The Lake County Division of Transportation (LCDOT) closed Darrell, Neville and Case roads in Wauconda to through traffic for 110 days to construct a roundabout and realign the intersections…
This is the ninth roundabout in the Lake County Division of Transportation system. The $8.1 million project is the first of three roundabouts to be built as part of the Darrell Road corridor improvement.
Suburbanites are used to traffic lights and stop signs. Adding roundabouts or diamond interchanges presents a new dimension to driving. The roundabout offers the possibility of a smoother journey – if there is not too much traffic – but requires a different level of attention as there are multiple yield points.
Suburbanites can come to like roundabouts with experience. But, local drivers will likely need some time to get used to them. I am curious to see how many roundabouts will eventually populate the suburbs. They are likely not possible in many places due to existing land uses. However, if they help move traffic, are safe, and people can drive through them, we will probably see more of them in the Chicago region.
Dominating the New York skyline brought prestige and publicity, but tall towers also resolved a more prosaic problem: As land prices climbed, developers had to build upward to turn a profit, pushing their projects as high as engineering, natural light and, eventually, zoning would allow. “Skyscrapers were a self-fulfilling prophecy of the heated real estate market,” writes Neal Bascomb in his 2003 book Higher: A Historic Race to the Sky and the Making of a City. By the 1920s, with Europe in ashes after World War I, these buildings became brash totems of a new world order. Manhattan in particular had become the “harbor of the world, messenger of the new land … of the gold diggers and of world conquest,” wrote the German architect Erich Mendelsohn in his seminal 1926 book Amerika, published the year after New York overtook London as the world’s most populous city.
In a dense space like Manhattan, demand for land pushed prices up. To make more money from the same plot of land, skyscrapers offered more space. The addition of thousands of square feet of office space, even if it could be hard to fill at times, provided profit.
I would be interested to see analysis shows the profits of a skyscraper over a lifetime compared to other options builders, developers, and companies could have pursued. Instead of building up in major cities, here are other options they could have pursued: building underground; building dense and wide buildings (imagine ones that cover several city blocks at a height of ten stories or so); constructing large buildings in other parts of the city and suburbs; and pursuing multiple business districts rather than centralized locations where everyone wants to gather.
Even if there was profit at stake, there is also the matter of the prestige of skyscrapers. Skyscrapers are important symbols in a city skyline. Were skyscrapers both profitable and status-enhancing or did the increased status mean that the absolute numbers did not matter quite as much?
On her latest release, 1989 (Taylor’s Release), Taylor Swift has a new song involving suburban life:
Here are the lyrics from the second time through the chorus:
I didn’t come here to make friends We were born to be suburban legends When you hold me, it holds me together And you kiss me in a way that’s gonna screw me up forever I know that you still remember We were born to be national treasures When you told me we’d get back together And you kissed me in a way that’s gonna screw me up forever
The song describes an ill-fated suburban romance. The main character imagines walking into a high school reunion and surprising former classmates with the person they are with.
What exactly makes the song suburban? This is less clear. A powerful romance that ends in heartbreak and wistfulness could take place in a number of American settings, including suburbs. Is this connected to suburban youth? It is about suburbanites looking back on a more exciting time of life? Does a flashy young romance in a suburb make them suburban legends?
Given that more than 50% of Americans live in suburbs, perhaps there are many people who could identify with these sentiments and certainly plenty of suburbanites who like Taylor Swift.
During the 20th century, Los Angeles home styles were as eclectic as its populace. Wood-shingled Craftsmans mingled with white stucco bungalows. Depending on the neighborhood, you might get an ornate Victorian, chic Midcentury Modern or even a Mayan Revival-style showplace — something that begs you to look at it, admire it. A house that invites an opinion, good or bad.
But although the box houses’ bulk draws attention, its design is basic. They’re like an iPhone: simple and smooth. Clean lines, glass walls, simple shades of white or black. Critics see them as soulless and inert.
