
project?
• What
sort
of
feedback
from
the
community-­‐
students,
parents,
has
been
received?
• Is
there
a
lot
of
enthusiasm
among
project
participants?
• How
does
this
project
tie
in
with
curricular
objectives?
Is
there
a
nutrition
component
to
this
project?
How
does
that
work?
(Specifically,
is
the
produce
used
in
school
dining?)
In
analyzing
and
interpreting
the
communications
and
observations
I
had
with
the
sites,
as
well
as
my
previous
research,
I
sought
to
first
address
my
experience
at
the
site
and
what
I
learned
from
it:
the
facts,
looking
for
commonalities
between
the
cases,
as
well
as
major
differences.
For
the
schools
I
visited
I
examined
the
demographic
data
for
the
area
including:
racial
makeup,
median
home
sale
price,
average
adjusted
gross
income
and
average
resident
age.
Since
the
ability
of
a
school
to
offer
a
program,
such
as
a
garden,
could
be
influenced
by

22. the
demographics
for
the
neighborhood
in
which
the
school
was
located,
I
felt
this
data
was
essential
to
my
research.
To
procure
that
information
I
used
an
online
data
finder,
City-­‐
data.com,
which
gets
its
information
from
publicly
available
records.
I
was
searching
for
general
trends
in
each
case
that
would
show
how
that
site
conducted
its
mission
and
how
those
generalities
might
influence
landscape
architecture.
I
also
looked
for
sustainable
economic
impacts
and
productivity
issues
in
each
site
that
could
be
significant.
I
followed
up
this
objective
data
with
my
own
narrative
impressions
and
observations
that
would
aid
me
in
understanding
practical
applications
for
landscape
architecture,
as
a
site’s
impact
on
a
visitor
is
a
vital
component
of
its
success.
I
chose
to
utilize
narrative
as
a
tool
to
capture
the
immeasurable
benefits
of
urban
agriculture,
which
are
difficult
to
assess
with
standard
quantitative
metrics.
Landscape
architects
seek
to
create
landscapes
that
tell
a
meaningful
story
and
through
my
own
narrative
I
hoped
to
capture
that
story
as
I
experienced
the
site.
12

23. Chapter
Three
History
As
long
as
there
have
been
urban
settlements,
there
has
been
urban
agriculture
in
some
form.
With
industrialization
came
rapid
increases
in
urban
populations
and
the
influx
of
new
urban
dwellers
had
to
feed
themselves,
greatly
expanding
the
scale
of
urban
agriculture.
Prior
to
the
Industrial
Revolution,
the
biological
system
that
encompassed
urban
agriculture
was
an
ecologically
closed-­‐loop
where
most
waste
products,
such
as
animal
manure
and
crop
residue,
were
organic
in
nature
and
could
be
recycled
back
to
the
soil
as
a
regenerative
fertilizer
(Cheema
et
al.
12).
Increasing
industry
often
produced
waste
that
was
non-­‐organic
and
more
complicated
to
recycle
such
as
industrial
lubricants
and
other
petroleum
based
products
13
(Cheema
et
al.
13).
Along
with
industrialization
came
the
separation
of
people
from
the
land
(Cheema
et
al.
13),
with
town
planners
seeking
to
separate
agriculture
out
to
the
rural
areas
and
commercial
production
being
contained
within
the
urban
area
(Cheema
et
al.
13).
New
hygiene
principles
such
as
indoor
plumbing
and
a
municipal
desire
for
“clean”
cities
discouraged
urban
farming
and
created
waste
management
systems
to
dispose
of
concentrated
waste
(Cheema
et
al.
13).
England
Initially,
the
first
gardens
allocated
by
municipalities
for
the
use
of
landless
citizens
occurred
in
England.
Between
1754
and
1815,
as
England
transitioned
to
a
commercial
and
industrialized
form
of
agriculture,
rural
families
were
often
disenfranchised
(Durlach
8).
During

24. this
period
the
Enclosure
Acts
privatized
the
countryside
and
commons
into
individual
parcels
(Durlach
8).
With
industry
offering
jobs
and
their
property
seized,
young
people
and
peasants
were
lured
into
the
city,
creating
congested
urban
areas.
Before
this
time
Britain’s
cities
had
designated
blocks
of
open
space
that
citizens
could
cultivate
as
kitchen
gardens.
As
urban
land
increased
in
value
these
open
spaces
were
consumed
by
development
(Durlach
8).
Urbanites
would
sometimes
join
together
to
rent
peripheral
urban
property
for
gardens
but
development
pressure
increasingly
pushed
that
land
farther
out
into
the
surrounding
countryside
until
it
was
14
unfeasible
for
a
city-­‐dweller
to
work
it.
In
the
late
18th
century,
some
landowners
would
rent
patches
of
land
for
use
by
private
gardeners.
Strict
rules
were
placed
upon
such
activities
out
of
concern
that
working
in
such
gardens
would
distract
workers
or
even
allow
them
the
self-­‐sufficiency
not
to
work
at
all
(Durlach
9).
These
plots
were
so
popular
that
the
Allotment
Acts
of
1887
and
1890
were
passed,
creating
allotment
gardens
for
the
“laboring
population”.
These
acts
required
urban
borough
sanitation
authorities
to
make
available
space
for
community
gardens,
otherwise
known
as
“allotments”
(King
7).
Similar
developments
were
occurring
across
Europe.
Alternate
English
Thinking
In
1898,
in
England,
Ebenezer
Howard
authored
a
theory
for
a
radically
different
kind
of
town:
the
garden
city.
In
Howard’s
vision,
a
larger
agricultural
zone
surrounded
the
main
population
center,
where
the
populated
town
area
served
as
a
ready
market
for
the
farmer.
In
this
way
the
city-­‐dwellers
had
ready
access
to
the
pleasures
and
beauties
of
the
countryside.
Included
in
the
plan
was
an
efficient
rail
system
to
facilitate
ease
of
transport
in
and
around
the

25. city
(Newton
453-­‐4).
Five-­‐sixths
of
the
area
in
and
around
these
cities
was
to
be
designated
for
agriculture
and
residents
were
given
20
by
130
foot
plots
in
which
to
grow
food
(Bohn,
Howe
and
Viljoen
99).
The
Garden
City
rail
service
was
to
avoid
overcrowding
within
agricultural
lands.
Howard
also
claimed
the
rail
system
would
reduce
the
cost
of
transportation
of
food
and
allow
for
recycling
city
waste.
Howard’s
theories
had
widespread
effect
on
town
planning
across
Europe,
but,
according
to
Bohn,
Howe
and
Viljoen
(99),
internationally
it
was
the
theories
of
Le
Corbusier,
as
delineated
in
The
City
of
Tomorrow
(Le
Corbusier,
1929)
that
had
the
most
impact
on
international
architecture
and
urban
planning
in
the
twentieth
century.
15
France
Paris
in
the
19th
century
was
known
throughout
Europe
for
its
highly
intensive
agricultural
production,
which
today
is
still
referred
to
as
French
gardening.
One-­‐sixth
of
the
city
of
Paris,
Le
Marais
or
“the
marsh”,
“produced
annually
more
than
100,000
tons
of
high
value,
out
of
season
salad
crops”
(Cheema
et
al.
31).
This
system
was
a
model
of
innovative
and
intensive
use
of
resources
at
hand,
exploiting
the
stable
manure
that
was
produced
in
abundance.
Before
modern
methods
of
sanitation
were
developed,
urban
agriculture
was
the
primary
method
used
to
dispose
of
urban
wastes.
In
“energy,
mass
and
monetary
terms,
the
inputs
and
outputs
of
the
Parisian
urban
agro-­‐ecosystem
exceeded
those
of
most
examples
of
present-­‐day,
fully
industrialized
crop
production”
(Cheema
et
al.
31).
So
much
was
produced
that
Paris
exceeded
its
own
level
of
consumption
and
vegetables
were
exported
as
far
as
London.
Towards
the
end
of
the
19th
century
this
system
of
French
gardening
peaked,
as
cars
replaced
horses
and
animal
manure
was
no
longer
readily
available
for
fertilizer.
As
land
values
increased,
areas
with
better

26. climates
and
lower
property
values
outside
the
city
were
able
to
out-­‐compete
Paris
thanks
to
efficient
new
forms
of
transportation
that
could
quickly
haul
produce
across
the
countryside
to
market,
making
local
production
seem
quaint
and
inefficient
(Cheema
et
al.
31-­‐32).
16
Alternate
French
Thinking
In
The
City
of
Tomorrow
Le
Corbusier
describes
his
“Garden
City”
as
more
condensed
and
vertical
than
Howard’s
design.
He
envisioned
over
one-­‐third
of
a
typical
housing
plot
be
designated
to
community
farming
with
a
farmer
in
charge
of
every
100
plots.
Intensive
cultivation
would
be
undertaken
and
orchards
would
separate
the
farmed
areas
from
the
housing
(Le
Corbusier
218).
He
spelled
out
several
different
plans
of
use
that
would
interact
with
each
other
over
a
fabric
of
cultivated
farmlands,
creating
what
we
refer
to
today
as
peri-­‐
urban
agriculture,
or
agriculture
immediately
adjacent
to
urban
areas.
His
idea
was
that
housing
would
be
built
in
sun
and
air
infused
“cells”
stacked
in
three-­‐story
buildings,
each
with
its
own
“hanging
garden”
that
would
provide
the
owner
with
a
private
space
for
relaxing
or
dining
and
that
required
minimal
maintenance
(Le
Corbusier
217).
Around
these
apartment
buildings
he
called
for
areas
of
open
space
for
recreation
and
orchards
adjacent
to
surrounding
allotment
gardens
that
would
be
supervised
by
a
full-­‐time
farmer
who
would
see
to
the
“heavy
work”
of
plowing
and
watering.
This
garden
space
would
also
allow
for
storage
of
excess
produce
for
winter
(Le
Corbusier
218).
In
this
garden
city
scheme
Le
Corbusier
believed
he
had
solved
the
problems
inherent
in
the
sprawling
modern
cities
that
were
growing
common
across
the
developed
world.
He
suggested
that
this
design
plan
would
turn
inhabitants
of
his
cities
into
“agricultural
labourers”,

27. the
“producer”
that
was
disappearing
from
the
countryside.
He
also
suggested
that
this
design
would
allow
its
inhabitants
more
room
in
which
to
live
and
play
and
more
efficient
use
of
their
time
and
energy
(Le
Corbusier
215-­‐218).
Le
Corbusier
was
a
visionary
man
it
would
seem,
as
today
cities
around
the
world
are
adopting
aspects
of
his
plan
and
incorporating
them
into
their
city
plan.
A
CNN
Article
by
Shaikh
mentions
that
Cuba,
Japan
and
China
all
have
successful
urban
farms
and
Vancouver,
Canada
even
has
an
Office
of
Urban
Agriculture
within
the
government.
Developing
countries
such
as
Kenya
are
experimenting
in
urban
agriculture
and
many
cities
in
the
United
States,
such
as
Chicago,
Detroit
and
New
York
all
have
significant
city
farm
projects
(Shaikh
n.
pag.).
Germany
also
has
some
interesting
interesting
and
progressive
urban
agriculture
projects
taking
place
(Schroeder
n.
pag.).
17
Detroit
Appropriation
Garden
Figure
1

28. 18
United
States
In
the
United
States,
the
first
appropriated
gardens,
allotment
gardens,
were
created
for
economic
reasons
caused
by
the
depression
of
1893
–
1897.
Detroit
mayor
Hazen
S.
Pingree
requested
that
owners
of
vacant
land
at
the
cities
edge
lend
their
property
to
the
unemployed
to
grow
food
to
support
themselves
through
the
coming
winter.
The
city
plowed
430
acres.
On
plots
of
one-­‐quarter
to
one-­‐half
acre
in
size,
945
families
set
to
work
to
grow
their
own
food.
The
city
required
half
of
the
land
to
be
planted
in
potatoes
and
14,000
bushels
of
potatoes
were
grown.
The
city
of
Detroit
spent
$3,000
on
the
project
and
produced
$12,000
worth
of
potatoes.
(Durlach
13).
Today,
Detroit
is
again
home
to
a
thriving
revival
of
urban
farming
(Detroit
Agriculture).
Other
cities
went
on
to
imitate
this
project
in
similar
economic
crises.
An
important
aspect
of
these
programs
was
their
temporary
nature.
As
soon
as
the
“crisis”
passed
and
the
real
estate
prices
recovered,
the
gardens
were
forfeit.
While
this
worked
well
for
recruiting
landowners
in
difficult
economic
times,
as
they
knew
it
would
not
cost
them
anything,
the
short-­‐term
nature
of
these
gardens
meant
that
they
were
temporary
solutions
to
the
needs
of
the
poor.

29. 19
Garden
Based
Learning
Figure
2
Garden
Based
Learning
While
the
poor
were
gardening
as
a
means
of
survival
in
the
1890’s,
education
reformers
promoted
school
gardens
as
an
interactive
teaching
venue
that
correlated
with
school
subjects
and
taught
civics
and
good
work
habits
(Lawson
21).
The
inclusion
of
children
in
the
garden
is
a
recurring
theme
across
the
history
of
garden
programs,
but
the
period
from
1890
to
the
early
1920’s
was
the
most
noteworthy
era
for
such
projects.
Because
gardening
was
considered
an
appropriate
tool
to
address
a
range
of
societal
ills,
children’s
programs
enjoyed
broad
support
and
were
promoted
by
celebrities
of
the
day
such
as
landscape
architect
Frederick
Law
Olmstead,
social
reformer
Jacob
Riis
and
President
Woodrow
Wilson
(Lawson
52).
In
1914
the
schoolyard
garden
concept
became
a
national
movement
with
the
establishment
of
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Education’s
Office
of
School
and
Home
Gardening
devoted
to
its
promulgation.
This
national
office
suggested
that:
“Garden
programs
need
to

30. demonstrate
their
popular
appeal
and
educational
worth
if
school
administrators
were
to
accept
gardening
into
the
curriculum
and
budget”
(Lawson
66).
Citing
the
relative
low
cost
of
gardening,
the
office
urged
local
school
boards
to
offer
financial
support,
and
many
school
boards
responded
by
adding
a
dedicated
gardener
to
their
faculty
(Lawson
66).
Regardless
of
whether
local
school
boards
took
gardening
into
their
budget
or
curriculum,
garden
programs
relied
on
a
broad
network
of
support.
Collaborative
unions
between
schools
and
philanthropic
and
civic
organizations
were
common
and
frequently
necessary
to
get
projects
started
and
to
sustain
them
(Lawson
66).
20
Relief
Garden
Figure
3
Historic
Movements
of
Urban
Agriculture
One
foundational
work
frequently
cited
by
studies
on
the
topic
of
U.S.
community
gardening
is
the
1979
geography
Master’s
thesis
of
Thomas
Bassett
at
the
University
of
California,
Berkeley.
In
this
thesis,
Bassett
examines
community
gardens
by
grouping
their
historical
geography
into
what
he
refers
to
as
“movements”
(Bassett
1).
He
delineates
seven
such
movements,
each
corresponding
to
a
period
of
socio-­‐economic
crisis
that
placed
great

31. “stress
on
the
cultural
framework”
of
the
country
(Bassett
2).
He
contends
that
community
gardens
have
served
as
a
“buffering
mechanism”
that
lends
support
to
the
American
social
system
during
times
of
economic
and
social
distress
(2).
University
of
California,
Santa
Cruz
Associate
Professor
of
Community
Studies
Mary
Beth
Pudup
states
that
Bassett’s
work
“remains
the
standard
interpretation
as
does
his
notion
that
community
gardens
in
the
United
States
have
been
responses
to
crisis
and
emergency”
(Pudup
1229).
Seven
movements
of
community
gardens
as
outlined
by
Bassett:
21
Title
Year
Event
Potato
Patches
1894-­‐1917
Panic
of
1893
School
gardens
1900-­‐1920
Character
formation
of
children
Garden
City
Plots
1905-­‐1920
Urban
beautification
Liberty
gardens
1917-­‐1920
World
War
I
Relief
gardens
1930-­‐1939
Great
Depression
Victory
gardens
1941-­‐1945
World
War
II
Community
gardens
1970-­‐present
Urban
social
movements
Table
1
These
movements
are
helpful
in
discerning
the
historical
phases
of
the
community
gardening
or
urban
agriculture
movement.
They
serve
as
a
timeline
to
its
evolution
in
the
United
States
as
well
as
making
clear
the
link
between
national
crisis
and
societal
response.

