Category Archives: Sociology

When Silicon Valley communities have too many tech jobs, new residents

Posted on by

Many communities would love to have a tech company headquarters in town but what happens if that company is Google and it brings many residents and employees?

Google owns or leases about 7.3 million square feet of office space in Mountain View — roughly equivalent to three Empire State Buildings. That includes most of the property around its headquarters on the north side of the city near Highway 101, which cuts the length of the valley, according to Transwestern, a commercial real estate brokerage.

That success has brought Mountain View loads of tax dollars and a 3.3 percent unemployment rate, as well as skyrocketing home prices and intolerable gridlock. Good and bad, tech is responsible for most of it: Technology companies account for 27 percent of the jobs in the Silicon Valley region, compared with 7 percent in California and about 5 percent nationally, according to Moody’s Analytics.

The result is an existential argument that pits residents who want to halt the city’s growth against people who think Mountain View needs to grow up and become a real city.

Mountain View, about 40 miles south of San Francisco, has close to 80,000 people; with its strip-mall thoroughfares and streets of single-family homes, it looks like a sleepy suburb. But since hiring has boomed, the city’s roads swell with commuters during the morning and evening rush.

While this may get extra attention because it involves Google (does that do no evil pledge apply to the communities in which its offices are based?), this is a question that many suburbs face at one point or another. When new developments are proposed, whether commercial, industrial, residential, or something else, how might these change the existing character of the community? Jobs are often seen as good things: they provide employment and the buildings for employees generate property tax dollars, reducing the dependence on residential property taxes. Yet, what if those same jobs lead to new office parks that take up a lot of land, new infrastructure needs such as roads, water and sewer lines, and schools, and an influx of traffic? Or, what if such jobs require tax breaks or special deals for a single business or industry?

Two possible outcomes here (and this is not an exhaustive list):

1. Why aren’t urbanists calling for companies like Google to move to large cities? A lot of the issues with infrastructure and space could be more easily absorbed by a major city. Three Empire State Buildings worth of space is still hard to come by but Granted, this hasn’t gone smoothly recently in San Francisco but developing new land leads to particular challenges, especially in places used to a smaller population.

2. At some point, Google could go the way of other companies and organizations and start making demands to push Mountain View to accept what they want. The end of the article hints at this; if Google brings in a lot of new employees, they could even sway local elections. Could Google hold the suburb hostage to get what it wants?

“Used McMansions are selling briskly”

Posted on by

More evidence of a bifurcated housing market: used McMansions and other expensive homes are selling just fine.

One way to look at the breakdown of home sales by price range: Used McMansions seem to be selling quickly.

While the rate of sales growth in January for existing-home sales was 3.2% from January 2014 levels, it was 13% in the $750,000–to–$1 million range, according to National Association of Realtors data released Monday. A “McMansion” is a pejorative term for relatively ostentatious and newer-construction homes targeting the upper middle class.

That’s the fastest growth of any price range, and comes after 10.4% growth for that segment in December.

“It’s a reflection of the U.S. economy where the upper end has done much better in this recovery in terms of income,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the NAR.

Two quick thoughts:

1. Just because a home in this price range does not mean it is a McMansion. The data seems to be based only on price, not on year of construction or location of the home or size and design. Even with the definition of McMansion provided, I’m not sure why the term is applied here as it is misleading.

2. One of the critiques of McMansions is that they are poorly made and won’t last. Yet, data like this suggests such homes (even if mislabeled) can make it through at least one buying and selling cycle. Might many McMansions simply be like many other homes and last for decades?

Growing Latino populations in American cities

Posted on by

Latinos constitute a growing share of American urban populations, raising implications for future political races:

While many cities are experiencing an influx of young whites, those gains are more than offset by the continuing exodus of working- and middle-class whites. The result is a net decline nationwide of the white share of city populations.

Hispanic ascendance is apparent in both cities and suburbs, increasing the likelihood of the election of Latinos to local, state and federal office.

Over time, blacks stand to lose leverage. Cities have been a crucial base of power for African-American politicians. Insofar as the black population becomes diffuse, black leaders will have to grapple with a decline in black-majority districts, especially city council districts, in cities with declining black populations…

Frey pointed toward the rapidly increasing strength of the Latino vote in the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Between 1990 and 2010, the percentage of city dwellers in such areas who are Hispanic grew to 26 percent from 17 percent; and the share of suburban residents who are Hispanic rose to 17 percent from 8 percent.

Some striking demographic changes that have potential consequences in areas like politics. The changes are numerous: an influx of younger, educated whites into city centers even as whites leave other areas of cities; an increase in the suburbanization of blacks; and growing Latino populations in both cities and suburbs. These changes may not quickly become apparent in the political landscape but should at least draw the attention of political operators. For example, is incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel really in danger in the run-off election? Given the demographic changes in large cities like Chicago, perhaps.

