Mathias Havel and the Krumlov Domain--Robot Service

The south Bohemian city of Cesky Krumlov, the main center of the former Krumau domion of southern Bohemia, is revered today by travelers, architects and historians. Due to care and preservation of form and buildings over several centuries, Cesky Krumlov has remained much as it was in the 15th century. It is so unique that it has earned status as a UNESCO World Heritage site, which you can read about here. However, this famous small urban center was not just due to the care of the nobles who reigned for many centuries, or the stonemasons and carpenters who built or repaired the buildings, it is also, and perhaps more importantly, due to the serfs of the domain who provided free labor and goods to the estate over the course of centuries. This blog post will explore the free labor, known as robot, robota or corvee, contributions of one such serf, Mathias Havel, to the Krumau domain in and near the year 1773. 

Cesky Krumlov, present time
Courtesy of: Gena Roisum

When doing genealogy most of the time you may get nothing, and you treasure the surprises. Undertaking a deeper dig into some of what you have can lead to insight on the life of our ancestors. As noted this post will specifically deal with his robot labor obligations of Mathias Havel, my fourth great grandfather. Subsequent post(s) will give an idea of life experiences for Mathias and his family through other obligations to the Krumau domain, such as taxes paid and goods provided. Information for Mathias and his robot obligations used for this post comes from an Urbarium record of 1773. (Put in to time perspective, that is three years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress in what is now the United States.)

Cesky Krumlov, present time
Courtesy of Gena Roisum

Mathias Havel was born 10 September 1740 in the village of Ratiborova Lhota. His father was Mathous, who was also born in Ratiborova Lhota, and his mother Agnete Winisch who hailed from a nearby village. He was born at what would come to be known as house #15, the same house in which his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were born, and perhaps even his 2nd great grandfather. He was at least the fifth generation to farm the land in this small southern Bohemian village. Known in German as Melhutka the village was typical to other rural villages in the region. Little change for this village can be noted when comparing present time air photos to the maps produced by the Stabile Cadastre completed in the first part of the 1800's. Mathias would marry Marie Panusch (also seen as Panus), who hailed from the same village, in 1765. Two years after his marriage to Marie, Mathias' father would pass away, and he would then acquire the farm operation and obligations his father held as a farmer and serf. Robot, or free labor to the domain, a staple of the second serfdom (see note 1), was performed by him, his ancestors, and some of his descendants, most often under grueling and trying circumstances. This labor obligation was required before work on any holdings under his control.

Mathias Havel, birth and baptismal record
Source: Trebon Archives

Before I delve into the robot obligations of my ancestor, some background on robot is in order. Many theories, abound as to how it came about, class struggle, urban power, royal strength, and other societal variables have been put forth as to why their was this preponderance of serfdom in central Europe. Klein (2017, with Oglivlie, and 2019) used available information and performed a quantitative, mainly regression, analysis of a variety of factors and concluded, that the findings show that "economic fundamentals prove paramount." Further he notes that "The comparative value of labor and land (the Domar hypothesis) do indeed affect institutions." It was, he claims, a matter of economic and labor characteristics that shaped serfdom. Like much else, money ruled. Yet, there must have been some level of agglomeration, as it is noted that "in villages with only a few serfs, coerced labor obligations were not severe." A serf was worse off in having to perform the free labor when the village was mainly serfs. This makes sense in that when labor is required a few serfs would not get the job done and they turned to paid labor. In the end, if Klein, who undertook the 2017 study with Ogilvie is correct, the main factor leading to serfdom was economics. It was, however, individual decisions, and land (controlled by the 18th century version of today's high-tech oligarchs) to labor that led to serfdom. This is where my ancestors come in, not as a lord, but as a Bohemian serf.

1776-1777 Seigniorial Register showing 
Mathias Hawel and Famly
Source: Trebon Archives 

In Bohemia, which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, there were lords or dukes who ruled large estates, with most rural villages containing serfs. Bohemia was predominantly a rural agrarian population to the later part of the 19th century. Prior posts discussed some of the rules of serfdom. What is interesting is that change, whether or not the lords liked it, was coming. It was slow, but was coming. The year 1773 followed floods of 1770 and 1771, famine, and even peasant unrest. To their credit, Empress Maria Theresa and her son Josef (later ruled as Josef II) recognized the situation, but the seigneurs often ignored the varied decrees. First driven by need for income, in part to fund a war due to invasion of the Empire by Frederick of Prussia, analysis showed that all was not well with the Bohemian Serfs. The floods of 1770 and 1771 destroyed much of the crops and famine set in. William Wright, in his book Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign, (pp 42-43) noted that Josef traveled to Bohemia to find out why such a rich land was so struck with famine where 250,000 died of starvation and disease at that point in time, and even some by eating inedible fibers placed in baked goods by some bakers. Many tactics and decrees were attempted by the state to reduce the burden on the serfs. Maria Theresa, in 1770 banned common seigneur practices such as selling of produce and grains before peasants were allowed in the market. Yet, during the famine, seeing money to be made, the seigneurs sold grain that was originally set aside for famines outside the realm. There were plans for famines, but the crop loss was so widespread they decided to make extra cash by selling outside of the realm, since sales at exorbitant prices were prohibited inside the realm.