32. 22
War
Gardens
Victory
Garden
Figure
4
An
era
of
patriotism
was
a
strong
motivator
of
temporary
food
production.
During
World
War
One
the
U.S.
government
pushed
a
program
to
“Sow
the
Seeds
of
Victory”
and
urban
gardening
became
stylish
and
patriotic.
The
“Sow
the
Seeds
of
Victory”
marketing
campaign
raised
the
social
standing
of
urban
gardeners
from
that
of
poor
and
ignorant
to
patriotic
citizens
looking
for
a
way
to
serve
the
war
effort“
(Durlach
17).
In
1918
an
estimated
5
million
gardeners
produced
$520
million
dollars
worth
of
food”,
enabling
traditional
farmers
to
ship
their
produce
overseas
(Durlach
17).
After
the
armistice
these
plots
were
referred
to
as
“Victory
Gardens”,
a
name
that
managed
to
carry
over
into
World
War
Two
(Lawson
140),
and
they
enabled
more
of
the
commercial
farmer’s
produce
to
be
shipped
to
war
victims
overseas.
Once
the
war
effort
had
ceased
and
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
soldiers
returned
home,
less
land
was
available
for
cultivation
and
vegetable
gardening
became
less
popular,
resurfacing
only
out

33. of
necessity
during
the
Great
Depression
and
again
during
World
War
Two.
In
1944
with
the
nation
once
again
at
war,
20
million
gardens
produced
44%
of
the
fresh
vegetables
in
the
23
United
States
(Durlach
17).
One
of
the
few
victory
gardens
that
continued
on
after
the
war
was
in
Davis,
California,
nearby
to
the
University
of
California’s
School
of
Agriculture.
The
garden’s
influence
on
and
by
the
university
gave
it
a
substantial
influence
in
suburban
subdivision
design.
One
subdivision,
Village
Homes
in
Davis,
was
an
open-­‐space
design,
which
incorporated
“orchards,
vineyards
and
community
gardens
owned
and
managed
by
the
neighborhood
residents”
(Cashdan,
Paxson
&
Frances
23-­‐25)
as
well
as
designated
open
space.
Because
Davis
was
home
to
a
land
grant
university,
the
subdivisions
nearby
had
an
influence
on
students
who
lived
and
studied
there,
providing
them
with
a
functional
example
of
how
such
a
human-­‐scaled
urban
food
system
could
work
(Durlach
21).The
designs
of
these
subdivisions
would
go
on
to
influence
common
lands
on
suburban
layouts
across
the
country
(Durlach
21).
Post-­‐War
Industrialization
Urban
household
food
production
and
peri-­‐urban
market
gardening
were
significant
industries
in
the
U.S.
up
until
the
end
of
World
War
Two,
when
America
turned
its
wartime
munitions
factories
to
fertilizer
production
facilities
and
set
to
work
to
industrialize
itself
on
a
major
scale.
A
signature
of
modern
life
became
compartmentalization.
Cities
and
towns
took
to
separating
home
from
marketplace,
workplace
from
open
space.
In
1973
Secretary
of
Agriculture
Earl
Butz
commanded
farmers
to
compartmentalize,
to
separate
livestock
from
crops
and
to
“get
big
or
get
out”
and
“Plant
fence
row
to
fence
row”
(qtd.
In
Philpott).
These
post-­‐war
fragmented

34. farms
were
considered
hallmarks
of
modernity
and
in
zoning
and
planning
agriculture
became
something
quaint
and
backwards,
not
suitable
for
the
polite,
modern
company
desired
in
towns
and
cities.
Small
farms
on
the
edges
of
towns
were
developed
into
housing,
pushing
agriculture
farther
out,
farther
from
the
consumer
(Durlach
21).
Urban
Agriculture
as
a
Social
Movement
In
the
1960’s
a
new
environmental
awareness
grew
out
of
social
upheaval,
beginning
with
Rachel
Carson’s
seminal
work
Silent
Spring,
which
was
the
first
to
get
people
thinking
about
the
state
of
the
environment
and
the
earth’s
ability
to
sustain
life.
The
population
growth
that
came
out
of
the
post
war
years,
coupled
with
people’s
emergent
thinking
about
the
environment
and
the
civil
rights
movement
of
the
1960’s
created
a
new
political
environment.
The
growth
of
the
suburbs
also
led
to
more
vacant
land
in
the
city
centers.
Together
these
two
events,
“the
empowerment
of
new
politics
and
the
opportunities
of
vacant
land
have
created
a
historically
unprecedented
series
of
class
and
racial
coalitions”
(Durlach
20).
These
new
alliances
began
to
bring
urban
neighbors
together
to
plant
and
maintain
community
gardens
and
manage
their
public
lands
while
setting
goals
for
new
ways
of
rebuilding
their
24
neighborhoods.
This
new
mix
of
environmental
concern
and
political
action
created
renewed
interest
in
allotment
gardens
in
England
and
saw
the
creation
of
the
first
modern-­‐era
community
gardens
in
the
U.
S.
in
the
early
1970’s.
These
community
gardens
differed
from
allotments
of
the
past
in
that
their
emphasis
lay
in
regenerating
community.
The
term
“community
garden”
has
come
to
mean
gardens
created
by
grassroots
initiatives
as
opposed
to
the
public
gardens
of
the

35. 1890’s
and
1950’s,
which
were
largely
the
result
of
federal
and
local
government
funding
and
organization
(Hassell
91).
In
response
to
the
growing
number
of
community
gardens
across
the
country
and
a
corresponding
increase
in
numbers
of
city-­‐based
community
garden
organizations,
the
American
Community
Gardening
Association
was
formed
in
1979
(American
Community
Gardening
Association).
The
ACGA
was
created
to
unite
the
thousands
of
programs
that
had
sprung
up
across
the
country,
to
provide
land
and
resources
for
people
without
land
of
their
own,
and
as
an
organizational
body
for
all
community
garden
groups.
The
ACGA
was
a
means
to
assist
urban
farmers
and
gardeners
in
grassroots
organization.
For
the
first
time,
the
gardeners
themselves
were
organizing
their
own
gardens.
During
the
1970’s
and
1980’s
community
gardens
increasingly
served
as
tools
to
rebuild
communities
that
were
being
torn
apart
by
urban
renewal
projects,
declining
urban
population,
abandoned
properties
and
racial
tension.
By
working
together
on
garden
projects,
neighbors
“could
take
personal
steps
to
address
inflation,
the
environment,
and
social
anomie
while
also
contributing
to
a
neighborhood
renaissance”
(Lawson
206).
Many
of
the
same
outcomes
that
motivated
gardeners
of
the
previous
century,
such
as
fresh,
economical
food
and
self-­‐
sufficiency,
were
still
desired
by
these
new
gardeners,
but
they
“were
now
acknowledged
as
a
part
of
the
social
process
inherent
in
negotiating
communal
garden
space”
(Lawson
206).
In
the
1970’s
and
1980’s
the
focus
was
on
creating
community
amongst
the
gardeners
and
between
the
garden
and
its
neighborhood,
city
and
society
in
general.
Where
previous
generations’
garden
projects
had
typically
begun
with
a
top
down
approach
of
an
outside
organization
developing
the
garden
for
the
gardeners,
these
projects
of
the
70’s
and
80’s
saw
higher
rates
of
user
involvement
and
planning
and
were
locally
controlled
and
maintained
(Durlach
21-­‐22).
The
25

36. United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
had
an
Urban
Gardening
Program
of
its
own
from
1976
until
1993.
In
1973,
the
Master
Gardener
Program
was
begun
by
Extension
agents
of
Washington
State
University
as
a
response
to
public
inquiry
they
received
from
people
seeking
assistance
in
their
gardens
(Gibby
et
al.
n.
pag.).
Community
leadership
developed
around
gardens
as
gardeners
participated
in
the
processes
of
community
outreach,
negotiating
with
city
agencies
for
necessary
resources
and
frequently,
in
fighting
with
the
city
to
defend
the
garden
against
dissolution
(Durlach
20-­‐21).
In
the
early
1990’s
the
ACGA
was
pressured
to
broaden
its
mission,
to
include
community
development,
social
justice,
education
and
environmentalism
in
response
to
the
trends
seen
in
community
gardening
(Lawson
238-­‐9).
In
the
1990’s
the
number
and
types
of
gardens
increased
(Lawson
238)
and
included
under
the
term
of
“community
garden”
were
neighborhood
gardens,
institutional
gardens
that
offered
horticultural
therapy
programs,
and
school
gardens,
as
well
as
others
types
of
projects,
such
as
prison
gardens.
ACGA
members
in
the
1990’s
were
most
active
in
community
organizing,
assisting
with
land
acquisition,
followed
by
providing
assistance
with
horticulture
issues
and
education
programs.
These
activities
still
represent
the
primary
services
offered
by
member
organizations
of
the
ACGA.
By
expanding
their
work
in
community
development
and
becoming
increasingly
politically
savvy,
garden
organizations
have
been
able
to
expand
their
influence
into
municipal
planning
and
funding
and
their
active
lobbying
has
increased
awareness
among
policy
makers
for
the
necessity
for
garden
funding
and
site
permanence
(Lawson
243).
In
exercising
political
clout
these
organizations
are
able
to
better
meet
the
needs
of
the
members
they
serve.
Additionally,
garden
organizations
in
the
1990’s
grew
adept
at
collaborating
with
other
26

37. organizations
to
accomplish
shared
visions.
Most
also
insisted
that
gardens
must
be
established
by
the
members
themselves,
not
simply
given
to
residents
from
an
outside
benefactor.
To
that
end,
the
ACGA
created
a
mentorship
curriculum
for
new
garden
organizations
called
From
the
Roots
Up.
The
following
five
core
beliefs
that
grounded
this
program
were:
1. There
are
many
ways
to
start
a
community
garden.
2. In
order
for
a
garden
to
be
sustainable
as
a
true
community
resource,
it
must
grow
from
local
conditions
and
reflect
the
strengths,
needs
and
desires
of
the
local
community.
3. Diverse
participation
and
leadership,
at
all
phases
of
garden
operation,
enrich
and
strengthen
a
community
garden.
4. Each
community
member
has
something
to
contribute.
5. Gardens
are
communities
in
themselves,
as
well
as
part
of
a
larger
community.
(qtd.
In
Lawson
244)
These
beliefs
say
very
little
about
gardening,
choosing
instead
to
focus
on
the
skills
required
to
make
a
community
garden
successful
at
empowering
local
garden
groups.
It
was
this
type
of
thinking
that
found
its
home
in
1990’s
urban
agriculture
settings
and
it
summarizes
27
the
movement
in
the
1990’s.
In
looking
back
on
the
urban
agriculture
movements
of
the
past
we
can
see
Bassett’s
seven
movements
and
the
crisis
each
was
responding
to:
financial
depression,
war,
character
development
and
finally,
the
socio-­‐economic
difficulties
of
our
modern
era.
In
each
circumstance
urban
garden
projects
were
responses
to
change
with
the
garden
serving
to
buffer
the
difficulties
of
the
day.

38. Chapter
Four
Prison
Gardens
The
garden’s
hidden
.
.
.
possibilities
may
emerge
in
extreme
situations.
.
.
.
In
defiant
situations,
humans
display
a
surprising
resourcefulness
in
design
and
function,
in
formal
arrangement,
and
in
the
appropriation,
gathering,
and
use
of
materials.
Recognition
of
our
own
creativity
under
adverse
conditions
heightens
our
satisfaction
in
being
in
such
a
garden.
As
we
know,
the
seeds
of
certain
plants
will
germinate
only
when
exposed
to
the
heat
of
fire;
the
horrible
inhumane
conditions
.
.
.
unlock
something
dormant,
allowing
it
to
sprout
as
a
28
defiant
garden
(Helphand
6).
In
looking
at
grassroots
urban
agricultural
movements
I
was
most
intrigued
by
the
programs
that
had
the
most
potential
for
good,
with
the
lowest
investment.
I
had
read
something
about
Washington
State’s
Sustainable
Prisons
project
and
it
made
sense
to
me
from
an
economic
and
an
ecological
perspective.
A
project
such
as
a
garden,
in
a
prison,
seemed
to
make
more
sense
than
anything
I
could
think
of.
As
I
looked
into
it
further,
I
discovered
there
was
little
written
on
it
and
I
determined
that
this
would
be
something
I
wanted
to
learn
more
about.
In
my
mind,
if
anyone
needed
the
simple
pleasures
found
in
a
garden,
a
prisoner
would.
It
also
seemed
that
it
would
make
sense
from
an
economic
standpoint.
If
a
garden
in
a
prison
could
prove
beneficial
to
the
inmates
and
economically
feasible
to
the
Department
of

39. Corrections,
this
system
would
certainly
offer
benefits
worth
examining
for
landscape
29
architecture.
Writing
about
prisoners
and
gardens,
Kenneth
Helphand,
in
his
book
Defiant
Gardens:
Making
Gardens
in
Wartime
states,
“Recognition
of
our
own
creativity
under
adverse
conditions
heightens
our
satisfaction
in
being
in
such
a
garden”
(6).
He
goes
on
to
say,
“…the
human
benefits
of
gardening
are
more
clearly
seen
in
impoverished
environments
that
lack
the
amenities
to
make
life
pleasant….
Gardens
promise
beauty
where
there
is
none,
hope
over
despair,
optimism
over
pessimism,
and
finally
life
in
the
face
of
death”
(7).
Helphand’s
study
of
gardens
constructed
in
the
adverse
conditions
of
war,
prisons
or
ghettos
points
to
the
positive
power
of
a
garden
to
inspire
hope
in
the
bleakest
conditions.
In
its
very
nature,
a
garden
is
a
hopeful
place;
when
we
plant
we
hope
the
seeds
we
sow
will
germinate,
the
plants
will
survive
and
thrive
and
that
we
will
be
around
to
witness
these
miracles
(Helphand
7).
In
gardening
we
can
create
peaceful
solace
in
a
chaotic
world.
Gardens
created
by
imprisoned
populations
are
important
to
examine
because
they
offer
hope
in
the
bleakest
of
conditions.
Nancy
Flinn,
author
of
The
Prison
Garden
Book,
lists
four
general
benefits
of
a
prison
having
a
gardening
program
for
its
inmates.
These
include
the
meaningful
work
it
provides
the
inmates,
the
food
it
produces
for
the
institution,
the
job-­‐preparatory
education
that
inmates
gain
while
gardening
and
additionally,
gardening
is
an
opportunity
to
succeed
for
a
population
who
may
not
have
had
many
such
opportunities
(16).
Another
advantage
of
a
prison
garden
is
seen
in
research
conducted
by
Moore,
a
professor
of
architecture
at
the
University
of
Nebraska-­‐Lincoln,
which
showed
that
the
views
offered
out
of
a
prison
cell
are
related
to
the
number
of
sick-­‐calls
received
by
the
infirmary,
with
prisoners
who
have
a
view
of
plants
being

