 |
|
|
|||||
Many of the office buildings emptied by the pandemic are still sitting vacant. A recent report from Moody’s Analytics found that in the second quarter of 2025, office vacancy rates were still above 20% nationwide, and cities across the country are still trying to figure out what, if anything, to do about it. One startup has an unconventional solution: it wants to fill that empty space with crops. Area 2 Farms is a three-year-old company based in Arlington, Virginia, that’s taking the concept of indoor farming to unusual spaces. Its first farm, in Arlington, grows dozens of varieties of crops in a low-slung brick building tucked between a dog day care and a car repair shop. With a new infusion of venture capital, the company is planning to expand, and it’s looking to empty office buildings as potential future farms. “Part of our vision is that a farm can go anywhere,” says the company’s founder, Oren Falkowitz. Backed by $9 million in new funding from Seven Seven Six, Slow Ventures, 468 Capital, and Animo, Area 2 Farms is planning to build 10 new farms across the U.S. in 2026. Falkowitz says the company is currently pursuing opportunities in Philadelphia, Charlotte, Nashville, South Florida, Orlando, Austin, and Raleigh-Durham, and Atlanta. His goal is to build indoor farms within 10 miles of 90% of the U.S. population. [Photo: Area 2 Farms] Proximity is the driving idea behind the company. Falkowitz grew up in south Florida and remembers a time when oranges were typically bought not at a grocery store but from the actual orange grove, directly from the farmers who grew them. Today studies estimate that most produce travels hundreds of miles before it reaches the end consumer. “The production of our food just gets pushed further and further away,” Falkowitz says. “As a result of this distance, the stores are asking growers to produce things that are more shelf-stable, not necessarily more diverse or more nutritional.” Falkowitz, who previously worked for the National Security Agency and later founded two cybersecurity companies, proposes a hyperlocal alternative. “We move the farm, not the food,” he says. [Photo: Area 2 Farms] The company’s pilot farm in Arlington produced its first crop in fall 2022. The company estimates it has produced more than 20,000 harvests since then, using a modular rack-based system that automatically moves crops through a cycle of mimicked daylight and darkness. Planted in box containers filled with soil, the farm is able to grow kitchen staples like lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes, tomatoes, and mushrooms, as well as more niche items like amaranth microgreens and purple shamrock. Rising 18 feet tall, the racks cram 200 acres-worth of annual crop growing into 3,000 square feet of real estate. Indoor farming is not new. Greenhouses are an essential part of the global food system, and Falkowitz notes that hydroponic farming has existed since the days of Babylon. “I would say it’s only partially interesting to be growing vertical, and it’s totally uninteresting or uninnovative to ship your products to Whole Foods, or Safeway, or Publix,” he says. Area 2 Farms works more like those orange groves Falkowitz remembers as a child, but with the high-tech twist of its automated growing racks. Local farmers run the space and its customer base comes primarily from within a two-mile radius for weekly farm share pickups. “When we build a farm or we move the farm back to people, we want them to interact with it. We don’t want anyone in between the farmer and the consumer,” he says. The idea has caught on. “We’ve been sold out for the last hundred weeks,” Falkowitz says. That’s why he’s keen to expand Area 2 Farms’ modular farming technology to new spaces. “What we wanted the technology to be able to do is to fit wherever it could,” he says. “In order to build a greenhouse in a city you would need a quarter-acre to an acre of just land, and that does not exist.” What does exist in cities is underutilized buildings and oddly shaped lots. Area 2 Farms is currently in the process of building its second farm on a trapezoid-shaped lot in Fairfax, Virginia, that’s been vacant for 20 years. Falkowitz sees even more potential in the empty offices that litter cities across the country, and he says cities and real estate owners have been open to the idea of taking this farming technology inside former offices. “They’re just like, ‘have the space. We don’t know what to do with it,'” Falkowitz says. Area 2 Farms is one alternative, and perhaps a second chance for buildings that might have otherwise gone obsolete. “At the core, we’re really focused on revitalizing underutilized or existing spaces,” Falkowitz says. “And that can be a wide array of shapes.