I know a
family who undertook an extended European vacation a couple of years ago. With their children nearing the time when
they would take wing, it was a final family fling. And they flung well, with stops in several
European countries, an extended visit with the family of an exchange student they
had hosted, and a stop in the small Italian village from which the wife’s
forebearers has emigrated.
Shortly
after their return, I chatted with the husband, who was still exuberant over
how well the trip had gone, how much fun his family had experienced, and what great
insights they had all gained.
As the
conversation waned, the husband grew pensive for a moment and then offered, “I
couldn’t believe how little space in which the Europeans live, even those who are
affluent. And they seem quite content
with it.”
I won’t
touch the contentment element of his comment.
Charles Montgomery in “Happy City” has already covered that topic
sufficiently well and perhaps conclusively.
But the husband’s home size observation fit into a topic on which I’d
been giving some thought.
The U.S.
leads the world in home size, and we lead by a comfortable margin. Why is that?
Some will
argue that the U.S. has been phenomenally successful in the past 75 years,
first turning the tide of World War II, then jumping onto the post-war
opportunities to build an industrial behemoth, and then leading the world into
the era of technology. One can make a
case that never has a nation had a more successful 75 years. And the argument follows that giant homes are
part of the spoils from that success.
Except that
we don’t portray that success in other aspects of our lives. More than half of all working families have
less than $10,000 in retirement savings.
We’ve reduced the funding of government to the point that critical
infrastructure isn’t being maintained. We
worry obsessively that an income gap is eroding the middle class. We’ve reduced public support for college
education to the point that many young adults are beginning their working lives
with a crushing load of student debt.
And all those concerns are circling about us as we sit in our giant
homes.
Rather than
big homes being the result of national prosperity, it seems more likely that
we’ve made the choice to live in big homes to the detriment of other aspects of
our lives.
(Lest anyone
think that I’m pointing fingers at others, let me note that my wife and I also
live in a home that’s too big for our needs. It’s a fine house and we enjoy living in both
the house and the neighborhood, but we could have sufficed with fewer square
feet.
We purchased
the house because it was in a part of town that we enjoyed. Initially, we had the goal of creating a rental
unit out of some of the extra space, but the challenges of the architecture,
building code, zoning code, and municipal fees eventually quashed that
hope. So we now join most Americans in rattling
around.)
I have a
theory about how we became prone to gigantism in our dwellings. Not surprisingly, suburbia has a role.
As we began
to sprawl, we choose to support the spread by subsidizing roads and
gasoline. An interstate freeway system that
was originally conceived for defense, commerce, and vacations was converted into
a bird’s nest of commuter routes.
Moving to the
far metropolitan fringes to get a little extra space began to seem a reasonable
alternative, largely because we weren’t paying the true price.
The mortgage
industry, by considering family housing expenses but not transportation costs
in determining mortgage qualification, further facilitated large homes far from
work.
Finally, a
growing sense that a spacious, if underused, living room meant more than a
thriving neighborhood and a false belief that homes were good investments, when
the stock market has actually outperformed housing over time, led us to homes
that we didn’t need at the cost of other elements of our lives and that often
don’t make us happy.
Combining this
hypothesis with the suburban musings of my previous post leads
to a combined hypothesis that the national successes of the U.S. led to a hubris-based
belief that suburbia was a valid solution to our land-use future, which led to
subsidizing suburbia, which led to giant homes on the metropolitan fringe where
we live vaguely discontent and wondering why we don’t have money for the other
priorities in our lives.
The insight
is almost Zen, “In the bloom of our creation were the seeds of our discontent.”
None of this
is meant as a call to torch the McMansions, to don hair shirts, and to march downtown
to live in tiny concrete cubes. But
changing the rules so there are more options for frugal housing options and
alternative household spending priorities would seem a reasonable approach. Personally, my wife and I would happily swap our
home for a home half the size and several blocks closer to downtown, but too
few options exist for that change.
However, I’ll
admit that I may be piling up hypotheses into a teetering tower. If others wish to ponder these thoughts during
their holiday travels and to offer alternative suggestions, I’ll be happy to
listen.
Next time, I
hope to return to the great streets topic. I had the ill-timing to propose a series of
North Bay roadtrips just as the heaviest December rainfall in a century
approached the coastline. Weather
permitting, I’ll take a Napa County roadtrip in the next couple of days and
then write about Calistoga and St. Helena on Monday. Weather not permitting, I’ll find another
topic.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment