Urban Agriculture Strategy

Southeast False Creek
Urban Agriculture Strategy
Prepared for
City of Vancouver
By
Holland Barrs Planning Group
In association with
Lees + Associates
Sustainability Ventures Group
November, 2002
SEFC Urban Agriculture Study – Final Report
Disclaimer
This study was commissioned by the City of Vancouver for the purposes of informing the planning
process for the new community at Southeast False Creek. At the time of printing the
recommendations offered in the report have not been adopted, and may not be adopted, as City
policy. The opinions contained herein represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the City of Vancouver.
Project Funding
This Study was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Enabling Fund (GMEF). GMEF
is funded by the Government of Canada and is administered by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. Notwithstanding such assistance, the views expressed are the personal views of the
author(s), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no
responsibility for them.
i
SEFC Urban Agriculture Strategy – Final Report
Table of contents
Table of contents....................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. vi
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................viii
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................13
1.1 Definition of Urban Agriculture..................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Purpose of the Strategy............................................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Overview of this Report ............................................................................................................................... 14
1.4 Methodology and Approach ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.0 Background and Context for the SEFC Project .................................................................................17
2.1 The Site....................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 SEFC Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................ 18
2.3 The development sequence of the SEFC project ........................................................................................ 19
2.4 Draft Structure plan ..................................................................................................................................... 19
3.0 Food, Agriculture and Sustainability....................................................................................................23
3.1 The Food System........................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2 How sustainable is our current food system?.............................................................................................. 23
3.3 The rationale for urban agriculture .............................................................................................................. 27
3.4 General Issues and Perspectives................................................................................................................ 29
3.5 Trade-offs and challenges for Urban Agriculture at SEFC........................................................................... 31
3.6 Spaces Available for Food Production at SEFC .......................................................................................... 34
3.7 The Viability of Small-Scale Commercial Enterprises.................................................................................. 35
3.8 Yields of different growing methods ............................................................................................................ 36
3.9 Food Miles, Energy Use and GHG Emissions............................................................................................. 38
3.10 A Word on the Word “Organic” .................................................................................................................... 38
4.0 Strategic Objectives for Urban Agriculture.........................................................................................42
4.1 Objective #1: Maximize the physical capacity of the SEFC neighbourhood to support the growing of food, in
a manner appropriate to the development context. ................................................................................................. 43
4.2 Objective #2: Optimize the amount of food grown in SEFC, both privately and commercially..................... 44
4.3 Objective #3: Increase the amount of food consumed in SEFC that is produced both organically and as
close to SEFC as possible ...................................................................................................................................... 45
4.4 Objective #4: Increase food-related economic development initiatives, including those related to the local
processing of food consumed in SEFC ................................................................................................................... 46
4.5 Objective #5: Increase the capacity of SEFC to provide or support basic food security initiatives for local
Vancouver residents in need................................................................................................................................... 46
4.6 Objective #6: Encourage urban agriculture practices as a strategic approach to managing waste flows in a
more sustainable manner........................................................................................................................................ 47
4.7 Objective #7: Increase the technical capacity, skills and knowledge of all stakeholders especially relating to
novel urban agricultural systems............................................................................................................................. 47
ii
4.8 Objective # 8: Encourage the public celebration of local food. .................................................................... 48

4.9 Objective #9: Encourage food that is produced in other regions or countries and consumed in SEFC to be
food produced through ethical and environmentally sustainable business practices............................................... 48
5.0 Implementation Tools and Responsibilities .......................................................................................50
5.1 Implementation Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................................. 50
5.2 Implementation Tools .................................................................................................................................. 50
6.0 Food Production Options .......................................................................................................................52
6.1 Option G1 – Public Community Gardens .................................................................................................... 52
6.2 Option G2 – Private (Backyard) and Semi-Private Gardens At-Grade ........................................................ 58
6.3 Option G3 - Rooftop Gardens...................................................................................................................... 63
6.4 Option G4 – Balconies, Window Boxes....................................................................................................... 70
6.5 Option G5 – Edible Landscaping of the Public and Semi-private Realm..................................................... 74
6.6 Option G6 - Commercial Greenhouses ....................................................................................................... 78
6.7 Option G7 - Commercial Market Gardens .................................................................................................. 82
6.8 Option G8 - Inside Buildings........................................................................................................................ 85
6.9 Option G9 – School Gardens ...................................................................................................................... 87
6.10 Option G10 - Aquaculture & Bioponics........................................................................................................ 90
6.11 Option G11 – Micro Livestock ..................................................................................................................... 94
7.0 Food Processing Options.......................................................................................................................96
7.1 Option P1 – Commercial Food Processing Facility ..................................................................................... 97
7.2 Option P2 – Food Training Facility (Incubator).......................................................................................... 102
7.3 Option P3 – Eco-industrial Complex for Food Processing......................................................................... 105
8.0 Food Distribution Options ....................................................................................................................109
8.1 Option D1 – Farmers Market..................................................................................................................... 110
8.2 Option D2 – Direct Home Delivery ............................................................................................................ 115
8.3 Option D3 – Food Buying Clubs................................................................................................................ 119
8.4 Option D4 – Grocery store ........................................................................................................................ 121
8.5 Option D5 – Emergency Food Services .................................................................................................... 124
9.0 Summary and Recommendations......................................................................................................127
9.1 Recommended Options............................................................................................................................. 127
9.2 Implementation.......................................................................................................................................... 129
9.3 A Continuum of Approaches to Urban Agriculture at SEFC ...................................................................... 134
10.0 References ...............................................................................................................................................136
11.0 Appendix A – Policy, Regulations & Guidelines Having a Bearing on Urban Agriculture in
Vancouver ............................................................................................................................................................140
Health Regulations................................................................................................................................................ 140
City of Vancouver – Street Tree and Landscape Guidelines................................................................................. 147
Vancouver Parks Board Community Gardens Policy ............................................................................................ 151
12.0 Appendix B – Case Studies..................................................................................................................153
iii
Community Gardens ............................................................................................................................................. 154

Rooftop Gardens................................................................................................................................................... 155
Inside Buildings ..................................................................................................................................................... 162
Edible Landscaping of the Public Realm ............................................................................................................... 163
Commercial Market Gardens ................................................................................................................................ 164
Commercial Greenhouses..................................................................................................................................... 166
Aquaculture and Bioponics.................................................................................................................................... 167
School Gardens .................................................................................................................................................... 168
Micro-Livestock ..................................................................................................................................................... 169
Commercial Food Processing Facility ................................................................................................................... 171
Eco-industrial Food Complexes ............................................................................................................................ 171
Farmers Markets ................................................................................................................................................... 173
13.0 Appendix C – Notes from Workshops ...............................................................................................176
Brainstorming Session Notes with Urban Agriculture Experts............................................................................... 176
Notes from meeting with Development Community............................................................................................... 181
Stakeholder’s Workshop Notes ............................................................................................................................. 186
14.0 Appendix D – Evaluation Criteria and Matrices................................................................................190
Social Criteria........................................................................................................................................................ 190
Environmental Criteria........................................................................................................................................... 191
Economic Criteria.................................................................................................................................................. 192
Other Criteria......................................................................................................................................................... 192
14.1 Evaluation for Suitability of Options for SEFC ........................................................................................... 198
Figures
Figure 2-1: Aerial Photo of SEFC Site. Source: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca ................................................................ 17
Figure 2-2: Draft Structure Plan: Provided by City of Vancouver................................................................................. 22
Figure 3-1: The Food System...................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3-2: Comparison of yields from different growing methods (adapted from Barrs, 1998)................................... 41
Figure 6-1: Urban Agriculture Production Options (overleaf)....................................................................................... 52
Figure 6-2: Window Box. Photo: Sustain, UK.............................................................................................................. 70
Figure 6-3: Balcony Conservatory. Photo: Sustain, UK............................................................................................... 70
Figure 12-1 Greenhouse at Cottonwood Community Gardens (Photo – Rob Barrs)................................................. 154
Figure 12-2: Strathcona Community Gardens, Vancouver (Photo – Rob Barrs) ....................................................... 154
Figure 12-3: Community Gardens in West Vancouver (Photo: Rob Barrs) ............................................................... 154
Figure 12-4: Foodshare Rooftop Garden and Greenhouse, Toronto. (Photos: Foodshare) ...................................... 155
Figure 12-5: Executive Chef, Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver. (Photo: Rob Barrs) ........................................ 156
Figure 12-6: Older Women's Housing Co-op, Toronto. (Kuhn).................................................................................. 158
Figure 12-7: Royal York Hotel Rooftop Garden. (Photo: Alan Duncan).................................................................... 159
Figure 12-8: Mary Lambert-Swale Housing Co-op. Photo: Monica Kuhn. ................................................................. 160
Figure 12-9: Simple grow bags on a St. Petersburg Rooftop. Photo: Rooftop Garden Resource Society................. 161
Figure 12-10: Mushrooms grown using sophisticated technology. Photo: Richmond Specialty Mushroom Farms. .. 163
Figure 12-11: Market Gardens in Big Bend, Burnaby. (Photo: Rob Barrs) ................................................................ 164
Figure 12-12: Grandview Woodlands School, Vancouver. ........................................................................................ 169
Figure 12-13: Foodshare Kitchen Incubator. Photo: Foodshare Website.................................................................. 171
iv
Figure 12-14: Intervale Community Food Enterprise Center. Photo: City of Burlington Website.............................. 172
Figure 12-15 : Images from Ocean Arks website ...................................................................................................... 173
Figure 12-16: East Vancouver Farmers Market ........................................................................................................ 174
Tables
Table 2-1: Basic data for public lands at SEFC........................................................................................................... 20
Table 2-2: Basic data for privately-owned lands at SEFC ........................................................................................... 20
Table 3-1 Average per capita annual consumption of common foods. (source Statistics Canada (d))........................ 36
Table 3-2: Yields and land requirements using different growing methods (adapted from Barrs, 1998) ...................................... 40
Table 6-1: Yields of various fish species in intensive and non-intensive culture (sources: [1-5], (Farallones Institute
1979), [6] - (Todd & Todd 1984), [7] - (Ballarin and Haller 1982) ........................................................................ 91
Table 9-1: Summary of Implementation Tools for Various Options/Types of Spaces................................................ 130
Table 9-2: A Continuum of Approaches for Urban Agriculture (adapted from Barrs, 1997)....................................... 134
Table 14-1: Evaluation of Food Production Options.................................................................................................. 193
Table 14-2: Evaluation of Processing and Distribution Options................................................................................ 195
Table 14-3: Suitability of Options for Different Types of Space. ................................................................................ 199
v
Acknowledgements
This interim report has been prepared by the Holland Barrs Planning Group in association with Lees & Associates
and the Sustainability Ventures Group (the Consultants). Jac Smit of the Urban Agriculture Network (TUAN)
researched some of the case studies and provided planning advice.
We would especially like to thank Robin Petri for her generous assistance in organizing meetings, providing
information and co-coordinating feedback during this study. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the
following individuals who assisted with this study:
Alan Duncan City of Vancouver Planning Dept

Derek Masselink UBC Farm
Gordon Jaggs City of Vancouver, Landscape Review
Herb Barbolet Farm Folk, City Folk
Karl Hahn Organic Greenhouse Operator
Lee Beaulieu City of Vancouver, Landscape Review
Mark Robbins BC MAFF
Kim Sanderson BC MAFF
Michael Levenston City Farmer
Ralph Perkins Staff Liaison, GVRD Agricultural Advisory Committee
Robin Petri City of Vancouver, Engineering Department
Tara MacDonald Urban Agriculture Expert
Tracy Casavant Eco-industrial Solutions Ltd.
Vera Top FoodShare, Toronto
Wayne Roberts Toronto Food Policy Council
Green Roofs Workshop Participants

Alan Duncan City of Vancouver Planning Dept
Angela Gonyea City of Vancouver, Central Area Planning Division
David Yurkovich City of Vancouver Greenways
Elaine Stevens Master Gardner responsible for Waterfront Hotel rooftop garden, Herbalist
Elizabeth Whitelaw Cornelia Oberlander Landscape Architects
Ian Smith Senior Planner, Central Area Planning Division
John Robertson Chief Building Official, City of Vancouver
Ken Newbert VEL Engineering
Kim Rink Ecotek
Lee Beaulieu City of Vancouver, Landscape Review
Martin Nielsen Busby and Associates Architects
Developer Workshop Participants

Ann Bancroft-Jones Polygon
Bob Heaslip Brook Development Planning
Brian Crowe City of Vancouver, Engineering Department
Ian Smith Senior Planner, Central Area Planning Division
Jeff Olson VIA Architecture
vi
Kolvane Yuh City of Vancouver, Real Estate Department

Robin Petri City of Vancouver, Engineering Department
Stakeholder Workshop Participants

Alan Duncan City of Vancouver Planning Department
Angela Gonyea City of Vancouver, Central Area Planning Division
Barb Lindsay SEFC stewardship group
Brian Crowe City of Vancouver, Engineering Department
Danielle Lukovitch GVRD
Derek Masselink UBC Farm
Devorah Kahn Farmers Market’s of Vancouver
Ian Smith City of Vancouver, Central Area Planning Division
Jennie Moore GVRD
Mike Levenston City Farmer
Muggs Siguirson Strathcona Community Gardens
Robin Petri City of Vancouver Engineering Department
Susan Kerbis Environmental Youth alliance
Tilo Driessen City of Vancouver Parks Board
Uta Arajs City of Vancouver, Landscape Architectural Group
All names have been sorted alphabetically by first name.
vii
Executive Summary
Planning for “sustainability” and “sustainable development” eventually come down to dealing with the
fundamentals of life - water, air, energy, transportation and waste. Another, equally important dimension
that is often overlooked by urban planners, but is nevertheless equally fundamental to our lives, is food and
the agricultural systems that produce it. Most of us take our food for granted - so much so that we often
forget the role it plays in our social relationships, community building and the role that food and agriculture
have in shaping our economy and environment.
During the early planning stages of the proposed model sustainable community at Southeast False Creek
(SEFC) in Vancouver, planners questioned the relationship between food, agriculture and sustainable
urban development and began to consider the role of urban agriculture in such a community. The SEFC
Urban Agriculture study attempts to answer these questions and incorporate the answers into a strategy
that will assist with the planning of SEFC.
While the study of urban agriculture has gained considerable momentum in North America and elsewhere,
and even become fashionable in recent years, this study may be the first of its kind in North America to
focus solely on the role that food-related activity and urban agriculture could play in the comprehensive
planning of a new neighbourhood.
The study team have chosen to define urban agriculture broadly to include not only food production
activities within an urban area, but also food processing and distribution opportunities. This is the food
system approach, which considers all elements related to food activity and the relationship between these
elements.
Fundamental Goals
SEFC is planned to be a model of energy efficiency and sustainable urban development and, as such, an
urban agriculture strategy, should assist with achieving the fundamental goals of a sustainable community.
Simply stated these are to:
• Reduce energy and material consumption and the production of wastes;

• Preserve the viability of ecosystems and halt the loss of biodiversity;
• Ensure economic viability and vitality;
• Strengthen social networks and enhance the quality of life for all in the neighbourhood.
SEFC has a fifth fundamental goal, which is to be a “model” for future urban developments.
It is within the context of these fundamental goals that the urban agriculture strategy for SEFC has been
developed.
The report explores urban agriculture in the context of our current food system, and discusses some basic
considerations for developing a strategy suitable for the model South East False Creek community. This
includes examination of nine strategic objectives that will help achieve the fundamental goals. For each
objective a number of strategic actions and policy directions are presented. These broad strategic
viii
directions are followed by an examination of a number of specific food production, food processing and
food distribution options that could support each objective at SEFC.
The report provides recommendations for implementing the options at each stage in the planning and
development process.
Strategic Objectives, Actions and Policy Directions

Nine objectives form the core of the strategy and a number of strategic actions and policy directions are
associated with each:
Objective #1 - Increase the physical capacity of the SEFC neighbourhood to support the growing of
food:
o Create public community gardens in the Parks, public open space (including some
boulevards in street rights-of-way) and school grounds in SEFC;
o Design private (backyard) and semi-private (strata) gardens at grade for maximum solar
access and ensure soil is free from contamination and of a high quality for agriculture;
o Develop the podiums and rooftops of buildings (especially concrete buildings) in such a
way as to support greenhouses and/or rooftop gardens capable of supporting the growing
of food;
o Provide balconies for as many units as possible, especially on the east, south and west
face of buildings; and
o Create food gardens for students and the surrounding community on school grounds;
o Provide regulatory support and program internal areas of some buildings to support a
range of appropriate food production facilities, including: agricultural technology or
facilities, aquaculture systems and bioponics;
Objective # 2 - Increase the amount of food grown in SEFC, privately and commercially:
o Establish accountable local organizations to manage public community gardens to ensure
they are developed and maintained in a fashion appropriate to a highly used public space;
o Work with school administrators to encourage the development and use of gardens on
school grounds and the integration of these spaces into the educational activities in the
school;
o Provide information and support to strata councils and other building groups or companies
to encourage the growing of food in private (or semi-private) gardens, balconies, rooftop
gardens or greenhouses;
o Support the establishment of small companies or other organizations that can effectively
and appropriately use interior spaces of buildings, parkades or rooftops to grow food for
profit through a variety of means, including aquaculture, bioponics or through other
agricultural technology (some of these techniques should begin as demonstration projects
and if found to be successful expanded to other areas/buildings);
o Develop information resources and guidelines for the Parks Board, City staff and building
owners and managers to use when designing or managing landscape areas to support the
use of edible landscaping principles;
o Use edible landscaping strategies when selecting plants for the landscape plans of
development parcels, parks and open space areas.
ix
o Develop management policies for Farmers Markets located in SEFC to encourage the
identification for shoppers what food for sale has been grown in SEFC;
o Consider encouraging commercial food processing facilities or restaurants in SEFC to
grow or purchase food, herbs or other agricultural products grown in SEFC;
o Encourage companies in SEFC to establish eco-industrial network (EIN) relationships and
look for opportunities to use food production to address the supply of materials or
management of waste flows (i.e. compost organic wastes from one company and use the
resulting soil to grow flowers for the tables of a nearby restaurant);
o Encourage local grocery stores to consider selling locally grown produce.
Objective #3 - Increase the amount of food consumed in SEFC that is produced both organically
and as close to SEFC as possible:
o Promote the benefits of locally produced organic food, possibly undertaken in conjunction
with the Vancouver Richmond Health Board or other agencies;
o Encourage school curricula writers to explore issues surrounding production of locally
produced organic food; and
o Provide information to SEFC residents and businesses on the benefits and best
management practices for growing organic produce.
Objective #4 - Increase food-related economic development initiatives, including increasing the

local processing of food consumed in SEFC:
o Plan, zone and design buildings in the area for commercial food related activities (grocery
stores, aquaculture, bioponics, food processing facilities, incubator or educational facilities,
and emergency food service infrastructure); and
o Provide incentives to encourage small food processing companies to locate in SEFC
where appropriate.
Objective # 5 - Increase the capacity of SEFC to provide or support basic food security initiatives
for local Vancouver residents in need:
o Provide subsidized space and training for low income residents in SEFC’s public
community gardens;
o Encourage donations of some food produced in at SEFC to Food Banks or other
organizations and/or to emergency food relief;
o Encourage the use of edible landscaping principles in all public areas.
Objective # 6 - Encourage urban agriculture practices as a strategic approach to managing waste

flows in a more sustainable manner:
o Utilize urban agriculture practices as a strategic approach to managing waste flows;
o Provide information and assistance to groups overseeing the management of public
community gardens or school gardens regarding composting of landscape litter and other
organic wastes and their re-use in the garden areas;
o Promote the composting facilities in private backyards, rooftop gardens or greenhouses;
o Utilize heat pumps to move excess heat from interior spaces of buildings to greenhouses,
where this approach is cost-effective;
o Develop aquaculture and/or bioponic facilities to utilize organic waste flows from the
neighbourhood as food or nutrient streams for economic gains; and
x
o Promote the establishment of an eco-industrial complex or eco-industrial networking

relationships between businesses in SEFC.
Objective # 7 - Increase the technical capacity, skills and knowledge of all stakeholders relating to
innovative urban agricultural systems:
o Retain the control of some land at SEFC (at least for a few years) and either:
Invest directly in demonstration projects to demonstrate the feasibility of novel
technologies such as tank-based aquaculture/bioponics and/or a small-scale urban
commercial greenhouse operated organically and retailing directly to the public; and/or
Request proposals from urban agriculture entrepreneurs/NGOs to establish novel
demonstration projects with multiple benefits and develop detailed agreements that
ensure the projects are conducted according to established City goals.
o Partner with academic institutions and NGOs to develop a food incubator that trains and
provides support for food entrepreneurs.
o Hire an urban agriculture expert/animateur that would provide advice, training, co-
ordination and research support to gardeners and small-scale commercial operators.
Objective # 8 - Encourage the celebration of food and the local food system:
o Program food-related events at the local neighbourhood centre and/or school and other
public open spaces in SEFC;
o Encourage the establishment of outdoor farmers markets to celebrate local food and
farmers.
A related objective, but one over which the City has little influence, is:
Objective # 9 - Encourage food consumed in SEFC that is produced in other regions or countries to
be food produced through ethical and environmentally sustainable business practices:
o Provide and encourage the provision of information to consumers regarding fair trade an
sustainable farming practices.
In addition to these strategies specific to each objective, there are a number of actions that will assist with
co-ordinating and linking an overall strategy:
• Provide a clear policy statement regarding which urban agriculture options the City will encourage at
SEFC so that all stakeholders are clear about the city’s level of commitment to sustainable food
activity;
• Review regulations and bylaws that currently restrict urban agriculture and negotiate changes or
flexibility in interpretation;
• Create new regulations, bylaws and design guidelines that require or encourage those urban
agriculture practices (or opportunities) deemed appropriate for SEFC.
• Incorporate urban agriculture into the site planning and design process for new residential and
commercial buildings/projects at SEFC;
xi
• Use public buildings and land for demonstration projects that might include a small-scale commercial
greenhouse at grade, an eco-industrial food complex, an aquaculture/biponics project, and a
commercial rooftop garden;
• Draft a package of incentives, including density bonusing/additional FSR, DCL/CAC reductions,
taxation credits to encourage private developers to include urban agriculture opportunities in their
designs;
• Partner with NGOs to develop training modules for staff, designers and urban gardeners.
• Start with the easy options, and work with stakeholders to build success and support before moving
on to more difficult options; and perhaps most importantly
• Develop a neighbourhood culture that celebrates local food, agriculture, organic production and
biodiversity so that urban agriculture becomes an acceptable part of the urban environment.
xii
1.0 Introduction
The City of Vancouver has embarked on an innovative planning exercise that will lead to the development
of a model sustainable community on the Southeast shore of False Creek. Having created an award
winning Policy Statement that recognized the potential value of urban agriculture in a sustainable urban
community, the City is in the process of developing an Official Development Plan for the area. The ODP will
inform the site layout, building massing, and detailed policies for the area and eventually guide the re-
zoning of individual parcels. A number of sustainability studies have been commissioned to assist with the
identification and resolution of key issues and topics that should be addressed at the ODP stage. The
urban agriculture study is one of those studies.
1.1 Definition of Urban Agriculture

The term urban agriculture, as it is commonly used, refers to any agricultural production that takes place
within the urban and peri-urban region. This could include the growing of food (vegetables, grains,
mushrooms, even meat and dairy products), medicinal plants, herbs, and ornamental plants. It includes a
diverse array of techniques and approaches ranging from backyard growing to large-scale urban market
gardening, hydroponic greenhouses and aquaculture. It is not just community gardening although this is
an important component in many cities. Food is of paramount importance because of its primary
contribution to survival, health, culture and impact on the environment. This study primarily focuses on food
rather than some of the other agricultural/horticultural products.
The study of urban agriculture is often focused on food production within a City, which predominantly
means the growing of soft fruits, salad crops, herbs and vegetables. However, in a high-density community
like SEFC some of the opportunities for food production are limited compared with neighbourhoods with a
higher proportion of open space. The potential for addressing the issues of sustainability is likely to be
greatly enhanced by examining other aspects of the food system such as how and where food is
processed, and the manner in which it is distributed. In addition, there may be synergies that result from
integrating food production with opportunities for processing and distributing food. Simply stated, there is
more to the sustainability of the food supply than growing food.
Therefore, we have extended the scope of the study to the study of the urban agri-food system.
1.2 Purpose of the Strategy

The purpose of the urban agriculture strategy is to address how food production, processing and
distribution can most effectively address the issues of sustainability in a high-density urban neighbourhood.
The terms of reference for this study identified the following needs:
1. Identify options for implementing urban agriculture in the proposed sustainable community
2. Assess these options based on a number of criteria
3. Develop a comprehensive strategy and implementation plan for urban agriculture in SEFC.
This study was divided into two phases. Phase 1 of the project involved developing a rationale for urban
agriculture, identifying the current regulatory and policy constraints on urban agriculture, brainstorming
13
options for food production, processing and distribution. These options were then evaluated based on a
number of criteria. Phase 1 included the following components:
1. Review applicable City standards

2. Research relevant case studies and background information
3. Develop a long list of ideas and approaches to food related activity at SEFC (options)
4. Develop and refine the evaluation criteria
5. Explore the concept of green roofs using an experts workshop
6. Conduct a stakeholders workshop
7. Consult with development industry
Phase 2 of the project involved refining the options based on feedback, and considering various options for
implementation. This led to the development of an overall Urban Agriculture Strategy for Southeast False
Creek. Phase 2 included developing implementation recommendations on how the preferred package of
options for SEFC could take form.
1.3 Overview of this Report

This report has been prepared to document both phases of research and analysis conducted for the
purposes of developing an Urban Agriculture Strategy for SEFC. The report is intended to help all
stakeholders understand the characteristics of the existing food system, and a range of approaches the
City might adopt that relate to food.
This report:
1. Lays out the rationale for considering urban agriculture in a high density urban neighbourhood;
2. Presents a number of City policies, regulations, guidelines and standards that are relevant to urban
agriculture;
3. Develops a number of strategic objectives for urban agriculture at SEFC as well as actions and
policy directions to help achieve each objective;
4. Explores practical opportunities (options) that exist for food-related activity in SEFC;
5. Documents case studies and research including precedents and data to support these
opportunities;
6. Evaluates each of the opportunities according to a set of criteria and provides recommendations
about how (or whether) to proceed with each option; and
7. Provides recommendations regarding implementation tools suitable for different types of site,
buildings and ownership.
Combined, this work represents a comprehensive strategy for urban agriculture at SEFC.
This is a strategic planning report. It is not intended to explore the detailed design of options such as
community gardens, rooftop spaces or commercial food facilities. Eventually, this detailed work will be
required. This report provides recommendations for how implementation steps might best be achieved at
each stage of planning and approval. However, in order to make strategic decisions it is necessary to
follow a line of reasoning through to a sufficient level. Therefore, this report offers some detailed
14
quantitative and qualitative analyses of the various options so that all stakeholders can appreciate their
implications.
1.4 Methodology and Approach

Four workshops were held to assist in developing the ideas for this study. A workshop was held in August,
2002 with advocates of urban agriculture to develop initial ideas and perspectives around urban food
related activity, some of the barriers that exist and how these could best be overcome.
An “agricultural green roofs” workshop was held with city staff, and design professionals with expertise in
greening roofs, to discuss the key differences between agricultural and non-agricultural green roofs and to
develop initiatives for how agricultural green roofs would be incorporated into future real estate
development projects.
A meeting with representatives from the development community was held to discuss possible concerns
that developers may have with some of the options and ideas and solutions were discussed.
The Phase 1 report was reviewed by stakeholders and used as the basis for discussion at a stakeholders’
workshop.
The input and comments received from stakeholders regarding the Phase 1 report have been incorporated
into this final report.
In addition, a literature review and web research discovered a number of case studies that serve to
illustrate the various options.
Key Issues
The key questions regarding food related activity and a sustainable community that this study addresses
are:
• How much food can/should be produced at SEFC?

• What land (and how much) should be dedicated to food-related activity?
• What techniques should be used?
• Can commercial operations/jobs be supported?
• What are the opportunities for re-using wastes and closing the nutrient loop?
• How can the maximum amount of energy and water be saved?
• What are the appropriate implementation tools for different parcel, building and ownership types?
• How much urban agriculture should be mandatory vs. voluntary?
We have attempted to answer these questions by first exploring the various options for food related activity,
discussing their potential, requirements, pros and cons of each one, and evaluating each on the basis of a
pre-determined criteria.
Each option is discussed in a consistent format utilizing the following headings:
15
• General Description
• Benefits
• Type and Size of Space Required
• Amount of food that could be grown (or processed/delivered)
• Challenges
• Cost (where known)
• Evaluation based on social, economic and environmental criteria
• Implementation (considerations and recommendations)
• Case Studies and Precedents
Evaluation of the Options

The City has asked that each option be evaluated against a set of criteria they provided. These criteria
have been supplemented with criteria developed by the consulting team in consultation with other
stakeholders. This study evaluates each option against a set of social, environmental, economic and other
criteria:
Most of the evaluation is necessarily qualitative but in some cases we have attempted to provide a
quantitative evaluation of each option. A summary of the evaluation and further discussion of the criteria
appears as
Appendix D.
16
2.0 Background and Context for the SEFC Project

Having created a Policy Statement for SEFC (1999) the City will soon develop an Official Development
Plan (ODP) for SEFC. The ODP will broadly address the issues of land use, site layout, building form and
massing, park location, road layout and widths, public amenities, and provide general design guidelines.
The ODP is a high level planning and policy document and will guide the more detailed planning work of
subdividing land, re-zoning of individual parcels and approving development permits for specific projects.
2.1 The Site

The SEFC site (Figure 2-1) is comprised of 50 acres of city-owned land (bounded by False Creek, Quebec
Street, Cambie Street Bridge and 1st Avenue) and 30 acres private land (between 1st and 2nd Avenue and
between Quebec St. and Main St.). Most of the City-owned land has been used for industrial purposes and
there are significant soil contamination issues on some parts of the site.
Figure 2-1: Aerial Photo of SEFC Site. Source: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca
17
2.2 SEFC Project Goals and Objectives

The future development of this site has been chosen by City Council to be a model of sustainable, high
density urban development. Basic goals and policies have been established in the SEFC Policy Statement:
Towards a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and a Major Park in Southeast False Creek approved by
Council in 1999. This document states:
SEFC is envisioned as a community in which people live, work, play and learn in a neighbourhood that
has been designed to maintain and balance the highest possible levels of social equity, livability,
ecological health and economic prosperity, so as to support their choices to live in a sustainable
manner. (p.7)
An earlier consultant’s report (Sheltair, 1998) defined goals (and targets) for the planned community.
These included:
• Maximize the diversion of all wastes from disposal
• Maximize sustainable and efficient use of energy resources
• Minimize the need to expand the energy infrastructure
• Minimize the need to travel outside
• Minimize the health and environmental risks from contaminated soils
• Maximize the productivity of local soils
• Maximize the efficient use of fresh water
• Minimize water pollution
• Minimize the need to expand the existing water infrastructure
• Maximize site diversity
• Maximize vegetative cover and biological productivity
• Maximize the efficient use of material resources
• Maximize the use of materials from sustainable sources
• Optimize connections between built and natural environments
• Achieve a reasonable return on investment
• Maximize local, sustainable economic activity within SEFC
• Maximize opportunities for community participation, interaction and empowerment
• Maximize the health, safety and livability of the community
• Maximize arts, cultural and recreational activities within SEFC
• Maximize linkages between SEFC and neighbouring communities
• Maximize educational value of SEFC as a sustainable community
• Maximize the heritage value of SEFC
The Policy Statement created objectives for Urban Agriculture at SEFC:

1. To establish clarity on the role that food production should play in the development of a sustainable
city and neighbourhood; and
2. To use urban agriculture and community gardens to assist in meeting other social, environmental,
and economic objectives in SEFC.
18
The document went further in suggesting:

“An urban agriculture strategy should be developed for SEFC by the City in consultation with the
developer. This plan may consider issues such as:
a) The city’s role and responsibility in securing a food supply for its population;
b) Opportunities and constraints with regard to urban agriculture which can reasonably be
addressed in SEFC;
c) Gardening opportunities on private land, rooftops, and in public parks;
d) Regulatory issues.”
2.3 The development sequence of the SEFC project

• Council Directive - Develop a model sustainable community at SEFC - 1994
• Policy Statement - Develop an Urban Agriculture Strategy -1999
• Sustainability Studies 2002
o Energy (completed)
o Water/Wastewater (completed)
o Solid Waste (completed)
o Transportation (completed)
o Urban Agriculture (this study)
o Merger Study (forthcoming)
• ODP – general layout, policies, guidelines
• Re-zoning of individual parcels
• Development Permits/Building Permits
2.4 Draft Structure plan

“[Since approval of the policy statement] staff from several departments (together with consultants
Baker McGarva Hart Architecture) [now VIA Architecture] have worked to complete a draft basic site
structure plan that begins to give form to the urban design policies in the Policy Statement. This
means that general form and siting have been established for streets, block structure, allocation of
densities and the park itself, but is by no means a final design for the site.
The draft basic site structure plan will act as a base for five environmental plans required by the
Policy Statement - Waste Management, Water Management, Energy, Air Quality and Urban
Agriculture. These plans will provide guidance towards the sustainability goals of the project and
should be complete by spring of 2002, at which point the basic site structure plan will be revised, as
appropriate, to incorporate directions from the resulting plans. This will become the basis for a
preliminary Official Development Plan which will undergo a broad public consultation process with
stakeholders and all those interested in the development of Southeast False Creek”
(www.city.vancouver.bc.ca)
The draft structure (Figure 2-2) plan indicates the following basic parameters for the future community1:
• 10,900 – 13,800 residents (135 to 170 persons per acre)
1
The information that follows was provided by the City of Vancouver.
19
• 6040 residential units (5.36 million sq.ft.)

• On city owned lands, 2350 residential units (20% non-market, 35% family housing)
• On private lands 3690 units
• Overall density (75 units per acre, FSR of 3)
• 250 –300 employees,
• K- 7 Elementary School (500 students)
• Up to 5 (50-70 space) daycares
• After school programs
• A 26 acre (10.5 Ha.) waterfront park serving the new community and the Mt. Pleasant
neighbourhood.
• A Neighbourhood Centre (small community centre without pool)
• Facilities for non-motorized boating
Based on the draft structure plan for the City-owned part of the site (approx. 50 acres, 20 Hectares)2:
Number of buildings 75
Type of buildings Mainly tower and podium (concrete and steel frame construction)
with some medium rise and low rise buildings
Floorplates (and roof deck areas): From 200 to 1200 square metres.
Total area of building footprints (and therefore rooftop space) 38,496 sq metres (approx. 4 hectares)*
Total area of semi-private and private landscaped open space 33,652 sq. metres (approx. 3.4 hectares)
(not including right-of-ways or park)
Total park area 10.53 hectares
Number of buildings with commercial use on first (and possibly 9
second floors)
Table 2-1: Basic data for public lands at SEFC
Based on the draft structure plan for the privately-owned part of the site (approx. 30 acres, 12
Hectares)3:
Number of buildings 82
Type of buildings Tower and podium (concrete and/or steel frame construction) with
some low or medium rise buildings
Floorplates (and roof deck areas) From 200 to1400 square metres.
Total area of building footprints (and therefore rooftop space) 46,309 sq. metres (approx. 4.5 Hectares) *
Total are of semi-private and private landscaped open space 34,574 sq. metres
Total park area 0 hectares
Number of buildings with commercial use on first (and possibly unknown
second floors)
Table 2-2: Basic data for privately-owned lands at SEFC
* Sculpting of some buildings may result in a smaller rooftop area.
2
The following information was calculated from the draft structure plan provided by the City of
Vancouver.
3
The following information was calculated from the draft structure plan provided by the City of
Vancouver.
20
The total area of road right-of-ways on whole site (including lanes) is 6.27 Ha.
21
Figure 2-2: Draft Structure Plan: Provided by City of Vancouver.
22
3.0 Food, Agriculture and Sustainability

The section explains the different elements of the food system and why we consider the current food
system to be not sustainable. It describes the rationale for and potential benefits of urban agriculture, as
well as the trade-offs and challenges that complicate these benefits. This section also discusses the
viability of small-scale commercial food enterprises, the yields of different growing methods, food miles and
greenhouse gas emissions, and the term “organic”.
3.1 The Food System

The notion of different stages that food goes through has prompted us to adopt the concept of the food
system as our framework for analysis (Kneen, 1992). The food system (Figure 3-1) approach is an attempt
to simplify the complex, related elements that get our food from the field to the table. The food system is
comprised of several elements including:
• Food production – i.e. farmers and urban growers

• Food warehousing - collection and storage of food
• Food processing – turning raw food stuffs into value added food products
• Food distribution – such as retail stores, direct home delivery, farmers markets
• Food preparation and consumption – at home, restaurants, emergency food programs
• Export, food aid – food that is exported to other countries either for profit or as an overseas aid
program
• Emergency Food Services – food banks, meal programs, to feed those who cannot afford to feed
themselves.
There are economic, social and environmental (sustainability) implications at each stage within this system.
Each stage of activity has the potential to generate economic activity and jobs but also to present an
opportunity cost to various players. Each stage has the potential to increase the recreational opportunities
and social well-being of the community. And finally, the various inputs required and waste and potential
pollution generated will have an effect on the environmental, ecological impact of the activity.
3.2 How sustainable is our current food system?

