The different aspects of American suburban living through the eyes of European World Cup fans

Posted on by

An article about reactions of Europeans to the American suburbs circles around a definition of suburbs or suburban life. Perhaps it is about space or being wealthy:

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

“It’s spacious,” he said. “You go here for your shopping, and there for your dentist. People are so rich here. I think that’s why they can be so nice.”

Maybe it is about space and fast food:

In recent days, social media has been filled with videos of Europeans gawking at the staples of suburban American life—a two-car garage, a walk-in closet, a second refrigerator. One Brit went viral for trying Chick-fil-A for the first time: “That was absolutely banging,” he said. In another, he toured the inside of an American fire station, marveling at the size of the trucks and the station itself. “This is nuts, honestly,” he said. 

Or is it about portions at American restaurants?

Variations in portion size have become an established part of any discussion of cultural difference. One 2024 study showed that American portion sizes are 42% larger than those in France. A large McDonald’s drink in the U.S. holds almost twice as much—30 ounces—as a large in France or the U.K.

No, it is about consumerism and big box stores:

Some Dutch fans in Kansas City were impressed—but confused—by the scale of U.S. consumerism. Dutch fan Max Hall and his friend didn’t know why there needed to be two Home Depots within a 10-mile radius. When they entered a Walmart in search of new clothes (they lost their luggage in transit), they wound up spending a whole hour in the store, lost in the aisles. Fellow Dutch fans Mike Tol and Demi Tol struggled to navigate Costco.

I have written about the seven reasons Americans love suburbs and a few show up in this story. American single-family home are big. Driving and a middle-class life are linked to homes, shopping, and eating out.

This article discuses cultural differences between the United States and Europe and uses the suburbs as a a stand-in for American culture more broadly. A majority of Americans live in suburbs and millions of Americans are familiar with the lifestyle described in the article. The stadium in Kansas City is within the big city’s boundaries but is in a more sprawling area.

The descriptions above reference a particular American lifestyle. It may be found in the suburbs. It may also be found in cities and rural areas. It hints at things Americans experience everyday and may not think much about about. (Just as one example, see this post about the wonders of Walmart.)

And as the article notes, it may be one thing to briefly see what daily American life could be and another to think about choices societies have made and consider the tradeoffs. How easy is it for people to around the world to visit another place and then give up their life to move to that new place because they see something they want to experience? Or how many of the fans in the article go home and see their daily life in a new way? Seeing the American suburbs while on a trip for the World Cup may be one thing; how one responds could be a very different thing.

Quantifying the arts industry in Chicago

Posted on by

A new report puts numbers to the scale of the arts industry in Chicago:

Photo by Isabella Mendes on Pexels.com

The report found that the sector’s direct jobs account for just over 11% of employment in the city, which the report says makes it a larger workforce than educational services, retail or manufacturing. Rice said there is not a single creative industry driving that number, but rather, it accounts for workers in arts education, design, audiovisual media, performing arts and beyond.

“When we talk about supporting the creative economy, we’re not talking about a single industry,” Rice said. “We’re talking about a broad network of workers, organizations and businesses that collectively power economic growth across our state.”

The report also found that for every $1 of output generated by the creative economy, another $0.38 is generated in local economic activity. And that the sector generates $5.7 billion in tax revenue annually, with $3.8 billion of that going toward federal taxes and $1.9 billion going toward state, county and local taxes.

Making the economic argument is part of living in the modern world. Even as the arts could talk about enriching community life or contributing to human expression, dollars and job numbers matter to many. If people think Chicago is about the financial industry or transportation, these numbers help make a case for the arts.

Or perhaps they could make the creative class argument: echoing Richard Florida, Chicago and other cities have benefited from the activity of creative class firms, organizations, and individuals who gather in major population centers.

Either way, the arts are an essential part of the big city. It is hard to imagine Chicago or any big city around the world without thinking of music, art, theater, and cultural events. When large numbers of people come together, there are unique opportunities for creativity and expression. Not that this cannot happen in smaller communities but cities bring together people from all over, have the capacity for both small and large events, and have a reputation for innovation.