40. less
likely
to
be
ill
(24).
Later
research
by
West,
a
graduate
student
at
the
University
of
Washington,
confirmed
the
correlation
between
the
number
of
sick-­‐calls
to
the
type
and
quality
of
the
inmates’
views
from
their
cells;
those
with
more
naturalistic
elements
in
their
view
making
the
fewest
such
calls
(qtd.
In
Ulrich
204).
Access
to
visually
complex,
naturalistic
views
within
the
prison
environment
has
also
been
shown
to
have
a
relaxing
effect
on
both
inmates
30
and
prison
staff
(Lindemuth
89).
Riker’s
Island,
the
largest
jail
complex
in
the
United
States,
situated
between
Manhattan
and
Queens,
has
had
a
horticultural
program
for
inmates
since
1996
(Jiler
13).
Administered
and
developed
by
the
Horticultural
Society
of
New
York,
the
program’s
goal
is
to
reduce
recidivism,
or
return
offenders.
On
just
two
acres
of
land
inmates
learn
horticulture
skills,
plant
science,
and
ecology,
as
well
as
garden
design
and
construction
skills
(Jiler
13).
After
their
release,
former
prisoners
have
the
opportunity
to
return
to
the
program
to
work
as
paid
interns,
gaining
experience
that
will
help
them
re-­‐integrate
back
into
society.
James
Jiler,
the
Director
of
the
Horticulture
Society
of
New
York’s
jail-­‐to-­‐street
Green
House
program
and
author
of
the
book
Doing
Time
In
the
Garden,
tells
us
that
Riker’s
Island
is
the
biggest
farm
in
New
York
City
and
produces
as
much
as
40,000
pounds
of
produce
annually
(24).
This
output
is
powered
by
the
labors
of
the
inmate
workers.
This
type
of
labor
by
inmates
is
not
uncommon
in
prisons
and
jails
across
the
United
States.
What
is
more
unusual
is
the
effort
Riker’s
makes
to
connect
the
inmates
labor
to
skills
that
will
help
the
laborers
gain
employment
once
they
are
freed.
Jiler
tells
us
that
the
Riker’s
program
”incorporates
an
eclectic
mix
of
garden
therapy,
science
and
English
literacy,
life
skill
development
and
job
enrichment
with
programs
for
job
placement
once
a
student
has
served
his/her
sentence.”
(Jiler
28).

41. One
problem
within
the
prison
system
is
that
of
mental
health
issues
in
the
incarcerated
population.
Jiler
tells
us
that
“In
1999,
the
Bureau
of
Justice
Statistics
released
a
report
that
estimated
283,000
inmates
nation-­‐wide
were
mentally
ill,
almost
16%
of
all
people
behind
bars”
(35).
As
early
as
1798
Dr.
Benjamin
Rush,
known
a
the
“Father
of
American
Psychiatry”
published
accounts
of
enhanced
healing
among
the
economically
disadvantaged
patients
who
worked
in
the
hospital
food
gardens
to
help
pay
for
their
care
when
compared
to
the
wealthier
patients
whose
recovery
was
confined
to
their
rooms
(qtd.
In
Jiler
34).
Beyond
the
benefits
of
exercising
outside
in
the
sun
and
fresh
air,
caring
for
plants
has
been
found
to
reduce
stress,
increase
self-­‐esteem
and
improve
mental
focus.
Psychiatrist
Karl
Menninger
labeled
the
intangible
benefit
offered
by
nature
“adjunctive
therapy”
and
stated
that
it
helps
patients
with
depression,
anger
or
trauma
issues
(qtd.
In
Jiler
34).
Another
issue
in
the
corrections
system
is
that
of
recidivism.
The
U.S
Bureau
of
Justice
Statistics
calculates
that
two-­‐thirds
of
released
inmates
will
be
rearrested
within
three
years
of
leaving
prison
(Jiler
13).
If
these
inmates
experienced
only
futility
while
in
prison,
isolated
from
their
community
and
family,
it
is
difficult
to
imagine
them
feeling
any
differently
once
they
are
back
on
the
street,
with
no
job
and
a
criminal
background
(Jiler
84-­‐85).
It
is
also
plausible
to
think
that
the
lives,
which
led
them
to
prison
in
the
first
place,
were
not
highly
satisfying
or
full
of
possibility
(Jiler
17,
28).
Combine
these
factors
and
it
is
easy
to
see
why
convicts
are
likely
to
end
up
back
in
the
prison
system.
Gardening
while
in
prison
offers
a
positive
experience
and
a
chance
for
prisoners
to
learn
skills,
contemplate
their
own
place
in
the
natural
order
of
life
and
increase
their
own
sense
of
self
worth
and
empowerment
(Jiler
34).
In
the
case
of
the
Riker’s
Island
program,
inmates
have
the
opportunity
to
interact
with
their
environment
and
nurture
31

42. relationships
with
those
organisms
around
them,
be
they
plant,
animal
or
human.
Within
these
interactions
there
are
choices,
rewards
and
consequences,
both
tangible
and
intangible.
These
inmates
are
given
an
opportunity
to
have
a
positive
impact
on
their
world,
and
that
can
be
enough
to
start
them
on
a
path
to
a
better
future.
In
a
study
of
a
prison
program
in
Paris,
Texas,
participants
in
a
“twelve
month
horticultural
therapy
program
had
a
recidivism
rate
of
26%
compared
to
49%
for
parolees
not
involved
in
therapeutic
activities”
(Jiler
38).
Washington
State
Sustainable
Prisons
Project
Following
the
path
forged
by
Riker’s
Island,
a
two-­‐year
partnership
between
Evergreen
State
College
and
the
Washington
Department
of
Corrections
(DOC)
is
working
to
make
the
state
prison
system
more
environmentally
friendly.
Funded
by
a
grant
from
the
Department
of
Corrections,
the
program
seeks
to
make
the
prison
system
more
economically
and
environmentally
sustainable
and
also
to
provide
job
training
to
offenders
about
to
re-­‐enter
the
job
market.
The
DOC
also
sees
this
as
a
means
of
cutting
costs.
The
project
unites
scientists
and
conservation
groups
with
inmates
and
prison
staff
to
conduct
research
and
work
on
restoration
projects
(The
Evergreen
College
and
WA
DOC
n.
pag.).
One
of
the
Washington
State
Sustainable
Prisons
sites
is
the
McNeil
Island
Corrections
Center
(MICC),
located
in
southern
Puget
Sound
between
Tacoma
and
Olympia.
This
project
is
entering
into
its
second
year
of
production.
During
its
first
year
in
2009,
the
inmates
produced
5,000
pounds
of
food
which
were
used
to
supplement
soups
and
salads
in
the
facilities
Food
Services
unit
(The
Evergreen
College
and
WA
DOC
n.
pag.).
This
garden
program
began
on
short
notice
with
funding
from
Washington
State
Center
for
Women’s
Horticulture
Program
and
is
32

43. operated
by
the
Lawns
and
Gardens
Supervisor
and
an
offender
crew.
No
chemicals
are
used
in
the
garden;
only
grass
clippings
and
water
are
added
to
the
soil.
In
October
of
2009,
a
series
of
soil
workshops
were
offered
to
the
Lawns
&
Garden
crew.
Taught
by
a
graduate
student
from
Evergreen
College,
the
crew
learned
soil
science
and
soil
management
and
was
given
the
training
and
knowledge
to
prepare
for
2010’s
garden
(The
Evergreen
College
and
WA
DOC
n.
33
pag.).
The
Sustainable
Prisons
Project
currently
involves
four
prisons,
but
administrators
have
hopes
of
it
eventually
becoming
a
statewide
program.
Within
the
four
involved
prisons,
tasks
include
the
cultivation
of
organic
produce,
beekeeping,
vermiculture
composting
and
separation
of
recyclables
from
the
prison
waste
stream
(The
Evergreen
College
and
WA
DOC
n.
pag.).
Related
projects
in
the
Sustainable
Prisons
Project
include
growing
endangered
native
plants
for
prairie
restoration
in
collaboration
with
The
Nature
Conservancy,
assisting
in
breeding
endangered
spotted
Oregon
frogs
and
the
farming
of
mosses
for
the
horticultural
trade.
All
of
the
offenders
involved
in
these
programs
receive
specialized
training
and
guidance
from
scientists
and
educators
with
the
programs
main
focus
on
job
training
and
recidivism
reduction
(The
Evergreen
College
and
WA
DOC
n.
pag.).
These
programs
also
save
the
state
money
and
because
of
this
they
are
more
likely
to
continue
to
be
able
to
assist
in
preparing
offenders
for
re-­‐entry
to
society.
I
discovered
the
Washington
State
Sustainable
Prisons
Initiative
through
an
article
on
grist.com,
which
led
me
to
the
Evergreen
College,
through
which
I
arranged
to
visit
the
facility
on
May
12,
2010.

44. 34
Stafford
Creek
Corrections
Center
Figure
5
Stafford
Creek
Correction
Center
Upon
arriving
at
the
Stafford
Creek
facility
I
was
allowed
to
take
in
only
my
notebook
and
pen,
my
camera
had
not
been
pre-­‐approved
and
was
not
allowed
inside.
In
accessing
the
garden
site
we
passed
through
three
double-­‐gated
holding
pens
where
we
had
to
wait
inside
for
the
next
passageway
to
be
opened
before
us.
The
210-­‐acre
grounds,
home
to
nearly
2,000
male
inmates,
were
primarily
made
up
of
large,
flat
expanses
of
green
lawn
with
dormitories
and
buildings
a
short
distance
apart.
The
garden
was
out
behind
the
main
campus
of
the
facility,
nestled
amongst
the
shop
buildings.
The
main
garden
area
was
little
more
than
an
acre,

45. but
a
large
traffic
circle
across
the
drive
had
just
been
plowed
and
planted,
doubling
the
planting
area.
Across
from
the
garden
area
was
the
recycling
facility,
where
inmates
sort
through
the
prison’s
refuse.
This
recycling
project
on
Stafford
Creek’s
campus
has
saved
the
facility
nearly
“$200,000
a
year
just
by
recycling
trash
instead
of
paying
to
have
it
hauled
to
a
35
landfill”
(Oppmann
n.
pag.).
Stafford
Creek
Green
House
Figure
6
The
visit
began
with
a
lecture
by
two
Nature
Conservancy
employees
who
met
us
there.
They
were
speaking
on
the
native
plants
that
these
inmates
were
growing
in
the
greenhouses
to
be
used
in
statewide
restoration
projects.
Once
the
lecture
was
complete,
the
inmates
went
to
work
in
the
next-­‐door
greenhouse
potting
seedlings
for
the
project.
The
Grounds
&
Nursery
Supervisor
mentioned
his
frustration
with
the
difficulty
of
motivating
the
inmates
to
do
the
more
tedious
tasks
such
as
weeding.
If
he
was
not
watching
over
them
all
the
time
they
tended
to
slack
off,
as
many
did
when
there
were
visitors,
such
as
the
group
present
this
day.
While
the
supervisor
was
busy
directing
the
men’s
work,
I
was
able
to
walk
around
the
greenhouses
and
look
at
the
gardens.
Large
beds
contained
various
vegetable
crops:
berries,
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower,
onions,
beans,
corn,
strawberries,
raspberries,
etc.
These
food
crops
are

46. intercropped
with
ornamentals
and
potted
flowers
near
the
greenhouses.
The
oldest
planting
beds
are
5
or
6
years
of
age
and
irrigation
is
conducted
with
sprinklers.
While
there
is
a
rainwater
collection
tank
on
site,
it
has
not
been
used
due
to
a
lack
of
hardware
to
get
the
36
water
out
of
the
tank.
The
supervisor
mentioned
they
have
never
been
able
to
grow
enough
onsite
to
significantly
impact
the
dining
facility,
but
the
produce
supplements
the
inmate’s
diets
and
all
produce
is
consumed
on-­‐site.
Also,
he
allows
the
inmates
to
snack
on
the
produce
as
they
work.
The
facility
produces
all
of
its
own
compost
from
kitchen
waste
and
this,
coupled
with
the
recycling
program,
has
significantly
reduced
the
amount
of
waste
produced
at
Stafford
Creek.
Retaining
wall
behind
a
greenhouse
Figure
7
Program
funding
comes
from
a
Department
of
Defense
grant,
the
Nature
Conservancy,
and
from
the
Department
of
Corrections.
The
goal
of
the
program
is
and
nature
and
science
education
and
job
training
for
the
inmates,
as
well
as
teaching
them
to
give
back
to
the
community.
It
is
hoped
that
the
inmates
will
learn
skills
that
will
enable
them
to
be
productive
once
they
are
released.
The
supervisor
said
some
of
the
men
were
very
interested
in
the
work,

47. but
many
were
not
and
only
wanted
to
earn
their
42
cents
an
hour
as
laborers.
The
men
who
are
really
committed
to
the
program
are
assigned
the
more
tedious
and
important
tasks
such
as
sowing
seeds
and
thinning
seedlings.
A
big
problem
within
the
program
is
that
once
the
men
get
very
interested,
their
good
behavior
is
rewarded
by
transferring
them
to
a
lower
security
facility
before
they
are
released,
thus
ending
their
work
in
the
garden
program.
This
also
makes
it
difficult
for
the
program
to
have
the
necessary
time
to
impact
the
men
in
a
meaningful
37
manner.
Inmate
at
work
Figure
8
There
is
no
work
release
program
of
any
sort
at
Stafford
Creek
that
enables
the
men
to
transition
back
into
society.
The
prison
is
a
DOC
institution,
and
once
they
are
released
they
become
a
matter
for
the
local
welfare
authorities,
frequently
homeless
and
likely
to
commit
further
crimes
due
to
a
lack
of
support.
Financially,
the
program
does
not
cost
the
DOC
anything
extra.
The
Fort
Lewis
military
base
paid
for
the
greenhouses,
which
are
used
to
grow
plants
for
prairie
restoration
work
on

