is the current model of home ownership sustainable?

galoisien · May 24, 2009, 3:33am

So reading some of these threads about bad spending habits and 2,500/month homes it does strike me how part of the problem is what all the extravagance and waste that still exists in a socially-acceptable lifestyle. For one, I really think there is a cultural overemphasis on home ownership – or at least owning a home with your own four structural walls and a roof, and investing a permanent residence I think will make less sense with time as the years go by in an increasingly globalised world.

But it kind of strikes me how much gripe there is over shelter, and of course we all need good places to raise children. But children all over the world get raised in straw huts or even dirt floors and they turn out fine and happy (if nutrition and education are taken care of, etc.) And then there’s social acceptability. Society and the law looks down on tent-building or owning a mobile home even though that is one of the most economically efficient solutions that there can be, never mind how comfortable or safe things can be on the inside.

So I propose the following: a specially-designed estate that gives you the most economical shelter for your buck and yet also provides warm, loving and nurturing homes. My inspiration for this is really some of the New Town Housing estates in Singapore, which manage to be comfortable, modern, clean and have high standards of living despite the space constraints (Singapore has 4-5 million on an island 720 sq. km large, so you can imagine the space issues) and in the design, nearly every square foot is used efficiently, using efficient packing arrangements, down to the allocation of commercial zoning within the estates.

Ever wondered why does each and every household need their own large, living rooms? These living rooms are “wasted” if they aren’t being used 24/7? Or their own fireplaces? Or their own structural divisions? Even typical American apartments normally fail at this efficiency because of the (uncreative) way the way they have been planned. A more sustainable design I think, would take a leaf from around the world, from the Israeli kibbutzim, to Chinese family arrangements, to the layout of Sub-Saharan villages, etc. while allowing you to enjoy all the comforts of a developed nation. The thing is to eliminate waste.

The thing I propose is: a complex with large internal communal courtyards (Asian-style). So let’s take the status quo, where in a given area, you have 200-1000 households each having their own yard. That’s really a waste. It’s more efficient to have a large yard with a fraction reserved for private use, with restricted access, so basically the user density will be comparable to all-private yards when they are use … but with constant use. There is really no need to have 500 individual backyard grills … and even 1000 household refrigerators are a waste. It is much more efficient to have large walk-in fridges with reserved personal areas that you can buy, rent or lock. And the utilities per person will be drastically reduced because the fridges in question have less surface area per unit volume ==> less heat loss ==> less maintenance. There’s a reason why businesses have them. In fact, this should apply to the heating or cooling of everyone in general too. In contrast to a typical apartment arrangement, bedrooms and family units can be arranged, and the complex designed with such a geometry such that there is minimal heat loss during the winter and minimal cooling loss during the summer – again because of surface area / volume ratios. Basically, large collective units are more efficient than many small units. The theme of the design is small private areas, small versions of private living rooms for each family unit, because we respect individualism and privacy. Communal living is sustainable living, and with regards to children, I think for most of their daytime activities they wouldn’t care if their toy playing, music playing or video game playing was done in their own room or in communal space. In fact for video games I suspect many adolescents would find the communal arrangement a boon for getting LAN opponents.

The thing to ask is: how much of private living is essential? How much do we waste by demanding private versions of things over shared/communal facilities? This goes beyond the gym. I suspect that rather than getting your child that expensive gaming computer, 10-15 communal gaming computers would be an equitable arrangement for 150 teenagers, and then far cheaper (perhaps even mobile) solutions can be found for private purposes. An equally bizarre thing I find in Western culture is the cultural drive to split up extended families over far more numerous households than you would find in Asian cultures – this really is unsustainable waste both with regards to human resources and waste.

Even the process of home-cooked dinner is a waste by how it is done today. The family meal for some Asian cultures (where depending on how close-knit the household is, there can be 10-15 people at a table or two … for those who know, think of the Taiwanese serial “Kindred Spirit”) is a bit more efficient.

So for an area of 1000 households, you have 1000 housewives (or hubbies, depending on who does it) making 1000 separate dinners, buying 1000 separate grocery stocks. This is also where a LOT of waste comes in. Some people don’t use all their milk, some of the stuff goes bad before it gets used, resources are underutilised, and I’m not even talking about the 1000 separate refrigerators and microwave ovens. And at the grocery store, some people can’t buy in bulk because they know they won’t use it all in time. Everyone suffers. Better: cooperate, pool resources and all order from a large distributor where frosted flakes come in at 0.20 cents a pound and milk comes in at 1.75/gallon, and did I mention the savings on chicken? It is not feasible to say, have 50-100 parents make a meal for 1000 households, in large batches in industrial-sized communal kitchens, with agreements on menu, taste and experiments. Meanwhile, 90-95% of everyone else who would be doing the cooking can be used for work, teaching children or other economically valuable GDP-raising things. Did I mention the process of housekeeping itself can also be communalised?

