Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Integrating the urban-agricultural edge : an exploration of new ruralism in south Delta Porter, Edward Robbins 2006

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2006-0620.pdf [ 42.66MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0058498.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0058498-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0058498-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0058498-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0058498-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0058498-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0058498-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0058498-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0058498.ris

Full Text

INTEGRATING THE URBAN-AGRICULTURAL EDGE: AN EXPLORATION OF NEW RURALISM IN SOUTH DELTA by EDWARD ROBBINS PORTER B.A., The University of Virginia, 1998 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2006 © Edward Robbins Porter, 2006 a b s t r a c t Urbanization is eating our foodshed. While policy-level attempts to address agricultural land conversion focus primarily on the preservation of agricultural land and urban containment, few solutions have been explored for the edge - where the two meet. Developed at the regional scale of land-use planning, present-day strategies are generally characterized as prescriptions for land-use conflict mitigation and the resultant places - or placelessness - is largely defined by the segre-gation and/or buffering of residential development from agricultural land. This project examines the alternative strategy of integration at the urban-agricultural edge, based on the articulation of agriarian values and the ideas presented by 'new-ruralism.' The application of these principles to the Southlands property in Tsawwassen, British Columbia, serves as a test case to explore strategies for the re-integration of the urban-agricultural edge, the development of agriculturally-integrated neighborhoods and the use of development as a mechanism for the transformation of our local food system. Beyond the scale of the Southlands, this project attempts to re-examaine our relationship to agricultural landscapes and proposes the deliberately designed edge as a means to reintegrate city and country, stop urban sprawl, and engender stewardship of the natural systems that sustain us. contents ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEGEMENTS DEDICATION SECTION ONE: PROJECT INTRODUCTION & RATIONALE 1.1 introduction 1.2 project overview & objectives 1.3 a recent history of agriculture 1.4 local land use & conflict 1.5 hope for our future 1.6 deliberate design & the role of landscape architecture SECTION TWO: REGIONAL CONTEXT & SITE ANALYSIS 2.1 site history & regional development 2.2 constraints & opportunities: site selection 2.3 site dynamics: from the ground up 2.4 existing edge conditions SECTION THREE: SITE DESIGN 3.1 design principles & precedents 3.2 program development & siteplan 3.3 design details & discussion SECTION FOUR: CONCLUSIONS 4.1 new definitions, new directions REFERENCES APPENDICES n iii iv vi vii 1 4 8 14 20 23 29 35 38 44 47 62 82 104 109 113 LIST OF FIGURES f ig. t i t le page 1: p lacelessness 2 2: agr icu l tu ra l convers ion 2 3: bear c reek r ipar ian edge 3 4: t yp i ca l edge 5 5: turn ip farming 5 6: backyard-b ramble - fa rm 6 7: urban conta inment vs. rural protect ion 6 8: indust r ia l harvest 10 9: vend ing machine d ie t 10 10: h idden cost of indust r ia l farming 11 11: land va lue & land convers ion 11 12: soi l eros ion 12 13: in f in i te rows 12 14: agr icu l tu ra l land reserve map 15 15: c rescent slough aer ia l photo 15 16: vege ta t i ve buffer 18 17: l inear deve lopment pat terns 18 18: fo res ted edge 19 19: adul t supervis ion 19 20: west end farm marke t 21 21 : the in te rva le fa rm incubator program 21 22: edge v isua l izat ion ( low-rise) 27 23 : edge v isua l izat ion (townhouse) 27 24: low-dens i ty deve lopment pat tern 31 25 : schools & parks of Tsawwassen 31 26: c o m m e r c i a l core of Tsawwassen 32 27: o f f ic ia l communi ty plan "u rban a r e a " 33 28: td l southlands deve lopment proposal 34 29: w ind rose 39 30: sed iment t ransport ( longshore) system 39 f ig. t i t le page 31: h is tor ica l photo of Boundary Bay 40 32: h is tor ica l vegeta t ion map 40 33: slope systems & e leva t ion 4 1 ' 34: drainage network and soils 41 35: t ransi t routes 42 36: greenway connect ions 42 37: v iew corr idors 43 38: " p u b l i c " v i ew c r i t ique 43 39: boundary bay regional park map 45 40 : park t ra i l 45 4 1 : boundary bay v i l lage laneways 46 42: 56th s t ree t edge cond i t ion 46 43 : broadacre c i ty 54 44: garden c i ty 54 45 : prai r ie crossing s i te plan 56 46: prai r ie crossing aer ia l photo 56 47: in te rva le logo 57 48: in te rva le aer ia l photo 57 49: v i l lage homes 59 50: siskin lane s t ra ta 60 51: large-scale programming f ramework 63 52: southlands s i tep lan 64 53: mediators of the edge 65 54: " l i v e " 66 55: cot tage housing axonomet r i c 67 56: lot a l ignment for so lar gain 67 57: common house 68 58: vernacu lar a rch i tec tu re 68 59: f ie ld margins 69 60: cover crops as food plots 69 iv LIST OF FIGURES (continued) fig. t it le page fig- title page 61 "work" 72 91 wide road trail 96 62 community kitchen 74 92 woodland character 97 63 feast of fields 74 93 rustic trail 97 64 farm tour 75 94 boundary bay backporch laneways 98 65 neighborhood commercial 75 95 backporches at night 99 66 indoor market 76 . 96 laneway edges 99 67 tailgate market 76 97 boundary bay backporch forest edge 100 68 "p lay" 77 98 housing visualization (forest edge) 101 69 birdwatching deck 78 99 screened agricultural views 101 70 boardwalk 78 100 farm unit 103 71 "move" •80 101 integrating the agricultural edge 105 72 windbreak/hedgerow 81 102 blurring the edges 105 73 woonerf 81 103 wedge the edge 106 74 illustration locator map 83 104 the regional edge in transition 107 75 village commons 84 105 conventional edge planning 107 76 vizualization (commons) 85 77 . community gardens 86 78 intergenerational recreation 87 79 walkable streets 88 80 rowhouses 89 81 existing edge condition 90 82 orchard edge scenario locator 90 83 single-loaded residential edge 91 84 cottage commons 92 85 country lanes 92 86 orchard trail edge 93 87 wild orchard 94 88 malus fusca 94 89 wooded edge 95 90 forest edge scenario locator 95 a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s S ince res t thanks to W i l l Marsh and Doug Paterson fo r t he i r v is ion and pass ion fo r e d u c a t i o n and des ign and t he i r unf lagging suppor t th roughou t th is p r o j e c t . I a l so o w e a great d e a l o f thanks to my o the r p ro j ec t adv isors , i n c l u d i n g Ar t B o m k e , Pa t r i c k C o n d o n , S teven Ga l lagher , Harv ie & Susan Snow, Sean Hodgins and J i m L e M a i s t r e , fo r c o n t r i b u t i n g t h e i r e x p e r -t i se and pe rspec t i ve in th is e x p l o r a t i o n . Thanks to m y f r iends for keep ing m e sane : fo r he lp ing me s tay f o c u s e d w h e n f e e l i n g d i s t r a c t e d . . . and fo r d i s t r a c t i n g me w h e n f ee l i ng too f o c u s e d . F ina l l y , t hanks to h o m e , to my f am i l y and the v i l l age tha t ra ised m e , fo r t e a c h i n g m e the v a l u e of l a n d , f ood and c o m m u n i t y : w i t h o u t you r in f in i te e n c o u r a g e m e n t none of th is was r e m o t e l y poss ib l e . For the farmers-past, present and future-who have built and sustained great civilizations: May our myopic attitude towards the land and its stewards be laid fallow. vii 1.1: i n t r o d u c t i o n Growing up in Columbia, Tennessee, I have been surrounded by characters. Some might say these men and women are larger than life. To me, like goldfish, they have grown to fit the size of their surroundings and the limitless agricultural landscapes have provided a plenty. More to the point, the people and places exist as one and the same-like vital organs of a singular body, there is no separat-ing family from farm, farm from family. From these people and places, a culture of great storytelling has evolved. Just as were the indigenous oral traditions of the past, these stories are based largely on the phenomenology of place as well as an admitted exaggeration of the awe and wonder of our everyday experiences. People from places make stories. And so stories from places make people. In the end, we owe much to the places from which we come. The manifestations of our current dilemmas in land use planning - from sprawling development to habitat loss can be categorically defined as exercises in placelessness. In the words of singer/songwrit-er James McMurtry: "[It] looked like so many towns I might have been through... on my way to somewhere else" (1989). In a world transformed by increasing industrialization and standard-ization, made possible by the light-speed exchange of information and ideas in the "global" marketplace, more and more individuals - and communities alike - are starting to wonder: At what cost? How much are we willing to trade for our uniqueness, our identity? Few other places have been so severely affected by this transfor-mation as the urban-rural edge. While suburbia grows into a new incarnation as "edge city" (Garreau, 1991), surrounding landscapes are consumed by those continuing the search for the triple-dream of home, nature and community (Hayden, 2003). It is here that all of the lessons that we should have learned are forgotten and the cycle continues: "residents' hope of unspoiled nature fails because open land vanishes with increased development" (Hayden, 2003). McMurtry laments, "[You] shoulda been here... back about ten years... before it got ruined by folks like me" (1989). More and more, that which is 'local' is valued not through the wist-ful lens of nostalgia, but through the critical regionalist perspective of placemaking and sustainable development principles of 'complete communities.' Fig. 1: Placelessness is a common demoninator across the modern North American landscape. Fortu-nately, more people are warming to the alternatives and the idea of deliberate placemaking. Fig. 2: Conversion of agricultural landscapes hap-pens quickly and soon the "place" that attracted residents is no longer recognizable, (www.csmonitor. com) 2 Landscape architecture has a critical role to play in reconciling the separation of nature and culture. I believe that the forms and func-tions of natural systems hold the clues to the uniqueness and authen-ticity of all landscapes, whether urban or rural. It is only through the recognition of these dynamics and all they reveal that place can be created. More specifically, in addressing the current dysfunctions of the urban-agricultural edge, it is my hope that we can mediate between these two land uses and create vibrant places, where the design of "com-plete communities" articulates the values found in Leopold's land ethic: "All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that commu-nity, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate... The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively: the land" (Leopold, 1949). Fig. 3: Thickening the riparian edge helps restore ecological function, exaggerates form and reveals sense of place at Bear Creek, Iowa, (www.nrcs.gov) 3 "To answer these questions is to enter practically into a complex, moral dimension that takes seriously the places we are in and the character of our dwelling within these places. They demand the sort of democratic and public conversation that has all but disappeared in our time. None of these questions can be adequately or truthfully answered without patient, detailed attention to place, or without sustained commitment to place and community." Norman Wi r zba , "P lac ing the Sou l : An Agrar ian Phi losophical P r inc ip le " 1.2: project o v e r v i e w & objectives Urbanization is eating our foodshed. Presently, British Columbia loses an estimated 300 hectares of farmland per year to urban land use (SmartGrowthBC, 2006). While present-day 'smart-growth' policies attempt to control urban growth and preserve farmland, treatment of the urban-agricultural edge has been largely defined by efforts to mitigate conflict. Beyond the establishment of buffers designed with the singular intent of separation, this strategy has failed in its consideration of the larger scale implications to economic health, social well-being and environmental stewardship. Is 'out of sight, out of mind' any place for agriculture? Or is it not a symptom of our increasingly dysfunctional relationship with an ever-more industrialized food system? A quick survey of the urban-a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e revea ls t he u n d e r l y i n g a t t i t udes and v a l u e sys tem upon w h i c h t he l a n d - u s e , des ign and d e v e l o p m e n t dec i s i ons have b e e n b a s e d : • Suburban development s tands w i t h i ts back to t he f a r m , s t o p p e d in a s e e m i n g l y a r b i t r a r y m a n n e r - b a c k y a r d , w o o d e n f e n c e , d r a i n a g e d i t c h and p o t a t o f i e ld - sugges t ing a mos t tern po ra ry rest in i ts m a r c h ac ross t he l a n d s c a p e . • Adjacent agricultural lands o f f e r l i t t l e in response . Its lost un iqueness of p l a c e , s u b v e r t e d by e c o n o m i e s of s c a l e , s t an -d a r d i z a t i o n and c o n t r o l , speaks to t h e " M c D o n a l d i z a t i o n " of a g r i c u l t u r e th rough t he e m e r g i n g c o r e va lues of e f f i c iency , c a l c u l a b i l i t y , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and i n c r e a s e d c o n t r o l t h rough t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of h u m a n by n o n - h u m a n t e c h n o l o g y (Ri tzer , 1994) . M a n y f a r m e r s , t r a p p e d in t he S isyphean i ndus t r i a l ag r i -bus iness m o d e l , a re f o r c e d to ' b u y - i n o r get o u t ' and c a n t a k e a se l f - r i gh teous a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t he i r r ight to f a r m by any m e a n s necessary . E n t r e n c h e d in t he i r r e s p e c t i v e c a m p s , the s u b u r b a n i t e and t he f a r m e r s t a n d at an i m p a s s e . Though a d m i t t e d l y an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t he i s sue , i t has r e s u l t e d in t h e o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of t he c u r r e n t u r b a n - r u r a l e d g e in p l ann ing po l i cy . T h e s e l andscapes a re c h a r a c t e r -i z e d by a g la r i ng l ack of d e t a i l e d a t t e n t i o n to des ign and a resu l t an t sense of p l ace lessness at t he bounda ry of y a r d and f a r m . Fig. 4: A typical urban - rural edge does little to promote a healthy relationship between these landscapes. Fig. 5: Industrial-scale turnip farming leaves tittle for neighbors to engage in the neighboring agricul-tural landscape. T h e so lu t i ons , however , a re fa r m o r e n u a n c e d than popu la r r h e t o r i c 5 - pitching developer against preservationist - would have us believe. The issues are complex and so too shall be the appropriate solutions. Real challenges exist and should be considered catalysts for creative problem solving. To resign ourselves to this dysfunctional relationship with the natural systems that provide for our very existence is to turn our back to the endless opportunities presented by these very same dynamic edge conditions. Our first task is to be explicit in our design intent for the urban-agri-cultural edge. It is our role as landscape architects to help articulate a design of the urban-rural edge that mediates between culture and nature. Many efforts have been made in the planning realm to deal with the issue from 30,000 feet, high above where people and places form our everyday experiences and shape our values. Landscape ecologist Kathryn Freemark argues that: "Our challenge is to create the socio-cultural commitment and spatially integrated decision-making process in which the rural character of farmlands can be sustained and farmers, other land owners, citizens, the development community, planners, and elected officials act as managers and stewards of the countryside, rather than just as consumers or producers for the market" (2005). I believe we can take this one step further in considering the spatial integration of the actual landscapes themselves. It is my belief that deliberate design of a more robust urban-rural edge, based on a 21st century interpretation of agrarian values, can backyard bramble farm Fig. 6: Many urban - rural edges exist as little more than a transitional space defined by mutual neglect. Fig. 7: Can we move beyond the ideas of growth containment and open-space protection to develop a deliberate treatment of the urban - rural edge? 6 r e i n t e g r a t e c i t y and count ry , s top urban s p r a w l , and p ro tec t the n a t u r a l sys tems t ha t sus ta in us. W e c a n m o v e beyond the po in t of m i t i ga t i on and c r e a t e a rea lm of t r e m e n d o u s oppor tun i t y . Th rough t he c r i t i que of mode l s of c o n v e n t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t and i ndus t r i a l ag r ibus iness a n d t h e p o l i c y - b a s e d p lann ing e f fo r t s to reso lve t he i r i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y and con f l i c t , th is p r o j e c t p roposes a l te r -na t i ve t r e a t m e n t s of t he u rban -ag r i cu l t u ra l e d g e . T h e spec i f i c o b j e c t i v e s o f th is g r a d u a t i o n p r o j e c t a re t o : • C r i t i q u e p resen t -day po l i cy and resu l tan t cond i t i ons of the u r b a n - a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e . • Invest igate concep t s and app roaches to l and-use p lann ing and des ign f r o m the p e r s p e c t i v e s o f ag r i -c u l t u r a l v a l u e s , conse rva t i on va lues and l andscape des ign . • Deve lop a d e l i b e r a t e des ign a p p r o a c h to the u rban -ag r i cu l t u ra l e d g e p r o b l e m , based upon an ar-t i c u l a t i o n of a 21st cen tu r y agra r ian va lues . • E x p l o r e edge d e v e l o p m e n t (using a L o w e r - M a i n l a n d ag r i cu l t u ra l s i t e as a c a s e s tudy) as a pos i t i ve f o r c e fo r c o m m u n i t y bu i l d i ng , res to ra t i on and p l a c e m a k i n g a long t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e . (Refer to append i x 1 fo r p ro j ec t p rocess d iag ram. ) "Not only are we losing farmland, we are losing farmers." loca l BC farmer "To keep every cog and wheel is the first rule of intelligent tinkering." Aldo Leopo ld , A Sand County A lmanac 1.3: a recent history of agriculture As a c h i l d , I r eca l l s i t t i ng in f ron t of the TV, f a s c i n a t e d as I w a t c h e d c a r t o o n c h a r a c t e r G e o r g e J e t s o n i npu t a m e a l o rder i n to a r e f r i g e r a t o r - s i z e d , c o m p u t e r - l i k e m a c h i n e (w i th a l l of t h e r e q u i s i t e d ia l s and bu t tons of a 1970's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f u tu re techno logy ) . In an ins tan t , a s m a l l d o o r o p e n e d and a h e a p i n g p l a t e of f ood e m e r g e d , s t eam ing hot and ready to ea t . Today, w e a re not so fa r away. . . S i t t ing in a c o f f e e shop w i t h w i r e l e s s i n t e r n e t , I c a n w o r k on m y c o m -p u t e r and have my g roce r ies d e l i v e r e d to my h o m e . F rom l o c a l l y - g r o w n o rgan i c p r o d u c e to p r e - p r e -p a r e d , r eady - t o -ea t m e a l s , t he s e l e c t i o n is seeming l y l im i t l ess . F r o z e n goods c o m e p a c k e d w i t h d ry i c e . W a r m mea ls a r r i ve in re -usab le i nsu la ted packag ing . 8 Though t ru l y a m a z i n g f r o m the po in t - o f - v i ew of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t e c h n o l o g y and c o n v e n i e n c e , th is is t he p e r f e c t g l impse in to the d e c a d e s - l o n g t r ans fo rma t i on of our f ood s y s t e m . In j us t ove r f i f ty yea rs , w e have been t r a n s f o r m e d f r o m a c u l t u r e bu i l t o f f a r m e r s to a c u l t u r e bu i l t o f c o n s u m e r s ( K i m b r e l l , 2002) . Our hands have been w a s h e d of the so i l and our ru ra l l andscapes a re i nc reas i ng l y d e p o p u l a t e d . W e n d e l l Ber ry o f fe rs e v i d e n c e : "In October of 1993, the New York Times announced that the United States Census Bureau would "no longer count the number of Americans who live on farms." In explaining the decision, the Times provided some figures as troubling as they were unsurprising. Between 1910 and 1920, we had 32 million farmers living on farms -- about a third of our population. By 1950, this population had declined, but our farm population was still 23 million. By 1991, the number was only 4.6 million, less than 2 percent of the national popula-tion. That is, our farm population had declined by an average of almost half a million people a year for forty-one years" (Berry in Mander, 1998). T h e t r e n d con t i nues as s m a l l fa rms a re f o r c e d to ' ge t b ig or get o u t . ' C o n s o l i d a t i o n is a f i rst s tep in i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and l oca l numbers suggest a s im i l a r t r a j e c t o r y : in t h e f ive y e a r p e r i o d b e t w e e n 1996 and 2 0 0 1 , an i nc rease in t o t a l f a r m l a n d r e p o r t e d by a f e w e r t o t a l n u m b e r of f a r m s shows t he a v e r a g e s i ze of f a r m in Br i t ish C o l u m b i a was la rger - an ave rage i nc rease f r o m 116 h e c t a r e s to 128 h e c t a r e s ( B C M A L , 2001) . T h e e c o n o m i c i m p l i c a t i o n s fo r the r ema in i ng hand fu l o f s m a l l f a r m e r s a re b leak . A t a r e c e n t p a n e l d i scuss ion on the f u tu re of f a rm ing in BC , a l oca l f a r m e r t o l d the f o l l o w i n g t w o ve rs ions o f a j o k e , c l a i m i n g t h e l a t t e r m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e to t oday ' s rea l i t i es as a s m a l l f a r m e r : Version 1: "A reporter asked a farmer what she planned on doing upon winning the lottery, to which she replied, 'pay my bills.' The reporter proceeded, '...and what will you do with the rest?' to which the farmer replied, 'keep farming until I run out.'" Version 2: "A reporter asked a farmer what she planned on doing upon winning the lottery, to which she replied, 'pay my bills.' The reporter proceeded, '...and what will you do with the rest?' to which the farmer replied, 'well... the rest of the bills will just have to wait. "' But beyond the tough economic situation of small farmers, the sys-tem seems to be working just fine. A trip to the local supermarket is enough to tell you that there's plenty to eat, the variety is staggering and what's more, it's cheap. On a recent visit, I counted more than ten types of cooking oil, twen-ty fresh fruits and fifty vegetables, sixty types of meat and seafood, thirty dairy products (including yogurt, milk, butter and cheeses), and countless grains and cereals. A bottle of olives from Spain -picked, processed, packaged and shipped - costs less than ten dollars. A cup of coffee from South America costs less than two. The macro-economic indicators point to success as well - over the last several decades, modern agriculture has created a remarkable overabun-dance. Worldwide, over the past 35 years, per capita food production has grown 16% faster than population (Kimbrell, 2002). Since the rise of modern man some 200,000 years ago, we have in-deed come a long way from our hunter/gatherer past. So far, in fact, that the question of where our food comes from seems irrelevant to most individuals. And why wouldn't it be? In the context of a world of food at your fingertips, it is difficult for some to see the underlying dysfunctions of the food system. Fig. 9: A 2000-calorie diet is easily "satisfied" with the push of a few buttons... is it any wonder few know where they're food comes from? 10 Industrialized farming practices have singularly removed farmers from the agricultural landscape. Beyond farm consolidation, the industrial model of food production has focused on maximizing efficiency with respect to human labor inputs, resulting in the replacement of human with non-human technology (Ritzer, 1994). Present-day business mod-els have little room for the time-intensive management practices that have kept agriculture alive for millennia. Indeed, what is occurring throughout much of the world can be seen as an economically-biased valuation of land focused on the maximization of a singular target variable: profit. Christopher Alexander (1977) put it succinctly: "If we continue to treat the land as an instrument for our enjoyment, and as a source of economic profit... our farms will become more and more like factories." As real estate speculation overtakes the value of agricultural produc-tion, the market facilitates a seamless progression. The inevitable conclusion becomes conversion: the added value of farming on the landscape cannot compete with the market prices of residential, commercial and/or industrial development. Along the urban-agricul-tural edge, increasing land values often shift farmers' profit motive from farm operations to capital gains from real estate sales (Burchell, et. al, 2003). Canada is no exception to the trend: By 2001, half of the nation's urban landscape was located on dependable agricultural soils (Hoffman, et. al, 2005). And so Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is hard at work across our ag-ricultural land. The industrialization of farming has depopulated the rural landscape and resulted in the fraying of the close-knit social fabric of farming communities. Drifting farther and farther from a Fig. 10: Factory farms demonstrate economies of scale and maximize yields • and profits - often at the cost of social and environmental stewardship. Fig. 11: As land value increases, a fresh new crop of single-family detached housing devours the sur-rounding farmland, (www.greatlakesforever.com) 11 culture of land stewardship, many places already resemble a "post-agricultural" condition (Berry in Mander, 1998). Some see cause for concern: "The re are good reasons to suggest that a cu l tu re loses its indispens-ab le moorings, and thus potent ia l ly distorts its overa l l a ims, when it forgoes the sympathy and knowledge that grows out of cu l t iva t ing (cultura) the land (ager)" (Wirzba, 2003). Beyond the loss of farmers and farming technique, we are seeing the loss of the very biological foundations of agriculture. The industrial model facilitates long-distance transport of food, creating a nutrient imbalance of food waste on the consumer side, while producers are faced with nutrient loss and lack of organic material for proper soil management (Halweil, 2002). Concentrated chemical fertilizers are used as a substitute and replace most farmers' understanding of basic soil management, not without dramatic consequences to soil biology. Rates of decomposition and nutrient availability are severely altered as a result of decreased soil health (Matson, et. al., 1997). In response to Leopold's first rule, to "keep every cog and wheel" (Leopold, 1949), the industrial model argues the efficiencies of a more simplified system and the values are articulated in the almost infinite crop rows stretching across our agricultural landscapes. Read a bit further into this picture and you can see there is little room for anything beyond what the business model recognizes. Something so complex as a 'natural community,' or even a 'farm community,' can-not hope to fit within its profit margins. Fig. 12: Soil degradation and loss undermines the sustainability of industrial-scale farming. Fig. 13: Where are the people? What else is left? Industrial-scale salad production requires enormous resource inputs and yields... salad. 