The cities inhabited by animals

Posted on by

A review of a new book compares gatherings of animals to human cities:

Photo by Malcoln Oliveira on Pexels.com

Sometimes we simply need to appreciate what’s right in front of us. “Cathedral termites in Australia,” Mr. Huling writes, “build mounds more than 15 feet tall, which, relative to their individual size, makes their buildings significantly larger than humanity’s tallest skyscraper is to us.” Dusky farmerfish in East Asia grow “crops” of red algae by assiduously “weeding out less palatable foods” and have effectively domesticated a type of shrimp whose waste fertilizes the algae and boosts yields.

Perhaps the most impressive discoveries are animal “cities,” including two assemblies of octopuses, dubbed Octopolis and Octlantis, found off the east coast of Australia. Some gatherings even qualify as animal megapolises. A single atoll in the Seychelles serves as home to hundreds of thousands of tortoises, while millions of flamingoes flock annually to Lake Natron in Tanzania. The largest gathering of nonhuman mammals on earth takes place in Texas, where 20 million bats crowd into Bracken Cave near San Antonio. Their collective body heat raises the cave’s temperature to a sweltering 106°F, and the piles of guano beneath them are deep enough to bury the Statue of Liberty to her waist. All these congregations, Mr. Huling writes, represent “parallel societies with their own sophisticated life-worlds.”

The development of megacities in modern life could be viewed as an important human achievement. Bringing together that many people in one physical setting with some order and cooperation is remarkable.

But animals have done this for a long time. Many animals, in different kinds of habitats, come together in large numbers.

This gets at a longstanding question: what makes humans unique? And we can take it another direction: what makes human cities unique? The hint above is that perhaps cities are not unique to humans, even as the gatherings may not look like cities in terms of what humans expect to see.

Or what is unique about cities? Are they just large collections of people? Is there a unique urban experience or way of life? Can humans do things in cities they cannot do elsewhere? Are cities scaled up versions of smaller communities?

Understanding the large gatherings of animals could help us better grasp about what large numbers of humans living together and interacting with each other are really about.

Illinois local officials against realtors and developers regarding the BUILD plan

Posted on by

The president of the Illinois Municipal League explained why his organized opposed Governor J.B. Pritzker’s plans for the BUILD plan:

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

Cole said the BUILD plan not only preempts local authority, but it also strips community engagement and public input in zoning decisions. He also said he and other IML members were wary the plan would only create more units that most people still couldn’t afford.

“Every mayor in Illinois wants their community to grow,” Cole said. “Our focus was on affordability, if this is about developers or about Realtors, well, that’s not the business we’re in.”

Pritzker’s political operation often teamed up with real estate agents to promote BUILD, hosting roundtables and filming social media videos with real estate agent influencers. His campaign’s Facebook and Instagram accounts posted BUILD content almost every week, the message being: more houses on the market means reduced costs.

These comments clearly state the sides Cole sees for and against this plan: local officials and residents who want to retain local control and realtors, developers, and the governor who want to build more housing units.

Often, all of these actors work together regarding development. As Cole notes, all communities want to grow. This can add residents and business activity. It can lead to increased tax revenues. It means jobs for construction workers.

But these groups do not always agree. Developers may propose a particular project that a municipality does not look favorably upon. Realtors may see developments or communities in particular ways. Communities have their own ideas about what they would like to be.

Given how much municipalities like to control their own zoning, I do not know if there is a compromise available between these sides. Do developers and realtors want to be portrayed as being on the side of the governor and against local communities? Can local communities say they do not really want to build middle-housing or housing that could help provide housing opportunities for more people? Everyone wants to grow but who will get to steer this growth?

The rising costs of homeownership

Posted on by

Americans like the idea of owning single-family homes. Would they give that up if homeownership is too expensive?

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

A home buyer in 2019 could expect to spend about $20,000 a year on basic homeownership expenses: mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repairs, according to data from Intercontinental Exchange and home-services marketplace Angi.

By 2025, that annual bill had soared above $28,500, outpacing inflation and keeping many would-be buyers out of the market . Homeowners who wish they could sell and move elsewhere are also staying put, turned off by the cost of purchasing today…

Home-insurance and property-tax costs have also climbed in many parts of the country, affecting home buyers and longtime owners alike.

