The average American family uses 320 gallons of water per day, about 30 percent of which is devoted to outdoor uses. More than half of that outdoor water is used for watering lawns and gardens. Nationwide, landscape irrigation is estimated to account for nearly one-third of all residential water use, totaling nearly 9 billion gallons per day.
The American lawn is alive and well – in part because of all this water. To get the lawn Americans typically want, green, well-manicured, and free of weeds, much is required. And without watering, it might not even get off the ground. Some parts of the country have regular rain that can support this kind of grass. But, it may not meet the standards of Americans and other areas do not have this rainfall. I, too, have had the experience of flying over the West and then seeing Las Vegas emerge with its telltale green lawns.
The American lawn is also alive and well because of expectations and values attached to this lawn. It signifies success and middle-class suburbia. Yes, it requires water. But if the water supply was severely diminished, would the lawns necessarily disappear? Or would people adjust their behavior to make sure the lawns remain in some smaller or similar form? Just how much water would Americans be willing to devote to green lawns?
The realignments of recent years—the midwestern white working class toward Trump’s GOP and the suburbs toward the Democrats—can be understood as the process of ideological and education sorting coming for groups that were the most out of place in the new political realm: rich suburban Republicans and culturally conservative working-class Democrats. In 2020 and 2024, this realignment came for the nonwhite voters once at the center of Barack Obama’s coalition, especially working-class Hispanics, and most especially those in the rural outskirts of the Rio Grande Valley.
Starr County’s tradition of machine politics, manifest in an unusually strong preoccupation with local elections, marked a place ripe for a sudden political shift. Not unlike the Democratic majorities in the big cities of mid-century, which continue at some level into the present day, political dominance in the region was built not through allegiance to liberal ideals but through political machines that delivered tangible benefits and shaped the political identity of new immigrant groups. This is evident in polling today showing that nonwhite Democrats are much more moderate and conservative than their white counterparts. For a time, ideological differences were subsumed to the work of advancing group interests through machine politics. But in an era of declining party organization and an emptying out of majority-minority cities in favor of more integrated suburbs, the tide of ideological voting could be held at bay for only so long. Once it poured in, America shifted into a new era of politics, from one forged by social connections at the neighborhood level to today’s cultural and ideological polarization, where you vote Republican if you have conservative cultural beliefs, regardless of race.
Two claims here stand out:
“Rich suburban Republicans and culturally conservative working-class Democrats” shifted in recent decades. As the suburbs grew quickly after World War Two, those new suburbanites were assumed to be Republicans. Now, college-educated suburbanites tend to lean toward Democrats. And it also matters where in the suburbs someone lives; those closer to big cities tend to vote Democratic and those more on the metropolitan edge tend to vote Republicans.
The connection made between “more integrated suburbs” and increased polarization. Did the people moving to the suburbs lead to polarization – more residents of different racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds living in suburbs – or did people moving out lead to polarization? What exactly changed and what led to what? How did suburbs over time become different social and political places?
The pattern seems well-established now: the political state of suburbia has changed. The reasons for it and the long-term consequences are still to be worked out.
The primary mission of Transformco is to monetize Sears’ real estate. This can occur through either selling or leasing it, according to John C. Melaniphy, president of the Chicago-based retail consulting firm Melaniphy & Associates…
“In my opinion, it will take years to unwind all of the properties that are encumbered through either Sears/Kmart leases or ownership,” he added. “Transformco leadership will determine their short-term and long-term success. However, the company has experienced talent losses with fairly significant employee turnover. The current mall redevelopment environment, with rising store closings and greater e-commerce market share, is a serious threat to their long-term success. Transformco leadership will be challenged in their effort to navigate the peaks and valleys in development cycles. In my opinion, they will sell off the remaining assets as quickly as possible.”
But Melaniphy sees Transformco’s recent sales of two former Sears stores in Texas for their redevelopment into Dick’s Sporting Goods House of Sports locations as signs of success in its mission…
As of early spring, the remaining Sears stores were in Burbank, Concord and Whittier in California; Orlando and Miami in Florida; Braintree, Massachusetts; El Paso, Texas; and San Juan, Puerto Rico…
A quarter of the way through the 21st century, other lingering evidence of Sears’ long and proud history in the Chicago area include the third-tallest building in North America and the call letters of radio station WLS, which stands for “World’s Largest Store” for the four years Sears owned the station in the 1920s.
From leading company to holding some potentially valuable real estate. This is quite a fall over decades. It also has the potential to turn into something else if the real estate becomes something important down the road. While it probably will not lead to the rise of the next great retail company (and can that even happen in brick and mortar settings?), the reused or redeveloped properties could still benefit communities.
This does lead to a bigger question about any mass market retailer or restaurant. Yes, they generate revenue – or hope to – at each location. But what if the real estate portfolio is ultimately the biggest asset? What happens to that asset long-term if the company is no longer there?
Imagine 50 years into the future. Will there be any physical locations that remind people of Sears? The former Sears Tower will presumably still be there. Will any of the former Sears retail stores or warehouses or offices have any markers that talk about the once-large company?
