This is a CTP of initiative: Ecovillage Bergen (Netherlands)
On the 16th of May 2013, Ecovillage Bergen received the news from the notary that they could buy the land that they had wanted. Two weeks later, on the 30th of May, they received the key to officially open the gates to the premises. The terrain covers a land of 15 hectares in the town of “Bergen” (50 km above Amsterdam). The land concerns a former, unused military terrain.
This was a critical turning point in that the initiative was materialised from an ecovillage in theory to an ecovillage in practice. Before, the focus had been on making the plan and getting the land with a small group of people. Afterwards, more people were attracted and the focus was on realising the plan. “The moment that we could buy it, that was an evident turning point. We were just a group of people that were working and made a choice that we wanted to buy this, but then when we were actually told by the notary that we were the ones who could buy it…. That was really such a special moment” (co-founder 2).
The actual purchase of the land, and the process preceding it, was also critical in terms of condensing the group of people with a serious commitment: “At a certain point it became clear that the land could be bought. There was a programme of requirements and a real plan was necessary to conquer this. During that phase, a lot of people left. [They realized] 'This is really a community, I’m not going to just get my nice house with my little garden, this is really going to be a community’ (...) When it started to get more serious, many people left. (...) And 15 people remained who really had the courage to go on” (co-founder 3).
The story of how Ecovillage Bergen got its land is a special one. The co-founders had their eyes on the particular piece of land for years. Already before it had been publicly communicated that this land would be sold, one of the co-founders had been walking around the land, dreaming of an ecovillage on that location. However, the chances of them being able to actually buy it had been slim, as the land was too expensive and they were certainly not the only ones who were interested in buying it. Land in and around the town of Bergen happens to be one of the most expensive in the Netherlands, due to a combination of its rural charm, nearby sea cost (6 km) and relative proximity to Amsterdam (50 km). Besides the ecovillage initiative, several others had been interested in buying the land, and there were five other bidders, most notably a commercial developer who was also involved in the local council.
The respective land concerns an old military terrain, a so-called ‘mobility complex’. The terrain was first built in 1939 as a military airport, used by the Germans. After the allied forces landed in Normandy in 1944, the Germans blew up the terrain. It was kept as a military mobility complex during the Cold War, for the storage of military munition and vehicles. The terrain is known to have several left-overs of bombs and munition, and rumours have it that there might still be ‘unexploded’ bombs lying under the surface.
The military terrain was sold by the ‘department of rural land’ (Dienst Landbouwgronden – DLG) under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Innovation and Agriculture. A programme of requirements was formulated with several very specific restrictions, including the clean-up of asbestos, the cutting of trees, the destruction of several warehouse constructions, and a limitation to new construction of 2000 m2. Public proposal were to be reviewed by three parties: (1) the ‘department of rural land’ (DLG) on behalf of the Ministry, (2) the provincial government, and (3) the municipality of Bergen.
The programme of requirements was published only three months before the deadline to submit the plan. This meant that the ecovillage initiative had only three months to work out their specific proposal. However, as explained previously under CTP RESHIFTING VISIONING FOCUS, the group had already been working for two years since 2011 on their vision for the land and for the community, so even before the programme of requirements was published, there was already a dream and a plan. Once the programme of requirements was published, the ecovillage initiative went to work to translate their vision into a proposal that would meet all these requirements. One of the co-founders had been trained as an architect, and therefore knew how to make an architectural plan. “We had made plans based on our own ideas, which were quite different from the programme of requirements (...) We made a model and we worked with clay (...) Then we used the Paint software to draw our plan, including some little ditches there, adding a campsite here, and so on. It has now become a legal document. Even the trembling lines of the drawer’s hand, we now need to actually dig those. It’s absurd, but it did get us this land” (co-founder 1).
Also, they started to collect money. Once it came to decide the price that they would offer, one of the people involved had a dream that they should offer € 123.456,-. This was a very low figure, especially as it does not only include the 15 hectares of land, but also two proper houses on and next to the terrain. “We thought that this terrain would cost a huge amount of money, as the most expensive part of the Netherlands. It is registered for 6 million euro. In my optimism, I thought, ‘it will be fine’. Until the date came nearer and I thought ‘It will not be fine at all: that's quite a lot of money’. Someone then said that we had to focus on the energy that we had. That was also a turning point. We focused on our own energy, and we imagined: what if we have the key to the gate, what will we do? We played with that thought for half a day. It was important that we ourselves began to believe in it. We went around the premises very often and we laid down crystals: anyone who was traveling brought crystals from all over the world. Then someone dreamt that we had to offer € 123.456,-. That was also a kind of tipping point actually. First we though ‘sure, dream on’. But she said she was absolutely sure. Then the date came closer and we had almost given up. Then people started lending money spontaneously. We had the money, those 123,000 euro. Then we thought ‘well in that case, let's just go for it’” (co-founder 1).
