Creating an ecovillage

[maud]

XNUMX-XNUMX-XNUMX!
we bought a small hamlet of 5 houses in Loire Atlantique and we wanted to set up an ecovillage project here to make the place live in a harmonious way ..

we think to propose to interested people to come to live here and that each family can arrange a house, but it would participate in the works (we would buy the materials) finally all this is to be defined with each one, according to his competences and desires. the idea is that each family is autonomous but that we also put in place common projects: school for children, musical evenings, vegetable garden, internships, reception ...


we would like to talk about the project, put ads, but we do not know where, do you have ideas? can you advise us?
can you talk about it around you?

at the moment we are 2 families, a french and an english ... and there is 6 children of 8 months to 14 years.
I am a musician and my friend is an osteopath, our project is to organize courses, we also organize musical evenings, parties ...

[Rulian]

Hi Maud !!

Ben already I advise you to create a little site (or a big one if you are of attack) or you expose the project more in detail, the rules that you fix you, the place, the acquis, what is envisaged in the short medium and long term ...
Pis does it in two languages ​​so much to do. Ask your English colleague.

Ecovillage is vast. And each has its own notion of an ecovillage.
It would be good to specify.

To relaunch the debate a bit, I'm moving on to ideas that have been working on me for a while ... for those who would agree or would like to debate them.

Good then :
I'm interested in ecovillages for some time. I also discovered the autonomous house of a family in a city at the edge of the Loire (I know who and where). And that made a difference: why put ecovillages always in rural areas?

Certainly it's good that it does not pollute. But nobody cares because it is the road and that anyway it is already not or little polluted. : huh: Moreover it is the way of life of the modern cities (3 / 4 of the population) which poses THE big ecological problem, not the rural world.
So why not take the principles of economic lifestyle, ecological (and friendly, so much to do) in the heart of the city like this family mentioned above? It is very advantageous.

Ecologically, it's directly interesting. In everyday life, it allows an adaptation of the lifestyle compatible with the reality of the urban housing (the ecovillages do not allow to dig on this point there) where the majority of the people are, and will remain that one like it or not. In addition it makes it possible to communicate better to others and to propose to cities people alternative models which are accessible to them and which concern them. It is more likely to make small.

And worse if we are downright ambitious, why not try to bring together the "clean inhabitants" in the same city or even the same neighborhood? From a certain number, it would allow to weigh on the policy of a city, to really lower its pollution (smog in particular), develop the new economic and industrial model to finally create a "pilot city", which will not fail to talk about her. And it has a lot more impact than an isolated detached house.

As always, everything comes back to the famous critical mass.
But failing to be more numerous, I am sure that we can double the weight of the "econologists" (I do not speak only members of this site) of all hairs by regrouping in a given point. This is a bit of the logic of colonization, but in positive

So, ideas like that. What do you think. Maybe I need to stop dreaming? Or can there be a way to start? Get straight to the asylum ?

Rulian

[Dearcham]

the idea is interesting. the only problem is that people who want to create ecovillages do just that to avoid the nuisance of the city.
It is not easy to recreate peaceful living conditions, even if it involves many people of "good will": the idea of ​​ecovillage is to be able to take advantage of the abundance of space (to build a vegetable garden, alternative energy systems such as solar or wind, an alternatidf system of wastewater treatment ...), the concept seems more difficult to achieve in town because of the price at m2.
On the other hand, living in the city forced exposure to a lot of sources of pollution, precisely what are trying to flee the creators of ecovillages.

But more difficult achievable does not mean impossible!
An impetus coming from the very inside of the cities would indeed be extremely beneficial. This could come from personal initiatives (band of friends, families, acquaintances, associations ...) or more private as the case of entrepreneurs realizing less facilities. pollutants and why not semi-autonomous (obviously this type of housing would be reserved for a rather rich population, ready to pay the extra cost of "clean" equipment unless you reach a certain degree of organization that would resell, why not a little energy, some vegetables that would not have been consumed by the inhabitants)

It would be interesting in this regard to study an implementation in urban areas in a numerical way taking into account the numerous subsidies made to any "green" project at the level of the region, the state and Europe (I think to mount a little brief about it this summer) ..


So urban planners and construction companies, at work!

[Dearcham]

A selection of a row from another forum on this subject

Author: Ugo (13millennium.com)
Date: 21-02-2004 12: 06

I think very sincerely (it is the technician who speaks) that the best way to use renewable energies, and to organize human societies, is to opt for a size say, neighborhood. If about 150 people are connected to a "central" production of electricity / heat, waste / water treatment, and local services (fire / police / hospital etc.) it is in my opinion the most effective solution .

Renewable energies are not very efficient for particular needs because they are too punctual and moreover, as soon as the production of energy is a little consequent, it produces too much.

On the other hand, for a district the system becomes more interesting: the lifestyles of each serving as a "buffer" to that of others, consumptions and production are better distributed. A district allows to diversify the produced energies, and makes it possible to use certain systems which are inaplicable to sizes too small: methanisation plant, treatment of water by lagooning, heat network and cogeneration, geothermal, for example.

On the other hand, if we try to use renewable energy on a larger scale (which we are currently doing) we can see that they will never be powerful enough to provide us with all the energy we waste. In conclusion, renewable energies are solutions adapted to a moderate and rational use.

