American Geographical Society

Tending Cultural Landscapes and Food Citizenship in Toronto's Community Gardens Author(s): Lauren E. Baker Reviewed work(s): Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, People, Places, & Gardens (Jul., 2004), pp. 305-325 Published by: American Geographical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034276 . Accessed: 03/02/2012 13:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Geographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

TENDING AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES FOODCITIZENSHIP IN TORONTO'S COMMUNITY GARDENS*

LAURENE. BAKER
ABSTRACT.

Scatteredthroughoutthe city of Torontoare more than 11ocommunity gardens, sites of place-basedpolitics connected to the community food-securitymovement.The gardens, spaceswhere passions for plants and food are shared,reflectthe city'sshifting cultural an landscapeand represent everyday activitythat is imbuedwith multiplemeanings.Toronto's community food-security movement uses gardens as one strategyto regeneratethe local food systemand provideaccessto healthy,affordable food. Threegardencase studiesexpand on the complexitiesof "food citizenship," illustratingthe importanceof that concept to notions of food security.The gardens reveal the role gardenersplay in transformingurban spaces,the complex network of organizationsworking cooperativelyand in partnershipto implementthese projects,and the way in which social and culturalpluralismare shapingthe urban landscape.Keywords: communityfood security,communitygardens,food citizenship, Toronto.

Three community-gardensites in Toronto offer possibilities for understanding how individuals and groups in urban communities are actively producing space and culturethrough their constructionsof place.This articlebegins with a discussion of the politics of place and the multiple meanings imbued in community gardens in Toronto.The discussion is then linked to the notion of "food citizenship" emergingfrom the literatureon alternativefood networksand movements.A close examinationof three community-gardensites presentsan opportunity to explore these notions of citizenshipand offersvaluableinsights into how democraticpractices arebeing cultivatedin community gardensand by the community food-security (CFs)movement. bleak The casestudiesprovidecolorfulexamplesof how peoplearetransforming urban spacesinto community gardens.Through their gardeningactivitiesthe garand deners are activelyshaping their community,connecting cross-culturally, bedrawn into broader social movements like the CFSmovement through their ing associationswith local nongovernmentalorganizations(NGos). Gardeningin these examplesis an activitythat implicitlychallengesthe corporatefood systemby creating an opportunity for people to dirty their hands, grow their own food, work with their neighbors,and generallytransformthemselvesfrom consumersof food into "soil citizens"(Estevaand Prakash1998;DeLind 2002). Toronto'sCFS movementstrivesto reachout to the city'sethnoculturalcommunities but does not alwayssucceed in involving them in food projectsand events
* their activiaccommodated requests document gardening to who thanks allthegardeners tirelessly to my Special without This wouldnot havebeenpossible theirstories experiences. project and tiesandwho generously shared of and and the the support FoodShare of Toronto, studentresearchers, the UrbanIssuesProgram the Samuel Foundation. Bronfman Saidye Family
Ms. BAKER a doctoral candidate in environmental studies at York University, Toronto, Ontario, is Canada M3J1P3. TheGeographical 94 (3):305-325, 2004 Review July of Geographical Society NewYork Copyright 2005 bytheAmerican

306

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

(Bakerand Huh 2003). The gardenexamples revealthe geographicaland cultural barriersto participationin place-basedsocial movements, the need for food-systems education, and the challenges of organizing cross-culturallyin a dynamic, diversecity.The concept of "food citizenship," it has been articulatedwithin the as movement and in the alternativefood networksliterature,is complicatedand CFS challengedby the case studies.Communitygardensin Torontoprovidean interesting example of how one activity can be imbued with multiple meanings and how multidimensionallandscapesworthy of examination. gardensare multilayered, democratic Community gardensin Torontoare places of "counter-hegemonic of (Dirlikand Prazniak 2001, 3), wherethe complexities power,culture,and politics" the economy become clear and where the intersectionsbetween food and various other social,economic, and environmentalissues are revealed. digginginto their By small plot of land, gardenersare challengingconventionalideas of urban planning anddesign,workingon community-development with place-based projects, engaging social movements,and creatingalternative food systems.The multiple meaningsof community-gardeningactivitieschange with the perspectiveof the diverse actors involved:gardeners,alternativefood movement activists,community organizers, propertymanagers,public-housingstaff,and others. ChristopherAirriessand David Clawson,in their study of Vietnamesemarket gardens in New Orleans (1994,19), noted that the gardenstended by Vietnamese seniors represent"anopportunityto createorderin a new socioeconomic environment over which they [the gardeners]otherwisehavelittle control." GerdaWekerle in her study of first-generationCanadianimmigrant gardeners(2000, suggested, i), that their gardens are examples of how Toronto'scultural landscape is beginning to reflectthe diversityof immigrantcommunities. KarenSchmelzkopf(1995) describedhow community gardenson the LowerEast Side of Manhattanin New YorkCity provide low-income residentswith an opportunity to connect with nature and their community and to engage with local nonprofit organizationsand municipal authoritiesworking to preserveurban green space and support neighborhood revitalizationefforts.The New YorkCitygardensarepoliticalspaceson at leastthreelevels,as documentedby Schmelzkopf. must defendtheir First,gardeners gardening activities against disapproving residents. Second, gardeners mediate conflicts among themselvesthat arisefrom issues relatedto gardenorganization,as well as gender and ethnic differences. Third,gardenerscontinuallydefend,in partnership with nonprofit organizations,their right to gardenon prime development land. Parallels can be found in the studies by Airriess and Clawson, Wekerle, Schmelzkopf,and this study of community gardensin Toronto.In all cases,gardens are linked to place-basedpolitics and illustratehow importantgardeningactivityis to the cultural landscapesof cities across North America (Kurtz2001; Smith and
Kurtz 2003).

