The dueling TV and film production centers in the United States

Posted on by

Was the latest movie or television show you watched made in Hollywood or New York City?

Photo by Jer Rey on Pexels.com

While California kept its crown at No. 1 with $1.76 billion in movie and TV production spend, New York is drawing major titles at a much more rapid pace, according to industry tracker ProdPro’s closely-watched quarterly snapshot released on Thursday. The state surged 87 percent in production spend in the quarter to $1.61 billion compared with California’s 17 percent uptick.

Bulked up soundstage infrastructure, a large crewmember union base, easier access to neighboring Tri-State locations are all adding up for New York. Take Universal Pictures’ Miami Vice: 85 as a case study. The Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler neo-noir actioner has been filming in the Empire State as well as Wayne, New Jersey along with its namesake locations in Florida.

New York also has what all states covet, and what California has been losing: scripted TV shows that run for seasons and seasons, often in the same soundstages. And inventory for soundstages has grown 43 percent in the state since 2020 with a boom in purpose-built facilities, per real estate services giant CBRE, which added in a June report that the state is “better positioned for recovery than some competitor markets” after studio belt-tightening on overall content spending…

And we haven’t even talked about New Jersey yet, aka Hollywood East, which is emerging as a major player in its own right and has arguably been the biggest growth hub over the past year in production. The state bestowed Netflix, Paramount and Lionsgate as studio partners, which have conferred a series of incentives to produce titles there. And it has been reaping the benefits. Of late, Netflix’s Kevin Hart-Henry Cavill actioner Spy Duo and Adam Sandler’s Grown Ups 3 have been filming in Monmouth County, while series like Cupertino (CBS) and Dan Levy’s Big Mistakes (Netflix) shot in-state.

Both cities have been major media centers for decades. Hollywood has the reputation for being the place where TV and movie dreams are made, where a combination of stars and weather and settings and production infrastructure and booming populations leads to narratives that shape imaginations and discussions.

Some of this is easy for viewers to see on screen if you know where to look. You can examine establishing shots or common sets or certain local features that keep popping up. I saw one the other day on a commercial as I had stood on almost exactly the same spot while touring a Hollywood backlot.

Some of it is hard to know. Many scenes are set in generic places that could stand in for almost anywhere. Unless there are particular local clues (trees, architecture, etc.), a New Jersey suburb could stand in for a community in the Pacific Northwest or the South.

What might be interesting to see is how New York City could play up its TV and film production in the same way Hollywood does. What would it take for people to want to go tour New York City area backlots? Or take bus tours of where the stars live? Or have something like the Hollywood Walk of Fame? Perhaps this is not needed in New York City in the same way given the city’s different economy (finance! Wall Street! international business!) and history.

Considering the total cost of the American Dream

Posted on by

How much money does a resident of the United States need to achieve all of the American Dream? Investopedia released a new estimate last week:

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

Eight common milestones – buying a house, buying a car, having two children and sending them to college, having a wedding, retiring, paying for heathcare, owning pets, and vacationing once a year – now costs the average American a staggering $5.3 million…

Owning a home is now the most costly pillar of the American dream, the median price of a single-family home totaling to more than $420,000 and a 30-year mortgage averaging at 6.32 percent, the report found…

Owning a car is the second-biggest cost, the study showed. Keeping two cars costs about $1.2 million, which includes insurance, maintenance, registration and fuel for 15,000 miles per year. 

On one hand, the total number is helpful information. The headline figure is sure to catch attention: $5.3 million?! How many people could afford this? Houses and cars are expensive, even if Americans think they should aspire to own a home and multiple vehicles.

At the same time, Investopedia notes that this figure is for a lifetime. It may be more useful to look at incomes in comparison to this total cost:

A single paycheck won’t come close to covering it. A full-time worker with a bachelor’s degree earns a median of about $3.6 million from age 25 to 64, according to Investopedia’s analysis of Census Bureau data, which doesn’t account for income taxes. Add 20 years of the average Social Security retirement benefit, $2,071 a month, and that worker reaches about $4.1 million, roughly $1.2 million short of the American Dream.

So why not lead with something like “Estimated American earnings for a lifetime not keeping up with costs for the American Dream”? Not as enticing a headline but keeping in mind that these are estimates and summary data, this headline might be more helpful to people. They might think: “If I have a typical job after getting a college degree, I may have to revise how much of the American Dream I could have or find ways to save money or ways to generate more income.”

Thinking about the numbers and beyond could lead to productive conversations about what American Dream is possible or how to help more people reach the American Dream they might be expecting.