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Whiskey has always carried weight. Think crystal tumblers, low-lit bars, Don Draper pouring a glass after a big win, or Sinatra crooning with a dram in hand. These rituals and symbols have long defined the category, but in 2025 they may also have held it back. While other “dusty” drinks made surprising comebacks this summer (see Bacardis Breezer relaunch, Smirnoff Ice chasing Gen Z, even cask ale enjoying a 50% surge among 1824-year-old pub-goers), whiskey didnt seize the moment. The idea of making whiskey more appealing to younger drinkers isnt exactly breaking news. But it matters now more than ever, thanks to a new opportunity with this demographic. According to recent IWSR data, 70% of Gen Z now drink alcohol, up from 46% just two years ago. This generation is curious, open to experimentation, and more likely to embrace unexpected drinks than older cohorts. Yet whiskeys sales have been declining in younger demographics, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. The urgency is clear: if whiskey wants to remain culturally relevant, it has to capture Gen Zs attention now, before other categories cement themselves as the new go-to for younger drinkers. Reinventing rituals without abandoning heritage For whiskey, the challenge isnt about throwing away tradition. Its about loosening it up. A single malt aged for 40 years will always command respect, but it cant be the only story the category tells. If Gen Z is to adopt whiskey, it has to feel approachable, flexible, and fun. Thats where new rituals come in. Long associated with hushed reverence, whiskey can become a summer staple when presented in lighter, fresher serves. The Whiskey Highball is the clearest example of this shift. A tall glass, sparkling soda, and a hint of citrus: its whiskey, but social and sessionable. Suntorys Toki has built its modern identity almost entirely around this serve, while Dewars has positioned the highball as an everyday cocktail in the U.S. These moves show that whiskey doesnt need to change what it is, it simply needs to change how it shows up. Flavors and RTDs: breaking down barriers Gen Z drinkers often dont want to start with smoky or peaty intensity. Flavored whiskeys like Jack Daniels Apple or Crown Royal Peach prove that approachable entry points can feel fresh rather than gimmicky. RTDs, like Jameson Ginger & Lime or Jack & Cola, add portability and sociability, two qualities whiskey has historically lacked. And its not just big brands making moves. New labels like Strutter, a peanut-butter-and-honey flavored whiskey with streetwise swagger, show how newcomers are breaking category codes. Rebranding whiskey: from heritage to inclusivity Whiskey has always had heritage on its side, but heritage can weigh heavy. The brands finding traction are swapping imagery of leather armchairs and oak panels for lighter, lifestyle-led storytelling. Jameson continues to frame whiskey as sociable and welcoming. Makers Mark is leaning into vibrant cocktails like the Whiskey Smash and Whiskey Spritz. The message is clear: whiskey doesnt need to dictate the vibe; it can flex to fit it. A unified approach to the future Whiskey has made progress, but it hasnt yet claimed drink of the summer status. Why? Because the category is fragmented. Different brands push different experiments, which dilutes the impact. Whats needed now is a unifying symbol: one iconic serve, one joyful narrative, a category-wide push that says, Whiskey can be light, inclusive, and fun. Heritage and lightness arent opposites. Together, they can future-proof whiskey for new generations. Opportunity calls Whiskeys history has always been about time: ageing in barrels, patience, tradition. But in 2025, time is also about urgency. The summer of 2025 showed what happens when whiskey hesitates. Other categories rushed in and grabbed Gen Zs attention. If whiskey doesnt evolve quickly, it risks becoming the drink people respect but dont reach for. The good news is, Gen Z is drinking more, experimenting more, and seeking brands that are inclusive, playful, and authentic. If whiskey shows up in the right wayslighter, fresher, more sociableit can still win them over. As a whiskey lover, I hope to see that happen. Because whiskey has all the ingredients to thrive with Gen Z, it just needs to play with a lighter, more joyful culture. If it does, the drink of summer 2026 might not be a spiked seltzer or a retro alcopop. It might finally be whiskey.
