![[Front Cover of House Lust Book]](http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/images/books/house_lust.jpg)
House Lust by Newsweek reporter Daniel McGinn is an eye-opening account of the obsession that many Americans have for their homes, which first led to one of the biggest boom in housing prices and later turned into a bust with far-reaching consequences. A Washington Post columnist quoted in the book probably defined the term best – “a house or an apartment becomes not just a place of shelter or an emblem of status or even a considered investment, but an obsession that haunts us no less intensely than Vladimir Nabokov’s nymphet Lolita tortured the imagination of poor, sick Humbert”.
As the author himself admits, this book is not a comprehensive analysis of the rise and fall of the housing market. Instead, it simply tells stories of (mostly well to-do) people who became fixated on their homes – constantly talking about it, checking out the prices of their friends and co-workers’ homes on Zillow or just endlessly renovating their properties. Consider the following vignettes:
- Some homes now have master bedrooms so large that they may need an “extreme ultra king” bed that measures 12 feet wide and 10 feet long.
- To deal with the emotional, financial and marital stress of renovating their homes, couples are engaging the services of a new breed of therapists who offer counselling at $90 per session, with a regular treatment lasting four to six sessions.
- Investors purchasing run down rental properties (for the “cash-flow”) in far-off places like Pocatello, Idaho, sight unseen. One economist estimated that in 2005, about one in three homes was purchased as an “investment property”.
If you even have a passing interest in real estate (who doesn’t?), you might want to check out this book. Mr. McGinn’s intrepid reporting from the front lines of the real estate bubble covers people buying McMansions, lusting for newly constructed homes, undergoing renovation hell, watching or reading “real estate porn” on shows like House Hunters, looking for cash flow in odd locations, rushing to become realtors, buying one (or more) vacation properties makes for an entertaining read. The book’s website features an excerpt, articles and a quiz.
Rating: 7 out of 10.
Bookmark: del.icio.us Digg StumbleUpon
15 responses so far ↓
1 ThickenMyWallet // Jun 10, 2008 at 10:28 am
There’s an article in the recent Fortune Magazine which addresses the one good thing to come out of the bursting of the real estate bubble: home-builders are building nice, affordable housing again and young people can now get back into the market at reasonable valuations.
Why anyone needs a 3,500-4,000 square foot home is beyond me. Want? Yes. Need? Not for a family of 4.
2 Canadian Capitalist // Jun 10, 2008 at 10:40 am
Thicken: When I hear 3,000 square feet, I wonder how much work it is to clean and maintain the place and how much money it takes simply for heating, cooling and upkeep. Not to mention, feeding the monster mortgage and the property taxes.
3 ioana // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm
<>
I suggest that columnist reads the book. It is an excellent book.
Lolita was not a nymphet. She was a kid. Humbert as a character is an unreliable witness. He lies all the time . Very few times in the book the facade he build cracks and we see the truth, in sentences in which he describes, briefly, how she cries herself to sleep every night, every night.
Unfortunately the same sick imagination that Humbert has, has taken over the general public, (most of whom have never read the book) seeding this image of Lolita as the nymphet. It’s disturbing.
4 Jon202 // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Your House is your Home, not an investment. It should not be gambled or risked and you shouldn’t have to lie get you a mortgage. If you can’t pay it off in 25-30 years (average working life) then it’s too much. In the States they appear to have done the exact opposite of all this.
5 raincity // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Jon2020, this problem isn’t limited to the US, we’re just as guilty as speculation and overstretching in Canada, particularly in cities like Vancouver:
“From the fall of 2006 through the fall of 2007, 37 per cent of all new mortgages in Canada were for amortizations longer than 25 years,” said Jim Murphy, president and chief executive of the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals. “Of all the mortgage products that have been introduced, the ones longer than 25 years are the most popular.
Source: http://vancouvercondo.info
6 brad // Jun 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm
It’s funny, I met the previous owner of our house a few days ago; he lived here for 60 years. Our house is about 1,000 square feet and has 3 bedrooms, and there are four of us living here. The previous owner made my jaw drop when he told me there were 9 people in his family — his mother, father, and their seven kids, all living under this roof — and that was when it was even smaller than it is now; 890 square feet. Amazing how our “needs” change over the generations, and amazing what living conditions people used to consider “normal.”
7 Jon202 // Jun 10, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Brad, and others, try and see a documentary called “Radiant City”. It covers this idea of bigger homes, further from city centres and employment, arranged in a matter only convenient by low gasoline prices (ie. sprawl). It’s distributed by the NFB, so your local public library should have a copy.
8 Jon202 // Jun 10, 2008 at 3:51 pm
here are the number about bigger homes:
http://www.hellocoolworld.com/assets/campaigns/10/viral_rad_city11.gif
http://www.hellocoolworld.com/campaigns.cfm?view=CAMPAIGN_DETAILS&campaign_id=10
9 Dave from GP // Jun 10, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I recently had the chance to return to my home as a kid. We lived in a “house” attached to the back of a restaurant / gas station. Me and my brother shared a room the whole time we were growing up, my parents room was next door and we had a small living room. I never thought much of it as a kid but I often think of it now when people have to move to a bigger house because they have another kid and need another room as well as a home office and guest room.
10 Canadian Capitalist // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Here’s what the book says about square footage creep:
“In 1950 the average American home measured just 983 square feet… But over time the average has crept steadily upward — and by 2005, according to census data, the average newly built U.S. home measured 2,434 square feet. One in five new homes now has a three car garage… One in four has three or more bathrooms. Nearly 40 percent have four or more bedrooms. When it comes to American homes, the only thing that’s decreased in recent years is the size of the plots of land on which they’re built and the size of the families who live inside.”
11 Phil S // Jun 10, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Wow! Those are some eye-opening statistics you all have there on the square footage creep issue… Suddenly I’m left wondering if I should be just looking at why my current 600 sq foot condo is so jammed full of stuff. Perhaps I don’t need a bigger place but rather just need to better organize my stuff… Hmm… I think there’s also a few boxes of stuff that I don’t really need, either. I suddenly have a task list for myself to do this weekend… =0)
12 Canadian Capitalist // Jun 10, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Phil: I think what your condo really needs is an “extreme ultra king” bed!
13 brad // Jun 11, 2008 at 4:43 am
I mentioned this previously in comments on another post, but when my father sold the house I grew up in, in northern Westchester County, New York, the new owners spent over $1 million on renovations and additions–including putting in no fewer than 7 bathrooms, one for each day of the week. They didn’t have kids, it was just a couple, so why they needed so many bathrooms is anyone’s guess. When I lived there we had one full bathroom and a half bath; which was adequate for us, a family of six.
At the end of their marathon spending session, the couple split up. The woman lives there alone now, with her 7 bathrooms. I stopped by there a few years ago to see how the place had changed…what was once a tasteful old house (built in the 1920s) is now a nouveau-riche monstrosity.
14 telly // Jun 11, 2008 at 9:32 am
Wow! Our house must have been HUGE by 1920’s standards when it was built at a whopping 1200 sq. ft.!
Brad, that is a crazy story that explains why this book was written. I can’t even fathom what that house would go for now!
15 A Lap Of The Blogs : WhereDoesAllMyMoneyGo.com // Jun 13, 2008 at 5:01 am
[...] Canadian Capitalist reviews a book titled ‘House Lust’ which discusses the obsession involved in home ownership for many people. It sounds like a very [...]
Leave a Comment