WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

*the* place for collaborative e-snowboarding
Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-21 18:01:04 +0000

north

The idea has been crystallizing in my head for some time now. We should all move to Northern Vermont, shouldn’t we? Some of us will want to just go ahead and buy ourselves houses in one or another of the cute villages and towns that they have up there, but there may be others of us who want to be out in the countryside. Here’s my idea: Eight to twelve youngish knowledge-economy urbanites (say up to four couples/families and up to four single folks) all pool our resources to buy a 200-acre farm. We divide up the property into several good-sized private homestead lots (say, fifteen to twenty acres each), keeping the remainder of the land as common property. We overcrowd ourselves temporarily into the large dilapidated farmhouse, as each person/couple/family goes about building a house on his/her/their lot. When all is said and done, each homestead is independent and privately owned by its inhabitants, with enough land attached for a garden or small farm and enough woods to provide all your firewood needs in perpetuity. The original farmhouse remains on the common land, to be used for weekly social dinners, guest housing for out-of-towners, parties, etc. If you ever decide to move away, you're free to sell your house and land (to a stranger, I mean), while still maintaining your share in the common property for vacations. Or when you sell your house you can give your share in the common property back to the remaining members, thereby giving up all responsibility for its upkeep. Some things that I’m NOT proposing: Not a commune. We would only be living together at first; as soon as possible everyone is off on their own lot, living in their own house which belongs to them. Communes don’t work easily for the long term, because people unfortunately have a hard time consistently acting for the common good. Not an Amish-style rejection of the modern world. I strongly support the use of technology when it makes life better. The internet, insulin, chainsaws, compact fluorescent bulbs—sure, why not? I favor self-sufficiency and minimal environmental impact, but not primitivism. Nobody would be a full-time farmer. Farming is (for now and at this moment in history) one of the hardest ways to make a living. If we can get the necessaries of life more easily by working as teachers or surveyors’ assistants or web designers one or two towns away, or by running freelance editorial operations out of our homes, or having a summer art camp, or whatever, I say go for it. I want to grow my own tomatoes, and maybe have a source of fresh eggs, and at least have the capacity to produce as much home-grown food as possible. We can expect food prices to continue to rise significantly in coming years, what with increasing populations and the development of the developing world and global climate changes. At some point in the future, farming may become much more attractive. NOT a community of survivalist crackpot bunker-crouchers. Civilization may be on the verge of falling apart, or it may not. In any case, I don’t advocate stockpiling AK-47s in anticipation of the coming anarchy. I think that, in the event of the collapse of the American Empire, rural communities will probably continue to maintain law and order perfectly well, as they’ve always done. NOT an each-man-or-woman-for-himself-or-herself suburban subdivision, like a little piece of Acton transplanted into the boondocks. I envision a community where people can have their own houses on their own land, but where many activities involve voluntary cooperation. You help raise the frame of my house, I’ll help raise the frame of yours. You tend my chickens while I’m on vacation, I’ll walk your goat while you’re visiting Mom in the nursing home. One or two people are motivated to make maple syrup? The community as a whole votes to give them permission to tap the trees on the common land, in exchange for a share of the finished product. Why Northeastern Vermont? It’s beautiful and relatively unspoiled. It has some of the cheapest farmland in New England; you can get more land for less money in Northern Maine, but you can’t do better anywhere within four hours of Boston. Not only is Northeastern Vermont relatively close to Boston, it’s also close to Montreal. There are several college towns in the area, to provide possible employment for some of us and cultural enrichment for all. It’s far enough north that its climate in the coming century will be more or less like the climate you grew up with. The new climate in the place you grew up with will more closely resemble the climate of Hell. Vermont has been periodically settled by back-to-the-landers for the last forty years. Any community we settle in will have at least a few people who understand and are sympathetic to what we’re trying to do. (I.e., not everyone will view us with hostility as invaders out to destroy their way of life.) I understand that it's a tough sell. I haven't even managed to convince the missus yet. But I'm working on her.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-06-22 07:26:35 +0000
Ah, now we're talkin'... The wifey and I love Les Verts Monts. 1) The division of the land is obviously the most important. Who wants to own 15 acres if 14 are swamp? Even if the land is 'pro-rated', people will get pissed. 2) Based on some experience here, be sure to include large lots and not just 'house footprints' out of common land, making the subdivisions worth much less (but also their taxes - which is the reason one does this). Plus, be sure to make a full lot for the dilapidated old farmhouse, because it too might be sold at some point. 3) Socialogy psycho-babble: Pchippy IS describing a commune at first. People sharing work and property collectively, the horror! Yet, some communes are built so that they diverge; co-ops typically are not. "Vermont has been periodically settled by back-to-the-landers for the last forty years." -Try 140 years... Awesome: "The internet, insulin, chainsaws, and compact fluorescent bulbs." Sign me up in 3 years...

