URL_031: Earthsong — permaculture page: 50% of the site as common open space and 20% as private gardens (thin ingest;…

URL_031: Earthsong — permaculture page: 50% of the site as common open space and 20% as private gardens (thin ingest;…

Source

https://www.earthsong.org.nz/about/permaculture — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)

Earthsong — permaculture page

A thin page. Earthsong already carries 21 sources and this page's substance is already in corpus via Interview V [INT_005] / Interview VI [INT_006]

It adds one datum: a site allocation of 50% common open space + 20% private gardens. ⚠ That split implies a ~1.2 ha site, against the wiki’s 1.68 ha for Earthsong. Held at data_quality: low, recorded to put the 1.2-vs-1.68 discrepancy on the record. Nothing on the earthsong_ranui page is changed by it.

Summary

Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood’s permaculture page, describing how the site’s land is allocated between common open space, private gardens and built area. Earthsong is by some distance the best-documented case in the corpus — 21 sources, including two primary interviews from the June 2026 site visit — and this page adds no substantive account that those sources do not already carry.

The page is therefore covered thinly and deliberately. The one datum it does add is worth a line, and the discrepancy that datum implies is worth flagging.

Key claims

- claim: "SITE ALLOCATION: 50% of the site is common open space and 20% is private gardens. ⚠ FLAG — this split implies a site of approximately 1.2 ha, against the 1.68 ha the wiki carries for Earthsong (land_area_ha on earthsong_ranui, from LIT_018). The derivation behind the ~1.2 ha figure has NOT been reconstructed here. [claim verified verbatim; the 1.2 ha implication is recorded as flagged, not independently re-derived]"
  source_location: "Earthsong permaculture page — site land allocation."

Neobiome Intelligence relevance

Feeds earthsong_ranui as a single land-allocation datum and an unresolved area flag.

• The datum: 50% common open space + 20% private gardens = 70% of the site unbuilt, which is a striking figure for an urban cohousing development at ~11 dwellings/ha and is consistent with the site’s design intent as recorded in Interview VI [INT_006] and LIT_018.
• The flag: ⚠ the split implies a ~1.2 ha site where the wiki carries 1.68 ha. This is not resolved and no wiki figure is changed. Two things make it low-stakes and one makes it worth recording: the discrepancy may simply reflect the page describing a design allocation or a sub-area rather than the title area (low-stakes); the 1.68 ha is well-sourced from LIT_018 and underpins the corpus’s only sourced density archetype (co-housing 0.05 ha/household, 32 dwellings / 1.68 ha — see RT_331), so an unexamined 30% error in it would propagate (worth recording).
• Contrast with the Tui correction. Tui’s 72 → 50 ha change had two independent sources stating the figure directly plus internal acre/hectare consistency. Here there is one page, and the area is not stated at all — only implied. That is nowhere near the bar. land_area_ha: 1.68 stands.

No engine cell is auto-changed by this ingest.

Notes

• data_quality: low — a community web page adding one design-allocation figure, with an unexplained implication about site area.
• The raw is a complete HTML capture of the Earthsong permaculture page.
• The 1.2 ha implication was not re-derived. The arithmetic behind it has not been reconstructed here. If the discrepancy is ever pursued, that derivation is the first thing to redo.
• Earthsong’s substance is elsewhere. For the food picture specifically, Interview VI [INT_006] is the authority: ~180 fruit trees in common land, strong on fruit and leafy greens, little or no potatoes/root vegetables/grains, and full food self-sufficiency explicitly never the intent.

Research targets

Documents to retrieve

• (none) — Earthsong is the corpus’s most-documented case; this page adds no retrieval lead.

Research gaps

• Recorded here rather than as a separate research target: the 1.2 ha vs 1.68 ha discrepancy. It is a one-source implication, not a stated contradiction, and Earthsong’s site area is already well-sourced. If a second source ever implies ~1.2 ha, revisit — and note that the co-housing density archetype in RT_331 rests on the 1.68 figure.

Connections

Links to

Sources (1): LIT_018

Cases (1): Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood

Referenced by

Cases (1): Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood

Sources (1): OT_237