DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultivating the Commons an Assessment of the Potential For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Portland State University PDXScholar Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications Urban Studies and Planning and Presentations 12-2010 Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock Portland State University, [email protected] Jenny Cooper University of California - Berkeley Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac Part of the Social Policy Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation McClintock, N., and Cooper, J. (2010). Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land. Available at www.urbanfood.org. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land by Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography University of California, Berkeley REVISED EDITION – December 2010 ! i Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley October 2009, revised December 2010 In collaboration with: City Slicker Farms HOPE Collaborative Institute for Food & Development Policy (Food First) This project was funded in part by the HOPE Collaborative. City Slicker Farms was the fiscal sponsor. Food First published print copies of the report. Fellowship funding from the Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation, UC Berkeley’s Institute for the Study of Social Change, and Community Forestry & Environmental Research Partnerships also made this project possible. The ideas expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the funding organizations. All text and maps © N. McClintock / J. Cooper. All photos © N. McClintock. All aerial imagery © 2009 TerraMetrics/Google Earth and National Agricultural Imagery Program. Please do not reproduce any element of this report without proper citation. For more information about this project, contact: Nathan McClintock University of California, Berkeley Department of Geography 507 McCone Hall, #4740 Berkeley, CA 94720 Email: [email protected] Website: www.urbanfood.org i Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land ! Acknowledgements We are deeply indebted to everyone who contributed his or her time to this project: Community Advisory Committee: Brahm Ahmadi, People’s Grocery Thanks, also, to members of the HOPE Collaborative’s Food Leon Davis, Saint Vincent de Paul of Alameda Co. Systems Action Team (and the Production Group, in Alisa Dodge, HOPE Collaborative particular) and Built Environment Action Team for sharing Barbara Finnin, City Slicker Farms their visions of a sustainable food system for Oakland and for Alethea Harper, Oakland Food Policy Council their input into the final draft. Thanks to Alisa Dodge for her Jason Harvey, Oakland Food Connection editorial help. The preliminary analysis of private land would Hank Herrera, HOPE Collaborative have been impossible without Snehee Khandeshi’s hard work. Navina Khanna, HOPE Collaborative Grey Kolevzon, Cycles of Change / Urban Youth Harvest In fond memory of Douglas Allen, whose GIS wizardry was Max Kurtz-Cadji, People’s Grocery invaluable at the early stages of this project. He tragically Aaron Lehmer, Bay Localize passed away before seeing this project come to fruition. Kira Pascoe, Alameda County UC Cooperative Extension David Ralston, City of Oakland (Redevelopment) Loren Rodgers, North Oakland resident About the Authors Paula Simon, West Oakland resident Heather Wooten, Public Health Law & Policy Nathan McClintock is a PhD candidate in geography at UC Berkeley. He also serves on the Oakland Food Policy Dissertation Chair: Council and was a member of the HOPE Collaborative’s Food System Action Team. He holds a MS degree in crop Nathan Sayre, UC Berkeley Dept. of Geography science/sustainable agriculture from North Carolina State University and has worked extensively in sustainable Technical Advisors: agriculture research, extension, and education in the US and internationally. Douglas Allen, UC Berkeley Dept. of Geography Darin Jensen, UC Berkeley Dept. of Geography Jenny Cooper received her BA in geography from UC Mike Jones, UC Berkeley Dept. of Geography Berkeley in 2008. She is works for the Environmental Defense Kevin Koy, UC Berkeley Geospatial Innovation Facility Fund in Washington, DC, on international climate change policy. ii Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land ! Contents 4. Site Profiles..............................................................................................19 Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1 W.D. Wood Park 1. Introduction................................................................................................ 3 “Jungle Hill” King’s Estates Open Space Food Justice in the Flatlands 3rd Street Farming the Food Deserts: Urban Agriculture Takes Root MLK Shoreline Park Box 1: Urban Agriculture’s Multi-Functionality Clinton Square Box 2: Urban Agriculture Programs in Oakland Cesar Chavez Park Map 1: Urban Gardens in Oakland Harbor Bay Pkwy. / “North Field” Why a Land Inventory? Oakport St. Cultivating the Commons Box 3: Urban Farms on Public Land 5. Conclusions & Recommendations .............................................25 2. Methods...................................................................................................... 11 Box 6: Potential Productivity Map 2: Land Owned by Public Agencies Appendices......................................................................................................31 Box 4: Public Land Assessed in this Inventory A. Land Locator ........................................................................................31 3. Results......................................................................................................... 13 Box 5: How to Use the Land Locator with Existing Online Databases Box 5: Sites by City Council District Map A: North Oakland / CCD 1 Map 3: Size and Distribution of Sites Map B: West Oakland / CCD 3 Map 4: Ground Cover Map C: Central East Oakland / CCDs 2 & 5 Map 5: Potential Agroforestry Map D: East Oakland / CCDs 6 & 7 Map 6: Slope Map E: Oakland Hills (South) / CCDs 6 & 7 Map 7: Permitted Agricultural Use Map F: Oakland Hills (Central) / CCDs 4 & 6 Map G: Oakland Hills (North) / CCD 1 B. GIS Methodology ................................................................................51 C. Calculating Oakland’s Fruit & Vegetable Needs ..........................54 D. Permitted Agricultural Use Zoning .................................................55 E. Municipal Code Related to Animal Raising ...................................57 F. Blueprint for Management Plan for Urban Agricultural Use .....59 G. Privately Owned Vacant Land ...........................................................65 References .......................................................................................................66 iii Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land iv Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Executive Summary Using aerial photos, GIS, and site visits, we identified approximately 1,200 acres of undeveloped open space at 495 This is an inventory of open space with potential for agricultural sites (consisting of 756 individual publicly-owned tax parcels). production on land both owned by public agencies and within the About a third of this land is located on slopes less than 10 city limits of Oakland, California. The inventory was conducted percent, a third between 10 and 30 percent, and a third greater between the summer of 2008 and spring of 2009 and is part of an than 30 percent; overall, at least 828 acres could be cultivated. ongoing movement to develop a more resilient, sustainable, and The majority of these parcels are located within ! mile of public just food system in Oakland. This project aims to locate transportation. A third of the parcels are within a quarter mile of Oakland’s “commons”—land that is owned by public agencies a school, and 7.5 percent have an EBMUD meter. In addition to and therefore a public resource—and assess the potential for the parcels in this inventory, we identified 2,706 acres of publicly- urban agriculture (UA) on this land. We hope that this owned land with the potential for agroforestry. assessment can be used 1) to inform policy decisions that concern Oakland’s food, health, and environmental quality, and Based on a conservative estimate, the parcels identified in this 2) by non-profit organizations and city officials as a tool with land inventory could produce up to 5 percent of the City’s vegetable which to identify potential sites for UA programs. needs or 6 percent of its fruit needs. However, the potential impact of the expansion of UA programs in Oakland extends beyond the While Oakland was once a center for fruit production and food
Recommended publications
  • Divest/Invest Groups and Campaigns

