(excerpt from the book's intro, and a brief summary from a local paper) This was an interesting, if short, read! Briefly: the book covers some experiences from a women's collective that builds cob...
This was an interesting, if short, read! Briefly: the book covers some experiences from a women's collective that builds cob structures (among several other things) together off in the backwoods of British Columbia. They pack up their stuff and their children, then go camp out at the job site as a work party to make the change they want to see in the world.
My impression is that it's intentionally radical and not necessarily one for one replicable, however, a lot of what they do/did is:
child care is provided for all participants, and costed in their proposals,
compensation is based around whatever is sustainable, not maximizing profit,
decisions are made as a group, not via a strict hierarchy,
no dudes allowed on the jobsite
... that last one requires a bit of context. They note that, in several anecdotes, men and women alike will accidentally start behaving per their rigid social roles in mixed company, to their own detriment (and the stated goal of the collective, which includes empowering women).
One example given was that a husband who dropped off his wife and children felt the need to direct the jobsite, which resulted in a bunch of stress on his part: they were used to working without supervision, which seemed like chaos, but ultimately eventually worked. When informed that everything is A OK and going to plan, you can sit down because we don't need help, that was an immense weight off of his shoulders. The moral of the story being that socially burdening men with being leaders blinds us to the possibility of allowing others -- or groups of people -- to share the responsibility.
They also dive into a bunch of anti-capitalist messaging, which I won't go into since it's been beaten to death in other topics, and I'm not certain if it's the core message they're getting across 😅 broadly, I think the authors' are trying to empower people to think of and create alternatives to the systems which constrain their options today, which necessarily means for 99% of us that they're critiquing capitalism.
They also delve into some general discontent around the notions of building codes/engineering, life safety, and property ownership, which gave me pause. I don't recommend buying the book for effectively that reason alone: although they're doing some really cool stuff, replicating it at scale would statistically put people in harms way (and imo would also environmentally devastate the Earth's ecosystems). But the core ideas are still neat!
Overall I liked it, and would recommend borrowing a copy at the library for an afternoon read if the topic of literally building a brighter future appeals to you. It's a pretty easy read, but is imo kinda repetitive (apparently each section was written by different authors, which shows). Maybe skip the last section on construction techniques, and go do some research on structural engineering/building science, though :3
This is something I was thinking about while reading through the summary and intro. Its really cool, but it also perpetuates a lot of ideas that I hear online which I don't think are quite true;...
although they're doing some really cool stuff, replicating it at scale would statistically put people in harms way (and imo would also environmentally devastate the Earth's ecosystems). But the core ideas are still neat!
This is something I was thinking about while reading through the summary and intro. Its really cool, but it also perpetuates a lot of ideas that I hear online which I don't think are quite true; namely that Cities are unsustainable and environmentally damaging, and a more sustainable way to live is by living in sparsely populated areas, close to nature. Every piece of evidence I've seen suggests the complete opposite. Human beings, while in untouched wilderness, tend to badly harm it, no matter how careful they are about avoiding that tendency. We take up a lot of space, we clear areas for housing comfort, we get rid of pests and so on. That tendency doesn't really matter much on a small scale, but if you scale that up to eight billion people, it would be devastating for everyone to go off into the wilderness to homestead.
At the end of the day, sustainability mostly comes down to efficiency; how can we live our lives to our standard of living while consuming as few resources as possible. Cities are extremely good at this. The more people live close together, the less energy it costs to transport them and the goods they need to live to them and amongst them. You can build a water main that supplies 500 people living in an apartment building with far less effort as it takes to build one supplying 4 families in an exurb far away from the city, for instance. It becomes easier to regulate problematic behavior like groundwater pollution when people are closer together also. Cities obviously have a lot of sustainability problems too, but overall, it's a lot better for nature for human beings to concentrate themselves in a few small areas rather than spreading out as much as possible.
You do still rely on rural areas for food and resources, but doing these things at a large scale is a lot more efficient and requires less resources than if everyone has their own little farm.
