The “natural flow” of people toward renting rather than homeownership?

In discussing the construction of a new suburban apartment building, one person describes the demand for the apartments:

Photo by George Becker on Pexels.com

“We have seen the rent increases in the suburban market in general have been pretty strong over the last few years,” he said. “There’s a lot of people who normally would have gone out and maybe rented for a few years and then bought a home, are not doing that. They’re staying in apartments longer.

“So you have the natural flow of new people coming in and less people walking out the door for home ownership, and a lot of that is just due to the high interest rate environment and people wanting to retain the flexibility of renting right now,” Devries explained.

Is this “natural” that more people or certain people at the moment are willing to rent compared to own? These two paragraphs mention several reasons why this shift did not just happen:

  1. Increase in rents. This means at least some apartments are available to those with the resources to pay for it.
  2. Higher mortgage rates mean homeowner’s monthly payments are higher.
  3. Renting can offer flexibility in a tight housing market or when people are feeling economic uncertainty.

These are the result of social, economic, and political forces. And I wonder if all of these people who find it “natural” to rent now would prefer to own a property. If conditions were different, would they rather purchase a home, condo, or townhome? Or what if this to-be-constructed building did not contain apartments but rather contained condos?

The “natural” flow in American life for roughly the last century has been toward single-family homes and homeownership. This takes different forms – not just homes but condos and townhouses – and may not appeal or be available to everyone. But my guess is that if the three listed conditions above were more favorable toward purchasing units, that is what more people would seek and developers/builders would produce.

The United States will celebrate 250 years in 2026 and postwar suburbia will be roughly 80 years old at the same time

However the United States celebrates 250 official years in 2026, the year could mark another important anniversary: eight decades of postwar suburbia.

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

With World War Two ending, the United States shifted more focus to domestic concerns. Returning veterans wanted houses. The economy which had been hit with a depression and then global war looked to rev up and wanted new outlets. Americans already had a ideal of suburbia and single-family homes though relatively few people could access it. The population started growing faster again. People needed housing.

Over the next few decades, postwar suburbia took shape. Big developers. Highways. Land annexations. Single-family home subdivisions. Driving all over the place. Fast food stores and shopping malls. Expanding metropolitan regions. Suburban music and TV shows. New structures for mortgages.

All of this required policies, resources, and cultural shifts. It did not happen all at once or necessarily have one origin point in time. Did it start with the beginning of construction of Levittown, New York? Did it begin with a new idea? Did it start with a particular policy (which may have happened before the late 1940s but did not have the other pieces)? How about the invention of the Model T or balloon frame housing?

Thus, we may have to settle for roughly 80 years of postwar sprawl in 2026. Perhaps some group or movement could argue for a particular year. But this also means that almost one-third of the time since the United States started (ignoring the history leading up to that) involves sprawling suburbs. Is this a big amount of time or relatively little?

Trying to remember the farm life that came before today’s suburbia

I was recently looking at aerial photographs of our suburban area from nearly 100 years ago. The outline of suburban communities were there – small sets of houses clustered around railroad lines – but much of the land use involved farming plots. Today, hardly any of that farm land can be seen, let alone evidence of farming life. How can suburban communities remind people of that past?

Photo by Brandon Randolph on Pexels.com

An editorial in the Daily Herald suggests preserving an old farmhouse and providing exhibits and demonstrations can help suburbanites today:

The Forest Preserve District of DuPage County is seeking formal statements of interest from individuals or organizations with a vision for rehabilitating and reusing the 1850s farmhouse at the southeast corner of Greene and Hobson roads…

Our hope is that it could pave the way for Oak Cottage — and a neighboring barn — to someday become an educational resource similar to Kline Creek Farm, a forest preserve district-owned living history museum in West Chicago that depicts what local farm life was like in the 1890s…

Restoring the farmhouse — along with opening the Greene Barn to the public — could help educate future generations about DuPage County’s farming past. We applaud forest preserve officials for at least being open to one of those ideas and wanting to partner with a group to breathe new life into Oak Cottage.

