Monthly Archives: March 2011

Quick Review: 21 by Adele

Posted on by

Even though I listen to a good amount of music, it is still somewhat rare to find an album that really captures my attention. The latest new album to achieve this status is 21, is the recently-released album from British songstress Adele (Adkins). The album has been on the Billboard charts for three weeks since its release, peaked at #1 and now sits at #2 in the Billboard 200. A few thoughts about this album which I have been listening to non-stop for a week:

1. The overall theme of the album is heartbreak – but it sounds like a soulful, engaging sort of heartbreak, the kind you actually might want to hear about over and over again.

2. I particularly enjoy several of the songs. The two songs to open the album are quite good and will make good radio singles. But two songs in the second half of the album are also quite good: Track 7, Take It All, and Track 9, One and Only. Track 7 is just Adele and a piano. Track 9 adds some other instruments but still is just Adele and her feelings.

3.  The arrangements on these songs, similar to the first album, are set up to showcase Adele’s voice. Even when she deviates from the melody, it doesn’t sound like she is preening or showing off.

4. Speaking of the songs, I read a review (or a couple) that mentioned how a lot of the songs sounds alike. I can kind of see the point: once you get past the first two songs, the rest mine similar lyrical ground and primarily feature Adele. This is not an album that has a lot of twists or turns with multiple styles of music or words. My thoughts on this are that the album doesn’t deviate from what Adele does well. To get something different, we’ll have to wait until the next album.

5. One thing I like about the the whole album is that it is unified and does seem to fit the title, a reference to Adele’s age when much of this was put together. This is exactly the age in which you would expect to hear about these upfront and raw emotions. I hope Adele can continue this age-related trend on future albums; this would give us a sort of lifecourse approach. While I think many musicians do this (check out how the themes and styles change as musical artists age and are no longer the young stars they once were), Adele’s first two albums have been more explicit about this. So can the next album, presumably something like 23 or 24,  examine the quarter-life crisis?

(According to Metacritic.com, this album gets “generally favorable reviews” with a composite score of 76 out of 100 based on the thoughts of 29 critics.)

(A side note: I believe the next music album I will review is Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs. While I have heard a lot about this band in recent years, I bought this album, the first one I have purchased, on the same day I bought the Adele album. There are two reasons I want to listen to and review this particular album: the band gets good reviews and the subject matter, suburban life, is right up my alley. As far as I know, there are not too many rock albums that explicitly address the suburbs.)

Subdividing the McMansion into multiple housing units

Posted on by

With many houses around the country in foreclosure, an idea regarding McMansions has popped up in a few places: why not subdivide these large suburban homes into multiple units? A writer for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune brings up this suggestion when reviewing a book about granny-flats:

The only serious omission is any example that would show how the enormous, 4,000-square-foot, 5- or 6-bedroom McMansions that dot the country could be creatively subdivided into separate living units. This strikes me as an obvious move because it would create affordable housing for renters while it would help financially pressed owners to stay in their houses. And the square footage that would be allocated to a granny flat would not be missed — most owners of these big houses have a lot of space they never use.

Litchfield concurred that such conversions seem obvious, but in most cases, he said, suburban residential zoning codes prohibit it.

Several things are interesting in this short section:

1. The McMansion is roughly 4,000 square feet and larger according to this writer.

2. Subdividing the McMansion would benefit multiple parties: the homeowner who could rent out a few units and people who need affordable housing, a particular need in higher-end suburbs where a lot of the available jobs are service or low-paying jobs but there is little nearby housing for such workers.

3. People have so much space in these 4,000+ square foot homes that they won’t really miss the extra space. I wonder if anyone has ever studied this in large homes: how much of the space is regularly used or even filled with furniture or storage? Is this really unused space or is this just the perception?

4. Zoning codes generally are against this idea as single-family home districts typically restrict the creation of multiple units out of single units. Once renters are in a neighborhood, people often have the impression that the neighborhood has changed: renters don’t care as much about keeping up the property, renters are different types of people than homeowners (sometimes hinting at class or race concerns), etc. But if converting larger homes into multiple units helps stave off foreclosures, should communities allow renting rather than contributing to empty houses in empty neighborhoods (which brings on its own set of issues)?

