April 5th Readings

This weeks reading made me ponder about how people construct their identity through home. As we can see in Ethel’s case from (GBV and Sageart reading) when one does not own the home constructing identity through it is most definitely limited. Even though it is limited it is still her home, but the way she interacts with it is out of her control. This is very similar to the “barriadas” in Lima from the Turner reading. In the “barriadas” anyone can construct a home as long as there is space for it, leaving the community with a mixed identity that does not parallel to the concept of home of each person living there.
Identity is also limited in the case of Berlin (Davey, 319). After the hopes of reconstructing Berlin into a more vibrant and live-able space there was not much more envisioned. People’s concept of home was very much left up to themselves with the reminiscences of what used to be. While it seems that squatters and the like had very little control, that is not always the case. Take for example an excerpt from Ravetz “One small West London squat declared itself the ‘free independent republic of Frestonia’.” In her piece Alison on the contrary to most of the other authors recognizes the dichotomy of squatting. But after reading all our readings for this week I still did not know if squatting was actually a form of living at home. In my opinion it was more like a dwelling.

March 29th Readings

Keats readings where particularly interesting in understanding the development of the ideal home as we now know it. I thought it was odd that the Drones were so heavily concerned with financial limitations when defining home. Like ellenap points out the television had a function in the home and after further analysis I can see why it is so dire. Things like the television that could serve the purpose of “babysitting” allowed families of lesser resources to have more time to do other things, so material belongings became essential to the concept of home in the fifties.

The Victorian Ideal

In thinking about our conversations in class it just seems so bazaar how women of wealth in the 1800′s conceptualized home. Are mentality is set so that home is centered around the family but in all actuality it is centered around the guest in the Victorian ideal. In a way also around the family but I feel like that is merely an accidental coincidence. If the guest feel greeted and enjoy the beauty of the home, the family name will maintain a legacy of status and consequently affect the rest of the members of the home, just seems so wrong to me.

Response to 2.17

It is interesting to explore the relationship people found with their neighbors. It was as if they identified themselves with their neighbors. This seem to be an expansion of one’s assets or liabilities. For example a housewife could brag about the doctor in the building who diagnoses the illnesses before the children produce the symptom. But it does not seem logical for one to brag about our neighbor as such a great asset.
Just like boarders were in the YMCA reading. Having a boarder would bring extra rent money to paying for a room. To me it sounds odd to think of people in that way. I am not sure that it is possible now for the most part in New York City to care less who your neighbors are, what are your opinions on this?

This weeks readings have provided the perspective of an idea most of us have not thought of. When our class first started we all seemed to have the consensus that “we” create the home, but the Moller house carries the total opposite ideology. The Moller house was made for a certain type of family. To enjoy the house you must become that family; that vigilant family, where hierarchy exist, where we observe the outside world but only through a designated scope. It seems odd to me that a home is that powerful as to change the way people are. I would think a home like that, that is not universal would be rejected by those it does not accommodate. But as a ponder about it rather deeply I realize we are a product of our environment, and that is usually not taken literally. If I were to have a large kitchen I may be inclined to have huge dinners or I at least would have the option to whereas someone with a smaller kitchen may not even have the option. It is like our argument about basements and attics. In class some of us thought they were sentimental storages, others thought they were recreational areas in development, but I never having either as an option in my home don’t have the idea what is right for the space.

Response to Saegert Reading

I find there to be a consensus of our definitions of home with that of Saegert. She argues that home and dwelling are different, but I feel like she does not provide a clear distinction; furthermore she defines them in practically the same way. I have always understood dwelling to be a place where you live, that protects you from the environments; I would even go as far as to say that it is the umbrella term for house, apartment, condo, cave, and other structures in which we live in.

I happened to find the implications Saegert provided of home to be rather interesting, for example on p. 290 when she talks about the home as a part of the neighborhood that may may give a sensation of entrapment. When I think about home like most of us I have good memories but “home” is also charged with manynegative experiences and for many home is not the place that they find ideal or wish to return to.