I don't know if this would qualify or not, but apparently a smaller version of the concept has gained traction in Detroit, not under the same concept, and has been successful in a number of ways, ranging from introducing people to limited production of their own food, but also to more community activity, which I think is good b/c neighbors get to know each other and bond. These are more like community gardens, though.
Did some research and found some general explanations, which I've also found interesting. There are more articles, but I thought I'd start with the academic approach:
1. "Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) is the production of plants and their products, such as vegetables and flowers, inside controlled environment structures such as greenhouses, vertical farms, and growth chambers. By using CEA, we can produce high-value crops at maximum productivity in an efficient and environmentally friendly way."
ceac.arizona.edu/This sounds so much like a corporate description of its products. I wonder if this would include bee and other pollinator farms inside the growth structure. What would be considered "high-value" crops? Who makes these choices? Companies which would create the "growth structure? How would consumers input their preferences, or would that be the determination of the growers?
(High-value makes me think of the target list of Bin Laden and his ilk.)
2. "Controlled Environment Agriculture can refer to any number of technologies but generally refers to growing in a greenhouse, indoors or anywhere that the growing environment can be manipulated. CEA helps farmers grow even more productively than the natural climate of their farm would allow them to otherwise. In traditional farming, a grower is entirely at the mercy of their natural environment, but using technology, farmers can have greater control, maximizing the most beneficial aspects of the environment that lead to more productive, healthier plants using less pesticides."
amhydro.com/pros-and-cons-of-controlled-environment-agriculture/I understand manipulation of growth environments, but I wonder again who determines what manipulation is necessary? Would this involve the grower's selection of seeds, such as hybrids, and would those hybridized seeds be available to consumer? I think this could give the grower an opportunity for a monopoly.
3. "Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) is an advanced and intensive form of hydroponically-based agriculture where plants grow within a controlled environment to optimize horticultural practices."
cea.cals.cornell.edu/"Optimize horticultural practices" would be interpreted in many ways, with marked differences between the grower's interpretation vs. the consumer's interpretation.
I think all of these would allow growers to garner the market, choose their methods of growth, and possibly use pesticides that obviously don't benefit the integrity of the crops. It also allow monopolies to be created.
OTOH, if consumers had a choice and/or could participate in the growing fields, there could be more citizen participation, which I think is preferable to some corporation decision maker's choices.
These are fairly obvious and not insightful observations, but perhaps they're food for thought. Personally, I'm uncomfortable though with anything that would give corporate growers and even universities power to control what foods are produced for consumers. That power could include limitation of foods which could create a monopoly on those foods. I keep thinking about some of the issues when Monsanto created monopolies on seeds.
There's also the cost on funding these indoor farms to be considered. Who pays for construction and upkeep? Are the costs passed along to consumers? Would we end up with higher priced crops and less choice? I think a lot of variables could exist for corporate farms to exploit the situation.
The above are just basic observations; I'm interested in analyses by others here.