12 In c o n c l u s i o n , wh i l e w e have e n j o y e d c e r t a i n c o n v e n i e n c e s p r o v i d e d by the i ndus t r i a l f o o d s y s t e m , w e have b e c o m e so e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e d f r om it as to know l i t t l e of i ts c o n d i t i o n . Phys ica l l y , soc ia l l y and psycho log i ca l l y d i s t a n c e d f r o m our ag r i cu l t u ra l l andscapes , w e a re i nc reas ing l y u n a w a r e of t h e i r s o c i a l and e n v i r o n m e n t a l d is repa i r . Most t r o u b l i n g of a l l , f e w p e o p l e i n t e r e s t e d in t ry ing the i r hand a t g row ing have t he c o n f i d e n c e to m a k e a l e g i t i m a t e e f f o r t . In t he recen t d e b a t e ove r the i n teg r i t y of Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a ' s A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (ALR), t he rea l d i l e m m a su r faces : w e can save the l and fo r f a r m i n g but w h o w i l l f a r m it? Many u rban i t es , i n t e r e s t e d in t he p rom ise of l oca l commun i t y , f ood secu r i t y and sus ta i nab i l i t y a re eage r to f ind ways to m a k e i t work but a re re luc tan t to b e c o m e f a r m e r s t h e m s e l v e s . Our c u l t u r a l my-tho log ies have obscu red the image of f a rm l i fe and more to the po in t , c u l t u r a l l y - a c c e p t e d i nd i ca to r s of success va l ue phys i ca l e x e r t i o n on ly in the c o n t e x t o f r e c r e a t i o n . P e o p l e a re e d u c a t e d f r o m a ve ry young age to avo id t he rea l and p e r c e i v e d hardsh ips of an ag ra r ian l i f e s t y l e . T h e s e p a r a t i o n of t o w n and coun t r y b e c o m e s a s e l f - r e f e r e n c i n g p a r a d i g m , r e i n f o r c i ng th is dys func -t i o n a l re la t i onsh ip th rough t he s t reng then ing of t he boundar ies and t h e seg rega t i on of e x p e r i e n c e , u n d e r s t a n d i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in our l oca l food sys tems. "Divided, body and soul, man and woman, producer and consumer, nature and technology, city and country are thrown into competition with one another. And none of these competitions is ever resolved in the triumph of one competitor, but only in the exhaustion of both." Wendel Berry, "The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture" 1.4: local conflict & land-use planning policy T h e p r e s e n t - d a y dys func t ions of the indus t r i a l food s y s t e m , though la rge ly u n r e c o g n i z e d by t he p u b l i c , c r e a t e cons ide rab le cha l l enges a long u rban i zed edges . W h e r e suburban d e v e l o p m e n t abu ts aga ins t t h e rura l l a n d s c a p e , con f l i c t s a r ise and cu r ren t " e d g e - p l a n n i n g " po l i c i es have b e e n d e v e l o p e d la rge ly in response to a g row ing n e e d to address these con f l i c t s . M a n y of t h e po l i c i es have la rge ly f o c u s e d on fa rm-s i de m a n a g e m e n t a l t e rna t i ves ( deve lopmen t p e r m i t a reas and f a r m by - l aws to m i n i m i z e p o t e n t i a l con f l i c t ) and fa rmers have been f o r c e d to add a d v o c a c y to t he i r long l ist o f da i l y c h o r e s . I ronical ly , t he es tab l i shmen t o f Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a ' s ALR in 1973 de f i ned t he u r b a n - a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e as a means to p ro tec t f a r m l a n d and e f f e c t i v e l y m a p p e d the a reas w h e r e th is con f l i c t w o u l d o c -c u r as u rban i za t i on c o n t i n u e d . L i t t l e though t was g iven as to how to develop t he e d g e w i t h t h e i n t e n t of p e r m a n e n c e . 14 ALR: Agricultural Land Reserve or Arbitrary Legal Restriction? British Columbia's Land Commission Act was passed on April 18, 1973, designating 4.7 million acres of agricultural land part of a land reserve to protect BC's dwindling supply of agricultural land (ALC, 2006). Considering the rapid loss of farmland - and the community identity associated with these landscapes - due to urbanization across North America, such legislation is, if not progressive, certainly pru-dent. Few other places in North America are as fortunate as Vancou-ver to have protected their surrounding farmland. That said, from the dysfunctional relationship of the urban - rural edge to the 'death-by-1000-cuts' erosion of the Reserve itself, the ALR's effectiveness is questionable in many respects. The question is one of intent: is the ALR intended to protect agri-cultural land or contain urban growth? If the answer is the former, perhaps we should reconsider the types of farming practices that are practiced within the ALR. If it is the latter, perhaps we should evalu-ate changes to the boundary more strategically, based on regional growth. Principally, the land-use planning approach of separation has time and time again proven ineffective at best. Considering the realities of industrialized farming, there is little wonder as to why exclusion-ary zoning is seen as appropriate, but to label it a "solution" is highly questionable. It comes as no surprise that we chose such a "safe place" for this type of agriculture - the segregation of dangerous, in-dustrial land uses from our population centers was the very origin of Fig. 14: The above map demonstrates the geographic distribution of ALR lands throughout British Colum-bia. (www.alc.gov.bc.ca) Fig. 15: The abrupt urban - rural edge along Cres-cent Slough has been considered an "effective solu-tion" by many, (image courtesy of Google Earth) 15 z o n i n g in No r th A m e r i c a (Hayden , 2003) . G i v e n a mo re c o n t e m p o r a r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of l a n d s c a p e and h u m a n eco logy , segrega t ion hard ly seems l i ke a so lu t i on . A n d w h i l e m a n y advoca tes of 'Smar t G r o w t h ' ha i l Vancouve r ' s ALR d e s i g n a t i o n as p rog ress i ve , l e a d i n g p roponen ts of ' N e w U r b a n i s m , ' Andres Duany and E l i z a b e t h P l a t e r - Z y b e r k , q u e s t i o n such boundar -ies to g r o w t h , a rgu ing , " T h e r e has n e v e r been a g rowth boundary tha t has he ld . . . A n d t he reason is s i m p l e : Such boundar ies are arb i t rary . . . It is not o r g a n i c " (Danie ls , 1999). So w h i l e t he ALR has s e r v e d V a n c o u v e r w e l l , i t is a rb i t r a ry in a po l i cy sense - as eas i l y as po l i c y is c r e a t e d , so t oo can i t be d is -s o l v e d . M o r e to t he po in t , t he ALR boundary was know ing ly es tab l i shed based on i m p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a t c o a r s e r eso lu t i on . In a sense , t he boundary was c r e a t e d as a p l ace -ho lde r , to be re f i ned at s o m e l a t e r d a t e . W h i l e t he c r e a t i o n of t h e ALR p roved an e f f e c t i v e too l to p r o t e c t B C ' s f a r m l a n d , i t is t he ongo-ing " r e f i n e m e n t " o f i ts boundar ies tha t wor r i es most advoca tes of f a r m l a n d p r o t e c t i o n . Bu i l t i n to t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e Reserve was the es tab l i shmen t of the Ag r i cu l t u ra l Land C o m m i s s i o n (ALC) and a pro-cess th rough w h i c h lands can be i n c l u d e d or e x c l u d e d f r om the A L R . A n d w h i l e t he A L C ma in ta i ns t ha t t he A L R has e f f e c t i v e l y p r o t e c t e d t he quan t i t y of BC f a r m l a n d s ince i ts e s t a b l i s h m e n t in 1973 , t h e q u a l i t y of t ha t f a r m l a n d has d e c l i n e d (Smi th , 2006) . In f a c t , t he ove ra l l s i ze of t he ALR has ac tua l l y i n c r e a s e d by mo re t h a n 4 3 , 0 0 0 h e c t a r e s . Howeve r , b e t w e e n 1974 and 2000 , on ly 5,446 hec ta res of p r ime ag r i cu l t u ra l l and (measu red c lass 1 to 3 as pe r the Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in Britich Columbia - r e fe r to a p p e n d i x 2) w e r e i n c l u d e d i n to the A L R . Dur ing the s a m e p e r i o d , 16,392 hec ta res of p r i m e land w e r e e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e Rese rve . G e n e r a l l y speak ing , fo r eve ry one h e c t a r e of p r ime i n c l u d e d in to t he A L R , t h r e e h e c t a r e s o f p r i m e was e x c l u d e d . (Sands, 2006) Th is t r end is in large par t due to t he c l i m a t e of sou the rn BC w h i c h c r e a t e s i d y l l i c cond i t i ons for ag r i cu l t u re and s e t t l e m e n t . In a d d i t i o n to the p r o t e c t i o n of p r ime f a r m l a n d , t he ALR boundary has , in e f f e c t , se r ved t he reg ion as an u rban g rowth barr ier . Un fo r tuna te ly , the m a n d a t e of the A L C was n e v e r i n t e n d e d to w e i g h the m e r i t o f l o c a l d e v e l o p m e n t p roposa ls . As a resu l t , t he g rea tes t sou rce of c o n t r o v e r s y in t he p o l i t i c a l t u g - o f - w a r sur round ing the ALR boundary is t ha t of the exc lus ion p rocess . W h i l e t h e Reserve bounda ry w a s e s t a b l i s h e d based on a w i d e range of b i ophys i ca l measures i n t e n d e d to c a p t u r e B C ' s best a g r i c u l -t u r a l l a n d , t he c r i t e r i a used to d e t e r m i n e a p a r c e l ' s me r i t for c o n s i d e r a t i o n in t he e x c l u s i o n p rocess b e c o m e m u c h more c o n v o l u t e d . Ag r i cu l t u ra l v i ab i l i t y is s t i l l c o n s i d e r e d , bu t today, less q u a n t i f i a b l e a r g u m e n t s , based on g row th and d e v e l o p m e n t needs and t e r m e d " p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t " or " c o m m u n i t y n e e d " a r e p lay ing an inc reas ing ly s ign i f i cant ro le in the exc lus ion of ALR lands . Living on the edge: conflict and mitigation W h i l e t h e ALR has e f f e c t i v e l y s l owed the loss of ag r i cu l t u ra l l a n d , i t has a lso been la rge ly respons ib le fo r des ign ing the spec i f i c re la t i onsh ip of u rban d e v e l o p m e n t nex t to t he a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e tha t a l l o w s fo r con f l i c t s to a r i se . Examp les of con f l i c t i n c l u d e : t respass ing , f l ood d a m a g e f r o m s to rmwa te r , no ise ( f rom mach ine ry , e q u i p m e n t & b i rd -sca re d e v i c e s ) , t he f t , d a m a g e a n d / o r v a n d a l i s m (to c r o p s , l i ve -s tock a n d / o r e q u i p m e n t ) , odours ( f rom w a s t e & compos t i ng ) , dust ( f rom e x h a u s t fans & f ie lds) and c h e m i c a l d r i f t (Min is t ry of Ag r i cu l t u re & Lands , 2005) . In response , a d d i t i o n a l po l i c i es have been c r e -a t e d in an a t t e m p t to m i t i ga te the s i t ua t i on . T h e BC Min i s t r y of Ag r i cu l t u re & Lands (BCMAL) has taken steps to m i n i m i z e p o t e n t i a l con f l i c t t h rough t he e s t a b l i s h m e n t of d e v e l o p m e n t pe rm i t a reas and f a rm by- laws to ensure a d j a c e n t l a n d o w n e r s a re a w a r e of t h e i r r ights and respons ib i l i t i es . In a d d i t i o n , the Min is t ry has w o r k e d w i t h l o c a l f a rme rs to rea l i gn c e r t a i n f a rm ing ope ra t i ons to m i n i m i z e no ise a n d / o r odours . T h e use of d e v e l o p m e n t pe rm i t a reas (DPA's) a t t e m p t s to p reven t f u t u r e con f l i c t by c o n t r o l l i n g d e v e l -o p m e n t a d j a c e n t to f a r m ope ra t i ons . T h e f o l l ow ing e x a m p l e s are t a k e n f r o m the C i t y of Sur rey ' s Of-ficial Community Plan as part of their strategy to protect agriculture and agricultural land from neighboring development. Specifically, these strategies are intended to "promote compatibility between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses" (www.agf.gov.bc.ca). • Buffering - Encourage the development of effective buffers along the boundary of agriculturally designated land. • Adjacent Land Use - Encourage adjacent land uses to be compatible with existing farm use and ensure that the impacts (e.g. water runoff from upland areas) on agricultural lands wilt be minimized. • Linear Development - Discourage, wherever possible, linear devel-opments (i.e. hydro corridors, highways, pipelines, parks) through the Agricultural Land Reserve. When unavoidable, ensure that their impacts on the agricultural land are mitigated. • Recreational Uses Limit recreational uses on agricultural lands. Yet conflicts still arise. An additional layer of policy, in the "Right to Farm" act, defends "normal farm practices" from unsubstantiated complaints. The policy contains a list of requirements by which nor-mal practices are defined and further states: "If each of the requirements... is fulfilled in relation to a farm opera-tion conducted as part of a farm business: (a) the farmer is not liable in nuisance to any person for any odour, noise, dust or other disturbance resulting from the farm operation, and (b) the farmer must not be prevented by injunction or other or-der of a court from conducting that farm operation." (Refer to appendix 3 for complete policy language.) While intended to protect farmers, this policy only protects designat ed farming activities and results in the continuation of certain other Fig. 16: A vegetative buffer is intended to "promote compatibility." How might a concrete wall improve relations? (www.agf.gov.bc.ca) Fig. 17: Linear development along road corridors fragments valuable lands and effectively removes agriculture from public view, (image courtesy Google Earth) 18 practices that only further create conflict and, in the end, compro-mise the farmer's advocacy. What of the potential to transform the urban-agricultural edge into an area where biologically benign farm-ing practices commingle with our neighborhoods? Too often, within the realm of policy making, the suggestion of alternative farming practices sounds the alarm of additional regulation and constitutes near heresy within the BCMAL. Another approach to mitigate conflict has been the establishment of buffers. A study of the effectiveness of vegetative buffers by the since renamed Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries found that "a visual barrier is important in minimizing complaints (out of sight out of mind)" (BCMAFF, 2001). This conclusion is particularly troubling. Could be inferred that 'out of sight, out of mind' is a safe place for agriculture? There is no doubt that this approach is extremely effec-tive at reducing complaints, but a closer look at the collateral dam-age reveals urban populations completely disconnected from their food system. What hope is there for stewardship of our agricultural landscapes if the land is hidden from us? One only need look as far as the BC backcountry to see how well the forestry industry is managing BC's "out of sight" forestlands. To sit idly while the urban and rural become more and more segregated is to sit and watch the very es-sence of human-nature dwindle away: "It's not a choice between living in the country or the town; it is about understanding that every one of us, at the level of our cells and respiration, lives in the country and is thus obliged to be mindful of the distance between ourselves and our sustenance." (Kingsolver in Wirzba, 2003) Fig. 18: Formally quite appealing, this mega-hedge does little to connect communities with their food-lands. (www.agf.gov.bc.ca) Fig. 19: Who is keeping an eye on our valuable food-lands? (www.rodneysmith.com) 19 1.5: hope for our future W i t h i n t he growing d iscuss ion of sus ta inab i l i t y , the househo ld s logans of " r e u s e , r e d u c e , r e c y c l e , " a re be ing r e p l a c e d by more soph i s t i ca ted ideas of e c o l o g i c a l f oo tp r i n t s , e m b o d i e d ene rgy and c a r b o n o f f se t s . A t t he same t i m e , t hese c o m p l e x means to unde rs tand ing ou r r esou rce use have a i d e d in the p o p u l a r t r e n d among many fo r s impler , hea l t h i e r l i f es ty les . T h e s e p r e f e r e n c e s a re r e f l e c t e d in c o n -s u m e r c h o i c e and r e c r e a t i o n a l ac t i v i t i e s . T h e r is ing popu la r i t y o f u rban ag r i cu l t u re - f r om a r e c r e a t i o n a l s t andpo in t o r a d e l i b e r a t e i n v e s t m e n t in l o c a l f ood secur i t y - is a hope fu l i nd i ca to r o f u rban popu la t ions w i t h s e v e r e d t ies to t he l a n d . C o m -m u n i t y ga rden plots regu la r l y requ i re long wa i t l i s t s fo r the sma l l es t o f s p a c e s . T h e b l end o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , food p roduc t i on and phys i ca l ac t i v i t y is mo re and more v a l u e d a m o n g u rban p o p u l a t i o n s . At the same time, growth in the organic farming sector reflects mar-ket demand for organic foods: organic farming is the fastest-growing segment of BC's agricultural community, having more than tripled since 1991 (Canadian Organic Growers Association, 2001). That said, many young and not-so-young aspiring farmers are reluc-tant to attempt the challenge because of a lack of support. For new-comers, the skills required to make a farm operation profitable - and therefore sustainable - is not easily learned outside the farm. Farm incubator projects (refer to The Intervale as precedent in sec-tion 3.1) offer a promising model for relocalizing food systems and building more local communities of growers. For younger farmers, the prospect of a panoply of urban amenity at the farm's edge is exactly the model that can entice a new generation of growers. And the rela-tionship of more densely populated urban centers at the farm's edge offers greater market opportunities for local production. Many of these ideas are articulated in the "Call for New Ruralism," developed as a collaboration between UC Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD) and Sustainable Agricultural Education (SAGE). New Ruralism translates the ideas of New Urbanism to the conditions of the rural edge and offers "the preservation and enhancement of urban edge areas as places that are indispensable to the economic, environmental and cultural vitality of cities and met-ropolitan regions" (SAGE, 2006). Further discussion of these principles is found in section 3.1 of this report.) Fig. 20: Local farm markets provide a direct link from farm gate to dinner plate, supply healthy food and foster healthy economy, (www.seethewestend. com) Fig. 21: The farm incubator program at The Inter-vale is a critical component of local participation and food security in Burlington, VT. (www.intervale. org) 21 Finally, local or "slow" food movements are beginning to spread across the globe as populations reconsider the importance of regional food systems as part of regional identity and regional sustain-ability. With the rising cost of fuel, the idea of "burning lots of fossil fuel to ship cold water around" (Gussow in Halweil, 2002) makes long-distance transport of produce, flowers and frozen foods less economically feasible. As these costs start to counteract subsidies, smaller producers may well enjoy greater competitive advantage. Urban centers like Vancouver are realizing more and more that a lo-cal food system supports healthier farms, a healthier local economy and a healthier local population. "Design is the first signal of human intent." -William McDonougn 1.6: deliberate design & the role of landscape architecture W h i l e t he i nc reased d iscuss ion of a l l - t h ings -sus ta inab le o f fe rs p r o m i s e , w e a re s t i l l a long w a y a w a y f r o m the t r ans fo rma t i on of ou r eve ryday e x p e r i e n c e a long the a g r i c u l t u r a l - u r b a n e d g e . Many e d g e t r e a t m e n t s w e r e d e v e l o p e d w i t h t he so le i n ten t o f con f l i c t m i t i ga t i on and t he vast m a j o r i t y o f t h e ' des ign s t r a teg ies ' c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n p resen t -day p lann ing d iscuss ions a re c h a r a c t e r i z e d as ' b u f f e r s . ' A t t h e r isk o f sound ing p e d a n t i c , i t is c r i t i c a l tha t our language not l im i t t h e p o t e n t i a l in s e e k i n g so l u -t i ons : t h e t e r m buffer re fe rs to an o b j e c t tha t p reven ts i n c o m p a t i b l e or an tagon i s t i c th ings f r o m c o m -ing in to c o n t a c t a n d / o r ha rm ing e a c h other. M i r i a m - W e b s t e r (2006) de f ines a bu f fe r as " a n y of va r ious d e v i c e s o r p ieces of m a t e r i a l fo r reduc ing shock or d a m a g e due to c o n t a c t . " Do w e rea l l y b e l i e v e t ha t a g r i c u l t u r a l and urban e n v i r o n m e n t s a re " i n c o m p a t i b l e " ? " A n t a g o n i s t i c " ? ^ Beyond con f l i c t m i t i g a t i o n , cu r ren t e d g e - p l a n n i n g po l i c ies have resu l t ed in a bu i l t f a b r i c tha t seg re -ga tes u rban popu la t ions f r om the rea l i t i es of f ood p r o d u c t i o n . If t he loss of a g r i c u l t u r a l lands is seen as a resu l t o f dec l i n i ng a p p r e c i a t i o n fo r t hese p l aces , how c a n a p o l i c y of seg rega t i on and e x c l u s i o n p r o m o t e i n c r e a s e d s tewardsh ip? H e r e t he ques t i on of i n ten t is c e n t r a l . T h e purpose of p resen t -day e d g e p lann ing p o l i c y is to p r o t e c t f a r m i n g f r o m peop le and p e o p l e f r o m fa rms . Some th ing is t e r r i b l y w r o n g w i t h th is p i c t u r e . Our p o l i c y m a k e r s a re d e l i b e r a t e l y des ign ing po l i c y to p ro tec t f a rm ing ope ra t i ons f r o m c o m p l a i n t s , v a n d a l i s m and risk of l i t i ga t ion ( f rom t respassers ) . A t the same t i m e , t he po l i c i es i n t e n d to p r o t e c t p e o p l e f r o m no i se , c h e m i c a l dr i f t and odour. C a r e f u l cons ide ra t i on of th is s i t ua t i on is i n d e e d as m u c h an i nd i c t -m e n t of i n d u s t r i a l i z e d f a r m i n g p rac t i ces as i t is of t he s e n t i m e n t a l pas to ra l i sm beh ind m u c h of t o d a y ' s subu rban d e v e l o p m e n t . If w e seg rega te our schoo lya rds f r o m fa rms because w e use po isonous c h e m i c a l s to g row our f o o d , pe rhaps w e shou ld r econs ide r how w e g row our f o o d . If w e seg rega te our f a r m l a n d f r o m ne ighbor -ing houses fo r f ea r of vanda l s , perhaps w e shou ld recons ide r our v a l u e sys tem and a g r i c u l t u r e ' s p l a c e w i t h i n i t . Beyond conflict mitigation Cons ider , f o r a m o m e n t , the a l t e r n a t i v e - m e d i u m dens i ty d e v e l o p m e n t c l u s t e r e d in and a r o u n d wo rk -ing f a r m l a n d and f o res t l and - as a m a c r o - h e d g e r o w of e c o n o m i c a l l y , soc ia l l y and e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y p r o d u c t i v e i n teg ra t i on of s e t t l e m e n t and resou rce m a n a g e m e n t . C o m m u n i t i e s s e t t l e d a r o u n d p roduc -t i ve a g r i c u l t u r a l so i l s . Fa rm ing p rac t i ces tha t a re not on ly c o m p a t i b l e w i t h ne ighbo r ing c o m m u n i t i e s , bu t c o n t r i b u t e to t h e i r o v e r a l l h e a t h . In a s i m p l e exe r c i se of b e t t e r unde rs tand ing the p r o b l e m , w e can q u i c k l y env i s i on so lu t i ons , t rans -f o r m i n g cons t ra in ts i n to oppo r tun i t i es . T h e f o l l ow ing is a l ist o f u r b a n - r u r a l edge con f l i c t s (as i d e n t i -f ied by t he BCMAL) and respec t i ve oppo r tun i t i es p resen ted by e a c h : trespassing - A more robust system of publ ic and semi-publ ic spaces along the edge ( fac i l i ta ted through covenants) al lows for more recreat ional opportuni ty where recreat ional exper ience is d i rect ly l inked to the ad jacent work ing farms and gardens. Transitions between the publ ic and private realm are c lear ly marked to provide neighbors and visitors a l ike clear visual indicators f rom semi-publ ic to semi-pr ivate areas. flood damage from stormwater - Restoration of "green in f ras t ruc ture , " inc luding r ipar ian restorat ion & reforesta-t ion reduces occurrence of f looding during larger ra infa l l events and potent ia l for greywater t rea tment and storage helps a l lev ia te i rr igat ion shortfal ls during dry summer months. noise (from machinery, equipment & bird-scare devices) - This source of conf l ic t is immed ia te ly min imized by the sca le / s t y le of farming proposed. Smal l -scale organic farming pract ices, by nature, are much less mechanized and the added labor allows for a l ternat ive solut ions, such as integrated bird management techniques. theft, damage and/or vandalism (to crops, livestock and/or equipment) - S imi lar to the not ion of "eyes on the s t ree t , " (Jacobs, 1961) a del iberate ly designed, integrated edge that fronts onto fa rm land , by nature, assumes a posit ion of v ig i lance, watching over and protect ing the farm. This type of communi ty deve lopment discourages van-dal ism and intends to foster greater stewardship through the integrat ion of product ive landscapes, recreat ion and res ident ia l development . odours (from waste & composting) - The main design chal lenge to confront here is one of sca le : wh i le the compost-ing processes minimizes odours from agr icul tura