Author Archives: legallysociable

Updated data on continuing residential segregation in the United States

Posted on by

Emily Badger sums up some recent data on residential segregation: here is a set of maps of residential segregation over the years in a few American cities, a long  infographic on the costs of segregation, and some snippets of data.

    • On average, affluent blacks and Hispanics live in neighborhoods with fewer resources than poor whites do.
    • Census data from 2000, for example, showed that the average black household making more than $60,000 lived in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average white household earning less than $20,000.
    • A longitudinal study run from 1968-2005 found that the average black child spent one-quarter of his or her childhood living in a high-poverty neighborhood. For the average white child, that number is 3 percent.
    • The black child poverty rate in 1968 was 35 percent; it is the same today.
    • Minorities make up 56 percent of the population living in neighborhoods within two miles of the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities.
    • Middle-income blacks (with household incomes between $50,000-$60,000) live in neighborhoods that are on average more polluted than the average neighborhood where white households making less than $10,000 live.

All in all, residential segregation is an ongoing issue. Where people live and the consistent sorting that takes place by race and ethnicity matters for life chances. I’d love to see a second edition of American Apartheid…it is its 20th anniversary after all.

Making art out of “McMansion doors”

Posted on by

Making art of McMansions is not that unusual in recent years but specifically focusing on their doors is:

How housing became a commodity — and what ultimately led to the housing crisis in America — is the theme of a new work of art by Koumoundouros. It’s on view at the Hammer Museum, and is called the “Dream Home Resource Center.”

But it might not be what you typically think of as art.

Two giant doors enclose the exhibit. They once belonged to a McMansion in nearby Orange County, but have since been repainted in rainbow colors by Koumoundouros. Inside the clear glass walls, it’s actually a pretty white spare room — with a few striking differences. To the left, a giant whiteboard is updated weekly with statistics on the economy — from the most recent homeless population numbers to news about the Detroit bankruptcy filing. Wrapping around the rest of the room: a rainbow timeline following different threads, all piecing together what housing looks like in America today.

The most unusual aspect of the exhibit sits dead center in the room: An informational booth. Here, the artist curated a number of guests — from real estate brokers to homeless rights activists.

There may be other features of the typical McMansion that receive more attention: the undulating roof lines, the foyers, the stucco or fake stone or fake brick finishes. But, the humble door doesn’t get as much attention. An interior door might be a six-panel dark wood door or perhaps a french door, such as between a den and a great room. The exterior door is likely to be a large one, double-wide, ornate or with plenty of glass, and proportionately fitting the outsized foyer which may include two stories, pillars, and surrounding windows.

All that said, I’m not sure there is a single image of a “McMansion door.” The Soprano McMansion had a double set of double doors – a vestibule sat in between – with frosted glass. Cynics might note that the garage doors on McMansions might actually be more important.

Sales of $1 million plus homes back to 2007 levels

Posted on by

A new analysis shows that the upper end of the real estate market, at least homes over $1 million, has recovered:

Home sales from Los Angeles to Charleston, South Carolina that are priced at more than $1 million are gaining at triple the pace of the broader market, according to real estate research firm DataQuick Inc. Wealthy purchasers, helped by gains in equities, are diving into real estate a year after a recovery began in the housing market when less-well-heeled buyers rushed to take advantage of record-low interest rates, said Susan Wachter, a professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School…

Sales of homes priced at more than $1 million jumped an average 37 percent in 2013’s first half from a year earlier to the highest level since 2007, according to DataQuick. Transactions priced at less than $1 million rose 11 percent in the same period to the highest since 2009, data from the National Association of Realtors show.

The $1-million-and-up end of the market usually trails cycles of the broader market because real estate purchases by wealthier buyers “tend to be discretionary spending” that can wait until economic conditions are right, Wachter said. Those homeowners usually can hang onto properties during tough times, and their houses are big enough for them to stay even if their families expand…

Homes priced at more than $1 million lost about 46 percent of their value during the housing crash, according to a Bloomberg survey of sales in the top four cities, based on valuation data from Zillow.com. Since then, their value has more than doubled. Home prices in the broader market fell to $154,600 in early 2012 and increased to $214,200 in June, according to the Realtor’s group.

At least one part of the market is doing well (the lower end is not doing as well): some expect homeownership rates in the US are expected to fall into next year.