This gardeningactivity is not alwaysexplicitlypolitical. Many gardenersstate that they garden as part of their everydayroutine, to grow culturallyappropriate food, to save money on their food expenses,to connect with their neighbors,or to

TORONTO S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

307

exercise.But from urban gardeningariseconflictsthat rendervisible the politics of life. (Escobar everyday The gardensareplaceswherethe "cultural-becomes-political"
2001, 156). Arturo Escobar uses this term to describe the complexity of locality and

community and the ecological and culturalpracticesthat form the basis for alternativesto conventionaldevelopment. The CFs movement supportscommunity gardensas part of a broaderstrategy to increasefood security.'In Torontothe CFsmovement has been successfulin increasingthe number of gardensin the city, partneringwith the local municipality to provide servicesto gardeners, and networkingamong its supportersto organize Toronto's gardeningevents,publicizegardens,and advocateon behalf of gardeners. movement addressesa broadrangeof social, ecological,and community-gardening political issues that include food access,gardensiting, gardenersupport,advocacy, soil fertility, communitydevelopment(see, for example,[http://www.foodshare and .net/]). Culturalidentity,citizenship,and democraticpracticeare centralissues for the NGOS that support community gardening.
LANDSCAPE DIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY

Dominant conceptualizationsof cities like Toronto tend to exclude the voices of high-riseapartmentresidents,people living outside the core downtown areas,residents of publichousing, and new immigrants. With its primaryfocus on protecting gentrifiedneighborhoods, attractingindustry,and reintensifyingthe urban core, Toronto's Planfailsto adequately thesegroups(Cityof Toronto Official acknowledge The realityof the city'ssocial and culturalpluralism,and the multiplemean2002).2 ings with which people infuse the landscape,are lost. to reflectthe modern diaspora. Toronto's According the 2001cendemographics sus, the proportionof immigrantsis higherin Torontothan in any other city in the world (Carey 2002). Over the past decade 43 percent of all newcomers entering TorontoArea.Recentwavesof immigrationhaveetched Canadasettledin the Greater outside the downtown core archangeson Toronto'surbanlandscape,particularly eas historicallycharacterized ethnic enclavessuch as China Town, Little India, by and the GreekVillage.Suburbanstrip malls,for example,now take on characteristics of the local ethnoculturalpopulation. Mixed in with the doughnut shops and gasoline stations are halal butchers,Caribbeangrocers,and colorful sari shops. Hidden awayin corners of public parks,on apartment-building properties,in on community gardens, backyards, rooftops,and behind churchesare Toronto's 0lo of which reflectthe city'sincreasingethnoculturaldiversityin the facesof the many gardenersand the varieties of plants they grow. Immigrantgardenersbring local knowledge from around the world and adapt it to urban gardeningspaces in the
city of Toronto. As in the example of New Orleans's Vietnamese market gardens (Airriess and Clawson 1994), many of Toronto's community-garden plots reflect the landscape memories of their gardeners. Over the past decade the prominence of community gardens in Toronto's landscape has increased. Surveys of the number of gardens from 1987 and 1997 show an

308

THEGEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

increasefrom fourteen to sixty-nine gardensin that time period (Irvine, Johnson, and Peters1999,39). The TorontoCommunity GardenNetwork,formed in 1999by a coalition of NGOS supportsthe 11ogardens workingon urban gardeningand CFS, and the approximately 3,300 gardenersthat currentlyexist in the city,accordingto LauraBerman(2004), managerof an urbanagriculture program.The gardensserve a varietyof purposes and are organizedin a number of ways. Startedand coordinated by neighborhoodcommunity groups,women'sshelters,public-housingstaff, and nonprofit organizations,the gardensare spaces where a spectrumof activities takeplace-from recreational gardening,to cultivatingfood for personalconsumption or community kitchens, to selling food from the gardensas part of microenterpriseprojects.The gardensmeet a varietyof personaland societalneeds. They provide social and recreationalopportunities, supplement nutrition, educate the public about food production and preparation,are part of community-development strategies, offset income needs, and "green"the urban environment. The benefits of community gardeninghave been widely documented (Blair,Giesecke, and Sherman1991;Berman1997;Malakoff2004). Community-gardening activities in North Americaand Europeare part of internationalurban agriculturalactivity that is being recognizedgloballyby health professionals, urban planners,environmental activists, community organizers,and policymakersas an important contributorto economic development,food security,and environmentalmanagement (Smit and Nasr 1992; UNDP 1996; Mougeot 1999). Community gardeningand urban agriculturehave become important aspects of the CFsmovement as it has developedover the past decade.The movement advocates for, develops,and promotes alternativefood networksthat improve access to food and encouragespeople to "delink" from the global corporatefood system (CFSC 2004; Wekerle2004, 381). The movement aims to cultivatedemocraticfood
practices by raising awareness of where food comes from (food-systems education),

encouraging commensality,and promoting consumption of locally grown food. A recent fund-raisingand promotional campaign by an NGO encouragedTorontonians to "GrowIt, Eat It and ShareIt" (see [http://www.foodshare.net/]). Comhavebeen promotedas one way for peopleto become"foodcitizens" munity gardens and are purportedto be an importantpart of the shift towardecologicallysound,
economically viable, and socially just food systems (DeLind 2002; Hassanein 2003; Wekerle 2004).

the Increasingly, cFs movementis being framedas a new socialmovement (Starr

2000, 225;Allen and others 2003, 63; Wekerle 2004, 378). Research on the prolifera-

tion of alternativefood networkshas focused on such disparateissues as scale,the

challenges of bridging social justice and environmental issues, and the limitations of local projects (Allen and others 2003; Hinrichs 2003; Johnston 2003; Johnston and Baker 2005). In this literature, alternative food networks are articulated as political spaces that engage people in democratic practices that occur as part of everyday life and simultaneously have an impact on policy at various levels. These democratic practices are part of creating "food citizens" who not only are consum-

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

309

ers but also areengagedin their communitiesand havean "intimate" connection to the food they eat (Winson 1993; Welshand MacRae1998;DeLind 2002;Hassanein 2003;Wekerle2004). Defining aspectsof food citizenshipcan be extractedfrom the literatureon alternativefood networks.Movingbeyondthe notion of people as consumersof food, JenniferWelsh and Rod MacRaefocused on participationas an essential part of food citizenship, starting with community food projects and policies that are grounded in democraticpractices(1998,246). Community food projectspromote the social and cultural components of local, sustainablygrown food. Moving beyond an anticorporatefocus, the CFsmovement recognizescommunity gardensas "commons ... that expand and deepen cultural and ecological vision and mold citizenship"(DeLind 2002, 222). LauraDeLind, in her description of food citizenship, explores the idea of "soil citizenship," stating how participation,physically on a community project,and the reverencefor nature found in commuworking nity gardeningcontributeto the shift in valuesthat is needed for food-systemtransformation (p. 223). These theorists are expanding formal notions of citizenship that focus on the political rights and responsibilities of citizens. The gardeners discussedbelow are practicingcitizenshipthrough their everydayactivitiesin the garden.As they claim their "soil right"to Canadian citizenship, they transplant plants,and culturaland landscapemeaningfromtheir"home" techniques, gardening countries to Toronto'surban landscapes(Joseph 1999). Food citizenshipinvolves the practiceof food-systemlocalizationand embodiesvaluesof caringfor "place"the community and the environment. In a multiculturalcity like Toronto,these values fuse culturaldiversitywith landscapediversity,reflectingthe contemporary diaspora.3
GARDEN CASE STUDIES

