Matt on American energy usage:
. . . using less energy is probably the cleanest energy option out there. One way to achieve that would be for our country to become much, much poorer, but there's a lot of variation among countries of comparable wealth.Denmark, for example, consumes 3832.8 kilograms of oil equivalent per capita, whereas Germany consumes 4203.1, France consumes 4518.4, Belgium consumes 5703.4, Finland consumes 7218.1, and the United States consumes 7794.8 over twice as much as Denmark. And the Danes and Germans aren't living in circumstances of abject poverty or anything.
It is true that life is still very much worth living in Europe, but I think we urbanites also have to recognize that people buy big houses in the suburbs because there are attractive features to living in a large house in the suburbs. (She said, half an hour after wondering where she was going to put all those books). It's also key to remember that it's harder to go back than to stand pat. In The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Benjamin Friedman argues pretty convincingly that people feel good when their circumstances are improving relative to their peer group, or when their absolute standard of living goes up. Actual retrograde movement into a smaller house with less yard, or a tiny car, feels wrenching. Moreover, it has broad effects on society: if the stagnation is widespread, people become less generous, more self-involved. Charitable giving drops off sharply during recessions, because people think of it as a luxury.
In an interesting way, I wonder if environmentalism and liberalism aren't politically at war with each other. I don't mean that they are philosophically incompatible; they aren't, and in fact they tend to come as a package deal. But if we actually cut back on people's standards of living in order to conserve energy, their willingness to support other parts of the liberal platform, such as broader safety nets, will probably drop.
Can somebody please adjust those numbers for annual weather variation? Most of the East Coast has quite cold winters and quite humid summers, requiring both heat and A/C.
ummm... It might just be that there is more to standard of living than size of house (or yard) and size of car. I would like to have a big house (but not a big car, yuck) and live bang smack in the middle of a lively walkable city. Ring me back when you invent the tardis.
Actual retrograde movement into a smaller house with less yard, or a tiny car, feels wrenching
Well, this is rather dependent on one's stage of life. My wife and I are eagerly looking forward to a couple of years from now when the kids are both out of the house (I hope!) and we can downsize into a place that requires a lot less maintenance both inside and outside. Not to mention ditching the minivan in favor of a Corolla or some such thing.
Megan,
Smaller and more efficient doesn't have to mean "less" in terms of sytle, comfort, or prestige.
For example, if the average 5'2" housewife trades in her $50,000 GMC Yukon for a Audi A6 Avant TDI I don't think she is going to feel that put out.
kenb, that's not a decline in standard of living. Why don't you downsize right now, while the children are still home, to the way I grew up? We had with three children in one bedroom. Another family used to give us a ride to church and we used to have four adults and four children in a VW Beetle. (This was long before mandatory seat belt laws, child seats, etc.) We had one room air conditioner, but it went in my parents' bedroom. Also one TV. Now that's a reduced carbon footprint!
We weren't poor, btw, just middle class. But no one expects to live like that now.
Seriously millions of Europeans live in cramped studio apartments (not those sexy studios you see in the movies) that have one small closet with a toilet in it, a shower that is the same size or smaller than the shower you'll find in a trailer, and a kitchen that is the size of a small walk in closet.
You sure as hell better believe that means a small "carbon footprint". For many Americans it would also mean highly pissed off people.
Or to put another way, your average manufactured home purchased in the last 5-10 years is far nicer than many of the residences Europeans occupy.
Fashion plays a role, of course. Some people have already had the epiphany that they don't want to invite friends over to their embarrassing MTV cribs McMansion or be seen in an giant SUV; they'd rather have a more tasteful place and car. Others have realized they'd rather be somewhere walkable to something useful and/or interesting.
y81, lots of middle class people still live the way you grew up, especially in NYC and other cities. And lots of people live in suburban houses with tons of excess capacity -- getting rid of it doesn't have to feel wrenching, it can feel liberating, and how it feels depends somewhat on fashion.
If we begin with the assumption that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are driving global average temperature increases, combined with the knowledge that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been growing since ~1900 (when global population was ~1.6 billion), then it becomes obvious that annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be reduced to below 1900 emissions levels to halt the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations; and , that per capita emissions must be reduced by a factor of ~4 below 1900 levels.
Against that background, it makes little difference how much carbon the average Dane emits today.
Actually I think it would make people MORE inclined to bolster the safety net--because they would feel like they are much more likely to need it.
Sam - I grew up in Germany and visit other parts of Europe frequently. I think you're confusing square footage with livability and high quality. Frankly, the average home in northern Europe is built to a much higher standard than the crap I see in the DC suburbs with it's 2x4s and ill-fitting trim. Yes, the European home is smaller but is also much more livable and efficiently laid-out. There's no wasted space and "bonus rooms" that are rarely entered. In addition you find high quality appliances and super efficient washing machines in place of the on-sale junk from Home Depot.
I've been slowly downsizing my life for the past several years and I find the quality of my life increasing (unsurprisingly) as the weight of useless possessions continues to fall away.
My dream house has less than 1500 sf but has the finishes and custom touches that the McMansions can't touch.
The money I have now because I live in a smaller place I get to spend on other things I enjoy, and allow me to give more of it away.
