Brooklyn Homesteader posted a link to an article in this irreverent newspaper in which she remarked she sounded like a “pompous jerk”. I didn’t get that from the article, but what I do find interesting is that this “trend” is seen as just that, and not as a group of people aspiring to return to a labor-skills-based mindset and self-sufficiency in a world that increasingly supports a first-world individual’s right to do nothing to sustain their existence beyond what they have to do for a paycheck, if they even have to do that.

I’m confused by Christian Lander’s belief that

[I]t kind of shows how we’ve taken these problems with [global] poverty and wealth and given up. ‘I’m not going to be able to affect this on a macro scale, so I’ll just handle it on my own with chickens. But I don’t have time to volunteer!’

Given up what, exactly? My life isn’t so insular that I’m not aware of what’s happening in say, the Global South, or even in my own neighborhood (disenfranchisement, gentrification).

Many of my DIY, urban homesteading friends are also members of CSAs, are actively involved in their communities, and several work with underserved and underprivileged populations (youth, homeless, formerly incarcerated).

The other day I was talking to Cathy, the cashier at my  favorite treats shop and she mentioned that a lot of New York City folk are in survival mode, and sometimes you have to pull back from that (read: leave NYC) to assess your options.

I would like to add that the surge in urban homesteading is part of surviving in NYC.

In NYC, most people are working just to pay their rent, or working to pay for childcare so that they can work, with very little left over at the end of the day for things they enjoy doing, or the energy to even do them.  For most, what we do for our paycheck has little to do with who we are after we clock out. When that’s the case, it creates a longing to seek supplementary experiences. It’s a constant balancing act that manifests itself in many ways.

And OK, moving to NYC is a choice for many, and it comes with its sacrifices, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t choose a quality of life that has meaning, whatever that looks like for you.

I believe that this growing, “fashionable” interest in growing food, beekeeping, raising chickens and so forth is in response to what living in a big city with so many amenities is giving people: A space to create something with their own hands, to self-govern, a little buy-in. So I find it offensive to suggest that self-sufficiency is somehow anathema to living in a big city. Why can’t homesteading coexist with the iPhone?

I don’t know too many self-identified urban homesteaders who wish to return to some kind of “Little House on The Prairie”. None of them, even the most anti-technology of them, harbor any delusions of a utopian existence way back when.

What all these critics fail to realize is, this shit is work! And some aspects of it ain’t cheap.

If urban homesteading makes sense anywhere, it’s Brooklyn. Brooklyn folk have always been growing food and keeping small-scale livestock in various shapes and forms. Just ask the old-timers and their offspring in Bed-Stuy, East New York, Bushwick, and Carroll Gardens. They’ll be delighted to talk about the fruit trees and bushes bought over from the Old World, the victory gardens of The Depression, and the community gardens of the last 40 years feeding family and community.

What I do know is urban homesteaders are looking to give their lives more meaning in a (first) world that is disconnected from nature, open spaces, and the knowledge of where the consumables that support their existence comes from. This disconnect is a handicap to the human that seeks to create, contribute, and be a part of something bigger than herself.