The lords, in some areas, recognized that this free labor, which lacked incentive, was generally not of good quality, yet the lords ignored the varied robotpatents as they did not wish to part with such labor or see the Empire dictate matters. As an example, Himl (2003) in his review of the Krumau estate found this quote in an estate document: "The robot labourers perform their work badly...." The estate even acknowledged that robot labor was less efficient than the paid farmhands and day-laborers. Maria Theresa summarized the situation thus: “The peasants were pushed to the extreme by the excesses of the seigneurs. Those gentlemen have known how to arrange things in such a manner that there was not way of seeing them clearly, and the subjects were always under the same oppression.” (Wright, p. 34)  Wright, in talking about enforcement of the decrees (p. 52) noted, "It was an uphill struggle for the county officials to overcome the massive tradition-bound inertia of a system generations old.” No one needed to tell Mathias Havel about institutional lethargy, as he lived and experienced it first hand with decrees of the Empire being ignored by the powerful and entrenched nobility. 

Cesky Krumlov, present time
Courtesy of Gena Roisum

Put simply, the robot system was inequitable. In 1718, over 12% of the peasants in the Krumau domain were not subject to the robot system (Himl) This left 2,399 taxable subjects, with about half of those, per Himl, due to age,  occupation, or circumstance not subject to robot labor. In 1718 only true farmers, who had draft horses or oxen, were required to provide draught robot. Why? Because they had the animals and wagons. Small farmers and others would have been required to provide manual robota. Those serfs doing draught robot (also known as zugrobat) would see these hauls not only punish their animals, but also stress their carts or wagons. I am sure it was easy on the teamster, either. As early as 1680 Leopold II issued a Robotpatent that in part required the lord to pay serf expenses for this robot haulage and that the time traveling was part of the required robot time. Given that this was repeated in later decrees it is easy to say the requirements of the realm, in this regard, were probably not followed by the seigneurs.  It is into this situation that we find Mathias Havel.

Ratiborova Lhota in 1826
Source: https://ags.cuzk.cz/archiv/

In 1773, when this Urbarium is dated, Mathias was just a few years into his operation of the Havel farm, which he took over near or following the death of his father in 1767. He would still be feeling the effects of the flood and greed induced famine which hit Bohemia in 1770 and 1771. Of the eleven known farms in that small village, the Havel farm may have ranked seventh in terms of area of farm and was eighth in terms of land tax (see note 2). This was a decade that would see change (or, attempts at change) in the robot system, although the new patents were not usually recognized by the lords. The lords held say over their subjects in a variety of ways. For example, it was not until the patent of 1781 issued by Josef II that serfs did not need to seek the permission of the lord to marry, nor to pay the lord a fee to marry. It was then they could choose where to live. That was also the first year they could learn and engage in a trade or craft without the permission of the lord. To say the least, before the 1781 "emancipation", Mathias did not have a great deal of freedom to exercise. He was bound to the Krumau domain.

Detail of Havel House #15 on Indication Map, 1826
Source: Richard D' Amelio

The 1773  Ubarium provides a record of Mathias' "Customary Robot" to the Krumau dominion. This record clearly indicates that "He is obliged to perform a weekly quota of 2 draught Robot days with 2 horses or 4 oxen throughout the year." This would total 104 days, or basically, one-third of a six day work week.  Ten of the eleven farms in his village were required to perform Zugrobot (draught robot), with Mathias and seven others of the ten providing two days. One person was required to provide three days and and two persons one day of the free labor. The person with manual labor was required to provide three days of service. Plus, the decrees allowed for "extraordinary" situations, where more than the prescribed labor (typically three days) could be required. Richard D' Amelio, who has over ten years of experience with the land records of Bohemia, and provided the transcription and translation of the record for me, concluded that Mathias was among the so-called half farmer, but still a Sedlack within the village. Mathias, although in the lower portion of land holdings for village farmers, still had sufficient land to use draught animals. The record indicates that Mathias was called upon not only to work in his fields, but also do work for the domain. The domain work took precedence. The 1805 sale from Mathias to his son Johann Havel notes a land area of about 25 acres, and if the values in the Urbarium are in area Mathias would have owned just over 17 acres. Hence, the figures in that first part of the Urbarium may be volume and not area.

Other sources I have seen, and earlier writings I made about forced labor noted robota was about a week. Here it is clear it was much more. The labor obligations varied between domains and even in domains. Mr. D'Amelio has noted to me that one thing about the Krumlov Estate was inconsistency in its labor requirements. To the left of the Customary Robot entry in the Urbarium is an entry that is crossed out. This crossed out requirement read, "Obligation to render Robot labor service throughout the year: Weekly -- days of draught labor and -- days of manual labor." This crossed out reference was not well defined in days of robot labor required. It is possible the notation to the right and not crossed out, was an amendment made to the labor requirements due to the 1775 patent. But, we don't know for sure. 