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-06-22 14:29:32 +0000
Awesome.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-06-22 15:13:37 +0000
I love you guys for thinking of this and for being so enthusiastic about it. A little sheepishly, I have to admit that I don't think that I will ever live somewhere (that is, stay somewhere for more than a few months) without the following within short walking distance: 1. public transportation (bicycle access counts) which gives easy access to at least one movie theater (regularly featuring films I want to see) and a selection of music venues (regularly featuring bands I want to see), restaurants, parks, museums, shops, etc. 2. purveyors of food & clothing (yes, I am a diva - pleased to meet you). 3. friends. While your planned community certainly would have #3, and probably would have #2, my #1 need - I reckon - would be a bit difficult to meet to my satisfaction in Les Verts Monts. As nice as they - and you - are. But hey - I'd happily pay B&B rates for use of spare room(s) from time to time...

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-22 15:44:40 +0000
The common house would also hold a shared library, consisting of everybody's excess books. The barn of the common house holds tools and other items that you want to have access to but don't necessarily need to have as your own private possession: rototiller, extension ladder, drill press, cider press, lathe, etc. The barn may also serve as rehearsal space for bands, and as a studio for pottery, wooden boat building, etc. The kitchen has things like bundt pans, apple corer, pasta maker, etc., that no cook needs on an everyday basis but that come in handy once in a while. If the property is at all hilly and if it has a brook, we construct an artificial pond, and use the water backed up behind the dam to generate electricity. The pond itself provides swimming in summer, skating in winter, possibly trout if anybody feels likestocknig it fr fishing purposes, and asource of water for irrigation for any gardens downhill from it. Common woods not only provide natural space and privacy from neighbors, but a sustainable source of timber, firewood, and maple sugar (if there are maple trees.) Placing a conservation easement on the common land permits current uses to continue in perpetuity, while lowering property taxes. And yes, Conor, the division of the land into desirable homestead lots would require care and equitable decision-making. (Possibly a tree of A-divides-B-chooses decisions?) Also difficult, of course, would be selecting a property to purchase in the first place. It can be done, though. I actually lived in a neighborhood during my high-school years that had been established on a similar basis; a bunch of WWII army buddies had decided to make a community for themselves and their families when they got out of the service; they bought a large tract of land, carved it up into individual house lots, built houses (one of the founders happened to be an architect), and set aside a larger lot for their common property, with a community house, tennis court, and swimming pool. By the time I lived there, in the 80s, about two-thirds of the houses were still owned and inhabited by the original members of the community. They had annual square dances and New Year's Eve parties, too.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-06-22 15:50:58 +0000
Guess who's eligible to live and work in the EU (no questions asked) in ten weeks? So when our exodus happens, if it happens, it's overseas ... or Baltimore (goddamned "Wire" is making me feel for that place.)

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-22 15:57:39 +0000
Parks, at least, would not be an issue. Nobody who's living out in the countryside feels deprived for lack of green space. The other, cultural parts of your Point #1 are more reasonable concerns. Part of the answer is, of course, Do It Yourself. Found a band. Arrange a Shakespeare-reading club, and have it meet at your hose so you don't have to travel to get to it. During the years that I lived in Northern New England I belonged to the local arts council--I was the president of the film committee, and I ran weekly showings at the local community centers and libraries--and I was a member of a choral group that met at a friend's house (too far away to walk or ride my bike, alas!).

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-22 15:59:25 +0000
Yes, you'll always have the option of moving to Cumbria and taking up dog-breeding.

