Resources for Earthship Biotecture www.earthship.com
http://earthship.co.nz/
Taos Blog
Glass Bottle Inspiration
Melbourne Based Daniel Hogan earthship designs - http://www.themeski.com.au/
Michael Green - Freelance journalist writing about Earthships
Manitoba Earthship, Canada
Bristol, UK earthcob Ship
Dan Richfield's Project - OffthegridBuild
Earthship founder talks going green in face of red tape - UniSa article
Earthships in Australia – Would you build one?
An Introduction to Earthships
Things to read pre build from the valhalla group
Plans to build housing estate from tyres
gubbsearthship.com/berm/ -- Gubb's Earthship, New Zealand
Earthships in Australia
Moving from McMansions to Earthship, Martin Freney
Thermal behaviour of an earth sheltered autonomous building - the Brighton Earthship
Guides for building grey water system and septic system: http://welikesmall.org/stuff/earthship/Guides/
Earthship in SA, Martin Freney
Earthships in USA Today
Earthship Steampunk
Earthship Australia in EcoCitizen Magazine
Oscar and Lisa's Earthship (good ideas here)
Earthship Serbia http://www.centartesla.com/en/2012-09-02-First_Earthship_House_in_Serbia_built.htm
Earthship & Earthbag design
Earthship Cambodia
Earthship Montana
Earthship Malawi - Petal Project
Multi-Bioregion Earthships here
A Man, A Can, A Plan
Large Scale Engineering with Tyres, NSW - www.ecoflex.com.au/
Simple Survival - Off Grid World
Taos Blog
Glass Bottle Inspiration
Melbourne Based Daniel Hogan earthship designs - http://www.themeski.com.au/
Michael Green - Freelance journalist writing about Earthships
Manitoba Earthship, Canada
Bristol, UK earthcob Ship
Dan Richfield's Project - OffthegridBuild
Earthship founder talks going green in face of red tape - UniSa article
Earthships in Australia – Would you build one?
An Introduction to Earthships
Things to read pre build from the valhalla group
Plans to build housing estate from tyres
gubbsearthship.com/berm/ -- Gubb's Earthship, New Zealand
Earthships in Australia
Moving from McMansions to Earthship, Martin Freney
Thermal behaviour of an earth sheltered autonomous building - the Brighton Earthship
Guides for building grey water system and septic system: http://welikesmall.org/stuff/earthship/Guides/
Earthship in SA, Martin Freney
Earthships in USA Today
Earthship Steampunk
Earthship Australia in EcoCitizen Magazine
Oscar and Lisa's Earthship (good ideas here)
Earthship Serbia http://www.centartesla.com/en/2012-09-02-First_Earthship_House_in_Serbia_built.htm
Earthship & Earthbag design
Earthship Cambodia
Earthship Montana
Earthship Malawi - Petal Project
Multi-Bioregion Earthships here
A Man, A Can, A Plan
Large Scale Engineering with Tyres, NSW - www.ecoflex.com.au/
Simple Survival - Off Grid World
General earth building resources and International examples:
Natural building website with excellent database ATAA
4Walls International - working in the border region recycling trash
Owner Builder -- http://www.theownerbuilder.com.au/current_issue.htm
http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/QandA/cob/structural.htm -- where you can find a wide range of information about sustainable architecture and natural building.
