Rheinberger, Brigitte --- "Seeds of Regeneration: Urban Agriculture in Shrinking Cities" [2018] UNSWLawJlStuS 1; (2018) UNSWLJ Student Series No 18-01

---

SEEDS OF REGENERATION: URBAN AGRICULTURE IN SHRINKING CITIES

BRIGITTE RHEINBERGER

INTRODUCTION

Urban agriculture is often regarded as a controversial use of land. This is primarily because it seeks to combine land uses that are otherwise considered incompatible, such as having residential or commercial premises in close proximity with agricultural ventures. Urban farming has therefore been described as the ‘ultimate oxymoron,’^[1] with respect to town planning. In addition, even where incompatible land uses can be reconciled, it can be difficult for city councils to justify allocating finite urban land to growing vegetables, when there are myriad higher value land uses such as residential or commercial space. Despite these concerns, I propose that urban agriculture can be a beneficial use of land and in particular, should be considered as a planning tool to 'right-size'^[2] former industrial cities which have experienced decline.

Urban farming ventures come in a range of forms, from small allotment-style gardens, through to commercial-size monocrop ventures. As such, urban agriculture is highly versatile and can be adapted to meet the specific needs of the city. Consequently, urban agriculture can ‘support an incremental process of urban transformation.’^[3] To demonstrate the variety and versatility of urban agriculture in shrinking cities, I will examine three case studies from the rust belt area of the United States.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

There are arguments to be made both in favour and against the use of urban agriculture in shrinking cities. It is useful to begin by outlining each of these perspectives. I will then consider how Jane Jacobs’s commentary on city planning is pertinent to urban agriculture in shrinking cities.

Proponents of urban agriculture provide a ‘mutual benefits’ narrative as the key justification for utilising urban farms to manage decline. On the one hand, numerous vacant lots can be put to productive use through farming, whilst on the other, farming requires significant amounts of land and can utilise vacant lots.^[4] Using vacant lots can have positive flow on effects for property prices by increasing the value of unused land^[5] and can boost the local economy by creating jobs for residents.^[6] Further, urban agriculture provides a sense of ownership over the food supply process to local residents. In turn, this gives urban farms an educational function, relation to growing food and nutrition. This is of particular importance for cities such as Detroit which have increasingly become ‘food deserts.’^[7]

By contrast, scholars such as Paddeu have challenged the ‘mutual benefits’ narrative, suggesting instead that urban decline is a sign of more fundamental issues of poor land management which must first be addressed for long term regeneration.^[8] Moreover, although there may be vast amounts of vacant land, it is near impossible to plan where these vacancies will occur.^[9] It can therefore be difficult to create unified spaces which have the benefits discussed above.

While the mutual benefits theory is useful in assessing the advantages and challenges of urban farming, it is somewhat limited in acknowledging the versatility of urban agriculture ventures and demonstrating how these can be adapted to individual cities. Indeed, it is the variety of urban farming ventures which makes them useful for addressing the challenges faced by cities in decline. Acknowledging the variety of urban agriculture ventures and ensuring that they are not single-use spaces is vital to making such ventures successful. In this respect, Jane Jacobs’s concept of diversity in urban planning^[10] provides a useful framework for considering how urban agriculture can help to regenerate shrinking cities. Jacobs argues that cities must foster liveliness and opportunity for their residents.^[11] This is achieved through creating diversity in the built environment, which encourages residents to utilise their city and form hubs of activity. The mutual benefits narrative is limited in demonstrating how urban agriculture can help to create this diversity. Urban farms must be seen as more than a means of using vacant land and instead must be conceived as creators of diversity in declining cities. Although Jacobs does not specifically contemplate urban agriculture, her commentary on creating multi-use city parks and the need to facilitate diversity in cities is useful in assessing the viability of urban farming as a planning tool. I will discuss these two concepts in turn.