To be “sustainable” a system must be capable of properly functioning over a very long time horizon
(permanently unless a substitute system can be devised). Ultimately, the question of whether or not a
system is sustainable can only be answered at the global level because the ecosphere is the only fully
bounded system – i.e. all its component subsystems are ultimately tied together by physical exchanges,
networks of trade and interdependencies. At the global level there are indications that our current direction
is not sustainable including:
• Climate change (global warming) as a result of greenhouse gas emissions especially carbon-
dioxide;
• Plateauing of the global fish catch;
• Accelerating species extinctions (and de-populations) and resultant loss of bio-diversity;
• Loss of forest and wetland ecosystems;
23
• Predicted plateauing of world oil production within this decade but a lack of clear action to develop
realistic alternatives.
While there are a host of factors influencing the topic, discussions of sustainability ultimately come down to
the very basic requirements for survival – energy use (and its consequences), water consumption and
pollution, air quality, climate and food. The food and agriculture system is linked with the sustainability of
the planet in numerous ways. The has been a vast amount written about how unsustainable the food
system is and it is beyond the scope of this report to do more than summarize some of this material and
present a few of our own thoughts on the matter. This report is not intended as an exhaustive analysis of
the problems with the current food system. There are many other documents that study this topic in detail4.
However, the following is a brief overview of why we consider the food system, as currently organized and
operated, to be a major contributor to unsustainability.
• Food is often produced far from the point of consumption - this means it has to be wrapped and
packaged, creating waste. Large amounts of transportation is involved. In the UK food-related
transportation is responsible for one quarter of all journeys and 12% of fuel consumption (Garnett,
1996). It also means that food is bred to be durable (able to take rough handing and last a long time on
the shelf) and uniform so that packaging is simpler. This occurs to the detriment of nutrition, taste and
diversity.
• Food production uses large amounts of energy for machinery - we now use 20BTU’s of fuel energy
to produce 1 BTU of food. In comparison in 1910 this ratio was 1:1. (Ross, 1980)
• Food is produced using a vast array of often toxic chemicals - These substances constitute a threat
to the health of human beings, wildlife and the soil.
• Synthetic fertilizers manufactured from fossil fuels are used to replace the nutrients which are lost
from the soil
• Modern farming is predominantly mono-culture - farming is increasingly a mono-cultural activity.
Large areas are sown with identical crops and every other species eradicated. The use of artificial
fertilizers, farming unsuitable land, and inappropriate farming practices, cause the loss of 24 billion tons
of topsoil each year.
• Our diet is becoming increasingly simplified. Humans now rely on only 30 species of plants and
animals for 95% of their diet - historically 3000 species have made up our diet. (Kneen, 1989)
• Much of our food is highly processed and refined, and contains many chemical additives. The US
surgeon general’s 1988 Report on Nutrition and Health estimated that 10,000 cancer deaths are caused
annually by food additives alone.
• Water used for irrigation is, in some cases, drawing down aquifers and salinizing soils.
• We rely on imports from fragile political economies, some of which struggle to feed their own
people.
• The local and global agricultural land base is shrinking - despite the ALR (provincial legislation that
protects most productive farmland) BC continues to lose agricultural land to development pressure and
non-farm uses. Compared to Washington State which loses on average 30,000 ha. per year, BC is
4
See for example Barrs, 1997; Kneen, 1989.
24
doing well . However the loss of prime agricultural land on a continent-wide and global basis may be a
real threat to food security as populations grow.
• We are disconnected from the land – Most urban people are increasingly separated from the complex
ecological processes that need to be understood to properly manage the land.
• Hunger and reliance on food charity - 2.5 million Canadians (including 700,000 children) estimated
to use emergency food services in 1995. Globally more than 800 million people do not have enough
food to meet their basic nutritional needs.
• Threat of increasingly inadequate food supplies - due to declining agricultural land-base, soil
degradation, growing populations and reliance on imports. The world’s farmers may find it difficult to
increase yields to match the demands of rising populations and diets that are increasingly protein rich.
• Poor Health & inadequate nutrition - Diet is a major factor in the development of non-communicable
disease. 64% of deaths in BC are related to cancer or cardiovascular disease which are diet-related
diseases.
• Environmental degradation – the current farming system produces waste and pollution on a large
scale - contamination of water bodies, atmospheric pollution and climate change, declining soil fertility
and soil erosion, destruction of critical habitat and wildlife. The “ecological footprint” of our food
consumption is significant - 1.3 hectares for food consumption alone. (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996)
• Loss of farming jobs and real incomes - declining farm populations. Farmers often have huge debts
and consequently low real incomes.
None of these factors alone is enough to justify the claim that the food system is unsustainable, but each
reveals a trend that cannot be sustained over a long period of time without unfortunate consequences.
25
Figure 3-1: The Food System
Soil
Growing Waste
Nutrients
Energy
Materials
Processing Wholesale
Waste
Water
Retail Waste
Export/Aid
Preparation and Waste

Consumption
26
3.3 The rationale for urban agriculture

Urban agriculture may seem an odd topic for a planning study. It certainly is a little different from the
traditional topics of planning which has, perhaps surprisingly, ignored the community food system in urban
areas until relatively recently. However, as the previous section showed, our relationship with food is an
important part of our relationship with the environment and has important implications for social and
economic well-being.
When thinking about food at the scale of an urban community, it may be helpful to think of food as flowing
from the productive hinterland (the environment) through the community (where activity takes place) back
to the environment in the form of wastes.
Community
Soil, Energy, water, • Social Activity Waste, heat, pollution
materials, chemicals • Economic
Activity
Food should be seen in the context of sustainable development as a “flow” similar to the flow of energy,
water, and waste where how we address this flow affects the relative sustainability of our community.
Urban Agriculture offers many opportunities to support the development of more sustainable high-density
neighbourhoods. Urban Agriculture can not only help neighbourhoods to respond to the new objectives of
sustainability, but also support other more traditional objectives promoted in the City, such as enhanced
liveability, local social networks, leisure and recreation opportunities, and cultural and demographic
diversity. As such, urban agriculture systems can be seen as another instrument in the City’s planning
toolbox.
Local, sustainable food systems offer many social, economic, and environmental benefits, which are
summarized in Figure 3-1.
27
Health & Social Environment

•Improved nutrition •Improved waste management
•Improved food security •Improved micro-climate
•Community building, vitality •Reduced food related
•Greater local control and transportation
understanding of food system •Increased crop diversity
•Reduced reliance on
food charity
•Therapeutic/Recreational
Opportunities
Economy
•Create jobs/meaningful work
•Income patching
•Local economic development
•Spin-off industries
Figure 3-2: Potential Benefits of Urban Agriculture
These benefits include:

• Environmental — the way in which food is produced has an impact on local environmental
conditions such as the ability to re-use of wastes, energy consumption (in the form of food-related
transportation), and managing the local microclimate. If not managed properly it may also have
negative environmental impacts such as noise, dust, odours, pollution of water bodies and
increased consumption of potable water.
• Economic — The markets for food products, and the prices paid in these markets, influences the
size and nature of food growing and food processing operations that can be economically viable.
28
Local, urban agriculture has the potential to generate primary local economic activity and spin-off
industries and if managed properly to attract investment.
• Social — Food systems can play an important role in shaping a community’s sense of itself, the
relationship between community members and the connection with the land. Growing and
processing food locally can also foster local self-reliance. Other important social implications of
food systems include consumer nutrition and access to an adequate food supply by all community
members.
There is the potential for community-based food systems to improve local economic, environmental and
social conditions. With respect to this study, the new community at Southeast False Creek offers an ideal
pilot site for testing many sustainable community food system techniques.
Food is so essential to our everyday lives it is easy to forget its importance to the health of our bodies, the
environment and the economic system. Beyond the practical considerations of food and food related
activity we should recognize that food is a vital part of healthy, vibrant community that touches many
aspects of our daily lives. As Tim Lang (1997) puts it:
In our daily lives, we meet for meals. We cement our loves and domestic life over meals. We care
through food. We exploit and give pleasure through food. We also hate through food. We argue
over meals. We oppress each other over food. We fight with and over food. We express loyalty
through food.
3.4 General Issues and Perspectives

Through the course of our research, brainstorming and discussion with stakeholders, several important
issues have come to the fore that are worth highlighting before we delve into a discussion of specific
options for SEFC. These issues should be kept in mind as Urban Agriculture Strategy for SEFC is
developed:
• Means and Ends -How and where we produce and process food is a means to more fundamental
ends such as the ongoing productivity of soils, nutrition and health, community vitality, reduced
energy consumption and the minimization of pollution and wastes – all key aspects of
sustainability. When considering the merits of strategic directions and options we should reflect on
how each affects these fundamental ends.
• Tradeoffs are Involved -The choices the City has to make regarding how much, what type, and
where urban agriculture occurs involve difficult trade-offs where the most “sustainable” choice is
not necessarily clear.
• Synergies -The benefits of any one aspect of urban agriculture might be quite small – the strength
of urban agriculture lies in its ability to address multiple objectives through multiple functionality
• An integrated food system - The greatest benefits can be obtained through integrating different
aspects of food related activity – food production can be combined with processing and retailing
options to deliver a connected food system that maximizes benefits.
29
• Opportunities for education - Food and agriculture is one of the more visible indicators of human
beings relationship with the planet. It is therefore a highly charged, emotional issue for some and
also offers many opportunities for education regarding our relationship with ecological processes.
• The urban context - SEFC is proposed as a high density, medium to high-income neighbourhood
with 20% non-market housing and 35% family housing. It is a very different context from many of
the case studies of successful urban agriculture which have thrived in low-income neighbourhoods
with underused land. It this context the appearance of urban agriculture will have an impact on real
estate values – therefore, design and aesthetics are an important consideration here.
• More than gardening - Urban Agriculture does not just mean gardening – it is important to
consider commercial as well as less traditional high-technology approaches that may be more
appropriate for a modern, high density, urban community.
• Limited potential for food self-sufficiency on-site - Although producing some food within SEFC
is possible and probably desirable, it should be noted that even using current technologies, it is not
possible to grow the majority of food required by the 11-13,000 residents of the community. It may
be possible, with some effort and attention to this issue, to grow a large percentage of soft fruit and
vegetable needs, but the majority of demand for meats, dairy products, grains, and tropical
foodstuffs cannot, of course, be met within the community.
• Relationships with offsite food enterprises - Given that the majority of food will continue to
come from off site, it is important to consider how relationships with off-site food growers and
processors can be developed so that the sustainability in a regional and global context is
encouraged.
• Different Cultures, Different Food - It is important to remember that different cultures have very
different food tastes and requirements. A stroll in Vancouver’s China Town will quickly reveal very
different food items to those found in Kitsilano. One key to the ‘lack of farmers’ issue is to train
recent immigrants in producing traditional or ethnic crops in the city. An example of this is being
done by Cornell University in NYC. New Farmers, New Markets Program. Another success story
using this approach is Bayview, San Francisco, an African-American enclave where ethnic foods
such as collards and basic and black-eyed peas are grown.5
• Generating clean compost - It is important that any composting of organic waste at SEFC is done
in such a way as to produce uncontaminated compost material for use in urban agriculture.
• Food Gardening remains a very popular activity - a recent poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid on
behalf of City Farmer – Canada’s office of Urban Agriculture discovered that 44% of people in the
GVRD live in households that produce some of their own food.6
• Compatibility with high density housing - SEFC has been established as high density housing
near to transit and downtown jobs. Therefore, it is not appropriate to zone large areas of land for
agriculture in the new community that would compete with its use for residential development. It is
probably more appropriate to practice urban agriculture on the interstitial spaces where it
complements the primary function of the new community.
5
John Nettleton, Cornell Coop Extension/NYC, jsn10@cornell.edu, (212) 340-2937
6
City Farmer, Press Release, Sept 23, 2002.
30
• Pricing - The viability of commercial urban agriculture enterprises is heavily influenced by global
and regional agri-food markets. While consumers may be willing to pay slightly higher prices for
organic produce, we should not assume that they would be willing to pay extra for “grown in SEFC”
produce.
The options brought forward in this report and the following discussion of trade-offs and challenges address
these issues.
3.5 Trade-offs and challenges for Urban Agriculture at SEFC

This section discusses some of the real or perceived challenges to urban agriculture. Most of these apply
generally to urban agriculture, while others are more specific to SEFC. Consideration of these challenges
goes some way to explaining why there is not more urban agriculture practised at this time.
Lack of space to grow food/fragmented space

Whereas some North American cities have large tracts of vacant land, space will be at a premium in SEFC.
While there is a large park, most of the space has already been identified as necessary for recreational
needs. Buildings and roads will occupy a large quantity of space. The remaining open space and rooftop
space are smaller unconnected spaces which are not always ideal for commercial-scale growing.
High value of land for other uses/low economic return for agriculture
The land around False Creek represents very high value in terms of real estate. Both the City and private
land owners expect to see a reasonable return on their land assets. Typically, urban land zoned for high
density residential development in Vancouver will bring returns far higher than urban food producers are
willing to pay. This means that even if commercial urban agriculture were permitted as a land use at SEFC,
left to market forces urban it will not happen at SEFC without government intervention I market place.
Land-use conflicts – noise, dust, odours, untidy

While urban food production can be an interesting and even beautiful addition to a community, it can also
produce noise, dust, unpleasant odours and a perception of untidiness. These are factors that also
confound farmers on the urban fringe and, if not addressed, can lead to conflicts.
Security – theft, vandalism

Some urban agricultural initiatives have been troubled with theft and vandalism, which in turn can lead to
disheartened urban farmers.
Technical Limitations
Whereas most people can grow a few tomatoes in their backyard successfully, producing a wide range of
healthy soft fruit and vegetables requires some experience, perseverance, attention to detail and in some
cases training. The special requirements of rooftop gardening may be especially challenging. It is not that it
is difficult to produce some plants but growing in commercial quantities to commercial standards requires a
good measure of technical knowledge, skill and experience.
31
Lack of interest in working with the land

Although gardening is one of North America’s most popular activities, not everyone has green thumb. This
is especially true when it comes to vegetable gardening. There may be a shortage of skilled urban farmers
able to extract a living from small urban spaces.
Few Economic Incentives

Although it is possible to save some money on grocery bills by growing food, food is relatively cheap. Most
people can generate more money working at their specialized area of employment than they can save
growing food.
At a commercial scale, it is possible to grow food commercially on fairly small pieces of land, but the high
price of land, high taxes, mean that land uses that generate higher incomes are likely to edge out low value
agricultural uses.
Legal Liability
Liability issues are of concern Improper handling/storage of food crops can pose dangers For example, the
leaves of Rhubarb are poisonous and must be removed before being sold. Potatoes stored in lighted areas
turn green and can make someone sick if consumed. Similarly, processors who do not properly label the
ingredients of their foods can create risks for people with allergies.
Air Pollution and Contaminated soils

The industrial history of most of the site means that large tracts of lands are contaminated. These
contaminants could enter the food supply unless measures are taken to ensure that the soil is remediated
or that growing occurs in beds sealed from contaminants.
Pollution of the food by the environment is one of the fears that constrains the expansion of
shallow-bed farming in town. Tests carried out by the Russian State Committee on Standards
showed almost identical results to those of Cornell University in New York: produce grown on
rooftops contained up to ten times less contaminants than produce bought at local markets or
grown on suburban plots. (Smit et al., 1996)
Lack of Regulatory Authority and Novel Skills

It is not appropriate for the City to force people to grow food. Generally the approach needs to be one of
encouragement, incentives and in some cases requiring the mandatory provision of design elements
(rooftop gardens on residential buildings for example).
There will be a learning period for city staff who deal with approvals and inspections. While it may be easy
to require certain design standards of developers and their architects, ensuring that those standards are
met in the completed building and still in place and properly functioning two years later will be a challenge.
For example, landscape design standards for SEFC may stipulate the inclusion of fruit trees and nut
bushes as part of an edible landscaping approach. However, for this to be successful, the landscape
architect has to know how to specify a suitable tree, the landscape reviewer has to know how what to look
for when approving the landscape design, the contractor has to understand the horticultural value of such a
32
tree and the special requirements for proper growth and the building inspector has needs to familiar enough
with fruit trees to be able to inspect and approve the installed landscape. This is just an example of the
challenges faced at the regulatory level if elements of urban agriculture are to be mandatory.
Solar Exposure
Most food plants require full sun over most of the day to be grown effectively and deliver the quality
expected by consumers. The high density, high rise and medium rise buildings of SEFC require attention
to solar access to ensure adequate solar access is sustained. Many rooftop gardens and rooftop
greenhouses will, of course, have maximum solar exposure and may even need frequent irrigation and
partial shading for sensitive plants.
Perception of agriculture being inappropriate in a City

When transportation and refrigeration technology improved to the point where it was possible to cheaply
transport of all kinds of foodstuffs, agricultural shifted almost exclusively to rural land and gradually the
division between rural activities and urban activities became far more pronounced than it once was. It has
now been so many decades since agriculturally was an integral component of cities that, to many, the very
idea of agriculture in an urban environment seems inappropriate. Agriculture is associated with dirt, odours,
insects and other undesirables and this association seems to fuel many of the negative perceptions of
urban agriculture.
Policies and Regulations that Inhibit Urban Agriculture

Appendix B contains a review of various legislation, polices and guidelines that are relevant to Urban
Agriculture at SEFC. Many of these regulations were not written with Urban Agriculture specifically in mind
and in some cases unintentionally restrict food related activity in urban and suburban settings.
City of Vancouver – Public Health Bylaw

Perhaps the most important municipal regulation is the City of Vancouver Public Health Bylaw. This
document sets standards for food operation and food handling and requires that food prepared for retail
consumption come from approved sources
In addition the by-law prohibits livestock in the city including bees. This reduces the capacity to recycle
waste and produce a protein component to the diet. However, the keeping of fish for food purposes is not
addressed.
Provincial and Federal Food Handling Standards

The provincial and federal governments generally set standards for food safety, which are typically
enforced by municipal government officials. Provincial and federal government departments are primarily
concerned with the design of food processing facilities, proper handling procedures, control of pests, proper
sanitation and general hygiene techniques.
City of Vancouver Street Tree Guidelines and Landscaping Standards
A series of standards, bylaws, policies and practices are in place which both implicitly and explicitly limit the
extent to which urban agriculture could occur within South East False Creek. Although, at present, these
33
approved and de facto practices would pose barriers to implementing urban agriculture strategies they are
all subject to review by staff and Council from time to time.
Although the majority of the applicable documents relating to trees and landscape plantings in the public
realm do not encourage urban agriculture, they could, given appropriate guidelines, be permitted. This may
occur through amendments, or the creation of guidelines specific to SEFC. Presumably, although not
stated, the overarching goal of enhancing the urban forest and urban landscape is to improve the
environmental and aesthetic integrity of the City. An effective urban agriculture strategy should support that
goal and hence, related policies adopted, changed and created that articulate it for current and future
property owners.
Zoning Bylaws
Certain zoning regulations impede the development of sustainable food production systems. In most areas
(all but RA-1, HA-1 and HA-1a zones) of the city, commercial greenhouses, field crops and nurseries are
not allowed uses. In addition, building height restrictions reduce the possibility for rooftop gardens or
greenhouses because these uses are included in height calculations.
3.6 Spaces Available for Food Production at SEFC

The draft structure plan indicates the following spaces some of which could be used for growing food. The
practicality of each is discussed later in this report:
• Private residential buildings (some have commercial at grade level) and associated landscapes
including:
• private outdoor spaces (backyards, balconies, window boxes and patios)
• semi-private outdoor spaces (at grade landscaped areas); and
• rooftops;
• Public Buildings and associated landscapes (controlled by the City of Vancouver);
• at-grade landscaped areas; and
• rooftops
• An elementary school controlled by the Vancouver School Board
• Balconies and window boxes;
• at-grade landscaped areas; and
• rooftops
• Street rights-of-way
• Waterfront Park and ancillary buildings.
In addition, the following land uses/spaces are not planned for SEFC but the City might consider them:
• Stand alone commercial or industrial buildings;
• Spaces zoned specifically for agriculture – none at present
• Floating barges on False Creek - none at present
34
3.7 The Viability of Small-Scale Commercial Enterprises

In the decades since World War II, farming has changed rapidly in scale and approach in many parts of the
world. There has been a transition from small scale, animal powered agriculture with most agricultural
products selling locally, to a globalized, highly mechanized system of agriculture where rural areas have
been depopulated and large scale mechanization has come to dominate.
However, despite this trend, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia has retained a large number of small
scale, family run farms that specialize in an eclectic variety of farm products (Robbins, undated).
Peri-urban farms in Burnaby’s Big Bend are some of the best examples of very intensive vegetable crop
production that are swimming against the dominant trend towards extensive, capital intensive mono-cultural
production.
“For agriculture in South Coastal, lot size is not strongly connected to level of output. The growth
in output of poultry farms, mushroom farms, intensive vegetable farms did not come from obtaining
more land but be being more efficient on the land they have.
Small agriculture lots emerged in the early 1900’s as the efficient farm size to support a family.
During the century their role has changes from hosting mixed farms, to being an efficient size for
more intensive poultry and horticulture operations to being an ideal production unit and ideally
located to respond to the growth in demand for locally grown direct marketed produce.” British
Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Small Lot Agriculture: The Role of Small Lot
Agriculture in the South Coastal Region.
This success of small scale farms prompts the question of whether commercial scale urban agriculture
enterprises are viable at SEFC.
The average Canadian household spends $5,686 /year on food - more than any other item except
accommodation.7 This figure represents over 12% of the before-tax income and nearly 18% of the average
household’s consumption. Low-income households spend as much as 30% of their income on food.8 Meat
and meat preparations represent the largest food expenditure at 18%, dairy products - 11%, fruit & nuts -
8%, and vegetables and vegetable preparations - 6.5%.
The average individual annually spends $1,622.24 on food bought from stores and a further $580.43 of
food bought from restaurants making a total of $2,202.67.9
The annual food grocery bill of 10,000 residents will be approximately 10,000 x $1622 = $16 million per
annum. Of this probably 14.5 % will be for the purchase of fruit, nuts, vegetables and vegetable
7
Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 62-555
8
Agriculture Canada. Handbook of food expenditures, prices and consumption. Figures given are
calculated from the lower quintile income group expenditures in 1989.
9
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, 1996. Detailed per capita yearly food expenditures, urban
consumers, 1996.
35
preparations, products that could be produced and processed in an urban environment. The potential
annual revenues therefore, from the sale of these food stuffs is over $2 million.
3.8 Yields of different growing methods

Table 3-1 is based on the per capita disappearance of food in Canada during 1994/5 and is an
approximation of the composition of the average Canadian diet. The average person consumes nearly 160
Kg of vegetables per year. By comparing the yields of various methods of production we can estimate the
amount of land required to produce enough vegetables for a community of 10,000 people.10
Commodity Per Capita annual consumption (kg)

Vegetables (incl. tomatoes) 159.10
Tree Fruit 56.81
Berries 9.01
Cereals/Grains 70.18
Rice 6.57
Sugars and Syrups 19.09
Pulses and nuts 8.04
Oils and fats (excluding butter) 21.38
Fish & Shellfish 7.84
Pork 27.69
Beef 31.39
Veal 1.36
Mutton & Lamb 0.79
Poultry (eviscerated weight) 30.50
Eggs 9.8
Dairy Products (Fresh milk equiv.) 204.07
Table 3-1 Average per capita annual consumption of common foods. (source Statistics Canada
(d))
Conventional Horticulture
Conventional horticultural and open field methods produce, on average in British Columbia, 17,600 kg of
vegetables per hectare.11 Therefore, to produce the vegetables adequate for a community of 10,000
people for a year (based on an average consumption of 160 kg/person/year12) would require 91 hectares of
land.13
10
We have used the figure 10,000 residents for ease of calculation and comparison. The actual number
of residents at SEFC is likely to be between 11 and 13,000.
11
Based on total 1992 BC production of vegetable crops divided by total acreage under production.
British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. 1992.
12
Based on annual per capita disappearance of fruit and vegetables in Canada (Agriculture Canada,
1990).
13
10,000 people X 160kg = 1,600,000 kg of vegetables per year. 1,600,000kg / 17,600 kg/Ha. = 91Ha.
36
Backyard/Community Gardening
The yields obtained from allotment and backyard gardens vary tremendously as shown by the Philadelphia
urban gardens report (Blair et al, 1991). Various experts have estimated the amount of land, required to
feed a family of four, fruit and vegetables for the year. According to Levenston (1980) “Bernard Moore, a
local garden expert, says that 2400 square feet of land (40' x 60') will provide a family of four with ‘more
than enough fresh vegetables plus sufficient to can or freeze for the winter.’ [This would be equivalent to
26, 000 kg/ha.] Alan Littler, a senior Ministry of Agriculture horticulturist says that 1000 square feet will feed
the same family.” Levenston also reports that the U.S. National Garden Bureau believes that the family of
four can be fed from only 600 square feet of garden space (this would be equivalent to 104,000 kg /ha.)
The fruit and vegetable needs for a community of 10,000 (i.e. 1,600,000 kg) would require between 15 and
61 hectares of land based on the above yields.
Deep Bed Biodynamic Gardening

Jevons (1982), researching in California, has shown that a complete nutritionally balanced diet can be
produced using an area as small as 2,800 sq. ft. (270sq metres). He shows that the year’s supply of
vegetables and fruit for one person (he uses the figure of 320 pounds) can be produced on an area as
small as 100 sq. ft. (9.5 sq. metres). This is equivalent to 156,000 kg /Ha. A community of 10,000 people
using Jevons’ method would therefore require 9 Hectares of land to produce all its fruit and vegetable
needs. This, however, assumes a very high level of gardening skill, adequate compost, and the figures are
for Californian climates so we need too revise these production figures downwards. The high yields are
achieved using large amounts of compost and Jevons’ (organic) deep bed cultivation method, which allows
plants to be grown much closer together than conventional spacing. He recommends cultivating the soil to
a depth of 24 inches using the double dig method so that the roots of plants are able to penetrate much
deeper into the soil where they can find increased nutrients and water for rapid growth.
Hydroponic Greenhouse Cultivation

Hydroponic greenhouse methods of cultivation can be used very intensively because the nutrient
supply and climate is artificially controlled. This method averages 14 times the yield of
conventional open field methods and 4 - 5 times the yield of Jevons’ best results (Table 3-2,
Figure 3-3). Hydroponic greenhouses yield 380,000 Kg/Ha. One year’s supply of fresh fruit and
vegetables (for one person) could be grown using an average of only 4.2 m2) of greenhouse space (4.2
hectares for 10,000 people).
We should be aware however that this increased yield is usually gained at the expense of a far larger
ecological footprint (Wada, 1993). The ecological footprint is a measure of the total amount of ecologically
productive land required to grow the materials, and absorb the wastes generated. This is one way to
compare the ecological sustainability of various operations. Therefore, hydroponic greenhouses are
probably less sustainable than other practices (from an ecological perspective at least) unless they can be
supported by waste products from the community such as the waste heat from buildings and passive solar
gain. However, we should consider that even high-input hydroponic growing may be better than importing
37
our food from distant countries with warmer climates and the transportation related pollution and potentially
poor growing practices this entails.
Comparing Growing Area Requirements of Different Methods

The average person consumes 160 Kg of vegetables per year.
Figure 3-3 compares the area required to grow 160kg of four salad vegetables using different growing
techniques. Obviously, people need more substantial food sources than these salad crops alone but these
are the only crops for which there are reliable figures for hydroponic greenhouse production in British
Columbia. Many other crops can be grown hydroponically, a technique that doesn’t necessarily require
greenhouses.
Examining these figures gives us some idea of how much food we could produce at Southeast False
Creek. Most of the data is taken from actual production figures in British Columbia and therefore these
results should be replicable at Southeast False Creek.
Using conventional techniques, 160kg of cucumbers, lettuce, sweet peppers and tomatoes would require
62.9Ha. of land. Using hydroponic greenhouse techniques, the same amount could be grown using 4.6Ha.
3.9 Food Miles, Energy Use and GHG Emissions

Currently, the average person consumes the food items show in Table 3-1 above.
Typically this food travels 2000 km on average before it is purchased (Farm Folk, City Folk, 2000). The
Pembina Institute has calculated the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are produced as a
result of food transportation and grocery shopping trips. In addition, the institute has calculated the amount
of GHGs that are avoided if food is produced locally. If a person grows all the vegetables they need for a
year they could avoid one of two weekly trips to the grocery store avoiding 312 kg of GHG emissions per
year. In addition, the annual reduction of GHGs as a result of no longer having to transport 160 kg of food
2000km is 19.7kg per person. (Pembina Institute, [1]).
3.10 A Word on the Word “Organic”

Organic agriculture, and variants known as restorative agriculture, regenerative agriculture, ecological
agriculture or bio-dynamic gardening, is a production technique that emphasizes the maintenance of soil
fertility and productivity without the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Soil fertility is
maintained and improved using techniques of composting, animal manures, mulching, crop rotation,
biologically fixed nitrogen, and cover crops. Pests and disease are prevented using techniques such as
biological pest control and beneficent plant pairings. Mulching is the use of natural materials such as straw,
bark, paper, leaves that are placed on the soil and around the base of plants to provide a protective
covering that prevents excessive moisture evaporation and leaching of soil nutrients by heavy rain. The
38
technique also prevents weeds and serves to add valuable organic matter to the soil, increasing its ability to
retain water.
The Organic Agricultural Products Certification Regulation under the Food Choice and Disclosure Act of
British Columbia empowers the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia (COABC) to be
responsible for accrediting certification agencies. In BC, strict guidelines for production operation and farm
management exist. Only those farms certified by an approved certification agency (in this region British
Columbia Association of Regenerative Agriculture -BCARA) are allowed to market and label their products
as “organic” and attach the “BC Certified Organic” label.
Organic farming and gardening has flourished in British Columbia over the last 30 years. What was once a
marginalized agriculture sector is now a bona fide industry with accompanying standards, inspections and
professional associations. The premium received on organic produce, combined with a growing market for
organic vegetables and fruit would suggest that organic production methods should be a key criteria in
most urban agriculture applications. Organic food has become increasingly popular in recent years for
several reasons:
• People are increasingly concerned about the health of food. Pesticides have been linked with
major non-communicative diseases such as cancer and autoimmune deficiencies.
• Many people are scared of the potential health and environmental damage of Genetically-modified
organisms (GMOs) but the Federal Government has so far refused to introduce labelling
requirements. Because organic food is not allowed to contain any GMOs it has become the one
sure way of avoiding GMOs in the diet.
• Organic agriculture aims to build the fertility of soil and to develop healthy ecosystems. Organic
agriculture also has an ethical dimension in the treatment of animals. Those who share in these
ideals are more likely to purchase organic food.
• The cost of organic food has dropped and organic produce is available in many mainstream stores
nowadays.
The City of Vancouver has the opportunity to encourage and even require organic agriculture practices
especially on land it chooses to lease to others. The Parks Board already bans pesticides from the
community gardens it leases out and it would be a small step to ban artificial fertiliser as well.
Some Canadian municipalities have recently banned the use of all cosmetic pesticides and the right to do
so was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, it would seem that the City has the
right and may want to consider banning the use of all pesticides in SEFC with a small exception clause if
pressing need can be demonstrated (infestation for example).
One complicating factor about the term “organic” is that in BC, hydroponic greenhouses cannot be
considered truly “organic” and become certified even if they use no artificial chemicals or pesticides. This is
because the local certifying agency takes the view that the term “organic” should be reserved for soil-based
agricultural approaches because one of the primary purposes of organic farming is to build healthy soil.
Other jurisdictions (California for example) take a broader view of the term. This is important because
certified organic food can fetch higher prices and therefore make smaller scale operations more
economically viable.
39
Area (acres)
required to supply
Yield (av. Area (sq.ft.) required community of
Yield (av. annual) to produce 350lb.'s 10,000 people with
annual) lb.'s/100 (160 Kg) selected 350lb.'s (160kg) of
Method lb.'s/acre sq ft. vegetables selected vegetables
Conventional [1]
Cucumbers 13,110 30 1163 267.0
Tomatoes 40,000 92 381 87.5
Lettuce 28,090 64 543 124.6
Sweet Peppers 8,879 20 1718 394.2
All four selected vegetables 22,520 52 677 155.4
Hydroponic Greenhouse [2]

Cucumbers 406,000 932 37.6 8.6
Tomatoes 364,000 835 41.9 9.6
Lettuce 300,000 688 50.8 11.7
Sweet Peppers 164,000 376 93.0 21.3
All four selected vegetables 308,500 708 49.4 11.3
Jevon's Bio-intensive [3]

Cucumbers 137706 316 111 25.4
Tomatoes 84541 194 180 41.4
Lettuce 65367 150 233 53.5
Sweet Peppers 36170 83 422 96.8
All four selected vegetables 80,946 186 188 43.2
[1] - Figures from BC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, 1992. Horticultural Statistics
[2] - As above
[3] - Based on Figures of average gardener compiled by Jevons J. 1992. How to Grow More Vegetables
Than You Ever Thought Possible, On Less Land Than You Can Imagine
Table 3-2: Yields and land requirements using different growing methods (adapted from Barrs, 1998)
40
Figure 3-3: Comparison of yields from different growing methods (adapted from Barrs, 1998).
159.6
160.0
Hectares of land required to produce 160
108.1
kg of each vegetable for community of
140.0
120.0
10,000 people
100.0 62.9
50.5
80.0 35.4
60.0 39.2
10.3 16.8 21.7
40.0 Conventional [1]
17.5
20.0 Jevon's Bio-intensive [3]
3.5
3.9
4.7 8.6
0.0
4.6
Hydroponic Greenhouse [2]
Cucumbers
Tomatoes
Lettuce
Sweet Peppers
All four selected vegetables
41
4.0 Strategic Objectives for Urban Agriculture

The ultimate goal of the Urban Agriculture Strategy is to play a role in the overall planning, design and
management strategy to increase the sustainability performance of SEFC as a high-density urban
neighbourhood. Through brainstorming, research and consultation with stakeholders we developed a
framework of strategic objectives for SEFC with respect to food and agriculture including:
1. Increase the physical capacity of the SEFC neighbourhood to support the growing of food;
2. Increase the amount of food grown in SEFC, privately and commercially;
3. Increase the amount of food consumed in SEFC that is produced both organically and as close to
SEFC as possible;
4. Increase the food-related economic development initiatives, including increasing the local processing
of food consumed in SEFC.
5. Increase the capacity of SEFC to provide or support basic food security initiatives for local Vancouver
residents in need;
6. Encourage urban agriculture practices as a strategic approach to managing waste flows in a more
sustainable manner;
7. Increase the technical capacity, skills and knowledge of all stakeholders especially relating to novel
urban agricultural systems;
8. Encourage avenues to celebrate food and a community-based food system.
A ninth objective that is related to food and sustainability but has less relevance for an ODP process is:
9. Encourage food that is produced in other regions or countries and consumed in SEFC to be food
produced through ethical and environmentally sustainable business practices.
These objectives are revisited at the end of the report when we discuss the various strategies used to achieve
each objective.
42
4.1 Objective #1: Maximize the physical capacity of the SEFC

neighbourhood to support the growing of food, in a manner appropriate
to the development context.
Description
The sustainability performance of SEFC with respect to its flow of food will largely be determined by how much
and what type of food is produced and consumed in SEFC. It will be the corporate and personal choices of
SEFC residents and businesses that will ultimately determine that activity and its level of performance.
However little food can be produced in SEFC unless the design of the neighbourhood can physically support
such activity. As such, the first Objective for SEFC should be, within the reasonable constraints of the market
and regulatory constraints, to maximize the physical capacity of the SEFC neighbourhood to support the
growing of food that can be consumed within the neighbourhood.
This objective is one of the most important for the ODP as the responsibility for meeting this objective lies
largely with the primary stakeholders in the ODP process including the City, landowners, and developers.
These stakeholders are the ones responsible for the planning, design and construction of SEFC and therefore
will be responsible for ensuring the built and open spaces in SEFC can support the production of food.
Once the physical infrastructure or areas is in place and designed to support food production, then the
opportunities to produce are assured and individuals or companies in SEFC may capitalize on them as they
see fit. The next objective then becomes one of making sure the use of these areas or facilities is optimized.
Strategic actions and polices to meet this objective may include:
o Create public community gardens in the Parks, public open space (including some boulevards
in street rights-of-way) and school grounds in SEFC;
o Design private (backyard) and semi-private (strata) gardens at grade for maximum pervious
area;
o Develop the podiums and rooftops of buildings (especially concrete buildings) in such a way
as to support greenhouses and/or rooftop gardens capable of supporting the growing of food;
o Provide balconies for as many units as possible, especially on the east, south and west face
of buildings; and
o Create food gardens for students and their families on school grounds;
o Provide regulatory support and program internal areas of buildings to support a range of
appropriate food production facilities, including: agricultural technology or facilities,
aquaculture systems and bioponics.
o Ensure adequate solar access for all growing areas and ensure soil is deep, free from
contamination and of a high quality for agriculture.
o Set aside areas of City land (and/or rooftop space) that could be used for urban agriculture
demonstration projects including aquaculture/bioponics, small-scale specialty commercial
greenhouses, and/or an eco-industrial food complex.
43
4.2 Objective #2: Optimize the amount of food grown in SEFC, both privately
and commercially.
Description
The performance of the food dimension of SEFC with respect to sustainability objectives will be largely
determined by how much of the food that is consumed in SEFC is grown or produced on the site. Increasing
the amount of food grown on site provides many benefits, including:
• Reducing the amount of food-related transportation and transportation related refrigeration necessary
to supply SEFC residents – both in the number of food miles (and therefore the embodied energy) of
food sold in SEFC and the number of grocery shopping trips made by residents;
• Increasing the freshness of local food;
• Creating opportunities for the use of composted wastes produced within the community;
• Providing modest opportunities for less formal local economic activity;
• Increasing residents knowledge and understanding of where their food comes from; `and
• Increasing the potential for SEFC residents to engage each other and build relationships.
Unlike the primary issue of the first objective, that of providing physical infrastructure for food production, the
strategy to achieve this objective (#2) is primarily one of social activity and management.
Strategic actions or policies to meet this objective may include:

o Establish accountable local organizations to manage public community gardens to ensure
they are developed and maintained in a fashion appropriate to a highly used public space;
o Work with school administrators to encourage the development and use of gardens on school
grounds and the integration of these spaces into the educational activities in the school;
o Provide information and support to strata councils and other building groups or companies to
encourage the growing of food in private (or semi-private) gardens, balconies, rooftop gardens
or greenhouses;
o Support the establishment of small companies or other organizations that can effectively and
appropriately use interior spaces of buildings, parkades or rooftops to grow food for profit
through a variety of means, including aquaculture, bioponics or through other agricultural
technology (some of these techniques should begin as demonstration projects and if found to
be successful expanded to other areas/buildings);
o Develop information resources and guidelines for the Parks Board, City staff and building
owners and managers to use when designing or managing landscape areas to support the
use of edible landscaping principles;
o Use edible landscaping strategies when selecting plants for the landscape plans of
development parcels, parks and open space areas.
o Develop management policies for Farmers Markets located in SEFC to encourage the
identification for shoppers what food for sale has been grown in SEFC;
o Consider encouraging commercial food processing facilities or restaurants in SEFC to grow or
purchase food, herbs or other agricultural products grown in SEFC;
o Encourage companies in SEFC to establish eco-industrial network (EIN) relationships and
look for opportunities to use food production to address the supply of materials or
44
management of waste flows (i.e. compost organic wastes from one company and use the
resulting soil to grow flowers for the tables of a nearby restaurant);
o Encourage local grocery stores to consider selling locally grown produce.
4.3 Objective #3: Increase the amount of food consumed in SEFC that is
produced both organically and as close to SEFC as possible
Description
This objective has two aspects. First, it involves increasing the amount of food consumed within the
community that is produced as near the community as possible (i.e. in the Lower Mainland or in BC). Many
initiatives have been identified in larger public policy discussions to support this objective, including
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), municipal procurement arrangements, and Buy Local campaigns.
These are not discussed in this report as it is focused on SEFC, however they are worth noting. Other
initiatives such as farmers markets are discussed as they have specific implications for an ODP.
This objective has the benefits of:

• Reducing the amount of food-related transportation (food miles) involved in food distribution and
therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving air quality;
• Encouraging the viability of local farms and assisting with the viability of the regional economy;
• Making food production more transparent – food is produced according to standards set within the
region, province or country.
• Farmers markets are also a visible, vibrant addition to the community and a clear demonstration of the
community’s commitment to sustainable agriculture.
The second dimension is the focus on “organic” food, as it has been widely identified has having less negative
impact on the environment and on human health. Organic food offers many widely recognized benefits
include:
• Increased quality of taste and improved micro-nutrient content;
• Reduced harm to food handlers and those who eat the food by reducing their exposure to pesticides
and other agricultural chemicals; and
• Eliminating the release of toxins into the soil, water and air where the food is produced.

o Encourage the establishment of a permanent farmers market at SEFC that focuses on locally
grown, organic food and is situated near to the SkyTrain station.
o Promote the benefits of locally produced organic food, possibly undertaken in conjunction with
the Vancouver Richmond Health Board or other agencies;
o Encourage school curricula writers to explore issues surrounding the production of locally
produced organic food; and
o Provide information to SEFC residents and businesses on the benefits and best management
practices for growing organic produce.
45
4.4 Objective #4: Increase food-related economic development initiatives,

including those related to the local processing of food consumed in
SEFC
Description
Many food-processing companies that will provide the food SEFC residents will consume have moved to other
regions and countries. By growing and processing foods in or around SEFC, transportation-related impacts
can be minimized and local employment or business opportunities can be increased. Local food processors fit
well into many cycles of eco-industrial networking and as such, these businesses can support innovative waste
management systems.

o Plan, zone and design buildings in the area for commercial food related activities (grocery
stores, aquaculture, bioponics, food processing facilities, incubator or educational facilities,
and emergency food service infrastructure); and
o Provide incentives to encourage small food processing companies to locate in SEFC where
appropriate.
4.5 Objective #5: Increase the capacity of SEFC to provide or support basic
food security initiatives for local Vancouver residents in need
Description
This objective involves addressing opportunities to provide inexpensive access to food for everyone in SEFC
(especially low income people), in order to provide what they need for healthy or cultural appropriate diets. In
addition to some of the above strategies that encourage food production and processing for personal
consumption, this strategy includes the recognition of the issue of simple physical access to cost-effective food
stores, such as locating grocery stores and farmers markets where they are accessible by transit, and
providing for emergency Food Box Delivery. Systems run by non-profit groups that focus on food affordability
and choice, and Emergency Food Services such as food banks and meal programs should be considered and
encouraged where appropriate in SEFC.

o Provide subsidized space and training for low income residents in SEFC’s public community
gardens;
o Encourage donations of some food produced in at SEFC to Food Banks or other
organizations and/or to emergency food relief;
o Encourage the use of edible landscaping principles in all public areas.
o Encourage local producers/processors to train and hire low-income people.
46
4.6 Objective #6: Encourage urban agriculture practices as a strategic

approach to managing waste flows in a more sustainable manner
Description
One of the opportunities presented by urban agriculture is the ability to turn waste flows into valuable products
and to reduce transportation required for waste products. Urban agriculture offer many opportunities including
the re-use of composted food and garden wastes, waste heat from buildings, rainwater captured from rooftops,
possibly grey-water for irrigation, and even food wastes for feeding fish. These strategies can often assist a
neighbourhood in increasing its sustainability performance on many fronts simultaneously.

o Provide information and assistance to groups overseeing the management of public
community gardens or school gardens regarding composting of landscape litter and other
organic wastes and their re-use in the garden areas;
o Promote the composting facilities in private backyards, rooftop gardens or greenhouses;
o Utilize heat pumps to move excess heat from interior spaces of buildings to greenhouses,
where this approach is cost-effective;
o Develop aquaculture and/or bioponic facilities to utilize organic waste flows from the
neighbourhood as food or nutrient streams for economic gains; and
o Promote the establishment of an eco-industrial complex or eco-industrial networking
relationships between businesses in SEFC.
4.7 Objective #7: Increase the technical capacity, skills and knowledge of all
stakeholders especially relating to novel urban agricultural systems.
Description
Achieving the maximum benefits from urban agriculture at SEFC will require increasing the technical capacity
of growers (both volunteer and commercial) to produce high yields of nutritious food from small spaces. Some
techniques for urban agriculture such as aquaculture and bioponics, small-scale commercial greenhouses and
eco-industrial food complexes are rare or untried in a high density urban environment and present a number of
challenges that make them inappropriate for widespread adoption at this time.

