By Tony LaColla, AICP

The average price of a single family home in an affluent subdivision has hit $500,000 and up in Hillsborough County.  People looking for a big home have to chase that dream to the edge of suburbia. Urban sprawl, however, punishes them in ways that are often unnoticed. Why do Americans feel they need a bigger house to be happy, even though that bigger house might be farther from the office, stretch their budget to the max, and disrupt their family lives?

It has recently been shown that Americans may be fooling themselves.  This bad news comes from a growing number of economists, psychologists, and evolutionary biologists studying human happiness.  Experts are showing how our cities and our emotional lives shape each other, as well as the problems that are brought about by our “gut feeling” that bigger is better.

In their paper, Evolutionary Efficiency and Mean Reversion in Happiness, University of Chicago economists Luis Rayo and Nobel Prize/Presidential Medal of Freedom winner Gary S. Becker, use evolutionary theory to prove that the big-home urge is part of our genetic makeup.  In Rayo and Becker’s model, happiness is less an ideal state than a tool our genes use to get us to work harder and compete for more stuff, whether we enjoy the struggle or not. The urge for bigger and better is something that is biologically part of us, carried over from our hunter-gatherer ancestors. 

The bigger is better compulsion might not always be good for us.  Our instinctual desire for a large piece of land for hunting and gathering (nearly non-existent in today’s society) is fueling the growth of suburban sprawl and the depletion of natural resources at an alarming rate.  In fact, the size of an average American home has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet (chart to right).  Whether it's a McMansion in a wealthy neighborhood, or a bigger, cheaper house in the exurbs, the move toward ever larger homes has been accelerating for years.  With larger homes in the suburbs has come the need for longer commutes in larger automobiles.

Let’s look at commuting. A German study of commuters found that those who suffer long commutes are not maximizing their lives.  In fact, the longer their commutes, the less happy commuters are with life in general. Wouldn’t people only put up with a long commute if that pain was balanced out by the pleasure of living in a better home?  Over time we become used to a newer, bigger home, but we never get used to ongoing irritations, like the notorious Florida tailgaters, traffic jams, or missing dinner or game night with the family.  Over time the annoyance of commuting continues to grow while happiness in our large home, on our large lot, remains constant or fades away. 

According to calculations based on US Census Bureau figures, the average Tampa Bay area resident now spends around eight days a year traveling between work and home.  Living closer to work would mean less time in the car and more time to spend with family and friends or involved with volunteer activities.

Suburbs with wide lawns and cul-de-sacs, beckon back to the pastoral landscapes that made our ancestors feel safe.  Yet, in the US, people who live in low-density sprawl are more likely to die violently than their inner-city counterparts, thanks to car accidents. In a Columbia University study, suburban kids were far more likely to get hooked on drugs and booze due to a lack of parental supervision.  Parents, who are spending time in long commutes or working two jobs to afford their home, are spending far less quality time with their children.   Our modern society has forced most people into cars to reach stores, schools and activities, leading to a nearly sedentary lifestyle.  Those living in more densely populated urban areas and neo-traditional developments however, tend to walk and bike more, helping improve their overall physical health and satisfaction with their lifestyle.

Policy-makers have begun to take notice of a growing body of evidence that connects living habits and happiness.  Britain’s Labour government used the happiness theory to reform that country’s unemployment system. The City of Bogotá, Columbia (image to left) used research on status to underpin a restructuring of its road system, taking prime space away from cars and giving it to buses, bikes, and pedestrians, so poor commuters could feel more equal. Optimism has shot up.

How would the lessons from well-being research inform a happier home policy? Would we disproportionately tax large homes and lots as with alcohol and cigarettes? Implement and increase tolls on highways to push people into denser neighborhoods?

According to the arithmetic of happiness, this financial maxing-out is a recipe for unhappiness, especially if we decide to feed our large mortgage by working harder or longer for more money.   Our genes may wish for a grander more private life, but the resulting dissatisfaction and loneliness are a heavy price to pay.  Thanks to a growing body of research on many fronts, our society could be on the verge of changing its ways.  Our quest for bigger homes on bigger lots has proven unsustainable for our economy, environment, and now our personal well-being.  It’s time to get past our genetic program and turn over a new leaf.