The flaw with something like this is the imaginary footprint. Like wind power that demands a 1/4+ mile radius per tower for 'optimal wind flow' to the point of destroying all trees in said area, this idea would put a cap on all development around it to allow for 'optimal lighting' for the PV cells and the plants. They need to take a long hard look at those four tan spots in the drawing, these are effectively part of the building as they are controlled by the needs of the tower-farm-condo-center. A .72 acre lot? Not really.

-Lego

but a farm like this wouldn't be particularly smelly. it's the animals that make a farm stink, and this would have only chickens. Not that they smell good, but controlling their smell wouldn't be difficult if the entire place is well designed.

The problem with your argument is you are making assumptions about the surroundings. This isn't designed to be placed anywhere and it'll just work. And it looks to me like there is plenty of room for vertical development in the surrounding areas, but they may be capped at 5 stories? So what, this isn't in Manhattan, it's Seattle and the surrounding infrastructure is probably already in place.

Also, I don't think you know what you are talking about with the wind analogy. Just putting that out there.

Uh, why not just work on increasing urban density, using green roofs where possible, and surrounding cities with farmland and traditional greenhouses?

A building like this isn't even economically (or technologically) feasible even in ram-crowded Japan.

Wonder how many kamikaze chickens we'd have jumping from the building? :)

On the contrary, Lego is on the money. This is not to say that there are not many places that the footprint design would not work fine, but the surrounding area does need to be accounted for. You should always consider local impact. The surrounding areas would have to be limited to the point that they did not intrude on the functional abilities of this farm design. And as far as the wind power analogy I pose one question. Do you feel a more consistent wind standing in a field or among a group of trees. When you are looking for optimum efficiency per dollar spent, that can make a large difference.

It is always a good idea to put a "credible source reference" to corroberate your claims. For example this 1/4+ mile radius per tower for 'optimal wind flow' reference made by "Lego" ? The concept of optimal flow eludes me. If you can derive some power from wind or solar or a hand crank, I don't think it realy matteres if it was considered optimal or not. Let's all think before we post and stop spreading fuzzy facts.

"And as far as the wind power analogy I pose one question. Do you feel a more consistent wind standing in a field or among a group of trees."

Am I 200 ft up in the air? Who puts windmills in forests anyway. Every windmill I've ever seen is in an open field on a hill or plain or ridge anyway, because it is optimal for wind. You don't put up a windmill and then sculpt the landscape to IT. Cite examples and facts instead of spouting your nonsense.

I don't think the architects (or anyone with any sense) thinks that this design is a magic bullet which Everyone In The Future will live in. This obviously won't work in today's Manhattan. However in Seattle on Queen Anne hill (esp. since it faces South), it might. I imagine there being only a few of these per large city. And the closer to the equator you get, the lower the footprint you'll need.

There are a lot more logistical problems to solve with this type of building though - for example, having deep enough dirt to grow things means this dirt will soak up some rainwater. As you know, water is very heavy, and wet ;) So not only will you need to build with good drainage and waterproofing, but account for the expansion and contraction of the water, as well as the extra weight all that dirt and water will add. And what do you do with all the detritus caused by decaying plants? Sure, you have a compost heap! Ok, now somebody has to constantly keep the garden clean, and babysit the compost heap so it doesn't get infested with rats and bugs. And who's going to maintain these farms? Is garden and animal maintenance a part of your rental contract, or will condo dues pay employees to do it?

Given how Seattle is constantly overcast, I'm dubious that the planned solar array would be enough to power the building. I'd like to see their numbers.

These are far more difficult issues with this design than just the footprint as they apply even if there is only one of these buildings.

To clarify the 1/4 mile wind power reference:

My parents live on a farm just south of a town called Grand Meadow, Minnesota. Down there they are building wind-turbines as fast as they can. Part of the deal to keep the neighbors quiet and let them do their construction is to pay each farm (via a legally binding contract) $1000 a year for the following rights:
-A farmer may not build any structure greater than 40ft within a quarter mile of any infrastructure involved with the turbine without prior written consent. This includes any of their buried underground wires, the contract is specific to this, but buried a few pages in.
-ANY foliage that is currently causing, or could in future could cause disruption of air flow within 1/4mile of any power generation INFRASTRAUCTURE, not just the towers here folks, is subject to removal without warning by the power company if they so see fit.
-No livestock maybe kept within 400ft of the infrastructure. Only crops may be harvested in that area. No building of trees are permitted.

