Monthly Archives: September 2013

No Chicago street has been officially renamed since 1968

Posted on by

Honorary street names are common in Chicago but no street has been fully renamed in over four decades:

Renaming the street — rather than giving it an honorary title — would require replacing street signs and printing new road maps, as well as navigating some confusion at the post office as residents and businesses along the road adjusted to the change. Those costs, combined with the political brokering necessary to pick an appropriate honoree, make an official change a rare occurrence in Chicago. The last time a street was officially renamed was in 1968, when then-Mayor Richard J. Daley approved a push to name the former South Park Way to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

At the time, Daley was accused of political pandering, choosing a South Side street for the dedication in the hopes of endearing himself to black voters ahead of that year’s Democratic National Convention, according to a biography of the former mayor. Sound familiar? Regardless, the plan got council approval, and Chicago joined the hundreds of American cities with roads named after King.

Stony Island Avenue was the subject of another renaming proposal in 1989, when the Committee on Streets and Alleys debated naming it in honor of former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. Like Brazier, Muhammad was a leader of the black community in Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune archives, 15 black aldermen sponsored the push to name Stony Island in his honor.

This is interesting, particularly given Chicago’s propensity to change street names prior to the 1960s. When doing some work this summer, I found out that scores of Chicago street names had changed from the early 1900s through the 1960s. See this PDF file involving street name changes – by 1948 there were enough changes to fill 164 pages. Imagine the confusion this all must have caused: as the city was growing from from just over 1 million residents in 1890 to over 3.6 million in 1950, street names were consistently changing.

On one hand, I understand the desire for consistency but shouldn’t there be room for street names to change as cities themselves change? As new people come and go and events happen, street names can’t stay the same forever.

Traffic caused by the actions of individual drivers

Posted on by

Tom Vanderbilt has been talking about traffic for several years now and he highlighted again in a recent talk what leads to traffic and congestion:

Tom Vanderbilt, author of Traffic, gave a great 20-minute overview on the counterintuitive science of congestion at the Boing Boing: Ingenuity conference in San Francisco last month. Turns out a lot of the problems we ascribe to poor roads or other drivers are really our own fault. “[T]he individual driver cannot often understand the larger traffic system,” says Vanderbilt…

In fact, says Vanderbilt, traffic would be much better off if cars stayed in both lanes then merged at the very end, one by one, like a zipper. It’s safer (fewer lane changes), it reduces back-ups (often up to 40 percent), and it quenches road rage (still on the rise)…

A big reason for traffic is that too many cars are trying to occupy too little space on the road. But that’s not the only problem. A human inability to maintain a steady speed and following distance on the highway makes traffic a lot less smooth than it could be…

“You’re not driving into a traffic jam,” says Vanderbilt. “A traffic jam is basically driving into you.” He thinks autonomous cars will reduce this problem considerably...

That’s too bad, he says, because even a small drop in driving would improve congestion dramatically. One recent study of metropolitan Boston found that getting 1 percent of commuters off the road would enable the rest to get home 18 percent faster. Vanderbilt ends his science of traffic talk without suggesting ways to target this 1 percent. Fortunately there’s also a science of mass transit on the case.

In other words, individual drivers put their self-interests over the health of the entire system. So, then isn’t the trick getting drivers to recognize the larger system issues? Imagine signs at zipper merges where drivers were told to use all of the lanes – or even if this was the law. Or, if cities cut parking supply even further – this might prompt people to use mass transit more. Or, perhaps autonomous cars can really provide some solutions.

Another thought: this explanation of traffic sounds suspiciously like a sociological approach. The system is what is important when analyzing traffic, not starting with the individual drivers who will generally act in their own self-interest. New Urbanists tend to make a similar argument: roads should be designed less for cars alone, putting their interests first, and instead should make room for others like pedestrians, cyclists, and those living along the street.

