When executed correctly, vertical farming can yield as much produce as traditional farming methods in urban areas and smaller spaces. Additionally, vertical farmers gain the added benefit of consistent, year-round production without the uncertainties of climate or pests, all while utilizing 90 percent less energy and 98 percent less water than a traditional farm. Although it can’t be a replacement for more traditional methods, vertical farming provides fresh produce in areas that have little food production or access to healthy foods.

… 90% less energy? I’d love to see a citation on how on earth that is possible. This is a puff piece taken entirely from a few companies, taking their claims as truth. I’m not saying vertical farms don’t have their place, but how can they use 90% less energy while having to operate grow lights.

Vertical farms seem to have a lot of hype, and consequently I’ve seen mounting criticism. Lowtech magazine had a piece about how a solar paneled vertical farm actually uses more space than a regular one, if you account for solar panels, and are only cost effective because of fossil fuels.

edit: the link earlier in that sentence goes to a press release from IDTechEx, which does “independent market research.” These are marketing agencies who put out “reports” as self-marketing, hoping to be hired by companies to make more rosy reports on how great their industries are. It’s capitalist cargo-cult science, but even they seem to outright contradict the smithsonian magazine claim:

On a larger scale, vertical farms may prove more profitable in different geographical regions. Vertical farms can reduce water usage significantly over conventional agriculture, and the high degree of control over the growing environment allows them to grow crops in extreme climates – where such crops may not otherwise be able to grow. In return, vertical farms demand more energy to carry out growing operations [emphasis added]. To maximize their potential, vertical farms would ideally be located in regions of water scarcity, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, or in areas with extreme climates, such as in Scandinavian countries, where the low amounts of sunlight and high costs of regulating greenhouse environments single out vertical farms as an optimal solution. The amount of agricultural land available is also an important factor – regions looking to increase food security and reduce reliance on imports while facing challenges in acquiring sufficient agricultural land would find vertical farms to be ideal. A particularly prominent example of such a country is Singapore, which has demonstrated much interest in vertical farming over the last few years.

[V]ertical farms are very energy intensive [emphasis added], and it is important to ensure the facilities chosen can support these energy loads. In addition, the ergonomics of the facility is also important; should the layout not be given proper consideration, this can impede workers and decrease worker efficiency. As labor costs are typically among the largest sources of expenditure for a vertical farm, improving labor efficiency to reduce these costs is of paramount importance.

I call shenanigans on the energy usage claim. There’s no way it’s possible.

As they should be. Good way to buy local and cut down on pesticide and water use.

Finally, an efficient and productive use for office buildings.