Insurance costs have risen due to persistent natural disasters and increases in material and labor costs for home repairs. And rising home values have pushed up property-tax assessments, sparking pushback from voters in some states…

One of the appeals of the postwar American Dream was that owning a house could be as cheap or even cheaper – a claim in Levittown, for example – than renting. If homeownership was financially doable, Americans jumped at the opportunity.

The article cited above suggests a different story: homeownership has gotten more expensive. The costs have gone up more than inflation and it does not look like they will go down soon. (Interestingly, there is no mention of comparisons to rent costs.)

Given the decades-long interest in homeownership, how close to homeownership and renter costs have to be for people to choose buying a home? If Americans increasingly think of homeownership in economic and investment terms, what is the tipping point in the numbers?

If homeownership costs continue to go up more than inflation, it will be interesting to see what adjustments are made to help homeownership be within reach for more people. Different financial instruments? Higher wages? More housing programs?

Americans divided over 250th celebrations but might unite over soccer?

Posted on by

The US men’s soccer team has started out strong at the World Cup. American flags, sing alongs, celebrations of wins. Might their success bring Americans together in a fractured time? A few thoughts:

Photo by Dar ius on Pexels.com
  1. Americans like sports, both domestic and international.
  2. They may like sports but they really like winning at an international level. The Olympics and World Cup are good examples.
  3. For lots of reasons, the United States is not a world power at soccer – the team is good but not among the best. Do Americans see themselves as an underdog at the World Cup, and, if so, does this help bring people together?
  4. Does the unity while at a game or watching at the same time continue at all past the event or is it a completely in the moment phenomenon?
  5. Which Americans tend to follow soccer? How much does this fandom overlap with enjoying the NFL, MLB, or NBA? How does following soccer fit with political affiliations? Is following soccer seen as a repudiation of “typical” American fandom?
  6. If politics are like sports in certain ways, are sports still more interesting or worthwhile to more Americans (compared to politics)?

What might all these questions lead to? Many may enjoy the World Cup in North America and it could get interesting if the United States makes a deeper run than they have in the past. But conflicts over celebrating July 4th and the leadup to the midterm elections may render any World Cup togetherness a pleasant memory.

No World Cup games in Chicago is a travesty – and a new football stadium could have helped

Posted on by

The World Cup is underway and Chicago is not part of it. Why not?

Former mayor Rahm Emanuel rejected FIFA’s proposal to play games in Chicago.

Chicago was a host city during the last men’s World Cup played in the US, which came back in 1994.

It seemed like an ideal place to host games, not only because of that history, but also due to the fact it boasts an iconic stadium in Soldier Field.

However, Mayor Emanuel rejected FIFA’s proposal for two reasons. One because he did not feel like his city was getting a fair deal, and the other because there was a chance the sport’s governing body could put a roof on Soldier Field.

It sounds like Emanuel thinks he was protecting the city. However, it is a missed opportunity for the nation’s third largest city which is a global city, has a busy airport that can handle all the visitors, great sites and neighborhoods, and plenty of soccer fans. And it has happened before: Soldier Field has home to five games in the 1994 World Cup, including the opening game.

Could a new stadium like the Bears are seeking have made this possible? Soldier Field is smaller in comparison to other American football stadiums hosting World Cup games. A number of the host stadiums have been built more recently. Whether in Arlington Heights or Hammond, wouldn’t a new stadium have been exactly the kind of venue to help fans experience the Chicago area?

How do Americans think highways are funded?

Posted on by

How would Americans prefer to pay for the highways and roads they use? The Chicago Tribune suggests raising tolls perpetually is not a good way to go:

Photo by ud835udce2ud835udcf1ud835udceaud835udcf7ud835udcee ud835udce6ud835udceeud835udcfcud835udcfd u2122 on Pexels.com

The Illinois Tollway board is in the process of implementing a 45-cent toll increase for I-Pass users, meaning a 70-cent toll today could become $1.15 in 2027.

