Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What kind of a countryside do we want in the UK?

niksativa said:
<snip> My thoughts to this are that at this time there is no need to build on any "new" land at all. We need a combination of revitalising dead towns (with existing housing infrastructure, or extensive brownfield sites) and personally I think that building high in city centres is okay. <snip>
If you don't have big cities, civilisation can't happen, but if you all move to big cities, then the earth goes to ruin because people aren't where they're needed to be to take care of it.

So you get a sterile countryside, which increasingly tends to get treated as a combination factory and theme park.

I totally agree that renovating sites that have already been built on or trashed is preferable to building on land that could be growing stuff, but I think we still need to spread out from the major population centres far more.
 
- just a very loose, off-the-top-of-my-head, throw away idea:

If the countryside were to return to a place of working class foundations (whether through Kyser's Compulsory Purchase Orders, or some other process), it could see a revolution in UK politics, whereby at the moment we have a right-wing-countryside-dwelling half of the country (generaly true I think) pitched against a generally-left-wing-city-dwelling half.

Reestablishing left-wing politics firmly back in the land would change the mainstream agenda very radically - this needn't be an either/or situation in regards to urban/inner city left wing needs.

A left-wing countryside would be a strong force to push through enivornmental policy changes... who knows, the future might see memebers of the Countryside Alliance pushing copies of the SocialistWorker!
 
From Bernie's Linked "Pattern Language":
Solution
Define all farms as parks, where the public has a right to be; and make all regional parks into working farms.
Create stewardships among groups of people, families and cooperatives, with each stewardship responsible for one part of the countryside. The stewards are given a lease for the land, and they are free to tend the land and set ground rules for its use - as a small farm, a forest, marshland, desert, and so forth. The public is free to visit the land, hike there, picnic, explore, boat, so long as they conform to the ground rules. With such a setup, a farm near a city might have picnickers in its fields every day during the summer.
 
The first thing you need to do when talking about changing the countryside is drop the left/right crap to start with. This isn't about scoring political points or storming the barricades it's about working out what will actually WORK to sort out the current mess, not about imposing some kind of political dogma on the process!!

'Re-establishing leftwing politics in the countryside' - and what historical perspective on the countryside are we talking about here then?
 
Was there ever a left-wing politics in the British countryside? This isn't Spain, with hordes of peasant anarchists, you know.

And once private property is established among farmers, even small subsistence farmers, it'd be the devil's own work to uproot. Look at Ireland. The first leader of the Land League, Michael Davitt was very close to the early socialist movement in England. But his plans for land nationalisation in the Irish countryside fell on deaf ears.

An Eritrean opposition leader once asked me if there was land nationalisation in Ireland.

I said no, but the agricultural processing plants were owned by farmers cooperatives.

A couple of years later I was looking at one of the Eritrean websites and saw this headline: 'Opposition leader announces formation of Eritrean cooperative party'.
 
Kind of replying to Idris:

A real danger in rural communities are people coming in from 'outside' and expecting a countryside that they've read about in Country Life etc.

As I said in my previous post, I grew up in Norfolk but left to go to uni - lots of my friends didn't have that chance to leave and find work where available in Norfolk. My point here is that the 'countryside' should adapt to provide people who live there with jobs - not just to be a retreat for the wealthy.

One example: they want to build a Tesco in my home town, lots of people have protested about it on R4 etc., but speaking to my mates and family - they're all for it. New jobs and a reinjection of life into the town is their opinion.

Anything like this in Ireland?

(This post is a bit contradictory to my last but I feel both ways - grew up there, but like living and working in cities, would want to move to the countryside when I grow old - bit hypocritical that :o)
 
An Explenation: - I was just suggesting (of the top of my head) that at present the countryside is a fortress of conservatism - the politics that permeates the villages of southern England especially, is inward looking and entrenched in a hierarchy which has the aristocracy firmly at its head. - The only issue that has mobilised the countryside is fox hunting: indicative of their priorities.

- I was flippantly pointing out that a return of land use for the people (rather than for the land owner) would be a good thing, and as to what golden moment in history I was imaginining a return to, I guess it would be a pre-feudal system.