l waste and recycles nutr ients back into the food system, large-scale waste management is odouri ferous. A s imple and straightforward solut ion involves decent ra l i za t ion of management to reduce scale (and transport requirements for spreading, etc. ) and improved par t ic ipat ion at the neighborhood scale of compost ing and nutr ient recycl ing. dust (from exhaust fans 6 fields) - Windbreaks and hedgerow treatments used to reduce aeol ian erosion not only address issues of dust as a nuisance but provide high-value habitat for smal l mammals and migratory songbirds. In add i t ion , these f ield margins provide exce l lent edges to recreat ional c i rcu la t ion and can cont r ibute to addi t iona l agr icu l tu ra l /s i l v icu l tu ra l capaci ty through t imber and non-t imber products. chemical drift - The e l iminat ion of hazardous chemica l drif t through the imp lementa t ion of cer t i f ied organic farming pract ices contr ibutes to the heal th of the to ta l food system, from the microb ia l communi t ies found in soils to what 's served at the dinner table. Liability to farm workers and neighbors is eliminated and the chemical barrier to the public realm of agricultural open space is removed. Community farming - and the replacement of chemical pesticides and fertilizers with organic inputs, allows residents to engage in active stewardship of the land and personally con-tribute to the health of the system. In summary , the edge shou ld be so m u c h m o r e than i ts cu r ren t m a n i f e s t a t i o n , p r o t e c t i n g p e o p l e f r o m fa rms and fa rms f r o m peop le . . . A long the s a m e l ines as t he U K ' S C o u n t r y s i d e A g e n c y ' s " C o u n t r y s i d e fo r T o w n s " (2005) i n i t i a t i ve , ideas i n c l u d e : • b r idge to t he coun t r y c o n n e c t i n g v i l l age to resource base • g a t e w a y to t he c i t y announc ing a r r i va l to s e t t l e m e n t • reg iona l hea l t h c e n t e r p rov id ing r e c r e a t i o n a l oppo r tun i t i es • c l ass room p rov id ing e d u c a t i o n a l oppo r tun i t i es • r ecyc l i ng c e n t e r th rough m a n a g e m e n t of w a t e r and was te • p roduc t i ve l a n d s c a p e f eed ing & hous ing our f a m i l i e s • c u l t u r a l l egacy con ta i n i ng c lues to our h is tory • p l a c e for sus ta inab le l iv ing e x a m i n i n g new mode ls for sus ta inab le d e v e l o p m e n t • eng ine for r egene ra t i on he lp ing u rban popu la t i ons d e v e l o p sk i l l s & h e a l t h y l i f es ty les Sec t i on t h r e e of th is repor t w i l l e l a b o r a t e on these and o the r p rog ram e l e m e n t s a n d s e c t i o n f ou r w i l l e x p l o r e t he phys ica l a r t i cu l a t i on of t hese p rog rams . New directions for a designed edge As des igners of the pub l i c r e a l m , l andscape a r c h i t e c t s shou ld t ake a m u c h m o r e p r o a c t i v e ro le in a d -d ress ing th is issue. It is our respons ib i l i t y to con f ron t the or ig ins of any rea l o r p e r c e i v e d con f l i c t at t he e d g e and exp lo re des ign -based so lu t ions to t he p r o b l e m . We c a n e m p l o y des ign as a t o o l to re-i n t e r p r e t and r e a r t i c u l a t e the u rban- ru ra l i n t e r f a c e in a w a y tha t c a p i t a l i z e s on t h e synerg ies of t he relationship, instead of simply resigning ourselves to the limits sug-gested by current policy. In his response to Wendell Berry's Unsettling of America, some thirty years later, Brian Donahue pinpoints the crux of the issue in The Re-settling of America (2003): "Can we envision agrarian communities where the inhabitants work the land to widely varying degrees (some more, most less), but where all feel vitally connected to the land and its care by complex ties of use and ownership?" He suggests, "the task before us is to transform suburban sprawl into agrarian village settlement" (Donahue in Wirzba, 2003). In Building Suburbia, Hayden (2005) illustrates the way in which the development patterns of the various eras identified have been linked to the values and beliefs of the times. More to the point, she high-lights that their growth £t development have always been actively marketed to a public interested in an alternative model. There is a need to articulate such a model, not in the form of policy and regu-lation and incentive, but in actual built form as a means to demon-strate an alternative. We cannot design people to be farmers. We can, however, use design as a tool to provide opportunities for interaction between Man and the land. By carefully considering the physical elements of the urban-agricultural interface, we can make deliberate interventions to in-tegrate the urban-agricultural edge. It is in this reunion that greater Fig. 22: As landscape architects, it is our respon-sibility to address the politically-charged issues surrounding regional land-use and sustainability. (photoshop visualization) Fig. 23: Deliberately designed edges can capitalize on the views and recreational opportunities afford-ed by agricultural landscapes, (photoshop visualiza-tion) 27 u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p r e c i a t i o n of ag r i cu l t u ra l l andscapes can be a c h i e v e d . T h e nex t sec t i on app l i es many of t hese ideas w i t h i n spec i f i c s i te cond i t i ons and e x p l o r e s a l t e r n a t i v e s fo r t he u rban -ag r i cu l t u ra l e d g e . To r e i t e r a t e , the spec i f i c o b j e c t i v e s of t he r e m a i n i n g sec t i ons a re to d e v e l o p a d e l i b e r a t e des ign a p p r o a c h to the u rban -ag r i cu l t u ra l e d g e p r o b l e m , based upon an a r t i c u l a -t i on of 21st cen tu r y ag ra r ian va lues and to e x p l o r e edge d e v e l o p m e n t - us ing a l o w e r - m a i n l a n d agr i -c u l t u r a l s i te as a c a s e s tudy - as a pos i t i ve f o r ce for c o m m u n i t y b u i l d i n g , r es to ra t i on and p l a c e m a k i n g a l ong t h e ag r i cu l t u ra l e d g e . 2.1: site history & regional development While it is easy to critique current land-use policies for the continued conflict, and placelessness of the urban-agricultural edge, deliberate design interventions prove hard to find. This project will attempt to ground these many issues in a specific place, local to the greater Vancouver region. The Southlands property, located in Tsawwassen, BC is a unique example of the potential for the urban-agricultural edge for many of the same reasons already considered in this paper. More in depth site analysis will follow, but a brief introduction to the site prevents any potential to confuse the preced-ing critique of policy with the issues of the site itself. Wedged between the agricultural lands north of highway 17, the US-border, the Straight of Georgia and Boundary Bay, Tsawwassen, BC lies thirty kilometers south of Vancouver. The name Tsawwassen is Coast Salish in origin and means "looking toward the sea." Aptly named, Tsawwassen enjoys views to o p e n w a t e r to the eas t and wes t and i ts v i sua l i den t i t y is as de f i ned by t he b lu f f s , b e a c h e s and w a t e r v i e w s as i t is by the su r round ing f a r m l a n d and rura l c h a r a c t e r (Co rpo ra t i on of D e l t a , 1991) . T h e Sou th lands p r o j e c t s i te is a 538 -ac re t rac t of land s i t ua ted in t h e hear t of T s a w w a s s e n . Its h is to ry is l ong , v a r i e d and a t t imes h ighly c o n t r o v e r s i a l . T h e f o l l ow ing s e c t i o n a t t e m p t s to s u m m a r i z e sa l i en t po in ts and p rov ide c o n t e x t fo r the des ign cons ide ra t i ons to fo l l ow. Pre-contact W h i l e f e w spec i f i cs a re known abou t the ea r l i es t se t t l e rs to the r e g i o n , e x c a v a t i o n of m i d d e n s has r e v e a l e d e v i d e n c e of hab i t a t i on da t i ng back 4 ,000 yea rs . A s tudy of Fi rst Na t ions p e o p l e s in t h e m i d -1800s l i s ted ea r l y i nhab i tan ts as Coas t Sal ish H a l k o m e l e m Language G r o u p , t h e S ta lo Reg iona l G r o u p and t he Tsawwassen ( somet imes r e f e r r ed to as " C h e w a s i n " ) B a n d . Post-contact settlement in Delta P o s t - c o n t a c t g rowth and d e v e l o p m e n t o f Tsawwassen began w i t h t h e s igh t ing of t he Po in t Rober ts pen insu la by the Spanish in 1792. W h i l e the Spanish c a l l e d it " P u n t a Z e p e d a , " i t was l a t e r r e n a m e d Po in t Rober ts by C a p t a i n Vancouve r in honor o f his f r i e n d , C a p t a i n Hen ry Rober ts . T h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e U . S . - C a n a d i a n bo rde r a t the 49 th pa ra l l e l e n d e d t he long -s tand ing t e r r i t o r i a l d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t he U .S . and the Br i t i sh and d i v i d e d t he pen insu la in to i ts cu r ren t c o n f i g u r a t i o n . T h e s o u t h e r n t i p of t he pen insu la was o r ig ina l l y used as a U.S. m i l i t a r y r ese rve . S e t t l e m e n t o f Tsawwassen began th rough a ser ies of C r o w n grants in t he 1870's and w a s c o n c e n t r a t e d a l ong t he ag r i cu l t u ra l l ow lands , a lso f avou red for the i r p rox im i t y to w a t e r - b a s e d t r anspo r t . With the creation of the dyke system and regular ferry service be-tween Richmond and Ladner at the turn of the 20th century, Beach Grove and Boundary Bay became resort destinations for residents of Delta and Vancouver. Tsawwassen's period of greatest growth occurred during the 60's and 70's following the completion of the George Massey tunnel in 1958. During this time, single-family housing was developed extensively along the well-drained, forested upland areas surrounding the South-lands site. Growth in Tsawwassen has declined sharply over the last two decades due to decreased availability of land for single family housing as well as policy-level decisions to redirect growth in the region as part of a strategic planning effort for the greater Vancouver regional district. Present-day land use 8t development The vast majority of Tsawwassen is allocated to single-family de-tached housing. A scattering of institutional lands provide for local schools, parks and churches and the ALR boundary forms the northern extent of development. Tsawwassen's development pattern is characterized as very low-den-sity, between approximately 4-8 dwelling units per acre. While this type of low-density, single-family, detached housing development is a defining feature of Tsawwassen's suburban/agricultural character, Fig. 25: While parks (in green) and schools (in blue) are distrubuted throughout Tsawwassen, linkages could be greatly improved. 31 it represents a net tax burden for the municipality. According to the American Farmland Trust, while residential development requires an average of 25% more in services than is paid for by tax revenue, farms, forests and open space generate almost 50% in returns to local communities (www.americanfarmland.org). While an additional study is needed to determine the specific numbers for Tsawwassen, it can be assumed that the general trend holds true. Commercial services and higher density residential areas are located along 56th Street, concentrated at the intersection at 12th Avenue. Spetifore, TDL and the Southlands The site chosen for this project also has an interesting story and rep-resents one of the most contentious properties - in terms of land-use planning and development - in recent Canadian history. Land grants were awarded from the British Crown in the late 19th century for the lands now known as the Southlands and were origi-nally owned by the Guishon, Spetifore and Wilson families. With the establishment of the ALR in 1972/73, all of the Tsawwassen's agricultural lands were included within the Reserve boundary, ex-cept the portion of Spetifore farmland to the east of Boundary Bay road. During the mid-1970's, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) negotiated with Spetifore and the Corporation of Delta to exclude the remainder of the Spetifore property in exchange for a Fig. 26: Existing commercial services are concen-trated at the intersection of 12th Avenue and 56th Street. deal on the same lands to the east of Boundary Bay road. After years of discussion, the Spetifore property, along with the adjacent Wilson and Guishon farms - a total acreage of just over 500 acres - were excluded by a Provincial Order-ln-Council in 1981. Later that year, Spetifore acquired the Wilson farm. The first proposal for redevelopment of the Spetifore property was defeated by the GVRD's regional planning authority in the mid 1980's. In 1986, Delta adopted their first Official Community Plan and desig-nated agricultural lands excluded from the ALR as "urban" within the land-use zoning plans. A second attempt to develop the Southlands was proposed in 1989 when Spetifore sold the property to Tsawwassen Development Lands Ltd. (TDL). Some of the features of the proposal included 1,895 hous-ing units (scaled back from the 3,300 originally proposed), 55% opens-pace (including the addition of 220 acres to Boundary Bay Regional Park and golf course development) and several financial incentives, including a $1M contribution to upgrade 52nd Street, $1.7M in support for the acquisition of the Boundary Bay school site for a future cul-tural center and a $150,000 contribution to the park board's ongoing beautification of the entrance to Tsawwassen. International Boundary Fig. 27: A shortcoming of land-use zoning maps: why would anyone ever doubt the future land use of the designated "urban area"? (Delta OCP, circa 1986) The attempt to rezone the agricultural lands was met with over-whelming local opposition and the resultant public hearing was the longest in Canadian history - logging more than 60 speakers and a total of 300 hours - effectively served as a public filibuster to the project. Concerns centered around impact of development on wild-life habitat, traffic congestion, loss of farmland, taxation and general quality of life. The TDL proposal was abandoned and the property was eventually acquired by its present-day owner, Century Group. In 1995, the approximate 220 acres east of Boundary Bay Road were purchased by the Provincial Government on behalf of the GVRD as part of an expansion to the Boundary Bay Regional Park (for more in-formation refer to the following section on "Edge Conditions - Bound-ary Bay Regional Park"). Fig. 28: Overwhelming opposition to the TDL pro-posal (above) sounded the death knell for develop-ment of the Southlands property in 1989. 34 2.2: c o n s t r a i n t s & o p p o r t u n i t i e s : s i t e s e l e c t i o n While the property has been subject to many complaints of noise, dust and chemical drift (including aerial spraying), the scale of its present-day agricultural production has yet to tip public opinion to the point of desiring development over agriculture. On the contrary, local residents and elected lead-ers have consistently argued against development of the property. Furthermore, it stands to ques-tion whether or not local residents who fought to keep the property zoned as agriculture are, in fact, advocates of local farming or more concerned with conserving open-space and local viewsheds. This is not the extreme case of highly industrialized agriculture adjacent to suburban settlement as critiqued to this point: the context is significantly more mundane and as a result, more immediately relevant. These are the challenges we face on a daily basis. This site demonstrates the impasse of the land-use planning articulation of the urban-rural edge. The site is a telling portrait of local values and attitudes - surrounding everything from economic growth development to environmental preservation to community identity and health - and how they are expressed through definitions of what cannot be done. Our present day environment - the landscape of regulatory policy - leaves the bar set at "less bad" (McDonough, 2002). Perhaps the most significant constraint - and as a result, the most promising opportunity - for the Southlands site is the political atmosphere in South Delta. While the land is not restricted as part of the ALR, rezoning from agriculture to urban land use has been rejected on numerous occasions - the local community and elected officials have clearly indicated that they value this agricultural land-scape as a defining characteristic of Tsawwassen. To their credit, any development proposal for the Southlands site must address all of these concerns and will, as a result, likely require a greater de-gree of considerate design. The opportunities abound: More than 650 acres of prime farmland, surrounded by an affluent com-munity poses tremendous potential to create a strong local market and food system. Beyond the present-day de facto access to the site, careful consideration in the design phase can allocate a significant portion of the site to open space and passive recreation networks. In addition, a galvanized local farming community with improved access to land and markets can provide local stewardship and employment opportunities as well as local educational opportunities. And then there's the food! One only need visit their local farmer's market during the growing season to appreciate the abundance of fresh, healthy produce available during the growing season. With local processing facilities and value-added agricultural production, this 'taste of place' can be extended throughout the year. Finally, South Delta is experiencing negative population growth. Between 1996 and 2001, Tsawwas-sen's population shrank by 0.4% and the trend continues. Almost 16% of Tsawwassen's population was aged 65 or above as of 2001 and the challenges that face the community are clearly reflective of such a demographic imbalance (United Way of the Lower Mainland, 2003). Projections forecast: • decreasing school enrollment and school closures • decreasing demand for local organized sports facilities • decreasing local demand for single-family housing • increasing demand for medical services for persons 65+ • a shift in local housing demand for persons 65+ • a shift in local recreation demand for persons 65+ The following sections provide more in-depth analysis of the region's history, development, biophysi-cal characteristics and existing edge conditions. 2.3: site dynamics: from the ground up Compared to the steep slopes of Vancouver's North Shore or the wind-blown west coast of Vancouver Island, the Southlands site, like most agricultural land throughout the world, is a relatively passive environment. It is this very characteristic that makes agricultural land so valuable for future develop-ment as little investment is required to improve drainage or to regrade dangerous slopes. The follow-ing section calls attention to natural site dynamics considered in the design proposal as well as human cultural systems such as schools and parks, recreational greenways and transit. Prevailing winds, tides fit storm surge Prevailing winds on the Southlands property originate from the south-east and northeast during the summer and winter respectively. The mean wind speed for the area is 6.11 m/s (www.windatlas.ca). Design of windbreaks for field crops and irrigation storage must consider wind effect on soil erosion and rates of evaporation and evapotrans-pi ration. Another effect of the strong winds from the southeast is continued erosion, transport and deposition of sediment in Boundary Bay. Due to construction of the Deltaport and Tsawwassen ferry terminals, sediment supply from the Fraser River system has been effectively eliminated. That said, longshore currents continue to transport a significant amount of sediment northward from the unconsolidated Pleistocene deposits found along the Point Roberts bluffs. Estimates from aerial photographs of the spit at Beach Grove taken between 1953 and 1995 suggest average transport rates of approximately 500-1000 m3/year resulting in an average spit propagation of 125 m per decade (Page, et. al., 1998). Despite its relative minimal relevance to the inland location of the Southlands project area, this information is included in order to gain a better understanding of the shoreline dynamics and the potential for restoration of the adjacent salt marsh & coastal lagoon habitat types in the Boundary Bay Regional Park. a Fig. 29: Prevailing winds from the southeast con-tinue to transport sediment into Boundary Bay and have a significant effect on evapotranspiration rates. IIS. { n f t i / . H 5 P •tat m ' lira s •iRjjr., J Fig. 30: Sediment is carried from the bluffs at Point Roberts northward along the coast and deposited in Boundary Bay. 39 Habitat types - historical & current Historical aerial photography demonstrates the significant changes to the Boundary Bay coastal marsh system and provides a good idea of what the restored drainage systems might look like, as shown in figure 31. In addition, analysis from the historical surveys of the Fraser Valley, conducted by the Royal Engineers in 1858, contains valuable clues to the pre-settlement conditions of the Southlands site. Notes from the original maps indicate plant communities associated with grass-land and prairie, shrub cover consisting of willow and rose, and alder bottoms containing the occasional cedar, hemlock and spruce (North, 1979). A much more detailed review of site conditions, constraints and op-portunities would be required for successful restoration to occur. That said, this project proposal recognizes the potential to recreate and restore significant portions of the site and adjacent parkland as a means to increase the diversity of habitat types. These habitat types - from the water's edge at Boundary Bay to the edge of 56th Street - include: mixed deciduous/coniferous forest, early successional deciduous forest, oldfield, terrestrial backshore, sand spit and drainage channels, remnant spit deposits, salt marsh and mud/sand flats (Page et. al., 1998). Fig. 31: Historical photos illustrate the condition of the Boundary Bay tidal marsh prior to the 12th Avenue dike system. (UBC Dept. of Geography) VEGETATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN FHA5EH LOW LA NO. ISS8- iWO Fig. 32: Fieldnotes from early surveyors provide critical information in the mapping of pre-settle-ment vegetation found in the Fraser Basin. 40 Slopes, soil, and drainage systems Situated to the east of the large upland area, the Southlands site receives the vast majority of surface drainage from the southern por-tion of Tsawwassen. Drainage on the Southlands property was improved significantly for the purposes of field agriculture with the addition of a drainage tile system, as shown in figure 34. A series of pumps and ditches, in con-junction with an extensive system of drain tile, keep the water table lowered, and decreases limitations on productions due to saturation, acidity and salinity (Bomke et. al., 1980). Deficits in rainfall during the summer months have been cited as a limitation on the site's agricultural potential. That said, stormwater and greywater from the developed upland areas of Tsawwassen pres-ent a valuable resource for the recreational and agricultural potential of a redeveloped Southlands site. Aside from small portions of the property with soil classes of 4 and above, the majority of the Southlands site has been characterized as prime agricultural soil for field-based production. Fig. 33: Based on a rough delineation of slope sys-tems, more than half of Tsawwassen drains through the Southlands site. Fig. 34: Open channel drainage ditches provide ex-cellent surface drainage across the site. 41 Human cultural systems Transit - Five bus routes currently service Tsawwassen, with only one bus providing regular service to Vancouver (#601). The Village of Boundary Bay is particularly isolated with infequent service of a singular bus route (#605). Additional development of the Southlands site has potential to link existing transit service whereby providing increased frequency of ser-vice to existing and new neighborhoods through an interconnected, multi-modal transit network. 1 Parks and recreation - In addition to the globally significant Boundary Bay Regional Park, Tsawwassen has a significant number of local parks designed for both passive and active recreational uses. Greenways - While greenways service a large portion of Tsawwassen, the Southlands site stands between the upland neighborhoods and Boundary Bay. Though the land is privately owned, the current owner permits passive recreational access across the property. During wet winter months, however, a car trip is often preferred to the unim-proved "trail system." The addition of greenway connectivity through the Southlands proj-ect area will increase opportunities for residents of Tsawwassen's upland areas to have more direct access to Boundary Bay. In addition, the redeveloped Southlands community will increase connectivity between Boundary Bay Village and the Tsawwassen town centre. Fig. 35: Transit systems (delineated with a white dotted line) help connect the various neighborhoods of Tsawwassen with the town centre, recreational & educational facilities and the GVRD. Tsawwassen » , * [ H | ' & & K / r 19>~2~? s= J Fig. 36: Connectivity can be greatly improved across the Southlands site. (Delta Routes: A Guide to the Byways of Delta) ^ Views - Although Tsawwassen's OCP identifies a number of view cor-ridors to "protect and enhance," the specific location of the views themselves create considerable difficulty in achieving this goal. Aside from the parallel pedestrian circulation along vehicular routes (i.e. sidewalks along road corridors), few of the views are accessible to the public. Development of the Southlands site would certainly impact the pri-vate (and limited public) views from the upland areas of Tsawwassen, but improvements to the site itself could increase opporturtunities for internal views within the framework of a larger recreational net-work of parks, gardens and trails. •i Will, •iii m :'.'Jm\ at 1 That said, it might be argued that the views - and the larger commu-nity's general aesthetic valuation of the Southlands site - have the most significant role in determining the future of the site. Any pro-posal should carefully weigh the preservation of identified corridors as well as the creation of new opportunities for visual access. While this section has attempted to inventory site dynamics, as well as amenties, opportunities and constraints of the community of Tsaw-wassen, the following section focuses more on immediate adjcencies of the Southlands site. Fig. 37: Many of the view corridors identified for protection include the Southlands project site but few allow for public enjoyment beyond the wind-shield... Fig. 38: Even the public views of the Southlands site - here seen from the "lookout" atop Diefenbaker Park - are limited and of poor quality. 