Get Yurted!

Wherein a lengthy rant bemoaning our consumerist hedonism as a culture is unleashed.

Salutations Conservationists and Activists!

I feel compelled to rant today.

You see, I am considering my options in life at the moment. I have half a year until my landlord comes back from Europe and will once again require his residence. That means I must find a suitable abode. And so I search for a pleasant house in which to live.

(Caption reads: "Natural Hues:
Colour was selected to
complement the surrounds" WTF?
Apparently the 'surrounds' was
Tweety Birds pent-house. )

But as I am in teaching as a profession, that puts me in the lowest wage bracket of any professional industry, other than nursing. (Apparently, equipping the future generations with the faculties to survive some of the disastrous consequences they will inherent in the world from their parents rates a little bit lower than shooting bushpigs, and a little higher than alleviating the sick and wounded's pain.)

Now, it turns out that paying a mortgage on a land is actually cheaper than renting in our current housing crisis location. But if I were to go to a bank and ask for a loan in order to buy a house, the bank, looking at my current wage, would give me just enough to be able to buy... nothing in all of Sydney.

That's right, on a professional wage I would not be able to afford a weatherboard shitbox out in the wastelands of Western Sydney. But that's o.k. I'm not a greedy person, renting a flat would be enough. But oh, renting a flat is an extremely trendy affair in Sydney. Flats, apartments and town housing takes place very rarely in the cheaper outskirts of the city which means that to rent a flat one must look in the centre of the city in the more fashionable suburbs, making it even more expensive than renting an entire house.

In short, renting a house or a flat would cost me not 30% of my impoverished teacher's income in Sydney, but a whopping 60%. And people wonder why all the Sydney-siders are evacuating. Because living there is financially impossible on a modest wage!

But luckily for me, I (having evacuated said city for above mentioned reasons) have found myself in a state where buying land is cheaper than renting. But how can I possibly afford to pay for land and a house?

May I introduce to you the concept of the like-minded collective. The concept of intentional communities and the concept of eco-villages. We'll get to the yurts later...

Basically, the idea of the nuclear family is a completely detrimental to our entire way of life. It is an energy and resource bandit, is detrimental to our social networks, is completely isolating and causes nothing but suburban planning nightmares in the outskirts of cities. And did I mention the enormous hole it scorches in your back pocket? Seriously, why do we as a culture persist with such a ridiculously unhealthy and unsustainable model of living? We've only had whole millenia experiencing life in communities! Surely that has to count for something as opposed to this post 1950's phenomenon.

So I intend to buy some land. I intend to buy some land with other people because when it comes to buying stuff two wallets are better than one. I also intend to buy some land with the intention of building a house that is environmentally friendly and requires very little in terms of the initial resources. And then, once again, I have encountered another stumbling block.

May I pause briefly to introduce you to some of the most stunning little eco-friendly cottages I've ever laid eyes on. They are houses built by the Lammas project. Basically eco-community builders for hire. And oh, aren't they pretty! This picture is of Simon Dale's low impact woodland house, and I think everyone should want to live in it! His directions for making this house involves this very complex description (and remember, Simon Dale is not a builder, he is just someone who passionately wanted to build a low impact low resource house and so did it himself in the UK):

Lift logs, prop up, nail together and continue until no longer wobbly.

Yep, that's a structure I think even I could do. And, AND it's fantastic to behold! So it's all systems go on looking into building my own low-impact housing.

However! (enter rant mode)

Local councils in this god forsaken colony have some of the most stringent housing laws in the western world. I think perhaps its a historical thing. It's difficult for councils in the UK to uphold strict housing laws when there are houses built over a thousand years ago using methods clearly in contradiction to such laws that insist on being safe and sturdy. They stand there being somewhat of a silent finger against any move to police how one can and cannot build a house! So there is a fabulous legal loophole in Britain which is: If your house can safely house people for four years without falling down, even if it was built without any permits, it can stay! The same leniency goes for America (of course their buildings are less than a thousand years old) and I believe, Europe.

But not so Australia, the majority of our buildings are post or contemporaneous with the Industrial era, and as a result our housing laws reflect an industrial and inherently consumerist culture. Basically, approaching said council with a plan to find some logs that are floating around and nail them together until they're no longer 'wobbly' while a perfectly acceptable practice in most cultures for hundreds of years, is unacceptable here. A plan must be created, which means all materials must be collected prior to the occasion, which goes completely against the whole organic nature of the enterprise in the first place. And if the councils laws are not followed, then the council can insist that you tear your house down, even if you have been living in it with great safety for the last ten years or more.

So what is an environmentally minded personage with a deep sense of righteous anger meant to do?

Enter, -the Yurt.