International Earth Building index
Milkwoods Reciprocal Roof
Papercrete construction
Thermal Survey - www.ebaa.asn.au/documents/ThermalSurveyof.pdf
Why Energy Efficient homes sometimes use more energy
Off Grid Living
SuperAdobe Building testing
Natural building blog and pictures
Women building natural homes
CobWorks North America
Cob building in Australia
Great articles on Cob houses:
http://www.tinyhouse...e-construction/
http://greenbuilding...house-for-5000/
http://small-scale.net/yearofmud/
Rogers Rammed Earth
House Plans:
http://www.solarhave...erStrawBale.htm
http://www.tinyhouse...ny-house-plans/
http://small-scale.n...me-house-plans/
http://opensourceeco...iki/House_Plans
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.freegreen...ouse-Plans.aspx
http://www.tinyhouse...ab-micro-house/
SuperaDobe in South Australia - http://www.1-1construction.com/
SuperAdobe in Haiti
Owen Geiger and Earthbag building
Melbourne Based Superadobe Builders Minha and Nick - http://www.permastructure.com.au/
Cob building and instruction
Cob Building in Finland - http://cobdreams.blogspot.co.uk/
Hassan Fathy- Inspired Regenerative Home Planned for Buddhist Center, Colorado-
Natural Building Blog, USA - http://naturalbuildingblog.com/
Discussion over Strawbale vs Cob here
Tiny thermal mass house
Eco Directory Australia -
Sustainable solutions for disaster affected communities - builditbackgreen.org/bushfires
Earthbag Workshop at Milkwood Farm, NSW
Tamara's Permaculture Class notes, Upwey, Victoria
www.greywater.net/
Plastic Bottle Building in Africa - and in Nigeria
BottleBrick making
How to build a $50 underground house
Recycled House Project, Brighton UK
Strawbale Designs
hempcrete - http://dorjedenmaling.org/program-details/?id=137636
http://www.construction-technologies.com/lyfordg/Hemp/hemp.html
http://www.hemp.com/2010/08/hemp-houses-the-secret-of-building-sustainable-homes/
Article in Renew on a 9Star rated house in Melbourne's north here
Natural building website with excellent database ATAA
4Walls International - working in the border region recycling trash
Owner Builder -- http://www.theownerbuilder.com.au/current_issue.htm
http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/QandA/cob/structural.htm -- where you can find a wide range of information about sustainable architecture and natural building.
International Earth Building index
Milkwoods Reciprocal Roof
Papercrete construction
Thermal Survey - www.ebaa.asn.au/documents/ThermalSurveyof.pdf
Why Energy Efficient homes sometimes use more energy
Off Grid Living
SuperAdobe Building testing
Natural building blog and pictures
Women building natural homes
CobWorks North America
Cob building in Australia
Great articles on Cob houses:
http://www.tinyhouse...e-construction/
http://greenbuilding...house-for-5000/
http://small-scale.net/yearofmud/
Rogers Rammed Earth
House Plans:
http://www.solarhave...erStrawBale.htm
http://www.tinyhouse...ny-house-plans/
http://small-scale.n...me-house-plans/
http://opensourceeco...iki/House_Plans
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.freegreen...ouse-Plans.aspx
http://www.tinyhouse...ab-micro-house/
SuperaDobe in South Australia - http://www.1-1construction.com/
SuperAdobe in Haiti
Owen Geiger and Earthbag building
Melbourne Based Superadobe Builders Minha and Nick - http://www.permastructure.com.au/
Cob building and instruction
Cob Building in Finland - http://cobdreams.blogspot.co.uk/
Hassan Fathy- Inspired Regenerative Home Planned for Buddhist Center, Colorado-
Natural Building Blog, USA - http://naturalbuildingblog.com/
Discussion over Strawbale vs Cob here
Tiny thermal mass house
Eco Directory Australia -
Sustainable solutions for disaster affected communities - builditbackgreen.org/bushfires
Earthbag Workshop at Milkwood Farm, NSW
Tamara's Permaculture Class notes, Upwey, Victoria
www.greywater.net/
Plastic Bottle Building in Africa - and in Nigeria
BottleBrick making
How to build a $50 underground house
Recycled House Project, Brighton UK
Strawbale Designs
hempcrete - http://dorjedenmaling.org/program-details/?id=137636
http://www.construction-technologies.com/lyfordg/Hemp/hemp.html
http://www.hemp.com/2010/08/hemp-houses-the-secret-of-building-sustainable-homes/
Article in Renew on a 9Star rated house in Melbourne's north here
Sustainability References
ATA - http://www.ata.org.au/projects-and-advocacy/
UTS Earth Building Research Forum - http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/ebrf/
UTS Research Papers - http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/ebrf/research/articles.html
"Durability of cement stabilised earth walls - http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/ebrf/research/durability.html