48. the
military
base.
The
Nature
Conservancy
also
pays
for
the
plants
raised
by
the
inmates
to
be
used
in
Conservancy
restoration
projects.
By
the
end
of
the
year
the
garden
project
will
be
relocated
across
the
prison
grounds
to
make
way
for
a
chair
factory.
The
supervisor
mentioned
his
disappointment
at
this,
but
hopes
that
they
can
make
the
garden
work
in
the
new
location.
As
far
as
planting
design
went,
the
supervisor
has
ultimate
authority
but
tries
to
allow
the
men
to
take
some
ownership
in
what
they
grow
and
where
they
grow
it.
He
frequently
has
to
leave
the
men
unsupervised
for
periods
of
time
while
he
runs
errands
or
works
on
matters
in
38
another
area.
During
a
conversation
with
another
graduate
student
involved
in
the
project,
it
was
mentioned
that
he
felt
that
if
a
program
such
as
this
did
not
benefit
the
inmates
it
was
missing
its
mark,
that
such
a
program
should
be
primarily
therapeutic
in
nature
and
everything
else
an
off-­‐shoot
of
that.
This
student
would
like
to
see
an
expansion
in
the
production
end
and
not
be
limited
to
food
production.
At
Stafford,
several
felt
a
need
to
expand
the
program
to
offer
cut
flowers
to
visitors
and
other
institutions
and
recommend
that
such
garden
programs
be
a
more
central
part
of
the
prison
system.
Narrative
My
first
impression
of
the
garden
area
was
generally
positive
due
to
the
multitude
of
potted
flowers
around
the
greenhouses,
giving
the
area
a
pleasant
and
unexpectedly
cheerful
air.
There
were
also
large
potted
fruit
trees
and
potted
vines
being
trained
to
climb
up
the
front
of
the
greenhouses.
One
inmate
told
me
he
had
been
reading
a
garden
book
and
asked
my
opinion
of
the
garden.
Several
other
inmates
also
really
wanted
to
know
what
I
thought
of
the

49. garden
once
they
heard
who
I
was.
What
I
found
interesting
was
that
they
did
not
refer
to
it
in
a
possessive
manner,
as
though
it
was
their
personal
work,
but
in
a
more
general
tone
in
which
one
inquires
to
know
if
a
visitor
appreciates
the
community
park
in
their
neighborhood.
I
got
the
feeling
that
the
sense
of
ownership
they
experienced
with
this
project
was
more
of
a
general
sense
that
this
entire
facility
was
home
to
them,
and
as
such
they
hoped
I
approved
of
the
garden
part
of
it
in
which
we
were
standing.
While
I
did
not
feel
a
sense
of
ownership,
I
could
tell
that
those
who
spoke
to
me
were
truly
interested
in
gardening
and
curious
about
my
being
a
student
interested
in
this
project.
It
felt
like
this
garden
had
certainly
piqued
their
39
interest
and
they
were
curious
to
know
more.
As
I
watched
the
men
working,
I
noticed
that
three
men
who
were
planting
seemed
quite
involved
in
their
work.
The
others,
about
12,
worked
for
a
little
bit
in
the
other
greenhouse
and
then
seemed
to
disappear,
with
about
three
remaining
behind,
doing
a
little
work,
cracking
jokes
and
chatting.
There
seemed
to
be
a
generally
pleasant
energy
about
the
place,
which
I
had
not
expected.
This
visit
left
me
with
mixed
feelings.
While
it
is
possible
to
see
a
great
potential
in
this
type
of
a
project,
this
particular
project
appeared
to
be
missing
the
mark.
The
limited
amount
of
time
that
the
inmates
spend
in
this
program
reduces
their
benefit
from
it.
They
do
not
have
the
time
to
experience
a
sense
of
ownership
in
the
project
nor
gain
valuable
skills
from
the
work.
Because
of
these
two
points,
this
project
is
indeed
missing
its
mark
in
providing
a
therapeutic
benefit
to
the
men
involved
in
it
and
the
supervisor’s
communication
gave
the
sense
that
he
felt
this
too.
He
mentioned
that
he
was
looking
forward
to
working
outside
the
prison
system.
When
asked
why,
he
would
only
say
he
wanted
do
something
that
would
be

50. more
rewarding.
If
the
project
is
unable
to
inspire
the
man
who
is
leading
it,
how
can
it
hope
to
40
inspire
those
who
are
working
beneath
him?
A
common
theme
in
the
prison
garden
literature
is
that
of
the
necessity
of
visionary
leadership
to
make
these
projects
work.
At
Riker’s
Island,
the
garden
was
begun
by
the
President
of
the
Horticultural
Society
of
New
York,
who
brought
the
idea
and
a
plan
to
the
Commissioner
of
the
Riker’s
Island
complex
and
was
able
to
sell
it
to
him
(Jiler
10).
Because
the
men
in
charge
of
the
program
were
inspired
by
it
and
possessed
the
power
to
make
it
happen,
that
program
is
now
renown
for
its
success.
My
study
of
this
project
was
limited
and
I
cannot
begin
to
understand
it
to
the
depth
it
deserves
from
the
time
I
spent
there,
but
the
take
away
message
for
me
was
that
for
a
project
such
as
this
to
succeed
it
needs
visionary
support.
There
must
be
someone
within
the
prison
system,
within
the
facility
itself,
who
recognizes
the
importance
and
potential
the
garden
program
holds
and
makes
certain
it
receives
what
it
needs
to
be
successful.
The
administration’s
decision
to
relocate
the
garden
to
make
way
for
a
chair
factory
belied
the
general
sense
that,
like
so
many
other
community
garden
projects,
this
one
was
not
valued
as
a
serious,
contributing
element
of
the
facility.
Without
a
leader
who
places
a
high
level
of
importance
on
the
program
it
is
likely
to
be
a
temporary
diversion
that
keeps
the
inmates
busy,
but
misses
the
mark
as
far
as
job
training
and
therapy
goes.

51. 41
Mother
Earth
Farm
Mother
Earth
Farm
Figure
9
The
next
prison
garden
program
I
saw
was
not
actually
on
a
prison
ground.
I
first
heard
about
Mother
Earth
Farm
from
the
graduate
student
who
assisted
me
with
the
Stafford
Creek
site.
Mother
Earth
Farm
is
an
affiliate
of
Emergency
Food
Network
(EFN),
an
organization
that
works
to
provide
food
to
Pierce
County
food
banks.
EFN
has
several
different
projects
that
help
them
to
meet
their
mission
of
feeding
the
area’s
hungry
including
a
cannery
project
where
donated
fresh
foods
are
canned
for
later
distribution.
The
farm
manager
told
me
the
specifics
of
the
farm
and
the
following
information
comes
from
our
communications
of
that
May
14th,
2010,
unless
noted
otherwise.

52. 42
Sign
outside
Mother
Earth
Farms
Mother
Earth
Farm
began
when
the
property
owner,
whose
family
had
farmed
the
site
for
many
years,
was
approached
by
her
grandson,
who
was
working
for
EFN
and
saw
an
opportunity
for
the
run
down
farm
to
give
back
to
the
community
and
stay
in
agriculture.
Once
the
owner’s
grandson
had
secured
his
grandmother’s
interest
in
the
project
he
approached
his
friend
to
manage
the
farm.
This
woman
had
been
involved
in
guerrilla
gardening
for
years
and
had
worked
previously
with
Guadalupe
Gardens,
a
homeless
garden
CSA
project.
She
is
a
big
proponent
of
weaving
people
into
a
garden,
or
getting
as
many
people
involved
as
possible,
and
was
interested
in
the
opportunity
to
grow
food
on
a
larger
scale
and
have
a
greater
impact
on
a
community.
This
experienced
urban
farmer
looked
the
site
over
and
told
her
friend
that
it
would
take
about
seven
years
to
rebuild
the
site’s
soil
fertility
and
get
the
farm
fully
up
and
running.
In
the
end
it
only
took
five.
The
property
is
comprised
of
8
acres
in
a
residential
area
of
the
Puyallup
Valley
and
first
began
operation
in
May
of
2000.
The
mission
of
Mother
Earth
Farm
is
first,
to
grow
fresh
produce
for
those
in
need,
and
second,
to
educate
the
community
on
how
to
grow
that
produce.
To
accomplish
the
second
goal,
the
farm
manger
utilizes
the
assistance
of
female
inmates
from
the
Washington
Correctional
Center
for
Women
at
Purdy
who
work
on
the
farm
forty
hours
per
week.
The

53. women
receive
42
cents
an
hour
for
their
work
and
also
receive
college
credit.
Their
program
runs
from
March
through
November
and
only
women
able
to
keep
that
commitment
are
eligible
to
participate.
The
manager
mentioned
that
prior
to
this
arrangement,
which
began
last
year,
the
women
would
come
work
for
two-­‐week
periods,
and
it
was
not
sufficient
time
for
these
inmates
to
gain
a
sense
of
ownership
over
the
farm
or
their
work.
With
this
longer
commitment,
the
women
are
very
enthusiastic
and
grow
vested
in
their
labors
-­‐
so
much
so
that
some
return
to
volunteer
on
the
farm
once
they
are
released.
43
Greenhouse
in
front
of
field
Being
on
the
work
crew
at
the
farm
is
a
right
that
the
inmates
must
earn
and
because
of
that,
both
their
investiture
in
the
site
as
well
as
the
program’s
overall
morale
is
quite
high.
These
women
stay
on
task
and
their
behavior
and
attitudes
reflect
their
enjoyment
and
appreciation
for
the
program.
The
DOC
pays
$50,000
a
year
to
fund
the
supervisor
of
the
program,
but
feels
it
is
money
well
spent
because
of
the
reduction
in
the
recidivism
rate.
While

54. there
is
no
real
monitoring
program
for
these
women
once
they
are
free,
farm
volunteers,
some
former
prisoners
and
others,
often
take
that
upon
themselves,
watching
out
for
the
women
and
helping
them
find
jobs
after
they
are
released
from
prison.
The
manager
said
she
used
to
be
able
to
feed
the
inmates
more
freely,
until
a
lawsuit,
unrelated
to
this
program,
caused
the
DOC
to
fear
that
there
might
be
jealousy
from
other
inmates
outside
the
program
and
that
the
special
foods
program
participants
enjoy
on
site
might
constitute
“favoritism”.
Currently,
by
serving
only
“tea”
made
from
plants
on
the
farm
they
are
able
to
skirt
this
issue.
The
Department
of
Corrections
defines
“tea”
rather
loosely
and
the
program
is
able
use
that
lax
definition
to
the
benefit
of
the
laborers.
44
Little
greenhouse

55. In
addition
to
the
female
inmates,
Mother
Earth
Farm
also
serves
as
a
fieldtrip
site
for
local
school
kids,
who
enjoy
learning
about
the
food
system
from
the
farm
and
from
the
manager.
For
school
children,
the
farm
offers
many
important
lessons
about
the
food
system
and
The
manager
does
all
she
can
to
get
the
kids
involved
and
eating
as
they
tour.
The
local
District
Court
sends
offenders
to
the
farm
to
serve
community
service
sentences
and
some
local
businesses
also
support
their
employees
in
providing
weekly
community
service
at
the
farm.
These
volunteers
are
the
majority
of
the
labor
on
the
farm.
The
manager’s
position
is
paid
and
full-­‐time
and
she
also
has
a
full-­‐time,
paid
assistant
to
help
her
get
the
work
done.
Emergency
Food
Network
pays
for
their
salaries.
In
the
earliest
days
of
the
farm
it
was
difficult
to
get
the
necessary
funds
from
EFN,
but
today
the
farm
leads
the
program’s
fund
raising
efforts,
as
the
value
of
such
a
system
grows
more
apparent
to
donors.
The
manager
reports
to
EFN’s
Executive
45
Director.
Future
goals
for
the
farm
are
simply
to
keep
improving
at
what
they
are
already
doing.
They
produce
an
average
of
150,000
pounds
of
produce
per
year,
including
vegetables,
fruit,
herbs
and
honey.
They
also
hope
to
continue
to
enhance
volunteer
outreach
in
an
effort
to
engage
more
people
in
solving
the
local
hunger
problem.
The
manager
said
the
biggest
lesson
she
has
learned
from
the
project
was
the
transition
process
from
being
a
solo
farmer
to
a
community
farmer.
She
has
had
to
learn
to
teach
and
let
go,
or
not
to
manage
to
tightly.
She
has
found
that
being
rigid
does
not
work
and
has
had
to
learn
to
relinquish
control
and
let
what
needs
to
happen,
happen
in
its
own,
best
way.
She
stated
that
the
recipients
of
the
food
are
a
very
grateful
lot.
Each
year
she
visits
the
food
bank
and
spends
time
talking
to
those
who
are
being
fed.
She
has
found
that
generally

56. they
are
very
impressed
to
know
that
their
food
is
very
fresh
and
grown
locally
and
they
enjoy
46
its
flavor
and
variety.
Herb
and
flower
beds
Tulips
Narrative
I
found
this
program
at
Mother
Earth
Farm
to
have
a
decidedly
different
nature
than
the
program
at
Stafford
Creek.
It
is
not
surprising
that
this
should
be
so,
considering
Stafford
Creek
is
on
site
at
a
prison
and
Mother
Earth
Farm
is
not,
but
it
seemed
to
me
that
the
basic
fundamentals
of
the
two
programs
were
the
difference
here.
At
Stafford
Creek
the
men
involved
are
only
involved
for
a
short
time
and
much
of
what
they
do
is
distant
from
their
lives.
Growing
seedlings
to
restore
a
prairie
is
not
likely
to
a
possess
high
level
of
relevancy
in
the
life

57. of
an
inmate,
while
feeding
the
hungry
of
their
community
is
much
easier
to
relate
to
for
someone
who
may
have
experienced
some
of
the
difficulties
life
offers
first
hand.
Mother
Earth
Farm
also
has
the
advantage
of
its
setting.
Surrounded
by
mountains,
fresh
air
and
suburban
homes,
MEF
has
the
feel
of
a
peaceful
retreat
from
a
crazy
world.
Without
the
prison’s
razor
wire
and
armed
guards,
this
is
a
therapeutic
setting.
The
manager
is
a
caring
person,
while
certainly
not
someone
to
be
pushed
around,
she
gives
the
sense
that
she
truly
cares,
not
just
for
the
earth
and
her
farm,
but
for
people
as
well.
She
told
me
that
this
is
an
attitude
that
is
fostered
at
the
farm
and
many
volunteers
go
out
of
their
way
to
assist
inmates
with
finding
both
jobs
and
housing
when
they
are
released.
This
farm
is
a
bridge
for
inmates,
helping
them
to
give
meaning
to
their
lives
and
creating
relationships
between
them
and
the
47
community
to
which
they
are
soon
to
return.
I
could
feel
the
Stafford
Creek
Supervisor’s
concern
for
the
inmates
he
had
charge
over
as
well,
but
I
could
also
sense
his
own
frustration.
His
program
could
not
offer
inmates
a
long-­‐term
solution
to
their
situation
and
he
does
not
have
the
power
to
change
that.
They
cannot
spend
enough
time
in
the
program
to
learn
job
skills
or
to
experience
the
sense
of
satisfaction
that
comes
from
seeing
a
garden
start
as
a
field
of
bare
dirt
in
the
spring
and
make
it
through
to
a
lush
and
vibrant
greensward
by
fall.
Without
these
experiences,
a
garden
is
just
a
labor
camp,
pulling
weeds
just
a
chore
and
food
production
but
a
by-­‐product.
It
is
essential
that
these
programs
have
available
to
them
the
resources
to
build
success
and
the
leadership
to
engage
the
hearts
of
the
inmates.
Without
these
factors,
the
program
is
unlikely
to
achieve
its
full
potential.
One
clear
need
for
the
success
of
a
prison
garden
program
is
strong
leadership
within

58. the
prison
system
that
supports
the
mission
of
the
program
and
fosters
relationships
that
will
support
the
inmates
when
they
return
to
the
outside
world.
48
Chives
with
honeybee
Additionally,
MEF
manager’s
message
to
designers
was
to
teach
and
let
go.
If
a
design
project
is
to
become
a
valued
part
of
a
community,
then
that
community
needs
to
feel
that
they
are
essential
to
its
design
and
creation.
It
is
possible
that
as
designers
we
will
need
to
learn
a
new
way
of
working.
Instead
of
going
out
to
a
site,
talking
to
community
members
and
then
creating
what
we
hear
them
tell
us
they
want,
perhaps
we
will
need
to
learn
to
allow
the
creative
space
for
them
to
become
more
involved
in
the
design
process
as
well.
Community
garden
projects
are
dirty,
productive
creatures
that
require
a
more
organic
process
than
landscape
architects
are
accustomed.
Farmers
and
gardeners
understand
the
necessity
of
learning
as
you
go,
making
changes
and
letting
the
growth
process
happen.
Within
an
urban
agriculture
setting,
a
design
must
produce
to
be
considered
a
success,
not
just
look
good,
and
we
as
designers
must
learn
to
respect
and
work
with
that
process.

