I have read a couple of interesting articles lately from some unlikely sources. One is Joe Follansbee's "The Disappearing Middle Class" which appeared in this issue of Seattle Magazine. (Link goes to table of contents only). The other is D. Parvaz's "Gentrified Street of Dreams isn't up my alley" (undoubtedly not his title) from the Seattle PI.
Backing up a bit, the Grigg family is going through its own questioning phase. In 1999, we thought it only good, right, and just to purchase a house similar to what our parents owned and go about fixing it. It seemed an expression of simple living, a reaction against living in Sammamish, a stand against modernity. It was conservative in a way only a Seattle Democrat could understand, right up there with volvos under constant repair, almaden wine in those goofy carafes, socks worn with sandals, and looking forward to your REI dividend. We wanted only safety and comfort and predictable-ness. See the problem? In reacting to the suburban options, we got ourselves into a mess where we held the same suburban values after all, in a house with some similar features to boot.
Joe Follansbee, who I used to work with, draws out a detailed picture of how certain neighborhoods in Seattle now require stunningly high incomes, where others still languish in poverty. His main point is the city's prices are out of step with incomes, when you take each on average. Underlying this information is questioning the theory that you can raise kids in the city as a homeowner... the theory that the american dream is even possible in an urban setting. The theory seems to be less and less provable. Home purchases, rather than being a natural evolution of a stable career, are now possible through one time events such as inheritance or (in our case) a stock windfall. Does someone have to die to enable the purchase of an urban home? Sometimes, literally, yes, and sometimes just figuratively, the daily death of requiring a career of grandeur to support the corresponding home. Sometimes two grand careers. But let's get personal again. How can I be pro-urban home, pro-big old fixer, pro-certain number of bedrooms and bathrooms and yet not be willing to tolerate death? The death it seems leeches out of the suburban mini mansions at both an aesthetic and a socio-cultural level? If we are all lining up for what we want, waiting patiently in imaginary lines, it seems I am standing in the wrong line, for sure.
Now, D. Parvaz has a great opinion regarding what it means to be American. Sickened by the wealth and (I infer) the isolation mentality of the home-as-fortress, he paints a different picture of the dream with the foundation being music, and lively streets and sidewalks, food, culture, and spirit. I can't speak for the country, but Seattle doesn't really do this except in bursts... various street fairs and festivals, parades, farmer's markets. You can't count on walking outside and lapping up culture. I, for one, have lived in one of the "mired in poverty" areas illustrated in the Seattle Magazine article and the only thing you could count on walking outside was a hospitable look from the drug dealer wondering when I would give in and start using already. To have perpetual inclusive culture outside your door is noisy, and dirty, and often seems not worth it. Of course everything is strange in this country where people do not know how to create a village. I know this via theory only.
It is unknown for us, what it means to own a home and raise kids in an urban setting without selling out. We have tried renting the house and getting some financial relief that way. We have tried refinancing and bargaining with the mortgage company but we really do have a good mortgage right now. It's irrational, but every lick of housework I do I blame on the house itself, as if we had a smaller house the kitchen would grow less dishes and the bed would need fewer sheets. When I stumble on a property for sale in a new condo complex, I linger over the poster and it's only a 1 bedroom, and of course completely impossible, but still. We could buy it for cash after selling the big place and somehow, be different people. Less dead. Instead of envisioning a growing community that is centered on the home, instead of bringing people into a home that we personally own and run, we would grow community by leaving home practically constantly, just for a break from the narrow space between the walls.
Without romanticizing that fantasy too much, it's clear that living for the house is not something we want to do anymore. Maybe the answer to urban living is simply to not focus on the home at all. Maybe urban living is knowing the times of the book readings, the routes of the buses, the playgroups, the cafes, the tiny computers nimble to get online, the stopping by other people's places, the sporting events, the shows, the chefs. Maybe there isn't an answer for what to do with the home itself... the forces of urbanity and kids being in such opposition as to not be resolvable.