Smaller and more efficient doesn't have to mean "less" in terms of sytle, comfort, or prestige. For example, if the average 5'2" housewife trades in her $50,000 GMC Yukon for a Audi A6 Avant TDI I don't think she is going to feel that put out.
Well, that takes care of the average 5'2" housewife provided all she ever uses the vehicle for is light transportation duty.
What about everyone else?
Note that I happen to have two vehicles, both two-door coupes that are about right for commuting, ocassionaly with one passenger and whatever personal effects one/both parties require. My daily commuter gets 30mpg highway and my junker gets 38. For me, larger midsize and fullsize SUVs and trucks are an impediment to vision and an enormous safety hazard. However, many people have very legitimate reasons for owning such vehicles. For example, if I had to shepherd children below the 4/40 threshold on a daily basis, car seat laws alone would push me over the edge.
I've also noticed with some satisfaction that $4/gallon gas is slowly taking care of the problem the old fashioned way.
The money I have now because I live in a smaller place I get to spend on other things I enjoy, and allow me to give more of it away.
Let me guess, no kids right?
Why assume that smaller house/smaller car is a step backwards? Preferences are heterogenous and always-changing. These choices respond to culture, fashion, and most importantly, prices. Tell car commuters you walk or bike to work, and see how they envy you. That can be an improvement in standard of living, not a reduction.
Preferences for SUVs and big houses in the burbs was driven by cheap oil, and can't last. In a future that might include $10/gallon gas and utility bills of $1,000/month, the mansion and the GMC Yukon suddenly don't seem so appealing.
And yes, I do have kids. The money saved and extra time I get to spend with them is well worth the trade-off for fewer bedrooms.
A mouse, if your car is fairly new, you're wasting fuel on the 4/40. AC is less a drain on efficiency than having the windows open as low as 10mph.
Small living spaces can make for stressful or even dangerous living conditions if young, high-energy boys are present or if siblings of both genders are still sharing bedrooms once they pass the age of innocence. Too little house can be just as damaging on family social dynamics as too much. The secret has never been "less" or "more", but "balance".
aaron wrote: A mouse, if your car is fairly new, you're wasting fuel on the 4/40. AC is less a drain on efficiency than having the windows open as low as 10mph.
Eh? Four years or forty pounds is the typical rule for car seats, and depending where a child falls on the growth curve and how quickly a family starts, it is quite possible to have three children in car seats (the oldest might be tall enough for a booster-type car seat). At that point an SUV or minivan is pretty much your only option for a vehicle. Not sure where your air conditioning comment came from, but the threshold of wind drag only kicks in at around 40-45mph on most vehicles while the A/C can take up to 5hp off the engine regardless of how fast you're traveling.
The country has downsized homes in the past without becoming (or feeling) poorer. The big, rambling drafty, gingerbread-encrusted Victorian house went out of fashion -- there's no reason that the same thing may not happen to McMansions.
And, in fact, this was kind of a phenomenon a few years ago:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_Zy_hEzQYYcC&dq=not+so+big+house&pg=PP1&ots=sCEhuZsoBa&sig=CZ7pGK6JagpVGRwH9VvcfGAIWNE&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dnot%2Bso%2Bbig%2Bhouse%26sourceid%3Dnavclient-ff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_enUS176US232&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
Sam - I grew up in Germany and visit other parts of Europe frequently. I think you're confusing square footage with livability and high quality. Frankly, the average home in northern Europe is built to a much higher standard than the crap I see in the DC suburbs with it's 2x4s and ill-fitting trim. Yes, the European home is smaller but is also much more livable and efficiently laid-out. There's no wasted space and "bonus rooms" that are rarely entered.
You've got to be kidding. First of all, single family homes are much less common in Europe than the U.S. Even middle-class European families often live in noisy, cramped apartments and condos. "Detached" and single-story houses are generally associated with the wealthy. Most houses share a wall on one or both sides. And European houses are generally much older than American ones, with correspondingly poor layouts and amenities. Bad plumbing. Inadequate electrical systems. Not enough bathrooms. Inadequate heating and cooling. Inadequate parking. Inadequate storage. Etc., etc.
In addition you find high quality appliances and super efficient washing machines in place of the on-sale junk from Home Depot.
Again, you seem to be living on a different planet. The washing machines I see for sale in Home Depot are high-tech, computer-controlled models with many different varieties of wash cycle and various energy and water saving features. They also tend to be larger than European models. American homes also generally have a separate hot-air tumble dryer, which most Europeans lack. In general, the appliances in American homes seem to be significantly bigger than those in European ones.
The country has downsized homes in the past without becoming (or feeling) poorer. The big, rambling drafty, gingerbread-encrusted Victorian house went out of fashion -- there's no reason that the same thing may not happen to McMansions.
The average size of new American housing has been increasing since at least 1950. The average house size today is more than double the size in 1950, even as household size has declined substantially. A separate bedroom for each child, plus a guest bedroom or two, is now the middle-class norm in new housing developments, as are lots of bathrooms, a 2-car or larger garage, central heating and cooling, etc. And according to the Census Bureau, the rate of overcrowding in American housing declined by about 75% between 1940 and 2000 (not just in new housing, but in the housing stock as a whole). Those big, rambling Victorian houses seem to have been the exception, not how the typical American family lived.