Present time Ratiborova Lhota
Source: Google maps

We know from the Urbarium that Mathias had a requirement to provide two horses and a wagon, or four oxen and a wagon to serve the domain for his prescribed draught robot of two days a week. At this point in time, I am not sure if he owned horses or oxen, or even perhaps both. Further in the record is an explanation of what type of work was likely to occur. His village, Ratiborova Lhota, was one of six villages that made up what is referred to as the Zahori Court. The Urbarium identifies eight tasks that "The draught and manual labor quotas which subjects of the court of Zhori are obliged to perform...." Five of the eight tasks specifically use the word haulage. Since Mathias was required to haul, I will first focus on those five aspects.

The first haulage task is for firewood and seasoned timber to Netolice, including that "which is destined for barrel making." Present day, Netolice is currently about six miles from Ratiborova Lhota, a trip that could be made in a day assuming use of horses which pull a cart about two to four mph. Using a mid range of three mph, that is about a two hour trip one-way. Yet, the hills and valleys and road conditions could considerably slow the trip. And, of course if it was a team of oxen it would be much slower. It is documented that the farmers did not like to undertake haulage in the winter due to stress on animals and equipment. 

Urbarium Record for Mathias Havel, part 1

The trip to Netolice was a short trip, other obligations involved much longer travel. Three haulage requirements related to taking goods to the main urban area of the domain--Cesky Krumlov. With a present day distance of about 20 miles it is not likely that this trip could be comfortably made in one day, particularly in winter and the shoulder seasons of spring and fall when roads were probably much more treacherous than in summer. Think of traveling on packed snow forming ice, and having you , much less an animal keep its footing. Or, getting mired in mud so thick the axles were near buried. I doubt one could rule out these conditions. Or, a shot fired in the distance scaring the animal. Specifically noted as haulage to Cesky Krumlov were barley destined for malting/beer, which I am sure he was probably proud, and maybe even glad, to haul. The other products to haul were much less delightful in smell. The second item to the urban center, was haulage of fish caught in the area from the manorial authorities fishermen. This was probably a very timely duty as fish could go bad quickly if not properly cooled or preserved. Another obligation also referenced the haul of deputat fish from other court districts, in proportion, to Cesky Krumlov. This appears to have involved hauling fish from outside his immediate area or court district of six villages. Neither of these two hauls would please the sense of smell.

Urbarium Record for Mathias Havel, part 2

If the smell of fish was not enough to task the senses, there was hauling manure either to the Chlum meierhoff (farm) or the pine plantation. However, there is a note that "this is no longer customary." Given that such a chore was no longer customary, it was probably not a frequent occurrence. 

The record is clear that there was an agreement to the two days of haulage. A later annotation appears in the record to indicate that the "subjects here opted for 'customary' robot obligations not the new 'patent moderated' conditions." This is because the subjects were better off with their customary labor. However, Richard D' Amelio has studied the Krumlov domain and believes that the manorial authorities "appear to have later increased the quota with an extra day per week of draught labor and 1 day of manual labor, thus matching the maximum level as legislated for the 1775 patent (i.e. three days of draught labor and 1 day of manual labor matching Mathias' tax band). As he goes on to note, this means that Mathias had 156 days of draught and 52 days days of manual labor every year. Wright notes that in 1775 "The serf had a choice between his previous conditions and that stipulated by the patent, but his choice had to be completely one way or the other--he could not mix conditions. (p. 51) It appears Mathias, as others in the village, chose the earlier condition, but there apparently was nothing holding the domain back from instituting more than what was previously required, showing how estates manipulated the decrees. Mathias would have undertaken the labor himself, or if he had a farmhand had the farmhand do the work. But, Mathias was a half farmer, and he may not have been able to afford a farm hand. No farmhand appears to live with Mathias and his family in the mid 1700 Seignorial Register. If he had sufficient money he could have hired the labor to a day laborer. As his sons aged, like my 3rd great grandfather Frantisek, they may have undertaken the labor. 

Mathias may now have had an obligation to not just haul goods, but to also perform manual robot. The manual labor would have involved, according to the Urbarium, burning and clearing the Melheidl Jura meadow, showing that our ancestors understood the importance of control of invasive species, trees and weeds into the meadow. He may also have had to perform the dangerous work to clear the millrace/streams at one or more of the four mills that served the area. Most manual labor was likely used for "the reaping of grain, mowing of meadows and haymaking." Mathias would have grown grain on his land holdings, too, but recall that when it came to this forced labor the domain would get its first pick of when it wanted its work done. If Mathias' grain was ready to harvest, he may just have had to wait, putting the crop at risk of spoilage in the fields, and weather events, such as the floods that destroyed so much of the grain crops in 1770 and 1771.

