Bigger Isn't Better

(PHOTO: Wall of Closet)

My husband and I are practical people, often to a fault. Most decisions big or small require intense scrutiny and analysis. I recently stood in a shoe store for over 30 minutes deciding between two pairs of shoes that were similar but one had a heel and one was flat. The prices were significantly reduced and since I rarely buy anything for myself, I could have eked out the double buy, but that would not have been my way. Anyway, maybe you see where I am going with this. We are still in a holding pattern re: our house project, which gives us plentiful time for further analysis. And so, upon further analysis, we have decided to scale back the project once again.

We recently discovered a very interesting, post-McMansion series of books by Sarah Susanka, called The Not So Big House Books. An architect by trade, Ms. Susanka is peddling the idea that much of what we truly need and desire can be found within the existing walls of our homes, and that by building big we will not necessarily build better. Her timing could not be better – as Americans begin to reject the size and scale of homes built over the past 20 or so years and are looking for more economical solutions to their requirements for modern living, building big is causing big problems. In renovating our Raised Ranch, we have always felt that our house basically suits our needs, but we want “a little more”. We have also tended to back away from plans that were too big (the Colonial idea) or too wasteful and redundant (the first plan we scrapped).

As noted in an earlier post, we have heard talk of homeowners eliminating formal living rooms and/or dining rooms in their renovation plans in favor of more open, less conventional floor plans. It occurred to us that while we like the idea of a formal dining room, in our current setup the dining room table serves as a repository for all of the junk we accumulate, be it mail, old homework, notices, and anything else that does not fit on the refrigerator (another repository!). Unfortunately, given the casual nature of our home, we have little use for this table except when entertaining. Our goal in renovating and adding on is to create spaces that will fill our needs. We need room for a piano; we need comfortable seating areas; we need a place to sit and have a meal with friends. But do we really need a formal dining room? At this point, the arrow is pointing to “no”.

Here is how we have changed our plan, to reduce costs and create some efficiencies. We will add a large room to the back of the house – somewhere in the neighborhood of 15’ x 25’. The room will be a family room with a formal dining table and hutch at one end. When I say formal, please take it with a grain of salt. There will be no Queen Anne highboy or anything like that. At most, we will invest in a modest set from Ethan Allen with simple lines, possibly in the Mission style. It will be a large room that flows into the kitchen, perfect for family living and entertaining. Instead of a table in the kitchen, we will use that space for a powder room, and create a breakfast bar for casual family meals. The living room will stay the same, and the hall bath will belong to the children. The only other change will be removal of the California-style closets in our bedroom to create a pocket for the bed with recessed reading lights above. This will add two feet to the Master Bedroom, making it 13 ½’ x 13’ – not huge, but certainly respectable. Of course, a few window changes and an added door to the deck from the MBR will bring in more light and hopefully create a sense of greater space as well.

As we tweak this plan, we feel increasingly confident that it will satisfy our family’s needs while staying within a manageable budget. We have seen and heard of many examples where people simply over-improved or over-built their homes, and since we plan to stay here for a long time, it is imperative that we get it right the first time. Building too big will have economic consequences (taxes, heating, cooling) that may price us out of our home as we approach our golden years. So for now, we are jumping on the Not So Big bandwagon, and keeping it as simple as possible.

I Digress A Moment to Mount the Soapbox

It is getting more and more difficult to contain my animosity toward Wall Street these days. I have always had a cynical view, colored mostly by my experience living in a town that has become a haven for financial executives, but the anecdotal evidence of Wall Street’s excesses and exploits is now being outrun by the hard evidence outlined daily in the press. The latest news is that Goldman Sachs (“The Evil Empire”?) has been slapped with a civil lawsuit by the SEC regarding its alleged defrauding of investors who partook of their offering of synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations. Apparently Goldman neglected to inform investors that John Paulson, a billionaire hedge fund manager, had paid $15 million to Goldman in exchange for the investment bank creating a CDO for him to then bet against. Paulson made $1 billion betting that people would lose their homes. Nice!

