Did certain sitcoms change American society – and how would we know?

Did Norman Lear change American culture through the television shows he created? Here is one headline hinting at this:

From the linked article, here are some of the ways Lear was influential:

Lear had already established himself as a top comedy writer and captured a 1968 Oscar nomination for his screenplay for “Divorce American Style” when he concocted the idea for a new sitcom, based on a popular British show, about a conservative, outspokenly bigoted working-class man and his fractious Queens family. “All in the Family” became an immediate hit, seemingly with viewers of all political persuasions.

Lear’s shows were the first to address the serious political, cultural and social flashpoints of the day – racism, abortion, homosexuality, the Vietnam war — by working pointed new wrinkles into the standard domestic comedy formula. No subject was taboo: Two 1977 episodes of “All in the Family” revolved around the attempted rape of lead character Archie Bunker’s wife Edith.

Their fresh outrageousness turned them into huge ratings successes: For a time, “Family” and “Sanford,” based around a Los Angeles Black family, ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the country. “All in the Family” itself accounted for no less than six spin-offs. “Family” was also honored with four Emmys in 1971-73 and a 1977 Peabody Award for Lear, “for giving us comedy with a social conscience.” (He received a second Peabody in 2016 for his career achievements.)

Some of Lear’s other creations played with TV conventions. “One Day at a Time” (1975-84) featured a single mother of two young girls as its protagonist, a new concept for a sitcom. Similarly, “Diff’rent Strokes” (1978-86) followed the growing pains of two Black kids adopted by a wealthy white businessman.

Other series developed by Lear were meta before the term ever existed. “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” (1976-77) spoofed the contorted drama of daytime soaps; while the show couldn’t land a network slot, it became a beloved off-the-wall entry in syndication. “Hartman” had its own oddball spinoff, “Fernwood 2 Night,” a parody talk show set in a small Ohio town; the show was later retooled as “America 2-Night,” with its setting relocated to Los Angeles…

One of Hollywood’s most outspoken liberals and progressive philanthropists, Lear founded the advocacy group People for the American Way in 1981 to counteract the activities of the conservative Moral Majority.

The emphasis here is on both television and politics. Lear created different kinds of shows that proved popular as they promoted particular ideas. He also was politically active for progressive causes.

How might we know that these TV shows created cultural change? Just a few ways this could be established:

-How influential were these shows to later shows and cultural products? How did television shows look before and after Lear’s work?

-Ratings: how many people watched?

-Critical acclaim: what did critics think? What did his peers within the industry think? How do these shows stand up over time?

But, the question I might want to ask is whether we know how the people who watched these shows – millions of Americans – were or were not changed by these minutes and hours spent in front of the television. Americans take in a lot of television and media over their lifetime. This certainly has an influence in the aggregate. Do we have data and/or evidence that can link these shows to changed attitudes and actions? My sense is that is easier to see broad changes over time but harder to show more directly that specific media products led to particular outcomes at the individual (and sometimes also at the social) level.

These are research methodology questions that could involve lots of cultural products. The headline above might be supportable but it could require putting together multiple pieces of evidence and not having all the data we could have.

The ubiquity of concrete and recovering constructing stone walls

The modern world depends on a lot of concrete but that comes at a cost. Here is a description of efforts to instead build with stone:

Photo by Miguel u00c1. Padriu00f1u00e1n on Pexels.com

In 2018, UNESCO inscribed dry stone walling as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, stating that “the technique exemplifies a harmonious relationship between human beings and nature.” When building a dry stone wall, Kaneko told me, you have to work with the contours of the land and irregularities of each stone. John New, the chair of the West of Scotland Dry Stone Walling Association, told me that “when you’re building a stone wall, you become part of the environment. Brown hares will just come up and stop and watch you.” Deer too. Almost as soon as it’s built, a stone wall is inhabited by insects—a key indicator of biodiversity—and small animals such as voles, chipmunks, and wrens. In China, researchers have documented the remarkable diversity of plants thriving on ancient stone walls—even in urban environments.

In rocky regions around the world, groups are working to preserve and promote the craft of dry stone walling, touting the benefits to biodiversity and low carbon footprint. These are inherently local efforts because building with stone makes the most sense when it can be sourced locally. (In the past, farmers used stone unearthed while clearing the very fields they needed to terrace or fence.) In Scotland, for example, trucking in material for a stock fence from far away could cost upwards of $5,000, New said. The most ambitious recent dry-stone-walling projects, such as the multimillion-dollar effort to restore the stone walls of Italy’s Cinque Terre, are in service of historical preservation. But Stone Walls for Life, the EU-funded project organizing the Cinque Terre restoration effort, argues that the walls strengthen resilience to climate change, too, by improving drainage and preventing landslides. They plan to replicate this kind of undertaking around the EU.

