How watching the TV show “Cribs” affected what viewers expected from their own homes

What did Cribs teach viewers about homes?

Photo by Hongyue Stone-Jon Lee on Pexels.com

The show’s audience of Millennials, coming of age in an era defined by consumption, learned to take their cues from celebrities. These role models accumulated traditional markers of wealth while also having fun subverting them: In their respective episodes of Cribs, the That ’70s Show actor Wilmer Valderrama highlighted red Solo cups and paper plates on display in a china cabinet, and Missy Elliott gestured to her decorative, seminude Greek statues, remarking, “Naked a-s-s all around the house.” The show featured nouveau riche celebrities who proudly referred to themselves as outsiders; the rapper Juelz Santana was still a “hood dude,” and the record producer Master P claimed that he’d come “from the ghetto.”

These scenes were designed for the average young viewer to enjoy, yet their appeal was offset by their unattainability. Even the celebrities themselves hadn’t always attained Cribs’ vision of the so-called good life. On occasion, the show constructed complete fantasies: Bow Wow and 50 Cent supplemented their car collections with luxury rental vehicles, and the singer JoJo presented her uncle’s lake house as her own. On camera, T-Pain and Missy Elliott admitted to staging their homes—with a frosted cake and a colony of goldfish, respectively—several hours before filming. These contrivances became so well known that, in 2009, the All-American Rejects guitarist Nick Wheeler spent much of his appearance mocking them. “I went down to Enterprise and picked up what they had,” he said, standing beside his Mitsubishi and Mazda sedans, before flaunting his notably sparse kitchen. “I didn’t just do this for Cribs,” he said, evoking an earlier episode in which Kim Kardashian insisted that the cookies on display in her kitchen were homemade, despite their striking resemblance to a popular prepackaged variety…

The secret of Cribs, though, was that even amid its less relatable moments, the show found a way for viewers to feel included in the fantasy: It taught the audience what to consume as well as why they should, by demonstrating how a person’s property—both its literal value and its aesthetic qualities—could define them. Viewers could seek to understand a celebrity’s personality by studying their domestic environment. “The subject of house furnishing is more important than is often realized,” said the Cribs companion book, explicitly articulating this connection:

Everyone is free to change his surroundings. Hence the furniture and the decorations of a house, and the condition of the house and grounds, are properly considered as index to the character of its occupants.

It sounds like one lesson is that the ways someone inhabits a space says a lot about them. Sure, some people have more resources to work with but decorating a home is about self-expression. The homeowner gets to narrate their choices and what they are trying to say about themselves. (Now I am wondering how often this happens when someone provides a house tour to someone visiting; is the focus on the residence or what the house says about the people living there?)

At the same time, I wonder if the size of the dwellings depicted and the amount of things within those spacious spaces affects viewers. I first read sociologist Juliet Schor’s book The Overspent American in graduate school. She argues that watching television shows helped shape what Americans expected from homes. If you watch a typical drama or sitcom, you tend to see people living in large residences with nice furnishings. With Americans watching a lot of television in the postwar era, they could consider the characters on television as a reference group. Rather than just looking at family or neighbors for what is normal or possible regarding housing and consumption, they could now turn to TV depictions of regular life. For example, how did those young adults on Friends afford those apartments and lifestyles? Did regular viewers of Cribs then envision larger homes for themselves?

I have not read any studies that look specifically at that question: did watching specific television shows directly affect choices about where to live? Broader data can look at the possible relationship between how many hours of TV people watched and their consumer choices. Did watching Cribs or HGTV or any number of shows that prominently feature well-appointed spaces change real behavior, and if so, how?