These sorts of manipulations are nothing new. In fact, for some on Wall Street, exploitative bets are business as usual. While there is no doubt (well, maybe a little to the truly cynical) that the majority of professionals in the financial industry are honest, hard-working people, we can no longer look past the unethical practices of the top players who effectively control the market. It is more clear than ever that top financial executives play with Monopoly money, and the payouts are incredibly inflated. Do people on Wall Street work hard? Sure, but so do lots of other people who have to fight for a wage. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe in ethics, and treating people with respect and kindness. Making money by betting that someone will lose their home is a dirty business. It’s not illegal, but it’s still wrong. An article I read included a laundry list of questionable activities and deals carried out by Goldman over the past few years, none of which were illegal but all of which were damaging to honest people like investors and homeowners. One has to wonder what kind of person finds excitement in betting that others will fail. What next? Shall we start wagering on people’s jobs, and whether or not they will be able to continue to put food on their families’ tables? The example is extreme, of course, but not totally out of line.

Hopefully the Federal Government can find ways to protect investors, either through existing laws or through new laws drafted to address the problems caused by derivative securities. Since the 1930’s, in the wake of the Great Depression, our government has been a champion of homeownership. As we emerge from our latest recession, let’s see if modern leaders can live up to (or exceed) the legacy of the those who went before them.

New Neighbor

My dog Lucy and I (she’s a 14 ½ year-old beagle) came face to face with a coyote this morning, right in our own front yard. The coyote, which was the size of a large German Shepherd, stopped in its tracks, looked at us for two seconds, and continued on its way. I went running into my house like a crazed lunatic, dragging poor Lucy behind me. The truth is, coyotes pose very little (if any) threat to humans. However, there have been many coyote sightings in our small town of late, and even an incident in which a small white poodle was killed by a coyote one evening. In fact, this is the third time I have seen a coyote on my street in the five years I have lived here. When I called the police to report it, they told me what I already knew: that coyotes have been squeezed out of their homes by housing developments and they are just wild animals looking for places to live. This ties in well to a discussion about the suburban movement that my husband and I had en route to visit friends in Philadelphia this weekend.

In researching the post-World War II housing boom, I have found that suburbanization has had a tremendous impact on American society, and lays claim to some important aspects of our history. Prior to World War II, suburban areas existed mostly for the wealthy – those who could afford to purchase land, live in single-family homes, and pay for transportation to the nearby city. After World War II, as access to cars became more widespread, more land became available for development. Builders no longer had to focus on tracts that were within walking distance of streetcars. As more land became available, prices became more affordable. Banks also opened up their lending policies, and the dream of suburban life became irresistible to many middle class families. Over the years, suburbanization has been strongly condemned, blamed for sucking the middle class out of the cities and draining urban areas of valuable people and resources. The suburbs provided an escape for those middle class people, however, and it’s hard to fault them for wanting to retreat from the traffic, noise, crowds and often filth of the cities in favor of the bucolic landscape of the suburbs. Home ownership became a signpost of achieving the American Dream. It continues to be a goal for most Americans.

While many historians and architects still find post-World War II housing to be without purpose or significance, it is important to think about how the change in housing styles may have represented social changes in American society. These homes were being built for middle class working families. There was no requirement for maids’ quarters, for example, or distinct public and private sections of the home. In a Colonial style house, there is no flow between the sleeping quarters (upstairs) and the living areas (ground floor). Many Colonial homes (even small ones) had two staircases – a grand staircase off the foyer and a hidden “back staircase” between the kitchen and upstairs. These elements would allow for a more traditional, perhaps dignified reception of guests. While the Split-Level and its brethren were endowed with formal living rooms, their flow into the dining and kitchen areas made them less stuffy than their parlor predecessors. I hear talk, lately, of people eliminating formal living rooms and/or dining rooms altogether to make the spaces less formal and flow into each other more easily. It is possible that middle class families, while desiring more elegance in the exterior appearance of their homes, are recognizing that less conformity with traditional designs inside their homes is more conducive to comfortable modern living.