PS: the idea of ​​putting in neighborhood energy buildings useful stuff like firefighter / police / hospital is only an addition of my side "utopian / militant" to the speech of the technician;)

--------------------------------------------- http: // 13millennium .com, Planetological Encyclopedia

[Dearcham]

Author: princess mononoke
Date: 23-02-2004 11: 24

The neighborhood solution or the community of life seem to me to be the best solutions ... but how will we do for all the neighborhoods already built and the big cities? which facilities?
How can rural projects deal with those who want to preserve nature and virgin spaces (when our electricity will come only from the sun, the wind, etc.)

[Dearcham]

Author: koen
Date: 23-02-2004 12: 04

It will take time. We put about 50 years for everything
screw up, it will take 50 others to restore everything (in the
wherever possible).

We can discuss the size of the neighborhood (a hospital for 150 people,
even 150 families, is a dangerous hospital), but the idea is a return
to the city of ancient Greeks: a community ('polis', hence our word
'policy'), more or less autarkic, connected to other communities.

While waiting to get here,
- we do not do anything in rural, because it is a space to preserve,
- subdivisions are forbidden, which are only a big waste
- we limit the rapid movements (plane, car) which are a source
too much GHG,
- the need for travel / transport is limited by promoting
local market

On the other hand, what is needed is not replacing our sources of energy
pollutants by renewable energy sources, but limit our
energy needs. A joke, read on the net: we consume
today 3 times more energy than 1960, and the American consumes
3 times more than us. Is the American 9 times happier
than the French of 1960?

A simple trick, give up your car for a bike, can win
several hundred euros a month (that's a nice increase
salary). It's all good for health, it's less polluting, and
it is not so fast (the bike = 18 km / h, the car = 30 km / h).
Left to rent a car for exceptions.

Another, even simpler thing: no longer watching the ad; it avoids
the false needs.

Valorous

[Dearcham]

Author: Ugo (13millennium.com)
Date: 24-02-2004 10: 38

For already built neighborhoods and cities? we do as usual when we have missed something: we erase and start again. (That's it, I'll still be mistaken for a big extremist)

Preserve blank spaces? but what does it mean in a country like France? There is no blank space left here for centuries. An old medieval village with bocage crops around it is a virgin space? it may be to preserve but it is not natural ...

One must think carefully before starting to preserve to determine what is the purpose of the maneuver: to keep a picture of the past with wet and enamored eyes or to think of the future as a minimum? Currently we have laws that serve to preserve the ancient monuments for example, but these laws require to preserve in the state, even if it is a ruin, in an immobilism in my opinion dangerous. So applying the same thing to the environment is very risky.

--------------------------------------------- http: // 13millennium .com, Planetological Encyclopedia

[Moira]

In my case, I smoke 3 times less and I am 9 times happier on econologie.com

[Rulian]

Nice I started an animated debate

It is clear, to use the words I-not-noted-the-name, that the urban plan and to rethink with the habitat if we want to come up with something worthwhile.

However, I'm really not on the principle of producing everything locally, having a vegetable garden and doing everything on foot and by bike. At the scale of a city must see, but I consider the long-distance mobility as essential and positive, which requires heavy means of transport. Similarly, the planes may be very polluting, I am very happy to be repatriated by helicopter in ten minutes to a hosto armored sophisticated devices (from the industry.)

I think that rethinking the industry to readjust to our real needs and reduce as much as possible pollution is the only serious alternative. The land can with no problem be a moderate pollution, especially if we devellope policies of ecological management. The principle of ecovillage brings back to a totally rural life which is incompatible on a large scale with the immense and incontestable progress brought by the technique of the modern era.
The zero pollution is unrealistic, the "very moderate and controlled pollution" is much more.

In terms of bringing the principles of HQE into the city in already built neighborhoods, we can very well bring part of it by revising the insulation, adding provencal wells and other light solutions at affordable prices. We do not achieve autonomy but we are already making a noticeable drop in consumption.

We must not think "we erase everything we start again", it would be a big mistake, we should rather see "moving forward to better while valuing the achievements that deserve to be." And these achievements of the industrial society are really huge, whether you like it or not.


Such was the essence of my thought.

See you, Rulian

[Misterloxo]

Exciting debating!

I, too, believe that a community organization of a more or less small size is "better" than a megalopolis organization.

Similarly, I do not agree too much with the "we erase everything and we start again", everything is not to throw but there are many things to improve.

I think for example of the automobile:
Cycling is good for "small" trips, but I can not see the 33 terminals that separate my home from my office summer and winter by bike!
The car is great for that but it is not econologically perfect. Today, it pollutes too much (in its manufacture, its use and its destruction), costs a fortune and I think that it possesses a "tare" like the other products besides: the programmed obsolescence. In other words, it's not meant to last forever.
Thus, if already, it improves the econological point of view the car, it is already a big step. Some (many) are working in the right direction I think. Is not it Chris ??

Moreover, I believe that from a human, social and economic point of view, it is necessary to privilege the short sectors if they offer products / services / acceptable prices compared to the competition which would be relocated.
That said, I would find absurd if a product / service is not available locally not to go elsewhere: rolleyes:


In any case, as you all know, econology, like so much else, is above all a question of personal action and commitment.

On these few words M'zelles, M'dames, Mr. @ sewing