Why are houses in America so...ugly? (Pittsburg: luxury house, school)

[hellaslover]

America makes it easier for people to live more comfortably, no doubt. I do agree with you for the most part but i disagree when you say that a low income family could afford to buy or rent a single family house if they wanted to. Renting and mortgages are way too expensive in America. Someone who works minimum wage or little bit over min. wage could never rent a house (in living condition and descent area, anyway) with rents going for $1200 and up (in Sacramento). I never saw someone that is considered poor drive a BMW..unless an older model or salvaged, so i don't quite understand when you say even the insolvent people can drive a BMW. Buying a BMW or any other luxury car is not a big deal in the U.S due to the market and the drop in price after 3-5 years from new. When we are talking about a new car, it's only for those with good credit that can afford $500+ car payments +high insurance.

I would disagree that single family houses in Greece are for the wealthy. The fact that 40% lives in apartments (the number sounds high but probably true) is because almost half of the greek population is in Athens. So it makes sense. Not to mention that a lot of people from Athens own vacation homes in different islands so it has nothing to do with it being a luxury good, there is simply no room in Athens for everyone to have their own home.

What we are comparing is American Vs Greek/European architecture and sense of style.

[StarshipPoopers1]

Originally Posted by hellaslover

Are you drunk? How did you come to the conclusion that europeans don't need cars? And that they don't value their property?? Europeans are the ones that value their properties and houses the most...and work all their life to build a house they like and pass it on to their children and grandchildren..
If you don't want to build a garage that will take up 1/10 of your 1 acre yard and would rather have it take up part of your house then i have nothing else to tell you...Not to mention the majority of the people don't even use the garage to keep their cars, they just park it outside on the driveway, so don't tell me you want the garage to keep your precious suv from getting wet and cold...
I don't need to look at google maps to know how european houses look like. I lived in Greece and in America and i can compare. If your way of finding out about Europe and other parts of the world is through Google maps then good luck. And it's not even fair to compare small shops crammed together because they are small and crammed due to lack of room..has nothing to do with architecture and style. If you go to the old town in your city you will see the same thing and size.

First and foremost let me say that my original post came across as rather blunt and unnecessarily critical, it's just that your tone was very annoying and I responded in kind. If you want to diss me based on what I said, then all I have to say is I trust you've seen every American city and township to come to your conclusion. If I am ignorant for what I said about Europe, then I do trust that you have seen every corner of the country for yourself to make such a sweeping claim that an entire country has poor taste.

Let me give you a bit of insight into why my garage is attached to my house. I live in Canada. Much like the Northeastern United States (and thus a fair share of the American population), we receive significant snowfall. I can wake up and see a foot of snow that wasn't there the day before, on top of whatever snow is already on the ground. Then you get snow that drifts, creating metre deep (or more) snow banks around structures and clearings.

I wake up in the morning, plow out my driveway (which there is really no avoiding) then away I drive in my car which was nicely tucked away in the garage (and believe me, we use them. The fact that you say we don't shows you have some more experiencing to do). This keeps it from getting quite as cold and thus makes it easier to start, prevents me from having to scrape off the ice and snow and waiting for it to warm up, and as such saves me a good 10 minutes or more, and is a lot less wear and tear on the car. Oh, and let me mention that it's -20C outdoors this whole time.

You're saying that I should plow out a driveway that would have to be twice as long than it already is, then shovel a path out to my detached garage, which may or may not even fit on my property?

You can move from Greece to California and think that you know the entire country (which would imply much of Canada as well since we are very similar in architecture), but I don't think you're taking into account all of the applications for this style.

Besides, it's just practical. You drive off of the street, open your car door, step a few feet and there is the door to your house. I don't want to have to park down the street or in my backyard when there is a perfectly logical alternative. Especially when the reasoning behind tearing off my garage is so that I can put in a "big window". And for the record, almost every house has a big window on the opposite side or in the centre of the house off of the living room. Why do you need multiple rooms with huge windows when you're only going to spend time in one of them?