Urbarium Record of Community Robot Obligations

Was all of the robota actually performed? Himl suggests that only about 30% of robot days were required and carried out. I wonder if Himl is correct. If the Krumov manor only used 30% of the required robot, why would they have increased the obligations of serfs by adding 1 more day of haulage a week and 52 of manual labor? Was it simply to show their power? Or, was it to assure they had the labor available when required? Even at 30% of the Urbarium stated 104 days the required labor is onerous. If Mathias by chance performed at 30% of the 104 days that is still a full month of labor out of a year. And, if it was the 156 plus an additional manual labor of 52 for 208 days of robot labor that is four days a week. Thirty percent of 208 days is over two full months of work spread over one year for the domain. Yet, the domain may have demanded four days at the busiest time of year--harvest season.  Adding to this logic of days added to the labor obligation is an 1802 land transfer record of Mathias' interests (he died in 1802) to his son Johann. Richard D'Amelio, in  comparing varied aspects of the 1773 Urbarium to the 1802 land transfer, had this comment: "Robot is more-or-less the same after factoring the “sublevation” of the extra day a week making a total of three days a week (from 1773 urbar). In 1802, quoted as “156 Zugtäge” [days of draught service] with a 2-horse team, and "13 Handtäge" [days manual labour]." (Email of 26 April 2022)  The main difference is that the manual labor requirement is less. Given the 1802 land record, it is apparent the domain did add in more robot service, much to the chagrin of the serfs.

We really don't know how much robot labor Mathias provided each and every year. It may have been about 30%, or it could have been more. I suspect the distance to Cesky Krumlov from Ratiborova Lhota required more days of at haulage. A trip to Cesky Krumlov and back for many of the required tasks probably took two days. The tasks would have been split by the villages in his court district. Haulage would not have been easy, particularly in bad weather and with the major market town Ceksy Krumlov a good distance away more trips would have been required to get the necessary raw materials to the market town. Richard D' Amelio notes that his ancestors, in northwest Bohemia, were provided forage for the livestock, and a meal of oat gruel, barley, dumplings and milk, and some bread and beer. Hence, it is likely that the seigneur at least recognized the part of the robotpatents that required them to provide or pay the expenses incurred by the serf for long hauls. How generous of them. The seigneur probably did not let the serf forget that "generosity".

Cesky Krumlov, present time
Courtesy of Gena Roisum

Mathias, and my other ancestors may not have laid a stone for a building, or fixed a roof in Cesky Krumlov, but they provided crucial services for that city to function. Stop making beer and a citizen revolt would be on hand. This free, no-perk labor allowed the manor of Krumau to save money from paying labor. At least, in part, they put the savings from the serf slave-like labor to some good use by building and repairing the buildings in Cesky Krumlov that many treasure today.  If I ever have a chance to visit Cesky Krumlov I am sure my first thoughts will turn to Mathias, and my other ancestors who gave so much in terms of robot labor to the Krumau domain, and for so little in return.  

Note 1:  The second serfdom is the term given by scholars to the institutional power of lord's, often large landholders, to regulate almost every aspect of a peasant, or serf's life in east and east central Europe. Klein and Oglivie (2016) place the timing from 1550 to the later half of the 18th century, while older scholarly works place a later starting date, perhaps as late as mid-1600's. Klein and Ogilvie (p. 494) comment that "Bohemian landlords increased extraction of money from rents, and labour services, extended such heavy burdens to new economic activities, intensified market monopolies, and imposed heavier constraints on their serf's economic and demographic decisions."

Note 2: When first interpreting the Urbarium record, Mr D'Amelio thought certain indication of values were related to land area, but realizing its dependance on the Theresian Rustical Cadastre later noted that it may not have been area, but amount of grain. A "strich" is both a measurement of area and of volume. One needs to interpret what is meant. The Theresian Cadastre led him to believe it was volume.

Sources:  

D'Amelio, Richard of Boheimb Research Services. April 2022, varied correspondence. (Many thanks to Richard for a great deal of information on this subject.)

D'Amelio, Richard of Boheimb Research Services. Transcription to German and then translation to English of the Urbarium records. (His services were engaged by the author.)

Himl, 2003 Die 'armben Leute und de Macht' Portion of this work translated and provided by Richard d' Amelio of Boheimb Research Services (April 2022)

Klein, Alexander and Sheilagh Ogilvie 2016, "Occupational Structure in the Czech lands under the second serfdom."  Economic History Review, vol 69. 

Klein, Alex, 22 Jan 2019 Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society-"Was Domar Right? Serfdom and Factor Endowments in Bohemia" (This newsletter report was based on a 2017 work Klein did with Oglivie of the same name.)

Velkostatek Český Krumlov, Urbarium, Ordinal 31, 1773 found at: https://digi.ceskearchivy.cz/134537/1/2651/814/78/0 (varied images)

Wright, William E. 1966. Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth Century Bohemia, University of Minnesota Press. 

