(Some?) suburbanites go apple picking

Posted on by

What kind of suburbanite goes apple picking in the fall? One former apple orchard resident has an idea:

Photo by Tom Swinnen on Pexels.com

I grew up on a 64-acre apple orchard in rural Ohio. To reveal my origin story to a new acquaintance is inevitably to watch their pupils dilate as they picture bucolic scenes of fruit-laden trees, decorative cornstalks, tractor-pulled hayrides, and caramel-doused apples plunked onto sticks. Orchards, I’ve come to see, are like catnip to the imaginations of boho-chic suburbanites, TikTokking wanderlusters, and harried parents on the edge of a nervous breakdown. If apple pie enjoys symbolic stature as the wholesome, patriotic dessert of America, the orchard is its hallowed birthplace and cradle—a mythical agricultural space that conjures bygone days of bliss and childhood innocence.

As a suburbanite, I am not a frequent visitor to apple orchards. What I know largely comes from advertisements for orchards and conversations with others who visit orchards. From what I can gather, the orchards are now less about apples and more about entertainment and being a mini theme park. Food options. Corn mazes. Activities for kids. Various pricing levels. Yes, some apple picking options or apple purchasing options before leaving.

Does this appeal to “boho-chic suburbanites”? Does that include people who want a controlled and cheap setting for fun with their kids, an interesting setting for selfies and family pictures, a way to fulfill some vision of what fall is supposed to look like, or some connection to an agricultural past that some have a long connection to?

I am sure there are a few good academic papers that could be written about apple orchards in 2025 as sites of consumption, social interactions, late-stage capitalism, and modern connections to nature.

Suburban disillusionment and Rules for Radicals

Posted on by

In the Prologue to the 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky describes the disillusionment some young people in the United States felt:

Photo by u00d6merhan Datlar on Pexels.com

Today’s generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They have rejected their materialistic backgrounds, the goal of a well-paid job, suburban home, automobile, country club membership, first-class travel, status, security, and everything that meant success to their parents. They have had it. They watched it lead their parents to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of “the good life.” (xiv)

By this point, the American suburbs of the postwar era had existed for roughly two decades. The growing communities outside major cities had typically catered to middle-class white residents who sought a particular vision of the good life with a home, some space, and opportunities for their children to succeed (plus multiple reasons for leaving cities).

But Alinsky is hinting at how some who lived in these suburbs or grew up in him did not find them to be the good life. Their experiences suggested the suburbs were found wanting. The answers the suburbs supposedly had did not materialize or they were not the right answers. The suburban life could not address particular and/or difficult social issues.

On the other hand, many Americans continued to move to the suburbs even as some suburbanites were disillusioned. The percentage of Americans living in suburbs continued for multiple decades after Alinsky wrote the book. How many young adults rejected this suburban way of life and turned to something else? The percentage might have been small compared to the mass of suburbanites, even as Alinsky’s work proved influential.

How much social information can we handle?

Posted on by

Humans are social. People need connections to others. This is how they learn, grow, and accomplish things both as individuals and groups. We understand ourselves in part by knowing about people and the world around us. Is there a limit to how much social activity and information people can take in and still live a good life?

Photo by Negative Space on Pexels.com

Much of the debate over social media seems to focus on either the content of the information or the time spent with it that could be better used elsewhere. Both are concerns but they only hint at this question: can we handle all the information and social interactions?

For much of human history, people lived in relatively small communities. They lived in close proximity to family, often extended family and people of similar people groups. Traditions were important and technological progress was slower. There are examples in history of large urban centers but these are rare; small villages and towns were the more common social space.

The modern era and all that came with it – rationalism, industrialism, growing populations, urbanization, liberal democracies, pushing back against tradition, new technologies – expanded the number of social connections people could have. Big cities – 1 million-plus people – became common. People had more mobility. Access to other people and information expanded rapidly.

The Internet and social media is layered on top of these processes already underway and ongoing. Through these technologies, humans can connect with many more people and can access much more information. Something happens far away and we can know about it in minutes or seconds. Rather than relying on proximity for many of our social connections, we can interact with people and groups all over the place.

Perhaps humans can figure out how to deal with this all. How many would say they would want to go back to times where people primarily relied on people around them for relationships and information? People might figure out ways to shift their focus to all the options in front of them or better compartmentalize the big picture options and the world immediately around them. Or maybe not. We have options now that most humans never had – we can find out a lot and we can interact with or find out about almost anyone we would like – and we will see how we come to grips with them.