Mixner,
As we move back into the caves, the overcrowding trend may well reverse, at least temporarily.
Megan: "But if we actually cut back on people's standards of living in order to conserve energy, their willingness to support other parts of the liberal platform, such as broader safety nets, will probably drop."
You, of all people, talking zero-sum? How about a little dynamic scoring here? (OK, I suppose I have to explain that: use less fuel, spend less on the military to secure that fuel supply. Several et ceteras.)
Thank you Rob Lyman: "Can somebody please adjust those numbers for annual weather variation? Most of the East Coast has quite cold winters and quite humid summers, requiring both heat and A/C."
The chart of energy consumption by city that's been making the rounds lately is simply useless. At best.
Mixner appears determined to assert we have reached the pinnacle of human habitation, and there is only one proper way for people to live: in a large, detached, single-family house in an auto-dependent, U.S. suburb built in the time period 1970-2005. Other housing types are inferior. We are delusional to think other ways of living are acceptable.
benschon,
Sufficient taxation or deprivation could perhaps lead to a stampede from the suburbs back to clusters of projects with subway stations; or even to company towns (eg., Marcus Hook, PA). However, I do not detect much enthusiasm for such a move yet.
Mixner appears determined to assert we have reached the pinnacle of human habitation,
Mixner has asserted no such thing. Mixner merely pointed out the undeniable trend in America of at least the past 50 years towards bigger and more luxurious housing. If you think you have evidence that that trend is likely to be reversed, and that Americans are willing to return to the kind of housing conditions that existed in the 1950s and earlier, let's see it.
I haven't read all of the comments so someone may have already talked about this. I live in Dallas, which has a very odd relationship with suburbia. Many people who work in the city proper drive nearly an hour or more to and from work. Yes, they live in large and generally more comfortable houses in the suburbs but Dallas itself has an anomaly with two joined towns exiting smack in the middle of the city. The Park Cities, as they are called, are generally for the upper-class since if the housing prices didn't dissuade you from moving there, the property taxes will. The houses in this area are not McMansions (except for the occasional tear-down, which does not endear you to your neighbors) but are only slightly larger than the typical house in Dallas.
The Park Cities stand as a kind of suburban experience held within the limits of urban standards of living. Few in the Park Cities feel as if they are slighted or held back by living where they do. Most actually think of their neighborhoods as superior to those of suburbia.
No one wants the Plano experience these days in Dallas. In fact, many who are moving into the city itself prefer the smaller, but more unique housing available. And, of course, we of the urban life laugh heartily at those who spend a couple of hundred a week on gas just because they didn't want to live in a smaller house. It's a matter of basic economics really--you get what you pay for. Those suburbanites who complain about energy and fuel prices are only suffering because they expected a standard of living beyond what they could afford in the long term. It's not that they should be forced into smaller houses but simply told that if you wish to live the way you do now then you have to pay up for it.
Michael W sez:
"I grew up in Germany and visit other parts of Europe frequently. I think you're confusing square footage with livability and high quality."
And you live where, now?
RGT
My wife and I are eagerly looking forward to a couple of years from now when the kids are both out of the house (I hope!) and we can downsize into a place that requires a lot less maintenance both inside and outside. - kenB
I was just going to mention something about this. My parents tremendously enjoyed cashing in our big childhood home for a hip urban loft when the kids left for college. I wonder if we could encourage that kind of size-down status-up trade for those it appeals to, without penalizing families who love their big living rooms and separate bedrooms for each kid.
Jordan Lawrence: Yeah, New York City is like that too. Definitely the most prestigious way to live is in an Upper East Side brownstone. These aren't mansions, running about 2500 square feet, with a yard 30 feet by 20 feet. My daughter and her classmates would cut you dead if they heard you lived on an acre in Katonah, but a brownstone, no one makes fun of. They start at about $5 million these days.
There's a humorous poem by Oliver Wendell Holmes called "Contentment," where he says that all he wants is "a hut of stone . . . a very plain brown stone." So New York hasn't changed that much.
Expensive brownstones for rich New Yorkers and urban lofts for hip-wannabe empty nesters are niche products serving small markets and don't really tell us anything meaningful about trends in American housing as a whole.
I resent your calling my parents wannabes. (I'm always amused by the way faux-populist politics always involves calling intellectuals "pseudo-intellectuals", hipsters "wannabe hipsters", and populists "faux populists".)
My profuse apologies, brooksie. I'm sure they're very hip. And also groovy, neato and keen.
I had this argument with a certain someone on one of Matt's threads. You can have large houses in walkable urban neighborhoods. You do that by building them upwards rather outwards (and by sticking the damn garage in back not in front; few features of modern house design are uglier than a garage like a gaping maw dominating the facade of a house!). My grandparents 80 years ago raised six kids in a three storey house, five bedroom house in Toledo. They were middle class by the way, definitely not wealthy. I lived in a somewhat similar house from that era in Akron Ohio-- it was a bit run down, but was quite grand in some ways. Even my childhood suburban tri-level house (vintage 1960) had four bedrooms, two bathrooms and enough room in the back yard for a pool and a garden, and numerous amenities within walking/biking distance.
I wonder if environmentalism and liberalism aren't politically at war with each other.
