Category Archives: Sociology

Who the nice new apartments in Chicago’s northwest suburbs are for

Posted on by

Multiple suburbs northwest of Chicago have constructed apartments in their downtowns and/or along transportation options. Who lives in these new residences? A VP for a real estate development firm answers:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Suburbs such as Niles, Des Plaines, Buffalo Grove, Palatine, Wheeling, Elk Grove Village and Rolling Meadows no longer are flying under the radar. And based on strong supply-demand fundamentals as well as greater municipality support, the future looks even brighter for new rental options in the Northwest suburbs…

While those starting their careers continue to make up the bulk of renters, Gen Xers and baby boomers also are drawn to the maintenance-free and resort-like lifestyle renting offers them at a time when they are looking to downsize and enjoy retirement.

And with high interest rates and low for-sale housing inventory, even 30- and 40-year-olds who are in the thick of raising children and typically gravitate to single-family homes have turned toward renting in recent years — both out of necessity and choice.

The city of Chicago’s uncertain political environment and higher taxes also have increased the suburbs’ draw for some people, with rental communities near Metra stops or major expressways providing an appealing alternative for professionals who prefer the slower pace of the suburbs while still enjoying an easy commute.

And while there are suburbs hesitant to embrace rental housing, a growing number of municipalities understand the many economic benefits of new, high-quality rental options — such as increased foot traffic in their downtowns and activating underutilized sites.

If there is demand for housing, developers will want to build but suburbs often want housing that fits their particular goals and character. How will apartments fit into communities often full of single-family homes? What might apartments do to daily life in downtowns and around transportation corridors? Who will live in these apartments?

In my research on suburban development, I have seen discussion and debate involving all three of these questions. Focusing on the last one, the description above highlights the ideal apartment dwellers in suburbs. The first group is young professionals. These residents might be coming off finishing their education and are looking to establish themselves. They may have smaller households. They may not have the financial resources yet to purchase a home or they like the idea of living in a more vibrant location. Then there are those looking to downsize. They want an easier life. They may have owned homes in the past but do not need all that space or the trouble of maintaining a home and property. And “even” those who families may want to rent.

And these are not necessarily cheap or affordable rentals. These are places that are “high-quality” and “resort-like.” Their location near walkable amenities and transportation likely drives up demand and cost.

If the goals were to provide more units at prices accessible to more residents and prospective resident, the apartments might meet with more concern from local residents and leaders who could view them as threats to a particular quality of life and to their property values.

Sanctifying Suburbia is out! Explaining the forces behind the evangelical embrace of the American suburbs

Posted on by

If observers in the United States in the late nineteenth century had to predict the geography of American evangelicals in the year 2000, what would they have said? Would they have foreseen an evangelical presence in the biggest cities? Important evangelical congregations, organizations, and institutions resided in New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago. From these population centers (and ones that emerged in the twentieth century like Los Angeles or Dallas), evangelicals could reach the masses. Or would they have selected small towns and more rural areas? Perhaps they would have thought of evangelicals living in particular regions, in the kinds of places that would be called “the heartland” or “flyover country” or “the Bible Belt.” These places with a slower pace of life and traditional values may have aligned with everyday evangelical life.

I argue in Sanctifying Suburbia (out in paperback today!) that by the turn of the twenty-first century American evangelicals were firmly suburban. Evangelicals did not simply follow many other Americans to the suburbs (the country was majority suburban in the 2000 Census); evangelicals actively chose to locate in the suburbs.

Why? Multiple factors led to this and different chapters in the book discuss the components that contributed to the evangelical embrace of the growing American suburbs. The story includes:

  1. Racial and ethnic change in cities and evangelicals moving to whiter suburbs.
  2. The National Association of Evangelicals operating from suburban settings for much of its existence after its founding in the 1940s
  3. Locating in some evangelical clusters – like Wheaton and Carol Stream, Illinois and Colorado Springs, Colorado – that offered particular amenities and synergy between evangelical congregations and organizations.
  4. Seeing cities as incompatible with evangelical lifestyles and goals.
  5. An individualized view of engaging with places and society while also holding up heaven as the ultimate city/place.

And this is not just a story of the twentieth century; some of the seeds were sown prior to mass suburbanization and developed over decades.

Where does this leave American evangelicals in the third decade of the twenty-first century? As a whole, they may feel most comfortable in suburban settings where day-to-day life focuses on families in single-family homes, middle-class and populist activities and values rule the day, and attracting attendees and gathering resources from growing suburban populations occupies their organizational efforts.