Looking at how consumers are the major beneficiaries of fixed-rate mortgages

Posted on by

The historical development of the fixed-rate mortgage, usually 30 years in the United States, helped contribute to the post-World War II suburbanization boom in the United States. Several scholars take a look at who exactly benefits from the fixed-rate mortgage (FRM):

The FRM clearly occupies a central role in the U.S. housing finance system. It has been the dominant instrument since the Great Depression and currently accounts for more than 90 percent of mortgage originations. The FRM is regarded as a consumer-friendly instrument, which is one reason why it enjoys enduring popularity. But the instrument can cause problems for both current and prospective borrowers. And part of its popularity is due to government support as well as past regulatory favoritism. The FRM is heavily subsidized through the securitization activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These subsidies, which lower the relative cost of the instrument, are an important factor in its popularity. The FRM also imposes costs on the mortgage industry and on investors in mortgage securities—costs that are likely to rise as the economy recovers. Importantly, the FRM is a onesided design. Consumers, particularly those who utilize the prepayment option, benefit while investors and taxpayers bear the cost.

The PDF file linked to from this document has a lot of interesting information. A few thoughts about this:

1. The fixed-rate mortgage came about because of particular historical conditions and interests. Prior to World War II, other kinds of mortgages were sold.

2. The fixed-rate mortgage is not as common in lot of other countries around the world. There are other ways the mortgage market could be set up.

3. The authors suggest that the FRM is the primary mortgage instrument in this country because of governmental approval. Here are the final two sentences in the conclusion of the PDF:

There is nothing so special about housing finance that necessitates the government absorbing the credit risk of the vast majority of the mortgage market or underwriting the interest-rate risk of the that market. Two episodes with massive taxpayer loss should convince us of that fact.

But I think this may be overlooking the cultural and symbolic value Americans place on owning a home. While this scheme may put taxpayers on the hook, Americans also value homeownership, particularly as a lynchpin of the American Dream. Most (if not all) presidents since Calvin Coolidge have pushed policies that would boost the homeownership rate. From FHA and VA loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government has poured billions into homeownership. So while consumers might benefit from this setup, would we be willing as a nation to push for different types of mortgages that might make it more difficult for Americans to purchase a home?

How social class might affect a family’s view of its pet

Posted on by

Some sociologists have examined the relationship between people and their pets. Indeed, there is even an American Sociological Association section titled  “Animals and Society” (read their rationale here).  Here are the thoughts of two sociologists on this dynamic between pets and their owners:

Sociologist Elizabeth Terrien discovered in a study of dog owners that people from rural backgrounds view dogs more as guardians that should be kept outside. More affluent people tend to see their pets more as children and describe them in terms such as “child,” “companion” or “partner in crime.”

Terrien found that those with Latino backgrounds were more likely to use the term “protector” or “toy” to describe their pet’s role.

Carey also refers to sociologist David Blouin’s three main categories of pet owners:

“Dominionists,” who view pets as useful but replaceable helpers. Many of the people in this category in Blouin’s study were immigrants from rural areas.

“Humanists,” who pamper their pet much like a human child, let their pets sleep in their beds or leave money in their will.

“Protectionists,” who have strong opinions about how animals should be treated and decide what they think is “best” for an animal (untying a dog tethered to a tree, for instance, or determining when a dog should be put down).

I wonder if we could map these ideas on top of Annette Lareau’s ideas about class and parenting styles in Unequal Childhoods. Lareau suggests that lower-class parents practice the accomplishment of natural growth, a more independent view of children and not encouraging children to challenge external authorities, where middle- and upper-class parents practice concerted cultivation where children are encouraged to speak up and parents give children the activities and cultural tools to get ahead. These categories seem to line up with the idea of these two sociologists: pets are more replaceable and functional for lower-class people (“dominionists”) while pets take are much closer to family members in more wealthy families (“humanists” and “protectionists”).

I also wonder if there is work comparing the treatment of children in families to treatment of pets. What might the impact of this be on children?

Additionally, it sounds like there could be some value judgment regarding which of the three approaches is most appropriate. How do “humanists” and “protectionists” view “dominionists”?

Wellbeing among American cities

Posted on by

Gallup surveyed 188 metropolitan areas in the United States in 2010 and then ranked the cities according to their Well-Being Index. Here is the top 5:

1. Boulder, Colorado

2. Lincoln, Nebraska

3. Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado

4. Provo-Orem, Utah

5. Honolulu, Hawaii

Here is some information on how the index was calculated:

The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index score is an average of six sub-indexes, which individually examine life evaluation, emotional health, work environment, physical health, healthy behaviors, and access to basic necessities. The overall score and each of the six sub-index scores are calculated on a scale from 0 to 100, where a score of 100 represents the ideal. Gallup and Healthways have been tracking these measures daily since January 2008.

In terms of analysis of these findings, Richard Florida has some thoughts. My guess is that Florida will tie these findings to own ideas about the creative class, a group that tends to live in cities that are college towns, have younger populations, higher level of innovation, and more cultural opportunities.