The FrancesBeavis,Shamba,and RiversideCommunity Gardensin Torontoparresearch community-development and effort,entitled"Seeds ticipatedin a three-year of Our City"(soc), to collect case-studydata from eight community-gardensites one in Toronto(Figure1).4The projectwas initiatedby FoodShare, of the leadersof The soc Toronto'sCFsmovement, and involved four other community partners.5 case studies illustratethe scope and complexityof community gardensas they relate to the CFsmovement and expandednotions of citizenship. FoodShare founded in 1985by a group of politiciansand citizensconcerned was aboutthe growthof hungerand the increasein food banksthattook placein Canada in the wake of the economic recessionin the early1980s.The organization's original mandatewas to provide emergencyfood informationto Torontoresidentsand examine why hungerwas increasingin the city.FoodShare's programsexpandedover time to include a number of projectsthat promote long-term solutions to urban hunger.From the very beginning FoodSharewas involved in community gardening, which has offered the organizationa way to addressfood-security goals that levels and the minimum wage, include advocatingfor increasesin social-assistance

310

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

promotingthe consumptionof freshfruitand vegetables,and encouragingregional practices(Fieldand Mendiratta2000). To meet these goals, sustainable-agriculture FoodSharepartnerswith local NGOS, well as government and businesses, in a as variety of community-based food initiatives, including the Good Food Box, the Field to TableCateringCompany,an urban agricultureprogram,the Food Link Hotline, and the Focus on Food youth trainingprogram(for a detaileddescription of these programs,see [http://www.foodshare.net/]), coupled with ongoing foodsystemseducation and advocacywork. The unique characteristics Toronto's of food movementhavebeen widely docunicipality of Toronto,due primarilyto the existence of the Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC), makes Torontoan interestingexample from the North American subcommitteeof Toronto'sBoard CFS movement. The TFPC is a multistakeholder of Health that addressesfood-security issues ranging from food access, poverty, and health,and nutrition to environment,planning,agriculture, urbansprawl.The in TFPCprovidesCFsorganizations Torontowith accessto municipalpolicymakers, advocates for municipal recognition of food issues, and funds community food initiatives. The threegardencase studiesbelow illustratethe diversityof playersinvolvedin the community-gardening are movement,how theseplayers shapingthe urbanlandhow they are making cross-culturalconnections, and how they are being scape, drawninto the broadercFs movement.Communitygardeners often work simultastaff members,the TorontoCommunity Housing Corporation, neously with NGO the TFPc,property-management companies,and privateor public funders.These are not without their challengesand often involve conflicts over use, partnerships space,process,and meaningthat become part of the gardener's everydaygardening activity.
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

mented (Welsh and MacRae 1998; Moffett and Morgan 1999; Scharf 1999; Johnston and Baker 2005). A dynamic relationship between CFs organizations and the mu-

FoodShare's case studies of gardensin Torontohad two parallelgoals (Baker2002, 3). First,the project representedan opportunity to answer questions about community gardeningin Torontothat had been pressingfor severalyears.How much food is being grownin Toronto's Whatkind of cropsarebeing communitygardens? How is culturaldiversitylinked to biodiversity? Who participatesin comgrown? How are gardensstartedand maintained? community garAre munity gardening? deners participatingin the wider cFs movement?A participatoryresearchprocess involved gardenersin documenting their gardeningactivitiesand harvest.Key informant interviews and garden mapping were also undertaken.The second and
simultaneous goal for FoodShare was related to community development. FoodShare was interested in engaging immigrant gardeners in the broader cFs movement and used the soc project as a way to connect the gardeners to each other and the movement and as a way to explore barriers to their participation. Gardeners were invited

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

311

Seeds of OurCity:The Eight Gardens in Toronto

Riverside

Community
Garden BettyAkidi Garden

Maloca Community Garden at YorkUniversity Shamba. Community Garden

RegentPark Scadding Court Community Frances Beavis Community Garden Cormunity Garden Garden FoodShare'sField to TableCentre

LAKEONTARIO
0 2 4 6 8 km

FIG. i-Locations of the eight community gardensthat were studied by FoodSharein the Seeds of Our City Project.(Cartography CarolynKing, Departmentof Geography, YorkUniversity) by

to and participatedin FoodShareevents. Exchangeswere organizedfor gardeners participatingin the project,and workshopswere held at the individualgardenson topics, such as composting or soil fertility,that the gardenersidentifiedas interesting or relevant.The gardenerswere involved in monitoring their own gardening activities and collecting information about their methods and their harvest.Garden tours not only publicizedthe gardensand the gardeners' achievementsbut also the gardeners with opportunitiesto become acquaintedwith one another, provided share gardeninginformation,and be inspiredby each other'swork. The NGOS involved in the project have been a part of a decade-long advocacyprocess that has ultimately fed into the municipal policymakingprocess (Baker2002, 53-56). The soc projectwas a way not only to document the political space createdin community gardens,and the cultural transformationof Toronto'slandscape,but also to contributeto municipal policy processes. Through this participatoryresearchand community-developmentprocess the multiple meanings of the gardenswere revealed,and the gardens emerged as dynamic, multilayered,multidimensionallandscapes.In the following sections, after a brief characterization each of the threecommunity-garden of sites,examplesfrom the soc researchprocess highlight the opportunities for and limitations of "food citizenship"and place-basedsocial movements and show how the projectfindings both challengeand expandnotions of citizenshipas reflectedin the alternative foodsystems literature.The gardenstories provide vivid illustrationsof how gardeners are producingspace and culture through their constructionsof place.

