Category Archives: Sociology

Seattle enacts “McMansion ban”

Posted on by

Earlier this week Seattle moved to approve accessory dwelling units and also limit the size of McMansions:

While loosening restrictions on accessory units, the new rules will tighten restrictions on the construction of single-family houses by outlawing certain large homes, based on their floor area and lot size.

The aboveground living space for a single family in a new house will be limited to half the square footage of the home’s lot. For example, a new house on a 6,000-square-foot lot will be limited to 3,000 square feet of aboveground living space, not counting space devoted to an accessory unit.

O’Brien has said the “McMansion” ban will discourage people from replacing modest older houses with more expensive new houses and will encourage them to add accessory units….

The city’s most recent environmental analysis estimated the new rules would result in 4,430 accessory units built and 1,580 houses torn down over 10 years, versus 1,970 accessory units built and 2,030 houses razed under the status quo.

Three quick thoughts:

  1. The restriction on floor size based on lot size is a common one. This not only keeps the overall size down but also can help keep the new home from crowding up against the edge of the lot. Fitting a large home on a small lot is a common issue with those opposed to teardown McMansions.
  2. The story above says there is a restriction on aboveground square footage based on the lot. Does this mean some new homes will go underground instead (a la London)?
  3. The numbers cited at the end of the article are interesting in a city of over 700,000 people. The “McMansion ban” would not appear to have much effect: over the course of ten years, roughly 25% fewer teardowns would occur according to projections. Even with the restrictions, it will still be an option for those with wealth who want a single-family home (as opposed to the new option of an accessory dwelling unit on the lot of someone else). If the city really wanted to go after McMansions, could they have done more?

Bringing in tourists just to see the airport

Posted on by

Airports are often considered gateways to other tourist activities. Yet, they can be tourist destinations in their own right:

Hughey’s at the vanguard of a new phenomenon: terminal tourism. Programs adopted or being considered by a number of airports allow people beyond security checkpoints so they can meet arriving relatives or just hang out. It’s a bit of a return to the days before the 9-11 terrorist attacks, when airport security was more relaxed and you didn’t need a ticket for a flight to get inside. The programs are taking root as airports expand options to fill passenger dwell time, as it’s called — those often mind-numbing hours between when people make it through security and when their flights take off. Now many airports feature live music and art exhibits. There are spas, microbreweries, playgrounds, gourmet restaurants and wine bars.

Pittsburgh was the first airport to open up to non-travelers, in 2017, and Tampa started doing so last month. Seattle-Tacoma is evaluating a pilot it tested earlier this year and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, the nation’s busiest, may seek approval for a trial run. The idea is under consideration in Detroit and Austin…

Some view it as a potential money-maker; officials with the facilities in Atlanta and Detroit figure they might see additional revenue from parking and concessions. A survey of visitors during Seattle-Tacoma’s trial showed people stayed an average 2.5 hours — though they spent only an average $10.29.

At Pittsburgh International, the impetus was popular demand, said Chief Executive Officer Christina Cassotis. She was peppered whenever she appeared at public forums. “In the top five questions was always, ‘Why can’t we go back to the airport and see what’s going on out there?”’

I know there are security concerns but I cannot believe it took this long to consider this potential revenue generator given the number of cities interested in tourism. If the buildings are already there, why not invite more people in?

Some of the discussion in the article suggested airport tourists are drawn by food and shopping. I also assume the terminals provide some other nice features: watching airplanes and a safe, controlled, clean environment. In all these senses, airports are then like shopping malls with options for dining, shopping, and entertainment all within a pleasant indoor setting. And having been in almost all of the airports listed above, newer facilities are definitely headed toward shopping mall status with large shopping and dining areas plus interesting amenities for people on the go. For example, Sea-Tac offers a large glass window for watching planes.

Now, if only those struggling shopping malls could find something as interesting as planes landing and taking off to attract visitors…

Take a road trip to (downtown) Naperville

Posted on by

I found a suggested road trip to the suburb of Naperville, Illinois in a recent AAA magazine:

NapervilleRoadTrip

Several things strike me about this list:

1. All but one of the listed items to do is in downtown Naperville (with that other location almost out of the suburbs on the northwest side). This is a testament to the vibrancy and uniqueness of downtown Naperville.

2. Related to #1, all but one of the locations is walkable from the others. This is probably pretty unique in many American suburbs which are automobile dependent (as is the majority of Naperville).

3. What is missing from this list: Naper Settlement, the downtown shopping options, the rest of Naperville (see #5).

4. There is no mention here of proximity to Chicago. Naperville stands on its own with over 140,000 residents even though Chicago is accessible by car or train within roughly an hour. Would a road trip to a smaller and (perceived to be) safer location – a suburb – be more appealing to many Americans than a global city?

5. Does this accurately represent what Naperville is? On one hand, yes. The downtown features of Naperville represent a unique collection of recreational and consumer options within a suburban downtown. On the other hand, no. Naperville is a sprawling suburb marked by numerous subdivisions, strip malls, and lots of driving. Naperville is unusual both because of its downtown and its size and wealth with the latter two features perhaps not providing much appeal for a road trip.