Firstly, Jacobs challenges the assumption that parks and green spaces in cities are an ‘automatic good.’^[12] Indeed, Jacobs rightly observes that ‘parks are not automatically anything.’^[13] Although green spaces and urban farms are an inherently mixed use of space, this is not always sufficient to revitalise a city. Instead, green spaces are ‘directly and drastically affected by the way the neighbourhood acts upon them.’^[14] This shows both the benefits and challenges of urban farming ventures. In one respect, urban farms can act as a catalyst for neighbourhood vibrancy. Yet, one of the inherent problems faced by shrinking cities is ensuring the presence of a sufficiently large and interested population to guarantee that community ventures will work.

Secondly, Jacobs argues that cities must foster diversity in their built environment in order to create effective and interesting cities in which to live. Diversity, in Jacobs’s context, refers to having landmarks and focal points in cities which are, ‘different from [their] surroundings, and therefore inherently special-looking, happily located to make some drama and contrast of the inherent difference.’^[15] Fostering ‘lively and interesting streets’^[16] is crucial to creating foot traffic in areas which might otherwise be in decline. Urban farms have the potential to provide these focal points and indeed, are an inherently mixed use of city space when amongst commercial and residential buildings. However, this may not be sufficient in and of itself to create diversity. Instead, they should be combined with other uses, in order for them to be truly effective tools of regeneration.

CASE STUDIES

The three case studies I have chosen are intended to illustrate the variety of urban farming ventures and consequently, the adaptability of urban agriculture as a planning tool in shrinking cities. It is first useful, however, to provide a brief background to the phenomenon of declining cities and more specifically, the experiences of Detroit and Philadelphia from which the case studies have been taken.

Although there is no universally agreed definition of what constitutes a shrinking city, LaCroix characterises such cities as those with ‘long-term trends of significant population decline, associated with the loss of diminution of the industries that cause the cities to grow in the first place.’^[17] Following the Global Financial Crisis (‘GFC’) and the increasing movement towards service-based economies, many cities in the rust belt area of the United States experienced this type of decline. The job losses associated with the GFC resulted in numerous mortgage foreclosures throughout the United States.^[18] This had the effect of leaving numerous vacant lots, both residential and commercial, throughout former industrial cities. Philadelphia provides a good example of this issue, having over 40 000 vacant lots in 2010.^[19] In this way, the example of Philadelphia highlights the problem outlined by LaCroix, where shrinking cities have not so much ‘shrunken’ as they have ‘hollowed.’^[20]

In addition to the problem of excess land, shrinking cities often experience the further challenge of population decline. This has been particularly evident in Detroit, where the population has declined from 951 000 in 2000 to 713 000 in 2010.^[21] Declining populations necessarily result in a lower tax base and subsequently less funding for community ventures such as urban agriculture.^[22] Moreover, if the population of a city has declined to such an extent that people are not able or willing to go to urban farms, they will not serve their purpose of being a hub of activity and thus its regenerating function will diminish.

The first case study, the Lafayette Greens, is a ¾ acre site located in downtown Detroit. The site was formerly the location of the Lafayette building, which had been abandoned for 10 years prior to being acquired by the Compuware Corporation. Compuware commissioned the garden and then donated it to the Greening of Detroit project in 2014. The site has raised garden beds for growing edible plants and flowers, plus a dedicated children’s garden. In addition to farming, the Lafayette Greens also runs a number of community programs including yoga, belly-dancing and gardening classes.^[23]

The second case study, D-Town Farm, is also located in Detroit. In comparison to the Lafayette Greens, however, D-Town more closely resembles a commercial farm. The farm has a 10-year lease from the City of Detroit for a seven-acre site within Rouge Park.^[24] The farm was established in response to the increasing gentrification^[25] of the urban farming scene in Detroit and champions food justice for Detroit’s African American population.

The final case study, Greensgrow Farm, is located in Philadelphia and is a different type of venture again. Greensgrow was established by two former chefs and emphasises growing food for commercial restaurants. Over time, the farm has evolved to not only supply commercial kitchens, but to be a multi-use site with a nursery and farmer’s market. The ¾ acre site is located on the grounds of a former steel manufacturing plant and faced initial concerns regarding soil contamination.