The use of former Catholic properties includes homes for other congregations and giving the land back to a Tribal Nation

When churches and properties of the Catholic Church are sold, what happens to them? In the last few days, I saw two articles that highlight several of the possible outcomes. First, they can become homes for other congregations:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

Local Catholic leaders tend to be grateful that others can use the space for worship and service. But it’s not always a smooth transition. Evangelical churches without experience with bigger facilities may not be ready for the upkeep. And local Catholic parishioners may feel the emotional sting of seeing their former sacred spaces dismantled and reused by other traditions…

Real estate broker Matt Messier, whose company Foundry Commercial has sold around 3,000 churches over the last 50 years, estimates that more than half of church properties—whether Catholic or mainline Protestant—get bought by a fellow faith group…

An ongoing study on Chicago churches by the University of Notre Dame researchers found the same. “The most common reuse of dedicated church buildings—not only Catholic church buildings—is reuse for another church,” said program director Maddy Johnson.

Second, a community of Sisters in Wisconsin sold their property to a neighboring Native tribe:

A Wisconsin religious community says it has completed the first known instance of a Catholic group returning land to a Native American tribe, hailing it as a move made in the “spirit of relationship and healing.”

The Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration announced the transfer in an Oct. 31 news release on its website. The community is located in La Crosse, Wisconsin, near the state’s border with Minnesota.

The sisters had purchased the land from the Lac du Flambeau Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa tribe in 1966 and used the property for its Marywood Franciscan Spirituality Center.

The sisters said they sold the property to the tribe for $30,000, the exact amount for which they paid for the land six decades ago. The modern sale price represented “just over 1% of [the land’s] current market value,” the sisters said.

The first set of outcomes is more common than the second. There are plenty of religious congregations who need buildings as constructing a new building is expensive – buying the property, erecting a building, etc. – and time consuming – it could take years to raise funds, obtain approval, complete the construction, etc. Given more recent discussion of colonialism and history, perhaps there will be more instances of religious groups giving land to Native tribes.

There are some guidelines in place regarding who the Church might sell to:

“Catholic bishops are required to protect former Catholic worship sites from what canon law calls ‘sordid use,’” said Notre Dame’s Johnson. “In addition, recent Vatican guidance has encouraged, where possible, proactively finding mission-aligned reuses. What this means for non-Catholic religious reuse of former Catholic sites is a point of debate.”

With the number of church closures in recent years and expected in the coming years, keep an eye out for research regarding what happens to properties, buildings, and congregations. My recently published look at how many congregations researchers can find online has implications for studying closed congregations and the fate of their properties.

Local history and Illinois high school mascots

With two bills proposed in the Illinois legislature regarding the names of high school mascots, one writer looks at the connections between local history and mascots:

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

Nearly every high school nickname in Illinois, and across the country, is a product of a local history. Your nickname, blandly innocuous or a 300-year-old derogatory insult toward indigenous people, is not special. More than 30 schools in Illinois currently claim Native American-related nicknames. There are also 36 schools that are Eagles, 29 that are Bulldogs and 29 that are Tigers…

Heritage and lore are often behind nicknames: Outside Champaign, the Bunnies of Fisher Jr./Sr. High School took their name from a century-old tradition, when players carried rabbit-feet. The DeKalb Barbs nod to DeKalb as the origin of barbed wire. In Brighton, Southwestern High School — honoring the area’s Native background without making a whole group of people a caricature — are Piasa Birds, a reference to the mythical creatures found painted into cliffs on the nearby Mississippi River.

Some of the best Illinois nicknames play off a town’s industry: The Rochelle Hubs honor Rochelle’s history as a travel junction, where rail lines and several interstates converge. The Cornjerkers of Hoopeston — home of the National Sweetcorn Festival — is another example of a team turning an insult (here, against corn farmers) into a point of pride. There’s a similarly defiant streak about Farmington Farmers and Coal City Coalers.

Discussions of changing the mascot often invoke this history:

“My first death threat I ever got as a legislator was after I filed that first mascot bill,” West said. “You hear, ‘If I see you crossing the street, I promise to forget how to use my brakes.’ My goodness — over a mascot! You are coming for their traditions, they say. Tradition is always the main argument. Finances too — how much it will cost to get new uniforms and so on. But the energy, and anger, in these conversations is about history.”

