Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Living the American Dream ... in a One-Bedroom Apartment

By Andrew Lam, New America Media. Posted February 7, 2007.


The middle class is clinging to its precious status by contending with far smaller living spaces than those of previous generations.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Andrew Lam

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In my apartment building people of various income levels are stacked on top of each other. The architect and the teacher occupy one-bedroom apartments on the floor above me. They are considered middle-class and, for that matter, so am I. An affluent, well-traveled couple lives in a two-bedroom apartment on the top floor. A poor Chinese immigrant family of five is crammed into the converted storage room where half a dozen bicycles were once kept, their children often turning the foyer into a makeshift playground strewn with plastic toys.

This is typical of the way we live in urban areas around the world: People of various classes live right next to, if not on top of, one another. We share the same address, practically, but occupy a very different sense of space. And just like those in the middle of my building, the middle class everywhere is feeling the pinch.

For the first time in human history there are more people living in urban areas than rural, and cities have grown like amoeba into megacities -- so crowded that they have become virtual countries with complex ecosystems unto themselves. Tokyo leads the pack with 31 million residents. Seoul has 23 million, followed by New York and Bombay.

Living space, unless one belongs to that tiny percentage called the upper class, is shrinking as the human population continues to grow. While the rural poor leave open sky and rolling plains to flock to the edge of the metropolis -- they crowd into ramshackle slums in the third world, or one-room units in the first -- the middle class is clinging to its precious status by contending with far smaller living spaces than those of previous generations.

I remember when a middle-class family could own a Victorian home in San Francisco. Now such a home would be divided into three or four units, each remodeled and sold to an upper middle-class couple.

Case in point: I went with some friends to look at a two-bedroom house the other day. It's a bungalow that was once the home of a working-class family in the 50s. Now, with skyrocketing prices and a prime location, it's out of reach for my friend, who is a single lawyer. The little house was going for a little over $1.3 million dollars. "My American dream," she said with a sigh, "has just been seriously downsized."

Of course, the further you go from the city, the more space you can afford. But there's a catch: if you want more space you'll likely have to exchange it for your time. The price tag for a front yard and back garden can be a four-hour commute every day.

Shrinking along with the American dream of home ownership is the size of the family. Fewer adults are having children. Once a rural necessity, having children in an urban setting is no longer as vital. In megacities like New York, Tokyo, Paris and Hong Kong, the birth rate is on a steep decline. After all, having a child could mean sliding from the middle class to the standard living of the poor, with a crib in the walk-in closet, a garden on the fire escape. Hong Kong, which has the highest human density in the world, also has one of the lowest birth rates: 0.93 per couple last year. A room of one's own may be all the space one has, if one is lucky.

Today a condo is what most in the middle class can hope for in places like San Francisco or New York. I suspect that in another generation or two, middle-class homes in American cities will look like those of Tokyo today -- which is to say, the size of a train compartment.

That Japanese minimalism has become the dominant style in the modern world is no fluke. Bigger was once said to be better, but what's chic and ultramodern today -- what fits -- is smaller and streamlined. The laptop takes no space at all, the iPod is the size of a credit card, the stereo system that once occupied a generous portion of a living room is now so flat and ridiculously thin that you can hardly see it behind the rhododendrons, and the TV that once took too much space on top of the sideboard now hangs on the wall like a mirror. "I used to dream of a house with a nice backyard," a friend of mine quipped, "but now I am just happy with a flat and a flat-screen TV." It's no surprise that Ikea, the global furniture store that takes maximization of living space seriously, is doing so splendidly.

Last night, two homeless men had a row near my apartment building. There's a little space between two columns in front of a boarded-up store that's protected from the wind, a much-coveted place to sleep. The man who regularly made a bed there found someone else in his digs. "This is my space!" he screamed at the crasher, and several well-dressed young people who walked by snickered.

