even insects have to live somewhere

Arup Associates has won the ‘Beyond the Hive’ competition to design a hotel for insects. The competition was sponsored by British Land and the City of London to celebrate 2010 as the ‘International Year of Biodiversity’. Selected from five shortlisted hotels, built and placed in parks around London, the jury included Paul Finch (Chairman of CABE and Editorial Director, Architectural Review and Architects’ Journal); Sarah Henshall (BugLife The Invertebrate Conservation Trust); Adrian Penfold (Head of Planning and Environment, British Land); Peter Wynne Rees (the City Planning Officer); and architect Graham Stirk, (Rogers Stirk Harbour+ Partners).

The façade of the hotel consists of a series of compartments based on a Voronoi pattern – the rib structure of a dragonfly’s wing, generating a series of voids. The compartments provide the supporting armature and an ordering structure for a variety of recycled waste materials and deadfall that are loosely inserted into the voids. The sides of the hotel are accessible for butterflies and moths and the top is suitable for absorbing rain water through planting.

equitable distribution of scarce resources - the challenge is still to come

Since water is critical to life, its growing scarcity is a cause of geopolitical realignment and conflict. Where nation states control access to scarce resources, they can allocate supply within their borders as they see fit, hopefully in accordance with policies that are equitable and just. In the international arena, however, things are not so straightforward, and water is only one of a number of resources to be concerned about.

We have only just begun to see what might happen when there isn't enough water to go around. With a few exceptions, I think it is true to say that generally where people have inadequate access to water, it's not because there isn't any available, but because the infrastructure isn't in place to supply it where it's needed. But the number of exceptions to this rule is growing, as demand outstrips supply in more and more areas.

In South Africa, 98% of surface water is already put to use. [via Urban Sprout] Where surface water runs out, we dig down. But again, in South Africa, 41% of this is allocated. It's already become a nonrenewable resource in many other parts of the world, as it can't be replenished at the rate it's extracted. So we look farther afield, and where there is a surplus, pipelines are built to transport it longer distances, until everything is allocated.

Pee is for phosphorus

US researchers have developed an efficient way of producing hydrogen from urine - a feat that could not only fuel the cars of the future, but could also help clean up municipal wastewater. This is also about harvesting phosphorus - globally we need to start thinking about conserving phosphorus for fertiliser, because, just like oil, one day the deposits are all going to run out and we need to start building phosphorus recycling into our infrastructure.

living on the edge

There are people who suggest that global warming of a few degrees is nothing to worry about. Given the normal variability in weather from day to day and year to year, the temperature change would be hardly noticeable to humans. But many flora and fauna are far more sensitive to temperature than we are, and we mustn't forget that we are as dependent on ecological processes as any other species. Whether it's depletion of global fish stocks or the pollination of fruit by bees, or the myriad other known and unknown interactions that we depend on directly for food or economic activities, we are becoming ever more vulnerable to change.

Our growing population forces us to push the boundaries of efficiencies in food production in order to survive. In 1972, the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth, predicting that the human population would hit an upper limit as a result of limits to land, water and other resources needed for food production, and the ability of Earth to absorb pollutants. The assertion was that population grows exponentially, while the ability of technology to increase the availability of resources grows only linearly.

The collapse of our economy hasn't happened yet, as we have managed to harness technology to become more productive with what we have available; nevertheless we have overshot the carrying capacity of Earth's resources.

a fresh look at productive urban land

[pic: Greenopolis]

A few days ago I was watching some bees in the CBD of the city where I work. They were foraging around some discarded food; there were no plants anywhere nearby, no pollen -- just buildings and pavement. The bees got me thinking about dysfunctional and dying colonies in the US (and now in South Africa) and the impact on agricultural yields. And that started me on a train of thought about growing food in urban areas. I've talked about urban agriculture before, but this is a new angle -- I promise.

I'll get back to the bees and food in a moment, but I need to talk about city buildings first.

