How much social information can we handle?

Humans are social. People need connections to others. This is how they learn, grow, and accomplish things both as individuals and groups. We understand ourselves in part by knowing about people and the world around us. Is there a limit to how much social activity and information people can take in and still live a good life?

Photo by Negative Space on Pexels.com

Much of the debate over social media seems to focus on either the content of the information or the time spent with it that could be better used elsewhere. Both are concerns but they only hint at this question: can we handle all the information and social interactions?

For much of human history, people lived in relatively small communities. They lived in close proximity to family, often extended family and people of similar people groups. Traditions were important and technological progress was slower. There are examples in history of large urban centers but these are rare; small villages and towns were the more common social space.

The modern era and all that came with it – rationalism, industrialism, growing populations, urbanization, liberal democracies, pushing back against tradition, new technologies – expanded the number of social connections people could have. Big cities – 1 million-plus people – became common. People had more mobility. Access to other people and information expanded rapidly.

The Internet and social media is layered on top of these processes already underway and ongoing. Through these technologies, humans can connect with many more people and can access much more information. Something happens far away and we can know about it in minutes or seconds. Rather than relying on proximity for many of our social connections, we can interact with people and groups all over the place.

Perhaps humans can figure out how to deal with this all. How many would say they would want to go back to times where people primarily relied on people around them for relationships and information? People might figure out ways to shift their focus to all the options in front of them or better compartmentalize the big picture options and the world immediately around them. Or maybe not. We have options now that most humans never had – we can find out a lot and we can interact with or find out about almost anyone we would like – and we will see how we come to grips with them.

HOA and condo association fees as part of growing mortgage costs

Part of the rising mortgage costs in the United States is due to fees residents pay to homeowners’ and condo associations:

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Rising home insurance premiums and homeowners association fees have also contributed to growing monthly expenses. The median annual cost of property insurance increased by 5.3 percent last year, the Census survey found, with bigger increases for larger homes. Nearly a quarter of all U.S. homeowners paid fees to a condo or homeowners association last year, at a median cost of $135. In Nevada, Florida and Arizona, 45 to 50 percent of households paid such a fee.

The Census report has more details. Where do more residents pay association fees?

Some states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada that typically attract a lot of retirees to planned communities had higher proportions of homeowners who reported paying condo/HOA fees.

Others with among the smallest shares: Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

The prevalence of these associations differs quite a bit across contexts. And even within places with more associations, some people may more than others:

The amount of condo and HOA fees differed widely between and within states. In 2024, about 5.6 million or 26% of homes paid less than $50 a month and about 3 million homes paid more than $500 a month.

The national median (half were less and half more) monthly fee was $135. But a large share of homeowners in some states — most notably New York (64%) — reported paying more than $500. So did about half of homeowners in the District of Columbia and in Hawaii. 

These fees could be going up for multiple reasons:

  1. Increased repair and maintenance costs. Replacing roofs or maintaining common areas or other regular duties of these associations cost more, just as almost everything costs more in recent years.
  2. Increased insurance costs. As homeowner’s insurance goes up, so would insurance for associations and larger buildings.
  3. With the cost of current needs going up, this could also affect projections about the future. As associations think about their reserves and future outlays, they may need more to keep up with in order to have a required and/or prudent amount on hand.

It may be difficult to reduce these costs easily as these associations have specific responsibilities to residents.

The inefficiency of the construction industry

One issue that affects American housing is the lack of efficiency in the construction industry:

Photo by Bidvine on Pexels.com

Companies like Reframe are trying to solve a conundrum scholars call the construction crisis. Although most sectors of the economy have gotten more efficient over time, construction has moved in the opposite direction—construction sites are less productive today than they were 50 years ago. It’s a genuine mystery, and everyone has their own pet theory about what’s to blame.

Efficiency is the answer to numerous perceived social issues in the United States. Make government more efficient. Make the distribution of resources or services more efficient. Get things done faster and at lower cost. And in the business world, who would be opposed to more efficiency?

