Common Ground Ecovillage

Thoughts by founder Anthony Weston

It seems the Engaging with our Vision Retreat (January 27-28, 2018) did us the great service of bringing questions to the fore — issues that are fundamental, not easy, but that need to be articulated and addressed as we carry on and ramp up this work together. 

I cannot speak for everyone (and do need to note that “founders” is not a defined or in any way decision-making group in our governance or organization) but here at least is my take. 

Fundamentally we want to be an agrarian ecovillage.  This does mean that our primary endeavor is ecological — it has to do with how we relate to the larger living world and consequently as a human community within the more-than-human world. It would be a radical thing to create a community that simply modeled and realized a “regenerative” kind of ecology in the most concrete way — in terms of what kinds of buildings and physical village we build and how we feed and power ourselves, how the land fares under our stewardship. Yes. Indeed this would be itself an act of “social activism” in the world as it stands. 

But: we (meaning me and I believe others who share this way of thinking) also hold that “ecology” or “sustainability” or “regeneration” do not stop there. Human communities also are situated within the larger human world, so there is an  ecology of human relations situated with the more-than-human ecology too. Very specifically: if we form an all-white community in the midst of a racially mixed area, moreover with all the history of race-based exclusion and dis-empowerment (even in the ownership history of our very land), etc. etc. we would be failing to acknowledge and regenerate the human ecology that we and others also live within, and that is actually continuous with the land, the larger ecology, too. After all, traditional southern agrarian society was also deeply racist. We are after a new kind of agrarianism in those terms too. So the project of outreach and diversity so viewed is not an “add on” or something that might just be taken up as a personal, outside-the-community commitment (though it certainly can be that too), but is essential to the constitution of the community itself. 

At least we must seriously try, and continue to try, to create a racially diverse and responsive community that does not just re-inscribe the old social relations. For my part I am willing to go ahead with financing, design, and construction work even if these efforts have not yet borne much fruit — as long as we do not let go of them but truly intensify our efforts. (I am not sure this is true for everyone, though I think it probably is.) I think this provides a pretty clear way forward for most members, including most or even all of those who spoke up on this issue at the retreat. This will remain a place where members have varied views, but I think we can still readily head in broadly the same direction. 

There are major decisions to be made, for sure; there are major obstacles; we are attempting something wonderful and at the same time multi-faceted and difficult and there are no guarantees. At the same time, though, I have such a sense of a  huge  project taking major steps forward all the time – beyond any one person’s capacity even to sum it up. And very little of this is seriously controversial to anyone. We may want a different balance or focus between the various parts… we may worry about where the money is coming from, etc. etc. — again, all  valid for sure — but the fact is that we have an  energetic, stable, almost stately project going here that I believe does not warrant dismay and is not particularly confused about itself or consumed by some sort of internal conflict. 

Of course it may be that the ambition and range of the HM project are not for everyone. I know, not everyone can wait for the village proper. None of us want to wait. Still, what we have going is fairly clear-sighted, and I think that project was basically reaffirmed and even somewhat further clarified at the retreat.  It’s that very clarity that is leading some people to re-evaluate their commitment to HM — and again, that certainly can make sense. But the project itself remains strong and dynamic. Hope gave voice to this at the Retreat (I am tempted to be cute and say that Voice gave hope to this at the Retreat too) when she said that this project has gotten to be bigger than any of us. Long live Hart’s Mill!

by Joe Cole

(Click here to read the case study report described below)

In October, I completed the ten-month Design for Sustainability course through the Global Ecovillage Network and Gaia Education.  The Gaia Education Design for Sustainability (GEDS) course is a 10-month certification program that presents a “comprehensive overview of the necessary components for sustainable community design,” and is “based in the experiences of hundreds of ecovillages acting as living laboratories over many decades.”

The final phase of the course involves a Design Studio where teams of students explore a real case study around the four Dimensions of Sustainability–Ecological, Economic, Social, and Worldview.  My four-member Design Team–Leah Gibbons, Hamish Thomson, Thumbs Dijgraff, and me—worked on Hart’s Mill for our Case Study.  It was a joy working with and learning from these experienced, insightful, and wonderful people, and together we generated an 80-page report on Hart’s Mill’s status as a sustainable ecovillage, with recommendations on how the community could expand and deepen its commitments to sustainability.

In our work, we observed that Hart’s Mill is at a critical time in its development, and still has key decisions to make concerning the nature of the community.  Our Design Team took seriously Hart’s Mill’s stated goal of creating an Ecovillage (versus a more conventional development).  We utilized the GEDS model of four dimensions of sustainability, giving attention to Ecological, Economic, Social and Worldview dimensions and the ways they synergistically interact for systemic sustainability.  

Based on our training in the GEDS course, we concluded that Regenerative Design values and strategies offer the best current guidance for creating an Ecovillage.  Our main recommendations are for Hart’s Mill to adopt a Regenerative Sustainability framework to guide its vision, mission, aims, and practical projects.  Our intention was not to supplant Hart’s Mill’s current plans, but rather to help manifest the latent potential of Hart’s Mill as an intentional community and as an ecovillage.