How a suburban school district could “attract the right families…while keeping the wrong families out”

Posted on by

The suburban case studies in the 2024 book Disillusioned include one wealthier community trying to boost its status and avoid decline. Here is one way they tried to insure this in their local schools:

Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

For the plan to work, the district would have to attract the right families into Lovejoy while keeping the wrong families out. Hoping to gauge the possibility of threading that needle, the Lovejoy board hired a demographic firm to run some analyses. First, they took aerial photographs of the district’s 17-square-mile attendance zone, counting the number of roofs versus available lots to ascertain likely development trends. Then, the firm analyzed census data and conducted interviews with local real estate agents, landowners, and developers to predict the household incomes and education levels of future residents. In their final report, the demographers projected that Lovejoy’s enrollment would by 8 or 9 percent a year for the next decade, enough to support a midsize high school. And just as important, they expected that the local poverty rate would remain extremely low, allowing the towns to maintain what local leaders liked to call “quality growth.” Elated, Lovejoy leaders began assuring prospective homeowners that their new high school would never look anything like its gargantuan counterpart in Allen. (202-203)

Growth is good in suburbs as it brings status and additional revenue.

But suburban communities often are looking for particular kinds of growth and certain residents. Here, “quality growth” means higher-income residents in larger new houses. The community does not want residents who are below the poverty line. And they then can run particular programs in their local schools aimed at high levels of academic performance, which will also boost their status. Good schools are not just about student learning; for numerous suburbanites, they serve as proxies for the overall quality of life.

Through planning and zoning, the suburb will have effectively decided who will live in the community and attend the local schools. They may pay for this down the road – the argument of the book is that the suburbs are a Ponzi scheme that pass along the costs to future residents who have fewer resources to meet the costs – but the short-term benefits look good for local leaders and residents.

Will in About a Boy with his “units of time” and all of our lives lived in 15-minute increments

Posted on by

In the movie version of About a Boy, the adult character Will describes his life as lived in “units of time”:

Photo by Jordan Benton on Pexels.com

The important thing in island living is to be your own activities director.
I find the key is to think of a day as units of time, each unit consisting of no more than 30 minutes.
Full hours can be a little bit intimidating and most activities take about half an hour.
Taking a bath: One unit.
Watching Countdown:
Okay.
One unit.
Web-based research:
Two units.
Exercising: Three units.
Having my hair carefully disheveled: Four units.
It’s amazing how the day fills up.

In the movie, this looks somewhat depressing. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism. Will claims he is fine living alone but the story involves him finding value in relationships with several people who would not expect to have relationships with.

But what if all of us live in small increments of time that add up to weeks, months, years, decades. From the end of a recent article on declining social engagement in American life:

When Epley and his lab asked Chicagoans to overcome their preference for solitude and talk with strangers on a train, the experiment probably didn’t change anyone’s life. All it did was marginally improve the experience of one 15-minute block of time. But life is just a long set of 15-minute blocks, one after another. The way we spend our minutes is the way we spend our decades. “No amount of research that I’ve done has changed my life more than this,” Epley told me. “It’s not that I’m never lonely. It’s that my moment-to-moment experience of life is better, because I’ve learned to take the dead space of life and make friends in it.”

What if life is a series of 15-minute blocks where our choices with those blocks can add up to profoundly different outcomes? In the example above, start socializing each day in one 15-minute increment and see what it can lead to. This is the narrative in numerous self-improvement and habit books: build small new routines and change your life.

Keeping track of every 15 minutes in life would be laborious and could turn someone into a clock watcher rather than an active participant in life. Yet, time use does indeed add up and broad changes in time use – such as watching more television – can have big impacts.

Are millennials going to the suburbs like boomers did?

Posted on by

The American suburbs reach across generations:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

But the reality of many millennials is starting to more closely mirror their parents’. They’re catching up on earnings and wealth, and while they’re still behind on homeownership, they’re not screwed. It may have taken them awhile to settle down, but they’re getting around to it and heading to the suburbs. In short, millennials are looking increasingly boomer-esque, and in some areas, they’re doing better than their parents.

The primary argument here involves wealth and homeownership. Are millennials at similar levels? Can they find the same kind of American Dream consisting of making it to the suburbs and owning their own house?

But it strikes me that there is a larger argument to make: these are longstanding cultural patterns, not just questions about economic resources. A later passage in the article hints at this:

In other words, it may not be that all the millennials headed to the suburbs want to be there, but in some cases, they feel like they have no choice but to exit urban centers and swallow a longer commute in the process.

“The plurality are moving to the suburbs, but that’s where the housing stock is,” Lautz said. Some of it has to do with having school-age kids, for example, but a lot has to do with affordability and availability.

Do economic conditions alone drive these choices – people need housing they can afford – or is it about influential ideologies that provide Americans particular messages about the suburbs? Americans prioritize certain things in suburbia. They like cheap and big houses. They like living near certain neighbors. They like particular amenities in their communities, including those they think help their children succeed.

