What so lobsters and cul-de-sacs have in common?

I like it when perceived extravagances and status symbols are proven to be not so extravagant and rather artificial. 

A century ago, lobsters were so plentiful and inexpensive that they were routinely fed to domestic servants and other low-wage workers.  The servants detested these "cockroaches of the sea" so much that their employment agreements often demanded that lobster be served no more than twice a week.

Until recently, lobster was considered an ill-tasting, ugly-to-look-at, impossible-to-eat food item only suitable for the hired help.

Then, thanks to decades of overfishing, lobster populations plummeted. 

As the scarcity of lobsters rose, prices increased, and before long, the "cockroach of the sea" was considered a delicacy.

Not because they tasted better or were any more appealing, but simply because they cost more.

I do not eat lobster.  I don't mind the taste of lobster but find the process of eating a lobster slightly disgusting and thoroughly unrewarding.

A lot of effort for a small amount of average-tasting food.

Any food that is normally dunked in butter before eaten cannot be that good.

But when I hear people extoll the virtue of lobster, I cannot help but think of how their love for this food is not based on the food itself but the time in which they live and the modern-day price of the product.

Nothing more.   

I recently read a piece about cul-de-sacs that gives me a similar pleasure. 

The cul-de-sac has long been viewed as a suburban ideal, the place where your children can play in the street in relative safety and neighborhoods can once again become the close-knit communities that they once appeared to be on black-and-white television.

Homes located within cul-de-sacs are almost always priced higher than those in less idealized locations, and many homebuyers specifically target cul-de-sacs when looking to purchase a home. 

And yet data compiled from studies on traffic patterns and the frequency of accidents shows that cul-de-sacs aren't as safe as you might think. 

"A lot of people feel that they want to live in a cul-de-sac, they feel like it's a safer place to be," Marshall says. "The reality is yes, you're safer – if you never leave your cul-de-sac. But if you actually move around town like a normal person, your town as a whole is much more dangerous."

It turns out that if you live in a one-cul-de-sac town, you're probably okay. 

But if the suburban sprawl of your hometown is littered with cul-de-sacs and similarly designed streets, you're children are in more danger than those living in the Bronx, at least when it comes to traffic.

Perceived extravagance fails again.