Author Archives: legallysociable

Can we expect a multi-family housing construction boom soon?

Posted on by

Most housing news these days is bad: dropping prices, foreclosures working their way through the system, and a sales slowdown that might continue for some time. But some analysts suggest there may soon be a construction boom in multi-family housing:

But for now, you can see from this chart that overall home building did, indeed, boom during the bubble. Multi-family home building, however, remained pretty consistent between 250,000 and 300,000 structures per year throughout the bubble and declined in late-2009. Single-family building, on the other hand, grew to a rate of about one million homes per year in the mid-1990s to peak close to the rate of two million per year in early 2006. Then, of course, construction plummeted…

From all of this, we can conclude a few things. First, before long, residential construction will have to rise. Although vacancies are high currently, household formation should experience a boom as the economy adds jobs. With it, those vacancies will decline and new homes will be necessary to accommodate the growing population.

Moreover, both reasons for the decline in the rate of household formation indicate a need for more rentals. Young adults who are finally able to move out of their parents’ homes will mostly rent first. They’ll have short credit histories, relatively low wages, and little savings for a down payment. That combination that doesn’t usually spell mortgage approval when underwriting is strict. And those who are living with relatives or friends because they have been unemployed for an extended period will also likely need to rent at first. They might have experienced financial troubles affecting their credit histories, their new wages will often be lower than what they earned before being laid off, and they may have little savings for a down payment if they needed to rely on that money when unemployed. Additionally, all of those millions of Americans who defaulted on their mortgages will have no choice but to rent for quite a while. Banks certainly won’t give them a new mortgage for at least several years.

Now add this into the fact that multi-family construction remained constant during the boom, while single-family construction rose. This could translate into a coming mismatch between the types of housing units available and the specific housing demand that will rise. For the reasons just described, going forward the home ownership rate should fall to and remain at or even below its historical norm, while renting becomes more common. This implies two outcomes. Some single-family homes will need to be converted to rentals and additional multi-family structures need to be built.

The argument here is that the housing slowdown is really about single-family homes since changes in demand, driven by demographic trends including the slowing of household formation, mean that there are not enough multi-family, rental housing units and so we will soon have more multi-family housing construction.

There could be some people who might work against this trend. Recent advertisements from the National Association of Realtors suggest they want to promote single-family homes and homeownership. I wonder how quickly the housing industry could shift to building more rental units even if this is overwhelmingly what consumers desire and would developers and builders reach the profits they want from constructing multi-family units? Additionally, how many suburban communities would approve more multi-family and rental housing that might mar their single-family home character?

Brain scans reveal extra stress of city living

Posted on by

A number of the prominent early sociologists were interested in how the shift from villages to cities would affect individuals and social interaction. A new brain scan study suggests those living in urban areas experience more stress than those living in rural areas:

Researchers have shown that the parts of the brain dealing with stress and emotion are affected by living among the crowds.

The findings help shed light on why those who are born and raised in urban areas are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and schizophrenia than those brought up in the countryside.

The team of international scientists behind the finding are unsure why city life is so bad for the nerves.

However, past studies have shown that exposure to green space reduces stress, boosts health and makes us less vulnerable to depression. The findings come from the brain scans of 32 healthy volunteers from urban and rural areas.

Several issues come to mind:

1. As the article notes, this is a rather small sample. We would need to see larger samples or more studies to confirm these findings.

2. Do suburban areas count as urban or rural in this study?

3. The article mentions several studies that suggest exposure to green space lowers stress levels. How much green space is needed: does a walk in an urban park like Central Park help? Can people drive through open fields to experience less stress?

4. Are people living in these different areas aware of these differing stress levels? People talk about “escaping it all” when they go on vacations but are they aware of when this might happen on a regular basis?

5. A common argument among environmentalists is that more dense, urban living cuts down on pollution and wasted resources. This may be true but will people on the other side now cite this kind of study as evidence for why urban living is not good?