If millennials do indeed end up in the suburbs at similar rates to previous generations of Americans, they may do so because this is what Americans have been doing for decades. There are economic imperatives for doing this – owning a suburban home is a primary vehicle for acquiring wealth – but also established patterns where they like driving, they are used to the ins-and-outs of sprawl, and they enjoy their private dwellings.

If the exurbs are way beyond the basketball three-point line, where are downtown and the suburbs?

Posted on by

With more NBA action taking place beyond the three point line, this description likened it to the exurbs:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

This is some wild stuff happening between the circles. Minnesota’s Jaden McDaniels is guarding Steph Curry nose-to-nose more than 40 feet from the basket, no space between them, two guys sharing a shirt. The other eight players on the court might as well be in another galaxy; this dance in the exurbs is its own game. The player who has the ball is somewhere behind McDaniels, far outside his sphere of interest. His mandate appears settled: He will go where Curry goes, and he will turn his attention to the ball if, and only if, he sees it in Curry’s hands.

The idea invoked is that the dribbling is taking place on the outskirts of a region. Forty feet out is a long way from the basketball and closer to the half-court line than the hoop.

But continue the spatial analogy. One issue is that some announcers say a three-point shot is from “downtown.” From Hunter S. Thompson:

My grudge against Brent Musburger has been smoking on a personal back burner for many years — since the early 1980s in fact, when Brent was covering the NBA Finals for CBS-TV, and it involves the word “downtown.”

That is when Musburger changed the language of sports forever when he kept repeating this ignorant notion that any basketball player firing off a long 3-point shot is shooting from “downtown.” (Celtics announcer Johnny Most might have coined the “downtown” trademark in the 1960s, but it was Musburger who beat it to death.)..

Downtown is where you score — not somewhere out in the wilderness, where people are far apart & not much happens. You don’t fire a long jump shot from Downtown, you fire it into Downtown. The Real definition of “Taking it downtown” is to suddenly drive to the basket & into a cluster of 7-footers who seem to have you sealed out — like Iverson launching himself at Robinson & Duncan & dunking it over them. To think Otherwise would be to think like a Baseball Writer, or like Brent Musburger.

Thompson did not like the term and he points out that it makes more sense to say downtown is right where the basket is. If downtown is at the center of the city and the region, why would taking a three-pointer be from downtown?

If the basketball court is likened to American geographic categories, how about downtown is under the basket, the city is the paint, the suburbs span between the paint to just outside the three-point line, the exurbs are between the normal three-point shots and the half-court line, and rural areas are in the backcourt. That is probably too many categories but it more accurately applies categories Americans use.

The suburbs and television helped decrease American social engagement

Posted on by

By the 1970s, Americans engaged less with others compared to previous decades:

Photo by Huu1ef3nh u0110u1ea1t on Pexels.com

But in the 1970s, the U.S. entered an era of withdrawal, as the political scientist Robert D. Putnam famously documented in his 2000 book, Bowling Alone. Some institutions of togetherness, such as marriage, eroded slowly. Others fell away swiftly. From 1985 to 1994, active involvement in community organizations fell by nearly half. The decline was astonishingly broad, affecting just about every social activity and every demographic group that Putnam tracked.

What happened in the 1970s? Klinenberg, the sociologist, notes a shift in political priorities: The government dramatically slowed its construction of public spaces. “Places that used to anchor community life, like libraries and school gyms and union halls, have become less accessible or shuttered altogether,” he told me. Putnam points, among other things, to new moral values, such as the embrace of unbridled individualism. But he found that two of the most important factors were by then ubiquitous technologies: the automobile and the television set.

Starting in the second half of the century, Americans used their cars to move farther and farther away from one another, enabling the growth of the suburbs and, with it, a retreat into private backyard patios, private pools, a more private life. Once Americans got out of the car, they planted themselves in front of the television. From 1965 to 1995, the typical adult gained six hours a week in leisure time. They could have devoted that time—300 hours a year!—to community service, or pickup basketball, or reading, or knitting, or all four. Instead, they funneled almost all of this extra time into watching more TV.

Television transformed Americans’ interior decorating, our relationships, and our communities. In 1970, just 6 percent of sixth graders had a TV set in their bedroom; in 1999, that proportion had grown to 77 percent. Time diaries in the 1990s showed that husbands and wives spent almost four times as many hours watching TV together as they spent talking to each other in a given week. People who said TV was their “primary form of entertainment” were less likely to engage in practically every social activity that Putnam counted: volunteering, churchgoing, attending dinner parties, picnicking, giving blood, even sending greeting cards. Like a murder in Clue, the death of social connections in America had any number of suspects. But in the end, I believe the likeliest culprit is obvious. It was Mr. Farnsworth, in the living room, with the tube.