Which 2020 candidate will set themselves apart by promoting homeownership?

Posted on by

Homeownership is at relatively low levels in the United States. There is a disparity in homeownership between different racial and ethnic groups. Affordable housing is hard to come by in many housing markets. So why is homeownership not an issue more 2020 candidates are talking about?

Several possible reasons come to mind:

  1. Policy options regarding housing on a national scale are not easy and/or may not be popular. Homeownership gets at a whole set of thorny issues including meritocracy, unequal distribution of resources, the power of local government, and exclusion from certain communities.
  2. Federal policy has done less subsidizing of homeownership in recent years (even as the general policy over the last century or so has been to do so). Other areas of policy are more attractive or pressing (see #4 for example).
  3. Many Americans desire to become homeowners at some point (including millennials) and they assume it will happen at some point, even if they face obstacles now. Perhaps they don’t see a big role for the federal government to play in this. Perhaps many Americans think housing is a free market operation (despite evidence to the contrary).
  4. Debates about college loan debt and free college may be proxy issues for homeownership. No shortage of ink has been spilled writing about how possible young homeowners cannot purchase a home because of college debt. Provide a cheaper or less-debt-inducing college experience and homeownership rates might climb again.
  5. Economic and social conditions have changed to the point where although many Americans still plan to own a home, it is no longer the same marker of success it was in the past. Success now may be no college debt or a fulfilling career or a funded retirement.

Even as American politicians for roughly a century have appealed to voters with arguments about expanding homeownership (for example, see Herbert Hoover in 1931 or George W. Bush in 2002), this election cycle may few such arguments.

Online publication of “Emerging SNS use”

Posted on by

My colleague Peter Mundey and I have a new article published online at the Journal of Youth Studies titled “Emerging SNS use: the importance of social network sites for older American emerging adults.”

The abstract:

This study asks how older emerging adults (23–28 years old) describe, understand, and interpret their own social network site (SNS) use, as well as whether this SNS use promotes social ties and life satisfaction or leads to negative consequences. Based on organic mentions of SNS use in interviews from Wave 4 of the National Study of Youth and Religion (N = 302), we find: maintaining relationships is the largest SNS use while older emerging adults also expressed difficulties in online relationships and finding romantic partners; they use SNS in new domains, such as work and politics; aging and generational changes affect how they view SNS use as they have new demands on their time; and they expect to continue to use SNS. The findings suggest limited support for the argument that SNS use promotes sociality and well-being and some indications that SNS use negatively influences older emerging adults. We argue SNS use will be similar and different as older emerging adults age – they will continue to use SNS to maintain relationships yet new demands will alter other uses – and this has implications for employment as well for as political, religious, and SNS leaders.

 

Counterarguments to the claim that people should not waste money on a big house

Posted on by

Economist Robert Shiller argues Americans do not need large houses:

“Big houses are a waste. People are still in a mode of thinking about houses that is kind of 19th century. As we modernize, we don’t need all this space,” Shiller told the Journal…

Shiller said advanced technology has replaced the need for extra space in our homes.

“For example, we don’t need elaborate kitchens, because we have all kinds of delivery services for food. And maybe you don’t need a workshop in your basement, either. You used to have a filing cabinet for your tax information, but now it’s all electronic, so you don’t need that, either. And bookshelves, for people who read a lot. We have electronic books now, so we don’t need bookshelves anymore,” Shiller said.

“Having a big house is a symbol of success, and people want to look successful. People have to know about your achievements. How do you know, really? Who knows what people are doing in their day job? But you do see their house.”

The counterargument for a typical owner of a large house might look like this:

1. What else could be such a worthwhile investment over time? Many people assume their home will appreciate in value and a big home purchased today means not only more space but more money down the road when the home sells.

2. Private space is still important. The kitchen may not be just about cooking. Of the spaces Americans do use in their homes, the kitchen is one. Or the idea of a workshop: there can be public spaces where people could come together to share tools and use common space but how many Americans are ready for that?

3. Shiller may overestimate the rate at which people are willing to get rid of stuff in favor of electronic copies or technology-aided alternatives. Shiller cites paper and books above. But, Americans simply consume a lot, ranging from video games to decor to furniture to electronic gadgets. Don’t they need bigger houses to fit all their stuff?

4. Status symbols matter in American society. A home is a very tangible expression of status, particularly compared to smaller items like watches, smartphones, jewelry, clothing, and other items.

All of these reasons may not be the most efficient or rational but they are a product of decades of social and cultural action and values. For more reading, see an earlier post: “Explaining Why Americans Desire Larger Homes.”

