In a recent article in the Washington Post, some folks that commute more than 50 miles a day outlined their experiences. They indicated that they moved so far away "for the children" or to find their dream house.
Is quality of life even a consideration? What good is a dream house if you are only there for 10 hours a day? How can someone be making a decision for their children knowing that the decision is going to take them away from their children for such a long time?
As if the quality of life issues weren't enough, the article outlines the additional ways that living a car-dependent lifestyle can actually make you sick. The health implications of planning, sprawling developments and suburban lifestyles have been well documented. This article explores the health implications specific to the commute itself, including the toll on one's body from sitting in place and the stress of dealing with the drive every day.
Shouldn't one's dream house be one that allows them to live the lifestyle that is healthiest and most enriched, not the one with the most bedrooms 60 miles from home? Shouldn't the best choice for the children be the one that allows their parents to spend the most time with them? When will quality of life be a consideration?
Are we going to destroy our communities, our environement, our bodies and our children before we figure this out?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
2 comments:
I think the Post article makes some interesting observations. What you are forgetting in your dissection of it, however, is that America (and indeed Kansas City) offers its residents a multiplicity of choice in terms of quality of life in the city and surrounding suburbs. Your quality of life measuring stick lacks the understanding that people have real choices about where they live and how long they commute. It's not as if one is relegated to a carcentric lifestyle in order to achieve a high quality of life. The reality is that there is real choice about where and how people want to live (and commute). For better or worse, this is our market driven democracy. Different cities provide different indicators of quality of life. For example, if you like space you don't live in Boston. If you like culture, you live in New York. Unless this quality of life choice is being infringed upon or if these choices are hurting others (which in many cases they are -- JS Mill's harm principle), then who are we to tell them what comprises a good quality of life? People will commute to their dream houses. You can still ride the bus if you wish.
I currently live about 10 minutes from my place of work, but don't live in a home that I like. I am going to be moving to a new home that will make my my daily commute (round-trip) about 40 minutes. To me, it's worth it.
I do not live to work, which is precisely why I am not letting where I work dictate where I live. Where I work can change and I'm not about to move any time I decide to get a new job.
So, if you can find the home of your dreams near your place of work, consider yourself lucky.
Post a Comment