Look to the NFL for taypayer funded stadiums, sweet tax deals

Posted on by

Gregg Easterbrook provides a reminder of the amount of public money funneled to NFL owners in recent decades:

Judith Grant Long, a Harvard University professor of urban planning, calculates that league-wide, 70 percent of the capital cost of NFL stadiums has been provided by taxpayers, not NFL owners. Many cities, counties, and states also pay the stadiums’ ongoing costs, by providing power, sewer services, other infrastructure, and stadium improvements. When ongoing costs are added, Long’s research finds, the Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints, San Diego Chargers, St. Louis Rams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Tennessee Titans have turned a profit on stadium subsidies alone—receiving more money from the public than they needed to build their facilities. Long’s estimates show that just three NFL franchises—the New England Patriots, New York Giants, and New York Jets—have paid three-quarters or more of their stadium capital costs.

Many NFL teams have also cut sweetheart deals to avoid taxes. The futuristic new field where the Dallas Cowboys play, with its 80,000 seats, go-go dancers on upper decks, and built-in nightclubs, has been appraised at nearly $1 billion. At the basic property-tax rate of Arlington, Texas, where the stadium is located, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones would owe at least $6 million a year in property taxes. Instead he receives no property-tax bill, so Tarrant County taxes the property of average people more than it otherwise would…

The insertion of professional football leagues into the definition of not-for-profit organizations was a transparent sellout of public interest. This decision has saved the NFL uncounted millions in tax obligations, which means that ordinary people must pay higher taxes, public spending must decline, or the national debt must increase to make up for the shortfall. Nonprofit status applies to the NFL’s headquarters, which administers the league and its all-important television contracts. Individual teams are for-profit and presumably pay income taxes—though because all except the Green Bay Packers are privately held and do not disclose their finances, it’s impossible to be sure.

It is more difficult to justify such public spending when it is laid out like this. But, the money spent is complicated by two factors:

1. Americans like football. What if they wanted to provide taxpayer dollars for football? The assumption Easterbrook and others make who point out the public money spent on football is that people who read the stories will get outraged and demand change. But, football is the most popular sport and the money problems aren’t just present in the NFL – look at how college football continues to be a financial juggernaut even as it struggles with issues of amateurism. If the money isn’t spent on football, would the public be confident that money would be spent effectively elsewhere?

2. Individual cities, states, and other bodies of government are put in tough spots when teams threaten to leave unless they get a good stadium deal. Even with studies that show the economic benefits tend to be primarily in the direction of the team owners and not the taxpayers, losing the team might be even worse. Who wants to be the politician who let the team go? On one hand, spending tax money on sports might be unpopular but so would be politicians who let a source of civic pride walk away.

Just thinking out loud, it seems like the main way politicians and local governments could fight back is to all band together and refuse to spend public money this way. In a time of tough economic competition between communities for jobs and prestige, all it takes is one city to be the escape hatch for teams. Look at how NFL teams in recent years have used Los Angeles as a bargaining chip. Even though no one has moved there, they can all say plans are in the works in Los Angeles unless you give us a better deal. At the same time, politicians across the board could examine cities without major football teams and how they “survive” the lack of a team. How does Portland make it? What about Los Angeles? San Antonio? Las Vegas? In other words, having a football team is not a necessity and there are other ways to spend the money that might go towards sports teams. Individually, cities have a hard time standing up to teams but collectively they might have the ability.

“The Queen of Versailles” super mansion back on track and on TV

Posted on by

The couple at the heart of the documentary The Queen of Versailles is back in their big house and headed back to television:

David and Jackie Siegel, last seen in the Documentary “The Queen of Versailles,” are the first guests in a new CNBC program, “Secret Lives of the Super Rich,” premiering September 25 at 9 p.m.

Even in a show dedicated to conspicuous consumption, the Siegels are special. When last seen, the Siegel empire was in disarray and their Orlando-area mansion — designed to resemble Versailles — was in foreclosure.

But at least the Siegel economy has rebounded. David Siegel’s Westgate Resorts time share company is recording record profits, he says. Now he’s repurchased the manse from the bank and has resumed construction.

How big is the place? It has 13 bedrooms, 30 bathrooms, 11 kitchens and a 20-car garage. It is so big that at one point in the tour, Jackie Siegel gets lost and doesn’t know what room she’s in.

