Would YOU?

[OswaldBastable]

Miss Gale, better words have never yet been spoken on this topic.  And as a proud SCA member myself, I can't imagine why I didn't consider that....

On the topic of determining what 'is' and 'isn't' steampunk, I would push for a council, consisting at first of all residents, and when and if the place grows too large for consensus rulings an elected council, that would determine such a thing.  A city council, basically.

In other words, if we're going to be a functional village, should we not have a mayor and council?

Awww I wanted to be King

[Sir Henry Tolvaddon]

I see! Yes, the "let's slap a cog on it, now it's steampunk" type aesthetic would get us nowhere. Lead Zeppelin, etc, etc. I think to define what would be doable through our pre-1900s tech would require deliniating what would be required of technology one way or another... or is that too broad? I'm thinking along the lines of sewing machines and the like, but that's just the slant of my niche talking, I do think.

Singer's pedal powered machines were available from the late 1850s so I doubt that would be an insurmountable issue (for example)...and yes, I know electrickery is a lot easier (my mum is a seamstress)

On the idea of electrickery....is it possible to build water/wind generators based on entirely pre-1900 materials? Well, yes, ok, I knows possible to build a dynamo or alternator but would it work well enough to run a small ammount of 240 volt appliances (I'm assuming UK voltage here)....so that as much of the non-steamy stuff as possible could be constructed to a steamy aesthetic?

[Isabella Stormrift]

Miss Gale, better words have never yet been spoken on this topic.  And as a proud SCA member myself, I can't imagine why I didn't consider that....

On the topic of determining what 'is' and 'isn't' steampunk, I would push for a council, consisting at first of all residents, and when and if the place grows too large for consensus rulings an elected council, that would determine such a thing.  A city council, basically.

In other words, if we're going to be a functional village, should we not have a mayor and council?

I can get behind this idea, as truthfully such a village would have to have 'official' ruling of some sort.... and it wouldn't be defining steampunk for all and sundry, just that which applies to the specific village. If all original residents have a say, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get an acceptable consensus.

[OswaldBastable]

I see! Yes, the "let's slap a cog on it, now it's steampunk" type aesthetic would get us nowhere. Lead Zeppelin, etc, etc. I think to define what would be doable through our pre-1900s tech would require deliniating what would be required of technology one way or another... or is that too broad? I'm thinking along the lines of sewing machines and the like, but that's just the slant of my niche talking, I do think.

Singer's pedal powered machines were available from the late 1850s so I doubt that would be an insurmountable issue (for example)...and yes, I know electrickery is a lot easier (my mum is a seamstress)

On the idea of electrickery....is it possible to build water/wind generators based on entirely pre-1900 materials? Well, yes, ok, I knows possible to build a dynamo or alternator but would it work well enough to run a small ammount of 240 volt appliances (I'm assuming UK voltage here)....so that as much of the non-steamy stuff as possible could be constructed to a steamy aesthetic?

so a good strong river we can partially feed off would be needed (and would improve the view)

[Miss Genevieve Gale]

To answer the question: No, I don't think I would want to live in such a town. I am actually quite content with the community I currently reside in. We have old furniture factories being converted into loft condos, a designated historic district of preserved/restored Victorian "Painted Ladies", a couple of thriving artists' neighborhoods, and we still have family farms just outside of the city. We also have modern cutting-edge health care and research facilities.

[OswaldBastable]

Miss Gale, better words have never yet been spoken on this topic.  And as a proud SCA member myself, I can't imagine why I didn't consider that....

On the topic of determining what 'is' and 'isn't' steampunk, I would push for a council, consisting at first of all residents, and when and if the place grows too large for consensus rulings an elected council, that would determine such a thing.  A city council, basically.

In other words, if we're going to be a functional village, should we not have a mayor and council?