The reason why the ecovillage initiative won the bidding, despite of their low offer, was because they ended up being the only bidder that met all the criteria and did not set any prior conditions. Out of the six bids, only three fulfilled the requirements of the programme. One commercial developer, for instance, had made a miscalculation in the architectural drawing which led their plan to exceed the 2000 m2. The two other bids that fulfilled the requirements, set some conditions regarding the asbestos abatement. As such, the ecovillage initiative was the only bidder that met all the requirements without any additional conditions. Hence, they won the bidding round. “Those developers exceeded the limit of square meters. We, however, just made a drawing and stated ‘these are the building and they are in total 2000 m2’. (…) We had just drawn lines with the software Paint: we had very precisely done what was required, and nothing more. While the [other] developer had hired architects, without having ever been to the premises” (co-founder 1).
The group that was involved in bidding and that was present to enter the premises on the 30th of May, included around 10 people. Purchasing the land also enabled the ecovillage initiative to attract the interest of many more people, through tours, festivals, volunteer days and so on.
The purchasing of the land consisted of the following series of events and developments.
First, in 2011, two years before the official proposal was submitted, and long before there was a programme of requirements, several meetings were held to envision the ecovillage. These are seen as important events that enabled the eventual purchase. “An important moment for me was when we first got to work with a large group of enthusiastic people. When we had meetings and shared our plan, discussing what was possible here, secretly giving tours of the premises. Many interested people joined. That was when we still had no decision-making structures, so it was always very wild” (co-founder 3).
In 2012, the people involved in the ecovillage initiative started hearing rumours that the land would become available. “There were rumours everywhere, but it was not concrete yet. But we could really work with the idea. We formed working groups and we did a lot of group bonding work, how we deal with each other, how we make decisions, how we talk, how we get to know each other. We did not know each other at all yet. ‘How much sugar do you take and where do you come from?’ We have done a lot of social work” (co-founder 3).
At the beginning of 2013, the programme of requirements was published. Three months later, on may 13th, Ecovillage Bergen submitted its proposal to the Municipality, including their offer of €123.456. Co-founder 3 recalls the day before they submitted the proposal: “The envelop was sitting in my house with all the stamps. Every other hour I went there to see if it was still there. It was the work of 1.5 years, with all those emotions and all those people. It was a special document laying there, our dream. We still had to make a bid. It was not clear what it should be, but we had to make an offer. So we decided [€123.456 ]. We also needed to discuss that, whether it felt good. When the price was clear, it was also clear to us that our plan was ready” (co-founder 3).
On the 16th of May 2013 the outcome of the bidding was communicated in the building now called ‘The Tavern’ (De Herberg), one of the buildings on the premises. Around 10 people of the ecovillage initiative were present, as well the other six bidders (architects and commercial developers). “The others had set conditions, which was not allowed. Or one had calculated something wrong. All those others bids went into the trash and then it was our turn as number 6. The plan was approved and the offer was good enough” (co-founder 3).
On the 30th of May 2013, the people of the ecovillage initiative received the key to the gates. Prior to the bid, in March 2013, there was also the official founding of the Support Foundation (Steunstichting) to collect money to pay for the asbestos abatement. In July 2013, following the purchase of the land, the Ecovillage foundation was founded: “It was written on paper that we would become a foundation that had our name. That felt like something else, you felt the responsibility” (co-founder 3).
After the ecovillage attained its land, people of the core group could start living and meeting in the two houses, working on the terrain and receiving visitors. One of the houses, now ‘the tavern’, was immediately reconstructed and prepared for group meetings, parties, etc. The other house became inhabited by one of the initiators. One of the first public events that was held concerned the Dutch ecovillage festival in August 2013.
