What do you think?
Rate this book
High Life: Condo Living in the Suburban Century
The first comprehensive architectural and cultural history of condominium and cooperative housing in twentieth-century America.
Today, one in five homeowners in American cities and suburbs lives in a multifamily home rather than a single-family house. As the American dream evolves, precipitated by rising real estate prices and a renewed interest in urban living, many predict that condos will become the predominant form of housing in the twenty-first century. In this unprecedented study, Matthew Gordon Lasner explores the history of co-owned multifamily housing in the United States, from New York City’s first co-op, in 1881, to contemporary condominium and townhouse complexes coast to coast. Lasner explains the complicated social, economic, and political factors that have increased demand for this way of living, situating the trend within the larger housing market and broad shifts in residential architecture and family life. He contrasts the prevalence and popularity of condos, townhouses, and other privately governed communities with their ambiguous economic, legal, and social standing, as well as their striking absence from urban and architectural history.
Today, one in five homeowners in American cities and suburbs lives in a multifamily home rather than a single-family house. As the American dream evolves, precipitated by rising real estate prices and a renewed interest in urban living, many predict that condos will become the predominant form of housing in the twenty-first century. In this unprecedented study, Matthew Gordon Lasner explores the history of co-owned multifamily housing in the United States, from New York City’s first co-op, in 1881, to contemporary condominium and townhouse complexes coast to coast. Lasner explains the complicated social, economic, and political factors that have increased demand for this way of living, situating the trend within the larger housing market and broad shifts in residential architecture and family life. He contrasts the prevalence and popularity of condos, townhouses, and other privately governed communities with their ambiguous economic, legal, and social standing, as well as their striking absence from urban and architectural history.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published October 30, 2012
1 person is currently reading
44 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
December 24, 2016
Absolutely awful book! I couldn't get more than 15 pages into it - the writing was very poor. It was pompous, elitist, and not worth my time.
March 24, 2013
Fantastic and wonderfully written history of condos and co-ops in the century of suburbia. Once viewed as an ahistorical and risky aberration, condos and co-ops gradually gained acceptance and look poised to be the dominant housing form of this century. This is a really interesting look at their roots.
December 25, 2016
Complete waste of time and money. Writer has zero talent. Those that can't do...teach.
December 25, 2016
Utter garbage.
December 24, 2016
Me Lasner is a high on the hog idiot and just spews out ignorance.
I would rather spend the next 2 hours sitting next to a Trump than read this garbage.
I would rather spend the next 2 hours sitting next to a Trump than read this garbage.
December 18, 2012
"One of the leading reasons for the condo countertrend was changing demographics. Different kinds of dwellings appeal to different kinds of households at different stages of life. Condos tend to suit older households and younger. Most larger families, by contrast, especially two-parent families with school-age children, prefer to live in single-family houses. ... As people had fewer children, married later, divorced more frequently, and lived longer, the average household size fell from 4.8 people in 1880 to 2.6 in 2010. Bu the early twenty-first century, one in four U.S. homes included a single person living alone." (8)
"It was people who were actively opposed to mainstream capitalism and people who had few other housing options, such as middle-class African Americans. It was, in other words, intense ideological commitment or lack of alternatives that brought most middle- and working-class families to co-ownership in the 1920s. For most everyone else, the decade offered an array of more appealing choices." (112)
"For all the experiments by artists, the Manhattan rich, the Jewish left, working women, African Americans, and others over the previous hundred years, it was the elderly, primarily in Florida, who first made co-ownership a truly mainstream dwelling practice in the U.S." (163)
"Ownership was not the only outcome. In neighborhoods appealing to middle-class bohemians and professionals such as Linda Grover's Upper West Side, where housing demand was strong and gentrification was under way, the mismatch between prevailing rents and rising costs was commonly resolved through conversion. In many marginal neighborhoods, by contrast, this gap resulted in abandonment." (263)
"It was people who were actively opposed to mainstream capitalism and people who had few other housing options, such as middle-class African Americans. It was, in other words, intense ideological commitment or lack of alternatives that brought most middle- and working-class families to co-ownership in the 1920s. For most everyone else, the decade offered an array of more appealing choices." (112)
"For all the experiments by artists, the Manhattan rich, the Jewish left, working women, African Americans, and others over the previous hundred years, it was the elderly, primarily in Florida, who first made co-ownership a truly mainstream dwelling practice in the U.S." (163)
"Ownership was not the only outcome. In neighborhoods appealing to middle-class bohemians and professionals such as Linda Grover's Upper West Side, where housing demand was strong and gentrification was under way, the mismatch between prevailing rents and rising costs was commonly resolved through conversion. In many marginal neighborhoods, by contrast, this gap resulted in abandonment." (263)
December 25, 2016
feel like I am reading a book from a real elitist and not one who actually understands real estate.
December 25, 2016
When you play the game of political outrage, you win or you die.
December 27, 2016
Book is a hard read. Could not decide what author was trying to convey. Plodded through it, but I want those hours of my life back. Sorry.
May 18, 2022
This is a really lovely book, what seems like a work of real passion on the part of Matthew Lasner to tie together cultural and political histories of condos/co-ops and other forms of shared ownership, set against the rising ideology of the detached, single-family unit.
This work carefully connects architectural, political and social criticism into a cohesive whole, with enough nice photography of multifamily units to make it a pleasant and curious coffee table book. Come for the photos, but stay for what might be described as the secret history of limited equity co-ops (as well as the stories about Richard Nixon repeatedly denied an apartment.)
It's a shame there are a bunch of 1-star reviews. These have nothing to do with the quality or subject matter of the book. They're apparently from a bunch of braindead Trumpers whose sense of self-worth is threatened when someone even mildly criticizes their God-King or their Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.
This work carefully connects architectural, political and social criticism into a cohesive whole, with enough nice photography of multifamily units to make it a pleasant and curious coffee table book. Come for the photos, but stay for what might be described as the secret history of limited equity co-ops (as well as the stories about Richard Nixon repeatedly denied an apartment.)
It's a shame there are a bunch of 1-star reviews. These have nothing to do with the quality or subject matter of the book. They're apparently from a bunch of braindead Trumpers whose sense of self-worth is threatened when someone even mildly criticizes their God-King or their Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.
December 27, 2016
Couldn't finish. Terribly written, dry and boring. Feels like the author is writing without research. Do not recommend
December 27, 2016
Very very very poorly written. Do not waste your time on this book please.
December 28, 2016
Worst book ever! Matthew Lasner you suck. ZERO STARS....
December 28, 2016
Irrational and out-of-touch. So incorrect and incoherent, it's as if it was meant to be satire.
December 28, 2016
Petty and pretentious. I loathe this writing.
March 14, 2017
The author is a one of those know it all left leaning eastern seaboard so called intelligent people. Precisely the type many rejected in electing Trump. But he and his husband chose to abuse a mother and her child on a scheduled air flight. Not sure how anyone could take any of his writings seriously as a result. Recommend boycott of reading them.
February 24, 2017
More narrative than argument, so I can see why some readers didn't like it. But good for what it is- a blow by blow description of the rise, fall and rise of co-ops and condos, rather than an attempt to frame an argument.
Nevertheless, I did learn a few things:
*Even before the 1970s condo boom, condos and co-ops appeared in suburbs as well as cities.
*Just like houses, co-ops have depended on government support. In the 1940s and 1950s, government aggressively subsidized co-ops.
*Why did condos overtake co-ops after 1950? One major reason was financing; at traditional co-ops where one mortgage covered everyone, financing was difficult. But condos allowed for apartment-by-apartment lending, which allowed each homeowner to get his or her own package. Second, co-op boards typically screened new buyers, thus making it harder for owners to sell or rent their units. Third, condo owners found the idea of having their own deed psychologically appealing.
*Why were condo conversions popular in the 1970s? Inflation made people scared to rent, as rents kept escalating. At the same time, landlords wanted out, because their expenses kept escalating with inflation. Condo conversions were a satisfactory answer for both groups.
Nevertheless, I did learn a few things:
*Even before the 1970s condo boom, condos and co-ops appeared in suburbs as well as cities.
*Just like houses, co-ops have depended on government support. In the 1940s and 1950s, government aggressively subsidized co-ops.
*Why did condos overtake co-ops after 1950? One major reason was financing; at traditional co-ops where one mortgage covered everyone, financing was difficult. But condos allowed for apartment-by-apartment lending, which allowed each homeowner to get his or her own package. Second, co-op boards typically screened new buyers, thus making it harder for owners to sell or rent their units. Third, condo owners found the idea of having their own deed psychologically appealing.
*Why were condo conversions popular in the 1970s? Inflation made people scared to rent, as rents kept escalating. At the same time, landlords wanted out, because their expenses kept escalating with inflation. Condo conversions were a satisfactory answer for both groups.
June 7, 2021
5 star - Perfect
4 star - i would recommend
3 star - good
2 star - struggled to complete
1 star - could not finish
4 star - i would recommend
3 star - good
2 star - struggled to complete
1 star - could not finish
December 25, 2016
Wonderful, I recommend to everyone.
December 28, 2016
If I could I would give it 0 stars = Karma
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews