Category Archives: Sociology

Scenarios in which McMansions are passed along to younger adults

Posted on by

Older Americans own plenty of large homes and commentators suggest younger adults have multiple reasons for not going after such homes:

Younger people have loads of reasons not to be charmed by the vaulted ceilings and chef-ready kitchens of homes perched on mountaintops or hugging beaches that promised solitude once but now cry of isolation…

A report from Business Insider highlights numerous reasons that younger people might not want to saddle themselves with such beautiful albatrosses. Down payments, student debt and preferences for rentals in cities coupled with vacation home getaways have all contributed to what the report characterizes as “millennials wiping out starter homes.”…

And that is those among them who can actually manage to save up a down payment. Too many others are so burdened by student debt that buying a house is a foggy image off in the distant future. And lots of young homebuyers underestimate what it will cost them to keep a house, making it less likely they’ll bite off more than they can chew the next time they go home-shopping.

Factoring in their concerns over the environment—the energy footprint of a big house and a long commute—and their disinclination to own cars, as well as the need to hold down multiple jobs or have one or more side hustles—and it looks as if those mega-residences are liable to stay on the market for quite a while longer.

While one angle to this is that Baby Boomers will have a hard time selling their homes, the other side is whether the younger generations want and can get to such homes. I have seen little suggestion that young adults truly desire McMansions.

But, I would not write off this possibility just yet. I could imagine several possible scenarios where McMansions happen to end up in the hands of future generations:

  1. Younger adults do well enough economically – or enough of them do since not all Baby Boomers own big homes either – to keep McMansions going.
  2. Baby Boomers cannot sell their large homes, the prices drop, and the homes are more in the reach of younger adults.
  3. Enough McMansions are converted to other uses – think multi-family housing – to keep the prices up enough to keep everyone happy. (Or, in a more dystopian model, McMansions are simply bulldozed or replaced to limit the supply.

I have a sneaking suspicion McMansions will be passed along in decent numbers to the next generation…despite the wishes of some.

Should I say hello to people I know on campus when they are walking by with their heads buried in their phones?

Posted on by

A college campus has many people walking around while looking at their phones. This leads to a common dilemma: should I say hello to someone when they are so engrossed by their smartphone? Earlier this week, I chose not to and I realized this is my default setting.

Here is my reasoning: these people are signaling they are busy or occupied. Walking in particular ways alerts others that they are not to be disturbed. Such behaviors include: closely looking at a smartphone screen; using headphones; talking on the phone; talking to someone walking next to them. Indeed, it is hard to be holding a smartphone while walking and not be viewed as saying, “Don’t disturb me.” (The only exception I could quickly think of: the number of people willing to offer to take a picture for you. I have had several people do this recently and I found it strange. Are selfies out? Did I look like I needed help?) I am helping these phone-lookers out: by not disturbing them and breaking their concentration, I am helping them accomplish what they need to do.

I do not know how many of these people I know would consider it a distraction or inconvenience if I did say hello. The posture of avoiding social interaction may be unintentional. We have a fairly friendly campus and if I see faculty, staff, and students that I know, we generally exchange greetings. Our regional norms are for fairly friendly greetings in public. As our students note, we are not quite the South but we are also not the Northeast.

If I were walking around campus with my nose buried in my phone, the biggest issue I would have with being greeted would be this: it might take me a second or two to recognize who issued the greeting. Rather than having the long lead-up to greetings where you see the person from a distance and can mentally prepare their name and your words (plenty of time for impression management), I am stirred from my focus. This will likely lead to a more generic greeting from me.

Will all this lead to the downfall of sociability on our campus? Probably not. Will it lead to more accidents as people walk into other and things? This has already happened. If anything, we will probably see more of his as time goes on and campus norms may continue to adjust to changing sociability.

Can you sell a product with the main pitch that it will help consumers “keep up with the Joneses”?

Posted on by

Comcast is currently running an advertisement titled “The Joneses” that makes an explicit connection to keeping up with the consumer’s reference group:

It is regularly stated that consumers want to keep up with others around them. Reference groups matter as look to others around them as they consider what to acquire.

So, can you run a successful advertising campaign based on (1) regular human behavior (2) that is regularly maligned? “Keeping up the the Joneses” is not often a positive term. Instead, it implies striving to be like others. These strivers are not content; they have to earn approval through acquiring what others have. All of this can lead to conformity if everyone is chasing some trend or perceived advantage. Suburbanites have heard this critique for decades: they are trying to look like the leading middle- to upper-class suburbanites. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, perhaps these people are viewed as violating the tenth commandment.

Perhaps this is all meant to be ironic. “Keep up with the Joneses” while winking or doing something unusual with all of that high-speed Internet. But, this commercial does not seem to have that tone. The goal does seem to be to have the same high-speed connection as everyone else. Maybe the true story is something like this: “keep up with the Joneses’ and everyone can use that Internet to hide in their private residences and do their own thing online and in social media.