Going back to David Brooks's Bobos in America, this is a terrific Bobo wedge issue. On the one hand the bourgeois Bos want their sprawling lifestyle but on the other hand the bohemian Bos want to satisfy their austere impulse. But what if they coexist in the same person?
M&M says:
"But if we actually cut back on people's standards of living in order to conserve energy"
What a silly statement. And a false assumption. We in the USofA can fairly painlessly conserve beaucoup energy and simultaneously improve our standards of living. There is still a lot of low hanging fruit.
Unless ones idea of an adequate standard of living requires a 4000 sq. foot crap-constructed tract house on an acre lot in the burbs with a three car garage full of Hummers/Suburbans/F250s and a two hour daily commute. Then of course some of the "corrections" coming our way may prove to be quite jarring for some.
What a silly statement. And a false assumption. We in the USofA can fairly painlessly conserve beaucoup energy and simultaneously improve our standards of living. There is still a lot of low hanging fruit.
Well, don't keep us in suspense. What are these "fairly painless" methods to conserve "beaucoup energy and simultaneously improve our standards of living?"
I read an article in the Economist (I think).
The author argues that the primary reason there has been a surge in wealthier citizens leaving England lies in the opportunity to move to country's with more land (similar to American northerners moving to the south).
In an interesting way, I wonder if environmentalism and liberalism aren't politically at war with each other.
Thankfully, pseudo-libertarianism and Republicanism are not, even remotely, at war with each other.
(She said, half an hour after wondering where she was going to put all those books).
Oh, look, Megan's trying to tell us how intellectual she is. Megan, you're a-dor-able.
Going back to David Brooks's Bobos in America,
You lost me. David Brooks is an Elitist Poopy-head.
Megan, you're a-dor-able.
Get with the program. Proper catcalling at our gracious hostess involves strikingly original observations of the length of her lower appendages.
Mixner, it may be that our preferences in lifestyle will change in the future.
And anyone who thinks a 4000 sq-ft McMansion is the pinnacle of desire hasn't had to do much housecleaning. It's a pain in the neck. What cheap energy has allowed Americans to do for the last 50 years is play pretend Victorian estate owner, with the army of servants replaced by a horde of mechanical things like vacuum cleaners and microwave ovens.
When energy gets expensive, the downside of owning a large house in the suburbs requiring tons of energy to heat and cool and tons of gas for the commute will become quite obvious.
Mixner, it may be that our preferences in lifestyle will change in the future.
It seems unlikely that Americans will want to return to the housing conditions that prevailed in the mid-20th century or earlier. It seems unlikely that Americans will want to give up the convenience, comfort and flexibility of private motor vehicles for the hassles of relying on mass transit.
And anyone who thinks a 4000 sq-ft McMansion is the pinnacle of desire hasn't had to do much housecleaning. It's a pain in the neck.
Yeah, that must be why larger homes are so popular (though 4,000 sq ft is much larger than the average, and no one has suggested that larger houses are the "pinnacle of desire." Just more desirable for most Americans than smaller ones.)
What cheap energy has allowed Americans to do for the last 50 years is play pretend Victorian estate owner, with the army of servants replaced by a horde of mechanical things like vacuum cleaners and microwave ovens. When energy gets expensive, the downside of owning a large house in the suburbs requiring tons of energy to heat and cool and tons of gas for the commute will become quite obvious.
Do let us know when that happens. Advances in home energy efficiency and conservation, the rise of new motor vehicle technologies that greatly increase fuel efficiency (a 100 miles-per-gallon plug-in hybrid midsize car will probably be available within 5 or 10 years), the further movement of workplaces out of cities and into the suburbs, the growth of telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and other innovations that reduce the burden of physical commutes, and other such developments suggest that the downside you imagine may not in fact materialize.
It seems unlikely that Americans will want to give up the convenience, comfort and flexibility of private motor vehicles for the hassles of relying on mass transit.
Where on earth do you live, Mixner? The only place I've lived in the past 18 years where cars were the most convenient form of transit was West Africa, and that was only because 1. most other people are too poor to own cars, hence little traffic and 2. there are no decent mass transit options.
Mass transit will definitely not replace cars in upstate New York, etc. In every major urban area in the US -- that is, in the places where most Americans live -- mass transit is going to start replacing cars. The reasons have as much to do with 2-hour commutes by car as with skyrocketing gas prices.
Admittedly, in Hanoi motorbikes are the most convenient form of transit, which isn't exactly low-carbon-footprint.
I find the discussion/comparison between US and European housing interesting, but missing some important points: in the US, people are having children at a much higher rate than in Europe. That very likely has a strong direct correlation with the desire to own larger houses in the suburban areas (which also tend to have better schools) and sacrifice on the personal/adult amenities involved with living in a more urban area. This likely also explains why you see empty nesters considering moves back to areas which appeal to adults without children.
Didn't see anyone refer to our prior experience in "downsizing"--cars. In the 60's big Detroit iron was the thing, by the mid 80's we'd all downsized to Tauruses or foreign cars. I think what happens is that people's attention focuses on different things--in 1978 I trade in my old Chevy for a new Honda because it's cheaper to run and has more amenities, I don't focus on size, except size of gas bill. So it's not that hard to rationalize the swap as a step up, not down. Most importantly, it's showing brains/common sense. The social signals are still there (witness the popularity of Priuses in LA-LA land).