43 Agricultural Land Reserve II Boundary Bay , -jit \ Boundary Bay 1 ' ' ~ -'-> , Regional Park • o • " ^ Boundary Bay Village Canada - U.S.A. boundary 2.4: existing edge conditions The site is bordered by three very distinct edge conditions: park boundary, international bound-ary and low-density, detached (single-family) housing. Boundary Bay Regional Park and the village of Boundary Bay lie to the northeast and east respectively. The site's southern boundary is formed entirely by the international boundary with Point Roberts (Whatcom County, Washington State, US). Elevation increases to the west, where the property is bordered by 56th street and single-family resi-dential development. 44 Boundary Bay Regional Park Boundary Bay Regional Park is considered globally significant habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds along the Pacific Migratory flyway. Its shallow depth, deposits of fine sediments and relative isolation from the dynamics of the Fraser River system define the ecology of Boundary Bay. The longshore sediment system - driven by strong southeasterly winds - transports eroded deposits from the east-facing, unconsolidated Pleistocene cliffs of Point Roberts north-ward along the coast (Page et al., 1998). The series of dykes along Boundary Bay - established in 1959 - helped protect local residents from floodwaters and storm surge, but also resulted in significant alteration of the Park's hydrology and the loss of approximately 62 hectares of salt marsh habitat. In 1995, 220 acres were added to the park, extending the western boundary to its present-day location along Boundary Bay Road. This portion of the park was created to offset the loss of raptor habitat as a result of the Vancouver International Airport runway expansion. Today the park offers recreational opportunities including 22 km of hiking & walking trails, 16 km of equestrian trails, 18 km of cycling trails, picnic areas, tennis courts, a softball field and beach facilities. B O U N D A R Y BAY REGIONAL PARK Fig. 39: The expansion of Boundary Bay Regional Park included farmland to the north of Boundary Bay Road. (www.gvrd.bc.ca/parks/BoundaryBay) Fig. 40: The trail system offers expansive views to Boundary Bay but is very exposed during poor weather. (www.gvrd.bc.ca/parks/BoundaryBay) 45 Boundary Bay Village Established as a beach-resort destination in the early 20th century, the village of Boundary Bay is an interesting beachfront community wedged between the Southland property and Boundary Bay. Narrow streets, pedestrian laneways and a diversity of housing types create a very unique neighborhood and these characteristics provide a strong precedent from which to develop adjacent neighborhood designs. Unfortunately, the small population of Boundary Bay and its relative isolation from Tsawwassen have made it difficult for even small com-mercial services - such as a local store and coffee shop - to survive for long. 56th Street, The Terrace 6 Forest by the Bay The western edge of the Southlands site is bordered by 56th Avenue and the residential neighborhoods of The Terrace (to the south) and Forest by the Bay (to the north). While the traffic along 56th poses a challenge to connectivity, the adjacent neighborhoods make no at-tempt to engage the landscape in their built form. The predominantly detatched, single-family houses back onto the farmland and fences and hedges segregate the homes completely from their larger agri-cultural context. Great improvements can be made in the design of a future Southlands site to provide access to the larger agricultural landscape through the design of passive recreational trail systems and comforatble areas to rest and view the working farms. Fig. 41: Narrow streets and pedestrian laneways make the Village of Boundary Bay a comfortable place to live and offer lessons for future neighbor-hood design. Fig. 42: Connectivity from the western edge of the property is limited by vehicular traffic, drainage ditches and vegetation. 46 "All discussions of landscape, whether of use, beauty, or health, must give the discussion of agriculture a central place, because not only has agricul-ture made civilization, it has the power to unmake it." Jane Smiley in Joan Iverson Nassauer, "Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology" 3.1: design principles & precedents This project explores a series of scenarios for the urban-rural edge that attempts to capitalize on the features of this unique environment by capturing a portion of the development value of land, enhanc-ing social programs and preserving and/or restoring the functional agricultural landscapes. As such, the vignettes presented could certainly be considered an exploration of "sustainable development." The author offers the following cautionary criticism: Policy makers and practitioners promote the concept of sustainability as an all-encompassing strat-egy that somehow seems to pacify concerns while escaping definition. The term attempts to capture a holistic approach to problem-solving, balancing social, environmental and economic concerns and yet the result is an idea that extends into the value-laden realm of cultural interpretation and quickly loses its objectivity. Sustainability - as a goal - is so loaded with underlying assumptions, that beyond 47 the suggestion of an attempt to "do better," the term is increasingly hollow. This critique is best summed up by William McDonough's anecdote: "// / were to ask you to characterize your relationship with your parents... and you said 'sustainable', I would won-der what was wrong." More effective is an attempt to break sustainability down into the component parts of systems and ethics. Within that context, this project is the examination of a healthy, local food system, based upon the values and beliefs of agrarianism. Guiding philosophy - Agrarianism & "New Ruralism" From Thomas Jefferson's firm belief of farming in the service of democracy, agrarianism provides a strong core of beliefs for the articulation of a re-populated agricultural landscape, built on the values of stewardship. Beyond a simple occupational choice involving the knowledge and skills to grow the most food for the least amount of labor, land and capital, farming is a lifestyle. Farming demands a reciprocal agree-ment with the land: stewardship for fruit. Historically, this relationship was an integral characteristic of the social network of place-based communities and gave rise to the agrarian worldview. Agrarianism is a "way of thought based on land," (Berry in Kimbrell, 2002) and can be defined as a value system based upon "well-tended land, good food, honest work, beauty and neighborliness." (Donahue in Wirzba, 2003) Though not very prescriptive in the sense of physical design guidelines, agrarianism provides a philo-sophical foundation for the articulation of a design approach. More recently, the idea of New Ruralism has emerged as a set of more easily applied design ideas, based upon principles similar to New Urbanism though more targeted toward rural and urban-edge communities. Sage Center for Sustainable Agriculture Education (www.sagecenter.org) defines New Ruralism as "a place-based and systems-based framework that nurtures the symbiotic relationship between urban and rural areas." • Vision. New Ruralism is the preservation and enhancement of urban edge rural areas as places that are indispens-able to the economic, environmental, and cultural vitality of cities and metropolitan regions. • Preliminary Principles. - New Ruralism would denote specific, named rural places located near an urban area and part of a broader metropolitan region. - The primary land use would be small to medium scale sustainable agriculture integrated and overlapping with areas for wildlife and habitat management and for passive recreation. - Urban-rural connectivity would be a multi-faceted exchange. - New Ruralist agricultural preserves would welcome the public as both visitors and residents. - The development and management of each agricultural preserve would be guided by a comprehensive plan. From the guiding philosophy of agrarianism, the vision of New Ruralism and its preliminary principles, a set of general design principles were developed as a means to better facilitate the "place-based" approach of site-sensitive design. Design Principles: The following principles were developed as a means to capture design strategies for both natural and human-cultural systems. While the bulleted lists are intended to illustrate certain examples of how the principles might be applied to specific projects, they do not pretend to elaborate all possibilities. Respect Natural Systems • Agricultural capability of soil defines developable land units on areas least appropriate for agriculture (defined by "improved agricultural capability" ratings) • Green infrastructure provides morphological framework for deign intervention. Imageability, continuity in landscape • Development minimizes hydrological impact through site-adaptive stormwater controls ("first inch" infiltration target) • "Farming with the Wild" principles (refer to appendix 4) encourage greater biological diver-sity within the agricultural landscape. • Preservation, enhancement and maintenance of openspace and habitat affords many oppor-tunities for passive recreation. Encourage Local Diversity "Rebuilding local foodsheds requires rebuilding the local diversity of crops and food businesses needed to adequately feed the local population. Farmers producing for the local market tend to increase the diversity of their plantings-a shift with advantages for the diets of local people and the ecology of local landscapes" (Halweil Et Prugh, 2002). • Housing types reflect diversity of local residents' needs, from single family houses (including small cottages, etc.) to higher density mixed-use condominiums. • Native habitat on the site in enhanced with particular attention paid to stucture and habi-tat heterogeneity. Irrigation ponds provide additional freshwater habitat and hedgerows and "Farming with the Wild" principles provide necessary cover and food for wildlife populations. • A diversity of local services - specifically surrounding the production, processing, storage and distribution of local food - builds a healthy local economy. • Cultural diversity is promoted through the production and exchange of culturally diverse food crops and a local festival of food. Promote Connectivity • Interconnected transit systems (motorized and non-motorized) provide alternatives to the automobile and reduce the number and length of trips. • Connectivity between and among hierarchy of green spaces (both public and private) - streets, greenways, agricultural areas and habitat - further increases transit options and increases health of ecological systems. • Social connectivity is facilitated by way of public spaces and programming as a means to en-courage neighbourliness, security and well-being. Foster Economy • Compact neighborhood design facilitates alternatives to the automobile and expensive infra-structure. Basic services, employment, recreation and transit systems are located within a 5-minute walking distance of most residential neighborhoods. • Economic model driven by synergy of small-scale, intensive organic market garden model in conjunction with mixed commercial/residential transit-oriented development. • Urban density is concentrated at the 56th Avenue and western Boundary Bay Village edges. • "Lighter, cheaper, greener infrastucture" (Condon, 2006) reduces expensive maintenace re-quirements of roads and other grey infrastructure. Focus on the Edge • Integration of varying program elements increases occurence of edges and the dynamics of edge conditions or "Edge Effect" (Foreman et. al., 1996, Wiens, 2005). Ecological principles of "edge effect" are utilized to design more functional and experientially diverse edge condi-tions (ex: movement along the edge, transition of edge, hard edge/soft edge, etc.). • Development presents a "friendly face" to the farm and capitalizes on the open space ame-nities of agricultural landscapes. Policy Design Intent: The Private 6t Public Good in Agriculture As the free market continues to facilitate land conversion and urbanization, private interests are placed above public good. As ecological health declines in urbanized areas, the public goods of opens-pace, clean air and water, as provided by.agricultural land, become more precious. Unfortunately, the market does not compensate farmers for these services, often overlooked as the economic jargon of "positive externalities." Robert Burchell, in Sprawl Costs (2005), defines the situation succinctly: "The environmental and social benefits of agriculture are public goods. By definition, public goods are those goods that everyone wants but few are willing to produce because the market does not provide a compensatory mechanism for producers. Economists refer to this phenomena as market failure. To ensure the production of public goods, the government usually intervenes by supporting such produc-tion with taxes levied on all of society. In the case of agriculture, however, the public benefits-fresh air, open space, recreational facilities, and so on-are produced free of charge to the public... farmers are not compensated for these goods, despite their importance to society. When farmers sell their lands, these benefits are lost." This challenge to present-day farming operations, however, points in a new direction of hope - the hang-up of private land ownership can act as a hinge on which to transform the development model of agricultural edges. Already local governments collect development cost charges (DCCs) from new development projects as a means to finance the costs of public goods required to accommodate growth. Specifically, DCCs help municipalities pay for sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water lines, roads and parkland. There exists a real opportunity to use the same financing mechanism to help compensate farmers for the provision of public goods. In this proposed model, development acts as a financing mechanism for the ongoing stewardship of our foodshed. While this strategy is easily applied to greenfield development using housing clusters and agricultural covenants, implementation at the regional scale becomes more challenging, raising many questions. Would the funds be used to purchase farmland? Or would they subsidize farm opera-tions? Which farms would receive support? How would land aquisition be prioritized? Precedents In addition to the principles mentioned above, many precedents exist from which to gather valuable lessons. Six precedents are discussed infurther detail, including: Broadacre City, The Garden City, Prairie Crossing, The Intervale, Village Homes and and Siskin Lane Strata development. In addition to providing a brief context for each project, specific implications to the Southlands site are noted. Broadacre City (Frank Lloyd Wright) and The Garden City (Ebenezer Howard) Broadacre City was never built and yet, despite being one of Wright's lesser-known works, it is highly contentious in the realm of planning and design. At first glance, the proposal of such low-densities - from 0.2 to 1 dwelling units per acre - seems precisely the recipe for the sprawl that plagues suburban landscapes today. Not to be dismissed, however, many of the concepts and ideals behind the development of Broadacre City are as relevant today as they were in the first half of the 20th century. Wright clearly identified the cultural drivers behind his vision in a desire for personal mobility articulated in the automobile, an individualistic desire to homestead and an urge to escape the city (Krohe, 1999). The same can be said for Ebenezer Howard's Garden City. Interestingly enough, the gross density of the Garden City as suggested by Howard, was similarly low - slightly less than one dwelling unit per acre (based on 2,000 people per 5,000 acres). That said, spot densities climbed to a more reasonable 15-20 dwelling units per acre, based upon average lot sizes of 6m x 40m (Hall & Ward, 1998). The concept for the Garden City went beyond large-scale land-use planning to address issues of livability, including the proposal of crystal palaces for winter gardening, shopping and other forms of passive recreation (Hall & Ward, 1998). Implications to the Southlands site: Whereas Broadacre City was built around the idea of an acre per household, this design proposal attempts to scale devel-opment based upon the productive capacity of the land: 25 dwelling units per acre of land in production (Gallagher, 2006). As did Broadacre City and Garden City, this proposal seeks a similar end, to bring "advantages of the centralization known as the city into the regional field we call country" (Girling et. al., 1994). That said, Wright's model looked to the automobile Fig. 43: Sketches of Broadacre City revealed Wright's futuristic vision of expansive agricultural lands, high-rise towers and flying-machines, (www. fabiofeminofantascience. org) Fig. 44: Schematic plans of Howard's Garden City included such features as a central park and cultural institutions, as well as allotment gardens and an industrial zone, (www.morrissociety.org) 54 and individualized transportation (even the helicopter) as a central component of the design. This proposal, instead, focuses on more current thinking in urban design, multi-modal transit and transit-oriented development. Finally, this design honors a conventional architectural form in keeping with the surround-ing neighborhood identity and market preference for single-family detached housing in South Delta. More commercialized edges allow for medium-density mixed-use residential develop-ment, while residential areas attempt to increase density with cluster housing and cottages. Regardless, gross densities at the site-scale will remain below 5 dwelling units per acre (due to large agricultural/openspace reserves). Prairie Crossing - Grayslake, Illinois Located just 40 miles outside Chicago with connections via commuter rail, this 677 acre sub-division was developed as an alternative to an initial proposal, locating 3,000 houses on the property in a conventional development pattern which resulted in a 15-year legal battle. The 135-acre farm is stewarded by a salaried manager and fifteen acres have been reserved for a community organic farm. Part of the stewardship costs are covered by a 0.5% levy of all hous-ing sales. A small commercial village core provides local retail and office space for the commu-nity (Brown, 1998, Atkins, 2003). From the Prairie Crossing website (www.prairiecrossing.com): "Prairie Crossing is the critically-acclaimed 'Conservation Community' that was designed to combine responsible development, the preservation of open land and easy commuting by rail. It is now considered a national example of how to design our communities to support a better way of life. "Over 60 percent of the 677-acre site is protected open land that is actively used by people and wildlife. Ten miles of trails wind through a landscape of farm fields, pastures, lakes and ponds, native prairies and wetlands. "With more than 165 acres of restored prairies, 20 acres of restored wetlands, and 16 acres of historic hedgerows, the Prairie Crossing landscape is contributing to the restora-tion of the native ecology of the region. "A certified organic farm, in operation for over a decade, provides homeowners with views over cultivated fields of vegetables and flowers and a seasonal on-site Farm Mar-ket. At the market, residents and the general public buy vegetables, fruits, flowers and other products like honey and eggs." Implications to the Southlands site: The critically acclaimed and financially successful Prairie Crossing development illustrates the growing market for care-fully considered development that incorporates the smart growth principles of New Urbanism, rooted in an agricultural context. Having also been the focus of a long-term, local political battle, development of the Southlands site requires careful consideration to preserve the character of the agricultural and open-space values as articulated by the surrounding commu-nity. Projects like Prairie Crossing demonstrate that these values are far from mutually exclusive and that working landscapes serve to differentiate 'conservation community' development from the more conventional real-estate market. Fig. 46: Residential development at Prairie Cross-ing faces the street and the surrounding farmland beyond. (www.prairiecrossing.com) 56 The Intervale - Burlington, Vermont The mission of The Intervale is "to develop farm-and land-based enterprises that generate economic and social opportu nity while protecting natural resources" (www.intervale.org). From the Intervale website: "The Big Picture: As people disconnect from active life-styles, nutritious food, and the natural world, they be-come less healthy. Community fabric becomes frayed. Food producers struggle financially while people nearby con-sume highly processed food products with minimal nutri-tional value manufactured in distant facilities." "Since 1988, the Intervale has reclaimed over 325 acres for agricultural use. Today, twelve organic farms produce 500,000 pounds of healthful food for the community worth over S500,000 to the local economy. These farms thrive due to the land, equipment, business and marketing ser-vices provided by the Farms Program. Half a dozen farm-ers have graduated from the program onto farms around Vermont. In 2002, the Intervale began to leverage its suc-cessful track record of incubating and growing farms to the statewide level, and created Growing Success on Farms. This prototype farm viability enhancement project offers comprehensive technical assistance to farmers who need help starting, diversifying, transitioning to or expanding sustainable farms. It also serves as a national and interna-tional model for growing small farms operations. Capital is being raised to develop the Farms Center to provide the infrastructure necessary to administer, develop, and expand farm programs." Fig. 47: The Intervale logo speaks to it's core mis-sion of connections land and community, (www. intervale.org) Fig. 48: The Intervale sits just a stone's throw from the city limits of Burling, VT (shown in the upper portion of the photo), (image courtesy GoogleEarth) 57 Implications to the Southlands site: Located within the city limits of Burlington, Vermont, The Intervale is an exceptional example of highly-diversified urban agriculture. Similarly, the Southlands site sits in the very heart of Tsawwassen, just a 15-minute walk from the town center, and presents a unique opportunity to integrate these productive landscapes into the future growth and development. From the one-acre "Half Pint Farm," specializing in baby vegetables, micro greens, herbs and cut flowers, to the 65-acre "Intervale Bean and Grain Farm," to the Intervale Conservation Nursery and Compost Products, the diversity of growers and products found in the Intervale is a testament to the potential for the Southlands site to develop local community with tangible goals of a localized food system, habitat enhancement, and educational and recreational op-portunities. Village Homes - Davis, California Mark Francis (2003) explains, "Village Homes is a model community design that is unique [from most current New Urbanist proposals] in that it proves that open space oriented development can be effective in creating a sense of community, reducing energy use, and fostering environ-mental values." In contrast to New Urbanist design principles that focus public space on the streetscape, Vil-lage Homes clusters housing around community vineyards, orchards, gardens, playgrounds and picnic areas. Agriculture plays a significant role in the management of common spaces and while part of the productive capacity of the land was diminished due to the actual build-ing footprints, the diversity of production has increased. Studies have estimated that the site, maximized for agricultural output, could provide residents with 80% of their fruit and vegeta-ble needs (Corbett and Corbett, 2000). Implications to the Southlands site: As a compliment to the other precedents listed, Village Homes demonstrates a more community-focused program with a seemingly more visible intimacy to the natural surroundings and more specifically, agricultural landscapes as programmed common space. In addition, while the gross densities present-ed are essentially equal (approximately 4 dwelling units per acre), the percentage open-space is significantly smaller than "conservation developments," at approximately twenty-five percent. Another lesson learned from Village Homes is the difficulty in maintenance of the agricultural common spaces by salaried gardeners. While the original design hoped for agricultural revenues (primarily from almond harvests) to cover manage-ment costs, the year-end deficit for 1990 was approximately $70,000. (Corbett and Corbett, 2000) The Southlands proposal should consider both the requisite scales at which market gardening becomes economically viable as well as the need for a community of growers to provide a critical mass for the survival of a local farming community; the latter helping to ad-dress a criticism of Village Homes' often depopulated common spaces (Francis, 2003). Fig. 49: Careful orientation of houses for maximum solar gain and an interconnected hierarchy of public and private green soaces are distinguishing features of the remarkably successful Village Homes develop-ment. (www.communitygreens.org) 59 Siskin Lane Conservation Development (Renewal Land Company - Cortes Island, BC) Renewal Land Company was formed in 2003 to explore alterna-tive solutions to clear cutting on large tracts of private forest land. Its goals included: • Conservation of biodiversity and forest ecosystems. • Demonstration of an ecologically-based approach to land development. • Development of a precedent for the incorporation of com-munity ideals and ecological stewardship in development projects. • Creation of an opportunity for the community of Cortes Is-land to actively influence the nature of growth on the island. Program elements include low impact housing and road align-ment, conservation covenants to ensure sustainable forest management and the provision of public trails. Implications to the Southlands site: The Siskin Lane development is an encouraging, home-grown conservation development project for the Vancouver region and demonstrates that residential development and conser-vation interests need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, this Fig. 50: Surrounded by a "Forest Conservation Area," much of the Siskin Lane development is, by design, hidden from public view, (www.cortesisland. com/renewal) 60 project is an excellent example of how fee-simple real estate development projects can act as a significant mechanism for conservation and restoration efforts. That said, the integration of forested landscapes and residential development can be more easily designed based on defined management requirements of harvest cycles and spatial requirements for logging operations. In addition, the successful project is, by design, almost entirely hidden from public view through tree retention. In the case of the Southlands project, the intent is to demonstrate a visible integration of residential neighborhood design and work-ing agricultural lands. 