“Electronic justice” after Vancouver riots

Posted on by

Some online responses to the recent Vancouver riots (see here and here) are now being called “electronic justice“:

The more than 3,000 words posted online (replicated in full below) were called an apology and it seemed a remarkable display of contrition by a young woman caught on video looting a tuxedo rental outlet, wearing a Canucks shirt and a broad grin, during Vancouver’s ignoble Stanley Cup riot. But the screed that followed dished as much justification and vitriol as self-flagellation and regret, leaving many readers cold to Camille Cacnio’s reconciliation.

It is seen as the next stage in an emerging form of “electronic justice” that has accompanied the riot. The naming and shaming came first, a time-honoured way for a community to express dismay and disgust, as people posted photos of suspected perpetrators online. It was a modern version of the medieval stocks, when an offender was held in a square for public humiliation. It seemed a suitable response: a mob exposing participants in a mob; crowdsourcing v. herd mentality.

But the extent and viciousness of the online identifications and humiliation is causing discomfort as well. Self-appointed cyber sheriffs emailed the employers, family, schools of the suspects…

Christopher Schneider, sociology professor at the University of British Columbia, calls it “vigilante justice in cyberspace…. It is a very dangerous path we’re taking. It is quite unsettling. The role of social media in this is profound.”

I’m sure this could be tied to larger discussions about online anonymity and what people are willing to do online that they may not be willing to do in person.

I’m not sure what the lesson is for the woman who posted this long apology. On one hand, it sounds like she wanted to take some responsibility. On the other hand, she simply made herself a bigger target. Perhaps we could settle on this: beware what one posts and/or admits online.

I wonder what the “employers, family, schools of suspects” did when they received news of who had been involved in the riots. Without such emails, many might not have known who was involved. But regardless of how they find out, are these collectives obligated to take action?

If this “electronic justice” is dangerous, might we reach a point where authorities crack down? Already, more websites have become much more strict about what comments they will tolerate.

Job for sociology majors: online “community managers”

Posted on by

Rawn Shah, “an expert in collaboration and social computing methodologies within organizations and on the Web,” suggests that sociology (and other social science majors) can fill some tech jobs:

Social science brings much more than just this one technique; it reaches particular personalities who are keenly interested in understanding human relationships in its many forms. By interacting over online environments, we lose some key elements of how we communicate and understand each other, in particular, body language and facial expressions. Instead we have to discover the new ways of understanding communication; rediscover the hidden conversations, feelings and emotions in verbal communication now that non-verbal signals may be missing. This leads to just the kind of personality characteristics and skills that are crucial to Community Manager job roles…

Consider this, jobs that involve relationships with groups of people, whether customers, employees, partners or otherwise, are rapidly on the increase as more companies build online communities and participate in social environments online to interact for business reasons. They aren’t simply looking for people who know how to use Facebook; they need people who can interact well, understand relationships, and in particular understand what is not being said, and sense the feel of others. For businesses, these are the roles that make collaboration on the larger scale across the organization happen.

However, I have yet to see the art and science of managing online communities become a regular aspect of college curriculum. I should say I have tried: in 2006-07 I taught the subject as a guest lecturer at the Eller College of Business at University of Arizona. However, the college did not continue the subject after I was not available. In discussing this point with other Social Business and community thought-leaders, they suggested that it was just too early then. Five years later, the demand is there and we don’t seem to have enough of a supply to fill it.

Certainly any company wants candidates who are well experienced with being Community Managers because the best ones have fine tuned their skills through the many interactions. There are many hard skills that you can definitely apply to the job, but quality comes with experience. Every community is different and hence the job can be very pragmatic and audience specific. However, to get to this point we need community managers who understand and practice the basics first. Let’s really start looking into social sciences as one source of supply for the future of work.

I would suspect that many sociology majors wouldn’t even know that these sorts of jobs are possible. But the description should fit what sociology majors can do: “people who can interact well, understand relationships, and in particular understand what is not being said, and sense the feel of others” and promote collaboration within organizations. These are marketable, practical skills that sociology majors should know something about.