To young people, "MySpace" as a phrase has a totally different connotation, evoking the virtual neighborhood where real estate is still plentiful and cheap. In 2050, nervous demographers tell us, there will be 9 billion of us. It is probably why so many of us now, feeling the onset of collective claustrophobia, spend an inordinate amount of our time logging in.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: american dream, living space, urban life

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The American Standard of Living
Posted by: gellero on Feb 7, 2007 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, the American standard of living has gone down. Why?? How about all the moochers and whiners who want 'free' medical care, 'free' Federal $$ for everything including their education. And don't forget deindustrialization due to liability tort and onerous environmental restrictions. Not many high paying logging jobs left in Oregon, are there. And gradual inflation to pay for it all.
In the 1920's an unskilled workingman at Ford's factories made $5.00 a day, or about a gold DoubleEagle (1oz.) a week, with NO withholding or income tax. That's about $700 today
But of course the 'progressives' on AlterNet like it this way. You reap what you sow. So enjoy your small space, public busses, and the subway. But don't worry, the nanny feds will take care of you, and you'll always be able to get reasonably priced designer clothes, shoes, and tools, tv's, etc. at WalMart, all made in China. And think about the great tips your women will get from their second job at Hooters........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The American Standard of Living Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: The American Standard of Living Posted by: boydranchitos
» Oh, I understand his point... Posted by: itzamirakul
» You forgot... Posted by: Iconoclast421
» LOL Posted by: gellero
» RE: LOL Posted by: aerdrie
Theres a really easy answer!
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 7, 2007 12:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont live in the large, overcrowdet cities(also known by many military strategics as "death traps")Live in the country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Theres a really easy answer! Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Theres a really easy answer! Posted by: lucindawick
» RE: Theres a really easy answer! Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: Theres a really easy answer! Posted by: Ian MacLeod
No surprise
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Feb 7, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If farmers were paid what they're worth, this wouldn't be so much of a problem.

Add in immigration and of course standards of living are going to drop. You're slicing up a pie of a fixed sized into smaller and smaller pieces as more arrive to claim their share.

"Shrinking along with the American dream of home ownership is the size of the family. Fewer adults are having children. Once a rural necessity, having children in an urban setting is no longer as vital. In megacities like New York, Tokyo, Paris and Hong Kong, the birth rate is on a steep decline. After all, having a child could mean sliding from the middle class to the standard living of the poor, with a crib in the walk-in closet, a garden on the fire escape. Hong Kong, which has the highest human density in the world, also has one of the lowest birth rates: 0.93 per couple last year. A room of one's own may be all the space one has, if one is lucky."

So, the problem will solve itself in many of the developed countries. Assuming they let the population decline so that the remaining people have more breathing space. More likely, they'll panic and import people instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No surprise Posted by: Temporary
» RE: No surprise Posted by: Logic's Edge
I'm not too worried
Posted by: chomsky on Feb 7, 2007 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering the rise in military extremism, global climate change, and the inevitable avian flu pandemic, I don't expect overpopulation to be a problem ten years from now. Once 2/3's of the human population is out of the way, their will be plenty of space for those who remain to continue struggling for survival.

So don't worry about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm not too worried Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I'm not too worried Posted by: deciduousfruit
Next Time do Some Research
Posted by: AndyF on Feb 7, 2007 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would have been nice if the author had done even a minimal amount of research for this article. The average house size in the US has almost doubled in the past generation. The average number of people living in a household has declined. Simple math shows that on average, people have more space per person in their house now than in the past. In other countries while many of the people who have moved from rural areas to urban areas have exchanged a small rural space for a small space in the city others have seen their standard of living grow and now live in a nicer space and larger space than their parents did.

The article would have been much more honest if it confined its discussion to expensive US urban areas and said that housing in a big city is expensive and that nice cheap housing is getting harder to find. One sentence summary for article. Me and my friends can't afford the house we'd like to buy in San Francisco.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Next Time do Some Research Posted by: fooltheworld
» RE: Next Time do Some Research Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Next Time do Some Research Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: Next Time do Some Research Posted by: kuro_neko
» RE: Next Time do Some Research Posted by: deciduousfruit
» RE: Next Time do Some Research Posted by: VannaLaRoche
West Coast blues
Posted by: PJT on Feb 7, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author appears to be clinging to California. Well, if he wants to dance, he's going to have to pay the piper. I moved to New Castle, Pennsylvania, a blighted small city northwest of Pittsburgh. There I found a 3,500 sq. ft. 1926 brick neo-colonial for $139K. This house would cost a million in the Princeton area where I used to live. The point is, there are lots of nice places to live if you don't go to the big city. If you can't stand the idea of being out of sight of a Starbucks, then you should have to pay what it costs for the privilege. Houses cost what people will pay. I would suggest to the writer that he either ditch his idea of trying to make a living writing for left wing web screeds and get a real job, suck it up and get used to living like a rat in a hole, or explore the many nice communities in between Harrisburg and Garden Grove where excellent, affordable housing is going begging. Best wishes, peace and Shalom- PJT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: West Coast blues Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: West Coast blues Posted by: NoPCZone
» You smoked his scribbles! Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: West Coast blues Posted by: DaBear
» sigh.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: West Coast blues Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: West Coast blues Posted by: in ohio
are ghosts occupying mcmansions and large townhouses?
Posted by: edith on Feb 7, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
beyond the circular beltways that surround most american cities, you will find suburbs that have substantially grown in the past 10-20 years. Major retailers, cinemas and restaurants are found in these suburbs, along with recreational opportunities that exceed what all but the rich could afford in downtown areas.