o Retain the control of some land at SEFC (at least for a few years) and either:
47
Invest directly in demonstration projects to demonstrate the feasibility of novel

technologies such as tank-based aquaculture/bioponics and/or a small-scale urban
commercial greenhouse operated organically and retailing directly to the public; and/or
Request proposals from urban agriculture entrepreneurs/NGOs to establish novel
demonstration projects with multiple benefits and develop detailed agreements that
ensure the projects are conducted according to established City goals.
o Partner with academic institutions and NGOs to develop a food incubator that trains and
provides support for food entrepreneurs.
o Hire an urban agriculture expert/animateur that would provide advice, training, co-ordination
and research support to gardeners and small-scale commercial operators.
4.8 Objective # 8: Encourage the public celebration of local food.
Description
Part of a successful strategy will be to build interest and momentum around food issues, and celebrate the
successes of the community. This will reinforce the difference that the community is making and encourage
others to participate.

o The City should allow food-related events to take place at the local neighbourhood centre
o Encourage the establishment of outdoor farmers markets that in themselves are colourful,
interesting celebrations of local food and farmers.
Related but less relevant for the ODP process is:
4.9 Objective #9: Encourage food that is produced in other regions or

countries and consumed in SEFC to be food produced through ethical
and environmentally sustainable business practices
Description
This objective is based on a recognition that much of the food consumed in SEFC will be produced in other
regions or countries, and that agricultural practices in those regions may be undermining community or
environmental health in those regions. Implementing this objective involves addressing the relationships
SEFC residents and businesses have with farmers and producers in more distant regions in a manner that can
encourage and support sustainable and equitable farming practices. This approach may include Fair Trade
campaigns, purchasing agreements, boycotts of certain products.
48
Apart from supporting the provision of credible information on this matter and the education of residents and
businesses, there is a minimal role for the City in this strategy, and little or no implications to the ODP.
However as the recommendations of this strategy extend past the ODP, the City may want to encourage those
who may be charged with overseeing sustainability issues in SEFC in one form or another to address this
issue in some manner, as it has many points of relevance to “sustainability.”
The City could encourage NGOs and others to distribute information and develop food distribution systems
that have an ethical angle to their purchasing.
The following sections consider specific food production, food processing and food distribution
options in detail that might support one or more of the above-noted strategic objectives.
49
5.0 Implementation Tools and Responsibilities

5.1 Implementation Roles and Responsibilities
Many of the options discussed require action on the part of both the City and other stakeholders. In the case
of a community garden for example, the other stakeholders would be a community garden association and the
individual gardeners. In the case of a school garden, the school board and the school principal would need to
support any idea for food production on school land. Some of the options require action on the part of
developers and others require the participation of food and gardening advocates like Farm Folk City Folk or
City Farmer for example.
The major stakeholders who will influence urban agriculture are:
• The City of Vancouver – Planning Department, Social Planning, Engineering, who develop the plans,
zoning bylaws, engineering standards and social programs;
• City health departments administers the Public Health Bylaw;
• Vancouver Parks Board controls park space and park programming;
• Vancouver School Board is responsible for school landscape management and programming;
• Private Developers and their consultants are responsible for designing, and building private buildings;
• Strata-councils will be responsible for managing privately-owned buildings;
• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with interest in food and agriculture can assist with the
implementation of demonstration projects, food security projects and developing educational materials;
• Academic institutions might do research into new urban agricultural technologies and approaches;
• Urban Commercial Growers, Processors and Distributors will be responsible for growing, processing
and distributing food.
5.2 Implementation Tools

The City has, at its disposal, a variety of governance tools that can be used to influence and control where,
how and how much urban agriculture is practised. These tools of governance include policies, regulatory tools,
incentives for developers and entrepreneurs, education and public programming, public investment, and
partnerships.
Policies are broad statements of intent – they serve to outline the intention of the City and provide clarity for
all stakeholders.
Regulatory tools force stakeholders to adopt prescribed standards. Tools in this category include:
o Land designations and how these designations are distributed. Lands designated for urban
agriculture for example might allow only agricultural uses.
o Zoning that allows only certain uses to occur within prescribed areas (inclusive zoning) or
prohibits certain uses (exclusive zoning) and defines standards for each zone;
o Design guidelines for buildings and landscapes that prescribe certain design features or
standards expected of developers. Design guidelines may apply citywide or be tailored to a
specific zone or building.
50
o In some cases, existing regulatory tools may inhibit urban agriculture and the City could work
with internal staff and other agencies to negotiate regulatory review and/or flexibility in
interpretation.
Incentives encourage rather than require stakeholders to adopt certain practices by making it easier or
cheaper to develop in a certain way. Incentives include:
o Economic incentives such as reduced fees or taxes; and
o Non-economic incentives such as streamlined approvals.
Investment governs behaviour by making certain projects happen (City as entrepreneur) or by making
development or other commercial or non-commercial ventures easier to do in certain areas than others. This
might include:
o investment in irrigation infrastructure in a certain part of the site that makes irrigation easier
and cheaper for gardeners
o provision of composting facilities
o investing in demonstration projects that demonstrate the feasibility of novel technologies or
approaches that are untried in local circumstances.
Educational initiatives and public programs run by the City assist with the implementation of urban
agriculture by increasing the capacity of growers, processors and others related to the food system and by
building public support for initiatives.
Partnerships – many urban agriculture initiatives require the co-operation and support of other stakeholders
These different tools can be used either individually or in combination. Some are more appropriate for private
development sites and others more suitable for public land and buildings. Which tools are used, in what
combination and under which circumstances has been the subject of phase 2 of this study and for each of the
options presented in the report we discussed how each implementation tool might apply. In addition, Table 9-1
summarizes this discussion.
There are three distinct roles for the City:
1. City as regulator;
2. City as investor/entrepreneur/promoter; and
3. City as program facilitator/manager.
51
6.0 Food Production Options

As previously noted, there are many different ways to achieve the objectives for food related activity at SEFC.
Some of these require the City to play a large role in land use allocations, while others are more appropriately
addressed through the support of other stakeholders. The following food production options are presented as
an overview of the possibilities and to generate further discussion regarding the relative merits of each and
how each might most effectively be implemented. The following options are considered in this section of the
report:
1. Public Community gardens

2. Private (Backyard) and Semi-private Gardens at Grade
3. Rooftop Gardens
4. Balconies, Window Boxes
5. Edible Landscaping of the Public and Semi-private Realm
6. Commercial Greenhouses
7. Commercial Market Gardens
8. Inside Buildings
9. School Gardens
10. Aquaculture & Bioponics
11. Micro-livestock
Some of these options are illustrated in Figure 6-1which shows an elevation of a typical streetscape at
Southeast False Creek and how urban agriculture might be integrated into the landscape and building design.
Figure 6-1: Urban Agriculture Production Options (overleaf)
52
53
6.1 Option G1 – Public Community Gardens
Description
Community gardens are usually located on public land and are devoted primarily to the growing of vegetables
and soft fruits although hard fruit, flowers and herbs are also grown in many community gardens. They are
usually managed by a non-profit association and may have individual plots of land that can be rented on an
annual basis for a small fee, as well as larger growing spaces that are collectively tended.
Community gardens have a long history in many parts of the world and are also known as allotment gardens
and Victory gardens because of their role in growing food vital to the war effort during WWI and II. Existing
community gardens in the GVRD range in size from 0.1 acre (McSpadden) to 3 acres (Strathcona).
As of 1997, the City of Vancouver had 580 community garden plots and Greater Vancouver has a total of
about 2000 plots in 21 operating community gardens (Connolly, 1997). Other cities provide for a greater
involvement in community gardens - Berlin, for example, has more than 80,000 gardeners who lease plots on
land where buildings were destroyed in World War II (Nelson, 1996). Metropolitan Montreal has 6,278 garden
plots which are attended by some 10,000 residents, 1.5% of the city’s adult population (Ville de Montreal ,
1994). The success of the Montreal example seems to stem partly from the fact that the municipality hires
three animateurs whose job is to actively promote community gardening and provide advice, education and
site identification. Montreal has a zoning designation for community gardens which gives a much-needed
sense of security to those involved in this activity (TFPC, 1997). In New York a municipal agency called
“Green Thumb” makes more than 1000 vacant lots available to community groups and urban gardeners (Smit
et al. 1996).
Benefits
Community gardening has proved to be a viable approach to food growing in Vancouver. Many people
supplement their diets with nutritious, fresh produce as well as save money on grocery bills. In addition,
community gardening provides an opportunity for healthy, outdoor recreation in a social setting. Many
community gardeners develop friendships because the nature of gardening lends itself to the sharing of
information, tools, seeds, plants and stories. Community gardening can therefore be seen as a community
development tool as well as a way of improving food security.
Community gardens are an effective, low cost means of animating public open space. They are the site of
countless “over the garden fence” interactions with gardeners and non-gardeners alike. Community gardens
offer the unique opportunity for citizens to experience, through vicarious and actual means, links to our
agrarian past. Often seniors, who have spent some of their life working the land, find satisfaction in seeing
people grow food or taking an active hand in growing it themselves. Community gardens provide outdoor
learning laboratories for school children and others interested in the biology of food and habitats. In these
ways, community gardens offer social and environmental benefits that often outstrip the significant economic
benefits that result through the production of personal foodstuffs.
One study showed that community gardeners were more likely to regard their neighbours as friendly and were
also more likely to get involved in neighbourhood clean-ups, beautification projects, and local barbecues. By
comparing responses to questions on psycho-social well-being to those of controls the study also showed that
urban gardeners find life marginally more satisfying than non-gardeners (Blair et al, 1991).
52
Moura Quayle and Tilo Driessen suggest:
'In the neighbourhood, tinkering, gardening and fixing up, if seen from the public street, are activities
that draw comments, sometimes unwanted advice, helpful hints or nosy questions. People feel
encouraged to talk to each other when there is something obvious to talk about…Words of support
make the person doing the work feel valued as a part of a social group; their role as an appreciated
member of the community is affirmed' (Quayle & Driessen, 1997).
Another interesting benefit of community gardens can result from gardeners sharing heritage varieties of crops
that would otherwise be lost. This can be done either informally or formally through establishment of a heritage
seed bank. There are a number of existing North American organizations that specialize in heritage seeds.
Some rely on member participation to save and share seeds with other gardeners. Industrial agriculture and
commercial seed production has gradually reduced the number of crops varieties commonly grown. This has
depleted the overall genetic stock. Saving and sharing seeds with others is one way to reverse this decline in
biodiversity.
Type and Size of Space Required

Opportunities to devote significant areas of land to community gardens are limited in SEFC. The 26 acre park
is the largest contiguous open space within SEFC and as such it is the obvious area in which community
gardens could be integrated. Demands for programmed and non-programmed recreation uses, passive
recreation and habitat enhancement would have to be weighed against the benefits of community gardens.
However, smaller parcels of land within SEFC may be set aside by the City for community gardens, including
lands temporarily excluded from residential development, street ends and/or unopened rights of way could be
leased to a community garden association on a permanent or temporary basis.
Description Examples
Type of Space Required Ground level, public open space Parkland
Schoolyard
Community centre landscape
Street ends
Vacant city land
Size of Space Required Minimum area required: 500 square metres
How much food could be grown?

In Philadelphia researchers found that “the mean [annual] economic value of the 151 assessed garden plots
was $160 with a range of $2 to $1134. This is similar to the median yield value of $101 to $250 for community
vegetable production reported by the National Gardening Association survey of community gardens. 49.7% of
the Philadelphia urban garden plots yielded produce worth less than $100, 29.2% had a yield worth between
$101 and $250, 15.1% yielded between $251 and $500, and 6% yielded produce worth greater than $500.”
(Blair et al., 1991). The Philadelphia research indicates that the economic benefits to individuals practising
community gardening are potentially significant but that urban gardening does not usually make a major
contribution to family incomes.
53
Taking the most conservative estimate of average yields of community/backyard gardening of 26,000kg/Ha., if
0.5 ha. of community gardens were located in SEFC they could potentially generate about 1 % of the
community’s vegetable and soft fruit requirements. If the most optimistic estimate of potential yields are
applied, then the same amount of land could generate almost 5 % of vegetable requirements for future
residents of SEFC.
Challenges
Lack of significant contiguous open spaces in a high density neighbourhood such as that planned for SEFC
will pose obstacle to community gardens. Most community gardens in Vancouver are located on vacant,
underused land or in parks. Once development approvals are granted at SEFC, land is unlikely to remain
vacant for very long. In addition, the 26 acre park at SEFC will experience high demand from other uses. At
this time the community development and social potential of community gardens has yet to be embraced by
the Park Board. As a result, one of the challenges will be to design the park in such a way that community
garden lots have a distinctly public face. At a minimum, a community garden demonstration project should be
an integral component of the park program that is layered with both active and passive recreation. For
example, heritage apples and other edible landscaping may be planted that have educational, aesthetic and
food values
Although gardening at some level is fairly simple, producing high yields and consistent quality is a challenge
for many gardeners. As the Philadelphia researchers have shown, there is typically a wide range of yields
from community gardens. Increasing the skill level and productivity of some gardeners requires training and
information.
Community gardens sometimes suffer from theft and vandalism, which can deter some gardeners. However,
most of the community gardeners in Vancouver seem undeterred by this annoyance.
The perception of urban agriculture is that it is messy and in the case of fruiting trees, they can cause a slip
and/or insect concern. Although this perception is the product of minimizing risk in the public landscape, it
needs to be resolved if community gardens are to occur at or near travelled portions of walkways or roads.
Rodents (mice and rats) could become a nuisance if compost bins associated with community gardens (or
other options) are not properly designed and managed. Rodents are generally not attracted to food plants or
garden waste. They are however, attracted to kitchen wastes of all kinds and can be very persistent once
established. This problem is further exacerbated by the shoreline location of SEFC, a preferred habitat of
many rodent species.
Cost
Community gardens are an inexpensive landscape treatment in that very little other than rich deep soil,
irrigation, some interpretive signage and composters are required.
Based on providing topsoil, irrigation, perimeter boards and signage, and miscellaneous items for an area 20
m x 50 m; 1 metre deep soil throughout; 1100 feet of perimeter boards the estimated cost per square metre is
$49.00 not including site premiums that could arise due to drainage, contaminated/compacted soils etc.
54
Evaluation
Advantages Disadvantages
Social Builds community; fosters interaction; animates Urban dwellers will need training; the
the public realm; creates year round interest; contrast of rough and refined may not
creates learning opportunities; supplements be accepted; consumes land in
vegetable needs by 1 – 5%; creates passive relatively large landscape increments;
recreation opportunities; opportunity for all can be perceived as a private use;
residents to participate vandalism potential; additional
landscape management/administration
load
Environmental utilizes solid waste by products; enhances the Habitat enhancement capacity is high,
aesthetic diversity and experience; creates a but not as high as other landscape
“working” landscape; enhances total pervious types; will impact park design; rat
surface; provides an additional reason for habitat must be managed; irrigation
residents to recreate near home; enhances bio- water demand will increase in summer
diversity; providing organic methods are used,
there is no impact on groundwater; can utilize
harvested stormwater. May increase genetic
diversity of seed stock if heritage varieties are
grown.
Economic Can marginally reduce food costs; could be an Consumes land in relatively large
“incubator” site for small scale urban food landscape increments; does not
production; very economical landscape provide a multiplier effect; does not
construction costs create jobs;
Other Readily transferable Urban Agriculture Not an innovative strategy – has been
Strategy. proven elsewhere.
Can be converted to other land uses very
easily.
Tried and tested approach to urban agriculture.
Implementation
Land Use, Site Layout
• The integrated structure plan and the park planning processes will provide opportunities to include
community gardens. The site layouts should integrate community gardens with the stormwater and
waste management objectives.
• The location of the community gardens should enable easy (pedestrian or bicycle) access to the
nearest community garden by anyone in the community.
• The park design and public realm design processes should address the applicable advantages and
disadvantages of community gardens, addressed above.
• Once the general boundaries of the space have been established, it should be left up to the
community garden association to propose a design and overall layout. However, a set of design
principles (to meet sustainability objectives) assistance and perhaps informal design review will help to
ensure that sustainability objectives are met.
55
• If located on City-owned land, the City could develop its own standards for maintenance and
management of community gardens and include these with any lease agreement negotiated with the
association that manages the garden.
• Design and management guidelines for community gardens would enhance both the design process
and the long-term efficacy of community gardens. They would also help to satisfy the Park Board’s
needs for greater confidence around the use and administration of the community garden spaces.
Design
• Composting facilities associated with community gardens must be designed to be as rodent resistant
as possible. Plastic bins are somewhat resistant although rats can chew through plastic in some
cases. Better is 0.5 inch wire mesh fully enclosing the composing unit. This requirement could be part
of any lease agreement with a community garden association.
• Alternatively, a centralized in-vessel composting facility will resolve the rodent problem so long as all
residents make use of this facility to compost kitchen waste.
• Any rodent problem should be dealt with swiftly because it can rapidly become difficult to control once
large populations are established.
• The Park design should allow for flexible space that can go into and out of food production as demand
fluctuates.
• Community gardens be allowed and encouraged in some of the SEFC right-of-ways recognizing that
this approach is dependent on the width of the ROW and boulevard, on the adjacent land uses, and
on the quantity of traffic in the neighbourhood.
City Investment
• Community Gardens offer several partnership investment opportunities that would significantly reduce
capital and maintenance costs to the City and the Park Board. Community gardens require investment
of a small amount of resources by the City in terms of staff to develop policy, monitoring/regulate the
activity of the association and draft and negotiate agreements. A community garden association can
raise most, if not all money for tools, seeds, plants, clubhouses, greenhouses etc. although the City
may decide to assist financially with these aspects.
• In addition, the hiring of an animateur (see programming below) will require public funds.
Programming and Education

SEFC has been identified as the City’s community development sustainability model. As with all new
endeavours the planning and delivery may be somewhat ahead of its time. Programming and educational tools
are available that will assist new residents, visitors and others interested in urban agriculture in SEFC to better
understand and endorse the principles included in this strategy, including the community gardens option.
• In keeping with the Park Board’s community gardens policy,14 potential public lands in SEFC should
be identified for community gardens.
14
On April 15th, 1996 The Vancouver Board of Park’s & Recreation unanimously approved a community
gardens policy. The policy commits the Board to helping groups find resource information on gardens,
locate suitable sites in the city (which may be in pubic parks), develop user agreements with the owners of
the selected site and develop a community environmental education program.
56
• Community gardens be established in the Park with emphasis on collectively managed community
gardens rather than individual plots but if there is a large demand for space to grow food in the new
community then some of the park space should be used for allotment gardens (privately managed
plots).
• The model of allowing non-profit associations to manage community gardens has worked well in
Greater Vancouver and this approach should be a keystone of the implementation program.
• If income patching is considered an important component of supporting low income families, then the
City could explore allowing the products from community gardens to be sold at farmers markets and
through food-box schemes (see distribution options).
• As the Strathcona Community Garden Association has demonstrated, community gardens can be a
venue for exploring sustainable design well beyond that of gardening. The City should consider
whether it will allow initiatives such as a shelter/clubhouse/toilet in the community gardens and if so
whether such a structure could be design and constructed using high performance building
approaches.
• We recommend the development and adoption of a community gardens policy for the City as a whole
to clarify the level of support for the establishment of community gardens on private and city-owned
land.
• The city should explore the possibility of engaging the services of an horticultural advisor (based on
the Montreal idea of the animateur) to promote community gardening (and other forms of urban
agriculture) in the SEFC community and beyond. This person could provide technical advice, assist
with the design, liase with land-owners, draw up lease agreements etc. and assist City landscape
review staff to encourage and require the appropriate design standards for new semi-private
landscapes. Alternatively, the City could train existing landscape review staff in horticulture and urban
agriculture.
• Emphasis be placed on organic methods of production. There is no reason why pesticides should be
used on a regular basis, and if an adequate supply of compost is available supplemented with small
quantities of organic fertiliser then no chemical inputs need to be used. This should be included in
lease agreements with the association managing the gardens.
• School Boards be encouraged to develop public community gardens as part of their school greening
and to incorporate food growing into the curriculum (also see Option G9).
Case Studies and Precedents

Click on hyperlink or see Appendix B
Strathcona Community Gardens
West Vancouver Community Gardens
57
6.2 Option G2 – Private (Backyard) and Semi-Private Gardens At-Grade
Description
The term “backyard gardens” usually refer to the gardens associated with single-family residences. However,
all housing at SEFC will be multi-family. Therefore, we extend the term “backyard gardens” to the semi-private
landscape around multi-family buildings that is usually managed collectively by a strata council but may also
contain small private landscaped areas associated with at-grade units.
At present, backyard gardens produce far more food in urban Vancouver than any other form of urban
agriculture. There are numerous areas of the City (mainly single family zones) where backyard gardening is
extremely popular and produces a large amount of useable food, especially soft fruit and vegetables.
Backyard gardening is one of the fastest growing and most popular outdoor leisure activities in North America.
A recent Ipsos Reid poll conducted for City Farmer revealed that over 40% of people in the GVRD live in
households that produce some of their own food (City Farmer, 2002). It has touched a nerve with the baby
boomer generation and shows no signs of diminishing in the near future. It has been successful partly because
it is so immediately accessible for most home-owners and many tenants with access to the backyard. As well,
it is an outdoor physical activity that also includes a component of planning and learning – all factors that
attract the baby-boomer generation.
Strata landscapes are more rarely managed to grow food but also offer immense potential for private food
production if managed properly for this purpose by strata councils. These landscapes could be managed
either by members of the strata council or the strata council could hire a professional gardener to grow food.
Benefits
Backyard gardens offer a significant potential educational benefit for understanding the productivity of soils in
this climate and the process of growing food. As with community gardens, backyard gardens enhance the
understanding of urban agriculture to children, casual visitors and those wishing to learn more about growing
food in the city.
Another benefit of backyard gardens is the ease with which the land use can be relatively easily changed to
another use.
Backyard gardens have the significant positive social and recreational impacts in the community. Whether
gardened by the adjacent owners, or gardened by others the “over the garden fence” communication builds
community knowledge and understanding of urban agriculture as well as provides venues for North America’s
fastest growing outdoor recreation activity.
The impact of backyard gardens on other land uses and the affect on adjacent land values is quite limited.
Backyard gardening offers opportunities primarily for those living in single-family residences, in garden
apartments or condominiums however, with sufficient community programming others who wish to grow in
backyard gardens could use spaces that adjacent owners may choose not to use.
58
In terms of capital costs backyard gardens are one of the most affordable urban agriculture options. Relatively
little infrastructure is required and soils that would traditionally have been installed for ornamental landscaping
can be used for backyard gardens with little or no amendment, although greater depth and fertility is desirable.
Consequently, potential recovery of initial investments is quite high.
Potential long term maintenance costs of backyard gardens to the public sector is relatively low, depending on
the extent to which the backyard gardens expands on to public lands.
Potential long term maintenance costs for the private sector are commensurate with the amount of backyard
gardens and the level of agricultural intensity.

In SEFC, all residential accommodation will be multi-family and therefore, private owner-controlled gardens
(either backyard or front yard) are likely to be very limited and probably restricted to small patio gardens
associated with ground level condominium suites and rental suites. These gardens could, however, be
designed to integrate with the adjacent semi-public and/or semi-private spaces, thereby expanding their urban
agriculture potential. If the adjacent landscape is planned in a flexible manner and strata-council policies
instituted that would allow for the use of adjacent areas to be used for urban agriculture purposes, a fabric of
private and semi-private gardens could emerge. Criteria with respect to the use of the public or semi-public
space for urban agriculture would have to be developed so that the area would not just be annexed for private
use, but utilized for the production of food.
Some residents with backyard gardens may choose not to grow vegetables or fruit and in those cases the
areas could be tended by others with an interest and commitment to grow food in these otherwise under-
utilized areas. The produce resulting from these efforts could be shared with the garden owner, utilized by the
gardener or donated to a food bank.
High intensity, multiple crop gardening systems with deep beds of organically-enriched soil, good drainage and
adequate solar access could make some of the backyard gardens in the SEFC neighbourhood very
productive. And given the discrete, high profile areas involved, some of these gardens could be trial or
demonstration gardens that would be used for testing certain varieties or gardening systems. The concept of
an edible landscape, in the heart of an urban environment, is an opportunity that backyard gardeners could
exploit.
The use of productive green walls, where crops such as ever-bearing strawberries, spinach and herbs could
be grown, as well as vines trained up trellises, may pose a backyard gardening opportunity that would
maximize solar gain and available space.
Private and semi-private gardens in SEFC could be very small. In fact, many backyard vegetable gardens in
single-family areas are often no more than a few metres square. Although southern exposure is ideal, in this
climate there is sufficient sunlight during the growing months even in north facing gardens to produce a
surprising array and volume of vegetables.
Description Examples
Type of Space Ground level, private/semi private/ semi Front yard/ rear yard landscapes,
Required public open space; maximum sunlight patio and foundation plantings
available
59
Size of Space Required Minimum area required: 5 square metres;

horizontal configuration not as important
as soil depth (min. .35 metre)

The yields obtained from backyard gardens vary tremendously as shown by the Philadelphia urban gardens
report (Blair et al, 1991).
According to the draft structure plan, the private and semi-private opens space at grade will be total 7.9
Hectares. If we assume 1 hectare (12%) of this space will be dedicated to food production then taking the
most conservative estimate of average yields of backyard gardening of 26,000kg/Ha., backyard gardens could
potentially generate about 1.5 % of the community’s vegetable requirements.15
If we took the most aggressive estimate of yields (suggested by Jevons), then the same amount of land would
generate almost 10 % of vegetable requirements for 10,000 people.16
If small private greenhouses were to be built on some of this land, yields could be higher.
Challenges
With SEFC designed primarily for condominiums and a smaller number of ground oriented homes, one of the
primary constraints of backyard gardening is the small amount of space in the private and semi-private outdoor
spaces available for urban agriculture. Given the lack of space and difficulty of access to these small spaces,
the use of equipment for tilling is not practical. This will limit the productivity of the backyard gardens to those
willing and able to dig the soil in spring and fall by hand and to carry plants, supplements and mulches from a
vehicle or storage area.
Backyard gardens will also be limited to growing vegetables and vine fruits such as grapes and kiwis and in
some gardens cane fruit like blackberries and raspberries.
One of the bio-physical challenges that all backyard gardeners contend with is the extent to which their
growing area is shaded by adjacent buildings or trees. Some backyard gardens in SEFC may not have
sufficient direct sunlight to be able to grow crops that require a minimum amount of direct solar exposure. In
this climate, with the light intensity and duration received during the summer months, many vegetable crops
will survive. The question is: will they be sufficiently vigorous to grow to maturity and not be weakened to the
point where disease and insects hasten their demise or they simply do not produce as expected?
Anyone that has practised gardening in urban and suburban environments understands the trials of gardening
where there are over populations of cats and dogs. Their presence, (or rather what they leave behind), can
turn the most wonderful horticultural experience into a rather unpleasant encounter.
15
1Ha. x 26,500Kg./Ha. = 26,500Kg. 26,500Kg /1,600,000 Kg (annual consumption of vegetables for
10,000 people = 1.66%
16
1Ha. x 156,000 Kg./Ha. = 156,000Kg. 156,000Kg. /1,600,000 Kg (annual consumption of vegetables for
10,000 people = 9.75%
60
Cost
Based on a garden area of 12 square metres with topsoil, irrigation and perimeter boards installed, estimated
costs for this option: $61.00 per square metre.
Evaluation
Social Fosters interaction with neighbours; animates Urban dwellers will need training; the contrast
the semi-public realm; creates learning of rough and refined may not be accepted;
opportunities; supplies healthy, fresh food to
grower; creates and active and passive
recreational opportunities;
Environmental Creates year round interest; utilizes solid Rat habitat must be managed; irrigation water
waste by-products; enhances the aesthetic demand will increase in summer
diversity and experience; enhances total
pervious surface; provides an additional
reason for residents to recreate near home;
enhances bio-diversity; providing organic
methods are used, there is no impact on
groundwater; can utilize harvested stormwater
Economic Can marginally reduce food costs; economical Does not provide a multiplier effect; does not
landscape construction costs; create jobs;
Other Tried and tested approach to urban Not innovative – few research or educational
agriculture opportunities.
Implementation
Compared to implementing other food production options, the implementation of backyard gardens as a viable
component of a site wide urban agriculture system is straightforward.
Land Use & Site Layout

• Locate buildings and building accesses to maximize solar access to backyard gardens
• Integrate the site open spaces so that backyard gardens could expand into public open space
• Provide small scale garden compost depots at frequent intervals in SEFC
Design
• Detail backyard gardens for both privacy and food production
• Specify quality organic soils at a min. depth of 500 mm.
• Design walls to accommodate hanging vegetable gardens
• Provide adequate hose bibs
• Provide a community tool-shed for wheelbarrows, tools, hoses and space for fertilizers, soil
supplements
61
• Provide places for vine fruits including arbours

• Provide frames against walls to facilitate espalier fruits (apples, pears, peaches etc)
• Plant backyard gardens with vegetables within 2 weeks of occupancy. Alternatively: provide a $150.00
nursery allowance for vegetable plants
• Develop design guidelines that specify backyard vegetable garden requirements, offer precedent
examples and provide edible landscape options.
• See Community Gardens Option for managing rodents.
Programming
• The Park Board could run “new gardeners” classes each spring and fall as each phase of SEFC is
built and occupied. This could be offered through the SEFC neighbourhood centre.
• Surplus garden produce programs to be developed with food banks or other agencies
• “Use MY Garden” bulletin board for those unable to tend their vegetable garden
Supporting Policy and Incentives

• Encourage organic gardening practices by implementing a “no pesticides” policy in SEFC.
• If a new owner chooses not to have an ornamental landscape installed by the developer, they could
be offered a “nursery voucher” for vegetable seeds, starts and plants instead.
• Create incentives for developers to maximize the percentage of landscaped open space and minimize
the amount of hard surface paving in private and semi private landscapes to ensure long term urban
agriculture potential.

Backyard gardening is so familiar that no case studies are really necessary. However, City Farmers compost
demonstration garden serves as a useful example of techniques that can be employed successfully in most
backyard situations.
62
6.3 Option G3 - Rooftop Gardens
Description
Rooftop gardens (or agricultural green roofs) are green roofs designed specifically for gardening and food
production. They range from simple containers added after a building has been completed, to beds of soil
covering almost the entire roof surface installed at the time of construction.
There has been a surge in interest in rooftop gardens in recent years that reflect their potential to address
some of the environmental concerns associated with buildings. Rooftop gardens represent one of the largest
opportunities for urban food production at SEFC and therefore a workshop was organized that included green
roof design and management experts. The intent of the workshop was to establish the differences between
agricultural and non-agricultural green roofs and consider design requirements and implementation
considerations. The information in this section reflects the ideas generated during that workshop. (See
appendix C for workshop notes)
Differences between green roofs and rooftop gardens

There are several differences between rooftop gardens and non-agricultural green roofs.
Standard, non-agricultural green roofs are generally designed for:

• Stormwater Management
• Improved Microclimate (reduced Urban Heat Island Effect)
• Wildlife Habitat for butterflies, birds, insects.
• Energy Efficiency
• Aesthetics (views from units above roof)
• LEED Credits
Whereas agricultural green roofs (rooftop gardens) are designed for:

• Food Production
• Active recreation
• Re-using wastes (compost, stormwater)
• Educational opportunities
Key design criteria for agricultural green roofs include:

• Deeper, more fertile agriculturally-rich soil is required, free from contamination
• Ability to withstand greater structural loads (both soil and people)
• Wind protection (to protect fragile food plants from the elements)
• Storage shed for tools, equipment, plants (temporary); hand and boot wash
• Irrigation equipment (hose bibs, hoses, rainwater barrels)
• Access (by stairs or more commonly by elevator, plus method for getting soil and equipment in place)
• Safety railings and fall protection
• Greater protection for roof membrane (from digging tools)
63
Benefits
There are a number of advantages that rooftop gardens have over other food production sites in urban areas.
Tenure of land tends to be more secure and the proximity to home and work saves time and effort. Water is
often more available for harvesting and irrigation, and crops are generally less prone to theft and vandalism.
Despite concerns about contamination of urban food because of poor air quality, tests have shown that
generally urban food is less contaminated than that grown in suburban situations. (Smit et al, 1996). This may
be explained by the fact that plants absorb contaminants through their roots rather than through leaves.
Therefore, it is soil contamination rather than air pollution that is the biggest risk for food plants.
Rooftop gardens offer strata residents and perhaps employees access to gardening and green space that they
otherwise would not be able to enjoy. If designed correctly, rooftop gardens offer a marketing advantage for
those developments catering to target age and demographic cohorts that enjoy gardening, or who would be
likely to engage in the activity.
The ability to ‘see” outdoor space and growing things is important to a quality of life. Green roofs add to that
quality of life for those that look down upon them.

Most of the buildings at SEFC are likely to be flat-roofed, concrete buildings . These roofs make ideal
candidates for rooftop gardens. Concrete buildings require little additional structural reinforcing to
accommodate a roof garden and therefore the cost increments are small compared to those of a wood frame,
or even a steel frame building.
The fact that virtually all buildings will be new construction, makes the opportunity of rooftop gardening at
SEFC quite significant. Based on the draft structure plan provided by the City of Vancouver (Figure 2-2) there
is likely to be over 8 hectares of rooftop space in SEFC. However, the rooftops of high rise towers are far
more challenging to implement rooftop gardens. Based on rooftops under seven storeys, the total area of
usable rooftop space is 5.5 hectares.
The following building types at SEFC offer a range of rooftop gardening opportunities. Rooftop gardens should
be carefully planned to fit the building type and use and designed to fit the interests of the future occupants:
Building Type Description Opportunities Management Model

Market Residential Concrete/steel; Private allotments; Strata Council Landscape
high/med/low rise; 3 – 26 contract vegetable Committee
storeys grower; lease for
greenhouse grower
Non Market As above; 20% of buildings Private allotments; Strata Council/Co-op;
Residential on City owned land contract vegetable Landscape Committee
grower; lease for
greenhouse grower
Family oriented 3- 8 storeys. As above; Private allotments; Strata Council/Co-op;
35% of buildings on City integrated with common Landscape Committee
owned land area; kids play area
64
Commercial Office, retail, light industrial Employee Owner managed; lease to

relaxation/recreation area; commercial grower or
contract vegetable grower restaurant operator
to produce food for
cafeteria/employees;
leased for greenhouse.
Public buildings Community centre, school Demonstration rooftop Non – profit management
garden; integrate with group; city operated;
stormwater harvest partnership with
system commercial operator.
A community of people gardening together is an important social exercise that builds relationships – if popular,
the spaces are treasured and committed people take good care of them. Community management and joint
care of the area is important.
Commercial production on rooftop gardens, while challenging, may be possible. This might range from
someone using small planters to grow herbs on the roof to sell at the farmers markets to a 5000 square foot
rooftop greenhouse leased to a commercial grower.
Generally podium rooftop spaces are more amenable to urban agriculture than the roof decks of towers. This
is for three reasons.
1. Unlike tower roof decks, podiums do not require an extra elevator floor for access purposes
2. Wind speeds are likely to be lower on podiums
3. Urban design standards that require buildings to be sculpted and the requirement to house
mechanical equipment mean that the usable space of tower roof decks is generally much smaller than
podium spaces.

The total area of building footprints (and therefore approximate rooftop space) shown on the draft structure
plan is approximately 85,000 sq metres (over 8 hectares) but only 5.5 hectares of these roofs are usuable.
Assuming conservative yields of 26,000 kg/Ha., if half (2.75 hectares) of this rooftop space at SEFC were used
to grow food plants it could generate around 4% of the produce requirements of 10,000 people.17 If rooftop
hydroponic greenhouses were used, this figure could be increased to over 60%18. However, it is unlikely that
all this space would be devoted to food production under current situation, but the exercise illustrates the
potential for urban agriculture on rooftops in this part of the city.
17
26,000 Kg/Ha. X 2.75Ha. = 71, 500 Kg. 71,500/1,600,000 = 4.4%
18
346,000 Kg./Ha. X 4 Ha. = 951,500 Kg. 951,500/ 1,600,000 = 59.5%
65
Challenges
Design
In order to ensure their long term viability and the structural and envelope integrity, buildings that may
conceivably used for rooftop gardens should be designed with pertinent engineering and horticultural criteria in
mind, from the outset.
Access, for example, has to be planned. This is most often done by extending the elevator shaft to the roof
deck or adding stairs. If the elevator will be used for plants, soil, tools and muddy boots on a regular basis,
then a service style elevator may be preferred. This requirement for extending the elevator shaft for high-rise
rooftops probably means they are economically unfeasible. Therefore, we should focus attention on roof decks
and podiums that will already have elevator access.
If building height and floor space ratio (FSR) restrictions are fixed then the maximum height and FSR will be
limiting factors if ancillary buildings are included in the calculations. In addition, trees, railings, trellises and
vines on the roof deck might impede views and impact allowable heights.
Wind is a key issue –third and fourth floor podium roof decks are fine, but tower podiums may be very windy. It
can be hard to get plants established in those conditions. Wind will also dry out soil very quickly and increase
the need for irrigation.
Maintenance
As with most other types of urban agriculture, a rooftop garden needs ongoing attention. Beyond initial design
considerations, therefore, it is important that ongoing management be organized. There needs to be a system
to sustain and nurture the green roof while it gets established and through the course of all the seasons.
Building managers have been known to turn water off to planters because they don’t want to take care of
them. It is important to get the management group, building superintendents and residents involved early in
the planning/design process and right through occupation. It may be necessary to design a safe failure
response – i.e. a system that is easy to retrofit to a low maintenance design. The design has to be able to
respond to the varying degrees of interest in gardening that will inevitably occur over the life of the building.
In addition, the following points characterize other challenges facing rooftop gardens:
• Key issues for strata management – will they see it as a liability? If one strata group isn’t interested,
could they rent out space to others?
• Secure access to the rooftop may cause additional management concerns.
• Who will use the rooftop garden –condo, residents, employees, public, commercial growers?
• How will the garden be accessed – people and materials
• Regulatory, and building codes may inhibit rooftop gardens
• Safety and liability concerns must be addressed
• Aesthetics will play a large part in marketability
Cost
Based on a rooftop area of 400 square metres and the installation of deep lightweight soils, irrigation, duck
boards and a tool shed and picnic table, estimated costs of this option:
$143.00/ square metre (not including structural, access or safety premiums).
66
Concrete buildings will require additional 1-2cm thickness in roof deck (a very small percentage of total
building structural cost).
Evaluation
Social Provides a social meeting/contact place; Urban dwellers will need training;
offers views to the city within an attractive necessitates a trained building management
environment; creates learning opportunities; super/company; concerns re building
creates passive recreation opportunities; envelope integrity could be transferred to
enhances the view of those looking down concern re rooftop membrane integrity
upon adjacent rooftops
Environmental Provides an additional reason for residents Irrigation water demand will increase in
to recreate near home and therefore reduce summer;
local travel; enhances bio-diversity; can
utilize harvested stormwater; enhances solar
uptake capacity; reduces urban heat island
effect. Energy efficiency
Reduction in solid waste through
composting of organic material
Increased wildlife habitat
Economic Can marginally reduce food costs; increases Does not provide a multiplier effect; does not
life cycle of roof; could be a potential create jobs; increases construction costs;
revenue generator via lease fees to a could increase building management costs.
commercial grower; rooftop common areas
could be counted as part of the common
area requirement
Other One of the most effectively transferable Not yet an accepted construction method in
urban agriculture strategies; can be Canada; will meet with some resistance
converted to other uses relatively easily from developers.
Implementation
We recommend pursuing rooftop gardens aggressively at SEFC.
Planning and Land Use

It is important to provide the opportunity for urban agriculture on roofs, but not to regulate this form of
landscape/architecture. The Official Development Plan and zoning processes should be the portal through
which urban agriculture on rooftops is addressed. These processes integrate the various criteria that will affect
the economic viability of a given development and the sustainability goals of SEFC. Rooftop gardens trigger
FSR, height, access, land use and other crucial development and livability issues.
Once proven on one or two buildings, the city could decide to require the inclusion of rooftop gardens on new
flat-roofed residential developments, commercial buildings, and public buildings and include specifications in
design guidelines for the SEFC zones.
• A catalogue of urban agriculture benefits could be developed that includes economic advantages for
green roofs.
67
• Monitoring of urban agriculture on green roofs is necessary in order to evaluate their benefits,
economics and management impacts.
• The SEFC sustainability model could include a research and development component of green roofs.
• It is important to have champions and a sense of ownership of the rooftop area, and this can be
accomplished through:
o Allocating garden plots to residents / specific users
o Programming the space to respond to the widest possibility of users
o Involving all users in the planning / design phase to get buy-in and support
Incentives
The City could allow:
• Flexibility in height restrictions and FSR for the purpose of rooftop greenhouses, rooftop vegetation,
and ancillary rooftop buildings such as tool sheds.
• Relaxation of height restrictions for the first buildings to integrate rooftop gardens as demonstration
projects.
• CAC/DCL reductions to encourage the inclusion of rooftop gardens.
Design
• The roofs of all concrete residential and commercial buildings should be flat and designed with enough
structural integrity and mechanical servicing to accommodate the use of an agricultural rooftop garden
or greenhouse in the future.
• Design the roof so it can be flexible to ebbs and flows in demand and interest while at the same time
mitigating the potential for a messy appearance.
• Protection of membrane an issue – from tools, etc… protection board and layer of gravel needed. Past
development/design technology have caused some leaks with rooftop planters and green roofs, but
current design and technology easily have overcome this. The soil medium actually can prolong the
life of the roof membrane through protecting it from exposure.
• Podiums will be better than tops of towers for urban agriculture uses – tops of towers are less safe and
sometime present a hostile microclimate – protection from wind on podium is easier
• All rooftops should be designed to be accessible.
• Railing/fall protection is required. This can be accomplished through planters on the perimeter of the
roof.
• Irrigation – both rainwater harvesting and hose bibs are required. Rainwater can be stored in a green
roof landscape in several different hidden and visible means.
• A minimum 500 mm depth of high quality engineered soil is required.
• Access is a critical issue for urban agriculture rooftops:
o What internal spaces must users pass through to get to the garden space and move soil,
plants, etc…
o A freight/moving elevator may be required
o Exit requirements as per the Building Code must be met
68
• Design guidelines including precedents, costs and management options should be created to assist
developers and building managers
• Seating and social spaces should be incorporated in rooftop gardens
• Roof drainage systems must accommodate additional potential sediment loading from runoff.
• Design rooftop spaces to be visible from many units – this will encourage people to maintain and use
them frequently. Podium gardens may be more appropriate than tower roof gardens for this reason.
Programming
Two types of programming tools are available that would enhance the potential for successful urban
agriculture on roofs in SEFC:
1. Community education
2. Building programming
Community Education
• Public buildings offer opportunities – school gardens on the roofs, improving nutrition of children,
public demonstration garden or lease out space to others to use for demonstration garden.
• Advice and guidelines for strata corporations to develop a rooftop garden, capture and use rainwater,
re-use grey-water on rooftops and grow food plants
Building Programming
• If Olympic athletes housing is built in SEFC, any green roofs will need ongoing maintenance
• There may be small growers (e.g. specialty herb and salad growers) who could make a business out
of growing on roofs – a unique niche not occupied by larger food producers.
• Strata councils could lease out their green roof space
• Commercial opportunities could include hiring gardener to grow food for residents in building

• Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver
• Foodshare, Toronto
• Royal York Hotel
• Mary Lambert-Swale housing project
• Toronto City Hall demonstration project
• Ecohouse (St. Petersburg)
• Microfarm Group, Brisbane, Australia
• Eli Zabar, New York
69
6.4 Option G4 – Balconies, Window Boxes
Description
In a high density community dominated by residential towers, balconies and window boxes may be the only
outdoor space in which residents will be able to grow edible plants. Plants are generally grown in pots and
other containers on balconies - an obvious limiting factor to food production potential. However, a surprising
volume and range of produce can be grown through a series of established and innovative systems. Growing
plants vertically, for example, can maximize the harvest from relatively small soil volumes.
Figure 6-2: Window Box. Photo: Sustain, UK
Figure 6-3: Balcony Conservatory. Photo: Sustain, UK
Benefits
Balconies and most window boxes are accessible and therefore are less likely to be neglected that some other
spaces. Efficient food production methods such as growing food on walls, trellises and in stacked containers
maximizes the productivity of balcony spaces for urban agriculture. As long as sunlight, nutrient and access
requirements are met, plants can be grown in compact horizontal and vertically arranged containers that
create yields greater than those that would be obtained by using the nominal area.
Balcony and window box gardens will not contribute significantly to the volume of food produced in SEFC.
They offer other benefits, including:
• Opportunities for novice gardeners to experiment with plants, soils and harvesting
• Potential to grow specialty plants that are consumed in small volumes (parsley and other kitchen
herbs)
• The greening of buildings, enhancing livability.