In Japan, Kaneko told me, most of the people who still know how to build simple utilitarian stone walls are in their 80s. In the past, if a stone wall along a rice paddy or road collapsed, the community would gather to repair it. This collective experience was key. When I met him again at a Kyoto café (in the concrete Kyoto International Conference Center, near a concrete-encased river), Kaneko told me about a 1919 Journal of Engineering article that emphasized the importance of human skill and discretion rather than objective numbers in stone-wall building. Although perfecting the craft of stone walling takes a lifetime, Kaneko said that an amateur, with no formal engineering experience, can learn the basics in about four days. Through workshops all over the country, he and Sanada teach people to place stones with the long side angled down into the slope, to make sure that each large stone touches at least two others, and to fill behind the large stones with small rocks or gravel as they build. There have been attempts to standardize and mechanize dry stone walling, using, for example, software and a robotic excavator. But Kaneko says that in many cases, the sites where he works are too narrow or steep for a machine to access. To him, stone walling’s reliance on man power instead of machine power, and passed-down knowledge instead of equations, is part of its value. “I like the very wild dry stone walls,” he told me.

Embracing those qualities, though, requires trust and experience. In July, Kaneko traveled to the town of Genkai, on Japan’s Southern island of Kyushu, to repair the walls at Hamanoura Tanada, a scenic and historic site where nearly 300 small terraced rice paddies chisel the dramatic slopes above an inlet of the Genkai Sea. A few years ago, the town’s planning and commerce division invited Kaneko to teach five local construction companies how to build dry stone walls so they could preserve the traditional scenery. But even with that training, none of them was willing to take on rebuilding stone walls. It’s seen as a labor-intensive and risky job, Kaneko said. Companies that use concrete can reliably calculate the strength of their walls, but it’s nearly impossible to estimate the engineered strength of any particular dry stone wall. Although villages and private landowners can choose stone over concrete, there have been no mainstream attempts to return to dry stone walling for major new public-works projects in Japan, Kaneko told me. In the United States, most landscaping walls shorter than three or four feet don’t need to be permitted, Alan Kren, a structural engineer at Rutherford + Chekene, told me. To build stone walls on any larger scale would likely require new standards for using these old techniques.

Lots of potential connections between this and the move to modernity more broadly:

-New crafts and methodologies that people know and use while older techniques fade away.

-Technological and scientific progress in new materials but costs with which we have not fully reckoned.

-Lost community moments replaced by private activity.

-Local efforts are difficult to sustain given broader global and social pressures.

The march of concrete will go on while some advocate for other options. And perhaps at some point concrete will be replaced by another material and the techniques of using concrete could be lost.

Americans largely in favor of policies that would lead to more housing – but how many want that housing near them?

New data from Pew shows large majorities of Americans are in favor of more housing:

Photo by Maria Orlova on Pexels.com

The findings from one of the largest surveys done on these issues shows significant but varying support for 10 policy initiatives to encourage more housing. At the high end, nearly 9 in 10 (86%) say they would back efforts to expedite permitting processes, while at the lower end, about half (49%) support the concept of allowing smaller lots, and homes to be built closer together…

Support for most of the housing policies transcended the usual fault lines of political party, region, race, income, and gender. The eight most popular proposals received clear majority support from Republicans, Democrats, and independents. In addition, 9 of the 10 tested measures received majority support from both renters and homeowners. All of these policies have either already been shown to work in improving housing affordability in American cities and towns or have recently been enacted by state or city policymakers hoping to do so.

Some approaches that stood out as especially popular—earning support from more than 70% of respondents—are similar to state laws that have passed in recent years (although the survey questions themselves were not modeled on any particular laws). For example, in 2023, California, Montana, Texas, and Washington took steps to simplify permitting for new housing. In recent years, California, Massachusetts, Montana, and Utah have passed laws to enable more housing near commerce or transit. And Maine, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont, among others, have enacted legislation to allow houses to have an accessory apartment or dwelling unit, as have many cities…

Respondents also broadly supported the reasons behind efforts to create more housing, with 65% to 82% seeing each reason as excellent or good. (See Figures 3 and 4.) However, in some cases, Republicans and Democrats prioritized different reasons. For example, somewhat more Republicans (68%) than Democrats (62%) identified freedom for property owners as an excellent or good reason, while more Democrats (81%) than Republicans (49%) chose reducing racial segregation as an excellent or good reason. But large majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents see improving housing affordability and allowing more people to live near their preferred jobs and schools as excellent or good reasons to change housing rules to allow more homes to be built in cities and suburbs. Successful state-level efforts to allow more housing have consistently received bipartisan support, and the survey results indicate that people with different political views can come together to support policies to end the housing shortage and affordability crisis for different reasons. 

