3 ms·

It’s not a lifestyle thing. We need to separate our house from our net worth. As long as house prices rise faster than inflation, then that’s nice for the peop

by Decade 11y ago

It’s not a lifestyle thing. We need to separate our house from our net worth. As long as house prices rise faster than inflation, then that’s nice for the people who manage to buy a house, but it’s common-sense unsustainable. A soldier returning home from WW2 could buy his first house with a few years of savings. No mortgage necessary. A few decades later, housing prices rising faster than inflation, and a Gen X yuppie needs a 30-year mortgage to afford a house. Not ideal, but still affordable. A few more decades, and Millenials face a world where you need to be making bank to even think about paying for the mortgage. No wonder we are having kids later, etc., etc., etc. I don’t know how net worth and housing will be decoupled, but it has to happen. When only the bank can afford your home, that’s an ingredient for social unrest. All I know is that it’s really going to suck for the people who’ve pumped so much money into their house, when it all comes down.

Mz 11y ago
This is a space I have studied. I don't have time today to expound at length in hopes that you might understand my point, which I feel you have wildly misunderstood. But this comment of mine from elsewhere might cast a bit more light on what I mean: http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless#6370225 http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless... (For context, it is a follow up to this comment of mine: http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless#6368935 http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless...) These comments may also be useful: http://www.metafilter.com/contribute/activity/153873/search?q=suburbs&sort=date http://www.metafilter.com/contribute/activity/153873/search?... Especially the first one: http://www.metafilter.com/157297/I-cant-afford-to-buy-groceries#6417594 http://www.metafilter.com/157297/I-cant-afford-to-buy-grocer...
- Decade 11y ago
  I’m not sure that we fundamentally disagree, though from these samples I don’t know enough about your position to be sure. When you say, “you need to think bigger than that. In fact, we need changes all the way up to the federal level,” I agree. The government up to the federal level has been using policies, tax benefits, and direct subsidies to promote detached single-family homes. I think that your solution of reorienting building priorities in favor of individual housing is not incompatible with my idea of removing homes as a long-term investment. Indeed, I think they are aligned: The most economical way to live by yourself is to live in an apartment with a whole lot of other people. The suburban ideal has cost the country tremendously. Roads, sewers, air pollution, mental disturbance from the isolation, extended emergency vehicle response times, to name a few aspects that come to mind right now. Even perma-camping would destroy the environment if everybody did it. If we want to reduce our per-capita environmental impact, we are going to have to live in dense apartments, and we are going to have to make them affordable for everybody. For cities to be affordable, we need to overrule the NIMBYs and allow the housing prices to go back down. Where I’m least sure I agree is with the primacy of single living. A good solution will involve a diversity of housing stock, and we do need more single housing, but any society who want to survive long-term must encourage people to breed and produce a next generation. And once you’re done breeding, outcomes tend to be better if you’re involved with the next generation’s progeny, too. For the long-term health of society, we need plenty of large houses.
  - Mz 11y ago
    I am medically handicapped. I have zero plans to live in an apartment with a bunch of other people. Before life got in the way, I wanted to be an urban planner. In the US, we have largely outlawed the ability to build small houses in walkable neighborhoods because we have whored out all of our infrastructure to our personal God: The car. That needs to change. If we could get that resolved, you and I would both be happier, even if we still disagreed. Peace.

by Decade 11y ago

Mz 11y ago

This is a space I have studied. I don't have time today to expound at length in hopes that you might understand my point, which I feel you have wildly misunderstood. But this comment of mine from elsewhere might cast a bit more light on what I mean: http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless#6370225 http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless... (For context, it is a follow up to this comment of mine: http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless#6368935 http://www.metafilter.com/156605/No-Toilets-for-the-Homeless...) These comments may also be useful: http://www.metafilter.com/contribute/activity/153873/search?q=suburbs&sort=date http://www.metafilter.com/contribute/activity/153873/search?... Especially the first one: http://www.metafilter.com/157297/I-cant-afford-to-buy-groceries#6417594 http://www.metafilter.com/157297/I-cant-afford-to-buy-grocer...

Decade 11y ago
I’m not sure that we fundamentally disagree, though from these samples I don’t know enough about your position to be sure. When you say, “you need to think bigger than that. In fact, we need changes all the way up to the federal level,” I agree. The government up to the federal level has been using policies, tax benefits, and direct subsidies to promote detached single-family homes. I think that your solution of reorienting building priorities in favor of individual housing is not incompatible with my idea of removing homes as a long-term investment. Indeed, I think they are aligned: The most economical way to live by yourself is to live in an apartment with a whole lot of other people. The suburban ideal has cost the country tremendously. Roads, sewers, air pollution, mental disturbance from the isolation, extended emergency vehicle response times, to name a few aspects that come to mind right now. Even perma-camping would destroy the environment if everybody did it. If we want to reduce our per-capita environmental impact, we are going to have to live in dense apartments, and we are going to have to make them affordable for everybody. For cities to be affordable, we need to overrule the NIMBYs and allow the housing prices to go back down. Where I’m least sure I agree is with the primacy of single living. A good solution will involve a diversity of housing stock, and we do need more single housing, but any society who want to survive long-term must encourage people to breed and produce a next generation. And once you’re done breeding, outcomes tend to be better if you’re involved with the next generation’s progeny, too. For the long-term health of society, we need plenty of large houses.
- Mz 11y ago
  I am medically handicapped. I have zero plans to live in an apartment with a bunch of other people. Before life got in the way, I wanted to be an urban planner. In the US, we have largely outlawed the ability to build small houses in walkable neighborhoods because we have whored out all of our infrastructure to our personal God: The car. That needs to change. If we could get that resolved, you and I would both be happier, even if we still disagreed. Peace.