Personal outdoor living space is a hallmark of sustainability. As a result, it is anticipated that balconies will be
common in SEFC with most units including at least one such space.
70
Zoning permitting, some owners may choose to incorporate a greenhouse into the balcony which would further
extend the growing season and enhance the production capacity of the balcony area.
The potential for window boxes will be determined to a great extent by the architectural detailing and
environmental conditions. For safety reasons, it may not be acceptable to allow window boxes above a certain
height.
The school and community centre could readily accommodate an urban agriculture window box program.
Type and Size of Balcony and Window Boxes
Description Comments
Type Balcony: built in or portable plant Concrete or plastic containers are more
containers; resistant to wind and dessication;
Window box: temporary or permanent

anchored containers accessible through a
window
Size Balcony: minimum area required: .75 South facing desirable, but not essential.
square metre Drainage to prevent drips of irrigation
overflow is NB.
Window box: min. volume: 175mm deep x
175mm wide

There will be six thousand units at SEFC. It is reasonable to assume that at least five thousand of these will
have one or more balconies. However, balconies are generally not productive growing spaces and what
space there is on a balcony has to accommodate many uses. Assuming that 2 square metres of space per
balcony is used, this would give us 5,000 sq. metres = 0.5 Hectare of growing space. Assuming relatively low
yields, if all of the potential space were used for urban agriculture purposes it could generate 13,000 Kg of
produce, which is approximately 0.75 % of the community’s annual needs.
Challenges
Building access, height and environmental constraints will challenge the balcony/window box gardener in the
following ways:
Balconies need to accommodate many different needs including space for plants.
Many balconies are designed with overhangs and many will not have ideal solar access and this can limit the
amount of sunlight on a balcony.
Some food plants require a consistent nutrient supply to develop properly and mature to fruiting and some will
quickly exhaust the soil in a container unless supplemental nutrients are added.
71
Cost
Based on installing planters/pots, soil and irrigation for 1 balcony with ~ 1 metre square of area in pots, the
estimated costs for this option: $ 388.00 per unit.
Evaluation
Social Create more attractive buildings from public Private, individual so doesn’t include
realm social contact
Environmental Provides an additional reason for residents Irrigation water demand will increase
to recreate near home and therefore reduce slightly in summer
need to travel; can utilize harvested
stormwater;
Economic Can marginally reduce family food Does not provide a multiplier effect; does
expenditures; not create jobs; increases developer costs
slightly.
Other Very transferable; can be uninstalled easily Not innovative. Little public educational
Easy to implement component.
Implementation
Balcony gardens are relatively easy to implement and we recommend pursuing balconies for food production
at SEFC.
Land Use and Site Layout

None
Zoning
Address provision of balconies and balcony design in zoning for SEFC.
Incentives
None
Design
• Balconies should be designed to maximize solar access.
• Balconies could be designed with growing containers built into them, with soil deep enough to grow quality
produce.
• Water supply and drainage should be integrated in balcony design.
• Soil, pots and fertilizer storage areas should be incorporated in each floor of high rise residential buildings
• Designers/planners should consider the use of vertical growing space and solar access to these spaces
when reviewing landscape proposals and building designs. This might include trellising and arbours
included as part of the proposal for balcony design.
72
Programming
• An “urban agriculture for balconies” guidebook should be considered as part of an overall educational
program for SEFC.

None included
73
6.5 Option G5 – Edible Landscaping of the Public and Semi-private Realm
Description
Edible landscaping is the term used to describe the practice of using food-bearing plants for landscaping
purposes in place of more commonly used ornamental plants. This typically occurs in private backyard
gardens but, until recently, has not often occurred in the public realms of streets, parks and condominium
landscapes. At present, as a matter of policy, most trees and bushes planted in the public realm are planted
for aesthetics, shade or habitat values rather than food value. While there are some fruit trees lining our City
streets, and blueberry bushes have been planted in some progressive landscape designs, food plants are the
exception.
The Street Tree bylaw gives Vancouver Parks Board and Engineering Services the responsibility for the
selection, planting and maintenance of street trees. Crabapple, Cherry and Plum are all on the list of
recommended street trees for Vancouver but generally the non-fruiting cultivars are used.
Although current Park Board policy does not endorse the planting of fruiting varieties for street trees there is no
reason why they could not be used in the SEFC park. Edible landscapes can also include:
• Seasonal greens that also offer colour and texture to the landscape
• Integration of vegetables in flower gardens – an aspect of bio-dynamic gardening
• Ethno-botanical landscapes that interpret First Nation’s use of edible native plants
• Celebration gardens: specifically designed to coincide with solstices, equinoxes, Halloween etc.
Benefits
Fruit and vegetable plants of all forms, grown in the public realm not only enhance the food production
capacity of a community, but they also add a layer of landscape meaning that few other vegetation patterns
accomplish. The ripening apple is a harbinger of fall, blackberries the onset of summer heat, Brussels sprouts
sweetening in cold winter frosts- all of these sights strengthen our connection with the land. As a social benefit,
as much as a production benefit, edible landscapes enrich the urban experience.

The edible landscape philosophy could be applied across virtually all of the planted lands in SEFC. It would be
opportune to integrate visual, privacy, habitat and other vegetation criteria with the edible landscape approach
in the park, rights-of-way, and semi-private garden plantings.

Choosing an edible landscape approach across parts of the SEFC model community will enhance the food
production capacity. To what extent it will actually meet a percentage of the food needs of SEFC is virtually
impossible to determine.
74
Challenges
Current City and Park Board policies discourage fruiting cultivars in public landscapes. These policies are a
response to several issues that need to be addressed if this option is to be viable:
• Liability – because fruit can be large and heavy, falling fruit could damage property. In addition, if fruit
is not picked, it may attract wasps and other undesirable insects and lead to insect bites and stings.
• Appearance – fruit trees can be messy when they drop fruit on sidewalks, staining sidewalks and
clothing and when tracked indoors, staining carpets.
Generally these issues revolve around maintenance and land management considerations. Management
mechanisms are needed to properly maintain and harvest fruit trees and other edible landscapes in the public
realm.
The Street Tree Bylaw and the powers it places solely in the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation
currently limits the extent to which food-bearing plants could be incorporated on City streets and within City
rights of way. As it is now written, the Street Tree Bylaw does not anticipate, nor encourage, the planting of
street edges for urban agriculture purposes, nor does it anticipate the planting and maintenance of any type of
tree by other than City or formally authorized experts.
As urban agriculture within SEFC evolves, it is possible that a range of participants will be involved in the
planting, care and maintenance of trees within what is now formally considered an area where laymen and
novice gardeners are expressly forbidden.
The Park Board does not have the resources or the expertise to manage fruit or nut producing trees at this
time. Consequently, if City street verges, boulevards and other rights of way are to be used for this type of
urban agriculture new systems for managing these lands would be required. These new systems would have
to be acceptable within a revised Street Tree Bylaw.
The street tree standards referenced in the bylaw would also have to be modified, but as an overarching, city-
wide “enabling” document, the Street Tree Bylaw should be amended to permit, if not encourage, urban
agriculture in the City of Vancouver.
Innovative approaches to stewardship by local residents would be needed to ensure that pruning is undertaken
correctly and harvesting occurs properly. At Village Homes in the City of Davis, California, the residents now
produce and sell enough fruit from their street trees to be able to pay for the maintenance of their remaining
public open space. Some cities also grow fruit trees in their parks - Stockholm, Prague, and Bangalore grow
up to 25% fruit trees in their urban parks (Garnett, 1996).
Cost of this option

Costs of this option should be equal to or somewhat less than the installation of traditional ornamental
landscapes.
75
Evaluation
Social Enhances our understanding of food source The edible landscape is not an accepted
in a very visible way; potential to interpret aesthetic; training of gardeners and
ethno-botany integrates cultural, food and interpretation is required
educational objectives; involves citizens
directly in the management of the landscape
Environmental enhances bio-diversity; can be integrated Irrigation water demand will increase
with habitat and native plantings; can utilize marginally in summer;
compost and stormwater
Economic Can marginally reduce food costs; May require additional maintenance,
depending on the level of seasonal plantings
Other One of the most effectively transferable
urban agriculture strategies; can be
converted to other uses very easily
Implementation
In the public realm (streets and parks) the Parks Board should:
• Adopt a policy of planting fruit-bearing trees on certain streets in SEFC. In most cases fruit trees will
likely not be appropriate because there are several other objectives of street trees such as shade,
habitat value, and architectural considerations. However, it may be appropriate to experiment with fruit
bearing cultivars in some situations where fruit trees can achieve a variety of design criteria.
• That is, in situations where a non-fruiting fruit tree would currently be planted, consideration should be
given to planting a fruit tree where stewardship responsibilities can be assigned.
• Adopt a policy of edible landscaping in selected parts of the waterfront park. This might include the
planting of heritage varieties that have an educational value as well as food and aesthetic value.
• Encourage the formation of neighbourhood stewardship groups (see Fruit Tree Project Case Study)
who would take on the responsibility of pruning and harvesting in return for keeping/distributing the
fruit.
• Offer expert advice (through animateur) to the urban gardeners wishing to grow fruit trees
• Create edible landscape design guidelines that integrate ethno-botanical research
In the semi-private realm the City of Vancouver should:

• Require developers (and their designers) to incorporate edible cultivars into landscape plans
• Include the above in the landscape design guidelines for SEFC
• Work with a non-profit society such as SPEC, City Farmer or Farm Folk/City Folk to develop a
guidebook that provides advice on how to successfully incorporate edible plants into private
landscapes.

Fruit Tree Project
New York City Care of Trees
76
77
6.6 Option G6 - Commercial Greenhouses
Description
Commercial greenhouses can be soil-based or hydroponic. The trend for modern greenhouse operations is
towards very large, technologically advanced, hydroponic greenhouse operations that produce a single crop:
most commonly tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers or lettuce. In the SEFC context, the scale, diversity of crops
and type of productivity will warrant a different type of operation. There are a number of smaller, family run
greenhouses in British Columbia that focus on organic, soil-based growing and produce a much wider variety
of crops. These may be a more appropriate model for SEFC than the industrial scale of operation that is
common in Delta and other parts of BC.
Benefits
Urban commercial greenhouses could produce a large percentage of the community’s food needs, significantly
reducing transportation requirements and reducing the need for residents to travel outside the community and
for produce to be shipped in.
A commercial greenhouse could be interesting land use in its own right and if designed properly can add visual
interest to an urban landscape. A working greenhouse would add interest and vitality to the community.
Waste heat from buildings and industrial operations can be captured and re-used be greenhouse operations
which can also benefit from increased levels of carbon dioxide, which increases plant growth.

If producing a large proportion of the community’s food is considered an important objective, then commercial
greenhouses would be the option of choice. However, no suitable land has been allocated to this type of use
at SEFC (see market gardens). Without land dedicated to urban agriculture, commercial greenhouses will not
be able to compete economically with other urban land uses, especially residential. A greenhouse system
could however, be located on a large floating barge on False Creek. The greenhouse could use either a soil
based or hydroponic system. A retail outlet could also be associated with the greenhouse so that intra-
community transportation was reduced and this would make the greenhouse operation more economically
viable than a traditional model of selling into the wholesale market.
Aside from land dedicated to urban agriculture, commercial greenhouse space could be created on some of
the larger rooftops in SEFC. Although this would involve operational inefficiencies (bringing supplies up an
elevator or exterior lift system), commercial greenhouse space on the roofs (or more likely podiums roofs) of
the medium and high rise buildings within the study area could generate food volumes that may attract
enterprising growers. Some of the rooftop spaces will be 10,000 sq. ft, which is a reasonable size for a
specialty commercial greenhouse operation.
The Parks Board may choose to include a small-scale greenhouse in the Waterfront Park as both an
educational and income generating venture. The greenhouse could be linked with a Park Restaurant to
78
demonstrate a very close link between food production and preparation, an increasingly popular direction
taken by innovative BC chefs. Customers could then dine adjacent to the food crops they are eating.
How much food could be grown and revenues generated?

Average yields for BC Commercial Greenhouse operations are 346,000 Kg/Ha. Therefore, one hectare of
commercial greenhouses could likely 20 % of the community’s vegetable needs and generate $280,000 in
revenues at wholesale prices.19 This however, reflects industrial-scale production sold to wholesale and,
therefore, a fairly low price per kilogram. Incomes for small-scale greenhouses growing specialty products and
retailing directly to buyers can generate must higher revenues.
Karl Hahn, a local expert on organic greenhouses, suggests that two people working full-time could run a
successful specialty (organic) commercial greenhouse operation on 0.1 hectare of land, generating perhaps
$40,000 annually in profit (wages). Karl suggests that an annual revenue of $120 per square foot of
greenhouse is achievable by retailing specialty crops directly from the greenhouse instead of wholesaling the
product. (Hahn, 2002)
Challenges
Commercial greenhouses require land zoned for agriculture otherwise they cannot compete with other urban
land uses.
Unlike open field agriculture or gardening, greenhouses are non-porous surfaces and therefore do not
contribute to stormwater management goals.
Most commercial greenhouses use natural gas to heat the greenhouse and also produce carbon dioxide,
which stimulates plant growth. This, combined with the materials used for greenhouse construction and the
nutrient solutions used to fertilize the plants mean that commercial greenhouses generally have a much larger
ecological footprint that open field production methods of growing (Wada, 1993).
Commercial greenhouses do not allow for much participation or education by the community unless
educational programming is built into the greenhouse operation.
Many of the challenges for commercial market gardens also apply to commercial greenhouses.
Cost of this option

The most cost-effective greenhouses used for many commercial agriculture operations are plastic hoop
greenhouses. Materials cost as little as $2.50 per sq.ft.20
Glass (or poly-carbide) greenhouses are more likely to cost $20 -$25 square foot installed.
19
Based on average yield and sales value of Greenhouse Vegetable Production in British Columbia, 1992.
BCMAFF Horticultural Statistics, 1992.
20
Prices based on internet research of 10’ x 40’ Polytunnel.
79
There will be a premium for installing the greenhouse in a rooftop location and additional price considerations
for access may have to be included.
Evaluation
Social Interesting educational opportunities Possible odours if not managed correctly
Large quantity of food produced Few opportunities for residents to participate
in growing food.
Environmental Pests can be managed biologically Creates impervious surface
(organically) in controlled environment. Uses energy to heat and material/energy to
Large quantity of food produced reduces construct
residents need to travel outside of
community and reduce food transportation.
Can re-use waste heat, water, compost.
Economic Can generate significant revenues if Cost to build is much higher than gardens
properly managed. especially in rooftop situations.
Local economic development and multiplier Requires dedicated land use and therefore
effect. would reduce density (and revenues for
City) of residential buildings.
Other Would make an interesting and worthwhile
demonstration project on land retained by
the City or Parks Board.
Implementation
We recommend that a small-scale commercial greenhouse be allowed as a demonstration project at SEFC to
demonstrate the feasibility of greenhouse operation in a dense urban neighbourhood and retailing directly to
the public.

• Small-scale commercial greenhouses require land (or at least floating barges) dedicated to this use.
• Probably suitable in this location as a demonstration project only – either on land the city retains and
leases to a greenhouse operator or on Park Board land as part of a high-end restaurant. Co-operation
of innovative chef required. (See Fairmont Waterfront Hotel roof garden case study).
Zoning
• Land for a commercial greenhouse needs to be zoned, very specifically for this use and hence avoid
competition from other higher return uses. This would require a change in existing policy as
commercial greenhouses are not an allowed use in most of the city. The City needs to choose whether
or not they want to support urban agriculture in this way as a public good. This has parallels with the
way that rural agriculture is protected (and often subsidized) because we value the public benefits that
agriculture brings such as food security and economically viable rural communities.
80
• A retail outlet should be permitted as an ancillary building to the greenhouse. This would reduce the
amount of commercial vehicle trips required and to add interest to the operation.
• Allow commercial greenhouse space on the roof of buildings – in most cases building owners will not
want to pursue this option but there may be some developers who see an interesting marketing angle
and potential business case in this approach. Those who do should be encouraged by not including
rooftop greenhouses in FSR or height calculations.
Design
• Encourage designers to examine ways to reduce energy consumption of greenhouses. Greenhouses
should be designed to maximize passive solar gain. It may also be possible to harvest waste heat
(and carbon dioxide) from buildings or commercial/light-industrial operations. Waste water/stormwater
may be used for irrigation.
Programming
• Any operator should be encouraged to include educational programming into the operation to increase
the level of multi-functionality.
• Organic approaches are preferred and may be required if city retains ownership of land and leases to
commercial operator.

Microfarms With Great Returns
Inuvik Greenhouse
Karl Hahn’s greenhouse operation
81
6.7 Option G7 - Commercial Market Gardens
Description
Commercial market gardens such as those in Burnaby’s Big Bend area are typically operated on small farm
lots (less than ten acres) and make use of large amounts of labour and typically less machinery than larger
scale farms. Some of the case studies below indicate that commercial farms of less than one acre are
possible but more commonly a few acres of land is preferred. Market gardens generally grow a variety of
produce, usually focusing on highly perishable items that fetch a high price. This is in contrast the large-scale
monocultures that are dominant on grain and potato farms. Some market garden operations sell directly to the
public through roadside stands or small retail outlets. Others sell directly to grocery stores or may sell to a
wholesale.
Benefits
Producing food at the commercial scale of a market garden is more likely to deliver a much greater quantity
and consistent quality of food than that produced by amateur gardeners. In addition, the City has a greater
opportunity to regulate the activity. Producing a significant amount of the residents food would mean that
travel outside of the community as well as the transportation of food goods would be reduced i.e. it would go
some way to meeting the goal of a complete, mixed use community where the daily needs of residents are met
within the community.

A commercial market garden operation can be operated successfully on as little as a city lot under very
favourable growing conditions but most operations will require a larger amount of land, perhaps a minimum 0.5
hectare with good quality soils. As currently designed, the draft structure plan offers no opportunity for a
market garden on a commercial scale. Therefore, the structure plan would have to be redesigned to
accommodate this use with the trade-off between residential/commercial building and market garden use.
Given that the primary role of SEFC is for high density housing near to downtown jobs, it is probably not
appropriate to do this

Market gardening tends to be very high yielding in the lower mainland because the climate allows several
crops to be grown in a single season and the approach is very labour intensive with dense plantings and
polycultures allowing yields to be maximized in small areas. Therefore, we can assume that yields would be on
the higher end of the spectrum probably in the range of 50,000 kg/Ha. 1 hectare of land used for market
gardening would yield about 3 % of the community’s vegetable needs.
Challenges
In theory, a commercial operator could run a successful market garden in the SEFC neighbourhood and
indeed there are examples across North America where urban farmers manage to extract a good living from
very small spaces. However, the main challenge for a commercial market gardening approach at SEFC is the
trade-off necessary if land is used for agriculture rather than high density housing or other more traditional
82
uses. Private land owners of course would not choose to allocate high priced urban land for agricultural
purposes when the potential return from most other uses would be much higher. The high value of urban land
would mean that for market gardens to exist, the City would have to intervene and zone some land as
agricultural in the interests of the public good. This approach may be appropriate in some areas but probably
not in the context of SEFC.
Soil contamination (actual or perceived) may also threaten the viability of market gardens. Food plants will
absorb contamination through their roots and therefore soil used for growing needs to be thoroughly tested.
There may also be a problem with vandalism and crop theft.
Cost of this option

There is no cost for a commercial market garden to the City once clean soil is in place. The operator would be
responsible for seed, soil amendment, equipment, marketing and labour costs.
Evaluation
Social Interesting educational opportunities Possible odours if not managed correctly
Interesting activity Few opportunities for residents to participate
Reasonable quantity of food produced in growing food.
Environmental Does not create impervious surface Possible rodent problem if compost not
Reasonable quantity of food produced managed properly.
reduces residents need to travel outside of
community and reduce food transportation.
Can re-use waste water, and compost.
Economic Can generate local revenues and Requires dedicated land use and therefore
meaningful jobs for marginalized people. would reduce density (and revenues for
Cost to implement is low. City) of residential buildings.
Other Could make an interesting and worthwhile
demonstration project on land retained by
the City or Parks Board.
Implementation
We do not recommend pursuing commercial market gardens at SEFC although they may be appropriate for
other areas of the City of Vancouver.

• Even though some case studies demonstrate that high value crops can be grown in urban situations,
commercial market gardens could not compete economically with residential land uses in SEFC.
Therefore, commercial market gardens could only occur if land was zoned specifically for this purpose.
Alternatively the City could retain ownership of the land and choose to lease it to a commercial
operator (perhaps as a trial operation lasting five years). There would need to be a reasonable security
of tenure for the operator to make it worth their time and investment.
• Land needs to be in a sunny location.
83
Zoning
• The land for market gardens would need to be zoned accordingly and may place restrictions on the
type of crops, hours of operation, use of machinery, use of manures, use of chemicals etc. to ensure
that the operations of the market garden did not negatively impact the residents of the neighbourhood.
Incentives
• Cheap land or low lease rates combined with guaranteed terms of tenure would initially attract
specialty growers to grow at SEFC. This, combined with a large market and the possibility of retailing
directly to the public would be sufficient incentive for urban agriculture entrepreneurs.
Design
• If this option is pursued, certain standards of appearance should be required of the grower, either as
part of a lease contract or as part of the zoning.
City Investment
• The City could take lead role by retaining ownership of some land at SEFC and leasing to a
commercial grower. The City could put out a request for proposals and select a proposal that
maximized the educational and training opportunities provided by the grower.
• The city could hire an urban farmer and run a small-scale market garden to generate income.
Programming and Education

• Training of specialty growers who can operate a market garden on a small piece of land.
• Link gardens with educational initiatives for backyard and community gardeners.

Big Bend Burnaby
Kon Kai Farms, Berkeley, California
Sausalito, Cal
FoodShare
The Silwood Family
Toh Orchids
Greensgrow Philadelphia Project
84
6.8 Option G8 - Inside Buildings
Description
Some crops such as mushrooms and seed sprouts (such as alfalfa) can be successfully grown indoors, either
in the dark (as with mushrooms) or using artificial light. This can be done on both a commercial or non-
commercial level. These crops can generate a high value from relatively small space requirements and recent
technological improvements have reduced the problem with odours traditionally associated with commercial
mushroom growing.
Benefits
Growing indoors opens up the possibility of using unused indoor space (empty parking stalls for example) as
productive space. Indoor growing allows the operator to control the process to a greater extent.

As presently structured, the draft structure plan offers few if any commercial-scale opportunities for indoor
growing but there may be semi-commercial opportunities in underground parkades if parking stalls are not
occupied. Building residents may want to use their parking stall for mushroom growing or rent it out to a small-
scale operator.
How much food could be grown/revenue generated?

Richmond Specialty mushrooms report that 100 kg of mushrooms can be produced from one shipping
container per week throughout the year. This is worth $500 - $800 if retailed directly to the pubic as part of the
operation.
Challenges
Using artificial light indoors may conflict with energy saving strategies for the community. Odour and insect
problems may generate land-use conflicts if not properly managed.
Cost
None to the City.
Evaluation
Social Interesting educational opportunities Possible odours and insect problems if not
Reasonable quantity of food produced managed correctly leading to land use
Opportunities for residents to participate in conflicts.
growing food.
Environmental Minimal impact on local travel needs. Uses energy to heat/light operation.
Minimal opportunities for waste recycling.
85
Economic Can generate reasonable revenues. Cost to build is much higher than gardens
especially in rooftop situations.
Requires dedicated land use and therefore
would reduce density (and revenues for City)
of residential buildings.
Implementation
We recommend that the City encourage this option in selected buildings, perhaps as a small demonstration
project initially to see if idea catches on and potential negative issues can be managed adequately.

Not affected
Zoning
Encouraging indoor agriculture would entail allowing commercial indoor food production operations in zoning
schedule in appropriate locations. Zoning needs to create appropriate restrictions to minimize land use
conflicts.
Incentives
None necessary.
Design
Designers may consider parking garages for indoor growing operations. Provision of power supply and hose
bibs.
Education
Training for residents and strata councils on how to grow crops successfully indoors.
Programming
Building owners may allow appropriately scaled, well designed operations in parking garages that are
underused.

Chicago Indoor Gardens
Philly Mushroom Farms
Richmond Specialty Mushrooms
Foodshare (Sprouting Operation)
86
6.9 Option G9 – School Gardens
Description
Many schools have large areas of barren, unproductive landscape usually devoted to recreational sports and
parking. Some schools have begun the process of greening the school landscape to create more ecologically-
diverse landscapes, better learning opportunities for children and improved nutrition through organic gardens.
Benefits
School food gardens can improve children’s understanding of natural processes such as plant growth, soil
formation as well as enhance their understanding of nature. Growing food can also assist low-income families
with their food bills and provide children access to healthy, nutritious food that might otherwise not be
affordable. The same food can be used to demonstrate healthy food preparation and this link has been shown
to increase the likelihood of children eating the recommended intake of fruit and vegetables. Food can be used
to supplement a school meal or snack program.
Organic gardening learned at elementary school is a skill that remains valuable throughout adult life. In an age
where obesity and inactivity is on the rise, gardening is a healthy outdoor activity that encourages a healthy
lifestyle.
All kinds of curriculum topics can be explored in garden settings, bringing theoretical topics to a very practical
level.

There is a planned K-7 elementary school at SEFC and a number of daycare facilities will be required. All of
these represent excellent opportunities for incorporating urban agriculture initiatives into the school
landscapes, both as educational opportunities and for improved nutrition and dietary habits of the children and
adults involved.
Depending on the method of construction used (wood frame, concrete) there may also be opportunities to use
the rooftops of these buildings for gardens and outdoor classrooms. Obviously safety will be an important
consideration with any such venture but if this possibility is considered early on the planning and design
process.
To maximize the learning potential, it would be desirable to construct a greenhouse in which seedlings can be
produced and in which some winter crops could be produced. This provides an opportunity for the students to
be exposed to agriculture year round.
Any size of space is usable for this option.
87
How much food can be produced?

This depends on the size of the school ground and how much is dedicated to food gardens. School ground
gardens are often similar in size to community gardens and therefore have the potential to produce similar
amounts of food as community gardens.
Challenges
It is often challenging to get approval and support for school ground gardens through the School Board. They
have concerns about safety (e.g. will someone shoot up in the garden and leave needles lying around), about
conflicts with teacher-union contracts (i.e. who is responsible for landscape maintenance), aesthetics (will the
gardens look untidy) and availability of teachers and other volunteers to supervise children’s activity take on
the project as an extra-curricular activity, and so on. There is also the issue of how to take care of the gardens
throughout the summer months when plant (and weed) growth is at its highest and the requirement for
irrigation the highest.
Despite these obstacles, NGOs such as Evergreen (national), Foodshare (Toronto), City Farmer (Vancouver)
and LifeSpin (London, ON.) as well as many others have managed to develop highly successful school garden
programs that overcome these obstacles.
Cost of this option

School gardens involve costs comparable to public community gardens plus the time required for staff to
supervise the children. Local gardening stores will often donate tools, seeds, and other supplies.
Evaluation
Social Excellent educational opportunities for School gardens may be target of vandalism
students and families with crops thrown at buildings.
Improved nutrition and food preparation
knowledge.
Improved visual aesthetic of school ground
School yard used after school hours may
prevent vandalism and increase pride in
school landscape.
Environmental Minimal, but as with other gardening None.
options, compost can be used, waste-water
used for irrigation.
Economic None significant Small cost to design and build.
Other Has lasting affect by giving children a life-
long skill.
Implementation
We recommend the City work with the school board to pursue this option.
88

Implementation of this option will require the full support of the school board and future school principal. While
the City can encourage school gardens, it has little jurisdiction over activity on school property. The Parks
Board may enter in partnership arrangements with the school for the purposes of maintenance and these
could be extended to include agreements regarding the education programming of school yards for the benefit
of children and the surrounding community.
Zoning
None
Incentives
None necessary
Design
The City might require schools and daycares to develop landscape plans that could accommodate gardening
opportunities.
Education
The Evergreen Foundation and LifeSpin both offer kits and guidebooks for developing school ground gardens
and educational landscapes, including all the logistics of gaining School Board support, landscape design and
programming, and managing children and volunteers.
Partnerships
We recommend that the City strongly encourage the Vancouver School Board to develop a school ground
garden for the K-7 elementary school and that the School Board partner with the Parks Board to develop
educational programming for the school landscape.

Grandview Woodlands School, Vancouver
Pocket-Sized Farms School Garden Program, London, Ontario.
89
6.10 Option G10 - Aquaculture & Bioponics
Description
Aquaculture describes the intentional management of fish for food consumption. The world’s most popular fish
for culture is Tilapia. Unlike the farmed salmon we are familiar with in BC, tilapia are very hardy and can be
successfully grown in land-based tanks. Tilapia produces a delicious white flesh with few bones. Native to
Africa and East Asia (where they have been raised for centuries) Tilapia are a hardy, disease resistant fish that
thrives in warm water.
The feed conversion rate for this fish is excellent, with one pound of feed yielding almost one pound of fish.
Tilapia devour algae in addition to their regular feed, and excess plant cuttings add to this nutrient source. In
addition, they will tolerate low oxygen and poor water conditions that would kill most other fish.
Bioponics combines ‘Bio” (from the Greek bios - life, mode of life) with hydroponics techniques, by replacing
the mineral nutrient salts conventionally used in hydroponics, with natural inputs of nutrients contained in fish
effluent wastes. This is an elegant, simple and innovative system of food production that combines
aquaculture and hydroponic vegetable growing techniques. The system is relatively simple and expensive
equipment is not required.
Aquaculture is relatively untested in an urban environment although there are a number of recent examples in
other cities. This option is probably best considered as a demonstration project rather than for widespread
adoption at the new community.
Benefits
Vegetables alone are unlikely to produce a varied enough diet for most people’s needs. Fish may be a viable
source of protein that we can raise in the city. Aquaculture and bioponics represents one of the most efficient
ways to produce protein in an urban environment. Unlike most forms of livestock, these systems are relatively
compatible with residential land uses and provide an interesting educational opportunity.
This option is a significant opportunity to reuse kitchen and restaurant wastes and can assist with the
purification of waste-water as well.
This form of production is very popular in other parts of the world and would provide a source of culturally
appropriate food for many ethnic minorities.

Tilapia (and some other freshwater fish such as Perch and crustaceans) are generally raised in land based
tanks. These tanks might best be located in a greenhouse but might also be located on a floating barge on
SEFC or other land at SEFC. Alternatively, these systems could be located in any building with due
consideration for the weight of tanks.
90

At 7.84 kg per person annual consumption , a community of 5000 fish eaters would require 39,200 kg (86,240
lb.’s) of fish and shellfish annually. The reported yields of aquaculturally-raised fish vary immensely (as much
as vegetable yields) depending on the type and intensity of the method used. The Farallones Institute (1979)
report yields of up to half a pound of fish per square foot annually under intensive culture. Todd and Todd
(1984) have managed to produce up to one and half times that amount using small scale, indoor techniques
and pressure-cooked garbage as feed. Ballarin and Haller (1982) report astonishingly high experimental
yields from Asia using Tilapia which they say is well suited for intensive pond culture. Table 6-1 shows
reported yields in intensive and non-intensive (open pond) culture and the space required to produce the
average fish/shellfish needs of the community of five thousand people.
Species Approximate Pond/Tank Space Approximate Space required

Annual Yield required to Annual Yield to produce fish
(pond culture) produce fish for (intensive for 5000
5000 people culture) people)
1. Rainbow Trout 100lb./acre 862.4 acres 0.5 lb./ft.2 3.95 acres
2. Sacramento 800 lb./acre 107.8 acres N/a N/a
Blackfish
3. Fathead 1000lb. /Acre 86.2 acres 3000lb. /Acre 28.7 acres
Minnow (without (with
supplementary supplementary
feed) feed)
4. Bluegill 300 lb. /acre 287.5 acres 0.5 lb./ft.2 3.95 acres
5. Pacific Crayfish 400 lb. /acre 215.6 acres 0.5 lb./ft.2 3.95 acres
6. Tilapia, Catfish, N/a N/a up to 1.3 lb./ft3 1.52 acres
Trout, White
Amur, Mirror-
Carp, Pacu
7. Tilapia (Asia) 2-8 tonnes/acre 4.8 - 19 acres up to 100 tonnes 0.4 acres
/ acre
Table 6-1: Yields of various fish species in intensive and non-intensive culture (sources: [1-5],
(Farallones Institute 1979), [6] - (Todd & Todd 1984), [7] - (Ballarin and Haller 1982)
Challenges
This analysis reveals that the fish requirements of the entire community could theoretically be produced using
as little as 0.5 acres of land. We should remember, however, that the more intensive production methods are
energy and time intensive and require artificial systems to maintain the life support mechanisms of
oxygenation, temperature and waste removal. We should also consider that fish have to eat too and the
amount of protein gained from consuming fish will be substantially less than the amount fed to the fish.
Ecologically then, this only makes sense if we use waste products to feed the fish (restaurants wastes or
excess worms produced from worm composting) or find food sources unsuitable for human consumption.
Cost of this option

Unknown – requires cost analysis.
91
Evaluation
Social Excellent educational and research Possible land use conflicts if not properly
opportunities. designed.
High quality nutrition
Culturally appropriate for some minorities.
Environmental Excellent waste recycling opportunities. Possible odour problems if not managed
properly.
Economic Significant potential for small business and Significant start up costs.
meaningful jobs for marginalized workers. Possible impact on adjacent land values if
not properly designed and managed.
Other A novel approach that would distinguish A highly unusual approach in an urban
SEFC as a progressive community. community and therefore will meet with
resistance.
Implementation
We recommend the City pursue this option as a demonstration/educational project at SEFC, perhaps in
combination with a small-scale greenhouse or as part of a restaurant in the Park.
Land use and site layout

o Allocate some land for this use as a demonstration project;
o Perhaps integrate this use with the demonstration black water treatment project and use tertiary treated
waste-water for water supply for this option.
Zoning
o Commercial/Light industrial zoning at SEFC should be designed to accommodate this use.
Incentives
o Demonstration project will establish viability of option and the need for incentives.
Design
o Design aquaculture system to maximize re-use of local wastes from restaurants, community kitchens, food
processors etc.
Education/Programming
o Educate residents about the benefits of aquaculture/bioponics and re-using wastes.
Other
o There will be concerns from the public health department, which will need to be addressed.

The God’s Gang Worm and Fish Project
92
HPI Project
93
6.11 Option G11 – Micro Livestock
Description
Livestock in the city is an ‘unmentionable’ that is actually common practice in many parts of the world. Mega-
cities [over ten million] such as Mexico city and Cairo report livestock rearing as being more common than fruit
and vegetable production as both commercial and hobby urban agriculture. However, here we limit the
discussion of livestock to micro-livestock such as bees, and worms that actually play a supporting role to other
options. However, other creatures classified as micro-livestock such as mice and pigeons are kept in other
cities.
Benefits
Play a valuable role by pollinating crops in the case of bees, and processing wastes and providing food for fish
in the case of worms. Some provide a valuable protein component

Opportunity at SEFC for livestock is very limited because of the high-density nature of residential development.
Most livestock prefer open free-range spaces but of course many are kept in very crowded conditions. Micro-
Livestock that could be feasible at SEFC are those small, low-nuisance varieties including bees, worms,
pigeons and mice.