throughout these suburbs and in the outlying areas that stretch beyond them, the "exurbs:, you will see relatively new or under construction townhouses with large rooms, that consist of 3-4 bedrooms. Moreover thousands of large homes in excess of 3,000 sq. ft continue to be built on lots less than a half acre. Some call these looming homes "McMansions."

There are only so many "rich" people. Wisely or not, professionals and two worker families are living in spaces far larger than the space occupied by their parents. Come a recession, many of the mortgages that secure these large homes may foreclose, causing not only a housing crisis but a financial crisis that could take us all down.

However the connotation of this article that the New America is one where folks must be squuezed into one bedroom apts. sounds suspicially like almost anything uttered by sheltered neighborhoods like the West Side of New York or the Back Bay of Boston.

That is, the world worth knowing is bound by the Atlantic on one side and the Hudson River on the other. Even that stereotype is demolished by anyone who reads the real estate pages in the Boston and NYC areas and drives around the suburban counties of those cities. Concentrate more population in cities to revive them and foster racial and economic integration? Sure. But in the meantime the vast majority of Americans are clustered in relatively spacious residences that are 5-40 miles from downtown urban centers.

The world is not designed according to Woody Allen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ZOMG, GHOSTS! Posted by: Iconoclast421
how about considering
Posted by: xenacat on Feb 7, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the world is seriously overpopulated and that it might be a good idea to challenge the "abstinance only" BS - since it obviously doesn't work. It is also not good to continue our cultural love affair with the idea that everyone has to have kids. Overpopulation is the one thing that seems to be taboo as a subject - many, many of our serious environmental problems can be directly attributed to trying to sustain a large population the earth was never designed to handle. Getting decent housing in dense urban areas is becoming more and more difficult - moving to the 'burbs has its own enormous costs financially, in terms of the commute and the pollution the vehicles emit. Merely name calling the author or suggesting utilizing "choices" most folks don't have access to doesn't address the real problem of too few resources for too many humans. And no, I don't believe that God will provide...religious wing nuts and their quiverfuls screaming not withstanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how about considering Posted by: DaBear
Oh, I understand his point...
Posted by: itzamirakul on Feb 7, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The op is merely saying "that our problem is that we didn't get rich!"

Perhaps many of us progressives need to learn the way to steal, lie and cheat our way into enormous prosperity...without being caught.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rich?? Posted by: gellero
» RE: ich?? Posted by: richholland
On Long Island
Posted by: JSquercia on Feb 7, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can only speak about housing on Long Island and here it is difficult for young couples to purchase a home . First of all it almost invariably requires two wage earners : even at that a far larger percentage of their incomes goes toward housing than previously .
I was fortunate that I was able to buy my house in 1966 for 22,500 at the time I was making 8 to 10K depending on overtime . So the house cost between two and three times my income . Today they tell me my house in worth 500,000 . I am retired but I would be lucky to be making 100,000 were I still working . So the house is now 5 times what I would be earning .
We are losing our children to other locals because they can't afford to buy homes here on the Island . When I was first married we lived in an apartment and were able to pay the rent and save towards a down payment . Today apartments are so expensive that saving is almost impossible and of course there is no tax deduction for rent unlike owning your own home .
I don't know if I have an answer for this problem but I think the kind of numbers I just quoted show that there IS a problem .
a problem .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» intriguing Posted by: Iconoclast421
» STANDARD OF LIVING Posted by: gellero
A PLACE TO KEEP OUR STUFF (Thank you George Carlin)
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 7, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life has changed in the last 50 yrs. Needs and wants are different. Conveniences have taken on a life of their own and take up alot of space. Huge TV sets, entertainment centers,bathrooms like they had in Rome, personal belongings, mini vans, SUV's.Kids don't spend as much time outdoors. So more space in needed indoors. I do agree that regardless of the lifestyle, everything is much more expensive.Incomes have not kept pace. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cp1969
Posted by: cp1969 on Feb 7, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gellero,