Get creative and sell home and new car together as package deal

Posted on by

Thinking about an earlier post linking new upscale car purchases with suburban gentrification, I had an idea: why not sell more homes and new cars together as a package deal? Here are reasons this could be a good pairing:

  1. Americans like the lifestyle that comes with a single-family home and driving a car. It is particularly important in the suburbs where owning a home and the ability to drive rank high in importance. Put these two big purchases together and sell a whole lifestyle.
  2. Both a home and a car are a status symbol. Pairing the two really provides an opportunity to brand the owner. Would someone want to purchase a McMansion but still drive a two Toyota Tercel or a Pontiac Aztek? Or, retire and downsize to a nice urban condo and keep driving a minivan or an older model SUV? Matching the home and the car at the same time provides a unique opportunity to establish oneself.
  3. I wonder if there are some “efficiencies” in purchasing both at the same time. On the producer side, developers and dealers want to move properties and cars; if selling them together helps, this is a deal. On the buyer side, perhaps they can roll all of the costs together and just pay one lump sum a month for two important items. (Mortgage documents might be hard enough to put together, let alone a joint document rolling together a mortgage and a car loan). Could it all be cheaper for the buyer (or get the sellers/lenders more money in the long run on interest)?

I would guess there are also good reasons this is not done widely. Still, given how much Americans like buying properties and like driving and cars, there may be potential here.

1859 Chicago gas pipe finally out of service

Posted on by

Infrastructure in American cities can go back a ways. See this recent case in Chicago involving a gas pipe:

A small crowd gathered as a flatbed truck carefully backed into position next to a cavernous hole in the ground that revealed the retiree: a 17-foot-long piece of cast-iron pipe, believed to be the oldest natural gas pipe in the city of Chicago.

The pipe was in operation from 1859 until just last week, when the last customer relying on it officially switched over to a modernized polyethylene natural gas main, said Andy Hesselbach, Peoples Gas vice president of construction.

When the retiree began its work, the streets were paved with dirt and frequented by horse-drawn carriages. The Great Fire of Chicago wouldn’t occur for 12 years…

Replacements are prioritized based on risk, he said. In the last 30 years, the pipe excavated on Friday experienced 30 leaks, making it a prime candidate. Not every pipe that is retired is excavated, he said. Some are left in place while a new main is installed nearby.

Building good infrastructure to support all sorts of positive social and economic activity requires regular attention and maintenance. The cost to replace infrastructure can often seem prohibitive but upgrades are needed for systems that can be improved upon and/or consistently need repairs. Of course, it would be best to build for the long-haul at an efficient price from the beginning but this is not always possible as technology and places change.

Affordable housing, homelessness, and a political void

Posted on by

Homelessness in Los Angeles and other high cost cities may be just the tip of the iceberg of a larger housing issue in the United States that gets little political attention:

“To say it’s been a real wake-up call would be putting it mildly,” says Raphael Sonenshein, the director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University’s L.A. campus. “It continues to be the No. 1 issue voters keep pointing to. This is going to be the issue of our time for the next few years out here. I think it’s going to dominate the rest of the mayor’s administration.”

Homelessness is by no means a problem unique to Los Angeles, of course. It’s a national crisis of varying degrees in cities from San Francisco to Boston, and one that officials at all levels of government seem hard-pressed to know how to address. Ahead of the first presidential-primary debates, the issue has barely registered, if at all, on the 2020 campaign trail, even as the bursting field of Democratic contenders issues policy proposals to address a wide range of other social and economic problems. But the candidate’s may be forced to confront the issue before long if the crisis continues to spread across the country…

California’s problem may be especially acute, but the lack of affordable housing, like homelessness, is a widespread problem in a national economy where income inequality has grown steadily for years. Yet of the leading presidential candidates, perhaps only Elizabeth Warren has outlined a detailed national plan to address the lack of affordable housing. She has proposed a program that would encourage states and localities to drop restrictive zoning laws that limit multiple dwellings and drive up housing costs in exchange for grants that could finance parks, roads, and schools. Her plan is comparable to a state proposal floated by California’s new Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

One major problem is widespread public opposition to greater density; a city like Los Angeles epitomizes urban sprawl, but it also enshrines the ideal of a backyard swimming pool and garden. The California state Senate recently shelved a bill that would have allowed the overriding of local zoning laws to permit construction of mid-rise apartment buildings near transit hubs and employment centers, even in neighborhoods currently limited to single-family homes. The bill fell victim to intense opposition from local neighborhood groups and some progressives, who feared it would benefit developers but not create more affordable housing. A study published in February by researchers at UCLA found that Newsom’s goal of 3.5 million new homes by 2025 is unrealistic because no more than 2.8 million could be built under current zoning laws.

I have argued before there is little appetite for a national discussion about affordable housing. To some degree, housing issues are related to numerous issues at stake in the 2020 elections including economic concerns, matters of justice and inequality, and providing opportunities to all Americans. However, it is difficult to make the argument that housing is behind all of these other concerns. I think this case could be made: where people live has many consequences in life.

I’m guessing housing issues will continue to mainly be local issues for a long time. It is unclear whether even state-level solutions can make sizable dents in these issues or how many states would have an appetite for sweeping policies that would affect all municipalities.

If there is limited movement on or even discussion of affordable housing across the United States, could this mean any progress in other areas will be limited?