Now that I've conceded (in previous post) that I should have made building bigger, maybe, I want to add some thoughts about the house bigness obsession of most Americans (and perhaps others).
Big houses give an ego boost.* I've been to quite a few, and always feel envious, and can imagine the reverse feeling. But that may not be actually worth the cost (unless you are figuring on swapping...oh wait people don't do that anymore) in itself, and there are actually lots of downsides:
(*ego boost if you're completely comfortable about the costs...and who does that apply to actually? Everyone is worried about some aspect of the costs, the risks if nothing else, such as the risk of losing huge money when you sell! So the ego boost is partially, entirely, or more than completely canceled out by the worries!)
1) Larger environmental impact in acquisition (ok, up to 3000sqft or so I wouldn't feel too guilty) just in the house materials, labor, and land coverage itself.
2) Larger environmental impact in climate control and maintenance (I start to feel guilty about that quite a lot actually, it was a major consideration in the design of my workshop, even though calculations might show #1 larger for a big house in a temperate area).
3) Larger monetary cost of acquisition.
4) Larger monetary cost of climate control, maintenance, taxes (the unending cost flows). Somehow people don't often consider these costs.
Living in San Diego, for example, no one seems to consider the cost of climate control, though I would at least need heat some portion of the year. But here in central Texas, no one ever forgets the need for climate control. If you don't have some kind of climate control strategy you don't survive long. And it's quite simple, a larger building (and particularly one with more windows, which typically larger buildings have in abundance) costs more to heat and cool.
5) Larger personal effort in maintenance, including cleaning.
But what about the upsides (other than ego boost, which I've already discounted quite a bit):
1) potential appreciation (well, that's kind of shaky now, and was disasterously in reverse between 2007 and 2010).
2) More place to put stuff (how much stuff do you actually need? If you aren't using it, why not sell it or get rid of it somehow. I have lots of junk myself, and I already know I would probably be better off without most of it, but given the ways I think and do things, it's just too hard to get rid of. More space lets you put this off, perhaps not for the best!)
3) More space for entertaining. (Somehow people I know with the biggest houses may not actually do the most entertaining. Maybe the least because they can't afford it. How many people meet my level of one party per month? I'd love to have about 50-100% more space in living room for my parties. Most other houses I've looked at would make me get lots of extra rooms I don't need in order to get that. And the comparatively small space in my living room (about 15.5 x 13.5 feet and 30% filled up with stereo equipment) may help weed out spurious guests and keep my parties more personal.)
Many people are into the small as beautiful chic. Sometime I remember reading about multimillionaire Steward Brand living on an 82 sqft houseboat parked in Sausalito. Of course he promoted the "small is beautiful" idea. It's a lot easier to live in small space when you can just step out into one of the nicest communities for restaurants, entertainment, and such, or hop on a jet for something nicer. Most of us can't afford to live in Sausalito or hop onto jets at whim. Still, it's obvious small living space works, and some people even prefer it. I think previously I may have linked "Tumbleweed Homes" for example, for which someone can pay $50,000 or so for a glorified 100sqft trailer (for code reasons they are towable, they say, but also they are built on mobile platforms) and some gladly do.
My 165 sqft workshop is about the same size as my master bedroom (and twice as large as Stewart Brand's houseboat) and slightly smaller than my living room. It does increase my climate controlled space about 15%.
Big houses give an ego boost.* I've been to quite a few, and always feel envious, and can imagine the reverse feeling. But that may not be actually worth the cost (unless you are figuring on swapping...oh wait people don't do that anymore) in itself, and there are actually lots of downsides:
(*ego boost if you're completely comfortable about the costs...and who does that apply to actually? Everyone is worried about some aspect of the costs, the risks if nothing else, such as the risk of losing huge money when you sell! So the ego boost is partially, entirely, or more than completely canceled out by the worries!)
1) Larger environmental impact in acquisition (ok, up to 3000sqft or so I wouldn't feel too guilty) just in the house materials, labor, and land coverage itself.
2) Larger environmental impact in climate control and maintenance (I start to feel guilty about that quite a lot actually, it was a major consideration in the design of my workshop, even though calculations might show #1 larger for a big house in a temperate area).
3) Larger monetary cost of acquisition.
4) Larger monetary cost of climate control, maintenance, taxes (the unending cost flows). Somehow people don't often consider these costs.
Living in San Diego, for example, no one seems to consider the cost of climate control, though I would at least need heat some portion of the year. But here in central Texas, no one ever forgets the need for climate control. If you don't have some kind of climate control strategy you don't survive long. And it's quite simple, a larger building (and particularly one with more windows, which typically larger buildings have in abundance) costs more to heat and cool.
5) Larger personal effort in maintenance, including cleaning.
But what about the upsides (other than ego boost, which I've already discounted quite a bit):
1) potential appreciation (well, that's kind of shaky now, and was disasterously in reverse between 2007 and 2010).
2) More place to put stuff (how much stuff do you actually need? If you aren't using it, why not sell it or get rid of it somehow. I have lots of junk myself, and I already know I would probably be better off without most of it, but given the ways I think and do things, it's just too hard to get rid of. More space lets you put this off, perhaps not for the best!)
3) More space for entertaining. (Somehow people I know with the biggest houses may not actually do the most entertaining. Maybe the least because they can't afford it. How many people meet my level of one party per month? I'd love to have about 50-100% more space in living room for my parties. Most other houses I've looked at would make me get lots of extra rooms I don't need in order to get that. And the comparatively small space in my living room (about 15.5 x 13.5 feet and 30% filled up with stereo equipment) may help weed out spurious guests and keep my parties more personal.)
Many people are into the small as beautiful chic. Sometime I remember reading about multimillionaire Steward Brand living on an 82 sqft houseboat parked in Sausalito. Of course he promoted the "small is beautiful" idea. It's a lot easier to live in small space when you can just step out into one of the nicest communities for restaurants, entertainment, and such, or hop on a jet for something nicer. Most of us can't afford to live in Sausalito or hop onto jets at whim. Still, it's obvious small living space works, and some people even prefer it. I think previously I may have linked "Tumbleweed Homes" for example, for which someone can pay $50,000 or so for a glorified 100sqft trailer (for code reasons they are towable, they say, but also they are built on mobile platforms) and some gladly do.
My 165 sqft workshop is about the same size as my master bedroom (and twice as large as Stewart Brand's houseboat) and slightly smaller than my living room. It does increase my climate controlled space about 15%.
America has taken big houses to a ridiculous extreme. Frequently when I look at the "Dream Homes" column in the newspaper, I think of writing in and suggesting they call them Nightmare Homes. Smaller is good. Cheaper to build and maintain and simply more appropriate for human animals.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure about them being easier to keep clean.