Micro-livestock could be raised to produce a significant amount of the protein requirements of the community.
However, public perception of most animals in urban spaces will probably restrict this use and severely limit
the amount of food produces aside from a small amount of honey for example.
Challenges
Existing public health regulations (see Appendix A – Policy, Regulations & Guidelines Having a Bearing on
Urban Agriculture in Vancouver) prevent the keeping of livestock in the City of Vancouver due to concerns of
disease, and odours. In addition, slaughtering is problematic in urban areas where no abattoirs exist.
Public perception is that most livestock are inappropriate in an urban context. The exception may be bees and
worms although concerns of insect stings and allergic reactions need to be addressed.
Cost
Costs associated with this option are highly variable and depend very much on the approach, type of micro-
livestock. However, the investment in most micro-livestock operations will be minimal.
Evaluation
94
Social Some educational opportunities are Potential nuisance/odour problems
involved; Perception as inappropriate in urban areas
Environmental Bees can provide important pollination for
plants;
Micro-livestock wastes can be used to
enrich soil; Can process wastes.
Economic Small capital investment involved. May negatively impact adjacent land values
unless properly designed and managed.
Other Unusual approach – may distinguish SEFC
as unique community
Implementation
While we acknowledge the benefits of livestock and see that this might be appropriate in some urban areas,
we do not recommend the keeping of any large or medium size livestock at SEFC because of the type of
community. We do, however, recommend that the existing public health bylaw that prevents the keeping of
bees be reviewed because bees provide a valuable pollination function without which many plants may not
successfully develop.
Worms are of course a vital part of the soil and should be used in composting bins to create fertile compost.
They can also be raised as food for aquaculture operations.

The Heifer Project
95
7.0 Food Processing Options

Food processing turns raw food commodities into value-added, products. Various stages of processing can be
identified:
• First Stage Processing – single ingredient preserves such as canned tomatoes, pickled cucumbers
etc.
• Second Stage Processing – sauces, soups, dips
• Advanced Processing – entrees, breads for retail or food service industry.
As with food production, processing can be done at several scales ranging from in home for personal
consumption or sale at a farmers market, at a community scale in a community kitchen and often practised by
NGOs, or at a commercial scale. The following options explore various approaches to food processing and
value-added production that might reasonably occur at SEFC.
Food Processing Options discussed here include:
• Commercial Food Processing Facility

• Food Training Facility (incubator)
• Eco-industrial Food Complex
96
7.1 Option P1 – Commercial Food Processing Facility
Description
A commercial processing facility is a large kitchen outfitted with commercial grade exhaust fans, stainless
steel sinks and tables, grease traps and an industrial dishwasher. Health regulations stipulate that all
processed foods that are sold to the public must be processed in an approved commercial facility.
While shared commercial kitchens exist in other Canadian cities, we are not aware of a shared commercial
kitchen in Vancouver. However, a 1000 square foot commercial kitchen (for dedicated use by one tenant)
recently began production on Bowen Island. This facility has allocated half of the space for cooking space
and the other half for packaging and office area.
A variety of processing options are available to sustainable community scale processors. The primary
options include:
❒ Canning or bottling. This option offers good opportunities for small scale processors because of the
long shelf life although there are some significant limitations (e.g. health regulations). Canned or
bottled items commonly include spreads, jams, condiments, canned fruits and vegetables, and sauces.
❒ Making mixes. Dry mixes, such as seasoning packages, soup mixes, falafel mixes and so on, are
good options in this category and generally can be processed at a low cost.
❒ "Fresh" processing. This category includes lightly processed foods that are sold in a fresh, ready-to-
eat or ready-to-cook form such as bakery items, prepared salads, packaged greens, fresh pasta and
pasta sauces, sandwiches, burritos, and barbecued chickens. Lightly processed fresh vegetables and
fruits that have been washed, peeled, and/or sliced would also be considered fresh processed
❒ Baking. Baking of fresh breads and buns for local community distribution is economically viable and
well developed at a community scale. This is essentially a type of "fresh" processing.
❒ Smoking and dehydrating. This option offers community scale opportunities (e.g. fruit leather,
bacon), but only for a narrow product range.

Two types of commercial processing facilities could be developed. The first is a commercial kitchen for
small food processors or caterers that have small production runs. The second is for a row of advanced
processor commercial units to house processors that are processing year-round on a larger scale. Each
type and size of space required is discussed below.
1) Commercial kitchen – A commercial kitchen could be developed that is about 4000 square feet
(modelled after the successful commercial kitchen in Toronto – see case study). About half the area
could be devoted to processing/cooking while the other area could be for food break down and
packaging. It would be ideal to attract a catering firm that would be the primary tenant until a sufficient
number of smaller processors could be attracted. It may also be beneficial to have a retail storefront
associated with the kitchen (or at least nearby) to sell the processed foods.
97
2) Advanced processor rental units – More advanced processors will need dedicated processing
facilities. To accommodate them, five to ten 1,000 square foot processing-ready rental units could be
developed with removable concrete block walls between each unit that could be taken down to make
larger facilities. All the units would be equipped with exhaust ports, grease traps and plumbing for
industrial dishwashing equipment. These units could be used by small coffee shops, if there isn’t
sufficient demand from processors.
Any commercial-zoned space would be appropriate for this option.
How much rent could be generated?

Based on the Field to Table commercial kitchen (Foodshare), tenants would pay about $25 to $50 per hour
to use the facility. Revenues of about $70,000 per year would likely be needed for the kitchen to break
even on its costs. To generate these kinds of revenues, the facility would need to generate 1500 to 3000
billable hours of rental time. It should be possible to achieve this level of utilization with 2 years given that
more than one processor could use the facility at the same time and the facility could be used on weekends
and evenings. Based on the above utilization, the rent per square foot would be about $18. Commercial
rates in the vicinity of SEFC are about $12/square foot (including triple net). The extra $6/square foot
would defray most or all of the costs of having a coordinator.
The advanced processing-ready rental units could conceivable pay $12/square foot without any subsidy but
probably not much more. The Bowen Island facility expects to generate food revenues of about $250,000
per year from their 1000 square foot facility.
Challenges
The challenge would be to find enough tenants who would pay $25 to $50 per hour for enough hours to
cover the costs of running the commercial kitchen. As in Toronto, it may be possible for the City or another
government agency to subsidize the kitchen until it reaches good capacity.
Another challenge is that processors can process foods in a way that is cost competitive for the processor
and still price competitive for the consumer so long as the volumes are small. However, as soon as the
volume increases to the point where the processor has to hire staff and purchase expensive equipment it is
no longer economic until the processor reaches a much larger volume. Processors should be made aware
of this profitability loss phenomenon at medium processing volumes.
A commercial kitchen coordinator will likely need to be hired to manage the processors and maximize the
use of the space. This position may need to be subsidized in the beginning.
Evaluation
Social Shared commercial kitchens can be used as If the facility is not properly managed
training facilities and therefore take on the role there is a risk of foul odours from
of a training facility/incubator for new rotting food, and possible rodent
processors who need help with business problems.
planning, food processing techniques and
98
meeting health regulations (see Food

Incubators in the next section).
The availability of a commercial kitchen

provides an opportunity for those involved in
food production at SEFC to process their crop
into a higher-value product.
Environmental To the extent that the processors use culls Food processing may involve the use
(crop discards) from the food production of large amounts of potable water for
activities, they can provide a waste reduction washing produce and cleaning
benefit. Also, the fact that the food producers surfaces. This may, therefore, increase
can process their crops on site, instead of the water consumption in the
having to ship them to a far away processor, community.
they save on transportation-related fuel
impacts.
Economic Many small food processors do not have If the City decides to support and
sufficient processing volume to justify renting a invest in such an initiative, there will be
commercial kitchen for their exclusive use. a cost of doing so. The City of Toronto
However, by renting a shared commercial supports a shared commercial kitchen
kitchen on an hourly, daily or weekly rental to the tune of $70,000 per year.
basis, they can do their processing at a much Finding tenants to pay high enough
more affordable cost. rents.
A key characteristic common to community

level food processing activities is "income
patching," where the processing activity is one
of several sources of income rather than the
processor's sole source of support. These types
of processing activities are generally a part time
activity; involve hand crafted, home made
quality products; and take place either on-farm,
in borrowed approved kitchens, such as
schools or churches, or possibly in community
food kitchens. These activities generally have
very low overhead and fixed costs, thereby
maximizing net cash returns to the
farmer/processor. The total income is limited,
however, by low volume output and small
markets. For example, researchers have
shown that two people working for three days
making apple sauce from 36 cases of apples,
can earn the equivalent of 45 days of wages as
a retail store clerk (Integrity systems
Cooperative Co.,1997).
Other If the commercial kitchen is not successful, the
space can easily be allocated to another
99
commercial tenant.
This option is highly transferable to other
communities in Vancouver and beyond.
Implementation
We recommend that both types of processing facilities be encouraged in buildings that are zoned
commercial or mixed residential/commercial at SEFC.
As much as possible, both types of processing facilities should be designed with maximum flexibility, both
in terms of expanding or shrinking the floor space as well as in terms of the types of processing equipment
installed. In general, very little specialized equipment should be installed.
A 500 to 1000 square foot walk in cooler and a 100 to 200 square foot walk in freezer will need to be
constructed within or adjacent to the food incubator area. Energy costs will be greatly reduced if many
different tenants use the same cooler (although this creates potential problems of food theft). It may be
desirable to allow sufficient space for a small 500 square foot retail outlet for on-site sales.
The following implementation tools could be used by the City to foster the creation of a commercial kitchen.

• Can be located in any commercial zone or as part of a public building.
Zoning
• Residential buildings could be zoned to allow commercial activities on the ground floor.
• City owned buildings could also be zoned for commercial use. This would expand the range of
possible locations for a commercial kitchen.
Design
• Include vents for fume hoods, proper plumbing and drainage, and 220-volt power supply or natural
gas lines for stoves.
City investment
• The city could subsidize the costs of the kitchen until it was able to generate sufficient revenues to
cover full commercial rental rates as well as the cost of a coordinator. It is possible that eventually
a commercial kitchen could be viable without any City support.
• On a larger scale, the city could invest in a multi-faceted food system resource centre which would
house the administration offices of The Good Food Box, US Moms, the Farmers Market, Farm Folk
City Folk, Community Kitchens, and so on. The commercial kitchen would just be one facet of this
resource centre.
Programming
• The city could market the commercial kitchen to ensure that it is widely used by SEFC residents
and other food processors.
100

Field to Table Commercial kitchen in Toronto
101
7.2 Option P2 – Food Training Facility (Incubator)

Description
A food incubator is a training facility where food growers, processors and retailers can get technical or
management assistance to improve their business success. Incubators also help growers and processors
join together to form marketing cooperatives or to share in the cost of purchasing supplies and equipment.

Food training facilities typically need access to a commercial kitchen or a high school kitchen with a full
range of cooking facilities and equipment. It would be quite feasible (and probably desirable) to use the
commercial kitchen described in the previous option. A minimum of 1000 square feet of commercial-zoned
space would be required. The packaging area of the commercial kitchen could be converted into a lecture
space when food packaging is not occurring.
What kind of fees could be generated?

It would be difficult to generate sufficient fees to fully cover the costs of the facility because growers or
processors who are just starting out don’t have sufficient financial resources to pay for training at full rates
even though this is when they need it most. However, after a couple of years, once the facility has become
better established, it should be possible to cover the costs of one full time training coordinator and fees for
a limited number of specialists.
A range of programs could be offered to various audiences with the following potential revenues (assuming
the programs were offered at 30% below market pricing):
Type of Service Audience Total Revenue

Counselling on how to set up a Entrepreneurs 60/year at $500/entrepreneur =
commercial processing business $30,000
Administration support (e.g. book- Entrepreneurs 10/year at $2,000/entrepreneur =
keeping, financial advice, payroll $20,000
administration, etc.)
Training and education (e.g. food Entrepreneurs and students 100/year at $100/student =
safe certification) $10,000
Cooking/food education classes Residents 500/year at $20/resident =
$10,000
Challenges
The primary challenge will be to find initial funding to launch the facility. If structured properly, it should be
possible for the facility to cover its costs in the long term, once significant quantities of foods are being
grown and processed. The City of Toronto Economic Development Commission funds the Food Share
incubator kitchen $70,000 per year as a job creation strategy.
102
Evaluation
Social Given that one of the objectives of urban None
agriculture is to involve as many people as
possible in growing, processing and distribution
of food, it is important that they have easy
access to training and information about food
processing. A food incubator can provide the
following types of assistance:
• Technical training on how to grow,

process, and distribute various kinds of
foods.
• Help in certifying growers and
processors to meet health regulations
and/or organic standards
• Technical training to certify organic
processing and production inspectors.
• Business management advice,
including potential sharing of
accounting/administration costs.
• Financing support, including debt
and/or equity financing
• Educating consumers to stimulate
demand for locally grown/processed
foods.
An incubator provides an excellent opportunity

to foster interaction and cooperation among the
individuals that are participating in all levels of
the food systems (production, processing,
distribution and consumption).
Environmental The availability of an on-site education/training None
facility means that food processors will not have
to travel to other locations to be trained, which
will potentially reduce transportation-related
environmental impacts.
Economic If the incubator is run out of the commercial Cots of initial investment and on-going
kitchen, the costs for the use of the space financial support (perhaps $70,000).
should be significantly below market rates.
Furthermore, the ability to offer group training to
on-site growers and processors should reduce
overall training costs. Finally, the incubator is a
103
direct job creation initiative, which should boost

the local economy.
Other This option may be a good model for other
parts of the City and is highly transferable to
other communities in Vancouver and beyond.
Implementation
We recommend that a food training facility be established on the site in conjunction with the commercial
kitchen discussed in the previous option.
The most successful implementation model would likely be to partner with an educational institution (e.g.
BCIT) and to charge the participants a small membership fee and a percentage of their revenues. A
percentage of the hourly rental charge for processors could also go to cover the costs of the facility.
Growers and processors should be encouraged to share their experience and learning so that over time a
bank of knowledge is built up for new growers and processors.
The ways in which the city could support a food incubator on the site include the following:
Zoning
• The city should ensure that the zoning allows for educational/training activities within a space that
is zoned for commercial use.
• Residential buildings and public buildings could be zoned to allow this activity on their premises.
Design
• Facility requires appropriate ventilation, plumbing, power supply, and convenient public access.
• Commercial spaces often restrict high-density public access.
City investment
• The city could subsidize the costs of the facility until it was able to generate sufficient revenues to
cover its costs. A grant of $100,000 spread over 3 years ($50,000 first year, $30,000 second year,
$20,000 third year) would likely be sufficient.
Programming
• The city could provide information to SEFC residents about the incubator to increase participation.
Education
• This is primarily an educational initiative.

None included
104
7.3 Option P3 – Eco-industrial Complex for Food Processing
Description
An eco-industrial complex (EIC) is a multi-tenant building in which a number of symbiotic enterprises are
situated together such that the wastes and outputs of some enterprises can be used as inputs to other
enterprises. It is formally defined as:
“… a community of manufacturing and service businesses seeking enhanced environmental and

economic performance through collaboration in managing environmental and resource issues
including energy, water, and materials…. The goal is to improve the economic performance of the
participating companies while minimizing their environmental impact. Components of this
approach include new or retrofitted design of park infrastructure and plants; pollution prevention;
energy efficiency; and inter-company partnering." (Lowe,1997)
At a simple level, food wastes from food processing or food-retailing operations could be used as fertilizer
for food production activities. At an advanced level, aquatic tanks have been used to convert food waste
into high-nutrient feedstock for fish production and nutrients for hydroponic vegetable crops. The tanks are
arranged in a series to create a biologically diverse ecosystem.
Benefits
The main benefit of an EIC is the ability to manage wastes in an ecologically sound manner while
increasing profitability of the businesses involved. An EIC is a novel approach to food and waste
management and, as such, would represent n interesting research and education opportunity for the City.
Including such a system at SEFC would demonstrate a willingness to experiment with new approaches to
sustainability.

Full scale eco-industrial parks are typically 100 to 200 acres in size (Lowe, 1997) however, it is possible to
exhibit some aspects of waste recovery at many different scales. A demonstration of a nutrient recycling
aquatic tank system would require as little as 4000 square feet, which could be situated along a semi-
enclosed right of way because it is essentially a series of tanks. Such a facility could treat 6,000 to 10,000
gallons of sewage or food production waste each day. Food production facilities that have built this kind of
system include:
• Cedar Grove Cheese Company (Wisconsin)

• Kal Kan Pet Food (California)
• Ethel Chocolates (Nevada)
• Mars Inc. (Brazil)
• EFFEM Productos Alimenticios (Brazil)
• Master Foods (Australia)21
21
Source: www.livingmachines.com
105
What kind of money could be saved or generated?

The amount of money that could be generated is largely dependent on the size and nature of the eco-
industrial complex. If an advanced complex is selected, there could be significant tourism revenues
because many people will want to visit the complex. This is the case with the Village of Bear River Nova
Scotia that uses a greenhouse-based living machine to treat local sewage. The greenhouse has become a
tourist attraction in its own right.
Challenges
Implementing an eco-industrial park requires a high degree of knowledge to develop. Even with this
knowledge, a significant amount of research would have to be conducted to identify optimal tenants to co-
locate on the site.
Consultants will need to be hired to develop and implement the system. It may be difficult to convince a
developer that this type of complex is feasible in a high-density development such as SEFC.
Evaluation
Social An innovative waste recovery and food Risk of odours if improperly
production system such as the one described designed/managed.
above has the potential to significantly increase
awareness about wastewater and recycling. A
demonstration project will provide excellent
opportunities to be a “living classroom” in which
visitors and students can learn about the
environment, agriculture and sustainable
technologies.
Environmental Significant quantities of wastes are diverted Risk of incomplete treatment due to
from landfill (thereby reducing waste novel technology.
management costs) and used as a feedstock in
other processes (thereby reducing raw material
costs and overall environmental impact).
Transfer of energy is another significant benefit.
Economic An eco-industrial complex has the potential to Option requires public investment as a
save participating companies money and to demonstration project. Costs are not
provide economic development opportunities known Requires a cost feasibility
for Vancouver if it attracts companies and study.
visitors to Vancouver to view (and potentially May require different businesses to
purchase) the technologies used in the rely on each other.
complex.
Other Innovative project – furthers sustainability
research knowledge.
106
Implementation
Because very little of SEFC is zoned industrial, it is not feasible to attempt a full-scale eco-industrial
complex (this might be more appropriate at False Creek Flats). However, we recommend that a
demonstration project be implemented to demonstrate the concept of Eco-Industrial Networking, which
might be transferable to other parts of the City.
In particular, we recommend that a functioning Living Machine be established that is modelled after the
Riverside Eco-Park being developed in Burlington, Vermont (see case study Appendix B). We also
recommend that all food wastes (excess food) generated on the site be divided into two groups: those that
are still fit for human consumption, and those that can be used for composting. Finally, we recommend that
attempts be made to recover waste heat from one operation and used by another operation (commercial
food-processing operations typically generate significant amounts of waste heat from the heating and
cooling equipment.
The City of Vancouver could support this option in the following ways.
Land use and site layout
• Allocate a small parcel of public land (say 4000 square feet) where a functioning living machine
could be built and demonstrated. It could even be incorporated into a park-style space in which the
tanks are set in the ground like Koi ponds in a Japanese garden with benches and greenery
around.
• Another small parcel of land could be allocated for composting activities, although ideally it would
be best to have composters at each food production site.
Zoning
• A special zoning may have to be developed to accommodate the construction of a living machine.
Regulatory Reform
• Changes will likely need to be requested as a living machine contravenes the existing building
code and health bylaw for sewage treatment. In all areas, design guidelines should be amended
to provide a minimum area for recycling and composting.
City investment
• The City will need to pay for the construction of a living machine but should not have to pay any
more than it would pay for a conventional wastewater treatment option. In fact, it is likely that the
city’s wastewater treatment costs will be reduced by this option. Similarly, providing strong
encouragement for composting will reduce waste disposal costs as organic matter makes up 30%
of the waste stream by volume.
Programming and education

• The City could do a full-scale education campaign around living machines. It may even be
possible to generate tourism revenues as many people will want to see how the system operates.
The City should also do education programs on the benefits of recycling and composting.

107
Riverside Eco-Park in Burlington, Vermont

Also see aquaculture and bioponics option.
108
8.0 Food Distribution Options

Possible food distribution and retailing opportunities discussed in this section include:
• Farmers markets – permanent, occasional

• Direct Home Delivery (private, non-profit)
• Grocery stores
• Food buying clubs and Community Shared Agriculture (CSA)
• Emergency Food Services
109
8.1 Option D1 – Farmers Market
Description
Farmers markets are typically held on one day of the week during the harvest season. They are almost all
operated on a co-operative basis, whereby the growers pay a small rental fee to have a market stall where
they can sell their products. The markets typically exclude organizations that are not growers or direct
processors of locally grown products.
There are 12 farmers markets in the lower mainland. In Vancouver, there are two farmers markets, the
West End farmers market and East Vancouver farmers market. The East Vancouver farmers market is
much more well established and generates about $800,000 in revenues per year ($50,000 per day).
Broadly defined, some areas of the Granville Island public market could also be considered farmers
markets, although they operate seven days per week year round and sell much more than crops.
According to a USDA National Farmers Market Survey, about 80% of farmers markets in the United States
are financially self-sufficient.
Type and size of space required

There are two possible approaches for farmers markets at SEFC: 1) conduct a farmers market once per
week during the harvest season, or 2) conduct a farmers market seven days per week year round. Both
approaches are briefly discussed below.
1) Farmers market one day per week during harvest season – An area of 4000 to 8000square feet (1
to 2 times the size of the East Vancouver farmers market) would be needed each week at a nominal
cost, so that vendors could set up 10 foot by 10 foot stalls on Saturdays from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM from
July to October. The market could be conducted in an open area but preferably it would be a covered
space so that weather was not a factor. The most ideal space would be a ground floor space in which
the outer walls were barn-style doors that could be opened for easy access by farm vehicles.
2) Farmers market held every day year round – Modelled after the highly successful Granville Island
Public Market or London (Ontario) new Covent Garden Market, a farmers market could be established
in an indoor market area (possibly the existing heritage building). As at Granville Island where there
are 50 permanent vendors, many different vendors could establish permanent stalls. Ideally, this
market would differentiate itself from the Granville Island market by promoting foods that are: organic;
heritage varieties; unusual (e.g. lemon cucumbers), fairly traded, and so on. Covent Garden Market
also features an outdoor public plaza where an outdoor farmer’s market is held twice a week as well as
outdoor recreational events such as hockey and ice-skating in the winter months.
How much food could be purchased?

One day a week market
Under the first approach above, perhaps about 5% of the households (about 250) would go to the market,
making an average purchase of about $20 ($5,000 total for the day). Assuming that the East Vancouver
110
farmers market and the west end farmers market were moved to this location, they would generate about
$10,000 per day in revenues. Annually this would work out to about $1 million revenues per year ($1.5
million if the market was open both weekend days).
Permanent market
The second approach would generate much higher revenues, both from SEFC residents and from
outsiders. Given that a typical retail store generates $800 per square foot, a public market with a much
more limited selection and less space efficient layout would likely generate half that amount per square
foot. Therefore, an 8,000 square foot market would generate $4 million per year. It is reasonable to
assume that about 25% of the SEFC households would shop at the market each week and make an
average $25 purchase. This would generate revenues of $2 million.
Challenges
One day a week market
The biggest challenge is that the market could not pay anything close to commercial rates for the space.
Further, it may be difficult to find an appropriate site that will not compete with other site uses. The best
way to overcome these challenges is to locate the market in a multi-use facility that is used for fairs,
festivals, concerts, and other gatherings during the times when the market is not open.
If the market is held outdoors, there may be some challenges due to a lack of on-site refrigeration and a
lack of power supply (although these problems have been overcome with portable generators and
refrigeration units at the existing farmers markets).
Another challenge currently faced by the existing farmers markets is that they have no long term tenure on
the space they use. This could be overcome by providing a five-year commitment to the market so that
farmers have guaranteed space.
Finally, if SEFC residents are allowed to sell their products at the market, care must be taken to ensure that
they do not severely undercut the prices of the farmers, for whom the market is a primary source of income.
Permanent market
A permanent market might become so popular that traffic problems might arise (as is currently experienced
by Granville Island). The permanent market may also need to have subsidized rents.
A permanent market may compete (actual or perceived) with Granville Island Market for business. Care
should be taken to distinguish the two markets so they are not competing for customers.
Evaluation
Social A permanent home for the farmers market None
would provide a significant degree of
security for the farmers who participate in
the market.
SEFC residents would gain easy access to
111
very locally produced food and be able to
develop direct relationships with the people
who are growing them. Farmers markets
have a certain social cachet and tend to
draw people to them just for the
experience. Farmers markets also play an
educational role and often feature displays
of information related to food and farming.
A permanent farmers market could also be
the keystone for a series of community food
celebrations throughout the year.
Environmental Most of the farmers who attend the farmers None.
market sell organic food, which has distinct
environmental benefits. Further, because
the food is produced locally (some of it on-
site) and sold locally, the transportation-
related environmental impacts of shipping
the product to market are reduced as is the
need for residents to travel off-site.
Economic A farmers market provides a venue for food Cost to City of providing an open space
producers or processors to sell their (for temporary farmers market) or indoor
products at retail prices instead of selling space for permanent farmers market.
wholesale to a retail store. Gross returns
from farmers’ market sales are typically May compete directly with Granville Island
200% to 250% higher than from wholesale Public Market for customers.
fresh market sales (Integrity Systems
Cooperative Co., 1997). Because most
farmers markets use a vacant parking lot or
other unused space, the space rental costs
are typically very low. As such, farmers
markets significantly improve the economic
viability of small scale growers/processors.
Non-commercial/semi-commercial growers
could supplement their income (income
patching) by selling small amounts of food
on a periodic basis. This opportunity in itself
would provide an incentive for
backyard/balcony/rooftop gardeners to
grow food at SEFC.
112
Implementation
We recommend that a weekend farmers market be established in a ground floor indoor (or outdoor)
multipurpose space with easy loading and unloading access. We further recommend that an adjacent or
separate space be allocated for a number of permanent market stalls, some of which could be used by the
onsite processors and/or growers. Provided that care was taken to attract tenants that sold locally sourced
(including on-site), environmentally friendly and fairly traded products, the market could make a significant
contribution to the sustainability of the site. This approach, and a focus on heritage or other
unusual/specialty food varieties could also be used to distinguish this market from the Granville Island
Market. In addition, we recommend that parking be very restricted so that this market attracts either local
residents or transit users only. For this reason, the market should be located as close to the SkyTrain
station as possible, perhaps with a shuttle service offered.
For the on-site growers/processors, it will likely be desirable to establish a cooperative that would market
the products grown and processed on-site at the market. The growers and processors could pay for the
cooperative. The cooperative would provide a number of valuable services to the growers/processors,
including:
• Ensuring consistent quality

• Coordinating demand so that the right amount of product is available at the market.
• Assisting with proper merchandising techniques.
Farmers market vendors either pay a flat daily rate for the use of a 10’ by 10’ stall (this is the way it is done
in Vancouver) or a percentage of revenues (the average is 6%). Nina Planck, a farm market organizer in
UK and the USA, suggests these seven principles for success22:
1. Flat space, farmers on the periphery and customers in the centre,

2. Parking nearby,
3. Electrical outlets,
4. Good signage [permanent and daily],
5. Benches for seating,
6. Running water, cleanliness of all, and
7. Secure lock-up
Farmers markets launched and managed in partnership with schools, churches, sports clubs, bureaucratic
office complexes, and hospitals have had considerable success. The League of Women Voters and others
have found that by-and-large food shoppers are happy to pay 10% more at a farmers market. Considering
a new community the market might well consider generating its own label and holding classes in cooking,
nutrition, flower-arranging and the like.
Ways in which the City could foster a farmers market include:
Zoning
• Provide for a multipurpose space as part of the zoning which would allow for festivals, food fairs,
craft fairs, as well as a farmers market.
22
Nina Planck planckn@earthlink.net
113
Design guidelines
• Create design guidelines that would foster a ground floor space that could be opened up with barn-
style doors. If the market is to be outside, build special features in to the guidelines that would
allow for running water, electrical outlets, secure lock-up and so on.
City Investment
• The city should invest in this option by providing sufficient space to house a farmers market at a
very nominal rent.
Programming
• The City could help to promote the market by including it as a formal part of the City run activities
on the site.
Case Studies & Precedents

East Vancouver Farmers Market
Covent Garden Market, London, ON
114
8.2 Option D2 – Direct Home Delivery
Description
Direct home delivery involves delivering food to residential homes (or apartments) that has been ordered by
phone or on-line. Food home delivery firms can be either non-profit or for profit. The non-profit
organisations are typically Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) operations, in which the customer pays a
set fee per month to receive a weekly basket of seasonally available produce from one or a few local farms.
For-profit operations typically give the customer a much wider range of products that may or may not be
sourced locally.
The estimated number of direct home delivery organisations in Vancouver is shown below:
Type of organisation Number of Households served each

firms week
Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) 3 to 5 Less than 500
Direct home delivery of conventional groceries 5 to 7 About 3000
Direct home delivery of organic produce and whole 6 to 8 About 4000
foods
Source: Proprietary market research data from Small Potatoes Urban Delivery Inc.
The primary reasons that people get their groceries delivered is so that they can avoid the time, expense,
hassle, and pollution of making a shopping trip (typically using a car).
Benefits
Home delivery of food reduces the need for residents to make grocery shopping trips. In addition, many of
the companies and organizations involved have an ethical angle to their purchasing, often based on
organic/fair trade food, and the support of local farmers.

There are two approaches for direct home delivery: 1) establish an on-site home delivery firm, or 2) foster
the use of existing home delivery firms that foster local purchases. Both approaches are briefly discussed
below.
1) Establish an existing home delivery firm to serve residents of SEFC – While home delivery is
rapidly becoming more popular, probably only 5% of households would subscribe to such a service.
This would create a market of only 250 households, which would only create employment for 3 people
working out of a 1000 square foot commercial space.
2) Encourage the use of existing delivery firms – Residents could be made aware of and encouraged
to use existing direct home delivery firms that try to buy from local suppliers wherever possible. Such
firms could improve the viability of SEFC food producers buy adding their products to their product
catalogues. No space would be required for this direct home delivery approach.
115

It would be reasonable to assume that up to 5% of households would use the service and would spend an
average of $70 per week. This would add up to $1 million in purchases per year.
In another five years, once home delivery becomes more popular and such firms offer more products, it
should be feasible to see SEFC residents purchasing over $2 million in home delivery groceries and other
products.
Challenges
The viability of a direct home delivery operation established on site would depend heavily on the range of
products offered and the quality of the service provided. Over the past five years, almost half of the direct
home delivery services have gone bankrupt or been bought by competitors, indicating that it is an
economically challenging business at low volumes. The business could not support commercial lease rates
exceeding $7 per square foot (including triple net). This is probably well below the market rate for
commercial space at this site.
There would be no challenges in using existing direct home delivery services to serve SEFC residents.
On the supply side, it may be challenging for a direct home delivery firm to buy from SEFC growers or
processors if they cannot provide sufficient quantities of the product at a consistent quality and on an
agreeable production schedule.
Evaluation
Social 75% percent of North Americans indicate Less social interaction while shopping
that they do not like grocery shopping. By
having their groceries delivered (often at
no extra cost than what they would pay at
their local store), they have more free time
to spend with their friends and loved ones,
or engaging in life pursuits that are more
fulfilling than grocery shopping.
Environmental A typical grocery delivery vehicle can None
make 80 deliveries on a single route,
which reduces traffic congestions and
transportation-related pollution from the 80
cars that aren’t driven to the grocery store
and back. One delivery company even
does some of its deliveries by bicycle,
further reducing environmental impacts.
Further, depending on the delivery service
used, consumers can buy much more
locally than they would at an average
grocery store. For example, an average
116
grocery store item travels 2500 kilometres
from where it is produced to where it is
sold. By comparison, an average item
sold by the largest home delivery firm
(Small Potatoes Urban Delivery) travels
only 750 kilometres.
Economic Direct home delivery is economically viable Decreased viability of commercial retail
in Vancouver (in most cases, the areas.
consumer does not pay any more to have Competition with other food outlets.
their groceries home delivered than to buy
the same items at the store).
Other Direct Home Delivery Companies often None
combine educational leaflets with the
delivery helping to educate consumers
about organic food and farming.
Direct home delivery firms have the added

benefit of being able to better channel their
purchases and therefore could facilitate
selling the products grown or processed at
SEFC to SEFC residents.
Implementation
There is not sufficient justification to establish an on-site direct home delivery firm. Therefore, we
recommend that residents be made aware of, and encouraged to use an existing direct home delivery
service. The only way in which the city would need to foster this food option would be through
programming and education.
Programming and education

If it is within the jurisdiction of the City to require a developer to establish an intranet site for SEFC
residents, they should do so. Otherwise, the City should strongly encourage it as it will have many other
benefits. If an intranet site was developed for SEFC residents, it could easily be used to promote this type
of service. Based on the current practices of home delivery firms, such firms would likely offer $25 off the
first order to all SEFC residents that tried the service. A number of them would also give each SEFC
resident a $10 to $25 rebate off future grocery orders for referring another SEFC resident who
subsequently tries the service.
One other way that the city could help would be to mandate that property owners provide access to home
delivery firms who are making deliveries. Delivery firms would be granted access into the building so that
they could drop the delivery off at the doorsteps of their customers.
117

Small Potatoes Urban Delivery (SPUDS)
118
8.3 Option D3 – Food Buying Clubs
Description
Food buying clubs involve a group of consumers coming together and pooling their food purchases to
generate large enough orders to deal directly with food distributors or even growers. These are typically
informal arrangements as opposed to larger consumer food cooperatives. While the majority of the items
purchased are generally bulk or process foods with a long shelf life, fresh fruits and vegetables can also be
included.
The growers or distributors typically drop off the groceries in case lot amounts at a single location. The
club then relies on the volunteer efforts of its members to divide up the food to the participants.
A food buying club could easily be established at SEFC as there are few barriers and no regulatory
impediments to operating a food buying club. It is particularly appropriate for the low-income residents who
may have more time availability but less financial resources.
There are three major distributors who are involved in supplying buying clubs with wholesome groceries:
• Horizon Distributors (primarily bulk and packaged foods with a long shelf life)
• Wild West Organic Harvest (a mix of produce and grocery items)
• ProOrganics Marketing Inc. (primarily produce)
Benefits
Food buying clubs allow consumers purchase food in bulk which results in cost savings. Purchasers can
also pool their buying power to support local farms and farmers or suppliers with an ethical dimension.
There are also social interactions and relationships that develop between participants. In addition, the
amount of food transportation is reduced because food is transported more directly to the customer.

Technically speaking, a buyer’s club could be operated out of one resident’s living space. Practically
speaking, however, it would be desirable to have a 500 to 1000 square foot space where the cases of food
could be dropped off and then divided up among the participants.

Assuming that 50 households (1% of households) made an average purchase of $100 through the buying
club once a month, the total annual purchase through the buying club would be $60,000.
Challenges
The success of food buying clubs depends greatly on the willingness and availability of the members to do
their fair share of work in dividing up the food when it arrives. There is also a fair amount of work and
coordination to receive all the orders from the participants and then submit an order to the food distributor
119
or grower. Many food buying clubs fail because the participants find that the work involved (especially
when some of the participants don’t pull their weight) is not worth the savings.
Evaluation
Social A key benefit of food buying clubs is the Required dedication of time and organizing
social interactions and enhanced effort on part of participants.
community relationships that are
developed.
Environmental By buying directly from a distributor, the None
environmental impacts of transporting the
food from the distributor to the retailer and
then from the retailer to the consumer are
greatly reduced.
Economic Food buying club participants typically Competition with retail outlets
save about 15 to 25% on the price of the
groceries they purchase.
Implementation
We recommend that the residents be made aware of local food distributors that are willing to serve buying
clubs. If an incubator commercial kitchen was established, it may be appropriate to use this facility to drop
of the groceries and subsequently to divide up the groceries.
Implementation strategies that could be used by the city to support this option include:
Design
It is desirable to have a suitable location where the growers/distributors can drop off their products and
where the buying club participants can divide up the bulk order into individual buying club member
allotments. The City could stipulate that such a space be included in the main residential buildings.
Programming
The City could educate the residents about buying clubs and specific food distributors that serve buying
clubs. The intranet would be useful for this purpose.

None included.
120
8.4 Option D4 – Grocery store
Description
From a size and management perspective, there are four major types of grocery store: an independent
grocery store, a grocery coop, a chain grocery store and a superstore. From a product standpoint, there
are two types: a conventional grocery store and a natural foods store.
Benefits
Most residents of Vancouver purchase food at a grocery store. If a grocery store is not available locally,
food access for residents can be difficult, time-consuming and costly especially for low-income people.
Locating a grocery store in the neighbourhood means that many people may choose not to drive to collect
groceries.
Type and size of Space Required

Because there are no grocery stores adjacent to the site, there would need to be a moderate sized grocery
store to meet the needs of the SEFC residents and those living near the site. A moderate sized grocery
store is typically about 24,000 square feet.

A typical grocery store generates $600 to $800 per square foot. A 24,000 square foot store could therefore
generate annual revenues of $15 to $20 million.
Challenges
The primary drawback of a grocery store is that the purchasing decisions are often made a distant location
and tend to favour large supply sources that are easier to manage. For example, most of the purchasing
decisions for Safeway Canada are made in California, making it difficult for a local store to promote local
produce. Further, if the head office is located elsewhere, the profits don’t stay in the local community.
Even for an independent grocery store, SEFC growers and processors depend on the willingness of the
purchasing manager to sell their product. This problem is reduced with coops because the growers and
processors can join the coop and then have more of a voice over what products are carried.
A grocery store has the potential to bring in a significant number of shoppers, most of whom will require
parking space for their cars.
Grocery store will also compete with other small-scale suppliers of food and any farmers/public market.
Evaluation
121
Social The primary benefit of a grocery store is Reduces viability of smaller stores, small –
that it typically offers the full range of scale growers and micro-processors.
groceries under one roof. This permits Lacking in cultural vitality.
one-stop shopping as opposed to going to
a different store for each category of food.
Environmental Efficiencies of scale may mean reduced Compared with farmers markets and
energy and material consumption but Granville Island style markets,
depends on company policies. conventional grocery stores typically have
a negative environmental impact because
One stop shopping may limit number of car many of their products are shipped huge
trips. distances to reach their location.
Large requirement for parking area.
Economic Grocery stores have large economies of Concentrates ownership
scale and can out-compete smaller market Profits is not re-circulated in local
outlets on certain types of products community. Lost potential for income
multiplication.
Implementation
We recommend that the city encourage the development of a grocery store that would be of sufficient size
to serve the residents of SEFC and the adjoining areas. The store should be situated adjacent to a
Granville Island style multi-tenant market that would offer local foods.
From a sustainability perspective we favour an independent grocery store such as a grocery co-op that
emphasizes local and organic food options. Ways in which the city could support this food option, include:
Land Use/Site Layout

Suitably large area for commercial purposes located near to transit.
Zoning
A sufficiently large commercial area would have to be zoned to accommodate a grocery store.
Design
The design guidelines will need to take into consideration things like public access and parking for both
SEFC resident shoppers as well as outside shoppers. By maximizing alternative transportation options,
such as the tram from Granville Island or even a park and ride, many of the negative impacts of a large
grocery store could be reduced.
Dock level loading and space for recycling/composting are examples of other design guideline
considerations.
Partnership
It may be possible to negotiate agreements whereby the grocery store sells locally processed items.
122

None included
123
8.5 Option D5 – Emergency Food Services
Description
Emergency Food Services include Food Banks, Soup Kitchens and other types of food services to assist
people who cannot afford to buy enough healthy food to meet their needs. The most likely foods that would
be donated would be excess food generated and donated by growers, processors and food retailers on the
site. There are two levels of emergency food services that could be provided at SEFC:
Food collection: This involves allocating space to collect foods that are good enough for human
consumption but not good enough to be sold in a retail environment. Since the majority of these items will
be perishable, they will need to be stored in a cooler or multiple coolers until they can be collected.
Food preparation and distribution: This involves allocating space to cook the collected foods and
dispense them in a semi or fully-prepared form to those in need.
Benefits
Emergency food and meal services address social sustainability issues. They provide an essential service
for low-income residents and the homeless. In addition, they are also a way of using excess (good quality)
food that might otherwise go to waste.

Collection: If 3% of the floor space in each on-site cooler were allocated for the collection and storage of
foods allocated for donations, there would be ample storage capacity. Most food retailing organizations
allocate this amount of space for donations as an integral part of their community donations program.
Food preparation and distribution: The donated foods could potentially be prepared in the commercial
kitchen. A cafeteria (1000 to 4000 square feet) would be required to host the recipients of the meals.
How much food could be donated?