I also recall some of the concerns expressed by critics about efficient home building operations. Take the Levitts mentioned in this article. Amid the various concerns expressed by many was a concern about the quality and character of homes that were mass produced. Would such homes stand for a long time? What does it do to community life when there are so few models available?

The example given in the article of efficient housing is modular housing. Part of this involves logistics; can it be produced at particular quantities and price points that makes it viable. But there will also be architectural and community questions. Will neighbors want to live next to it? Do early residents find it comparable to housing built by other methods? How does it stand up over time?

It would be interesting to ask Americans if they want “an efficient house.” Is the opposite of this “an inefficient house”? I’m not sure many think about in terms of efficiency when thinking about their residence.

How about creating suburban communities that only contain data centers?

With some suburbanites concerned about data centers proposed for their communities, I have a possible solution: why not create new suburban communities that only contain data centers?

Photo by Josh Sorenson on Pexels.com

Imagine a suburban municipality full of data centers. It could help serve the needs of the surrounding region. It could draw on its own water and electricity supply (or make its own deals for these resources). It would not have to worry about being located near residences or other land uses where residents feel threatened.

This is not the first time I have thought of this idea. It could work for waste transfer sites. Landfills. Warehouses. Industry. Marijuana dispensaries. Religious congregations (see examples of opposition from my own research here and here)? This could work for the multiple land uses that suburban residents often object to or communities see as threats to their established way of life.

Creating such communities could be difficult. Given that many metropolitan areas are full of development, there might be three primary options to find land for such an endeavor:

  1. Locate the new municipality on the fringes of the region. This has the advantages of not changing densely developed land and it is already located further away from residences.
  2. Convert an existing suburb into such a place. While the image of American suburbs is often that of wealthy and exclusive communities, industrial suburbs have also been around for a long time. There are already suburbs with fewer residents that might be willing to take on more data centers.
  3. Take a bit of land from several existing communities and create this new municipality. This could be hard to do as suburbs are likely to resist losing land. But if the tradeoff is giving up land so that the perceived threat of a data center is not their responsibility, perhaps a conversation can start.

Any of these are unlikely. Not impossible. But suburban leaders and residents have resisted certain land uses for decades. The hope seems to be in each community that if they can successfully keep the land use out, that is success and good luck to other communities in addressing the issue.

Repairing aging American housing

Many older American homes need repairs but making those repairs is a challenge:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Across the nation, and especially here in Philadelphia, homeowners are increasingly struggling to maintain and repair aging homes that are withering, crumbling, and forcing homeowners to exist in near-unlivable conditions.

According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average age of the U.S. home is 40 years old, up from 31 years old 15 years ago. Homes tend to be the oldest in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic states and along the Appalachian Mountains. Repair costs are rising, and homeowners face $100 billion in needed maintenance, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Analysts say the problems associated with deferred maintenance and dilapidated properties span both rural and urban properties, resulting in structure collapses of occupied properties in Pittsburgh; Reading, Pennsylvania; Syracuse, New York; and elsewhere

Schapira said Philadelphia has at least 60,000 houses that are “in a pretty difficult situation” and need immediate repairs. Nationwide, about 6.7 million households are living in “inadequate” properties, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Both cities and suburbs have a lot of houses that are more than 50 years old: the growing urban populations of the late 1800s and early 1900s in Northeast and Midwest cities mean there are a number of aging units there and suburban sprawl added many homes to the edges of big cities and growing suburbs. Maintaining and repairing homes requires maintenance, knowledge, and resources.

This story highlights the issue when these aging homes are in poorer neighborhoods and communities. How are residents who are struggling to make ends meet supposed to do the substantial work necessary to keep their homes in decent condition, let alone have any features that the HGTV watching crowd might expect as normal these days?

For those with resources, this might be less of an issue. Larger older homes can be fixed up with some preserved in historic districts. Others are torn down and replaced with larger, modern homes. Those with means can avoid having to purchase homes with significant repair issues and if they do take them on, they made that choice and can address the issues.

