The American city with nearly 40% vacant office space

Posted on by

Denver has a lot of vacant downtown space:

Photo by Noel Aph on Pexels.com

According to CBRE data cited by the Journal, nearly 40 percent of office space in Denver’s central business district now stands vacant, creating concerns that the city could become trapped in the same urban ‘death spiral’ facing other struggling downtowns…

Denver’s economy historically benefited from growth in technology, telecommunications, finance, energy and professional services. Those sectors, Odell said, have also proven among the most receptive to hybrid and remote work arrangements.

As workers stopped commuting into the city center five days a week, demand for traditional downtown office space evaporated…

The question now is whether Denver can transform itself quickly enough to avoid becoming a permanent symbol of urban decline.

Big city downtowns are important for a number of reasons with the foremost in the last century or so being the center of office-based activity. Could they still be influential with less office activity (such as the housing-based mixed-use activity suggested in this article)?

Maybe. Upon rereading Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities again this semester, I was reminded of her suggestion that cities are networks of neighborhoods. She speaks of Downtown and Midtown Manhattan but is more interested in somewhat dense neighborhoods connected to other similar places.

Or many places in the United States are already used to sprawling places where there are not centers but nodes of activity scattered across the landscape. Not one major center, many smaller centers that suburbanites travel to for work, entertainment, school, and more.

I cannot imagine downtowns as we know them from recent decades disappearing soon. The buildings still have some value to someone. But it is also hard to picture a different kind of center to regions with millions of residents.

The Chicago Bears, like numerous pro sports teams, on their way to being a suburban team

Posted on by

As the Chicago Bears plan for a new stadium, it appears one fact is clear: they will end up playing in the suburbs of the city of Chicago. While the current battle for the stadium may appear to be between Illinois and Indiana, the team ends up in the suburbs of the Chicago region either way. And they would not be alone in inhabiting a suburban stadium: twelve NFL teams already play in the suburbs. (For comparison, several MLB teams play in the suburbs, three NHL teams play in the suburbs, and only one NBA team plays in the suburbs.)

Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos on Pexels.com

But you could argue that the Chicago Bears were already a suburban team even though they played in the city at Wrigley Field and then Soldier Field. The team has had its headquarters in suburban Lake Forest for decades. The McCaskey family lives in the Chicago suburbs, with Virginia McCaskey passing away in 2025 after residing in Des Plaines for decades.

And many of the team’s fans are suburbanites. The city of Chicago peaked in population in the 1950 census with over 3.6 million residents. As the city’s population declined, the metropolitan region continued to grow. In the 2020 census, the metropolitan statistical area had over 9.6 million residents, meaning that over two-thirds of the region’s population was in the suburbs. Who is tuning in to the games? Who is buying tickets and merchandise? Who is weighing in with their opinions about where the Bears should play? (And this is true across American metropolitan regions: stadiums may be in big cities but the majority of residents and fans are in the suburbs.)

The Chicago Bears will likely be playing in the suburbs soon enough. This will echo what has already happened numerous times over in the region: residents and businesses moved out of the city to the suburbs, setting up life or operations where the majority of residents live.

Suburbanites today go online early to protest development they do not like. How different is this from 50 years ago?

Posted on by

I recently read news about a developer wanting to build duplexes in a nearby suburb. I soon saw reactions on social media platforms to the proposal. One response suggested the land should be protected green space while another response said what the community really needed was affordable housing.

Photo by Jess Chen on Pexels.com

These are not unusual reactions from suburbanites opposed to housing proposals in their community. What is different compared to reactions in the past is the form the reactions now take: quick responses online that can then reach other community members (and broader audiences). How different is this opposition compared to 50 years ago?

My own research on suburban development suggests suburbanites have opposed new housing and other kinds of development near them for decades. This occurred even as their community was growing rapidly and some of them had been part of that growth in recent years. Residents made arguments about the character of the community, traffic, water management, green or open space, local services, threats to property values, and who might move in.

But without online platforms to share their opinions, how did these residents go about voicing their concerns? One regular forum not used much today involved writing letters to the editor. In local newspapers, residents shared their argument in relatively few words. These discussions could go then back and forth multiple times as supporters and opponents of particular plans wrote in.

Presumably suburbanites talked to neighbors and others in the community. Social scientists have argued the social fabric of the United States looked different decades ago as more Americans were involved in local organizations. Americans may have had more close friends. These relationships would provide space to discuss local issues.