'prO-"gram Etymology: French programme agenda, public notice, from Greek program-ma, from prographein to write before, from pro- before + graphein to write. (www.m-w.com) 1 [Late Latin programma, from Greek] : a public notice 2 : a brief usually printed outline of the order to be followed, of the features to be presented, and the persons participating (as in a public performance) 3 : a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal 3.2: program development a Programming defines the functional intent of design and, in the case of the Southlands project site, program development focuses on the integration of neighborhood and farm. The following diagram illustrates large-scale programmatic considerations intended to integrate the Southlands site into the larger fabric of Tsawassen. 62 Large-scale Programming Framework Local Food System Use development as a mecha-nism for transition to a localized food system - from production to processing and distribution. Commercial Nodes Provide a densified mixed use, commercial and residen-tial core - with the local food system as a primary economic driver - for residents of southern Tsawwassen. Agricultural Gateway Create a formal, public gateway to the larger working agricultural landscape. Farmland Protection Preserve the best agricultural soils on site for field-based agriculture. Woodland Protection Preserve unique on-site woodland habitat for wildlife and recreational values. Wildlife Corridors • Improve habitat connectivity across the site as a link between the woodland edge and Bound-ary Bay Regional Park. Transit Connectivity Improve connectivity between Tsawassen's town centre, the South-lands and Boundary Bay Village. Edges Explore improvements to the residential - agricultural edge relationship. Park Expansion Provide additional grassland habitat as a means to encourage partial restoration of Boundary Bay coastal marsh ecosystem. Critical Mass Increase residential popula-tion and density as a means to support and strenthen the local commercial services and community of Boundary Bay Fig. 51: Large-scale program elements provide a framework for more site-specific design in the devel-opment of a siteplan. 63 The Southlands Siteplan Fig. 52: The Southlands siteplan illustrates the over-all programmatic organization of the site, including commercial, residential, agricultural and recreation-al program elements. Additional program development and organization was distilled from consideration of effective medi-ators of the urban-agricultural edge. The following diagram considers some of the possible site-scale mediators of the urban-agricultural edge. Neighborhood compost & organic waste stewardship & management stormwater/greywater labor inputs capital inputs Farm food & fiber recreational opportunities stormwater management ecosystem services (air, water, etc.) educational opportunities employment opportunities habitat openspace mediators of the edge systems - green & grey infrastructure, markets awareness - education & outreach experiential program - participation & recreation Fig. 53: Designers can attempt to mitigate the seper-ation along the urban - agricultural edge with the development of program elements which integrate. As a means to further develop these "mediators of the edge," the following program considers the major program categories of live, work, play and move and how each underlying program element can act to integrate the urban-agricultural edge. doub le- loaded res ident ia l edge s ing le- loaded res ident ia l edge Boundary Bay Regional Park (expanded to include Southlands property east of Boundary Bay Road) live residential development "South lands F a r m " (Neighborhood) -4 :j» mm M M ^ r ipar ian/wet land/grass land (transition between active agricultural landscapes ft pork) management areas for habitat value m ixed habitat corr idor (provides robust linkage between southwestern forest area and Boundary Bay system) i r r igat ion canal ft pond system (increases habitat heterogeneity ; i »„ with freshwater reserviors and riparian restoration) Boundary Bay Vi l lage Wood "Boundary Bay B a c k p o r c h " (Neighborhood) Fig. 54: Residential development and habitat management areas are designed to compliment the greater agricultural program of the Southlands site. — 2 0 0 — 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 Live - Neighborhood & Habitat Neighborhood: (Refer to areas designated "residential development" in figure 54.) All residential development is proposed in areas of the property des-ignated due to their low agricultural capacity as compared to other areas of the site. For the purpose of this exploration, improved rat-ings of class 3 or lower represent soils with high potential for field-based agriculture (market gardening, etc.). Soils with a rating of 4 and above - located primarily on the 56th Street edge and the Bound-ary Bay Village edge - have been designated as more appropriate for development. Additionally, proposed housing densities & population numbers were considered based on the approximate community supported agricul-ture (CSA) carrying capacity of 25 families per acre. (Refer to appen-dix 5 for production acreage and housing numbers.) Finally, residential development was concentrated on the edges of the larger agricultural landscape as a means to maintain the integrity of the farm systems and prevent unecessary fragmentation and con-version of agricultural soils from hsouing development and its associ-ated infrastructure. Fig. 55: Cottage housing can increase residential density while preserving rural character. (City of Vancouver Planning Department - Community Ser-vices Group) Fig. 56: Lot alignment helps to maximize solar gain and laneway service access allows for more pedes-trian-friendly neighborhood streets. Single-family housing (-600 dwelling units/1500 residents) ° housing clusters/cottages 67 ° views to farmland, Boundary Bay & beyond ° ground-oriented, front to public space (street, recre-ational space and/or farm) • 1100 - 1600 sq. ft. a small, surface level garage parking (shared) ° predominantly N-S oriented lots maximize southern exposure/sunny outdoor space B approximately 4,000 sq. ft. / 120 x 33 ft. • Ground-oriented multi-family housing (-1100 dwelling units/2600 residents) ° located adjacent to commercial services and transit centers. • High-density midrise towers increase population density at the neighborhood core and provide additional housing choice (with special consideration for the aging population). • Common house - beyond the central feature of the farm market building, the common house provides flexible pro-gramming space for community gatherings/celebrations and educational programming associated with the Southlands Farm and community gardens. ° community kitchen -"Community kitchens are a creative, healthy al-ternative to feed the soul as well as the stomach. As hands are busied with food preparation, as easy social atmosphere is created. Community kitchens are a place to make new friends, engage in conver-sation and learn new skills. In community kitch-ens, meal creation becomes a social activity that benefits everyone's health and social well-being" (commun i tyki tchens.ca). Fig. 57: Existing heritage buildings are easily ret-rofitted to serve as a 'common house,' allowing for flexible programming and community events. Fig. 58: A derelict dairy barn provides ample evi-dence of vernacular architecture considered in the future construction of public facilities. 68 Habitat: (Refer to areas designated "management areas for habitat value" in figure 54.) Major consideration for habitat improvement in this proposal lies with the expansion/restoration of the Boundary Bay tidal marsh (not detailed within the scope of the project), the expansion of oldfield/ raptor habitat (partially detailed below) and the use of "wild farm-ing" management practices as detailed in the following program elements of field margins, cover cropping, hedgerows and drainage ditches. Many of the specific habitat improvements are catured within "best-management agricultural practices" and are not specifically refer-enced in figure 54 above. Some of these include: • Field margin/grassland set-asides - Field margins create a more diverse natural/native framework for the agricultural program contained within. Margins provide "short-term benefits in crop yield or quality, longer term benefits for sustainability of the farming system and, ultimately, broad societal benefits including aesthetics, recreation and the conservation of flora and fauna" (Gurr, et. al., 2003). Specific to South Delta, these grasslands provide important feeding, resting and nesting habitat for many small mammals and birds of prey, including the Townsend's vole, northern harrier, rough-legged hawk, red-tailed hawk, short-eared owl, and Fig. 59: Field margins play an important role in the conservation of grassland habitat and protect and improve water quality of adjacent waterways. Fig. 60: During their annual migration, snowgeese flock to feed on the covercrops of Delta's agricul-tural land, (www.deltafarmland.ca) 69 barn owl (www.deltafarmland.ca). Best management practices include: o 10 meter minimum width. o Seperation from established circulation (to protect during nesting season). o Consideration of minimum cutting height during harvest time (also for ground nesting). • Cover cropping - Cover crops/green manures help conserve soil moisture and recycle nutri-ents otherwise lost during the winter season. Cover crops can also fix nitrogen in the soil and limit undesirable weed species from colonizing open plots. In addition, cover crops provide forage for migratory waterfowl and other resident wildlife. • Agroforestry - Management of adjacent forestland for non-timber forest products (NTFP's) can preserve local forest habitat while contributing to agricultural and social programs, involving local residents in management and stewardship activities. Examples include cultiva-tion of edible mushrooms, ferns and other understory species, including Oregon grape. • Windbreaks/hedgerows - Similar to the grassland field margins, hedgerows serve as a multi-functional framework for the agricultural and recreational systems. "In temperate systems, it is well documented that hedgerows and woodlots, long recognized for their usefulness in preventing erosion, can also harbor natural enemies that provide significant pest control in adjacent agroecosystems" (Matson et. al., 1997). Irrigation ponds & canal system - Expansion and restoration of the open channel drainage system and the creation of detention/irrigation ponds significantly increases the quantity and quality of aquatic and riparian habitat. Furthermore, phytoremediation and detention can help manage and treat stormwater and greywater, provide passive recreational opportunities and serve as irrigation storage for a more localized food system. Boundary Bay Regional Park - Breaching the 12th Avenue dyke would represent a significant effort to restore the tidal lagoon/salt marsh system at Boundary Bay and would affect approximately 19.2 hectares of the Regional Park (Page et al., 1998). With the potential to establish a significant area of grassland habitat on the Southlands property, this option becomes more attractive considering the potential expansion and diversification of habitat types. Restoration of native plant communities would require selection of species displaying a high tolerance for salinity, inundation, low pH (typical of saturated soils) and mechanical disturbance (from waves fit drift material) (Page et al., 1998). Species include glasswort (Salicornia virginica), salt grass (Distich-lis spicata), gumweed (Grindelia integri folia), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa) and meadow barley (Hordeum branchyantherum). This option would require careful investigation and design as a means to balance habitat restoration goals, flood-proofing requirements and recreational opportunities. Costs have been estimated as high as $1.2M including engineering and construction costs and relocation costs of the pump station (Page et al., 1998). Riparian/wetland/grassland and mixed-habitat corridor - These areas are part of the larger restora-tion plan for the site, integrating the working agricultural landscape into the adjacent forest, oldfield and marsh systems at Boundary Bay. Both of these areas are also programmed for educational and recreation uses. Finally, attention should be given to the habitat value of the urban fabric, including: • street trees - species/cultivars chosen for habitat/food value, saturation tolerance and maxi-mum height to preserve solar rights of adjacent lots. • native plantings - adapted to and supportive of local ecology. • open-channel drainage - supports hydrological health of the landscape. work community kitchen & processing farm market & distribution shared equipment storage, processing & interpretation Small Lot Organic (SLO) Farm Units neighborhood mixed-use commercial & residential farm market & distribution wildcraft working forest and orchard commerc ia l / indust r ia l employment working agricultural landscape/ farm units neighborhood mixed-use commercial & residential Fig. 61: Employment opportunities for local commu-nities are centered around local agricultural produc-tion and value-added processing, but are diversified to provide other commercial goods Et services. B.-M^-t •• * i—)•»«-» »-.-,T*WI wirr«r»»•>?."»«>> ^•-^'Tf*'^'«w M'mmrm . as* I t . U Ij . j l . . |§ 1000 Work - Agriculture Et Commerce The small lot organic farm units form a large patchwork agricultural landscape and act as the unifying element for the two adjacent neighborhoods. Agricultural: Production on site is based upon the development of a basic farm-unit as per the programmatic re-quirements below (also refer to discussion of Farm Scale & Community of Growers in section 3.3). • Production (-170 acres, excluding circulation, habitat set-asides, etc.) ° set up @ 18" spacing ° Three rows for 4.5 ft. width: ease of harvest ° 18" walkway (compacted soil) ° Eight year crop-rotation: ideal as per Eliott Coleman's "New Organic Grower" (1989) ° 100 ft. row length: harvest (experiential) threshold, seed sales standard ° total "farm unit": 16 plots per approx. six ac. production ° production during growing season provides for approximately 25 families/dwelling units per acre • Access & circulation (-80 acres, including habitat set-asides) ° Four ft. wide pathway per 24 rows: wheelbarrow circulation and Integrated Pest Man-agement (IPM) cleared strip for vole management ° Eight ft. wide service access border per two plots: harvest collection and small tractor turning radius ° 30 ft. grassland set aside per 16 plot farm unit: occasional overlap with greenway cir-culation & interface with larger circulation superstructure • Drainage & irrigation is improved with expansion & restoration of existing irrigation system and the establishment of a network of eight irrigation storage ponds. On-site water storage/detention helps alleviate rainfall defi-cit during the growing season. (Refer to appendix 6 for water budget and detention/storage sizing calculations.) Secure equipment storage, compost facility Et starter greenhouse(s) ° shared resources per six acre farm-unit including small tractor and/or roto-tiller, miscellaneous hand tools, direct seeders, wheelbarrows, etc. ° shared resources for farm collective includes large-scale irrigation infrastructure and repair shop, cold storage and value-added processing (see processing center/community kitchen below). Processing center/community kitchen - Beyond the social benefits of the community kitchen (as mentioned previously), shared value-added processing facilities minimizes individual growers' investment in equipment and the time/cost re-quired to gain health-regulatation certification of processing facilities. Additionally, processing can extend the distribution of farm products throughout the year through canning, dry-ing, freezing, etc. Local distribution of farm produce and value-added products can be facilitated through a variety of avenues, including: ° community supported agriculture (CSA) - Growers are supported through the purchase of farm shares and participants in the program share in the risks and re-turns of the growing operation. ° farm market - Regular markets bring residents and visi-tors to the Southlands and provide opportunities for Fig. 63: Appreciation for fine food brings visitors to a local farm for a Feast of Fields event at Vista d'Oro Farms in Langley, BC. (www.ffcf.bc.ca) 74 growers to sell produce and value-added products. = farm gate sales £t special events ° restaurant-direct sales (farm cafe) • Outreach & education occurs through a combination of farm tours & school programs. • Wildcraft working forest & orchard - This area serves as a community forest where, non-forest timber products - from apples and cherries to ferns and mushrooms - are produced for local markets. Dditional wildcraft production could be ex panded into the adjacent Forest Park and hedgerows sytems of the Southlands Farm. Commercial Neighborhood commercial retail and office space is incorporated into the medium density mixed-use residential development on site. The centralized farm processing centre provides additional (industrial) employment opportunities for the local community. • Approximately 185,000 square feet of commercial/retail/in-dustrial space for local employment (based on 100 square feet allowance per dwelling unit). • Ground floor commercial/retail with second floor office space where required. The public market sits as a visual architectural focal point for the mixed-use residential/commercial development along the western edge of the site, linking the built edge with the larger agricultural Fig. 64: Vistors spend time with a local grower dur-ing a farm tour and learn to appreciate where their food comes from, (www.neon.cornell.edu) Fig. 65: Neighborhood commercial services blend into the residential fabric of the redeveloped site, (www. walkablestreets.com) 75 landscape. Within the context of the local community, the market links each product, person and place- the health of the surrounding landscapes is manifest in the presence of the community of growers. Public markets create dynamic places, stimulate local economic ac-tivity, reinforce community identity and facilitate social interaction (Spitzer et. al., 1995). SAGE (2005) notes that: "Located in town centers and neighborhoods throughout the world, farm-ers' markets serve multiple needs and provide multiple benefits. They bring fresh food into urban areas, connect city residents with local farm-ers, and catalyze community-gathering places. They are also a front-line response to the epidemic of diet-related health problems, to the chal-lenges of community economic development, and to financial pressures on small farmers." • covered (year-round use) and uncovered (seasonal use) mar-ket stalls • service access for vendors • pedestrian access along central greenway Fig. 66: Covered markets feature flexibility in orga-nization of space and infrastructure for basic food services andperparation. (www.vancouverbnb.com) Fig. 67: Outdoor areas, such as closed neighborhood streets, can also serve as market space during nice weather and peak periods of the growing season, (www. snakeroot. net) 76 Cemetery Pocket Park Golf Course Orchard Trail V V Farm-Park Trail Boundary Bay Beach Trail play management areas for recreational value Regional Park Vil lage Green Southlands Farm Trail Southlands Farm Lakes Munic ipa l Park Boundary Bay Vi l lage Trail Communi ty Gardens Tsawwassen Forest Park Backporch Trail Wide-Road Trail Boundary Bay Village Wood Boundary Bay Vil lage Recreat ional F ie ld Fig. 68: Public recreational opportunities are provid-ed throughout the redeveloped Southlands site, from community gardens to an extensive trail network. e 1000 77 Play - Recreation fit Openspace Passive • community dinner/picnic/informal gathering areas - are located throughout the village commons, adjacent to the community gardens and throughout the recreational trail network. • benches, seating walls and simple shade structures - will pro vide visitors and residents places to rest and to enjoy their surroundings. • birdwatching areas - observation platforms, blinds and in-terpretive signage located along public-access portions of Southlands trail system • views - all passive recreational program elements will con-sider ideal sighting so as to capitalize on external views to Boundary Bay as well as the internal views of the working farm and forest landscapes. Active • walking/jogging trails - more than 5 km of walking trails link-ing the Southlands Farm and Boundary Bay Backporch neigh-borhoods, as well as the Tsawwassen Forest Park and Bound-ary Bay Regional Parks. • cycling trails - are located along the multi-modal transit routes (refer to next section of program development, titled "move") • seasonal "U Pick" agriculture (blackberries, strawberries, Fig. 69: A raised platform serves as an observation deck and picnic area, affording expansive views of the surrounding agricultural landscape. Fig. 70: Walking trails provide scenic views through-out the Southlands site and connect to the Boundary Bay Regional park trail system, (www.deltachamber. 78 r aspbe r r i es , pumpk ins ) a re l i nked to the t ra i l ne twork and i nv i t e res iden ts and v is i to rs in to the wo rk i ng ag r i cu l t u ra l l a n d s c a p e . • c o m m u n i t y ga rden p lo ts (100 sq . f t . each) - p rov ide a rec -r e a t i o n a l oppo r t un i t y fo r p e o p l e of a l l ages and a re l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t to h igher -dens i t y r es i den t i a l a reas . I country lanes : gre^n streets & woonet f serv ice access farm access roads 6 hedgerows N V move recreational greenways \ \ • \ \ Fig. 71: Public recreational opportunities are provid-ed throughout the redeveloped Southlands site, from community gardens to an extensive trail network. \ >• multi-modal transit circulation N \ I , • * . green st & woorterf ser I f i l m treets v ice access country lanes 0 — 200—^400 — 1000 Move - Circulation, Transit & Parking • Multi-modal transit - includes bus service along the southern edge of the Southlands Farm with connections to Boundary Bay Village and a prarllel cycle/pedestrian route. • country-lane "back" service access n 4m right of way, 2.5m width - gravel surface • green streets - Beyond their negative impact on hydrological health & performance, narrow streets create more a human-scaled public space and function beyond the capacity for "moving traffic and storing cars" (Girling, et. al., 1994). ° 23 ft. maximum width, "courtesy" lanes ° on-street parking • "Woonerf" (translated as "street for living") is a Dutch term for narrow streets designed as public space for pedestrians, cyclists and low-speed motorized vehicles. Successful local examples of the woonerf are found at the Granville Island Market and service access is not hidden from public view. » narrow streets without curbs where vehicles are slowed by "side friction" or the location of obstacles such as parked cars, trees and planters, bollards and bicycle racks. • Recreational greenways/accessible trail system - 12 ft. maximum width in higher traffic areas, eight ft. average width throughout - permeable paving surface with gravel base for storage. n interpretive signage with wayfinding, natural history and agricultural information. Fig. 72: Simple windbreak/hedgerow treatments along the agricultural drainage system enliven the trail experience and delineate transition from public to private space, (photoshop visualization) Fig. 73: A residential "woonerf "challenges the notion that streets be for cars, (http:/1 plambeck. org I archives12005_02 .html) 81 3.3: design details fit discussion The following section articulates many ideas explored throughout the previous chapters - from gen-eral design principles to specific program elements - at a finer-scale, specific to the Southlands site. Each set of drawings is followed by a brief discussion as a means to reiterate the specific intent of each element of the design within the context of the overall project. Illustration Locator Map (J^) The map below references the master plan in order to spatially locate the following character sketches, plans and sections. Unless otherwise indicated, drawings are oriented with North at the top of the page. Orcha rd Edge Scenar ios Single-loaded Residential Edge Orchard Edge Trail These two drawings examine the relationship of cottage housing to the agricultural edge. Vi l lage Commons This sketch articulates the main programmatic features of the heart of the Southlands Farm neighborhood. Commun i t y Gardens The sketch explores the relationships between com-mercial and residential development on the edge of the working agricultural landscape and uses community gardens (and other related components) as a program-matic element to link the two. Forest Edge Scenar ios Boundary Bay Backporch Forest Edge Boundary Bay Backporch Laneway Wide Road Trail These three drawings examine the relation-ship of conventional single-family housing (within a more forested context) and their relationship to the agricultural edge. L — Walkable Streets This sketch explores the character and components of pedestrian-friendly neighborhood streets. Fig. 74: Design details are representative of edge treatments and program elements throughout the site. Vi l lage Commons While the village comons is designed as a gathering place for residents and visitors to the Southlands, it is also intended to serve as a highly imageable gateway to the neighborhood. Native Habitat Portions of the village green are maintained in native vegetation and managed for habitat value. These areas are integral to neighborhood identity and stewardship activities serve as opportunities for community building. On-Street Parking Parking along the village green allows access to commercial services and slows traffic for a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Rooftop Production Rooftop greenhouses capture waste heat from residential buildings, extend the 5| growing season into | the winter months and minimize impact to arable land. Plaza Edges Ground-floor commer-cial fronts onto the village green and takes advantage of southern exposure with outdoor program-ming opportunities. Farm Views The village green provides direct public access to the expan-sive views into the Southlands agricul-tural landscape. Farm Market 1 The community Farm Market sits at the eastern end of the village green and serves as an outlet for agricultural production and value-added industries of the Southlands Farm. Accessible pathways, park benches, docks and picnic areas provide many opportunities for passive recreation at the heart of the Southlands Farm neighborhood. The larger park area enjoys full southern exposure, while smaller areas provide resting places during the busy market. Fig. 75: Village Commons Village C o m m o n s T h e e x p a n s i v e pub l i c park f e a t u r e of t h e Sou th lands F a r m ne ighbor -hood serves as a c e n t r a l ga the r i ng p l a c e fo r res iden ts and v is i to rs w h i l e c r e a t i n g a f o r m a l g a t e w a y to t he w o r k i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d -scapes b e y o n d . 