Vertical farming is based on a simple idea: producing crops indoors and above ground, in fully controlled environments, including light, temperature, humidity, and nutrients, on vast high shelves in the heart of cities. At first glance, its advantages seem irresistible. Without pesticides, this method of cultivation consumes up to 90% less water thanks to recycling—particularly hydroponics—and can operate 365 days a year, with high yields, without depending on the vagaries of the climate. It thus offers the promise of fresh, local production, directly connected to short supply chains.

This prospect has sparked global enthusiasm. Japan, with the company Spread, has automated the production of indoor salads on vast shelves, in sterile environments, on an industrial scale. Singapore has placed vertical farms at the heart of its “30 by 30” goal, which aims to cover 30% of its food needs locally by 2030. Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, faced with a scarcity of arable land, see it as a strategic tool, while in the United States, start-ups have raised hundreds of millions of dollars based on a vision of a ultra-technological food future. But bitter failures also highlight the limitations of the model, which is gradually trying to reinvent itself in response.

The ingredients for success

Vertical farms that really work share one thing in common: they are created in contexts where they meet a structural need. In regions where land is scarce, expensive, or arid, high-rise or vertical production is an effective response to geographical constraints.

In Singapore and Dubai, for example, the government plays a decisive role by providing financial support for infrastructure, reducing investment risks, and integrating these technologies into national food strategies.

The success of these models also depends on their integration into local dynamics. In Dubai, vertical farms not only produce food, but also contribute to food security, technical training, skilled employment, and raising public awareness.

The island city of Singapore also relies on advanced hydroponic and aeroponic technologies, with agricultural towers integrated into the urban landscape. This illustrates how agriculture is adapting to land and urban constraints. Technological advances, including high-efficiency LED lighting, advanced automation, and AI to optimize plant growth, are improving the performance of the best-designed models.

Despite challenges (energy costs, economic fragility), these farms continue to be considered a “model for the future” for densely populated city-states, showing that the initiative is part of a long-term policy rather than a mere fad.

Cost, energy, and dependence on venture capital

Despite these successes, many projects have failed, revealing the fragility of a model that is much less robust than it appears.

The first obstacle is energy. Lighting, air conditioning, and operating a fully controlled facility requires a significant amount of electricity, which makes the activity costly and sometimes environmentally unfriendly when the energy is not carbon-free.

The second obstacle is economic: margins on herbs and salads are low, and the model often depends on venture capital rather than stable income. This is what precipitated the difficulties faced by Infarm in Europe and AeroFarms in the United States.

Some farms also found themselves disconnected from local food needs, producing volumes or products that did not meet regional expectations. The model, poorly anchored locally, then becomes vulnerable to the slightest fluctuation in the financial or energy markets.

New models under development

Faced with these limitations, a new generation of projects is emerging, seeking to combine technology, integration, and urban demand through models of vertical microfarms attached to supermarkets, guaranteeing freshness, visibility, and reduced logistics costs.

Other initiatives are exploring energy synergies, combining food production with heat recovery from data centers, developing photovoltaic greenhouses, or using district heating networks.

Vertical farms are also evolving towards more educational and demonstrative functions: even after its bankruptcy, part of the Infarm model continues to inspire urban farms where production serves as much to raise public awareness as to provide fresh produce. These hybrid approaches reflect the growing maturity of the sector, which is focusing less on mass production and more on territorial relevance.

Towards more sustainable vertical farming?

To become a credible driver of food transition, vertical farming must clarify its purpose. Simply producing more is not enough: it must contribute to the food resilience of cities, complement more “horizontal” forms of urban agriculture, such as productive roofs, market gardens, and shared gardens, and be part of regional food policies.

In particular, territorial food projects (PATs) can, through their ambition, bring together the various actors in the territory around the issue of food. They play a key role in integrating these mechanisms in a coherent manner, linking them to the challenges of nutrition, accessibility, distribution, and education. Vertical farming will only become sustainable if it is designed with a systemic approach, is energy efficient, locally based, and compatible with climate objectives.

Far from being a panacea, it is, however, a laboratory for innovation. Where it succeeds is because it is part of a systemic vision of food transition, combining technology, territorial governance, and energy efficiency. Its future will depend less on the height of the towers than on how it fits into the territories and contributes to strengthening the ability of cities to feed themselves in the face of climate and geopolitical crises.