... but we're not sure which way would be the more efficient method:

1. Buy some rural land and start from scratch, but possibly have to pay for utility startup construction (electricity, water, phone).

2. Buy a foreclosed or abandoned rural farm or property, tear down the building and build a new one on the site (or if possible, renovate to eco-efficient status).

I'm kinda leaning toward #2, because DH and I don't like the idea of building on new land (let's face it, they ain't making any new land anymore). However, we like the idea of having a nice large garden in the country. But since we've never done this before, I'm doing LOTS of research, including getting opinions and experience from you ladies. :D

We're interested in either CT or NJ, though CT seems to have the less expensive land options. We plan to include eco-efficient features in the house such as solar panels for electricity and water heating, rain barrels to collect gray water and so on.

Any ideas from those who've BTDT? Thanks in advance!

subscribing.... us too!

:bump:

we are doing the same come May and i have been wondering the same.

there are so many variables that affect how efficient... how far a drive to work, market, etc? garden space? if you found a perfect existing home, that would probably be best. you could live on-site while you renovate or if rebuilding, many materials could be reused.

things that matter to me will be the ability to have a passive solar design, sun, shade trees...

on another note, i think often of how to bring this stuff to the mainstream. if we all just keep buying "new" land and building green, it becomes so easy for most people to say, "well i can't do that, don't have vacant land, live in suburbia..." and so will pass on the whole "green" idea altogether. we struggle with how to live to bring the idea to the masses.

so i guess what i'm saying is #2 is prob more eco-friendly, all things being the same, but i'd selfishly rather do #1!

keep posting on your journey

I've never really thought about it... which uses more/less resources...

the first thought I had and it is sorta silly I guess, I always grew up as a kid in other people houses, places that had been lived in before, when I married my hubby was in the process of building a house in the woods, there have been 2 houses on the property many years ago, in one area we were able to find where it was at, the other was so long ago, the man who told us about it, in his 90's passed away a few years back.... so in a way it's lost.

okay quit rambling and get to your point!!!.... when I started breaking ground for the garden I found nothing, no dodad, bottlecaps, nails, whatevers, I kept digging and digging, and I havee fund nothing, nothing man-made in 13 years. (well other than the couple of forks and tags I accedently composted) In a way this made me feel sad, I could not be the treasure hunter or the archiologist that I was as a kid, finding the little things that get dropped and lost and burried out in the yard.

I help a lady turn over ground in her garden every year, she's been there about 30 years now and the orginal part of the house maybe a 100 or more... I'm always finding things in the dirt, some of the treasures she admits as hers, like the old leather shoe... the ground itself has history.

I don't know.... probably doesn't really answer your question but really made me think....

With everything else roughly equal, number two would be better.

Environmentally speaking, it's usually better to remodel or rebuild an existing building than to break new ground. If more people (and builders) would do that, we'd have less of a "sprawl" issue; too many people want to build new or buy new-built, and it's all on land that was previously farm-land, or second-growth forest, wetland, etc. Maybe not pure, virgin wilderness, but land that was previously open.

There's a truck or two in my town with the bumper sticker, "farm land lost is farm land lost forever", which is both duh/obvious, but also profound.

Even if you competely tear down an existing structure, you can use the area where it stood to base your new home, and avoid putting a building where there used to be open space.

Thanks everyone for your replies.

I'm leaning toward option #2, for one big environmentional reason and one big financial reason.

Financial: The last house we bought had lots of work to be done one it, so I have some ideas on how much it costs to renovate a kitchen, paint interior and exterior surfaces, replace a roof, etc. And while the search may be time consuming, it's possible to get costs on building a house from scratch. However, I have NO IDEA how much it costs to get utilities run out to a new site (and utility companies seem to be unwilling to estimate a cost, their forms all require a specific address and site inspection), not to mention how long and frustrating it will be to get all of the paperwork done for the entire process, utilities, ground breaking, yadda yadda.

Environmental: As my mom said once, they just ain't building more land anymore. I cannot justify breaking ground on undeveloped land to build a house when there are tons out there waiting to be bought.

But I hadn't thought about the emotional aspect of developed properties, either. I can just imagine DD digging in the back yard and creating a story about her found treasure.

Onward with the search. Thanks again, all.

Subbing.

There's a truck or two in my town with the bumper sticker, "farm land lost is farm land lost forever", which is both duh/obvious, but also profound

It's not true. It is completely possible to reclaim and rehabilitate land. In fact, previously habitated land or farmland that is grown over can be great for farmland, provided no chemicals were dumped onto it (which is a big "provided" for inhabited land nowadays, but that is not my point).

We want to start a farm on previously owned farmland and we want to build a house there.

(I am totally reviving all these threads... so at the top of the list there are going to be all these eco-home threads... :lol)

While country living is all nostalgic and appealing to me, it does contribute to sprawl, and you have to expend so much more resources living far away from everything - though you could make it work with mail order and working from home.