American preferences for returning to a past decade shaped by when they grew up, their politics

Posted on by

The Economist reports on a recent poll that asked Americans which decade to which they would wish to return:

In our latest weekly Economist/YouGov poll, we asked Americans which decade of the 20th century they would most like to go back to. Most popular was the 1950s. The decade of economic boom following the second world war is regarded as a time of consumerism, conservatism and cold-war caution. It was an age of stay-at-home wives, novel household appliances and new suburbs—yet was also most popular among women. The haze of Woodstock and Haight-Ashbury in the 1960s rolled up in second place. Republicans in particular preferred the morally uncomplicated 1950s under President Eisenhower and the 1980s of Reagan; Democrats tended to opt for Bill Clinton’s 1990s. In general, people yearned for their youth. Over 50% of those over 65 wanted to revisit the 1950s and 1960s, while 45- to 64-year-olds pined for the 1980s. The youngest were torn between the jazz age of the 1920s and the 1990s, their own salad days.

On one hand, this might be somewhat meaningless: stereotypes of entire decades are much too simplistic and even The Economist falls into that trap in their descriptions. On the other hand, perhaps knowing what decade people would prefer to return to helps give us some indication of what people are trying to accomplish now. If your preferred era is the 1950s, you might pursue different social norms and policies compared to something who most fondly recalls the 1960s. Indeed, conservatives and liberals might both want to push such a narrative: Republicans to return to the prosperous and calm 1950s (maybe also their vision of the 1980s) while Democrats would prefer the more liberating and exciting 1960s (and perhaps also the 1990s).

Want better crash test ratings for your car? Have a trunk in the front

Posted on by

The latest model from Tesla Motors received high marks in crash-test ratings. What is the secret to the safety of this electric car?

The luxury electric sedan earned an overall safety rating of five out of five stars from the federal agency, Tesla announced Tuesday. It also earned at least five stars in every category, a feat that puts it in the top 1 percent of cars tested by NHTSA…

Because the $70,000-plus electric car does not require a large gasoline engine block, there is added room in the front of the car for crumple zones, which absorb energy from front-end collisions. The motor is only about a foot in diameter and is mounted close to the rear axle, away from the most common impact zones. The car’s front section is instead used as a second trunk.

“A longer crumple zone means there’s a longer period of time in which the crash is unfolding,” said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which has not yet tested the Model S. “The vehicle can slow down over a longer period of time, which benefits the people inside.”

In its press release, Tesla compares it to a diver jumping into a pool of water from a tall height. “[I]t is better to have the pool be deep and not contain rocks.”

Didn’t more cars in the past have the engines in the rear? This idea could prompt all sorts of government action: why not require, or at least strongly recommend, the front of the car should not have an engine for safety reasons? Perhaps Tesla is doing some other interesting things with their design to minimize crash damage but this seems like an “easy” fix to the number of injuries and fatalities in cars each year.

Crazy city plan of the day: fill in the Hudson River for development in NYC

Posted on by

I’m convinced all major cities have these sorts of crazy plans floating around in their past. Here is one from New York City: dam up the Hudson River so that the land is available for development.

The quest to turn the Hudson into New York’s trendiest new ‘hood, which today no doubt would be stamped with a sexy name like West Chelsea or Watertown, received an amazing five pages of coverage in the March 1934 edition of Modern Mechanix, that non-stop malfunctioning megaphone of bad ideas. Sper seemed earnest in his appraisal of the fill job being within the “abilities of modern engineers,” who were coming off a hot streak of major infrastructure projects…

Critics might cry that the proposal would destroy what remained of the natural beauty of the urban Hudson, ratchet up air pollution and the heat-island effect, and destroy almost half of Manhattan’s beloved and valuable waterfront real estate. But just think of the possibilities of a sixth borough in New York, Sper argued. The mythical land mass would double the number of avenues in Manhattan, relieving daily traffic jams (to those about to point out there would be much more parking and thus more cars, shush). Then there would be the boost to the economy from the construction of electric and commuting infrastructure, as well as the profitable leasing of buildings on 99-year plans, because nothing says desirable location than “sited below a dam.” The subterranean commuters’ labyrinth also would be a “great military defense against gas attack in case of war,” Sper’s reasoning went, “for in it would be room for practically the entire population of the city.”