One of the main contestations around the purchase of the land, concerns one of the commercial developers that made a competing bid. Until this day, this commercial developer continues to challenge the decision to sell the land to the ecovillage initiative. This is especially challenging as the commercial developer in question is involved as a politician in the local council.
Another struggle in this critical turning point concerned the high demands of the programme of requirements. This required them to make a lot of concessions, as described by co-founder 3: “We had to compromise a lot because the programme of requirements is so absurd. There was one evening when we said ‘maybe we do not want that land anymore’. We cannot do what we want there, and everything is just so restricted. That is no longer our ecovillage’. But then we were already in the race, the plan was there, the dream was there and we just could not turn back anymore. But there were moments where we thought ‘this is not going to be what we want’” (co-founder 3).
The competition with the other bidders, sometimes helped to overcome their doubts and internal disagreements: “There was another bidder, someone who does a lot with art and culture and who wanted to conquer the land, whom would also have tours on Sundays and our paths would cross. And then we said to each other ‘no way, they are not getting it!’ At those moments we got courage again, sometimes you need that [competition] from outside. Inside we felt that we were a very small group that is really going for it and doing all the work to get it”[2] (co-founder 3).
The asbestos abatement was one of the most challenging requirements of the programme. This requirement can be seen as the catch underlying the low price that they had paid for the land, because the clean-up of asbestos is known to cost a lot of money (which is why the other bidders had set conditions on that front). In May 2013, one of the competing bidders wrote on their website “The big question is whether the ecovillage will be able to arrange the funding, because that is what it is ultimately all about. A large amount of money needs to be invested before any revenues can be expected” (Website Vliegpark Bergen 2016). The asbestos clean-up did indeed ending up causing considerable challenges for the ecovillage initiative later on (see CTP ASBESTOS CONFLICT).
The critical turning point of purchasing the land was definitely anticipated, in the sense that it was passionately hoped for, and much work was invested into the visioning, the group bonding, and, eventually, submitting the proposal. In a way, one can describe all previous critical turning points – discovering the ecovillage concept, the visioning process, and working with sociocracy – in terms of anticipating this very moment of actually purchasing the land. The preparations for this moment spanned over two years and had included everything from physical architectural models and drawings to group bonding sessions and spiritual approaches, such as laying crystals on the land and deciding on their bidding offer through dreaming.
However, there was still an element of surprise and unexpectedness to the successful outcome, given their very low bid for the expensive piece of land, and the competition with other bidders: “We did not know what the offer had to be, it could be one euro, it could be 3 million, you don’t know. But it all worked out. It just had to be this way” (co-founder 3). It seems that several people were taken by surprise by the outcome of the public bidding, including the competing bidders. One of the competing bidders describes the public budding on the 16th of May as having “a bizar finale” (Website Vliegpark Bergen 2016).
The moment that the decision was communicated on the 16th of May 2013, this was definitely perceived as a critical turning moment at that very moment: “When we stood there and they said ‘this is yours’. I cannot describe it. I was completely dizzy. We called everyone who had anything to do with it. For a moment it was all about celebration, but I was also a bit scared: ‘Now we have to prove it, now we really have to make something out of it’. And how do you do that? You still have a job, you live somewhere, you have a child. Before that, there was a plan, but there were no practical implications. There was nothing to do, and then suddenly there was everything to do” (co-founder 3).
One main lesson that was drawn from this critical turning point, is the need to make concessions and keep the bigger picture in mind: “Compromise is just a good thing. If you add a little red wine to white wine then it is ruined, but if you add a little white to the red wine, it does not really matter. You should not focus on how important every little think is, but instead look at the bigger picture, and into the future. Just look at the next generation and not focus on small things that we want now that we cannot get. Looking at the bigger picture is certainly a lesson” (co-founder 3).
Another insight is very close to the lesson from previous turning point, which revolves around the visioning process and the use of sociocracy as a decision-making methods. It is found that if they could have started earlier with the use of sociocracy, this would have helped the visioning and preparation process, and that it would also have avoided people leaving in an unpleasant way. “If we would have had sociocracy to take better decisions on who fits here and who doesn’t, that would certainly have helped. In a way, everyone that drops behind here does so in an unpleasant way. There are few people who say ‘I love coming here but it's not my place’. When people leave with conflict, it is very difficult to leave here in a good way. We still do not have this figured out. Sociocracy could have helped us there” (co-founder 3).
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
