Big house, small house

There’s always more than one way to swing a cat.

I like simplicity.

I like big houses. They’re good for sharing with other people. Which requires a simpler lifestyle.

I like small houses. They’re good for forcing you to limit what you have. Which requires a simpler lifestyle.

I’m not so sure about medium-sized (normal) houses.

They’re small enough that it’s hard to share the space, but they’re big enough that you can just put things in a corner, in a cupboard, in the space room, out in the garage. Out of sight, out of mind. And into the bin (ten years down the track).

If you’re trying to live differently, and if we need to live differently, perhaps the places we live in also need to be different.

Go big or go small, at home.

Sensible housing 'aint what it used to be

Thirty years ago, the smart move would have been to buy as many houses as you could, as cheap as you can, and hang on to them for ten years.

But thirty years ago, the world wasn’t changing that fast, and 1998 wasn’t that different from 1988 (from a property finance point of view).

But 2028 could look significantly different to 2018. In fact, we can be reasonably sure it’ll be significantly different. So what’s the smart move now?

I suspect, it’s actually the same as it has always been:

• Connect with people.

• Learn to live with less.

So instead of maxing out the mortgage to get premium capital gains, how about staying small and staying put? What about building new, better, and smaller. Or bigger, with more people.

Craft a life where if it all goes pear shaped in the market, the prospect of having to stay in one place for the next ten years isn’t just exciting, it is genuinely preferable.

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

We're going to need a bigger boat

If housing affordability means we need to buy property together, we’re also likely to live together for longer. I suspect most of the median-priced housing stock won’t go the distance. To small and/or to low quality.

We need a bigger, better boat.

And by better, I mean a Good Home: Warm, dry, low-energy, efficient design, simple.

And by bigger, I mean rooms for kids.

Can we make it affordable?

It’s time for a thought experiment:

Let’s take three friends each earning the median income. Some have children, or will have children while living together, but we’ll assume part of the picture is supporting parents to stay at home full-time, so we’ll stick with three incomes.

A person on the current median annual income can afford around $210,000 of property. So our three people can afford a $630,000 home.

For our better boat, we’ll assume a build price of $3000 per square meter.

For our bigger boat, let’s assume we can get a five-bedroom house with space for 4-5 adults and a few children into 130 square meters. A little on the small side, so we’ll need some simple(r) living practices.

The affordable Good Home costs $390,000, leaving $240,000 for a section.

Not a slam-dunk by any means, but potentially, we might be able to have Good, Affordable homes if we’re willing to share them.

You're taking up too much space.

The tiny house movement is proving that, for many people, living smaller is possible.

People in the majority world have demonstrated the uncanny human ability to do much with very little.

Neither of these options may be a desirable norm, but they should at least prompt us to take stock of how much space we take up. And of the things that take up the space.

Rich days in a rich neighbourhood

A rich and full life is worth striving for. Don't settle for the busy and time poor version that's being sold.

Find the freedom in creative restriction. The joy found in limitations. The fullness found in simplicity.

The richness of a life lived in proximity to others.

Let's not treat our neighbourhoods as transit corridors, or think of ourselves as commuter who leave our streets for a place we'd rather be. Instead, let's be present in our neighbourhoods and make them the place we'd rather be.

Rich days are found in any neighbourhood where relationships are woven together, and people populate the public spaces.

Making room

We're all seeking connection. And the richest source of connection is each other.

But it doesn't just happen. We have to make space for people. 

On purpose.

But we're busy. Too busy. Doing great things, good things, and neccessary things.

So simplify it. Make it easier. Lower the bar to connection.

Make space at home.

We all need to eat: Make room at the table.

We all need to work: Make room weeding the garden.

We all need to sleep: Make room on the couch.

We all need to play: Make room in the back yard.

We all need to make room.

Designing for impact

So you want to make a difference. You have a dream for a better future. You want to make an impact.

The next step is to try and make it happen within our sphere of control.

While positive personal, individual responses are necessary, it turns out that trying to convince others to "do what I did" isn't a particularly effective way to achieve a large-scale impact.

Attempting to control the situation based on your frame of reference isn't is not the determining factor in creating impact.

Collaboration might be.

This isn't to say that individual stories don't matter. They matter because they are all different. But listening and sharing is more important than convincing and justifying.

Collaboration, not co-opting.

Coordination and cooperation by communication, not command.

Imagine the solutions for housing we might arrive at if we wove our stories together:

• Simpler living in smaller spaces designed for neighbours, not purchasers.
• Coordinated, activated and populated public areas that are accessible to all.
• Households who know households. Neighbours who know neighbours.
• Cross-generational and cross-cultural living within a neighbourhood rather than demographic segregation.
• Shared facilities for making, fixing, growing, playing and being.
• Literal, and potentially common ownership of local commercial activities.
• Educational environments that extend outside the institution into our streets, parks, back yards, garages and kitchens.
• Urban design dominated by spaces for people, not cars.

Building bump spaces

Bump spaces have been around as a concept for a while, so if you're new to the idea, a quick google search should bring you up to speed. Or you can jump to this article I found written by a local public property genius.*

There's a general acceptance that micro-collisions between people and the connections that result are what makes up the 'net' in a community network.

Small, simple, spontaneous interactions are both a fruit of, and a creator of, connection. 

So in a community seeking to grow connection, we're caught in a catch-22: How to make bump spaces work without a culture of connection, while trying to use bump spaces to build the culture by creating connection.

The answer, as often happens with many organic people-systems, is to do it deliberately, intentionally, and with purpose, for a while. And eventually, it'll just be what we do around here.

Don't wait for the Council to redevelop the local park. Go and sit on the seat with a cup of tea every Sunday morning at 10am.

Don't wait for the local cafe to set up outdoor seating. Start buying fish and chips every Friday night at 6.30pm. And don't order over the phone.

We don't need to wait for the Council, the Urban Planners, or the Parks Department to make these spaces for use. We can use the ones that are there, and create our own on the dirt we can control.

Cut down a section of the front fence and make a bench seat. And sit on it sometimes.

Set up a book swap fridge next to the letterbox.

Set up a herb garden along the front fence. Or in front of the front fence.

Do any of these things at the local park. Or school.

And perhaps along the way we might figure out how to get bump spaces put into city planning public space design, or a requirement for new subdivisions.

*Disclaimer: This is my own definition based on judgements from a distance. I don't know the guy and I've never met him, although I'd like to.