Is smart growth inevitable?

Posted on by

A piece titled “Why Are Developers Still Building Sprawl?” explores the fate of smart growth in American urban areas:

It may be surprising to hear that so little has changed in the homebuilding industry since the recession, especially in Las Vegas, one of the epicenters of the housing bust. After all, low gas prices aside, surveys suggest that both Boomers and younger generations are interested in living in more urban places where they don’t have to spend so much time in the car getting to and from work. They also don’t mind smaller homes, especially if they’re close to public transit or retail or restaurants. And studies have shown that sprawl has negative health impacts: People who live in far-out suburbs walk less, eat more, and exercise less than those who live in urban environments.

Urban planners and “smart growth” advocates argue that builders should eschew the practice of buying empty land further and further out and building on it, and should instead build more compact, walkable communities near public transit, rehabbing existing land to fit new projects. Doing so is important for the environment, they say, and will save valuable resources and money in the long run…

“Exposing” sustainable development might seem laughable, but it points to a growing divide about how different people think Americans want to live in the future. Do they want to continue to live in spread-out, single-family homes with lawns and garages and spare bedrooms? Or do they want smaller, compact houses where they can easily hop on a train or walk to the coffee shop, without even needing a garage, or a car to park in it?…

Other areas may continue to eschew ‘smart growth,’ and just as America is divided politically, it could become a more divided country in the way its residents live. People in cities such as Washington D.C., Boston, and Seattle, will want more walkable developments, while consumers in what Leinberger calls “the laggards,” including Phoenix, Dallas, and Las Vegas, will continue to live in sprawling suburbs.

But it’s also possible that Boomers and Millennials in the laggard cities will come around. After all, even in Las Vegas and Atlanta, some builders are starting to shift their mentality. Zappos founder Tony Hsieh has poured $350 million into downtown Las Vegas, creating a shopping center built from shipping containers, mixed-use residential development, and a host of walkable amenities like a donut shop and a bookstore. And in Atlanta, a developer is in the midst of converting a former Sears building near downtown to a mixed-use community of apartments, restaurants, and retail.

Three major sets of actors are involved here and it is not clear to me that they all will want smart growth:

1. Politicians. All sorts of zoning policies, tax structures, and other things would have to change to adjust to smart growth. If politicians did want more smart growth, they could adjust policies accordingly. However, they do answer (at least nominally) to voters. While some may talk about this as a free market issue, municipal policies always help dictate housing options.

2. Builders/developers. The short answer is that building larger homes right now offers more profit. Denser projects invite headaches like opposition to redevelopment, bureaucratic red tape, and possible selling smaller units or spaces.

3. Consumers. Would they buy denser, smaller housing if this is what builders provided? Maybe but don’t discount the long-standing American commitments to the single-family home in the suburbs. Many Americans like their private spaces and may not be terribly interested in public spaces or sacrificing for the community. Tastes don’t change overnight though new policies and housing choices could steer people in particular directions.

All together, it would take time, coordinated efforts, and decisions from key actors to truly push smart growth policies. Even then, it is not inevitable that Americans would accept this as the desired outcome, even if it has certain positive outcomes.

Homeownership rate at 20 year low

Posted on by

New data from the Census Bureau shows the homeownership rate continued to decline through the end of 2014:

The homeownership rate in the United States dropped to a 20-year low of 64.5 percent in 2014, according to new data released by the Census Bureau…

In the years since 1984, which is the first year reported on Table 15, homeownership peaked at 69.0 percent in 2004. In the last decade, according to the Census Bureau, the annual homeownership rate has steadily declined…

Among the 75 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the nation, as reported in Table 16 in the Census Bureau’s “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership” data, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area had the lowest homeownership rate in 2014. At 49.0 percent, it was the only one of the top 75 metropolitan statistical areas that had a homeownership rate of less than 50 percent.

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island had the second lowest homeownership rate at 50.7 percent. Bakersfield was third lowest with 52.8 percent. Las Vegas-Paradise as fourth lowest with 53.2 percent. Fresno was fifth lowest with 53.9 percent…

The Richmond, Va., metropolitan area had the highest homeownership rate at 72.6 percent. Birmingham-Hoover, Ala., was second highest with 71.9 percent. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, Mich., was third highest with 71.6 percent. Detroit-Warren-Livonia was fourth highest with 71.2 percent. And St. Louis, Mo., was fifth highest with 71.1 percent.

Find the full data here.