The bigger question is this: what do Americans want to do with aging housing? Metropolitan regions need housing. Repairs can be costly. What are funding options? Can this be addressed by boosting incomes and economic opportunities? Are there ways to pay people to repair these homes and keep needed housing units in the community? What happens when housing does crumble and the properties are not desirable for developers or investors?

The rise in LLC property owners in Chicago

A new analysis shows that LLCs now own more properties in Chicago compared to two decades ago:

Photo by Photo By: Kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

In the last two decades, LLCs have become an increasingly common way to own real estate in Chicago, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis of 26 million property records by WBEZ, Injustice Watch and the Mansueto Institute for Urban Innovation at the University of Chicago.

The share of multifamily rentals owned by LLCs increased from 3% in 2006 to 16% in 2022, the analysis shows. Their share of ownership among larger apartment buildings with seven or more units, like the one where Carter resides, increased from 9% in 2006 to 34% in 2022.

Why the increase?

But LLCs gained traction with real estate investors in the 1990s when they realized LLCs had very minimal disclosure requirements, Hamill said. In Illinois, for example, only the manager and agent of an LLC — neither of whom are necessarily owners — are required to be publicly disclosed…

“There’s two big advantages with LLCs. One is the tax advantage that you’re not taxed as a corporation. The other big one is the ability to isolate liability and isolate financial assets,” Immergluck said…

But experts say the issue with LLCs isn’t their protection against legal liability. They say the problem with LLCs is the lack of transparency.

This could be told as a story of how a change in bureaucratic structures – the ways a corporation could incorporate – led to unintended outcomes. A new option from the 1970s eventually proved useful for property owners. But that could prove problematic for renters who cannot easily find people who can address important property issues.

This is a similar but different concern that those expressed in recent years about institutional investors buying up housing. What is similar is that some hard to find or hidden or presumed-to-be self-motivated actor is buying up housing and not acting in the best interests of residents or the broader good. What is different is that the concerns in the article above are primarily about the lack of having a person to contact and hold responsible, not about the numbers of units that are less affordable or less accessible because an LLC or corporation is acting rather than an individual owner. So this may not be a question of whether corporations can buy residential properties; it is about whether residents can know who these corporations are and whether they can be counted on to fulfill the landlord’s duties.

It would be interesting to hear from landlords what they would think of changes that would reveal their ownership. Would landlords who want to do the right thing object to this? Would some still want to not have their ownership public but would respond to residents well through property managers?

Costco, American consumption, and relationships with adversarial nations

The Trump administration may limit the ability of Iranian officials to visit Costco and Sam’s Club when they visit the United Nations in New York City:

Photo by Teju on Pexels.com

The movements of Iranian diplomats are severely limited in New York, but one proposal being floated would bar them from shopping at big, members-only wholesale stores like Costco and Sam’s Club without first receiving the express permission of the State Department.

Such stores have been a favorite of Iranian diplomats posted to and visiting New York because they are able to buy large quantities of products not available in their economically isolated country for relatively cheap prices and send them home.

It was not immediately clear if or when the proposed shopping ban for Iran would take effect, but the memo said the State Department also was looking at drafting rules that would allow it to impose terms and conditions on memberships in wholesale clubs by all foreign diplomats in the U.S.

Americans may be used to Costco and big box stores but they are not necessarily available all over the world.

When I saw this story, I was reminded of the so-called “Kitchen Debate” between Nixon and Khrushchev in 1959. At an exhibition in Moscow, the United States constructed a model of an American home with the idea of showing off all that an average American household had. Khrushschev did not appear impressed but the display illustrates one of the ways the United States expanded its power and reach in the second half of the twentieth century: through consumerism and a particular lifestyle.

Put another way, pursue policies like the United States and the average home could have a kitchen like that one displayed in 1959 or the average resident could shop at a Costco in 2025. Resist the American way of life or be belligerent toward the United States and those things will not be available.

Just out of curiosity, I searched Google Maps for the Costco locations nearest to the UN Headquarters in Manhattan. There are at least 3 locations within 11 miles. This means when the diplomats and the leaders of the world come together at the UN, getting to Costco might not be too difficult.