Farming's New Feudalism:
http://www.worldwatch.org/live/discussion/106/
"Farmers are going out of business... The corporations are becoming the barons and lords, which are what my grandparents thought they'd escaped," writes Robert Schubert, quoting Percy Schmeiser in his article, "Farming's New Feudalism." Using biological (genetic engineering) and social (patenting) means, agriculture giants consolidated their power in the latter half of the last century in a strategy that has bolstered their bottom lines, writes Schubert.

Biotech crops are a bad deal in many ways: farmers can't save the seed, they risk litigation from drifting patented traits, weeds are developing herbicide resistance, and important markets may decline to buy biotech food. Yet they are still planting them for one reason: to stay competitive. Does modern industrial agriculture represent a new form of feudalism?"

-I am suggesting that if the people of the countryside had a different political leaning, they would have a better approach to standing up to the pressures of modern agricultural practice. Perhaps.
 
Karl Marx on feudalism

In the 19th Century Marx described feudalism as the economic situation coming before the inevitable rise of capitalism. For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of the farmable lands, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom. “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.” (The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), ch. 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
 
J77 said:
Kind of replying to Idris:

A real danger in rural communities are people coming in from 'outside' and expecting a countryside that they've read about in Country Life etc. <snip>
Perhaps a better approach, with sustainability in mind is to move outwards from towns in stages, here's Folke on Ruralisation again.

If you want to skip his statement of the need to achieve sustainability, jump to "The Eco Unit" and read from there.

Ruralisation presentation
 
Idris2002 said:
Was there ever a left-wing politics in the British countryside? This isn't Spain, with hordes of peasant anarchists, you know.

Wat Tyler?

Rebecca Riots?

elements of Welsh nationalism? (e.g. Cymdeithas Yr Iath and to a lesser extent Cymuned and Meibion Glyndwr)

The early Ramblers?
 
Now supposing one wanted to make the Ruralisation process described in the link above actually happen. What Folke calls an "Eco-Unit" (snappy name eh?), is 200 people. That's say 70-odd families of various sizes. Suppose we now try using something along the lines of Christopher Alexander's Grassroots Housing Process to make it happen?
Any local government, state government, public authority, non--profit foundation, or group of citizens can sponsor this process, by making a small cash investment, and by putting land in trust, for housing, with the understanding that it will be held by non--profit housing corporations, managed by the people who live in the houses, and cannot be bought or sold for speculation.

In return for these contributions, the sponsor will reap the following benefits:

1. On each site, a cluster of twelve houses will be designed and built by their owners. Each house will be ready for occupancy within a few month -- and will then grow steadily for the next several years.

2. The process will allow people to own their own houses, without a down payment, merely in return for a monthly payment which is about the same as a typical medium--low income monthly rent or mortgage payment.

3. The project will generate enough money to seed new clusters within the community, as often as the sponsor is willing to supply one acre of land, on the delayed purchase arrangement. In these later clusters, the sponsor is not expected to contribute any further cash sums.

4. The new clusters will grow at an extraordinary rate: so great, that after thirty years, the initial cluster has seeded 70 new clusters; after fifty years, the initial cluster has seeded 1600 new clusters. In short, an initial investment of $30,000 will generate about 20,000 houses in fifty years.

Obviously, there is no form of public housing known today, which can generate such an astonishing supply of houses for such a trifling investment. But the houses are not only cheaper. They are also better, more beautiful and much more profoundly grounded in human needs.
Numbers are in 1970 money and just cover housing, but the approach could be extended. The house clusters would then work within the broader ruralisation pattern Folke is describing above. The "one acre" mentioned, would be part of a larger (say 50 ha site) including half a dozen or so house clusters and also containing agriculture, nutrient recycling, energy systems and workshops etc.

This method allows the gradual export of groups of families from the town into the periphery of the town, using relatively low budget methods to propagate the same patterns over and over again. I would imagine that it'd be possible to put this into practice in a number of ways. For example by electing a Green council, and having them publicly fund it. By setting up a charitable trust of some sort or getting sponsorship from an existing one. I could also imagine this sort of stuff as a complement to libertarian municipalism and similar political strategies.