Consider crime. Safety I imagine, is a concern for many parents, who would rather not take cheaper rent at a place with sketchy safety. Much local tax burden (at better safety) would be relieved with a degree of effective private policing. It’s much more efficient because with a couple of hired arms (that would say amount to 50 dollars per household per month, in return for say, double that in saved taxpayer funds) patrolling the night who would practically be 30 seconds away if anything happened, (and then the actual police are available for backup), and not say, 5-minute police responses to a robbery attempt. And since duties are communalised, you get a much more potent arrangement than typical neighbourhood watches.

These are just some proposals. There are many possibilities. But really, when we complain about the home payments, the rent and the economic crisis, we often overlook doing away with useless cultural barriers that come at a great economic cost to everyone.

Bay · May 24, 2009, 10:54am

Personally, having to share a yard, refrigerator and meals with 500 other families sounds horrible. Imagine all the rules that would be required, and enforcement with sanctions. Ugh.

Other than fossil fuels, what other non-renewable “waste” cannot be alleviated through means other than communal living? The development of solar and other alternative sources of power will eventually moot the fossil fuel problem. Already, cities can choose to privatize police services. No one is required to make huge home payments. People are free to live with extended families if they desire. Much of the “waste” you refer to actually creates millions of jobs.

The beauty of American culture is that each person is free to choose their own lifestyle (within reasonable but quite broad limits). I would hate to see that culture disappear.

MichaelNKat · May 24, 2009, 11:32am

galoisien, if you are seriously interested in the concept of communal living, you may want to read the many studies and books about the Israeli Kibbutz system. There have been a number of cross generational longitudinal studies and research addressing social, educational, economic and child developmental issues and the impact impact of such a system of communal living spanning more than 60 years.

great_lakes_mom · May 24, 2009, 11:42am

Very interesting post. Some American ideas to look at-the ideas of Paolo Solari and Arcosanti in Arizona. And the co housing movement, which is in many cities, including mine.

But compared to Asia, do Americans have the public manners and tolerance that closer communal living requires? We are used to a great deal of space and the freedom to individually style our lives in ways that do not lend to happy close proximity.

Recently on NPR, there was an essay about the new American lifestyle might become renting, as being underwater on a mortgage gives you anything BUT freedom.

fendrock · May 24, 2009, 12:55pm

MichaelNKat – can you provide some references to the kibbutz studies?

Some years ago I read Children of the Kibbutz by Melford Spiro and found it fascinating.

Galoisien, it is interesting that you refer to sharing courtyards and backyards. These spaces are more likely to have year-round utility in warmer climes (like Asia) – as you probably appreciate from living in Portland, ME, many parts of the USA can use outdoor space during only a few months of the year.

Generally Asian cultures are seen as sacrificing individual needs for the group, whereas in the United States the individual comes first. We are not so big on sharing our personal space. Communal living is seen as more of an experiment – see [Intentional</a> Communities (ecovillages, community, communes, cohousing, coops, sustainable living…)](<a href=“http://www.ic.org%5DIntentional”>http://www.ic.org) for example.

It will be interesting to see what happens as the baby boomer generation ages. This group may be less interested in traditional forms of retirement living (with all residents over the age of 65). I could easily see older baby boomers creating more demand for the type of cooperative arrangements (including mixed age and income housing) you are suggesting.

Son_of_Opie · May 24, 2009, 1:13pm

I think a lot of problems with America come from people buying things they can’t afford to impress people they don’t know… cars, houses, etc.

MichaelNKat · May 24, 2009, 1:46pm

fendrock, it’s been a while since I’ve read the research (did a major paper on kibbutz child rearing and education when I was in college) but if you do a Google search using terms such as kibbutz, child rearing, education, sociology, economy etc, a lot of interesting stuff comes up. One thing I was surprised to see more recently was that Bruno Bettleheim, who was once viewed as an authoritative source on the impact of the kibbutz on children, is no longer regarded by some as having done credible research and studies.

galoisien · May 24, 2009, 1:54pm

Yes, but so would hiring millions of Americans to jump on peat beds to speed up the production of fossil fuels. :)

It only spells freedom and independence for me actually.

The housekeeper is economically undervalued. If a woman chooses to take a temporary break in her career to care for her kids, the loss of income is seen as a DROP in GDP, and nothing about housekeeping is taken into account. Housekeeping is seen as a personal, not economic activity, and basically the contributions of women in the household have been systemically undervalued in this fashion for years. First I think it is important to economically streamline this activity. You don’t have to share meals with 500 households … maybe 10, or 3, depending on just how much savings you want.

