4 ms·

Yes, yes and YES. I think there's huge possibilities here, but the challenge isn't in designing or construction, but of re-education. Some people think owning a

Yes, yes and YES. I think there's huge possibilities here, but the challenge isn't in designing or construction, but of re-education. Some people think owning a traditional home (and cars etc) will make them happy. We know that's not the case. Materials possessions and keeping up with the neighbours does not make people happy. That reality needs to be more widely accepted for a true disruption in the housing market. My .02.

genwin 14y ago
What's the alternative? I think it comes down to renting or buying. In the long run I'd say that owning leads to more happiness, since rent can be a lot more expensive in the long run (excluding buying during occasional housing bubbles).
- autophil 14y ago
  I would argue that the more you own, the more you have to lose and the more vulnerable and fearful you are. The less you own, and the less reliant you are on others and material possessions, the more at peace and happier you will be.
  - genwin 14y ago
    I agree in general, but I think most people are genuinely more at peace and happier when they have a permanent roof over their head at night, in which case it comes down to renting vs. buying. They can still have few material possessions at home. Some of my friends were mobile for years, living out of vehicles, but eventually decided that having an apartment or house is better.
    - autophil 14y ago
      Nothing is permanent in life.
  - vermasque 14y ago
    Renting a place to live is form of reliance; in this case, the renter is relying on the landowner to maintain the property and allow the renter to live there. Ultimately, we have to choose between what freedoms we want and what freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to live a good life. I've rented for a while because I needed the freedom to move around, and it has been the right choice so far. My parents own a home, and it has been the right choice for them considering that they have settled in one location for a much longer time.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - GFischer 14y ago
    As a counterexample, right now, I'm trapped in a job I don't want, because I signed a large rent (yes, I was dumb, but there weren't any good alternatives, there's a housing bubble in my country too). I can't quit my job because of the rent. If I were an owner, I'd be able to quit. So, I exchanged one freedom for the other.
mpg33 14y ago
I agree. If people changed the way they looked at what housing traditionally is I think it would allow for some new and innovative ideas.
- genwin 14y ago
  It would take more than half the people changing. I'd love to buy a lot in my city and put a yurt on it, but the city / voters won't let me live in a yurt.
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Well, if the answer is everyone has to become a hippy then housing can already be cheap. Go live in a commune. I don't think this issue is about cars and homes making people happy per se. I think the key here was "average home" not some completely unrealistic societal change that I sure wouldn't want any part of.

genwin 14y ago

What's the alternative? I think it comes down to renting or buying. In the long run I'd say that owning leads to more happiness, since rent can be a lot more expensive in the long run (excluding buying during occasional housing bubbles).

autophil 14y ago
I would argue that the more you own, the more you have to lose and the more vulnerable and fearful you are. The less you own, and the less reliant you are on others and material possessions, the more at peace and happier you will be.
- genwin 14y ago
  I agree in general, but I think most people are genuinely more at peace and happier when they have a permanent roof over their head at night, in which case it comes down to renting vs. buying. They can still have few material possessions at home. Some of my friends were mobile for years, living out of vehicles, but eventually decided that having an apartment or house is better.
  - autophil 14y ago
    Nothing is permanent in life.
- vermasque 14y ago
  Renting a place to live is form of reliance; in this case, the renter is relying on the landowner to maintain the property and allow the renter to live there. Ultimately, we have to choose between what freedoms we want and what freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to live a good life. I've rented for a while because I needed the freedom to move around, and it has been the right choice so far. My parents own a home, and it has been the right choice for them considering that they have settled in one location for a much longer time.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- GFischer 14y ago
  As a counterexample, right now, I'm trapped in a job I don't want, because I signed a large rent (yes, I was dumb, but there weren't any good alternatives, there's a housing bubble in my country too). I can't quit my job because of the rent. If I were an owner, I'd be able to quit. So, I exchanged one freedom for the other.

mpg33 14y ago

I agree. If people changed the way they looked at what housing traditionally is I think it would allow for some new and innovative ideas.

genwin 14y ago
It would take more than half the people changing. I'd love to buy a lot in my city and put a yurt on it, but the city / voters won't let me live in a yurt.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

Well, if the answer is everyone has to become a hippy then housing can already be cheap. Go live in a commune. I don't think this issue is about cars and homes making people happy per se. I think the key here was "average home" not some completely unrealistic societal change that I sure wouldn't want any part of.