In our
How context-based regulations may offer
new opportunities for Urban Agriculture
By Andrew Bowman, PCP
Planning Director, Grand Valley Metro Council
(modified for the web by
Cynthia Price, Greater Grand Rapids Food Systems Council)
Background on Policy Project of
Greater Grand Rapids
Food Systems Council
• Policy committee resulted from recommendation of GGRFSC 2003 conference keynote
Mark Winne
• After meeting for several months, narrowed focus to policy around community gardens
(and later urban agriculture) as pilot project for creating policy change
• Discovered the only ordinances on the City of Grand Rapids books date from the 1970s
and encourage community gardens
• Decided to look comprehensively at G.R. policies in the following areas, among others:
land tenure (including working with Community Land Trust), water usage, landscaping
restrictions and weeds ordinances, composting, animal keeping, greenhouse
construction, parks policy, sale of produce
Background continued…
• Found out Grand Rapids taking innovative course, incorporating forms-based (or
context-based) zoning into their ordinances
• Grand Valley Metro Council a key partner with City of Grand Rapids in this process,
responsible for developing “pattern book” of forms
• Decided to image urban agriculture in transect contexts, offer its “forms” as choices for
community and neighborhood development, and work to have it instituted in new G.R.
ordinances
• Have engaged City of Grand Rapids staff in discussion of incorporating urban
agriculture with promising results
Conventional
ra
ilr Zoning
C Primary Arterial 1
oa
d
• Conventional use-based
zoning relies on simplistic
locational concepts
• Laid out in arbitrary ways to
I “fit together”
R • Where developed, complex
“nonconformities” exist
Ag • Where undeveloped,
maximizes real estate choice
rather than planning
• Same rules may span very
Primary Arterial 2
Rural different areas
• Exhaustively prohibitive, not
helpfully prescriptive
• Planning “vision” rooted in
Rural Township zoning
• Not designed to promote or
enhance real underlying
communities!
Community-Based Regional Approach
with the “Transect”
• “Transect” is an adaptation of an ecological principle developed by
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company for use in applying “new urbanist”
concepts on a regional basis. Further descriptions of the
“transect” can be found in a publication entitled “The Lexicon of
the New Urbanism” and in “The Smart Code”
• An outgrowth of the more descriptive transect concept is the
practice of forms-based zoning, which focuses planning away from
simple uses to community and neighborhood character, allowing
for mixed uses and contextual design
• The Policy Committee of the Greater Grand Rapids Food Systems
Council applied some of these principles in the materials which
follow the transect descriptions on the next two slides.
Shoreline Transect
Forest Transect
• Protected from • Open space and • Least dense, most • Primarily residential • Denser, fully mixed- • Most dense, mixed-use
managed working residential use areas concentration in region
development in • Single-family detached
• Buildings often
perpetuity lands not protected • Single-family houses and rowhouses• Buildings include
rowhouses, live-work rowhouses, apartment
• PDR, conservation from development detached houses on small-medium lots houses, office, and
flexhouses,
• TDR sending areas predominate • Limited office buildings department stores
easements and apartment buildings,
and PDR potential • Office and retail on • Small-scale retail, and offices above • Wide range of lot sizes
public open spaces
• May include restricted basis typically at corners shops and bldg heights
• Includes wild • Surface parking lots not
floodplains, steep • Maximum 2 stories • Maximum of 3 stories • Maximum of 5 stories
lands, wetlands permitted on frontage
slopes, and aquifer • Open space, • Open space consists • Open space consists
rivers and bodies of squares and • Open space consists of
recharge areas highways, and roads of greens and squares squares and plazas.
of water are rural in character
plazas
The Urban Context
The GGRFSC Policy Committee has concentrated on brainstorming
urban agriculture “forms” in Transects T4-T6, since these were the
most likely locations for community gardens and other types
of urban agriculture.
Additional thought will be given to T3 in later phases of the project.
Please note that the output of this brainstorming
is currently in draft form and requires
vetting with various audiences before it is finalized.
Drawings of common types of vegetated areas and photos of a few
community gardens in different transects follow.
Possible in T5 & T6
(also applicable to
other transects)
A community
garden in T4
Backyard garden (T4, possible T3) A community garden in T5 (lower-
income neighborhood)
Urban Agriculture Forms
in each of the transects
• For the manifestations of urban agriculture/community
gardening in each of the three transects, GGRFSC
Policy Committee developed ideas in the following
categories: Spaces, Character, Types, Limitations,
Access, Rights and Policies, and Benefits
• The Benefits category covers transect-specific benefits
in addition to the overall food security/health/
environmental/social capital benefits derived across
the board
SPACES
• Residential front, • Residential yards. • Roof tops and
side and rear yards. pocket parks.