Local petitions could demonstrate the opinions of residents. People would collect signatures and present them to local officials. Decades ago, this would have involved going door to door or being in public spaces to get names on paper. The process looks a little different today through change.org or similar venues.

At the same time, the process by which these proposals move forward looks similar to fifty years ago. Developers talk with municipal leaders and staff. The plans of developers are vetted by zoning boards or plan commissions who then make a recommendation to a city council or village board. Residents and others have a chance to share their opinion in public in public hearings along the way or in some meetings when leaders and developers are discussing plans. There are often months, sometimes years, for conversation and deliberations to take place.

Do the loud voices online either for or against a proposal attract more attention than efforts of residents in the past? Either way, the majority of residents in a community do not publicly voice an opinion. They might vote a certain way based on such decisions or maybe even move to a different community based on what they think is happening. And these actions can be consequential; decisions about development helps shape a community for decades.

Trying to convince suburbanites that they should accept mid-size housing in their single-family home neighborhoods

Posted on by

After the Illinois legislature did not pass the governor’s housing plans, one housing leader said he had this goal:

Photo by Curtis Adams on Pexels.com

Moving forward, Wolfenstein said he’s looking to draw a clearer picture for lawmakers of what midsize housing could look like in their communities — two-flats, townhomes, and other structures that could resemble single-family homes, he said.

When people in the American suburbs purchase a single-family home, they are used to having that home surrounded by other single-family homes. There might be townhomes or condos or apartments nearby but zoning in the United States typically separates different kinds of housing from each other. It is not common to find a suburban family-house next to a two-flat which is next to a townhouse.

How would suburbanites respond to midsize housing in their neighborhoods? They would likely talk about threats to property values. They might mention how it affects the character of their community. They could describe how they moved to their home because they liked the neighborhood as it was. These are common responses to potential changes in or near neighborhoods of single-family homes.

I also wonder how much the responses of suburbanites would be guided by their perceptions of who might live in midsize housing.

So could the midsize housing be designed in such a way that it does not look different than the single-family housing? Would it be at certain price points such that current residents do not feel threatened? It would be interesting to see the proposals and then get a sense of how many suburban residents and leaders would want to get behind such a vision.

“Another Megachurch to Open College” – is this a trend?

Posted on by

Elevation Church in North Carolina is planning to open a college:

Photo by John Robertson on Pexels.com

Elevation Church announced that the new institution would offer two associate and eight bachelor’s programs, including ministerial leadership, biblical studies and digital media and design. Classes, a combination of regular SEU courses and those exclusive to Elevation students, will be delivered in online and hybrid formats.

However, students will be required to live in Charlotte, N.C., to participate in the programs and to complete “practicum experiences” at the megachurch…

Historically, a huge number of U.S. colleges and universities were founded in partnership with churches or began as seminaries. In recent years, a handful of megachurches—a relatively modern term referring to churches with particularly large buildings and weekly attendance of 2,000 people or more—have dipped their toes into education. For example, Highlands College, which was created by the Church of the Highlands, the largest church in Alabama, opened its doors in fall 2023. While the college was originally founded to train ministers for the Church of the Highlands, the institution has since branched out, announcing this year that it would launch a business school.

Celebration Church, a megachurch in Texas, launched a small institution called Austin Christian University in 2023 with just two dozen students. But the university, which is focused on Christian business education, has grown to enroll 63 students this past spring. Megachurches are also opening K–12 schools, such as Dream City Christian Academy, a school with nearly 800 students operated by Dream City Church in Phoenix.

The article mentions three megachurches that have opened colleges in recent years. Does this make a pattern or trend? Consider:

  1. There are lots of megachurches in the United States. See a list here.
  2. This is not exactly a boom time for colleges in the United States. These difficulties include a decrease in potential students in the coming years and lower public sentiment about a college education.
  3. It takes time to set up a college, attract students, run successful programs, and build a name.
  4. The main advantage a megachurch might have is a built in audience and brand. If it already has thousands of attendees plus those people (and others) trust the name, this could provide a certain number of interested students.

If this is a growing trend, it is a small one (if there are indeed 3 new colleges).

