5

Cul-de-sac syndrome hits the U.S.

A new Pulte Homes Inc. subdivision in Novi, Mich.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

TESS VIGELAND: As you can tell from the number of housing -related questions we answer, we are -- despite the events of the last couple of years -- still a nation obsessed with home ownership. In fact, this week the National Association of Realtors said its index of pending home sales hit its highest level since June of 2007.
At least one observer isn't sure that's good news.

John Wasik is author of the book, "The Cul-De-Sac Syndrome." John, welcome to the show.

John Wasik: Thanks for having me Tess.

Vigeland: You believe that this bubble was brewing essentially for centuries. How so? I don't remember reading about housing market collapses in the 1800s or even the 1950s.

WASIK: Oh, there have been housing collapses throughout history, starting in the 18th century really. It's the idea that we were obsessed with land. People came to North American to get a piece of the pie, to build their castle, to make something of yourself. And then in typical American fashion we transform this overwhelming need to have something of our into this status symbol. And exerting our democratic principles.

Vigeland: Why do you think the house became that symbol?

Wasik: It was largely a vestige of our ego, of our aspirations, of the things we wanted most out of America. And that's why I really fault the over-emphasis on actually owning homes in terms of the American dream. It's always a deal where you can buy a bigger house. And many people did. And They did it because they could over-leverage, they did it because the tax law supported it, and they did it because highways were subsidized to places where there had been nothing before.

Vigeland: Yeah and this whole notion of our home, our house as an investment, you ask very early in the book, weren't homes supposed to be the safest investments on the planet? When did we start buying into that idea?

Wasik: I think it had more to do with the collapse of the social safety net. We really got away from defined benefit pensions; our 401(k)s were devastated in not one, but two different market crashes; and we said to ourselves, "Well what's left? What is the other way, the other sure fire way of building wealth?" So they said, "There's my home." Nobody's ever lost money buying a house. And we believed it, even though that wasn't true. And people got into so much trouble just thinking about that and getting into the mire of this fraudulent mess.

Vigeland: Should we at all think of our houses as an investment? And if so, to what extent?

Wasik: I don't think they're investments in terms of a home. A home is something that's a physical entity, it's always depreciating, you're always going to have to pay taxes on it, you're always going to have to maintain it if you choose to do so. And it's not something that actually grows in value. It's the land, because of economic scarcity that actually grows in value. And that's why coastal real estate is so expensive, because it's a finite resource.

In terms of a real investment, it's not the best one. One of my heros in the book was Robert Shiller, who was really one of the early prophets of this whole debacle. He said, "Wait a minute, let's look at long-term averages. What have home prices done over the last 100 years?" They've barely kept up with inflation. When you subtract everything that goes into a home, you're not making any money, in a real time, that's not affected by a bubble.

Vigeland: You mentioned earlier that there have been housing busts before and I wonder what your predictions are for the lessons that we will take out of this one. Obviously right now, the housing market is in collapse. It's hard to get a house because of the credit squeeze. But once the economy recovers, and things start to turn around, how confident are you that we won't simply go back to our old ways?

Wasik: Well, in some respects we will, because a lot of building and development is based on 19th century principles. You can say that any stick-built home with 2 x 4'ss is based on the best 19th century technology available. And that's too bad because we have so many other things we can do in terms of technology in homes to not only make them greener but cheaper -- say building modular homes, building them in factories. All these things are here right now and if we want to bring down the price of homes, if we want to make them more affordable for a larger number of people, we can do that. It just takes political will and willingness to rethinking the American dream.

Vigeland: John Wasik is the author of "The Cul-De-Sac Syndrome." Thanks so much for coming in.

Wasik: My pleasure, Tess.

Steve Klutter's picture
Steve Klutter - Sep 11, 2009

I would like an explanation of what the cul-de-sac "syndrome" actually is. Is it related to being limited in defending against a wildfire, or just about extra parking space?
In Nevada, mobile homes make sense economically and maybe even environmentally, except for gouging property owners and realtors. These advantages also work on "the coast", at least for now...

Joe Zen's picture
Joe Zen - Sep 11, 2009

Many people misconstrue what makes up a modular home. A trailer home is a "double wide". A "modular home" is a house just like any other except that it's pre-fab'ed into sections for easy transport to a rural or remote destination. My parents bought a 3200 square foot one story home for their 20 acre country plot. It's nice and feels just as real as a built on location home.

David Brodbeck's picture
David Brodbeck - Sep 9, 2009

I think the guest is a little over-optimistic about "modular homes." (When I was a kid we called them "trailers.") The resale value on them is generally awful compared to a stick-built home, and banks are reluctant to lend money for them. The result is you end up with a high interest rate loan on an asset that's rapidly depreciating.

Pat Green's picture
Pat Green - Sep 5, 2009

I bought my condo 25 years ago to protect myself from the vageries (sp?) of the rental market, when my landlord sold my rental house and the new owners raised my rent $200.00. It gives me a little bit of a tax shelter, but I've certainly never thought of it as an investment or my dream house, and it is anything BUT a status symbol at this time with many of our owners in foreclosure and not paying their HOA fees. But it does keep a roof over my head.
Pat Green

Ujjvala Rahn's picture
Ujjvala Rahn - Sep 5, 2009

It sounds like an interesting book, one that I would like to get. However, while owning one's house may not be a greater investment, it had got to be better than continually paying rent. That sounds like the car lease boondoggle. In addition, most retired people simply cannot afford to continue to pay for housing along with increased medical expenses.

I suppose then that, like a car, one either pays the house with cash or gets the shortest affordable loan. There is also the idea of more than two or more family paying for one house for everyone.