56th S t r e e t c rosses t h e w e s t e r n edge of t he c o m m o n s and a b r i dge t r e a t m e n t a l ong t he r o a d b e d i n d i c a t e s t he a r r i va l to t he n e i g h b o r h o o d . V i e w s to t he eas t r e v e a l a m i x e d - u s e n e i g h b o r h o o d , f a r m m a r k e t , c o m m u n i t y ga rdens and m o r e d i s t an t v i e w s to t h e w o r k i n g f a r m s and Bounda ry Bay. G a r d e n v i e w Dr ive c i r c u m n a v i g a t e s t he v i l l age c o m m o n s , pass ing in f r on t of t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d c o m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e s , and f a r m m a r k e t b e f o r e t u rn ing a r o u n d in f r on t of t he Sou th lands F a r m c o m m u n i t y ga rdens to c o n t i n u e in t h e w e s t w a r d d i r e c t i o n , back to 56 th . A w a l k a l o n g t h e c o m m o n s , f r o m 56th S t ree t to t he f a r m m a r k e t t akes less t h a n t w o m i n u t e s and a l e i su re l y s t ro l l a r o u n d the v i l l a g e c o m m o n s t akes l i t t l e m o r e than f i ve . A c e n t r a l w a t e r f e a t u r e and t r a i l s ys tem uni f ies t he s p a c e and at t he s a m e t i m e d i v i des i t i n to m o r e i n t i m a t e - s c a l e d o u t d o o r r ooms , pro-v i d i n g a m p l e s p a c e fo r i n f o r m a l ga ther ings and pass ive r e c r e a t i o n . Po r t i ons of t he v i l l a g e c o m m o n s a re p l a n t e d in na t i ve v e g e t a t i o n and a lso o f f e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s fo r c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s to engage in s t ew-a rdsh ip a c t i v i t i e s as par t o f m o r e pub l i c c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e . Fig. 76: The central water feature of the vilage commons provides recreational ammenity and ties into the larger stormwater detention/irrigation storage system, (photoshop vizualization) 85 Community Gardens The community gardens and farm market of the Southlands Farm neighborhood serve as the gateway to the larger agricultural landscape of the Southlands by blurring the line between the urban and rural edge. Starter Glasshouse & Garden Plots A central glasshouse provides space for community gardeners to prepare for the growing season and start seed trays for transplanting. Garden plots (10' x 10') are arranged outside the glasshouse and are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Townhouse Development — — Townhouse development along the edge of the Southlands Farm community gardens present a friendly face to the farm and take advantage of the southern exposure and opportunities for passive recreation. Orchard Trail Greenway The Orchard Trail links the northern edge of development with the central community gardens and the Boundary Bay Regional Park on the eastern edge of the property. mvn^^ir, . Community Kitchen Small-scale industrial food processing facilities are available for local residents and are shared with the local farming community. Ideas and knowledge are passed along through the preparation and sharing of food. U J B I ?<^ Field Agriculture Adjacent to the community gardens, field space can be used by community gardeners for more space-intensive crops, such as corn and pumpkins. Other portions of field production can be leased to local farmers. Trellis Edge 6 Picnic Niches A semi-continuous trellis supports climbing plants and provides a more comfortable enclosure for the gardens themselves. In addition, niches along the gardens four sides help create smaller spaces, ideal for community dinners and picnics. Farm Market The community Farm Market sits at the eastern end of the village green and serves as an outlet for agricultural produc-tion and value-added indus-tries of the Southlands Farm. Fig. 77: Community Gardens 86 Community Gardens As part of the transition from the mixed-use commercial/residential village core to the semi-private residential neighborhood edge, the location of the Southlands Farm community gardens also represents the transition from the village commons to the semi-private agricul-tural landscape. As a means to encourage individual food production, plots in the community garden are prioritized for local residents of higher-density apartments, townhouses and condominiums, where yard space for growing is often limited or non-existent. Garden plots are available on a first-come, first-served basis and surplus plots can be reserved by other members of the local community and/or nearby residents. Furthermore, in addition to the 10 ' x 1 0 ' raised garden plots, field space is available beyond the trellis' edge. Residents with ambitions of larger-scale growing can arrange for the use of this area. Situated between the patchwork of small lot organic farms to the east and the processing and marketing facilities, the community gar-deners are surrounded by all aspects of the local food system. Fig 78: Community gardening provides opportunities for intergenerational social activity, from planting and watering to harvesting, preparation and enjoy-ment of fresh food, (photo courtesy UBC Farm) Events throughout the growing season - such as seasonal harvest celebrations, work parties and regular farm markets - facilitate ex-changes between community gardeners and neighboring farmers and strengthen the awareness and understanding of the functioning of the local food system. Walkable Streets Based on the Dutch concept of the "woonerf," the walkable streets of the Southlands Farm and Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhoods reconfigures standard neighborhood streets into places where cars are not consid-ered the primary user. Connectivi ty Walkable streets provide pedestrian-friendly linkages to network of accessible trails that connect the town centres to the surrounding farmland and neighborhoods. Neighborhood Commercial Small neighborhood commercial services are located along the walkable streets and take advantage of increased local residential densi-ties to support their operations. Street Parking Parking areas located throughout the streets provide the same number of parking spaces as conven-tional on-street parking, but the irregular configuration requires motorists to greatly reduce speeds and give pedestrians the right of way. Street Trees, Furniture and "Side Friction' The clustering of parking spaces, increased plant ings of street trees and planter beds, bike racks, benches and other furniture, increase "side fr ict ion" along the walkable streets and send a clear signal to motorist and cyclists to slow down and use caution. Diverse Housing Types Townhouses and apartments along the agricultural edge maintain a friendly face to the farm and increase residential density. Providing a diversity of housing types creates more opportunity for community diversity and the potential to involve more groups in stewardship activities. Stormwater Management Walkable streets offer many more opportunities for on site infiltra-tion and treatment as compared to the standard pipe and gutter grey infrastructure. Beyond the parcel scale, surface runoff from residential development is easily treated with grassed swales along the agricultual edge and incorpo-rated into irrigation storage. Fig. 79: Walkable Streets 88 Walkable Streets T h e p e d e s t r i a n - f r i e n d l y s t ree t des ign t h roughou t t he h igher dens i t y m i x e d - u s e c o m m e r c i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l ne ighbo rhoods he lps f os te r a g r e a t e r sense o f c o m m u n i t y and p r o m o t e s t he ag ra r i an v a l u e of n e i g h b o r l i n e s s . In bo th t he S o u t h l a n d F a r m and Bounda ry Bay B a c k p o r c h ne ighbor -hoods , g r e e n s t ree t s a l so p rov ide a g r e a t e r d e g r e e of c o n n e c t i v i t y f r o m a d j a c e n t n e i g h b o r h o o d s i n to t he Sou th lands and v i c e - v e r s a . As a m e a n s to e n c o u r a g e suppo r t o f t h e f a r m m a r k e t s (and t h e g r e a t e r f ood s y s t e m as e m p h a s i z e d in th is des ign) f r o m t h e c o m m u n i t y of g r e a t e r T s a w w a s s e n , a c c e s s to t he s i te bo th v i s i b l e and i n v i t i n g . S t r e e t t r ees a n d p l a n t e r s o f f e r r es iden ts o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r g a r d e n -ing and f o o d p r o d u c t i o n e v e n in an u r b a n i z e d se t t i ng w h i l e access t o c o m m u n i t y ga rdens is neve r m u c h m o r e t h a n a f ive m i n u t e w a l k away. F ina l l y , g reen s t r ee t s he lp m a i n t a i n t he h y d r o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n of t he a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s c a p e . In f i l t ra t ion of s t o r m w a t e r f e e d s t h e la rger d r a i n a g e s y s t e m w h e r e w a t e r is c a p t u r e d and s to red fo r i r r i ga t i on du r i ng t he d ry s u m m e r m o n t h s . Fig. 80: Rowhouses are shaded by an enormous cherry tree and planters are crowded with edible and decorative plants, (www.beyonddc.com) 89 Orchard Edge Scenarios T h e f o l l o w i n g e d g e t r e a t m e n t scena r i os e x p l o r e t he t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a r e s i d e n t i a l back i n to a l a n e w a y w i t h c o t t a g e hous ing f a c i n g on to f a r m l a n d . D e v e l o p e d as a s i t e - s p e c i f i c so lu t i on fo r t h e ex i s t i ng e d g e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t he Fo res t by t he Bay n e i g h b o r h o o d , t he " s i n g l e -l o a d e d r e s i d e n t i a l e d g e " c o u l d be a p p l i e d across a g r i c u l t u r a l edges as a m e a n s to d i r e c t l y engage a p p r o p r i a t e l y - s c a l e d a g r i c u l t u r e . T h e f o l l o w i n g d raw ings a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e s e c t i o n b e l o w a n d i l l us -t r a t e t he r e s i d e n t i a l c o m p o n e n t of t he e d g e t r e a t m e n t , as w e l l as an o p t i o n fo r t he t r e a t m e n t of a m o r e p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t of t he a g r i c u l -t u r a l e d g e . In bo th of t hese s c e n a r i o s , t he i n t e n t i o n is add ress an ex i s t i ng edge c o n d i t i o n th rough an a l t e r n a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t m o d e l des i gned to i n t e g r a t e t he r e s i d e n t i a l - a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e . Fig. 81: The existing edge treatment speaks of neglect, doing little to acknowledge the agricultural landscape. Single-loaded Residential Edge Fig. 82 •MM. Orchard Trail Edge 9 0 Single-Loaded Residential Edge This model of development was explored along the existing edge between the "Forest by the Bay" neighbor-hood and the adjacent agricultural land. A simple single-loaded cottage development reorients the face of housing to the farmland and provides laneway service access to existing housing. © Existing Development The relationship between existing development and the adjacent agricultural land is characterized simply as "backing onto farmland." Large-lot single-family detached houses form the existing edge with the Southlands Farm. (Refer to Figure 81.) Shared Services • Garbage collection and recycling - of organic and non-organic waste - is located and accessed along the laneways. Country Lanc-ia Country lanes provide service access and laneway parking for residential development, and minimize the amount of impervious surfaces through the use of paving strips. (Refer to Figure 85.) Cottage Development Development of cottage housing increases housing density and addresses the growing demand for more compact and affordable housing for young families and aging populations alike. Cottage Commons Cottage development centers around a central common courtyard area where residents can enjoy take advantage of garden plots, picnic areas and easily supervised playspace for children. (Refer to Figure 84.) Access and Use A semi-public pathway between houses provides street access to the Cottage Com-mons. Cottage resid-nets make decisions regarding the alloca-tion and programming of common spaces. Residential ("Courtesy") Street Narrow residential streets provide on-street parking and reduce traffic speed with through the creation of side-friction. Three lanes require motorists to share the traffic lane by pulling over to allow for safe passage. Fig. 83: Single-loaded Residential Edge 91 Single-loaded Residential Edge T h i s s c e n a r i o e x p l o r e s t h e c o t t a g e house d e v e l o p m e n t m o d e l as m e a n s t o p r e s e r v e l o c a l hous ing c h a r a c t e r , p r o v i d e m o r e i n t i m a t e d w e l l i n g s p a c e s , a n d a d d r e s s t h e t r e n d s in hous ing d e m a n d f o r se -n io rs a n d f i r s t - t i m e b u y e r s . T h a t s a i d , h i g h e r d e n s i t y hous ing t y p o l o -g i es , as i l l u s t r a t e d in f igu re 8 4 , c a n a c c o m p l i s h t h e s a m e g o a l o f t h e r e s i d e n t i a l - a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i l e p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s . C o t t a g e houses in th is s c e n a r i o a r e o r g a n i z e d p r i n c i p a l l y in a l i n -e a r f a s h i o n , a l o n g t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e a n d s e c o n d a r i l y a r o u n d t h e c e n t r a l s e m i - p u b l i c c o t t a g e c o m m o n s . Houses a l o n g t h e e a s t e r n e d g e ( a d j a c e n t to t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l l and) f a c e o n t o t h e s t r e e t a n d f a r m l a n d b e y o n d , w h i l e t h e houses b e h i n d f a c e o n t o t h e c o m m o n s . C a r e is g i v e n to t h e b a c k p o r c h t r e a t m e n t o f t h e " f r o n t " houses to p r e s e n t a f r i e n d l y f a c e to t h e c o m m o n s . T h e s e m i - p u b l i c c o m m o n s s p a c e is l i n k e d to t h e s t r e e t v i a p a t h w a y w h e r e r e s i d e n t s c a n c ross a s m a l l f o o t b r i d g e to a c c e s s t h e p u b l i c g re -e n w a y a l o n g t h e o r c h a r d e d g e . B o t h B o u n d a r y Bay R e g i o n a l Pa rk and t h e S o u t h l a n d s F a r m v i l l a g e c o r e a r e n e v e r m o r e t h a n a t e n - m i n u t e w a l k a l o n g t h e t r a i l . Fig. 84: The cottage commons provides small semi-private spaces organized around shared, semi-public amenities such as picnic areas, play equipment and garden plots, (www.communitygreens.org) Fig. 85: Country lanes help preserve the rural char-acter of the residential edge, (www.cityfarmer.org) 92 Orchard Trail Edge The Orchard Trail parallels the cottage development bordering the existing Forest by the Bay and Tsawwassen Golf Club Neighborhoods. Due to drainage conditions of the site, the orchard itself is planted with site-adapted, fruit bearing trees with high wildlife value. Face to the Farm-Development along the Orchard Trail faces the street and parallel trai l , creating a more pleasant pedestrian experience while walking, cycling or driving through the neigh-borhood. Orchard Trail The orchard trail is a shared-use trail, represen-tative of the larger system of accessible trails throughout the site. The acessible gravel pathways are approximately fifteen feet wide and access from the street is provided via four-foot wide foot bridges. Benches are located along the trail (no fewer than one per two hundred feet) to provide places to rest and view the surrounding agricul-tural landscapes. I q = t Agricultural Drainage System —I e Wild Orchard Designed to provide habitat and recre-ational value while tying the residential edge into the greater agricultural landscape, the wild orchard is planted with pacific crabapple (Malus fusca) and managed as a 'trap crop' to lure birds away from feeding on maketable crops. Grassland Borders Native grasses provide valuable habitat and food sources for local wildl i fe, from insects to migratory waterfowl. Grass borders also indicate the physical seperation between public trails and private farm fields. The system of drainage ditches and dykes provides a critical structural framework for the entire site, both formally and functionally. All proposed development should maintain the system of open-channel drainage for habitat value, flood control and imagability of the neighborhood. The parallel trail system also allows access to the ditch's edge for easy maintenance and required dredging. Fig. 86: Orchard Trail Edge 93 Orchard Trail Edge As pa r t o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l g r e e n w a y s y s t e m , t he O r c h a r d T ra i l p a r a l -le ls t he p u b l i c s t r e e t l i nk ing t he Sou th lands F a r m n e i g h b o r h o o d w i t h B o u n d a r y Bay Road at t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n c o r n e r of t h e s i t e . T h e O r c h a r d T ra i l is a c c e s s e d v i a s m a l l f o o t b r i d g e s a l ong t h e r e s i d e n -t i a l s t r e e t f r on t . A l o n g t he w e s t and nor th e d g e s , s t r ee t t r e e s , co t -t age houses and f ron t p o r c h e s c r e a t e a h u m a n - s c a l e d r e s i d e n t i a l f a c e to t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e a n d to t he eas t and s o u t h , t he o r c h a r d ac t s as a l i n e a r f e a t u r e to w i d e n the e d g e a long t h e w o r k i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e . T h e o r c h a r d e d g e s igna ls a t r ans i t i on b e t w e e n t h e pub l i c g r e e n w a y a n d t he s e m i - p r i v a t e a g r i c u l t u r a l f a r m uni ts b e y o n d but m a i n t a i n i n g v i s u a l a c c e s s fo r c o t t a g e res iden ts a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l i s t s us ing t he t r a i l s y s t e m . In a d d i t i o n t he o r c h a r d p rov ides a c e r t a i n d e g r e e of s e p e r a -t i o n fo r f a r m w o r k e r s in lands a d j a c e n t to t he r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e e t and c o t t a g e hous ing . W h i l e i m p r o v e d s i te and so i l c o n d i t i o n s migh t p e r m i t t he e s t a b l i s h -m e n t o f a p r o d u c t i o n o r c h a r d fo r h u m a n c o n s u m p t i o n , a w i l d o r c h a r d p rov i des v a l u a b l e h a b i t a t and f ood fo r w i l d l i f e and at t he s a m e t i m e , m a i n t a i n s t he e d g e r e l a t i o n s h i p a r t i c u l a t e d in th is s c e n a r i o . Fig. 87: The trail edge affords views of the gnarled apple trees within the organized structure of the orchard. Fig 88: Malus fusca (pacific crabappte) is an excel-lent food source for wildlife and the white to pink fragrant apple blossoms bloom from mid April to June, (www.hillkeep.ca) 94 Forest Edge Scenarios W i t h i n t h e f l a t , a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s c a p e of t he Sou th lands p roper ty , t h e f o r e s t e d s o u t h e r n e d g e of t h e s i t e is a u n i q u e f e a t u r e d e s e r v i n g spec i f i c a t t e n t i o n in t he des ign p r o c e s s . T h e f o l l o w i n g scena r i os e x p l o r e t h e r e l a t i onsh ip of hous ing to t he w o o d l a n d - a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e and e x a m i n e a n e i g h b o r h o o d p a t t e r n d e v e l o p e d f r o m the p r i m a r y i n t e n t i o n of p rese rv i ng t he f o r e s t e d e d g e and t h e i n t e r n a l v i ews of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s c a p e . T h e f o l l o w i n g d raw ings a r e t a k e n f r o m the s e c t i o n b e l o w and i l l us -t r a t e t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l g r e e n w a y d e v e l o p e d a l ong the d r a i n a g e i n f ra -s t r u c t u r e , t he lo t con f i gu ra t i ons and t h e a c t u a l r e l a t i onsh ip of hous-ing to t he a g r i c u l t u r a l e d g e . In a l l t h r e e s c e n a r i o s , t h e i n t e n t i o n is t o m i n i m i z e i m p a c t to ex i s t i ng v e g e t a t i o n and r e s t o r e / e n h a n c e n a t i v e p lan t ings as a means to fur-t h e r d e f i n e t he B o u n d a r y Bay B a c k p o r c h n e i g h b o r h o o d cha rac te r . Fig. 89: The wooded southeastern edge is unique to the Southlands property. Backporch Laneway Fig, 90 .m Backporch Forest Edge 95 Wide Road Trail Within the Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhood, the Wide Road Trail is created as a result of lot configura-tions, building footprint placement and the existing network of open channel drainage ditches. Big Front Yards With the building footprints situated at the back of the lots, the Wide Road Trail enjoys the more secluded seperation from neighborhood housing, thanks to the large forested front yards. Drainage System 1 Grassed channels move surface and subsurface water from the site into large storage ponds. Planted with native vegetation, the drainage system provides valuable habitat and recreational opportunities and acts as a unifying feature across the agricultural landscape and neighborhoods. 4P la 7.o So Skinny Trail-Conservation and Reforestation In addition to the restoration of native vegetation along water-ways and hedgerows, conserva-tion covenants protect woodland vegetation and maintain the forested character of the Bound-ary Bay Backporch neighborhood^ Aj 'If 'If Skinny Streets Trail Connections The Wide Road Trail links the Tsawwas-sen Forest Park and the Boundary Bay Village recreational fields and, com-pared to the Backporch Trail's agricul-tural edge experience, is much more forested and enclosed. The Wide Road Trail sits to the south of the more public multi-modal transit route, connecting the Southlands Farm neighbor-hood to Boundary Bay Village and the Backporch neighbor-hood. As such, the trail itself is smaller and more intimate than the larger wider trail found throughout the Southlands site. Neighborhood roads need be no more than 25 feet wide to allow for the passage of two automobiles and occasional street parking. Fig. 91: Wide Road Trail 96 Wide Road Trail South of the Backporch Trail (refer to figure 68 ) , the Wide Road Trail traverses the Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhood and offers a more secluded trail experience through the woodland edge. Moving from the Tsawwassen Forest Park trail system to the Boundary Bay Village Wood, the trail meets the open channel drainage system, where water moves from the escarpment of Point Roberts through the neighborhood and into the patchwork agricultural landscape. The trail takes advantage of the setback requirements in the Bound-ary Bay Backporch neighborhood and allows residents and visitors to experience the wooded character of the southern portion of the site. The experience along the trail is largely defined by the wooded edges canopy clearing, the parallel drainage channel and the trail's lack of surface treatment - during the wet winter, a highly trafficked Wide Road Trail is very muddy. While neighborhood vehicular circulation is seperated only by the width of the channel and an edge treatment of native plantings, much of the local traffic passes through the laneways, where parking and service access take place. That said, the clearing of trees for the roadbed serves to brighten the trail and pathways to front porches indicate the residential presence. Fig. 92: Dense growth obscures the roadway next to the Wide Road Trail and maintains the woodland character of the trail. Fig 93: The Wide Road Trail is the most rustic of the site and, depending on weather conditions and traf-fic, can exist as a grassed path or mudflat. 97 Boundary Bay Backporch Laneways The neighborhood refered to as the "Boundary Bay Backporch" is characterized by large porches and laneways within a wooded setting, unique to the Southlands site. Yards: From Front to Back With the building footprints situated at the back of the lots, laneways (typically situated at the back) become more public areas (associated with the front) and the large front yards become more private. Housing Character 6 Density Housing along the southern edge of the neighborhood responds architecturally to the surrounding woodlands through the use of native materials. Densities are the lowest on the Southlands site in an effort to have less impact on the forested edge. Forest Character Building envelope extents are carefully defined and disturbance to native vegetation is minimized during the building process in order to preserve habitat and forest character of the Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhood. ft ? 