(A side note: I’m not sure who came up with the headline for Florida’s thoughts but calling these “America’s New Happiest Cities” may not exactly be the same things as measuring “well-being.” The Gallup index goes beyond “life evaluation” and “emotional health” to include other factors like physical health and workplace environment.)

Posting good online pictures of homes for sale

Posted on by

Having moved in the last two years and as someone who studies housing, I have recently seen a lot of online pictures of homes for sale. The pictures should help a potential buyer make a decision about a home: does it have the features one wants? But often, one finds pictures that are completely unhelpful: they are taken at a bad angle, highlight some of the worst things about a home, or really don’t offer much information at all. Here is one example of a picture I found on Redfin.com for a home for sale in Downers Grove, Illinois:

Perhaps the back door couldn’t be opened because the home is a foreclosure. But really, can’t the photographer open the screen door and take a picture of the back yard (which has a nice deck and swimming pool – though it does back right up to a set of townhouses) that actually shows its good features?

This is not just an isolated shot. While there is a picture of the living room, kitchen, one part of the bathroom, and the basement, one of the seven pictures total also features the laundry room:

Of all the shots I could have in order to assess whether I might want to purchase what looks like a nice house, seeing the laundry room doesn’t help much. And it appears the seal of the door into the room is coming off.

I don’t mean to pick on this particular house; this is a problem for many houses listed online. I have heard of realtors using photographers to get the best shots – I bet this makes a difference in the long run. Since much of homebuying seems to be about impressions (at least in the initial whittling-down phase online), these kinds of bad pictures don’t help.

(A side note: I would be interested to hear from realtors on whether these online pictures make their job easier or harder. On one hand, it limits their corner on information – now the average consumer can do some of the searching themselves while the information available to the average homebuyer was more limited before. On the other hand, perhaps this is a more efficient use of realtor’s time as homebuyers already have whittled down their list of options before asking the realtor to show them homes. This could be an interesting research project.)

The dropping of two-story ceilings

Posted on by

One commonly cited architectural feature of McMansions are two story ceilings, often in the entryway to the home or in the family/great room. A new survey suggests that builders are pulling back on these tall ceilings as people alter their priorities:

Now, trends are more down to earth, another sign of the times. Yes, high ceilings open up living spaces. But many homebuyers want to take advantage of the wasted space on the second floor with perhaps another bedroom. Issues concerning energy inefficiency, sound transmission and a lack of coziness also pointed to the desire for lower ceilings.

Builders have gotten the message. A survey of builders across the country revealed that 14 percent of homes this year will be built with two-story foyers and 12 percent with two-story family rooms, a substantial decline from previous years, said Stephen Melman, director of economic services for the National Association of Home Builders…

“Customer feedback describes two-story open spaces as cold and austere,” Parkman said. “That goes against the current trend toward warmer and more functional spaces. Rooms with two-story ceilings actually can be a negative for some buyers.

This change goes along with plans builders have to construct smaller and greener homes.

What will be interesting to watch is to see how the architectural profile of the McMansion changes in the coming years. The two-story foyer is common but so are other features like a multiple-tier roof (many gables), a brick or fake stone facade, and more. If future McMansions lose these features and for good reasons (such as wanting to be a bit smaller or greener), will they no longer be called McMansions? Or will there be other features of such homes, such as their size or neighborhood, that will still invoke the term?

The synchronicity of stock traders

Posted on by

In recent years, sociologists have produced a number of interesting works regarding the behavior of economic insiders. In a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors argue that stock traders have fairly synchronized behavior:

Sociologist Brian Uzzi of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and colleagues analyzed all trades taking place in a single firm of 66 employees over 2 years. As is usual in trading firms, the employees specialized in different markets—housing, autos, or health care, for example—so they had no obvious incentive to copy one another’s behavior. Each trader typically bought or sold stocks about 80 times a day, which the researchers allotted to second-long time windows.

A 7-hour working day is roughly 25,000 seconds, so the chance of one employee’s 80 trades randomly synchronizing with any of his colleague’s is small. Yet Uzzi’s group found that up to 60% of all employees were trading in sync at any one second. What’s more, the individual employees tended to make more money during these harmonious bursts…

This is interesting information in itself: there are common patterns to behaviors in which we might typically assume that traders act on their own. But perhaps the more interesting aspect of all of this is why these trader’s actions are so synchronized. Here is what the authors suggest:

They believe the synchronized behavior is simply a general indicator that the market is ripe for safe trading. Although each individual trader has a short-sighted view of his or her specialist market, the traders’ collective monitoring of events in the outside world means that, at some point—indeed, at 1 second—group instinct prompts many of them to buy or sell together. The researchers found that instant messaging among traders spiraled at times of synchronicity, which seems to support this view. Trading out of sync, Uzzi says, would mean the trader misses out on the time when the market information was optimal for a return.