There are more details on this in Bowling Alone. This also reminds me of the famous sociology Middletown studies that found the widespread adoption of the automobile allowed people to drive off and do their own thing. For example, they could take a drive into the country on a Sunday morning rather than go to church.

This is also something Jonathan Haidt tried to get at in The Anxious Generation: take away smartphones and you have preexisting social issues in the United States where social interaction had already changed. Yes, the smartphones may affect people and interactions but they are not the only or initial culprits to changing social conditions.

So would the answer then be to limit or eliminate cars or television? I have heard this argued before. Would these changes limit individualism in significant ways or would the trends in that direction just find other outlets?

Washington, DC is the city with the most single-person households

Posted on by

More Americans are living alone and one city leads the way:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

An April study by the Chamber of Commerce, a real estate research company, named D.C. the loneliest city in America, based on Census Bureau data showing that 48.6 percent of households in the city consist of just one person, the highest share of any city with a population of at least 150,000. Nationwide, the study said, solo living has increased as people wait longer for marriage and children, and the covid pandemic accelerated the trend.

Three thoughts (and questions) in response:

  1. It is interesting that the original study framed this as about “loneliness.” Does this match with the experiences of the residents who may choose to live in a single-person household?
  2. If the problem is indeed loneliness, then the solution presented here involves co-housing opportunities. Who are these housing opportunities available to and who are they not available to? Who will end up living in these spaces?
  3. Is there a tipping point where the percent of single-person household has particular effects on local community life? Washington is at the top of the list but it is very close to the number 2 city (Birmingham).

For more on this broader trend among Americans of living alone, I remember enjoying reading Going Solo by sociologist Eric Klinenberg.

Would Americans choose lower property taxes if it means giving up local control of funding for local services?

Posted on by

This is an interesting “Would you rather?” for numerous American communities: would residents rather have higher property taxes or give up control of the local funding for schools and other local services because of lower property taxes?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

There is a silver lining, though. The most radical property tax–related proposals are argued for as either general anti-tax measures or as efforts to privatize schooling. Whatever you think of their intended goals, they would also have an unintended effect of ameliorating one of the worst features of the property tax: its localism.

If North Dakota voters had voted for a repeal of the property tax, much of the revenue used to replace it likely would have come from state taxes. (The group formed to oppose it was called “Keep it Local.”) Similarly, if the state government is supporting school choice vouchers with income or sales tax revenue, that means schools as a whole rely less on local property taxes.

Americans like local control, particularly in the suburbs. To give that up to governments elsewhere who may attach particular guidelines to the funding could be seen as a loss.

And there are some people willing to argue they are willing to pay higher property taxes for what they receive. It is less clear how many residents feel this way or that people do not find ways to limit their property taxes.

I am not sure this has to be pitched as an either/or: higher property taxes or lower taxes and give up financial control to other bodies. Here are two other options:

  1. Do Americans believe that local services can and should be provided more cheaply? This could be about containing costs of existing services.
  2. Another variation for #1 is cutting local services to limit costs.

Both of these options might be unattractive: local services tend to help enhance the status and value of properties and communities. Reducing these or threatening them could be perceived as backfiring and hurting everyone.

The choice might also depend on the local context. Would high housing values in some places lead to residents wanting to do a lot to limit property taxes? Or what if residents felt they could handle funding coming from other places? After all, real estate is local.

Scaffolding assignments for class, scaffolding tasks in life

Posted on by

As I do some final planning for courses this semester, I was reminded of the scaffolded final assignments I now have in each class. These involve having multiple steps that contribute to a final product, usually a research paper, at the end of the semester. At each point, students work on a portion of what will be the final product and receive feedback. I have generally found this helps lead to better final projects and more learning over the course of the semester compared to having a big assignment due at the end with little preparation or feedback beforehand.

Photo by Josh Sorenson on Pexels.com

But this is not just for school assignments. This is often helpful for getting tasks done. People might go about this in different ways. Imagine doing a little of a task each day – such as cleaning one level of a house – and it adds up to being done. Or working hard on something for a set amount of time and then taking a short break before going back to the task. Or putting in practice time each day and it adding up to more in the long run. Indeed, how often do we set out to accomplish something that goes beyond a simple task and get it all done in one sitting? It may be possible – but scaffolding often helps.

What if one important skill to be learned here is how to learn how to break complex tasks into manageable steps over time? Being able to consider a task, see how it can be effectively subdivided, finding the time to do those parts, reflecting on the progress after each part is completed, and then putting it all together into a final product. A classroom can provide an opportunity to practice this with some guidance.