Land parcels are regularly cleared in central cities to make way for new buildings. While some of the demolished buildings have bits and pieces collected for recycling or reuse elsewhere (windows, timber, bricks, sanitary fittings, and even crushed concrete), and may even be replaced with more resource-efficient buildings, I have to wonder whether this is the most sustainable approach to replacing the existing inefficient stock. With all the energy that goes into creating a building in the first place, and the huge volumes of demolition waste, there is increasing emphasis being placed on a cradle-to-grave analysis for making environmentally sound decisions. But it's not so easy to calculate the full impact in each particular case, so it's very difficult to build a case for preservation if the developer is pushing for a clean slate.

getting serious about urban farming

There seems to be an explosion of interest in urban agriculture here in Cape Town and around the world, if the number of newspaper articles and blogs on the topic is anything to go by. While there is lots of information and services in support of vegetable growing, another side of micro-farming about which I have seen relatively little is raising animals for food in the city. I have always assumed that in most municipalities it would be illegal to establish chicken coops in the backyards of suburbia; but according to the blog Urban Chickens, there actually are a few places where it seems to be allowed.

Interest groups are pushing municipalities to allow chickens, but in some cases this strategy has backfired. Many cities simply have not addressed the issue in their by-laws, and some have taken this to mean they can keep small livestock. The city of Waterloo, Ontario, was one of these, but efforts to legalise chickens resulted in the city outlawing a practice that had previously been under the radar.

The obvious objections are smell and noise, but there is nothing stopping people from using smelly manure as compost on their urban gardens; and as far as noise goes, my family has to put up with neighbourhood dogs that cause far more sleepless nights than any flock of chickens could possibly do.

Urban farming goes beyond simply providing healthy food; it can be part of an educational strategy. Projects like the Wild Coast Day Care Facility in Transkei, or Camphill near Atlantis (north of Cape Town), are not in an urban setting, but they improve quality of life and develop skills that can increase resilience in times of stress (financial or otherwise). I am sure there are plenty of urban locations that could provide a similar function without impacting negatively on residential areas. And there are web sites like Hyperlocavore that support the formation of yardsharing groups to ease neighbourhoods into communal gardening efforts to share resources and ideas.

I have written a couple of times about the Riebeek Kasteel Community Garden, which doubles as a weekend soup kitchen for the local children. While it is located in a rural town, it's a great demonstration of how to teach residents about food production with limited resources. I visited the garden again this Saturday, when the children were making and erecting scarecrows. Trees that were planted a while ago have visibly grown, there is now a greenhouse tunnel acting as a nursery for the garden, and colourfully painted stones and tyres mark plants and a pathway. And, while the communal garden has grown, it's the activity beyond the shared space that is really exciting.

down on the (urban) farm

I have mentioned urban agriculture here and there, but it seems it's become more than a fringe idea. An exhibit showing how agriculture can be integrated with city life, curated by professors at Ryerson University in Toronto, may soon go on tour, following requests from other cities. The professors talk of Carrot City as a demonstration of how to integrate production and consumption into a coherent, self-sustaining cycle.

Imagine an urban farm supplying your neighbourhood farmers market, making use of fertilizer made from the city's own compost stream, and running workshops for nearby schools on nutrition and gardening.

We're not talking here about a few backyard veggie patches, but serious food production at different scales within the urban environment. And the integration aspect extends to job creation, education and other social benefits.

[via @saveossington]

how green is your valentine?

From sexy organic cotton T-shirts (some designed to unleash your inner eco-warrior) to knickers that change colour as they warm up to show the effects of global warming, there seems to be many ways to salve a guilty conscience.

But is organically grown cotton really green? Although I haven't gone so far as to shun cotton, I have a hard time believing that any cotton can be good for the environment - organic or not. Some people argue that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will boost cotton yields, and the cotton industry lobbyists tout its ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. And certainly organic cotton is better than regular cotton for its  reduced use of insecticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers to grow it.