Americans like the idea of owning housing. Add this to the current state of housing where both owning and renting is expensive and Americans broadly like more housing.

Here is my question: how many want this new housing near them? Even if Americans like more housing in the abstract, they may display much more resistance when this becomes a local issue. This is part of the reason housing is such a difficult issue to address in the United States: it is often a local issue where local governments and residents who want to control their surroundings. Housing is a good thing but people often move to a neighborhood and community and want to limit who else can live there.

Thus, the expression of this majority for housing is difficult to put into practice. Even state laws are often fraught as it can run against local desires. Take the efforts in Illinois to promote affordable housing at the state level: the initial legislation had limited enforcement and more would need to be done for state-level policy to provide more housing.

As noted above, one of the routes forward that could gather more local support involves policies that provide more opportunities for current property owners. Adding ADUs, for example, provides a choice for current property owners to generate more income or provide housing for family. Other policies might be viewed as funneling money to outside developers or providing housing for people who would not be as welcome in the community. If policies can add housing units and enrich/protect homeowners, they might find more support.

Trump on building “freedom cities”

Donald Trump recently said he wants to construct “freedom cities” if elected again. He has had this idea for a while; a story from March 2023 provides more details:

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

Former President Donald Trump on Friday proposed building up to 10 futuristic “freedom cities” on federal land, part of a plan that the 2024 presidential contender said would “create a new American future” in a country that has “lost its boldness.”…

He said he would launch a contest to charter up to 10 “freedom cities” roughly the size of Washington, DC, on undeveloped federal land.

“We’ll actually build new cities in our country again,” Trump said in the video. “These freedom cities will reopen the frontier, reignite American imagination, and give hundreds of thousands of young people and other people, all hardworking families, a new shot at home ownership and in fact, the American dream.”

These cities are tied to a bigger project:

Trump’s plan, shared in advance with POLITICO, calls for holding a contest to design and create up to ten new “Freedom Cities,” built from the ground up on federal land. It proposes an investment in the development of vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicles; the creation of “hives of industry” sparked by cutting off imports from China; and a population surge sparked by “baby bonuses” to encourage would-be-parents to get on with procreation. It is all, his team says, part of a larger nationwide beautification campaign meant to inspire forward-looking visions of America’s future.

When I saw that Trump mentioned this again, I immediately thought about free market cities that some have proposed for different parts of the world. But, that does not seem to be the goal here. Trump wants to build new cities that fit a new vision of American innovation. Freedom = innovation. One implication is that current cities are not free.

For such an idea, multiple practical obstacles exist:

  1. Where would these be located? Which federal lands?
  2. It is hard to build a new city. What is the timeline for this? How many resources will be involved? Will it be all private actors and developers doing the construction?
  3. What will be the guiding mission of these cities? If the goal is innovation, what will be different about these cities compared to existing cities?
  4. What will be the politics of these cities?

All that said, the likelihood of these being built is very low. And I thought Trump was was trying to save suburbia, not necessarily build cities?

Moving forward with a congestion tax for entering Manhattan

A state board recommends vehicles entering Manhattan south of 60th Street pay the first congestion tax in the United States:

Photo by Udayaditya Barua on Pexels.com

Under the plan, passenger car drivers entering Manhattan south of 60th Street during daytime hours would be charged $15 electronically, while the fee for small trucks would be $24 and large trucks would be charged $36.

Cities such as London and Stockholm have similar programs in place, but New York City is poised to become the first in the U.S.

Revenue from the tolls, projected to be roughly $1 billion annually, would be used to finance borrowing to upgrade the city’s mass transit systems…

Officials say that in addition to funding needed transit improvements, congestion pricing will result in improved air quality and reduced traffic…

“The Traffic Mobility Review Board’s recommended credit structure is wholly inadequate, especially the total lack of toll credits for the George Washington Bridge, which will lead to toll shopping, increased congestion in underserved communities, and excessive tolling at New Jersey crossings into Manhattan,” Murphy, who filed a federal lawsuit over congestion pricing in July, said in a statement.

In the US city with the highest rate of mass transit usage, this makes some sense. The roadways are crowded. Mass transit systems need money. At least some of the vehicles entering the city can afford the fee.