Surprised by nature in suburban settings, two recent examples

Posted on by

Nature does exist in suburbia though it may present itself in surprising ways. Here are two recent experiences I had:

  1. Mowing the lawn and finding some sort of animal hide with fur in the grass that I needed to mow around. It was not large but it was one piece. I see animals around, often in the early morning or at dusk. This includes rabbits and a fox. We have plenty of birds within view including cardinals, woodpeckers, mourning doves, egrets, ducks, geese, owls, and hawks. I have seen plenty of feathers. If I had to guess, this was a rabbit that was recently attached by a bird of prey or larger animal. The only remains I saw involved the hide. This is a part of nature not often visible in suburbs though animals need to eat.
  2. Playing miniature golf at a course surrounded by trees, bushes, grass, and some water features. While walking the course, we saw something animal-like on the ground. It was not moving. But then we bent down to look and saw that it was a small turtle. He scurried away from the mulch to other nearby settings. See the picture below. Our mini-golf round continued after the turtle interruption.

I thought nature in the suburbs was supposed to be tame, green and growing, clearly enhancing the value of the human-made dwelling nearby. These two experiences were reminders of the nature that actually exists within suburban settings, sometimes in spite of or taking advantage of human activity.

The birds of prey perched above Chicagoland

Posted on by

I have seen a number of hawks in recent years in my suburban day to day life. They are often perched in trees but I have also seen them on posts. Apparently I am not alone:

Photo by Mohan Nannapaneni on Pexels.com

Much like coyotes who have figured out how to live, hunt and grow in a metropolitan area of nearly 10 million people, certain raptors have found a way to survive here, and in some instances thrive, while enlisting the help of the towering street lamps and similar infrastructure, including cell phone towers and electric poles.

Drive long enough on Chicago-area highways or tollways and motorists may see a red-tailed hawk or a Cooper’s hawk, or at times something more exotic, perched high above the pavement on a light pole taking a rest or eyeing the medians and shoulders for the movement of a squirrel, rabbit, songbird or any other creature that could be a meal…

In addition to hawks, amateur wildlife photographer Jeff Nelson has spotted owls, osprey and peregrine falcons on poles in the region and elsewhere in northern Illinois in recent years…

Candy Ridlbauer of the Northern Illinois Raptor & Education group near Rockford said grassy medians and shoulders along roads are nicknamed “corridor cafes” for the birds of prey given the creatures that are often there that can be eaten. But there are a lot of “hazards being that close to roadways,” principally cars and trucks, she said.

This reminds me of several previous discussions here:

  1. I remember the book Welcome to Subirdia which I discussed years ago. It sounds like these birds have adapted to metropolitan environments in ways that they can navigate the real dangers – such as vehicles – and make homes.
  2. With the emergence of coyotes in the region came concerns from residents about threats to pets and yards. This article does not mention any residents expressing concerns about birds of prey. Might their presence affect human activity?
  3. How can we think about nature in the suburbs, a place that exists in part because people wanted to be closer to nature but also shapes nature in particular forms? Critics often suggest suburbs have ruined nature. Find a proposal for a new suburban development and you can often find a reaction that such land should be saved because of trees or wetlands or wildlife. Yet many suburbanites appreciate their lawns, gardens, and all the nature around them.

And one new thought: if there are more hawks and ospreys and owls in the Chicago suburbs, does this change any of the way suburbanites see their communities or surroundings? Think school mascots or what they might show visitors to the community or what they might teach kids about wildlife around them. This could slowly change over the years if residents get used to seeing these birds around.

Recent debate between Senate candidates includes accusation of owning a McMansion

Posted on by

In the debate last week between the two Senate candidates in Michigan, a particular housing term came up:

Photo by Betu00fcl u015een on Pexels.com

Mike Rogers and Abdul El-Sayed tried to discredit each other’s fitness to serve us in the U.S. Senate by bringing up property they own outside Michigan. Rogers said El-Sayed owns a home in the United Arab Emirates. El-Sayed questioned why Rogers took the “McMansion” he owns in Florida off the market. You’ll have to decide how relevant their real estate holdings are.

To call someone’s house a McMansion is not something usually said positively. I would guess most people would not talk to their friends or family about their McMansions. To call someone’s house a McMansion typically is meant to critique their taste and lifestyle. Here, the debate reference to a McMansion seems to be about the money acquired and spent and the kind of home purchased.

This does not mean McMansions are uncommon. Whether talking Michigan or Florida, there are many McMansions built in those states in recent decades. The average voter may not live in a McMansion given their price and where they are located. At the same time, some of those McMansion residents might be suburban swing voters.

