Depreston

The beginning starts with a 2nd hand account of a conversation between two roommates or partners:

> You said we should look out further

They’re house shopping. Want to move. Nothing affordable in the city.. Then….. “Hey babe, we can’t afford anything near the city, so let’s check further out. Longer commute, possibly better quality of life”

> I guess it wouldn’t hurt us

“Sure, babe, why not. We’ll look out further”

> We don’t have to be around all these coffee shops

Unsaid, sarcastically: There’s so much here, why would we want to live further out??”

> Now we got that percolator, Never made a latte greater and I’m saving $23 a week

Another extremely sarcastic comment about how the concept of ‘giving up avocado toast’ is going to make people suddenly rich. Also a commentary on how they are SuRROUNDED by coffee shops, but still bought a percolator. Also, the percolator probably cost more than most of their trips to the coffee shops”. There’s a huge disappointment being expressed here that the “savings” from the in-home percolator have resulted in spending less time in coffee shops, meeting people, people watching, other qualify of life stuff for city-dwellers

> We drive to a house in Preston. We see police arresting. A man with his hand in a bag. How’s that for first impressions

If this is referring to a possibly homeless person who bought alcohol in a brown bag, but in big cities, a person suffering from homelessness would be a very minor and probably ignorable crime by local police. This suggests that the suburbs face the same challenges as a big city, but they have more resources to police the “undesirables”

> This place seems depressing. It’s a California Bungalow in a cul de sac

The artist is not from CA or even USA. Analysis: This might be the “American Dream” house/property, what the average person wants (or others think the average person wants”

> It’s got a lovely garden.

Someone took care of this place, and loved it enough to do so

> A garage for two cars to park in. Or a lot o storage if you’ve just got one.

The use of the word “just” in describing the potential renter/homeowner’s ability to own more than one car is classist. Judging or even slightly commenting that people may not be able to afford a property is very common. This is probably the most insulting part of the song. The Estate Agent has, let’s face it, inadvertently exposed their bias and made the potential buyers feel like “less”, just because they might only own one car.

It’s also foreshadowing a bit for the end of the song, as older people often lose their partners, and end up with a single car.

> Storyteller: “And it’s going pretty cheap you say? realtor” Well, it’s a deceased estate. Aren’t the pressed metal ceilings great?”

The realtor is clearly trying to downplay and deflect the fact that a person died here or spent their last days here.

> Then I see the handrail in the shower, the collection of those canisters of coffee, tea and flour. And a photo of a young man in Vietnam

Storyteller starts to realize an older person lived here. A family. A couple, at the very least. Storyteller starts to imagine the previous owners of the home. What did they go through (Vietnam)?

> And I can’t think of floorboards anymore. Whether the front room faces south or north.

How can any of the minute details about this home be critiqued by a random buyer (our storyteller) because it has a story older and richer than has been told. What events occurred here? Were they good or bad? Both?

> And I wonder what she ‘bought it for’

To me, this means two things. “Bought it for” is most likely thought about “how the died”. An idiom. However, I feel like this wording could be more about what it took for her (previous owner) to get to the point in her life that she lived in that house. Was it an easy life (doubtful), what did she endure? Women haven’t always been treated wonderfully in the home, so “what she bought it for” includes not ownership of the home/property, but what she sold her soul for, what she endured, what she left for this world. This might be the most thought-provoking and disturbing lyric of the song.

> If you’ve got a spare half a million, you could knock it down, and start rebuilding

This is repeated several times in the song because (I believe):

• It’s insulting to the previous owners. A perfectly but maybe outdated house? Why tear it down?
• It’s insulting to people barely able to buy property due to financial issues and the economy? A “spare” half million dollars?? Hahahahahahahaa
• It’s a commentary about disrespect for our general history, elders, etc
• It’s a personal (storyteller) commentary about potential topics like ‘will Gen Z ever own a home” or “city or suburbs?” Or connectedness to people. Of not supporting local businesses (coffee shops), of leaving the city only to find that its not so great in the suburbs