PRODUCTIVITY AND AESTHETICS

One of the fundamental benefits of urban agriculture is its ability to give residents access to fresh produce. Consequently, this can foster a greater understanding of food supply, health and nutrition. This is particularly significant in shrinking cities such as Detroit, which have been ‘deserted’ by many major grocery store chains, leaving residents without access to fruit and vegetables.^[26] However, the issue of productivity in urban farms is a source of contention. Whilst having some level of productivity is necessary to distinguish urban farms from regular city parks, the public nature of these ventures also mandates a level of aesthetics. As will be discussed below, these factors are rarely mutually exclusive and can be combined with great effect. Indeed, both of these functions are necessary in addressing urban blight, in that they not only have the potential to ‘clean-up’ decaying parts of the city, but also provide the diversity discussed by Jacobs in revitalising city neighbourhoods.

All of the case studies have, to some extent, increased the production of fresh food in their respective neighbourhoods. D-Town Farm grows 30 to 35 types of fruit and vegetables per season.^[27] They sell directly from the farm and within the Detroit area. The Lafayette Greens produces a smaller variety and volume by comparison, but has a number of other functions on site. Greensgrow Farm produces a wide array of fruit and vegetables, but focuses on lettuces and salad greens, as these are high-demand products and can be easily grown in their high tunnels.^[28]

Despite the production of fruit and vegetables being a key function of urban agriculture, urban farms are often critiqued for emphasising aesthetics over productivity.^[29] The Lafayette Greens and Greensgrow Farm provide an interesting consideration of the ‘pretty versus productive’ debate. Although the Lafayette Greens is able to cultivate up to $10 000 (USD) of produce each growing season, its main emphasis is on education and aesthetics, owing to its location and visibility.^[30] Due to this focus on aesthetics, the Lafayette Greens tends to grow more flowers than the other case studies.^[31] Additionally, the site does not have a composting unit, owing to its close proximity to the public.^[32] As a result, the Lafayette Greens has been subject to criticism for not maximising its agricultural value.^[33] It must be acknowledged, however, that the space is not entirely dedicated to the growing of flowers and did produce some 1800 pounds (approx. 816 kg) of fruit and vegetables in its first full growing season.^[34]

By contrast, Greensgrow provides a telling example of how urban farms can effectively balance these two competing interests with great effect. Greensgrow has incorporated an events space into their site, where they have held weddings, dinners and public gatherings. Further, the use of high tunnels has allowed Greensgrow to shelter the less attractive elements of their farm from the public, in contrast to the Lafayette Greens, which is more exposed. Greensgrow has also sought to address the concerns of residents in the area who were initially sceptical of the venture by growing flowers along the perimeter of the site.^[35] The question of balancing aesthetics and productivity is therefore a significant one when contemplating urban agriculture as a planning tool. Firstly, these dual purposes show how urban farms are inherently mixed-uses of city space and therefore go to creating the diversity Jacobs attributes to fostering lively cities. Subsequently, and importantly for shrinking cities, the debate shows the spectrum of urban agriculture ventures and how they can be moulded to the needs of individual cities. Lafayette and Greensgrow therefore both demonstrate the challenge in achieving the fine balance between productivity and aesthetics in order for urban agriculture to be successful.