And it’s a system that can apply even in regular neighbourhoods. I imagine if that 5 families got together and worked together (on a rotating schedule) to clean or cook for each house as a team (maybe the children could be pulled in), you’d get a far more resource-efficient and time-efficient arrangement than if each single household
worked by itself.

None of this is compromised really. Nothing prevents you from buying a much more expensive arrangement where you own everything you use. That’s not really a budget-saving arrangement however.

And sure, this is an arrangement you might want to get away from when you can afford it. (Though in Asian cultures, the high-earning CEOs still have communal meals with large extended families…at least on TV.) But it is an effective solution for say, low-income housing / public housing. Because of the artificial public subsidy involved there is always a shortage of affordable public housing, and I imagine many people will be willing to trade living in the streets or in a sketchy neighbourhood for communal living. (It would also be harder to cook up a meth lab in a communal environment, since most of the kitchen or basement facilities would be communalised.)

And the idea really is to have an optimal split between communal and private. Depending on how insistent you are, maybe you do need your own private toilet, and I agree every family would need private living space. But again, take all of our individual bathrooms … we aren’t in them 24/7, so every time they are being unused you basically have a waste of resources.

BigG · May 24, 2009, 1:55pm

Read Walden Two by B.F. Skinner.

Indeed there is nothing new under the Sun.

The OP is suggesting a change in the basic character of Americans. That is going to be as successful as the government high rise blocks for low income housing tried in the 60’s and 70’s and now being demolished.

The Native Americans had a communal living scheme of sorts. Their culture failed in head to head competition with European American society.

galoisien · May 24, 2009, 2:12pm

Surely it had nothing to do with their lack of industry.

Yes, and this can occur with time. Notice the values change of the 60s.

It worked elsewhere around the world after WWII … people got used to it.

So basically we should wait for some sort of big disaster (maybe from too much resource use) – a crisis bigger than this economic crisis – like maybe on the scale of WWII, before change occurs? Whoopee.

ucsd_ucla_dad · May 24, 2009, 2:34pm

I’d never want to live in the lifestyle you propose. Being crammed together with hundreds/thousands of others is absolutely unappealing to me. Communal living is even worse since in addition to having to live densely packed with so many other people you’d have to tolerate the lazy/cheap people not pulling their share. I personally would never want to live the way many in Tokyo, for example, live or even like the way those in the centralized European cities, NYC, San Francisco, etc. live (no offense intended to those who live there). I’ve had enough of the density of even normal American apartments. I much prefer my own walls, my space around my abode, my separation zone from others. I live well within my means and can afford my lifestyle. But if you like living like like that then you can seek such a place out. To each his/her own.

galoisien · May 24, 2009, 2:56pm

Well I don’t see it as being “crammed”. You get your own personal breathing room or private area for your family; depending on how affluent the estate is it could be arranged that the amount of people per facility isn’t too great.

It’s really their loss. They don’t want to participate, so they simply get excluded from the arrangement and the facilities. One way is to give the estate some self-governance where by signing the contract you agree to a voting arrangement, where with appropriate justification (e.g. not helping with dishes) the other families would agree to legally deny you access to those facilities if you didn’t pull your share. (And by requiring a real and appropriate justification you avoid any possible exclusion issues arising “because they’re black” as well).

ucsd_ucla_dad · May 24, 2009, 3:24pm

One person’s ‘breathing room’ is another person’s ‘crammed’. Again, what you describe is not for me but it might appeal to some others, such as you.

There’s a reason most ‘communes’ and communistic societies don’t work - it’s due to human nature and the variances in people’s willingness to contribute. Invariably there are some people who are willing to work harder and put in more effort than others yet other people who are the opposite and more inclined to live off the efforts of others. You could attempt to exclude those non-performers but the strata simply changes and you still are left with higher and lower achievers and the higher achievers will always resent the low-achievers and the low-achievers will always feel that the high-achievers aren’t contributing more of what they like to call ‘their fair share’. One person puts in more work and produces twice the potatoes of the low achiever so the low achiever expects the high achiever to pool the potatoes and split it in two so each group ends up with the same amount of potatoes and will resent the high achiever if they don’t want to do this. Sound familiar (think of taxes)?

galoisien · May 24, 2009, 3:38pm

It’s all voluntary. You don’t do cookouts with your neighbours? Just take it up one notch.

Some of this is also extracted from dorm living.