I can get behind this idea, as truthfully such a village would have to have 'official' ruling of some sort.... and it wouldn't be defining steampunk for all and sundry, just that which applies to the specific village. If all original residents have a say, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get an acceptable consensus.

that sounds eminently sensible, if its made clear at the start and everyone knows the 'spirit' of the guidelines it should work well; especially as SPS tend to be pretty polite and decent

[Isabella Stormrift]

I see! Yes, the "let's slap a cog on it, now it's steampunk" type aesthetic would get us nowhere. Lead Zeppelin, etc, etc. I think to define what would be doable through our pre-1900s tech would require deliniating what would be required of technology one way or another... or is that too broad? I'm thinking along the lines of sewing machines and the like, but that's just the slant of my niche talking, I do think.

Singer's pedal powered machines were available from the late 1850s so I doubt that would be an insurmountable issue (for example)...and yes, I know electrickery is a lot easier (my mum is a seamstress)

On the idea of electrickery....is it possible to build water/wind generators based on entirely pre-1900 materials? Well, yes, ok, I knows possible to build a dynamo or alternator but would it work well enough to run a small ammount of 240 volt appliances (I'm assuming UK voltage here)....so that as much of the non-steamy stuff as possible could be constructed to a steamy aesthetic?

so a good strong river we can partially feed off would be needed (and would improve the view)

Oh, I was providing sewing machines as something I knew COULD be done. I onced worked with a pedal powered machine courtesy of my great-grandmother. Unfortunately it has since passed in the great house fire of '95 :<

As for the wind/water... water somehow seems more appropriate to me, and certainly sounds appealing, though the exact trickeries of that are beyond me.

[OswaldBastable]

there was a series in this country featuring a family trying to as green as possible; they set up there own waterwheel powered genarator fed by a stream running through there garden; it produced quite a decent amount of power and wasnt insanely complicated.

[MechanicalMouse]

Mr Mouse, oooo thats a can of worms and no mistake; as of course it would involve someone somewhere deciding what 'is' steampunk and what isnt; I wouldnt fancy that job!

Also was this town featured in Shrek? 

Not sure about it being referenced in Shriek, but just googled Celebration and it was what I was thinking off.

And yes I am aware of the size of can I'm talking about.

But it would be a requirement, and would houses be sold freehold or leasehold. In England you can put restrictive covenants on freehold land sold, but the you could only dictate such thing as no Satellite dishes and no caravans on the front lawn.

Of course so much of conformance could be done through peer pressure. You would feel a little out of place strolling down the steampunk street in a tee shirt while the rest of the populaces struts in their finery.  

[Steαм◦¢hicк]

All Victorian. All steampunk

Hmmm..lemme think.
Does it come with diphtheria, rickets, tuberculosis, child labour, house servants, no votes for women, dark santanic mills, pea souper fogs and capital punishment?

In the SCA we say that we are representing the Middle Ages "as they should have been".
We can have the Victorian era as it should have been.

Like it

[MechanicalMouse]

My My this is a busy little thread.

I second the idea Council of elders (title rather than product of age) to help run the village.

[Isabella Stormrift]

On another note, when it comes to necessities like, oh, say... FOOD. I don't think it's particularly desirable for us to be farmers, butchers, etc and try to be self sufficient in this way, unless someone has a particular desire to do so. That would be quite the bonus. However, we don't want anyone to be trapped into "you must go farm or we're going to starve." I know this sort of thing came up in the other commune thread that was linked, and wanted to address it. We particularly can't rely completely on self grown food if we're planning to bring though tourists.

MechanicalMouse-

Yes, it would rather be a necessity for such a definition, but I think the 'council' scenario with the understanding it's guidelines for the community only, etc, and bearing in mind the spirit of the project it shouldn't be TOO incredibly difficult to arrive at a consensus. As for housing... that's something I'm turning over possibilities of in my head at the moment too.

[Isabella Stormrift]

My My this is a busy little thread.

I second the idea Council of elders (title rather than product of age) to help run the village.

I'm sure you saw my post earlier about the patterns of these topics They're generally quite popular and people are very enthusiastic about them, at least in theory. I, for one, am quite serious about it though.