    Divest/Invest Groups and Campaigns

    DIVEST/INVEST: From Criminalization to Thriving Communities - created by - TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Criminalization Affects… 1​ 0 Civic Engagement 10 Community Development 11 Criminal Justice Reform 12 Youth/Education 14 Environmental & Climate Justice 16 Data & Surveillance 18 Food Justice 20 Gender Justice 21 Human Rights 23 Immigrant Rights 24 Juvenile Justice 25 Rural Communities 27 Labor 29 LGBTQ Rights 31 Public Health 32 Transportation 34 Art, Design & Public Space 34 Housing Justice 36 Recommendations for Grantmakers 39 Visions of Community-Based Safety and Justice 41 Resources 43 Organizations to Consider 48 About Funders for Justice 56 DIVEST/INVEST: CRIMINALIZATION 2 INTRODUCTION Funders for Justice​ created this website for funders because we believe that our collective investments in housing, education, health, transportation, food security, and jobs will fail if we do not also proactively work to divest this nation’s resources from criminalization. Our partners in the field are organizing for divestment from criminalization, and understand that as critical to the work of transforming communities to be truly safe and secure. This website is a toolkit for grantmakers, donors, and funder affinity groups, to help funders in confronting mass criminalization. We ask you to ​listen​, ​learn​, and​ ​take action​. “We keep each other safe. When governments, schools and the healthcare system fail communities — everyday people take action to create safety. It is my deepest desire to live in a world where safety can be realized without punishment. When we get to that world, the possibilities for transformation will become endless.” –Charlene Carruthers | National Director BYP100 | FFJ Advisor DIVEST/INVEST: CRIMINALIZATION 3 Our budget reflects our values...
  • Notes on the Practice of Food Justice in the US