Patterns in racial/ethnic change in Chicago area counties 2010-2018

Posted on by

Recently released Census data at the county level shows the shift toward larger non-white populations in the Chicago area:

The Chicago Tribune article also points out a few of the notable patterns:

The six suburban counties gained a total of 14,857 non-Hispanic black residents from 2010 to 2018, most of them in Will and DuPage, the new census data shows.

Cook County, meanwhile, lost 75,081 black residents over the same time period. Black residents’ share of the county population decreased the most of any racial group in the last eight years…

In each of the six suburbs surrounding Cook, non-white Asian residents grew by at least 13% since 2010. DuPage County grew by the most people, with an increase of 21,960 Asian residents in that time.

I’ll throw in three more patterns I see in the table:

  1. The further out counties, the more exurban locations (Kendall and McHenry Counties) have much higher proportions of white residents. It will be interesting to see how these change in the coming decades. Not only are those locations farther from Chicago, they also have fewer historic industrial suburbs (like Joliet in Will County and Elgin in Kane County) that attracted more non-white residents.
  2. In all of the six counties, Hispanics account for larger proportions of the overall population than black residents. Whether this translates into political representation or status within the region is debatable.
  3. The Asian population is more concentrated as a proportion in some counties – DuPage, Cook, and Lake – compared to others.

Suggestion that tiny houses face snobbish responses because of links to lower classes

Posted on by

An overview of tiny houses in the United States (though no mention of how many there actually are) includes an interesting bit about social class:

But the main obstacle is a legal one: most municipalities and towns ban residents from living year-round in anything on wheels, and often have statutes requiring homes to be at least 900 square feet…

Historically in American culture, bungalows, caravans and mobile homes have a bad reputation — they are seen as badly made and decidedly lower-class.

But the Berriers’ home is impeccably decorated with a bathtub, a sunroom and a movie screen — no “trailer trash” here.

“There are preconceived notions. They haven’t seen it enough. It’s just something new. I think that’s the problem,” Berrier said.

This leads to a conundrum: if Americans love driving and homeownership, why do they dislike mobile or smaller housing so much?

The less positive reactions to tiny houses suggests it is not solely about owning a vehicle or home; the kind of vehicle or home matters. Driving is good but driving a nicer car is better. Owning a home is good but owning a bigger, more permanent home is clearly superior. Cars and homes are functional items and status symbols, important social markers of who a person is and desires to be.

A more functional approach to housing might be more open to tiny houses. People need a place to live at a reasonable cost? Affordable housing is scarce? Homeless people need residences? Let’s make it happen. Change zoning guidelines. Make it cool to downsize.

On the other hand, there are plenty of tiny house buyers who prefer getaways or luxury touches, not long-term housing in such a small size. It would be easy for the tiny house movement to be co-opted by those with resources and social status. Those people might be able to get tiny houses into certain places where they might otherwise not be allowed, but their motives would run against others who want tiny houses because of their reduced footprint and simpler lifestyle.

Many Americans can’t afford a McMansion (even if they might aspire to one)

Posted on by

A recent study suggested Americans aspire to own the larger homes in their neighborhood. By using the term “McMansion,” the study might be read as some as suggesting that this belief is widespread among many Americans. Americans like big houses and they like to look to external reference groups to help guide their own behavior. Isn’t everyone after a McMansion?

Just three little problems:

  1. Many Americans do not live in neighborhoods with McMansions.
  2. Many Americans cannot afford a McMansion.
  3. Not all larger houses are McMansions.

McMansions are particular kinds of houses that require a certain social class and set of resources to acquire. Even in cheaper housing markets, McMansions are not within reach of many residents. Academic articles and media articles journals can use the term broadly but how many Americans truly live in McMansions – 10%? 20%?

At the same time, it is worth looking at the aspirations of Americans. Homeownership, particularly in a suburban setting, is an ingrained goal in American society. And Americans do seem to like bigger homes. But, do they really want a McMansion, a home that can be made fun of by others and with a descriptor rarely used in real estate listings? There is clearly a market for such homes but the buffoonish McMansion may not exactly be the goal of homebuyers.

 

Zoning, defining “family,” and exclusion

Posted on by

Zoning is a tool municipalities can use to control what kind of developments – and by extension, what kinds of people – can be in their community. A recent law review article looks at how zoning guidelines extend to defining families for the purposes of who can live in a residential unit:

Today, when courts ask “what makes a family?” they often look beyond blood, marriage, and adoption to see if people have made other meaningful, familial commitments that qualify for the obligations and benefits that family law provides. As functional family law developed, cohabitation became one of the most important factors, if not the determining factor, in these kinds of cases. The problem is that zoning laws often prevent these same functional families from living together in the first place. Through this underlying connection to zoning, functional developments in family law are much more vulnerable than they appear.