[Dr. Oliver Cross]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what "freehold" and "leasehold" mean.  What I was thinking on the issue of appearance of buildings is that the rules would be on the order of a homeowner's association rules system, whereby the external appearance would be mandated by regulations, and business licenses would be issued only after it was proven that your business, whatever it might sell, fit the motif of the city.

Does this make sense?  

[Isabella Stormrift]

It certainly makes sense to me, as it would rather BE a homeowners association of sorts. Unless we're not considered owning our homes, rather leasing them from the tourism business. Except we would rather be "owning" them in a way anyway, who am I kidding. Anyway, yes, exterior and any public rooms would have to follow guidelines, private areas are your own personal business, etc.

[MechanicalMouse]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what "freehold" and "leasehold" mean.

Effectively
Freehold. You pay 100000 and own the land.
Leasehold. You pay 100000 and I still own the land and you're allowed to live there for the next 99 years.

With leasehold you can have more control over the tenant of the building, than Freehold.

If this was a commercial venture any houses sold would most likely be Leasehold. Control and Money......

[Sir Henry Tolvaddon]

Which would be the prefered approach; buy and convert a farm (which would probably require a covenent on the residential rights that required you work on the farm in some sense - which could be fairly straight forward if its a "Museum") or buy a huge old warehous, knock it down, and create a gated enclave (for want of a better term)? The latter would be more practical in many ways, but hideously expensive in comparison 

[Dr. Oliver Cross]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what "freehold" and "leasehold" mean.

Effectively
Freehold. You pay 100000 and own the land.
Leasehold. You pay 100000 and I still own the land and you're allowed to live there for the next 99 years.

With leasehold you can have more control over the tenant of the building, than Freehold.

If this was a commercial venture any houses sold would most likely be Leasehold. Control and Money......

Ah.  I don't believe the idea of leaseholding exists in the United States.  I've certainly never heard of it, anyway.  Renting, yes, but not long-term leases.  On automobiles, certainly, but not homes.  It flies in the face of the American 'MINE!' mentality, methinks.  But that's neither here nor there.

Where this applies here, and the most recent words of Ms. Stormrift come into it as well here, is that I propose basically a system whereby new residents buy into a trust which would be the legal landowner.  The trust would operate as a company, effectively... one in which one share of ownership would get you one plot of land, and five shares a business title.  The existing stockholders of the trust would have to approve new stock purchases, and that would allow for a control on both what was built and who built it, by allowing us to weed out those who didn't understand what we were intending to do.  The shares would be company controlled in that new shares would only be issued by the company via votes, and the pre-existing shares could only be sold to new third parties via approval by the company.  (They could be sold back to the Company at fare market value, though, thus preventing people who wanted to move out of Silver Cogs [random village name suggestion there] from having to take a hit to 'their' home's value should they not find anyone who wants to buy in.

Sound good?

As for Sir Henry's latest missive... if we get the land in the US, neither issue applies.  The land issue in the US is such that if the land is currently zoned for agricultural, but not in use, getting it rezoned is a simple matter of applying for permits and proving save environmental impact, at least in most Western states.

[akumabito]

Alright, let's get brainstorming..

Personally, I would favor the ground-up approach to this. Assuming a US location, land prices are quite reasonable in many parts. Buying a built-upon property is likely to complicate matters, as it is quite unlikely the existing building's aesthetics would fit with the steampunk ideal, no? So you'd still have to restructure the building, rebuilt parts of it, or knock it all down and start over.. benefits however, would be on-site water/electricity already in place. I don't think this offsets the drawbacks though.

Ok, so starting from scratch, next thing to sort out is construction. By far the cheapest option to build in the US is the commonly used light frame construction method. It is quick and relatively inexpensive. It is also not very Victorian looking and might pose a bit of a fire hazard (think workshops and the like)..  I would personally prefer bricks, but that might drive the costs up quite a bit. What I propose then, is a hybrid. Using timber frame construction in places that are invisible, with a brick facade.