I know it's frustrating thinking about the economic status of the U.S. when we're bombarded on every side by the belief that welfare recipients and social programs are tearing us down economically, but historically it just doesn't add up. I understand where you're coming from and there's a million politically-driven sound bites and "factoids" floating around out there that point us to believe exactly what you've expressed, yet logic will dictate that economic and social flucctuations are never that simple. Instead of trying to convince you to think about these issues in a broader context myself, I'll rely on a source you can utilize on your own which is always preferable. Pick up a copy of Stephanie Coontz's _The Way We Really Are_. In it she traces the history of the development of American family structure and the economic influences that have such a large hand in shaping that structure. I think you'll find it a fascinating read. Gotta get back to work; take care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nature abhors imbalance.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 7, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, in 2050 there will be even less space in those most coveted of living spaces, coastal cities (as well as seawater or salt inundated coastal farmland), thanks to global warming. However, because of some of the OTHER consequences of global warming (say: weather chaos), like reduced food production, difficulty of transportation and the spread of tropical diseases to temperate regions, whose populations have little endemic immunity, there might NOT be 9 billion people – or even the population we have now. Nature will always seek a balance, and we are increasingly the debit on Nature's balance sheet.

(By the way – I wonder how many apartments could be carved out of the obscene "McMansions" that are springing up like toadstools in Southern California's cities?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» McPartments Posted by: edith
» RE: McPartments Posted by: DaBear
» Bear Up Posted by: edith
» laundry blowing in the wind! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
credibility
Posted by: EDZNTZ on Feb 7, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Shrinking along with the American dream of home ownership... " Bye-Bye credibility. Nice try though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is...
Posted by: vangogh69 on Feb 7, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...a simplification of a complex problem. While yes, if you wish you live in a megalopolis (such as NYC) then you will not have a lot of space to live unless you can afford it. Unfortunately, affluent people drive up the cost of living for everyone, gradually squeezing low-income people out of areas they could afford 40 years ago. Additionally, investors see little interest in constructing/renovating buildings for working-class/low income people (hence this condo craze which seems endless), hence all of this construction on "condos" (which were "apartments" in the ancient days of Clinton) which offer lots of room which only the upper-middle class can afford, another thing squeezing folks out.

Another factor to consider is the fact that the price of everything in the US has gone up over the past 50 years while real wages have remained stagnant and declined in some sectors. Should another major depression hit, I fear the housing market may find itself in a serious problem (this is already being predicted in fact).

One last thought: if Congress really wanted to show it was on the side of the people, how about putting a law out there restricting the amount landlords can charge tenants for units??? Just sayin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Rent is too damn high!" Posted by: Russ Wellen
e~
Posted by: eridanis on Feb 7, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
small is the new living spaces/arrangement? maybe in super-urban cities.

but i live in cincinnati, ohio. my house has roughly 3600 square feet, 5 or 6 bedrooms, 3 full baths, and a pool. for $250k. which is somewhat expensive compared to the rest of the neighborhood. and it's not a mcmansion; built in 1960, it first housed a catholic family needing lots of space.

before making generalizations, check your paradigms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: e~ Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: e~ Posted by: ezilla
» and in the burbs of san francisco Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Bush's War Budget
Posted by: rwa on Feb 7, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush sent a $2.9 trillion spending plan to a Democratic-controlled Congress on Monday, proposing a huge and continuing increase in military spending. While the budget includes billions more to fight the war in Iraq, the rest of government would be squeezed to meet Bush's goal of eliminating the deficit in five years.

"The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota.

As Bill Bonner writes in the Daily Reckoning: "For one year, the budget includes $624.6 billion dollars for defense. To help put that in perspective, here’s an interesting tidbit: the defense budget is more than the entire budgets for the Department of Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, HUD, Interior, EPA, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Transportation, Labor, NASA, Engineers, Judiciary, and VETS. COMBINED."