59. It
would
be
an
interesting
topic
for
further
research
to
compare
the
gardening
styles
of
men
versus
women.
The
Stafford
Creek
Corrections
Center
garden
is
pretty,
but
comes
across
as
primarily
functional.
There
are
pots
full
of
flowers,
but
they
line
the
areas
small
areas
where
people
are
likely
to
congregate;
the
greenhouse
entrances
and
patios.
The
lines
of
crops
are
straight
and
a
sense
of
order
permeates
the
site.
At
Mother
Earth
Farm,
which
is
much
more
a
traditional
farm
than
Stafford
Creek,
the
flowers
are
profuse
and
unkempt,
planted
for
the
nourishment
of
the
bees,
and
also
one
senses,
the
nourishment
of
the
heart.
While
the
farm
is
comprised
primarily
of
row
crops,
the
more
ornamental
front
zone
along
the
driveway
calls
you
to
meander
through
the
flowers
and
herbs,
to
smell
the
roses
and
taste
the
mint,
to
sit
at
a
picnic
table
and
enjoy
your
lunch.
It
would
be
interesting
to
see
if
there
is
a
gender-­‐based
corollary
in
these
design
occurrences;
do
men
tend
to
create
more
efficient
and
functional
spaces
than
women?
Do
women
tend
to
allow
more
room
for
the
processes
of
life
to
happen?
At
Roosevelt
Island,
where
they
both
sexes
have
equal
but
separate
access
to
the
garden,
has
their
been
any
noticeable
difference
in
the
designs
created
by
each
group?
49

60. Chapter
Five
School
Gardens
Beginning
in
the
1500’s,
the
popularity
of
gardens
in
European
schools
began
to
increase.
Originally
this
began
on
large
estates
“for
the
purpose
of
training
of
overseers”
(Greene
8)
but
out
of
this
practice
grew
agricultural
colleges
and
farm
schools.
The
curriculum
at
these
schools
was
offered
to
children
of
estate
laborers
over
the
age
of
fourteen.
From
these
schools
arose
programs
in
rural
areas
to
train
children
in
“the
use
of
their
environment
so
that
they
might
draw
from
it
both
wealth
and
happiness”
(Greene
8).
The
goal
of
these
programs
was
to
slow
the
flow
of
labor
to
towns
and
cities
and
build
up
the
agricultural
wealth
of
these
rural
areas
50
and
their
respective
nations.
Significant
philosophers,
such
as
Comenius,
Rousseau,
Gandhi,
Montessori
and
Dewey
promoted
school
gardens
and
taught
that
education
should
be
interactive
and
social,
based
on
actual
experiences,
rather
than
a
teacher’s
interpretation
of
a
subject
(Subramanian
3).
In
areas
where
farms
and
nature
where
readily
available
to
children,
the
goal
of
the
school
garden
was
to
be
utilitarian
and
teach
through
experience
with
a
goal
of
connecting
children
to
nature
and
of
shaping
their
moral
character
(Subramanian
2-­‐3).
By
the
late
1800’s
most
European
countries
had
mandated
some
form
of
garden
training
in
elementary
schools
(Subramanian
3).
At
that
time,
Switzerland
was
the
first
and
only
country
to
place
pedagogical
emphasis
on
gardening
as
a
means
of
developing
powers
of
observation
and
experiential
learning
(Greene
12).
At
the
turn
of
the
century
new
educational
theories
were
taking
hold,
such
as
Maria
Montessori’s
belief
that
it
was
necessary
to
first
educate
a
child’s

61. senses
before
his
intellect
and
John
Dewey’s
belief
that
gardening
helped
children
to
relate
school
life
with
their
home
environment
(Subramanian
2).
As
this
new
belief
in
experiential
learning
caught
on,
the
kindergarten
movement
developed
by
Friedrich
Froebel,
a
notable
19th
century
German
pedagogue,
began
to
reach
across
Europe
and
to
the
United
States
(Subramanian
3).
Froebel
caused
educators
to
begin
looking
at
children,
not
as
receptacles
of
information
but
rather,
as
flowers
to
be
nurtured.
Australia
held
a
School
Garden
Conference
in
1903
that
led
to
the
acceptance
of
school
gardens
as
ideal
tools
for
the
integration
of
educational
curriculum
and
concepts
of
conservation
and
natural
stewardship
(Subramanian
3).
In
1904
Canada
established
school
gardens
in
each
of
the
provinces
of
Ontario,
Quebec,
New
Brunswick,
Nova
Scotia
and
Prince
Edward’s
Island
(Greene
13).
The
gardens
were
the
idea
of
Dr.
James
Robertson,
a
former
Commissioner
of
Agriculture
and
Dairying,
who
had
gone
on
to
direct
the
Macdonald
Fund
and
was
the
President
of
Macdonald
College
at
Ste.
Anne
de
Bellevue
(Greene
13).
The
Macdonald
Fund’s
goal
was
to
better
educate
the
rural
population
of
Canada
and
the
school
gardens
were
a
fundamental
tool
in
accomplishing
that
goal
(Greene
14).
Within
a
few
years
the
various
provinces
had
passed
orders
incorporating
these
successful
gardens
into
their
educational
systems.
This
act
set
Canada
ahead
of
the
world
in
the
acceptance
of
and
utilization
of
school
gardens
as
a
means
of
educating
children
and
preparing
skilled
farmers
(Greene
17).
Of
these
gardens
it
was
said:
The
garden
is
becoming
the
outer
classroom
of
the
school,
and
its
plots
are
its
blackboards.
The
garden
is
not
an
innovation,
or
an
excrescence,
or
an
addendum,
or
a
diversion.
It
is
a
happy
field
of
expression,
an
organic
part
of
the
school
in
which
the
boys
and
girls
work
51

62. among
growing
things
and
grow
themselves
in
body
and
spiritual
outlook
52
(Cowley
401).
In
1891
Henry
Lincoln
Clapp,
who
had
just
returned
from
a
European
tour
of
school
gardens,
began
the
first
school
garden
in
the
United
States.
Mr.
Clapp
was
Master
of
the
George
Putnam
School
of
Roxbury,
Massachusetts,
the
first
official
U.S.
school
with
a
garden.
(Greene
7-­‐8).
In
the
years
that
followed,
cities
across
the
U.S.
began
to
embrace
this
concept
and
the
popularity
of
school
gardens
spread
quickly,
though
this
initial
motivation
was
for
aesthetic
rather
than
educational
reasons
(Subramanian
3).
In
the
United
States
the
most
successful
early
school
garden
was
the
Boy’s
Garden,
established
by
the
National
Cash
Register
Company
of
Dayton,
Ohio
in
1897.
The
company
president
saw
a
need
and
created
a
large
garden
in
a
rough
neighborhood
as
an
experiment
to
give
opportunity
to
the
local
boys
and
instill
a
good
work
ethic.
This
garden
project
was
so
successful
that
it
was
continued
on
for
many
years
(Greene
20).
As
an
increasing
number
of
schools
began
to
embrace
gardens,
teaching
colleges
began
to
provide
training
to
teachers
in
school
gardening.
By
1909
several
colleges
offered
summer
courses
for
teachers
with
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
offering
a
course
linked
to
a
Philadelphia
school
garden,
which
served
as
the
class
laboratory
(Greene
22).
Cornell’s
Agricultural
College
also
offered
related
courses
and
published
many
bulletins
directed
at
creating
and
sustaining
public
interest
in
school
gardens
(Greene
23).
School
gardening
in
the
United
States,
originally
introduced
for
aesthetic
purposes,
has
been
strongest
during
periods
of
war
-­‐
correlating
with
the
general
historic
rise
of
community
gardening
generally
during
those
times.
We
see
it
peak
first
in
1918
during
World
War
One
and

63. then
again
during
World
War
Two,
but
waning
in
the
1950’s
with
the
new
emphasis
on
new
and
modern
technology.
When
Americans
are
pushed
into
focusing
on
food,
such
as
during
the
rationing
of
wartime,
the
instances
of
community
and
school
gardens
peak
(Blair
17).
In
1995,
California’s
State
School
Superintendent
Delaine
Eastin
mandated
“a
garden
in
every
school”
in
an
effort
to
“create
opportunities
for
our
children
to
discover
fresh
food,
make
healthier
food
choices,
and
become
better
nourished”
(qtd.
in
University
of
California
n.
pag.)
While
California
has
not
yet
reached
Eastin’s
goal,
much
grant
money
was
awarded
toward
that
end
in
the
state
and
in
other
states
as
well
following
her
mandate.
The
money
has
gone
to
create
Kindergarten
through
12th
grade
garden-­‐based
curriculums
as
well
as
for
the
establishment
of
the
gardens
themselves
on
school
grounds
(University
of
California
n.
pag.)
.
University
of
California
Botanical
Garden
Associate
Director
Susan
Meux
White
said:
This
is
a
movement
all
across
the
country
.
.
.
More
and
more
evidence
shows
that
getting
children
out
of
the
classroom
is
a
powerful
learning
strategy
that
takes
advantage
of
their
enthusiasm
and
interest.
Out
of
doors,
a
lot
of
new
observations
and
questions
come
up
that
reinforce
and
add
to
the
lessons.
(University
53
of
California
n.
pag.)
Children
today
often
lack
personal
experience
with
the
intricacies
of
nature.
The
recent
success
of
the
Richard
Louv
book
Last
Child
in
the
Woods
speaks
to
the
dawning
realization
that
children
no
longer
possess
the
natural
understanding
of
previous
generations,
who
spent
large
portions
of
their
day
outdoors.
Louv
states:
Within
the
space
of
a
few
decades,
the
way
children
understand
and
experience
nature
has
changed
radically.
The
polarity
of
the
relationship
has

64. reversed.
Today,
kids
are
aware
of
the
global
threats
to
the
environment
–
but
their
physical
contact,
their
intimacy
with
nature,
is
fading.
That’s
exactly
the
opposite
of
how
it
was
when
I
was
a
child.
(Louv
1)
A
mere
17%
of
the
U.S.
population
lives
in
non-­‐metropolitan
areas
(U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture)
where
they
have
daily
access
to
nature.
The
National
Institutes
of
Health
states
that
among
children
age
six
to
nineteen,
17%
are
overweight
(Statistics
Related
to
Overweight).
A
2002
study
conducted
by
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
states:
61.5%
of
children
aged
9-­‐13
years
do
not
participate
in
any
organized
physical
activity
during
their
nonschool
hours
and
that
22.6%
do
not
engage
in
any
free-­‐time
physical
activity.
Improving
levels
of
physical
activity
among
this
population
will
require
innovative
solutions
that
motivate
children
and
that
address
parents'
perceived
barriers
to
their
children
engaging
in
physical
activity.
Insufficient
physical
activity
is
a
risk
factor
for
persons
being
overweight
or
obese
and
for
having
many
related
chronic
diseases,
and
regular
physical
activity
is
associated
with
immediate
and
long-­‐term
health
benefits
(e.g.,
weight
control,
lower
blood
pressure,
improved
cardiorespiratory
function,
and
enhanced
psychological
well-­‐being).
Active
children
are
more
likely
to
become
active
adults,
but
as
many
children
age
into
adolescence,
their
physical
activity
levels
decline.
(Physical
Activity
Levels
n.
pag.)
As
a
society
we
are
seeing
the
effects
of
that
sedentary
lifestyle
in
the
general
health
of
the
population,
both
children
and
adults.
If
83%
of
U.S.
residents
live
in
urban
areas,
17%
of
children
under
the
age
of
16
are
overweight,
and
23%
of
all
children
engage
in
no
free-­‐time
54

65. physical
activity
and
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
tell
us
that
overweight,
less
active
people
are
likely
to
be
ill,
is
it
any
wonder
our
country
is
facing
a
healthcare
crisis?
(Wolf
55
n.
pag.)
School
gardens
are
one
solution
to
the
separation
between
today’s
child
and
nature
and
are
enjoying
sudden,
enormous
publicity
thanks
in
part
to
efforts
such
as
Michelle
Obama’s
interest
in
the
cause
of
child
health
and
the
creation
of
the
first
White
House
garden
since
Eleanor
Roosevelt’s
victory
garden
planted
in
the
midst
of
World
War
II
(Burros
n.
pag.).
School
Garden
Visits
In
May
of
2010,
I
visited
two
established
public
school
gardens
in
the
Seattle
area,
first
the
Orca
Garden
at
Orca
Elementary
School
and
then
the
Montlake
Elementary
Garden.
I
found
both
of
these
gardens
through
a
contact
from
the
Seattle
area
whom
I
had
met
at
a
conference.
This
contact,
who
works
with
small
farmers
in
the
Seattle
area,
was
able
to
direct
me
to
several
public
school
gardens
in
the
Seattle
area
and
of
the
four
I
contacted,
these
were
the
two
that
had
been
established
the
longest
and
would
be
able
to
meet
with
me.

66. 56
Orca
Garden
Orca
Elementary
Garden
Figure
10

67. 57
Entrance
to
Orca
Garden
My
first
visit
was
to
the
Columbia
City
neighborhood
of
Seattle
on
May
11th,
2010.
On
the
day
I
visited,
both
an
AmeriCorps
volunteer
and
a
long-­‐time
parent
volunteer
staffed
the
garden.
The
garden
also
has
a
Garden
Manager
who
was
out
of
town
on
the
day
I
visited.
Demographically,
Citi-­‐data.com
says
that
this
site
is
located
in
a
racially
divers
community
with
about
one-­‐half
of
the
population
consisting
of
equal
parts
Blacks
and
Caucasians,
another
37%
of
the
population
is
Asian
and
about
10%
are
Hispanic.
The
median
Adjusted
Gross
Income
in
2004
was
$43,653
and
the
median
home
price
as
of
May
2010
was
$240,000.
The
average
resident
age
is
35
years.
This
is
a
working-­‐class
community.