I regret that I haven't been able to travel Europe yet, but as a student I don't exactly have thousands of dollars to throw around. I'm not the one who started a thread bashing North American architecture though. And while I regret taking a cheapshot at Europe without having been there myself, it was simply me responding in kind to your ridiculous claim.

[Jimbo15]

In the south they have an expression "Big Hat, No Cattle"

Urban Dictionary: big hat, no cattle

Thomas Stanley actually went and researched who was wealthy in this country and why they were wealthy and wrote the Millionare Next Door after doing his research. One of the things he points out is that most of the millionares in this country aren't driving luxury cars like Cadilliacs, BMWs or Mercedes, instead they were more likely to drive large sedans like Buick La Sabres and Ford Crown Vics. The reason they were wealthy is that they saved a much larger portion of their incomes and used that savings to for investments to expand their business. In this country earned income is taxed much more progressively than investment income, so people who save a large percentage of their incomes end up benefiting the most from the effects of compound interest. Its your propensity to save, and not your income that basically determines how wealthy you are (though its easier for people with higher incomes to save more)

Amazon.com: The Millionaire Next Door (9780671015206): Thomas J. Stanley, William D. Danko: Books

The people driving the expensive luxury cars actually had suprisingly little savings. They spent their money as fast or faster than they made it. More than 40 of all luxury cars are leased because these people don't have the resources to actually pay cash for it. Of the remaining 60%, most of them don't have cash to pay for the BMW either because again these people are highly leveraged with little net worth. They may have high incomes, but they have very low levels of savings. Most of the people driving luxury cars are like you, people with no savings and may even have fairly large negative net worths because they are spending so much money on assets that depreciate quickly in value (cars, boats, planes etc).

The wealthy in this country spend very little on assets that depreciate in value, (cars, boats, planes) instead investing in assets that increase in value, stocks, real estate, their business.

In general when you see someone driving a BMW, you know that 40% are leasing because they couldn't afford to buy it and most of the rest financed it because they couldn't pay cash. These people aren't wealthy. Instead they are just overly leveraged like you. If you add up what they own vs what they owe, they generally don't have much to their names.

In the US in the places built out after WW2, generally most of the housing stock is single family homes. This is especially true in the places built out after the tax reform of 1986, which eliminated a lot of the tax advantages for investing in multifamily unit properties.

If you look at where the people in the bottom 40% of the income distribution in the Sacramento region in places like Rancho Cordova, College Greens, Hollywood Park, Tahoe Park, Foothill Farms a majority are actually living in single family homes because so much of the housing stock locally is single family homes.

In Land Park, in the Fabulous Forties, in Arden Oaks, in Willhaggen,in Del Dayo, in Granite Bay, in Shelfield, in Davis, you can find custom homes that are better designed. But those neighborhoods tend to be inhabited by people in the top 60% of the income distribution.

I am sure the wealthy in Athens can afford to own custom designed single family homes, just like the wealthy here.

But the housing stock for the bottom 40% is different here. In the US, even the people in the bottom of the income distribution can afford to live and or own a single family home. These homes are probably bigger than the apartments, they would be living in Greece. In any country the housing for the bottom 40% of the population isn't as nice as the housing for the top 60%.

But because the housing for the bottom 40% in this country includes a lot of single family homes where as in Greece its apartments. So a fair comparison would be between those two types of housing between the people in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, but instead you are comparing the housing of the bottom 40% here with the housing for the top 60% in Greece and then claiming that the Americans have no sense of style, when I think the real issue is that this group of Americans living in the bottom 40% of the income distribution just doesn't have a lot of money, so there housing is much more modest and that is why there housing doesn't have much style because they don't have the disposible income to invest in it to make it shine the way the people in the top 60% of the income distribution do.

[hellaslover]

Originally Posted by StarshipPoopers1

First and foremost let me say that my original post came across as rather blunt and unnecessarily critical, it's just that your tone was very annoying and I responded in kind. If you want to diss me based on what I said, then all I have to say is I trust you've seen every American city and township to come to your conclusion. If I am ignorant for what I said about Europe, then I do trust that you have seen every corner of the country for yourself to make such a sweeping claim that an entire country has poor taste.

