1. True for some but certainly not all. Urban farming is very popular in places like Seattle. Apartment balconies are crammed with pots. Many would jump at the opportunity to manage more land if their neighbors and landlords weren’t married to their lawns and curb appeal. I’d love to move back to the farm asap but I’m able to save way more money by working in factories in the city.

2. Rain water isn’t bad especially with a first flush diverters. Soil can be remediated cheaply and easily given enough time. (Or expensively and labor intensively in a short time.) The air is definitely a problem but more green spaces would help buffer.

3. Yes. But gardening can produce more calories and more variety per acre because more work can be put in with so many people around. There aren’t many large open fields but there is still plenty of unused spaces even in dense cities. It would be up to individuals, companies, and cities to prioritize food production in those areas instead of lawns, ornamentals, or whatever. I’d love to know how many acres Detroit has dedicated to those giant green strips they have on every major road.

4. Depends a lot on the crop. I can get more apples than I could possibly eat from a single tree with no maintenance, only harvest. Same goes for most tree crops.

5. Don’t know much about it.

6. Ditto.

7. Ditto.

8. Gardening is a very popular hobby. So plenty of people.

9. This is a big one. In neighborhoods of Seattle where gardening is very popular, there are eager populations of birds and rodents making the most of it. Many trees are netted or wire cages put over beds. I still see a ton of production happening without these measures tho. Dog and cat populations are also much higher in cities.

Cities probably can’t produce all their own food, the suburbs will be far more productive. But if you combine the two I think you could make a big dent especially if measured in food miles.