A Yurt (or if you're in Mongolia: a Ger) is a temporary shelter which is roughly the size of a small house. It can be packed down onto the back of a ute and costs anywhere between 1000 dollars to 30,000! They have been used in the Alps, and the Himalayas and of course the frozen tundra of Siberia for hundreds of years. They are large, comfortable and warm. This one here is quite small in comparison, but it illustrates the general rounded glory and comparitive warmth and cosiness considering the large snow drift outside!

But yurts are not always such modest affairs. Take for instance barefootboy and his yurt project.:

This is basically a panoramic view inside of a yurt consisting of several stitched together photos to give you almost the entire 360 degree view. (but not complete, as there is a door somewhere and a kitchen as well.) So we can see that they are cheap, that they are low on resources and they can be as luxurious (and trust me they can become very luxurious see right) or as ascetic as one wishes.

BUT!

The most important thing. The most wonderfully joyful thing for my anarchistically minded little heart is that, as a temporary structure, I don't have to tell the council anything! It is exactly the same as if your children were to pitch a tent in their backyard. Tents, don't require permits. They are temporary! No fees, no bureaucracy, no having to pay builders with half my education and twice my salary (jealous much?) I can buy land. And in four hours, I have a house that is able to withstand a Siberian climate.

And if I have some like minded friends who have helped buy land we can construct a veritable yurt village without having to consult anyone! This is of course exactly what they have done here in Switzerland.

And why shouldn't we be allowed to do this?

I am, after all paying a large amount of money to live on this land, I should be allowed to build a structure any way I wish to, like I have the right to in both America, and the UK and I would suspect a large tract of Europe as well.

My next question is: Why isn't everyone doing this???

Which brings me to my next point. Having discovered such glorious ideas I then marched off, full of enthusiasm to the 'Sustainability Expo.' Ready to have my inspiration flooded with new scientific advances and creative ways to use less resources.

Alas, this was not the case.

While there was a large amount of very admirable causes and products all designed to help reduce carbon emissions etc. The general intention behind the expo was to convince people to buy products. Special paint to reduce gas emissions, special solar hot water systems, special brands of eco-friendly beer, special blinds, double glazed windows and etc and etc.

There was one, ONE exhibit that was all about providing information that would empower an Eco-conscious person in re-using their own materials, or creatively finding ways to live that would have less impact on the environment.

There was indeed a Mongolian Ger at the expo. It was wonderful to go inside and experience such a fabulous structure first hand, but what was really concerning about our culture, was that the Ger, -this housing wonder from Mongolia, was not being sold as a solution to our current housing crisis or financial recession, no no, this Ger, was being rented out as a pavilion for weddings and functions and parties. Apparently our fat middle-class, over-indulged, over-privileged arses will not deign use this centuries old perfectly suitable form of housing. As a novelty form of hosting exorbitant parties, that's fine, but to actually live in, no, I'm afraid our great white civilised egos simply will not consent to the indignity of living in a glorified tent.

For a sustainability expo, there was a large emphasis on things one could buy, and very little in regards to how to live more simply. But then, there's less money in living simply, isn't there? The ultimate example for me was the copy of 'The Green Pages' I received. Now, the Green Pages, for the uninitiated is very much like a phone directory of eco-friendly businesses. And I was excited when I received it, because it was twice as large as the edition I received two years ago.

However on flicking through the production I began to feel, more than a little bitter. There was something extraordinarily designer and elitist about the whole affair, something that completely went against the entire environmentally friendly philosophy at all.

For instance, the actual directory was the same size, but the magazine was now twice it's size (using more paper, ironically) in order to write such devastatingly important and crucial articles as: Who is the Brightest Green Stars? (Just so you know, it's Brad Pit, and Natalie Portman, urgh, how tawdry!) and Designer Homeware featuring such important items as a "Recycled Cardboard Magazine Rack". (Because all budding environmentalists need a place to stash their copious amounts of tabloid paper wasting items of gossip mongering) . But my ultimate favourite was the eco-friendly 'Marri Gold Dress' looking like something worn by Kiera Knightly on a desert island in Pirates of the Caribbean (tattered hems and all) worth a paltry $890!

Just to repeat for effect. This dress in the magazine, probably costs almost as much as what I'm considering spending on a house. WTF???!!!

And so, with that rant over I will sign off, thinking once again, that for a movement to become successful, companies must learn to exploit it to consumerist interests. Me on the other hand, I intend to live happily in a yurt giving as little money to outside interests as is humanly possible. -Just like barefootboy. And doesn't he look happy?


yurt, ger, mongolia, siberia, environmnet, eco-friendly, consumerism, eco-chic, alternative housing, living simply, green pages, the sustainability expo, the Lammas Project, Earthships, anarchism, local council, beauracracy