Welcome to the public access blog for Project Outrage. This is a place for everyone to share their stories, frustrations, and criticisms about the too fast world of production housing. Topic areas are wide open and can include things like commuting, bad design features in your home, wasted space or materials, careless construction, problems with development companies or home builders, misleading advertising, unscrupulous real estate professionals, mini malls, and parking lots.

The important thing is to tell us the story from your perspective, however modest it may seem. People need to see that they are not alone in feeling upset, frustrated, angry or sad with their situation.

I will be monitoring the blog on a regular basis to make my own comments and answer any questions you might have.

Thanks for making a contribution.

John Brown
Calgary, Canada

While Calgary is waking up slowly to modern design options the progression is slow. Good design doesn't need to cost more. As developers continue to produce builders grade cookie cutter houses. The only option for modern design is in established inner city neighbourhoods or condos.
As we are aware the costs for inner-city lots is as much as suburbanite hell homes total it would be nice to see a developer think outside of the box. There is the the miss marketing of these properties to seem modern however these efforts are half assed and granite counters and shaker style cabinets are not modern and neither. It took us forever to find our current town house place that is in a great inner city area with great design. The only other outrage I have is poor dry-walling, sorry John.

Shawn
Calgary, Canada

Shawn,
Thanks for sharing your experience with us. I am happy that the long search was worth it. It is great to hear a success story. I would be happy to hear more.

John Brown
Calgary, Canada

For many years I worked for San Francisco's largest nonprofit housing corporation, serving that city's very low-income residents. From that perspective, I'd like to comment on Matt's original post and the immediate responses. The concerns and justifications regarding the cost differential between conventional production homes and "slow" homes is correct from both sides. What's missing from the point-counterpoint is the nature of our economy. At least in the U.S., the wages of most Americans has been stagnant or declining for over a quarter century. And with the rapidly eroding dollar, the purchasing power of the average American -- which long ago exceeded his/her actual cash on hand and was only sustained via credit and bubbles -- is fast disappearing. That's the baseline.

It is a fact that poor people end up using a larger percentage of their money over time than wealthy people because they cannot afford, even on credit, to purchase quality. We've all heard the axiom that the cheapest thing you can buy is quality, meaning that a well-made widget will last a lot longer and be less costly over time (not to mention more pleasurable to use) than a series of junky widgets. But poor people can't afford the up-front investment in better quality. So they buy the junky widget. (Let's not talk about simply saving up for a better widget; that's not part of the culture.)

I don't know what the situation is in Canada (not withstanding the greater purchasing power of the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar), but the predations of the financial system are now globalized, and I expect that the average Canadian will end up like the average American sooner or later -- a lot poorer.

With that in mind, it's no wonder that home buyers are opting for the mass-produced junk instead of investing in a better (and more socially responsible) product. As much as many might sincerely want to do the right thing, they simply don't have the money for the investment. (The lack of understanding regarding the functional and aesthetic catastrophes that are production housing is another matter; Americans are notoriously lacking in aesthetic education.) As logical and beneficial and responsible as the argument in favor of slow homes is: Poor people not only can't justify the investment, they don't HAVE the money to invest. (And most Americans are a lot closer to being "poor" than anyone is willing to admit!)

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, the onus can't be put on the average home buyer. If we are to create sustainable communities of people living in sustainable housing, the leadership and a share in the additional costs will have to be borne elsewhere. I can't begin to think where that will come from, given the total economic collapse we are now facing. That 20% of American who DO still have some money to spend will have to be the vanguard of the slow home movement -- and you just know that a lot of them simply don't give a rip.

Ric Mallamo
Belfast, Maine, USA

On review, one other question needs to be raised: Is it really true that a "green/slow" home will cost substantially more than a conventional one? There's at least one study (http://www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf) that found that a green home now averages about 2% more to construct than a conventional home -- and that 2% will, of course, be recouped in various energy savings. I can't speak to Matt's claim that green materials cost 1.5 times more. Maybe they do, but materials are only a portion of the cost. It looks like the OVERALL cost (including land, labor, etc) evens things out.

If this study is accurate, then I don't understand builders' reluctance to just build green ... except for institutional inertia and simple laziness. (And I take Brown's point that "green" and "slow" are related but not the same thing.) Given that, if the study is accurate, then my observations about the inability of the average home buyer to invest in "green" needs to be qualified with the fact that fewer and fewer Americans, based on income and using historical measures of credit-worthiness, can actually "afford" ANY house, green or otherwise. Our desire to see a better building world remains hard up against the increasing impoverishment of everyone.

Ric Mallamo
Belfast, Maine, USA

I just found this site and must say I am impressed. I am an architect going out on my own and plan to market small houses I have designed, hopefully for the infill market.

Sprawl makes doesn't make me outraged as much as it makes me sad. People could have so much better if they only realized they do not have to settle for what the banks, real estate agents, TV, and developers tell them they want and must have.

Our entire society is built upon the addage that bigger is better and huge is better still. Quantity over quality. But I think people are slowly realizing this is a false sentiment and are hoping, even praying for something else.

This blog and others like it are awakening people to real quality of life issues.I only wish the turnaround could be faster but we are, in my opinion, approaching the tipping point.

Thanks for this truly inspiring blog.

Rebecca
Arlington, TX

Ric,
You make some excellent points and I will respond with three comments. First, there are many examples of well designed, affordable, well built housing from other parts of the world. It is built by developers and builders not the state. I take from this that it IS feasible under the right circumstances. Second, prior to the 1950's, there was no production housing or industry or sprawl in North America. It is important to remember that, like fast food, this is a relatively recent problem that we, as a society, have created for ourselves. This tells me that we also have the ability to reverse the situation. Third, suburban sprawl and production housing is not that affordable (for either the home buyer, society, or nature). If you look at the numbers, most production housing is for middle to upper middle income households. These people really DO have options for where and how they can live. I do not mean in any way to underestimate the plight of the poor. In fact, it is shameful the way that we as society fail to deal with this growing issue. However, the immediate goal of slowhome is to affect change in the middle of the market. This is where consumption is the highest, waste is at its most extreme, and people are being sold a low quality bill of goods. I believe that trying to affect change in this sector will have a big impact on the market as a whole.

John Brown, Editor
Calgary, Canada

I LVOE TO RIDE MY BICYCLE and I LOVE TO WALK, here there are little or no sidewalks, No cycle paths.. not enough parks. The Dumping and/or burning of rubbish is the status quo, little or no recycling culture, BEAUTIFUL BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY with little planting and city wilfdlife projects... TOO MANY CARS.. errrgggghhhh What a polluting technology please use alernative fules people of or world, cars stink like tobacco smoke..

S
Kingston Jamaica

I've read many of the posts and my reaction is that most are not dealing in reality. Builders build what they can sell at a profit, period. Change will only come when forced by customer demand. Another issue is that local, state and federal regulations continue to dive the cost of development up. Efficient cost effective development is not possible with one acre lot minimums and minimum lot size requirements not to mention building streets and storm sewers to highway standerds. Land and development cost is where it all starts and it will require a dramatic change in regulations to bring those costs down.

As far a construction cost, there are many green and energy efficient systems and products that are cost competitive with current code compliant stick framing. SIP's are a great example that are about the same cost as traditional construction, go up faster with lower labor cost and cut energy cost in half.

Change is possible but not until citizens of the world demand it and elect officials that share the same values. My guess is that when energy costs finally become unbearable these changes will happen.

The Secretary of the DOE just announced that the goal for energy efficiency for new construction is a 30% reduction by 2012. This is rediculously modest given that we can easily do 50% now. If every home in America reduced energy by 30% we would have no need for imported oil and knuckleheads could drive SUVs all they want.

TKS
Builder, Developer
Pittsburgh, PA

Tim Shipley
Pittsburgh, PA

Living in a large established city I find my options to the “Slow Home” approach diminished.

When you want to live in an area where commercial and cultural amenities are within walking distance; you want to minimize the commute or use public transportation, and you want modern design principles incorporated into your home – well, few options are available.

Ninety plus percent of the affordable homes available are seventy five to a hundred and twenty five years old. And they come with single pane windows, deferred maintenance, inefficient floor plans, etc.

Portland is very progressive in adopting and supporting “green” infrastructure. But building on an in-fill lot is too costly both in price and time. Remodeling and retrofitting an older home is only an option if you are in a “high” income bracket.

In order to find a well designed home at a price where you could afford to upgrade the structure you have to look to the Mid Century developments – all of which are out in exurbia – increasing your commute and reliance on an automobile for access to amenities. Not to mention these developments were just tracks of homes laid down on a street grid. Not exactly a streetscape worth emulating, nor are they very inviting.

My “Outrage” lies not in the typical outrage presented here with “cookie cutter” developments, but with the lack of options for the middle class living in urban centers like Portland. We’ve been looking to make a change in our housing for over six months and are thoroughly discouraged with our options.

Greg Haworth
Portland Oregon


Greg Haworth
Portland Oregon

Greg,
I appreciate your frustration. I know that, at the moment, there aren't a lot of affordable options available in the middle of the market. One of the main goals of slow home is to change this by increasing awareness, and therefore demand, for better alternatives. Unfortunately, however, that doesn't help you very much right now.

Are you sure that you can't find something worth remodelling? In my experience that is the most productive avenue to take but it may mean stepping outside of the housing types and/or locations you have considered to date. Think of the property search as part of a design strategy rather than a purchase decision.