Actual retrograde movement into a smaller house with less yard, or a tiny car, feels wrenching
Well, this is rather dependent on one's stage of life. My wife and I are eagerly looking forward to a couple of years from now when the kids are both out of the house (I hope!) and we can downsize into a place that requires a lot less maintenance both inside and outside. Not to mention ditching the minivan in favor of a Corolla or some such thing.
My parents did that when my youngest sibling left home. However, there are some minor points. Firstly, they moved into a three-bedroom flat so in terms of internal space in their flat they probably have about as much to themselves as when us kids were all at home. (Our bedrooms were our rooms of course, and then there was the rumpus room which was basically our room). Secondly, neither of them are interested in gardening.
Also, by moving they freed up time in terms of getting to and fro from work, and being closer to the things they care about - theatre and yoga classes. If their day-to-day activities were, like some of their friends, building model train sets, gardening, and quilt-making, then moving into a small home would be more of a wrench.
I've lived in small apartments most of my adult life, and if I want to do some sewing, or some painting, it's a hassle. You can do stuff on the kitchen table or in the living room, but when you want to eat or have friends round it has to be all tidied away. Which is tiresome enough with sewing projects, but can be difficult to do at all if something needs drying time. I would like a spare room. Of course, I also like living close to the city center, so I'm contented making the trade-off. But if I didn't enjoy city living in its own right, and if I did want to sew and paint, I think I would be unhappy about living in a small apartment.
Of course people can be perfectly happy downsizing. But I think only if their hobbies and interests fit onto the smaller scale.
Two words.... population density!
Why assume that smaller house/smaller car is a step backwards? Preferences are heterogenous and always-changing. These choices respond to culture, fashion, and most importantly, prices. Tell car commuters you walk or bike to work, and see how they envy you. That can be an improvement in standard of living, not a reduction.
However, I don't know any culture or fashion where smaller houses are regarded as a good thing in themselves. A two-bedroom flat in central Paris may be more fashionable than a five bedroom house somewhere on the outskirts. But a three-bedroom flat in central Paris is more fashionable and preferrable to the two-bedroom flat - or at least I've never seen a three-bedroom flat going cheaper than a two-bedroom flat when the two places were otherwise comparable. (A 2-bedroom flat with a spectacular view may go for more than a 3-bedroom flat with a lovely view of a concrete wall). Around the world the ultra-rich have built mansions. I've seen the outside of the residences of the Queen of England, the King of Thailand, and the King of Tonga, all were large by local standards.
People will choose smaller places over larger places only if gets them something else they want.
And cars vs biking or walking - depends on how far you're biking/walking and through what weather conditions.
"Four years or forty pounds is the typical rule for car seats, and depending where a child falls on the growth curve and how quickly a family starts, it is quite possible to have three children in car seats (the oldest might be tall enough for a booster-type car seat)"
Unless you happen to live in California where the rule is 6 years or 60 lbs. Last year the legislature was considering a bill that would have made it 8/80. Which means in another year I'll have to trade my Toyota Camry for something larger with the addition of a third child. This seems at odds with Californian's environmental desires and attempts to decrease childhood obesity :)
brooksfoe,
Mass transit will definitely not replace cars in upstate New York, etc. In every major urban area in the US -- that is, in the places where most Americans live -- mass transit is going to start replacing cars.
Another absurd assertion. The market share of mass transit in America has been declining for decades. The idea that it will replace cars is just preposterous. Mass transit will certainly continue to serve significant markets (the poor, the disabled, certain kinds of commute, subways in a few major cities, etc.) for the foreseeable future, but for the vast majority of trips for the vast majority of travellers, private motor vehicles are a far more attractive method of transportation than buses and trains.
The reasons have as much to do with 2-hour commutes by car as with skyrocketing gas prices.
Er, commuting times have declined in recent years, and for most commutes in America cars are faster than mass transit, often much faster. Have you ever tried to get around any of the sprawling, booming cities and suburbs of the south and west by bus or train? As I said elsewhere, the burden of commuting is likely to decline in the future as workplaces continue to move out of cities into suburbs, and as the rise of communication technologies makes physical presence at a workplace less important. Most large American employers already offer many of their workers options like telecommuting and flexible work schedules that reduce the amount of travel required between home and office. I don't know how long you've been away from the United States, or if you have ever even lived here, but once again I am struck by what a weird, distotred view you have of life in this country.
In the abstract, most people prefer larger spaces, larger vehicles, and short commutes. But in reality, people make trade-offs with regard to price and personal preferences. I would love a half-acre lot close to a downtown with a zero-emissions Hummer to shuttle me to work. Since that doesn't exist, I sacrifice one thing for another, forgoing an extra bedroom for a shorter commute, for instance.
As for telecommuting and the "death of distance", it's not happening. If your job almost never requires face to face contact with co-workers or clients, you are at serious risk of being outsourced to India. Even bloggers and tech workers have to rub shoulders on a regular basis to add value. That means travel.
