“DuPage County is becoming remarkably cool” is an outcome of complex suburbia

Posted on by

The Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune recently noted the opportunities available in DuPage County, Illinois:

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

If you’re not doing anything Thursday evening, swing by the park for a bit of Shakespeare, a signature cocktail and an interesting bite or two from a selection of food trucks. What park? Why, Cantigny Park, in DuPage County, of course. Where else would anyone go for a hip summer evening out in the Chicago area?

Long overshadowed by Cook County when it comes to cool stuff to see and do, DuPage County is starting to change its image as a boring suburban haven for people intimidated by life in the big city.

The editorial also notes the “good government” and diversity of the county:

The occasional scandal aside, we think of DuPage as being a haven for good government compared with the rest of the state, owing in no small part to the 12-year tenure of Dan Cronin as chair of the DuPage County Board. Cronin, a native of Elmhurst, set a singular example for reducing the size and cost of county government and we were sorry to see him step down.

Democrats have turned the tables in this longtime GOP bastion, holding a majority on the board for the first time in decades. In November, voters elected the county’s first woman as board chair to replace Cronin. After her election, longtime Illinois state Rep. Deb Conroy noted that her predecessors on the board had been white men. “And today that is not the face of DuPage County,” she said. “DuPage County today is richly diverse.”

As chair, Conroy should aim to extend Cronin’s proud legacy of efficient government, while ensuring this important part of the state is inclusive and equitable.

The contrast in this editorial is the city of Chicago and Cook County. The city is supposed to be the place of cool scenes, art exhibits, and exciting entertainment options. These are now available in the suburbs?!

I would put this recognition as part of a longer process of suburban development. At this point, DuPage County has had over seven decades of suburban postwar growth. It is a wealthy suburban county with plenty of jobs and economic opportunities. Before the postwar era, the county had roughly one hundred years of history involving the arrival of white settlers and the removal of Native residents, the coming of the railroad that connected the county to Chicago and other parts of the Midwest, the founding of small towns throughout the county, and the start of suburbanization on the eastern edges of the county.

This means the county has had plenty of time to mature and develop. Suburban greenfield growth is pretty much done and the population has grown less than 2% each decade since 2000. More communities have focused on infill development, redevelopment, and enhancing their downtowns (or trying to create community nodes if they did not have a downtown). There are plenty of institutional and community resources to draw on and wealthier residents to spend money. The demographics and social priorities of county have changed.

Additionally, people can live, work, go to school, find interesting restaurants and shopping spots, and more all within the suburbs. Chicago does offer unique opportunities and places but many suburbanites spend a majority of their time closer to home.

Is DuPage County cool? Or, are the suburbs more complex than an image of quiet and staid communities that provide bedrooms for urban jobs and exciting city opportunities?

(One note: the coolness the Editorial Board cites does not likely extend to all suburbs. The piece notes particular communities and opportunities. How many entertainment centers can the suburbs have? Suburbia is full of uneven development and inequalities.)

More Americans live in a single-person household in cities

Posted on by

With reports this week that 29% of American households include just one person, where are more of these single-person households located?

Photo by Timur Saglambilek on Pexels.com

Living alone is much more common in large cities. Singles now make up more than 40 percent of households in Atlanta, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Denver, according to a paper by the British historian Keith Snell. Half of all Manhattan dwellings are one-person residences. Snell identified a Midtown Census tract where 94 percent of households comprised a single person. 

There are likely a lot of factors influencing these numbers in cities. This includes available jobs and economic conditions, family formation processes, cultural and entertainment opportunities, and housing options.

There are also old American narratives about where families live. How about the story about young people in the big city forming families or households, having kids, and then leaving for the suburbs? Do cities provide more opportunities for people in single-person households?

It would be interesting to see the variation in single-person households within and across American cities. Certain cities are listed above at over 40% and certain Manhattan neighborhoods are cited. Does this also mean the numbers are quite different in other New York City neighborhoods or in other American big cities?