Condos, investment properties, and limited demand in Canada

Can condos help people find reasonably-priced housing and achieve homeownership? Maybe but viewing them more as investment properties for years means there may now be less demand for condos in Canada:

Photo by Amit Batra on Pexels.com

It didn’t take long to figure out why there were so many empty units on the market: it turns out nobody wants to rent a condo, and nobody wants to buy one either. Condo rents have dropped over the past two years, and according to a recent report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, condo sales have fallen by 75 percent in the Greater Toronto Area and 37 percent in the Vancouver area since 2022. The market has become so dire that buyers of pre-construction condos are having difficulty closing their purchases. Banks lend money depending on the present value of the property, and some condos are worth less now than they were when the buyers made their first deposit. As a result, developers have been cancelling construction projects. Some experts say we should have seen this coming…

The simple answer is that many condos built between the late 2010s and early 2020s were constructed not for living but for investment. Since 2000, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of condos used as investment properties. To my surprise, most of the investors were not faceless corporations or foreign investors. Research done by Statistics Canada shows that the typical condo owner is a middle-aged, middle-class Canadian couple. The reigning logic for the middle class was that buying a condo, renting it out to pay for the mortgage, and eventually selling the unit was a solid way to make money. This was especially true in the late 2010s, a period of low interest rates and weak rent control policies. Steady demand for housing, partially caused by increasing immigration, made real estate seem like a sure bet.

Developers knew that most pre-construction buyers were investors rather than people looking to live in the apartments themselves. As a result, they focused on quantity over quality. Vishakh Alex, an architectural designer working in Toronto, said that the directive from developers in the late 2010s was to squeeze in as many units as possible. It is telling that between 1971 and 1990, the median condo in the city was approximately 1,000 square feet, but between 2016 and 2020, the number dropped to roughly 650 square feet…

Yet, as city populations continue to grow, there’s nowhere to build but up. It hardly bears repeating that there is a housing crisis in Canada. Young middle-class people looking to buy their first homes can rarely afford the kinds of houses that they might have grown up in—a cute triplex on a tree-lined street in Trinity-Bellwoods, Toronto, for example, or a townhouse in Kitsilano, Vancouver, with a view of the ocean. And so it is to the condos we must go.

But it is also true that condo living does not have to be, and perhaps should not be, defined by the biggest developers looking to squeeze every drop of profit from mom-and-pop investors and homebuyers.

This shift toward investor properties sounds similar to what has happened in the United States in recent decades with homeowners increasingly viewing their properties as investments and expecting certain returns.

One difference here is that more of these condos might have been second homes. In Privileging Place: How Second Homeowners Transform Communities and Themselves, sociologist Meaghan Stiman explains how only a second home influenced how property owners viewed places and themselves with consequences for communities where these second owners were sometimes present.

If people in cities in Canada and the United States have concerns about investors buying too many properties, whether investors from other countries or institutional investors, what do they make of middle- to upper-class residents buying condos for investments? As the author notes above, these cities clearly need housing. American cities and metropolitan regions need housing. Should certain kinds of investors have limits or should developers be limited in how many investment properties they can construct?

One upside could be that the glut of investment condos does provide some attainable housing. The prices might not fall too far given their initial cost but what if investment condos and homes start becoming options for residents for whom they were not originally intended?

Avoiding the weather with walking that weaves in and out of buildings

In the last two decades, I have had occasions to give walking tours of places. This can require weaving in and our of buildings in order to get out of inclement weather. Whether trying to get out the rain or snow or cold weather, a walk that combines moving outside and inside can be very helpful.

Photo by Vlada Karpovich on Pexels.com

The problem is this: most places are not set up for this. The typical American building is oriented toward the street. You go into the building from a sidewalk or a parking lot and then you exit the same way. It can be difficult to find a pathway across buildings when there is not an easy pathway between them nor multiple entrances and exits to use.