    Notes on the Practice of Food Justice in the US

    Notes on the practice of food justice in the U.S.: understanding and confronting trauma and inequity Rachel Slocum 1 Kirsten Valentine Cadieux Minneapolis, USA University of Minnesota, USA Abstract The lexicon of the U.S. food movement has expanded to include the term 'food justice.' Emerging after approximately two decades of food advocacy, this term frames structural critiques of agri-food systems and calls for radical change. Over those twenty years, practitioners and scholars have argued that the food movement was in danger of creating an 'alternative' food system for the white middle class. Alternative food networks drew on white imaginaries of an idyllic communal past, promoted consumer-oriented, market-driven change, and left yawning silences in the areas of gendered work, migrant labor, and racial inequality. Justice was often beside the point. Now, among practitioners and scholars we see an enthusiastic surge in the use of the term food justice but a vagueness on the particulars. In scholarship and practice, that vagueness manifests in overly general statements about ending oppression, or morphs into outright conflation of the dominant food movement's work with food justice (see What does it mean to do food justice? Cadieux and Slocum (2015), in this Issue). In this article, we focus on one of the four nodes (trauma/inequity, exchange, land and labor) around which food justice organizing appears to occur: acknowledging and confronting historical, collective trauma and persistent race, gender, and class inequality. We apply what we have learned from our research in U.S. and Canadian agri-food systems to suggest working methods that might guide practitioners as they work toward food justice, and scholars as they seek to study it.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    Introduction Development, Displacement, and Dining Alison Hope Alkon, Yuki Kato, and Joshua Sbicca The sign was intended to be ironic, a joke even, but the community was not laughing. On one side, it read “ink! Coffee. Happily gentrifying the neighborhood since 2014.” The other proclaimed “Nothing says gentrifi- cation like being able to order a cortado.” The neighborhood is Denver’s Five Points, long home, not always by choice, to nearly all of the city’s Black residents. In a history common to many Black communities across the United States, residents were pre- vented from living in other parts of the city through segregation, redlin- ing, and racial covenants. The neighborhood became a vibrant cultural center, colloquially known as the “Harlem of the West,” where more than fifty jazz clubs hosted many of the early twentieth century’s most well- known performers (Dowlen n.d.). But Five Points is no longer a pre- dominantly Black neighborhood, as gentrification has brought an influx of younger, whiter, and wealthier residents. Indeed, realtors and devel- opers no longer refer to the area as Five Points at all, but as the River North Arts District or RiNo. These new residents patronize the area’s many new galleries, restaurants, breweries, and cafes like ink! Coffee. The sign became a flash point for political organizing. Community members understood, sometimes viscerally, that gentrification doesn’t just mean cleaning up the neighborhood. It also means, in the words of community organizer Lisa Calderon, “pushing us out of our community.” Although most activists did not engage in property damage, someone spray painted “white coffee” across the building, unsubtly gesturing at the racialized nature of food’s place in urban “revitalization.” The cof- fee shop’s window was broken, and an unnamed skateboarder stole the offensive sign.
  • Cultivating the Commons an Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland's Public Land

    Cultivating the Commons an Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland's Public Land

    Portland State University PDXScholar Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Publications and Presentations Planning 12-2010 Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock Portland State University, [email protected] Jenny Cooper University of California - Berkeley Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac Part of the Social Policy Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details McClintock, N., and Cooper, J. (2010). Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land. Available at www.urbanfood.org. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land by Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography University of California, Berkeley REVISED EDITION – December 2010 ! i Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley October 2009, revised December 2010 In collaboration with: City Slicker Farms HOPE Collaborative Institute for Food & Development Policy (Food First) This project was funded in part by the HOPE Collaborative. City Slicker Farms was the fiscal sponsor.
  • Draft Environmental Impact Report

