Sad. The Hyland Vineyard outside McMinnville is being sub-developed into nine homesites by its owners - who, surprisingly for a venture like this, are not named Evenstad - and their various entities. The entire development, on a site which is gorgeous as you can see, will have “exclusive access through a grand, gated entrance”. Lots (vines included, but some will have to be ripped out for the actual homesites) range from $699,000 to $1.3 million. Owners can choose to lease their vineyard acreage back to whichever of the entities is actually buying fruit for the sum of about $3,000 per acre, per year, which sounds on the low side to me.
These same people, in addition to their other ventures of two winery labels, a wine bar and a custom crush facility, are also involved in a venture that is selling the opportunity to make wine as a hobbyist. With professional help, of course. For this privilege, along with some things like use of an event facility and concierge service, the buyer pays $5000 up front and up to $20,000 per year - which amounts to one barrel of finished wine.
I don’t begrudge anyone their big ideas, and one of the owners is Gary Andrus’ (Pine Ridge, Archery Summit) daughter who, I’m sure, learned from her father how to do things in a big way, but I’m sorry. All this makes me very, very sad. See link below picture for more info - just in case you want to live like the rich and famous.
Surprisingly, an area that seems to have avoided “Californication”, at least to some extent, is Sonoma - Sonoma Valley, RRV, Dry Creek, etc. (or maybe I’ve just managed to avoid the blight)?
Livermoron-ification I think it’s spelled. And yes there are a couple of these, although I’m not sure vineyards were ripped up to put them in. The houses are interplanted with vines, and if the crush yields anything like some of the other young vine cuvees you can find around here, that’s probably punishment enough. OTOH ripping up an old vineyard is another story…
Curiously, for all the criticisms of monoculture in wine growing regions, I’ve read that the real advantage of wine grapes is that they are the one cash crop that yeilds enough $/acre to hold back development. I guess not the case in Oregon.
For once the sentimental side of me agrees with Bob, kinda of scary. His shot at the Evansteads which have a history of buying land they don’t need to preserve the rural feel of heal area, is, as I often said, predictable and undendable, but that’s Bob.
Just a thought outside of the box. The WV is rapidly developing large tracts of forestland like mad into vineyards. This is sad also, but, imo, it is leading to the production, in the near future, of huge amounts of new fruit in the WV. Is this savvy young lady foreseeing a huge supply/demand imbalance in the WV? The wine industry currently suffers from a supply/demand imbalance over. If every forest can be turned into a winery, then perhaps this may be the only way to make money in the wine industy in the future. Would anyone care for all the deals I’ve been offered on 05,06,07, and now 08 wines in the last last month. I’ve been offered case amounts at half the price of only July purchases that haven’t shipped. Makes one look silly for buying early. Spent near a week in the WV earlier in the month. My prediction: they will be wonderful early drinking wines. Don’t buy futures! You may well buy them half price next summer.
Sorry, Gordon. That’s crap, it’s been proven to be crap to your face (or as close to your face as one can get on an Internet board) and it will continue to be crap for as long as the Evenstad’s winery and home continue to infringe upon the rural feel of the southern Dundee Hills. Whatever the reason they bought the property, it wasn’t because they’re community-minded.
This is also crap. Before you go off, remember that I live here while you visit now and then.
The WV is rapidly developing large tracts of forestland like mad into vineyards
I guess that means they can’t make “natural” wine. (Natural wine of course comes from grapes that planted themselves, grafted themselves, and vinified themselves, using only the yeasts that they introduced to the area themselves.)
But your point is interesting. People bemoan the loss of great vineyards for housing, but the same people don’t often bemoan the loss of forest and “scrub” for the vineyards. I wonder where people come out on that. I suppose, in the larger scheme, the loss of more forest or natural land is a greater concern than the loss of vineyards, no matter how extraordinary. Vineyards require only a few acres here and there. But to be of any use, wild areas need to be contiguous and large. That it’s happening in Oregon is particularly interesting because cities like Portland are known for having fairly strict zoning regs.