1 \ KM \ UJ.ii.4i Country Lane The intimate relationship between the build-ing facades and the narrow lane creates a more street-like experience, while the nature of the lane itself - paving strips and/or gravel surfacing - maintains a desired informality. Big Backporches Large covered porches face the laneway, providing ample space for outdoor seating and dining, and promote neighborliness through a more informal relation-ship between houses. Fig. 94: Boundary Bay Backporch Laneways Boundary Bay Backporch Laneways The residential character of the Boundary Bay Backporch neighbor-hood is defined here, where spaces are organized around the central feature of the laneway within the wooded setting. This relationship of the forested landscape to the agricultural land-scape is further strengthened through small-scale local wildcraft production and the robust treatment of the habitat linkage from the Tsawwassen Forest Park to Boundary Bay Regional Park. This neighborhood design provides a great deal of private space -where "front" yards become the private spaces associated with more conventional backyards and the backporches serve as the semi-pri-vate front along semi-public laneway. The most rural character within the designs discussed, the reversal of the front-back relationship of the lots creates an intimacy and privacy unlike the other models explored. While this neighborhood feels completely distinct from the larger agricultural landscape of the Southlands, the Boundary Bay Backporch nieghborhood is never more than a two minute walk from the agricul-tural edge and a five minute walk - along the Wide Road Trail or the larger greenway along the agricultural edge - from the Boundary Bay Village core. Fig. 95: At night, light streams from the backporch-es and create a welcoming environment along the laneway. Fig. 96: Along the country lane, thick vegetation softens the edges and obscures the neighboring houses. 99 Boundary Bay Backporch Forest Edge The Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhood design was developed as a deliberate effort to protect and enhance the southwestern forested edge of the Southlands site. Living in the Woods — | Houses along this forested edge are set against the southernmost edge of the lot (appoximately 80 ft. setback) and enjoy screened views of the agricultural land-scape beyond. . A 11 Views of the Farm The Boundary Bay Backporch neighbor-hood was explored as an alternative development model to protect the internal views of the Southlands agricultural landscape for farm work-ers as well as residents and visitors using the recreational trail network. A A A A ~ ^ >• fx n 1 t / 2 '"' Bus Route Weaving along the Tsawwassen Forest Park edge, the new transit route services the Southlands Farm and Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhoods. Additionally, the new bus route links the larger Tsawwas-sen transit network and will increase transit service to Boundary Bay Village. Forest Edge Preservation Protection and enhancement of native wood-land vegetation along the agricultural edge is essential to maintain the internal views of the agricultural landscape. Backporch Trail As part of the multi-modal transit linkage between the Southlands Farm neighborhood and Boundary Bay Village, the Backporch Trail winds along the Tsawwassen Forest Park edge with views to the larger agricultural land-scape. Fig. 97: Boundary Bay Backporch Forest Edge Boundary Bay Backporch Forest Edge The Boundary Bay Backporch forest edge - and its relationship to the adjacent agricultural land - was the primary consideration in the exploration of this overall neighborhood design. Special attention was given to the preservation of the forested edge at the southern edge of the agricultural land and the estanblishment of conservation cov-enants and building envelope restrictions would be effective regula-tory devices to maintain this character. Located on the soil types identified as least appropriate for agricul-ture (classes 4 Et 5), this neighborhood is designed to bolster the pop-ulation of Boundary Bay Village and the commercial services available to the local population, while reconnecting the neighborhood to the adjacent agricultural landscape. For the forest edge itself, the intent was to consider a residential front which looks on to the working landscape without overwhelming the agricultural landscape with a wall of housing. Large setbacks for building footprints on the 120 ' lots and preservation and enhance-ment of woodland vegetation soften the residential edge and pre-serve the internal views from the agricultural land. Woodland vegeta-tion along the front edge of the lots provide residents well-framed views of the farm fields beyond. Fig. 98: Sixty-foot (minimum) setbacks and preser-vation of woodland vegetation soften the residential edge of the Boundary Bay Backporch neighborhood, (photoshop visualization) Fig. 99: Screened views from the woodlands provide a visual link between the forest edge residences and the agricultural landscapes beyond. 101 Farm Scale 8t the Community of Growers Finally, the heart of the Southlands site is the functioning agricultural landscape featured in this de-sign exploration. Specific planting plans were not explored in favor of a functional framework within which a community of growers could determine specific crop selections and rotations. More specifically, it should be noted that of critical importance to this proposal is the understanding of the farmer's perspective and the provision of programmatic elements required for viable agricul-ture. Paul Bruhn of the Preservation Trust of Vermont states simply: "Having open space is important, but to preserve the rural and agricultural character of the land and its people, we need working land-scapes." (www.intervale.org) More emphatically, Christopher Alexander (1977) declares: "Parks are dead and artificial. Farms, when treated as private property, rob the people of their natural biological heritage-the land from which they came. In Norway, England, Austria, it is commonly understood that people have a right to picnic in farmland, and walk and play-provided they respect the animals and crops." The design of agricultural lands in this proposal was based on standard production garden spacings and built outward to include service access and best management allowances for integrated pest management and wildfarming techniques. Given the development of this agricultural framework within the context of the development of other program elements, the site accommodates more than 20 small lot organic farms with over 170 acres in total production. The following diagram illustrates the development of the farm unit based on spatial constraints of the requisite program elements: eight ft. service access per two plots 30 ft. grassland/hedgerow margin per unit Fig. 100: From a comfortable scale for the farm worker to the economic break-point for small lot organic farm opera-tions, this farm unit was developed and used as a general guide in the layout of the agricultural program. "Our profession's historic isolation, since Olmstead, from the cen-tral philosophical, ideological, literary and artistic debates of our own time must finally be overcome if a new generation of landscape architects is to be capable of imagining and creating the landscape forms that would similarly express the highest values and aspira-tions of [American] culture..." Catherine Howett in Simon Swaffield: "Theory in Landscape Architecture: A Reader" 4.1 new definitions & new directions From the scale of cauliflower spacings and wheel barrow widths as defining requirements of the farm unit - to the informed design of the neighborhood unit as defined by dwellings, greenways, and walk-ing distances to commercial services, regional transit and agricultural land - to the consideration of watershed scale hydrological assets and global migratory flyways, this design exercise attempted to explore the potential for our relationship with a more deliberately integrated urban - agricultural edge. Rejecting the notion that agriculture and settlement should be seperated, this exploration critiqued conventional models of agriculture and development and reconsidered land use through the 'new-ru-ralist' perspective, characterized as "a place-based and systems-based framework that nurtures the symbiotic relationship between urban and rural areas" (Kraus, 2006). In that regard, this project extends well beyond the scale of the Southlands site and explores our attitudes toward agriculture, land development and our treatment of the urban - agricultural edge. At the larger-scale context of the GVRD and the ALR, these ideas blur the line in the sand between developers and preservationists. Dan Imoff states it clearly in Farming with the Wild (2003): "Building alliances between historical adversaries will no doubt require tearing down decades-old walls and stereotypes: environ-mentalists, on one hand, often lumped with wealthy urbanites and bureaucrats who dispatch regulations from distant power centers, and farmers and ranchers, on the other, frequently perceived as narrow-minded and steeped in a sense of entitlement. What may in fact help to bring both camps together in alliances is a sense of unity in common goals and common foes. Common goals would include maintaining arable farmland within healthy rural com-munities, keeping rural lands open and free from subdivision and development, restoring native habitat on private and public lands, and creating a more natural rural-urban interface." Careful consideration of Vancouver's 'sustainability' with respect to agricultural land and food production must also blur conventional definitions... What kind of agriculture is sustainable for Vancouver? What kind of development is sustainable for farming? What role can urban development play in the establishment of local food systems - from production to processing and distribution - within the fabric of the city? Or could limited development along the agricultural edge, in a manner that fosters appreciation and stewardship of agricultural landscapes, capture value from upzoned farmland and serve as a catalyst in the transformation to a more localized food system? Fig. 101: Re-integration of farm systems and witdlands can offer ideas for the re-integration of neighborhood design and food systems. Fig. 102: The deliberate blurring of the lines between our urban, agricultural and wild lands in neighborhood design forces compatibility if func-tionality is to be maintained. 105 Wedge the Edge This approach, to utilize limited development on more marginal agricultural soils as a financing mechanism, effectively transforms the urban - agricultural edge, in its present-day manifestation of backyard-fence-farmland, into something much thicker: a transitional edge consisting of deliberately designed neighborhoods integrated into the adjacent farm systems. • I ; T> I BH • 'I (ALR boundary) 30 acres in ALR purchased ® S50.QQO acre 1/3 (10 acres) rezoned urban developed t$ $S0O,0O0/acre $4.bM in captured value from rezoning Ii development, invested in transition to local food system: 2 / 3 120 acres) agricultural covenant, long term leases, local processing l i distribution, recreational programming f i habitat restoration. agricultural land reserve Fig. 103: Rezoning agricultural land unlocks tre-mendous value in urban development, a significant portion of which could be used towards the transfor-mation of local food systems. 106 The mechanism behind this scenario is simply the value captured in the change of value in land restricted from development in the ALR and land which is excluded and zoned for urban development. As developers stand to gain a ten-fold increase in value, local munici-palities often negotiate stipulations of the deal, requiring the provi-sion of community amenities. Much of that value could be transferred back to the local community through the establishment and strength-ening of local agricultural systems. While this option necessarily results in the development of agricultur-al land, the economic gains as a result of rezoning and development can pay for the establishment of local processing and distribution systems, as well as front the cost of transitioning to more organic and habitat-friendly farm practices. In addition, municipalities can also place strict requirements on the types of development to occur in these areas, creating a different edge-condition all together. At a regional scale, this model begins to thicken the ALR edge with neighborhoods integrated into the agricultural landscape. Beyond these areas of smaller-scale, localized production centers, ongo-ing large-scale and industrialized farm practices can take place at a greater distance from population centers. URBAN-EPCiE. WfVAREA «| ftr.L.;f. -f.^  4.1™ i l i f t 300m 300m i ! U | . Fig. 104: At the regional scale, the ALR edge be-comes a new neighborhood typology, where settle-ment is integrated into its agricultural context. Fig. 105: The above cross-sectional view of the transition from intensive agriculture to residential development stops short of imagining an integrated edge at the neighborhood scale (Diamond, 1985). This idea is not new to the realm of edge-planning for agriculture and Vancouver-based designer Larry Diamond suggested a similar approach decades ago (see figure 105). The major difference, how-ever, is the scale at which these treatments occur: parcel by parcel we have little hope of redesigning the edge. We must move beyond the default dead-end for placemaking that is land-use planning through regulation and apply bold and creative ideas to solve the problems we face in the loss of not only our agricultural lands, but our very agri-cu/rure. In today's realm of landscape architecture, where the lion's share of creative energy is being applied in big cities, where big developments command big budgets and make the big moves possible, we must focus a watchful eye to the edges of our urban areas and outlying communities. Here, change is fast but momentum is manageable and opportunities abound for creativity in defining the future. With specific attention to the urban - agricultural edge, we must reconnect communities with their foodlands if we are to hope for their protection. As architects and planners, we must be acutely aware of the relationships we foster through the deliberate - or otherwise completely unintentional - design of spaces and places. The notion of an "urban-agrarianism" can inform a new approach to land development within a value system that "cares about all living spaces - residential neighborhoods, schools and playgrounds, parks and landfills, as well as glaciers, forests, wetlands and oceans - the protection of all the places that maintain life" (Wizba, 2003). In Edge City (1991), Joel Garreau investigated the booming growth of sprawling land use across sev-eral cities in North America and offered the following conclusion: "...if we come to see it all as sacred-the land on which we build as sacred as the land we leave un-touched-will we break through to higher ground and reunite our fragmented universe. That is precisely how and where we can help save our world." From fragmentation to integration, the most logical place we begin is at the edge. Bibliography-Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Si lverstein. A Pattern Language : Towns, Bui ldings, Construct ion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Barrs, Robert. Urban Agr icul ture. Vancouver: Universi ty of Brit ish Co lumb ia , 1998. Bar ton, Hugh. Sustainable Commun i t i es : The Potent ia l for Eco-Neighbourhoods. London: Ear thscan, 2000. BC Ministry of Agr icu l ture, Food 6t Fisheries. Guide to Irrigation System Design wi th Rec la imed Water. Vo l . 595.000-1. , 2001. Berry, Wendel l . Another Turn of the Crank : Essays. Washington, DC: Counterpo in t , 1995. The Unsett l ing of Amer ica : Cul ture & Agr icu l ture. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1977. Br i tz , Richard. The Edible Ci ty Resource Manual . Exper imenta l -- ed . Los Al tos, Ca l i f . : W. Kaufmann, 1981. Brown, Lester Russell , and 20 Worldwatch Institute. The Agr icu l tura l Link : How Envi ronmenta l Deter iorat ion could Disrupt Economic Progress. Vo l . 136. Washington: Wor ldwatch Insti tute, 1997. Buckland, Jerry. Ploughing Up the Farm : Neol ibera l ism, Modern Technology and the State of the World 's Farmers. Black Point, N.S.: Fernwood Publ ishing, 2004. Burche l l , Robert W. Sprawl Costs : Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development . Vo l . Approva l . Washington: Island Press, 2003. Chiras, Daniel D., David Wann, and Sustainable Futures Society. Superb ia ! : 31 Ways to Create Sustainable Neighborhoods. Gabr io la Island, BC: New Society Publ ishers, 2003. Corbet t , Judy, and Michael N. Corbet t . Designing Sustainable Communi t ies : Learning f rom Vi l lage Homes. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 2000. Daniels, Thomas L. When City and Country Col l ide : Managing Growth in the Met ropo l i tan Fr inge. Washington, D . C : Island Press, 1999. Del ta (B.C.) Planning Department. Tsawwassen Area P lan. Del ta : The Planning Dept . , 1991. Diamond, Lawrence. Interface between Farmland and Housing. O t tawa , ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion, 1985. Dramstad, Wenche E., James D. Olson, and Richard T. T. Forman. Landscape Ecology Pr incip les in Landscape Arch i tec ture and Land-use Planning. Cambr idge Mass. :$bHarvard Universi ty Graduate School of Design ; Washington, DC; Washington, D . C : Island Press; Amer ican Society of Landscape Arch i tec ts , 1996. Duany, Andres, Scott Lindsay, and Seaton/Land Development Group, et a l . Rethinking Urban Sprawl . Cent re for Urban and Communi ty Studies, University of Toronto distr ibutor, 1991. Forsyth, Ann. Reforming Suburbia : The Planned Communi t ies of Irvine, Co lumb ia , and the Woodlands. Vo l . Approval . Berkeley: Universi ty of Cal i fornia Press, 2002. Francis, Mark, Lisa Cashdan, and Lynn Paxson. Communi ty Open Spaces : Greening Neighborhoods through Communi ty Act ion and Land Conservat ion. Washington, D . C : Island Press, 1984. Francis, Mark. Urban Open Space : Designing for User Needs. Vol . 3. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003. Vi l lage Homes : A Communi ty by Design. Vol . 1. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003. Gar reau, J o e l . Edge Ci ty : Life on the New Frontier. 1st ed . New York: Doubleday, 1991. Gi r l ing , Cynthia L., and Kenneth I. Helphand. Yard, Street , Park : The Design of Suburban Open Space. New York: J . Wiley, 1994. Gi r l ing , Cynthia L. Green Neighborhoods: Planning and Design Guidel ines for Air, Water and Urban Forest Quality. Eugene, Or.: University of Oregon, Center for Housing Innovation, 2000. Gurr, G . M . , Wrat ten, S .D. , Luna, J . M . "Mul t i -Funct ion Agr icul tura l Biodiversi ty: Pest Management and Other Benef i ts . " Basic and Appl ied Ecology 4.2 (2003): 107-16. Ha l l , Peter Geoffrey, and Col in Ward. Sociable Cit ies : The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard . Chichester, West Sussex, England ; New York: J . Wiley, 1998. Ha lwe i l , Br ian, Thomas Prugh, and Worldwatch Institute. Home Grown : The Case for Local Food in a G loba l Market . Vo l . 163. Washington, DC: Wor ldwatch Institute, 2002. Hayden, Dolores. Bui ld ing Suburbia : Green Fields and Urban Growth , 1820-2000. 1st e d . New York: Pantheon Books, 2003. Heinberg, R ichard. Powerdown : Options and Act ions for a Post-Carbon Wor ld . Gabr io la , B .C . : New Society Publ ishers, 2004. Hiemstra, Ha l , and Nancy Bushwick. Plowing the Urban Fringe : An Assessment of A l te rnat ive Approaches to Farmland Preservat ion. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Flor ida At lant ic Universi ty / F lor ida Internat ional University, Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, 1989. Hofmann, N. , F i loso, G . , Schof ie ld, M. The Loss of Dependable Agr icu l tura l Land in Canada . Vo l . 6 No. 1 ed . Vo l . 21 -006-XIE. Stat ist ics Canada, 2005. Holmgren, David. Permacul ture : Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainabi l i ty. Hepburn, V i c : Holmgren Design Services, 2002. 110 Howard, Ebenezer, and Freder ic James Osborn. Garden Cit ies of to-Morrow. Vo l . MIT 23. Cambr idge, Mass. : M.l.T. Press, 1965. Imhoff, Dan, and Roberto Carra . Farming wi th the Wi ld : Enhancing Biodiversi ty on Farms and Ranches. 1st e d . Healdburg, CA; San Francisco, Cal i f . : Watershed Med ia ; Sierra C lub , 2003. Jackson, Dana L , and Laura L. Jackson. The Farm as Natural Habi tat : Reconnect ing Food Systems w i th Ecosystems. Washington, D . C : Island Press, 2002. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Li fe of Great Amer ican Ci t ies. New York: Random House, 1961. K imbre l l , Andrew. The Fatal Harvest R e a d e r : The Tragedy of Industrial Agr icu l ture. Washington: Publ ished by the Foundat ion for Deep Ecology in col laborat ion wi th Island Press, 2002. Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere : The Rise and Decl ine of Amer ica 's Man-made Landscape. New York: Simon 6t Schuster, 1993. Langdon, Phi l ip. A Bet ter Place to Live : Reshaping the Amer ican Suburb. Amherst : Universi ty of Massachuset ts, 1994. Leopo ld , A ldo. A Sand County A lmanac, and Sketches here and there. New York: Oxford Universi ty Press, 1949. Mander, J . , ed . The Case Against the Globa l Economy. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1998. Marsh, Wi l l iam M. Landscape Planning : Environmental Appl icat ions. 3rd ed . New York: Wi ley, 1998. Matson, P. A . , Parton, W. J . , Power, A. G . and Swif t , M. J . "Agr icu l tu ra l Intensif ication and Ecosystem Proper t ies . " Science 227.5323 (1997): 504-9. McHarg, Ian L., and 20 Amer ican Museum of Natural History. Design w i th Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Publ ished for the Amer ican Museum of Natural History by Doub leday /Natura l History Press, 1971. Mol l ison, B. C , and Reny Mia Slay. Introduction to Permacul ture. 2nd e d . Tyalgum, Aust ra l ia : Tagari Publ icat ions, 1994. Mol l ison, B. C. Permacul ture : A Pract ica l Guide for a Substainable Future . Washington, D . C : Island Press, 1990. Mount All ison University. Rural and Small Town Research and Studies Programme, and Ron Corbet t . Protect ing our Common Future : Conf l ict Resolution wi th in the Farming Community. Sackv i l le , NB: Rural and Smal l Town Research and Studies Programme, Mount Al l ison University, 1989. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. Placing Nature : Cul ture and Landscape Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997. O 'Meara , Molly, Jane A. Peterson, and Wor ldwatch Institute. Ci ty Limits : Put t ing the Brakes on Sprawl . Vo l . 156. Washington, D . C : Wor ldwatch Institute, 2001. Orr, David W. The Nature of Design : Ecology, Cul ture, and Human Intent ion. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Resource Management Branch, BC Ministry of Agr icul ture, Food and Fisher ies. Separat ing Agr icu l tura l and Urban Land Uses: An Investigation of the Effect iveness of Landscaped Buf fers. , 2001. Revised Statutes of Brit ish Co lumbia . Farm Pract ices Protect ion ("Right to Farm") Ac t . Vo l . CH 131. , 1996. Ritzer, George. Sociological Beginnings : On the Origins of Key Ideas in Sociology. New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1994. SAGE (Sustainable Agr icul ture Educat ion). "Farmer 's Market Resource K i t . " 2005. <h t tp : / /www.sagecen te r .o rg / index.htm>. Smi th , Barry. Personal communica t ion . June 23, 2006. Solomon, Barbara Stauffacher. Green Arch i tecture and the Agrarian Garden . New York: R izzo l i , 1988. Spitzer, Theodore Morrow, et a l . Publ ic Markets and Communi ty Rev i ta l iza t ion. Washington, D . C ; New York, N.Y.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute; Project for Publ ic Spaces, 1995. Swaff ie ld, Simon R. Theory in Landscape Archi tecture : A Reader. Ph i lade lph ia : Universi ty of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. The Countryside Agency. The Countryside in and Around Towns: A Vision for Connect ing Town and Country in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development. Vol . C A 2 0 7 . , 2005. March 12, 2005 <ht tp : / /www.count rys ide .gov .uk / Pub l ica t ions /ar t i c les / index.asp>. Uni ted Way of the Lower Main land. "De l ta Communi ty Snapshot . " 2003. < h t t p : / /www.uw lm .ca / Support+to+Agencies/Research/defaul t .htm>. V i l j oen , Andre, Katr in Bohn, and J . Howe. Continuous Product ive Urban Landscapes : Designing Urban Agr icul ture for Sustainable Ci t ies . Vol . Approva l . Oxford ; Bur l ington, MA: Arch i tec tura l Press, 2003. W.E. Rees, and M. Wackernagel . "Urban Ecological Footpr ints: Why Ci t ies Cannot be Sustainable and Why they are a Key to Sustainabi l i ty ." Environmental Impact Assess Review. 16 (1996): 223-48. Wiens, John A . , and Michael R. Moss. Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Vo l . F i rm. Cambr idge ; New York: Cambr idge Universi ty Press, 1023. Wi rzba , Norman. The Essential Agrar ian Reader : The Future of Cu l tu re . Community, and the Land . Lex ington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003. Appendix 1: Research 8t Design Process HYPOTHESIS Urbanizat ion is eat ing our foodshed. This condition is manifest in a dysfunctional urban-agricultural edge conidtion. characterized by compromised social, cnvironcmtai and economic function, general placelessness and land-use conflict. values mutually current policy Deliberate design of a more robust urban-rural edge, based on a 21st century interpretation of agrarian values, can reintegrate city and country, stop urban sprawl, and protect the natural systems that sustain us. Beyond mitigation, design has the ability to take advantage of the myriad opportunities presented by dynamic edge conditions. Critique of present-day policy and resultant conditions of the urban-agricultural edge. Alternative: principles and approaches to land use planning and design from the perspectives of agricultural values, conservation values and landscape design. PROGRAM ORDER Site program development based on integration. integration. SITE ORDER Site analysis based on synthesis of natural and cultural drivers. 