    Draft Environmental Impact Report

    TABLE OF CONTENTS OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page SUMMARY S-1 I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION II-1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS III-A-1 AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use III.A-1 B. Transportation and Circulation III.B-1 C. Population, Housing, and Employment III.C-1 D. Public Services III.D-1 E. Air Quality III.E-1 F. Visual and Aesthetic Conditions III.F-1 G. Cultural and Historic Resources III.G-1 H. Vegetation and Wildlife III.H-1 I. Hydrology and Water Quality III.I-1 J. Energy III.J-1 K. Geology and Seismicity III.K-1 L. Noise III.L-1 M. Hazardous Materials III.M-1 N. Wind III.N-1 O. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies III.O-1 IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IV-1 V. IMPACT OVERVIEW V-1 VI. REPORT PREPARERS VI-1 APPENDICES 1. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study 1-1 2. Hazardous Materials Supporting Documentation 2-1 Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element EIR ii Environmental Science Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-2 II-1 Households, Population, and Employment, 1995 and 2015 II-7 II-2 Household and Job Growth in the City’s Twelve Planning Areas, 1995-2015 II-8 II-3 General Plan Goals II-10 II-4 Correlation Between Proposed and Existing Land Use Categories II-16 II-5 Projects Within the Downtown Showcase District II-20 II-6 Projects Within the Coliseum Showcase District II-21 II-7 Major Land Use Diagram Change Areas II-24 II-8 Acreage in Proposed Land
  • List Service Groups 1 and 2 Addendum 3

    List Service Groups 1 and 2 Addendum 3

    Request for Proposal for Zero Waste Services Service Groups 1 and 2 City Facilities ‐ List Addendum 3 Facility Name Facility Address ALLENDALE RECREATION CENTER 3711 SUTER ST ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 1101 29TH AVE ARROYO COMMUNITY GARDEN 79TH AVE CUL‐DE‐SAC AND ARROYO TENNIS COURTS 8006 PLYMOUTH ST ARROYO VIEJO RECREATION CENTER 7701 KRAUSE AVE BROOKDALE RECREATION CENTER 2535 HIGH ST BURKHALTER TENNIS COURT 3923 COLUMBIAN DR BUSHROD RECREATION CENTER 560 59TH ST CALDECOT FIELD 6900 BROADWAY CARMEN FLORES RECREATION CTR 1637 FRUITVALE AVE CARTER GILMORE FIELD 1390 66TH AVE CHABOT FIELD 6850 CHABOT RD CHABOT TENNIS COURT 6884 CHABOT RD CITY HALL 1 FRANK H OGAWA PLAZA CITY STABLES 13560 SKYLINE BLVD CLINTON PARK 655 INTERNATIONAL BLVD COLUMBIA GARDENS PARK (ENTERPRISE) 9854 KOFORD RD COMMUNITY GARDEN 876 47TH ST COMMUNITY GARDEN PROGRAM 1700 MARKET ST CONCORDIA RECREATION CENTER 2901 64TH AVE CURT FLOOD FIELD PARK 3200 BOSTON AVE DALZIEL BUILDING 250 FRANK H OGAWA PLAZA DAVIE TENNIS STADIUM 198 OAK RD, PIEDMONT DEFREMERY POOL 1269 18TH ST DEFREMERY REC CENTER 1651 ADELINE ST DEFREMERY TENNIS COURT 1239 18TH ST DIMOND PARK & REC CENTER 3860 HANLY RD DIMOND TENNIS COURT 3743 FRUITVALE AVE DOWNTOWN OAKLAND SENIOR CENTER 200 GRAND AVE DUNMUIR HOUSE 2960 PERALTA OAKS CT EAST OAKLAND SPORTS CENTER (STORED/SHARED WITH IRA JINKINS REC. C9161 EDES AVE EASTMONT POLICE SUBSTATION 2651 73RD AVE ESTUARY PARK (BOAT LAUNCH) (Park) 107 EMBARCADERO EAST F M SMITH RECREATION CTR 1969 PARK BLVD FAIRYLAND 245 GRAND AVE FAIRYLAND 699 BELLEVUE AVE FIRE ADMINISTRATION
  • 2013 Community Benefit Report Submitted to the State of California May 31, 2014 Table of Contents I