Mixner, I don't deny there it is very attractive for certain market segments to live the big-house, big-yard, 3 car garage lifestyle in the 'burbs. But I'm puzzled at your insistence that this narrow product type will forever be exclusive or dominant. Consumers are more heterogenous and flexible than that.
U.S. demographics are shifting to smaller households, more single-person households, more old people, etc. Energy costs are high and rising. The Road congestion is bad everywhere. Why wouldn't these factors affect people's decisions about how and where to live?
In the abstract, most people prefer larger spaces, larger vehicles, and short commutes. But in reality, people make trade-offs with regard to price and personal preferences. I would love a half-acre lot close to a downtown with a zero-emissions Hummer to shuttle me to work. Since that doesn't exist, I sacrifice one thing for another, forgoing an extra bedroom for a shorter commute, for instance.
As I said, the average size of new housing in the United States has been increasing for at least 50 years. A new house today is more than twice as large on average as a new house built in 1950. So whatever incentives may exist for Americans to trade housing space for some other benefit, they haven't been strong enough to counter the desire for bigger houses.
As for telecommuting and the "death of distance", it's not happening.
On the contrary, it is most definitely happening. Telecommuting and other forms of remote working are increasing dramatically. The growth in the use of cell phones, portable computers, the internet and wireless communication networks, and the shift in the nature of work from manual labor to intellectual labor all reduce the need for the physical presence of workers at a common workplace. Obviously, there will continue to be many types of job in which workers do need to be physically present at a particular place, but the overall trend is towards a more distributed workforce.
Mixner, I don't deny there it is very attractive for certain market segments to live the big-house, big-yard, 3 car garage lifestyle in the 'burbs. But I'm puzzled at your insistence that this narrow product type will forever be exclusive or dominant.
I'm puzzled that you think I said (sorry, "insisted") that it's "exclusive" even now, let alone "forever." The undeniable trend in the United States for the last several decades has been towards bigger housing, suburbanization, and the relative decline of old-style cities as population and employment centers. This trend may slow or even stop in the future, but I see no serious evidence that it is likely to be reversed. The future is the booming, sprawling car-oriented cities of the south and west, not the declining, decaying, more transit-oriented cities of the northeast.
U.S. demographics are shifting to smaller households, more single-person households, more old people, etc.
Yes, and at the same time that household sizes have been shrinking, house sizes have been getting bigger, indicating that people really, really like to have lots of living space.
Energy costs are high and rising. The Road congestion is bad everywhere. Why wouldn't these factors affect people's decisions about how and where to live?
I'm sure they do, to some extent. But so do lots of other factors. Rising energy costs can be countered by increasing energy efficiency and conservation rather than downsizing housing space. Congestion can be countered by building more roads, or telecommuting, or using new technologies like GPS navigation and traffic monitoring systems to make more efficient use of roads and highways. Again, there's no indication that Americans are likely to return to the kind of housing and working conditions that prevailed 30 or more years ago. They like their big homes. They like their cars. They don't like mass transit.
Telecommuting is not replacing travel. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary, that as telecommunications increases, so does the desire for travel (and therefore oil consumption).
A transportation researcher at UC Davis has written rigorously and well on this issue. Google "Patricia L. Mokhtarian" for more info.
Mixner wins this argument pretty convincingly. The trends support every argument he has made, and no one has offered even one partially convincing piece of evidence that these trends are changing in significant ways.
One thing that is quite common in the booming suburbs/exurbs of the south and southwest is that the employers move out with the people (I see this whenever I visit my parents in eastern Tennessee). Sure, a lot of people still commute back into the central cities, but for many in these new communities, the employers are close by. This is a trend that should be encouraged through better zoning in the northeast and midwest (fyi, I live in western Connecticut that does a poor job at such things).
If commuting becomes too expensive, then you won't see migration back into central cities, but, over time, people changing their jobs to ones even closer by.
Google "Patricia L. Mokhtarian" for more info.
I just did, and immediately found a paper by her titled Does Telecommuting Reduce Vehicle-miles Traveled? An Aggregate Time Series Analysis for the U.S.. The abstract states:
Of course, I haven't argued that telecommuting reduces total travel, anyway. Just physical commuting. Telecommuting may stimulate more travel for recreation or other non-work purposes, but that obviously doesn't mean it's not an effective alternative to denser housing or mass transit as a solution to the problem of long phsyical commutes.
OK, I give up. Maybe you're right. I hope not, and I doubt it.
A lot of existing housing is the result of consumer preferences shaped by a thin slice of late 20th century circumstances. These include cheap energy, cheap land, public policy incentives like subsidized freeways and home mortgages, and two-parent-with-multiple-kids family structures. Those things are falling away, so I expect consumer preferences to change, and housing to change with them.
Mixner believes that the U.S. housing is driven by an innate desire for big houses and private automobiles. And that people will fight to maintain this lifestyle, rather than change to accommodate the pressures now facing it. Perhaps.
A mouse, I thought you were using 4/40 air conditioning. 4 windows and 40 mile per hour.
I stand by my earlier observations. Most Americans still confuse size with quality. The size of a washing machine has little bearing on its ability to get clothes clean. Obviously some of the commenters have never heard of Bosch...? Miele....? And yes they make cheaper versions common in Europe and unknown here. As for square footage...having a McMansion adds value to life how? I suppose if you place a very low value on social interaction then having your very own movie theater might be nice, but I quite like my social interaction thank you and would rather spend that $75k on a nice bunch of vacations.