Local history is important to many communities. But there are also plenty of moments in history where communities make decisions to go different directions. As they consider external pressures and internal pressures, communities come together and discuss how they would like to respond. My research considered decisions about development but this could also apply to mascots. Have the times changed? How do newer residents in a community feel? What is the broader purpose of schools? The discussion may be about the name of the high school names bu tit likely invokes broader questions about how communities think about themselves and the world around them.

Of the examples of high school mascots provided in the article, the names highlighting a local industry are intriguing. What might this look like in the twenty-first century? The Office Parks? The Hospitalists? The Data Centers or Warehousers? The Drivers? New traditions could begin with names fitting more recent work and industry patterns.

The geographic restrictions placed on Chicago’s Black residents by the turn of the twentieth century

Historian Elaine Lewinnek in The Working Man’s Reward summarizes where Chicago’s Black residents lived in the late 1800s:

Photo by Alex Qian on Pexels.com

By 1870 Chicago’s five thousand black residents lived in every ward of the city as well as numerous suburbs. Chicago had instituted some progressive policies during Reconstruction, including a civil rights law and, in 1874, an officially desegregated school system. After the collapse of Reconstruction, many blacks who had held political office in southern states relocated to Chicago in what observers called “the Migration of the Talented Tenth.” By 1893 Chicago’s black population was fifteen thousand, still just a small fraction of the more than million Chicagoans. Some blacks settled north of Chicago, near domestic service jobs in the suburb of Evanston, as well as on the near West Side. Many gathered in the neighborhood around Clark and Harrison Streets, on the south fringe of Chicago’s business district, an area that escaped the Great Fire of 1871 but was completely burned in 1874.

During the 1880s and 1890s, pushed by racism and pulled by their own preferences for living near black-led institutions, new black migrants were increasingly limited to Chicago’s Black Belt on the South Side. Extending just two blocks west and east of State Street, stretching south to Thirty-fifth Street and eventually Fifty-fifth, this narrow strip contained 56 percent of Chicago’s blacks in 1900, 78 percent, and 90 percent by 1930. (152-153)

This mirrors national trends. W. E. B. Du Bois discusses this in The Souls of Black Folk where he looks at what was possible during Reconstruction and then quickly disappears once that period ends. James Loewen argues in Sundown Towns that after the movement of Black residents all over the United States after the Civil War, many communities in the United States by the late 1800s restricted Black people and other people of color from staying or living in their towns.

And Chicago is a particularly noteworthy example of this because of how strong these geographic lines become. By the early 1900s, violence, formal and informal policies, and social interactions reinforce these boundaries in such a way that Chicago is one of the most racially segregated cities in the United States by the end of the century.

But these boundaries were not always there. They do not have to be there in the future. Lewinnek argues they were the result of particular actions and conditions, including the efforts of working-class homeowners.

In a country with so much driving, rising numbers of car repossessions are consequential

If the number of car repossessions is headed up this year, this affects not just economic sectors but the many lives of people living in a country where having a car is necessary for daily life:

Photo by Stephan Mu00fcller on Pexels.com

The number of seized cars hit a 14-year high of 2.7 million in 2024, according to data from the Recovery Database Network (RDN), which processes around 90pc of all requests from lenders for repossessions.

Kevin Armstrong, editor of CU Repossession, an industry publication, expects the total will hit three million this year based on current trends, only just shy of the 3.2 million peak seen in 2009…

High levels of car repossessions are a threat to the economy in several ways. For lenders, repossessions usually mean losses given that only around one in three cars tied to bad loans are being recovered.

For borrowers who do get their cars repossessed, they are often losing their way to get to work and continue supporting themselves. Their credit rating will also get hammered.