CERES Environment PArk and Resource Center, Melbourne - http://www.ceres.org.au/
http://www.littleecofootprints.com/2011/06/ceres_melbourne_community_environment_park.html
Earthship Home Made From Tyres Discussion Thread - http://www.byohouse.com.au/forum4/viewtopic.php?t=150
How to get off Fossil Fuels - http://www2.buildinggreen.com/blogs/getting-fossil-fuels
Earth Building Association of Australia -
Resource Based Communities - skills share website for skilled people -
Sustainable Building/Wwooffing website for sharing knowledge and getting help for your builds - ThePOOSH.org
Green Building Council of Australia - http://www.gbca.org.au/
Centre for Appropriate Technology - Alice Springs -- http://www.icat.org.au/our-work/
Australian Solar Council - http://auses.org.au/solarpedia/
www.greywater.com.au/howitworks.htm - Grey Water Systems
UK Green Building Register
Sustainability Blogs/Organisations/Articles
http://www.nerissadowling.com/
http://www.holmgren.com.au/
www.eco-shout.org
Permaculture Internship advice here
Earthship experience from one of our participants here
The Green Swing - http://www.thegreenswing.net/pages/96rutlandave/water.html
http://desertsmartcoolmob.org/ - Alice Springs
Association for the Protection of the Environment, Thailand, for alternative building ideas - http://www.a-p-e.org/
Long Way Home, Guatemala - http://lwhome.org/
4walls International - sustainable building projects USA/Mexico - http://www.4wallsintl.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd7yZgboGkI
Green Films - Living in the Future
Types of IC Legal Structures Found in the Rainbow Region
New South Wales’ land laws were not designed to encompass ICs and therefore these
communities have had to adapt various legal means to secure their interest in the land they
live on. The following legal structures used to achieve this have all been tried in the Rainbow
Region with various degrees of success, though, for reasons of privacy, particular
communities cannot be identified here.
1. Strata Title
Under the
Strata Titles Act
it is possible to structure an IC so that each member has an
individual title over their house and curtilage, whilst contributing in cash or kind to the body
corporate which is responsible for overall supervision and management of the IC. However, this
Act was intended to apply to high-rise flats and not broad-acre communities and although there
is one example of this legislation being used for an IC in the Rainbow Region, the consensus
among its members seems to be that they find the structure unduly restrictive and inconvenient.
2. Community Title (CT)
The
Community Land Development Act
(NSW 1989) and the
Community Land Management Act
(NSW 1989) enable division of land into separate lots with their own titles that are held amongst
common property. The group that initially buys the land can thus retain control over common
lands and internal roads rather than have that control pass to the local council. However, locally,
councils have demanded from these communities much the same standards of development as
those required of ordinary subdivisions, resulting in substantial set-up costs, usually passed on
to individual buyers of the separate blocks. The upshot can be that block holders end up paying
virtually freehold prices for their lots. An advantage of CT is that it enables a very wide range of
possible internal arrangements concerning, for example, communal facilities, rules re ideology,
farming practices, conservation, pets, building standards, etc.
Yet the ideology of this legislation, being largely developer-driven, militates against the
development of a community ethos in that it promotes the interests of the individual lot holders
at the expense of the community. Unless this is catered for in the internal regulation of the IC it
can lead to the overtaking of the community by speculators whose interests lie in profit-taking
rather than the establishment of a genuine community.
3. Company Structures
Locally, companies
47
have often been found to be perhaps the most suitable structures for
aspiring ICs because of their ease of set up, flexibility, and limited liability of members for any
debts of the company itself. Unlike CT structures they can be set up quite cheaply, with minimal
ongoing costs of an annual company return fee presently of about $200. Possible pitfalls
experienced by local company-structured ICs include the danger that unless restraints are put in
place governing share transfers and the price of shares and improvements, normal market forces
may operate such that the IC has little control over who buys into the community with a
consequent loss of communal identity and functions.