Another interesting matter from the article above: what curriculum would such a college offer? The theology and ministry degrees make sense given the church connections. And then add on digital media and design? A business school? As they look to establish themselves, they probably have some sense of what programs could serve the church as well as attract students. And these degrees would be marketed as alternatives to what typical colleges and universities offer.

I see almost no ads online and I see a lot on streaming services

Posted on by

I remember hearing as a kid that Americans would see thousands upon thousands of advertisements in their lifetime. I have not heard updated figures for years as entertainment habits have changed. Where are people seeing or hearing advertisements today?

Photo by Marjan Blan on Pexels.com

I realized recently I see almost no ads on websites and limited ads on social media (and I do not use apps for social media). Because I use multiple ad blockers, I see no ad banners at the top of pages, ads on the sides of pages, and rarely see ads on videos.

Where I do see more ads is through streaming services. Because they now require paying more each month to eliminate ads, I see breaks while watching shows.

In terms of older media forms with ads, with TV (particularly live sports) and radio I can skip to another station during ads. I no longer subscribe to newspapers and magazines – even though I enjoy reading them – so I do not see print ads. I still get plenty of junk mail addressed to me.

Am I living a life with fewer advertisements compared to several decades ago or are the ads ever more present across a range of media? They might be there in product placements in TV shows or in how many baseball game plays on a radio broadcast are sponsored. Or I still drive past plenty of signs and billboards. (I was also recently in Times Square in New York City and it was full of ads.) Or many everyday items – water bottles, sports equipment, clothing, etc. – prominently features logos and branding.

The advertising industry is not going away in the third decade of the twenty-first century. Even as I and many others will claim that these advertisements do not affect us, there is a whole industry that will continue to find more ways to personalize ads, have them in all media forms, and find news ways to tailor these ads to our particular interests and settings.

An American county on track to have 60% of revenue come from data centers

Posted on by

As Americans debate data centers, one county in Virginia is dependent on the revenues they generate:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

There is a credible argument there. Look at northern Virginia. So much tax revenue goes to northern Virginia now from being Data Center Alley, as some folks colloquially call it. The flip side can be found in Loudoun County [Virginia], or in a state like Alaska. I mean, the corollary here is that if you rely on oil and gas revenue for your state’s budget, eventually you will kind of be reliant on that industry to a point where you’re not able to successfully regulate it effectively to what the people want. And that’s what’s happening in Loudoun County, where within the past couple of weeks, staff for the county have started warning that their budget is on track to be 60 percent data-center revenues. And they’re actually very concerned about how much data-center money is providing a foundation for their living, and recommending against relying on so much data-center money.

Data centers can provide revenue. As noted in this discussion, they are an in-demand land use. They may not provide many jobs but they will pay property taxes.

As also noted, a community or county or state relying on a single industry for a large portion of revenues is a problem. That industry might be popular for a while. But it may not be popular forever. The rush of building data centers will slow. Technology may move on.

Given the opposition Americans have to data centers near them, it is more likely that:

  1. Data centers will cluster in certain locations and not others? I would guess at least a few communities or counties will approve data centers because of the benefits they perceive them to have.
  2. Data centers end up spread out across metropolitan landscapes. This may be due to utilizing certain locations that are not near residents or numerous communities approve data centers.

If I had to guess, I would go for #1: data centers will end up in places that want them. This may not be in counties that generate 60% of their revenues from data centers but some places will want to strike while this development option is hot.

Switching the Spelling Bee from a suburban convention center to a downtown theater

Posted on by

A change this year to the location of the Scripps National Spelling Bee caused some concern:

Photo by Ann H on Pexels.com

The bee’s move from a suburban convention center to Constitution Hall was a point of contention for spellers and their families because of inconveniences it caused. But Thursday’s finals had a lively atmosphere, with more intimate seating and better sight lines bringing the crowd closer to the action, and the broadcast got a reboot with ESPN’s Mina Kimes hosting alongside longtime analyst Paul Loeffler.

A bit more on the history of the location of the spelling bee:

At the prior venue, the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in Oxon Hill, Maryland, spellers moved freely throughout the building, roaming between their hotel rooms, the ballroom that housed the competition stage and a massive food court where they grabbed quick meals between last-minute study sessions…

The bee began in 1925 and was held at a series of Washington hotels before it moved to the suburbs in 2011.