During the first term of his presidency, in a period of less than 24 months, the Bush administration accrued more national debt than any other administration during the first 200 years of American independence…combined. Since his inauguration, President Bush has presided over the accumulation of over $3 trillion in debt, an increase of well over 60% in just 5 years. The US national debt is now (as of 05/02/2007) nearly $8.7 trillion.
A trillion is such a large number that most people do not realise or comprehend its humongous size. A trillion has 12 zeros after it or 13 digits in total. It is not 1 billion multipiled by 10, rather 1 billion multipiled by 1 thousand or $8,700,000,000,000 or $8,696,353,575,213.24 to be precise.

The BBC estimated that the 'War on Terror' is the world's most expensive military effort since WWII.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CHANGE THE DREAM
Posted by: left nut on Feb 7, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More fun, less stuff! A one bedroom apartment is a good thing. It shares walls with others thus sharing heat. It uses less energy to run. Less to heat, less to light, frees up resources so that we can all benefit. Just quit the growsing. Stop thinking about the post WWII single family home, 2.3 children or whatever as THE AMERICAN DREAM. That dream is a contstruct anyway, and pretty new at that. I'm happy with less. You can be too. Drive less, walk more, bicycle everywhere you can, convert that 3600 square foot house into an apratment building. Change the dream everybody it's time to really change the dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CHANGE THE DREAM Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» RE: CHANGE THE DREAM Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: CHANGE THE DREAM Posted by: left nut
» RE: CHANGE THE DREAM Posted by: dwatkins9
Shaunandeamon
Posted by: Shaunandeamon on Feb 7, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well....this is certainly very interesting. Seems to be a global phenomenon. I'm from the UK but have been living in Ireland for 6 years or so. We have renovated a tiny previously abandoned 700 square foot stone cottage. In this we have one room containing our living area, kitchen, and mezzanine bedroom. We have a small extension for a shower room. Our toilet is outside. However, we are detached, on our own, in the middle of a field, about 4 miles from our local town in West Cork. The interesting point is that the vast majority of these old stone cottages have been left to fall down and quite often you will see a brand new very large house next to the old abandoned house. These new house are 2 to 3 times the size of the older places, and in some instances they are McMansions! Amazingly, 4 to 5 people used to live in my old cottage until the late 1960's! And without any modern conveniences! But now most folks want a brand new large home. And why not? There's plenty of space here in Ireland although you might not think so when you see the traffic on the roads! (I don't wish to annoy conservationists by saying this......I am aware of the potential but likely energy/environmental consequences and don't necessarily think all this upsizing is such a good idea in the long run!)

The main point of my post is that I share a concern with a previous poster that the debt related to paying hefty loans could be the undoing of the situation should the global economy take a turn for the worst as some economists are predicting. So in summary, the high cost of property appears to be global, people seem willing and to have been enabled to borrow enormous amounts to pay for their homes . Coupled with this ,many people here in Ireland also have to commute 40 to 60 mile round trip to work. Well....it's called progress....but is it sustainable. I have very big doubts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS EXPLAIN IT ALL
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 7, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A main reason many are squeezed out of affordable housing is simple. Real-estate speculation, fueled by Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on capital gains is a big part of it. Here in Florida, real estate went crazy, now it is taking a nose dive. Also, stagnant real wages have contributed to a diminishment of the working/middle class. Take that, along with the concentration of wealth in the top 10% of the American population, and you have a squeezed middle class. Basically, for Americans today you have nothing. A bad minimum wage, few labor rights, no or limited access to health care, assistance to further ones education is minimal if non-existent. The exact opposite of the Western European democracies. Meanwhile, government spending continues to go exclusively to fund defense and the national security state. All this, just to protect and increase the wealth of a few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shaunandeamon
Posted by: Shaunandeamon on Feb 7, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I bought my first home in 1979 in the UK. It was two up and down rooms brick Victorian terrace house that required modernisation. This house cost me approx. 3X my average annual income. A house I bought in 1992, another old Victorian terraced property, but smaller. again, cost approx 3X my average annual income. I still own this house, but to purchase it now in 2007 would cost 6 to 7 X my average annual earnings!! So yes, property prices have exploded but average income earned has not. The difference appears to be made up of a lot more borrowing coupled with ingenious schemes by the banks and mortgage companies to find ways to lend people even more cash. Can this last?....or what?? The day of reckoning may not be far off......hope not!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Policies and Priorities
Posted by: anothername on Feb 7, 2007 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Left Nut has a good point. I would love to have a house for a dog or two and a garden, but as a single person I cannot justify the waste of a hot water heater for one and keeping pipes warm in winter. In an apartment, I can have hot water almost 24 hours a day the instant I turn on a faucet and living on upper floors I find heat rises from other apartments reducing my electric bill. As a person with a home-based business, another growing trend, I would like to have a larger place, though.