Protecting our Resources--A Reimagined Development

The first two posts in this series discussed how density can assist in maintaining the natural resources of the Northwoods as well its related culture. Those posts also discussed how higher density development can assist in protecting water quality, and work to limit forest fragmentation. The third post discussed a Florida Gulf Coast development that was one of the trend-setters for the New-Urbanist planning movement. For many years the lake front properties have been subject to long and narrow spaghetti like lots which allow a lake front lot, and to meet area requirements. This type of development eats up more land, which is land that in many cases is rather meaningless to the lake front house site, except perhaps to store toys. Most of the prime development land along lakes has been claimed by development providing negative impacts to both ground and surface waters.  As I noted in the first two posts, it is time for a new development paradigm. This blog post presents a new paradigm by reimagining a development along part of one Northwoods lake.  

Pier on Lost Lake 

Development in northern Wisconsin is now moving to rivers to satiate the desire for water front lots. In the meantime, older lake front developments despoil our surface waters. This was discussed in a post from last October, which you can read here. When my spouse and I stayed at a cottage last October on Lost Lake two things came immediately to mind: first, the old dwellings were quite close to each other, signifying the desire of many, from many years ago, to accommodate lake front living. Second, the lake was full of algae which, in my non-expert opinion, may have been blue-green algae which can be toxic. The result of the algae was likely from failed and/or failing septic systems. The house we stayed at was about 90 feet from the lake, but other parts of the lake have areas were many dwellings are about 35-50 feet from the lake shore. I have reimagined an area with lesser setback homes.  Two reimagine options will be discussed in this post.

Area of Lost Lake with 37 lake houses, occupying 
4836 feet of lake shoreline

In the 1970's the state mandated Shoreland zoning which requires a setback of 75', grandfathering pe-existing lake homes. I present two different plans, but first a discussion of the area reimagined. The total area, as shown in the above image is about 93 acres, with 37 lots having lake frontage. To the left (east) are long and narrow lake lots divided by an access road to provide quicker access to the homes rather than being located at the west edge of the property line. That works to a gross density of about .4 du/gross acre.

Area of Option 1, Lake Living Reimagined

I have reimagined this area in two different ways. The first is mainly north of Founder's Creek, with some of the development south.  This reimagine lake development has most lots "on" the lake. The second, low impact reimagined development takes a New Urbanist approach, and is fully south of Founder's Creek, but with no lake lots.  

Lake Living Reimagined, Concept Sketch
1969 feet of lake shoreline

The first reimagined development is more standard lake front parcels, and in this map area, the reimagined development of 32 lake "front" lots and 2 creek "front" lots is located on about 30 acres, but includes wetland and other open spaces. Just like the original development. this development, however, also includes 22 non-water lots, which increases the density, and allows more development on a smaller footprint. This development is 1.9 du/gross acre. The key is using small lots of about 60 feet wide and 120 feet in depth. Besides smaller lots, which will require a different method of handling sanitary waste water than traditional septic systems, is that the lots do not front the lake as commonly known, but rather, they are separated from the lake, and creek, by a minimum 75 foot wide greenway. The greenway is intended to provide community access, and be environmental buffer to the water. Rather than separate piers, the piers would be shared. The greenway could be public, or perhaps private to this development, owned in common by each house parcel (each house, as an example, would have a 1/56th interest in the common land). Two parcels would be set aside for storage units, as it is well known that those up north, like to have their toys. Why not store the toys off site during non season, rather than in a large on-site garage? 

Lost Lake Water. Lost Lake has many
houses along its shoreline

What is critical is the land area saved for forest. Instead of a development occupying 93 acres, there is now a a total area of about 30 acres, allowing the development to occupy only one-third the acreage of the existing development. yet, this option, while having five less lake front lots, provides for 19 more home sites than the existing development. The remaining 63 acres of land can be protected and remain in its natural state, adjacent to other public lands, decreasing the forest fragmentation. The development, as reimagined, also limits the area of homes along the lake shoreline. For example the existing development occupies 4,836 feet of lake shoreline, whereas the reimagined development occupies 1,970 feet. Meaning, there is significantly more natural, that is undeveloped, shoreline on the lake. Natural vegetation works best at limiting water pollutants into the lakes, and with forest cover, much runoff is interrupted and trickles to the ground, verse open or impervious surfaces. 

Lake with few houses along its shoreline

The second option, is what I refer to as a small-footprint community. This reimagined development would be south of Founder's Creek occupying about 30 acres. As opposed to lake front lots, this development is predominantly inland with a limited lake frontage of 463 feet protected by a 200 deep foot beach and buffer. There is a minimum 75 foot buffer for the stream lots. Alley lots are 50' by 120' while non-alley lots are, generally, 60' by 120'. On its 30 acres this development provides for 97 single family house sites, a few multi-family house sites, a commercial area with residential above, and of course an area for storage units to accommodate toys so prevalent at lake front properties. 

