William James wrote:
The lack of restrictions is nice because you can use the "alternative" solution that is most handy; the one that everyone would choose. You can just follow a known pattern instead of inventing one yourself, one that that works with whatever peculiar conditions you have that are different from everyone else. In the end it could actually lead to a solution that is something that many people would adopt because it goes past whatever stringent conditions you have on your site.
Feidhlim Harty wrote:
William, with regards to your designing through obstacles. My own view on this is that there are plenty restrictions that are already in place:
the social pressure to conform to the flush toilet model
the inherent limitations of working with a material that has the potential to be smelly and contaminating if not managed with due diligence and care
environmental and site conditions
budget and time input limitations for both capital elements and maintenance
If it's possible to design a good permaculture layout within these limitations - I'm not sure that regulatory red-tape would necessarily be an addition to the mix. Certainly, the rules exist for a reason: to prevent water pollution, but if that's taken care of by the designer/builder then I'm for more leeway rather than less.
Feidhlim Harty wrote:Zenais, interesting question. You asked what would I do. So I'll answer that directly:
William James wrote:Paul has a podcast on greywater, it's an interview with Art Ludwig.
Good luck with your projects. You're really lucky not to have to worry about violations.
This is awkward. I've grown a second evil head. I'm going to need a machete and a tiny ad ...
Devious Experiments for a Truly Passive Greenhouse!https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/greenhouse-1