I respect very much that you have not settled for the sprawl option. Don't give up and please keep us informed of your progress.


John Brown
Calgary, Canada

My outrage is that I think the US appraisal system is broken. I must be a good guesser at home values because the only two homes I have ever bought just happened to get appraised at my offer. There is very little competition in the appraisal market in my small town (14,000). Our most prominent appraisal company is also a real estate company. I feel that the appraisal system is determined not by the actual value of the home, but by what the home can earn for local governments, sellers, and slumlords. Appraisal companies will lower the value of a home when someone is buying for the purpose of reselling, or renting. Realtors and appraisers ought to just work in the same office, because of the deals they often make, but don't admit to. Real estate in my area is outpriced with local wages. The very few affordable homes are gobbled up by wealthy out of town investors who are running up rent prices. Out of town owners don't care what their property looks like, they just provide the bare minimums for renters. There is no encouragement to make homes better, self sufficient and more green. My attitude has changed tremendously when it comes to my home. I'm here until then end, (or a retirement home). My flower beds are slowly becoming food producing beds. Unfortunately, when it comes to appraisals, my garden space is worth a lot less than a granite counter top.
Yes, I am outraged at the appraisal business. They set the standard for home values, something I feel needs a lot more regulation.


Jackie
La Grande, OR

We completely buy into the 10 Steps as being totally us. Great idea! But, we are stuck on and stymied at Number 10. Our outrage is being told that, as part of the dwindling Middle Class, we cannot afford to build a simple, efficient, sustainable and green retirement home. Only the rich can afford it when the Middle Class is where such a home is needed. It seems there would be a market for near zero energy and zero maintenance homes of moderate cost and modest proportions. There will be a paradigm shift but, what we have run into in the two years since beginning this quest are contemptuous real estate vendors and ignorant or recalcitrant builders. The products and ideas are available and being improved all the time as the Solar Decathlon has proved. Our Plan B alternative search to find a suitable existing structure to remodel up to our energy and maintenance ideals has reached a sad conclusion. In the town we have chosen, which would meet the other 9 Steps, all the available homes are two storey frame structures from the late 19th century which resist with a will. We have spent 30 years restoring two properties with our own hands and are skilled and willing to do much of the work ourselves. We read The Slow Home site daily and really believe. Nevertheless we are on the outside looking in and we can’t have it even with a credit rating over 800, wanting to pay cash from selling our two properties and no mortgage. If we can’t have it, who reading the site can?

Nancy & Sam
Pennsylvania USA

I am doing a project of designing a house and i want desgin ideas and some suggestion but i have my own ideas but i just need your suggestions and stuff so if u reply me then i can discuss about it more and thanks . hope u dont mind....see u later

Shriketu Shethna
Timaru, Newzealand

The Heritage at Cutchogue Planned Adult Active Community is threatening to destroy our real heritage see www.SaveCutchogue.com

Benja
Cutchogue, NY USA

I am absolutely frustrated by the number of "active adult" communities taking over. These SFH are actually at a price the average family can afford (very rare in the DC metro area), yet they are not allowed to buy because of silly restrictions. Don't developers know that half of the houses in these subdivisions will be abandoned once the baby boomers die off? Are we really that short-sighted of a society?

Lauren
Washington, DC

On my way to work, I pass by a very, large house that had been under construction for quite some time. Either the finacing didn't go through or the builder went out of business, but the house was stalled for month at the point in construction where the house looked like a plywood box wrapped in tyvek. The construction still had months to go, but you could tell from the street...this was a butt ugly house. So ugly in fact that the new owner solved the problem by tearing it down. Which is the lesser of the two evils: finish the irreversibly ugly house or knock it down to the stem walls, throw the refuse away, and start over?

Brent
Franklin, TN

Identifying the problems is the easy bit, finding solutions are where it gets difficult. This site seems to rightfully bag the baddies, but it don't seem to come to terms with the fact that the 'problem' is more complex than a 10 step plan (what, not 12?!) can address. Starting with steps one two and three, how is this supposed to be paid for? This sort of considered design and manufacturing takes a lot of money, at the very least two to three times the cost of a spec home. And even spec homes are becoming less affordable. But even if we forget good ol’ dollars and cents, what about desire? For as long as there have been architects there have been exemplar homes ‘leading the way’. Have these managed to become some sort of vanguard? No, they have not, excepting where an idea can be exploited by capitalism (and often in its exploitation, distorted, sometimes beyond recognition). Your average Jo(e)s don’t want radical change, they want what they grew up in and or what their friends have.

I’m concerned that these sorts of solutions to the problem of our car driven (pardon the pun) urban fabric, is little more than middle class moralising.


Geoff
Melbourne Australia