    2013 Community Benefit Report Submitted to the State of California May 31, 2014 Table of Contents I

    2013 COMMUNITY BENEFIT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAY 31, 2014 Table of Contents I. Welcome . 4 II. uCSf Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland . 5 III. Community Benefi t Report Overview . 6 IV. Community Benefi t Activities . 7 Undercompensated Healthcare Primary Care Services Services Juvenile Justice Center Clinic . 32 Undercompensated Government- School-Based Health Centers . 33 Sponsored Healthcare . 8 Primary Care Clinic, Charity Care . 8 Community-Based Programs . 34 Mental and Behavioral Health Family Services Services Child Life Program . 36 Center for Child Protection . 9 Family Information & Navigation Center for the Vulnerable Child . 11 Desk (FIND) . 38 Early Intervention Services . 13 Other Family Services . 39 Chronic Disease Management Education for Professionals Services and Students Center for Asthma Education, Professional Education Management, and Research . .15 at Children’s . .41 Diabetes Program . .17 Education for Professionals Hemoglobinopathy Center . .18 in the Community . 42 Pediatric HIV/AIDS Program . 21 CHAMPS: Community Health Psychology–oncology Program . 23 & Adolescent Mentoring Program for Success . 43 Camps for Children with Special Healthcare Needs . 24 CHORI Summer Student Research Program . 45 Prevention Services Community Building and Healthy Hearts . 25 Trauma Care Services Community Farmer’s Markets Advocacy . 46 and Dover St. Garden . 27 Children’s Global Health Initiative . .47 Kohl’s Injury Prevention Program . 28 Trauma Care . 48 Sports Medicine Center for Volunteerism/ Young Athletes . 29 Workforce Development . 49 Health Education for Patients, Families, and the Public . 30 Research Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute . 50 V. Economic Impact . 51 I. WELCOME I. Welcome UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Children’s) is a private, public benefit not-for-profit 501(c)3 medical center.
  • City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage

    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage

    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Confirmation Sign Turn Sign Decision Sign City of Oakland, Department of Transportation Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3983 | [email protected] | www.oaklandbikes.info September 2017 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Standard Signs for Bicycle Wayfinding .............................................................................................. 3 Sign Assembly Types ............................................................................................................................ 3 Sign Placement Principles .................................................................................................................... 4 Sign Frequency ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Sign Layout Principles .......................................................................................................................... 5 Logos/Symbols Used on Decision & Confirmation Signs ............................................................ 7 Differences From the MUTCD Sign Layout Specifications .......................................................... 7 Sign Messaging Principles ...................................................................................................................
  • Uniquely Oakland San Francisco Business Times

    Uniquely Oakland San Francisco Business Times

    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 Uniquely OaklandOpportunities shine in California’s most inclusive and innovative city 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT UNIQUELY OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES Welcome to Mandela Station MANDELA STATION @WEST OAKLAND BART A Culture-Rich Transit Oriented Development 7TH ST T2 T1 Located at the 5.5-acre West Oakland Bart Station Site T3 T4 5TH ST A Centrally Located 750 Residential Units Opportunity Zone Project (approx. 240 units below market-rate) 500,000 sq.ft. of Class A oce space Only 7 minutes from Downtown San Francisco (via BART) 75,000 sq.ft. of quality retail Over 400 parking stalls Only 4 minutes to Downtown PROJ. # 168-153 WO BART Oakland (via BART) DATE: April 30, 2019 SHEET: A Regional Community...Connected JRDV ARCHITECTS INC. COPYRIGHT C 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. We’re on the Edge - and taking transit oriented living to the next level. www.westoaklandstation.com #WOSTATION [email protected] 中国港湾工程有限 公司 Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. suda SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 UNIQUELY OAKLAND ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 ‹ A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF OAKLAND › Uniquely Oakland Everyone belongs in the world’s best city for smart businesses, large or small elcome to Oakland, Calif., the best place ment dollars are pouring in, driving construction on the planet to pursue prosperity. on 240,000 square feet of new retail space and W If that seems like exaggeration, 945,000 square feet of new office space with consider this: Oakland is ideally located at the openings slated for 2019, 2020 and 2021.
  • The Politics of Urban Agriculture: Sustainability, Governance, and Contestation