Communalised living is not communistic living. Really, you could also contract people to do the work, just that it’s more efficient in a communalised setting (so the costs are lower) and everyone has more free time (less opportunity cost) overall.

Also it works in Asian societies, even highly capitalistic ones like Republic of China and Singapore, (the conceived “family unit” is very large). Cultural mindsets aren’t carved in stone and children and new generations easily make the transition. Maybe it’s more difficult once your habits are set.

ucsd_ucla_dad · May 24, 2009, 3:51pm

In this country, the voluntary system already exists I suppose, since people are generally free to choose their lifestyle as long as it’s within their means.

But as the famous sayings go - “keep Manhattan just give me that countryside” and “I just adore a penthouse view…give me Park Avenue”.

mathmom · May 24, 2009, 4:10pm

There are cohousing setups that are somewhere in between. This is one: [Peterborough</a> Cohousing](<a href=“http://www.peterboroughcohousing.org/]Peterborough”>http://www.peterboroughcohousing.org/)

BigG · May 24, 2009, 4:34pm

Get a few hundred or a few thousand like minded individuals together and try it. That is how communal living experiments get started in the U.S. Of course you should really take a look at how they end…

paying3tuitions · May 24, 2009, 4:43pm

What an interesting thread-starter! This is an anecdote:

My cousins were born and raised on Israeli kibbutzim in the l950’s. Everything was fine by their American and Candian born parents, in terms of material values and collective work. What finally got my aunt to give up and move off to a small city in Israel was the fact that other Moms were telling her child what to do and how to eat.

After seven years of hard work on the agricultural collective, they moved out owning one chair. She didn’t mind that at all. She wanted to boss and micromanage her own kids, thank you.

What interests me, though, is those kids grew up to be the least materialistic, most charitable people imaginable. One even went into international finance but you’d never know it from his modest home furnishings in an upscale apartment building in Tel Aviv.

He saved his money to send his daughters to great university educations. One is a musician who sometimes appears with Daniel Berenboam’s orchestra that combines Israeli and Arab-nation musicians in demonstration of peaceful prospects through music.

So in terms of values – non-materialistic and pro-education – I’d be the first to say that, in my family at least, the kibbutz experiment had lasting good impact on all the descendents.

Sad that my aunt couldn’t bear other Moms negating her own lessons on the importance of carrots.

I’ve heard another issue is that kibbutz teens sometimes have to wait to attend university, as the collective can only send a few people a year. But they accept it as part of the lifestyle, or if they don’t, some kibbutz-raised young adults move into city apartments on their own, get a job, apply to university sooner, but leave kibutz life. That, too, is their individual choice. All serve in the army first, anyway; that part is universal, on or off kibbutz, except for the ultrareligious and I don’t even want to GO there. That’s a distracting argument.

It sounds like you’re thinking of this more as collective housing than collective incorme/expenditure, however, which is part of the bond on the Israeli kibbutz. In part, though, I think the collective purpose of nation-building gives more of a bond among households than just keeping away the dandelion weeds, which preoccupies American homeowners significantly :)

The character of Americans who prize wide-open spaces is documented in a very interesting and classic essay on land use, called something like: “The Westward Moving House.” This could be part of your inquiry into some of the values UCSD_Dad articulated above.

Another strand to explore is “Transferrable Development Rights” in the USA, or “Planned Unit Developments” wherre some suburban developments seek to take acreage requirements per house, within their town’s current zoning, and “clump” them so that in a new housing development each home is closer together but there is more open space for all to enjoy. The developer must do this before the houses are built, by applying within current zoning for a special variance. Single-unit houses are closer together, but there’s a large open-space used by all.
The space is more likely in the form of a woodsy walk or river-basin than backyard barbeques, because many Americans crave natural spaces and privacy so much.

Thanks for an interesting OP (original Post).

galoisien · May 24, 2009, 5:28pm

Interesting. I’ll look into it.

Hey, I like wide open spaces too. Love that ocean, love that forest, love that prairie. I just don’t get why I have to own it for myself though.

Personally I think low-income housing developers – and American construction developers in general are in need of more creativity. A grid design is efficient for roads, not housing layouts. American construction is so darn inefficient. Up in Maine, it took more than a year to put up simple dormitory building around where I lived. In Singapore the task could have probably been achieved within 3 months.

Hanna · May 24, 2009, 6:23pm

I’m a proponent of walkable, efficient residential land use and shared green space, but I don’t think it’s necessarily related to communal living in the kibbutz sense. I live in a 300-unit building with a footprint smaller than many suburban single-family properties…and I’ll be damned if I’m sharing my kitchen with my 450 neighbors. No thanks.

is the current model of home ownership sustainable?

CONNECT WITH US