The aesthetics and productivity debate tends to reflect the larger issue of how to put land to its best and highest use. This is particularly relevant in the context of shrinking cities, which must balance concern for building restoration with the need to revitalise areas in decline. Older housing stock and abandoned buildings are present in all cities, but frequently occur where there has been rapid population decline. The question of what to do with abandoned sites is complex, in that there is a need to balance ‘right-sizing’ with the desire for preservation.^[36] As aptly stated by Jacobs however, ‘among the most admirable and enjoyable sights to be found along the sidewalks of big cities are the ingenious adaptations of old quarters to new uses.’^[37] The question of restoration not only goes to the streetscape of a city, but raises important questions of economic viability. Leaving buildings to collapse may cost less in the short term, but to demolish and rebuild abandoned sites always incurs a level of expense. This is particularly problematic in shrinking cities where investment in infrastructure is often low. The demolition of the Lafayette building to make the Lafayette Greens highlights these tensions. The building occupied a prominent location on the corner of a city block and had been abandoned for 10 years before it was acquired by Compuware.^[38] Questions arose as to whether leaving the building abandoned was the best use of a lucrative site. Yet, to demolish the building would mean losing a prime example of 1920s architecture. So as not to lose the history of the building entirely, the landscape architects for the Lafayette Greens named the three garden sheds on the site ‘Charles,’ ‘Howard’ and ‘Crane,’ after the architect who designed the original building.^[39] Whilst this is certainly not the same as restoration, the decision to incorporate the site’s history into its present form serves to show how history can be preserved even after demolition. The Lafayette Greens therefore illustrates the challenge of introducing urban agriculture into shrinking cities, in that there is an inherent tension between restoration and the need for renewal.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Both planning law and private property law pose unique challenges for urban agriculture. As noted above, one of the central principles of planning law is separating land uses through zoning and this often presents an obstacle for urban farms. In many cities with urban agriculture, planning laws have tended to ‘lag’ and have not adequately accommodated urban farms.^[40] This is particularly so in shrinking cities, where underfunded local governments may not have the time or resources to implement urban agriculture policies or ordinances. Some scholars have suggested however, that implementing a specific urban agriculture zoning category is unnecessary, as gardening is usually permitted in any zone.^[41] This may be true for smaller, allotment-style ventures, but larger commercial ventures would likely need greater regulation. Notably however, in cities with a strong history of successful urban agriculture such as Detroit and Philadelphia, there has been some form of regulation or ordinance in place. Philadelphia has a number of bodies which drive and regulate the city’s urban agriculture ventures, including the Penn State Urban Gardens Program, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and the Neighbourhood Gardens Association Land Trust.^[42] Similarly, Detroit has implemented an urban agriculture ordinance^[43] and has also altered its laws to protect urban farmers from nuisance claims.^[44] As such, this shows how having some flexibility with planning laws can be of benefit to shrinking cities, in that it can better allow for vacant lots to be used for purposes other than their originally intended one. This in turn relates back to Jacobs’s notion of fostering diversity in the built environment and the importance of creating multi-use spaces within cities.

The challenges posed by private property law are inherently tied to issues of gaining access to land and further, to having security of tenure. One of the key challenges of urban agriculture is that it is often performed on land that is ‘borrowed,’ and subsequently does not provide urban farmers with any guarantee of longevity. The need for certainty around tenure is important, as investment in urban farms is often considerable.^[45] Further, although most plants grown for consumption are annuals, urban farms must have sufficient time to establish the best cultivars for their area and create productive soil in which to grow produce. Urban farms frequently operate in a space of ‘extra-legality,’^[46] either on sites that are set for development or on formerly occupied lands without making a specific agreement with the owners. The experience of D-Town Farm provides a telling example of these challenges. When D-Town was first established in 2006, it operated on a ¼ acre plot on Detroit’s Eastside, but this was soon purchased by a developer. In 2007, the farm then moved to a ½ acre block owned by the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church.^[47] Finally, in 2008, the farm moved to its current location in Rouge Park where it is under a 10-year lease to the City of Detroit, with rent at $1 per year.^[48] D-Town Farm therefore illustrates the process many urban farms go through to achieve security of tenure, which is so vital for urban agriculture to be successful. Property law therefore has a distinct role to play in urban agriculture. The absence of formal legal agreements can allow urban farms the flexibility to be established in myriad city spaces and as such, to transition cities from a state of decline.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are also significant environmental justifications for using urban agriculture as a planning strategy in shrinking cities. On face value, local small-scale farming is perceived to benefit the environment by reducing the distance food is transported and subsequently the associated fuel and electricity costs.^[49] There is also an understanding that ‘urban agriculture must be performed without the use of large machinery and without the use of chemical pesticides’ owing to its proximity to residential dwellings.^[50] This is probably true to an extent, but has been critiqued by some as a ‘romantic view of agriculture’^[51] that does not account for the negative externalities often produced when growing food. The smell of keeping livestock and use of commercial fertilisers and pesticides^[52] was likely the cause of agriculture being separately zoned from urban areas in the first place. Further, this view does not account for the genuine challenge of producing sufficient quantities of food for urban populations. However, there are few, if any, commentators who suggest that urban agriculture could be a complete alternative to commercial farming.