312

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

FIG. 2-The seniors'gardeninggroup at the FrancesBeavisCommunity Garden,Toronto.(Photographby the author,summer 200o; reproducedcourtesyof FoodShareToronto)

TABLE I-CROPS GROWN IN TORONTO'S FRANCES BEAVIS, SHAMBA, AND RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY GARDENS CANADIAN COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME

Greens and herbs

Amaranth Callaloo Entsai Bok choy Shungiku,garlandchrysanthemum

Sweet potato spinach Squash and gourds

Amaranthustricolor Amaranthuscruentus Ipomoeaaquatica Forsk. Brassicachinensis coronarium Chrysanthemum

Ipomoea batatas L.

Bittermelon Hairy gourd Jamaicanpumpkin Other vegetables Eddoe, taro Jute Long bean Okra
Sweet potato Vietnamese celery White egg eggplant

Momordicacharantia Benincasahispidavar. chieh-gua Cucurbitamoschatavar. calabaza Colocasiaesculentavar. antiquorum olitoriusL. Corchorus Vigna unguiculatassp. sesquipedalis Hibiscusesculentus
Ipomoea batatas Enanthe javanica Solanum ovigerum

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

313

FIG.3-Mrs. Wong in her gardenat the FrancesBeavisCommunity Garden, Toronto.(Photographby Jin Huh, summer 2002; reproducedcourtesy of FoodShareToronto)
FRANCES BEAVIS COMMUNITY GARDEN

The FrancesBeavisCommunity Garden,adjacentto a senior public-housingresidence and tucked behind a downtown Torontoshopping mall, is one of Toronto's most productivegardeningspaces.The gardenis locatedin Toronto's ethnoculturally diverse South Riverdaleneighborhood, which has a large Chinese population. A Beavisresidence(Figure2) havetransgroupof Chineseseniorsliving at the Frances formed a small piece of land into a bountiful garden in which they grow Asian suchasbok choy,long bean,hairygourd,bittermelon,and ediblechrysanvegetables, themums, that are difficultto find in nearbysupermarkets(TableI). The gardenwas startedin 1997as a collaborationbetween the residentsof the seniors'building and NGOS that included an environmentalorganization,Greenest

314

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

FIG. at Toronto. Beavis Garden, 4-Trellising the Frances Community by (Photograph the author, summer of 2002; Toronto) reproduced courtesy FoodShare

City, the EastviewCommunity Center,FoodShare,and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.As the garden project began, many people were concerned aboutwhetherit could be successful.The only spaceavailablefor the gardenwas an abandonedlot used as a thoroughfare-considered unsafe-to access nearby train tracks.Eventuallythe project cleaned up the lot and created a productivegarden that is enjoyedby the seniors from earlyin the morning to late in the evening eight months of the year. the ForMrs.Wong and the other FrancesBeavisgardeners, gardenis an opporto use skillsdevelopedduring their workingcareersas farmersin China and tunity to grow culturallyappropriate herbs and vegetablesfor the dishes they enjoy cooking (Figure3). Mrs.Wong has a 2.7-square-meter gardenthat overflowswith Asian Not only are the vegetablesdensely planted, they climb tall structures vegetables. made of scavengedmaterials:broken hockey sticks, broom handles, old pieces of wood (Figure4). Companionplanting,verticalgardening,and successionplanting are all agricultural to techniquesused by the FrancesBeavisgardeners increasetheir from methods the gardenershad used before they emiyields, techniquesadapted Mrs.Wongcameto Canada gratedfrom China.When she was sixtyyearsold, in 1981, from the Toisanregion of China,where she had grown squash,rice,yam, corn, and fruit.She uses the same trellisingmethods in her small plot in Torontothat she used on her farm in Toisan.The methods used in the FrancesBeavisgardenare appropriate for the crops grown and enable the gardenersto layertheir small plots in a

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

315

FIG.5-Mrs. Wong'sgarden-monitoringsheet, documenting her harvest.Gardenmonitors volunteeredto document their gardeningactivitiesfor severalyears,describingthe gardeningmethods they used, keepingtrackof theirinputs,logging the amount of time they spent in the garden,and weighing the produce they harvested.(Reproducedcourtesy of FoodShareToronto)

way that reaps maximum yields. The FrancesBeavis gardenerswithout previous farming experiencelearn growing methods from Mrs.Wong and other gardeners, who share their expertisereadily. The FrancesBeavisgarden illustrateshow small, urban places can be used to grow substantialamounts of food, something that is often questioned by skeptics When comparedwith Agriculture of community gardeningand urban agriculture. Canada's statisticson the averageproduction of mixed vegetablesper squaremeter, the results documented by the FrancesBeavisgardenersare staggering(Figure5). In most casesthe productionis more than fivetimes the nationalstandard mixedfor vegetableproduction (OMAFRA 2004), in spite of the barriersarticulatedby the garvandalism,and an deners,which include the lack of compost and other fertilizers, inconsistent supply of water (Baker2002, 49). Gardensacrossthe city, like the one at Frances Beavis, are an important aspect of the city's food security, enabling people from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds to cultivate, preserve, and prepare culturally appropriatefood for themselves. The garden also illustrates the benefits of community gardeningfor seniors who live in public housing, particularly senior immigrants,many of whom do not speak English.