68. 58
Garden
interior
There
is
a
great
deal
of
color
and
art
in
this
garden.
Located
just
to
the
side
of
the
front
entrance
to
the
Orca
School,
the
garden
is
difficult
to
miss
by
any
guest
or
student.
The
entrance
gate
is
topped
with
a
winged,
sculpted
image
of
some
prehistoric
fish-­‐like
creature.
Upon
passing
through
the
gate
there
is
a
small
wooden
footbridge
with
black,
metal
handrails.
The
bridge
crosses
over
a
dry
steam
bed
made
of
river
rock
and
small
boulders.
On
the
way
through
the
garden
to
the
greenhouse
you
follow
a
curving
crushed
gravel
pathway
and
pass
several
large
compost
bins
and
a
bright,
student
decorated
worm-­‐bin.
There
are
also
many
colorful,
stuccoed,
rectangular
benches
decorated
with
mosaics
throughout
the
garden
and
six
curvilinear,
colorful,
stuccoed,
raised
beds
along
the
street
side
of
the
garden.
The
entrance
to
the
greenhouse
is
through
a
covered
patio
flanked
by
two
tall
columns
made
of
rebar,
in
an
inverted
conical
form
and
filled
river
rocks
anchoring
succulent
plants.
The
greenhouse
patio
is

69. a
concrete
slab
with
a
glass
roof.
The
patio
is
edged
on
two
sides
by
a
wooden,
stair-­‐stepped
59
seating
area.
Rebar
column
with
stones
and
succulents
Bridge
into
garden
The
greenhouse
stands
at
the
back
of
the
garden
and
in
it
I
met
the
two
volunteers,
busy
amongst
racks
of
seedlings
and
blooming
flowers.
The
annual
garden
plant
sale
had
just
finished
up
a
few
days
earlier
and
the
unsold
plants
filled
the
greenhouse.
The
parent
volunteer
told
us
that
the
sale
had
raised
$6,000
in
garden
funding.
The
greenhouse
was
a
warm
and
moist
cacophony
of
growing
things,
with
a
terrarium
near
the
door
filled
with
carnivorous
plants.
Children
wandered
in
and
out.
We
chatted
outside
the
greenhouse
under
the
glass-­‐
roofed
patio.
The
parent
volunteer
is
the
unofficial
garden
historian
and
enjoys
retelling
Orca
Garden’s
story.

70. 60
Keyhole
garden
with
flagstone
pavers
The
Orca
Garden
was
founded
in
1989
and
went
through
a
location
change
in
2007
with
funds
from
a
citywide
school
levy.
Families
and
community
members
developed
the
raised
beds,
composting
bins,
sheds
and
hardscape
seen
on
the
site.
Funding
for
the
project
has
been
a
mix
of
procured
grants
and
Parent
Teacher
Association
(PTA)
funds
and
currently
half
of
all
the
PTA’s
budget
goes
to
fund
the
garden
and
its
staff.
The
Orca
Garden
first
began
as
a
group
project
between
community
members,
parents
and
faculty
and
progressed
to
a
project
headed
by
a
volunteer
parent
who
eventually
received
a
PTA
stipend.
From
there
the
PTA
hired
a
parent
to
run
the
project
on
a
part-­‐time
basis
and
went
on
to
hire
their
current
garden
manager.
This
summer
would
be
the
first
that
the
Garden
Manager
will
work
through
the
summer.
At
this
time
the
three-­‐quarter-­‐time
Garden
Manager
is
paid
$30,000
annually
and
reports
to
the
PTA
Garden
Committee,
Orca’s
Principal
and
the
PTA

71. President.
The
AmeriCorps
volunteer
costs
the
PTA
between
six
and
seven
thousand
annually
and
works
40
hours
a
week,
though
not
all
her
hours
are
worked
on
site.
Summers
are
one
of
the
biggest
obstacles
to
a
school
garden
and
Orca
has
approached
their
summers
with
a
community
focus.
Utilizing
local
families
and
“community
farmers”
they
plant
successive
crops
for
donation
to
the
local
food
bank,
thus
ensuring
that
there
will
be
activity
in
the
garden
when
the
students
return
to
school
in
the
fall.
The
students
themselves
do
most
of
the
work
in
the
garden,
but
the
heavier
work
is
done
by
parent
work
groups,
but
open
to
any
community
member
who
wants
to
be
involved.
All
garden
design
has
been
created
by
a
collaboration
of
various
volunteers
over
the
garden’s
history.
61
Keyhole
garden,
looking
toward
greenhouse
In
the
earlier
days
of
the
garden,
kindergarten
parents
were
actively
recruited
to
join
the
Master
Gardeners
program
in
an
effort
to
increase
community
involvement
and
garden

72. ownership.
In
the
past
few
years
the
school
has
grown
to
include
middle
school
students
and
that
growth
was
accompanied
by
the
addition
of
the
paid
garden
staff.
Since
that
change
took
place,
it
has
become
more
of
a
challenge
to
provide
volunteer
opportunities
for
the
community.
With
the
paid
staff,
many
community
members
feel
less
needed
in
the
garden,
but
for
those
who
continue
to
volunteer,
they
still
work
with
plenty
of
enthusiasm.
The
Garden
Manager
works
with
district
-­‐provided
science
kits
to
create
connections
with
the
garden
and
the
curriculum.
Teachers
meet
with
the
manager
to
layout
curriculum
connections
and
plan
their
use
of
the
garden
in
their
lessons.
Most
of
the
lessons
taught
in
the
garden
are
science-­‐based,
with
some
math
lessons.
The
students
get
to
taste-­‐test
produce
and
are
involved
actively
in
food-­‐systems
studies.
Last
year
the
fourth
and
fifth
graders
read
62
Greens
growing
in
a
raised
bed
with
drip
irrigation
Collard
blossoms

73. Michael
Pollan’s
book
The
Omnivore’s
Dilemma
as
a
part
of
their
food
systems
studies.
The
garden
produce
is
not
used
in
school
lunches
simply
because
they
cannot
produce
enough
to
feed
all
the
kids,
but
five
pounds
of
cafeteria
scraps
are
composted
each
day
and
to
date
the
students
have
calculated
that
they
have
been
able
to
keep
over
a
ton
of
scraps
out
of
their
local
63
landfill.
There
are
a
great
variety
of
plants
in
the
garden
each
year.
On
my
visit
I
saw
mustard,
chives,
collards,
a
several
types
of
berries,
apples,
grapes
and
mint,
among
others.
One
volunteer
related
a
favorite
habit
of
the
kindergarteners,
who
gather
around
a
collard
plant
that
has
gone
to
seed
and
nibble
on
its
blossoms
like
goats.
Their
nibbling
keeps
the
plant
flowering,
which
keeps
the
kindergarteners
munching;
truly
a
sustainable
arrangement
and
agreeable
to
all
involved!
Additionally,
there
is
Native
People’s
Garden,
a
dry
creek
bed
rain
garden
with
small
boulders
for
climbing
and
a
9000-­‐gallon
tank
to
collect
rainwater.
The
pathways
are
all
permeable
gravel
and
the
staff
recently
installed
a
drip
irrigation
system.
Four
worm
bins
are
the
domain
of
the
younger
kids,
who
enjoy
them,
while
the
older
kids
shun
the
worms,
finding
them
“gross”.
The
multitude
of
well-­‐built
architectural
elements
allow
this
garden
to
stand
firm
as
the
plants
in
it
change
and
adapt
to
each
new
school
year.
This
garden’s
goals
are
multi-­‐purpose
and
include
engaging
students
in
experiential
learning,
sustainability,
health,
nutrition
and
community
works.
The
parents
believe
that
the
garden
helps
the
students
to
feel
a
sense
of
ownership
and
pride
in
their
school.
The
parent
volunteer
mentioned
that
she
absolutely
feels
the
garden,
and
the
Garden
Manager
as
a
person
whom
the
children
can
approach
easily,
have
made
the
kids
feel
that
the
school
belongs
to
them.
It
is
their
garden
and
their
families’
garden.
She
enthusiastically
continued
that
she
felt

74. that
the
fall
harvest
festivals,
the
spring
plant
sale,
classroom
time
spent
in
the
garden,
snacks
provided
from
the
garden,
the
work
projects
and
the
student
art
projects
have
all
done
their
part
to
give
the
students
the
feeling
that
this
garden
is
theirs.
As
it
states
in
mosaic
across
the
benches
in
front
of
the
garden:
“In
this
garden
we
all
belong”.
64
Narrative
At
first
glance,
this
garden
lets
you
know
that
it
is
a
child’s
garden.
The
Orca
garden’s
curvilinear
design,
plentiful
use
of
brightly
colored
architectural
elements
and
art
gives
the
garden
a
wonderful
sense
of
whimsy.
Student
artwork
is
seen
throughout
the
site
and
adds
to
the
whimsical,
exuberant
effect,
as
well
as
giving
the
students
a
sense
that
this
really
is
their
space,
full
of
their
handiwork.
This
garden
gives
a
feeling
of
acceptance,
and
judging
by
its
longevity,
it
is
a
feeling
that
resonates
with
its
community.
The
parent
volunteer
told
me
how
each
part
of
this
garden
was
a
community
service
project
of
its
own.
One
parent
knew
an
artist
who
created
the
sculpture
over
the
gate.
Another
had
some
friends
who
volunteered
to
come
and
help
the
community
build
the
raised
beds.
Each
permanent
element
here
has
a
story,
and
in
each
story
are
the
stories
of
this
community.
Is
it
any
wonder
that
this
is
a
place
where
the
neighborhood
likes
to
congregate?
As
I
was
preparing
to
depart,
school
let
out
and
children
streamed
into
the
garden,
playing
on
the
boulders
of
the
dry
creek,
skipping
along
the
pathways
and
munching
on
collard
blossoms.
Several
parents
met
their
children
in
the
garden
and
there
was
a
community
conversation
that
took
place
there,
in
the
confines
of
this
schoolyard
garden.
Just
a
block
away
is
a
P-­‐patch
and
Orca
is
actively
involved
in
that
as
well,
but
here
there
is
a
sense
that
not
just

75. plants
are
growing,
the
future
is
growing.
As
a
garden
symbolizes
hope,
so
does
a
child,
for
in
each
one
must
wait
to
see
if
all
that
work
was
worth
the
effort.
Kenneth
Helphand
told
us
previously:
“Gardens
promise
beauty
where
there
is
none,
hope
over
despair,
optimism
over
pessimism,
and
finally
life
in
the
face
of
death.”
(7)
It
is
my
belief,
as
witnessed
here
at
the
close
of
this
school
day,
that
children
are
also
a
statement
of
hope
over
despair.
Columbia
City
struck
65
me
as
a
very
hopeful
suburb.
It
was
interesting
to
me,
that
in
a
working
class
community
such
as
Orca
is
located
in,
among
such
a
varied
group
of
neighbors,
a
project
such
as
this
has
been
able
to
unite
people,
to
the
point
that
they
will
approve
ballot
measures
to
increase
their
taxes
to
fund
it.
It
is
an
excellent
example
of
the
power
of
urban
agriculture
to
bring
people
together
and
build
community
where
none
might
otherwise
exist.
I
also
found
it
interesting
that
here
the
4th
and
5th
graders
are
reading
books
on
food
that
Washington
State
University
assigns
to
its
freshmen
students.
This
struck
me
as
proof
that
if
you
can
capture
a
child’s
interest,
the
learning
will
occur
naturally,
just
as
Maria
Montessori
believed.
It
would
be
interesting
to
conduct
research
into
the
measurable
performance
of
students
in
a
school
with
an
engaging
garden
program
such
as
Orca’s,
to
see
just
what
sort
of
a
difference
these
types
of
programs
can
have
on
quantifiable
achievement.

76. 66
Montlake
Elementary
Garden
Montlake
Elementary
Garden
Figure
11

77. Montlake
Elementary
School
is
a
three
story
building
flanked
by
plants.
Like
the
rest
of
this
neighborhood,
the
site
is
well
landscaped.
On
my
visit
here
on
May
13th,
2010
I
this
community
is
quite
different
from
that
at
Orca.
Montlake
is
comprised
of
nearly
80%
Caucasian
residents,
with
10%
Black
and
the
rest
a
mix.
The
Average
Gross
Income
in
2004
was
$145,357
and
the
median
home
price
in
May
of
2010
was
$510,000.
The
average
resident
age
was
38
67
years.
Evident
nearby
were
several
examples
of
blatant
urban
agriculture
in
the
blocks
immediately
adjacent
to
the
elementary
school,
such
as
a
sidewalk
strip
that
had
been
built
up
into
raised
beds
planted
with
vegetables
and
a
home
with
two
active
beehives
in
the
front
yard.
Beehives
in
front
of
house

78. 68
Raised
bed
gardens
on
sidewalk
median
Upon
approach
to
the
garden,
which
is
located
off
to
the
south
side
of
the
school,
the
visitor
is
greeted
by
a
hardscape
of
inter-­‐locking
concrete
blocks
which
create
rounded
planting
beds
filled
with
fragrant
herbs
and
flowers,
and
a
concrete
stairway
that
leads
up
through
a
rose
covered
arbor
to
the
small
greenhouse,
which
is
also
fronted
with
another
vine-­‐covered
arbor.

