Tuesday, December 17th, 2013
6

Man Acquires Money, And Then Houses

Today's least offensive Times op-ed (we can't even talk about this) begins like this:

Just five years ago, Adam Fleischman was in a two-bedroom rental with his wife and their year-old son, fumbling around for a career that might stick. Screenwriting hadn’t worked out. Same for finance. He was 38 and, he told me, “It was do or die.”

Today he owns two houses here, one with six bedrooms and a makeshift vineyard out back. He said that he’s toying with the idea of a third in London.

That's about the founder of Umami Burger, but: it seems like that's all people can think to do when they get some money. Six bedrooms? Two houses in the same city? Like great, buy a nice house, sure, but…. Maybe it's just because it's snowing and it's almost Christmas and I'm feeling sentimental but I just found this incredibly dispiriting. Hashtag capitalism.

6 Comments / Post A Comment

jolie (#16)

Cheer up, Choire—at least he didn't buy the falconry set from the Neiman's holiday catalogue!

Jenn@twitter (#235,343)

Even as someone who loves houses and has a real estate problem, I don't really see the point of owning two houses (that you don't rent out) in the same city. Unless they were, like, next door to each other or something and you wanted the extra land and a whole guest house, I *guess*? Maybe? But it seems like if you were suddenly rich you'd want to diversify. If you love houses, *maybe* get a vacation home somewhere cool (I am skeptical even of this unless you're someday planning to live there permanently, because empty houses make me sad), or like, something awesome like a houseboat?

Jenn@twitter (#235,343)

@Jenn@twitter And I should say: I don't think owning a house is the best or coolest way to spend your money at all. That's really only if you like owning a house. There are so many perks to (1) not being stuck owning the place where you live and (2) investing that kind of chunk of change in something more awesome.

La Cieca (#1,110)

For my taste, even one house in Los Angeles is too many. But a lot depends on what Bruni means by "here." I guess it would be possible to have a townhome in one of the closer-in neighborhoods and a ranchy-type place (with the vineyard) an hour or an hour and a half's drive farther out?

Didn't we figure out very recently that home ownership is maybe not all it's cracked up to be?

Freddie DeBoer (#4,188)

I think the reaction to the Brooks piece is a good example of the problem with a permanent commentary class– they can't achieve the perspective necessary when they're the ones being discussed.

Post a Comment