Adding American flags to a suburban hotel fountain

Posted on by

It is July 4th, a holiday that leads to displays of American flags almost anywhere. Here is a recent scene outside a suburban hotel:

Having flags near a fountain in a public park would not be unusual. It might be less expected to see flags surrounding a fountain in front of a hotel on private property not easily visible from the main road. And these flags are in addition to an American flag on a pole just a few feet away.

The public display of flags has been building for days and today is the day to celebrate. I wonder how many flags I could count on a typical trip through my suburban area…

When living in a suburbia of McMansions is good and when it is not

Posted on by

Here are two different stories involving living among McMansions. Let’s start with a positive take on McMansions from someone who moved from New Zealand to Australia:

Photo by David McBee on Pexels.com

Money and a chance to do something new was my draw to Australia. I picked up a $140,000 IT role in central Melbourne, which was a 40% increase over my New Zealand salary. Pretty much everything here was cheaper at the time, with the comparison of renting out my three bedroom Johnsonville house in New Zealand for slightly less than I rented a five bedroom McMansion in western Melbourne…

In terms of housing we sold our small Johnsonville house in 2021 for $1.3 million, and bought a significantly bigger property with a pool here about 15km from the CBD for $975,000. The value for money was a no-brainer.

The takeaway here is that the McMansion in Australia is larger and cheaper than housing in New Zealand.

Here is a different perspective on McMansions from someone living further out in the suburbs of Texas:

We’re deep in a Texas suburb less than a minute from a major highway. As a semi-city-adapted human, it’s a culture shock. I’m not used to jumping on the freeway for a quick grocery run. Or driving 30 minutes to get a decent breakfast sandwich. On top of that, I’m a black woman with facial piercings and a bunch of tattoos surrounded by white Republicans.

It’s… an adjustment.

I can’t walk anywhere, the traffic sucks, and the lack of small businesses and diversity around here is eerily dystopian. It feels like the walls of Starbucks, Orange Theory, and Olive Garden are closing in on me. The only close-by establishments are big-box stores, chain restaurants, and mega-churches. It’s gentrified in the worst possible way…

I understand the appeal of wide open fields and expansive landscapes, but most people don’t live there. Most people live in towns with overlapping, 5-lane highways and poorly constructed McMansions. They live in towns surrounded by giant HEBs.

In the sprawling American suburbs, McMansions are part of a landscape with limited community, walkability, and local character.

These two experiences highlight two perspectives on McMansions: are they a good deal offering residents the best bang for their buck or are they part of a soulless suburbia dependent on cars and chain establishments? Plenty of Americans align with one side or the other.

Could metropolitan areas have NIMBY-free zones for land uses residents do not want to live near but that are needed in the region?

Posted on by

After considering several recent NIMBY cases in the Chicago region (a football stadium, addiction treatment facility, waste transfer station), I had an idea: could a region develop a central zone where important but less desirable land uses could be placed and everyone in the region could benefit without having to live near them? Noisier, dirtier, and busier facilities could be separated from residences and a central location could mean more people in the region could access them.

Photo by Magda Ehlers on Pexels.com

I suppose this could happen now without the need for a NIMBY zone. Municipalities might put less desirable land uses on their edges or against certain barriers, like bodies of water or transportation corridors. Or some communities are willing to pursue industrial and commercial land uses rather than single-family homes.

But, one big advantage of a zone managed for the whole region is that the overseers could be freed from the concerns of residents. Balancing land uses in suburbs is often tricky as existing residents and leaders often have strong opinions about what and who they think might fit. And because local government officials often need to be elected or are appointed by elected officials, there are certain consequences for land use and development decisions.

Take the Chicago region as one example. Imagine creating a zone around O’Hare Airport where a number of less desirable land uses could be clustered. It would take time to develop this and address the concerns of people who live there. But, a location near highways and a busy airport means this could be a site where clustering certain facilities could benefit the entire region.