I think it's very common to confuse the concept of living around nature, with preserving nature, which is ironic, because those two things are virtually always diametrically opposed.
Mmhm, I think you hit the nail on the head! This kinda feels like a green vs. grey urbanism thing, where this group leans heavily into the green/"return to nature" side of the debate. I think I...
Mmhm, I think you hit the nail on the head! This kinda feels like a green vs. grey urbanism thing, where this group leans heavily into the green/"return to nature" side of the debate.
I think I broadly agree with the notion that living efficiently is the most effective way to mitigate the impact of human habitation, but I think I differ a bit in the direct implications? As in, the specifics of how cities are designed in order to create those efficiencies, and their necessary impact on the local ecology.
IMO: the built environment is still the environment, and people are still animals that're living in it. I genuinely do not believe that the urban ecosystem need consist exclusively of rats, pigeons, and whatever raccoons can fit in the bushes, and that we can design cities that support biodiversity and the local ecology. Practically, we're seeing bits and pieces of that show up since fighting nature constantly has an engineering cost too -- e.g. in how we're implementing distributed stormwater diversion to avoid massive runoff costs, or how green spaces are used to provide shade to reduce the urban heat island effect. But I think that further, dramatic improvements are possible, especially if we can find viable alternatives to paving over a quarter+ of the area for car traffic.
But yeah, having everyone retreat into the hinterlands to grow potatoes on their acreage would end in disaster; agreed.
In conversing with planners and researchers of urban design, there arises a sense that the technical viability of a sustainable, less paving-forward transportation system is already discovered,...
In conversing with planners and researchers of urban design, there arises a sense that the technical viability of a sustainable, less paving-forward transportation system is already discovered, just not implemented; and that matters of social psychology and political philosophy are comparatively underdeveloped.
I think you’re right that further, dramatic improvements are possible.
Anyway, it’s interesting to consider what the right balance is between efficient, conservation-informed land use and everyday exposure to “nature.” We could probably stand to disincentivize certain destructive and inefficient development patterns, nicely encouraging people away from some suburbs so that at least a handful of the old forests and prairies can return. Maybe we can even manage to support a few more critters in the big cities too. With that said, maximal geographic ecological preservation (if we all lived exclusively in efficient cities) might eventually seem like an opportunity cost to a political body that never interacts with the subject of the protection. Citizens for whom “nature” is a theoretical or ideological construct and not a lived experience would probably not restrain themselves from incrementally stripping away the environmental protections of their forebears because it would be convenient to have a little more space after all, and, well, we have nuclear fusion now and this whole global warming thing isn’t so bad. Maybe this relationship is cyclical, or maybe there’s an equilibrium. Either way, perhaps this quandary elevates the role of urban zoos and similar preserves, which are far from “natural” but perform an educational role that guides society in a direction of ecological respect.
This is such a neat idea, thank you for sharing. The one thing I wonder is how they evade local building codes, especially as they become publicized? Are the structures always built in...
This is such a neat idea, thank you for sharing. The one thing I wonder is how they evade local building codes, especially as they become publicized? Are the structures always built in unincorporated municipalities, or similar, where there are no nosey neighbours/inspectors available to stop their work? Are there loopholes in BC that make this work?
np! A lot of BC is really remote. Like, boat access only, and the next closest town is a half day's sailing remote. And the bits that're further away from the coast get even more isolated! So even...
The one thing I wonder is how they evade local building codes, especially as they become publicized?
np!
The one thing I wonder is how they evade local building codes, especially as they become publicized?
A lot of BC is really remote. Like, boat access only, and the next closest town is a half day's sailing remote. And the bits that're further away from the coast get even more isolated! So even if one were to sic the building inspectors onto a structure, there's effectively zero chance that they'll carve time out of their schedule to go track it down ...