Area of Option 2, Small Foot Print Community

To calculate gross density let us assume 20 multifamily dwelling units in the development, which give 117 dwelling units on 30 total acres, meaning a development density of 3.9 dwelling units/gross acre. What this allows is a significant increase in dwelling units, about two-thirds, on a footprint of 63 less acres than what currently exists. This allows, as in the first scenario, more open space to be protected, but with more lots to offset related costs. This development not only forms a small community, it also is more sustainable, with its small footprint, and its buffer to the lake. With its density there is the ability to use more advanced storm water management techniques such as bio-retention cells and tree trenches between sidewalk and street, and use of pervious pavement. It is anticipated that houses would have one larger side yard of 30' for non-alley lots and 18' for alley lots. Solar panels on roof tops could assist in providing electrical demands for the home. 

Option 2, Concept Sketch, and lot detail
463 feet of lake shoreline

Wise use of land in this reimagined small-footprint community provides minimal impact to the shoreline, with only 463 feet of shoreline somewhat affected compared to the 4,836 feet in existing, or even the 1,969 feet in the first lake front reimagined development option. Retaining natural shorelines on lakes, and particularly streams is important to the functioning of the natural systems. On the 30 acres, engineered systems can be used to help manage storm water runoff. Higher density can preserve water quality and our larger eco-systems. It does this in two ways: limiting footprint, and by allowing for more advanced engineered systems.

Option 2, Sketch details 

Beyond the environmental, this small-foot print community does more. It allows for interaction and sociability, and it is more equitable--socially, and economically. There are no lake front lots (although some stream "front" lots), so here the community interest takes precedence over individual desires. Multi-family options, allow for a more affordable option for those that wish to be near a lake, but would otherwise not be able to afford a single family dwelling. In this way, it mitigates the tragedy of the commons evident for a lake with all private lake front parcels.

Dwelling on another part of Lost Lake
One can see dwellings to each side

The two reimagined development options are just that, reimagined. No cost-benefit, economic, or natural resource or other studies were accomplished. They are simply provided to show two reimagined options as compared to existing development on part of a lake in the north woods of Wisconsin. This could be a new paradigm for north woods development. While the homes are near each other, that is no different than many existing lake homes on their spaghetti lots. The two options identified here help protect the natural resources by a more modest footprint and limiting fragmentation through wise use of land. By doing so, it helps protect the unique nature of the north woods culturally and environmentally. Development comes to the Northwoods, it is a manner of how it is best accommodated to maintain the natural resources and the inherent culture informed by water, woods and wildlife.

Photos and sketches by author, maps by author through Vilas County GIS.

Protecting our Resources--A Florida Example

Two previous posts, in this series were adapted from an article I wrote for the Partners in Forestry newsletter. That focused on how density can assist in protecting our resources, and the values and character of the Wisconsin Northwoods. Can density assist, I think it can, and I have gone far south in the nation to provide what is one of the first examples of New Urbanist development in the United States--Seaside, FL. 

Seaside, FL

To those who watch movies, Seaside may best be known as the setting for the 1998 movie The Truman Show. One could say that, the movie provides a manufactured or contrived element to this Florida community.  Seaside is now about forty years old, and two generations of age has assisted in creating a more mature community. One would not replicate Seaside in all its architecture, or even form, but this is to show how an 80 acre development was re-imagined from a typical high rise Florida condo development to an actual community—one that is walkable, and provides a more human scale. Besides recognizing the natural environment, development also needs to work better for humans, too.

Dwelling Unit

Seaside is an unincorporated community in the Florida panhandle, with significant frontage on the Gulf of Mexico.  It is about 60 miles east of Pensacola, FL.  While it has permanent year-around residents, it also has a significant part-time residential component, which makes it a resort type community. In this sense the mix of permanent and "seasonal" or part-time residences makes it similar to Vilas County, WI and other northern Wisconsin communities. Seaside has the Gulf of Mexico; Northern Wisconsin's has its lakes and forests.  

Seaside is built on an 80 acre parcel and one can walk from one end to the other in ten minutes. A walk from its "city" center is five minutes to each end.  The property is longer along the gulf than it is wide, and the Gulf of Mexico is the reason why the community exists. Instead of building construction high-rise condominium towers, the developers decided on a new urbanist approach which values walking over driving, and integrates rather than separates uses--primarily residential with retail think coffee shops, and restaurants. In a sense it is a recent Florida version of Mackinac Island, without the horses. Not having been to Seaside, I am not sure if they have fudge shops, or like the pretentious use, shoppes.Although cars are allowed in Seaside, the community is designed more around the ability to walk, than to use a car. This makes it rare among new and suburban developments.