113 Appendix 2: Soil Classes 6t Agriculture Capability (www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr/ag_cap_details.htm): LAND CAPABILITY CLASSES FOR MINERAL SOILS The seven land.capabi l i ty classes for mineral soils are def ined and descr ibed as fo l lows: CLASS 1 LAND IN THIS CLASS EITHER HAS NO OR ONLY VERY SLIGHT LIMITATIONS THAT RESTRICT ITS USE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF COMMON AGRICULTURAL CROPS. Land in Class 1 is level or nearly leve l . The soils are deep, we l l to imper fec t l y dra ined under natura l condi t ions, or have good art i f ic ia l water table cont ro l , and hold moisture w e l l . They can be managed and cropped wi thout diff iculty. Product iv i ty is easi ly maintained for a wide range of f ie ld crops. CLASS 2 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS MINOR LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE GOOD ONGOING MANAGEMENT PRACTISES OR SLIGHTLY RESTRICT THE RANGE OF CROPS, OR BOTH. Land in class 2 has l imitat ions which const i tute a continuous minor management problem or may cause lower crop yields compared to Class 1 land but which does not pose a threat of crop loss under good man-agement. The soils in Class 2 are deep , hold moisture we l l and can be managed and cropped wi th l i t t le diff iculty. -CLASS 3 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE MODERATELY INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTISES OR MODERATELY RESTRICT THE RANGE OF CROPS, OR BOTH. The l imitat ions are more severe than for Class 2 land and management pract ises are more di f f icul t to apply and mainta in. The l imitat ions may restr ict the choice of sui table crops or af fect one or more of the fol lowing pract ises: t iming and ease of t i l lage, plant ing and harvest ing, and methods of soi l conservat ion. CLASS 4 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTISES OR SEVERELY RE-STRICT THE RANGE OF CROPS, OR BOTH. Land in Class 4 has l imi tat ions which make it sui table for only a few crops, or the y ie ld for a wide range of crops is low, or the risk of crop fai lure is high, or soil condi t ions are such that spec ia l deve lopment and management practises are requi red. The l imitat ions may seriously af fect one or more of the fo l lowing pract ises: t iming and ease of t i l lage, plant ing and harvesting, and methods of soil conservat ion. CLASS 5 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS LIMITATIONS THAT RESTRICT ITS CAPABILITY TO PRODUCING PERENNIAL FORAGE CROPS OR OTHER SPECIALLY ADAPTED CROPS. Land in Class 5 is general ly l imi ted to the product ion of perennia l crops or other specia l ly adapted crops. Product ivi ty of these suited crops may be high. Class 5 lands can be cu l t i va ted and some may be used for cul t ivated f ield crops provided unusually intensive management is employed and /o r the crop is par t icu lar- 1.14 ly adapted to the condit ions pecul iar to these lands. Cul t ivated f ie ld crops may be grown on some Class 5 land where adverse c l imate is the main l im i ta t ion , but crop fa i lure can be expec ted under average condi -tions. Note that in areas which are c l imat ica l ly sui table for growing t ree frui ts and grapes the l imi tat ions of stoniness and /o r topography on some Class 5 lands are not signif icant l imi ta t ions to these crops. CLASS 6 LAND IN THIS CLASS IS NONARABLE BUT IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING NATIVE AND OR UNCULTIVATED PEREN-NIAL FORAGE CROPS. Land in Class 6 provides sustained natural grazing for domest ic l ivestock and is not arable in its present condi t ion. Land is p laced in this class because of severe c l ima te , or the terra in is unsui table for cu l t iva-tion or use of farm machinery, or the soils do not respond to intensive improvement pract ises. Some unim-proved Class 6 lands can be improved by draining and /o r d ik ing. CLASS 7 LAND IN THIS CLASS HAS NO CAPAPBILITY FOR ARABLE OR SUSTAINED NATURAL GRAZING. Al l classif ied areas not inc luded in Classes 1 to 6 inclusive are p laced in this c lass. Class 7 land may have l imitat ions equivalent to Class 6 land but they do not provide natural sustained grazing by domest ic l ive-stock due to c l imate and result ing unsuitable natural vegetat ion. Also inc luded are rock land, other nonsoi l areas, and smal l water-bodies not shown on maps. Some unimproved Class 7 land can be improved by draining or diking. 1 1 5 Appendix 3: Farm Practices Protection ("Right to Farm") Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 131 Part 1 - Definit ions Definit ions 1 In this Ac t : " b o a r d " means the Provincial board under the Natural Products Market ing (BC) Ac t ; " comp la i nan t " means a person who under sect ion 3 appl ies for a determinat ion referred to in that sec t ion ; "C rown l a n d " means land, whether or not it is covered by water, or an interest in land, vested in the government ; " f a rm business" means a business in which one or more farm operat ions are conduc ted , and inc ludes a farm educat ion or farm research inst i tut ion to the extent that the inst i tut ion conducts one or more farm operat ions; " f a rm ope ra t i on " means any of the fo l lowing act iv i t ies involved in carrying on a farm business: (a) growing, producing, raising or keeping animals or plants, including mushrooms, or the pr imary products of those plants or animals; (b) c lear ing, dra in ing, i rr igat ing or cul t ivat ing land; (c) using farm machinery, equ ipment , devices, mater ia ls and structures; (d) applying fer t i l i zers , manure, pest icides and biological contro l agents, inc luding by ground and aer ia l spraying; (e) conduct ing any other agr icul tural act iv i ty on , in or over agr icul tura l land ; and includes (f) intensively cu l t ivat ing in plantat ions, any (i) special ty wood crops, or (ii) special ty fibre crops prescr ibed by the minister ; (g) conduct ing turf product ion (i) outside of an agr icul tural land reserve, or (ii) in an agr icul tura l land reserve wi th the approval under the Agr icu l tura l Land Commiss ion Act of the Provincial Agr icu l tura l Land Commission; (h) aquacul ture as defined in the Fisheries Act if carr ied on by a person l i censed, under Part 3 of that Ac t , to car ry on the business of aquacul ture ; (i) raising or keeping game, wi th in the meaning of the Game Farm Act , by a person l icensed to do so under that Ac t ; (j) raising or keeping fur bearing animals, wi th in the meaning of the Fur Farm Act , by a person l icensed to do so under that Act ; (k) processing or d i rect market ing by a farmer of one or both of (i) the products of a farm owned or operated by the farmer, and (ii) wi th in l imits prescr ibed by the minister, products not of that f a rm, to the extent that the processing or market ing of those products is conducted on the farmer 's fa rm; but does not inc lude (I) an activity, other than grazing or hay cut t ing, if the act iv i ty const i tutes a forest p rac t ice as def ined in the Forest and Range Pract ices Ac t ; (m) breeding pets or operat ing a kennel ; (n) growing, producing, raising or keeping exot ic animals, except types of exot ic animals prescr ibed by the minister ; " f a r m e r " means the owner or operator of a farm business; " l and use regu la t ion" means an enactment that restr icts or prescribes the use to which land or premises may be put or the nature of business or act iv i t ies that may be conducted on land or premises, but does not inc lude the fo l lowing: (a) a bylaw under the fo l lowing provisions of the Communi ty Char ter : section 8 (3) (d) [ f i recrackers, f ireworks and explosives]; section 8 (3) (e) [weapons other than f i rearms]; section 8 (3) (h) [nuisances, disturbances and other si tuat ions]; section 8 (3) (k) [animals]; section 8 (5) [f irearms]; (b) a bylaw under the fo l lowing provisions of the Local Government Ac t : section 703 [animal contro l author i ty ] ; section 724 [noise contro l ] ; section 725 [nuisances and disturbances] ; section 728 [f ireworks]. "no rma l farm p rac t i ce " means a pract ice that is conducted by a farm business in a manner consistent w i th (a) proper and accepted customs and standards as establ ished and fo l lowed by s imi lar fa rm businesses under s imi lar c i rcumstances, and (b) any standards prescr ibed by the Lieutenant Governor in Counc i l , and includes a pract ice that makes use of innovat ive technology in a manner consistent w i th proper advanced farm management pract ices and wi th any standards prescr ibed under paragraph (b). Part 2 - Right to Farm Normal farm pract ices protected 2 (1) If each of the requirements of subsect ion (2) is fu l f i l led in relat ion to a farm operat ion conduc ted as part of a fa rm business, (a) the farmer is not l iable in nuisance to any person for any odour, noise, dust or other d is turbance result ing f rom the fa rm operat ion, and (b) the farmer must not be prevented by in junct ion or other order of a cour t f rom conduct ing that farm operat ion. (2) The requirements refer red to in subsect ion (1) are that the farm operat ion must (a) be conducted in accordance wi th normal farm pract ices, (b) be conducted on , in or over land (i) that is in an agr icul tural land reserve, (ii) on wh ich , under the Local Government Ac t , farm use is a l l owed , (iii) as permi t ted by a val id and subsisting l i cence, issued to that person under the Fisheries Ac t , for aquacul ture, or (iv) that is Crown land designated as a farming area under subsect ion (2.1), and (c) not be conducted in contravent ion of the Health Act , Integrated Pest Management Ac t , Envi ronmenta l Management Ac t , the regulations under those Acts or any land use regulat ion. (2.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Counci l may designate Crown land as a farming area for the purposes of subsect ion (2) (b) (iv). (3) The fo l lowing apply if each of the requirements of subsection (2), except subsect ion (2) (b) (i i), is fu l f i l led in re lat ion to a farm operat ion conducted as part of a farm business: (a) despi te sect ion 260 (3) [bylaw contraventions] of the Communi ty Charter, a fa rmer does not cont ravene a by law made under the fo l lowing provisions of the Communi ty Charter only by conduct ing that farm opera t ion : sect ion 8 (3) (d) [ f i recrackers, f ireworks and explosives]; sect ion 8 (3) (e) [weapons other than f i rearms]; sect ion 8 (3) (h) [nuisances, disturbances and other s i tuat ions]; sect ion 8 (3) (k) [animals]; sect ion 8 (5) [f irearms]; (b) despi te sect ion 267 of the Local Government Ac t , a farmer does not cont ravene a bylaw made under the fo l lowing provisions of the Local Government Act only by conduct ing that farm opera t ion : section 703 [animal contro l author i ty] ; sect ion 724 [noise contro l ] ; sect ion 725 [nuisances and disturbances] ; sect ion 728 [f ireworks]; (c) despi te sect ion 274 [actions by municipal i ty] of the Communi ty Char ter and sect ion 281 [enforcement by regional distr ict] of the Local Government Act , the farmer must not be prevented by in junct ion or other order of a court f rom conduct ing that farm operat ion. Compla in ts to Farm Pract ices Board 3 (1) If a person is aggrieved by any odour, noise, dust or other disturbance result ing f rom a farm operat ion conduc ted as part of a farm business, the person may apply in wr i t ing to the board for a determinat ion as to whether the odour, noise, dust or other d isturbance results f rom a normal farm pract ice. (2) Every appl icat ion under subsection (1) must (a) conta in a s tatement of the nature of the compla in t , the name and address of the person making the app l ica t ion , the name and address of the farmer and the locat ion of the fa rm, (b) be in a form acceptab le to the chair of board, and (c) be accompanied by the fee prescr ibed by the Lieutenant Governor in Counc i l . Set t lement of complaints 4 In the interest of reaching a set t lement of a complaint that is the subject of an appl icat ion under sect ion 3 (1), the chair of the board , at any t ime before a panel of the board has decided the app l i ca t ion , may inqui re into matters re levant to the compla in t , and, as part of that inquiry, may (a) obta in the adv ice of persons who are knowledgeable about normal fa rm pract ices, and (b) consul t wi th the farmer ident i f ied in the appl icat ion and the compla inant . Establ ishing panels to hear complaints 5 Af ter receipt of an appl icat ion that meets the requirements of sect ion 3, the chair of the board , if sat isf ied that any consul tat ions under sect ion 4 have been terminated wi thout achieving a set t lement of the compla in t , or that se t t lement is unlikely, must (a) establ ish a panel of the board to hear the compla in t , and (b) appoint 3 members of the board to the panel . Hearing of complaints 6 (1) The panel establ ished to hear an appl icat ion must hold a hearing and must (a) dismiss the compla in t if the panel is of the opinion that the odour, noise, dust or other d is turbance results f rom a normal farm pract ice , or (b) order the farmer to cease the pract ice that causes the odour, noise, dust or other d is turbance if it is not a normal farm prac t ice , or to modify the pract ice in the manner set out in the order, to be consistent wi th normal farm pract ice. (2) The chair of the board , af ter giving the complainant an opportuni ty to be heard , may refuse to refer an appl icat ion to a panel for the purpose of a hear ing, or, af ter a hearing has begun, the panel to which an app l ica t ion has been refer red may refuse to cont inue the hearing or to make a decis ion if, in the opinion of the chair of the board or the panel , as the case may be, (a) the subject mat ter of the appl icat ion is t r iv ia l , (b) the appl icat ion is fr ivolous or vexatious or is not made in good fa i th , or (c) the compla inant does not have a suff icient personal interest in the subject mat te r of the app l ica t ion . (3) The chair of the board must give wr i t ten reasons for a decis ion under subsect ion (2) refusing to refer an appl icat ion to a pane l . (4) A panel must give wr i t ten reasons for a decision under subsect ion (1) or (2). (5) Wr i t ten not ice of the dec is ion, under this sect ion, of the chair of the board or a pane l , accompan ied by the wr i t ten reasons for the decis ion, must be del ivered to the complainant and the farmer a f fec ted by the dec is ion . Conduct of hearings 7 (1) Subject to any regulat ions under sect ion 12 (2) ©, the board may determine the pract ices and procedures to be fo l lowed for the purposes of hearings required under sect ion 6. (2) A hear ing is open to the publ ic and may be conducted in an in formal manner. (3) The chai r of the board or a panel may receive or accept ev idence whether or not it would be admissib le in a court of law. (4) If a member of a panel is absent or unable to at tend a hear ing, the member is disqual i f ied f rom cont inuing to par t ic ipate in the hear ing, and the member or members remaining present may exerc ise and per form al l the ju r i sd ic t ion , powers and dut ies of the panel . (5) Despite subsection (2), a panel of the board may exclude the publ ic f rom a hearing for the purpose of rece iv ing ev idence if the panel considers that the desirabi l i ty of avoiding disclosure of the ev idence in order to protect the interest of any person, or to protect the publ ic interest , outweighs the desirabi l i ty of publ ic d isc losure. Appea l 8 (1) Wi th in 60 days af ter receiv ing wr i t ten not ice, in accordance wi th sect ion 6 (5), of a decis ion of the chair or a panel of the board made under sect ion 6, the complainant or farmer af fected by the decis ion may appeal the decis ion to the Supreme Court on a quest ion of law or jur isd ic t ion. (2) An appea l f rom a decis ion of the Supreme Court l ies to the Court of Appea l w i th leave of a jus t ice of the Court of Appea l . Part 3 - Board Repealed 9 [Repealed 2003-7-21.] Staff 10(1) and (2) [Repealed 2003-7-22.] (3) In accordance with any regulations under sect ion 12 (2) (d), the board may engage or retain special is ts and consul tants that the board , after taking into account the avai labi l i ty of any services that may be provided to the board under subsect ion (1), considers necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the board , and the board may de termine their remunera t ion . (4) The Publ ic Service Ac t does not apply to the engagement, retent ion or remunerat ion of special ists and consul tants engaged or retained under subsect ion (3). Responsibi l i t ies of board 11(1) The board , the chair of the board or a panel of the board may exerc ise the powers and per form the dut ies that are confer red or imposed on it by or under this Act . (2) On the board's own in i t ia t ive or at the request of a munic ipal i ty or regional d is t r ic t , or of a trust counc i l under the Islands Trust Ac t , the board may study, report on , and make recommendat ions concern ing, any mat ter re la ted to fa rm pract ices. (3) The board must provide the minister wi th any informat ion requested by the minister regarding the pol ic ies and procedures of the board. (4) The minister may order the board to study any mat ter re lated to farm pract ices and the board must conduct the study and report its findings and recommendat ions to the minister. (5) In carry ing out their powers and duties under this Ac t , the board members have the powers, pr iv i leges and protect ions of a commiss ioner under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act . Part 4 - Regulations Power to make regulations 12 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Counci l may make regulations referred to in sect ion 41 of the Interpretat ion Ac t . (2) Wi thout l imi t ing the general i ty of subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Counc i l may make regulat ions as fo l lows: (a) prescribing fees payable in respect of an appl icat ion made under sect ion 3; (b) respect ing standards for the purpose of the defini t ion of "normal farm p rac t i ce " ; (c) governing pract ices and procedures for (i) hearings before a panel of the board, and (ii) inquir ies and consultat ions respect ing complaints or other mat ters before the board, the chair of the board or a panel of the board; (d) for the purpose of sect ion 10 (3), respect ing the engagement or retent ion of special ists and consul tants by the board ; (e) prescribing the number of members that const i tutes a quorum at any meet ing of the board. (3) The minister may make regulations prescribing one or more of the fo l lowing: (a) special ty wood crops or special ty f ibre crops for the purpose of paragraph (f) of the def in i t ion of " f a ope ra t i on " ; (b) l imits referred to in paragraph (k) of the def ini t ion of " fa rm ope ra t i on " ; (c) except ions for the purpose of paragraph (n) of the defini t ion of " f a rm ope ra t i on " . Copyr ight © 2005: Queen's Printer, V ic to r ia , Brit ish Co lumbia , Canada Appendix 4: Farming with the Wild Best Management Practices: The fo l lowing list was compi led to of fer general guidel ines and observations about the farming wi th the w i ld movement . Rather than at tempt ing to establ ish a rigid templa te that landowners could fo l low to design a w i ld fa rm, per se, inc luded be low are general pr inciples that can help to f rame the broader concept of establ ishing agr icu l tura l systems that are compat ib le w i th healthy ecosystems. This may mean rethinking old boundaries, str iving to make new connect ions, and even rethinking some of the very foundations of agricul ture and its place in the eco log ica l community. Every fa rm, and every farming region, w i l l find its own solutions. 1. Farming with the wi ld is dependent upon p lace. A wi ld farm exhibi ts a sense of beauty and uniqueness of p lace . On arable lands, farm systems at tempt to mimic the surrounding natural systems, such as pasture operat ions in grasslands and forest- type cropping in forested areas. Marginal ly product ive lands are restored to the w i l d , w i th an emphasis on nat ive habi tat . 2. A t tempts are made to l imit long-term negative impacts or tendencies. Through p lace adapted strategies, measures are taken to l imit soil erosion, protect nat ive habitat , and avoid dep le t ion of local resources through excessive water ing, overgrazing, or the use of of f - farm synthet ic inputs. Farm and ranch operat ions revolve around cycles of act iv i ty and rest, wi th working areas that are f requent ly rotated and a l lowed to recover. 3. The presence of w i ld l i fe on the farm is encouraged. At their best, farms and ranches funct ion as buffers, corr idors, and even key habitat for cer ta in species. By l imi t ing product ive areas only to what is necessary, by respect ing seasonal nesting and brooding cyc les , by opt imiz ing wi ld habi tat , agr icu l tura l operat ions can accommodate resident and migratory wi ld l i fe . Outside c i t i zen moni tor ing groups can provide essent ia l assistance and skil ls in mapping, observing, and document ing on-farm biodiversity. 4. Farms should be v iewed wi th in the broader context of adjoining lands and u l t imate ly connected to the larger landscape. Farms working in isolat ion may not be enough to restore fu l ly funct ion ing ecosystems. Connect ing habi tat patches and corr idors wi th in farming regions is an essent ial goa l . 5. Agr icu l tura l operat ions should be v iewed within the context of pre-set t lement condi t ions. Developing p lace-appropr ia te agr icul tural systems that work wi th rather than against Nature requires an understanding of nat ive species and local ecosystem processes prior to European set t lement and agr icu l ture. Basel ine studies, remnants and fragments of nat ive habi tat , and other specif ic l inkages can provide invaluable inputs for restor ing wi ld habitats in farming areas. 6. Farming with the wi ld moves away f rom an eradicat ion eth ic . Rather than a t tempt ing to e l iminate undesirable species in order to conduct agr icul ture, landowners work in partnership w i th nat ive species. Non- lethal contro ls are favored to prevent predator losses. Native habitat corr idors are establ ished to reduce weed pressures or a t t rac t pol l inators and benef ic ia l insects. Other disturbance regimes, such as f looding or f i re, are somet imes incorporated into the agr icul tural operat ion. 7. Farming with the wi ld begins wi th conservat ion-minded communi t ies. The most e f fec t i ve and impressive examples of farming with the wi ld have begun wi th communi t ies talk ing together in search of common solut ions to common problems. Inclusive meetings, farm tours, and other gatherings lead to the format ion of management teams, the establ ishment of best pract ices and science-based monitor ing procedures, and the commi tment to a bet ter qual i ty of l i fe. 8. Farming with the wi ld represents a leading-edge consciousness. Farming wi th the w i ld requires ex t reme ded ica t ion , courage, and a l t ru ism. Embracing rather than vi l i fy ing endangered species and rel inquishing a sense of h is tor ical agr icul tural ent i t lement represent acts of t rue leadership in society that require both an open heart and an open mind. 9. Farming with the wi ld is not s tat ic , but a cont inual work in progress. Restoring w i l d habi tats requires an ongoing in terp lay between the landscape, fa rm, and the local community. The reestabl ishment of nat ive plantings requires an ac t ive farming approach at least in the short t e rm , to be adapted and evolved as t ime passes. A w i ld fa rm is engaged in a cont inual ef fort to develop ever more profound ways to become " n a t u r a l i z e d . " 10. Farming with the wi ld requires an interdiscip l inary approach. Successes at the farming region leve l w i l l require the col laborat ion between sustainable agr icul ture pract i t ioners, conservat ion biologists, restorat ionists, and others. Research and on-the-ground models are urgently needed to exp lore the values and possibi l i t ies for integrat ing wi ld habitats in product ion areas. 11. Consumers and c i t izens have key roles to play in determining the food sys tem. Our food choices ref lect our values and d i rect ly impact our visions and expectat ions for agricul ture and the land. Everyday purchases can be used to bring land stewardship issues to the home, restaurant, workp lace, and con ference center. This can inc lude support ing producers for protect ing biodiversi ty as we l l as act ively avoiding products that threaten nat ive species or habi tat . Voting power, part icular ly toward inf luencing the outcome of Farm Bi l l conservat ion and agr icu l tura l subsidy pol ic ies, has a c r i t i ca l bearing on pr ivate land use in the Uni ted States. 12. We have the resources to leave a legacy of conservat ion-based agr icu l ture. There are many v iable a l ternat ives to the present model of industr ia l monocul ture which dominates wor ld food and f iber product ion at increasing costs 126 to the natural wor ld . Whi le it w i l l not be easy in any way, and this occurs at a t ime when many farmers, ranchers, and others are struggling to survive economical ly in rural communi t ies , we st i l l have the chance to devote the resources and establ ish the systems necessary to develop an agr icul ture that is compat ib le w i th w i ld Nature. Our fu ture, and the future of biodiversity, depends on our abi l i ty to fundamenta l ly change the way we perce ive agr icul ture and its p lace in the ecological community. Excerpted f rom Farming with the Wild: Enhancing Biodiversity on Farms and Ranches, by Daniel Imhoff, A Watershed Media Book publ ished by Sierra Club Books Appendix 5: Agricultural Production & Residential Density Producitve Capacity vs. Residential Density F a r m sca le (acres) Income (gross) p e r a c r e 170 $40,000 p r o d u c t i o n (# d . u . / a c r e ) * 25 f a r m i n c o m e $6,800,000 t o ta l d . u . s u p p l y 4250 * assuming p roduc t i on dur ing growing s e a s o n / 2 5 fam i l i es per a c r e lot s i z e 4000 lots p e r b lock 24 b l o c k s i z e 96000 s q . f t . p e r a c r e 43560 b l o c k a c r e a g e 2.203856749 b l o c k s i z e (acres) 2.2 2.2 2.2 t o t a l # b l o c k s 14.5 17 0.5 32 d e n s i t y t y p e s . f . d . m .d .g .o . h .d . l . r . d e n s i t y ( d . u . / a c r e ) 20 30 80 d . u . 638 1122 88 1 8 4 8 p o p u l a t i o n 1595 2805 220 4 6 2 0 128 Appendix 6: Irrigation and Detention Storage Requirements Irrigation Requirements* available water average seaonal storage capacity availability coefficient maximum soil water irrigation requirement application irrigation rooting depth (m) (AWSC) (mm/m) (%) deficit (mm) (mm) efficiency (%) requirement (mm) 0.45 175 40 31.5 210 95 .221.0526316 normal irrigation period (days) 140 'calculations do not take into account leaching requirements (to control soil salinization) based on electrical conductivity of irrigation water storage required per hectare plot (cu.m.) = (2){10,000)(.221) 4420 cu m 156091 cuft 3.58335629 acft 0.597226048 surface area (acres) @ 6ft. Avg depth... per hectare of productive land Gallons H20 gallons per acre-foot acre-feet H20 cubic meters Can Bio Resources report: water defecit for Spetifore lands during growing season (I.e. irrigation requirement) 51.000,000 325851.43 156.5130465 200000 Irrigation pond requirements number ponds 8 average depth (based on parabolic bottom profile) 2 surface area required (m2) 5525 8 irigation ponds <S> approx. 2 acres each. 'calculations based on the Guide to Irrigation System Design with Reclaimed Water information factsheet provided by the BC Ministry of Agriculture Food 6: Fisheries (order no. 595.00-1, February 2001 - Agdex: 753) 129 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0058498/manifest

Comment

Related Items