How many politicians actually live in McMansions? Does the percentage of politicians living in McMansions exceed that of the general population or do politicians live disproportionately live in others kinds of housing? Or perhaps there are at least a few major politicians who live in average or smaller housing; are there any major politicians living in single-family homes under 1,500 square feet? If housing is a reflection of one’s political values and actions (as suggested above), such answers might matter to some.

Chicago Marathon among marathons held in leading global cities

Posted on by

Put together a list of global cities and contrast that with lists of important annual marathon races and there is overlap:

Photo by Andrew Durkin on Pexels.com

The Chicago marathon is the fourth largest in the world in terms of finishers, based on races from 2024 to 2026, according to Marathon Handbook. The top five are London (59,830 finishers), New York City (59,226), Paris (55,499), Chicago (54,351) and Berlin (54,280)…

And because it’s a flat course, the Chicago Marathon is known as a fast race. It’s a prime choice to reach personal records or try to qualify for the elite Boston Marathon, the country’s oldest marathon.

For the 2027 Boston Marathon, the top five most popular qualifying races were the 2026 Boston Marathon (4,448 entrants), followed by last year’s Chicago Marathon (2,043 entrants), the New York City Marathon (826 entrants), the California International Marathon (812 entrants) and the 2026 London Marathon (610 entrants), according to the Boston Athletic Association.

It is one of eight Abbott World Marathon Majors — some of the largest and most renowned marathons globally. They include Tokyo, Boston, London, Cape Town, Sydney, Berlin, New York City and Chicago.

When you look at the list of cities cited above, you see a number of global cities. Here are some possible reasons global cities can also be marathon cities:

  1. They have the local infrastructure to support such an event. You need roadways, organizers, and transportation systems that help the event go smoothly. Thousands of runners and visitors need travel, hosting, and related services.
  2. There is a strong local running culture. These events attract participants from all over the world but you need a local base on build on.
  3. These are high status cities that people want to visit. If runners are going to go through all the effort to train and prepare, they want to go somewhere worthwhile.
  4. These cities were early on the marathon circuit and had an early advantage.
  5. Global cities have big local and national media footprints. Events in these cities attract media attention, which is good for the sport and the city.

Put another way, almost any place could try to host a marathon. People just need a 26.2 mile course to run. But hosting a marathon is not just about the course and global cities offer a lot of other attractive features. Global cities might typically be defined by business, cultural, and governmental activity but these features also contribute to hosting major sporting events.

(It would also be interesting to look at global cities that are not listed among the big marathons in the article above. Hong Kong? Shanghai? Dubai?)

How PR firms for data centers approach suburbanites

Posted on by

What might help convince suburban residents that a data center is a good fit for their community?

Photo by Jacoby Clarke on Pexels.com

Experts say that certain data center PR tactics, like preparing responses for a national day of protest or building a website that allows residents to submit comments, work for any project. But they stress that every community has its own unique soft spots and tension points. The playbook that used to work in small towns and rural areas may not apply to the suburban bedroom communities where increasing numbers of data centers are now popping up.

“You kind of have a more sophisticated residency there—folks with more money, more resources, more time to spend on fighting these developments coming in,” Waitkunas said on the podcast. Years ago, a data center company could donate a quarter of a million dollars to the local school and everyone would be happy. But these days, “given the tax base that these local communities have and the demographics of the community, just simply writing a check isn’t going to make it a seamless process.” Instead, a data center might pledge to start a conservation project or build a new park—things wealthier towns appreciate more than a few hundred thousand dollars.

In the second paragraph cited, I hear several features of suburbs that data center firms have to contend with:

  1. Concerned suburban residents can keep data centers out. They have resources and political voice. They can mobilize to stop development that they do not like.
  2. Suburban communities are not swayed just by having a new business in the community (jobs, property taxes, status, etc.) or money; they want additional contributions to the well-being of their community (like parks or green spaces).
  3. The paragraph seems to be primarily describing wealthier suburbs who can be selective about their land use and the businesses they have in their community. The data center firms have to make a strong case that they enhance this already high-status community.

These strike me as unique features for a subset of suburban communities. I have not seen opposition to data center broken down by community type but I imagine a range of kinds of suburban communities – working-class, edge city, bedroom suburb, master-planned community, industrial suburb, etc. – would have a range of responses to data centers. Convincing a wealthier and smaller suburb that a data centers makes sense for them could be a very different pitch compared to other suburbs.

And if PR firms and data center firms know this, how much will they continue to try to build data centers in wealthier suburbs? Why not target land or properties in other kinds of communities that might be more receptive to data centers?