316

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

The storyof how the FrancesBeavisCommunityGardenwas startedsheds light on the complex networksof NGosand community groups involved in producing gardenspaces in Toronto.The idea for the gardenwas born when one of the Chinese senior residentssaw a gardenat anotherbuilding in the city.Partof a seniors' programat FrancesBeavis,this residentbrought the idea of the gardento the program coordinator.At the same time, several NGOs-includingGreenest City and FoodShare-were looking for places to start gardens in the downtown area, and coordinator.For the first several they happened to employ a Mandarin-speaking staffsworkedhardto obtain municimembersof the FrancesBeavisand NGO years, pal and TorontoHousingAuthoritypermissionto use the land for a garden.Frances Beavis residents'fears of vandalismwere dispelled.Funding and resourcesfor the basic constructionand suppliesneeded for startingthe gardenwere obtained.The Chineseseniors,with theirlackof English-language skillsand lackof accessto fundand NGO resources,would have had a difficult time setting up the garden on ing theirown. The networkof NGOs, the Mandarin-speaking and coordinator, the strong the TorontoCommunity Housing Corporation,the NGOS inpartnershipsamong volved in community gardening,and the municipality made the garden project possible. The soc case-studies researchrevealedthe geographicaland cultural barriers in that preventethnoculturalgroupsfrom participating community gardeningand the food-security movement. For the gardeners,as they articulatedin interviews, the garden representsa place where they can grow food and connect with their friends.They have been happy to work with NGOS various special projects.For on example, they have participatedin shopping excursions as part of an exerciseto document the "food miles" (Carlsson-Kanyama 1997) saved by their garden prohave participatedin composting workshopsand in collecting data duction.6They for the soc project.Some gardenersattendedseveralannual"SeedySaturday" seed the Toronto Community GardenNetwork. Seedy Saturexchanges organizedby are days,held acrossCanada, communityeventsstartedby Seedsof DiversityCanada to promote backyard seed savingand to encourageseed exchangeamong gardeners But (see [http://www.seeds.ca]). when the Chineseseniorsdid not like the selection of seeds availablethey stopped attendingthe event. Seedy Saturdayinvites organic or sustainableseed companiesand environmentaland gardening-related organizations to displaytheirwares,and all of the informationis in English,so the formatis alienatingfor non-English-speaking people. The FrancesBeavisgardeners' experience at Seedy Saturdayis an example of the cultural barriersfaced by many of Toronto'scommunity gardenerswho might, but do not, participatein the NGOorganizedgardeningevents.Although the FrancesBeavisgardenis downtown, it is to very difficultfor the elderlygardeners travelto otherpartsof the city.Forgardeners in more distantlocations-such as those from Shambaand Riverside-these geographicalbarriersare even greater.Many gardenersparticipatedin the soc events only when transportationwas provided. Translationwas provided by FoodShare for the soc events,but most of the city'sgardeningevents do not offer translation

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

317

becauseof budgetaryconstraints.Gardeners who do not speakor readEnglishcannot find out about these events,much less participatein them. The interactionbetween the Chinesesenior gardeners FrancesBeavisand the NGOS at takesplacewith translatorsand is difficultto organize.Transportation languagewere identified and as two of the greatestbarriersto participationin gardening,as well as to other CFs activitiesand events.The NGOs persistwith theiroutreachto the gardeners, because it is part of their strategyto involve more ethnoculturalgroups in the cFs movement, and try to adapttheir programingto meet the needs of those groups.
SHAMBA COMMUNITY GARDEN

Anan Lololi, coordinatorof the Afri-CanFoodBasket,chose the name "Shamba" for a new community gardenin his backyard(Figure6) because it reflectsthe Afactivities."Wehave a lot of people from rica-centeredfocus of the organization's continental Africa who participatein the gardens, and a lot of people from the We diaspora. want to make surepeople from the diasporacan relateto the Afri-Can If Started FoodBasket. they speakSwahili,they know thatShambais fieldor garden." the ten yearsago as a small space in a suburbanbackyard, gardenhas expandedto grow food for the many volunteerswho spend time in the garden,as well as for a club fresh-fruit-and-vegetable-buying the organizationcoordinatesfor AfricanCanadians. Overthe threeyearsof the soc project,the backyard gardenbecamean integral to supportnew immigrantsin the Jane of the Afri-CanFoodBasket's part program and Wilson neighborhood in Toronto,a community that struggleswith the challenges of high levels of unemploymentand crime. At first the gardenprogramattracted volunteers from the African Canadian community.As the organization's reputationin the community grew,volunteers representingthe ethnoculturaldinew immigrantsflockedto participatein the program.As Lololi versityof Toronto's describesthe gardenand its volunteers, (2001) We as of fromallovertheworld. learn much nice We've a really collection people got as fromthesevolunteers theylearnfromus.Wehelpthemin different to cope. ways is It's or Theyaremostly refugees, outof ajob.Thegarden therapeutic. a niceenergy. havethe same fromalloverdifferent People partsof theworld.Theymeet,usually of so theyhavea connection, havea commonunderstanding what problems, they different. grow We We haveto facein thisnewcountry. aretryingsomething they and The then parsley, peppers, celery, together, we sharethe food together. garlic, in the Afri-Can and onionsareplantedin bulkin all the gardens, harvested, put of so FoodBasket peoplehavethe experience eatingorganic.
The Afri-Can FoodBasket is involved with more than seven gardens in the Jane and Wilson neighborhood and has developed a program that supports recent immigrants from a number of countries. Applying and adapting food-security goals to meet the needs of Toronto's immigrant community, the Afri-Can FoodBasket is an innovative and important organization in Toronto's food-security network.

318

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

An excitingfeatureof the Shambagarden is its experimentalcomponent. Crops such as eddoe (taro), Jamaicanpumpkin, sweet potato, and okra are grown to demonstrate how some tropical foods can be locally adapted (Figure 7). The Afri-Can FoodBasketis interestedin the concept of import substitution and each year tries new varietiesand gardeningmethods that increasethe diversityof locallygrownproduce. The Afri-Can FoodBasketis learning what crops grow well in Toronto's climate,using the volunteers'farmingexperience to try new production methods. These methodshaveevenbeen sharedwith local farmerswho are interestedin growFIG. 6-Anan Lololiin the Shamba ComToronto. munityGarden, (Photograph Jin ing food for the ever-expanding ethnoby of Huh,summer2002;reproduced culturalcommunities in the city. courtesy FoodShare Toronto) The volunteersat the Shambagarden have varyinglevels of gardeningexpertise.One volunteer,a recentarrivalfrom Poland with extensive experience, managed the garden'scomposting facility.Three Nigerian men who had been in Canadaless than a year were interviewed about their gardeningexperiencein Africa.They stated that they did not have any previ-

FIG. 7-Seeds of OurCitygardeners tourat theShamba on Toronto. Garden, (PhotoCommunity summer of 2001; Toronto) graph the author, by reproduced courtesy FoodShare

