Presentation at the 5th Massachusetts Sustainable Communities and 4th Sustainable Campuses Conference

1. FOOD IN THE CITY
An
process
to
assess
land
suitable
for
urban
agriculture.
Marie
Macchiarolo,
Abigail
Elwood
&
Emily
Berg
The
Conway
School

2. Springfield,
MassachuseAs
Albany,
NY
Boston,
MA
HarEord,
CT
SPRINGFIELD
• PopulaGon
153,552
(US
Census
2012)
• 34.6%
of
residents
below
poverty
level
(ACS
2009)
• 44.5%
percent
of
households
are
food-­‐insecure
(FRAC
2010)

3. Vacancy
–
not
just
an
eyesore.

4. Urban
Agriculture
CommiAee
(2010
a[er
SFPC)
➔ Advocate
for
policies
that
create
opportuniGes
and
infrastructure
for
people
to
grow
their
own
food
➔ IdenGfied
vacant
lots
as
an
opportunity
for
urban
agriculture
Springfield
Food
Policy
Council
(2010)
➔ Oversees
public
and
private
efforts
to
improve
food
security
➔ Has
diverse
representaGon
in
membership
-­‐
farmers,
distributors,
health
care,
residents,
non-­‐profit
organizaGons,
municipal
departments

5. How
do
we
know
where
we
can
grow?
Is
the
soil
contaminated?
Will
the
garden
be
accessible
to
the
community?
Which
neighborhoods
need
a
community
garden?
Is
the
site
big
enough?
How
can
I
access
vacant
land?
Who
will
benefit?
Is
it
the
“right”
site?
Where
is
urban
agriculture
permiAed?
?

6. Stakeholder
Input

7. Scope
of
the
Assessment
Community
Gardens
Commercial
Farms
Community
&
Youth
Farms
Urban
Orchards

8. GIS
Inventory
&
Assessment
City-­‐owned,
structure-­‐free,
vacant
lots
In
January
2014
there
were
over
500
vacant
lots
in
Springfield.

9. Tiered
Results
➔ Tier
1
criteria
focus
on
the
immediate
and
neighborhood
condiGons
of
the
site.
➔ Tier
2
criteria
also
relate
to
neighborhood
condiGons
for
which
mappable
data
was
not
available.
➔ Tier
3
criteria
relate
individual
vacant
lots
to
broad,
city-­‐wide
consideraGons.
GOOD
BETTER
BEST

10. AssumpGons
ü All
sites
that
met
the
Tier
1
criteria
may
be
suitable
for
urban
agriculture.
ü If
not
idenGfied
as
hazardous,
soils
are
suitable
for
agriculture.
ü City
water
can
be
accessed
from
every
site
and
is
suitable
to
use
to
grow
food.
ü Adequate
sun
is
available.

11. Ground
Truthing
ü Street
width
ü Vehicular
traffic
ü Fencing
ü Surrounding
buildings
and
exisGng
vegetaGon
ü Soil
should
be
tested
or
use
raised
beds

12. Criteria
for
Community
Gardens

13. Criteria
for
Community
Gardens

14. Tier
1
=
27
parcels

15. Criteria
for
Community
Gardens

16. Tier
2
=
6
parcels

17. Criteria
for
Community
Gardens

18. Tier
3
–
Environmental
JusGce

19. Tier
3
–
Food
Deserts

20. Tier
3
–
Parks
and
Open
Space

21. Community
Garden
Results
Tiers
Parcels
Tier
1a
39
Tier
1b
27
Tier
2
6
Tier
3
3
GROUND
TRUTHING
OBSERVATIONS
ü sits
on
a
narrow
two-­‐way
road
ü exisGng
split-­‐rail
fence
surrounds
the
property
ü lot
“cleaned
and
greened”
ü
some
tree
debris
on
the
property
will
need
to
be
cleared
ü good
solar
access
ü trees
and
scrub
to
the
east
of
the
property

22. Urban
Agriculture
CommiAee:
Strategic
Planning
Short
Term
Goals:
➔ PrioriGze
a
robust
community
garden
network
➔ Expand
the
capacity
of
Gardening
the
Community
Long
Term
Goals:
➔ Land
Tenure

23. Currently
in
Springfield
Community
Gardening
Ordinance
(2012)
➔ Encourages
ciGzen
engagement
in
urban
agriculture,
➔ Acknowledges
the
benefits
of
urban
agriculture,
and
➔ Permits
people
to
peGGon
to
temporarily
use
vacant
lots
for
urban
agriculture.
Hen
Ordinance
➔ Will
be
introduced
into
the
discussion
this
year

24. Defining
Success
Municipal
Support
" Passing
addiGonal
ordinances
to
ease
implementaGon
" Water
access
Community
Development
Block
Grant
(CDBG)
" Awarded
grant
dollars
for
infrastructure
Private
sector
support
" Currently
a
missing
component

25. FOOD IN THE CITY
Marie
Macchiarolo
marie.macchiarolo@gmail.com
The
Conway
School
of
Landscape
Design
www.csld.edu
332
South
Deerfield
Road
Conway,
MA
01341
Find
this
report
on
ISSUU
hAp://issuu.com/conwaydesign