Wow, lots of interesting commentary on this one. Thanks!
To start at the beginning, I would echo the sentiments of the other folks responding and recommend making peace with your never ending 'to-do' list. In all honesty, I think there is just about as much value in the process as in the product (there usually is, especially if you value your understanding of the world around you).
As to whether or not it is work, I would say that depends on what you're doing. If you enjoy it, call it whatever you want. If it happens to make the world a better place, you've found what most people seem to be looking for...fulfillment and fun. I stopped distinguishing between work and play long ago. Once you start looking through
Permaculture lenses, you can't very easily take them off. Who else here as started looking at other people's property with appraising eyes?
The aesthetics question is an interesting one and one that I think has largely been poopooed by folks in the permaculture community for too long. In order to effect change in the broader community we will need to be able to create systems that work both in terms of functionality and conventional aesthetics. In fact, I just wrote an article for the Bullock's newsletter about it. Check it out at
http://www.permacultureportal.com/network_newsletter.html and let me know what you think.
The other question that was brought up here was to what extent do you design and plan ahead? I would say this question is answered differently by different folks. Folks who take permaculture design courses are presented with a design process. This usually involves base mapping, conceptual designing, master plans, implementation strategies, and so forth. What if you taught a
permaculture design course for indigenous folks from a culture where maps where not used? What about a culture without a written language? Obviously, the design course has been geared toward those educated in the Western system. For those of us who were, a planning process involving written materials makes a lot of sense. However, it isn't necessary. In fact, here at the Bullock's there is no master plan. It exists within the heads of the Bullocks themselves. They just keep modifying it and switching things up as needed and they system gets better bit by bit.
However, I would say that it won't work that well for everyone. In fact, there are a few cases where I think having a fully drawn out plan is essential:
1. There are a lot of people involved - If the vision is in your head and there are many people involved in the implementation, you will constantly be finding that things aren't happening the way you intended. With many people the plan becomes a communication tool. Everyone can look at the drawings and be on the same page about where the site is going. If you are just working on it by yourself, this isn't nearly so critical.
2. You are trying to convince someone to let you make changes to their land - If you don't own the land, but you want to make changes you are far more likely to receive a yes from a landowner if you can show you've thought the whole design through. The owner of the land will want to see the big picture and it will be easier to understand if they can see it.
3. You are offering professional design services - When you step into the professional realm and you have to be concerned with zoning, permits, codes, covenants, environmental impact statements, and professional presentation being able to show what you are going to do upfront is critical. The professional design arena requires a certain level of completeness and "we'll figure it out as we go" generally won't fly with most county officials.
Outside of these parameters, I would say starting with a comprehensive site analysis and written plan would benefit just about anyone. It can be pretty challenging to figure out how to locate things in relation to one another if you're just sort of assembling as you go. At the same time, any plan you make up front should allow room for flexibility. Without flexibility the plan will just be some exercise you did a few years ago and forgot about.
All in all, I would say Paul is right. I'm probably a 75 on scale he laid out above. It doesn't have to be pretty and it doesn't have to be super detailed, but I always design for what I want the ultimate outcome to be for the whole system. That outcome I draw on paper.
Keep the good questions coming, folks!
Dave