Presuming that there are at least $20 million in retail food sales on the site, there will be at least 5% food
excess that is of good quality to be donated to local residents who might need it. There will be additional
excess food from growers and processors (although the amounts are highly dependent on the types of food
grown or processed).
Based on the above, it is likely that about $200,000 worth of nutritious food would be available to be
donated to low-income residents. If 5% of the 5000 households needed food assistance, there would be
$800 per year available to each of these households. This works out to $15 per week.
124
Challenges
The primary challenge would be the logistics of receiving donated foods from the various growers,
processors, and distributors as well as the logistics of distributing the donated foods to those in need of
them.
There is also the question of whether SEFC is an appropriate location for locating emergency meal
services or soup kitchens. On one level, all communities have a responsibility to address the issue of
hunger and inadequate nutrition amongst the low-income community. One may argue that because the
demand for these services in a higher end neighbourhood would be low, it would be more effective to place
such services closer to where they are required. In addition, some may argue that such visible services for
the poor may generate user conflict, lower land values and reduce business lease rates.
On the other hand, locating these types of services only in poorer neighbourhoods serves to reinforce the
ghettoization of the poor and there is a good for all neighbourhoods to equally share responsibility for
locating social programs.
Evaluation
Social Emergency food services primarily May generate land use conflicts
address social sustainability objectives of
food security. Ensures that everyone at
SEFC has access to enough nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs. This in
turn may alleviate problems with poor
health, hunger, and attention deficit
disorder.
A formal coordinated effort to collect
nutritious food will also benefit other off-
site disadvantaged individuals that could
be the recipients of this food.
Environmental By donating excess foods, they are None
potentially kept out of the waste stream.
Economic Emergency food services help reduce the The City or NGO needs to support these
living costs for disadvantaged individuals. types of services.
Implementation
We recommend that excess food that is safe and healthy to eat be contributed to a food donation centre to
assist low-income SEFC residents. The Vancouver Food Bank and Food Runners should be invited to
participate in this program.
Excess food from growers, processors and retailers could be dropped off at one or more on-site locations
with cold storage availability and then at a scheduled time, food outreach organizations and/or residents
could come and receive food. Residents could be invited to pay on a donation basis, such that the costs of
the food distribution centre could be partially recouped.
125
As stated previously, the issue of whether or not to locate emergency meal programs (such as soup
kitchens) is a highly politicized decision. If emergency meal programs are to be encouraged, these should
be designed to fit into the character of the neighbourhood and reduce user group conflict.
Design
It may be necessary to stipulate that there be at least a minimum amount of cooler space for the food
production areas to ensure that there is a space to store excess or low quality crops destined for donations.
Programming
The City could play a role in promoting the idea of donating excess or low quality food to the Food Bank or
other food outreach organizations.
Case Studies & Precedents

None included
126
9.0 Summary and Recommendations

The previous sections detailed a number of options that together could form the basis of a sustainable
community food system at SEFC. Each of the options was evaluated according to social, environmental,
economic and other criteria. Two matrices summarizing the evaluation, Table 14-1and Table 14-2 can be
found in Appendix D.
In addition, we considered the suitability of the options specifically for the urban context of SEFC. Some of
the options are more suitable for SEFC while others present far more challenges and may be more
appropriately located elsewhere. Table 14-3 in Appendix D summarizes the suitability of the options for
different types of spaces or buildings.
As a result of these two pieces of evaluation work and the feedback received from stakeholder workshops
we recommend the following options. The options are not mutually exclusive and we recommend that
several of the options be adopted as part of the overall SEFC Urban Agriculture Strategy:
9.1 Recommended Options
Food Production
We recommend that the city encourage food production to take place using the options below in spaces
identified on the draft structure plan:
Option G1 - Community Gardens: Encourage Community Gardens in part of the Public Park, in the
landscape around public buildings, and in some rights-of-way. There are also large open spaces identified
adjacent to the park, between residential buildings that the City should consider retaining ownership of for
use as community gardens.
Option G2 - Private (backyard) and semi-private gardens at grade: Encourage private (backyard) and
semi-private at-grade gardens in the landscapes around all residential buildings.
Option G3 - Rooftop Gardens: Encourage rooftop gardens on the podiums (but not the towers) of
concrete residential buildings.
Option G4 - Balconies and Window Boxes: Encourage balconies on residential buildings to be designed
for food production.
Option G5 - Edible Landscaping of the Public Realm: Substitute purely ornamental landscapes in
public areas with edible landscaping in public parks, and selected street right-of-ways where appropriate.
Option G6 – Commercial Greenhouse: Invest in (or allow) a small-scale commercial greenhouse at
SEFC as a demonstration project on land retained by the City to illustrate how a commercial greenhouse
operation might function effectively in a high-density urban area. Alternatively the Parks board may include
a small-scale greenhouse in the Park as part of an overall educational strategy, possibly linked with a
restaurant or other food facility.
Option G7 – Commercial Market Gardens: Not recommended at SEFC (except perhaps on a temporary
basis) even though it may be appropriate in other areas of the City.
127
Option G8 – Inside Buildings: Allow certain urban agriculture uses inside commercial buildings and
possibly residential buildings if the appropriate management approach can be found.
Option G9 – School Gardens: Encourage gardens at the elementary school and daycares.
Option G10 – Aquaculture/Bioponics: Of all the types of livestock that might be pursued at SEFC, we
recommend intensive fish culture because of the numerous benefits in terms of high quality protein
production, recycling of wastes, high yields, and educational opportunities. There are far fewer negative
impacts from aquaculture than other forms of livestock. This option should be implemented as a small –
scale demonstration project that could prove the viability of the approach which could then be adopted in
other city locations.
Option G11 – Micro Livestock: The keeping of bees should be encouraged to produce honey and assist
with pollination. Worms are valuable processor of waste but require no action on the part of the City.
Food Processing:
We recommend the City encourage the following options:
Option P1 – Shared Commercial Kitchen: The City should encourage and support a shared commercial
kitchen to encourage micro-food processors. In addition, small commercial food processors should be
allowed to locate in appropriate commercial space at SEFC.
Option P2 – Food Incubator: The City should encourage and support a food training facility (incubator).
Option P3 – Eco-Industrial Food Complex: Because very little of SEFC is zoned industrial, it is probably
not feasible to attempt a full-scale eco-industrial complex (this might be more appropriate at False Creek
Flats). However, we recommend that one or more demonstration projects be implemented to demonstrate
the concept. These demonstration projects will provide excellent opportunities to be a “living classroom” in
which visitors and students can learn about the environment, agriculture and sustainable technologies.
Food Distribution
We recommend the City encourage the following options:
Option D1- Farmers Market: The City should encourage and support the development of an permanent
indoor and temporary outdoor farmers market as close as possible to the SkyTrain station.
Option D2 - Direct Home Delivery: The City should encourage this option although there is a minimal role
for the City to play.
Option D3 – Food Buying Clubs: The City should encourage this option although there is a minimal role
for the City to play.
Option D4 - Grocery Store: The City should encourage an affordable, locally-owned grocery store within
the community near to the SkyTrain station.
128
Option D5 - Emergency Food Services: The City should encourage on-site growers and processors to
donate excess food to a food bank and possibly encourage the location of an emergency meal program on
the site
9.2 Implementation
So far in this report we have developed objectives and a number options for a sustainable urban food
system at SEFC. Each option included a number of implementation recommendations. Implementing the
options will require leadership from the City, co-ordination of different stakeholders, sustained focus on the
goals and objectives, and attention to detail in the planning, design and programming of the new
community.
Table 9-1 provides a summary of the options, and the action required by stakeholders to implement the
option in the various spaces available at SEFC. This table also summarizes the costs involved where these
are known.
Further to the specific strategies included with each option, there are a number of more general
implementation strategies that should be considered. These cut across several objectives and provide a co-
ordinating or linking role:
Provide a clear policy statement regarding which urban agriculture options the City will encourage at
SEFC so that all stakeholders are clear about the city’s level of commitment to sustainable food
activity.
Review regulations and bylaws that currently restrict urban agriculture and negotiate changes or
flexibility in interpretation;
Create new regulations, bylaws and design guidelines that require or encourage those urban
agriculture practices (or opportunities) deemed appropriate for SEFC.
Incorporate urban agriculture into the site planning and design process for new residential and
commercial buildings/projects at SEFC.
Use public buildings and land for demonstration projects that might include a small scale commercial
greenhouse at grade, an eco-industrial food complex, an aquaculture/biponics project, a commercial
rooftop garden.
Draft a package of incentives, including density bonusing/additional FSR, DCL/CAC reductions, and
taxation credits to encourage private developers to include urban agriculture opportunities in their
designs.
Partner with NGOs to develop training modules for staff, designers and urban gardeners.
Start with the easy options, and build success and support before moving on to more difficult options.
Develop a neighbourhood culture that celebrates local food, agriculture, organic production and
biodiversity.
Designate a member of City staff as the urban agriculture co-ordinator to ensure that urban agriculture
issues and opportunities are appropriately addressed at the appropriate stage.
129
Table 9-1: Summary of Implementation Tools for Various Options/Types of Spaces
Suitable Stakeholders Actions Required Approximate Cost

Buildings Required to Act
/Spaces
OPTIONS
G1 Public Community Public Park Parks Board Identify and allocate suitable space within public park $49/ sq. metre
with irrigation, composting facilities, public toilets nearby.
Gardens Deliver municipal compost Develop an educational
program/ demonstration garden
Develop an agreement between Park’s Board and
Community Gardening Associations.
Develop community gardens policy
Community garden Manage gardens according to parks board policy
association
School School Board Identify suitable space for community gardens.

Develop an agreement between School Board and
NGO such as Community Gardening Association.
Evergreen Foundation
ROWs City of Vancouver Identify suitable ROWs where community gardens will be
Planning/Engineering allowed.
Departments. Develop design guidelines for urban agriculture in ROWs
Land Dedicated City of Vancouver Identify areas of land that night be dedicated to urban
to Urban agriculture.
Agriculture
G2 Private (backyard) Private yards City Ensure larger landscaped spaces are on East, West or $61 / sq. metre
South side of buildings where possible.
and Semi-private Developers Ensure installed topsoil is of a high quality and at least
Gardens at Grade 18” thick and tilled.
Semi-private City Ensure larger landscaped spaces are on East, West or $61 / sq. metre
landscapes of South side of buildings where possible.
residential Ensure installed topsoil is of a high quality and at least
buildings 18” thick.
Developers As above
Develop plan to manage semi-private open space.
Strata Council
130

/Spaces
OPTIONS
G3 Rooftop Gardens/ Concrete City • Require developers to provide rooftop gardens for $143.00/ square
Residential residents on podiums in Landscape Design Guidelines, metre for rooftop
Greenhouses Building Developers gardens.
• Do not include rooftop space or structures in height or
(podiums and FSR calculations
low rise only). Food NGO $250 per square
• Develop guidelines for designing rooftop spaces for food metre for greenhouse
Strata Council production space
• Develop guidelines for managing food gardens in strata
buildings. Plus structural
upgrade (variable)
Commercial/ City • Permit commercial greenhouse on rooftop of standalone $250 per square
Light Industrial commercial buildings metre for greenhouse
Buildings • Design Building for rooftop access to accommodate
Developers greenhouse
Commercial • Negotiate lease between commercial operator and
Greenhouse Operator developer
Public City • Invest in rooftop greenhouse or rooftop garden as a

Buildings demonstration project
• Partner with commercial operator or NGO and operate as
educational project
G4 Balconies Residential City • Develop Design Guidelines for balconies. $388 per unit
Buildings • Develop Educational pamphlets for successful container
Food NGO growing
Schools
G5 Edible Landscaping Parks Parks Board • Programming of public park

of the public/semi- • Review Street Tree Design Guidelines
ROWs City Engineering Dept.
public realm • Select edible varieties for landscaping public space
Semi-Public Developers • Establish and train groups to manage street trees
Space of
Residential
Building s
131

/Spaces
OPTIONS
G6 Commercial Land retained City • Identify suitable land to retain for demo. project $100 -$200 per
by the City for • Zoning to allow retail use and restrict noxious practices square metre for
Greenhouses at urban Commercial glass
Grade agriculture Grower/NGO • City leases land to commercial grower
demonstration • Design Guidelines $25 per square metre
projects fro polytunnel
G7 Commercial Market Not

recommended
Gardens at Grade
G8 Inside Buildings Commercial Urban Grower • Zoning Highly variable
Buildings • Design Guidelines
City/NGO
Public Building • City Investment
as • Design of interior space and management of operation.
demonstration Developer/Strata
project
Residential
Buildings
G9 School Gardens School School Board • Programming $49 / sq. metre for
Grounds NGO hard costs.
G10 Aquaculture & Land retained City • Zoning to allow this use Highly variable
by the City for
Bioponics urban Commercial
agriculture Grower/NGO • Invest in demonstration project
demonstration
projects University • Partner with NGO and/or university
G11 Micro-livestock In community City • Allow use in zoning schedule None

gardens • Revise public health bylaw
NGO
P1 Commercial Food Commercial Developer • Allow use in SEFC Zoning Schedule

Building City • Create design guidelines to ensure healthy operation
Processing Facility
132

/Spaces
OPTIONS
Public Building NGO • Investment by City to create shared amenity.
P2 Food incubator Commercial City • Zoning to allow this use

Building • Create Design guidelines to ensure compatibility with
Public Building Technical College neighbourhood
• City Investment to reflect public good.
P3 Eco-industrial Land retained City • Zoning to allow this use

by the City for • Design guidelines to ensure that operation is compatible
complex for food urban University and ecologically sound
processing agriculture • City Investment as a demo project for educational
demonstration Developers purposes.
projects
D1 Farmers Market Public open City • Identify and design suitable outdoor or indoor space
space near to NGO • Advertise promote and build networks
SkyTrain Farmers • Regulate type of produce to be sold
Urban Growers
D2 Direct Home Site wide Home delivery company • Promotion/marketing/information of the concept
Delivery
D3 Food Buying Clubs Site wide Residents/Strata • Promotion/marketing/information
D4 Grocery Store Commercial Grocery Store Owner • Zoning to allow use in suitable location
Buildings City • Develop an agreement with owner to sell local produce
D5 Emergency Food Public Food Bank • Co-ordination between on site growers processors and
Buildings Food Runners food bank.
Services Growers/Gardeners/Pro • Promoting idea to growers/processors.
cessors
133
9.3 A Continuum of Approaches to Urban Agriculture at SEFC

Some of the options described in this report are very simple to implement and require little investment, no
change of policy/regulations and are already fairly common in Vancouver. Others are a lot more unusual
and will require much greater thought, analysis, regulatory change and investment. We present Table 9-2
to illustrate that each option falls somewhere on a continuum of approaches from simple to difficult. Much
of what is implemented at SEFC will depend on the level of comfort that various stakeholders have with
each of the ideas and options presented, i.e. where they fall on the spectrum.
Table 9-2: A Continuum of Approaches for Urban Agriculture (adapted from Barrs, 1997)
Element Stage 1 (simple) Stage 2 (moderate) Stage 3 (difficult)

Food Production • Community gardens • Fruit trees and bushes in • Intensive
in park/ rights-of-way. public/semi-private open aquaculture/bioponics
• Private (backyard) space • Rooftop greenhouses
and semi-private • Rooftop gardens • Micro-livestock on open
gardens • Bee keeping space
• Balconies
Food Processing • Home based • Commercial/Community • Eco-industrial Food
Kitchens Complex
• Food Training Facility
(incubator)
Food Distribution • Temporary Farmers • Framer’s market (for non- • Micro food producers
market (for commercial growers) co-operative
commercial growers) • Permanent Farmers
• Direct Home delivery Market
• Food buying clubs • Grocery Store
Waste • Home composting of • Community-based • Eco-industrial
management/ kitchen and garden composting of solid Networking
turning waste into wastes wastes • Local solar aquatic
food • Collection and use of • Re-use of grey-water sewage treatment
rainwater in rain • Rooftop greenhouses system integrated with
barrels. make use of rooftop heat food production
• Organic waste no longer • Rooftop greenhouses
collected by city reusing waste heat from
heating ducts, industry
and laundromats
Economic regime • Production for • Income patching - • Commercial
immediate family (and Production for immediate horticulture,
friends) needs only family, selling surplus to: aquaculture, processing
• Farmers markets businesses
• Food box schemes
134
Element Stage 1 (simple) Stage 2 (moderate) Stage 3 (difficult)

Improving • Demonstration • City hired animateurs/ • Urban agriculture
technical capacity gardens horticulturists extension office
• Information (skill • Training city staff
sheets)
• Design guidelines
Policy and • Review landscape • Allow grey-water use • Allow local sewage
regulatory Change standards • Allow bee-keeping treatment systems that
• • Allow community may provide purified
gardeners to sell produce waste water for
• Allow urban commercial irrigation
greenhouses at SEFC • Allow small animal
• Prohibit use of pesticides rearing
135
10.0 References
Abelman, Michael. 1993. From the Good Earth: A Celebration Of Growing Food Around The World
Agriculture Canada. 1990. Handbook of Food Expenditures, Prices and Consumption. 1960-1989
Balarin, J.D. and R.D. Haller. 1982. “The intensive Culture of Tilapia in Tanks, Raceways, and Cages.” In
Muir, James F. And Ronald J Robert’s. (Eds) 1982 Recent Advances in Aquaculture: Vol. 1.
London/Canberra/Boulder, Co.: Croom-Helm/ Westview Press.
Barrs, Robert. 1997. Sustainable Food Production in the City of Vancouver. Unpublished study report for
City of Vancouver Planning Department. Available at: http://www.cityfarmer.org/
Barrs, Robert. 1998. Urban Agriculture: The Potential for Southeast False Creek. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
BCMAFF, 1992. Horticultural Statistics, 1992.
Blair et al. “A Dietary, Social and Economic Evaluation of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Project”, in the
Journal of Nutrition Education, July/August 1991. http://www.cityfarmer.org/nutritionstudy.html#diet
Connolly, Norm. 1997. A Survey Of Community And Allotment Gardens In The Greater Vancouver Region.
Prepared for Mark Roseland, Simon Fraser University. accessed from CityFarmer web site:
http://www.cityfarmer.org/
Creasey, Rosalind. 1990. Edible Landscaping. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Fairholm, Jacinda. 1999. Urban Agriculture and Food Security Initiatives in Canada: A Survey of Canadian
Non-Governmental Organizations, (International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Farallones Institute. 1979. The Integral Urban House. San Francisco. Sierra Club Books.
Farm Folk/City Folk (FFCF). 1997. Feed our Future - Secure our Health (Final Draft),
Garnett, Tara. 1996. “Farming the City: The Potential of Urban Agriculture.” in The Ecologist, Vol. 26, No. 6,
Nov./Dec. 1996.
Geno, B.J. and L.M. Geno. 1976. Food Production in the Canadian Environment. Ottawa. Science Council
Of Canada.
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. 2000. "New Condo Green Roof Installed in Toronto," Green roof
infrastructure monitor, 2 (1).
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. 2001. "Green roof infrastructure demonstration project update: Toronto,"
Green roof infrastructure monitor, (3) 1: 3 - 4.
Headley, Dr. David. 1992. “Cost Cutting Ideas”: Trees New York.
136
IDRC, 1993. “Farming in the City: The Rise of Urban Agriculture”, IDRC Reports, vol. 21, number2, October
1993.
Integrity Systems Cooperative Co. February, 1997. Adding Values to our Food System: An Economic
Analysis of Sustainable Community Food Systems. Prepared for the USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Jevons, John. 1982. How to Grow More Vegetables Than You Ever Thought Possible on Less Land Than
You Can Imagine. Berkeley, Calif.: Ten Speed Press.
Kaufman, Jerry and Martin Bailkey. 2000. Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the
United States. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Kneen, Brewster.1989. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System. Toronto: NC Press.
Kuhn, Monica. 1996. "Rooftop greening," Eco Architecture, (2). (http://www.interlog.com/~rooftop/).
Lang, Tim. 1987. “The Challenge for Food Policy” in Resurgence, No.181. p.11
Levenston, M. 1980. “Arable Acres Within City Limits”. 1995. Originally published in City Farmer
Newspaper August 1980, Vol.3, Number 1
Lipton, Tom. 2001. "City of Portland, Oregon," Green Roofs for Healthy Cities,
(http://www.peck.ca/grhcc/research/overview.htm#laval, visited May 8).
Lowe, Ernest. 1997. Regional Resource Recovery and Eco-Industrial Parks: An integrated approach.
www.indigodev.com/Eipresrecov.html
MacRae et al. 1990. “Policies, Programs, And Regulations to Support the Transition to Sustainable
Agriculture in Canada.” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. Vol.5, No.2.
Mollison, Bill. 1990. Permaculture: A Practical Guide for A Sustainable Future. Island Press: Washington
DC; Covelo, California
Mougeot, Luc, A. 1994. Urban Food Production: Evolution, Official Support and Significance. IDRC
(Canada): Ottawa.
National Research Council. 1996. Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food-Crop Production.
Committee on the Use of Treated Municipal Wastewater Effluents and Sludge in the Production of
Crops for Human Consumption, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences,
Environment, and Resources. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press, c1996.
Nelson, Toni. “Closing the Nutrient Loop”, World Watch, November/December 1996, pp. 10-17
Peck, Steven, Chris Callaghan, Monica E. Kuhn, and Brad Bass. 1999. Greenbacks from green roofs:
forging a new industry in Canada, (Ottawa, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation).
Pembina Institute [1] http://www.climatechangesolutions.com/english/individuals/stories/lifestyle/grow.htm
137
Pembina Institute [2] http://www.climatechangesolutions.com/english/individuals/stories/lifestyle/spud2.htm
Pimentel et al. 1975. “Energy and Land Constraints in Food Protein Production” , Science, 190: 4216 (21
Nov. 1975)
Pimentel, David. 1997, at meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. July 24-26,
1997.
Planning and Environment (P & E) Committee, 1997. Support Item 1, Agenda, May 8, 1997. City of
Vancouver
Quayle, M., Driessen, T.C. “Growing Community: A Case For Hybrid Landscapes”, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 39 (1997), p. 99- 107.
Rees, W. E. and Wackernagel, M. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
New Society Publishers. Gabriola Island, BC. Philadelphia, PA.
Riches, Graham. 1997. First World Hunger : Food Security and Welfare Politics. Edited by Graham Riches.
London: Macmillan, 1997
Ritchie, Mark. 1997. “The Right to Food” in Yes: A Journal of Positive Futures. Winter 1997.
Roofscapes, Inc. 2001. Chicago City Hall, (http://www.roofmeadow.com/project1.html, visited May 8).
Ross, Sharon, “Our Bill Is Coming Due”, The Family Food Garden, August-September 1980. Cited in
Creasey 1990.
Sheltair Group. Inc., 1998. Visions, Tools & Targets: Environmentally Sustainable Development Guidelines
for Southeast False Creek. City of Vancouver Planning Department, Vancouver, BC.
Smit, J., A. Ratta, and J. Nasr. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. UNDP, Habitat
II series. The Urban Agriculture Network, Washington DC.
St. Petersburg Sustainable Urban Community Development Project. 1999. Ecohouse,

(http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/2803/, last updated August 28).
Statistics Canada (a), Catalogue no. 62-555
Statistics Canada (b), CANSIM Matrix 4670.
Statistics Canada (c) Catalogue no. 65-001
Statistics Canada (d). 1994/5. Catalogue 32-230 (annual) Apparent Per Capita Food Consumption in
Canada. Part I and II
Steinman, David. 1990. Diet For a Poisoned Planet. New York: Ballantine Books.
Todd, J & N. Todd 1984. Bio-shelters, Ocean Arks and City Farming. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco
Toronto Food Policy Council. 1997. Creating a Garden City. City of Toronto.
138
Toronto Food Policy Council. 2000. Feeding the City from the Back 40
Velazquez, Linda S. World case studies: intensive greenroofs,

(http://www.greenroofs.com/world_intensive_cases.htm, visited May 8).
Ville de Montreal. 1994. Montreal’s Community Garden Program. Recreation, parks and community
development department.
Wada, Yoshihiko. 1993. The Appropriated Carrying Capacity of Tomatoes Production: Comparing the
Ecological Footprints of Hydroponic Greenhouse and Mechanized Field Operations, Master’s Thesis.
UBC School of Community and Regional Planning.
Wilson, Geoff. 1999. An urban rooftop integrated microfarm for Mt.Gravatt's commercial buildings,
(http://www.cityfarmer.org/roofttopmicrofarm.html#microfarms).
Winson, Anthony. 1993. The Intimate Commodity: Food and the Development of the Agro-Industrial
Complex in Canada. Gramond Press, Canada.
Young, Carrie. 2002. Report on Inuvik Greenhouse – www.cityfarmer.org
Zirnhelt, David. 1995. Minister's Message, “Securing our Food Future: An Agri-Food Policy for British
Columbia”, February. http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agric/agrifood.htm
139
11.0 Appendix A – Policy, Regulations & Guidelines Having

a Bearing on Urban Agriculture in Vancouver
A series of standards, bylaws, policies and practices are in place at all levels of government which both
implicitly and explicitly limit the extent to which urban agriculture could occur within South East False
Creek. Although, at present, these approved and de facto practices would pose barriers to implementing
urban agriculture strategies some are all subject to review by City staff and Council from time to time. This
appendix lists the primary policy and bylaw barriers. It discusses their primary purpose and brings forward
the specific issues affecting the potential for urban agriculture in South East False Creek.
Health Regulations
A. Overview of federal, provincial and municipal responsibility for food safety
Provincial responsibilities in food control are shared between provincial agriculture and health ministries.
For most food inspection programs, provinces are involved only with clients producing and marketing a
product within that province. The federal government is involved with products that are shipped inter-
provincially or internationally. Federal/Provincial committees in Agriculture and Health coordinate existing
programs and are working toward a fully-coordinated Canadian food inspection system.
Provincial legislation provides inspection standards for agri-food products, including dairy, meat (including
meat hygiene), fresh fruit and vegetables, and honey and maple products (in selected provinces). These
responsibilities include provision of regulatory and advisory services regarding farm facility standards,
recommended production practices and dairy inspection. Provincial governments also provide educational
support and distribute information packages on safe food handling practices.
Municipal governments are responsible for enforcing provincially-mandated legislation on food control.
Food inspections are carried out by public health inspectors hired either by the local health unit or provincial
government. Specific responsibilities at the municipal level include:
• routine inspections of all establishments which sell and serve food,
• respond on demand basis to all complaints of food-borne infections,
• education of consumers and training of food handlers on safe food handling practices,
• testing and monitoring of local water supply.
B. Provincial Government Food Safety Regulations
To avoid potential problems, food processors should have:
• a well-designed food processing facility;

• procedures for the prevention of microbiological, chemical, or physical
• defects or hazards within the products;
• proper food handler hygiene and food handling practices;
140
• controlled processing procedures;

• a superior sanitation program; and
• a pest-control management system.
The following are a few key principles that apply to nearly all food processing facilities
(except for the very small):
1. A food processing facility should be designed so that the various parts of it are
separate from one another. In particular:
• Raw materials should be received in a separate area from the processing fcility, as they are
considered potential sources of contamination be it microbiological, physical, or from pests.
• One set of rules or procedures should be developed for this area and applied to counteract
contaminants.
• The processing area should be a separate area. Also, the processing of raw and cooked materials
should be in separate locations in the processing area. In most instances, this area will have the
highest level of sanitation procedures practiced. This is where the product is going to experience
the most contact with the environment (i.e. machinery, processing aids, workers, and the
atmosphere).
• The warehousing and shipping area should be another separate area. This is a potential source of
infestation and rodent entry into the facility.
• It is easier to maintain a sanitary environment in a plant with more segregated areas. Each area
will have different focus and a different set of procedures to ensure the overall sanitation of the
plant.
2. The area surrounding a food processing plant must also be given very serious
consideration.
• If the facility itself is located within a larger facility, it is important that all the activities be
compatible. For example, a food processor would not want to locate in the same facility as a dry
cleaner with its characteristic odors and questionable chemicals. A food processor would avoid a
location with a welding firm next door that generates iron filings and does not have the same
concern for sanitation.
• If the facility is a stand-alone building, it is important to maintain a boundary around the facility.
The best idea is to have a paved apron, or equivalent, around the perimeter. The apron should be
higher than the surrounding area and sloped away from the building. This is a deterrent to all kinds
of pests and rodents and also minimizes the tracking of dirt and mud into the plant.
• If sharing warehouse facilities, make certain that only compatible products are stored together. Do
not store chemicals in the racks above the food products, or even in the same area. Use common
sense when storing
• products.
141
3. Within the facility, starting right from construction, preventative measures should be
taken. For example, use square iron beams that are totally sealed off instead of “I”
beams that have ledges where dust, debris, and birds can land and accumulate.
When using angle irons for construction, install them “rather than “L“. This will
prevent ledges that are difficult to clear.
The construction material and finishing should be done so that:
• there are no harbours for pests;

• cleaning is easier; and
• cracks and crevices are least likely to develop and if they do, they are easily
• repaired.
For example, concrete floors with epoxy coverings as opposed to wooden or asphalt
bases are preferred, and where washing will be a common practice, the floors
should flow to drains that drain well. If there is potential for materials to enter the
drain, sewage disposal regulations and controls should be checked and taken into
account in the design.
4. The frequency of cleaning processing equipment will depend very specifically on the
amount of use and the nature of the product being processed. However, as a rule,
equipment must be made as easily accessible for cleaning as possible and cleaned
after use.
5. Packaging, and particularly the handling of packaging, is an extremely important

facet of good sanitation practices. Common sense should prevail. The packaging
itself should be well packaged and protected to prevent foreign materials from
entering it or adhering to it in transit and prior to arriving at the packaging work
station. Some examples of common sense and good practices are:
• Receive open bottles, jars, cans, etc. up-side down so that foreign material cnnot fall into them
prior to use;
• Keep to a minimum the number of packages that are upright and open to the environment at any
given time, particularly when vacating the line during breaks or absences; and
• Seal the container as soon after filling as possible to minimize the time it is left open to the
environment.
• In the final phase of storage and shipping of a food product, the single most important practice
would be to diligently rotate the inventory practicing a FIFO approach (first in, first out).
Other important factors to consider are:
• clean, dry pallets; and
• clean, dry, sound transport vehicles.
7. Personnel and training of personnel are the most important factors in maintaining a
142
sanitary facility and product. No one person can have sole responsibility. All people
involved in the operation must participate. All people associated with the plant must
be made aware of the importance of their actions within the plant. This involves
training, on-going communication, and most importantly, common sense.
8. HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points), Sanitation, Recall, and Allergen
programs are examples of four food management programs used for the assurance
of safety and/or quality. You may wish to develop your food safety and sanitation
management program in conjunction with a quality program. See HACCP and ISO
9000 in Section 9 for further information.
The food safety HACCP program consists of establishing Critical Control Points.
These are locations in the plant or steps in the process where lack of control would
result in a food safety hazard. The Critical Limit is a standard that must be met to
ensure that a food safety hazard does not occur at a Critical Control Point.
Every food processor should establish programs such as HACCP with written
procedures that include:
• identification of all Critical Control Points;

• Critical Limits for all Critical Control Points;
• procedure to be followed to ensure adherence to the critical limits; and
• the action to be taken in the event that the critical limits are not adhered to.
C: Federal Government Jurisdiction related to food safety
Health Canada
Legislative mandate (food safety and nutrition): Food and Drugs Act and associated regulations.
The minister of health has broad responsibilities for the protection of health of Canadians and specific
responsibilities to act as the principal health advisor to other federal departments and agencies on all
occupational and public health matters. Audits food inspection systems of delivery agencies.
Health Canada (HC) establishes food safety standards and applies them by inspecting non-registered
establishments as the health authority for the federal government.
HC authority extends to all foods sold in Canada including imported, domestic.
The food and drugs act has authority under the criminal law.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Legislative mandate for food inspection: meat inspection act and associated regulations, Canada
agricultural products act and regulations, food and drugs act (fraud and labelling).
143
The minister of agriculture has broad responsibilities to ensure the safety, quality and marketability of
agricultural and food products, imported, exported or domestic. to encourage market responsiveness, to
promote industry self reliance and stability, to build regional strengths and diversity and to protect
agricultural resources and the environment.
This department enforces for agri-food products** the relevant health and safety provisions of Canada’s
food and drugs act and regulations and the packaging and labelling requirements of the consumer
packaging and labelling act.
The department is also responsible for the development and amendment of the economic fraud provisions
of the food and drugs act and regulations relating to food labelling and packaging and administration at all
levels of trade except retail*.
Responsible for registration, licensing and inspection of federally registered/licensed establishments (about
3400).
Authority extends to agri-food products** imported, exported, moving inter-provincially or produced in

federally registered establishments.
* Industry Canada has taken over responsibility for federal retail food inspection and labelling.
** Agri-food products include meat and meat products, dairy products (not including fluid milk), shell and processed eggs, fresh and processed
fruits and vegetables, honey and maple products.
D. Municipal Health Regulations
Health regulations for Vancouver are administered by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
The Environmental Health Division is part of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, under the Medical
Health Officer, Dr. John Blatherwick. In addition to providing provincially mandated health protection
services, the Environmental Health Division also provides services to the public of Vancouver through an
arrangement with the City of Vancouver
The Environmental Health programs in Vancouver comprise a broad array of strategies and interventions
which have as their objective the protection of public health by minimizing the environmental health risks to
the population.
These programs are mainly legislative based and include food safety, tobacco control and tobacco demand
reduction, drinking water quality, recreational water quality, air quality (indoor and outdoor), Community
Care Facilities Licensing, pest control and pesticide reduction, noise control, housing and sanitation, on-site
sewage disposal, environmental protection and promotion, enteric disease surveillance, environmental
health promotion activities, health risk assessment and components of injury prevention. They focus on
reducing risks at the interface between the environment and the population.
City of Vancouver - Health Bylaw

This bylaw is concerned with maintaining high standards of public health in indoor premises. The bylaw
gives the Medical Health Officer powers to ensure facilities are kept in a sanitary condition.
144
Section 2.6 The Medical Health Officer may detain, examine and prohibit the handling or
disposition of any goods, foods and conveyances of any kind considered by the Medical Health
Officer to be a menace to health by reason of contact with communicable diseases.
The Bylaw gives the MOH the power to regulate Food Establishments to ensure high levels of sanitation for
the purpose of protecting public health. Especially relevant for this study is Section 3.7 which states:
• The operator of every food establishment or supplementary food program shall:

o Deal only with wholesome food which has been obtained from an approved source,
and in its preparation, handling and storage has been kept in a clean, unadulterated
and fresh condition, and when packaged, has been clearly labelled.
o Maintain the food establishment and all fixtures used in its operation in clean condition
an din serviceable repair.
Section 3.42 The slaughter of animals shall be done only in buildings and in a manner approved by
the Medical Health Officer.
Section 3.44 No operator…shall store, handle, serve, process, display, distribute, transport, offer
for sale or sell poultry eggs which are upgraded…
Section 3.50 No perishable food shall be delivered in any vehicle that is not fully enclosed and
mechanically refrigerated.
The bylaw prohibits the keeping of livestock in the City of Vancouver except in those zones where livestock
are explicitly allowed such as the R#-# zone of Southlands where horses are specifically allowed.
Section 4.1 No person shall keep or permit to be harboured any horses, donkeys, cattle, swine,
sheep, or goats or any live poultry or fowl, including ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, pheasants or
quail. Or operate an apiary or otherwise keep bees for any purpose in the City except…where
otherwise permitted by, the Zoning and Development By-law, unless otherwise stated in this bylaw.
The bylaw strictly controls the use of pesticides inside and outside a building by requiring extensive notice
to occupants.
The bylaw allows for fines of between $100 and $2000 per offence.
Food Donor Encouragement Act

In April of 1997, the Provincial Government passed the Food Donor Encouragement Act. The act is
intended to protect donors from liability as they act in good faith to donate surplus perishable food, while
ensuring recipients' rights are protected. The act encourages organizations to make donations of perishable
food and provides a valuable source of nutrition to our recipients.
145
Source: The information in this appendix was downloaded from the Government of Canada, Government of
British Columbia, and City of Vancouver websites and a review of the City of Vancouver Public Health
Bylaw.
146
City of Vancouver – Street Tree and Landscape Guidelines

How landscape standards are used
There are two types of landscaping standard – Citywide standards and zone-specific standards.
Citywide standards apply unless superseded by zone-specific standards that apply to a specific zone or
area of the City.
Landscaping standards are developed specifically for each zone within the city including
comprehensive development zones (CD-1) where the zoning, design and landscaping standards are
tailored uniquely to the specific project. Development plans (including site plans, building plans and
landscape plans) are reviewed by City Landscape Review Staff at the re-zoning stage, development
permit stage, and building permit stage to ensure that the intent of the standards has been met by the
designer.
The building and landscape is inspected after construction and installation are complete to ensure that
the plans have been followed accurately, and again after one year to ensure that the building and
landscape are still functioning as intended.
A. Street Tree and Landscape Guidelines for the Public Realm, 2001 Edition
This is an omnibus document that includes:
• Street Tree Bylaw, 1992

• Various Landscape Application Approval Requirements
• Tree species, size, location and spacing standards
• Tree planting standards
• Shrub planting standards
• Hard landscaping around tree standards
• Boulevard and Median Planting standards
• Landscape Guidelines for City Boulevards
• Tree removal and replacement policies and procedures
• Forms and procedures for work in and around street trees
Urban Agriculture was not envisioned when these documents were created and therefore, most
sections, in whole or in part, do not apply directly to the capacity for urban agriculture in SEFC. The
following is an analysis of only those policies, practices and procedures that would likely create a
barrier to implementing urban agriculture in SEFC.
B. Street Tree Bylaw, No. 5985, 1992 (A bylaw to regulate trees on boulevards within City
streets)
This bylaw delegates authority for the selection, planting and care of trees to the Board of Parks and
Recreation. It also forbids the planting of any tree not in compliance with standards set by the City
147
Engineer and the General Manager of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. It also enables
the Board of Parks and Recreation to remove any tree for virtually any reason the General Manager
deems applicable, including for reasons of hazard, nuisance, disease. The bylaw also vests in the VPB
the sole responsibility for maintenance of trees on City streets, unless otherwise formally authorized
and executed by a qualified tree company.
Issues affecting Urban Agriculture
This bylaw and the powers it places solely in the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation would
significantly limit the extent to which food-bearing plants could be incorporated on City streets and
within City rights of way. As it is now written, the Street Tree Bylaw does not anticipate, nor encourage,
the planting of street edges for urban agriculture purposes, nor does it anticipate the planting and
maintenance of any type of tree by other than City or formally authorized experts. As urban agriculture
within SEFC evolves, it is possible that a range of participants will be involved in the planting, care and
maintenance of trees within what is now formally considered an area where laymen and novice
gardeners are expressly forbidden.
The Park Board does not have the resources or the expertise to manage fruit or nut producing trees, at
this time. Consequently, if City street verges, boulevards and other rights of way are to be used for this
type of urban agriculture new systems for managing these lands would be required. These new
systems would have to be acceptable within a revised Street Tree Bylaw.
The standards (discussed below) referenced in the bylaw would also have to be modified, but as an
overarching, city-wide “enabling” document, the Street Tree Bylaw should be amended to permit, if not
encourage, urban agriculture in the City of Vancouver.
C. Landscape Application Approval Requirements
A number of process and application requirements are specified within the 2001 Edition of the “Street
Tree and Landscape Guidelines for the Public Realm.” Most of these requirements are intended to
facilitate the efficient and timely movement of a landscape application through the applicable approving
departments.
Several barriers to urban agriculture exist within the process and approval requirements for landscape
changes to City streets. These include:
• Lack of ability to approve seasonal and/or ongoing changes to a landscape that would be
required for successful urban agriculture. For example, fruit or nut thinning and picking, or
replanting a rotating crop like raspberries.
• The minimum 7 metre tree spacing (as per Permission for Planting Trees on City Property)
would not be conducive to most urban agriculture.
• Tree surrounds or grates (new plantings) and stone epoxy (established plantings) are required.
This requirement would not likely be sympathetic with a range of urban agriculture plantings.
148
D. Tree species, size, location and spacing standards
Standards applicable to types of trees, size, location and spacing generally apply to conventional street
trees within the bylaw and the supporting documents. They are required in order to ensure the urban
forest is planted, maintained and cared for in a consistent manner and within an affordable routine.
These standards would severely limit the type, extent and viability of urban agriculture on the City
street rights of way. As has been mentioned previously, the primary purpose of these standards does
not include urban agriculture and hence they would have to be refined, or a stand alone standard,
specifically written for SEFC created.
The standards create barriers including:
The range of species allowed are:
• primarily non fruiting or nut bearing species

• the “cleanest” of trees
• Not chosen for pollination purposes
The size of species are:
• Applicable to some urban agriculture

• Nursery stock sizes are for large caliper street trees, not fruit bearing trees or shrubs
The location of species are:
• Primarily aimed at large shade trees

• Do not take into account modern dense planting urban agriculture strategies require
• Do not consider cane crops as landscape plantings
E. Tree and Shrub Planting Standards
The tree and shrub standards are in place to ensure that trees and landscape plantings are planted as
per acknowledged industry standards. These are intended to give developers, home owners and
contractors a readily understandable, proven set of construction specifications that City staff (in
consultation with consultants, the BC Landscape and Nursery Association and others) have found to be
effective in this climate and across a variety of soil types within the Vancouver area.
The primary barrier posed by these standards is the assumption that most, if not all, the planting soil
would be a) installed once and not amended and b) covered with a grate, concrete cover or gravel
epoxy. This poses a hindrance to urban agriculture by:
149
• Limiting access to the growing medium for amendment and tilling