And the toll hikes won’t stop there. Starting in 2029, the proposal to be considered by the Illinois Tollway board sets up CPI-indexed toll hikes every two years.

Wait a minute.

Transit fares aren’t being indexed to inflation. Why tolls? Even if this is allowed by the state, ongoing toll hikes should not be part of the tollway’s plan right now.

Tolls may not be a favored funding method in general but even worse in Illinois is the original promise that highway tolls would go away once the bonds that helped fund construction were paid off.

The editorial also mentions the gas tax which helps fund roads. But with high gas prices, having a higher gas tax in Illinois compared to other states is not popular.

How about funneling more road money to mass transit? This is a popular idea among some who argue mass transit can more efficiently move larger numbers of people and reduce the need to drive. But the American public tends to drive and not use mass transit.

Highways and roads do not just appear. The federal government provided a lot of money to fund the interstate system. Roads need to be built and maintained. The old Chicago joke regarding the two seasons of winter and construction requires money.

Should driving be free? Are tolls offensive because they make obvious that driving is costly? Drivers know their personal costs for driving – gas, insurance, maintenance – but may not think much about infrastructure costs. Drivers may not like tolls, particularly ones that increase in price, but they will likely pay for roads one way or another.

Making the case for city downtowns

Posted on by

A recent report from Gensler presents a vision for downtowns:

Photo by Eddie O. on Pexels.com

Downtowns are citywide reputation engines. They anchor the tax base, centralize economic growth, and can determine whether a city feels dynamic or stagnant. Our research suggests that improving downtown experience is one of the most effective levers for strengthening a city’s brand, building a thriving economy, and retaining residents. Great downtowns — whether called a Central Business District (CBD), city center, or financial district — make their cities more competitive for talent, businesses, and investments.

Revenues. Business activity. Vibrancy. Status. Defining a city.

What are downtowns in the United States today? Are they more vacant than in the past, perhaps stuck in urban doom loops? Are metropolitan regions now where more people live and conduct their daily business?

The report goes on to suggest that downtowns can thrive if they pursue a mixed-use approach:

Urban vibrancy is generated by dwell time, not solely by how many people visit downtown. Cities that understand this move from prioritizing throughput to experience, creating spaces vibrant enough to turn an errand into an afternoon stay. In this way, the CBD can evolve from a business district into a living room for the entire city. Mixed-use density, activated ground floors connected to the street, and safe, walkable pedestrian areas create the conditions for urban vibrancy. Downtown design choices are never purely local decisions; their benefits extend across the entire city. The most successful cities of the future will be those that invest in their CBDs to foster an environment that encourages residents and businesses to stay.

This would require some major changes in American cities. This is not the first expert suggesting that downtowns need to change. However, the old model has been around a long time. People and systems are used to it. What might be a reasonable timeline for a big city to significantly change their downtown from a business-first model? How does a city pursue this across the board as opposed to a development here or a development there?

Different cities pursuing different versions of this could be useful. There likely is no one size fits all solution. The biggest cities or the superstar cities might have very different options compared to other cities. Or the local context might matter quite a bit.

Another improbable suburban outdoor basketball court

Posted on by

I recently saw another unique outdoor basketball hoop arrangement. Here is what the court used to look like: a blacktop surface (not quite regulation court size) with a hoop at just one end. It looks like this on Google Maps satellite view:

With this setup, basketball players can play a half-court game. There are even a full set of half-court lines. We could ask why there is not a full-court setup but a decent half-court offers possibilities for those who want to play basketball. .

So imagine the same surface then gets a second hoop. Where would it be best to place to the hoop for basketball purposes? Directly opposite the other hoop, right?

Here is where Google Streetview shows the second hoop existing today:

The second hoop is not opposite the first one. It is at a right angle to the first one. It does not enable a full-court game. It does not enable two half-court games played back to back. It permits two half-court games played at an angle to each other. And the second possible half-court does not have painted lines.

Why position the hoops this way? I first posted about this in 2011 and have occasionally posted about it since (finding a circular court in 2019 or noting the rise of backyard basketball courts in private backyards in 2019). If park districts and schools and other entities make basketball courts for people to use, why make it so difficult for basketball players to play a game?