At the same time, Americans like to drive free. Cars and driving are an essential part of American life, whether cruising down a highway or delivering many goods via truck. Many will not be happy to pay extra to drive down taxpayer roads into parts of the city when it used to be free.

If this goes forward in Manhattan, how soon until it comes to other American cities? Those places may have fewer alternatives to driving but the revenue – and other benefits – might be hard for other places to pass up.

Chicago area suburbs passing ordinances to not allow long-term stays by migrants

The Chicago suburb of Oak Park is devoting resources to helping migrants while other suburbs are trying to keep migrants from having long-term stays in their community:

Photo by Binyamin Mellish on Pexels.com

Unlike their counterparts in Schaumburg and Rosemont, Elk Grove Village officials aren’t yet taxing long-term hotel stays, but have crafted a local ordinance of their own to prevent migrants from coming back to town.

The new village rules bar hotel and motel owners from providing a room to anyone without certified medical documentation verifying that the individual is free of contagious diseases, such as malaria or tuberculosis, over the last 60 days. That certification can only come from a board-certified infectious disease physician, according to the ordinance. The requirement doesn’t apply to anyone who has been living in the United States for at least a year.

The ordinance also aims to prevent warehouse owners in Elk Grove Village’s sprawling industrial park, or the owners of vacant shopping centers, from turning their buildings into temporary housing. Property owners would have to get a village license and meet certain zoning and health and safety requirements, such as providing a complete bathroom including flush toilet, sink, bath or shower in each sleeping unit…

The former La Quinta Inn at 1900 Oakton St. in Elk Grove Village — since purchased and demolished by the village — was among the first suburban locations to host migrants in September 2022.

Elk Grove’s board was set to consider the new regulations Thursday, but moved up approval to a Nov. 20 special meeting once officials received a spreadsheet purporting to show suburban hotel locations being eyed to host new migrant arrivals. The list came from a restaurateur who was asked to provide meals for migrants, Johnson said.

The idea seems to be that by limiting sites where migrants can stay, a suburb can keep migrants out and/or discourage other actors from making arrangements for migrants to stay in a suburb.

It would be interesting to compare these suburban efforts to those that might be taking place in other suburbs in the Chicago region and in other metropolitan regions. Some suburbs have hotels or industrial properties while others do not. These conditions are the result of decades of planning and zoning decisions.

Furthermore, do suburban residents as a whole feel migrants should be temporarily housed in their communities and do their opinions differ from city or rural residents? One reason Americans like suburbs is the accessible local government and I would guess the ordinances in the suburbs mentioned above came, at least in part, do to input from local residents and business owners.

Zipper merges work great at…McDonald’s?

Highway drivers sometimes struggle to use full lanes to merge when a lane is closing or ending. This is known as the “zipper merge.” Thankfully,McDonald’s has helped show Americans they can do it?

McDonald’s has several advantages in encouraging a smooth zipper merge process:

  1. A shorter runway to merging. You often go around a turn, order, and immediately merge. In contrast, highway merges can sometimes be seen from a mile or more away and some want to block all that space.
  2. A physical separation of the lanes before merging. The vehicles are ordering before merging and the need to have a display board and speaker means the lanes cannot be crossed into. Even if a driver wanted to block the other lane, the physical barriers make that difficult.
  3. People want to get their food. While driving on the highway, the goal is to get somewhere quickly. Different motivations.
  4. Might it matter that McDonald’s is private property while highways/roadways are more of open or public space?

Some of these principles could be applied to highways. Imagine temporary physical barriers between the lanes to force a merge closer to the end of the lanes. Or, reminders that blocking lanes has (legal?) consequences even though it is more public space.

Oak Park is supporting migrants; other suburbs could do the same?

The Chicago suburb of Oak Park has agreed to continue spending monies to help migrants new to Chicago and the United States:

Photo by Matt Barnard on Pexels.com

The village board in Oak Park voted Monday night to allocate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help migrants through the winter.

It was a divisive vote that sparked controversy among Oak Park trustees, with the debate going late into the night.

In the end, Oak Park trustees decided to extend its emergency declaration and spend an additional $500,000 to support migrants through the winter. That’s a compromise from the original proposal to spend $1 million through March.

The additional money is coming from unspent federal funds, not from local taxes. The vote was four to three to approve the measure…

There are hundreds of migrants in Oak Park that are being helped by the village or by churches.

In an earlier discussion, one trustee suggested more suburban communities could be involved:

Straw said “it’s time” for Oak Park to be a leader, and “work on stepping out in front so we can bring along our neighboring communities.