79. 69
Stairs
up
to
greenhouse
Looking
back
from
greenhouse

80. Upon
my
arrival,
I
indulged
my
senses
in
this
fragrant
and
floral
garden
escape.
Once
you
have
ascended
the
stairs,
a
mulch-­‐covered
path
leads
around
the
greenhouse
to
the
raised
bed
vegetable
garden
at
the
rear.
From
this
elevated
vantage
point
it
is
possible
to
gaze
through
the
fence
and
the
neighboring
trees
to
look
down
on
the
street
and
passerby.
It
gives
a
sense
of
being
able
to
watch
the
neighborhood
while
remaining
unseen.
The
nine
wooden
raised
beds
were
planted
with
different
greens,
lettuces
and
onions.
Peas
had
been
planted
along
the
fence
and
were
just
beginning
to
climb
the
chain
link.
On
the
northern
edge
of
the
garden,
along
the
southernmost
edge
of
the
school
building
are
the
composting
bins.
The
southern
garden
edge
was
hedged
with
Mountain
lilac,
abuzz
with
big,
beautiful
honeybees.
Amongst
the
raised
beds
were
two
vertical
timber
poles,
which
served
as
support
for
the
wooden
bird
and
bat
houses
70
hung
on
them.
Vegetable
beds

81. Birdhouses
outside
outdoor
classroom
Before
this
project
was
begun
the
Coordinator
lived
in
the
neighborhood
and
had
a
business
growing
salad
greens.
In
need
of
greenhouse
space,
she
approached
the
school
about
the
greenhouse
they
had
that
was
being
used
as
storage.
Built
in
1995,
it
had
been
used
only
for
a
couple
of
years
before
it
fell
from
favor
and
became
a
storage
closet.
The
Coordinator
proposed
to
create
a
school
garden
on
the
grounds
and
in
2001
she
became
the
paid
Garden
Coordinator
of
the
Montlake
Elementary
pilot
garden
program.
The
PTA
funds
the
program
and
for
the
first
five
years
it
was
a
challenge
every
year
to
secure
another
year’s
funding,
but
eventually
this
manager
became
an
accepted
part
of
the
school’s
budget
and
no
one
questions
71
it
any
more.
The
Coordinator
relies
on
her
student’s
families
to
handle
summer
garden
upkeep.
She
puts
out
a
call
for
families
to
“adopt
the
garden”
for
one
week
during
the
summer
and
during
that
time
they
care
for
and
maintain
the
garden
while
collecting
any
produce
grown.
The

82. students
love
to
work
the
garden
with
their
parents
and
this
adoption
schedule
greatly
aids
in
connecting
the
students
and
their
families
with
the
garden,
enhancing
the
community
72
experience
for
the
participants.
Curriculum-­‐wise,
Montlake
fourth
and
fifth
graders
are
involved
in
the
Seattle
school’s
Green
Team
activities
that
have
included
environmental
assessments,
compost
and
recycling
activities
to
earn
awards
for
the
school.
These
activities
have
created
compost
and
recycling
projects
that
now
save
the
school
money
on
trash
pickup,
reducing
pickup
from
twice
per
week,
to
just
once.
Beyond
the
Green
Team
activities,
the
teachers
choose
how
they
want
to
use
the
garden.
The
Coordinator
sees
each
class
once
per
week
and
she
creates
her
own
curriculum
for
each
class
based
upon
what
is
happening
in
the
garden
at
that
time.
She
coordinates
with
teachers
to
let
them
know
what
needs
to
be
done
in
the
garden
and
the
teachers
create
lessons
that
accomplish
that
goal,
while
meeting
their
own
curricular
objectives
and
allowing
their
students
additional
time
in
the
garden.
The
Garden
Coordinator
is
responsible
for
all
of
the
site’s
design,
though
she
has
enlisted
the
assistance
of
other
neighborhood
gardeners.
This
past
year
a
grant
was
obtained
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
an
outdoor
community
classroom
on
the
under
utilized
north
side
of
the
school.
Prior
to
this
new
space,
this
area
was
an
overgrown
safety
risk
for
the
kids
who
liked
to
play
there
after
school.
On
a
Saturday
this
May,
85
neighborhood
volunteers
showed
up
to
distribute
15
yards
of
compost,
erect
20-­‐some
handcrafted,
kid
painted,
brightly
colored
bird
houses
on
posts
and
build
three
large,
raised
beds
and
a
sturdy
set
of
wood
and
concrete
stairs
up
the
hillside.
The
beginnings
of
a
log-­‐seating
class
area
are
also
in
the
works
and
several
fruit
trees
were
planted.
The
teachers
are
excited
to
integrate
this
new
outdoor
classroom
into
their
curriculum;
the
science
teacher

83. has
already
begun
to
line
up
ornithologists
from
the
Woodland
Park
Zoo
to
come
out
and
talk
to
the
kids
about
the
birds
they
see
using
the
houses.
The
children
are
excited
to
have
another
73
safe
place
to
learn
and
play
outside.
At
Montlake
the
program
goals
are
broad
based
and
include
experiential
environmental
education
and
enhancing
curricular
objectives.
The
Garden
Coordinator
mentioned
that
she
felt
the
most
crucial
element
to
a
successful
school
garden
program
is
the
paid
coordinator
position.
Without
someone
to
oversee
the
details
and
coordinate
efforts,
the
project
cannot
get
off
the
ground.
Narrative
This
beautiful
garden
has
a
very
safe,
secure
feel
to
it,
while
maintaining
a
casual
sense
of
welcome.
Its
position
up
above
the
street,
with
concrete
steps
and
permanent
wooden
arbors
covered
in
climbing
roses
and
heavily
planted
with
perennials,
gives
it
a
sense
of
permanence.
At
the
close
of
my
visit,
as
I
passed
back
through
the
garden,
I
noticed
several
children
playing
there,
singly
or
in
pairs,
up
away
from
the
chaos
of
the
elementary
school
playground.
These
children
were
enjoying
a
quiet
retreat.
I
taught
school
for
one
year
in
a
very
urban
and
economically
depressed
part
of
Brooklyn
in
New
York
City.
My
third
grade
special
education
students
generally
had
a
difficult
time
with
the
over-­‐stimulation
in
their
environment
and
having
a
quiet
place
to
retreat
and
calm
down
is
something
I
wish
I
could
have
offered
them.
Thomas
and
Shepherd,
childhood
education
educators
tell
us:
“children
are
being
placed
under
more
and
more
stress
–
at
home,
in
care
settings
and
in
school
.
.
.
Some
of
these
[stressors]
include
.
.
.
overstimulation
and
noise,
the

84. general
fast
pace
of
life”
(Thomas
&
Shepherd
42).
As
a
shy,
easily
over
stimulated
child
myself,
I
would
have
found
such
school
garden
retreat
to
be
sanctuary.
One
of
the
things
I
gained
from
my
visit
to
these
two
sites
was
the
sense
of
ownership
and
attachment
felt
by
the
children
who
use
these
gardens.
In
each
garden
I
saw
children
playing
and
enjoying
nature
in
different
and
unique
ways.
I
overheard
them
refer
to
the
gardens
in
possessive
terms
and
it
was
apparent
to
me
that
these
kids
felt
the
gardens
to
be
a
special
place.
This
sense
of
bonding
with
their
schools
and
their
gardens
has
been
shown
to
“relate
to
a
range
of
important
health
and
achievement
outcomes
through
adolescence
and
adulthood”
(Ozer
854).
Findings
from
the
National
Longitudinal
Study
of
Adolescent
Health
indicate,
“School
connectedness
was
associated
with
lower
levels
of
emotional
distress”
(Bearman
828).
This
sense
of
connectedness
is
likely
to
influence
how
the
faculty
feels
as
well,
and
would
be
a
74
question
for
future
research.
The
other
notable
point
I
recognized
in
these
two
school
sites
was
the
level
of
volunteer
involvement.
As
similar
as
Orca
and
Montlake
gardens
are,
there
is
a
significant
economic
disparity
in
the
communities
in
which
they
reside.
Montlake
is
a
much
wealthier
neighborhood,
with
more
discretionary
time
and
income,
but
still
the
community
turns
out
to
assist
as
needed.
Residents
of
Columbia
City,
where
Orca
is
located,
have
an
Adjusted
Gross
Income
of
less
than
one-­‐third
the
residents
of
Montlake,
but
still
they
vote
to
increase
their
own
taxes
to
fund
their
school’s
garden
program.
It
surprised
me
how
much
time
and
energy
parents
and
community
members
were
willing
to
invest
into
these
programs.
By
creating
designs
that
allow
for
such
service
through
food
systems,
landscape
architecture
can
increase
the
opportunity
for
people
to
become
involved
in
our
designs,
and
in
their
neighborhoods.
Clearly
healthy
food
and
a

85. connection
to
nature
for
their
children
is
important
to
both
communities’
parents,
regardless
of
their
income.
It
would
seem
that
gardens
could
be
something
everyone
might
be
able
to
agree
75
on.

86. Chapter
Six
Conclusion
“Right
there,
in
the
middle
of
every
school
day,
lies
time
and
energy
already
devoted
to
the
feeding
of
children.
We
have
the
power
to
turn
that
daily
school
lunch
from
an
afterthought
into
joyous
education,
a
way
of
caring
for
our
health,
our
environment,
and
our
community.”
(Waters
50-­‐
76
51)
Today,
many
cities
around
the
world
are
embracing
ideas
visionaries
were
discussing
one
hundred
years
ago
and
aspects
of
life
that
were
commonplace
back
then
are
once
again
gaining
popularity.
The
national
Farm
to
School
project
is
working
to
bring
healthy
food
from
local
farms
to
school
children
near
them
and
those
children
are
learning
why
what
they
eat
and
were
it
comes
from
matters.
Urban
agriculture
reintroduces
people
to
the
process
of
food.
It
builds
community
by
bringing
neighbors
together
for
a
common
purpose.
Gardening
offers
people
enhanced
access
to
fresh
food,
an
opportunity
for
increased
physical
activity,
a
connection
to
nature
and
to
their
neighbors.
By
making
urban
agriculture
available
to
more
people,
more
minds
might
contemplate
the
state
of
food
in
America.
Every
person
eats
everyday,
and
that
daily
ritual
offers
an
opportunity
to
focus
on
the
way
we
grow
food
and
the
way
we
eat.
In
the
urban
agriculture
project
sites
I
visited,
there
were
no
landscape
architectural
histories,
yet
there
were
people
building
a
connection
and
an
understanding
with
food.
Could
there
be
a
place
for
landscape
architects
in
projects
like
these
four?
It
is
doubtful
that
low-­‐
budget
public
projects
like
these
will
ever
be
able
to
afford
the
professional
services
of

87. landscape
architects,
but
these
types
of
projects
could
offer
a
place
for
a
landscape
architects
to
learn
the
details
of
creating
food
systems
based
designs.
These
sites
can
teach
us
as
designers
some
of
the
possibilities
food
systems
can
offer.
While
examples
of
urban
agriculture
such
as
community
gardens
and
city
farms
are
flourishing
throughout
the
world
without
assistance
from
design
professionals,
if
landscape
architects
were
to
get
involved,
urban
agriculture
could
become
a
significant
part
of
every
city.
Food
system
design
possibilities
exist
all
around
an
urban
area
and
include
rooftop
gardens
and
vertical
farms,
as
well
as
newly
developing
technologies.
The
European
Federation
of
City
Farmers
works
to
bring
sustainability,
people
and
food
together
and
improve
lives
through
innovative
ideas
and
relationship
building
throughout
Europe
(European
n.
pag.).
The
Leadenhall
City
Farm
project
in
Britain
seeks
to
create
public
open
space,
views
into
the
site
from
nearby
buildings
and
improved
street
frontage
by
creating
a
city
farm
with
public
access
(Mitchell
n.
pag.).
On
Chicago’s
south
side
a
former
meat
processing
plant
is
in
the
process
of
being
converted
into
a
95,000
square
foot
vertical
farm
known
as
The
Plant
(Baker
n.
pag.).
All
over
the
world
examples
of
urban
agriculture
are
growing
and
becoming
more
common.
Each
of
these
examples
is
an
opportunity
for
landscape
architects
to
get
involved.
In
this
process
of
examining
urban
agriculture
it
is
necessary
to
look
at
its
important
messages
for
landscape
architecture.
Each
site
visited
offered
its
own
lesson.
From
Stafford
Creek
Correctional
Center
I
was
able
to
see
the
necessity
for
a
leader
with
a
clear
vision
of
the
goal
of
the
project.
From
Mother
Earth
Farms
I
saw
the
need
to
remain
flexible
in
leadership.
Orca
School
garden
showed
the
power
of
a
well-­‐designed
garden
plan
to
unite
the
community
and
Montlake
Elementary
garden
77

88. showed
how
a
liability,
such
as
a
brushy,
sloping,
unkempt
and
undeveloped
parcel
could
become
a
great
outdoor
classroom
asset
if
properly
approached.
Using
the
methodological
framework
discussed
earlier
for
my
site
visits
enabled
me
to
discover
their
strengths
and
weaknesses
and
see
the
best
practices
within
the
sites.
This
study
was
limited
in
scope
and
sample
size,
but
from
it
I
have
been
able
to
discern
a
few
important
messages
that
relate
78
to
landscape
architecture.

89. 79
Garden
name
Established
Location
Laborers
Crops
Building
Materials
Design
Message
Primary
Goals
Landscape
Architecture
significance
Stafford
Creek
2004
Aberdeen,
WA
Prison
inmates
Native
plants,
berries,
greens,
tomatoes,
etc.
Brick
retaining
walls,
plastic
hoop
houses
Utilitarian,
row
crops
and
right
angles
Learning
&
personal
growth,
drop
in
violence
among
participants
Illustrates
need
for
effective
leadership
Mother
Earth
2000
Puyallup,
WA
Prison
inmates
Various
vegetables,
flowers,
honey,
herbs,
orchard
fruit
Plastic
hoop
houses,
barrel
composter,
greenhouse,
wooden
picnic
tables
Utilitarian,
row
crops,
naturalistic
herb
and
flower
garden
Participant
growth
&
learning
and
150,000
pounds
produce
per
year
for
the
impoverished
Teach
&
let
go-­‐
be
open
and
allow
for
change
Orca
1989
Columbia
City,
Seattle
WA
Public
school
children,
their
parents
and
community
members
Greens,
berries,
herbs,
tree
fruit,
flowers,
beans,
native
plants
Stucco
raised
beds
and
benches,
crushed
gravel,
limestone,
rocks,
boulders,
wooden
bridge
Whimsical,
organic,
artistic,
colorful
and
youthful
Learning
&
personal
growth
Create
opportunities
for
community
involvement
Montlake
2001
Montlake,
Seattle,
WA
Public
school
children,
their
parents
and
community
members
Greens,
berries,
herbs,
tree
fruit,
flowers
Concrete,
wooden
trellises
&
arbors,
logs,
rain
barrel,
wooden
beds
Casual,
enduring,
secure,
peaceful
Learning
&
personal
growth
Positive
example
of
visionary
leadership
Summary
Table
of
Findings
Table
2

90. 80
Findings
Overall,
in
looking
at
these
two
forms
of
urban
agriculture,
prison
gardens
and
school
gardens,
I
saw
three
important
messages
for
landscape
architecture
within
my
research.
These
include:
1. A
necessity
for
landscape
architects
be
more
flexible
in
how
they
think
about
design;
2. a
need
to
rethink
design
control:
3. and
a
need
to
create
opportunities
for
community
involvement.
First,
there
is
the
necessity
for
designers
of
urban
agricultural
systems
to
be
flexible
in
their
thinking
and
planning.
Landscape
architects
are
taught
from
their
earliest
classes
a
structured
design
process
that
includes
site
diagrams
and
analysis
through
to
a
planting
plan.
This
structure
is
necessary
to
train
qualified
landscape
architects,
but
in
planning
and
designing
an
urban
food
system
a
level
of
adaptability
is
essential.
A
plan
for
a
food
system
must
allow
for
growth
and
change
in
a
way
that
an
ornamental
design
does
not
have
to.
At
each
of
the
garden
sites
I
visited,
site
maintenance
included
the
rotation
of
crops,
replacing
a
spent
or
harvested
crop
with
a
new
season’s
seedlings
and
weather
adaptations.
Each
site
utilized
many
different
people
in
accomplishing
its
purposes
and
each
of
those
people
possessed
their
own
level
of
understanding
and
way
of
thinking
about
the
task
at
hand.
For
a
landscape
architect,
these
and
many
more
variables
must
be
considered
and
planned
for
in
the
design
process.
Second,
a
shift
in
how
landscape
architecture
thinks
of
design
control.
Traditionally,
landscape
architects
exercise
control
over
the
design
they
create.
Ultimately,
it
is
they
who
determine
what
the
site
will
look
like
in
the
end
and
what
elements
will
be
used
to
create
that
look.
Successful
food
systems
designs
require
the
people
they
are
intended
to
serve
to
get
involved
in
the
design
process
and
the
landscape
architect
must
learn
to
“teach
and
let
go”,
allowing
for
the
organic
development