Shah suggests there is a matching problem: sociology students and tech companies need to develop a method by which they can find each other. Perhaps it is because there are not many college courses that make this clear, as Shah suggests, but I wonder if it could also be that sociology as a discipline is behind the curve in tackling the burgeoning tech realm.

More blacks return to the south

Posted on by

In the Great Migration that covered much of the 20th century, millions of African-Americans moved to northern cities from the south in search of economic opportunities. With this influx, cities like Chicago were changed dramatically. But a new study suggests that this trend may now be working in reverse as blacks move from northern cities back to the south:

The economic downturn has propelled a striking demographic shift: black New Yorkers, including many who are young and college educated, are heading south.

About 17 percent of the African-Americans who moved to the South from other states in the past decade came from New York, far more than from any other state, according to census data. Of the 44,474 who left New York State in 2009, more than half, or 22,508, went to the South, according to a study conducted by the sociology department of Queens College for The New York Times.

The movement is not limited to New York. The percentage of blacks leaving big cities in the East and in the Midwest and heading to the South is now at the highest levels in decades, demographers say…

Some blacks say they are leaving not only to find jobs, but also because they have soured on race relations.

A few questions pop into my mind:

1. As the article suggests, this sounds like more of an exodus of the middle-class and above. How does this movement back south break down by income and education levels?

2. How exactly does racism and discrimination play into this? Is the situation in the South now preferable to what is happening in major Midwestern and Northwestern cities?

3. How surprising is this considering the population shifts in America over the last few decades to the South and the West?

Become a world city by designating a Chinatown

Posted on by

A sociologist suggests Auckland, New Zealand would be closer to being a world city if it officially created a Chinatown:

Sociologist Paul Spoonley, who co-authored the report, said if Auckland is serious about being rated as a world city it needs to start promoting itself as one.

London, Sydney, Melbourne, New York, Los Angeles and Vancouver all have Chinatowns.

“I mean Chinatown in Sydney is the third most visited destination for tourists in Sydney,” Spoonley told TV ONE’s Close Up.

“These sorts of ethnic precincts are what tourists, international tourists, like to see as well.”

On the positive side: Spoonley seems to be suggesting that Auckland would show off its multicultural side by having an official Chinatown that it could then promote to tourists. It would suggest Auckland is serious about welcoming new residents and also celebrates their traditions.  On the negative side: having a Chinatown does not necessarily a world city make. I suspect Auckland might have to do a bit more before it is considered a world city. Such cities, often known as “global cities,” are often financial centers, with all of the business, wealth, and status that this confers, and centers of culture, which attracts celebrities, intellectuals, and tourists.

While this idea might need to be expanded, Spoonley’s broader suggestion is interesting: a city can become a world class city simply by promoting itself as such. Has this happened with other cities?

Between the mansion and McMansion: the “maxi-McMansion”

Posted on by

Despite the widespread use of the term McMansion, it is often unclear how large (or small) a McMansion typically is. The description of a home in Westport, Connecticut illustrates this issue:

I’d like to share with you what, specifically, brought home the extraordinary disparity between rich and poor in America. Last Friday’s Westport News published a headline on top of the Real Estate page that read: “Waterfront colonial offers ocean waves, scenic views.”

The caption under the photo of the Maxi-McMansion added, “The16-room, 9,682-square-foot colonial features 175 feet of shoreline footage and its own private deep-water dock in a protected cove.”

The asking price? A tidy $9.25 million!

I am not picking on this house alone. Million dollar homes in our town are like pebbles on the beach: too numerous to count. Routinely, homes in Westport today — at the bottom of what is reportedly another dip in national prices — sell for for $1,970,000, or $1,805,000, or $1,070,000, just to list just a on that same page Friday under “Property Transfers.”