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

319

ous gardeningexperience,althoughfurtherquestioningrevealedthat all three came from familieswho had farmswithin 5 kilometersof the urbancenterin which they had lived. But these young men had boarded in the city with relativesin order to attendschool,while their parentsmanagedthe farms.At Shambathey weregardening for the firsttime, using the gardeningprogramto gain Canadianvolunteerexperience,meet other new Canadians,and obtain accessto fresh food through the Afri-Can FoodBasket. Food-systems education is central to the Afri-Can FoodBasket's learnabout gardeningand programfor new immigrants.Participants the benefits of eating locally and organicallyand are introducedto other food programs in the city. The participation of the Afri-Can FoodBasket in the local, na-

tional, and North American CFsmovement has meant an increasedawarenessof the importanceof culturallyappropriate food in diversecities like Toronto.
RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY GARDEN

The RiversideCommunity Gardenis an interestingexampleof the unlikelyplayers involved in community gardeningin Toronto.Locatedin the northwesterncorner of the city in a suburbanneighborhood,the RiversideApartmentsare owned by a largebuilding-management company.The neighborhoodis one of the fastest-growing, most denselypopulated areasin the city. It has Toronto'shighest level of new immigrants,and the unemployment rate is also high. Veryfew social servicesand amenities,such as grocerystores,exist in the community,and residentstravelfarto shop for food and other basic necessities. The RiversideCommunity Gardenwas startedin 1999when GreenestCity and the Riverside Apartmentsmanagementcompanycame togetherto establisha community garden.Forthe firstthreeyearsmembersof the GreenestCity staffworked closely with garden-committeemembersto organizethe community and plan the Michael garden,actingas a liaisonbetweenthe residentsand the buildingmanager, the Ramdharry.Ramdharry, community relations and activities director for the Riverside statesthat workingwith a local NGO installthe gardenhas to Apartments, been an important part of the company'sstrategyto keep the building'sgrounds
neat and its residents happy (Ramdharry 2000).

Although the idea for the garden originated with the property-management group, with encouragementand support from a local NGO, it is the residentswho have transformedthe once-bleak urban landscape surrounding their apartment building (Figure8). Membersof the garden committee articulatehow the garden became a startingplace for makingtheir apartmentbuilding more livable,for proopportunitiesfor residents,and for bringingtenants viding additionalrecreational from diverseculturalbackgroundstogether.
Most of the Sri Lankan gardeners at the Riverside Community Garden (Figure 9) have previous agricultural experience. Over the three years of the soc project, the garden doubled in size, and the diversity of plants increased substantially to reflect the gardeners' cultural backgrounds and culinary preferences. The first year the gardeners grew seedlings from a local garden center-cabbage, tomatoes, pep-

320

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

pers,and eggplant.By the thirdyear many more herbs,greens,and vegetableswere found in the gardens,includingjute, sweet potato spinach (the edible leavesof the common sweet potato), entsai (also known as "waterspinach"), Vietnamesecelery, hot peppers,white egg eggplant,and bitter melon. When askedwhere the seeds for these plantscame from,the gardenersrespondedthat they were eitherpurchasedat ethnoculturalgrocerystores or sent from "home"-primarilySri Lanka.These varieties were sharedbetween Sri Lankanand Caribbeangardeners. In fact,many of the varietiesfound in the three soc gardensweresharedamong of Amaranthand callalooare an ingardeners differentethnoculturalbackgrounds. of this. Grownin all three gardens,the AfricanCanadian,Caribterestingexample bean, Chinese, and Sri Lankangardenersused differentparts of the plant-young shoots, matureleaves,seeds-in their cooking and providedrecipesfor the final soc exprojectreport.During gardentours,which alwaysended with a meal, gardeners claimedover the differentvarietiesin the gardensand exchangedcallaloorecipes. Tenantsat Riverside clearabout the benefitsof the gardenat their apartment are SarasNadarasaand Merline Miles tell a story of how they used to pass building. each other in the lobby of the RiversideApartmentswithout so much as a smile. Since the community gardenwas started,Nadarasaand Miles have sharedrecipes, gardeningtips, and a new friendship.Anothergardenerfrom Riversidestated,"It's you feel good inside to see the gardenbearingfruit. I savorthe communal therapy, of being involvedin a community garden." aspect Alongwith new friendships,howthe project revealsthe complexityof social relationshipsin this diversecomever, munity. For example,Sri Lankangardenersformed the majorityof people on the garden committee, creatingtension between themselvesand non-Tamil residents. In addition,lack of communicationbetween the gardenersand the property-management group has led to assumptionsabout who will do what in relation to the garden and how the garden will be managed on a seasonal basis. Greenest City with the develplayeda role in mediatingthese conflictsand assistedthe gardeners of the protocols and rules that now guide the gardeners.These conflicts opment between residents,betweenresidentsand management,and among residents,management, and the supporting NGO illustratethe challengesof cross-culturalorganizing. Languageis not the only hindrancein mediating conflicts;cultural,racial, and genderedconceptionsof community participationare also barriers(Bakerand
Huh 2003).

For the property-managementcompany, the purpose of the garden extends beyond the social benefits articulatedby the tenant gardeners. Thegarden an investment, justa physical is not but investment, a socialone aswell.
We promote the gardenas a servicethat has been designedto enhancethe qualityof living at the Oaks [Riverside],and to make us stand out from other properties.If someone is choosing betweenliving in one apartmentor the next, here'ssomething we havethat'sconsidereda value-addedassetto livinghere.It not only beautifiesthe landscapeand physicallybenefitsthe property,but it benefitsthe lives of the people 2000) living here and that'san asset in itself. (Ramdharry

TORONTO S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

321

FIG. 8-An aerialview of the suburbanlandscapeand gardensat the Riverside Toronto. Apartments, (Photographby AlejandraGalvez,summer 2oo0;reproducedcourtesyof FoodShareToronto)

FIG.9-The gardenersat the RiversideCommunity Garden,Toronto.(Photographby the author, summer 200o;reproducedcourtesy of FoodShareToronto)

322

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

identifiesseveralreasonswhy it is beneficialfor the property-manageRamdharry ment companyto have a community gardenon-site: Tenantsfeel connected to the property;vandalismand propertymaintenancecosts have dropped;vacancyrates arelow becausepeople want to staylonger and are attractedto the apartments; and fewersocial problemsarisebecausepeople know each other and seem to be able to resolveconflictsmore easily.For Ramdharry, gardenis an investmentas well as the a strategyfor managing the property more effectively.He has also implemented other innovative managementideas, initiativesdriven by the residents,facilitated by staff,and paid for by the property-management company.These include installa play structurefor the childrenof residentsand organizinga means of transing porting tenants to faraway grocerystores.Not only have these initiativesbenefited the managementcompany financially,they have also createda process of engagement for the tenants,encouragingthem to take an activerole in the transformation of the space surroundingtheir apartments.The tenants,now part of a strong and vocal residents'committee,are able to advocatefor other changesto improve their living situation. Through the garden they have access to the property'smanagement structureand can challengedominant social and economic relationships.
FROM CONSUMERS TO "SOIL CITIZENS"