I wonder if another reason these homes are selling at such a rate includes a perception that real estate is a good investment at this point, particularly compared to other investment opportunities that are more uncertain. This would assume that home prices would rise consistently but it would also help explain why so many investors are purchasing real estate.

Comparing teardown McMansions to “heirloom” homes

Posted on by

One way to argue against teardown McMansions is to compare them to “heirloom” or “heritage” homes:

THE North Shore Heritage Preservation Society says the North Shore’s municipalities need to tighten their rules around heritage homes or risk losing them to developers’ wrecking balls.

This, after the group has learned a heritage designated home in Edgemont Village has been demolished, only to have the lot listed for sale with plans for a five-bedroom, seven bathroom “McMansion” to occupy it…

Designed by noted local architect Fred Hollingsworth in 1950, the home at 2895 Newmarket Dr. was razed after the District of North Vancouver issued a demolition permit on July 3. Buildings that date back to the North Shore’s formative history or homes once lived in by important people have an intrinsic value worth protecting, the group argues, comparing the homes to family heirlooms.

“The heritage buildings we see around us are our link to our past and sweeping them away means we sweep away all evidence of where we come from,” said Peter Miller, society president. “In this particular case, we regret very much that the system permitted this to happen. It’s very sad.”…

“There is an emotional attachment that an old building has to the past. If you go up to a front door, which was there almost 100 years ago, and touch it, you can feel that people have been going in and out of that door for 100 years,” he said. “When you go up to a door that looks essentially the same but came from Rona, there’s none of that emotional connection to the past.”

This argument makes some sense: buildings and homes and the styles in which they were constructed help provide a sense of tradition and continuity with the past. Buildings are functional structures – humans need shelter – but they are also social by virtue of the social interactions and meanings attached to them. Using the term “heirloom” helps make this point by suggesting the houses are something emotionally laden that a community bequeaths to future generations.

But, at the same time, the article mentions more details about several of the older homes that have demolished. One home was a “post-modern home.” I assume this means something like a modernist home, more about straight lines and newer materials (steel, glass, concrete, etc.). Another one of the demolished homes was a 1910 home. Are a modernist home and a 1910 home of the same ilk? Other communities are facing issues of what to do with modernist homes as they may be old and automatically historic (just like McMansions might be in several decades) but they haven’t never really quite fit with more “normal” architectural styles. More broadly, what homes should count as historic?

Is this Beverly Grove (LA) home a McMansion?

Posted on by

As debates continue over McMansions in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Beverly Grove, Curbed LA takes a look at one home for sale in the neighborhood and a brief yet lively discussion ensues in the comments on whether the home is a McMansion. Here is the description of the home (and plenty of pictures to help you arrive at your own conclusion):

Just in time for the City Planning Commission’s vote on an anti-mansionization ordinance for the Beverly Grove neighborhood, this fine specimen hits the market. It looks like just the thing neighborhood activists are trying to prevent, though since no square footage is given, we can’t be absolutely sure. Taking the place of an (admittedly unlovely) 1927 house, this typically boxy number–or “modern, cutting edge and rearranged design with retro reclaimed wood accents,” depending on your perspective–has four bedrooms and four and a half bathrooms. Like so many of the new houses in this area, there’s an openish floor plan, loggia, small pool and spa, a nice array of balconies, and name-brand kitchen. It also seems to have kinda low ceilings upstairs, but maybe that’s just the pictures playing tricks. It’s on the market for $2.799 million.

Not having the square footage means an important piece of information is missing. Here are a few of the comments on whether the home is a McMansion (each new paragraph is a new commenter:

Normally I’d be banging the drum for keeping the neighborhoods original in style and scale, but I don’t think this one is too bad — it at least has some visual interest and doesn’t seem too overbuilt for the lot — wouldn’t object if this were my neighborhood…

Let’s not go crazy with calling anything larger than average a McMansion. It may be out of scale, but it doesn’t use mismatched home depot pre-fabbed design elements…

This house is at the high end of the lot to improvement ratio for Beverly Grove – its not over improved. But, this type of concrete and glass, shoe box design is just not appealing! Just look at the house across the street in the view photo. It has all kinds of architectural finishings that appeal to the eye, clay tile roof line, arched carports, corner rotunda, custom picture window etc…. This house looks like the lego house my son built when he was 4. Maybe that’s why its appealing to some, it resembles the lego structures built during childhood! I don’t blame the neighbors for being pissed!