Two of the case studies illustrate the environmental concerns related to urban agriculture particularly well. Firstly, D-Town has ensured its farm contains 30 to 35 crops each growing season. This is in contrast to the ‘monocrop’ nature of many commercial agricultural enterprises, and has the effect of creating sustainable practices and reducing the likelihood of crop failure from disease. In addition, D-Town has established a policy of only distributing its produce within the Detroit area.^[53] This not only has the benefits of growing and distributing locally discussed above, but also demonstrates the strong desire for food justice and ownership of the food supply process that has been so central to D-Town’s purpose.

Greensgrow Farm has also emphasised the need to achieve ‘spatial proximity between producer and buyer,’^[54] but recognised the challenges of achieving this goal entirely through urban agriculture. Greensgrow established a food co-op known as City Supported Agriculture (‘CSA’) and a farm-door market for local residents. The CSA and market gave access to produce from both Greensgrow and farms within 150 miles of the site to ensure members had an adequate supply of a variety of produce.^[55] In this way, Greensgrow illustrates how urban farms can provide a conduit for city residents to become more connected to food production. Moreover, Greensgrow shows how urban agriculture can benefit declining cities which have been largely deserted by fresh food suppliers by facilitating access to healthy foods. Both D-Town and Greensgrow therefore highlight the potential environmental benefits of urban agriculture.

Despite the benefits provided by urban agriculture in reducing food miles, there are also practical considerations which make growing food in cities challenging. The assumption that growing locally will necessarily produce food that is more sustainable and healthful should be queried. Urban areas, and in particular those close to roadsides, have been found to have carbon dioxide levels 81 ppm higher than in adjacent rural areas.^[56] Moreover, using former factories or manufacturing plants poses a particular challenge to urban agriculture in shrinking cities. Brownfields are especially susceptible to long-term contamination and it can be costly, both in time and money, to rectify sites so that they are sufficiently safe to grow food.^[57] For example, Greensgrow was built on the site of a former steel manufacturing plant and subsequently experienced challenges in relation to lead and zinc contamination.^[58] Initially, the proprietors used a hydroponic system to grow lettuces to avoid contamination. However, the Environmental Protection Agency was able to decontaminate the site and as a result, the farm can now grow in both garden beds and directly into the soil. As a result of the site’s history and continued presence in an industrial area, Greensgrow conducts ongoing tests for contaminants.^[59] Although Greensgrow illustrates how contamination can pose a challenge for urban agriculture, it also shows how such ventures can seek to benefit the community. Had the farm not been built, there may not have been the purpose or incentive to decontaminate the site, leaving surrounding residents exposed to soil contamination and polluted run-off. The need to decontaminate former industrial sites is especially pertinent in shrinking cities, where the need to do so may otherwise not be prioritised.

SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Further to increasing the supply of fruit and vegetables, urban farms also have an inherent function of fostering a sense of community through diversity in the built environment. This is vitally important for regenerating shrinking cities or sustaining populations which have already experienced decline. Urban farms can therefore also act as a site for generating political activism and in educating city residents about the process of growing food.^[60] Urban agriculture achieves these purposes not only through the production of food, but through using farms as multipurpose spaces. Jacobs notes with respect to city parks that these spaces must be used to ‘intensify and knit together’ the city’s fabric and complexity.^[61] Design and urban planning are fundamental to creating cohesion within cities and as such, urban farming ventures, when thoughtfully planned, can have this impact also.

The community function of urban farms is evident in all three case studies. As discussed above, Greensgrow Farm specifically planted flowering plants along the perimeter of its boundary for the benefit of its neighbours and incorporated a range of uses into the site. Greensgrow has since become so popular with surrounding residents that they are reported as showing visiting family and friends around the gardens.^[62] Similarly, the Lafayette Greens has a children’s garden and runs community programs, such as yoga, tai chi and gardening classes throughout the year.^[63] The Lafayette Greens also has a volunteering program and encourages volunteers to take produce from the farm home.^[64] The design of the Lafayette Greens has also been utilised to encourage community interaction. The triangular-shape of the Lafayette site was designed to have a path running through the middle, so that residents could use it both within the garden and as a thoroughfare across the corner of the block.^[65] Finally, D-Town also has a volunteer program for its farm and has incorporated a scheme whereby volunteers can ‘purchase’ food from the farm by accumulating ‘D-Town Dollars’ through their volunteering hours.^[66] D-Town has also been an epicentre for policy and law reform, successfully lobbying the local government to pass the Detroit Food Policy in October 2008.^[67] Urban farming ventures therefore have a significant role to play in fostering a sense of community in declining cities. Moreover, the impacts they have are flexible and can be moulded to suit the city itself, as evident in the different purposes of each case study.