Lately, though, there’s a rash of billionaires breaking ground on new golf clubs for reasons that seem to defy economic logic and environmental sanity. It seems they are so rich that they are willing to spend whatever it takes to build their dream playgrounds, and it’s less important, in many cases, whether the new enterprise makes money or not.
“Many are ‘financed’ by wealthy people who want to do something great, and know how to work the system to get tax breaks etc. from localities eager to have a great project providing jobs and tourism [dollars] in their backyard,” Tom Doak, the great golf-course architect, wrote on Golf Club Atlas, a popular blog, last year…
Last year, more than 25 new golf courses were opened around the country, the most in the past decade. Many of these were add-ons to existing resorts or in remote private locations, such as Mauk. Land and building costs have become too pricey to justify the construction of new golf courses and clubs in Metropolitan areas, according to the National Golf Foundation, but in remote locations like Mauk, there’s plenty of room and the costs are often low…
Ground zero of golf madness is almost certainly Florida, which has more courses than any other state in the country by far, with nearly 1,200. Between the warm, humid weather; the flat, sandy terrain; and the abundance of wealthy retirees with plenty of time and money on their hands, the state is incredibly attractive to developers. It doesn’t hurt that the rich are flocking there in droves, thanks in part to the fact that there’s no state income tax…
“It’s all about controlling the number of people who have access to maintain the quality of the experience,” Nathan explains. “That’s the funny thing about golf. Every golfer’s dream is to be on this amazing piece of land, on this perfectly manicured golf course. And to be out there alone with their group.”
I am interested to know the scale of tax breaks available for such courses. If local governments are willing to offer tax breaks, does this mean they find a golf course and associated development to be an improvement over the current state of the land? If so, how much money do they expect that course to generate (vs. how much it could generate without the same tax break or with the ongoing non-golf course use of the property)? It sounds like this is a tool for more rural areas to quickly jump start development but it is harder to know the longer-term consequences.
It would also be interesting to know what happens to golf courses and clubs long-term after they get past their opening and first generation of members. It is one thing to plan the course and see it come to fruition. Do kids and grandkids then continue that legacy or do they sell their portion? Do these courses become their own institutions that go on for generations beyond or even in different directions compared to the original vision cast?
Granted, the polling average does move a decent amount at some points. It is over 45% just before 2010 and it is over 40% again around 2022. And it is down under 20% at a few points, including around 2012, 2014, and 2023.
What does long-term pessimism or concern do to a country? These patterns span multiple leaders, election cycles, events, and social movements. Are the same people down on the direction of the country or does this change depending on conditions? Are people responding more to the current moment or thinking about the near- or long-term future that they think the country is headed towards?
Put it another way: what might it take for a majority of Americans to say the country is on the right track?
A new list of the “Best Places to Live” was recently released. Reading through the list, I was reminded of what kind of communities often dominate the top of these lists: large and wealthy suburbs. All the top ten communities have median household incomes of over $116,000, six are over $131,000, and the top two are over $146,000.
U.S. News & World Report’s Best Places to Live rankings help readers make the most informed decisions when choosing where to settle down. Cities in the rankings are evaluated using data from Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS) and U.S. News’ own internal resources. AGS develops its core database and specialized indexes from both private and government sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve and the Bureau for Economic Analysis, as well as state and local sources.
This data was categorized into the five indexes listed below and evaluated using a methodology determined by Americans’ preferences. The percent weighting for each index follows the answers from a February 2025 public survey in which people from across the country voted for what they believed was the most important factor to consider when choosing where to live.
Another might be that these are the kinds of communities Americans say they want. The ratings methodology above suggests this but generally Americans like, no, love, suburbs. And wealthy suburbs tend to have traits Americans like in suburbs: big houses, nice amenities, a quiet lifestyle. How many suburbanites want to be successful and then live around other successful people?
But if we keep naming the same kind of places as the best places to live, does this reinforce a particular story about places to the exclusion of other places? Many people will not have the opportunity to live in these communities, whether because of a lack of resources or ties and connections to other places within metropolitan regions. Could it be better to focus on helping more communities be places where people can thrive? Can many suburbs within a region be successful, even if they never make it to the top of lists with particular criteria?
“There is no doubt that the I-88 corridor will be the largest and most significant redevelopment opportunity in our city’s history,” Wehrli said.
A new study calls the corridor the only “opportunity area” of its scale left in the city. Much of the corridor in Naperville — once known as its “Innovation Corridor” — was developed with single-use, low-density office space and is underused and “underperforming relative to its potential,” according to the report by AECOM, a consultant hired by the Naperville Development Partnership.
“Nearly half of the city’s existing jobs are located in the corridor, which the report noted was an ideal location for certain high-growth industries,” Wehrli said. “Sectors like: ag and food tech, biotech, pharma, life science, energy, fintech, quantum and advanced computing, tourism, sports and hospitality.”…
Among its recommendations, the study suggests developing a new corridor brand identity and creating a special zoning district along I-88 that would allow for a more dense, mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit-friendly environment.
“The study sets aspirational goals that add 15,000 high-paying jobs in the corridor by 2045 if we target these industries,” Wehrli told a business-friendly audience.