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-22 15:59:53 +0000
[sorry, dupe post]

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-06-22 16:03:35 +0000
You and your fiendish argumentation are tempting, my dear pchippy. Having bands play - and films screen - in my very own basement sounds deliciously... delicious. Unfortunately my talents lay in the organisational side of things, but given the right combination of creative cohabitants... Hm.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-06-22 18:12:56 +0000
Wow - those are some rough corners. I'd come to visit you (we might have to meet for lunch @ Fells point or on the waterfront).

Posted by MF DU on 2008-06-22 18:17:14 +0000
What I and the wife and such have been doing doesnt always seem optimal - I dont know what to do about it, - I am glad to see other people are also thinking about this stuff. I don't think I could go more rural than Monson, though. If anything I think I need to be at last 50 or 60% closer to a city than I am now so I could get rid of a car. A one-car family would be so much more manageable. Thanks for starting this thread, Pchippy - I am enjoying it.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-06-22 20:45:39 +0000
I fucking *loved* Baltimore.

Posted by tommy on 2008-06-23 11:19:50 +0000
Re: (1). There are two (!!) art theatres in St. Johnsbury. The Notheast Kingdom is a great place for biking, but I don't suppose Chippy is proposing running trolley tracks from downtown SJ.

Posted by tommy on 2008-06-23 11:24:29 +0000
Ditto. Some of the park benches there are engraved with the motto "Baltimore -- The Greatest City in America". Which is a totally ballsy thing to have as a city motto.

Posted by tommy on 2008-06-23 11:55:08 +0000
Chippy, thanks for the post. I don't think I'll be leaving 'the city' any time in the foreseeable future, but if you do this I'll wish you luck and will want to come visit. I'm very curious about the 'firewood in perpetuity' comment. How much of a chunk of forest do you have to have to supply your firewood such that it grows back as fast as you cut it down?

Posted by mr. mister on 2008-06-23 12:11:20 +0000
Massachusetts is going to be like hell. It's not so bad. But maybe VT will be nicer. good investment idea.

Posted by tommy on 2008-06-23 12:14:19 +0000
Napkin-math (most figures gotten from the internet, so they must be true) We have a 200-gallon oil tank in our house, which has been filled about 6 times in the year that we've owned the place. Thus, we use about 1200 gallons of oil per year (this provides heat/hw, but not electricity/stove/etc.) Saw a conversion chart which claimed that 1 cord of wood is the rough equivalent of 150 gallons of oil. Thus, 8 cords of wood per year for heat and hot water. The Northeast Kingdom is sugar maple country, yes? A sugar maple tree matures in 40 to 60 years. Call it 50. Some dude on a chat board says that "most mature trees" provide between 1/4 and 3/4 of a cord of wood. So, lets say two trees per cord. Thus, I would need to cut down 16 trees per year for heating my current house. In the next 50 years, that's 800 trees; then I can start the next cycle. The optimum density for maples is about 50 trees per acre. Thus, somewhere around 16 acres of forest is necessary per house (about an 800' by 800' square, I think). I'm probably off by a bunch, but it's probably safe to say "more than 5 acres, less than 100"

Posted by G lib on 2008-06-23 13:33:49 +0000
Some of my favorites from this site: http://www.farmandforest.com/realestate/search/3344/-listprice/0/10/ 7200 VT RTE 5A Sutton VT, MLS #2662198 Brighton VT - MLS No. 2720829 2204 Long Hill Rd Concord VT MLS: 2720845 Fletcher Quarry Rd. Woodbury VT MLS: 2690498 Hudson Road Lemington VT MLS: 2702750 578 Salls Road Greensboro VT MLS: 2726816

Posted by Miriam on 2008-06-23 13:34:12 +0000
In theory, I like the idea. I've been talking about having a farm with a soundstage, artist/intellectual colony, and organic soybeans on the Cumberland Plateau for the last 16 years, but have very little interest in living in Northeastern Vermont. I will happily come to visit and walk goats, water gardens, build stuff and teach at the art camp. I am personally looking forward to Tennessee becoming oceanfront property again and having a wonderful view from my bungalow here.