College campuses offer a few more possibilities. These buildings are sometimes oriented toward a street but they are sometimes oriented toward a quad or a path. They often have multiple entry points. And visitors to a campus might be interested to see the interiors of certain buildings; what do classrooms look like? What is in social spaces for students? Where are different important offices and services located?

I found my own paths through campuses and the suburb in which I live. There are ways to take advantage of buildings, awnings, overhangs, and public spaces. It does not always work – I was recently caught in a torrential downpour where my umbrella did little good – but there are options if one is looking.

(Of course, there are cities and places that do offer interior walkways. Take downtown Minneapolis with a series of above ground walkways between buildings or the Pedway in Chicago. In places with consistently unpleasant weather, there need to be consistent options. Shopping malls are all about this as well; lots of walking possibilities once you drive to the mall.)

When suburbs resist affordable housing proposals, what positive outcomes are possible?

The Chicago Tribune describes concerns leaders and residents of two North Shore suburbs have regarding affordable housing proposals:

Photo by David Brown on Pexels.com

Case in point: Evanston’s Land Use Commission narrowly voted last Wednesday to recommend denial of a zoning application to build a 31-story, 430-unit apartment building in downtown Evanston. The tower would be among the tallest in all of Chicago’s suburbs. All the apartments would be studios, 1-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms, with 86 of the units deemed “affordable.”

The commission isn’t the last word on the project; the City Council will have that final say. But the 4-3 vote against the project reflected divisions within the community about growth. Speaking at the commission meeting, Chris Dillion, president of Chicago development firm Campbell Coyle (which isn’t developing the 605 Davis project that was the subject of the proceeding), clearly was frustrated: “Downtown Evanston cannot be preserved for only those who already are here. We need to make room for everyone,” he said, according to the Evanston RoundTable.

A majority of commissioners nonetheless thought the project was too big…

In Highland Park, another lakefront community about 14 miles north of Evanston, a fierce debate is underway about the redevelopment of a 28-acre vacant tract once the site of a Solo Cup factory. Prominent Chicago developer The Habitat Co. has proposed building 232 townhomes.

A recent meeting of the village’s Plan Commission on the project featured pointed criticisms, jeering and disruptions from residents complaining about the usual things when substantial residential developments are proposed — traffic and the impact on schools. But one resident complained that because some of the units were envisioned as rentals, the new residents would be “transient” and not invested in the future of Highland Park, according to a Tribune report.

The commission didn’t vote on whether to recommend approval, but a majority of commissioners expressed misgivings. Habitat partner Kathie Jahnke Dale said that any major reduction in the density, which already had been scaled back from a prior proposal, would lead the developer to walk away, likely leaving the site “vacant for another 15 years.”

This resistance is not unusual. For decades, suburbanites in the Chicago and across the United States have often resisted proposed developments that would bring denser and/or affordable units to their communities. Leaders and residents bring up concerns about noise, traffic, density out of line with the surrounding area, threats to property values and local quality of life, and concerns about the residents who would live in new residences.

Given this consistent opposition, what positive outcomes are possible regarding suburban proposals for affordable housing? Some thoughts on the possible options:

  1. Approval of the proposal in its initial form. This is rare. But there must be examples that could serve as models that others could learn from. What factors in suburbs lead to approving needed affordable housing from the start?
  2. A significantly smaller proposal. This happens quite a bit with proposals for suburban development: the initial pitch from the developer is considered and in the discussion with the community, the number of units is reduced. Take the Evanston example above slated for 31 stories and 430 units. Given the concerns expressed, perhaps the community would be okay with 15 stories and 200 or so units. Or with townhouses as in the second example, the density is reduced a bit with more open space provided. These changes can lessen the affordable housing contribution made but at least some affordable housing units are added.
  3. I do not know if proposals that are rejected all together can be positive. Perhaps it encourages an ongoing conversation in the community? Perhaps turning down a reasonable proposal galvanizes local efforts to support affordable housing?

For new affordable housing to be constructed in suburbs, my sense is that significant support needs to come from local leaders and residents who can articulate how this will benefit the community. Since many suburbanites will see such proposals as a threat, what about them adds to the community?