Many Americans may like to drive but most need to drive. To get to work, school, the grocery store, to have goods delivered to their residence requires driving. In many places, there are no alternatives. To pursue the goals Americans want to pursue – homeownership, pursue success, etc. – requires driving.

Driving has always had costs. A single commuting trip may not seem to cost much but put together the costs of maintenance, insurance, fuel, and the indirect costs of pollution and time used (among others) and the price of driving adds up. For those with less money or fewer resources, driving can consume a higher percentage of a budget but the rest of the budget requires costly driving.

Given this, why not promote policies that help more Americans secure reliable and affordable vehicles? Those with more resources could buy vehicles with more features but why not help average residents have a car? Because Americans value homeownership, policies over the decades have helped make this opportunity available to more people. Thirty year loans. Government backup on mortgages. Programs intended to help people find housing. Could a similar thing be done for vehicles?

Compelling evidence that wealthy New Yorkers are headed to the suburbs after election of a new mayor?

One article claims there is more evidence wealthy residents of New York City will move to the suburbs with the election of Zohran Mamdani:

Photo by Alena Darmel on Pexels.com

That urgency is showing up in the data. Pending home sales in Westchester are up roughly 15% from a year ago, while average showing activity has climbed more than 25% since midsummer, according to Compass agents Zach and Heather Harrison. “Concerns about higher taxes, safety, and a desire for more space are driving people to act quickly,” said Zach Harrison. “We’re seeing bidding wars well into the multimillion-dollar range.”

The rush has been so widespread that local agents have coined a term for it—the “Mamdani effect.” High-net-worth buyers from Manhattan and Brooklyn are placing offers sight unseen, often hundreds of thousands of dollars above asking, in a bid to outpace rivals. “It feels like the pandemic all over again, but with more urgency,” Heather Harrison said.

That sense of déjà vu is supported by market metrics. Nationwide, inventory has been growing for nearly two years, yet supply in affluent New York suburbs remains scarce. Realtor.com’s October Housing Report shows a 15.3% annual rise in active listings nationally, but that growth is tapering, with homes spending an average of 63 days on the market—five more than a year ago. In contrast, suburban markets ringing New York City are accelerating, defying the national slowdown…

Luxury enclaves like Greenwich, Conn., are seeing similar dynamics. Mark Pruner of Compass said inventory there is down more than 80% from 2019, leaving just 2.7 months of supply overall. “Contracts have surged in the past five weeks,” Pruner said, noting several listings that sold within days, including a $2.4 million home that fetched $2.96 million. “This is the strongest top-end market we’ve seen in years.”

I still have multiple questions, even with more evidence in this story than a previous one I wrote about:

  1. Would this come with a corresponding number of sales in New York City or will the new suburban purchases become the primary residence and the city properties can remain as investments?
  2. Who exactly are these people engaging in this real estate activity? Is it the over 100 billionaires who live in New York City? Is it the upper middle class? Are they people in particular industries or households or kids?
  3. What alternative factors could explain this increase in suburban real estate activity? The recent rise in the stock market?
  4. While there are consequences of people moving out of cities to the suburbs, the suggestion in the article is that they are staying in the region. How important is this in the long run – suburban residents still connected to city organizations and activity – compared to residents leaving the region all together?
  5. With political sorting and polarization in recent decades, there are regularly suggestions that people will make significant moves to be in places that are more amendable to their own political views. Is this particular example simply something we should now expect if cities or regions change politically?