For the houses themselves, I propose a standardized framework - every house would be identical in size and basic construction for ease of construction and cost-control. However each house could have a unique layout on the inside, plus unique facades, making every house look different. Some might want to use the bottom floor as workshop, other might want to make it a stable, or garage, or bakery, or store.. or just another layer to live in. I am not entirely sure on this, but I would imagine that if the basic structure of the house were to be approved by an architect, we’d be free to ‘fill in the blanks’ to a large degree, no?

Downsizing – how much space does one really need? I would like to keep these dwellings quite small – more will fit on a smaller patch of land, closely huddled together. Heating/cooling will also require less energy this way. I am thinking a 20ft x 20ft footprint, three layers total – one for shop and two layers of living quarters, the top layer having sloped walls (roof). This should keep construction costs down to an absolute minimum.

Does anyone here know an architect or contractor? I’d be interested in hearing some rough guesstimates on construction work for such a dwelling, or a guesstimate of materials needed. With a large community such as ours, manpower should not be an issue, I would think!

Here’s just a little sketch to give an idea of the scale I am thinking about:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Naturally, buildings that serve the community as a whole could be made larger if there is a need for it – perhaps by joining several structures together.

[Dr. Oliver Cross]

So you're basically describing a 1,200 sq. ft. three-story facility with a brick external around a wood prefab, am I right?  With internal design work up to the... well, to the designer of any given building?  I think that could very easily work, given that we could make the externals look like whatsoever we wanted, regardless of what the internal dimensions might be.  Granted, we'd want at least one 'Main Street' of unique buildings, I'd think, but otherwise... yes, yes this is QUITE doable!

[Sir Henry Tolvaddon]

As for Sir Henry's latest missive... if we get the land in the US, neither issue applies.  The land issue in the US is such that if the land is currently zoned for agricultural, but not in use, getting it rezoned is a simple matter of applying for permits and proving save environmental impact, at least in most Western states.

Move?! To the colonies?!!  

On a more serious stand....your govt appears to be becoming a trifle more snappy on its immigration requirements - probably meaning it would need two sister settlements; on in dear old blighty, the other over yonder

[Isabella Stormrift]

Once again, Dr. Oliver, that seems absolutely splendid. One thought, however... does this mean that initial members are going to require a much higher financial investment, or am I not quite understanding the concept correctly?

akumabito-

The simple structure fill in the blank with a brick facade seems logical... as for huddling... well, as long as there's some sort of public park or square or whathaveyou I'm fine with this However, based on your initial rough, I'd say we'd need to raise the roofing a bit higher, or we run into wasted space issues, with the top floor being less usable.

[akumabito]

So you're basically describing a 1,200 sq. ft. three-story facility with a brick external around a wood prefab, am I right?  With internal design work up to the... well, to the designer of any given building?  I think that could very easily work, given that we could make the externals look like whatsoever we wanted, regardless of what the internal dimensions might be.  Granted, we'd want at least one 'Main Street' of unique buildings, I'd think, but otherwise... yes, yes this is QUITE doable!

Pretty much, yeah! As for the exterior design, just take a look at old pictures of London or Amsterdam for instance for inspiration.. you'll see that although the dimensions of most buildings are near-identical, each building is still unique because fo the way the facades are decorated..

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[MechanicalMouse]

On a more serious stand....your govt appears to be becoming a trifle more snappy on its immigration requirements - probably meaning it would need two sister settlements; on in dear old blighty, the other over yonder

And a transalantic tunnel between them...

Another cheap construction option is a cob covered strawbale build. It would give more of a rustic design.

[akumabito]

akumabito-

The simple structure fill in the blank with a brick facade seems logical... as for huddling... well, as long as there's some sort of public park or square or whathaveyou I'm fine with this However, based on your initial rough, I'd say we'd need to raise the roofing a bit higher, or we run into wasted space issues, with the top floor being less usable.

The top floor would be used as bedroom, with closets build under the lower parts of the roof. Most small farms and detached houses here have been built like that for centuries. Yes, there is some 'wasted' space as you can not stand upright everywhere on the attic, but it isn't really wased as it is converted to storage space. Wouldn't want to 'waste' proper standing height on cabinetry now, would we?