Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The practicality of regressing heavily urbanized land back into soil aside, I'm all for the idea of this. However, I can't help but think of what would happen if for some reason theoretically industry did start to boom again in Detroit and people started to move back en masse. Otherwise, I think the idea behind this proposition is a good one.
marmac brings ups a good point too. Not all of this vacant land will be arable. I know that in our town we have way too many vacant (and abandoned?) former gas stations. Those will be a mess to clean up. We're going to have to put on our thinking caps and think of some creative "other uses" for these empty spaces.
Simplified version:
Dig up the entire area as deep as necessary to remove all the chemicals, etc.
Haul it all to new highway construction.
Take the topsoil from the new highway to the hole and fill it.
Kinda hard to return parking lots and industrial areas back into farms.
When concrete, tar, or industrial areas are built, the top soil is scraped off and hauled away.
Gravel is hauled in and packed down with heavy equipment to form a solid base for concrete and tar.
Many rural, farm areas have zoning laws in affect to preserve the remaining farmland. Their rationale is that once farmland is turned into concrete or tar it is lost forever.
Once you lose ( scrape away,haul away) topsoil, you have only subsoil left.
Subsoul is not good for raising anything.
True words spoken by a farmer!
That said, I think it's great that they're at least going to try. It's going to be enormously expensive to do this, but they might as well get started. I'd suggest that they replace as much topsoil as possible, return it to native grasses, and fertilize the heck out of it for 5 years - using actual solid manures.
That done, it's possible that it might be able to be turned back into some decent farm ground. They may even want to consider planting orchards.
That done, it's possible that it might be able to be turned back into some decent farm ground. They may even want to consider planting orchards.
gotta be careful on what nastiness might be lurking in the soil, though - I'd be worried fruiting trees are going to suck heavy metals and chemicals up and they will be in the fruit.
Chicago has been reclaiming some brownfield sites for going on 20 years, this kind of work is indeed an enormous undertaking.
gotta be careful on what nastiness might be lurking in the soil, though - I'd be worried fruiting trees are going to suck heavy metals and chemicals up and they will be in the fruit.
Chicago has been reclaiming some brownfield sites for going on 20 years, this kind of work is indeed an enormous undertaking.
That's probably not the threat that some people make it out to be. Any & all produce should be tested, but to assume the worst would be foolhardy.
Several years ago, when I was in Minnesota, there was a massive "clean up" due to underground tanks leaking (for many years) at an old abandoned gas station. What did the EPA do to clean it up? They simply took all the contaminated soil out into the country and spread it onto a farm field.
Obviously there's a difference between corn, soybeans & alfalfa - and apple trees. And there's a difference between old gasoline & diesel residue and - say - lead. But there are already all kinds of chemicals & metals in soil. Just their presence there doesn't mean they'll contaminate anything.
That's probably not the threat that some people make it out to be. Any & all produce should be tested, but to assume the worst would be foolhardy.
Several years ago, when I was in Minnesota, there was a massive "clean up" due to underground tanks leaking (for many years) at an old abandoned gas station. What did the EPA do to clean it up? They simply took all the contaminated soil out into the country and spread it onto a farm field.
Obviously there's a difference between corn, soybeans & alfalfa - and apple trees. And there's a difference between old gasoline & diesel residue and - say - lead. But there are already all kinds of chemicals & metals in soil. Just their presence there doesn't mean they'll contaminate anything.
If you're talking about "cities" in a broad sense, and specifically residential areas, maybe.
But if we're talking about the old midwestern industrial/rust belt cities, and those would seem to be the likely candidates for "returning to the land," I think you need to assume the worst.
I live very close to the Chicago River, and you've got a century of extremely heavy industry which polluted much of the land on either side of it.
Fruit trees and even veggie gardens are not something I would take chances with in many parts of Chicago. There were a lot of plating factories in my area, which were terrible polluters. A few years back we had a developer trying to claim that even though they hadn't done a soil test (that costs about $20) nobody should worry about seepage into water pipes, even though anyone who owns a home in Chicago has seen pipes that have been invaded by tree roots of compromised - I mention this as the more time passes, at least in Chicago, the more formerly heavy-industry land gets rezoned for residential.
We have two 8 x 4 raised beds, as I'd never eat anything that I just planted in the ground on my land - we have Chicago Fire landfill in various spots I uncovered during a patio project, that's pretty concentrated stuff that a soil test might not even pick up if I didn't sample the right area.
^^ Yeah, there are differently zoned areas. Obviously all the soil would need to be tested. But the likelihood of contaminated soil in residential areas is far less than in commercial/industrial. Of course, the likelihood of them turning commercial/industrial areas back into farm ground in pretty low.
I think a lot of what was proposed for Detroit was to let some areas return to woods and forests, not just farms. They would still require cleanup however. I worked at a Navy research facility that was built beginning just before WWII. There was an old junk yard area there where some stuff sat and leaked toxins into the soil. About ten years ago there was a major cleanup with all the old junk moved out along with roughly 4 feet of soil. The soil was replaced and there are several test well pipes around the sites for monitoring. They planted grass and sapling trees over the area and now it is a pretty normal looking woods. You wouldn't know its past from looking at it.
Nature will reclaim it eventually, might as well speed up the process, make it a more pleasant place and clean up abandoned (and crime supporting) areas.
^^ Yeah, there are differently zoned areas. Obviously all the soil would need to be tested. But the likelihood of contaminated soil in residential areas is far less than in commercial/industrial. Of course, the likelihood of them turning commercial/industrial areas back into farm ground in pretty low.
right, I think what I remember reading about Detroit was suggesting not so much big farms but smaller community gardens. we have "farms" on this scale popping up more often now that the housing crisis has led to more abandoned tear-downs/vacant lots:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