Modern homes don’t have time or money for a turret, overhanging eave or stained-glass windows. Sloped ceilings, skylights and other superfluous accents take away from the bottom line — the largest amount of square footage possible for the cheapest possible construction price…
When such homes started popping up in the wake of the housing crash in 2008, some assumed the trend would be temporary. But demand for the style still rages on today…
The “bento boxes of today,” as Parsons calls them, are shiny, sleek and sexy, but he said they’ll be tomorrow’s tear-downs.
The article suggests these architectural styles are cyclical: builders, developers, real estate agents, municipalities, buyers, and others are involved in changing architectural styles. So, then the question here is whether these homes are here to stay or whether another style will emerge and the modern box home will fade?
If I had to guess, I would suggest the modern box home will hang on as a consistent but small presence in the LA housing market for several reasons. They are simple and relatively cheap to build. They offer a lot of space. In uncertain economic times and pricey housing markets, these are hard factors to overlook.
There is also a segment of the market that finds them attractive. The modernist home has been around for decades. Most Americans might not choose it as their preferred style but some would. In a large metropolitan region like Los Angeles, some will prefer this design.
Given the unique housing market of Los Angeles, perhaps the real question is whether modern homes are catching on elsewhere in the United States. When housing costs are not as high, is the modernist house one people want? In my area, several such homes come to mind but they are rare.
So if COVID isn’t to blame for all the shuttered stores, what is? Well, when a landlord doesn’t lower the rent to get a new retail tenant, it’s because that landlord can’t. The market that sets retail rents isn’t only between tenants and landlords. It’s also between landlords and the banks that finance the buildings. And the banks, in many cases, won’t let property owners lower their rents enough to fill their properties. The pandemic may have emptied out America’s storefronts, but it’s banks that are keeping them that way…
So if you’re trying to lower the rent on your retail space, your bank may say no. And even if it says yes, it might demand you pay off a chunk of the mortgage up front, to account for the way you’re lowering the building’s value by lowering its rental income. In short, reducing the rent on your storefront might land you a tenant — but it could cost you big-time with your bank.
Of course, nothing is forcing banks to be all hard-assed about it. They’re free to renegotiate or refinance the terms of mortgages, given the extraordinary downturn facing retail storefronts. In some cases, according to real-estate brokers I spoke with, banks have apparently decided not to stand in the way of landlords in San Francisco who are offering shorter-term leases and lowering retail rents anywhere from 20% to 50%. One popular restaurant space in the city’s tech-heavy South of Market neighborhood that has been dark since 2020 is finally set to reopen this year as a bar and “entertainment concept” — but only because the landlord is offering the new tenant a below-market rate and improvements to the space…
You’d think everyone involved would be motivated to fill an empty storefront — landlords aren’t making money, cities aren’t getting taxes, and the neighborhood has an eyesore. But that eyesore may actually still be profitable to the landlord and the banks. “In SoHo, something vacant isn’t necessarily vacant,” says Ortiz. “Someone’s paying rent there, and the landlord’s perfectly fine with it. It’s a vacancy to the pedestrian, but not to the landlord.”
Vacant properties can create all sorts of problems for communities. The focus on this story is on city properties but vacant properties are issues in suburbs as well. As the story suggests at the end, encouraging properties to be vacant for shorter periods of time and/or for banks to be more flexible might require some creativity.
I wonder if there is more third party actors – not the lender or the current lease holder – could do to provide solutions. Are there certain land uses that could be more temporary but fill vacant spaces? Are there agreements to be made between lenders and a tenant to make something of the property without t being a fully functioning property?
Could communities also more directly pressure lenders about vacant properties? Perhaps this happens more behind the scenes but imagine a community group organizes around asking a specific lender about a particular property in the neighborhood. They make some noise, make the lender public, ask for changes.