Category:
E-Commerce
It had begun nearly two years prior, with a miscarriage, and then another. I was compiling a list of fertility clinics when he made an appearance on the ultrasound monitor, a flickering response to my quietly brewing despair. I spent the long months of pregnancy that followed feeling like a cartoon character with a me-size thunderstorm threatening at every turn. Though my pregnancy was healthy, I was convinced I had to remain vigilant until my son was in my arms. When my husband and I visited my obstetrician nine days past my sons due date, I wasnt surprised to see an irregularity in his heartbeat. Less than an hour later, we were checking into the hospital to start my induction. Later that night, my sons heartbeat dropped again, prompting a small army of doctors and nurses to rush the delivery room. But he recovered, my body stopped resisting, and then it was over. We sat together in the emptied room, my son curled against my husbands chest, his tiny hat askew. Here was my family. Do our beginnings matter? Its the question at the heart of Orchid, one of a new wave of companies performing genomic screening on human embryos. Roughly 40% of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles today include genetic screening, but in almost all cases, the tests are a relatively rudimentary gauge of obvious chromosomal abnormalities, with results similar in scope to a prenatal amniocentesis test. Orchid and its competitors, all of which were founded within the last decade, assess embryo health in a far more comprehensive, and potentially more radical, way. For Noor Siddiqui, Orchids 31-year-old founder and CEO, old-fashioned origin stories, like my sons, are the equivalent of rolling the dice, as she often says. She doesnt yet have children, but she and her husband hope to someday have two sons and two daughters. To prepare, she has frozen more than a dozen embryos, and plans to retrieve even more eggs. In keeping with Orchids protocols, her embryos have been biopsied; the DNA contained in those four- to six-cell biopsies has been amplified; and the resulting genomic data has been sequenced and scored for chromosomal abnormalities, as well as cancer, autism, diabetes, birth defects, and hundreds of other diseases and disorders. The most important parenting decisions anyone can make, Siddiqui argues, happen before birth: your choice of partner and your childs genome. She views screening embryo genomes as a form of preventive medicine. For the first time ever, parents can mitigate a massive amount of risk that was previously left to chance, she says. She imagines that future couples will start their parenting journey as she did, by reviewing a data-rich, tastefully designed embryo report for each of their prospective children. They will be able to remove from consideration any embryos with serious and often rare monogenic conditions, such as cri du chat syndrome, and compare relative risk on more complex conditions, including intellectual disability and schizophrenia. Siddiqui has no doubt that the practice will one day be widely accepted, and essential. “I started this company because I was pissed I couldnt have a baby the way I wanted, Siddiqui says when we meet on a misty afternoon in June for a walk along the Chicago lakefront. Its her first venture outdoors after a day in hotel meeting rooms alongside attendees of a reproductive medicine conference, where she was a featured speaker trying to convince an audience of physicians that patients undergoing IVF would benefit from Orchids tests. Like many of Orchids customers, Siddiquis life has been shaped by genomic disease. Her mothers DNA contains a de novo mutation that has slowly destroyed her vision; today, she is legally blind. At Stanford, where Siddiqui studied computer science as an undergraduate and in a masters program, classes on artificial intelligence introduced her to the possibilities of applying deep-learning techniques to genomic data. The merging of computational science and genetics was a revelation. I saw what happened to my mom, she says. I dont want [my children] to suffer. Since its founding in 2019, Orchid has evaluated thousands of embryos whole genomes, at an out-of-pocket cost of $2,500 per embryo. (Couples who use Orchid screen an average of five embryos.) Orchid partners with IVF clinics to ensure that embryo biopsies are performed according to its guidance and then amplifies the embryo DNA for analysis at its own clinical labs. Traditionally, IVF clinics evaluate embryos according to their morphological grade, which assesses the number and quality of cells in an embryo. If the clinic orders genetic testing, it is typically a test known as PGT-A, which can detect diseases like Down syndrome, caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21. (The A in the tests name