Just doing some cursory research, though, Reddit claims that there's been more of a crackdown in recent years, but it's unclear whether that's from folks living in previously out-of-reach areas experiencing the population boom we've felt or a genuine push for greater enforcement. That said -- and I don't support this at all, btw -- the book suggests that one's neighbour is often the source of complaints, and that inspectors only come in once requested. So they advise being friendly with your neighbours as a strategy to evade building code enforcement 😅
(edit) and thank you for that book recommendation, btw! I'll try to track down a copy 😊
That makes sense. I think even in cities, neighbours tend to be a source of complaints triggering inspections. I've heard in some areas, inspectors will use google sat imagery to help them find...
That makes sense. I think even in cities, neighbours tend to be a source of complaints triggering inspections.
I've heard in some areas, inspectors will use google sat imagery to help them find unpermitted work. In my city, there was a crack down on pools a few years ago done through this method. I can see it potentially being effective for identifying more remote areas, assuming up to date sat images are available.
(excerpt from the book's intro, and a brief summary from a local paper)
This was an interesting, if short, read! Briefly: the book covers some experiences from a women's collective that builds cob structures (among several other things) together off in the backwoods of British Columbia. They pack up their stuff and their children, then go camp out at the job site as a work party to make the change they want to see in the world.
My impression is that it's intentionally radical and not necessarily one for one replicable, however, a lot of what they do/did is:
... that last one requires a bit of context. They note that, in several anecdotes, men and women alike will accidentally start behaving per their rigid social roles in mixed company, to their own detriment (and the stated goal of the collective, which includes empowering women).
One example given was that a husband who dropped off his wife and children felt the need to direct the jobsite, which resulted in a bunch of stress on his part: they were used to working without supervision, which seemed like chaos, but ultimately eventually worked. When informed that everything is A OK and going to plan, you can sit down because we don't need help, that was an immense weight off of his shoulders. The moral of the story being that socially burdening men with being leaders blinds us to the possibility of allowing others -- or groups of people -- to share the responsibility.
They also dive into a bunch of anti-capitalist messaging, which I won't go into since it's been beaten to death in other topics, and I'm not certain if it's the core message they're getting across 😅 broadly, I think the authors' are trying to empower people to think of and create alternatives to the systems which constrain their options today, which necessarily means for 99% of us that they're critiquing capitalism.
They also delve into some general discontent around the notions of building codes/engineering, life safety, and property ownership, which gave me pause. I don't recommend buying the book for effectively that reason alone: although they're doing some really cool stuff, replicating it at scale would statistically put people in harms way (and imo would also environmentally devastate the Earth's ecosystems). But the core ideas are still neat!
Overall I liked it, and would recommend borrowing a copy at the library for an afternoon read if the topic of literally building a brighter future appeals to you. It's a pretty easy read, but is imo kinda repetitive (apparently each section was written by different authors, which shows). Maybe skip the last section on construction techniques, and go do some research on structural engineering/building science, though :3
This is something I was thinking about while reading through the summary and intro. Its really cool, but it also perpetuates a lot of ideas that I hear online which I don't think are quite true; namely that Cities are unsustainable and environmentally damaging, and a more sustainable way to live is by living in sparsely populated areas, close to nature. Every piece of evidence I've seen suggests the complete opposite. Human beings, while in untouched wilderness, tend to badly harm it, no matter how careful they are about avoiding that tendency. We take up a lot of space, we clear areas for housing comfort, we get rid of pests and so on. That tendency doesn't really matter much on a small scale, but if you scale that up to eight billion people, it would be devastating for everyone to go off into the wilderness to homestead.
At the end of the day, sustainability mostly comes down to efficiency; how can we live our lives to our standard of living while consuming as few resources as possible. Cities are extremely good at this. The more people live close together, the less energy it costs to transport them and the goods they need to live to them and amongst them. You can build a water main that supplies 500 people living in an apartment building with far less effort as it takes to build one supplying 4 families in an exurb far away from the city, for instance. It becomes easier to regulate problematic behavior like groundwater pollution when people are closer together also. Cities obviously have a lot of sustainability problems too, but overall, it's a lot better for nature for human beings to concentrate themselves in a few small areas rather than spreading out as much as possible.
You do still rely on rural areas for food and resources, but doing these things at a large scale is a lot more efficient and requires less resources than if everyone has their own little farm.