It will be interesting to get an update on the state of the home. Though it is quite unnecessary, it is quite a building.

My biggest complaint about this article: the title suggests the home is a McMansion. It may share some features such as harkening back to older architectural styles and owners who seem interested in space as well as impressing people. But, this is way beyond a McMansion in terms of size and even way beyond a “normal” mansion. There is a reason a documentary was made about the house: it is one of the largest houses in the United States. This house cannot be mass produced nor is it within buying range of the middle-class or upper middle-class.

Naperville mayor names volunteer leaders for outreach to Chinese, Indian residents

Posted on by

Naperville has a growing Asian population and the mayor recently named two volunteers as leaders of outreach efforts from the city to Chinese and Indian residents:

Pradel this week announced the creation of the outreach positions to be filled by Bill Liu, who will work with Chinese residents, and Krishna Bansal, who will reach out to the city’s Indian community.

“We have such a diversified city that I’ve been wanting to kind of get on the cutting edge of bringing all our groups together,” Pradel said.

The outreach managers mainly will work to answer questions for Chinese and Indian residents and help them become more comfortable with the processes and procedures of city government, Pradel said. Liu and Bansal also will connect city leadership to important groups in the Chinese and Indian communities and stand in for Pradel if he’s unavailable for their meetings and events…

Pradel said he chose to begin outreach efforts among Chinese and Indian residents because they are two of the city’s largest minority groups. According to 2010 census data, 7.4 percent of Naperville residents are Indian and 3.9 percent are Chinese.

Appointing a similar leader to begin Hispanic outreach could be next, Pradel said. Hispanics and Latinos from all countries make up 5.3 percent of Naperville’s population, according to 2010 census figures. The rest of the city’s roughly 142,000 population is made up of 76.5 percent white people and 4.7 percent blacks.

Interesting move within the diversification of the suburbs more broadly but also within Naperville. It sounds like this is primarily about business opportunities, cultural events, and transmitting information from City Hall. The business part doesn’t surprise me – Naperville is known for its high-tech and white-collar jobs as well as growth – and suburbs are always looking for ways to improve communication with residents. The cultural events side could be interesting: could there be Chinese or Indian events in downtown Naperville in the near future? It also bears watching how outreach to Chinese, Indian, and Latino residents might differ in the future as issues of race/ethnicity, social class, and cultural practices intersect.

Irresponsible to take FBI crime statistics and name a “murder capital”

Posted on by

News stories like this one seem to suggest that the FBI just designated Chicago the murder capital of the United States.

Move over New York, the Second City is now the murder capital of America.

According to new crime statistics released this week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Chicago had more homicides in 2012 than any other city in the country. There were 500 murders in Chicago last year, the FBI said, surpassing New York City, which had 419.

In 2011, there were 515 homicides in the Big Apple, compared with the 431 in Chicago.

But as the Washington Post noted, residents of Chicago and New York were much less likely to be victims of a homicide than some Michigan residents. In Flint, for example, there were 63 killings — a staggering number when you consider Flint’s population is 101,632 — “meaning 1 in every 1,613 city residents were homicide victims.” In Detroit, where 386 killings occurred in 2012, 1 in 1,832 were homicide victims.

Check out the FBI press release announcing the 2012 figures: there is no mention of a “murder capital.” In fact, the press release seems to caution against the sort of sensationalistic interpretations that are implied by “murder capital”:

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use the figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.

To their credit, a number of these news stories include figures like those in the quoted section above: the murder rate is probably more important than the actual number of murders since populations can vary quite a bit. But, that still doesn’t stop media sources from leading with the “murder capital” idea.

My conclusion: this is an example of an irresponsible approach to crime statistics. Even if murders were down everywhere, the media could still designate a “murder capital” referring to whatever city had the most murders.

Asking residents of Burbank, CA about their thoughts on mansionization

Posted on by

A recent survey in Burbank, California asked residents about possible mansionization in the city:

A new survey of residents in Burbank, California, is trying to quantify some of this local frustration. Using images of seemingly out-of-place new houses within the city’s older neighborhoods, the online poll tries to get at both the “gut reactions” that city residents have to these “mansionized” houses and their overall willingness to create new laws to control the growth of house size.