Let me give you a bit of insight into why my garage is attached to my house. I live in Canada. Much like the Northeastern United States (and thus a fair share of the American population), we receive significant snowfall. I can wake up and see a foot of snow that wasn't there the day before, on top of whatever snow is already on the ground. Then you get snow that drifts, creating metre deep (or more) snow banks around structures and clearings.

I wake up in the morning, plow out my driveway (which there is really no avoiding) then away I drive in my car which was nicely tucked away in the garage (and believe me, we use them. The fact that you say we don't shows you have some more experiencing to do). This keeps it from getting quite as cold and thus makes it easier to start, prevents me from having to scrape off the ice and snow and waiting for it to warm up, and as such saves me a good 10 minutes or more, and is a lot less wear and tear on the car. Oh, and let me mention that it's -20C outdoors this whole time.

You're saying that I should plow out a driveway that would have to be twice as long than it already is, then shovel a path out to my detached garage, which may or may not even fit on my property?

You can move from Greece to California and think that you know the entire country (which would imply much of Canada as well since we are very similar in architecture), but I don't think you're taking into account all of the applications for this style.

Besides, it's just practical. You drive off of the street, open your car door, step a few feet and there is the door to your house. I don't want to have to park down the street or in my backyard when there is a perfectly logical alternative. Especially when the reasoning behind tearing off my garage is so that I can put in a "big window". And for the record, almost every house has a big window on the opposite side or in the centre of the house off of the living room. Why do you need multiple rooms with huge windows when you're only going to spend time in one of them?

I regret that I haven't been able to travel Europe yet, but as a student I don't exactly have thousands of dollars to throw around. I'm not the one who started a thread bashing North American architecture though. And while I regret taking a cheapshot at Europe without having been there myself, it was simply me responding in kind to your ridiculous claim.

If you live in Canada and other places where it is cold and snows then i understand the need of a garage. The type of houses with the garage in the front though are found pretty much everywhere in the U.S including Sacramento. So i'm not buying that the garage is needed to protect you and your car from the weather, it is an inconvenience which follows American idealism "cheap, fast, convenient". No, i have not been anywhere outside California and i don't think i will see much difference in the way majority of houses are built. Since you are are a student, if you 're in college try to get an Art History class, it will help you understand great architecture.

Originally Posted by Jimbo15

In the south they have an expression "Big Hat, No Cattle"

Urban Dictionary: big hat, no cattle

Thomas Stanley actually went and researched who was wealthy in this country and why they were wealthy and wrote the Millionare Next Door after doing his research. One of the things he points out is that most of the millionares in this country aren't driving luxury cars like Cadilliacs, BMWs or Mercedes, instead they were more likely to drive large sedans like Buick La Sabres and Ford Crown Vics. The reason they were wealthy is that they saved a much larger portion of their incomes and used that savings to for investments to expand their business. In this country earned income is taxed much more progressively than investment income, so people who save a large percentage of their incomes end up benefiting the most from the effects of compound interest. Its your propensity to save, and not your income that basically determines how wealthy you are (though its easier for people with higher incomes to save more)

Amazon.com: The Millionaire Next Door (9780671015206): Thomas J. Stanley, William D. Danko: Books

The people driving the expensive luxury cars actually had suprisingly little savings. They spent their money as fast or faster than they made it. More than 40 of all luxury cars are leased because these people don't have the resources to actually pay cash for it. Of the remaining 60%, most of them don't have cash to pay for the BMW either because again these people are highly leveraged with little net worth. They may have high incomes, but they have very low levels of savings. Most of the people driving luxury cars are like you, people with no savings and may even have fairly large negative net worths because they are spending so much money on assets that depreciate quickly in value (cars, boats, planes etc).

The wealthy in this country spend very little on assets that depreciate in value, (cars, boats, planes) instead investing in assets that increase in value, stocks, real estate, their business.

In general when you see someone driving a BMW, you know that 40% are leasing because they couldn't afford to buy it and most of the rest financed it because they couldn't pay cash. These people aren't wealthy. Instead they are just overly leveraged like you. If you add up what they own vs what they owe, they generally don't have much to their names.

In the US in the places built out after WW2, generally most of the housing stock is single family homes. This is especially true in the places built out after the tax reform of 1986, which eliminated a lot of the tax advantages for investing in multifamily unit properties.

If you look at where the people in the bottom 40% of the income distribution in the Sacramento region in places like Rancho Cordova, College Greens, Hollywood Park, Tahoe Park, Foothill Farms a majority are actually living in single family homes because so much of the housing stock locally is single family homes.

In Land Park, in the Fabulous Forties, in Arden Oaks, in Willhaggen,in Del Dayo, in Granite Bay, in Shelfield, in Davis, you can find custom homes that are better designed. But those neighborhoods tend to be inhabited by people in the top 60% of the income distribution.

I am sure the wealthy in Athens can afford to own custom designed single family homes, just like the wealthy here.

But the housing stock for the bottom 40% is different here. In the US, even the people in the bottom of the income distribution can afford to live and or own a single family home. These homes are probably bigger than the apartments, they would be living in Greece. In any country the housing for the bottom 40% of the population isn't as nice as the housing for the top 60%.

But because the housing for the bottom 40% in this country includes a lot of single family homes where as in Greece its apartments. So a fair comparison would be between those two types of housing between the people in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, but instead you are comparing the housing of the bottom 40% here with the housing for the top 60% in Greece and then claiming that the Americans have no sense of style, when I think the real issue is that this group of Americans living in the bottom 40% of the income distribution just doesn't have a lot of money, so there housing is much more modest and that is why there housing doesn't have much style because they don't have the disposible income to invest in it to make it shine the way the people in the top 60% of the income distribution do.

First of all, for the wealthy in this country buying a BMW or Mercedes or any other luxury car is spare change to them. We are talking about wealthy and not middle class. The ones that are wealthy and choose to save every way they can are greedy and they will die alone, not having lived life with a big savings account. You obviously don't buy a car as an investment and you really can't only spend your money on investments.

You are saying that over 40% of luxury car owners lease their cars. Assuming that's true (i really doubt it though), what's wrong with that and financing? Even if you are rich why would you pay cash for a car and not use that money towards something else? Does paying cash define the wealthy? Wealthy make the money work for them to make more money, they don't give away their money paying in cash every purchase...
If what you were saying was true, then low to middle class people would be driving luxury cars and rich people would be driving average cars. Clearly that's not the case.

You are still arguing that the bottom 40% of Greeks lives in apartments. That is not true. Every single Greek that lives in a roomy area has his own single family house. And there are no identical houses in Greece simply because every single house is custom made.

You don't need disposable income to make the house shine, and that's not what i am talking about. The houses are built a certain way (wooden boxes with garage) in mass production. Cheap and average houses in Greece may be small in size but have more character than an average house here. It has nothing to do with wealth and where the wealthy live vs where the poor live, it has to do with architecture and the way each country builds houses.


Quick question. Do you think America has nicer and better cars than Europe? How do you define a good and nice car?

[StarshipPoopers1]

Originally Posted by hellaslover

If you live in Canada and other places where it is cold and snows then i understand the need of a garage. The type of houses with the garage in the front though are found pretty much everywhere in the U.S including Sacramento. So i'm not buying that the garage is needed to protect you and your car from the weather, it is an inconvenience which follows American idealism "cheap, fast, convenient". No, i have not been anywhere outside California and i don't think i will see much difference in the way majority of houses are built. Since you are are a student, if you 're in college try to get an Art History class, it will help you understand great architecture.

Why do you have to say it like that? It makes you sound like such an elitist and doesn't help your cause. I took art all through high school and had a brief fascination with it which involved much research. I even considered going to University for art before deciding against it, and my friend is in University for art and frequently gives me facts. I'm also an uber history buff, so please don't assume that my differing opinions are a result of being uneducated or ignorant of what is out there. They shove European architecture down our throats all throughout art, and yes there is a reason for that. I'd say that Europeans are second to none in the appeal of their historical cities and structures.

But again, it's all relative. I love the architecture of cities like Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, and New York which have a decent mix of old and new. I know someone in Sweden who I frequently have debates with, and he prefers cities like Stockholm where there are no skyscrapers and the buildings are quite low. Church spires dominate the skyline. I, on the hand, love many of North America's cities and wouldn't have them any other way. 1000 foot towers of metal and glass, I love it. So can't you just admit that it's all based on where you're from? My idea of a perfect house is a log cabin out in the wilderness, and my idea of a perfect apartment is one with floor to ceiling windows on a high floor that can see the entire skyline. Is that for everyone? Absolutely not. Am I wrong for thinking it isn't? No.

That means you're not wrong either, and I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was saying that you were because I wasn't. I just mean that you're entitled to your opinions, but you're in North America now. It'd be like me going to Athens and laughing hysterically at the ruins.

Quick question. Do you think America has nicer and better cars than Europe? How do you define a good and nice car?

That's a rather pointless question given the vast range of cars from both continents. I'm not a fan of many European cars like Volkswagen, Saab, Volvo, and all of those terribly ugly compacts that dominate the streets. But obviously makes like Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW (some types), etc. are to die for.

Still, I like the classics like the Mustang, Corvette, Camaro, Charger, Challenger, etc. And the difference is that while these cars are still nice, real people can actually afford them.

A good car is the biggest bang for your buck. That means a low price with good features and looks. It doesn't even need the looks, just be a comfortable and well functioning car. I like 'good' cars because they can get dinged and scratched (like any car that actually gets used) and you won't shed tears.

A nice car is a car that you're scared to drive down the street for fear of... anything. Usually too powerful for logic anyways, unless you enjoy speeding tickets and losing your license. (Here in Ontario you lose your license and have your car impounded and get fined for going 50km/h over the speed limit. I can't begin to tell you how many luxury/sport cars I've seen pulled over by a cop getting loaded onto a tow truck headed for the pound hehehe).

Many of them have Michigan or New York plates too, that could ruin people.

[hellaslover]

I didn't mean to offend you when i said you should take an art class. I'm sorry if i did. I, myself, wasn't too much into art and history (i'm still not) but after taking a class i realized the importance of art in the world and how it helps form and define a culture. Anyways

I also love the skyline and tall buildings found in major cities. And i also prefer modern houses and buildings over an old yet stylish, but what i have been arguing for 18 pages now is that great architecture started from Europe and when an American posts "European architecture sucks, America has the best" it just pisses me off.

I asked the car question and i was expecting an answer like "any big car with a v8 and 500bhp"...that's what impresses most Americans. Size and power. But i like and agree with your answer. I like American muscle cars too, and trucks. (i don't like them because they 're big and powerful, but because they have character)

[d_deathrage]

Originally Posted by hellaslover

First of all, for the wealthy in this country buying a BMW or Mercedes or any other luxury car is spare change to them. We are talking about wealthy and not middle class. The ones that are wealthy and choose to save every way they can are greedy and they will die alone, not having lived life with a big savings account. You obviously don't buy a car as an investment and you really can't only spend your money on investments.

You are saying that over 40% of luxury car owners lease their cars. Assuming that's true (i really doubt it though), what's wrong with that and financing? Even if you are rich why would you pay cash for a car and not use that money towards something else? Does paying cash define the wealthy? Wealthy make the money work for them to make more money, they don't give away their money paying in cash every purchase...
If what you were saying was true, then low to middle class people would be driving luxury cars and rich people would be driving average cars. Clearly that's not the case.

You are still arguing that the bottom 40% of Greeks lives in apartments. That is not true. Every single Greek that lives in a roomy area has his own single family house. And there are no identical houses in Greece simply because every single house is custom made.

You don't need disposable income to make the house shine, and that's not what i am talking about. The houses are built a certain way (wooden boxes with garage) in mass production. Cheap and average houses in Greece may be small in size but have more character than an average house here. It has nothing to do with wealth and where the wealthy live vs where the poor live, it has to do with architecture and the way each country builds houses.


Quick question. Do you think America has nicer and better cars than Europe? How do you define a good and nice car?