What has happened from this contracting to those that have signed on for their $1000 a year has been painful:

-One farmer had a grove of Apple trees, they had them half cut down before he could stop them because they were within a 1/4 mile of a 'MET tower' (meteorlogical tower used to measure wind speeds, but not a power generation unit.

-Several lines of trees (about 10 miles worth) that had been put in as wind-breaks for the fields to control wind errosion have been removed.

-Small farms that signed are being denied the ability to erect their own private small scale wind turbines.

-My parents, even though they did NOT sign, have had to chase tree-cutting crews off their land twice because the power company keeps trying to level the area for better wind flow.

Wind power has its evil side. If you research it, you'll find that an obstruction on the ground effects wind flow for a distance about 20times its height. As you get higher, wind speeds increase (look it up). This is why these 300foot tall wind turbines are so high up.

The footprint of these turbines is huge once you dig through all the legalese. They've had to build their own roads because the trucks were too heavy for the county roads. These have cut across farms chewing up acres of farm land in a zig-zag fashion (not in a straight line which would seem mor optimal for farming) cost farmers areas of land because they are unable to get their equipment in to the 'nooks'.

Their trucks must operate on gravel roads whenever possible to avoid damaging the 'oil' asphalt roadways. A single bald for one of these turbines weighes over 23 tons.

The 'Infrastructure' is a 1/2 mile wide swath of land zig-zagging throughout the area, and the legal paperwork allows them to pretty much put a Cathagian assault on the landscape.

Green? Maybe, but wrapped in a lot of red tape.

-Lego

Just a note, the above comment was me, I forgot to sign in first.
-Lego

Lego, thanks for the wind turbine info.

They are slated for our area and there is a LOT of oppostion. Clear cutting of our mountains is only one of the problems.

Noise is an issue for many. In cities, the ambient noise may cover up that which comes from the turbines, but where I live it is very problematic.

I went to see and hear them...'tis like fingernails on a blackboard and can be heard for one mile. (checked it out myself)

Check out the URBINES...turbines built into the tops of buildings. I say take the turbines to those who are using the most---where the energy need and greed is. Leave our quiet hilltops alone!

If I am reading this article correctly, there are no wind turbines in this proposed design.

I think the Mithus Architectural proposal is daring as well as innovative. In answering some of the comments and critiques I would add:

Aeroponic growing systems that we develop do not need massive amounts of soil. In fact we do not use soil. We use charcoal, mycorhyzal fungi and compost tea. There are seven levels of growth. Visit www.synergyii.com and http://www.synergyii.com/aeroponic/VAP.pdf

The introduction of building integrated solar and wind turbines makes the 1/4 mile set back for windfarms redundent. We are designing the first zero-energy building in North America with all the energy produced with windturbines that are nested in ducted shrouds, enclosed with no bird impacts and no visual pollution.

Any questions? Contact me.
Reinhold Ziegler, Principal, Solartect
Synergy International Inc. www.synergyii.com

Sorry Christine, we semi-highjacked the thread here with the wind turbines. My comment was that this farm building's footprint is actually much larger than the .73 acres once you consider its actual needs, I compared it to wind trubine and their needs (it is all posted above).

One last wind turbine comment for Lois. To be honest, I cannot hear the 300foot tall turbines running at my fathers farm. Even if I walk up to one running (within 400 feet) you don't hear anything (I'm I am extremely sensitive to noises, TV whine drives me insane).

-Lego

Hey, all very salient points, re the vertical farm, wind farms etc, and all valid ...but overwhelmingly negative!

If someone had suggested that we'd be flying round the world in Jumbo jets with Gin and Tonics and flushing toilets before (or for some time after) the Wright brothers took off, everyone would have found a lot of reasons why it couldn't POSSIBLY be done. Well, after they'd locked you up for being crazy.

Humans are incredibly ingenious. If we select the good things that ideas put forward and work towards them it makes all sorts of things possible. Let's give new ideas some good energy - they may not be perfect yet, but maybe they could be made to work better than what we have right now.

Maybe we can retrain ourselves to find solutions, not problems. I work on that in my own life, daily - its a blast!