The role of disseminating information and educating city residents is also fundamental to many urban agriculture ventures and in particular, to D-Town Farm. D-Town’s focus on education is closely related to its underlying purpose of encouraging ownership over the supply of food and fostering a sense of self-sufficiency. The farm runs a yearly Harvest Festival where seminars are held about growing food, health and nutrition.^[68] In addition, D-Town has an intergenerational focus, allowing older farmers and members of the community to share their knowledge with festival participants.^[69] This reflects what was astutely stated by Thibert, that ‘urban agriculture may not have the capability of transforming the produce supply chain fundamentally or solving the problem of healthy food access, but it may have the potential to change the relationship of people to food and to place.’^[70] D-Town farm therefore highlights the versatility of urban agriculture as a planning mechanism, in that it has not only increased the availability of food in areas which grocery stores were unwilling to service, but has also offered a source of information, knowledge and agency which few other planning mechanisms could provide.

Although the benefits of urban agriculture are often presented as impacting all city residents positively, the production of food has inherent political and cultural implications. A critique which seems to have been more prevalent in Detroit than in Philadelphia is that urban farming has contributed to a process of gentrification and is an elitist form of environmentalism.^[71] The critique that urban farming ventures are established for ideological, rather than subsistence purposes^[72] is often raised in connection with the concerns addressed above regarding the productivity of urban farming. However, there is also the perception that urban agriculture ventures, particularly in Detroit, are being constructed for the purpose of feeding the ‘city’s poor’^[73] and are fuelled by paternalistic intentions. A similar critique has been raised in connection with issues of racial divide in Detroit. Although 85% of Detroit’s population is African American, the majority of urban agriculture ventures in the city are run by white Americans.^[74] These criticisms have been levelled against one Detroit venture in particular, namely the Hantz Woodlands. The Hantz Woodlands are a commercial urban farming venture, spanning 180 acres (some 1900 lots).^[75] The farm grows pine trees for timber production, with the addition of a small number of food crops. The farm was started by Detroit local John Hantz with the intention of increasing property values by reducing the number of vacant lots in the city.^[76] Although the critique of gentrification is certainly a valid concern, this is not to say that the impact of the Hantz Farmlands has been entirely negative. Improving a city’s economy is vital to urban renewal and with the prevalence of vacant land in Detroit, it is unlikely that citizens are being bought out of the housing market. However, this is where ventures such as D-Town Farm illustrate how urban agriculture can be used as a form of empowerment.^[77] D-Town is owned and run by a group of African American citizens from Detroit and seeks to give skills, knowledge and employment to members of the African American community. In turn, the contrast of D-Town Farm with the Hantz Woodlands shows how one of the key challenges faced by urban farms is finding a balance between urban renewal and gentrification. Nonetheless, urban farms still provide focal points of activity and interaction for city residents which is vitally important in regeneration.

CONCLUSION

Urban agriculture is a unique and versatile way to manage urban decline. It can be adapted to the individual needs of a city and has the potential to create the diversity necessary to sustain and revitalise cities in decline. Urban farming provides a number of benefits to shrinking cities. It can provide an incentive to clean up former industrial areas, improve local food production, educate residents on the food production process and foster a sense of community. However, for these benefits to emerge, urban farms must be conceptualised as multipurpose sites that foster diversity in the built environment and not merely as green interludes in city life. Indeed, ‘history teaches that cities grow and decline’^[78] and we must therefore find strategies which are diverse enough in their impact that they allow the people of cities to plan, manage and thrive in their environments.