I would suggest that a home of nearly 10,000 square feet is really a mansion as it is far beyond the average new house size of roughly 2,400 square feet. There are relatively few homes of 10,000 square feet or more built in America each year.

So what might make this home a McMansion? Perhaps it is the architecture: we are simply told this is a colonial. If you look at the actual real estate listing for this house (I’m pretty sure this is it – it matches the price, square footage, and waterfront location), the house does have a punctuated front with a lot of protruding pieces. Perhaps it is the luxury of the home – but that could also make it a mansion. This would make some sense as the larger article is about the gap between the rich and poor in America and this home is an illustration how some are still profiting while many Americans are struggling. Perhaps the home is part of a development of newer, mass-produced mansions – a satellite view on Google Maps does suggest there are similar homes nearby. Does this suggest that these are all teardown homes?

I’m still not sure why this home isn’t simply called a mansion rather than a “maxi-McMansion.” If I had to select one option from the ones I’ve presented, I would guess that the author wants to imply that such homes are examples of the easily-reproduced luxuries that the super-rich can purchase. Calling the home a mansion would imply an older structure and perhaps old money.

If you are for the Smart car, then you are against the McMansion

Posted on by

Scott Goodson, the founder of an ad agency, argues that the new trend in advertising is selling a movement:

When the Smart car wanted to sell you a new model earlier this year, instead of talking about the usual advertising claims, like how great the car drives and how fuel efficient it is, Smart USA took a radically different approach. It came out with an idea of being against certain things. It asked you, the consumer, to think about what you were against in life, like excess stuff you buy but don’t need, McMansions with four car garages and of course gas guzzlers.

This is an unusual thing for a car company to do. It was not simply pushing polished cars in ads, it was saying something controversial. It was taking a stand against something. And it went beyond advertisements and set up a Facebook page. Why would advertising do this, why would the brand have this message?

Well, the Smart car, with the help of my agency StrawberryFrog in New York, was trying to spark a national movement against dumb mindless over-consumption. The thinking was: “Hey, if we could get millions of people excited about joining the fight against waste and dumb consumerism, it’s a great way to get them excited about the Smart car.”

This is part of a larger trend in advertising. To get people excited about a brand in this new social-media-Facebook-crazy world, you need to dump the old advertising playbook and spark a movement that people can get involved with.

Goodson suggests that it remains to be seen how consumers will respond. However, these sorts of ads are needed because “traditional ads” no longer work and advertisers need ways to reach consumers.

I’ve seen some ads like this recently. Such ads still target the identity of individual consumers but with a twist. First, they suggest that there are morally good and wrong choices to be made. The Smart car ad is suggesting that people in four-car McMansions are on the wrong side while virtuous Smart car owners are on another side. Second, they tie individual identity to a collective of like-minded consumers. While a cynic might suggest that such consumers are simply participating in the capitalistic movement, Smart car owners are told that their purchase makes them part of something bigger. If you put these two ideas together, consumers can still follow their individual tastes (however influenced they are by outside forces) but feel like they are participating in virtuous action with others.

Regarding the Smart car ads: what would happen if Toyota started advertising the Fit with the Smart car as its enemy/opposite movement? It seems rather easy to pick on McMansions and excessive consumption but what if it was a similar product?

In the long run, does this cheapen more traditional social movements that are looking to right social wrongs?

I wonder if advertisers would say these these movement-based ads are more effective with younger consumers, particularly emerging adults who might be yearning to be part of larger collectives.

The McMansion for dogs in the sculpture park

Posted on by

A sculpture park in St. Louis has a new exhibit for dogs that includes a McMansion:

This summer, Laumeier Sculpture Park hosts “Dog Days of Summer,” an exhibit that allows visitors to ponder the dog/human relationship while giving their pets a chance to romp free across the park grounds…

The exhibit’s centerpiece, “Not Without My Dog,” is an interactive dog trail installed outdoors. Designed by Finnish artist Tea Makipaa, the art piece has six stations dogs can examine as they wind their way along the park’s nature trail.

