Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Re: Agrarian suburbs - a good idea

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Misha Gale-Sinex <mgs2369@attbi.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Re: Agrarian suburbs - a good idea
  • Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:14:31 -0700

Howdy, all--

On the question of agrarian suburbs, there was a wonderful how-to book that Rodale published in the 70s called /The Self-Sufficient Suburban Garden/, by Jeff Ball. I've been hunting for a copy since lending mine in the 80s--and regretting it ever since. I saw one once in a used bookstore in Durham...and didn't buy it, cause for more regret.

:^)

The book presented a five-year plan where people with then-typical suburban tract house parcels of 1/4 to 1/2 acre (or more) could go from producing a bit of food to being largely self-sufficient. Readers could of course take more than five-years; its value was in laying out steps to convert a parcel o' Death Lawn into a sustainable, attractive, urban-adapted (i.e., no weasel ranches, skunk cabbage farms, or stud bulls), low or no external input food production system. Prettier, too.

As I recall, it was largely geared toward more northern locales (assumed there'd be winter; assumed there'd be water), and I doubt that much of it would escape our more honed understandings, nearly 30 years later. Plus we might also quibble with the "farm plan."

But as a resource for Lawn Farmers to move from turf to "farm," it had great value. I showed it to as many suburbanite friends as would listen, in the 80s, and most of them were intrigued, and actually applied ideas. Several purchased the book, and one borrowed it for keeps.

I've only lived in suburbs once (in Olympia, see below). Part of what's needed for these folks in my experience is not only technical information, but networking with others on the same path, and affirmation of what they're doing. Unfortunately, too many feel isolated, and get hassles from neighbors.

I think this feeds back into the discussion of a permaculture outreach project (I don't like to think about "organizations" these days). And the need for an ATTRA for noncommercial farmers. (I adore ATTRA by the way, and if Steve Diver went up on eBay, I'd break my boycott of that site, and bankrupt myself bidding. :^)

By the way, around here (nearest city is Olympia), any newer tract house with 1/4 to 1/2 acre would be rare, and expensive. There are some older tract house neighborhoods that would qualify, though.

More common these days are the parcels of fourteen square feet. For instance, we rented a house for some months in an inflatable community. The back yards were turfed and walled in by 6-foot solid slat fences. Between the houses, you could literally touch both houses by extending your arms to the sides. We were the only people in the neighborhood with a reel mower. Sundays it sounded like a Biblical plague of locusts, as each individual man of each individual house went out and fired up the two-stroke, to mow for all of six minutes. If you didn't breathe for most of the day, it was OK.

Of course John Jeavons and others could get all kinds of food production going in these tiny spaces. And a few folks there do grow a couple heavily caged tomato plants (why caged? I don't know. Can't imagine who'd be around to eat em. Maybe just that compulsion to subdue nature with jails.)

But when I think about the pressure that would result from the "neighborhood association" and the "covenants," if someone wanted to go into more intensive use of the little plots, I feel great dismay. These "neighborhoods" are virtually designed to be consumption vectors, with the "covenants" going into great detail about how things will and will not be. The "covenants" claim to be about "maintaining property value," which translates into "being completely homogenous." The surreal thing about that is--the houses are built so crappily, we feared the one we rented would fall down around our ears. But I digress.

In that 'hood, the front "lawn" and landscaping areas were maintained by the NA, for upwards of $60 a month (and always increasing). That meant a third party hired for mowing, edging, leaf-blowing, watering, spraying (oh my god! crane flies!!), and not much else. In other words, a lot of fossil fuel, water, and pesticides/chemicals, used to keep the fronts of the houses (which generally have more space than the backs) looking like Turf Green Dupont Stainmaster carpet.

There are specific covenants stating that no one may do anything to the front of their house (including the owners) without NA approval. I suppose this means that some enterprising and energetic person might someday succeed in converting the front lawn areas into food production or xeriscaped areas....but I wouldn't hold my breath. Anyone willing to invest that much energy would probably go elsewhere.

We as renters were willing to plant things in the yard (shrubs, trees) at our own expense, but were prohibited from doing that.

This is very odd, given that people routinely pay far more for houses with gardens, landscaping, etc., than for these McBoxes. But of course the REAL idea of the covenants is to create a reassuring environment where no one acts like a hippie, a queer, a single mom, a person of color, a pagan, etc.

My point with this example is that, even two decades ago, developing "agrarian suburbs" might have been much easier, when all that was needed was technical information and support...and the will and work to do so.

Today, there are vast areas devoted to high-consumption, low-diversity homogeneity--McLandscaping and WalArchitecture--occupied by people who think that putting in petunias from Home Depot in a pot next to the garage constitutes a major garden project, and who pray that the neighbors won't object to choice of colors.

Nevertheless, I'm keeping my faith, and my intuition that "when the big one hits," these parcels of land will be in the front ranks where food production is concerned. Everytime I talk to a suburbanite who has land-porn-fed fantasies of "buying a little farm," I encourage them strongly to start with what they have, experiment there, see what they like or not.

I was the communications director at the UW-Madison's sustainable ag center for many years and used to constantly get calls from exurbanites/exslurbs from Chicago who just "bought a little farm in Wisconsin," and didn't know how to get started. They called me to ask what they should do. (That being my job, running their farms.)

I'd start by asking them what kind of work they prefer--with animals, or plants? Their response never varied:

"WORK?!!!"

From there they invariably answered my questions, concluding that it would be best to "hire a local" to farm it for them.

Sigh.

Thanks for listening.


peace
mish
























Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page