Burbank last limited the size of new home construction in 2005, when it reduced the ratio of house square footage to total lot size, from 0.6 to 0.4. But even these new regulations allow for homes far larger than the average size across the city, according to Carol Barrett, the city’s assistant director for planning and transportation. She says the poll is designed to gauge the community’s interest in creating further size restrictions, as well as new guidelines for architectural style and building materials.

“It’s not just an issue that the houses are bigger,” Barrett says. Another important question, she explains, would be: “Is it just a giant box with some precast concrete stuck on for a little decorative design, or does it have a specific architectural character?”

All of this could be seen as largely a matter of taste. But the awkward images in the survey, of giant, Spanish-style mini-mansions dwarfing the decades-old bungalows and ranch houses next door are awfully convincing. Below are some of the most telling images from the survey, which Barrett culled from suggestions from local citizen groups like Preserve Burbank and coworkers in city hall.

I like the idea of a survey about mansionization. Here are a few thoughts on such a survey:

1. Having a decent survey response rate might be the biggest issue. Getting a representative sample from a city of just over 100,000 people is not necessarily easy. On one hand, people have more survey fatigue but, on the other hand, suburbanites tend to take threats to their neighborhoods and property values very seriously.

2. Linking people’s “gut reactions” to particular policy changes is an important step. I suspect, based on the pictures shown, people would respond fairly negatively to mansionization. But, there are a number of ways this could be addressed. It sounds like the survey asks about several policy options to limit houses; I wonder if there are a few residents who would argue for property rights (and the ability to make lots of money when selling their property).

3. The pictures included in the survey are very helpful: people need to see exactly what such houses might look like rather than imagine what might be the case. However, the particular pictures might influence responses as mansionziation can take multiple forms.

I would be really curious to see how residents respond.

Parking garage proposal for Sheridan Road in Chicago sparks discussion of parking, New Urbanism, and a past golden age

Posted on by

A recent proposal for a new parking garage on Sheridan Road in Rogers Park has prompted further conversations about the neighborhood:

“Sheridan was a beautiful lakefront boulevard, a model of urban design that should be reclaimed, not transformed into a suburban highway,” said Susan Olin, a community activist who would be a neighbor to the 250-car garage proposed by prominent real estate developer Jennifer Pritzker.

But the local alderman, Joe Moore, not only supports the project, he also thinks its opponents have a wildly romantic vision of what Sheridan Road once was…

Moore said the Sheridan Road of yesteryear was a hodgepodge of gas stations, billboards and empty lots, in addition to stately and substantial family homes…

To some residents, that blend of a natural landscape and an urban skyline is Rogers Park’s aesthetic trump card, said John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

“Against that backdrop, Pritzker’s garage would be way, way out of scale,” said Norquist, who lives nearby. “It could fit in the Loop. Maybe in Schaumburg, but not in a city neighborhood.”…

Pritzker’s designers declined the suggestion for mixed use, and the latest plan shows parking spaces from top to bottom. According to a representative, Pritzker was traveling and unavailable for an interview.

This is a great example of the conversations that erupt with urban development:

1. A set of current residents wants to preserve the neighborhood as it is and a parking garage does not fit their image of a cozy neighborhood that will meet their interests in rising property values.

2. The alderman thinks the project has merit because it will add parking but also possibly because a new development might help bring new money into the neighborhood.

3. The discussion of the parking garage leads to conversations about whether the neighborhood should harken back to a golden era or plan for the future.

4. This isn’t just about the parking garage; residents are worried any such project (or a fast food joint or a big box store) will open the floodgates to lots more new development.

5. Attempts to make the garage more palatable by including retail space on the first floor or some kind of mixed use have been rebuffed so far by the developer.

Perhaps the only question left is how this episode will conclude. Based on what is in this article and what the alderman says at the end of the article about the neighborhood support and disapproval for the garage running 50/50, I suspect the garage will happen in some form.