While it is one thing to track this rate over time, what are the larger implications? How should policy decisions change? Are there some who see this as desirable? How might the housing industry rebound?

Using Google Street View to collect large-scale neighborhood data

Posted on by

One sociologist has plans to use a new Google Street View app to study neighborhoods:

Michael Bader, a professor of sociology at the American University, revealed the app developed is called Computer Assisted Neighborhood Visual Assessment System (CANVAS). The app rated 150 dissimilar features of neighborhoods in some main metropolitan cities in the U.S. The researchers claim the latest app reduces the cost and time in research.

With the help of Google Street View, the new app connects images and creates panoramic views of the required rural areas as well as cities. Bader explains that without the Google app researchers would have to cover many square miles for data collection, which is a painstaking job…

The app has already received funding of around $250,000 and s also supposed to be the first app that examines the scope and reliability of Google Street View when it comes to rating the neighborhoods in the U.S.

Bader reveals he is currently using CANVAS for a research on the Washington D.C. area. He revealed the population of people who have reached 65 and over in the region will be 15.3 percent by 2030. Bader hopes to understand why elderly people leave their community and what stops them from spending the remainder of the lives in the region. Bader’s research wants to understand the challenges elders face in Washington D.C.

As an urban sociologist, I think this has a lot of potential: Google Street View has an incredible amount of data and offers a lot of potential for visual sociology. While tradition in urban sociology might involve long-term study of a neighborhood (or perhaps a lot of walking within a single city), this offers a way to easily compare street scenes within and across cities.

Building attractive staircases to encourage better health

Posted on by

Staircases are necessary in many buildings but a new report suggests constructing them in attractive ways would help boost health:

And as ULI’s report argues, there’s more at stake than just aesthetics. A raft of research suggests that more appealing stairways may actually beckon more people to climb, in turn helping to reduce stroke risk, improving cardiovascular health and fighting obesity.

First, the obvious: More exercise, like the kind you get from taking the stairs instead of the elevator, is good for you. A 40-year study of nearly 17,000 (male) Harvard alumni, published in 1986, found that those who walked, took the stairs and played sports were likely to live longer than their more sedentary classmates. The researchers found that by age 80, one to two additional years of life were attributable to exercise. Take the stairs, enjoy a longer life.

And it appears designers and architects really can bait people into doing what’s good for them. A 2004 study saw a 9 percent increase in foot traffic when researchers added motivational signs, artwork, carpeting, new paint and music to a CDC building’s stairwells. A similar 2001 study published in the American Journal of Public Health tested two interventions in the University of Minnesota’s public health building and found that while shaming signs—“Take the stairs for your health”—didn’t motivate stair travel, adding artwork and music to them via a compact disc player (aww, 2001) increased stair traffic by nearly 5 percent. “Buildings should be designed with attractive stairwells that are accessible to the general population,” the researchers concluded.

There are more dramatic intervention options, too. ULI, guided by principles from the Center for Active Design, argues that developers should be thinking seriously about stairways even before the construction crew moves in. The groups recommend placing stairs closer to building entrances than elevators and making them more visible. (A 2007 analysis found stairways’ accessibility and visibility explained 53 percent of their use in 10 university buildings.) Using glass panels as walls instead of concrete and cinderblock also gently guides people toward stairways.

Stairs can be an exciting architectural feature as well as a health boon. In contrast, elevators in large buildings don’t present many benefits for health or architecture. The typical lobby of a modern high-rise includes a spacious room with ill-defined sections with banks of elevators somewhere to the side or back. Stairs, if done well, can present an interesting focal point and help define the space. However, I wonder if these findings primarily apply to low-rise buildings where the stairs could be used as the primary means of traveling between floors.

Fighting the “McMansion Wars” in Toronto

Posted on by

The fourth-largest city in North America has its own issues with McMansions. Here is the latest cover of Toronto Life:

That’s quite the house on the cover. Watch a video here with the writer behind the cover story. It sounds like a lot of the same issues with McMansions teardowns as found in many wealthier American neighborhoods: disagreements about taste; new residents wanting new things; existing residents not liking the change in character; desirable neighborhoods close to downtown; lots of money being thrown around in an expensive market.

One strategy against McMansions as explained in the video: if you have lots of money, you can just buy up the homes around you and demolish the houses to make sure you have a sizable yard around you.

The reasons behind and consequences of the possible extinction of the starter home

Posted on by

Why are fewer builders constructing smaller starter homes that first came to prominence after World War II?

