"Back to the Earth"... These people left city life to live in shacks in the 1960s

During the 1960s and 1970s, about a million Americans left their comfortable homes in cities and suburbs, disillusioned with the modern lifestyle and searching for a different way to live. Through what was known as the "back-to-the-land" movement, cooperative housing communities emerged in rural areas, especially in Northern California, where land was then cheap and easy to purchase.

Members of these communities built their own homes using used wood and recycled materials, grew their own food, and relied on alternative sources of energy. These experiences have shaped many contemporary ideas about sustainability, organic farming, self-sufficiency, and modern nature-connected housing styles.

This movement is often viewed as a phenomenon that ended decades ago. However, about five years ago, writer David Jacob Kramer and photographer Michael Schmeling began searching for the homes that still stand in Northern California, and for the people who still live in them after nearly half a century.

They found homes ranging from dilapidated huts to beautiful buildings that embody unique examples of folk architecture, many of which are gradually being restored by nature. In their heyday, these societies used books and guides that encouraged self-building and independence, including the book “Shelter” published in 1973, which became an important reference for this type of life.

The children have grown up and left, many of the old residents have moved on or died, and not enough new members have joined to replace them. As for those remaining from the original generation, most of them are now in their seventies and eighties.

They have faced social changes, conflicts with the authorities, and forest fires, in addition to the difficulty of aging in societies that require arduous and continuous maintenance work. In their book, “Handmade Utopia,” Kramer and Schmeling collected more than 40 oral testimonies accompanied by photographs of the homes and residents.

Schmeling says they wanted to show life as it looks today for those who have continued this experience for decades. Living this way was difficult even for young people, and it became even more difficult for those who reached the age of eighty.

One resident, known as “Captain Rainbow,” remembers that in their twenties they were like children trying to build their own homes. Because they did not always know the rules of engineering or the limits of the possible, they implemented ideas that today they think might not have been feasible, and yet some of their buildings have survived to this day.

Artist Richard Evans also spoke about his deep relationship with the land and trees, explaining that the group members did not see the forest merely as a source of timber and money, but rather as a place that should be loved, protected, and lived in with respect. Some communities were difficult to find.

Some of them did not have clear names, access to them was difficult, and residents were wary of strangers. However, the authors were able to access it through personal relationships and collect testimonies from its residents.

The houses showed great diversity in design. Some were simple and functional, while others included geometric domes and designs inspired by organic architecture and modern art.

The builders did not consider themselves architects, although their work later became a focus of interest in terms of design and innovation. The impact of the movement was not limited to architecture, but included furniture design, handicrafts, land management, recycling and composting systems, the use of solar energy, and organic agriculture.

Kramer believes that re-applying this experience in the same way today is difficult, but its impact is still clear in the concepts of sustainability, environmental living, and self-sufficiency. As the population ages, some have had to moderate their anti-consumption attitudes.

Some of them even joke that "back to the land" has morphed into "back to Costco" in old age. However, the project presents a different picture of aging.

Many residents still adhere to their convictions and feel independent and strong. Harriet Bay says that they realized that materialism alone does not bring happiness, but that having little also makes life very difficult, so the solution may lie in finding a middle way.

Kramer stresses that the goal was not to pass judgment on the success or failure of the movement, but rather to understand the motivation that made these people dare to try a different lifestyle. He points out that the question that has remained with him is: Is there a way to live that is more meaningful, more respectful of the earth, more just and perhaps happier?

For him, it was not the answer alone that was most important, but rather the courage of these people in turning this question into a real experience that they actually lived.