4. Co-operative Structures
In ideological terms, co-ops are probably the most suitable vehicles for the formation of an IC.
They are ideally democratic, self-help organisations that exist to provide services to members
rather than profits, and thus lend themselves to the purpose of setting up an IC. Under the
Co-
operatives Act
(NSW 1993), the powers and duties of co-ops are potentially wide and detailed
and can allow for the operation of businesses, buying groups and other activities. A particular
advantage of the co-op structure is the comprehensive safety net provided by the Act, which
covers common problems that may arise, such as disputes between members and liabilities of
the co-op.
5. Tenants-in-Common Structures
These structures enable a group of people to buy land together, but also for each of them to have
their own title deed to the land,
48
entitling them to a nominated proportion of shares in the land.
If one of the tenants dies, his or her share of the land passes to the person(s) named in that
person’s will. All tenants-in-common are entitled to use all of the land and to gain their
proportion of any rents over it. They do not, however, have any entitlement to possession of any
particular part of the property, though they can be empowered to lease parts of it for less than
five years, and such leases are renewable. The land can only be sold or mortgaged with the
agreement of all tenants-in-common and any structures erected belong equally to all. The
inherent danger here is that if such agreement cannot be arrived at, a court may order the sale or
partition of the property.
49
Although members can make internal agreements between
themselves, they cannot override the above restrictions relating to the land or fixtures
themselves.
6. Joint Tenancy Structures
These structures are similar to Tenancies-in-Common, with similar advantages and
disadvantages, except that on the death of one party their interest passes to the other tenant(s).
7. Trust Structures
Under these structures, a person, group or company can hold the legal title over land for the
benefit of others (the beneficiaries). Any change in the trustees requires a change to the
Certificate of Title over the land held with consequent legal and registration costs. A particular
danger of this structure that has been experienced in the region is that unless the trustees are a
part of the IC and living on the land, they may be or may become distant from the ideals and
needs of those living there. This could cause legal problems as the trustees have control over the
trust property. In recent years, changes to trust laws mean that many of the financial advantages
of trusts relating to distribution of trust income and tax rates no longer favour trusts over
companies and other legal structures.
8. Unit Trust Structures
In the past, this form of structure has been used to overcome the prohibition against subdivision,
but the ways employed to attempt to achieve this are of very dubious legality – they may well
not survive a challenge in the courts.
50
Under these structures, the community’s land is held in
trust by a company, from which shareholders hold leases – which are theoretically renewable –
over their blocks for periods of less than five years. They are relatively expensive to set up and
were not designed for use by ICs.
9. Incorporated Association Structures
It is possible for a group to set up an Association to hold land, providing it does not engage in
profit-making or trading.
51
However, this makes no provision for individuals to sell their
interests in the property, unless members have some arrangement whereby they lend money to
the Association on terms that satisfactorily cover their financial interests. Although such
Associations are relatively simple and cheap to set up – and grant limited liability for
individuals, the capacity to sue and perpetual succession – they were not intended for the
purposes of ICs and have not met with much success in the Rainbow Region.
10. Extended Family Structures
Some years ago, a case in NSW
52
established that a ‘family‘ need not necessarily be constituted
by blood or marriage relations, but can be made up of unrelated individuals, provided they all
eat together and demonstrate other aspects of family life. Council planning instruments provide
that a family home need not be just one structure, but may consist of several detached but
physically related buildings, as long as the separate buildings do not have separate kitchens or
bathrooms. However, although such structures may have been unofficially tried for rural land
sharing communities, they confer no legal rights on family members, such that there is no easy
way for individual members to recoup any money or ‘sweat equity’
53
they may have contributed
in the event of them wanting to leave.
11. Hybrid Structures
Some ICs have adopted two-tiered and other structures, where the first tier may be a co-
operative, company or incorporated association that holds the title to the land, and the second
tier an incorporated or incorporated association that is responsible for the day-to-day
management of the community.