Neighbors were also concerned about tear downs and new builds. They watched as modern mega mansions took over the Park Cities. “There’s this thing coming,” Pratt says. And the residents, who founded the Greenland Hills Neighborhood Association in 1983, knew they had to do something to fight the “McMansions.”…
After that, Greenland Hills residents formed a conservation district. In the early 2000s, they surveyed the houses, and a feasibility study showed that about two-thirds of the homes were Tudors. And there was a schism in the neighborhood. There was the M Streets, between Central and Greenville, and then there was M-Streets East, which was sandwiched by Greenville and Skillman. East wanted less restrictive conservation rules, Mut says, and some blocks wanted to opt out.
Finally, the M Streets and M Streets East conservation districts formed in 2003. The M Streets Conservation District protects seven architectural styles, like neo colonial and contemporary. “We all get hung up on Tudors, and we should because that’s pretty massive,” Pratt says. “But the other styles are just as notable in the time period as well.” The district rules preserve each architectural style’s most iconic features on the front façade. The longest section is dedicated to the Tudors. There are specifications on window proportions, roof pitches, secondary gables, even doors. “We’re not going to put a Victorian door and a Tudor home,” Mut says…
And the prices of the houses increased. Homes in Greenland Hills often go for $800,000 or more. Mut can’t pinpoint the exact reasons for the surge in pricing, but he attributes it to inflation, the proximity to downtown, and demand for the homes. Mut and Pratt recognize the irony of the neighborhood’s start as an “affordable” neighborhood versus today. But it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, Pratt says, especially now that the neighborhood is not on the outskirts of Dallas. And the overall value, she says, is still there.
Three thoughts come to mind:
The neighborhood wanted to protect its particular architecture and character. To do this, they set up guidelines that limited property owners. This is often the trade-off of historic preservation in American communities: retaining the older styles limits what current and future property owners can do.
Home values in the neighborhood have increased. Would this have happened at the same rate if McMansions had been constructed instead? Preserving the older homes means the neighborhood appeals to certain buyers. Building McMansions means newer and bigger homes. Which option would have raised property values more?
Pilot programs have sprung up across the country, from liberal strongholds such as Los Angeles and Baltimore to more centrist and conservative cities like Columbia, South Carolina; Birmingham, Alabama; and Gainesville, Florida. Just Income, the Florida program, also focused its stipends on formerly incarcerated individuals, with a rationale similar to Middleton’s. “It costs Floridians about $28,000 a year to hold someone in prison,” the director of the Gainesville program said in a press release earlier this year. “Alternatively, we’re investing just $7,600 directly to one of our valued neighbors, giving them a vital income floor.” In city after city and cohort after cohort — old, young, single parents, ex-convicts — universal basic income has improved health outcomes, raised employment, and bolstered childcare opportunities (and recipients have had consistently better outcomes than control groups).
According to Jefferson, guaranteed income — which she calls “unrestricted cash transfers” — impacts recipients’ lives almost immediately. Early results from her firm’s analysis, she said, “really show that cash can improve people’s financial stress and mental health remarkably and quickly.”
With more data at hand than theoretical projection, the evidence is overwhelming: Universal basic income is working nearly universally.
This article seems more interested in the political aspects of such programs working in both Democratic and Republican states and then wondering if there is political appetite for larger-scale programs.
I am interested in the place-based aspects of these programs. Does success across a range of cities mean that it could or should work in all American cities? Some programs or contexts might lead to particular successes or difficulties. Is there a model or two that can be emulated or do programs need to be tweaked?
Is the success limited to cities or would similar programs in metropolitan regions or rural areas get similar results? Disadvantage and lack of resources can be found across American contexts.
If places do not matter as much regarding effectiveness, does that mean a federal program would be more effective? Or, if there are local contexts that matter, could the federal government provide monies to states or municipalities to distribute?
It would also be interesting to see a timeline across different locations of when larger programs might roll out.