Possibly the biggest problem with cotton is the water consumed - and this applies equally to organic cotton. According to a study released last August:

The UK has become the sixth largest net importer of water in the world, the environment group WWF will tell a meeting of international experts in Stockholm, with every consumer indirectly responsible for the use of thousands of litres a day. Only 38% of the UK's total water use comes from its own resources; the rest depends on the water systems of other countries, some of which are already facing serious shortages.

The study makes the first attempt to measure the UK's total "water footprint" and highlights the extent to which our imports come from countries which are running out of fresh water. It calculates that:

Average household water use for washing and drinking in the UK is about 150 litres a person daily, but we consume about 30 times as much in "virtual water", used in the production of imported food and textiles.

Hemp would be better for conserving water. There is more, though, and this is where cotton growing hits home in Africa. Joseph E Stiglitz writes on the issue of subsidies and global trade:

Subsidies hurt developing country farmers because they lead to higher output – and lower global prices. The Bush administration – supposedly committed to free markets around the world – has actually almost doubled the level of agricultural subsidies in the US.

Cotton illustrates the problem. Without subsidies, it would not pay for Americans to produce much cotton; with them, the US is the world’s largest cotton exporter. Some 25,000 rich American cotton farmers divide $3 to $4 billion in subsidies among themselves – with most of the money going to a small fraction of the recipients. The increased supply depresses cotton prices, hurting some 10 million farmers in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

floral sabotage

If seed bombs are a protest against conformity, neatness and suburban monoculture, I wonder about the backlash if communities were to really roll up our collective sleeves and start transforming front lawns into wild squares of unexpected flora, or productive vegetable patches. We've been thinking of doing the latter, and in the meantime the weeds are getting out of control. I have experienced summers of neighbourhood discontent before, when weed seeds started to scatter in the wind, and the pressure to get out the lawn mower is intense. Yet something inside me says, "let's see what happens."

Guerilla gardening for a healthier and more beautiful environment is one thing, but what happens when the tables are turned and people start spreading genetically modified seeds where farmers are trying to stay GM-free? A Welsh agricultural saboteur has done just that. Will we have protest gardens in future that will compete against healthy green urban spaces? As I plant my organic seeds, will my neighbour start spraying pesticides around the neighbourhood, out of spite?

I really do wonder. Right now, we have neighbours with dogs that bark at all hours of the night. When one starts, it sets off others until there is a cacaphony of canine howling, seemingly for miles around. And just as they start to settle down, one of them blurts out a final bark and sets the whole lot off again. I have nothing against dogs, but I do have something against people who think that keeping other people awake at night is alright. We can't argue against this. We have had conversations with the neighbours about it, but there isn't a set of common community values that allows them to say "oh, I see what you mean," or us to accept sleepless nights in the name of fighting crime. They think they are doing us a favour by keeping burglars away, and they may even think that we are the ones who aren't doing our bit to protect the neighbourhood.

It's this lack of shared values that makes me think it's quite possible to have garden wars in the not-too-distant future. "You wanna grow lettuce? Heh, let's see how you like these snails." Maybe that's what I've already unleashed with my special patch of weeds. Watch this block.

this little piggy went to market

It's not hard to make the business case for capturing methane from agricultural waste, which is why it's being done all over the place. Yet it's not being done on anything near the scale that is needed to counter the rapid growth in animals raised for meat. Agriculture is one area of human endeavour that is largely overlooked in efforts to curb carbon emissions, but it's under the microscope now at the UN negotiations in Poland.

The trillions of farm animals around the world generate 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures, according to United Nations estimates, more even than from cars, buses and airplanes.

But unlike other industries, like cement making and power, which are facing enormous political and regulatory pressure to get greener, large-scale farming is just beginning to come under scrutiny as policy makers, farmers and scientists cast about for solutions.

Get ready for a 'sin tax' on meat. Or maybe we could just plug those living smokestacks into regional gas pipelines to ship a new agricultural product to cities. Call it liquid pig.