Yes Sam, children included (one).
Where on earth do you live, Mixner? The only place I've lived in the past 18 years where cars were the most convenient form of transit was West Africa, and that was only because 1. most other people are too poor to own cars, hence little traffic and 2. there are no decent mass transit options.
I don't know where Mixner lives, but come to Colorado some time, where the sun is deceptively dominant as you can sometimes experience the present and two adjacent seasons in as little as one day. If you're lucky, you might rarely get to experience all four. Take the bus, you say? If your commmute is anywhere off the interstate highways, that can take up to three times as long as driving your car. The lightrail is somewhat faster but only if it travels where you do.
Consequent of the above, the state just got through spending $10B to widen I-25 from 2 lanes each direction to three minimum, and sometimes up to six in areas of heavy merging/exiting, from central Denver to the southernmost end. I-25 is presently in the final stages of being widened to three lanes each way through both Castle Rock and Colorado Springs to alleviate congestion there. Springs has the same public bus service as Denever (but no light rail), with the same time lapse problems along city street routes.
Since "I have twice as long to read a book" is not the universal definition of convenience, a car remains the most effective means of transportation in terms of both transit time and time scheduling throughout most of the entire state of Colorado. You may have seen the world, but have you ever seen the United States?
The size of a washing machine has little bearing on its ability to get clothes clean.
You're omitting the other two variables, how many and what kind of clothes one needs to get clean. A dozen denim jeans will quickly tear up a motor and transmission in a small washing machine.
I stand by my earlier observations. Most Americans still confuse size with quality. The size of a washing machine has little bearing on its ability to get clothes clean.
Perhaps not, but it probably does influence how often you have to use it, which affects its lifespan and how much time and effort you have to invest to do your laundry. European mommy probably has to do twice as many loads as American mommy to keep her family in clean clothes. And American mommy probably has a tumble dryer too, whereas European mommy is more likely to have to hang her family's bed sheets and unmentionables out on a line to dry in the back yard or balcony or bathroom.
In terms of product quality independent of size (durability, reliability, functionality, etc.) I seriously doubt that European washing machines are superior to American ones, but perhaps you have some data showing otherwise???
Obviously some of the commenters have never heard of Bosch...? Miele....? And yes they make cheaper versions common in Europe and unknown here. As for square footage...having a McMansion adds value to life how?
I think it's pretty self-evident to most people that more living space is generally preferable to less. Obviously, above a certain point the costs of a bigger house will outweigh the benefits. But if it were as affordable to them as it is to Americans, I bet most European families would prefer a 2,500 sq ft house to a 1,000 sq ft one.
benschon,
A lot of existing housing is the result of consumer preferences shaped by a thin slice of late 20th century circumstances. These include cheap energy, cheap land, public policy incentives like subsidized freeways and home mortgages, and two-parent-with-multiple-kids family structures. Those things are falling away, so I expect consumer preferences to change, and housing to change with them.
I see no evidence that "subsidized freeways" and home mortgages are "falling away." We build more tax-funded roads and highways every year, and the rate of homeownership is at or close to an all-time high. A mass exodus of homeowners to smaller rental properties doesn't seem terribly likely. In fact, housing is becoming more affordable again as the market corrects itself from the recent price bubble.
Average household size has been falling for decades, and land and energy have been getting more expensive, yet average house size has increased. So our actual experience conflicts with your prediction. I don't expect house sizes to increase indefinitely, but they're not going to return to 1950s-era sizes either. Our response to higher energy prices has not been to downsize our housing or switch from cars to public transport, but to invest in energy efficiency, conservation and new technologies. Here's an example: Last year I replaced the heat pump in one of my properties. The new unit is 30% more efficient than my old one. As a result, my electric bills for that house have declined, even though my power company has raised its rates. It'll be many years before I recoup the purchase and installation costs of the new unit, but eventually it will pay for itself. Millions of other Americans are realizing similar gains through energy efficiency improvements to their homes.
Re: A dozen denim jeans will quickly tear up a motor and transmission in a small washing machine.
Good grief, how often do you do laundry? I don't even own 12 pairs of jeans-- in fact I don't own 12 pairs of pants of any types, unless I include shorts. Generally I do my laundry once a week, 2, maybe 3 loads.
Re: A mass exodus of homeowners to smaller rental properties doesn't seem terribly likely.
Anecdotal, but we just relocated our office team to Baltimore. Everyone has to find permanent housing this month (we're all being put up in an apartment building next to the office for now). With the sole exception of the department head, who makes beaucoup bucks (deservedly I will add), every one of us wants a place somewhere in town not too far to work. And anecdote #2: my sister is starting to look for a place closer to her work, in order to avoid the daily 50 mile round trip commute. I think you are underestimating the drain which today's gas prices are having on people's finances. If gas prices retreat (a lot) this passion for moving close to work may fade, as a lot of the energy crisis fads of the 70s faded, but if not then I really do think you will find a lot of people willing to make trade offs in living circumstances to avoid huge gasoline bills.
I think you are underestimating the drain which today's gas prices are having on people's finances.