The discussion primarily focuses on the design of the home. Since it doesn’t seem unnecessarily large or take up all of the lot, a number of people commented for or against its unique modern style. On one hand, it seems cohesively modern, not a mish-mash of styles for which McMansions are often criticized. On the other hand, it does appear different from the other homes of the neighborhood (of which we have one picture).

One takeaway: the term McMansion can be used as a pejorative term for a home one doesn’t like even if it doesn’t fit the “classic” definition of a McMansion.

Fun with statistics: people flock to stores that sold winning lottery tickets in the past

Posted on by

Ahead of the recent large Powerball jackpot, stores that sold winning tickets in the past experienced an increase in business:

When word got out that a southeast Pennsylvania 7-Eleven sold a $1 million Powerball ticket on Saturday, customers hoping to experience some luck of their own flocked to the store…

At a Casey’s General Store in Bondurant, Iowa, everyone knows it’s the place where a $202.1 million Powerball jackpot ticket was sold to a local woman in September. Asked what types of questions the store gets when the jackpots get huge, assistant manager Debra Fetters said: “Does lightning strike twice here?”…

“When you get those stores where they’ve actually seen someone win, they’re very enthusiastic about it. They know about the game, they have regular customers. A lot of it really does come down to great retailers that support the lottery, understand that there are winners on both sides.”

Linda Hamlin, also of the New Mexico Lottery, noted the story of “Millionaire Mary” Torres of Albuquerque. After she sold a $1 million winning Powerball ticket to an Albuquerque man in May 2011, she became known as a good luck charm. Her customers followed her to another store a few miles away.

And the article ends with this quote:

“Humans tend to be superstitious about things,” said Strutt of the Multi-State Lottery Association. “We all have our ways to ensure our best luck. But every ticket has the exact same chance of winning.”

What would happen if this argument, that their odds of winning do not increase, was presented to these purchasers who go back to the place of past winners? Would they say the numbers aren’t right or say it doesn’t matter? Perhaps this is a sort of Pascal’s Wager for Powerball: it doesn’t increase my odds of winning to shop at this particular location, but it can’t hurt!

This could be chalked up to superstition but it is also the result of humans looking for patterns where there aren’t any. Two things make where the winning person bought the ticket stand out: (1) there are few big winners and (2) the big prizes are noteworthy. Put these two together and all of the sudden people start seeing trends even though there is little data to work with. But, then you have news coverage a few years ago about a woman in Texas who won the lottery four times – four data points make a much better pattern than a one-time winner!

NYT on Bellah: he helped demarginalize religion in sociology

Posted on by

A summary of sociologist Robert Bellah’s life in the New York Times includes this observation about studying religion in sociology:

He was widely credited with helping usher the study of religion — a historically marginalized subject in the social sciences — into the sociological fold.

This begs the question of why the study of religion within sociology was marginalized in the first place (and also perhaps whether it still is today). It is hard to escape the topic from reading the classical theorists, like Durkheim, Weber, and Marx. Perhaps this is a self-fulfilling prophecy of secularization within sociology?

Argument: sociologists not aware when they are gentrifiers

Posted on by

Two sociologists have published a paper that suggests some sociologists are gentrifiers themselves even as they critically address gentrification:

Few groups, Schlichtman contends, are more hypocritical than urbanists discussing gentrification. As he and fellow sociologist Jason Patch write in a rather unusual article in the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, “many (dare we say most — ‘mainstream’ and critical) urbanists are gentrifiers themselves.” They mean this is an academic context, although the charge could reasonably be applied more broadly.

The point is not that these sociologists should stop talking about and researching the process of gentrification, but rather that they could do so with a self-awareness that might lead to a more nuanced understanding of what the word really means. Schlichtman and Patch, themselves, are owning up to the label. (The title of their article: “Gentrifier? Who Me? Interrogating the Gentrifier in the Mirror.”)…

Sociologists have backed themselves into a theoretical corner, he argues, with the caricature of the middle-class, latte-drinking urban pioneer whose inevitable taste for wine bars and boutiques drives up the rent and drives out the poor. If any middle-class presence in a diverse neighborhood is evidence of gentrification, he and Patch write, then it’s impossible for a middle-class person not to gentrify. “Is there any room,” they wonder, “for an ethical housing choice by the middle class?”