Nobody that I noticed has mentioned the building incentives new construction receives. This is offset in some locations by a reduced tax rate when the old foundation is built upon. Plus, apartments now come with microwaves and dishwashers as regular items, much to my dismay. I’d rather have the extra space. (Again, as a single person I don’t need a dishwashing machine.)

I also have lived on both coasts and in the middle part of the country. I have seen small houses in northern climates where homeowners before the 1970's and 1980's did not want to pay for heating large spaces. The World War II area apartment buildings in the same locations, however, have large rooms and high ceilings.

Currently where I live, our city and state elected officials salivate over every $1 million home or apartment that is sold or rented. They believe this is a sign of economic growth. Meanwhile, renter after renter complains that the regular apartments are too small, too decrepit, and too poorly managed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article makes no sense
Posted by: wireup on Feb 7, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently moved from Long Island to a city. Long Island is very expensive where a nothing of a house now costs $300,000 MINIMUM. If you want something nicer in a decent community, you have to pay a lot more than that. You literally become a slave to a ridiculous mortage and insane property taxes there. On top of that, there is a HORRENDOUS traffic problem and no public transportation. It is a NIGHTMARE of a place to live. Yet, for many, this is the AMERICAN DREAM! If it is, you can have it! And good luck to you!

When looking for a new place to live (I wanted to finally flee the suburbs which I LOATHE in favor of a city), I considered Manhattan, Berkeley, San Francisco, Cambridge, and Boston - all way way WAY out of my price range.

Then I looked at the 5th largest city on the East Coast, with affordable housing (both apartments and homes) to rent or buy and a good public transportation system so that I no longer need a car.

Figuring that it could very well go the way of New York and all the other cities named above in terms of ever escalating rents and home prices, I purchased a 1-bedroom condo (906 square feet) at a price I could afford with property taxes less than 1/7 of what I had been paying on Long Island.

Well, it has turned out to be one of the very best things I have done. This is a VIBRANT city with so much going on that it is hard to keep up with it. And it is affordable.

WHO NEEDS a huge house that costs a fortune to heat and maintain and has absurdly high property taxes when, for a lot less, you can get a small apartment in a great city with a public transporation system that makes cars unnecessary. Give me a city ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. The suburbs are hell on wheels. You can keep them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This article makes no sense Posted by: Logic's Edge
Four hour commutes
Posted by: lessbread on Feb 7, 2007 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The price tag for a front yard and back garden can be a four-hour commute every day.

Lam gets this right. The freeways into SF are jammed packed with commuters. Increasing numbers of people are moving inland from the Bay Area and commuting over the coastal mountains. Commuter traffic jams are becoming common in places like Los Banos and Turlock. That's a dramatic change from ten years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Four hour commutes Posted by: deciduousfruit
» RE: Four hour commutes Posted by: lotus23
» RE: Four hour commutes Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Four hour commutes Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Four hour commutes Posted by: lessbread
My space
Posted by: xaocoh on Feb 7, 2007 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live alone in a single-family residence that covers just under 2000 sqft, not counting the stand-alone garage or front-and-back yards. In addition to the garage, I also have a carport capable of holding a 25ft motor home (an add-on by the previous owner). I own all this in America's fifth largest city, Phoenix.

This whole article to me sounds like yet another bitch-fit by some uppity urbanite whose concept of "civilization" extends only to a select number of affluent, trend-setting cities clinging tenaciously to coastlines. If the rent is too expensive, have you considered moving inland?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My space Posted by: Logic's Edge
Gentrification
Posted by: lotus23 on Feb 7, 2007 6:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The downside of living in a metropolitan area is that housing is never stable and already high rents become beyond reach of most people. In New York City, neighborhoods once affordable to working-class or even middle class are now playgrounds for the rich. You may as well forget about living in Manhattan if you make less than $50K a year. It costs at least a grand a month to live in Harlem. (Thank you Bill Clinton.)

