Are there any downsides? The company has been around for a while, and they’re still going, so why isn’t this type of farming done everywhere? It could significantly strengthen food security, and would make fresh food more easily available.
It requires building the structure under the greenhouse specifically to support the weight of the greenhouses themselves, plus all the plants, equipment, substrate, and water, plus workers.
Your average existing large-footprint building simply isn’t built to hold that weight - maybe a couple feet of snow - and would need to be heavily remodeled to accommodate it. It also adds a lot to the cost of building new structures, so it’s a sizable investment in either case.
Idk if you’d call that a downside, but that’s why this sort of thing isn’t everywhere.
Greenhouses are not that heavy. Snow load on flat roof can be heavy AF, and Montreal code would need to handle more than 2 or 6 feet. Greenhouses on top of building can also use outside building supports.
That is a very good point from the technical aspect of pulling it off.
Sounds to me like bylaws need to be put in place for new development of large area buildings to be structurally sound enough to support these greenhouses, solar panels, and whatever else the future will require to make society better.
Builders should have enough incentive to do this without new bylaws needing to force them to.
Have you seen the state of the development in this country? Builders would replace the walls with cardboard to turn more profits if the law would let them. They definitely need more incentive.
If people lose the fear of starvation to motivate their contributions to the capitalism machine, then what??? How dare you try to destabilize our massive profits with something as heinous as accessible food!!! /s
Are there any downsides? The company has been around for a while, and they’re still going, so why isn’t this type of farming done everywhere? It could significantly strengthen food security, and would make fresh food more easily available.
It requires building the structure under the greenhouse specifically to support the weight of the greenhouses themselves, plus all the plants, equipment, substrate, and water, plus workers.
Your average existing large-footprint building simply isn’t built to hold that weight - maybe a couple feet of snow - and would need to be heavily remodeled to accommodate it. It also adds a lot to the cost of building new structures, so it’s a sizable investment in either case.
Idk if you’d call that a downside, but that’s why this sort of thing isn’t everywhere.
Greenhouses are not that heavy. Snow load on flat roof can be heavy AF, and Montreal code would need to handle more than 2 or 6 feet. Greenhouses on top of building can also use outside building supports.
That is a very good point from the technical aspect of pulling it off.
Sounds to me like bylaws need to be put in place for new development of large area buildings to be structurally sound enough to support these greenhouses, solar panels, and whatever else the future will require to make society better.
Builders should have enough incentive to do this without new bylaws needing to force them to.
Have you seen the state of the development in this country? Builders would replace the walls with cardboard to turn more profits if the law would let them. They definitely need more incentive.
If people lose the fear of starvation to motivate their contributions to the capitalism machine, then what??? How dare you try to destabilize our massive profits with something as heinous as accessible food!!! /s