American water prices up at rates higher than inflation, groceries, and income

Posted on by

A new report looking at water systems across the United States suggests people are paying more for water now than one decade ago:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

Food & Water Watch, a Washington DC-based non-profit, analyzed 2025 billing data from the 500 largest community water systems in the US, which together serve about 155 million people, or 45% of the country’s population. The analysis compared current rates with data from a similar Food & Water Watch survey conducted in 2015. The study does not include wastewater or storm water charges, which are often billed separately from drinking water service.

In 2025, the average household using 60,000 gallons of water paid $531 for drinking water service, according to the study. However, costs varied widely, with annual bills ranging from $133 at the cheapest system to $1,416 at the most expensive.

Water prices rose 1.6 times faster than overall inflation between 2015 and 2025. Consumer prices increased 39% during that period, compared with a 62% jump in water bills, according to the study. Water costs also rose more than twice as fast as groceries, which increased 30%, and eggs, which rose 28%…

Corporate-owned utilities charged the average household $823 a year, compared with $494 for publicly owned systems – a difference of $329, or 67%. Corporate systems accounted for just 11% of the 500 systems the study analyzed but represented 44% of the 25 most expensive systems. The study added that 70% of the top 10 were owned by for-profit corporations…

Grant of Food & Water Watch said water systems must make updates to repair “ageing water lines and help clean up toxic contamination from lead pipes, Pfas forever chemicals, nitrate pollution from industrial agriculture, the list goes on”. She added: “Corporate control of water systems exacerbates this affordability crisis, as big water monopolies take away local control, prioritize profit and hike water prices even higher.”

Water was pretty cheap in a number of American communities in the past. This report suggests this is changing. This could have consequences:

  1. Will Americans use less water because the price is higher? This argument has been in made for gasoline – there is a point when the price for gallon significantly changes behavior and decisions. Is there a similar point for water?
  2. Will residents protest the higher prices? And if so, what would they protest for? Perhaps push for municipal water systems or regulation of water utilities.
  3. How much money is there to be made in providing water? How many communities would choose to go with corporate-owned utilities because they offer important advantages?
  4. How might this contribute to development and relocations? If water is cheaper in some places and not others, does this help drive changes?

Infrastructure is necessary but can become contentious when it requires changes, like higher costs.

You shouldn’t order more online but the deals are so good so you should

Posted on by

There are some people in the United States who do not buy into the idea that they should keep buying more and more. What headline might convince them to keep shopping? Here is one option (the headline is from the front page, the headline on the full post linked here is different):

Americans have a whole system going to keep buying things. Hoping to earn enough to have disposable income. Access to cheap goods and services. Financial options that extend buying power (credit cards and more). Large houses to store stuff. The status that comes with owning a lot or having certain items. It is easy to throw stuff away and buy a replacement. And so on. To be American is to live in a consumerist society.

So when there are big sales or deals, who can pass them up? Even if you do not want to spend or acquire, the system rolls on.

It is difficult to resist. To simply make individual choices to opt out requires ongoing choices and strong willpower. We see, hear, and experience endless ads. We see shopping everywhere and spending money is made as frictionless as possible. It would be better to resist consumerism within families and communities that reduce the pressure to consume, that focus on other activities and other goals. A good life does not require high levels of consumerism.

What might happen if large numbers of Americans opt out of these calls to consume? Imagine Prime Day comes and goes without sizable jumps in sales. Or the Thursday after Thanksgiving is an ongoing opportunity to express gratitude and spend time with family. Or if Christmas was a holiday and not a month long exercise in buying. What tactics would be used then to encourage consuming? What might happen to the time we spend together?

Religious construction spending in the US up in recent years

Posted on by

According to the Census Bureau, spending on religious construction has increased in the last few years after dropping in the 2000s. Here is the graph of monthly spending on religious construction from January 2002 to August 2026:

Two features of this graph stand out to me.

  1. There is a decline in spending from a peak in late 2003 to less construction from roughly mid-2010 to late 2023.
  2. Spending is back up since 2022.

I can guess at a big reason for the decline in construction. Real estate crisis. Uncertainty. Not the time to start large building projects, especially if funded by congregations.

The uptick in construction is more interesting. Coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, what is driving more religious construction spending? New congregations? Growing religious traditions? A lot of repairs to religious buildings that had been put off since the late 2000s?

Part of the reason I ask is I have seen construction spending figures cited to help show the growth of religious activity in the United States after World War Two. After the war ended and the population started growing amid prosperity, religious construction spending went up. Numerous religious buildings were constructed as religious activity increased.

What story will be told in a decade or two about the spending graph above? What data will it be put alongside to describe and explain religious activity in the United States?