So even with specialized tasks, these traders are then monitoring broader conditions and responding to group behavior. This seems to fit with other sociological research that suggests that economic decisions that often get chalked up to things like rationality or intuition are influenced by social factors.

There is an intriguing implication as well:

Uzzi thinks trading firms could capitalize on the phenomenon by giving their employees more money to trade when they are in sync. But he warns that the traders themselves must never be told about the decision. “It is well-known that once people become self-conscious of their own behavior, their behavior changes,” he says.

So will behaviors (and outcomes) change if this article becomes common knowledge amongst traders?

Sociologist says Oprah has been in front of media trends

Posted on by

Oprah has been moving her operations to her own television network, OWN (the Oprah Winfrey Network). A sociologist discusses this move:

I see OWN as a smart move for two reasons. First, Oprah is only one person. She has been working nonstop in front of the camera for nearly 30 years. It may be time to think about how to develop her brand in a way that is not completely dependent on her as a frontwoman. Second, the move to cable may be a good choice in a media context where the center of gravity is shifting away from network television premised on the existence of large mass audiences.

In further comments, it is suggested that Oprah’s popularity is partly due to her positioning within the media landscape:

Oprah is an icon for many reasons, but surely one is that her career trajectory has closely mapped changes in the larger media landscape. Beginning in the daytime television talk show format, pioneered by Phil Donahue, Oprah fully realized the potential of the genre as she leveraged her fame on multiple media platforms including, radio, television, film, Broadway, books, magazines, and the Internet. In addition to her work in daytime talk, some of her most recognizable products are her highly successful lifestyle magazine O, her roles in high-end dramatic works for film and stage, like The Color Purple and Beloved, and her ill-conceived philanthropic project for girls in South Africa (also a documentary). Although these projects did not all succeed equally well, they have cemented Oprah’s cultural prominence and sheer ubiquity. They also demonstrate Oprah’s ability to take risks.

I would also note that Oprah is a global media phenomenon. Unlike other big celebrities in the United States, Oprah has taken advantage of the increasingly expansive syndication of the digital era to build a mass international audience.

This sort of perspective is a broader one, moving beyond Oprah’s personality or the atmosphere of her show and emphasizing how Winfrey has been very effective at working at the forefront of the changing media. Particularly in expanding to newer platforms, Winfrey has built her brand beyond just a talk-show.

I wonder how much of this is post-hoc analysis. When Oprah was building her show and audience, just how risky was she? Looking back, we can see that she has been successful. But there must have been other personalities and celebrities that attempted to follow similar paths. How exactly did Oprah get ahead or leverage these particular technologies? How risky were her decisions compared to others? Was she a first-adopter or just in the opening waves of certain changes?

“Sustainability thinker” suggests sprawling suburbs can’t really be green

Posted on by

A common target of those concerned with being green and sustainability are American suburbs. While some might suggest that suburbs can become more green (read here and  here), Alex Steffen, a sustainability thinker, suggests it really isn’t possible:

What’s a sustainability trend that you wish would go away?

Shallow redesigns of suburban life. You see a lot of proposals these days that seem to suggest that all that open space is perfect for farming, or that we can power our McMansions and cars with solar panels, so even the suburbs can “go green.” The brutal reality is that newer, more sprawling suburbs—and especially the cheap boom-years exburbs—aren’t just a bit unsustainable, they’re ruinously unsustainable in almost every way, and nothing we know of will likely stop their decline, much less fix them easily.

Unfortunately, it isn’t really clear what Steffen means by this. What constitutes a “shallow redesign” versus something more substantive? Would Steffen agree with New Urbanists that suburbs can be redesigned in ways to promote green behavior? This statement is also interesting: “nothing we know of will likely stop their decline.” They may be in decline now due to financial concerns (the budgets of local communities, the ability of homeowners to purchase large new homes) but does that mean that they will be on the decline forever? Could we have the same type of sprawl with just more green single-family homes (like LEED Platinum homes)? What sort of suburbs, if any, would he be in favor of?

As I read Steffen’s comments, I thought about the trade-offs those interested in being green and sustainability might have to make regarding American suburbs. Given the popularity of suburbs in American life, both as an ideology and an actual destination of a majority of Americans, can this movement really claim that suburbs as a whole are bad? Instead, most arguments seem to be incremental: suburbs can be modified in ways, such as having LEED homes or more mass-transit or more fuel efficient cars, that retain some of their key attributes without turning it into city life. But even with these sorts of incremental arguments, I wonder how many of the commentators really wish that suburbs would just disappear but can’t admit such things because the American public would react negatively.