refers to aneuploidy, or an abnormal number of chromosomes.) Orchid goes further. In addition to scanning for hundreds of rare single-gene mutations, it uses statistical techniques to generate polygenic risk scores designed to gauge an embryos predisposition to complex but often common diseases, such as hypertension and coronary artery disease. Because polygenic conditions are influenced by behavior and environment in addition to genetics, the value of their associated risk scores is hotly contested within the research community. Being told one embryo has less risk of hypertension or coronary artery disease than another does not preclude a future diagnosis. But that hasnt stopped couples with a family history of hereditary disease and considerable financial means from flocking to Orchid. My inbox is all babies, says Siddiqui. But critics are circling too. Siddiquis observation that sex is for fun, and embryo screening is for babies, which she first voiced in a YouTube video in 2021, has become a polarizing catchphrase. A fertility specialist appearing on 60 Minutes echoed it with pride, but ethicists wary of a designer-baby future point to it as a sign of Huxleian doom. As she gamely walks the waterfront in a black blazer and sensible heels, Siddiquis frustration with the status quo is palpable. I think its insane that we go to these doctors, talk to these conferences, and theyre grappling with, oh, this is too much information to share with patients, she says. Well, Im going to have a lifetime of medical bills and a child whos always going to suffer from an incurable disease because you didnt want to look at a little bit of extra information. You didnt want to spend five extra minutes with me telling [me] all the options for the most important decision of my life. And that enrages me. But an intervention like Orchid doesnt just reduce suffering; it also introduces choice and control to the reproductive process in unprecedented ways. Through the ages, children have been viewed as a gift (sometimes an unwelcome gift, but a gift all the same). After meeting with Siddiqui, Orchid provides me with a sample embryo report to review. Looking at it, I have the uncomfortable feeling that Im looking not at a gift, but at a productindeed, a luxury product. Am I getting a winner or a dud? Does the promise of increased health span justify the cost of the service? The process rewards couples with the economic means to produce a multitude of embryos, and, by its very nature, encourages consumer-directed optimization. And, throughout, theres the unspoken, but implied directive: May the best baby win. When Jeffs wife suffered two early-term miscarriages, he felt helpless. The couple started looking into IVF, hoping to ind a way to prevent further losses. Jeff, a prominent startup founder himself, heard about Orchid through a colleague who had been advising Siddiqui. He was surprised to learn that some embryos with genetics that are not compatible with life can still generate high morphological grades on traditional IVF tests. When such embryos are implanted, they tend to miscarry. Orchids screening process offered a solution, combining PGT-A with scores for 1,200 monogenic conditions and a dozen polygenic conditionsincluding Alzheimers disease, which runs in Jeffs wifes family. Jeffs wife went through two rounds of egg retrievals. The couple spent upwards of $25,000, in addition to their IVF costs, to screen the resulting embryos with Orchids technology and welcomed a first baby last year. Jeff was so taken with Orchid that he became an investor. Everyone tries to provide a better life for their kids, wants to send their kids to the best school, he says. Why would you not want to give your child the highest probability of health success? And as a society, he argues, we should be trying to eradicate disease and improve our gene pools. He hopes to see federal support for embryo screening, paving the way to lowered costs and greater access. (Eleven states require insurance to cover IVF and fertility preservation; no legislation currently addresses embryo screening.) Perhaps not surprisingly, Orchids earliest and most vocal customers and supporters have been a whos who of Silicon Valley elites, products of a culture where data is prized, longevity is hackable, and children follow after career success. Orchid has raised $12 million from the likes of 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki, Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong, and Ben Lamm, cofounder of the dire wolfreviving startup Colossal Biosciences. For Siddiqui, who completed the fellowship program for young entrepreneurs founded by libertarian iconoclast Peter Thiel, Orchids emphasis on consumer choice is a feature, not a bug. She has spent time with Orchid parents and their Orchid babies; she