Hellaslover

You are making several assumptions that I doubt either Jimbo15 or Edwardius would agree with and I know I don't agree with. First you are assuming that high income is synonymous with wealth (large savings). That clearly isn't the case.

Mike Tyson made 400 million in 20 years but had to file bankruptcy

Tyson's Bankruptcy Is a Lesson In Ways to Squander a Fortune - The New York Times

Annie Liebowitz has a similiar story.

Photographer Annie Leibovitz, overexposed, is forced to sell her life's work

High income isn't the same thing has being wealthy. Both Tyson and Liebowitz are bankrupt. Because I have some savings, I am more wealthy than both of them combined even though I have never earned more than million dollars in a year while both of them have made several more times than that in a year.

Second you are assuming that luxury goods are consumed exclusively the wealthy. While Haagen Dazs and Grey Poupon are positioned as luxury goods, that doesn't mean that they are consumed by wealthy people.

But that isn't just true for ice cream and mustard. Its true for cars too.

Having sold cars in college, I can tell you the people most likely to buy luxury cars were flashy, not necessarily wealthy. Bartenders were just as likely as lawyers to buy a bmw. Some people have a really big need to impress others and the dealer only cares that some finance company would sign off on the loan. The dealer made more money off the people with poorer credit and lower incomes because they lacked the ability to dicker on the price and generally paid a higher interest rate for longer terms to get the loan approved. These people cared primarily about arranging the terms of the loan so they could make the payments. The really didn't care that much about how much interest they paid or how much they actually paid for the car. So they were very lucrative for the dealer. The dealer made much less money on the people who were wealthy enough to pay cash. These people didn't care about finance terms because they were paying cash. But these people did care about how much the car cost, so the would haggle over prices and shop around to find the dealer/salesman willing to give them their best price on the car. As my boss pointed out to me, that was the skill that made these people wealthy.

What I have seen is that the wealthy tend to pay cash for the things that depreciate in value and only use leverage for things where there are tax advantages in being leveraged or to buy assets that appreciate and don't depreciate in value. They leverage up to buy investment property, housing and stocks not to buy automobiles.

Its the flashy people with no assets that borrow as much as a bank will qualify them. It doesn't matter how much these people make, they never manage to keep any of it because they spend the money as fast as they make it.

At work, I deal with some clients who are quite wealthy and they aren't greedy at all. Often they are very generous with their time and their money to causes they believed in. They support their favorite charities and causes they believe in. One of the reasons there is a Mind Institute at the Med Center is because of a person I know who owns a trucking company who has a son who was autistic. He has donated several million to the Mind Institute. He donates a lot of money to politicians who agree to sponsor legislation for autism research.

If you were to meet him, you would think he was a hillbilly because he swears a lot and drives a beat up Silverado to work. But when you own a trucking company where you are working with truckers, you don't want to seem to ostentatious. So the pick up is a better choice.

If you were to go to work in an auto dealership, it might suprise you as to how wealthy the people who are buying different types of cars. You have the very frugal people who can afford much more luxurious cars who decide to get a fairly non-descript car and you have people who probably have no business buying luxury cars going out and buying them. The correlation between the price of an auto and the wealth of the person driving it isn't that great. Some people live with in there budget. Some people live well below it and some people live well beyond it. As such, the cost of an auto isn't that reliable predictor of the wealth of the person driving it.

There is roughly 2 million people in the greater Sacramento area. Most of the housing stock in this area is single family homes. That is true for both the top 60% and the bottom 40%. In Athens apparently everyone is stuck in tiny apartments. The question is why are so many people stuck in such small apartments in Athens. Why doesn't the city spread out and build most people single family homes like we do here?

My guess is that it would be too expensive to do so. Its cheaper to build apartments, so people live in apartments. The US is wealthier so we can afford to build single family homes for most families. But the single family homes for the people of modest means aren't that luxurious. They end up in the smaller single family homes in the older neighborhoods.

That has certain advantages. In the US, the people of limited means still have the opportunity to buy homes in the less expensive neighborhoods. Not having neighbors means not having to share a common wall, so there is less noise. You also have the freedom to customise your property. You can plant a garden, you can get dog, you install a spa.