This was not the first scheme to transform one of New York’s rivers into money-growing terra firma. “I recall some years ago a man named Thompson had a plan to fill in the Harlem River and eliminate the East River entirely,” said one prominent engineer interviewed for the Mechanix piece. And in 2009, Charles Urstadt, the former head of the Battery Park City Authority, suggested doing the same thing by damming the Harlem on both ends to create “thriving neighbors.” As he put it in an editorial in The New York Times: “To ignore today’s opportunities would leave Manhattan lagging behind other forward-looking places like Dubai, Hong Kong, Tokyo and the Netherlands, all of which have reclaimed land from the waters around them.”

In hindsight, this plan seems ridiculous. Yet, it does raise some interesting questions. What if Manhattan wasn’t such a dense island because there was more room to expand? Filling in the river might lead to more economic growth plus more affordable housing. What exactly does New York City do with the Hudson right now anyway? Compared to some other places that have used the waterfront as a means for spurring development as well as creating parks and recreational areas, the Hudson doesn’t quite have the same reputation.

One idea to take away from this is that cities and leaders shouldn’t necessarily fill in land just because they can. At the same time, plenty of important urban land was fill-in. Try to imagine Chicago ending at Michigan Avenue.

Don’t think that buying a McMansion will make you happy

Posted on by

A new book titled Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending suggests buying a nice home does not lead to greater happiness:

What could possibly be more satisfying than ditching that old starter home you and your spouse moved into during your broke newlywed years?

Two studies cited in “Happy Money” prove otherwise.

When researchers followed groups of German homeowners five years after they moved into new homes, they all wound up saying they were happier with their newer house. But there was one problem: They weren’t any happier with their lives. The same was true in a study of Ohio homeowners in which it turned out they weren’t any happier with their lives than renters.

“Even in the heart of middle America, housing seems to play a surprisingly small role in the successful pursuit of happiness,” Dunn and Norton write. “If the largest material purchase most of us will ever make provides no detectable benefit for our overall happiness, then it may be time to rethink our fundamental assumptions about how we use money.”

Regardless of whether someone owns a McMansion or not, this goes against a lot of the American Dream. Critics argue McMansions aren’t great purchases because of their poor design, environmental impact, poor community life, and other issues, yet people have continued to buy larger houses in recent decades. At the same time, some of these critics would tell McMansion owners to buy homes that better fit their individual needs. What unites these approaches to homes is the idea that people are better off having purchased a home. Perhaps they are in the eyes of society – indeed, people once argued homeownership would keep people from taking an interest in communism. But, if this research holds up, then perhaps we should retire the argument that individuals will be more satisfied as homeowners and stick to making a civic or community-oriented pitch for homeownership.

Including city smells in urban sociology

Posted on by

The word Chicago may be linked to smelling onions so why not try to track down distinctive smells in Chicago?

It’s a gorgeous Friday afternoon in July, and we’re walking through Archer Park with Diego and Juliet’s nine-year-old daughter Paula. We’ve gone in search of Juliet’s latest smell interest, an odor she noticed last fall when Paula was taking tumbling classes at the park. While Paula practiced forward rolls, Juliet and Diego killed time at the playground. And that’s where she smelled it: the unmistakable, nostalgic odor of Silly Putty.

Haven’t heard about Silly Putty in a while or maybe never? Well, it’s the putty that bounces, stretches, and (most bizarrely) snaps when given a blow, and it comes in a plastic egg. According to Juliet, it also has a distinctive “plastic-y chemical type of smell.” It’s this smell she recalls wafting over the playground from Archer Park’s industrial western edge on those fall evenings…

All this assumes of course that the city’s odor detectives are successful in tracking down an odor’s source. What happens, I ask, in cases like ours where investigators show up only to find that the smell has left the building? Omenazu says this happens a lot, and unfortunately, there’s not much the city can do.