Walkability is enhanced by certain characteristics in design. To get walkability you have to have some level of density. A walkable community is of little use if shops, housing, and recreation are distant and far apart. Street design in new urbanism use a block perimeter (the distance around the block), rather than a block length. Using well established parameters, the block perimeter enhances walking by allowing more choice and ease of access via sidewalk.  Accompanying this is the friendly architecture of houses close to the sidewalk, and garages accessed off a rear alley, and if not, setback from the house front a good distance (about 20') to allow a more interesting and pleasant walk in the community. If you have ever walked a street with snout houses you know how unappealing the walk is. There are no snout houses in New Urbanism.  Studies show that a person will experience a more pleasant walk with houses closer to the sidewalk, and not all driveway crossings. The street and sidewalk are referred to as public realm. Buildings closer to the street, make a pedestrian in an suburban or urban environment feel more safe because of the sense of enclosure that is provided. When a pedestrian feels safer the whole walk experience is enhanced. In addition, the streets are narrower than commonly found in suburbia, making the driver pay attention, and slow down.  The street width, limited building setbacks, street trees all work to create a natural traffic calming limiting the need for speed bumps or other devices.  Overall, this design is markedly different from most post World War II housing developments, (say beginning in mid-1950's) with the wide streets, large lots and massive setbacks. It has more in common with pre-WWII housing developments, hence the name New Urbanism.

Public Green by town center

New Urbanism does not like to use the common element of dwelling units per acre, since uses are mixed, ending in an inaccurate measurement.  However, from what I can figure there are just under 500 dwelling units, and being on 80 acres that would mean it is at a density of just over 6 dwelling units per gross acre.  In planning we often used net du's per acres as a better indicator of density, but I lack information to calculate net density. Dwelling units at Seaside range from single family, to apartments or owner occupied units on second and/or third floor space above commercial. There is also the in between such as row houses, or single family attached (think duplex). The key to a properly functioning community, with a variety of uses, is to have sufficient density to promote walking, and the density to support the retail, restaurants and other services. Seaside has sufficient permanent residents so it can support its own school, although it is possible that students come from adjoining developments that have built off Seaside. 

Dwellings

Seaside, like some New Urbanist developments, tends to be too upscale, and in that sense is analogous to Mackinac Island (although not nearly as upscale as Mackinac Island).  However, its mix of apartments was to help increase diversity and affordability.  High property values, however, are also a sign of persons desire to live in a place, so on that front the values indicate a human desire for what is accomplished at this place. Its first home was a simple one story, perhaps a size of a typical Northwoods cottage. As the place became more desirous, the square feet of single family housing increased. Not unlike what we see with some second homes up north, if not their outbuildings. For a discussion of Seaside by Placemakers representative please see this link. In full disclosure, I worked with Placemakers on the Fitchburg, WI SmartCode, the first, and a dozen years in, the only adaptation of the SmartCode for a Wisconsin community. 

To be most successful in Wisconsin the density has to be desired, reflect the values of the community, and help to conserve natural resources. Many innovative techniques for storm water management have been developed since Seaside, FL was created.  Those new techniques could be incorporated into a community developed in northern Wisconsin.  After all, the goal is to protect the streams, lakes and forests of the Northwoods, and proper storm water management, and sanitary sewer management is important. A Wisconsin development would look different from Seaside, there are characteristics which could be borrowed.  Proper planning and design can help the Northwoods, and the Florida development example, can assist in showing some crucial transferable components. A new development paradigm is required to protect the Northwoods and yet allow for proper population growth. To that end, the last in this series will be about a re-imagined Northwoods lake development.

Protecting our Resources--Density Matter, part 2

This blog post is the second part in identifying why density is important in land use matters.  This post will further explain the situation and particularly how it can assist in water quality. The first post may be found here.

Accommodating population growth requires housing. Population and housing are intertwined and each affected by three key factors. First is native population (births, and deaths); second, is in and out migration; and third is the how the population is housed. For example, the state average in persons per household (number of persons living in a house, or apartment) is 2.39, but Vilas County has a persons per household of about 1.97. As persons per household decreases, more housing units are needed to accommodate the same population. With more in-migration even more housing is required to accommodate that increase in population. Vilas County has significant second and even third home options, which also significantly affects land use and development. The county population swells to over 105,000 (2007 figure) persons in the summer months, putting additional pressure on resources beyond the year-round county population. Vilas County has a population older than the state population, as its growth has been driven by retirees who have chosen to make their primary residence among the trees, lakes and wildlife that create the Northwoods landscape. Combined with the cultural features that have been influenced by the natural features, the natural and cultural are intertwined forming a unique Northwoods experience. Many of the older lake developments have homes that are as close or closer than homes in suburban subdivisions, and hence an increase in density would not negatively affect the character of the community set by the original lakefront home construction.

Shannon Lake, Undeveloped lake shore

 Additionally, by using a more compact development pattern forest fragmentation becomes less noticeable, and the forests, water features, and wildlife are less affected. A reduction in forest fragmentation leads to healthier forest, and a healthy forest helps with maintaining water quality. Much has been written about the effects of forest fragmentation on the natural ecosystem of the Northwoods, so I will not repeat it here, but compact development, properly accomplished, can assist in limiting forest fragmentation and in that sense help retain that Northwoods experience.

