

The HemLoft - mhb
http://thehemloft.com/the-story/

======
columbo
The story: "Since the treehouse was built on crown land, I don’t technically
own it, and so its fate is uncertain. For three years I kept the HemLoft
secret, but now that I’m finished, I’ve found myself wanting to share it. I
even shared it with a big glossy magazine! Coming out of the bush about the
HemLoft is fun, however it poses a few problems; if people know about it, they
might try to find it. And if the wrong people find it, they may make me take
it down."

"It took a lot of work to build it, and I’d rather not take it down, just yet.
So I’ve been thinking of ways to expose the HemLoft, while somehow making it
legal. To the best of my knowledge, Squatting on Whistler Mountain, beneath
some of Western Canada’s most luxurious mega-homes would not be looked
favourably upon. However, I’ve thought of a few ideas that might be… I’d like
you to read the ideas below and vote on the one you think I should do!"

Also, I had to find a mirror to see it
([http://solarburrito.com/blog/2012/04/09/the-hemloft-
secret-t...](http://solarburrito.com/blog/2012/04/09/the-hemloft-secret-
treehouse-near-whistler-b-c/)) just to get some ideas on what it was, as well
as a map (<http://goo.gl/maps/iof7T>) of where it was located.

Meh, it is a nice place, neat looking, but I don't see a strong reason to
classify it as a national monument or art project worthy of preserving.

What happens in 5 years after the creator has moved to a new thing? Just let
it sit there as a derelict building in the middle of a national forest? Why
not let people put mobile homes up there then?

~~~
indiecore
If I was in charge I'd congratulate the guy, then seize the building and make
it a rest stop for hikers and stuff. It's definitely neat enough (in my
opinion) to dedicate a little bit of time to provided it's publicly
accessible.

~~~
notatoad
It's not on or even really near any existing trail that would make it useful
as a rest stop for hikers. It's about 300m from the road up to a bunch of the
most expensive houses in whister, and anybody who can find it can stop in.
There's no need to 'seize' it, just leave it as is. which is exactly what's
happening - it's been sitting there for a couple years now and nobody has torn
it down, seized it, vandalized it, broken it, or hurt it in any other way. It
just sits there as an interesting artifact for anybody who wants to stop by
and take a look.

------
debacle
Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as
"misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project.

~~~
schiffern
> _Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified
> as "misuse," no matter how cool or ingenious the project._

Of _which_ nature? Many people camp and graze on public lands without
committing violations, so merely "personal use" is certainly allowed.

You seem to be saying, "illegal use is illegal".

~~~
bmelton
I would think that the 'permanent structure' is probably the defining thing
done here that makes it incontrovertibly illegal.

Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits (though not
always) and are generally overlooked because 1) they aren't as heavily
patrolled (because there isn't the expectation of campers) and 2) the campers
generally leave little trace of their comings and goings.

~~~
schiffern
>Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits

Nah. Places that require permits are typically developed camping sites. The
vast majority of public land in the US (and Crown land in Canada) requires no
permits to camp on. BLM land (1/8 of the US) is free to camp on unless local
regulations say otherwise.

~~~
bmelton
Thank you for the correction. That's what I get for using anecdata to assert a
claim.

Edit: Now that you've pointed that out though, I did a quick search and found
that while free, there is a "14 day limit per calendar year" on camping on BLM
land (it doesn't specify if this is confined to a single piece of land or all
land in general), and for periods longer than 14 days, a permit is required.

------
beaker52
Hmm. That he planned to get others to pay for his retirement through
fundraising is quite depressing/worrying.

Building the tree house was a nice story, but I'm waiting for the
'fundraising' to buy the land and obviously plenty of err... administration
costs for doing so.

~~~
rpsw
He is accepting donations for an undefined project on the What's Next page.

~~~
beaker52
Good spot. Freeloader?

~~~
tehwalrus
he paid for the bits of the treehouse (that he didn't get free on craigslist)
with his carpentry jobs in Whistler, right? so no. he paid for it.

On what he does next, who's to say. In his own words:

"I now feel like I want to create something new, something of value that also
doesn’t belong to anyone. It will be radically different in form and function
than the Hemloft, however, it will have some similar characteristics: it will
be remote, it will have a minimal footprint, it will be built mostly out of
used materials, and it will push the boundaries of design."

Maybe he's lying. But the dude can at least build cool treehouses.

------
oftenwrong
I recall a reddit thread about this (which I cannot find) on which a commenter
explained that this tree house design would, over time, kill the tree it is
attached to. If that is the case, I think the house should be taken down.

------
sammyo
If you do the research and are not tied to "the perfect spot" that happens to
be on public land, there are (not expensive) remote lots of land for sale
where the only problem is access.

------
shortlived
How did he anchor it to the tree with damaging the bark and therefor the tree?

------
indiecore
For anyone wondering about relevant laws here's a relevant section of the BC
Land Act[1]

[1]
[http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/free...](http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96245_01#part6)

~~~
schiffern
>A person who does anything that is an offence under section 60, or who
directs or causes an offence to be committed under section 60, is liable to
compensate the government or the person against whom the offence is committed
for loss or damage suffered by the government or by that person because of the
contravention.

Charge him for the price of the tree.