The above examplesoffer a glimpse into the socioculturaland geopoliticalmeanings imbued in community-gardenlandscapes.Immigrantgardenersin Toronto are drawn into the politics of their gardens,as well as the broaderCFsmovement throughthe act of planting,tending,and harvestingtheirgardenproduce.The landscapesthey createoffer avenuesfor participationin the transformationof the food The system,and their activityembodies the values needed for this transformation. importance of accessto culturallyappropriatefood for these new Canadiancommunities is highlightedthroughtheir gardenwork,as are the challengesand barriers to their participationin the CFsmovement. Food citizenshipinvolvesthe practiceof food-systemlocalization,as well as the embodiment of values of caring for the community and the environment.These practicesand values are slowlybeing written into municipalpolicy.When the municipal Food and HungerAction Committee toured community food projects in 2ool to make food-relatedpolicy recommendationsto the city of Toronto,several community gardens were visited. The gardeners and gardens so impressed the municipal councilors that severalrecommendationsto support and facilitatethe creationof community gardenswere included in the final report (City of Toronto
2001).7

The soc project has provided an opportunity to reflect on how local, placebased movements infuse the landscape with multiple meanings and expand notions of citizenship to democratic, community-based practices beyond the rights defined by government. The Frances Beavis, Shamba, and Riverside Community Gardens are places where the politics of everyday life play out at various levels, and they are examples of how the social environment is intricately intertwined with the

TORONTO'S COMMUNITY

GARDENS

323

theirgardening environment. becomeengaged natural Gardeners, through activity, in organizing, and planting theirsmallplotswith othergardeners and planning, A as on broader goals. simplecultural and residents wellas localNGOS working cFs endeavor rapidly has evolvedinto a politicalproject indias neighborhood-based to viduals havecometogether gainaccess land,findappropriate to resources (maThe and theircommunities. gardens examples of terialandfinancial), mobilize are how groupsof typically and citizens-immigrants peoplelivingon marginalized as their lowincomes-usetheirneighborhood a meansof resistance, asserting idenin andengage projects citizenship. of Withtime,thisnetwork to reclaim space tity and of gardeners, staff,building NGOs, players municipal managers, otherunlikely whichpeoof urban to expands forma topography alternative landscapes through is of and (Katz ple'sperceptions the environment theirroleas citizens transformed 2003,264). not and Gardens onlyreThe Frances Beavis, Shamba, Riverside Community but how socialandcultural flectToronto's pluralism alsoillustrate groups, thriving fromtheformal canbothproduce contest and space political process, marginalized In the gardens, cultural the assertion theircultural of diversity identity. through how to becomesconnected biodiversity, demonstrating urbangreenspaceis inan The fusedwith the cultural political. soc project, and simultaneously effortto is for gardeners, an exand and cultural political document, preserve create, space of can to of howa commitment "foodcitizenship" leadto a transformation ample the urbanlandscape the food system. and
NOTES 1. Toronto's strategyfor addressingfood issues at the municipallevel can be found in TheGrowing Season(City of Toronto2001). 2. Interestingreflectionson the officialplanningprocessin Torontoare given by Wekerle(2002), who bemoans the absence of any referenceto community gardeningin the first draft of Toronto's issueswerefinally Plan. In a subsequentarticle(2004) she documentsthe processwherebyCFS Official included. with LietteGilbert,Ilan Kapoor,and DeborahBarndtfrom the Facultyof Envi3. Conversations ronmentalStudiesat YorkUniversityhelped me to articulatethese ideas about "food citizenship." UrbanAgricultureProgramand the Seeds of 4. From1999until 2002 I coordinatedFoodShare's Our City project,overseeingthe projectdesign,bringingtogetherkey partners,workingdirectlywith and the gardeners, writingthe finalreport.The methodology used to developthe soc case studieswas shapedby the project'ssteeringcommittee,which comprisedFoodSharestaffand four collaboratively TorontoEnvironmental Alliance,and Sustainable NGO partners(GreenestCity,Afri-CanFoodBasket, Toronto),a planner from the Toronto Food Policy Council, a professorfrom a local university,and severalgardeners. methods, these people particiUsing community-basedand participatory-research pated in the project'sdesign and implementationand in the developmentof the methods by which the information was collected. Gardenerswere an integral part of the process, consulted with and involvedon an ongoing basis.The soc project,generouslyfunded for three yearsby the Samuel and Saidye BronfmanFamily Foundation Urban Issues Program,builds on the work of GerdaWekerle, who collectedstoriesfrom and documentedthe gardensof immigrantgardenersin Toronto,research that focused on ethnoculturalgardeningtraditionsand the contributionof immigrantgardensto the Toronto landscape. 5. For a discussion of the barriersand lessons learnedby the partneringNGOs through the soc projectprocess,see Bakerand Huh (2003).

324

THE GEOGRAPHICAL

REVIEW

6. This project was part of Greenest City's MulticulturalGreening Project (see [http://www .greenestcity.net]). 7. Thanks to Nick Saul, executive director of The Stop Community Food Centre (see [http:// www.thestop.org/]),for this observation.
REFERENCES

ReAirriess,C., and D. Clawson. 1994. Vietnamese MarketGardensin New Orleans. Geographical

view 84 (1): 16-31.

M. Allen, P.,M. FitzSimmons, Goodman, and K.Warner.2003. ShiftingPlatesin the AgrifoodLandscape:the Tectonicsof Alternative Agrifood Initiativesin California.Journalof RuralStudies19
(1): 61-75.