Most multi family properties are not owned by there occupants. While you can find some owner occupied condos, generally people living multi unit properties are renters.

One of the things that created the middle class in this country was widespread homeownership. Paying your mortgage is a type of forced savings. Homeownship acts as pretty good hedge against inflation.

While you might prefer the aesthetics of the apartments in Athens, I think the appeal of single family homes, even very modest ones is the opportunity to buy one as means of joining the middle class.

[hellaslover]

I do understand your definition of wealthy, and technically you are correct, but realistically i respectfully disagree. The way i see it is that money (lots of money and high income) make someone rich thus wealthy. It is up to that individual to use his money wisely but even if he doesn't he is still considered wealthy as long as he has money coming in. Someone who has several million dollar homes, and spends all his income paying the mortgages and his expensive cars, and puts nothing in his savings, is capable and has the means to live such a luxury life, now, if something happens to him/his business and his income is less than his expenses, then he becomes "poor". But until that happens he is considered wealthy. Basically what i'm saying is that as long as your income is sufficient to live a luxury life you are wealthy, no matter how you spend that money. Ofcourse it is wise to save for the hard times, but until those hard times come and affect you, you are wealthy.

According to your logic, if we assume that the homeless make $30-40 a day begging for money, and since they have no bills to pay but only for food, and let's say they spend $20 a day on food and alcohol and keep the other 20 in their pocket (instead of savings), they are considered wealthier than someone who owes a few thousand in credit cards but has a house, car and stable income (even if the house and car is not paid off)?

I agree that luxury goods are not exclusively consumed by the wealthy, but normally and usually yes. That is why advertising targets the rich to sell high end products. You will never see a Mercedes billboard on Stockton blvd...or a 99c store in El Dorado Hills..

I'm curious to find out how exactly can you tell if the customers that come to the dealership are rich or poor? According to your definition the wealthy have a lot of money in savings, do you check peoples' savings accounts in the process of car selling? Because otherwise you can't really tell. Even those that do pay in cash, it doesn't mean they have more money in the bank and what amount.

Even though i'm not from Athens and don't really know what's going on, i'm sure there are houses built everyday outside of Athens. Probably the richer can afford to build in such areas since it is now favorable to have the peace of mind living outside the city, yet the convenience to drive not too far to find everything you need. Similarly to houses in San Francisco where the ones just outside the city are generally expensive villas overlooking the bay. I'm pretty sure after the fires in Athens die down we 'll see more and more upscale housing getting built, Greeks wait for the summer after the fire to find room to build houses where our forests should be

I tried to look up statistics and i could not find anything but i'm certain more people in America live in apartments throughout the U.S than Greeks live throughout Greece (in Athens it's a diff story)

I do not prefer the aesthetics of Greek apartments by any means. I don't like apartments period. And there is only so much you can do design-wise when building apartments.

[confusedaboutlife]

I am too a European confused with the inexplicably awful architecture of American houses. I was thinking more of the interior design rather than the external though. Although I agree with most of Hellaslover says, having an architectural background, the inexplicably terrible designs and lack of functionality of American houses, including even the luxury houses never ceases to surprise me in a very bad way.

Even a poor Polish village has better design and functionality than the majority of houses in America, and I seriously think it's the 12 year old no-brainers who design those houses. In my school system, you couldn't get past the first grade with such dumb ass designs. The professors would simply humiliate and insult you in public!

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by confusedaboutlife

I am too a European confused with the inexplicably awful architecture of American houses. I was thinking more of the interior design rather than the external though. Although I agree with most of Hellaslover says, having an architectural background, the inexplicably terrible designs and lack of functionality of American houses, including even the luxury houses never ceases to surprise me in a very bad way.

Even a poor Polish village has better design and functionality than the majority of houses in America, and I seriously think it's the 12 year old no-brainers who design those houses. In my school system, you couldn't get past the first grade with such dumb ass designs. The professors would simply humiliate and insult you in public!

What do you mean by non functional? I certainly would like to know what you consider functional and why you dislike our homes so much. Isn't all of this a matter of opinion..

Nita