“Odor is very transient,” he says. “It might be intense now, but in the next ten minutes, it’s gone.”

Smell also poses the additional challenge of being a moving target. “Sometimes it’s from Indiana” Omenazu says. “Sometimes it’s from as far away as Peoria. There was a case of a gas smell that everybody was smelling. … People’s Gas discovered that [the leak] wasn’t even in Chicago.” One complaint and one investigation may yield nothing, but Omenazu suggests persistence usually wins out. When I ask him how often he inspects facilities, he says if there are complaints “then we visit them as many times as we get complaints.”

All of this makes me think that somehow urban sociology has failed to deliver on urban smells. What we often say or show about cities often has to do with sight and sounds. Think of maps, impressive photos, words on a page, movies. But isn’t a key part of the urban experience the smells? For example, walking around in New York City during ASA two weekends ago was not only an impressive visual and auditory experience: there were plenty of competing smells. And, I would contend that midtown Manhattan smells a little different on the whole than Chicago’s Loop.

There is no easy way to put smells back into descriptions of cities outside of visiting them. However, it is a key part of experiencing cities and should not be overlooked.

1989 = a fine year for McMansions

Posted on by

A description of Rob Pattinson’s new Beverly Hills rental includes a funny bit about the year it was built:

Poooooor rich, rakish Rob Pattinson had to abandon his lovely Los Feliz home because it harbored “too many memories” of his life with cheating ex Kristen Stewart. Those two! We could’ve sworn they were still dating. Anyway, he’s finally found a new place to stay, reportedly–a McMansion rental in a part of Beverly Hills “that is so close to Studio City it might as well be Studio City,” as the Real Estalker puts it (it’s in The Summit off Mulholland near Coldwater). The five-bedroom house was built in 1989, a terrific year for McMansions, and comes with six bathrooms, a dining room, a library, a den with an oak sports bar, and a pool and spa. It sold in April for $3.7 million but it’s totally unclear what Pattinson is paying (it was listed for $15k a month last year before it sold). Meanwhile, RE hears that the previous owner was Lisa Marie Presley, “who quietly leased it to a slew of celebs including Cate Blanchett, Pete Sampras, and Shaquille O’Neal.”

McMansions were indeed constructed in 1989 but the term did not enter into wide usage until the late 1990s and early 2000s. I know the line is meant to be a joke but it might be interesting to compare the 1989 models versus those of other years to check their vintage…

New luxury NYC condo building gives affordable housing residents their own back entrance

Posted on by

A new luxury condo building in New York City has space for affordable housing – but those residents have to use a separate, back entrance:

The poor will use a separate door under plans for a new Upper West Side luxury tower — where affordable housing will be segregated from ritzy waterfront condos despite being in the same building.

Manhattan developer Extell is seeking millions in air rights and tax breaks for building 55 low-income units at 40 Riverside Boulevard, but the company is sequestering the cash-poor tenants who make the lucrative incentives possible.

Five floors of affordable housing will face away from the Hudson River and have a separate entrance, elevator and maintenance company, while 219 market-rate condominiums will overlook the waterfront…

“It’s a blatant attempt to segregate people,” fumed Rosenthal, who is demanding that HPD deny Extell’s request for tax breaks. “It’s just not a good thing for the city of New York to be supporting.”“I hate the visual of market-rate tenants going in one door and affordable tenants going in another, but that’s a visceral reaction,” Diller said.

I’m not sure we should be all that surprised. Developers generally don’t want to construct affordable housing because it cuts into the profits they could make. This is particularly the case in dense areas like Manhattan where land is at a premium and using some of the space for affordable housing means leaving money on the table. So, if the city is going to offer tax breaks for including some affordable housing units (and this is a common strategy for encouraging affordable housing), why wouldn’t a developer want to separate the exits so the wealthy can think they live in a building solely with other wealthy people (and will pay more for this appearance)?