    The Politics of Urban Agriculture: Sustainability, Governance, and Contestation

    Forthcoming chapter in A. Jonas, B. Miller, K. Ward, and D. Wilson (eds) SAGE Handbook on Spaces of Urban Politics (SAGE Publications) The politics of urban agriculture: Sustainability, governance, and contestation Nathan McClintock a Christiana Miewald b Eugene McCann c Introduction The Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House (DTES NH) is a community services centre in a low-income neighbourhood of Vancouver, British Columbia. Like many organizations of its type, its programs are based on a set of principles – an ‘operating philosophy’ – of inclusivity and activism. Unlike most, the neighbourhood house also articulates a separate, if related, ‘food philosophy:’ Food is a key determinant of individual and community health – physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. We take every modest opportunity to remind DTES Residents of our Right to quality food. We use the offering of food to reflect back upon our neighbours their inherent dignity, deservedness and welcome within the DTES NH. (Right To Food Zine, 2016) Food, in its production, its consumption, and its associated meanings, is clearly central to sustenance for the DTES NH, as it is for all of us. What their food philosophy makes clear, furthermore, is that food is also fundamentally political. This chapter explores food production and, specifically, urban agriculture (UA) as a set of fundamentally political practices, both in terms of their role in neoliberal governance and ‘sustainability’ policy-making, and also as objects of contestation. We provide a brief overview of UA with a focus on the changing nature of urban food production in the global North, then engage with UA’s role in supporting food security, its contributions to environmental and social sustainability, as well as its entanglement in processes of gentrification.
  • City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 7’ Minimum 10’ Typical

    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 7’ Minimum 10’ Typical

    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 10’ typical 7’ minimum Confirmation Sign Turn Sign Decision Sign City of Oakland, Community & Economic Development Agency Transportation Services Division, Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3983 | [email protected] | www.oaklandbikes.info July 2009 Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Background Action 1A.4 of the City of Oakland’s Bicycle Master Plan (2007) states, “Route Signage: Develop an informative and visible signage system for the bikeway network, building on existing bikeway signage, that includes directional and distance information to major destinations.” In Section 3.3, the Plan provides a discussion of the bicycle wayfinding signs that Oakland has used in the past. The following approach applies to all new bicycle wayfinding signage in the City of Oakland. Overall Approach Destination, direction, and distance information will be included on designated bikeways. Figure 1 provides a full list of supported destinations with guidance on how distances are measured. Figure 2 is a map of these destinations showing their distribution throughout the city. The destinations are organized into a hierarchy of three categories. Primary destinations are downtown and adjoining jurisdictions and are signed at distances of up to five miles. Secondary destinations are transit stations and districts and are signed at distances of up to two miles. Tertiary destinations include parks, landmarks, colleges, hospitals, and high schools. They are generally signed at distances up to one mile. Overall, the system supports approximately 100 destinations. Standard Signs for Bicycle Wayfinding The overall approach follows the look and feel of standard highway guide signs while the detailed design is tailored for bicyclists.
  • City of Oakland

    City of Oakland

    Mapping Small Arts & Culture Organizations of Color in Oakland A benchmark project that will encourage funders to adopt intentional investment strategies to support the longterm stability of this sector. Contents 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 4 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Why This Project? .............................................................................................................. 5 Racial Equity in Arts Philanthropy ....................................................................................... 6 Art and Cultural Practice as Tools for Social Change ............................................................ 8 3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 10 Data Limitations ............................................................................................................... 10 Sector Overview ............................................................................................................... 11 4. Key Findings ..................................................................................................................