Big Houses

I'm not a fan of the McMansion, and, consequently, a big fan of mcmansionhell and Kate Wagner.  One of the big problems with these houses is just the size for size sake.  My house is 2000 sq ft. (respectable but still large), has 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bath, kitchen, one living room, dining "room".  I've been in houses that were twice that size but had the same room breakdown (often with a 2nd living room).  That's twice as much space but no more functionality, and tends to lead to just weird useless spaces.  Do you need 600 sq ft for a master bedroom?  400 for a master bath?  How about a formal "living room" that's really just decorative?

That said, There are a lot of old houses around me that are 3000 - 6000 sq ft.  Many were built smaller and expanded over the years, but there are plenty of old houses that are quite large. They don't feel as monstrous and stupidly overbuilt as modern mcmansions, however, and while I'm not entirely sure why, I've a couple ideas. (Note: the 10000+ sq ft realm for older actual mansions is a different category...almost all modern "homes" in that size range are just more ridiculous versions of the smaller 4k sq ft mcmansions)

First is these older houses, unless they've been updated almost always have more closed off interior spaces (i.e. separate rooms) with normal height ceilings--up to 10' but often 8-9.  The necessary connecting hallways in this configuration add square feet, but don't feel as useless as the foyer of an open concept modern house.  Often a big block of the square footage is from a finished attic and/or basement, which may serve the same purpose of a second living area, but by not being on the main floor they don't seem as superfluous.  The other reason is that the architectural design and layout don't seem forced.  These houses are mostly boxes with fairly simple/straightforward/purpose-driven roofs, facades, and lines.  There just aren't as many weird not-spaces as you find in modern mcmansions.  (They also tend to have one car, and on rare occasion 2-car garages that are either detached, or basement, or behind the main house...garages--specifically the garage doors--are, in general, not attractive features on houses.)

This doesn't mean all these large, old houses are without wasted space, but they often don't feel as gross as their modern equivalents.

Meadowlands Development

The project at the Meadowlands in NJ (formerly Xanadu, now American Dream) is one of Atrios's bugaboos and is fun to read whatever he digs up.

I'm a mall skeptic in the era of Amazon, but not a shopping and entertainment complex skeptic.  The particulars of this project do seem really bad.  The question should be how do people get around and how do they get there?  Mall of America in MN is surrounded by people who drive to get everywhere, and is in a fairly modestly populated area so driving to get everywhere works.

The Meadowlands is just outside of NYC in northern NJ in one of the most densely populated parts of our country.  Yea, some people drive, but more than half of NYC residents don't even own a car, and it's the only city in the US with >50% of people who commute via transit (if you just say "not by car" that number goes up quite a bit).  In addition, while there is more driving in Jersey and upstate NY, there is still far more train and bus riding that in the midwest.  In fact of the 6 cities to crack 20% transit ridership, Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia join NYC as northeast transit cities (Chicago and San Francisco are the remaining 2) with Baltimore just missing the 20% cut.  In the rest of the US, only Seattle, Portland and LA manage to top 10%.

If they want that place to work, they're going to need a dedicated train stop that is just outside the doors, not across a street and 1000 ft. of parking lot.  I'm not sure if that's going to happen, but even if it does, it's still a huge question mark because of the rest of the northeast.  There are mountains and an ocean, there are several major cities including NYC and DC.  There are plenty of amusement parks, and there is already a lot of shopping around (including plenty of high end).  Is a shopper really going to see that mall as better than NYC or even the existing malls around (including King of Prussia and multiple outlet malls)?  Is someone interested in the amusement park aspect going to find that a better option than any of the amusement/water parks in the area (including indoor options)?

The only way it works is that people who don't have easy access to various cities, parks, beaches, et cetera, can get here and the only way that happens is with good, easy transit access.  Even ignoring the "parking lots are a blight" aspect, if this place relies on drivers, its doomed.

Capitalism Values

I feel like I'm the only person whose mind boggles that Apple is the highest valued company in the world (and by a huge margin). Apple is a gadget company.  They make toys.  They do innovate, but not really all that much when compared with the research done by companies in medical (incl. pharma) and energy markets.  At some level they don't even make their products, they just design them; a Chinese factory makes them, and Apple gets all the profit.

Their high valuation comes not because they make great products that enhance human welfare--everything they make is made by other companies, sometimes (often?) better, and almost always cheaper--but because their product market is massive (pretty much everyone on the globe), and they are able to sell those products with much higher profit margins than any of their competitors.  Buying an Apple product is like buying any luxury good: you spend a lot more money for something that isn't measurably better but that has the proper logo on it.  It's arguably worse since many luxury goods are measurably better than the non-luxury alternatives, whether that is nicer materials or better construction, or simply, somehow more (think houses or boats).

This isn't saying Apple is bad (it isn't) or people are stupid (we are but this isn't really a great example), but rather that capitalism values making money, and Apple is better at that than anyone else.

Most other large companies require huge capital investments to get going--oil companies need rigs, labs, land access, mineral rights..., pharma companies need lots of expensive laboratory equipment, as well as plants for scaling up.  Apple doesn't.

In most competitive markets the profit margins of products get driven down--Amazon's margins are sometimes negative.  Apple doesn't reduce its margins to gain advantage.

This should serve as a major indictment of capitalism (similar to the unhealthy profits and values of banks and other financial institutions).  I'm not sure why it doesn't, but I'm suspicious that the people most vocal about the "evils of capitalism" also happen to like and use Apple, and so can't see that the company that makes their computer is very representative of the problem.

It seems that if capitalism best served human welfare, then the largest companies would be the most welfare enhancing.  But the most welfare enhancing aspects of [most] societies are actually government run: health care, infrastructure (water, power, transportation), and social welfare programs (anti-poverty, unemployment, retirement) all contribute massively to increasing human welfare, but they are government operated precisely because they are not profitable enterprises which means capitalism wants nothing to do with them.

In reality it is neither capitalism nor socialism but some melding of the two that best serve society, but still, Apple's valuation is mind boggling.

10/28/2015 Update: Looks like Vox is following my blog.  Of course they come off more like fans than seeing this as an strange byproduct of the values of capitalism.