Plenty of people like the colorful leaves at this time of year in the Midwest and other parts of the country. But, why do they like such colors in leaves or in flowers throughout the year and also prefer lawns that are green only?
-A consistently green lawn provides possibilities for contrasts with other colors used for house exteriors and other landscaping. If yards were other colors, the contrast colors change as well.
-Americans likes earth tones less compared to green. They do not want to be reminded of earth but rather the ways humans have changed the earth.
I am sure there is a historical and cultural answer to this question. In the meantime, I will observe both the changing colors of leaves – it all happens relatively quickly – and how these leaves cover green canvasses across suburbia.
Homeowners now have increased flexibility to build more houses on less land, after the lot size required for a home was reduced from 5,750 square feet to 2,500 via the HOME initiative (Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment). The policy also increases the number of housing structures that can sit on that 2,500 square feet from two to three.
The debate over these changes continues:
The debate around a policy like this comes down to whether someone believes increased density (more housing for more people on smaller footprints) will help the situation, or will lead to overbuilding, crime, and rental cash grabs. The latter tends to sound a lot like NIMBY talking points more concerned with preserving the charm of longstanding Austin neighborhoods.
Some developers and homeowners feel that the resolution alleviates just a small part of Austin’s building woes, since the zoning codes are still complex and difficult to navigate. Jason Kahle, who owns Small Home Solutions, LLC, says he and his 10 employees are “going to be all over” the changes in a market where it seems everyone with a large-enough lot has considered building a granny pod, mother-in-law suite, or backyard office.
But being free to build on a smaller lot is not the same as being able to feasibly do it within existing rules, Kahle points out. “There’s a lot of wheels turning at the same time,” he says. “Austin Energy is a challenge. We have protected trees, impervious cover, floor-area ratio rules, the level of detail the city requires on civil engineer plans, the subchapter McMansion ordinance, temp drawings. It’s a lot to deal with.” The McMansion regulations, also known as “Subchapter F” in the city’s housing code, set detailed and strict limits, including height and setbacks from the edges of a lot.
Laura Boas, an Austin physical therapist, is building an “accessory dwelling unit” for her family behind her 1950s-era, 720-square-foot cottage in the Brentwood neighborhood. She’s seen massive 2,500-square-foot homes go up in her area, and her lot is big enough to support additional buildings. Boas lives alone and jokes, “I’m part of the problem.”
It sounds like the goal is to allow for more housing units without changing many existing lots and allowing for smaller lots. This is a different approach than promoting more multi-family housing or larger structures containing more residential units. These changes keep the single-family character and the scale of the neighborhood similar while adding more units and people.
It will be interesting to see if an approach like this solves the problems it was intended to solve. Will the number of new McMansions decrease as property owners pursue other options? Does this add enough units? Does it ease housing affordability? If not, what changes would residents and the city be willing to enact? I hope researchers and policy experts are keeping track of the changes in cities that have enabled similar regulations. This could help determine whether adding ADUs (such as in Portland) is helpful.
The Simpsons have new neighbors in Season 35 episode 3, “McMansion and Wife.” They get to know each other and enjoy spending time together. But, then the neighbors go from a modest home to a teardown McMansion:
As the new home is under construction, it is called a “reno” and then a “do-over.” Then it turns into a giant home. By my count, the teardown is 3-4 stories, is much bigger in terms of square feet and height as it towers over the Simpsons’ home, and has a mishmash of architectural features. The Simpsons live in a modest suburban home by today’s standards.
This story of a teardown McMansion within an established neighborhood is a common story across the United States. The new home can be considered disruptive by some neighbors even as others might defend the ability of property owners to do what they wish with their home and land and benefit from those changes.
One possible twist this episode briefly explores is the relationship between neighbors in these positions. Can they be friends? Can someone moving into a neighborhood build relationships and soften the blow of tearing down a house and constructing something much bigger on the same spot? Or, do teardowns usually lead to conflict between neighbors?
Legally Sociable 