Is it necessarily unethical for a white middle-class family that wants to live in a racially and economically diverse neighborhood to move into one? How should that family reconcile that its presence on the block may signal unwelcome change to neighbors? As we’ve previously written, the idea of fair housing is as much about opening up high-opportunity neighborhoods to low-income people as it is enabling new investment in traditionally disinvested places, some of which will encourage new families to move in.

This leads me to a few thoughts:

1. I’m not sure there is much publishing space for sociologists to reflect on their own actions or own identities. For example, anthropologists are often open about their own personal backgrounds when writing an ethnography but sociologists are more tight-lipped. Perhaps this has to do with sociology’s more scientific aspirations.

2. I’ve seen how this plays out when talking about McMansions around sociologists. In that case, they are often quick to distance themselves from such homes.

3. What exactly do sociologists think about the middle class? Take the middle class choosing (or being pushed toward by policies and powerful interests) suburbia: this has been criticized by all sorts of academics for decades. What about the values and cultural preferences of the middle class? I remember one sociologist suggesting to a class that if they wanted to interact with regular Americans, they should go to Walmart. But, how many sociologists would want to go to Walmart or shop there themselves?

Turning Apple’s brand and products into a religion

Posted on by

A new book lays out how Steve Jobs transformed Apple into a religion:

Jobs’ Zen master Kobun Chino told him that he “could keep in touch with his spiritual side while running a business.” So in true Zen fashion, Jobs avoided thinking of technology and spirituality in dualistic terms. But what really set him apart was his ability to educate the public about personal computing in both practical and mythic ways.

The iconography of the Apple computer company, the advertisements, and the device screens of the Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, and iPad are visual expressions of Jobs’ imaginative marriage of spiritual science and modern technology…

Technology ads provide parables and proverbs for navigating the complexities of the new technological order. They instruct the consumer on how to live the “good life” in the technological age…

Jobs embraced elliptical thinking as a means of promoting technology objects that pose their own paradoxes. In the Apple narrative, the seemingly oppositional notions of assimilation/isolation and freedom/enslavement are resolved by Apple’s invocation of enlightened paradox.

Others have also made this argument: see this 2011 post as well as this 2012 post.  Claiming a brand is like a religion could be an analysis of a secular age (this piece suggests we traded gods for technological progress and consumerism) or it could be a slam against followers who blindly follow a brand (certain brands may inspire higher levels of devotion yet not all inspiring brands are accused of inspiring religious-like followings).

Yet, beyond Apple, wouldn’t most, if not all brands, aspire to this kind of devotion? Religion implies a devoted set of followers who are willing to participate in rituals, of which the most important is buying the new product. Evangelism, telling others about the products and brand, might also be high on this list. Another key is that brand followers and users think they are participating in a transcendent experience.

Majority of Americans only have friends of the same race

Posted on by

New survey results from Reuters/Ipsos shows roughly 65% of Americans aren’t friends with someone of a different race:

About 40 percent of white Americans and about 25 percent of non-white Americans are surrounded exclusively by friends of their own race, according to an ongoing Reuters/Ipsos poll…

There are regions and groups where mixing with people of other races is more common, especially in the Hispanic community where only a tenth do not have friends of a different race. About half of Hispanics who have a spouse or partner are in a relationship with non-Hispanics, compared to one tenth of whites and blacks in relationships.

Looking at a broader circle of acquaintances to include coworkers as well as friends and relatives, 30 percent of Americans are not mixing with others of a different race, the poll showed…

Younger American adults appear to confirm this, according to the poll. About one third of Americans under the age of 30 who have a partner or spouse are in a relationship with someone of a different race, compared to one tenth of Americans over 30. And only one in 10 adults under 30 say no one among their families, friends or coworkers is of a different race, less than half the rate for Americans as a whole.

Given America’s racial history plus ongoing concerns like residential segregation and differences in educational achievement, is this much of a surprise? At the same time, it appears younger Americans are significantly different in this regard.

Another note: why not include some longitudinal data on this? This provides a snapshot and the percentages are high. But, is this more or less than 20 or 50 years ago? Even if policy is attempting to close the gap between groups, it may not be trickling down much to relationships where individuals have more control with whom they choose to interact with more.