So what is Regenerative Sustainability?  Regenerative Sustainability aims to re-weave human and natural communities into a co-evolutionary whole, where humans exist in symbiotic relationship with the living lands they inhabit.  Regenerative communities strive to create the conditions and capacities for a thriving and abundant future for all life.  This means continually evolving as a project, working across scales (microscopic to macroscopic, local to international), and developing care and commitment for the land, ecosystems, social systems, and larger wholes of which we are a part. 

One specific example for how this could apply to Hart’s Mill would be to reorient our project to caring for our local and regional watershed.  Hart’s Mill is near the headwaters of McGowan Creek, leading to the Eno River, Falls Lake, the Neuse River, Pamlico Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean. This location gives Hart’s Mill an important role to play in creating a healthy and thriving watershed through regenerative development.  If Hart’s Mill recognizes that it is part of larger living systems and that it has a unique role to play in helping those systems manifest their highest potential, health, and vitality, then the community can become a catalyst for regeneration of the larger living systems of which it is a part.

Many of Hart’s Mill’s Principles and Intentions already reflect a Regenerative Sustainability paradigm. These include: “an abiding commitment to each others’ and the lands’ well-being” (PI-1); “embracing the larger web of life” (PI-2); “integrate harmoniously with the land and each other” (PI-11); “deepening connections with one another and with the land” (PI-15); facilitating “sustainable relationships, growth, and trust” with neighbors (PI-30); “enabling the creation and sustenance of other eco-villages” (PI-33); and “continual reassessment” (PI-36).  When applied more consciously, the Regenerative Sustainability paradigm and Regenerative Development can guide Hart’s Mill in achieving its goals and playing a valuable role in helping its larger community of life transform to regenerative sustainability.

To this end, our Design Team recommended the following revision of the Hart’s Mill Vision:

“Hart’s Mill ecovillage lives our interconnectedness with all of life, living as nature. Through this interconnectedness, and through fulfilling our unique value-adding role in our larger whole, we reweave all of life and create systemic perpetuating vitality and health in place and in the living systems of which we are a part.”

Our Design Team also recommended the following revision of the Hart’s Mill Mission:

“Hart’s Mill is a regional center for regenerative agriculture and living, adding value to and catalyzing transformation to regenerative sustainability of our larger community and bioregion while providing our inhabitants with a cooperative, celebratory, and co-creative social and work life. Hart’s Mill uses regenerative agriculture, building, economic, and living technologies to continually increase the health and vitality of the entire living system.”

By enhancing the community’s Mission and Vision, Hart’s Mill can become the US East Coast Center for Regenerative Living.  Hart’s Mill would be a transformational project not just locally, but in its bioregion and throughout the US, elevating the conversation from sustainability to regeneration so that Earth can thrive again and be a place where life flourishes.

In addition to our Design Team’s main recommendations around adopting a Regenerative Sustainability framework, the report is also full of specific ideas and suggestions for each of the four dimensions of sustainability.

For the Worldview Dimension, our team recommends that the community develop a holistic worldview that lives the reality of interdependence and interbeing.  This spiritual framework is a foundation for the commitment to Regenerative Sustainability.  Creating a community such as Hart’s Mill is inherently spiritual, and nurturing this aspect of community life will greatly enrich Hart’s Mill members and its endeavors.

For the Social Dimension, we observed that many members would benefit from deepening collaborative skills and avenues of participation in community governance.  Hart’s Mill members express a great deal of appreciation for the community’s leaders, while also revealing a spectrum of views on the effectiveness of leadership at Hart’s Mill.  The community has needs for feedback systems, younger leaders, more effective decision-making, and improved communication, as well as the need to address power and conflict more proactively.  Our Team also recommends that Hart’s Mill create an Educational Center for Regenerative Sustainability, Cooperative Governance, and Social and Environmental Justice as a top, near-term priority.

For the Economic Dimension, we recommend that Hart’s Mill develop an internship program for youth to work and learn on the land, beginning with scheduling five workshops in 2018, including workshops to build an outdoor kitchen and classroom using natural building techniques.  Hiring a volunteer manager and marketing specialist would be crucial for the success of such programs.  We also recommend innovative strategies for attracting farmers and rewarding them for co-creating farm and community infrastructure.  Hart’s Mill can then purchase any upgrades and investments from the farmer when and if they leave.  Finally, while financing the development of Hart’s Mill is an ongoing area of concern, by deepening the community’s commitment to Regenerative Sustainability, Hart’s Mill will stand out and attract members, allies, donors, financers who are inspired by its sustainable mission. 

For the Ecological Dimension, Hart’s Mill can become a leader in regenerative agriculture, green building, and renewable energy.  The community can grow food in a way that increases the health and functioning of the surrounding ecosystems.  Regenerative design can guide water use, reuse, and wastewater treatment through rainwater catchment, living gray water systems, composting toilets, and constructed wetlands.  Hart’s Mill can become an inspiring model in renewable energy through building for Net Plus renewable energy generation, maximizing energy efficiency, and collaborating with local and regional groups working for a renewable energy economy.

