Edyta:As designers, shouldn't we start changing what we learn in college? During architectural education, there is little room left to study the interdependence of cities and villages, let alone methods of farming the land. It seems as if the core of human life is outside our circle of interest.
Carolyn:Of course! When I looked at urban design as an architect, I had the irresistible impression that it was missing something most important - life. I grew up in London, I'm bourgeois, I love being in the city, following its rhythm, but what was always missing from all those spectacular drawings was what made the city so fascinating. Just as at the beginning of my career, I am now anxious to restore this lost element to my designs. We need to remember that as a species we evolved mainly through food culture and sharing. If we go back in time, we can see our ancestors sitting around the campfire, celebrating a successful hunt, eating, drinking and talking. Among other things, the language we use today developed on the way of such encounters. Modern scientists have proven that our body's secreted oxytocin level rises when we eat meals together with other people, making us feel joy. Intuitively, we are all aware of this. If each of us goes back in our memory to moments we recall with great fondness, we will probably see ourselves sitting at the table with family members or friends, celebrating something together. What we miss most is the essence of closeness and the satisfaction derived from the presence of other people. In the past, people had far fewer distractions, which meant they had more time richer in daily experiences and a sense of belonging to the world around them. The city of the time was even an endless bar of interaction. A trip to the city center was not just a search for entertainment. It was an expedition for groceries, information about the world and the latest happenings, and it also gave the satisfaction of hanging out and observing other people. Those historical instincts still linger in us. Teeming with life, colors and smells, the market halls are still among the most impactful places in the city space. They bring residents together in one place, and are like the ancient Athenian stoa. Unfortunately, modernist thinking about the city as a machine for living has tried to sort and organize urban diversity, and industrialized capitalism has echoed this vision, effectively blocking a shift in thinking about urban living. What I like about the subject of food is that, as an issue that is universal and applies to all of us, it is at the same time a concept as diverse as humanity itself. Architecture and urban planning are in great need of this type of design sensibility. I think one of the greatest tragedies of modernism was the application of a single, out-of-context and pathological solution to every problem. I see food as a counterweight to this type of approach. It is a medium through which we learn to respect traditions, appreciate the nuances inherent in given communities and discover the potential inherent in differences. Through buildings we can express respect for local materials, artisans, the local climate and environment.
drawing by Michal Kolodziej
Edyta:What kind of farms do we need in a sitopian city?
Carolyn:There is very little space in the center of the city that can be developed for crops. An area that needs special attention is the urban periphery, where two types of farms can exist. The first is socially supported farms. This model involves urban residents paying a subscription that covers the cost of growing a predetermined amount of food over a specified period of time. The risks inherent in farming the land and raising animals are shared, and the need to compete with dumped supermarket food prices is eliminated. The socially-supported agriculture model also allows those who pay for the cultivation to help on the farm from time to time, thus reducing the cost of the annual subscription. The second is the establishment of allotment gardens in these areas, introduced successfully in urban areas in previous centuries. Depending on the country, they had different ownership systems and relieved the financial burden on households by providing access to fresh food. The drive to popularize such a system pays off economically and socially - contact with nature would certainly benefit the public's mental health. I don't know anyone who doesn't enjoy sitting in the shade of a small hut and watching his carrots grow, while sipping lemonade. I think that these days we need a lot more places that connect people with nature, while being commercial or private places.
Edyta:It's true, the suburban zone is under constant urbanization pressure. What urban policies do we need to protect the current use of these areas?
Carolyn:With the advent of railroads, governments gradually handed over responsibility for feeding society to industry. This seemed like a sensible solution - large plants were more efficient and could compete with the prices of food produced under the traditional system. Today, industry and private companies have taken over virtually the entire food market. Food produced on an industrial scale has never taken into account the costs of ecosystem degradation, soil depletion or landscape destruction. The effects of this are felt everywhere, so changes should be made at every level. At the local scale, it is essential to provide access to land, allowing people to produce food for their own consumption. The allotment garden system present in the UK is an excellent example. One small plot of land is capable of producing a surprisingly large amount of food! It appeared in the 19th century, when the poorest city dwellers were struggling to feed their families. Nowadays, these small plots of land have become the property of representatives of the middle class, and since they are few in number, one has to wait almost a decade to receive them. It is obvious that the government should protect this sensitive space from development, and increase the number of such sites. The areas that emerged in the city with the birth of the garden city idea should also be protected. In London, these places do not produce food, but they are of great value as places of rest and recreation. We should also protect markets and small commercial spaces that sell local food products. A good example of this is Barcelona, which subsidizes such spaces so that local producers can compete on price with large supermarket chains. This also provides additional revenue for the city - tourists love such places and are eager to visit them. We can't expect small subsistence farms on their own, without government support, to be able to compete on price with large agricultural corporations. At present, they have two options: they can sell their products at discounted prices that do not allow them to recoup their production costs, or they can start producing organic food, sold at unearthly high prices. Neither of these is good, so we should start taking into account the real costs of food production, which we are currently overlooking. This also creates an opportunity to reform the tax system and fairly redistribute the wealth contained in the land. It could be the social ownership of land that I am proposing, and the proportional calculation of tax depending on its location, use, and ownership structure. This is a rather complicated and difficult idea to implement, since it means revaluing land. However, I think that such issues should be the basis of discussions at the COP27 summit, among others. We have been talking about energy and the environment for years, but excluding the issue of feeding the public.
Edyta:Thank you for the interview!
interviewed: Edyta Skiba
Drawn by: Michal Kolodziej