I think it's very common to confuse the concept of living around nature, with preserving nature, which is ironic, because those two things are virtually always diametrically opposed.
Mmhm, I think you hit the nail on the head! This kinda feels like a green vs. grey urbanism thing, where this group leans heavily into the green/"return to nature" side of the debate.
I think I broadly agree with the notion that living efficiently is the most effective way to mitigate the impact of human habitation, but I think I differ a bit in the direct implications? As in, the specifics of how cities are designed in order to create those efficiencies, and their necessary impact on the local ecology.
IMO: the built environment is still the environment, and people are still animals that're living in it. I genuinely do not believe that the urban ecosystem need consist exclusively of rats, pigeons, and whatever raccoons can fit in the bushes, and that we can design cities that support biodiversity and the local ecology. Practically, we're seeing bits and pieces of that show up since fighting nature constantly has an engineering cost too -- e.g. in how we're implementing distributed stormwater diversion to avoid massive runoff costs, or how green spaces are used to provide shade to reduce the urban heat island effect. But I think that further, dramatic improvements are possible, especially if we can find viable alternatives to paving over a quarter+ of the area for car traffic.
But yeah, having everyone retreat into the hinterlands to grow potatoes on their acreage would end in disaster; agreed.
In conversing with planners and researchers of urban design, there arises a sense that the technical viability of a sustainable, less paving-forward transportation system is already discovered, just not implemented; and that matters of social psychology and political philosophy are comparatively underdeveloped.
I think you’re right that further, dramatic improvements are possible.
Anyway, it’s interesting to consider what the right balance is between efficient, conservation-informed land use and everyday exposure to “nature.” We could probably stand to disincentivize certain destructive and inefficient development patterns, nicely encouraging people away from some suburbs so that at least a handful of the old forests and prairies can return. Maybe we can even manage to support a few more critters in the big cities too. With that said, maximal geographic ecological preservation (if we all lived exclusively in efficient cities) might eventually seem like an opportunity cost to a political body that never interacts with the subject of the protection. Citizens for whom “nature” is a theoretical or ideological construct and not a lived experience would probably not restrain themselves from incrementally stripping away the environmental protections of their forebears because it would be convenient to have a little more space after all, and, well, we have nuclear fusion now and this whole global warming thing isn’t so bad. Maybe this relationship is cyclical, or maybe there’s an equilibrium. Either way, perhaps this quandary elevates the role of urban zoos and similar preserves, which are far from “natural” but perform an educational role that guides society in a direction of ecological respect.
This is such a neat idea, thank you for sharing. The one thing I wonder is how they evade local building codes, especially as they become publicized? Are the structures always built in unincorporated municipalities, or similar, where there are no nosey neighbours/inspectors available to stop their work? Are there loopholes in BC that make this work?
Here's another book this topic reminded me of: https://www.juliawatson.com/lo-tek-design-by-radical-indigenism. It provides a review of various indigenous building strategies from around the world and is pretty cool.
np!
A lot of BC is really remote. Like, boat access only, and the next closest town is a half day's sailing remote. And the bits that're further away from the coast get even more isolated! So even if one were to sic the building inspectors onto a structure, there's effectively zero chance that they'll carve time out of their schedule to go track it down ...
Just doing some cursory research, though, Reddit claims that there's been more of a crackdown in recent years, but it's unclear whether that's from folks living in previously out-of-reach areas experiencing the population boom we've felt or a genuine push for greater enforcement. That said -- and I don't support this at all, btw -- the book suggests that one's neighbour is often the source of complaints, and that inspectors only come in once requested. So they advise being friendly with your neighbours as a strategy to evade building code enforcement 😅
(edit) and thank you for that book recommendation, btw! I'll try to track down a copy 😊
That makes sense. I think even in cities, neighbours tend to be a source of complaints triggering inspections.
I've heard in some areas, inspectors will use google sat imagery to help them find unpermitted work. In my city, there was a crack down on pools a few years ago done through this method. I can see it potentially being effective for identifying more remote areas, assuming up to date sat images are available.