• Restricted open soil so that only certain types of trees would survive
• Not allowing for the planting of row, cane or tree crops.
F. Landscape Guidelines for City Boulevards
In general, these guidelines are intended to assist property owners whose intention is to grow
landscaping (read shrubs, herbaceous, annual plants, not trees) in the boulevard areas adjacent to
their property. It is expected that much of the small scale public landscapes that could potentially be
utilized for urban agriculture would fall under this, or a similar, type of guideline.
As written, this guideline limits the potential and viability of urban agriculture primarily due to the lack of
an urban agriculture intention or objective. Although the guideline may be appropriate as a City-wide
policy, it would not, generally, be conducive to a neighbourhood where urban agriculture is a primary
planning principle. Having said that, one of the general principles of these particular guidelines is to
“enhance the pedestrian street environment.” If truly effective, an urban agriculture strategy would
accomplish just that principle.
The performance standards in the Landscape Guidelines for City Boulevards pose a barrier to urban
agriculture in SEFC by:
• Insisting that landscaping not interfere with pedestrian use of the sidewalk
• Limiting maximum heights of plants to 1 metre
• Ensuring ample provision to cross the boulevard is maintained
• Only trees and grass are permitted in the outside boulevard (closest to the curb)
Conclusion
Although the majority of the applicable documents relating to trees and landscape plantings in the
public realm do not encourage urban agriculture, they could, given appropriate guidelines be permitted.
This may occur through amendments, or the creation of guidelines specific to SEFC. Presumably,
although not stated, the overarching goal of enhancing the urban forest and urban landscape is to
improve the environmental and aesthetic integrity of the City. An effective urban agriculture strategy
should support that goal and hence, related policies adopted, changed and created that articulate it for
current and future property owners.
150
Vancouver Parks Board Community Gardens Policy

On April 15th, 1996 The Vancouver Board of Park’s & Recreation unanimously approved a community
gardens policy. The policy commits the Board to helping groups find resource information on gardens,
locate suitable sites in the city (which may be in pubic parks), develop user agreements with the owners of
the selected site and develop a community environmental education program. It is important to note that
Park land can only be used if it is determined that it is the most suitable land i.e. once other options for
community gardens have been exhausted.
The policy is reproduced here in full:
Definition
The Board recognizes community gardening as a valuable recreation activity that can contribute to
community development, environmental awareness, positive social interaction and community education.
The Board will collaborate with interested groups in assisting the development of community gardens.
For the purposes of this policy, a community garden is defined as a community environmental education
program operated by a non-profit society. The program has the following features:
• A piece of land is utilized by the society to produce food and flowers for the personal use of society
members.
• A community education program is in place which encourages the involvement of schools, youth
groups and citizens who do not have an assigned plot in gardening activities.
Clause One
The Board will support the development of community gardens in Vancouver through the following
means:
• Providing access to information on the development and operation of community gardens.
• Assisting interested groups in searching for suitable land for the development of community
gardens. This inventory must include City-owned land, land controlled by other government
agencies, and privately owned land.
• Assisting in the development of user agreements with the owners of sites chosen.
• Assisting with the development of a community environmental education program.
Clause Two
If it is determined that park land is the most suitable site for community gardens, the following conditions
will apply:
• The garden is developed at no cost to the Board, except that prior to the first season, the Board will,
at its cost, prepare the site for planting by removing grass, ploughing the soil and adding compost.
151
• A community consultation process indicates neighbourhood support for the garden.
• A garden site plan must be drawn up and approved by the General Manager. The plan must include
the layout of the plots and indicate any proposed structures or fences.
• A non-profit society agrees to develop and operate the gardens according to a users agreement
which will specify the term of use, management responsibilities, user fees and access procedures
including the following specific terms:
a) The term of the user agreement will not exceed five years.
b) Allotments of space must be made from a waiting list on a first come first served basis.
c) Membership in the Society, and the opportunity to be allotted a plot, must be open to any
resident of Vancouver.
d) No pesticides are to be used.
e) Allotment fees charged by the society must be approved by the General Manager.
f) The Society must adhere to maintenance standards set by the Board.
g) No barriers to general public access to the site can be erected.
Although located on Parks with the prior approval of the Park Board, Community Gardens are operated
by volunteers from the community.
[Contact list not included]
152
12.0 Appendix B – Case Studies
153
Community Gardens
Strathcona Community Gardens
Figure 12-1 Greenhouse at Cottonwood

Community Gardens (Photo – Rob Barrs)
Figure 12-2: Strathcona Community Gardens,
Vancouver (Photo – Rob Barrs)
Established in 1985 on 3 acres of land owned by Vancouver Parks Board, Strathcona Community Gardens is the
oldest and one of the most successful of the city’s community gardens. It makes a valuable contribution to the
local community in terms of healthy, nutritious food for the gardeners and a sense of shared ownership for the
whole neighbourhood. In addition to the 200 individual plots (average size 105 sq.ft.), the association has also
developed two greenhouses, has planted a mature orchard with standard and espaliered fruit trees (some of them
heritage varieties) and a number of bee hives that assist with plant pollination. A recently completed clubhouse
features a composting toilet and solar powered electric system and was built partly from recycled materials.
West Vancouver Community Gardens

Figure 12-3: Community Gardens in
West Vancouver (Photo: Rob Barrs)
West Vancouver has a number of
community garden projects such as this
one that is on the edge of the sea wall
and occupies a vacant lot. The City is
trying to assemble land along the
waterfront for a park and until the land is
fully assembled, lots like this are ideal for
small community pocket gardens. The
gardens co-exist very well with the
established houses in the
neighbourhood.
154
Rooftop Gardens
Figure 12-4: Foodshare Rooftop Garden and Greenhouse, Toronto. (Photos: Foodshare)
155
Figure 12-5: Executive Chef, Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver. (Photo: Rob Barrs)
156
Fairmont Waterfront Hotel

This is perhaps the best example of a rooftop garden in Vancouver. Executive Chef Daryle Nagata’s has
championed this rooftop garden which now provides herbs, vegetables and fruit to the restaurant from February to
November. Managed by a consultant Master Gardener (Elaine Stevens) and assisted by other Master Gardeners
and community volunteers rewarded in food, the 2100 sq.ft garden saves the Hotel approximately $30 –40,000
per year in food costs and ha been a very effective marketing vehicle. Many of these savings are spent on garden
costs.
The Rooftop garden is on a third storey podium and is accessed using the guest elevators which can cause
problems. Shade from new building adjacent has had a big impact on solar access – need light especially for
flower production. However get building light bouncing between buildings that have reflective glass.
The garden has to look good 365 days of the year because hotel rooms look down on the garden, a difference
from a community garden Ivy was originally in soil, so the soil was depleted and had horsetails in it and it had to
be carried out through the hotel elevators and replaced / amended. Each type of plant has different soil needs
and this is planned. The garden is completely organic and they have special suppliers of organic soil
amendments and fertilizers. The soil is over a foot and a half deep and could be as much as three feet deep.
There is no green house and they cannot compost due to risk of rats and odour. In future gravel paths should be
replaced with wheelchair accessible paths. (personal communications with Elaine Stevens and Daryle Nagata,
2002).
Older Women’s Network Housing Co-op, Toronto

This housing co-operative has won awards for Toronto’s best kept rooftop garden. Residents use containers to
grow good quality garden produce. Protected from wind by enclosing wall creating suitable micro-climate
conditions
157
Figure 12-6: Older Women's Housing Co-op, Toronto. (Kuhn)
Royal York Hotel

Royal York Hotel - planters, filled with herbs for the hotel's restaurant (Fairholm, 1999). Planters are maintained
by hotel staff.
158
Figure 12-7: Royal York Hotel Rooftop Garden. (Photo: Alan Duncan)
Foodshare Rooftop Garden and Greenhouse

FoodShare’s Urban Agriculture Program uses planters to grow tomatoes, green beans, peppers, eggplant, herbs
and greens largely for the Good Food Box (another FoodShare program). 3 bee hives are also maintained (Baker
2001). Vera Top reports that the rooftop is not ideal (a retrofit) for the purpose and much more could be with a
building that is designed for rooftop agriculture from scratch. (see Figure 12-4)
Mary Lambert Swale Housing Co-op

Mary Lambert-Swale housing project (2250 sq feet of cedar planters, which provide each of the 75 tenants with a
5 x 5 foot roof garden plot, growing vegetables, herbs and even fruit trees (Peck et al 1999).
Toronto City Hall demonstration project

Toronto City Hall demonstration project - 6 different plots have been established, some extensive others semi-
intensive. Two semi-intensive plots will grow vegetables and herbs, such as peppers, tomatoes, corn, beans,
squash, chives, and sage. Other semi-intensive plots are planted with black oak savanna species and native
prairie species planted to attract birds and butterflies, while the extensive plots host alpine and dryland species
(Green roofs for healthy cities 2001).
159
Figure 12-8: Mary Lambert-Swale Housing Co-op. Photo: Monica Kuhn.
Ecohouse (St. Petersburg)

Ecohouse (St. Petersburg) uses 4 to 8 cm beds built on existing apartment building rooftop. Soil obtained from
vermin-composting of the building resident's wastes is used for planting of vegetables (zucchini, lettuce, broccoli,
tomatoes, cucumbers), herbs (parsley, dill), and soft fruit (strawberries, gooseberries, currants), and grass in thin
beds of 4-8 cm on the roof-top. Produce from the rooftop garden is consumed by residents. Any excess is sold on
the market or exchanged for services with maintenance companies (St Petersburg Sustainable Urban Community
Development Project, 1999).
160
Figure 12-9: Simple grow bags on a St. Petersburg Rooftop. Photo: Rooftop Garden Resource Society
Microfarm Group, Brisbane, Australia

Wilson reports that the Brisbane, Australia based Microfarm Group completed a feasibility study in May, 1999, of
the potential of urban rooftop microfarming in Mt Gravatt Central, a suburban shopping centre on the southside of
the city of Brisbane. The feasibility study revealed that an investment of about $212,000 on around 1,000 square
metres of space, could provide about 20% pa return after paying the wages of three to four employees (including
a manager), using the food wastes of local restaurants as the basis of an inorganic hydroponic nutrient for
growing salad vegetables, and providing food for native fish -- both of which could be sold back to the same
restaurants. The 600 sq. ft rooftop micro-farm in will be profitable within 18 months ad create several direct and
indirect jobs. The project is a nutrient capture system. It offers organic waste recycling, reduction of greenhouse
gases, as well as traffic reduction and building cooling as side-benefits.
A step by step process will flow more or less as follows:
• Restaurant>waste>grind>worms>castings>fruits>fish tanks>fish>
• nutrient liquor>hydroponics>crops>Restaurant
161
Initial investment [inputs are available in the market] A$ 212,500.23
Eli Zabar
In New York City Eli Zabar perhaps best exemplifies rooftop niche food production in the inner-city. He has a
gourmet deli on east 64th street, a gourmet restaurant on east 80th street and a roof-top market garden on east
94th street all in the upper-income high density borough of Manhattan. He was recently noted in a restaurant
guide for selling one sliced tomato and olive oil for US$ 9.00.
Eli has found that production on the 14th floor, within a mile of the kitchen, makes economic sense, given that you
start with the menu in hand when doing the planting.24
Inside Buildings
Chicago Indoor Gardens

Chicago indoor gardens is a privately-owned, for-profit business that employs ten people to grow eleven varieties
of sprouted grasses and beans under artificial light in a small factory building on the Chacago’s Northwest side.
The products are marketed to Dominick’s (a supermarket chain in Chicago), Whole Foods Markets, and health
food stores. The company was established in 1987, and earned revenues of $700,000 in 1998. (Kaufman and
Bailkey, 2000)
Philly Farms Mushrooms

Kaufman and Bailkey (2000) report that Philly Farms Mushrooms are currently planning a state-of-the-art
commercial mushroom farm to be sited in a 38,500 sq. ft. renovated building along the Delaware River. Philly
Farms Mushrooms represents a partnership between Urban Strategies, Inc. of Philadelphia, a private firm that
would coordinate the project, and Kaolin Mushroom Farms located in Chester County, Pennsylvania, one of the
largest mushroom producers in the United States. The idea of expanding Pennsylvania’s well-established
mushroom industry into the inner city has been discussed for several years, and Philly Farms, and the new
technology it will employ, is seen as a foundation for larger-scale food production in Philadelphia.
Philly Farms will employ the “tray” growing method, where 4-foot by 8-foot trays containing the mushroom-growing
substrate (produced at Kaolin Farms and brought into the city) are moved into separate rooms, each room having
different environmental conditions. This contrasts with the more common “shelf” method, where the substrate
remains in one location throughout the growing period, with the room environment changing as the mushroom
crop matures.
The facility will produce six million pounds of the white button mushroom annually, and probably half-million
pounds of Crimini and Portabella brown mushroom varieties. Projected gross revenues is six million dollars
23
Southside Chamber of Commerce, Urban Microfarm Feasibility Study 1998, www.L-coco.info
24
Eli Zabar, Gourmet Garage 301 East 64th St NYC Phone (212) 535-5880
162
annually, and upwards of seventy full-time jobs will be created, with temporary employment added during peak
production. The mushrooms would be marketed to local restaurants, retailers, wholesalers and food service
suppliers. The partnership behind Philly Farms expects the venture to be fully operational by 2002. (Kaufman and
Bailkey, 2000)
Richmond Specialty Mushroom Farms Ltd.

Richmond Specialty Mushroom Farms is a small family run operation that has developed a reliable. Computer-
controlled organic method of cultivating specialty mushrooms such as Portabellas, oyster and crimini mushrooms.
They offer turnkey operations to housed in shipping containers. Personal communication with the owner/operator
established that an operator could generate at least 100 lbs of specialty mushrooms per week./per container. =
$500/week retail. The Farm’s current output exceeds $300,000.
Figure 12-10: Mushrooms grown using sophisticated technology. Photo: Richmond Specialty Mushroom
Farms.
Edible Landscaping of the Public Realm
The Fruit Tree Project

The Fruit Tree Project is a community based food project that collects the unwanted fruit from backyard fruit trees,
cares for neglected fruit trees and distributes food to individuals in need and food banks. The fruit is used as a
valuable source of food with some of it being preserved at neighbourhood canning workshops (in community
kitchens). The idea is to connect those who have excess fruit with those that have time and energy to harvest it.
The project is also about bringing neighbours together and building community. There are now seven groups in
the region. The most successful, in Victoria, harvested 18,000 lb.s of fruit last season. Vancouver harvested 3500
lb.s last year. (personal communication with project volunteer and project brochure, 2002).
New York Tree Care by Citizens

In response to the ongoing need to not only plant more trees in North American cities, but also to find the
resources to maintain them, several American cities have enlisted the assistance of volunteers to plant, water,
prune and maintain street trees.
In New York City, for example, concerned citizens in the mid – 1970’s started the New York City Street Tree
Consortium (STC) for training citizens in tree maintenance. The STC has trained thousands of volunteers in
pruning and general care for trees. The volunteers in turn work with community groups, teaching their members
how to care for both the trees STC has planted and the ones already in the neighbourhood.
163
STC has also set up an advisory service, dispensing information and advice to interested groups on a sliding
scale basis. They have also established advanced seminars in tree care and published a book, Street Trees, by
Barbara Schaedler, meant for use in the field and described as a definitive text on northern street trees.
Other cities in the US have similar programs. In Los Angeles, TreePeople began its citizen forester training
program in 1986 and has since trained scores of volunteers who then organize plantings and tree care events.
The volunteers receive reference manuals as well as the official training. These citizen foresters work with
community groups, scout groups and police departments.
In Providence, R.I., citizens have combined tree care with an effort to give high-school dropouts a high school
degree and good job. Called the Southside Community Land Trust, the program selects four teens that are
enrolled in a General Education Degree program and trains them at a city nursery. When they have earned their
GED they are given full time jobs in the nursery/tree care industry. (Headley, 1992)
Commercial Market Gardens
Big Bend Burnaby
Figure 12-11: Market Gardens in Big Bend, Burnaby. (Photo: Rob Barrs)
Kon Kai Farms, Berkeley, California

Urban farms in other areas of the N. America report extremely high value production on very small acreages.
Michael Abelman mentions Kon Kai Farms in Berkeley Cal. which grosses an average of $250,000 (and as much
as $300,000) per year on 2/5 of an acre specializing in gourmet salad greens grown on raised beds. (Ableman,
1998)
164
Sausalito
Farming a city lot near downtown Sausalito, Cal. an urban farmer is netting between $30,000 and $45,000
annually growing watercress (Personal Communication, Masselink, 2002)
FoodShare
Foodshare of Toronto has been promoting small-scale entrepreneurial inner-city farming in Toronto for the past
five years. Its crops include: sprouts, seedlings, herbs, salad crops, flowers, vegetables of all sorts, berries, bees,
compost, and specialty ethnic crops. Its micro-enterprise program is based in four principles:
a) growth is slow and steady, [income increases season by season]
b) use of accessible technologies,
c) capacity building in all aspects of the enterprise,
d) encourage closed-loop cycles, waste is food, weeds to compost to food.
Production is on rooftop, in greenhouse, on idle land, and on institutional land. All sales are local.25
The Silwood Family

The Silwood Family runs a hydroponic farm on an ordinary lot in an inner suburb of Auckland, New Zealand. With an
average year-round labour force of seven, it produces 18 crops of gourmet lettuce on a quarter-acre (about 700
square meters); the same amount of lettuce would require the equivalent of 6,000 square meters of growing area in
an ordinary greenhouse.
The current revenue is more than NZ$400,000 a year, with potential for even higher turnover as the technology and
management is further refined. In 1996-97, turnover for every square meter of growing area was NZ$592. A duplicate
start up may cost only about NZ$200,000.
Fresh lettuce output is boosted significantly by using sterilized water, three tiers of hydroponic growing channels,
'daylight' lights for extended growing time, added carbon dioxide and judicious heating.
The product line is fresh, gourmet lettuce and herbs grown from both imported and local seed, and from on-site
varietal development. A choice of up to 20 different varieties gives customers daily options in taste and color.
Six local supermarket buyers and 30 local restaurant owners, representing 100 percent of sales, have sought
sustained, year-round supply from the Silwood urban farm. All the farm's customers are within 10 minutes delivery
time. On call service is available.
Toh Orchids
Toh Orchids, established in 1973 on three Singapore hectares, exports over 30 varieties of cut-orchids worldwide.
Toh does its own selection of new hybrids and applies micro-propagation in its own tissue culture laboratory. Delivery
is within 24 hours to all major metropolitan markets worldwide.26
26
Address on file. See “aquaculture” below
165
Greensgrow Philadelphia Project

Greensgrow Philadelphia Project is an experiment in urban farming begun in 1998 on the site of an abandoned
galvanized steel plant. Its mission is the transformation of inner city brownfields into green businesses.
Greensgrow, five minutes from the city centre, produces gourmet vegetables, herbs, annuals, perennials,
seedlings, and flowers. In addition to its own production it belongs to a co-op of suburban farmers who provide
meat, poultry, dairy and seasonal produce. Greensgrow has waiting lists of restaurants and membership in its
CSA. It can not expand rapidly enough. 27
Oriental Aquarium
Oriental Aquarium in Singapore produces ten percent of the world’s export market of 300 varieties of aquatic
plants. The plants are harvested and shipped fresh under phytosanitary conditions. It has its own tissue culture
facilities. It is well poised to capture a bigger slice of a rapidly growing world market. 28
Commercial Greenhouses
The "Ellgrow" hydroponic system

The "Ellgrow" hydroponic system using oval pipes has an attractive rate of return on capital on microfarms around
Brisbane. On a site about the size of a house building block (a quarter acre or about 0.17 of a hectare) an
investment of about AUS $30,000 enables a hydroponic grower to grow and harvest hydroponic produce worth
about AUS $130,000 a year.
The net return, depending on cost control and marketing skills, tends to be from A$50,000 to A$75,000 a year.
The quarter-acre, open-air units can be operated easily by a couple, especially one with children prepared to pitch
in to help with daily chores of planting out seeds and picking and packing.
On the downside, there has to be a seven-day-a-week time commitment. But such microfarms around peri-urban
areas, or on commercial rooftops in shopping strips or shopping malls, could be the future for a great deal of fresh
vegetable production.
A similar microfarm may soon to be set up in Mt Gravatt, a Brisbane suburb, on a purpose-built roof decking. In a
feasibility study now being completed, the "Ellgro" system is being included with vermiculture and aquaculture.
27
Office (215) 427-2702, CSA Philadelphia Fair Foo
2501 Cumberland Street, Philadelphia, PA 19125
Eu It Hai, Managing Director, O. A. c/o Primary Production Dept. Ministry of National Development, 5 Maxwell Rd #03-00,
28
Tower Block, MND Complex, Singapore 069110
166
Inuvik Greenhouse
The Inuvik Community Greenhouse is located in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, just above the 68th parallel, roughly
2 degrees north of the Arctic Circle. It is
home to the Community Garden Society
of Inuvik- a non-profit organisation
formed in November of 1998. This
greenhouse is probably the most
Northern commercial greenhouse in
North America, and the largest
community greenhouse of it's kind on the
planet.
The greenhouse was adapted from an
old Quonset style arena that has been
converted by removing the tin roof and
replacing it with polycarbonate glazing. A
second floor was added to one end of the
building and a separate 4000 sq. ft.
upper greenhouse was build for
commercial purposes. The community
part of the greenhouse sits on top of
gravel on the main floor and is about 12,000 square feet. Gardeners grow vegetables in 74 raised planter beds,
built on top of the gravel floor.
The greenhouse helped develop community and has attracted a wide range of people including experienced
gardeners. The purpose of the greenhouse is to ensure a more successful harvest of vegetables and to allow a
greater variety of crops in an area where fresh produce is often unavailable and can be very expensive.
The summer of 2000 was the greenhouses first year of full operation. The commercial greenhouse, staffed with 2
employees, produced a large crop of bedding plants and starter veggie plants for early June sales the commercial
greenhouse shifted to hydroponic tomato and cucumber production. This was less of a success, but did show
promise for future years as the bugs in the climate control systems get worked out. Downstairs, in the community
plots, people were planting out as early as the first weekend of May and gardened until the beginning of
September. That, coupled with our 24 hour sunlight, we've at least got a growing season indoors similar to that of
southern Alberta. (Young, 2002)
Aquaculture and Bioponics

A vermiculture (worm-growing) and aquaculture (tilapia fish) operation was, in June 1999, located in the
refurbished basement of a high-rise building in one of the city’s more notorious public housing projects, the Robert
Taylor Homes, on Chicago’s South Side. In autumn 1999, the Planting Dreams Worm and Fish Project was forced
to relocate by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) as part of its plan to demolish the structure. The project has
now relocated to the basement of the Taylor Homes building next door.
167
The Worm and Fish Project is staffed by teenagers living in Taylor Homes, and is part of a larger organization,
God’s Gang, begun by local women as a community outreach program by an adjacent church. Alison Meares
Cohen of the Chicago office of Heifer Project International (HPI), trained the youth—presently five boys and
girls—in the growing and selling of worms, and in the production and packaging of worm castings. HPI contributed
$14,000 to the effort, the CHA provided the remodeled basement space free of charge, and the Greater Chicago
Food Depository donated over $3,000 in organic vegetable waste for worm food. Castings produced in the 75
worm bins are sold in one, two, and three-pound bags at the Daley Plaza farmers market downtown (Appendix B,
Figure 9). In 1999, approximately $1,500 worth of vermiculture products were sold. These included the castings
(used as compost for vegetables, annual flowers, shrubs, berries, and rose bushes), worm beds, and start-up
vermiculture kits.
In another part of the basement, 55-gallon plastic tanks are used to raise tilapia fish acquired as fingerlings from
the University of Illinois. The aquaculture business plan is to donate the mature fish to food pantries in the initial
years of the project, then later sell them to supermarkets to generate income. Tilapia take eight months to grow to
full-size, weigh between one and two pounds, and are popular in Asian cooking.
Source: Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey. 2000. Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the
HPI Project
In Chicago’s predominately-Hispanic Pilsen neighbourhood on the southwest side, twenty families are planning to
raise tilapia fish in the homes of women who have recently immigrated from El Salvador. Some of the fish will
likely be consumed by the families of participants, while the balance will be sold for to supplement family incomes.
HPI (Heifer Project International) is providing $9,000 annually over a three-year period for this project.
Source: Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey. 2000. Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the
School Gardens
Grandview Woodlands School

Vancouver’s Grandview Woodlands School has undergone an intense landscape makeover in recent years.
Working with a landscape architect, the traditional school landscape has been transformed into a highly
ecological, learning landscape.
168
Figure 12-12: Grandview Woodlands School, Vancouver.
Pocket-Sized Farms School Garden Program, London, Ontario

Lifespin, a non profit, community-based organization in London, Ontario runs “Pocket-sized Farms ”,a school
garden program operating at a handful of elementary schools in London, Ontario. The focus of the program is to
create organic gardens on otherwise barren portions of the school landscape, teach children the skills of organic
gardening, and use the food grown to teach nutrition and healthy meal preparation. Both standard and heritage
seed varieties are used and seeds are saved from year to year as a means of preserving heritage varieties. The
gardening activity is supplemented with trips to nearby organic farms where the children learn about agriculture on
a larger scale.
Micro-Livestock
Livestock in the city is an ‘unmentionable’ that is common practice. Mega-cities [over ten million] such as Mexico
city and Cairo report livestock rearing as being more common than fruit and vegetable production as commercial
and hobby urban agriculture.
The Heifer Project

The Heifer Project began a livestock rearing project in Chicago and Milwaukee, in partnership with local churches
and community organizations, in the mid-1990s with support of the Kellogg Foundation and others. Prime lines of
production are bees, earthworms, fish [tilapia], and mice.
169
Worms are raised for composting food and other waste and for anglers. Mice are raised for medical research and
pets. Fish are raised for restaurants and home consumption. Bees are raised for their honey and pollination of
urban fruit trees, vegetable gardens and greenhouse crops. 29
29
Roger Cooley, Heifer Project Int. – Urban Project, 1703 West Division St No. 2
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone 1800 422-0474
170
Commercial Food Processing Facility
Field to Table Incubator Commercial kitchen in Toronto

About ten years ago, Field to Table, a non-profit organization dedicated to building sustainable community food
systems, constructed a 4500 square foot incubator commercial kitchen in Toronto. Most of the cooking equipment
(all natural gas fired) was donated by Consumers Gas. In addition, the kitchen receives $70,000 per year in
financial assistance from the Toronto Economic Development Corporation.
Tenants typically pay $20/hour to use the facility (although the Program Coordinator, Mary Lou Morgan, indicated
that the market rental rate for the facility would be about $50/hour. The facility generates about $35,000 in
revenues/year and is available half time (the other half of the time, the facility is used by Field to Table to cater
meals for its other programs). (Source: Pers. Comm., Mary Lou Morgan, Program Coordinator, August 28th,
2002). More information at: http://www.foodshare.net/cook.htm#5
Figure 12-13: Foodshare Kitchen Incubator. Photo: Foodshare Website
Eco-industrial Food Complexes
Intervale Community Food Enterprise Centre

www.cedoburlington.org/intervale_community_food_enterpr.htm
The City of Burlington, in partnership with the Intervale Foundation, the Compton Foundation, and the US
Department of Energy is developing a state-of-the-art facility that combines food processing, food waste
treatment and aquaculture using the principle of living machines. The City’s aim is to harness the
economic value found by linking organic agriculture, sustainable building design/architecture/engineering,
local employment, small business development, and quality, affordable food.
The facility consists of two parts.
171
20,000-ft2 of commercial building space for food processing, a community kitchen, environmental research and
education facilities.
21,000-ft2 of organic food growing in commercial greenhouse facilities.
This 10-acre project is geared toward filling specific market niches for new business enterprises. Its location in
the Intervale, a 200-acre agricultural area in Burlington, allows existing agricultural activities to benefit from access
to the facility and ensures support for new business enterprises. Shared cooperative business services, such as
production modules, pressurized steam, ample power and water, are tailored specifically for businesses looking to
move into or expand production.
Figure 12-14: Intervale Community Food Enterprise Center. Photo: City of Burlington Website
172
http://www.oceanarks.org/urban/
The living machine is a greenhouse-based, re-circulating "aquaponics wetland" that converts food
waste into high-protein feeds for fish production (aquaculture) and nutrients for hydroponic
vegetable and horticulture crops.
Food wastes from local restaurants are used as feedstock for aquaculture. In addition, the waste
from the fish are food for the plants and drive other important biological processes within the
ecosystem
Figure 12-15 : Images from Ocean Arks website
Farmers Markets
East Vancouver Farmers Market
This successful Farmers Market operates one day per week during the growing season on the Trout Lake
Community Centre parking lot in East Vancouver.
173
The Farmers' Market Society was established in 1995. It's mission statement is: to foster community health and
economic development through the creation of a venue where community members have greater access to safe,
healthy, locally produced, environmentally friendly food and where B.C. growers and craftspeople can market their
goods directly to urban consumers.
In 1995 the Society developed a pilot project which ran for 11 (Saturdays) weeks and averaged an attendance of
900 people over a 4 hours period. In 1996 attendance was 1500 over 5 hours and ran for 24 weeks. The Market
involved 100 different growers, artisans and small-scale food processors. They also had a toy exchange and a
drop in table for backyard gardeners with a surplus to share. Two tables
Figure 12-16: East Vancouver Farmers Market
were reserved for community agencies to interact with the public.
The Society reports that about 60% of those who attend the Market live between Wall, Nanaimo, 33rd, and
Fraser, 80% live east of Main Street, many walk. People stay on the average of an hour.
The Society, in keeping with its community based goals, has developed alliances with a number of local agencies.
Three of these organizations, the Vancouver Health Board, Kiwassa, and Reach Community Health Centre, have
programmes to enhance the level of awareness of good nutrition, eating habits and food preparation. The Society
offers incentives, food coupons and education which, in turn brings the participants to the Market. The Society
also has a number of other initiatives designed to educate and bring the community together.
Details of Operation
The total number of vendors is limited to 40; up to 24 farmers, 8 artisans, 8 micro-food processors. All participants
sign an agreement and meet criteria related to quality, variety and Society purpose. Only vendors who make,
bake or grow their own product are permitted. The Agreement regulates pricing. All prepared goods are labelled
and meet Environmental Health regulations. All agricultural methods are identified.
174
In 1996 the Society had a $24,000 budget. There is a rental fee of $25.00 for farmers and $15.00 for the other two
categories, a seasonal total of $14,000. In 1996 the Society was able to pay a $10,000 honorarium to the principle
organizer. The budget (Appendix B) also covers insurance, publicity/posters, fees, program and administrative
expenses. The Society had a Community Economic Development grant of $16,000 in 1996 and is seeking
additional funding for 1997. They also had a student grant. The rest of the preparation and the on site operation is
handled by 12 Society volunteers (1500 hours). source:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/bdpackg/1997/970310/farmkt.htm
Covent Garden Market

A public market has operated in London, Ontario since 1845 but the building that housed the market in recent
years became run-down and poorly attended by the late 1990’s.
The new market opened in 2000, features fine food dining, produce stalls, flower displays, artisan craft stalls, kids
activities and an outdoor public plaza. This plaza is home to an outdoor farmers market on Thursdays and
Saturdays during the growing season and also doubles an ice rink during Winter months.
175
13.0 Appendix C – Notes from Workshops

Brainstorming Session Notes with Urban Agriculture Experts
MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2002
IN ATTENDANCE:
• Rob Barrs, Meeting Chair, Lead Consultant, Holland Barrs Planning Group
• Herb Barbolet, Executive Director, Farmfolk/Cityfolk Society
• Erik Lees, Landscape Architect, Lees and Associates
• Derek Masselink, Director, UBC Farm
• Mark Robbins, Regional Agrologist, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
• Ralph Perkins, Planner, liaison to GVRD Agricultural Committee
• Gord Tycho, Holland Barrs Planning Group (notes)
MINUTES
• Introduction
o SE False Creek ODP; previous studies on transportation, energy, solid waste, and water (urban
agriculture is the latest study)
o SEFC intended as a “model” - hopefully practices here will show up in other Vancouver
developments
o Brown field site; contaminated soil; all buildings to be demolished except for those with heritage
value
o Intended to be a complete, mixed use community (predominantly residential)
o 11,000-14,000 residents, 6,000 units, 250-300 employees, elementary school, 26 acre park,
neighbourhood house.
• Challenges (and responses) – Rob B. highlighted some of the perceived challenges to urban agriculture at
SEFC and participants responded with comments.
o Lack of space to grow food/fragmented space for example the park has many land use demands
on it from a variety of competing interest groups. Not sure that Park use will be as high as
anticipated. Access is not that easy – mainly Waterfront path use, but low internal use of Park.
there is a niche market potential (restaurants, etc.) that could work well with fragmented space
o High value of land for other uses/low economic return for agriculture – urban agriculture as a
commercial land use cannot compete with most other land uses which generate a much higher
dollar value per acre. Therefore, urban agriculture can only thrive at SEFC if supported by the
City because of its other benefits. The City might choose to support commercial urban agriculture
at SEFC by zoning land specifically for urban agriculture in the same way that industry might be
supported even though residential development would attract a higher price for land.
o Competition with rural growers and imports – urban agriculture as a commercial activity can only
survive if it can be done at a profit. Price thresholds are set by market place. Rural growers have
the advantage of larger scale, lower taxes and cheaper land. Foreign production is often
176
artificially subsidized making it difficult for Canadian rural farmers, let alone urban farmers, to
compete.
o Land-use conflicts – noise, dust, odours, untidy – this is a design issue
o Security – theft, vandalism – rooftops are very secure, again design can overcome, community
gardens continue to experience some problems in this area.
o Technical Limitations –skill shortage – there is a shortage of skilled urban farmers. UBC farm and
FFCF both have experienced this and trying to address through training programs. It can be
technically very difficult to get high levels of quality production from a rooftop situation. We have
to recognize this is a fledgling field of study and not enough work has been done to generate
high levels of competence yet. This could be an opportunity for SEFC
o Lack of interest in working with the land – especially when urban residents have high pressure,
time consuming careers. However, generally seems to be a high level of interest in Vancouver –
community garden sign up rates are growing. The work of FFCF and others has catapulted food
issues to a high status in Vancouver compared with other Cities.
o Legal Liability – recognized that this is an issue in some cases but can be overcome with sensible
design and clear thinking.
o Contaminated soils – City is planning to concentrate all contaminated soil in one spot in the park
and then “cap”. Not sure of exact technology. Soil testing for residues will be important if farming
in native soil.
o Perception as inappropriate in City – despite some changes in perception about the
“appropriateness of urban agriculture” there is a lingering sense that this is better left to rural
folks. However, once excellent examples are developed, this will fade away.
o Regulatory Barriers – zoning restrictions, height restrictions, design guidelines, health laws and
bylaws may make urban agriculture difficult from a bureaucratic standpoint. However, regulatory
change is possible for SEFC.
Other Comments arising from challenges discussion:
o what recommendations do we provide to the City in regard to what role the site plays in
relationship to the rest of the City and indeed the region?
o We need to think about a ‘marketing strategy’ for urban agriculture in Southeast False Creek
(permaculture, landscaping, sale of sites) to show that it can generate a lot of interest amongst
many people these days – in deed there is a great enthusiasm for homes that provide practical
opportunities that urban agriculture offers.
o Park Board policy: they prefer ‘group’ gardens more than ‘individual’ plots since this is in keeping
with the ‘public’ nature of the park
o We need to design for multiple objectives if the Parks Board is going to approve urban
Agriculture uses.
• What is our working definition of Agriculture?
o How are we defining agriculture?
o What are we growing?
o What about non-food items?
o Do we focus only food related agriculture or whatever is commercially viable (including
floriculture, medicinal herbs)? Food is most important.
o Should we include processing/distribution in the definition (for example, we could consider
placing a commercial juicer in Southeast False Creek) Yes.
177
• Options
o For best results, we need to make the plan flexible – i.e. need to design for multi-functionality so
that if urban agriculture fails we, the space is still useful.
o Governance and stewardship – who is responsible if someone walks away from a garden
plot/commercial venture?
o Although transportation is difficult, the park space per capita is quite low for the area.
Consequently, park will be highly used.
o Perhaps the site doesn’t have to take on the challenge of growing all its food, but rather develops
a relationship with off-site growers – perhaps we develop a farmers market that invites farmers
from the Fraser Valley.
o Organic vs. Non- organic? Agriculture should definitely be organic but may also allow
hydroponics which the Organic movement is reluctant to allow organic ststaus because it doesn’t
involve soil building – other jurisdictions allow hydroponic organic such however, such as
California.
o Retail? Emphasize a food purveyor in the area (like Granville Island)
o Urban agriculture could be great for the older population (hobby, supplemental income, etc)
o Expand options – not just traditional food crops but medicinal, floral, etc.
o Herb comments on an off-grid high rise project
o Rob points out the ecological footprint of greenhouses (very high). What do we do with the
building heat (i.e. how can we utilize it?) to improve “sustainability of high tech greenhouses”?
• Examples
o Big Bend – 4 crops per year, propagate, hand transplant, $35,000 wholesale
o What about soil quality? How will soil contamination effect the yield and health safety of any
potential crops
o Labour intensive, constant growing, upscale market, restaurants
o L.A. micro-farming example: $200,000 /acre
o Personal vs. public farming? Do we need a Coordinator? Training? Education? Most likely, the
answer to these questions is yes
o Perhaps some sort of cooperative marketing strategy is called for
o What about safety mechanisms? (in lieu of 911, etc.) It is important to leave the soil open for
future emergency uses. We should turn the question around – traditionally, we ask ‘how much
farm space do we need to set aside’. Rather, we should ask ‘how much urban development
space do we need’?
o Herb wonders about the aesthetics of greenhouses. Something to consider in a high end
development project – different approaches, plastic, glass, polycarbonate.
o Village Homes in Davis, California has some good examples of suburban agriculture
• Subsidy versus Public Good
o The argument of subsidy vs. public good. Subsidy is a dirty word in development issues. We
need to be careful. Should we consider urban agriculture as a common public good? Should it
be subsidized in a manner similar to our existing park systems?
o SW Marine Drive as an example Æ possibilities for providing space on the outside for growing a
variety of things
o Perhaps community amenities need to start including growing areas
o This is a multi-layered problem
o We need to remember that nothing does one thing. Places need to be multifunctional
• Options for food distribution:
178
o link to Granville Island Market (supply and exchange)

o Tree fruit project
o Central place with facilitator
• UBC farm is trying to localize processing and production
• Urban agriculture could be a great way for seniors to subsidize income
• Davis, California apparently has a good example of food in a park
• Buying Clubs are huge in Japan
• There is a local history of agricultural production in the 70’s and early 80’s
• Commercial Market Gardens
o The Waterfront Hotel is a good example – it represents a corporate market!
o The Body Shop is treating all their wastes
o Chocolate Factory
o Urban Herbals, LA
• Turning Waste into Food:
o North Vancouver Island operation (hog fuel waste/heavy metals)
o The SE False Creek water study: essentially there is not enough rain in the Vancouver area to
enable us to harvest a lot of water
o Perhaps we should consider an innovative augmentation with grey water
o Concerns over grey water: contact with humans – underground seems to be the way to proceed
with grey water
o How do we utilize heat from buildings as a potential energy source for urban agriculture
o Newfoundland example – closed system with fish – fish wastes go back into the gardens
o Compost toilets – Abbey Rockefeller and opportunities for ‘waterless toilets’
o Animals in the city – explore but be cautious
• Lets try to leave the door open (in regard to by-law recommendations – i.e. zoning and health)
• Commercial Greenhouses
o Driving costs – can tolerate some inconveniences if there are incentives
o High value crops
o LEED incorporation in S.E. False Creek
o Karl Hahn – greenhouse specialist
o Multifunctional space
o We should tie into Cities Plus and/or Growing Green
Rob’s Notes
• What happens to the land if initiative fails?
• How to deal with failures in the market
• technical limitations
• Challenges
o Park’s Board – rivals use of public land
o Use the landscape to connect uses
o Integration is important
o Connectivity with other urban and suburban initiatives
• Economic opportunities Æ value in outdoor, productive space
• Focus also on floriculture, botanical uses, medicinal, processing, distribution
• Possible link to Eco-café proposal or another retail food outlet
• Flexibility of space is important
179
• Perhaps separate out park from other spaces – it is a special case

• Long-term stewardship is important – how to ensure
• Most don’t see high use of park except on Waterfront Edge
• Lets make SEFC a true demonstration to set this place apart from others
• Need to establish clear goals and principles
• Inside buildings/green high rise
• Contact BC Hothouse Growers
• Microfarming – very high value from small spaces
• Aesthetic issue Æ plastic cloches and poly tunnels – very economic but aesthetically ugly, high tensile
structures are better.
• Village Homes, Davis – case study
• Fairmout Waterfront Hotel – case study
• Options/pro/cons/case studies
• Highest and best use argument
• Gardening very popular hobby/pastime
• Need studies that illustrate value of growing space/gardens
• Marketing of development issues
• Not enough urban agriculture entrepreneurs – lack of skilled people. FFCF and UBC farm working on that
• Criteria: include “is it realistic” both dollars and practicality
• Options: Link to Granville Island market
• Farmer’s Market – not just for Farmers but for home growers, micro processors etc. Create a mechanism for
income patching , especially for lower income people.
Urban Herbals – Derek photos
Livestock – possibility with having chickens (slaughter is a problem). Small scale abbatoirs, precedents. Don’t
abandon the idea of small livestock without looking at it a bit more.
Connecting commercial wastes with livestock may be fruitful.
• Commercial Scale
• Land cost
• Heat
• Retail vs wholesale
• High value crops
• LEED rating
• Design to incorporate multiple functions into roof top space
• Growing green project
• Cities Plus project
• Perhaps have a TEAA (total effective agriculture area) – requirement – based on total area * number of
participants etc.
• Present scenarios of productivity – how much food could be produced using each approach to urban
agriculture.
180
Notes from meeting with Development Community

Sept. 19,2002
Attending:
David –Sustainability Ventures Group –retailing and processing options
Kolvane Yuh -City of Vancouver Real Estate – land owner
Robin Petri – City of Vancouver, Projects Branch
Brian Crowe – City of Vancouver, Projects Branch Manager
Ian Smith – City of Vancouver, Senior Planner, Central Area Planning
Ann Bancroft Jones - Polygon
Bob Heaslip– Brook Development Planning
Eric Lees – Lees + Associates Landscape Architecture
Mark Holland – Holland Barrs Planning Group
Rob Barrs – Holland Barrs Planning Group (facilitator)
Phase 1 – workshop - Examining role of food related activity in a high density urban community
Looking at various approaches to food related activity – discussing issues and concerns in order to identify
solutions
What might be the concerns of developers?
• Qu: Why are we focussing on food when thinking of urban agriculture – agriculture is not only food
• Not clear on the terms of reference – was not expecting the discussion of urban agriculture to be solely
focussed on food production etc.
• Why are we off on this specific tangent (developers perspective)
-suggests the need to look at liability issues –ex leaky condos
-anticipates huge concerns from developers
-suggests it would helpful to know the terms of reference – make explicit the reason for choosing the route of
‘commercial activity to grow food’
• Brian – clarifies that these were the initial expectations of the city – emphasis on the personal - the city
envisioned the commercial as less likely than the personal
• Eric -puts forth argument that agriculture by definition includes some part of the food chain
• Mark - this is an attempt at looking at the implications of food system flow
• Can we define rooftop gardens as you speak of them in this study as podium rooftop gardens?
• General message- podium rooftops are more appropriate for growing
-there is a strong inclination to podium rooftops as more viable
• These are all private or institutional sites - this poses a problem from the developer’s perspective – in the case
of private owners – who will manage these?
• If the city wants to do this on site – perhaps we need to look at this in terms of public and private – it would be
helpful to breakdown what is achievable on private vs. public sites.
• Developers perspective – wonderful sustainable ideas – but what does this mean for the developers? Need to
keep practicality in mind.
• Some believe that this is not feasible for the development community
181
• Green roofs are of interest – but are they going to be mandated / and can they be?
• How do you (or do you at all) enforce food production?

