Food Print Manhattan by T?F, MVRDV, Stroom, animation by Wieland Gouwens

Food Print Manhattan was presented at Pioneers of Change, a festival of Dutch design, fashion and architecture on New York's Governors Island, curated by Renny Ramakers

For more info visit http://www.droog.com/presentationsevents/pioneers-of-change/

How much space is needed to produce food for the entire population of Manhattan, including those who live there and those who visit? With current US production yields, this would require 150 times the area of Manhattan.

With a combination of hydroponic farming to boost crop efficiency, organic farming for animals to increase quality and animal well-being, while maintaining minimum livestock surface areas as specified by Dutch regulations (US organic farming regulations do not specify minimum), the area needed for food production is reduced to 46 times Manhattan.

To grow all food for Manhattanites in one tower, a tower of 23 miles in height would be needed, including the food for animal production (or 8.7 miles tall without food). By distributing various ingredients over Governors Island in different towers—cereal tower, chicken tower, fruit tower, fish tower—a gigantic food city would appear next to Lady Liberty. Alternatively, distributing the towers over all the rooftops of Manhattan would result in a food layer of 656 feet on top of every building of the city.

Study, 2009

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Droog
• Food Print
• Manhattan
• Pioneers of Change
• MVRDV
• T?F
• Stroom
• Renny Ramakers

[jonlwlp]

this would be great with a voice over

[agatajaworska]

@MakeGreenCount

No, I haven't. Could you send a link?

[MakeGreenCount]

Have you seen the article on Food Print in Food Safety Magazine? It was published on January 2010.

[brilliantdiamonds]

Thanks, that's all i wanted. I don't follow the debate closely and I'm not a farmer.

Everyone has an agenda, mine is just not in any way related to this subject.

I'm not defending their use (or misuse) of the information, your most recent comment is FAR more helpful than the first. I understood your point, but the data helps to prove it.

Also, have you considered the amount of food we throw out? It still needs to be grown.

thanks again, i will look to see where they got their info.

[play3393]

@brilliantdiamonds Actually OVER half of the land is dedicated to animal feed according to the video, not "nearly" half of it. Do you need me to explain to you why this is complete garbage as well?

[play3393]

First, Note that Americans, on average, eat 1800 lbs of food per year, not 2600 as the video claims. There is your first complete fabrication.

Second, 1.4 acres of farmland EXISTED per one American citizen in 1997.

Now, the video above claims that EACH American requires 2600 m^2 of land per year (which equals .642 acres of land).

Also, the way the represent animal feed (nearly ahlf the land) is 100% misleading and false.

Would you like me to continue or are you starting to understand?

[play3393]

@brilliantdiamonds

Actually, it's not. In this case, the video provides all needed information to make the very obvious conclusion (which you are clearly ignoring for some reason) that the statistics are grossly overestimated and completely misrepresented.

Why is it that you're defending such an OBVIOUS incorrect use of data? Do you have some sort of bias or agenda of your own?

I have pointed out the flawed data. It is now your turn to provide me with justifying evidence for the contrary.

[brilliantdiamonds]

Multiply averages by another average is an accepted method of approximation. Economists use the same technique, they are often wrong, but that does not make their work entirely useless.

I really do not understand why you take exception to this video. That's why i asked if you had data that led to a different conclusion.

It's much easier to show inconsistencies in a framework, when you can point to a different, more complete model.

You too.

[play3393]

The information you are seeking is in the video itself. How in the world are you unable to understand this?

It's very basic. All of the information was provided by the video. I am explaining why, based on the GIVEN INFORMATION, that the presentation is misleading and completely useless.

Have a good day.

[brilliantdiamonds]

Please, i don't really enjoy comment wars.

If you have actual INFORMATION, i would like to see it.

Science is all about knowing how accurate your data is; if you simply quantified the error in the video, it would be far more helpful than subjective statements like "garbage."

That was my only point.