---

^[1] James White and Christopher Bunn, ‘Growing in Glasgow: Innovative Practices and Emerging Policy Pathways for Urban Agriculture’ (2017) 68 Land Use Policy 334, 334.

^[2] Joseph Schilling and Jonathon Logan, ‘Greening the Rust Belt: A Green Infrastructure Model for Right Sizing America’s Shrinking Cities’ (2008) 74(4) Journal of the American Planning Association 451, 453.

^[3] Jeremy Nemeth and Joern Langhorst, ‘Rethinking Urban Transformation: Temporary Uses for Vacant Land’ (2014) 40 Cities 143, 145.

^[4] Flaminia Paddeu, ‘Legalising Urban Agriculture in Detroit: A Contested Way of Planning for Decline’ (2017) 88(1) Town Planning Review 109, 110.

^[5] Schilling and Logan, above n 2, 452.

^[6] Paul Draus, Juliette Roddy and Anthony McDuffie, ‘“We Don’t Have No Neighbourhood”: Advanced Marginality and Urban Agriculture in Detroit’ (2013) 0(0) Urban Studies 1, 2.

^[7] Monica White, ‘Shouldering Responsibility for the Delivery of Human Rights: A Case Study of the D-Town Farmers of Detroit’ (2010) 3(2) Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 189, 197.

^[8] Paddeu, above n 4, 124–5.

^[9] Schilling and Logan, above n 2, 457.

^[10] Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities: The Failure of Town Planning (Penguin Books, 1972) 111.

^[11] Ibid 139.

^[12] Ibid 121.

^[13] Ibid 101.

^[14] Ibid 165.

^[15] Ibid 241.

^[16] Ibid 139.

^[17] Catherine LaCroix, ‘Urban Agriculture and Other Green Uses: Remaking the Shrinking City’ (2010) 42(2) The Urban Lawyer 225, 227.

^[18] Nemeth and Langhorst, above n 3, 144.

^[19] Kristin Choo, ‘Plowing Over: Can Urban Farming Save Detroit and Other Declining Cities? Will the Law Allow It? (2011) 97(8) American Bar Association Journal 42, 46.

^[20] LaCroix, above n 17, 228.

^[21] Choo, above n 19, 49.

^[22] Schilling and Logan, above n 2, 452.

^[23] Kyla Smith, ‘Lafayette Greens Spreads Gospel of Farming in Detroit’, Detroit News (Online) 12 July 2015 <http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/07/11/lafayette-greens-spreads-gospel-farming-heart-detroit/30023311/> .

^[24] Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, About Us (2016) Detroit Black Food Security <https://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/aboutus/>.

^[25] Jan Richtr and Matthew Potteiger, ‘Farming as a Tool of Urban Rebirth? Urban agriculture in Detroit 2015: A Case Study in Localising Urban Food Strategies’ (Paper presented at International Aesop Sustainable Food Planning Conference Proceedings, Torino, 7–9 October 2015) 468.

^[26] White, ‘Shouldering Responsibility’, above n 7, 197.

^[27] Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, D-Town Farm (2016) Detroit Black Food Security <https://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/d-town-farms/>.

^[28] Greensgrow, Greensgrow Grown <http://www.greensgrow.org/urban-farm/greensgrow-grown/> .

^[29] Jamie Bouvier, ‘Why Urban Agriculture Can Be Controversial: Exploring the Cultural Association of Urban Agriculture with Backwardness, Race, Gender, and Poverty’ (2014) 91(3) Detroit Mercy Law Review 205, 208.

^[30] American Society of Landscape Architects, Lafayette Greens: Urban Agriculture, Urban Fabric, Urban Sustainability (2012) American Society of Landscape Architects <https://www.asla.org/2012awards/073.html>.

^[31] Richtr and Potteiger, above n 25, 466.

^[32] Ibid.

^[33] Ibid.

^[34] Linda McIntyre, Grown in Detroit (28 March 2013) American Society of Landscape Architects <https://dirt.asla.org/2013/03/28/grown-in-detroit/>.

^[35] Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey, ‘Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States’ (Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2000) 32, 36.