Well, Greg, his point is not accurate. It’s very difficult to cut down one tree in Oregon, much less hundreds of acres of them, which is what Gordon’s talking about. Calpers had their shot and I doubt anyone else is stupid enough - especially now - to plant anything but a boutique vineyard, even though there’s lots of south-facing property available that’s devoted to pastureland, hay or scrub - not forest.
Just to clarify on another point. I’m not bemoaning clearing vineyard land for houses in this development. They’re doing it an acre at a time, which isn’t bad, and it’s only nine total acres out of whatever the total is - that I’m too lazy to go look up. My point in even mentioning it was that the buyers won’t get their full property in vines - and it’s just for clarification. Hell, I gotta hand it to these people. Laurent, Danielle and their partners have figured out how to make a profit on a vineyard they recently bought by selling it in pieces like any other piece of dirt while they still, in all likelihood, retain the rights to the fruit. Good job on the business front.
I’m not really bemoaning the development, though on re-reading it probably sounds like I am. It’s the grandiose and pretentious nature of the whole thing that bothers me, which I guess I didn’t make clear. McMansions come to wine country, if you will. What you see below is probably what will get built - though that one’s missing the requisite 2-story arched entry, the imposing facade and the turrets, but it does have a tennis court. These things are NOT any more attractive in a vineyard than they are anywhere else. Imagine 9 of them on that property - without the barn, of course.
I believe since 1990 in Napa County… Lands categorized as Open Space are subcategorized as Agricultural Resource (“AR”) or Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space (“AWOS”). The Napa County General Plan includes a minimum parcel size of 40 acres for lands within the AR subcategory and a minimum parcel size of 160 acres for lands within the AWOS subcategory.
Basically, land outside the little town limits can’t be subdivided unless it is a very large parcel. We have many problems, but we are trying to keep out subdivisions.
I disagree with your “Napa-fication” premise. I agree that we all hope that “the man” doesn’t “pave paradise and put up a parking lot”, but IMHO this simply has not happened in Napa (or definitely not Sonoma). Good vineyard land in Napa isn’t getting developed for subdivisions. There’s a natural tendency in the Pac NW to disavow any sort of “Californication”, but subdividing Napa vineyards is a poor, fictitious example.
Say what you want about the travesty of subdividing a vineyard in your neck of the woods, but don’t make it Napa’s problem.
Perhaps being there every day you don’t notice all the new vineyards going in and the gaint swaths being taken out of the forest. Check with the county and see how many acres of vineyards have been added in the past 5 years. I think you will find the number to be rather large.
no comment on your distaste for “McMansions”. That’s an individual thing.
A couple of thoughts and notes,
First, thanks to Cal PERS, there is more vineyard land in Oregon than demand warrants. I’m not sure how long it will take for demand to meet supply but it may be a while.
Second, from what I understand, the current general rule in Yamhill County is that a house cannot be built on farm (or forest) land unless the parcel is greater than 40 acres, or can be shown to produce at least $80,000 in revenue a year. There are exceptions, of course.
Third, most of the new vineyard land was previously being farmed in Filberts (Hazelnuts) or Grass seed or was pasture land. From a historical farming standpoint Grapes, Berries, Filberts, and Grass Seed have been the four most profitable crops grown in the Valley, although there is currently a very large surplus of grass seed (Oregon produces 90% of the world’s supply) and grapes don’t look so hot right now.
Fourth, the Trappist Abbey that owns about a quarter of the Dundee Hills just agreed that their property will never be developed into a vineyard, but will be maintained as a sustainable forest.
Last, Hyland is not a new vineyard, just new owners. It was planted in the 70s.
Gordon, There has certainly been an increase in vineyard land in Oregon. There has also been a decline in the acreage devoted to Filberts, Hops, and Grass Seed. Hell, Stoller Vineyard was a turkey farm back when Yamhill County was a big turkey growing region. Some vineyard land is on what was once maintained as forest, but the conversions from other crops has been much larger source of acreage. Very little of the new vineyard development has been in the Coast Range. Most has been in-fill in areas known to successfully grow grapes. Land is going to be farmed in the way that produces the greatest financial benefit. In the last decade, grapes were the “flavor of the month”. I suspect that won’t be the case in the next decade.