trusts them. I think consumers are smart, she says. At the end of the day, what I love about the world is that the arc bends toward good. Indeed, if theres a theme common among the leaders of embryo-screening companies, its a sense of befuddlement, even exasperation, at the wary reception they have received in clinical circles. Many of these founders, like Siddiqui, have been affected by genetic or chronic disease. When professional organizations like the American Society of Human Genetics caution against the use of polygenic embryo screening in clinical care, its personal. Nathan Treff, cofounder and chief scientific officer at Orchid competitor Genomic Prediction, developed type 1 diabetes in early adulthood. His research, which relies on a database of DNA from adult sibling pairs, suggests that couples using Genomic Predictions polygenic risk scores for embryo selection can reduce the odds of their child having type 1 diabetes by at least 45%. Dont you think its unethical not to tell patients with diabetes that this was an option? he says. In June, Genomic Prediction announced a partnership with Nucleus Genomics, a genetic health company founded by another former Thiel Fellow, Kian Sadeghi. Genomic Prediction oversees the wet lab process by which embryos are biopsied and their DNA is amplified; Nucleus receives the raw DNA data and conducts its own proprietary analysis. We believe in genetic optimization, Sadeghi told Core Memory podcast host Ashlee Vance in June. We believe [that] if couples want access to height or IQ or hair color or eye color or alcohol dependency, they should have access to that. And the other thing is we really believe in the consumer deciding. As Nucleuss website puts it: Understand your embryos future body, mind, and health, starting with traits like male-pattern baldness and severe acne. Orchid doesnt offer information on cosmetic traits in its reports, and Siddiqui has consistently insisted that Orchid is focused on preventing disease. But the line between markers of disease and mere traits is blurrier than it might first appear. Height is a traityet pulled to its extremes, it becomes idiopathic short stature or Marfan syndrome. Plus, there are correlations between theoretically desirable traits and less desirable ones for reasons that scientists have yet to untangle. For example, educational attainmenta proxy for IQis negatively correlated with traits including conscientiousness and extraversion, and positively correlated with autism spectrum disorders and anorexia. To some researchers, even Orchids focus on disease is problematic. They would like to see companies performing embryo screening connect their abstract polygenic risk scores to real models of disease in more concrete ways. For example, a risk score for obesity, which presents as a spectrum of symptom severity, is not the same as a risk score for cancer. Theres no such thing as half cancer, writes Sasha Gusev, a statistical geneticist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in his Substack The Infinitesimal. Orchid and its peers struggle to communicate these distinctions, at the risk of fostering false hopeor worse, false certaintyamong their customers. Companies like Orchid are still far too young to have a systemic impact. But already, researchers are hypothesizing about how embryo optimization might play out on a population-level scale. Patrick Turley, director of the Behavioral and Health Genomics Center at the University of Southern California, was lead author of a 2021 paper outlining problems with the use of polygenic risk scores in embryo selection. He foreshadows a world in which cost-focused nationalized healthcare systems, in particular, might lead the way in embryo screening. Whats the cost-benefit analysis? he asks. If you could reduce someones diabetes risk by three or four percentage points, what does that mean in terms of lifetime medical spending, but also quality of life in the future? There is something undeniably appealing about de-risking reproduction and lowering lifetime medical costs. Siddiquis preferred metaphorsrolling dice, winning or losing the genetic lotterymake natures reproductive methodology appear haphazard, even capricious. Embryo screening, in contrast, seems like a safe and responsible approach. But of course, Siddiquis portrayal is incomplete. There is intelligence and optimization built into natures design, even if it does sometimes lead to loss. More than half of first-trimester miscarriages are the result of chromosomal abnormalities. My miscarriages caused great grief, but they were also, likely, safeguarding me. Was my son, in the end, the best baby, and is he now the best 6-year-old? The question is almost absurdam I the best mom? All I know for certain is that hes mine.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||