On the other hand, perhaps New York needs to add to what it means by “affordable housing.” It is one thing just to require units. It is another to place wealthier and less-wealthy residents closer together so they might actually interact. This is the sort of “black box” behind mixed-income neighborhoods that replaced public housing high-rises in many American cities. The idea is that more regular contact between wealthier and less wealthy residents will help those less wealthy residents in the long run.

Should you study love in a sociology course?

Posted on by

I’ve seen multiple stories about a new sociology course on love at a university in India. Here is one such story:

The battle of superiority between natural and social sciences is being played out at one of India‘s oldest universities and good old Love may just become a casualty.

Among general education courses to familiarise humanities and science students with each others’ disciplines, Kolkata’s Presidency University is offering unique optional papers like “Digital Humanities”, “The Physics of Everyday Life”, and “Love” – likely to be option number 1 for most undergraduate students!

The subject of Love, hitherto the premise of departments of English and Philosophy, will be addressed for the first time by a department of sociology in an Indian university. The only other known precedent is the Sociology of Love undergraduate course offered at the University of Massachusetts in the US…

Roy hopes to cover several elements of Love – from Love-as-romance to Love-as-industry. He is hoping to bank on Love theorists like Anthony Giddens, Zygmunt Bauman and Eric Fromm, who have enriched sociological discourses with “The Transformation of Intimacy; Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies” , “Liquid Love” and “The Art of Loving” respectively.

My first thought is a line that I have provided to Introduction to Sociology students: if humans are involved in any way, sociologists can and will study it. Considering there is not a shortage of writing and commentary about love, sociologists should study it.

But, several articles, including this one, seem to hint at a different sort of issue: by applying social science methods to love, do social scientists change what love is? If it is shown to be influenced by social forces and norms, does this demean love? This sounds a bit silly to me: we know there is a more individual component to love (emotions, though this individualistic idea ), we know there is a physical dimension (the response of the body), and we know there is a social dimension (what love is and how it is expressed differs). Sociologists often “pull back the curtain” on social behavior but this doesn’t necessarily mean it ruins the experience of love. On the contrary, it may just enlighten people about the social dimensions of love.

Another idea. A number of social scientists have been behind the creation of popular dating websites (great phrase: “algorithms of love”): a psychologist is behind eHarmony.com, a sociologist is behind perfectmatch.com, and an anthropologist developed the algorithm behind chemistry.com. These social scientists have helped develop the idea that love can be scientific, that there are patterns that can be applied in a waiting market where plenty of people want such “Scientific” matching.

Crafting the perfect Gothic McMansion in a 21st century novel

Posted on by

A review of the new novel Fallen Land suggests the McMansion at the heart of the book plays a big role:

The McMansion, that derisively nicknamed trophy home of suburban arrivistes, is different things to all people: the darling of building contractors, the forest-guzzling residential equivalent of the SUV to land preservationists.

Among American practitioners of the modern Gothic novel, the McMansion has rarely been rendered with the resplendent gloom of, say, Shirley Jackson’s Hill House, or the majesterial melancholy of Edgar Allan Poe’s House of Usher. In his smashing followup to his formidable debut novel “Absolution,” however, Patrick Flanery has fashioned a crumbling 21st-century manor that can hold its own among those authors’ most sepulchral, ALLEGORICAL inspirations.

The trappings of “Fallen Land’’ are pure old-school Hollywood. Imagine a housing development that evokes the splashy-cum-sinister Victorian fantasy of “Meet Me in St. Louis” and Hitchcock’s “Shadow of a Doubt” and you have Dolores Woods, a Midwestern subdivision committed to a regressive aesthetic “in which the past was preferable and this country was at its greatest before it tried to tear itself apart in the middle of the nineteenth century.” The community’s pastiche array of gabled roofs and picket fences disguise the jerry-built nature of its construction: pop-up palaces whose yawning spaces and teetering infrastructure “terrify where they were meant to comfort,” the American Dream turned nightmare.