The gentrification cycle metastasizes neighborhood to neighborhood. Starving artists (i.e., "the creative class") move into low-rent working class neighborhoods (that's all they can afford). Within five years or so it becomes hip and trendy, pricing out the working class are priced out. After that the artist/hipsters are priced out, when the yuppies come in. Tribeca, once an industrial wasteland, is now one of the most expensive places to live in NYC, right up there with the Upper East Side. All this spreads out into the outer boroughs. The Bushwick neighborhood in Brooklyn is largely working-class Latinos -- but who knows for how long.

As for the burbs, I can understand why people would want a house of their own. At a certain point, you hope, the house belongs to you. That's not the case with (most) apartments. So you have the case of seniors who are still paying rent every month. If the rent goes up, or the landlord sells the building, that person is homeless basically.

It's odd to think of a time when people waiting tables and doing factory work could actually live in Manhattan. No more. Of course, you can get cheaper housing in the Bronx, but factor in the commute time -- assuming you work in Manhattan, where most of the jobs are -- then that's a big hunk of your life taken away from you.

Of course we can still watch "Sex and the City", where the characters live in gigantic multi-room apartments that no one on the character's salary could ever afford.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Modest suggestion.
Posted by: dwatkins9 on Feb 7, 2007 7:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not a small, non-hip city like Fort Wayne, Indiana (or the like)? Urban jobs, don't need to be a farmer, but housing (as in "house") is affordable. It's hip to be square.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Modest suggestion. Posted by: lotus23
» RE: Modest suggestion. Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: Modest suggestion. Posted by: lotus23
gonna eat me a lot a peaches
Posted by: deciduousfruit on Feb 7, 2007 7:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
moving to the country...? really? you're kidding me right? because the only thing ensuring our future locally sustained agriculture is the availabilty of local, affordable farm land. this will NOT be available if you guys try to build McMansions in the hinterlands so that you can have 50 acres a piece. Your job as well employed yuppies is to go totally urban, use your wealth to encourage urban initiatives to benefit the larger cultural shift towards sustainable agriculatural production (CSA anyone?) and you should support urban movements that preserve urban, semi-urban, and suburban agricultural land grants. These people will save your way of life, your food obsession, and your bacon some day. Love them, they already love you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whining, not news
Posted by: LenaM on Feb 8, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are plenty of affordable places to live in fly-over land. People live full and rich lives outside of SF, LA or NYC.

Can we get back to real issues?

-Lena M

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Little Sympathy, People
Posted by: Russ Wellen on Feb 8, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet commenters, who are in a class with DailyKos's for how informed they are, are coming up short in response to Richard Lam's article.

Silly me. I thought would strike a nerve, like it did with me. Apparently not. Typical is "Whining, not News" by Lena M.

Maybe it's because I work in Manhattan and live in its suburbs, but all I see, except for the rich, is people crammed together and paying half a million for what were once "starter" homes.

If it hasn't yet, don't worry, crowding will soon come to a neighborhood near you. Meanwhile, a little sympathy, people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not One to Extol Manhattan Posted by: Russ Wellen
» We love Iowa? Posted by: LenaM
» Okay, Got It Posted by: Russ Wellen
» center of the universe? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Stop population growth, or stop whining about its inevitable consequences.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 10, 2007 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ecologically-based birth control (AND border control) is the sane alternative to this idiocy.

It's pretty basic -- for one thing, we stop rewarding overbreeders with the countless subsidies they currently feel entitled to extract from the rest of us.

That brings us a wide range of considerations, all of which should be the focus of articles like the one we're currently commenting on.

For example, what about overbreeders who keep cranking out babies they can't even support themselves -- if we stop rewarding them, do we let their kids starve? Do we subsidize their kids but sterilize the overbreeders?

Uncomfortable dilemma, isn't it? Don't like either alternative? Got a better one? Let's hear it! One thing for sure, ignoring it isn't working.

Meanwhile, we all slide, slowly but surely, ever deeper into the very Malthusian nightmare neocons and knee-jerk liberals alike dismiss as paranoid fantasy.

Well it IS happening. And it's only going to get worse. No "green" technofix can substitute for reducing our population size to a sustainable level, starting now, compassionately and wisely, but without any further BSing about its necessity.

Yes, of course, per-capita overconsumption should be targeted too. But that alone is not enough. How many times does all this need to be re-explained?

We endlessly struggle over how to enable even more overbreeding. Too bad that much effort doesn't go into working out the details of ecologically-based birth control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]