November 28, 2005

• Is Your House an SUV in Disguise?

  Americans are becoming "wildly overhoused," said Robert J. Samuelson in The Washington Post. The new American home "is a residential SUV: big, gadget-loaded, and slightly gaudy." Since 1970, the average new home has increased in size by 55%, to 2,330 square feet, while the average family size has decreased 13 percent. Owners fill these energy-sapping mansions with spiral staircases, vaulted ceilings, and home theaters. But "with hindsight, some homeowners may regret sinking so much money into ever-grander homes." One problem is "future operating costs": It's growing more and more expensive to heat and cool these monster homes. And then there's that "harder question" of future worth. Home values have risen by 55 percent since 2000, and "booms have a habit of imploding." One ominous sign: Speculators accounted for 14.5 percent of all real-estate purchases last year, double the historic rate. Longtime homeowners would probably escape a bust with their shirts, but the 22 million people who bought in the last three years might not. We Americans should rethink our love for bigger and better digs. "Do we need to go from SUVs to Hummers? Maybe we should revert to sedans."
  (by Robert J. Samuelson, The Washington Post; digested in The Week, July 29, 2005)

  Is our urban house an SUV in disguise? That's a question that really troubled me when I finally came across this old article recently. My wife saved the whole page for me, mostly because of the heartwrenching article on the backside of it. The heartwrenching article was great too, but this one becomes blogfodder because it spurred me to rethink our whole Urban House endeavor.

  Taking Samuelson's points in order, I must admit that the house we are building might be uncharitably described as "big, gadget-loaded, and slightly gaudy" (the last accusation would hurt most, of course, especially if Bob overheard it). But it's not a McMansion. It's unique, and its "gadgets" are not the plasma screens and waterfall walls and whole-house vacuums that you see in some model homes. Far from being "energy-sapping", they are energy-saving; we plan to do without central air conditioning entirely, for instance. Our future energy and maintenance costs will be minimal if things work out as planned: a generous, but not cavernous, home with a miserly "eco-footprint". Another size consideration: when we designed it, we honestly expected to move in with four children, nearly twice the number of the diminished American nuclear family of the new millenium who are buying and building supersized grand homes. Who knows, perhaps we may yet move in with four kids; the place isn't finished yet, and I have given up trying to guess how God will surprise me next.

  As for the "harder question of future worth", Samuelson defines worth exclusively in terms of money. His concern is well-placed: many recent homebuyers, especially those following the fashion of bigger, better, "ever-grander" homes, will lose their financial shirts. Must we allow fashion to define grandeur for us? Or can we seek a different sort of grandeur that will fit easily within a cozier space?

  And, Mr. Samuelson, must we let monetary return define investment quality? Or are there greater returns— ecological sustainability, social justice, the joy of serving others? A home designed to maximize those returns is a better investment than a much grander fancier one exiled far from the richness of the inner city. And rather than trade our SUVs for sedans not Hummers, I encourage Samuelson (and you) to consider trading the SUV lifestyle and home for a "bicycle" lifestyle and home instead.

  • 10:02 pm
  • 1 Comment