Such efforts can have multiple benefits:

  1. It helps people know their local history. If suburbs are sometimes characterized as “no places” as people move in and out or the landscape looks similar to any other suburbs in the US, such sites can remind people of a particular local history.
  2. It could remind people of a particular connection to land and nature beyond that of suburban lawns. Farming can involve intense agricultural and livestock activity but this is a different interaction with soil and creatures than what suburbanites typically experience.
  3. Land and places go through change. Prior to farming, Indigenous groups lived in the area. White settlers starting in the 1830s cleared much of the land for their preferred methods of subsistence. Sprawling suburbia picked up in the postwar era, leveling the landscape for single-family homes and roadways. The future use of land does not necessarily have to look like it does now.

Teams from the biggest metropolitan areas doing well in MLB’s first half

The first half of the Major League Baseball season is almost over. And big market teams are leading the way:

Photo by Tim Gouw on Pexels.com

Of the top 10 teams in playoff position, seven teams come from the top seven North American markets by population figures, according to the Census Bureau and Canada population sources. They are, 1) the New York Yankees and New York Mets, 2) Los Angeles Dodgers, 3) Chicago Cubs, 5) Houston Astros, 6) Toronto Blue Jays and 7) Philadelphia Phillies.

The three other teams in the top 10? Detroit, Tampa, and Milwaukee. According to one source, they rank as the #17, #24, and #outside of the top 50 most populous metropolitan regions.

A few other thoughts about this list:

  1. Mexico City is the largest North American market. Of course, MLB only has teams in the US and Canada (one team).
  2. Missing teams from the other largest markets: Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Miami.
  3. Metropolitan population may not compare exactly with market size. This listing of MLB market sizes has a slightly different order.
  4. All seven teams in the big markets play in stadiums in their city (not in the suburbs).
  5. The argument in baseball tends to go that the teams in the largest markets have the most money to spend. This could be connected to local media deals (the LA Dodgers with the biggest) or perhaps owners from certain places having funds or lots of fans attending games in certain places.
  6. But having money does not necessarily guarantee being in a bigger market or winning a World Series. One analysis:

Since 1995, 48% of the champions and 38% of the contestants in the World Series have had top 5 payrolls. 93% of the champions and 83% of the contestants have been in the top half of payroll. Only two low-payroll teams have won it all — the 2002 Anaheim Angels and the 2003 Florida Marlins. It has been two decades since that has happened.

The list of losing World Series teams in the bottom half of payroll for the season includes the 2007 Rockies, 2008 and 2020 Rays, 2010 Rangers, 2014 Royals, 2015 Mets, 2016 Indians, and 2023 Diamondbacks.

The small scale of American homebuilding prior to World War Two

A new book on the work of the Levitts – Perfect Communities: Levitt, Levittown, and the Dream of White Suburbia – includes this section about developers building at scale prior to the Second World War:

Photo by FWStudio on Pexels.com

The company had averaged more than two hundred houses per year at a time when just six firms nationwide were constructing as many as twenty-five homes annually in Levitt’s price range. Eighty-six percent of pre-war builders put up two or fewer houses a year, and 60 percent built only one. In 1947, the editors of Fortune magazine called homebuilding “The Industry Capitalism Forgot.” (17)

This is an important feature of postwar suburbia: the construction of single-family homes happened at a scale unknown in previous eras. Before then, many builders built few homes. It took time to put together a block. Neighborhoods and communities grew more slowly. After the war, subdivisions and communities with thousands of residents could emerge within a few years. Fields or woods could be turned into flat land for building quickly. Housing frames went up, the trades came through and did their parts, people moved into completed homes.

The scale and efficiency is hard to compare between these two eras. It is like two completely different processes. The Levitt company argued the new approach allowed them to get needed homes into the hands of people, particularly veterans (but not Black residents), at an affordable price point. Critics said the process led to conformity and a lack of true community. Either way, new communities quickly developed and the processes were adopted by other builders and developers.

The American flag…everywhere

On July 4th, a day of American flags and celebrations, I was looking through old pictures in which the American flag was present. And it is all over the place – see examples below – including public spaces, sports stadiums, schools, churches, parks, clothing, train stations, dams, and more.