“The goal should be for this to be a coordinated western suburban response, where we are not alone at the front, but linking arms with our neighbors,” Straw said. “But the only way to get there, when no else is willing to step out first, is to step out. And it’s time.”

In the recent public and political discourse about migrants, cities have provided the primary setting. But, suburbs are now often the communities newcomers to the United States go to. This may not have been common in earlier periods but it is more common today. In a country where a majority of residents live in suburbs and there are a variety of suburban communities, many immigrants start in the suburbs.

How many suburbs might join Oak Park in welcoming migrants? Will there be “a coordinated western suburban response”? Given that there are hundreds of suburbs in the Chicago region, there is a lot of potential for suburbs, religious congregations, other organizations, and residents to respond.

Filling suburban Bed Bath & Beyond locations

When Bed Bath & Beyond closed all of its stores, it left numerous suburban stores vacant. Many of the locations are empty no longer:

Photo by Prateek Katyal on Pexels.com

Burlington, Michaels, Barnes & Noble, Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Macy’s, HomeGoods and other chains have replaced old Bed Bath & Beyond stores. Indoor pickleball courts, trampoline parks and bowling alleys have also filled up the vacancies…

The majority of Bed Bath & Beyond’s stores are in the suburbs of mid-size and large cities, and are under 50,000 square feet. These are appealing qualities for retailers as some companies favor smaller spaces, instead of mega stores, to save on rent and labor and as shoppers buy more online. Macy’s, for example, is opening its smaller “Market by Macy’s” versions at old Bed Bath & Beyond stores…

Bed Bath & Beyond spaces have been grabbed up swiftly at rents of up to 50% what Bed Bath & Beyond was paying, according to commercial real estate investment firm CBRE. Landlords are taking advantage of the vacancies, with some dividing former Bed Bath spaces into smaller sizes, said Brandon Isner, CBRE’s head of retail research for the Americas.

“There is little to no concern that any of the spaces will go vacant for long,” he said…

It is interesting to hear that some suburban retail real estate is in demand. This would contrast with the negative news about shopping malls or about some big box and strip mall properties. Perhaps it is the particular size of these stores – a medium size that could appeal to a lot of other retailers – or perhaps it is the low price – which cuts the cost of doing business.

I hope there are some large-scale studies going on regarding the transformation of retail spaces in the suburbs. Imagine taking pictures at 5 year intervals in major shopping districts or along major roadways. At the least, it could detail the changes in buildings and what retailers are present. But, it could also catalogue major changes to structures, what kinds of retailers are present, and how popular these sites are. Just as the shopping mall defined life for suburban teenagers for at least a decade, the major shopping centers and strip malls in suburbs defined life for millions over multiple decades. Plenty of people visited Bed Bath & Beyond and many more could visit these structures – with whatever is in them- for years to come.

Those with the right jobs and resources can move where they want in the United States

In a story about people leaving Texas (even as the state gained population last year), I was struck by the patterns in the stories of people moving out the state: they could do so. Here is what I mean:

Photo by Terrance Barksdale on Pexels.com

While people have been moving into the Lone Star state to take advantage of its relatively affordable real-estate market, political atmosphere, and work opportunities, some of those same qualities are driving others out. Over 494,000 people left Texas between 2021 and 2022 (though the state gained a net population of 174,261.) It’s a trend that could intensify as housing costs surge and the state’s political landscape becomes more polarized

For Texans, “the Midwest has emerged as popular recently because it is just by and large the most affordable region,” Hannah Jones, Realtor.com’s economic research analyst, told Business Insider in October. “We’re seeing this trend of buyers looking for affordability really explode.”…

In Austin, some tech workers who flocked to the city during the pandemic just can’t seem to get out fast enough

Jules Rogers, a reporter who relocated from Portland, Oregon, to Houston in 2018 for a position at a local newspaper, left Texas less than two years after moving to the city…

Theoretically, Americans can move wherever they like. In reality, the ability to move is constrained by a variety of factors, including financial resources and jobs.

In this story, people can move in and out of Texas relatively easily. Some came in recent years and want to move back out. Others are leaving Texas for cheaper housing elsewhere.

This may be possible for some. But, it is not easy for everyone to do this. Americans do not just move to places where housing is cheaper. People have numerous reasons for locating in certain places and not others. Those with resources and particular jobs that are in demand or available in many places have some flexibility that others may not have. White-collar workers, in particular, may be able to more easily move from big metro region to big metro region (or even out of these regions as some did during COVID-19).

This would be hard data to collect but it would be interesting to compare people moving for different reasons and how long they stay. Do retirees who move to certain places stay longer than those who move for jobs or cheaper housing?