The U.S. immigrant population grew by 1.6 million between 2022 and 2023 to 47.8 million, according to the MPI analysis, with immigrants now representing a 14.3 percent share of the overall population—the highest ever.
Three quick thoughts:
Population growth is good in the United States. To have flat population growth or decline in population would be viewed with concern. This is a perception issue.
The country has never experienced a decline in population between decennial censuses. It did not have growth under 7% in any decade (just over this during the 1930s and 2010s).
How many systems and sectors in the country would be harmed if population growth and/or immigration slowed or stopped? What would keep going and what would not?
I would guess this references one of the traits of McMansions: their size. A super-sized house is analogous to the level of pride humans can construct. Their pride puffs them up in their own eyes. They impress themselves, just as a McMansion through its size and dubious architecture, tries to do in impressing neighbors and people passing by.
But the idea of the poem then is that the McMansion of hubris is demolished by the ash-delivered reminder that “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Large amounts of pride and large McMansions too will be brought low. McMansions might live on longer than many humans but they too will not last forever.
“We need for people to be in it. We need for them to, do as our plan: get out of the building, walk around town, eat in the restaurants, drink in the coffee shops, drink in the bars, that kind of thing.”
Once a development is built, it takes time for the suburb to consider the impact on the community. If suburbs are going to pursue more density in their downtowns, which can often contrast with lower density homes throughout the rest of the community, they want certain things from the high-density development. They want those residents to patronize downtown businesses and restaurants. They want money to flow within the downtown. They want a particular downtown atmosphere where people are out and about (and not too noisy).
What happens if this does not come to fruition? What if the new development does not fill up quickly or if the residents do not spend much time downtown? Perhaps the municipality will seek a critical mass of downtown development to be able to provide enough downtown residents. Or perhaps they will seek the right mix of downtown attractions with certain kinds of shops and eateries.
And how much development will a suburb seek in its downtown? It might depend on whether it is “successful” in the eyes of the community.
The pandemic left the heart of the Loop with vacant offices and stores as workers and customers stayed home, and more people began working remotely. Then, citing the impact of that lost business, the owners of those vacant offices won huge tax breaks from Cook County officials.
The amount of property taxes didn’t get smaller because those taxpayers were now paying less. The taxes were still needed to pay for government services and salaries. So others have had to pay more to make up for that shortfall.
On top of that shift, City Hall and other government agencies have been asking property owners to pay more taxes overall, with total property taxes in Chicago rising from $6.8 billion five years ago to $8.3 billion last year.
That’s a 22% increase in taxes citywide in those five years.
This is one reason municipal officials like thriving commercial and industrial sectors: they contribute to the property tax base of a community. When these properties are worth less, someone else has to pick up the slack. Homeowners do not like rapidly increasing property taxes, if they like property taxes at all.
For residential property owners, the issue is compounded for some because the value of residences has jumped in recent years. With limited new supply and consistent demand for good housing, property values have gone up. Homeowners like this – until property taxes also increase because their home values have increased.
Will residential property owners put up with this and, even if they do not like it, what recourse do they have? Does this mean cities and communities need to put on a full-court press to get office buildings filled or converted?
I have not studied this beyond the map but I am intrigued that the map seems to show a lot of libraries between roughly western Pennsylvania through Nebraska. The Midwest has a lot of libraries, except for Missouri which seems to have fewer. There are some pockets of libraries elsewhere; northern California, the Northeast. But Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, and other midwestern states have a lot of libraries.
Why the Midwest? A few ideas come to mind:
Its population is growing rapdily at this time. (Population growth in the South and West would come later and the East Coast already had established communities.)
Did Carnegie’s life in Pittsburgh connect him to life in other midwestern locales or familiarize him with midwestern values?
These communities valued civic institutions, like libraries.
If someone had come along in the 1960s and wanted to help fund civic buildings, how much different would the map look?
Giant White Houses are white, with jet-black accents: the shutters, the gutters, the rooves. They are giant—Hulk houses—swollen to the very limits of the legally allowed property setback, and unnaturally tall. They feature a mishmash of architectural features, combining, say, the peaked roof of a farmhouse with squared-off sections reminiscent of city townhomes. They mix horizontal siding, vertical paneling, and painted brick willy-nilly…
After speaking to realtors, architects, critics, and the guy who built the house next door, I’ve learned that the answer is more complicated than I’d imagined. It has to do with Chip and Joanna Gaines, Zillow, the housing crunch, the slim margins of the spec-home industry, and the evolution of minimalism. It has to do, most of all, with what a certain class of homebuyer even believes a house to be—whether they realize it or not.
I found at least a few of these houses among the 349 teardowns I examined in suburban Naperville, Illinois. I did not classify them as such but they were among the many homes with prominent triangular gables (and usually multiple ones on the front facade). They sometimes had porches. The primarily white exterior is unique compared to teardowns that mix brick, stone, siding (vertical or horizontal), and shingles.
At least in Naperville, these homes emerged in a particular context: a wealthy built-out suburb that was in demand, numerous older and smaller single-family homes located near the vibrant suburban downtown, and local regulations that allowed relatively large teardowns.
How many years until this particular style is no longer built in large numbers and is perceived to be from a particular era? This happens with different residential home styles. This was not the predominant style in the teardowns I looked at between 2008-2017. Does this have an even shorter shelf life if it is linked to the reach of Chip and Joanna Gaines (and perhaps is more prominent in communities where people watch HGTV)?
Americans like suburbs for multiple reasons. Some of these reasons might appear to support homeowners having chickens while others might seem to oppose it. A quick breakdown:
-Closer to nature: suburbanites keeping chickens feel they are closer to the land and to animals. Suburbs with chickens can feel more like rural areas.
-Middle-class aspirations: suburbanites pay a lot of attention to what yards should look like. For example, lush green grass is a preferred option in many places. Chickens can disturb this aesthetic. Or keeping chickens might be considered something that contributes to a lower status for a neighborhood or a community. At the same time, middle-class residents can tout the financial benefits of keeping chickens instead of paying for eggs.
-Single-family homes and the rights of property owners: suburbanites take property rights seriously. If you own your home, shouldn’t you have freedom to do with it what you want? However, many Americans live in HOAs that have particular standards or suburbanites live in communities where particular standards are maintained (such as the maximum length of the lawn). Is the ability to live a quiet suburban life with higher property values hampered if a neighbor has chickens?
Suburbanites could make arguments for chickens and against them out of the same common suburban values. This could mean that all of these debates are then local and depend on the context of the community. How many community members are in favor? How does the community view itself and do chickens fit into that vision? Do the current economic conditions push residents and leaders in one direction?
Two decades ago, the fire marshal in Glendale, Arizona, was concerned that the elevators in a new stadium wouldn’t be large enough to accommodate a 7-foot stretcher held flat. Tilting a stretcher to make it fit in the cab, the marshal worried, might jeopardize the treatment of a patient with a back injury. Maybe our elevators should be bigger, he thought.
The marshal put this idea to the International Code Council, the organization that governs the construction of American buildings. After minor feedback and minimal research (the marshal measured three stretchers in the Phoenix area), the suggestion was incorporated into the ICC’s model code. Based on one man’s hunch, most of the country’s new elevators grew by several square feet overnight. The medical benefits were not quantified, and the cost impact was reported as “none.”
It is one of the many small rules that have divorced our national building standards from the rest of the world. According to research by the building policy wonk Stephen Smith, who recounted this story in a report last year, changes like these are one reason it now costs three times as much to install an elevator in the U.S. than in Switzerland or South Korea.
Someone – individual or group – have to come up with the standards and then another organization implements them and advocates for them in the future. If this particular standard seems odd to people, what would stop others from proposing a different standard and working to get that implemented? How exactly is such a decision adjudicated?
I imagine most elevator users would not think about this when stepping into or stepping out of a larger elevator. It may seem spacious. They may notice when the elevator can hold a lot of people and/or items (suitcases or household goods on moving day). Would anyone lay down in the elevator and realize they can fit?
Implementing a new standard today would take a while to work through the system as new elevators start showing up. Thirty years from now, someone could look back and mention the day when the standard changed (and perhaps give the reasons why it changed). Until then, we have a certain elevator size that can accommodate a seven foot stretcher.
The humble bungalow made it possible for Chicagoans to realize the American Dream of home ownership. In the first part 20th century, between 80,000 and 100,000 bungalows were built in Cook County. The majority went up between the end of World War I and the beginning of the Great Depression, making many about 100 years old. Many were home to first-generation immigrants. They formed an arc around the city’s center known as the Bungalow Belt.
It “stretches all around the city, from South Shore to Marquette Park, out west to Austin to the Northwest Side and West Rogers Park,” Dominic Pacyga, a Columbia College urbanologist, told the Tribune in 2000…
In 1997, a Tribune declared: “Bungalows Were Better Than A Place To Live. They Told The World Who You Were” over a story that declared the humble home to be “an idea, a symbol, a trophy, a style, an approach to life.”…
Chicago’s bungalow builders left that idea behind, while appropriating the concept that the middle class deserved homes with little artistic touches, like those the wealthy took for granted: leaded window glass, red or yellow brick with checkerboard patterns, bay fronts either octagonal, squared or rounded.
Three quick thoughts:
This highlights the coming and going of residential architectural styles. This design emerged in a particular era, took off, and now has been replaced by other designs that address the wants of residents and builders and that also became symbols of joining the middle class. (See the suburban ranch home or the McMansion.)
How exactly does a particular home style become a status symbol? The article hints at the role of developers (selling the image that goes with this particular home), politicians (promoting the style and protecting the homes in later decades), and residents. Could we add in famous cultural works that take place in or highlight or celebrate the bungalow? The role of zoning officials and historic preservationists?
How many of these homes initially were owned by white residents of Chicago and how much has this changed over time? How much did bungalows contribute to long-standing patterns of residential segregation and differences in wealth among homeowners?
The only invention that did more than hydrogenation to cement peanut butter in the hearts (and mouths) of America’s youth was sliced bread—introduced by a St. Louis baker in the late 1920s—which made it easy for kids to construct their own PB&Js. (In this century, the average American kid eats some 1,500 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches before graduating from high school.)
Rosefield went on to found Skippy, which debuted crunchy peanut butter and wide-mouth jars in the 1930s. In World War II, tins of (hydrogenated) Skippy were shipped with service members overseas, while the return of meat rationing at home again led civilians to peanut butter. Even today, when American expats are looking for a peanut butter fix, they often seek out military bases: They’re guaranteed to stock it.
But while peanut butter’s popularity abroad is growing—in 2020, peanut butter sales in the United Kingdom overtook sales of the Brits’ beloved jam—enjoying the spread is still largely an American quirk. “People say to me all the time, ‘When did you know that you had fully become an American?’” Ana Navarro, a Nicaraguan-born political commentator, told NPR in 2017. “And I say, ‘The day I realized I loved peanut butter.’”
Though the United States lags behind China and India in peanut harvest, Americans still eat far more of the spread than the people in any other country: It’s a gooey taste of nostalgia, for childhood and for American history. “What’s more sacred than peanut butter?” Iowa Senator Tom Harkin asked in 2009, after a salmonella outbreak was traced back to tainted jars. By 2020, when Skippy and Jif released their latest peanut butter innovation—squeezable tubes—nearly 90 percent of American households reported consuming peanut butter.
How many lists of American food would include peanut butter?
How many images of American life would include peanut butter in them?
Or what would Americans replace peanut butter with if it was gone?
How does the number of PB&Js kids eat compare to other kinds of sandwiches they eat?
Legally Sociable 