And I think you're overreacting to a short-term change. Already, oil prices are down by 10% from their peak last month. Maybe they'll go down further, maybe not. The situation is volatile and the future trend in oil and gasoline prices is unknown.
If gas prices retreat (a lot) this passion for moving close to work may fade, as a lot of the energy crisis fads of the 70s faded, but if not then I really do think you will find a lot of people willing to make trade offs in living circumstances to avoid huge gasoline bills.
"Moving closer to work," especially if it involves buying and selling a property, moving kids to a new school, moving further from family and friends, or other serious disruptions to established living circumstances, seems a much less likely response to higher gasoline prices than less disruptive alternatives like switching to a more fuel-efficient car, using mass transit to commute (at least temporarily), or reducing the number of commutes (via methods like telecommuting, compressed work weeks, etc.).
In fact, I'd say the most likely, most common response to a sustained period of high gas prices would be a switch to a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Recent sales figures indicate this is happening already. The vast majority of people are probably far more willing to change their car than to move to a new home. There are already plenty of fuel-efficient vehicles on the market, and plenty more will become available over the next few years, including plug-in hybrids and vehicles incorporating other new technologies that will effectively cut fuel costs by half or more compared to similarly-sized vehicles with conventional gasoline engines.
As for square footage...having a McMansion adds value to life how?
Spare bedrooms to put up the family when they come over for Christmas. Space for the kids to be watching TV while the adults can be in another part of the house listening to jazz cds. Room to construct the elaborately-detailed model train set. Being able to impress your old schoolmates with how much money you've made.
Throughout the world, rich people have frequently built massive homes for themselves. Your average McMansion is dwarfed by your average European palace. I've seen the ruins of Roman villas - big houses. And big houses built in medieval times in Florence. I've seen the Malay equivalent of McMansions built by the rich Chinese in Georgetown in the 19th century, and many drawings of beautiful large houses in China, Japan and India pre-European contact. There's the odd case of a person with loads of cash deciding to live simply in a small house, but I suspect that happens as frequently in America as anywhere else in the world and in history. There's nothing new or particularly American about the desire for big houses.
Re: There's nothing new or particularly American about the desire for big houses.
Agreed. IMO, a house should "ideally" have one bedroom per person (with a married couple counting as one person) plus one extra for guests, a bathroom (not necessarily a full bath) for each finished floor, a separate family room if there are children and a computer room/library/office. But a house need not be huge to achieve that. Again, one can build up, not out.
Sure, I would like to have my cake and eat it, too. A 3,000 square foot house, a Ford Excursion, free-flowing traffic, and cheap energy that doesn't emit carbon. Sign me up! Whether the desire for these goods is innate or the product of culture, they all have costs: high heating and cooling bills, $75 fill ups for the car, hour-long commutes, climate impacts, time and money to clean those extra rooms and mow the lawn, etc. Because these costs are going up, and consumers are eminently flexible, preferences will change. Why would housing preferences be static, and immune to changing economic pressures?
The only way that the housing trends of the last 30 years or so will continue for the next 30 is if you anticipate a lot of things that do not seem very likely.
1. The rise in energy prices is only temporary,
2. Techno-fixes (heat pumps, bio-fuels, telework) will allow us to maintain current consumption levels,
3. Demographic shifts will not reveal themselves in the housing market, and
4. The feds will build new highways to accommodate another 20 million drivers.
A lot of people think the housing market is headed for some big changes, including a writer for our benefactor, and an academic expert at Virginia Tech, who thinks that "the market demand for new homes through 2025 may be almost exclusively for attached and small-lot units."
I guess we'll find out.
Re: Moving closer to work," especially if it involves buying and selling a property, moving kids to a new school, moving further from family and friends, or other serious disruptions to established living circumstances, seems a much less likely response to higher gasoline prices than less disruptive alternatives like switching to a more fuel-efficient car, using mass transit to commute (at least temporarily), or reducing the number of commutes (via methods like telecommuting, compressed work weeks, etc.).
Not everyone has kids to worry about. In fact nowadays a lot of people don't (the children are either grown or else they aren't there at all). I mentioned our office team. No one in the group has children, including our department head (she is married, as is one other co-owrker, and I'm partnered; The rest are single). My sister is also childless, but she does have a retired mother living with her. In fact, they live in Ma's house-- which is paid for, and as such is more easily sellable than if not. I agree that children make moving harder, but there's an awful lot of childless people who are free to move, and don't have to worry about things like schools. And I also agree that gas prices may not stay as high as they are now-- in fact I've argued that rather firmly elsewhere in these parts. But I would also be vastly surprised if they fell back to the levels they were at ten years ago. $2.50/gal is probably the best we can hope for when the current bubble bursts, and that assumes we quit acting the bull in the Middle East china shop and other happy thinsg come to pass.
Re: In fact, I'd say the most likely, most common response to a sustained period of high gas prices would be a switch to a more fuel-efficient vehicle.
Yep, I agree there too. However there is one advantage in moving close to work: you gain time back for your life. Commuting long distance in congested traffic sucks. A lot of people I know are thoroughly sick of it for that reason alone. For some people at keast (and I am one of them) time is ultimately more valuable than money. Money at least is fungible. Time is a one-way street.