Interestingly, as transportation has continued to improve, and as corporations have found their own havens in the suburbs, even larger more remote tracts of land, such as former farms and forests, have given way to housing development. Whereas the suburban development of the early-to mid-20th century seemed to have been driven by a desire to replicate (on a smaller scale) the goods and services one could find in the City, while also enjoying individual home ownership, the new exurban development shows that the housing comes first, and the strip mall follows. People are willing to lengthen their commute time significantly in order to be able to afford the largest house possible. I have seen news segments about people in the Poconos who ride a bus two hours (or more) each way to work in New York City so they can have their own huge house. I have also, in my travels, witnessed many exurban developments that look like the houses were literally plopped down on their lots by aliens. All, or most, of the trees are gone, replaced by large plastic-clad behemoths.

Thanks to Toll Brothers and their compatriots, these McMansions have cropped up around most major cities. In fact, the McMansion movement of the past 20 or so years is currently bearing the brunt of public architectural outrage that used to be reserved for Split-Levels and the like. Many people reject Split-Levels and Raised Ranches as cookie-cutter homes that represent the worst aspects of our manufactured society. The rage against McMansions incorporates this same rejection but also has to do with the physical affront on our senses that these houses impose. Because of their monstrous size on small plots of land, they actually encroach on our ability to enjoy our own space. If we think of the suburbs as an escape from the City to a more bucolic, greener landscape, houses that then reduce the greenery of that landscape can be seen as a threat. Even the coyotes appear to be moving on.

To Build A...Wall

Now that we have settled on an interior design, the new challenge will be to create curb appeal on the exterior of the house. But let’s face it – the economy is still in the toilet, and we are in no position to break ground on a project. The desire to improve our house still consumes me, however, so for now I am moving on to greener pastures. Or in my case, greener projects. This past weekend was an exceptionally pleasant one weather-wise, and the outdoors beckoned until we all ended up out back – the girls playing, the dog sniffing, and me, well, I found a little corner of the backyard that needed some TLC.

As I have mentioned before, the neighbor behind us is the proud owner of a gigantic rock formation that provides a beautiful natural buffer between our properties. On the actual property line, many of the rocks that were uncovered when digging our foundation have been strewn about, but mostly in the two back corners. The back right corner is home to most of the larger boulders, whereas the back left corner has two boulders and a messy heap of smaller stones of various sizes. At least, it HAD a messy heap until we set to work transforming it. Now, it has a beautiful little wall which will soon provide the backdrop for a lovely flower garden!

I found myself back there perusing the scene while my daughters played by the wild cherry tree that currently serves as their “Nature Clubhouse”. My original intent was to create a compost pile that would not be visible from our house. Last summer I had begun to throw vegetable and fruit waste behind the rock heap, just to “see what would happen”. Nothing really happened, which I saw as a good sign. No animals came, other than a deer or two to nibble at some cauliflower. I thought this year I would dig a deeper hole and see if I could actually derive some benefit, such as soil for plantings. As I began to pull out the vines (of which there were MANY), I noticed a significant number of interesting rocks that were easily moved. Unfortunately, in the process of removing these rocks I disturbed quite a plethora of insect homes, but my daughters eagerly transported many of the refugees to new homes around the yard. Whether or not the bugs were appreciative of this effort, we’ll never know. I did, however, witness a fair amount of little girl screaming (some joyous, some in disgust), which helped me to understand that the girls were having a lot of fun with this new responsibility. All of a sudden, after about half an hour of work, I had a huge pile of rocks!

Just as I was finishing the clean-up portion of this project, Hubby returned from his “errands” (getting coffee, looking at cars, stopping by Home Depot, etc.) and immediately joined the team. After donning his work gloves, he went right to work moving some of the larger stones into support positions. We spent the next ten minutes or so matching up rocks to pile on top of each other until we had exhausted our supply. It was too early in the season to plant anything, but we will be at Home Depot soon to find flowers for our newly minted garden. Friends came over Saturday evening and admired our handiwork. We are pleased with the results, and encouraged to know that sprucing up our property can be an interesting family activity that costs $0!