• Public spaces.
• Parks. • Public squares
• Church/School
• Church/School yards. yards. • Public/Private
institutional
• Subdivision signature • Non-profits.
facilities.
entrances.
• Commercial/industri
• Rights of way,
• Compost space. al locations.
viaducts and other
• Rights of way • Recreation areas. civic structures.
(especially larger
• Semi-public spaces • Abandoned
sections like utilities
(campuses, commercial/industri
or drainways).
commons). al spaces.
• Conservation
• Parkways. • Inside buildings
easements.
(aquaculture,
• Rights of way.
• Jointly owned spaces hydroponics).
w/condos or garden • Multi-function • Surfaces of external
apartment groupings greenways.
buildings.
(including rooftops
and balconies).
CHARACTER
• More private spaces • Slightly less • Orderly and
than in T5 and 6. managed than T6. designed for
geometric
• Larger yards areas • Less need for
compatibility.
with a variety of government
shapes. regulation in public • Some free-forms on
spaces. rooftops.
• Less need for
geometric • More vegetative • Natural/native
compatibility. diversity and slightly gardens in parks.
less “wildness” or
• More conflicting • Takes cues from
free-forms.
elements of managed nature but allowing
agriculture, • More fencing for human order.
ornamental or border allowed.
landscaping and • More pocket parks
unmanaged nature and greenspace
(as nuisance). use.
• More growing in
relation to cultural
intersection
(diversity and
access).
TYPES
• Private gardens. • More gardens and • Crops that do well
free-standing fruits in linear spaces.
• Fruit trees.
and trees than T6.
• Fruit trees, climbing
• Fence gardens.
• Less vertically types, vine plants,
• Community gardens. grown plants except etc.
on fences and
• Edible landscaping. • Nut-bearing trees.
trellises.
• Small greenhouses • Window box type
and season extended plants.
growing.
• In-air or hanging
hydroponics.
• Fruit bearing
hedges.
• Underground or
basement crops
such as
mushrooms.
• Roof top crops of all
types.
LIMITATIONS
• More uniformity of • Need to handle • Need for sun in
height, less vertical more complex relation to buildings
opportunities. relationships: and structures.
• More need for – Neighborhood • Greater
neighborhood and business. consideration for
acceptance. – Residential “sun-rights”.
interactions.
• Difficulty saving • Need for
– Block clubs
“pure” seed with sophisticated level
close gardens. – Community of organization,
garden members management and
• More competition for
– Cooperatives resources.
growing space from
non-ag vegetation. – Networks
• More small uses • Less need for
compete for same government
space. restrictions.
ACCESS
• Solar access is better • More access • Relatively easy
than other zones. through various since downtowns
means including maximize access.
• More private
selling.
ownership, less • Public and private
public access. • More scaling to access possible.
family or
• More opportunity for • Need for some
neighborhood
small distribution and restrictions.
needs.
agricultural
entrepreneurs. • Still public but more
private access than
T6.
RIGHTS AND POLICES
• Need to balance • Need for more solar • Need for planning
competing access rules. and design work as
neighborhood part of approval
• Considerations to
interest such as process.
balance aesthetics
conformity of use,
and food security. • Sun rights
noxious weeds, etc.
important.
• Conflict
• Off-site effects of
management and • Need for rules
vegetation, animal
land tenure issues governing water
keeping, composting,
need to be access, soil
distribution, etc., all
addressed. conditioning, plant
need rules.
feeding, etc.
• Similar need for
rules on water, etc.
BENEFITS
• Even more • More water • Provides heat
stormwater capture. catchment island.
opportunities. • Stormwater
• Ability to share
equipment. • More space for reduction.
gardening. • Well placed food
• Even more public
involvement in • More public production.
process. involvement in • Helps local
gardening and ag. economy, food
• School-based
opportunities. access and health.
Additional Considerations:
• While much work has been done, there is much more to do. Specifically:
– Expand on the animal husbandry and small animal keeping aspects of urban
agriculture and investigate other manifestations such as iinnovative urban farms
– Develop the same set of indications for T3, especially as it relates to urban fringe
farming which may be most appropriate in that setting
– Compile good examples for all intended uses in each context zone outlined
– For City of Grand Rapids, modify transects slightly to conform to their exact forms-
based categories
– Ensure new guidelines and specifications fit a variety of potential frameworks
– Seek comments broadly, and finalize all categories
• Please direct any comments to
[email protected] or call 616-451-3051, Tom
Cary; 616-776-3876, Andy Bowman; or 231-739-6397, Cynthia Price