^[36] Melanie Markowicz, ‘Making the Connections: Historic Preservation in Detroit’s Rightsizing’ (2013) 27(4) Forum Journal 14, 18.

^[37] Jacobs, above n 10, 207.

^[38] Chelsea Smialek, ‘Take a Walk Through the Cities’ Gardens: Comparing Detroit’s New Urban Agriculture Zoning Ordinance to Others of Its Kind’ (2014) 91 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 345, 349.

^[39] American Society of Landscape Architects, Lafayette Greens: Urban Agriculture, Urban Fabric, Urban Sustainability (2012) American Society of Landscape Architects <https://www.asla.org/2012awards/073.html>.

^[40] Choo, above n 19, 44.

^[41] LaCroix, above n 17, 237.

^[42] Kimberley Hodgson, Marcia Caton Campbell and Martin Bailkey, ‘Linking Urban Agriculture with Planning Practice’ (2011) 563 Planning Advisory Service Report 61, 63–4.

^[43] Smialek, above n 38, 346.

^[44] Hodgson, Caton Campbell and Bailkey, above n 42, 74.

^[45] Joel Thibert, ‘Making Local Planning Work for Urban Agriculture in the North American Context: A View from the Ground’ (2012) 32(3) Journal of Planning Education and Research 349, 352.

^[46] Choo, above n 19, 44.

^[47] Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, About Us (2016) Detroit Black Food Security <https://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/aboutus/>.

^[48] Richtr and Potteiger, above n 25, 468.

^[49] Matthew Bradshaw, ‘The Rise of Urban Agriculture: A Cautionary Tale – No Rules, Big Problems’ (2013) 4(1) William & Mary Business Law Review 241, 254.

^[50] Kathryn Peters, ‘Creating a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution (2010) 25(1) Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 203, 220.

^[51] Bouvier, above n 29, 206.

^[52] Paddeu, above n 4, 122.

^[53] Monica White, ‘D-Town Farm: African American Resistance to Food Insecurity and the Transformation of Detroit’ (2011) 13(4) Environmental Practice 406, 412.

^[54] Kaufman and Bailkey, above n 35, 35.

^[55] Greensgrow, Farmstand <http://www.greensgrow.org/farmstand/> .

^[56] Sam Wortman and Sarah Taylor Lovell, ‘Environmental Challenges Threatening the Growth of Urban Agriculture in the United States’ (2013) 42(5) Journal of Environmental Quality 1283, 1287.

^[57] LaCroix, above n 17, 276.

^[58] Kaufman and Bailkey, above n 35, 35.

^[59] Ibid 55.

^[60] Draus, Roddy and McDuffie, above n 6.

^[61] Jacobs, above n 10, 139.

^[62] Kaufman and Bailkey, above n 35, 36.

^[63] McIntyre, above n 34.

^[64] Smialek, above n 38, 349.

^[65] American Society of Landscape Architects, Lafayette Greens: Urban Agriculture, Urban Fabric, Urban Sustainability (2012) American Society of Landscape Architects <https://www.asla.org/2012awards/073.html>.

^[66] Richtr and Potteiger, above n 25, 469.

^[67] Ibid.

^[68] White, ‘D-Town Farm: African American Resistance to Food Insecurity’, above n 53, 412.

^[69] Ibid.

^[70] Thibert, above n 45, 351.

^[71] Samuel Walker, ‘Urban Agriculture and the Sustainability Fix in Vancouver and Detroit’ (2015) 37(2) Urban Geography 163, 166.

^[72] Bouvier, above n 29, 214.

^[73] Alesia Montgomery, ‘Reappearance of the Public: Placemaking, Minoritization and Resistance in Detroit’ (2016) 40(4) International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 776, 786.

^[74] Sarah Safransky, ‘Rethinking Land Struggle in the Postindustrial City’ (2017) 49(4) Antipode 1079, 1083–4.

^[75] Ibid 1080.

^[76] Richtr and Potteiger, above n 25, 474.

^[77] White, ‘D-Town Farm: African American Resistance to Food Insecurity’, above n 53, 413.

^[78] Witold Rybczynski and Peter Linneman, ‘How to Save Our Shrinking Cities’ (1999) 135 Public Interest 30, 39.