That is a sampling of highlights from the Case Study. 

On December 3^rd, about ten community members gathered to hear a presentation on the Case Study and discuss the recommendations.  There was broad agreement that more conversation is needed, so hopefully we will continue to explore how our community might benefit from the results of the Design Team’s work in the coming months and years.

by Anthony Weston

A major meeting on Sunday, 24 September marked the successful culmination of an intensive research and planning phase as we organize ourselves to head again into architectural design work with professional Design Partners.

Beginning in early August, four Working Groups, involving over 18 HM members in total, focused on specific basic in questions concerning Sustainability, Equity and Economic Accessibility, Style (architectural design), and Cost (construction and operational). Each group developed increasingly detailed reports, many shared with each other and Planning, Design, and Development (PDD). In early September we began to coordinate the reports and focus them into proposals in the sociocratic format – starting with our Principles and Intentions and ending in specific and applicable proposed measures. These were then shared with all Working Group participants in advance (though on a tight schedule, sorry…)

We met in the great living room of Hart’s Nest – appropriately, our first official community meeting there. Question rounds included all members who attended, many of whom were active on the Working Groups and had followed proposal development carefully online. General Circle made the ultimate decisions. Discussion was grounded and immensely aided both by the coordination and parallel structuring of proposals – credit PDD and the Working Group conveners: Christina, Charles, Hope, Katy, and Anthony –  and by skillful facilitation both by our impressive inside talent (yay, Maria!) and an outside facilitator, Mark Molitor, who joined us for the day as well as offering his sage counsel in numerous lead-up planning sessions (with Maria, Hope, Jeffry, and Anthony). Most of all the success of the work was a credit to the focused intent of all who attended – many thanks to all!!!

Style: In a miracle of major and unprecedented proportions, we have actually consented to a basic design concept. “Sunslope” features a large south-facing, low-pitched roof as the prime roof for each unit, to be largely dedicated to solar (PV) panels. A smaller roof section on the north side attaches at the same pitch but in the other direction, making an asymmetrical gable roof – a kind of modernized and adapted “saltbox” design. Inside layouts remain to be decided, but one natural floor plan places living & dining rooms under the lower end of the big roof, with its sloping ceiling creating “lift” above. Under the upper end of the big roof could be a half second floor with bedrooms and a bath, over a downstairs kitchen and another BR or study. (This is the basic 3 BR version.) Stairs rise from the living/dining “great room” to the second floor, allowing for a balcony overlooking the lower area. A detailed and illustrated Sunslope proposal can be found here.

Sustainability. We are defining Sustainability as having the least impact on the environment, the longest life, lowest maintenance, greatest damage resistance, lowest cost to maintain, maximum attention to the human factor, and reducing toxicity as much as possible. A detailed proposal breaks down sustainability goals by major categories: Energy (ways to get at least to net zero and hopefully better); Water (self-sufficiency in the long run); Materials (major durability and longevity with least impact, and highlighting some highly attractive potential new options); Appliances and HVAC; Lighting; Food (permaculture zones 0 / 1 would be our porches!); Waste; and other Design Features. We reaffirmed our intention to design and make full use of Common House facilities and community wide solutions to reduce individual house space and appliance requirements, and to promote life style changes to assist in that goal as well. A full and consented-to Sustainability proposal can be found here.

Equity: Hart’s Mill Ecovillage is committed to promoting affordability, demographic diversity, and social and ecological justice for ourselves and the land. Housing affordability—short and long term—is a paramount (though not sole) concern if we are to be able to attract and retain members across spectrums of age, race/ethnicity, gender, agrarian skills, etc. The Equity Working Group therefore brought a specific proposal to GC whose key features include pegging our house cost goals to affordability for people earning 85-100% of Area Median household Income (about $46,000-$54,000 for two people in Orange County in 2015), along with flexible housing options, such as shared housing and farm housing, and energetically pursuing sources of subsidies and alternative financing. The GC discussion was highly supportive, and fertile, leading to development of the proposal, with final consent pending adjustment and further development. A detailed background report can be found here.

Cost: The Cost Working Group offered a detailed report rather than a specific proposal. Included are an update and summary of overall development costs and key construction cost take-aways. Good news is that looking at average construction cost over a plausible mix of HM homes at 2017 prices, we are comfortably below the $150/SF working target. We also learned that with current costs for standard grid-tied PV panels (without battery backup) and utility power rates, the monthly cost of financing an installed PV system can offset the monthly utility bill dollar-for-dollar for the same amount of energy!

This work generated not only necessary and significant decisions, as noted, but also a rich resource of background material and wide-ranging member expertise as planning goes forward. The meeting ended with rounds of mutual appreciation and delight. ¡Adelante!

photo by Joe Cole