Baker,L. 2002. Seeds of Our City: Case Studiesfrom Eight Diverse Gardensin Toronto.Toronto: FoodShare. Baker,L., and J.Huh. 2003. Rich Harvest.Alternatives (1):21-25. 29 Toronto:FoodShare. GardenGrow? Berman,L. 1997. How Does Your 2004. Interviewwith the author.Toronto,25 September. --. Blair,D., C. Giesecke,and S. Sherman. 1991. A Dietary,Social and EconomicEvaluationof the Philadelphia Urban GardeningProject.Journalof NutritionEducation23 (4): 161-167. Star,11December,SA, 3. Carey,E. 2002. Toronto:Canada's LinguisticCapital.Toronto A. SourcePointsand Distancesfor Computation-Origin Carlsson-Kanyama, 1997. WeightedAverage Economics (1):15-23. Tools for Environmental 23 ImpactAnalysis.Ecological CFSC [Community Food SecurityCoalition]. 2004. [http://www.foodsecurity.org]. Season.Toronto:City of Toronto. City of Toronto. 2001. The Growing 2002. Toronto Plan. Toronto:TorontoUrbanDevelopmentServices. Official 0-. DeLind, L. 2002. Place, Work,and Civic Agriculture:Common Fields for Cultivation.Agriculture
and Human Values 19 (2): 217-224.

Dirlik,A., and R. Prazniak. 2001. Introduction:CulturalIdentityand the Politics of Place. In Places and Politicsin an Age of Globalization, edited by R. Prazniakand A. Dirlik, 3-13. Lanham,Md.: Rowman& Littlefield. A. Escobar, 2001. CultureSits in Places:Reflectionson Globalismand SubalternStrategiesof Localization. PoliticalGeography (2): 139-174. 20 Postmodernism: the London Esteva,G., and M. S. Prakash. 1998. Grassroots Remaking Soil of Cultures. and New York: Zed Books. Field, D., and A. Mendiratta. 2000. Food2002.Toronto:FoodShare. Hassanein,N. 2003. PracticingFood Democracy:A PragmaticPoliticsof Transformation. Journalof
Rural Studies 19 (1): 77-86.

Journalof RuralStudies Hinrichs,C. C. 2003. The Practiceand Politicsof Food SystemLocalization. 19 (1):33-45. LandUse Planning: Irvine,S., L. Johnson,and K. Peters. 1999. CommunityGardensand Sustainable A Case-Studyof the Alex Wilson Community Garden.LocalEnvironment (1): 33-46. 4 Johnston,J. 2003. Buildinga Red-GreenFood Movement.CanadianDimensions37 (5): 6-8. Good Food Box and the ChalJohnston,J.,and L. Baker. 2005. EatingOutsidethe Box:FoodShare's 22 and lenge of Scale.Agriculture Human Values (3): 1-13. The Minneapolis:Universityof MinJoseph,M. 1999. NomadicIdentities: Performance Citizenship. of nesota Press. EmKatz,C. 2003. VagabondCapitalismand the Necessity of Social Reproduction.In Implicating and Resistance the 21st CenturyWorldOrder,edited by S. Aronowitz and in pire: Globalization H. Gautney,255-270.New York:Basic Books. Kurtz,H. E. 2001. Differentiating Multiple Meaningsof Gardenand Community. UrbanGeography 22 (7): 656-670. Lololi,A. 2001. Video interviewwith Jin Huh. Toronto,17August. AmericanCommunityGardeningAssociaMalakoff, 2004. WhatGoodIs Community D. Gardening? tion. [http://www.communitygarden.org/whatgood.php]. Moffett, D., and M. L. Morgan. 1999. Women as Organizers: Building Confidenceand Community FoodChain:Women, the Foodand Globalization, edited through Food. In Women Working NAFTA by D. Barndt,221-236.Toronto:Second StoryPress.

TORONTO'S

COMMUNITY

GARDENS

325

Cities:UrbanFood Productionin a GlobalizingSouth. In For Mougeot,L.J.A. 1999. For Self-Reliant Cities: UrbanFoodSystems, editedby M. Koc,R.MacRae, J.A. Mougeot, L. Hunger-Proof Sustaining and J.Welsh,11-25.Ottawa:InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre. OMAFRA[Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,Food and RuralAffairs]. 2004. Area, Production and FarmValueof SpecifiedCommercial Vegetable Crops,Ontario.[http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/ english/stats/hort/vegsumoo.html]. M. Ramdharry, 2000. Interviewwith HeatherMaclean.Toronto,18 July. Distribution:The Case of Toronto,Canada. Scharf,K. 1999. A Nonprofit Systemfor Fresh-Produce In ForHunger-Proof Cities:SustainingUrbanFoodSystems, edited by M. Koc, R. MacRae,L. J.A. Mougeot, and J.Welsh,122-127.Ottawa:InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre. Review85 (3): Schmelzkopf,K. 1995. Urban Community Gardensas ContestedSpace. Geographical 364-382. Smit, J.,and J. Nasr. 1992. UrbanAgriculturefor SustainableCities:Using Wastesand Idle Landand and WaterBodies as Resources.Environment Urbanization (2): 141-152. 4 Smith, C. M., and H. E. Kurtz. 2003. Community Gardensand Politics of Scale in New YorkCity. Review93 (2): 193-212. Geographical MovementsConfrontGlobalization. London:Zed Starr,A. 2000. Naming the Enemy: Anti-Corporate Books. UNDP [UnitedNations DevelopmentProgramme]. 1996. Urban Food,Jobsand SustainAgriculture: able Cities.New York:United Nations DevelopmentProgramme. Wekerle,G. R. 2000. MulticulturalGardens:Changingthe Landscapeof the City. In Proceedings of the International UrbanAgriculture Horticulture; Linkage and The with UrbanPlanSymposium: ning, edited by H. Hoffmann and K. Mathey,1-9. Berlin:Humboldt Universityof Berlin and
TRIALOG.
..

What'sMissing from Toronto'sNew 2002. Community Gardeningand UrbanAgriculture: OfficialPlan. OntarioPlanningJournal17 (4): 25-26. . 2004. Food JusticeMovements:Policy,Planning,and Networks.Journalof PlanningEduca0- and Research (4): 378-386. tion 23 Welsh, J., and R. MacRae. 1998. Food Citizenship and Community Food Security: Lessons from Studies19 (SpecialIssue):237-255. Toronto,Canada.CanadianJournalof Development Foodand theDevelopment theAgro-Industrial Winson,A. 1993. TheIntimateCommodity: Complex of in Canada.Aurora,Ont.: GaramondPress.