Feel free to look for weaknesses though. I'm sure e.g. totaladdict or Crispy's knowledge of the planning process will spot some that would need fixing and there may be some fatal flaw that would stop it from working altogether. It's obviously somewhat more expensive than Alexander envisaged, because you need more land and some infrastructure, but probably not *vastly* more so and the payoff is higher, because in addition to addressing housing it also addresses food and energy security, thereby reducing your need to give money to Sainsburys or Powergen for these things.
 
kyser_soze said:
....there is a dangerous social schism and lack of understanding between urban and rural communities... and something needs to be done.
you're not wrong there. there's increasing resentment in the countryside, especially towards (rich[er]) incomers.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I'm sure e.g. totaladdict or Crispy's knowledge of the planning process will spot some that would need fixing and there may be some fatal flaw that would stop it from working altogether.
well, there's what seems like a fairly obvious limitation in the short term and that's the concept of "settlement boundaries" within local planning policies.

what this means is that in rural areas, each settlement has a boundary - outside of which is considered "open countryside" - and new dwellings in the countryside are contrary to policy.

local plans change (and are changing, to become the all singing all dancing "Local Development Framework"), but you're talking about changing long established customs and traditions within local authorities - both members and officers.

dunno though, i've been meaning to try and get some time discuss some of this stuff with the local plans manager... but work's such a mess it never seems to happen.
 
Would it be possible to work around that short-term by redeveloping derelict propery within these "settlement boundaries"? Historical settlement patterns are probably a pretty good guide to what works anyhow, and it'd be much better to avoid turning good land into building land wherever possible anyway.
 
some links to rural housing and other related stuff:

http://www.ruralhousing.org.uk/ - The Rural Housing Trust, a registered charity (reg. 270 213) established in 1976, provides affordable housing for local people in small villages in England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A3193571 - The lack of affordable housing for rural communities has been a problem across Britain for decades but recently it has reached crisis proportions... However, there are options open to communities who want to get together with others in their area and tackle the problem of affordable housing for themselves. Some of these measures are quite new and experimental.

http://www.communityselfbuildagency.org.uk/index2.html - Our Aims
To make it possible for men and women from all backgrounds to benefit individually and collectively from being a member of a self build housing group.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Would it be possible to work around that short-term by redeveloping derelict propery within these "settlement boundaries"? Historical settlement patterns are probably a pretty good guide to what works anyhow, and it'd be much better to avoid turning good land into building land wherever possible anyway.
yes, and there are other ways and means - barn conversions for example. shit, and the obvious one i suppose - tied agricultural workers dwellings are allowed in the countryside anyway if there's "justification".
 
Again, fab stuff totaladdict. Looks like there are a number of partial possibilities there. How does one avoid the pilot projects being seen as "townie interlopers" though, even assuming that the participants aren't middle class hippies?

Ultimately, I think we have to ruralise our cities to achieve sustainability and property developers and planning laws are simply in the way of that. Short term though, none of this is likely to work if there aren't successful pilots.

It sort of seems to me that affordable housing could be a powerful motive for getting rural people to buy into the sort of stuff I was on about above ...
 
Bernie Gunther said:
How does one avoid the pilot projects being seen as "townie interlopers" though, even assuming that the participants aren't middle class hippies?

Ultimately, I think we have to ruralise our cities to achieve sustainability and property developers and planning laws are simply in the way of that. Short term though, none of this is likely to work if there aren't successful pilots.

It sort of seems to me that affordable housing could be a powerful motive for getting rural people to buy into the sort of stuff I was on about above ...
there's a need for housing and work in the countryside, so rural people driving it would be the ideal from my point of view.

out of interest bernie - is there any particular reason you never talk about permaculture?
 
totaladdict said:
there's a need for housing and work in the countryside, so rural people driving it would be the ideal from my point of view.

out of interest bernie - is there any particular reason you never talk about permaculture?
No particular reason I don't mention permaculture, I'm quite interested in a lot of their stuff, but I tend to sort of take it as read that you'd use their stuff insofar as it works in our sort of climate (some of it like layered forest gardens, I think needs *lots* more sunlight than we get to be as productive as say the 19th century french market gardening stuff that I'm particularly interested in at the moment) What's probably responsible for me not mentioning it much is that there's not much to link to that's really good because of their tendency to protect copyrights.