Experience in the region suggests that, above all, the legal structure chosen is only as good as
the people constituting it, so that an internally cohesive group always has a better chance of
making an IC work, almost regardless of the IC’s legal structure. In contrast, no legal
structure will protect a community from dispute and expense if the communards are not of
like mind and interests. The more successful ICs tend to be those that gather the foundation
group together first and find the land they want once they are confident of the ability of all the
members to work and live together, rather than the other way around. This process is
facilitated by the common adoption of some ideological, political or spiritual principles by the
foundation group, which has the effect of keeping the group together and laying down
universally agreed principles of living together.
Despite the travails of almost 30 years of toil and struggle, the survival rates of ICs in the
Rainbow region have generally surpassed those of communities established in previous
centuries. This staying power should provide communards with hope for the future and ensure
that ICs remain as a pre-eminent feature of the region, while significantly contributing to its
economy and cultu
New South Wales’ land laws were not designed to encompass ICs and therefore these
communities have had to adapt various legal means to secure their interest in the land they
live on. The following legal structures used to achieve this have all been tried in the Rainbow
Region with various degrees of success, though, for reasons of privacy, particular
communities cannot be identified here.
1. Strata Title
Under the
Strata Titles Act
it is possible to structure an IC so that each member has an
individual title over their house and curtilage, whilst contributing in cash or kind to the body
corporate which is responsible for overall supervision and management of the IC. However, this
Act was intended to apply to high-rise flats and not broad-acre communities and although there
is one example of this legislation being used for an IC in the Rainbow Region, the consensus
among its members seems to be that they find the structure unduly restrictive and inconvenient.
2. Community Title (CT)
The
Community Land Development Act
(NSW 1989) and the
Community Land Management Act
(NSW 1989) enable division of land into separate lots with their own titles that are held amongst
common property. The group that initially buys the land can thus retain control over common
lands and internal roads rather than have that control pass to the local council. However, locally,
councils have demanded from these communities much the same standards of development as
those required of ordinary subdivisions, resulting in substantial set-up costs, usually passed on
to individual buyers of the separate blocks. The upshot can be that block holders end up paying
virtually freehold prices for their lots. An advantage of CT is that it enables a very wide range of
possible internal arrangements concerning, for example, communal facilities, rules re ideology,
farming practices, conservation, pets, building standards, etc.
Yet the ideology of this legislation, being largely developer-driven, militates against the
development of a community ethos in that it promotes the interests of the individual lot holders
at the expense of the community. Unless this is catered for in the internal regulation of the IC it
can lead to the overtaking of the community by speculators whose interests lie in profit-taking
rather than the establishment of a genuine community.
3. Company Structures
Locally, companies
47
have often been found to be perhaps the most suitable structures for
aspiring ICs because of their ease of set up, flexibility, and limited liability of members for any
debts of the company itself. Unlike CT structures they can be set up quite cheaply, with minimal
ongoing costs of an annual company return fee presently of about $200. Possible pitfalls
experienced by local company-structured ICs include the danger that unless restraints are put in
place governing share transfers and the price of shares and improvements, normal market forces
may operate such that the IC has little control over who buys into the community with a
consequent loss of communal identity and functions.
4. Co-operative Structures
In ideological terms, co-ops are probably the most suitable vehicles for the formation of an IC.
They are ideally democratic, self-help organisations that exist to provide services to members
rather than profits, and thus lend themselves to the purpose of setting up an IC. Under the
Co-
operatives Act
(NSW 1993), the powers and duties of co-ops are potentially wide and detailed
and can allow for the operation of businesses, buying groups and other activities. A particular
advantage of the co-op structure is the comprehensive safety net provided by the Act, which
covers common problems that may arise, such as disputes between members and liabilities of
the co-op.
5. Tenants-in-Common Structures
These structures enable a group of people to buy land together, but also for each of them to have
their own title deed to the land,
48
entitling them to a nominated proportion of shares in the land.
If one of the tenants dies, his or her share of the land passes to the person(s) named in that
person’s will. All tenants-in-common are entitled to use all of the land and to gain their
proportion of any rents over it. They do not, however, have any entitlement to possession of any
particular part of the property, though they can be empowered to lease parts of it for less than
five years, and such leases are renewable. The land can only be sold or mortgaged with the
agreement of all tenants-in-common and any structures erected belong equally to all. The
inherent danger here is that if such agreement cannot be arrived at, a court may order the sale or
partition of the property.
49
Although members can make internal agreements between
themselves, they cannot override the above restrictions relating to the land or fixtures
themselves.
6. Joint Tenancy Structures
These structures are similar to Tenancies-in-Common, with similar advantages and
disadvantages, except that on the death of one party their interest passes to the other tenant(s).
7. Trust Structures
Under these structures, a person, group or company can hold the legal title over land for the
benefit of others (the beneficiaries). Any change in the trustees requires a change to the
Certificate of Title over the land held with consequent legal and registration costs. A particular
danger of this structure that has been experienced in the region is that unless the trustees are a
part of the IC and living on the land, they may be or may become distant from the ideals and
needs of those living there. This could cause legal problems as the trustees have control over the
trust property. In recent years, changes to trust laws mean that many of the financial advantages
of trusts relating to distribution of trust income and tax rates no longer favour trusts over
companies and other legal structures.
8. Unit Trust Structures
In the past, this form of structure has been used to overcome the prohibition against subdivision,
but the ways employed to attempt to achieve this are of very dubious legality – they may well
not survive a challenge in the courts.
50
Under these structures, the community’s land is held in
trust by a company, from which shareholders hold leases – which are theoretically renewable –
over their blocks for periods of less than five years. They are relatively expensive to set up and
were not designed for use by ICs.
9. Incorporated Association Structures
It is possible for a group to set up an Association to hold land, providing it does not engage in
profit-making or trading.
51
However, this makes no provision for individuals to sell their
interests in the property, unless members have some arrangement whereby they lend money to
the Association on terms that satisfactorily cover their financial interests. Although such
Associations are relatively simple and cheap to set up – and grant limited liability for
individuals, the capacity to sue and perpetual succession – they were not intended for the
purposes of ICs and have not met with much success in the Rainbow Region.
10. Extended Family Structures
Some years ago, a case in NSW
52
established that a ‘family‘ need not necessarily be constituted
by blood or marriage relations, but can be made up of unrelated individuals, provided they all
eat together and demonstrate other aspects of family life. Council planning instruments provide
that a family home need not be just one structure, but may consist of several detached but
physically related buildings, as long as the separate buildings do not have separate kitchens or
bathrooms. However, although such structures may have been unofficially tried for rural land
sharing communities, they confer no legal rights on family members, such that there is no easy
way for individual members to recoup any money or ‘sweat equity’
53
they may have contributed
in the event of them wanting to leave.
11. Hybrid Structures
Some ICs have adopted two-tiered and other structures, where the first tier may be a co-
operative, company or incorporated association that holds the title to the land, and the second
tier an incorporated or incorporated association that is responsible for the day-to-day
management of the community.
Experience in the region suggests that, above all, the legal structure chosen is only as good as
the people constituting it, so that an internally cohesive group always has a better chance of
making an IC work, almost regardless of the IC’s legal structure. In contrast, no legal
structure will protect a community from dispute and expense if the communards are not of
like mind and interests. The more successful ICs tend to be those that gather the foundation
group together first and find the land they want once they are confident of the ability of all the
members to work and live together, rather than the other way around. This process is
facilitated by the common adoption of some ideological, political or spiritual principles by the
foundation group, which has the effect of keeping the group together and laying down
universally agreed principles of living together.
Despite the travails of almost 30 years of toil and struggle, the survival rates of ICs in the
Rainbow region have generally surpassed those of communities established in previous
centuries. This staying power should provide communards with hope for the future and ensure
that ICs remain as a pre-eminent feature of the region, while significantly contributing to its
economy and cultu