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-23 14:51:32 +0000
Did you happen to run across this discussion? When I lived up in New Hampshire, I heated entirely with wood, and I never burned more than 2.5 cords per year in my badly-insulated house. One other hand, it was a small space (900 sq. ft.), and I wasn't using wood to heat my water, and I probably kept the house colder than you keep yours. One nice point about heating with wood that you grow on your own lot is that it's effectively carbon-neutral, except for the energy to cut the wood and haul it across your property.

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-23 15:03:14 +0000
Not in Vermont, and not enough land, but pretty nice. A ramshackle farmhouse house with seventeen acres, just $135,000.

Posted by tommy on 2008-06-23 15:22:34 +0000
Thanks for the link. Looks like I wasn't so far off with the 16 acres guess.

Posted by respectless on 2008-06-23 15:40:42 +0000
ingenious. i love the idea, as i have dreamt of having a friendly community (not commune) with like minded people and being more self-sustaining and more rural for years. i'd also love to build my own home. this definitely deserves consideration. and if MA is hell, what is florida? definitely hotter and humider.

Posted by Miriam on 2008-06-23 20:10:51 +0000
So strange; it looks MUCH bigger than my house, but it's only 60 sq ft more and looks much closer to collapse. Then again, that 17 acres and $8K less in price is interesting. I think it would take about $50K to fix it up, though.

Posted by pchippy on 2008-06-26 16:23:53 +0000
You're right, Miriam--the building as a whole is much larger than the "finished sq. ft." figure would suggest. I'd guess that it's probably well over 2000 square feet in all, but that some of the rooms in the wing on the left are gutted. Also, upstairs bedrooms may not be counted as "finished" space if their only source of heat is through a heating register that lets warm air flow up from the first floor rooms. (A lot of old houses in New England are designed that way.)

Posted by pchippy on 2009-04-23 22:37:25 +0000
Just got word that my parents' old farm (which they sold several years back) is on the market again. It's in Parsonsfield ME, just 39 miles from Portland. It's a good bit pricier than I would wish (the current owner is asking $695,000), and it only comes with 140 acres, but in other respects it's the farm of my dreams. It comes with a sizable orchard, mostly apple but also some pear trees: Three working fireplaces, 200 years old: Also includes a gigantic old barn in excellent condition, plus carriage house, chicken house, and woodshed. Old maples, perennial gardens, and rhubarb beds. Four bedrooms, full modern bath, plus a two-holer privy off the carriage house.

Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-28 01:15:16 +0000
That honestly looks dreamy.

Posted by pchippy on 2009-04-28 15:29:37 +0000
Doesn't it? The barn by itself is a wonder--all post-and-beam construction, of course, and in excellent condition. The bottommost level has a pigpen; the main-floor level has horse and cow stalls; above that is a hayloft; and if I remember right there was another smaller hayloft (and dovecote) above that, right under the roof. The carriage barn, which is attached to the main farmhouse, is more of a finished space: (That's the place for the rock band to practice--way down at the far end of the ell from the main house) The current owner has had the henhouse (freestanding) and the woodshed (connected by an ell and a summer kitchen to the main house) rebuilt--still in post-and-beam construction. One of the nicest things about the place is that it's set a few hundred feet back from the road, up a lovely maple-lined drive:

Posted by pchippy on 2009-04-28 22:40:42 +0000
I regret to inform you that even if every ounce of ice in Antarctica melts (which is likely to take several centuries at least), Tennessee will be high and dry. The lowest parts of the state, down around Memphis, are close to 300 feet elevation. The melting of all the ice in the world will only raise sea levels by 240 feet or so. On the other hand, you can expect increased excitement in the form of more frequent and more powerful tornadoes, from what I've read.

Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-30 23:08:35 +0000
I'm drooling.

Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-30 23:10:42 +0000
I loathe tornadoes. Not as easy to deal with as gobs and gobs of snow. On the other hand, they don't last nearly as long as blizzards.

Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-30 23:11:59 +0000
I loathe tornadoes. Not as easy to deal with as gobs and gobs of snow. On the other hand, they don't last nearly as long as blizzards.

E-mail to tgl@rideside.net to add your tumblr.
Find me on github.