A vast majority of Americans within range for a 3 hour or less delivery from Walmart

If Walmart’s rise in the decades at the end of the twentieth century included logistical prowess, their CEO recently discussed how many Americans can get quick deliveries:

Photo by Artem Podrez on Pexels.com

CEO Douglas McMillon announced that Walmart is close to reaching 95% of the U.S. population with three-hour or less delivery, with a 91% increase year-over-year in deliveries under three hours in Q1.

This is remarkable to consider: 95% of over 340 million Americans can be reached by a Walmart delivery within 3 hours. Need something from Walmart? It can get to the vast majority of Americans within 180 minutes.

What is required to make this happen? Numerous locations, including warehouses and stores. Lots of employees and equipment. A strong inventory system. And more.

With this level of delivery possible, how does this change the calculus regarding all of the Walmart stores? Will fewer people visit them in the future because they prefer delivery? Will more of these stores be about deliveries rather than in-person shopping? Could Walmart significantly reduce its store footprint while continuing to extend its reach?

Upper middle class defined in part by living “in a more expensive neighborhood

How do you know if you are part of the upper middle class? A list of 8 signs includes this:

Photo by Max Vakhtbovycn on Pexels.com

You Live in a More Expensive Neighborhood

Another way to see if you’ve made it to the upper-middle class is to simply look at where you live. According to Rose, if “your home is in a ZIP code where folks want to live,” that’s a good sign that you’re there.

Keep in mind that it’s not all about appearances. People in the middle class might try to keep up with the Joneses — that is, they might compare themselves with their neighbors and try to match their level of wealth or status.

Those in the upper-middle class, however, do not. They don’t need to worry about whether their house is big enough or their car is luxurious enough. They can afford many of these high-end things without stretching their financial means.

Those in the upper middle class have the financial resources to live in places with higher housing prices. This means the houses may be bigger, the local amenities more plentiful, and the population more exclusive.

While the description above hints at this, why not just say that the upper middle class can afford a house that costs more? And how “expensive” is this neighborhood? In a typical metropolitan area, what percent of neighborhoods or communities are upper middle class, beyond the reach of the middle class or those around the median income and below the super wealthy enclaves?

How often then do those in the upper middle class use their community or neighborhood to signal their status? Just as a vehicle driven or a college attended or clothes worn or hobbies engaged in might signal class status, how much do they mention their community to highlight their status? If they say they live in “X,” is such a place widely known as being upper middle class?

NIMBY has come to sprawling Sun Belt metropolitan areas

Recent research looks at why housing costs have increased so much around numerous Sun Belt cities:

Photo by lil artsy on Pexels.com

Although the Sun Belt continues to build far more housing than the coasts in absolute terms, Glaeser and Gyourko find that the rate of building in most Sun Belt cities has fallen by more than half over the past 25 years, in some cases by much more, even as demand to live in those places has surged. “When it comes to new housing production, the Sun Belt cities today are basically at the point that the big coastal cities were 20 years ago,” Gyourko told me. This explains why home prices in the Sun Belt, though still low compared with those in San Francisco and New York, have risen so sharply since the mid-2010s—a trend that accelerated during the pandemic, as the rise of remote work led to a large migration out of high-cost cities…

The Sun Belt, in short, is subject to the same antidevelopment forces as the coasts; it just took longer to trigger them. Cities in the South and Southwest have portrayed themselves as business-friendly, pro-growth metros. In reality, their land-use laws aren’t so different from those in blue-state cities. According to a 2018 research paper, co-authored by Gyourko, that surveyed 44 major U.S. metro areas, land-use regulations in Miami and Phoenix both ranked in the top 10 most restrictive (just behind Washington, D.C., and L.A. and ahead of Boston), and Dallas and Nashville were in the top 25. Because the survey is based on responses from local governments, it might understate just how bad zoning in the Sun Belt is. “When I first opened up the zoning code for Atlanta, I almost spit out my coffee,” Alex Armlovich, a senior housing-policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank, told me. “It’s almost identical to L.A. in the 1990s.”