“It’s a place where dogs can be themselves and we can better understand how they perceive the world,” Venso said.

One of the interactive stations, called “Dogs of USA,” has several contemporary versions of doghouses. Venso said one burned-out house represents Detroit. Another is built in cookie-cutter “McMansion” style. A third is an eight-story brick tenement doghouse.

What an interesting collection of “contemporary” doghouses: a burned-out house, a McMansion, and a tenement. Why these three and what is the message behind them? Perhaps they simply represent interesting settings that allow the sculptor to show some creativity. (Who will be the first to take a picture of a dog going to the bathroom on the McMansion in the park and post it gleefully online?)

I’m going to have to check the website of the sculpture park to see if they include any pictures of these three doghouses after the exhibit opens June 25.

Meritocracy vs. structures illustrated by a British rapper who chose LSE over Cambridge

Posted on by

I have seen a number of stories in recent days about a 17 year old British rapper from a disadvantaged area, Franklyn Addo, who had a choice to study at five British universities, including Cambridge. In The Guardian, Addo explains why he chose to study sociology at the London School of Economics (LSE):

The real reasons that lead me to my decision – one I did not take lightly – are much more significant than the lack of a “music scene”. Having meticulously assessed the content of the courses offered at LSE and Cambridge, I decided I would be more suited to the course in London. Crucially, studying at LSE also makes more financial sense, as I would not have to pay for accommodation.

Obtaining an offer from Oxbridge is such a rarity, especially for people like me who come from a relatively deprived area. This causes some to believe that the interview process is bound to be extremely scary. Contrary to this, I found the interview was not frightening; the environment was pleasant and the interviewers welcoming. I enjoyed having a formal conversation about concepts within sociology, a field I am passionate about. After being given time to digest a case study, two interviewers quizzed me about the information I was given and assessed my ability to make links between sociological, psychological and political concepts. If you are knowledgeable about the subject you’re applying for, the interview process is likely to be enjoyable, although indubitably challenging.

Indeed, from my personal experience, Cambridge appears to be meritocratic and non-discriminatory, although the demographics of current undergraduate students may suggest differently. Some of my peers view Oxbridge as a desirable goal to which some aspire, but others see it as an elitist institution; perhaps due to the false belief that it is impossible for them to receive offers to study there. People from deprived areas must assess their way of thinking and begin to understand that society is becoming increasingly meritocratic and that anything is possible with hard work.

Furthermore, schools and colleges should encourage people who have the academic ability to apply and help them with the process – as my sociology teacher at Woodhouse College in Barnet, Nazia Rahim, did with me. She provided me with extracurricular help, a mock interview for Cambridge and was pivotal in developing my understanding that I can achieve what I set my mind to. Schools and authority figures should be active in empowering the local community to aim high from a young age and encourage young people to take part in extracurricular activities so they are attractive applicants to whichever university they decide upon, or whatever career they decide to pursue.

What interests me in this account is how he describes reactions to Oxbridge (referring to Cambridge and Oxford): are they elitist or meritocratic? Addo seems to subscribe to the meritocratic argument, suggesting “society is becoming increasingly meritocratic and that anything is possible with hard work.” But would this be the viewpoint of many sociologists and those who study sociology? On the whole, sociologists would talk about the difficulties of social mobility and how class structures, both in wealth and cultural disparities, influence life chances. But here Addo describes his chances as the result of “hard work” and the efforts of his sociology teacher.

If sociologists were asked about their own successes and not about life chances in the abstract, would they suggest it was because of their own hard work and efforts (the meritocratic side) or because they had structural advantages (the elitist side)? When talking with students or their kids, can sociologists teach about broader structures but then suggest to individuals kids that their life chances are highly determined by their own efforts? Perhaps this is taking the agency vs. structure debate to a personal level to ask whether individuals attribute their successes or maybe just their failures to structures.