Local histories online and thrown into the AI training process

Arcadia Publishing is presenting its authors of local histories the opportunity to join or opt out of their texts being part of AI processes:

Photo by Olena Bohovyk on Pexels.com

Such hyperlocal histories are a crucial resource, a way for particular communities to preserve and chronicle their cultures, as well as a means for marketing their regions to tourists and chance visitors. But their audiences are consequentially limited, so Arcadia does not usually approach its authors with hundreds of dollars on offer. In its email to Brown, the publishing house even pointed out that these opportunities for author compensation “could be very limited in the future,” pointing to summertime court verdicts that recognized the A.I. training process as fair use—even with copyright material. Arcadia was offering its authors a favor, while making clear it didn’t have to, and pointing out that this could be their only chance…

Arcadia is hardly the only book publisher to ink such opaque contracts with the A.I. overlords, despite the spirited objections and lawsuits brought by various authors. University and scholarly presses—which have been confronting the fallout from the Trump administration’s mass grant cancellations, higher printing and shipping costs from tariffs, and industry headwinds—are providing the model. Taylor & Francis, an academic publisher based in the United Kingdom, signed a $10 million deal with Microsoft last year to share a portion of its catalog for A.I. training, in exchange for annual payments from the tech giant through 2027. Authors were reportedly given no notice and their royalties were measly in turn; Bloomberg quoted one anonymous Taylor & Francis author who claimed to earn only $97 for ceding their book to the training maw. (A T&F spokesman told Bloomberg that the payments were “in accordance with the licensing terms and royalty statement periods in their contracts,” while parent company Informa declared in a press release that “the agreement protects intellectual property rights.”) Wiley, an over-200-year-old academic publishing house, has already struck multiple A.I. deals for licensing and product integration, offering up its works to inform the output of Perplexity’s LLM and Amazon Web Services’ chatbot.

For the publishers, the arrangements were lucrative. For the authors, the payouts were much less so. In July, Johns Hopkins University Press gave the authors of its 3,000-title catalog an Aug. 31 deadline to opt out of having their works become A.I. training fodder in a new tech partnership. If they opted in, they would receive a little under $100 per work. Like Arcadia, Hopkins Press did not disclose the A.I. company involved or the money it was hoping to earn. It did press the urgency of signing now while writers still had some agency, and reminded them who here really has the power. “In your contract, you provide us with the rights to go ahead with this kind of licensing,” Barbara Kline Pope, executive director of Hopkins Press, wrote to her writers. “However, we would like you to have the ability to opt out if you so choose.” The press was not suffering businesswise, she clarified, but it was “exploring how our financial model may need to evolve.” One author who went for the opt-out contract addendum with Johns Hopkins Press shared the resultant language with Inside Higher Ed; it warned that “sales and reach” of their work might suffer due to the A.I. opt-out…

A lot is still unclear, but a few things are apparent: A.I. companies are aggressively reaching out to book publishers to strike deals that will allow them to sidestep the litigation that led to the Anthropic settlement and avoid the heftier payouts. Whichever unnamed firm approached Arcadia, it took a particular interest in the wordier History Press, indicating that generative text remains the lodestar. And if the Theodore/Franklin Roosevelt mix-up is representative of other chatbot hallucinations, that perhaps indicates the need not just for these bots to brush up on history and text, but to ramp up the representation of local history in the mix in order to make the LLMs more universal.

It sounds like AI companies want large bodies of texts and academic publishing provides that.

It might just be about the words and texts but I wonder if any of the AI services actually wants the research information. Imagine one of them builds and advertises a specialty in local history. To look for local history online right now might require some digging (see steps for investigating suburbs here and here). What sources to trust? Where can I find specific information about people and places?

For example, I was recently looking at the different presentations about suburban communities between Wikipedia and Grokipedia. In some ways, the pages were similar in terms of their headings and the kinds of information presented. However, they drew on some different sources. Does a community’s website provide the best overview of a community? Where might published histories fit? Who can incorporate “official” overviews and the lived experiences of residents and those studying the history?

Perhaps there would be a market for accurate local history AI. Would it help people doing genealogies or interested in local development or looking to move to a new place?

White House construction turning building into a McMansion?

One political commentator recently argued the changes President Trump is making to the White House are turning the home into a McMansion:

Photo by Aaron Kittredge on Pexels.com

Discussing the makeshift tents for large events used by previous administrations, which the Trump administration has cited as proof a larger event space was needed, Lemon said, “The tents don’t bother me. I don’t think everything has to be a McMansion. He’s turning the white House into a McMansion.”