It’s several things. Land is too expensive to put the more modest house on it. Municipalities’ fees are another reason. And then there’s this phenomenon: Entry-level buyers just don’t want a starter home — they want something fancier…

From the time that high-production builders gained traction in the ’40s and ’50s and into the last part of the last decade, they were able to access inexpensive land and get labor and materials in ways that allowed them to produce an accessible and affordable entry-level home. But the Great Recession didn’t cause land to decline in value the way that houses did, and the lots aren’t widely available. When they are available, there are multiple bidders for them, which pushes the price up. Builders also downsized during the recession, and they don’t have the same capacity to build in volume that they once had. Today, if you’re building a $300,000 or $400,000 house, you’re going to make more money than if you were building two or three $150,000 houses.

Some of the sticker shock for buyers of entry-level homes comes from the local entitlement and permit fees that effectively ward off entry-level neighborhoods from established communities. These fees get baked into the cost and may add 20 to 25 percent to the cost of the home, for schools, infrastructure and support services. Municipalities seem to be doing everything they can to prevent lower-cost housing from being developed. They want property values and, in turn, property taxes, to be higher…

The startup of household formations is lagging the generation earlier by a few years. They’re becoming couples later and having children later. In some seismic way, we’re seeing that age group that we call the millennials buying their first homes at age 35, 36, 37. Because that generation grew up in what are really the nicest homes that ever existed in any society, they’re not going to want to go back to a very modest first home that will set them back, in terms of what they’re used to. They have a whole different mindset about that than we did. Certainly, some percentage of this group is going to want (the simple starter), but most will want what they’ve become used to — even in student housing, it’s like major apartment amenities. “Modest” is not what they have in mind.

It sounds like there are issues on both the supply and demand sides:

1. Consumers now expect more from their first homes. With demographic shifts (later marriage and kids) plus higher standards of living over time, homebuyers want more. This is something that also works against downsizing arguments: once people have a standard (and in this case, it comes from their earlier years and not even from something they have owned yet), it is hard to step back from those features.

2. Builders just can’t make as much money off of starter homes. Land is more valuable – think of all those suburbs that have expanded in recent decades – and fees have gone up so they need to construct more expensive homes to make up the difference. How many established communities, particularly wealthier ones, want cheaper starter homes constructed which might lower their own housing values as well as contribute more children to the school system and possibly require more funding?

A few side effects that might emerge:

1. Those who do want starter homes will likely have to go to less wealthy and older communities with older housing stocks.

2. This might limit particular groups, such as lower-income workers, from buying a home as they will have a harder time making the leap to a more expensive new home.

3. This could keep rental prices higher if people have to save larger amounts for more expensive first homes.

4. Those same communities that want to protect their housing values may find they have precious few places for people they might want in the community – such as recent college graduates or downsizing older adults – to own homes.

The artificial constructs of the French Republican Calendar and the metric system

Posted on by

The first French Republic introduced two new ideas – a new calendar and the metric system – but only one of them stuck.

The Republican Calendar lasted a meager twelve years before Napoleon reinstated the Gregorian on January 1, 1805. It was, in a way, perhaps a victim of its own success, as Eviatar Zerubavel suggests. “One of the most remarkable accomplishments of the calendar reformers was exposing people to the naked truth, that their traditional calendar, whose absolute validity they had probably taken for granted, was a mere social artifact and by no means unalterable,” Zerubavel writes. However, this truth works both ways, and what the French reformers found was that “it was impossible to expose the conventionality and artificiality of the traditional calendar without exposing those of any other calendar, including the new one, at the same time.” While the Earth’s orbit is not a fiction, any attempt to organize that orbit’s movement into a rigid order is as arbitrary as any other.

It’s not entirely a fluke that the Republican Calendar failed while another of the Revolutionaries’ great projects — the Metric system — was a wild success. Unlike Metric-standard conversions, or, for that matter, Gregorian-Julian conversions, there was no way to translate the days of the Republican Calendar to the Gregorian calendar, which meant that France found itself isolated from other nations. But more importantly, the Metric system did not, in itself, threaten social order, and the natural diurnal rhythms of human lived experience that have evolved over millennia. By suddenly asserting a ten-day work week, with one day of rest for nine days’ work, the Republicans completely up-ended the ergonomics of the day, and this — more so than the religious function of the old calendar — was what was irreplaceable. The Metric system of weights and measurements marks a triumph of sense over tradition — it’s just plain easier to work with multiples of tens than the odd figures of the Standard measurement system. But in the case of calendars and time, convention wins out over sense.

Pretty fascinating to think how parts of social life that we often take for granted – the calendar and time, measurement – have complicated social histories. It didn’t necessarily have to turn out this way, as the rest of the discussion of the calendar demonstrates. Yet, once we are socialized into a particular system and may even passionately defend the way it is constructed without really knowing the reasons behind it, it can be very hard to conceive of a different way of doing things.