91. that
is
necessary
for
such
a
project
to
succeed.
Rather
than
the
landscape
architect
going
out
to
assess
the
site,
perhaps
meet
with
the
end
users,
and
then
go
back
to
the
office
and
create
a
plan,
an
effective
food-­‐systems
designer
will
have
to
develop
an
ability
to
allow
the
end
users
to
co-­‐design
with
her
onsite.
This
will
mean
that
the
designer
must
learn
to
help
community
members
to
assess
their
own
needs
and
how
best
to
meet
them,
and
then
how
to
let
those
community
members
run
with
their
ideas.
The
designer
will
need
to
learn
how
to
take
the
separate
ideas
of
the
community
members
and
pull
them
together
to
create
a
cohesive,
synergistic
design.
Finally,
a
landscape
architect
needs
to
create
opportunities
for
community
involvement.
The
designer
will
need
to
be
creative
in
their
ability
to
design
systems
that
foster
opportunities
for
users
to
get
involved
with
the
garden
design
and
with
each
other.
As
we
saw
at
Orca,
if
it
does
not
feel
like
their
help
is
needed,
community
members
will
find
other
pressing
life
issues
to
occupy
their
time.
The
designs
landscape
architects
create
must
have
real
need
of
the
assistance
of
the
community,
and
the
landscape
architect
will
need
to
have
an
ability
to
sell
their
design
to
the
community
with
the
element
of
essential
service
embedded
in
it
as
a
carrot,
rather
than
a
stick.
Landscape
architecture
seeks
to
solve
problems
through
design-­‐based
solutions.
The
central
interest
of
this
paper
was
to
examine
ways
in
which
two
forms
of
urban
agriculture
might
offer
solutions
to
some
of
today’s
central
societal
issues,
for
those
issues
are
the
issues
landscape
architecture
deals
with
every
day.
Even
if
an
entire
design
is
not
a
food-­‐producing
garden,
design
elements
that
can
produce
food
offer
a
chance
to
get
users
involved
and
active.
Knowing
that
their
work
is
likely
to
produce
the
benefit
of
food
for
themselves
and
their
community,
many
users
will
be
drawn
to
get
their
hands
dirty,
either
by
planting,
cultivating
or
harvesting.
This
benefit
may
not
only
serve
the
purpose
of
activating
an
otherwise
sedentary
81

92. population,
but
could
also
serve
as
a
cost
control
measure
by
reducing
the
need
for
paid
82
maintenance
staff
to
maintain
the
design.
Darrin
Nordahl,
in
his
book
Public
Produce
discusses
the
public
hunger
to
supplement
our
diets
with
food
grown
closer
to
home,
and
mentions
that
by
addressing
these
public
desires
landscape
architects
can
enhance
the
sense
of
place
that
they
seek
to
create
in
their
designs.
These
are
all
benefits
that
landscape
architects
owe
their
clients.
As
landscape
architects,
it
is
up
to
us
to
create
designs
that
enhance
the
availability
of
fresh
food
to
the
public,
afford
a
sense
of
place,
build
community,
give
opportunity
to
those
of
an
entrepreneurial
nature,
enhance
food
literacy
and
good
health
and
offer
sustenance,
both
aesthetically
and
physically.
All
of
these
are
benefits
of
urban
agricultural
designs
and
most
of
these
were
a
part
of
each
of
the
sites
visited
for
the
benefit
of
this
paper.
As
the
interest
in
urban
agriculture
grows
and
as
mini-­‐farms
on
street
corner
lots
become
more
common,
landscape
architects
need
to
know
how
to
add
these
benefits
into
their
designs.
If
the
garden
programs
present
in
prisons
and
schools
can
impact
those
they
serve
in
positive
ways,
then
surely
designs
we
create
for
clients,
whether
public
or
private,
can
offer
just
as
many
benefits
to
their
users.
The
desire
to
grow
something
with
one’s
own
hands
is
strong
and
has
never
fully
left
us.
No
matter
how
far
removed
we
may
be
from
the
common
agricultural
centers
of
the
world,
we
can
maintain
the
closeness
to
the
earth
that
is
offered
in
growing
a
bit
of
our
food
for
ourselves.
Urban
agriculture
offers
a
necessary
alternative
to
an
increasingly
homogenized
and
industrialized
world
where
landscapes,
food
and
culture
have
all
been
reduced
to
a
bland
sameness
that
has
left
us
feeling
lonely,
bored
and
frequently
ill.
By
promoting
regenerative,
human-­‐scale
urban
food
systems
we
can
foster
better
human

93. relationships,
care
for
the
environment
and
create
hope
for
a
pleasant
and
sustaining
future
for
all,
while
better
carrying
out
our
professional
aspirations
as
landscape
architects.
83

94. 84
Works
cited
Abi-­‐Nader,
Dunnigan
&
Markely
Growing
Communities
Curriculum,
30.
As
cited
in
Lawson,
Laura
J.
City
Bountiful:
A
Century
of
Community
Gardening
in
America.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
2005.
Print.
American
Community
Gardening
Association.
Web.
March
8,
2010.
http://communitygarden.org/about-­‐acga/who-­‐we-­‐are/history.php
Baker,
Matt.
“Seeds
of
Change:
Vertical
Farming
Comes
to
the
South
Side.”
Sustainable
Chicago,
10
June
2010.
Web.
14
July
2010.
Bassett,
Thomas
J.
Vacant
Lot
Cultivation:
Community
Gardening
in
America,
1893-­‐1978.
MA
thesis.
University
of
California-­‐
Berkeley,
1979.
Print.
Bearman,
P
S,
R
W.
Blum,
K
E.
Bauman,
K
M.
Harris,
J
Jones,
J
Labor,
I
Beuhring,
R
Sieving,
M
Shew,
and
M
D.
Resnick.
"Protecting
Adolescents
from
Harm:
Findings
from
the
National
Longitudinal
Study
on
Adolescent
Health."
Journal-­‐
American
Medical
Association.
278.10
(1997):
823-­‐832.
Print.
Blair,
Dorothy.
"The
Child
in
the
Garden:
an
Evaluative
Review
of
the
Benefits
of
School
Gardening."
The
Journal
of
Environmental
Education.
40.2
(2009):
15.
Print.
Bloom,
Cheri.
Personal
communication.
13
May
2010.
Bohn,
Katrin,
J
Howe,
and
André
Viljoen.
Continuous
Productive
Urban
Landscapes:
Designing
Urban
Agriculture
for
Sustainable
Cities.
Oxford:
Architectural
Press,
2005.
Print.
Burros,
Marian.
"Obamas
to
Plant
Vegetable
Garden
at
White
House".
New
York
Times.
April
14,
2010
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/dining/20garden.html>.
Cashdan,
Lisa,
Lynn
Paxson,
and
Mark
Francis.
Community
Open
Spaces:
Greening
Neighborhoods
Through
Community
Action
and
Land
Conservation.
Washington,
D.C:
Island
Press,
1984.
Print.
Cheema,
G
S,
Jac
Smit,
Annu
Ratta,
and
Joe
Nasr.
Urban
Agriculture:
Food,
Jobs
and
Sustainable
Cities.
New
York,
N.Y:
United
Nations
Development
Programme,
1996.
Print.
City-­‐data.com.
Advameg,
Inc.
March
2010.
Web.
27
June
2010.
Cowley,
R
H.
The
Macdonald
School
Gardens
of
Canada.
-­‐-­‐.
Kingston:
Queen's
Quarterly,
1904.
Print.

95. Detroit
Agriculture.
Garden
Program
Resource
Collaborative,
n.d.
Web.
12
July
2010
85
Dictionary.com.
Web.
13
July
2010
.
Durlach,
Hansi,
and
Sam
B.
Warner.
To
Dwell
Is
to
Garden:
A
History
of
Boston's
Community
Gardens.
Boston:
Northeastern
University
Press,
1987.
Print.
Elliott,
Carl.
Personal
communication.
12
May
2010.
European
Federation
of
City
Farms.
Cityfarms.org.
Web.
14
July
2010.
Flinn,
Nancy.
The
Prison
Garden
Book.
Burlington,
VT:
National
Gardening
Association,
1985.
Print.
Frantz,
Cynthia,
Emma
Bruehlman-­‐Senecal,
Kyffin
Dolliver,
and
F
Mayer.
"Why
Is
Nature
Beneficial?"
Environment
and
Behavior.
41.5
(2009):
607-­‐643.
Print.
Gibby,
David
et
al.
“The
Master
Gardener
Program
a
WSU
Extension
Success
Story
Early
History
From
1973.”
The
WSU
Extension
Master
Gardener
Program.
Washington
State
University.
Web.
12
July
2010.
Graves,
Beth.
Personal
communication.
11
May
2010.
Greene,
M
L.
Among
School
Gardens.
New
York:
Charities
publication
committee,
1910.
Print.
Hassell,
Malve
.
The
Struggle
for
Eden:
Community
Gardens
in
New
York
City.
Westport,
Conn:
Bergin
&
Garvey,
2002.
Print
Helphand,
Kenneth
I.
Defiant
Gardens:
Making
Gardens
in
Wartime.
San
Antonio,
Tex:
Trinity
University
Press,
2006.
Print.
Hopkins,
Rob.
The
Transition
Handbook:
From
Oil
Dependency
to
Local
Resilience.
White
River
Junction,
Vt:
Chelsea
Green
Pub,
2009.
Print.
Hufbauer,
Sarah.
Personal
communication.
11
May
2010.
Jiler,
James.
Doing
Time
in
the
Garden:
Life
Lessons
Through
Prison
Horticulture.
Oakland,
CA:
New
Village
Press,
2006.
Print.
King,
Brian.
"A
Short
History
of
Allotments
in
England
."
BK
This
and
That.
Brian
King,
June
2007.
Web.
24
Jun
2010.
<http://www.bkthisandthat.org.uk/index.html>.

96. Kloppenburg,
Jack,
Henrickson,
J,
G
W.
Stevenson.
"Coming
into
the
Foodshed."
Agriculture
and
86
Human
Values.
13.3
(1996):
33.
Print.
Lackey,
Jill
Florence.
"UW
Cooperative
Extension."
Evaluation
of
Community
Gardens.
University
of
Wisconsin
Cooperative
Extension,
Feb
1998.
Web.
24
Jun
2010.
Lawson,
Laura
J.
City
Bountiful:
A
Century
of
Community
Gardening
in
America.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
2005.
Print
Le,
Corbusier.
The
City
of
To-­‐Morrow
and
Its
Planning.
Cambridge,
Mass:
M.I.T.
Press,
1971.
Print.
Lindemuth,
A.
"Designing
Therapeutic
Environments
for
Inmates
and
Prison
Staff
in
the
United
States."
Journal
of
Mediterranean
Ecology.
8
(2007):
87-­‐98.
Print.
Little,
Carrie.
Personal
communication.
14
May
2010.
Mitchell
Taylor
Workshop.
“Leadenhall
City
Farm
Proposal
–
London,
England.”
City
Farmer.
Michael
Levenston,
11
November
2009.
Web.
14
July
2010.
Moore,
Ernest
O.
A
Prison’s
Effect
on
Health
Care
Service
Demands.
Environmental
Systems
11:17-­‐34.
Newton,
Norman
T.
Design
on
the
Land:
The
Development
of
Landscape
Architecture.
Cambridge,
Mass:
Belknap
Press
of
Harvard
University
Press,
1971.
Print.
Nordahl,
Darrin.
Public
Produce:
The
New
Urban
Agriculture.
Washington,
DC:
Island
Press,
2009.
Print.
Ozer,
EJ.
"The
Effects
of
School
Gardens
on
Students
and
Schools:
Conceptualization
and
Considerations
for
Maximizing
Healthy
Development."
Health
Education
&
Behavior
:
the
Official
Publication
of
the
Society
for
Public
Health
Education.
34.6
(2007):
846-­‐63.
Print.
Patrick,
William,
and
John
T.
Cacioppo.
Loneliness:
Human
Nature
and
the
Need
for
Social
Connection.
New
York:
W.W.
Norton
&
Co,
2008.
Print.
Philpott,
Tom.
“The
Butz
Stops
Here:
A
reflection
on
the
lasting
legacy
of
1970s
USDA
Secretary
Earl
Butz”
Grist.
Grist
Magazine,
Inc.,
February
7,
2008.
Web.
6
March
2010.
Physical
Activity
Levels
Among
Children
Aged
9-­‐-­‐13
Years
-­‐-­‐-­‐
United
States,
2002.
52(33).
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention.
22
August
2003.
Web.
27
June
2010.

97. Pudup,
M
B.
"It
Takes
a
Garden:
Cultivating
Citizen-­‐Subjects
in
Organized
Garden
Projects."
Geoforum.
39.3
(2008):
1228-­‐1240.
Print.
Rydman,
John.
Personal
communication.
12
May
2010.
Schroeder,
Joerg
et
al.
Agropolis
Munchen.
2009.
Web.
12
July
2010.
Shaikh,
Thair.
“Urban
farms
herald
green
city
'revolution'.”
Urban
Planet,
CNN
World,
April,
87
2010.
Web.
12
July,
2010.
Spafford,
Anne
M.
C.
The
Prison
Landscape
and
the
Captive
Audience:
Is
Nature
Necessity
or
Amenity?,
1997.
Print.
Stake,
Robert
E.
The
Art
of
Case
Study
Research.
Thousand
Oaks:
Sage
Publications,
1995.
Print.
Statistics
Related
to
Overweight
and
Obesity.
Weight-­‐control
Information
Network.
National
Institute
of
Diabetes
and
Digestive
and
Kidney
Diseases
of
the
National
Institutes
of
Health,
n.d.
Web.
27
June
2010.
Subramaniam,
A.
“Garden-­‐Based
Learning
in
Basic
Education:
A
Historical
Review.”
Monograph
(Summer
2002):
1-­‐
11.
Web.
8
June
2010.
Thayer,
Jr
R.
L.
"The
Word
Shrinks,
the
World
Expands:
Information,
Energy
and
Relocalization."
Landscape
Journal.
27.1
(2008):
9.
Print.
The
Evergreen
College
and
Washington
State
Department
of
Corrections
Sustainable
Prisons
Project.
2009.
Web.
25
June
2010.
Thomas,
Patrice
and
Shepherd,
Wendy.
“Relaxations:
Every
Child’s
Right
to
Simply
Be.”
Child
Care
Exchange.
January
2000.
Web.
28
June
2010.
University
of
California.
$500,000
Grant
Helps
Teachers
Turn
School
Gardens
into
Science
Classrooms.
(13
July
2001).
Web.
27
June
2010.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture.
Economic
Research
Service.
Briefing
rooms:
Rural
population
and
migration.
(29
September
2009).
Web.
8
June
2010.
van
Schagen,
Sarah.
“Washington
state
prisons
pursue
sustainable
practices,
green-­‐collar
job
training”.
Grist.
Grist
Magazine,
Inc.,
19
August
2009.
Web.
15
February
2010.
Waters,
Alice.
Edible
Schoolyard.
San
Francisco,
Calif:
Chronicle,
2009.
Print
West,
Marcia
J.
Landscape
Views
and
Stress
Response
in
the
Prison
Environment.
MA
thesis.
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
1985.
Print.

98. Wolf,
Richard.
“What
does
a
health
crisis
look
like?
See
Houston.”
USA
Today.
Gannett
Co.
Inc.
88
16
June
2007.
Web.
24
June
2010.