If we owned the block

If you had the opportunity to redevelop your entire block (or maybe just start with a group of say, 6 adjacent properties), what would you differently? Around here, I’ve got a few thoughts on what could be possible:

• We could increase density by building smaller homes and multi-storey (low-rise) buildings.

• We could layout the buildings so that there was minimal shading.

• We could drop a ground-source heat pump that fed all the properties.

• We could have vegetable gardens located at premium positions.

• We could have warm, dry, healthier homes.

• We could have a range of homes so that a range of people could live there, and so people wouldn’t have to move elsewhere as life circumstances changed.

• We’d have waaaay less fences.

• We’d probably have some shared facilities, like a workshop, children’s playground and possibly vehicles and or garage/storage space.

• We could a central battery bank and solar panels on all the buildings to collect and share electricity, and group-buy power from the main grid.

Of course, all of this shared stuff is pretty challenging if you’re working on the assumption that we all “own our own home” in the traditional sense. But there is some form of common ownership (or non-ownership), creating some shared commons is not only easier, it becomes a natural extension of the advantage of (all) owning the block.

Homonyms, history, language and the evolution of systems

It’s hard to write about homonyms, because the whole point is that they’re words that sound the same but have different meanings, but if I write them down it can be obvious that they’re different*

Like pen and pen.

Or neigh and nay.

And buy and by.

English is confusing, and given that language is essentially a way to get an idea from one person’s head into another person’s head, this is something of a cause for concern for me. I didn't spend four years studying engineering to not value precision and clarity.

And yet, the vagaries of the English language also lend itself to humour and also the continual evolution of the language as we develop alternative ways to be both more precise (e.g. “google”) and more confusion (e.g. “yeet”).

In the hands of a skilful comedian, or youth culture, the English language continues to evolve. The system’s built that way.

On the other hand, the property system seems to be pretty baked-in, and unlikely to shift anytime soon by virtue of spontaneous innovation, the way that language appears to do. This may simply by my lack of understanding of history and the system, but at the very least my observation is that most people seem to go along with the status quo and conventional wisdom.

It’s going to take a skilful group of people for the property system to evolve.

And it seems to be starting.

*English nerds will know that, strictly speaking, I’m only talking about homophones, and a strict definition of a homonym would be a word that is spelt and sounds the same, but has multiple meanings.

Do, or make possible?

On the one had, you could solve a problem by acting directly. For example, buying some land, subdividing it and building affordable homes in response to the unaffordability of the general market.

Or, you could work to make it possible for someone else to do it. Build a better system. Or at least a patch for the current one.

I tend to lean towards the second option, for a few reasons:

1. There’s the chance for bigger impact. If the problem is such that you’re the only one (or one of a few) who can change it, you can have a bigger impact by increasing the number of people who can solve the problem than by solving it on your own, by changing the system.

2. You get the benefit of someone else working with you on the problem, and the more you have diverse perspective, skills, and networks involved in a problem, the more it will be refined and opened up to more people. Bigger impact, better system.

3. It’s harder. And I like a challenge.

Get your imagination going

Our brains are amazingly powerful. The impact of visualisation on performance and outcomes is a fifty-fifty split of weird, and awesome.

So when it comes to thinking about a different way of doing property, it’s worth imagining what it could look like, before getting stuck down the rabbit hole of how difficult it is to make it happen.

Imagine something like this:

• Everyone has guaranteed accomodation.

• The cost of having a roof over your head is stable, for everyone.

• We generate less waste.

• We use less space.

• We connect more.

• We grow food.

• We share food.

• People who aren’t related, and don’t look alike are connected.

• We’ll live longer.

• We’ll live better.

• We’ll be more connected with the land.

• …

Let your own imagination run wild and see where you end up.

Who wants to live a spec life?

The average doesn’t exist in real life. There is no ‘normal’ person. No ‘standard’ homeowner. No ‘typical’ first home buyer.

So why is building spec homes, for average people, big business?

Probably because it is profitable.

And because it’s possible to employ a marketing team, in an ad-saturated society, to sell it to us.

Why should the homes we get to live in be dictated by what’s profitable to build?

There are many possible alternative bottom lines. Here’s a few:

• Connection: Homes designed to encourage connection with people and promote better mental health.

• Environmental Impact: Homes designed with a low carbon footprint over the entire lifecycle so that the next generation can enjoy the planet.

• Anti-Consumerism: Homes designed to make it easier to buy less stuff by being small and efficient.

• Low-energy: Or overall low-consumption (i.e. water, energy).

• Sufficiency: Homes that prioritise the ability to grow food.

• Proximity: Homes designed to encourage a low-commute, village-style day-to-day

Tell me a good story

It's about time we had a good story about housing.

We've had plenty of bad ideas, and plenty of bad stories: Leaky buildings, cold damp homes, unaffordable property, overcrowding, sprawl driving motorway construction... Surely it is about time we struck gold and had a good story to tell about it?

Or perhaps, the real issue is the bigger story. The one we tell ourselves about property. If our approach to property, as told by this story, is basically a bad one, we're unlikely to have any good ideas.

If we want good stories about housing, we need a better story about property.

One that isn't grounded in an individualistic, scarcity-driven, extractive, exploitative attitude, but is grounded in a 'we together', less-is-more, regenerative, multi-generational attitude.