If homeownership in the US isn’t about making a good investment, what is it really about?

Posted on by

Politicians and others argue homeownership is a good financial investment. But, if it isn’t really a good investment, what is homeownership in the United States all about?

Politicians and pundits across the spectrum regard homeownership both as the best investment a family can make and a measure of national prosperity. But a significant majority of Americans believe differently. According to a 2012 Pew survey, 86 percent of Americans now believe the key to a middle-class life is a “secure job,” almost double the share (45 percent) who say the same about owning their home. To compare, seven out of ten respondents to a Time/CNN/Yankelovich survey back in 1991 said that homeownership was essential to middle class membership, while just one-third said that a white-collar job was required. Since 2004, the overall rate of homeownership in the U.S. has declined from 69.2 percent to 65 percent…

Of course, I’m by no means advocating that we put an end to homeownership altogether and become a nation of renters. My hunch is a homeownership rate of between 50 and 60 percent is just about right; and that’s not too far from where the U.S. is now. But we can’t hide from the fact that excessive levels of homeownership — either among nations or metros — seem to be associated with lower levels of innovation, productivity and economic development.

I wholeheartedly concur with Columbia University economist Edmund Phelps (I quoted him in my book The Great Reset) when he says, “it used to be the business of America was business. Now the business of America is homeownership.”  And, he adds, “America needs to get over its ‘house passion.'”

Americans like financial investments but they also like other aspects of homeownership. Here are a few other reasons:

1. Some have argued Americans like private spaces to the detriment of public spaces. Having a home that you control, and not just rent, is the epitome of this private space. Owning a home is viewed as related to independence and self-determination.

2. Americans like to consume and houses are another consumption object. When you own, you can put your own personal stamp on the property as well as shape the house into a reflection of yourself. (This is opposed to viewing homes primarily as dwelling places, not as individual expressions.)

3. Owning a home is historically linked to the American Dream. Being able to buy your own home demonstrates that you have made it. The American Dream may indeed change in the future but it takes time to overcome this decades-old inertia.

4. This may not come up much now but homeownership was viewed in the past as a bulwark against communism.

5. Building homes as well as buying and selling them is a big industry. There is a lot of money to be made – though homeowners themselves might not make much.

6. There are long-standing negative perceptions about renters including renters are often from less desirable segments of society and renters are less committed to a community because they are more transient and don’t have the same kind of investment in their property.

While the idea of investing in a home may soon fade, there are other influential reasons Americans choose to buy homes. Economics may be a powerful motivator but it isn’t the only one when it comes to homes.

The “rather odd and haphazard set of rules” of the world’s most popular game

Posted on by

A paragraph in a story on soccer’s current place in the world serves as a reminder of the “serendipitous” aspect of the development of games and sports:

If you take a step back from it for a moment, our obsession with the World Cup is truly bizarre, even totally irrational. Soccer is, like all games, made up of a rather odd and haphazard set of rules. Nineteenth century English teachers and students developed them, and eventually the rules of what became known as Association Football were codified with the 1863 Cambridge Rules. (One theory for the origin of the word “soccer” is that it is a deformation of “Association.”) But three very different games — rugby, soccer, and that global oddity American football all came out of roughly the same original soup, which is a reminder of how random the process of rule-making can be.

To fans, the rules of a game seem almost natural, like they have always been that way. But, this paragraph highlights the historical contingency of some of our favorite pastimes: they were created by a particular set of humans in a particular historical and social context and continue to be altered by these changing contexts. While it’s hard to imagine a world without soccer or the World Cup, these are human inventions that might not have happened except for particular actions and conditions.

Another way to think about it is to imagine an alien creature visiting Earth. Without knowing the particulars of how a sport development, they might think the particular set of rules and norms are arbitrary. Why 11 players on a team and not 10 or 12? Why has the offside rule changed numerous times over the years? Why not have two balls in play? Why can’t players use their hands? Some of these questions might be easier to answer than others but they highlight the decision-making that had to happen regarding rules.