The development’s showpiece, classically enough, has been erected atop the site of tragic events from a darker epoch whose emotional undercurrents will haunt the home’s new tenants, Julia and Nathaniel Noailles. The Noailles have relocated from Boston with their smart, idiosyncratic son Copley (named for the hotel address where he was conceived) in pursuit of snazzier positions: she with a university lab, he with a mega-corporation that powers virtually every private enterprise on earth, including the fascistic private school in which Copley is newly installed.

I’ve noted before that the McMansion has become a popular tragic setting for modern stories. See this post about McMansions and horror films. The McMansion represents a hollow setting, a place that may look impressive but is empty at its core. The people who inhabit such homes are similar: people who thought purchasing a big home would bring satisfaction but are sadly mistaken. Even worse, the inhabitants – and it sounds like those in Fallen Land fit the bill – might be bad people, the kinds who squander money, are mean or amoral, and are up to nefarious purposes. All together, these stories suggest at the least that tragedies befall those in McMansions with the stronger argument that those who live in McMansions and their homes are rotten to the core.

Perhaps my argument would be strengthened by searching for counterfactuals: can we find many positive depictions of McMansion dwellers in novels, movies, TV shows, etc.?

The Chicago School model of urban growth doesn’t quite fit…but neither do other models

Posted on by

Sociologist Andy Beveridge adds to the ongoing debate within urban sociology over the applicability of the Chicago School’s model of growth:

Ultimately, Beveridge’s interesting analysis found that the basic Chicago School pattern held for the early part of the 20th century and even into the heyday of American post-war suburbanization. But more recently, the process and pattern of urban development has diverged in ways that confound this classic model…

The pattern of urban growth and decline has become more complicated in the past couple of decades as urban centers, including Chicago, have come back. “When one looks at the actual spatial patterning of growth,” Beveridge notes, “one can find evidence that supports exponents of the Chicago, Los Angeles and New York schools of urban studies in various ways.” Many cities have vigorously growing downtowns, as the New York model would suggest, but outlying areas that are developing without any obvious pattern, as in the Los Angeles model.

The second set of maps (below) get at this, comparing Chicago in the decades 1910-20 and 1990-2000. In the first part of the twentieth century, decline was correlated with decline in adjacent downtown areas, shown here in grey. Similarly, growth was correlated with growth in more outlying suburbs, shown here in black. In the earlier period growth radiated outwards — a close approximate of the Chicago school concentric zone model. But in the more recent map, growth and decline followed less clear patterns. Some growth concentrated downtown, while other areas outside the city continued to boom, in ways predicted more accurately by the New York and Los Angeles models. The islands of grey and black–which indicate geographic correlations of decline and growth, respectively–are far less systematic. As Beveridge writes, the 1990-2000 map shows very little patterning. There were “areas of clustered high growth (both within the city and in the suburbs), as well as decline near growth, growth near decline, and decline near decline.”

Interesting research. It sounds like the issue is not necessarily the models of growth but how widely they are applied within a metropolitan region. Assuming the same processes are taking place over several hundred square miles is making too much of a leap. We might then need to look at smaller areas or types of areas as well as micro processes.

This reminds me that when teaching urban sociology this past spring and reading as a class about the Chicago School, New York School, and Los Angeles School, students wanted to discuss why sociologists seem to want one theory to explain all cities. This isn’t necessarily the case; we know cities are different, particularly when you get outside of an American or Western context. At the same time, we are interested in trying to better understand the underlying processes surrounding city change. Plus, Chicago, New York, and LA have had organized (sometimes more strongly, sometimes more loosely) groups based in important schools pushing theories (and we don’t have such schools in places like Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Portland, etc.).