Three features of this report strike me:
The emphasis on quality jobs is not a surprise. The jobs that came in the 1960s with Bell Labs and then other companies helped provide Naperville with a solid jobs base and a higher status. For a community that is used to having these jobs, it sounds like they want more of the same.
The mention of mixed-use development is intriguing. Naperville has limited the amount of housing in this corridor in the past. How much housing would they allow? What residents are they hoping to attract? How many large-scale mixed-use developments do they think the corridor can handle?
There is mention of zoning and branding unity that would be more “pedestrian- and transit-friendly.” Could this become a kind of linear neighborhood linked by mass transit and walking/biking paths? For decades the corridor was marked by proximity to a busy interstate that grew from two lanes in each direction in the late 1950s to four or more lanes each direction today. Could these new developments have significant connections to each other that go beyond cars and driving?
The suburban coyote populations are growing rapidly which means there will likely be more interaction with people but both Erickson and Ramono say it’s not really the coyotes’ faults.
“We invited them when we built all these suburbs,” Erickson said. “We said, ‘Hey, there’s more food here. There’s more habitat here.’ We invited these animals in here.”
They say when we experience mild winters three to four years in a row, the population can increase 18 to 27 percent. The old and sick and late-littered animals survive, animals that would normally would die off.
In five years, the population could double.
They also say rural coyotes may only live two years because there are pressure on them. In suburban areas, we have coyotes live to 13-years-old because of the all of food and the lack of pressure.
I have seen coyotes running across busy four-lane suburban roads and through suburban backyards. I have heard them howl at night in an open field next to a neighborhood. I have read plenty of online claims regarding the threat of coyotes to local pets. Coyotes are now fixtures in suburban Chicagoland.
They are evidence that some species can thrive in suburbia. As noted above, suburban areas provide food and places to live while limiting pressure (competition for food? predators?). The typical suburbanite may not like their presence but coyotes are here to stay for now.
At what point would communities take action against coyotes? When I have read online claims of the threats to pets, I could imagine that an uptick in coyote/pet interactions could move people to act given the love Americans have for their pets. Or perhaps signs of coyotes taking out other wildlife that suburbanites like or are used to.
As the Sun-Times reported in November, the demand for power from big data centers and a delay connecting new power sources, such as solar and wind, to the electric grid is resulting in ComEd customers seeing their monthly bills go up $10.60 a month on average…
Power demand across the country has skyrocketed as big data centers and artificial intelligence operations have created huge demand. Meanwhile, new sources of “renewable” energy, including wind and solar power, have been slow to get connected to an electric grid that spans from Northern Illinois to the East Coast, said Jim Chilsen, a spokesman for the consumer watchdog Citizens Utility Board.
How much will this register with Illinois customers – will they have no problem paying roughly $10 more a month to help support what they expect on their smartphone and online activity? Technology tends to have costs, even if people tend to think the benefits outweigh the downsides, but it can be hard to pin down. While all of the increased rates may not be due to computing activity, at least some is.
Considering indirect costs may just be difficult to do. Having direct feedback with technology probably elicits different reactions than these more indirect costs. Imagine the new AI feature on your phone comes with a $5 a month surcharge on your phone bill to cover its costs. Or each time you do an AI search you incur a charge. Contrast that with the costs of driving. Automobiles opened up all kinds of new opportunities but driving comes with numerous costs, some direct (like paying for gas, insurance, and maintenance) and some more indirect (taxes for infrastructure, changes in land use, pollution).
If asked how much they would be willing to directly pay for AI, what would Americans say?
At 4,210 acres, Griffith outshines other extraordinary city parks of the US, such as San Francisco’s Golden Gate, which barely tops 1,000 acres, and New York’s Central Park, a mere 843 acres. Griffith’s peaks tower above those flat competitors too, with nearly 1,500 feet in elevation gain, making it practically vertical in orientation. And LA’s crown jewel of a park is still largely uncut, much of it remaining a wilderness area preserved more than 100 years ago, and barely developed, unlike the pre-planned “wild” designs of Golden Gate and Central Park.
Add its history, views, recreation opportunities, unique and hidden spaces, a free Art Deco observatory and museum, the most famous sign in America and the park’s overall star-power, and you have a compelling case that Griffith is not just epic in scope but the greatest city park in the nation.
There’s something for everyone there: a zoo, playgrounds and an old-timey trainyard for the kids; challenging and steep trails for hikers; dirt paths for equestrians; paved roads for bikers; diverse flora and fauna for nature enthusiasts; and museums for the science and history learners.
Two features stand out in the above description. First, the sheer size of the park. This is very unusual in large cities as they have some space for parks but also have many other land use demands. Second, the variety of features and activities in the park. There is not just one thing to do here; there are numerous options serving different groups.
Given that this is Los Angeles, what might this land be if it had been open to developers? Given what is on some of the other hills, just more expensive houses?
And how much can the claim that the park is “barely developed” matter when it is exposed to the pollution in the region and the activity of many nearby humans?
To settle this, how about a national city park contest? There are a number of important parks and there are a lot of different criteria that could be used.
Legally Sociable 