“Formal family” regulations in zoning are pervasive, and come with the imprimatur of the nation’s highest court. In the 1974 case Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that municipalities can legally differentiate between related and unrelated families. In the intervening years, courts in 14 states have ruled that “formal-family” zoning is permitted by state constitutions, and the issue remains undecided in an additional 30 states. Only four state courts, in New Jersey, California, Michigan, and New York, have refused to sanction this form of discrimination, and lawmakers in Iowa recently became the first legislators to ban it. The Supreme Court has only revisited the issue once, in 1978, to clarify that the zoning definition of family cannot prevent blood relatives from living together…

The good news is that formal family zoning is of surprisingly recent vintage. There is a long history of functional family approaches to zoning in American jurisprudence, dating back to the early 20th century advent of zoning law. The first zoning ordinances didn’t define “family,” at all, and throughout the first 50 years of their operation, courts often ruled that functional families of all kinds—from gay couples and religious adherents to cult followers and sororities—could live together in peace. Even as “blood, marriage, or adoption” ordinances became more common, courts continued to rule that functional families fell within their wide interpretive ambit….

Formal family zoning is a familiar song—the same legal mechanisms that famously reinforced housing discrimination on the basis of race, also discriminate against families that vary from the nuclear ideal of a heterosexual couple raising their biological children. There is also compelling evidence that low-density zoning, like formal family ordinances, is a significant driver of racial and class segregation. In short, formal family zoning discriminates against non-normative families, but it also reinforces the racial and economic segregation effects of low-density zoning in general.

When they want to be, communities can be creative in developing zoning and other mechanisms that bring in the kind of residents and businesses that they feel fits their community (often along the lines of race and class).

I wonder how these family guidelines are related to zoning restrictions on overcrowding and the number of people allowed in dwellings. Court cases have dealt with this and it seems like the conditions could be similar at times to guidelines against functional families.

If functional families are not as desirable for some communities, perhaps another trend in households is more to their liking: the rise in single-person households. On one hand, suburban housing can be too big and not provide certain amenities like walkable places and public transportation. On the other hand, people in single-person households may use fewer public services and may be willing to purchase smaller, newer units (many suburbs want to build and sell condos and townhomes near downtowns or community focal points). Or, does zoning truly privilege the formal nuclear family in ways that do not extend to any other kinds of household configurations?

Housing as the ultimate marker of poorly functioning (free) markets

Posted on by

Alexis Madrigal considers generational access to housing and the high real estate prices in some markets:

There are obviously many reasons that coastal housing markets have gone so bonkers. But it is an ironic twist that residential property, which once served as the bedrock for American capitalism, has become the most obvious sign for young people that something is deeply wrong with the markets.

What exactly has gone “deeply wrong” with these housing markets? Madrigal lays out a number of factors. But, I wonder if we could extend the analysis a bit further from “housing markets” to “economic markets” more broadly. Here is what two opposing sides might say:

One side: these housing markets with high prices have never truly been free. For decades, federal policy has privileged single-family homes. Local policies have made particular choices, often toward protecting property values and limiting density. Open up these markets to true competition. If affordable housing is needed, limit regulations and let all the money of potential buyers drive new development.

The other side: housing markets have not been regulated enough. The federal and local policies have tended to privilege certain actors – like the white middle-class and connected developers – over the needs of many working-class and poor residents as well as non-white residents. Policies aimed at providing more housing for all need more teeth and the ability to compel protected wealthier residents to accept development near their own homes.

As a sociologist who has studied this for over a decade, I tend to side with the latter argument: (1) markets are rarely ever completely and free and (2) the scales have been tipped toward whiter and wealthier residents for a long time. Perhaps the true lesson of these high-priced housing markets is that calls for regulation and oversight only go so far when property values and who neighbors are is truly at stake.

Beware of buying a 1×100 plot of land between villas at a real estate auction

Posted on by

One man was surprised to find out what he actually purchased in a Florida real estate auction:

Kerville Holness thought he’d done a great job snapping up a $177,000 Tamarac villa for only $9,100.

He got a 1-foot-wide, 100-foot-long strip of land on Northwest 100th Way — valued at $50.

It starts at the curb where two mailboxes have been installed, goes under the wall separating the garages of two adjoining Spring Lake villas, then extends out to the back of the lot…

The message from county officials and real estate experts is that auction participants need to do their homework and make sure they’ve checked for all possible problems a property might have…

Real estate is a hot investment option these days. Add the interest people across the United and world may have in property in southern Florida plus the ability to purchase online and you could get more situations like this. How many people would be willing to purchase a property without ever seeing it?

Perhaps the answer going forward is that a lot of people would be willing to do this. If you can buy a car without driving it first, then more and more properties and units could go this way. In hot markets where properties go fast and the competition is fierce, it probably already happens at higher rates.

I wonder if at some point there could be a local backlash about Internet property sales. Just the idea that someone from anywhere could purchase land or buildings might make some nervous. Takes places like Vancouver or southern California where outsiders are making a lot of purchases. Or, perhaps the backlash from angry buyers who did not get what they thought they would (such as in the story above) could change Internet property sales. What format or what details are needed to truly make physical property a salable commodity to Internet buyers all over?