When I was a kid my parents built the biggest house I'd ever been in. Five bedrooms, three full baths, family room, rec room, finished basement. At the time it seemed humungous, resplendently perched at water's edge. Looking back on it now, I'd guess it was somewhere approaching 2,500 sq. ft. - a palatial mansion.
That was then, this is now. When that house was built it was in the midst of pastoral countryside. I went back a few years ago to find the countryside gone, replaced by street upon street of 4,000 sq. ft. megahouses. One particular waterfront abode for a family of two - yes two - came in at over 12,000 sq. ft. complete with davits for launching his and her jet skis and a two yacht boat well.
I drove through this instant neighbourhood and realized how firmly we'd become addicted to bigger. Robert Samuelson, writing in the latest Newsweek, reports that "house lust" was very much a part of America's housing bubble:
"In Sweden, Britain and Italy, new homes average under 1,000 square feet. By 2005, the average newly built U.S. home measured 2,434 square feet, and there were many that were double, triple or quadruple that. After World War II, the first mass Levittown suburbs offered 750-square-foot homes.
"We're not selling shelter," says the president of Toll Brothers, a builder of upscale homes. "We're selling extreme-ego, look-at-me types of homes." In 2000, Toll Brothers' most popular home was 3,200 square feet; by 2005, it had grown 50 percent, to 4,800 square feet. These "McMansions" often feature marble floors, sweeping staircases, vaulted ceilings, family rooms, studies, home-entertainment centers and more bedrooms than people.
Sociologically, the "housing bubble" resembles the preceding "tech bubble." When people paid astronomical prices for profitless dotcom stocks, they doubtlessly reassured themselves that they were investing in the very essence of America—the pioneering spirit, the ability to harness new technologies. Exorbitant home prices inspired a similar logic. How could anyone go wrong buying into the American dream? It was easy."
That was then, this is now. When that house was built it was in the midst of pastoral countryside. I went back a few years ago to find the countryside gone, replaced by street upon street of 4,000 sq. ft. megahouses. One particular waterfront abode for a family of two - yes two - came in at over 12,000 sq. ft. complete with davits for launching his and her jet skis and a two yacht boat well.
I drove through this instant neighbourhood and realized how firmly we'd become addicted to bigger. Robert Samuelson, writing in the latest Newsweek, reports that "house lust" was very much a part of America's housing bubble:
"In Sweden, Britain and Italy, new homes average under 1,000 square feet. By 2005, the average newly built U.S. home measured 2,434 square feet, and there were many that were double, triple or quadruple that. After World War II, the first mass Levittown suburbs offered 750-square-foot homes.
"We're not selling shelter," says the president of Toll Brothers, a builder of upscale homes. "We're selling extreme-ego, look-at-me types of homes." In 2000, Toll Brothers' most popular home was 3,200 square feet; by 2005, it had grown 50 percent, to 4,800 square feet. These "McMansions" often feature marble floors, sweeping staircases, vaulted ceilings, family rooms, studies, home-entertainment centers and more bedrooms than people.
Sociologically, the "housing bubble" resembles the preceding "tech bubble." When people paid astronomical prices for profitless dotcom stocks, they doubtlessly reassured themselves that they were investing in the very essence of America—the pioneering spirit, the ability to harness new technologies. Exorbitant home prices inspired a similar logic. How could anyone go wrong buying into the American dream? It was easy."
2 comments:
Yep municipalities and provinces need to start setting maximums for house sizes, not minimums. Sad.
I don't know that regulation is as critical as simply adjusting our collective outlook. If we're going to tackle GHGs, each of us will need to figure out our just entitlement. My partner, Nadine, just bought her own transportation, a BMW CS650. It gets - wait for it - close to 100 mpg and yet it still churns out 55 hp.
Here are a few comparisons. Long-haul, non-stop coach trips garner about 130 passenger mpgs. Local transit achieves less than 40 mpg per passenger.
On fuel efficiency alone (leaving fun entirely out of it), Nadine is benefitting the environment by riding her mnotorcycle. Neat, eh?
Post a Comment