Having been to a number of convention centers, I could see why some might have preferred an option where everything was in one place. Convention centers can be sprawling structures that are intended to help visitors keep their focus on the convention.

But I was intrigued to see that the shift this year was from a suburban convention center to a downtown theater. The DAR Constitution Hall opened in 1929 and is near numerous important Washington, D.C. buildings. Suburban convention centers might have more space for their structures and could offer easier driving access. Additionally, a majority of Americans live in suburbs and might be more familiar with suburban settings. (Sounds like a research question: do Spelling Bee contestants tend to come from urban, suburban, or rural settings? Are there patterns in the locations where they live?)

How about a compromise: holding the Spelling Bee at an urban convention center? These exist as well.

The suburban Illinois lawmakers and leaders for and against the BUILD plan

Posted on by

With the BUILD plan under consideration in Illinois, some suburban leaders have announced they are for or against what the bill would provide for:

Photo by Clay Elliot on Pexels.com

Democratic state Sen. Laura Ellman of Naperville is among the plan’s proponents. Ellman and other lawmakers staged a news conference Tuesday in Springfield to outline a slew of proposals aimed at making housing more affordable for owners and renters…

Other suburban sponsors and cosponsors of BUILD-related legislation include state Sens. Mark Walker of Arlington Heights, Adriane Johnson of Buffalo Grove and Cristina Castro of Elgin.

Aligned against them are lawmakers including Republican state Rep. Martin McLaughlin of Barrington Hills; municipal leaders in South Barrington, Barrington Hills, Algonquin and other suburbs; and groups including the Illinois State Association of Counties, the DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference and the Northwest Municipal Conference.

At a city council meeting earlier this month, Naperville Mayor Scott Wehrli said the BUILD proposals promote housing density, not affordability…

McLaughlin hopes pressure from municipal leaders opposed to BUILD will be strong enough to persuade enough Democrats in the General Assembly to break with Pritzker and oppose the legislation.

Illinois has a lot of suburban residents (as does the United States as a whole). I would interested to hear from suburban lawmakers what they are hearing from these residents and voters. How many are for these proposed changes, how many are against? If people think their property values might be threatened, they tend to respond. At the same time, those seeking out housing might also be making their voices heard.

On a related note, if suburban voters are critical in national elections because of the number of them plus the number of suburbanites who might be swayed by particular issues or leaders, might legislative votes in Illinois come down to suburban representatives?

It would also be interesting to hear if there local leaders and communities who see such legislation as providing an opportunity for growth and change in their community. The population in the Chicago region and Illinois has been relatively stagnant in recent decades. Could adding more housing provide a new opportunity to add residents and status?

Whether Charlotte wants to grow more or not

Posted on by

An Axios piece suggests many in the growing city of Charlotte in the surrounding suburbs do not want the rapid growth to continue.

Photo by andres Nino on Pexels.com

As Charlotte barrels toward a population of 1 million, the city of transplants and unicorn natives is uniting behind a common phrase:

  • “We’re full.”

But are there arguments made on both sides, some for growth and others against?

Charlotte built a reputation as a place to escape more crowded, costlier cities. Now, residents fear rapid growth is recreating what they fled, from the Atlanta-scary traffic to the New York sticker shock…

“There’s really no equilibrium for a city,” says Andrew Blumenthal, a real estate broker and vice chair of Charlotte’s planning commission. “Either you’re growing, or you’re not.”

  • But Charlotte is playing catch-up on infrastructure…

Regional leaders this week shot down multi-billion-dollar plans to add toll lanes to I-77, the commuter route between ballooning Fort Mill and Charlotte.

It sounds here like rapid growth has led to some concerns. Charlotte’s population has more than doubled since 1990. This puts pressure on roads and local services. This affects housing supply and demand. This changes the experiences of particular neighborhoods and communities.

But American communities tend to see growth as good. Growth means there is new construction, more business activity. A growing population means the city and region is more visible at the national level.

What do leaders and residents in Charlotte want the city and region to be? Growth is not inevitable and leaders and residents can help steer it in particular directions. They can make decisions that affect future growth and what people experience in the next few decades.

It would be nice to have some data about what people in the region want. How do they feel about the growth beyond the typical American NIMBY responses of how their properties and lives might be affected or the excitement about new opportunities growth might ring. Should Charlotte keep sprawling? Who do they envision living there? What might happen when the growth slows down?