ejoftheweb McCoy

So, following on from Paul's suggestion on the 20-people thread, here is a new thread.

First, about our situation. We live in inner-city London in a 5-bedroom terraced house, built in about 1900, which we've owned for 20 years or so. When we first bought it, we needed the rent from lodgers to be able to afford the mortgage payments. Now, that's not so much of an issue, but we like the company so we keep the house full. Besides, it's a much more efficient use of space, heat etc. 

Three out of five of the rooms have tiny ensuite showers, which removes one shared-living bone of contention. We eat our meals together and share all the food and drink. We don't have rules, as such, but a few principles: if you cook, you cook for whoever is hungry. If you make tea, make a pot. Being in London, everyone works and pays rent. We pay a cleaner to come in for two hours twice a week to clean the shared space.

Mostly, our lodgers stay for two or three years, and then move on - usually, they couple up with someone and start nesting.  We've got a cohort of "grandchildren" as a result (we don't have children ourselves).  Mostly, they move out to live close by, and we keep on seeing them; we've got a large community of friends as a result. Quite a few of them have started similar shared houses. One consequence of this is that a bunch of us often rent a big house for a week or two in the country for a holiday. Because everyone is used to doing stuff together, it just works. People who don't know us are amazed that we can fix up a big meal for twenty or so without dramas. But that twenty or so is for a holiday, over in two weeks, and there is usually a small team of earth-mothers managing things behind the scenes while the men drink beer. So probably not sustainable for much longer...

Do we have rows? Heck yes. But they blow over; we sit down round the kitchen table and talk about them. Moods, strops, whatever are part of the human condition; no one is ever blamed for saying bad things during a row.  We've never had to ask anyone to leave; if anyone doesn't fit in, they will make their own mind up to leave. This is an advantage of the landlord/tenant relationship; it could get a lot stickier if everyone had an equal stake.

The size of our household is determined by the size of the house. We've always been between four and six people; five is better than four, and six is better than five but with six we don't have a guest room.  I've often thought I'd like to buy the house next door and knock the two of them together to make a ten-bedroomed house, but there are two problems: it's not for sale, and if it were, we couldn't afford it. It would be good to have children in the house, too: it's a great arrangement for sharing childcare. The dynamic always changes, as different characters come and go. Twenty years ago, we were our lodgers' peers; now, we are Mum and Dad to a bunch of twenty-somethings.  Ideally, I think there should be a full range of ages - if everyone is the same age, it's a frat house or an eventide home. But inevitably the economics of our present situation mean that we have younger people living with us.

I am sure almost all the wooden spoons in my kitchen are made of beech.

http://www.sredmond.com/vthr_index.htm

this is a very interesting paper about burning green woodchips efficiently. I think woodchip has a lot of potential over cordwood as a heating fuel; it is a by-product of lots of forestry processes and means that the large timber can be used for structural purposes.

It's interesting how his design runs contrary to a lot of the rocket stove designs. I'd like to see some more diagrams, and then I'd like to try adapting it to run continously, rather than in batch mode.

Anyway, his arguments about how green wood can be burned efficiently - in the right stove - are very interesting.

The process of cutting and bending trees to make a hedge is called laying a hedge. It has been used in the UK since the seventeenth century, and the hedges are stockproof - they keep cattle in/out.  A laid hedge lasts for about 50 years, so every 50 years you have to relay it to keep it stockproof.

Hedgelaying skills nearly died out in the sixties and seventies but there has been a big revival of interest recently.

Obviously you choose the species that do best in your climate. Here in the UK the main species is hawthorn (quickthorn) which has the advantage of being spiny; it is usually mixed with other species including blackthorn, dogrose and hazel.

Once the hedge is established it needs cutting every three or four years - in sections, and only in midwinter, so as not to disturb nesting birds in the spring.

Laid hedges like this will keep most livestock in place, but are not vermin-proof - foxes, badgers and rabbits will all dig under one, in fact the raised banks they grow on are often ideal for setts and warrens.  They harbour wildlife; this is mostly a good thing.

I've lived in a house of five or six people for the best part of thirty years. Same house, different people. We're not related - my wife and I own the house, and we have lodgers. Mostly they become our life-long friends. They move on. I think that's one thing that keeps it strong: the household is always changing. New blood, new faces.

We eat together; there are no rules. I cook once or twice a week and eat a proper dinner every night. Everything in the kitchen and larder is for everyone (food, drink etc) and we rely on everyone doing their fair share of the shopping. Originally we tried keeping accounts, but soon it became more trouble than it was worth. Trust is much easier.

As we all get older - we live in an ageing society - another advantage of shared living is sharing the homecare costs. Same as sharing childcare, only with older people.  At the moment, my wife and I are a good 20 years older than most of our lodgers, but we both think that in the future we'd like to live together with our friends, and as it's more than likely that we'll need someone to look after us in our decrepitude, we could share that cost.

But I must admit I'm a little wary of the actual numbers. I've been a vocal advocate of shared living for years; I've been very happy doing it and I think the fragmentation of society into ever smaller households is really damaging, environmentally and socially. We need to learn to live together again. The household - not the family - is a really important social unit, and I think it's stronger for being somewhat larger than an average nuclear family. But is 20 an optimum size? Is there an optimum size? Do you get diminishing returns beyond a particular point?

I'd be happy to have one or two or four more than the six of us there are now, if we had room. Beyond about a dozen souls, I think you'd need rules and rotas. That makes it more of an institution, less of a home. 

Luckily, there's nothing I have to avoid absolutely, but if I eat a raw hazelnut my mouth will complain for an hour or so.
I always cook from scratch, though, and will seldom - if ever - use packet mixes or seasonings. I buy whole spices and grind them when I need them; if I need mayo, I make it.

Humans are omnivores and do best on a varied diet;  allergies and intolerances apart, we should resist being picky about what we eat; if the whole diet is diverse, a few artificial additives here and there won't hurt anyone.  Too much salt and sweetening desensitises  us to these desirable flavours.

If you have ethical issues with any aspect of food production, and lots of us do, surely the right response is to use the power of your wallet and don't spend money on unethical food. Being a picky eater and an ungracious guest doesn't help at all.