Applying the term McMansion is a critique. Rather than being a stately, public structure, the suggestion is that the White House is becoming too large, architecturally garish, a building to be mocked rather than admired. The new addition will detract from the coherence of the existing building. (The White House is already large with around 55,000 square feet in the central structure.)

Two related thoughts:

  1. President Trump is often associated with tall buildings and a particular interior design style. Neither necessarily go with the Neoclassical design of the outside. What will the new ballroom look like outside and inside compared to the rest of the architecture?
  2. I would imagine politicians in general would not like their homes to be called McMansions. Even if some live in large homes, to call those houses McMansions says something about their tastes. I have not seen anyone look systematically at the architecture of the homes of major politicians but considering how many might qualify as McMansions would be interesting.

    The amount of building going on in the US to support AI

    Perhaps contrary to those who argue the United States struggles to build, an AI construction boom is underway:

    Photo by Victor Moragriega on Pexels.com

    Many people believe that growth will only continue. “We’re gonna need stadiums full of electricians, heavy equipment operators, ironworkers, HVAC technicians,” Dwarkesh Patel and Romeo Dean, AI-industry analysts, wrote recently. Large-scale data-center build-outs may already be reshaping America’s energy systems. OpenAI has announced that it intends to build at least 30 gigawatts’ worth of data centers—more power than all of New England requires on even the hottest day—and CEO Sam Altman has said he’d eventually like to build a gigawatt of AI infrastructure every week. Other major tech firms have similar ambitions.

    Listen to the AI crowd talk enough, and you’ll get a sense that we may be on the cusp of an infrastructure boom.

    Throughout American history, growth is good. Construction is a sign of growth and provides jobs. A new industry is underway. Society is progressing. Data centers are all over the place (and will end up somewhere even if some communities do not all them). Americans are used to booming construction as this happened across housing and numerous industries throughout the country’s history.

    What that growth might lead to is another matter. How do these data centers contribute to communities and landscapes? Do all the data centers in suburbs transform suburban life? When the growth slows, what happens then? Will the data centers still be there in 50 or 100 years or will they be vacant properties?

    All this is a reminder that while many Americans will encounter AI through devices and data going through the air, it has a significant physical footprint. To power real-time AI responses to whatever we as users need requires buildings, land, resources.

    Several ways AI could transform suburban life

    How might AI transform suburban life? A few thoughts that came to mind:

    Photo by Tara Winstead on Pexels.com
    1. If AI disrupts works and jobs in significant ways, this will affect suburbs. Many jobs are in the suburbs and people in the suburbs need certain jobs and income to be homeowners and residents. For example, if AI eliminates a lot of white collar office jobs, this will hit residents and communities who depend on corporate offices. Or if work from home becomes more prevalent, this changes people’s mobility and interactions with people and places around them.
    2. Can AI take over driving or render a lot of driving unnecessary? Driverless vehicles have been in the works for a while now but if AI helps accelerate these innovations, it could change a fundamental aspect of suburban life. People could get more time back. Perhaps communities do not need to be designed around cars.
    3. Is there any chance that AI makes suburban community life better – more interaction, deeper relationships – or would it contribute to individualism and atomization? Say AI takes over certain work duties; does this give people more time to socialize? Or do suburbanites rely even more on AI to handle their interactions with others – why wave to that neighbor you don’t really talk to when AI can generate a text to send to them?
    4. Would widely-adopted AI make suburban houses bigger, smaller, or just different? Perhaps it changes the layout. Would suburbanites want less space if AI can do more for them?
    5. This might be the biggest question of all: does widespread AI help suburbs grow or shrink in population?

    I do not know the outcomes of these questions. I do know that the ideology and patterns of suburban living in the United States are well-established and establishing other patterns would require substantial forces.