I live in a “back-to-the-land” “ecovillage”. It’s a disaster and not very “eco” (depending on how you define it) but would I live anywhere else? No, I love it.
It was early permaculturalists having a shot with design and got a lot right, and some wrong. If the world didn’t double down on fuel extraction with the peak oil scare, then maybe it could have worked like any small rural township but personal cars are still dominant here. It’s just too far away from anything to work in that regard. A cooperative on a train line with fertile soils might be better.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what went right and what was done wrong, besides the isolation you’ve mentioned. It’s interesting how seemingly often projects like these don’t factor in the logistics of various resources they’ll need.
The place operates under a Body Corporate (or similar to a HOA), land is held in common (600 acres plus) and freehold lots make up the rest. You pay into common land management, you can work some back.
The best thing is the gravity fed reticulated water system fed from header tanks all at same altitude across property. It was the first of its kind designed. All houses have firefighting hydrants too. Dams are large and integrated into road surface. A recent project was Fibre to the Home done with a single pass tractor and blown fibre.
The freehold lots should have been put into trust so they don’t get bought and resold repeatedly for ever increasing prices. Originally they were $20K, now an empty lot is worth 450K and houses have hit 800K. Some lots have cycled for millions.
Internal roads are expensive to maintain as houses are spread out over ridges, leaving river flats open to agriculture. Could a light rail make sense? A single electric bus? It was the 80’s/early 90’s, cars have always been front and centre here.
Succession plans. An aged care facility should have been built, now there are people in their 80s rattling around in their houses and their lots go into disrepair. If property was held in trust, new younger owners could move in and with that, the energy to make change. As it is, most are renters and don’t give a fuck, and fair enough. No one young can buy in so new owners are always old.
Due to age, and some other factors (young people need money to work), no one volunteers for common land ecological maintenance which means barely anything gets done. Parties for personal enjoyment outnumber working bees by a factor of 100.
It was a back to the land, not really a cooperative business, not many streams for money making that would benefit more than a few. It’s just a subdivision in the bush that has a lot of plants planted in the 90s and early 2000s. It’s a high mix of exotics but wildlife has returned heavily so successful in that regard considering it was degraded when they started. It’s a mostly stunning place that has water needs sorted. There isn’t enough money in food production to warrant the planting of food production though small successful business have come and gone in market garden, bamboo, and nurseries.
Your response is greatly appreciated, thank you! I had a feeling that age dynamics of the group and the related challenges wouldn’t have been planned for. Likewise, water catchment and road placement were aspects I expected had been planned for extensively even if certain lifetime maintenance tasks might not have been.
Ever increasing transport costs and maintenance, old age succession, internal economy, constant property price speculation as per standard capitalism, landlord class/renter class, drifting ideals once the permaculture buzz wore off, weeds and other degradations.
Beautiful regenerating natural landscape with gently integrated human habitation, rich water resources, social events, diverse exotic useful plants, wildlife, potential.
I live in a “back-to-the-land” “ecovillage”. It’s a disaster and not very “eco” (depending on how you define it) but would I live anywhere else? No, I love it.
It was early permaculturalists having a shot with design and got a lot right, and some wrong. If the world didn’t double down on fuel extraction with the peak oil scare, then maybe it could have worked like any small rural township but personal cars are still dominant here. It’s just too far away from anything to work in that regard. A cooperative on a train line with fertile soils might be better.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what went right and what was done wrong, besides the isolation you’ve mentioned. It’s interesting how seemingly often projects like these don’t factor in the logistics of various resources they’ll need.
The place operates under a Body Corporate (or similar to a HOA), land is held in common (600 acres plus) and freehold lots make up the rest. You pay into common land management, you can work some back.
The best thing is the gravity fed reticulated water system fed from header tanks all at same altitude across property. It was the first of its kind designed. All houses have firefighting hydrants too. Dams are large and integrated into road surface. A recent project was Fibre to the Home done with a single pass tractor and blown fibre.
The freehold lots should have been put into trust so they don’t get bought and resold repeatedly for ever increasing prices. Originally they were $20K, now an empty lot is worth 450K and houses have hit 800K. Some lots have cycled for millions.
Internal roads are expensive to maintain as houses are spread out over ridges, leaving river flats open to agriculture. Could a light rail make sense? A single electric bus? It was the 80’s/early 90’s, cars have always been front and centre here.
Succession plans. An aged care facility should have been built, now there are people in their 80s rattling around in their houses and their lots go into disrepair. If property was held in trust, new younger owners could move in and with that, the energy to make change. As it is, most are renters and don’t give a fuck, and fair enough. No one young can buy in so new owners are always old.
Due to age, and some other factors (young people need money to work), no one volunteers for common land ecological maintenance which means barely anything gets done. Parties for personal enjoyment outnumber working bees by a factor of 100.
It was a back to the land, not really a cooperative business, not many streams for money making that would benefit more than a few. It’s just a subdivision in the bush that has a lot of plants planted in the 90s and early 2000s. It’s a high mix of exotics but wildlife has returned heavily so successful in that regard considering it was degraded when they started. It’s a mostly stunning place that has water needs sorted. There isn’t enough money in food production to warrant the planting of food production though small successful business have come and gone in market garden, bamboo, and nurseries.
Your response is greatly appreciated, thank you! I had a feeling that age dynamics of the group and the related challenges wouldn’t have been planned for. Likewise, water catchment and road placement were aspects I expected had been planned for extensively even if certain lifetime maintenance tasks might not have been.
Can you elaborate on what else worked and what didn’t?
I did make another reply, did you see it?
Ever increasing transport costs and maintenance, old age succession, internal economy, constant property price speculation as per standard capitalism, landlord class/renter class, drifting ideals once the permaculture buzz wore off, weeds and other degradations.
Beautiful regenerating natural landscape with gently integrated human habitation, rich water resources, social events, diverse exotic useful plants, wildlife, potential.