These restrictive rules weren’t a problem back when Sun Belt cities could expand by building new single-family homes at their exurban fringes indefinitely. That kind of development is less likely to be subject to zoning laws; even when it is, obtaining exceptions to those laws is relatively easy because neighbors who might oppose new development don’t exist yet. Recently, however, many Sun Belt cities have begun hitting limits to their outward sprawl, either because they’ve run into natural obstacles (such as the Everglades in Miami and tribal lands near Phoenix) or because they’ve already expanded to the edge of reasonable commute distances (as appears to be the case in Atlanta and Dallas). To keep growing, these cities will have to find ways to increase the density of their existing urban cores and suburbs. That is a much more difficult proposition. “This is exactly what happened in many coastal cities in the 1980s and ’90s,” Armlovich told me. “Once you run out of room to sprawl, suddenly your zoning code starts becoming a real limitation.”

Glaeser and Gyourko go one step further. They hypothesize that as Sun Belt cities have become more affluent and highly educated, their residents have become more willing and able to use existing laws and regulations to block new development. They point to two main pieces of evidence. First, for a given city, the slowdown in new housing development strongly correlates with a rising share of college-educated residents. Second, within cities, the neighborhoods where housing production has slowed the most are lower-density, affluent suburbs populated with relatively well-off, highly educated professionals. In other words, anti-growth NIMBYism might be a perverse but natural consequence of growth: As demand to live in a place increases, it attracts the kind of people who are more likely to oppose new development, and who have the time and resources to do so. “We used to think that people in Miami, Dallas, Phoenix behaved differently than people in Boston and San Francisco,” Gyourko told me. “That clearly isn’t the case.”

This is an interesting American phenomenon: people benefit from moving to new development that they can afford and then later they resist efforts to offer some of the same opportunities to others who might want to live in the same places but happened to get there later. The residents would surely talk about changes more development would bring. Countless examples of arguments about changes in character, more traffic, more noise, how those who live in apartments do not contribute to the community in the same way. These residents found suburbia just as they loved it and they often do not want it to change. I have seen this across my research and unless there is a major movement in the other direction, it seems like it is going to continue.

This puts people today in difficult situations. Can sprawl keep going and going beyond what already exists? How many people have the resources to live in places with higher housing costs? Will new places become the Sun Belt of today? How these questions are answered will affect American metropolitan regions in the decades to come.

When mass transit is or is not for suburbanites

As Illinois politicians debate what to do about multiple mass transit agencies in the Chicago region, a group of suburban mayors weighed in:

Photo by Constanze Marie on Pexels.com

The Suburban Mayors Coalition for Fair Transit criticizes new taxes proposed in a bill approved by the state Senate to avert a $771 million shortfall facing Metra, Pace and the CTA in 2026.

A $1.50 delivery fee on online orders, excluding groceries and medications, dubbed the “pizza tax” is “regressive, (and) disproportionately burdens low- to moderate-income families,” officials said.

Mayors also panned expanding a real estate transfer tax from Chicago to the suburbs, and allowing the new Northern Illinois Transit Authority to acquire or develop land near train stations for projects such as condos with retail space.

That concept would strip away power over zoning and parking from municipalities and give it to an nonelected board, they argued.

Three major issues seem to be at stake for suburban officials:

  1. Taxes and funding. Will more funds be raised from the suburbs? Will that tax money then be sent in ways that benefit suburban communities and residents?
  2. A loss of local control. More taxes affecting local residents imposed by other government bodies. Not having complete control over local land.
  3. Representation on the board that would oversee a new regional transit agency. How many suburban officials should be there? Should it be evenly balanced between suburban and Chicago interests?

All of this gets at a major reason suburbanites like the suburbs: they like local control. They generally do not like the big city dictating what will happen. They want what they think is best for their suburban community.

Perhaps this is elsewhere in the letter but it strikes me what is missing is a sense of how regional mass transit could be used by suburbanites and improve suburban life. Take the issue of suburban traffic: single communities cannot often address these issues as suburban residents commute from suburb to suburb. Could mass transit help? Or could mass transit help provide suburban residents access to more jobs and housing opportunities?

If the funding and representation issues were worked out, would a majority of suburban communities then want a regional mass transit agency? How many would be interested in more mass transit present in their communities?