Nudist Lake, four homes on this lake.
Along with Shannon Lake gives and idea of
what is valued in the Northwoods

 
In an ironic twist, we often develop that which we prize most. In that way, the land and water, which are the focus of that Northwoods experience, and so highly valued, are slowly taken away not to be recognized by future generations, except by place names borrowing from that which was destroyed. With proper resource-based planning, using compact development, and development that is at a higher density than the norm, we can achieve the three main preservation measures that are laid out by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its online document “Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density Development.” (Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/protect_water_higher_density1.pdf)
1.  Preserve large, continuous areas of absorbent open space;
2.  Preserve critical ecological areas, such as wetlands, floodplains, and riparian corridors; and
3. Minimize overall land disturbance and impervious surface associated with development. (see p. 4)
Add the accrued benefits of avoiding fragmentation of the forest, and you have four critical components which density can better manage, and better maintain the Northwoods culture.

Northwoods Scene along County B

What is critical to our water resources, the lake, wetlands, and stream health, is to limit the percent of impervious surfaces in the watershed. Generally speaking, once the watershed is about 10% developed water quality starts to decline. Compact development limits the amount of development in the watershed and thus can assist in water quality protection. As noted by the EPA, “Minimizing land disturbance and impervious cover is critical to maintaining watershed health. The amount of land that is converted, or ‘disturbed,’ from undeveloped uses, such as forests and meadows, to developed uses, such as lawns and playing fields, significantly affects watershed health.” (p. 6) The EPA modeled compact, dense development and found its benefits to water quality over that of low density sprawl. A development that assists in limiting water quality degradation will also assist in limiting forest fragmentation, and maintaining the Northwoods experience.

Shannon Lake

This past October my wife and I visited the Northwoods, and I was dismayed to see the condition of some of the lakes--algae floating on top of otherwise clear water with a nice sand base. I am not sure if it was blue-green algae, but it did not look inviting. As water quality problems common to the southern part of the state creep north, new ways of thinking to maintain the resources and what is valued of the Northwoods is crucial.

Part of Lost Lake, showing structures (look close)

 However, this type of model requires community input into what its values are. No plan can succeed without properly identifying the community values, as expressed by the varied stakeholders. To identify and promote goals, objectives and policies to implement those values requires balancing the varied opinions of the stakeholders. Part of it is education, people need to know the effects of development on what they value, and what the alternatives are to that situation.

Foggy Morning at Lost Lake

 
A higher density may also require a different way of thinking in terms of construction. One example is waste water management. As density increases the single septic system for each individual house becomes problematic, and I suspect is not the best method for lake front lots. The technology for community systems exists, it is a matter of proper planning and application.

The Covid-19 pandemic coupled with retirements of the large baby boom population cohort, provides an almost perfect storm to challenge rural areas of Wisconsin, by increasing development pressures. I find it doubtful that the Northwoods can be retained without some level of intervention by better and more advanced planning. Some Northwoods counties saw growth well above the state average. For example, Vilas County saw a 7.1% population increase between the 2010 and 2020 census, while adjoining Oneida was at 5.1% and Iron County at 3.7%. This points to the confluence of the unique natural and cultural features that draw the population to north central Wisconsin. The Northwoods is a desirable location, the key is to keep it that way - this can be accomplished only through proper planning.

View from Timm's Hill, (Ogema, Price County)
which shows Character of the Northwoods

People have different beliefs, experiences and memories which have formed their values. The task of a planner is to take those varied values and find common ground. But it is crucial to do so within the confines of what is valued, and the resources available. The limitations of our resources need to be recognized. The built environment is an interplay between the population, its social relations, and its values. Development is an expression of what is valued, and it is time to think of a new and better form of development for the Northwoods. Good planning depends upon an informed citizenry willing to make the choices to advance growth options that can better protect the area's resources, and in so doing the Northwoods experience.

Density matters, and perhaps a more dense, compact model is a method to be employed in balancing the varied concerns that exist in the Northwoods. I think all will agree on what is valued in the Northwoods. What is important is finding a model to deal with the varied degrees of opinion within the overarching priority of that which is valued. It is hard to say no to development, particularly in trying economic times, hence the importance of a new model, or development paradigm, that can balance varied concerns. In my opinion, it is time to think differently about development in the Northwoods and that a new way of thinking about density can have more positive effects than current development methods. The Northwoods has a limited carrying capacity, and for the sake of what is valued, the limitations have to be recognized. This is why density matters.

The first two post in this series was about how density matters to protect our resources. This post is the last part about.  However, two more posts will occur. The third will be about Seaside, FL, a development that helped create the trend for walkable neighborhoods. In the final post I will use my meager abilities to lay out a couple ideas for how part of Lost Lake shore line development could be reimagined.