With regard to your first point, I think that makes a lot of sense. Especially after re-reading the class and countryside thread. Ultimately though, we need to reduce the population density of our towns and spread ourselves out. So that means working class people (and middle-class eco-hippies like me) from the towns being involved too. How do you think that could best be achieved?
 
Bernie Gunther said:
...there's not much to link to that's really good because of their tendency to protect copyrights.
... as i just found out. the bastards.

i'll have come back to the rest another time.
 
Have been looking (unsuccesfully) for info about an up and running eco-village. In particular I am interested in how they funtion economically (particularly for the eco-villages found within Europe).

Are they financially sustained through money made by day-jobs outside of the village?
How much food produced is surplus, and for sale?
Have any existing ecovillages succeeded in developing economic practices beyond that of food production?
etc.

Anyone know??
 
Englands green and pleasant land

The pic below is near where I live, I would still like to think it would be like this in the future.
post-2-1128233235.jpg

Impludo
 
niksativa said:
Have been looking (unsuccesfully) for info about an up and running eco-village. In particular I am interested in how they funtion economically (particularly for the eco-villages found within Europe).
<snip>
Here's some links, in increasing order of weirdness.

Global Ecovillage Network

Gaia Trust

Findhorn

A lot of this stuff is a bit wrapped up in New Age gobbledegook for my taste. Many pioneers, like the Findhorn bunch, orginated as proto-hippy spiritual communities and well, if talking to nature spirits helps you grow stuff that should be impossible in that part of Scotland, maybe they've got something. I'd go nuts trying to have a sensible conversation with some of these people, but despite being away with the faires they've still got their shit together.

The people at Centre for Alternative Technology are more focussed on ecological engineering than on circle dances and channelling. CAT is a well-designed eco-village that is supported by and supports its teaching activity.

Most ecovillages are relatively small and once they get beyond subsistence, tend to specialise, having to earn at least some "foreign exchange" to support themselves in a world of taxes. I look at them as prototypes and imagine a whole bunch of them spawned off around a smallish town, as in the ruralisation model I'm on about at the head of the page. Then they look more viable. One also sees how each eco-unit could a) develop a great deal of character and individuality, b) specialise to some extent, c) form a far more directly democratic community than anything we have in mainstream politics.
 
i have some proper criticisms of the place after spending some time there a couple of years ago. no time to go through them right now, but i'll try and dig out the notes i made at the time.

(basic criticisms - they were COMPLETELY disconnected from the local village, and paid for a gardener to come and do the 'community garden' rather than do it themselves.)
 
Not quite clear which place you mean, that one in Mexico?

From a sustainability point of view, eco-villages, Folke's eco-unit and so on, seem to be a basic component because that's the best scale for a lot of key things, e.g. nutrient recycling. It's interesting what you say about disconnection from the local community though. It seems to me that's something that needs to be overcome. Someone mentioned something I think, about the culture clash between mostly urban CAT people and the local Welsh farmers around Maclynneth. This is sort of why I think that class and countryside thread in UKP that you reminded us of is probably important.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
A lot of this stuff is a bit wrapped up in New Age gobbledegook for my taste.
"In 1993 Gaia Trust took the initiative to form the Danish Ecovillage Network
(LØS). We invited social integration projects, ecological projects and spiritual
projects to a founding meeting. They all seemed to come from one of these
main motivations. Setting up a mission statement caused problems. However,
the different groups agreed, after much heated discussion, on the purpose of
the network being "to respect and restore the circulatory systems of the 4
elements: earth, water, fire and air in humans and in nature on all levels." The
ecologists focused on the circulatory systems in nature, the spiritual oriented on
the circulatory system of the body."
;)
- Your right though - they do have their shit together
 
Back
Top Bottom