HOA and condo association fees as part of growing mortgage costs

Posted on by

Part of the rising mortgage costs in the United States is due to fees residents pay to homeowners’ and condo associations:

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Rising home insurance premiums and homeowners association fees have also contributed to growing monthly expenses. The median annual cost of property insurance increased by 5.3 percent last year, the Census survey found, with bigger increases for larger homes. Nearly a quarter of all U.S. homeowners paid fees to a condo or homeowners association last year, at a median cost of $135. In Nevada, Florida and Arizona, 45 to 50 percent of households paid such a fee.

The Census report has more details. Where do more residents pay association fees?

Some states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada that typically attract a lot of retirees to planned communities had higher proportions of homeowners who reported paying condo/HOA fees.

Others with among the smallest shares: Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

The prevalence of these associations differs quite a bit across contexts. And even within places with more associations, some people may more than others:

The amount of condo and HOA fees differed widely between and within states. In 2024, about 5.6 million or 26% of homes paid less than $50 a month and about 3 million homes paid more than $500 a month.

The national median (half were less and half more) monthly fee was $135. But a large share of homeowners in some states — most notably New York (64%) — reported paying more than $500. So did about half of homeowners in the District of Columbia and in Hawaii. 

These fees could be going up for multiple reasons:

  1. Increased repair and maintenance costs. Replacing roofs or maintaining common areas or other regular duties of these associations cost more, just as almost everything costs more in recent years.
  2. Increased insurance costs. As homeowner’s insurance goes up, so would insurance for associations and larger buildings.
  3. With the cost of current needs going up, this could also affect projections about the future. As associations think about their reserves and future outlays, they may need more to keep up with in order to have a required and/or prudent amount on hand.

It may be difficult to reduce these costs easily as these associations have specific responsibilities to residents.

The inefficiency of the construction industry

Posted on by

One issue that affects American housing is the lack of efficiency in the construction industry:

Photo by Bidvine on Pexels.com

Companies like Reframe are trying to solve a conundrum scholars call the construction crisis. Although most sectors of the economy have gotten more efficient over time, construction has moved in the opposite direction—construction sites are less productive today than they were 50 years ago. It’s a genuine mystery, and everyone has their own pet theory about what’s to blame.

Efficiency is the answer to numerous perceived social issues in the United States. Make government more efficient. Make the distribution of resources or services more efficient. Get things done faster and at lower cost. And in the business world, who would be opposed to more efficiency?

I also recall some of the concerns expressed by critics about efficient home building operations. Take the Levitts mentioned in this article. Amid the various concerns expressed by many was a concern about the quality and character of homes that were mass produced. Would such homes stand for a long time? What does it do to community life when there are so few models available?

The example given in the article of efficient housing is modular housing. Part of this involves logistics; can it be produced at particular quantities and price points that makes it viable. But there will also be architectural and community questions. Will neighbors want to live next to it? Do early residents find it comparable to housing built by other methods? How does it stand up over time?

It would be interesting to ask Americans if they want “an efficient house.” Is the opposite of this “an inefficient house”? I’m not sure many think about in terms of efficiency when thinking about their residence.

How about creating suburban communities that only contain data centers?

Posted on by

With some suburbanites concerned about data centers proposed for their communities, I have a possible solution: why not create new suburban communities that only contain data centers?

Photo by Josh Sorenson on Pexels.com

Imagine a suburban municipality full of data centers. It could help serve the needs of the surrounding region. It could draw on its own water and electricity supply (or make its own deals for these resources). It would not have to worry about being located near residences or other land uses where residents feel threatened.

This is not the first time I have thought of this idea. It could work for waste transfer sites. Landfills. Warehouses. Industry. Marijuana dispensaries. Religious congregations (see examples of opposition from my own research here and here)? This could work for the multiple land uses that suburban residents often object to or communities see as threats to their established way of life.

Creating such communities could be difficult. Given that many metropolitan areas are full of development, there might be three primary options to find land for such an endeavor:

  1. Locate the new municipality on the fringes of the region. This has the advantages of not changing densely developed land and it is already located further away from residences.
  2. Convert an existing suburb into such a place. While the image of American suburbs is often that of wealthy and exclusive communities, industrial suburbs have also been around for a long time. There are already suburbs with fewer residents that might be willing to take on more data centers.
  3. Take a bit of land from several existing communities and create this new municipality. This could be hard to do as suburbs are likely to resist losing land. But if the tradeoff is giving up land so that the perceived threat of a data center is not their responsibility, perhaps a conversation can start.

Any of these are unlikely. Not impossible. But suburban leaders and residents have resisted certain land uses for decades. The hope seems to be in each community that if they can successfully keep the land use out, that is success and good luck to other communities in addressing the issue.

Repairing aging American housing

Posted on by

Many older American homes need repairs but making those repairs is a challenge:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Across the nation, and especially here in Philadelphia, homeowners are increasingly struggling to maintain and repair aging homes that are withering, crumbling, and forcing homeowners to exist in near-unlivable conditions.

According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average age of the U.S. home is 40 years old, up from 31 years old 15 years ago. Homes tend to be the oldest in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic states and along the Appalachian Mountains. Repair costs are rising, and homeowners face $100 billion in needed maintenance, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Analysts say the problems associated with deferred maintenance and dilapidated properties span both rural and urban properties, resulting in structure collapses of occupied properties in Pittsburgh; Reading, Pennsylvania; Syracuse, New York; and elsewhere…

Schapira said Philadelphia has at least 60,000 houses that are “in a pretty difficult situation” and need immediate repairs. Nationwide, about 6.7 million households are living in “inadequate” properties, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Both cities and suburbs have a lot of houses that are more than 50 years old: the growing urban populations of the late 1800s and early 1900s in Northeast and Midwest cities mean there are a number of aging units there and suburban sprawl added many homes to the edges of big cities and growing suburbs. Maintaining and repairing homes requires maintenance, knowledge, and resources.

This story highlights the issue when these aging homes are in poorer neighborhoods and communities. How are residents who are struggling to make ends meet supposed to do the substantial work necessary to keep their homes in decent condition, let alone have any features that the HGTV watching crowd might expect as normal these days?

For those with resources, this might be less of an issue. Larger older homes can be fixed up with some preserved in historic districts. Others are torn down and replaced with larger, modern homes. Those with means can avoid having to purchase homes with significant repair issues and if they do take them on, they made that choice and can address the issues.

The bigger question is this: what do Americans want to do with aging housing? Metropolitan regions need housing. Repairs can be costly. What are funding options? Can this be addressed by boosting incomes and economic opportunities? Are there ways to pay people to repair these homes and keep needed housing units in the community? What happens when housing does crumble and the properties are not desirable for developers or investors?

The rise in LLC property owners in Chicago

Posted on by

A new analysis shows that LLCs now own more properties in Chicago compared to two decades ago:

Photo by Photo By: Kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

In the last two decades, LLCs have become an increasingly common way to own real estate in Chicago, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis of 26 million property records by WBEZ, Injustice Watch and the Mansueto Institute for Urban Innovation at the University of Chicago.

The share of multifamily rentals owned by LLCs increased from 3% in 2006 to 16% in 2022, the analysis shows. Their share of ownership among larger apartment buildings with seven or more units, like the one where Carter resides, increased from 9% in 2006 to 34% in 2022.

Why the increase?

But LLCs gained traction with real estate investors in the 1990s when they realized LLCs had very minimal disclosure requirements, Hamill said. In Illinois, for example, only the manager and agent of an LLC — neither of whom are necessarily owners — are required to be publicly disclosed…

“There’s two big advantages with LLCs. One is the tax advantage that you’re not taxed as a corporation. The other big one is the ability to isolate liability and isolate financial assets,” Immergluck said…

But experts say the issue with LLCs isn’t their protection against legal liability. They say the problem with LLCs is the lack of transparency.

This could be told as a story of how a change in bureaucratic structures – the ways a corporation could incorporate – led to unintended outcomes. A new option from the 1970s eventually proved useful for property owners. But that could prove problematic for renters who cannot easily find people who can address important property issues.

This is a similar but different concern that those expressed in recent years about institutional investors buying up housing. What is similar is that some hard to find or hidden or presumed-to-be self-motivated actor is buying up housing and not acting in the best interests of residents or the broader good. What is different is that the concerns in the article above are primarily about the lack of having a person to contact and hold responsible, not about the numbers of units that are less affordable or less accessible because an LLC or corporation is acting rather than an individual owner. So this may not be a question of whether corporations can buy residential properties; it is about whether residents can know who these corporations are and whether they can be counted on to fulfill the landlord’s duties.

It would be interesting to hear from landlords what they would think of changes that would reveal their ownership. Would landlords who want to do the right thing object to this? Would some still want to not have their ownership public but would respond to residents well through property managers?

Costco, American consumption, and relationships with adversarial nations

Posted on by

The Trump administration may limit the ability of Iranian officials to visit Costco and Sam’s Club when they visit the United Nations in New York City:

Photo by Teju on Pexels.com

The movements of Iranian diplomats are severely limited in New York, but one proposal being floated would bar them from shopping at big, members-only wholesale stores like Costco and Sam’s Club without first receiving the express permission of the State Department.

Such stores have been a favorite of Iranian diplomats posted to and visiting New York because they are able to buy large quantities of products not available in their economically isolated country for relatively cheap prices and send them home.

It was not immediately clear if or when the proposed shopping ban for Iran would take effect, but the memo said the State Department also was looking at drafting rules that would allow it to impose terms and conditions on memberships in wholesale clubs by all foreign diplomats in the U.S.

Americans may be used to Costco and big box stores but they are not necessarily available all over the world.

When I saw this story, I was reminded of the so-called “Kitchen Debate” between Nixon and Khrushchev in 1959. At an exhibition in Moscow, the United States constructed a model of an American home with the idea of showing off all that an average American household had. Khrushschev did not appear impressed but the display illustrates one of the ways the United States expanded its power and reach in the second half of the twentieth century: through consumerism and a particular lifestyle.

Put another way, pursue policies like the United States and the average home could have a kitchen like that one displayed in 1959 or the average resident could shop at a Costco in 2025. Resist the American way of life or be belligerent toward the United States and those things will not be available.

Just out of curiosity, I searched Google Maps for the Costco locations nearest to the UN Headquarters in Manhattan. There are at least 3 locations within 11 miles. This means when the diplomats and the leaders of the world come together at the UN, getting to Costco might not be too difficult.

Condos, investment properties, and limited demand in Canada

Posted on by

Can condos help people find reasonably-priced housing and achieve homeownership? Maybe but viewing them more as investment properties for years means there may now be less demand for condos in Canada:

Photo by Amit Batra on Pexels.com

It didn’t take long to figure out why there were so many empty units on the market: it turns out nobody wants to rent a condo, and nobody wants to buy one either. Condo rents have dropped over the past two years, and according to a recent report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, condo sales have fallen by 75 percent in the Greater Toronto Area and 37 percent in the Vancouver area since 2022. The market has become so dire that buyers of pre-construction condos are having difficulty closing their purchases. Banks lend money depending on the present value of the property, and some condos are worth less now than they were when the buyers made their first deposit. As a result, developers have been cancelling construction projects. Some experts say we should have seen this coming…

The simple answer is that many condos built between the late 2010s and early 2020s were constructed not for living but for investment. Since 2000, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of condos used as investment properties. To my surprise, most of the investors were not faceless corporations or foreign investors. Research done by Statistics Canada shows that the typical condo owner is a middle-aged, middle-class Canadian couple. The reigning logic for the middle class was that buying a condo, renting it out to pay for the mortgage, and eventually selling the unit was a solid way to make money. This was especially true in the late 2010s, a period of low interest rates and weak rent control policies. Steady demand for housing, partially caused by increasing immigration, made real estate seem like a sure bet.

Developers knew that most pre-construction buyers were investors rather than people looking to live in the apartments themselves. As a result, they focused on quantity over quality. Vishakh Alex, an architectural designer working in Toronto, said that the directive from developers in the late 2010s was to squeeze in as many units as possible. It is telling that between 1971 and 1990, the median condo in the city was approximately 1,000 square feet, but between 2016 and 2020, the number dropped to roughly 650 square feet…

Yet, as city populations continue to grow, there’s nowhere to build but up. It hardly bears repeating that there is a housing crisis in Canada. Young middle-class people looking to buy their first homes can rarely afford the kinds of houses that they might have grown up in—a cute triplex on a tree-lined street in Trinity-Bellwoods, Toronto, for example, or a townhouse in Kitsilano, Vancouver, with a view of the ocean. And so it is to the condos we must go.

But it is also true that condo living does not have to be, and perhaps should not be, defined by the biggest developers looking to squeeze every drop of profit from mom-and-pop investors and homebuyers.

This shift toward investor properties sounds similar to what has happened in the United States in recent decades with homeowners increasingly viewing their properties as investments and expecting certain returns.

One difference here is that more of these condos might have been second homes. In Privileging Place: How Second Homeowners Transform Communities and Themselves, sociologist Meaghan Stiman explains how only a second home influenced how property owners viewed places and themselves with consequences for communities where these second owners were sometimes present.

If people in cities in Canada and the United States have concerns about investors buying too many properties, whether investors from other countries or institutional investors, what do they make of middle- to upper-class residents buying condos for investments? As the author notes above, these cities clearly need housing. American cities and metropolitan regions need housing. Should certain kinds of investors have limits or should developers be limited in how many investment properties they can construct?

One upside could be that the glut of investment condos does provide some attainable housing. The prices might not fall too far given their initial cost but what if investment condos and homes start becoming options for residents for whom they were not originally intended?