Fun fact about the permission Canadians have: on federal owned land that is at least a certain distance of owned land, and isn't a park or plot for a federal structure, you can just build a small shack without permits or anything. Just live in nature for free. If loggers come, you get 60 days to relocate your shack. And yes, some guys have built a series of shacks. Of course you don't get easy (legal) hydro access.
Simply reducing and using solar or a small wind turbine would be adequate. I know when I'm out in the country, I prefer reading than ever even looking at a TV.
Honestly Kindle + Laptop + LED Lighting would be the bare minimum I could get away with. Get a good spot and you could get 3G-wireless for your shack, especially if you're 'shacking' in an elevated area.
I would be interested in the definition of 'small shack', because IIRC the Iroquois frequently built longhouses out of poles and woven bark that could stretch hundreds of meters long and a good dozen wide. If not length, does height count? Does a hunting hide count as a shack? If a 20+ft hunting hide counts as a shack, does a multi-story shack count as a 'small shack' by the ground space it occupies?
Furthermore, is there any legal restriction on how many shacks can be put on a small location. IE would a shantytown be fully legal here in Canada?
Finally, I wonder if Canada still has the common-law practice that prolonged use of a property means its ownership will default to you and does this apply to just unused private land or federal too.
I think it's 150 ft^2 (or the closest round metric equiv, it's been a while since I worked professionally with the building code). This practice does not give you the land you're "taking care of", unlike other forms of taking care of land which will net you free land (like "accidentally" mowing the lawn of a piece of government property in a township).
In general this a "permitted" act. Set up a shanty town and they will just send in the loggers with a GTFO in 60 days note. Also Canadian judges aren't very legalistic, they will look at the spirit of the law more than weasel words, so setting up a giant shanty town is probably a bad idea, but some people push it with 4 or 5 closely packed "hunting shacks".
Heating /= electricity. Most houses are heated via propane or oil, you could take a small propane or oil heater and bring the largest portable propane tank you can muster, or bring your own oil supply. Finally, living surrounded by forest would provide a great supply of firewood for a wood stove.
I work in siding, we use expanded polystyrene foam as insulation. 1" provides an R-value of 5.0 (fiberglass, which is in the majority of homes is only between 3.1 to 4.3) add a silvered side over an air gap (IE place it over a stud wall) adds R1 and if you take your time you can get an air gap in front and behind of the insulation making it an R6. Which is a considerable R-value boost with very little material.
You could literally flat-pack build your house. Plywood, baton, insulation, baton, plywood. This would get you about an R-11 wall within 4-5". The 4 walls, ceiling and floor made this way would get you a 6" cube that you could easily fit it in a truck bed. You wouldn't have to abandon your shack should loggers come by.
Given that I've worked on houses that were literally drywall onto stud with drywall + aluminum siding exterior. You'd do better in winter in my shack than that house lol.
That is pretty awesome, I took a building science course while studying structural engineering and I learned a ton about R values. There are these crazy building blocks with just astronomical levels to the point where it is silly. They don't even consider the numbers comparable because the ratio of heat that you lose when you open and close the door more than makes up the marginal difference.
As for the original point (free land!) I plan to build a very small cabin up north, but I really would prefer easy road access and electricity so I've ruled out the federal land route, at least for now.
When this is good: when the bounds of permission are set by an entity which has no legitimate right to restrict an action. See: Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus.
When this is bad: when the bounds of permission are set by an entity that has all legitimate rights to restrict an action. See: Police officer tasering someone in a case where it's not necessary.
Bringing down the level of seriousness a few notches, it's interesting to think of what these brightlines are and how wide the gray area is between them. For instance, was Google's launch of Buzz an abuse of the permissions users had granted it for email? What about Facebook's feature rollout earlier this summer? When does a service provider cross the line when it provides new functionality that its users may not have explicitly asked for or agreed to when they signed up?
Sure, in most places you can build anything that isn't outlawed. Scott Adams' column about green building speaks to how the building and construction trades are geared toward building to permits. In most places I'd bet a person would have a hard time finding a builder to make "storage chimneys."
It's not just finding someone to build them, it's getting permission.
The first question the bulding department is going to ask, is, "what are you going to be burning that requires a chimney?"
And fire marshalls are generally not predisposed toward cumbustible storage in chimneys.
The example is based on a misunderstnding that when a term like "chimney" isn't explicitly defined in a code, it doesn't have a legal meaning.
However, most codes have a default reference for any undefined term (such as a specific dictionary), and ultimate interpretation lies with the code official not the applicant anyway.