• City perspective - Intention is to create interest and make it so that people can engage in urban agriculture
• City wants to know -What can the city do to enable those interested in engaging in urban agriculture
• -The reality (in considering cost) is going to generate densities that lose sustainability features
- there is no evidence that the market cares about sustainable projects
- feels that we need to be careful of adding on more layers of complications for strata owners, for
example:
- very different management issues arise if growing food – for instance who gets the crop?
- says people complain even of the aesthetics – who will maintain it – how it looks will be very important
• Comments on rooftops:
• concerns of cost and how you control water
- ex: port moody created whole open spaces on podium roof 22 acre site
• Bob suggests - what you have here is something that can be approached through hierarchy – look at the
whole community, what is the aim in order to do a combination of policy guidelines and framework
• one approach is to create a 'bonus' system for incentives
• sees opportunity not only for food, but also flowers etc. that can also be marketed
• suggests considering various locations – whether community school, yard etc.
• suggests that we have to think in terms of practicality but also in terms of what we could do to educate the
public, give them opportunities
- ex: port moody – wanted walkway with educational opportunities – linked to streamkeepers groups to
produce educational pamphlets etc.
• commercial side of things – opportunity arises if you designate or zone specific sites for kin markets – maybe
get the community involved or maybe solely commercial.
• Incubator is an excellent idea – people like the social aspects of growing as well as income generation
• Dave also enforces social importance
• Point is that you have to make this realistic but you can put out lots of carrots to promote interest, if consumer
is not interested the study is not lost, this is also a great marketing opportunity – to be seen as leading edge
(this is a good incentive for developers)
• Water damage is concern – but it is manageable (Fairmont hotel is a good example of this)
• – idea of being practical, able to implement
- also important to think of timing, somebody should be putting their mind to phasing ( because much of this
will not happen for years to come)
• Good to have in next phase of report:

- small sites, first sites, existing parcels of land and their constraints
- 3 owners are ready to go
• distinction of public and institutional
• we need to get this message to the development community – the comfort level of the development
community is low, perhaps these examples are too academic and developers can’t relate
• if we appreciate the fact that people have been waiting for zoning – put onus on developers to be more
creative – what bonuses can we create for them
182
• parallel – didn’t have recycling 15-20 years ago – if we look at this as example - we need to come up with
something that is realistic and that makes it worthwhile for developers
• key – have a demonstration location, showing interactive approach
• this is a big leap to make – find what we can apply to higher density places, providing related opportunities
• the difficulty- this hasn’t happened at the private level with higher density
• Questions to ask / suggestions:
- what could be some appropriate bonuses – (we can’t mandate this process)
- ‘trying to design flexibility’ is very important
• Fear – idea that we are getting into an environmental performance plan – another layer of
bureaucracy/approval will drive developers further away
- have to make this easy for people to do, because those that are coming along do not want to do it.
• Another concern – infrastructure will change over time
• If there is some way to target a specific location on city land – if somehow you can get that going right away
you can stage it to get people interested – this would be an automatic marketing opportunity for the
developers, and it won’t even cost them that much (doesn’t have to be owned by the municipality)
• It is suggested that it would be challenging to have part of the city site for urban agricultural use. There is a
big problem with cost – with the current strategy, it is essential to keep the project on edge, it can fall very
quickly to not being seen as feasible.
• In order to risk manage this – all we can do is throw some ball, otherwise we will trigger many other costs –
this provides an extremely high level of challenge
• Dealing with ground water – you could have private pots, but whatever goes in there will go into the ground
water (and location is so close to the creek)
- this needs to be considered, also applies to 1st and 2nd avenue projects, whatever goes in there at the source
can go into the creek.
- this is case for both private and commercial, we would need to guarantee that there would be no
contamination into the creek
- however, it is not impossible to get these approvals
• we need to really look at characteristics of the land and site – contaminated soils are an issue, anything that
bothers MOE will delay…
• Ian- this is a sustainable neighbourhood (as of 1995) - regardless of what different departments feel, council
constantly reminds us of this
- thinks next council will be even more supportive- but if at the end of the day it doesn’t make sense
economically, they won’t back it up
• zoning was not to be I2, there will be a bonus zoning that will encourage owners to participate in mixed
zoning that includes environmental
• we have to define what are the goal posts area and define what we want them to do
• Ian – in phase 2 we need to:
- look at private lands between 1st and 2nd Ave.
- have to start from square 1 with city owned land – if we can’t do this on our own land then we have to let it
go
- also need to parcel off area that is FC 1, include city and Translink land and then put together a strategy for
the entire piece.
- need to separate what is more applicable to private lands and what is applicable to public lands
- need to be sensitive to size of development parcels as they are today, all have diff zoning issues now – we
need to look at what this means
183
• can’t do this in isolation of energy and water waste

- can consider this as part of strategy – to set a certain standard at what you can get approved from MOE etc,
and with the things that are more difficult you pass them on as suggestions
• – it is helpful to understand practicalities, what is a green roof – developers need it broken down, the cost etc.
(developers will not respond to the academic approach)
- developers need some of the practical micro details
• Need to add another layer of analysis - different types of built form (wood vs. concrete construction)
• Collecting rainwater into barrel is a very simple and cost-effective solution – people need to be aware of this
• if you can approach your portion – providing a set of guidelines that will get the developers to their comfort
level – don’t want to put this out as if it is being forced or mandated – need to make it clear that this is
voluntary
• Commercial aspects:
- many code issues are going to be fundamental
• has anyone considered the implications of the site being so close to Granville island?
• several small scale operations thought it would be viable, but the city has too many restrictions
• so what can we do to make it easier to get permits?
• use an incubator approach?
• many of these businesses have a hard time surviving because they are not cheap
• if you choose a model and then approach businesses that are successful – ask them what would make it
attractive for them? how could we make this easy for you? for this to happen, would you consider partnership
with city?
• customers like 'different' and 'unique' approaches, for ex: idea of food grown on site – such customers are info
junkies, myths of origin etc….
• - you will have people wanting to travel to this destination
• City- we are interested in promoting this as 'local'
• need to try to find a spot that will appeal to all components – we need to be sensitive to who is really going to
live there
• Emergency food -
- be careful in saying that this is high end condo development and mixing groups – - careful in the linkage
between groups
• Farmers markets -
- great idea depending on location – uses ex of port moody where private land was used for various types of
markets on certain days and certain hours
- don’t give up on markets being on private owned land
- one of the aims in creating these places is community interaction – thinks you have to start small and make it
flexible
• try to speculate on the percentage which will be interested in order to know your target
• also, think of flexible space, for multiple uses – how can we get a better density use out of one site?
• Thinks this can work both commercially and at the community level
- need to get practical info from engineering department
• Thinks report will be more complete with:

- idea of general vs. specific
184
- are we expecting uniform standards with all the buildings or different standards?
- this needs to be clear in report, otherwise will create many problems at the enforcing stage
• Looking for landowner perspective:

• how to frame urban agriculture to make sense to the land owner
• element of timing, demand preference changes with time
• need to know hw to reduce the red flag
• Response: you want to set up your hierarchy and state what is required and what isn’t and make it very clear
why you are doing this and what makes it worth their while.
• have to create excitement about the idea
• set up framework so that standards are clear – and educate through pamphlets etc. with ideas of how strata
can be involved in a more sustainable process
• City - environmental performance plan may or may not be required as part of guidelines
• what will show in guidelines is what shows up in ODP
• City needs from you – what should we put in those guidelines
• thinks that to get developers interested we need to show them that this can sell itself – they need to see what
the benefit is for them
• need to create a doable report card
• provide carrots all along the way, make it small steps so that they don’t feel like they’re being dragged through
it
• the developer is just the flow-through instrument - developer needs certainty on 2 factors - the market and
financing
- 3rd factor – they will also want a higher return for their money
• the argument of density has been created by developers because of how much profit they want to make
• need to find a way so that the stakeholders are not competing with each other
• Info on market analysis factors – where can we access this kind of analysis?
- look at it from 2 sides – how can we do this a little different (cost) (Paul Rollo) and the other side, the
consumer side (Mark Trend )
• An added aspect to this: as well as informing you on trends, it will allow you to show how you can market this
stuff – illustrate the side-benefits to the buyer
185
Stakeholder’s Workshop Notes

September 26, 2002
ATTENDING:
Devorah Kahn - Farmers Market’s of Vancouver
Barb Lindsay - SEFC stewardship group
Alan Duncan – City of Vancouver Planning Department
Susan Kerbis - Environmental Youth alliance
Muggs Siguirson - Strathcona Community Gardens
Uta Arajs – City of Vancouver, Landscape Architectural Group
Tilo Driessen - Parks Board
Angela Gonyea – Central Area Planning
Ian Smith - Central Area Planning
Mike Levenston – City Farmer
Derek Masselink - UBC Farm
Danielle Lukovitch – GVRD
Robin Petrie – City of Vancouver Engineering Department
Consulting Team
REGULATING AND VIABILITY:

• Will there be the problem of needing approval (of community gardens) every year?
• How viable is this?
• Can you place this study into context – where it fits into the larger SEFC ODP?
-preliminary ODP in February
-initial public review will probably begin March/April
-ODP will set the basic character
• {Tilo}: 2 principles that are important:
1. The more the idea is connected to other ideas that happen in the same place the stronger the
chance the idea will become reality
2. The more the ideas cannot interfere with other functions on the site, the higher chance of
success.
DESIGN / LAND CONSIDERATIONS:

• Have you explored retrofitting existing buildings (now and for the future)?
• Keep food processing in mind while designing buildings
• Is the use of park space being considered for urban agriculture?
• Is there an opportunity to identify what kind of land use is available (is it broken down)?
• In terms of the 26 acres of parkland – will there be space for wild native habitat for birds (which are necessary
for gardening)?
• We should be making use of land that is ‘free’
• {John}: at Mole Hill we were able to reduce parking and use land as community gardens, this could be an
option for SEFC (and this could be viewed as ‘free’ land)
• The 26-acre parkland will also respond to the needs of the Mt.Pleasant area
186
• There are many opportunities (and the Parks Board is a little hesitant)
• Comment on the need to start thinking about land that can be used around the streets
SPECIFIC LAND CONSIDERATIONS:

• Rooftops: faucets for irrigation, access
• If thinking of hydroponics – then why use good land – use rooftop gardens for this
• The question of toxic landscape – the worst contamination is in the west side of site
• We can assume that 2/3 will be clean
• {Tilo}: we cannot have a toxic park
• It would be useful to flag the toxic areas so that they are recognizable
• 50 years into the future we will need to be able to identify health and being in order to use these areas
• Question regarding the cycle of production waste – how do you see this study connecting to the other
studies?
• How can this plan tie in with the other plans to maximize the circularizaiton?
COST - BENEFIT:
• Are you doing any kind of assessment of the space available (public, semi private, private) to see what is in
fact feasible?
• Land cost - the city doesn’t treat public land that is free for public use, they see it as an investment
• {Tilo}: the more you take land cost out of the discussion of urban agriculture, the more you will succeed
• {Derek}: there are a number of other costs that need to be considered - if we look at land values and what
people want, there needs to be a balance of various uses
• Also need to take input costs into consideration - this is a big part of the picture
• City needs to consider subsidizing this activity so that creative activities can happen
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
• More encouraging of a collective approach as opposed to an individual approach
• Not enough food can be produced for all that live there, how will it be determined who gets access etc.
• {Mugs}: policy for Strathcona – everyone who comes is entitled (try to encourage local residents)
- to get on wait list, need to participate work party
- there is a certain amount of rotation that happens/people weed themselves out etc.
fee is $10/year
• When you think about the cost of city land, this is not economically feasible. Therefore, the city needs to ask
itself if it wants to encourage urban agriculture for the public good
• Re-emphasize urban agriculture in terms of social sustainability such as community building (urban
agriculture has the function of bringing people together – we need to value its important social role
GROUP DISCUSSIONS: ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND IDEAS

GROUP 1: NON COMMERCIAL FOOD PRODUCTION: PRIVATE GARDENS/COMMUNITY GARDENS:
• Discussed balcony gardens - for herbs etc.
• Talk of the need for infrastructure throughout - where space is provided as well as water hook up to make it as
easy as possible for those who want to do it
187
• Creating access and providing infrastructure are important

• Building the landscape so that people are able to use it
• Landscape design should involve the residents as much as possible
• Talk of blackberries/blueberries/edible flowers
• Not to worry if it is not a huge success right away - to anticipate changes
• Discussed schools and community centre's - infrastructure should be in place there - and programming
should consider this (this needs to be considered ahead of time)
GROUP 2: FOOD PROCESSING:

• The idea of a shared kitchen was immediately jumped on, there needs to be a business case we need a
champion to do this
• Someone needs to take on exploring the business planning of this (such as a sophisticated NGO) to see what
really might be possible
• Is there a demand for this and how do we do it?
• Identified that there is a food processing network in BC, so there is an existing infrastructure (examples in
Kamloops and Kelwona)
• See an opportunity for all to use it (ex: see a large demand for cooking classes)
• If combined with a school, it could have a significant educational role
• Has a huge potential for bringing people in with various interests or skills in the community
• All three ideas ended up being merged (the incubator idea came up right away with a preference that the
scale be local)
• There are certain niche markets in agriculture that would fit very well in certain spaces in SEFC, we should
identify these
• Emphasis on multiple use complexes: establish a facility and lease it for multiple uses (if it is designed this
way)
• Need to consider when these ideas come into the planning process?
• The shared kitchen could be a part of a larger idea, tying together various functions
• Don't separate food production, combining commercial and industrial
• Question of whom will use it, there is already a demand (network)
• Integrating this idea into a community centre or school is also an option
• Eco-industrial complex – idea that having a waterflow would be useful
• Think that the impact of flow of a kitchen would not be more significant than a restaurant kitchen
• Regulations that are in place now will create challenges later (particularly health regulation questions)
• At the end of all of these plans we will have to either find a way to get around regulations or change them (we
have to try not to be prescriptive)
• Consider trade-off of rooftops vs. permeable (lose some attributes such as social)
• Considerations for the Eco-industrial complex idea:
- the commercial rooftop option loses the social value
- think that it is the permeable soil that gives the most options
• Question regarding the challenges in integrating food processing within a high density environment:
-we would want a place to sell it there – local production more than business
-there could be loading bay capacity in the commercial area
-if could be several companies that could share the loading bay
• Considerations for the Food Incubator idea:
188
- Possibility of a training / technical collage (this could be a good program for community facilities such
as chef training or opportunities for places such as VCC to use facilities /provide training etc. could be
created)
GROUP 3: FOOD DISTRIBUTION / RETAIL:

• See facilities as bases for various food-related organizations, a place where such organizations collate their
administration
• Talked about options such as a grocery store, shouldn’t be just a convenience store but one that provides
residents with all they need
• Raised concern that grocery stores create traffic congestion, how would residents feel about this?
• Idea of a market in a space that could be multi-purpose (such as a farmers market in good weather / concert
hall in poor weather)
• It is suggested that there is probably demand for a farmers market twice as large as Trout Lake, this needs to
be looked at
• Question as to whether it is possible to contribute food off the site (emergency)
• Don't see enough room in Vancouver for another Granville Island, think any plan for a market needs to be
sensitive to Granville Island
• Perhaps there is room for a producers market as well as a farmers market?
GROUP 4: COMMERCIAL FOOD PRODUCTION:

• Potential of operating a market garden see a possibility, though spatial requirements are not that great
• Concerns of a commercial operation and exclusivity of use
• A need for multi-functionality was also raised
• There should be other connections made such as education, training, access
• Raised governance issues, how do you establish the parameters around use?
-could strata council set these parameters?
-what about security, which limits public access (exclusivity again)?
-should we be looking at other areas where land values are lower?
• Exclusivity of use and programming of multi-functionality - issue of using up landscape as opposed to putting
it on a building
• If the greenhouse option is going to be super energy intensive, it may not be worth it
• We only start to make the gains when we see the circularization process come into play
CLOSING REMARKS:
• 44% of people in Vancouver grow food for their household (City Farmer Study)
• School grounds - policy issues and management issues that impede (child labour and union issues for
schools and who looks after the site in the summer)
• Should this be highlighted in the study?
People are so important in this process - the fire needs to be lit in them to support these ideas (we need support
for our organizations etc.)
189
14.0 Appendix D – Evaluation Criteria and Matrices

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this report present a number of options for food production, food processing and food
distribution that the City may choose to encourage in the future community at SEFC. Each of the options is
discussed according a set of social, environmental, economic and other criteria each of which is discussed here.
The scale of the impact of the various options will to some extent depend on how much land is made available to
pursue the option and how much food is produced. If the option of a commercial greenhouse is pursued, for
example, it could produce a lot more food than other options based on voluntary labour. This would reduce the
number of off-site grocery-shopping trips made by residents and in turn reduce the negative environmental
impacts associated with personal vehicle use.
Table 14-1 and Table 14-2 are an attempt to summarize that work in a concise form so that easy comparisons can
be made. The evaluation of each option has been done according to the criteria outlined below. For each option
we have scored (from –5 to +5) the option based on a qualitative estimate of how it rates against the criteria. For
example, the option G1, community gardening scores very positively against the criteria of “social an recreational
impacts on the community” and therefore receives a score of “+5”.
Most of the criteria are necessarily qualitative at this stage and are based purely on our professional judgement
and experience. Many will remain so, but others may be conducive to a more quantitative estimate in future
detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this study. No attempt at this stage has been made to weigh the
criteria or to calculate the total scores for each option as we believe this would give a false impression regarding
the accuracy of this evaluation. The numbers are necessarily subjective and are offered only as the basis for
discussion.
Social Criteria
Level of food self-sufficiency

How much of the resident’s food needs could be met using this option – i.e. what is the quantity of food produced?
Opportunities for Social Interaction and Recreational Impacts on The Community

Some of the options will provide for greater opportunities for involvement by residents than others. Community
gardening especially encourages social interaction and is an active, recreational pursuit.
Health, Diet (including health risks)

How much does the option improve health by allowing residents to participate in healthy, outdoor pursuits (as
noted above) but may also improve the quality and freshness of the food consumed by residents. This is
especially true if organic methods are used as organic food production has been demonstrated to increase the
quantity of important micro-nutrients (trace elements) in food.
190
Educational
Various options may offer opportunities for increasing residents understanding of the relationship between the
land and food as well as other educational opportunities.
Impact On Other Land Uses/Users

How will each option impact the ability of other land users to enjoy the community?
Opportunities for all residents to participate

To what extent does the option encourage broad participation by the community?
Environmental Criteria
Stormwater management
What are the likely impacts of the options on stormwater management techniques.
Use of wastes
To what extent does the option provide for recycling/re-using solid, liquid, and heat waste?
Energy conservation
To what extent is the option energy intensive or energy conserving?
Impact on local travel

To what extent does the option reduce the need for residents to travel outside the community for basic needs?
Water Conservation
What impact does the option have on the amount of potable water used by the community?
Creation of oxygen
Will the option have any significant impact on the amount of oxygen created?
Effect on air quality

What impact will the options have on local air quality?
Biodiversity
What effect will the option have on local biodiversity? This may include the diversity of non-food plants associated
with the option as well as the variety of food plants produced for consumption – i.e. dietary diversity.
191
Economic Criteria
Capital cost and potential to recover initial investment (public/private)

What is the cost of pursuing the option (to a private developer, to a commercial grower or to the City)?
Long term maintenance cost - for public/private sector

What is the on-going maintenance cost for the City, for developers or for commercial growers?
Impact on adjacent land value

What is the impact of the option on adjacent land value?
Create jobs and economic development

To what extent does the option create jobs and/or local economic development?
Other Criteria
Ease of implementation
How simple is the option to implement?
Ability to transfer the technique to another community

Can the technique be transferred easily to other communities or is the option uniquely suited to SEFC?
Ability to change to another land use if found to be unsuccessful

If the option does not work, how easy will it be to transform the space to another use?
Achievement of multiple objectives (multiple functionality)

To what extent does the option achieve multiple benefits simultaneously as opposed to targeting a single
objective?
New and Innovative

What is the educational value of the option for SEFC as a model sustainable community – does the option allow
exploration of the limits of understanding about sustainability and contribute towards the overall knowledge of
sustainable communities?
192
Table 14-1: Evaluation of Food Production Options

OptionG1 OptionG2 OptionG3 OptionG4 OptionG5 OptionG6 OptionG7 OptionG8 OptionG9 OptionG10 OptionG11
Community Backyard Rooftop Balconies& Edible Commercial Commercial InsideBuildings School Aquaculture& Micro-Livestock
Gardens Gardens Gardens WindowBoxes Landscaping Greenhouses MarketGardens Gardens Bioponics
Social
Level Of Food Self- 2 1 3 1 1 5 4 2 2 4 2
Sufficiency (I.e. How
Much Of The Resident’s
Food Needs Are Met) -
Quantity And Quality Of
Food Produced
Social And Recreational 5 4 4 1 2 1 1 -1 4 1 -3
Impacts On The
Community
Impact on individual 3 3 2 1 2 4 4 1 2 3 1
Health, Diet and Safety
Educational – 4 4 3 1 3 3 3 1 5 4 3
Understanding The
Relationship Between
The Land And Food
Impact On Other Land 0 0 2 1 3 -1 -1 -1 2 -1 -4
Uses/Users
Opportunities For All 3 2 4 4 3 -2 -2 -1 2 1 1
Residents To
Participate
Environmental
Stormwater 1 0 4 1 0 -3 1 0 0 2 -2
Management
Use/Recycling of 3 2 3 1 2 4 3 3 2 5 4
Wastes - Solid, Liquid,
Heat
Energy Conservation 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1
Impact on Local Travel 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 1
Water Conservation -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -3 -1 -3 -1 -3
193
OptionG1 OptionG2 OptionG3 OptionG4 OptionG5 OptionG6 OptionG7 OptionG8 OptionG9 OptionG10 OptionG11
Community Backyard Rooftop Balconies& Edible Commercial Commercial InsideBuildings School Aquaculture& Micro-Livestock
Gardens Gardens Gardens WindowBoxes Landscaping Greenhouses MarketGardens Gardens Bioponics
Creation Of Oxygen 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 0 0
Affect On Air Quality 1 1 1 0 1 -1 -1 -2 1 -1 -3
Biodiversity 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 0 2 1 1
Economic
Capital Cost & Potential -2 0 -2 1 1 2 3 0 -1 2 0
To Recover Initial
Investment
(Public/Private)
Long Term Maintenance 1 5 -3 -1 -2 -3 0 -2 -2 -3 -2
Cost - For
Public/Private Sector
Impact On Adjacent 2 0 3 1 1 -2 -1 -2 2 -1 -3
Land Value
Create Jobs And 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 3 1
Economic Development
Other
Ease Of Implementation 1 4 -3 0 -2 -4 -2 -3 -1 -3 -5
Transferability 4 5 3 5 3 -2 -2 -2 2 0 -2
Ability To Change To 5 5 3 N/a 5 3 3 N/a N/a 2 N/a

Another Land Use
Multi-Functionality 3 3 4 0 2 3 2 3 4 5 2
New and Innovative 2 0 3 0 2 3 2 4 3 5 4
194
Table 14-2: Evaluation of Processing and Distribution Options

Option P1 Option P2 Option P3 Option D1 Option D2 Option D3 Option D4 Option D5
Commercial Food Eco- Farmers Direct Food Grocery Emergency

Processing Incubator Industrial Market Home Buying Store Food Services
Complex Delivery Clubs
Social
Level Of Food Self-Sufficiency 4 1 3 3 2 2 3 2

(I.e. How Much Of The
Resident’s Food Needs Are
Met) - Quantity And Quality Of
Food Produced
Social And Recreational 1 3 3 4 0 4 1 4

Impacts On The Community
Impact on individual Health, 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 4

Diet and Safety
Educational – Understanding 2 5 5 3 3 2 0 0
The Relationship Between
The Land And Food
Impact On Other Land -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 1 -3

Uses/Users
Opportunities For All 1 3 2 5 5 5 5 1

Residents To Participate
Environmental
Stormwater Management 0 0 4 -1 0 0 -2 0
Use Of Wastes - Solid, Liquid, 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

Heat
Energy Conservation -1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
195
Option P1 Option P2 Option P3 Option D1 Option D2 Option D3 Option D4 Option D5
Commercial Food Eco- Farmers Direct Food Grocery Emergency

Processing Incubator Industrial Market Home Buying Store Food Services
Complex Delivery Clubs
Reduces Local Travel 1 0 0 3 5 3 5 1
Water Conservation -2 0 5 0 0 0 -2 0
Creation Of Oxygen 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Affect On Air Quality -1 0 3 0 0 0 -1 0
Biodiversity 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
Economic
Capital Cost & Potential To 2 -1 -2 5 5 4 2 -3

Recover Initial Investment
(Public/Private)
Long Term Maintenance Cost 2 -2 -1 4 5 5 1 -4

- For Public/Private Sector
Impact On Adjacent Land -1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -3

Value
Create Jobs And Economic 3 3 2 2 2 0 3 1

Development
Other
Ease Of Implementation 2 -2 -4 3 4 3 1 -2
Transferability 5 1 1 3 5 5 4 2
Ability To Change To Another -1 -2 -2 5 5 3 -3 -1

Land Use
Multi-Functionality 2 3 5 3 2 1 0 0
New and Innovative 3 4 5 2 3 2 -1 1
196
197
14.1 Evaluation for Suitability of Options for SEFC

Table 14-3 summarizes (and provides some brief comments on) the suitability of each option for various types of
space at SEFC. Each option is given a simple measure of suitability - high, medium, or low suitability. N/a (not
applicable) means that the option is not suitable for that type of space.
Again, as with the evaluation matrices, this is a highly subjective assessment and reflects the opinions of the
authors and the feedback gained from stakeholder workshops. Further detailed assessments will be required to
ascertain whether or not any option is feasible in any given situation.
198
Table 14-3: Suitability of Options for Different Types of Space.
SPACES Residential Commercial / Public School Waterfront ROWs for Land Floating
Buildings (and Industrial Buildings (and (and Public Park Streets/ other Dedicated/ Barges on
associated Buildings (and associated associated infrastructure Zoned for False Creek*
landscape) associated landscape) landscape) Urban Ag*
landscape)*
OPTIONS
G1 Public N/a N/a Low/Medium High Medium Low/Medium Low Medium
The landscape For students and Public park is well Some streets may Should include Community gardens
Community around a public families only or wider suited but competing be quiet enough and community gardens could be designed
Gardens building could be community uses may restrict of suitable design to only if other suitable and built in large-
used for community opportunity. accommodate land not available. scale planters
gardens but will community gardens. situated on floating
likely be too barges.
restricted However,
rooftop might be
designed for public
access and
community garden.
G2 Private, Semi- Medium N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Very few private, at
private grade gardens at
Backyards SEFC but strata
landscapes are
suitable if
appropriate
management
arrangements can
be achieved.
G3 Rooftop Gardens/ High High High Medium N/a N/a N/a N/a
There are numerous Commercial/ May be used for a School building
Greenhouses opportunities for industrial buildings commercial rooftop could be designed
rooftop gardens on may be able to urban agriculture for student access
most residential generate additional demonstration but safety
buildings. Podiums sources of income project or for a considerations
on concrete by incorporating high public rooftop paramount. Require
buildings present the value crops on garden. co-operation of
fewest challenges. rooftop space. school board.
Space could be
leased to an urban
agriculture
entrepreneur or
NGO.
199
landscape)*
OPTIONS
G4 Balconies High Low Low Medium N/a N/a N/a N/a
There will be Most commercial/ Few balconies and Balconies might be
numerous balconies industrial buildings too infrequent included in school
in residential will not have attention unless building and
buildings. balconies and specifically represent a
employees less programmed for this convenient
likely in general to purpose. opportunity for
pursue this type of students/teachers.
activity.
G5 Edible Medium Low Medium High High Medium Low Low

The semi-private Landscapes of Public buildings Many edible plants The public park Some streets will be Should focus on As part of G1
Landscaping open space and industrial/commercia represents a good can be incorporated present significant appropriate for very high food
more public l buildings are opportunity for a into the school opportunities to planting fruit bearing output techniques
landscaping that generally less well demonstration landscape and experiment with food trees and bushes. rather than
fronts onto the street maintained and project to show case provide educational, bearing ornamental There are however, aesthetics.
is appropriate for usually need to be the potential of aesthetic and habitat varieties of bush, some liability, safety
edible landscaping. more functional. edible landscaping. benefits. tree and flower. and nuisance
This will retain a However, depending considerations.
high level of on the type of Combined with
aesthetic quality business this option educational
while producing a might be program.
small amount of appropriate.
food.
G6 Commercial N/a N/a N/a Medium Low N/a High Medium

An educational, Requires significant Ideally suited. If An ideal use on a
Greenhouses at training opportunity shift in Parks Board included, floating barge.
Grade and could produce Policy. However, commercial Increased security
large amount of food would provide an greenhouses on and a self-contained
for school snacks interesting dedicated land could system required.
and meal programs. commercial produce a large
enterprise and public quantity of the
benefit. Might be community’s food
linked with needs. However,
restaurant in Park. opportunity cost of
other land uses.
200
landscape)*
OPTIONS
G7 Commercial N/a Low N/a Low N/a N/a Medium Low
Perhaps temporarily An educational, Requires too much Space too small and Well suited but Probably too small a
Market Gardens if land is vacant but training opportunity. land in over fragmented for any greenhouses may space for any but
at Grade soil contamination Could produce programmed park. commercial be higher yielding the most intensive
issue must be reasonable amount production. and therefore more crop systems.
resolved. of food for school appropriate
snacks and meal
programs.
G8 Mushrooms and Low Low Low Low N/a N/a Low Low
Possible in unused Possible but value Possible as a small As an educational Should be reserved Possible in enclosed
Sprouts Inside parking stall, but generated probably demonstration project in the for urban agriculture space.
Buildings potential challenges not high enough to project in basement or that has a more
of odour insects etc. support location combination with combined with public face.
unless encouraged other options. option G5 or G6.
by City.
G9 School Gardens N/a N/a N/a High Medium Low Low Low
Gardens dedicated Plots for school Gardens for school School could lease School could lease
for the educational children could be could be located in parts of this land part of floating barge
benefit of children incorporated into the ROWs but would from City and to use for an
and/or to park space. require too much produce food for educational
supplement families’ supervision and school meals for program. However,
nutritional needs. vigilance from example. safety issue.
Linked with supervisors except
education/training on in very quiet, low
healthy food traffic situations.
preparation and diet.
G10 Aquaculture Low Medium Medium/High Low/Medium N/a N/a Medium/High Medium
It is not appropriate Building owner could Aquaculture could Probably too An appropriate use
& Bioponics for residents to raise lease commercial make a fascinating technically for land dedicated to
fish in a multi-tenant aquaculture operator demonstration demanding unless agriculture.
building but building space for this option. /educational project with assistance from
owners could and show how a vital commercial operator
possibly lease out Need to consider protein component or technical college.
part of the building conflict of uses and can be raised in an
to commercial tight regulations. environmentally
operator. friendly manner.
201
landscape)*
OPTIONS
G11 Micro- Medium Medium High High Medium/High N/a. Medium/High Low
Could raise bees in Could raise bees in Could raise bees in Could raise bees in Combined with Appropriate if Beehives could be
livestock rooftop hives. rooftop hives. rooftop hives. rooftop hives or at option G1. combined with G5, located on barge in
Interesting grade. Interesting G6. combination with
demonstration educational project other option G5, G6.
project. and pollination.
P1 Commercial Food Medium High Medium N/a N/a N/a High N/a
Provided that ground A commercial If a community food
Processing Facility floor commercial kitchen would be an centre was created
space was allowed ideal tenant for a with multiple food
in the zoning, it ground floor unit in a org.s in a public
would be feasible to commercial building. bldg, it could make
have a commercial sense to house the
kitchen on the commercial kitchen
ground floor within the centre.
P2 Food incubator Medium High Medium Low N/a N/a High N/a
A food incubator Provided that public As with the above, a It may be that the
could be housed in a access wasn’t food incubator would school could
commercial food restricted, a food be a logical incorporate food
processing facility incubator would be component of a processing as part of
and thereby use the suitable for this community food educational strategy
same space space centre
P3 Eco-industrial Low Medium/High Medium N/a N/a N/a High N/a

Very few industrial By thoughtfully co- Some publicly
complex for food ecology components locating commercial funded industrial
processing would be tenants a wide range ecology
appropriate for a of industrial ecology demonstration
residential space. components could projects would be
be implemented. suitable for this
space.
D1 Farmers Market N/a Medium High Medium High N/a High N/a
A commercial space A public parking A school is suitable If the park includes a
would be technically area or public location for a public plaza with
suitable so long as building are the most farmers market so hard surfacing that
the rents could be suitable sites for a long as there is can accommodate
subsidized. farmers market. adequate hard small trucks
surface area.
202
landscape)*
OPTIONS
D2 Direct Home N/a Medium N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
If direct home
Delivery delivery firm could
rent commercial
space although the
rents will likely be
too high in SEFC.
D3 Food Buying Low Medium Medium N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
It is technically The most suitable A public meeting
Clubs possible to operate a space to house a room or hall would
food buying club in a food-buying club be suitable for
residential suite or would be the food dividing up case lot s
common area space incubator, as it is set of dry goods and
but not desirable. up for food handling. produce items.
D4 Grocery Store High High High N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
A ground floor A ground floor A ground floor space
commercial space commercial space would be very
would be very would be very suitable for a
suitable for a small suitable for a Granville Island style
grocery store. grocery store. public market.
D5 Emergency Food Low Low/Medium Medium Medium N/a N/a N/a N/a
Probably little It would be If a food market The school could act
Services appetite amongst appropriate to house were housed in a as a centre for food
residents for this a collection depot public building, it collection.
type of activity. within a food-related would be suitable to
commercial space. have a collection
depot.
Could also house
emergency meal
program/café.
* Spaces/Land Uses marked with an asterisk are not currently planned for SEFC but could, in theory, be included at SEFC if the City elected to
do so. We include them here, recognizing the slim possibility of their inclusion, for the purpose of underscoring that some options are only
possible with certain types of dedicated land use and in the hope that their inclusion at this time might stimulate debate when future areas of the
City are planned.
N/a - means option is not suitable for the type of space.
203

Urban Agriculture Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Agriculture Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Agriculture Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the strategy discussed in the document?

What is the purpose of the strategy discussed in the document?

What are some of the trade-offs and challenges discussed for urban agriculture at SEFC?

What are some of the trade-offs and challenges discussed for urban agriculture at SEFC?

Southeast False Creek

Urban Agriculture Strategy

Holland Barrs Planning Group

Sustainability Ventures Group

4.8 Objective # 8: Encourage the public celebration of local food. .................................................................... 48

Community Gardens ............................................................................................................................................. 154

 Alan Duncan City of Vancouver Planning Dept

Green Roofs Workshop Participants

Developer Workshop Participants

 Kolvane Yuh City of Vancouver, Real Estate Department

Stakeholder Workshop Participants

All names have been sorted alphabetically by first name.

• Reduce energy and material consumption and the production of wastes;

Strategic Objectives, Actions and Policy Directions

Objective #4 - Increase food-related economic development initiatives, including increasing the

Objective # 6 - Encourage urban agriculture practices as a strategic approach to managing waste

o Promote the establishment of an eco-industrial complex or eco-industrial networking

1.1 Definition of Urban Agriculture

1.2 Purpose of the Strategy

1. Review applicable City standards

1.3 Overview of this Report

1.4 Methodology and Approach

• How much food can/should be produced at SEFC?

Each option is discussed in a consistent format utilizing the following headings:

Evaluation of the Options

2.0 Background and Context for the SEFC Project

2.1 The Site

Figure 2-1: Aerial Photo of SEFC Site. Source: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca

2.2 SEFC Project Goals and Objectives

The Policy Statement created objectives for Urban Agriculture at SEFC:

The document went further in suggesting:

2.3 The development sequence of the SEFC project

2.4 Draft Structure plan

• 6040 residential units (5.36 million sq.ft.)

Figure 2-2: Draft Structure Plan: Provided by City of Vancouver.

3.0 Food, Agriculture and Sustainability

3.1 The Food System

• Food production – i.e. farmers and urban growers

3.2 How sustainable is our current food system?

Figure 3-1: The Food System

Preparation and Waste

3.3 The rationale for urban agriculture

Health & Social Environment

Figure 3-2: Potential Benefits of Urban Agriculture

These benefits include:

3.4 General Issues and Perspectives

3.5 Trade-offs and challenges for Urban Agriculture at SEFC

Lack of space to grow food/fragmented space

Land-use conflicts – noise, dust, odours, untidy

Security – theft, vandalism

Lack of interest in working with the land

Few Economic Incentives

Air Pollution and Contaminated soils

Lack of Regulatory Authority and Novel Skills

Perception of agriculture being inappropriate in a City

Policies and Regulations that Inhibit Urban Agriculture

Alan Duncan City of Vancouver Planning Dept

Kolvane Yuh City of Vancouver, Real Estate Department

Invest directly in demonstration projects to demonstrate the feasibility of novel