New York Times finds more suburbanites complaining about pickleball noise

Posted on by

Pickleball produces noise and some suburbanites across the country are not happy about it:

Photo by Mason Tuttle on Pexels.com

Sports can produce all kinds of unpleasant noises: referees’ whistles, rancorous boos, vuvuzelas. But the most grating and disruptive sound in the entire athletic ecosystem right now may be the staccato pop-pop-pop emanating from America’s rapidly multiplying pickleball courts.

The sound has brought on a nationwide scourge of frayed nerves and unneighborly clashes — and those, in turn, have elicited petitions and calls to the police and last-ditch lawsuits aimed at the local parks, private clubs and homeowners associations that rushed to open courts during the sport’s recent boom.

The hubbub has given new meaning to the phrase racket sport, testing the sanity of anyone within earshot of a game.

People from a number of communities are interviewed about the noise. The suburbs figure prominently in this list of the communities cited:

-Arlington, VA: suburb of Washington, D.C.

-Wellesley, MA: suburb of Boston

-York, ME: suburb of Portland

-Scottsdale, AZ: suburb of Phoenix

-Longboat Key, FL: suburb of Sarasota

-West Linn, OR: suburb of Portland

-Falmouth, MA: in the Barnstable Town MSA

Is this a primarily suburban problem? It may not be exclusive to suburbs – see this earlier post about noise complaints in Chicago – but pickleball is growing in popularity among suburbanites and suburbs have a lot of single-family homes whose owners do not appreciate noises or other threats to their private lives.

Will this continue to be a suburb-by-suburb problem, is there a solution that can be effective across suburbs, and/or will this problem spread to kinds of American communities?

What you see when you drive in American cities: signs

Posted on by

After seeing plenty of vehicles and buildings while driving recently through cities, I also observed a lot of signs. When driving at fast speeds, large signs are necessary so that drivers can read them and so that they catch people’s attention.

Photo by Charles Parker on Pexels.com

What can be learned from these signs? Here are a few of the domains:

-Information about roadways. From street signs to exit signs, there is a uniformity to information drivers need to navigate. These signs can help a driver navigate a complicated city full of other vehicles and buildings.

-Information about goods and services. Advertising signs are all over the place. They might be for a particular brand, a product, a store or restaurant, or an experience. While road signs are bland and to the point, advertisements tend use more images and text to deliver a particular message.

-Information about local attractions. These could be simple notes on highway signs for a stadium or park or more elaborate advertisement for specific local institutions.

In other words, there are a lot of signs vying for a driver’s attention. If there is time to read even most of the signs (such as being stuck in traffic or at an intersection), they can reveal much about the location and the city. But, add all these signs to the buildings and vehicles and it can be hard to take it all in.

What you see when you drive in American cities: buildings

Posted on by

Continuing a short series on what I observed of cities in recent driving journeys, I noticed many buildings. This included residences, businesses, office buildings, schools, skyscrapers in the bigger cities, and more. Some are newer, some are older.

Photo by Joey Kyber on Pexels.com

Driving by at a fast speed, it is easier to observe a sizable building. A really tall structure might be visible for miles. A long structure means a driver has a few seconds to see the building while driving by. Small buildings go by really quickly. The single-family home, an American favorite, is hard to see well at high speeds.

The scale between vehicles, buildings, and roadways can be interesting. Highways might be above the ground, at ground level, or below ground. Because of the highway speed, they are not at the same spatial scale as local roadways. Buildings can tower over a roadway, making it difficult to see over or around them.

The view from the highway does not always present the best side of buildings. In denser areas, the back side of buildings tend to face the highway as their primary orientation is toward a local street. However, some buildings, including suburban office buildings, are set back a bit more from highways and offer different views. Driving down major roads (not highways) in cities can often present a range of structures within a short amount of space. In a land where land uses can be rather uniform in places, the variety of urban structures can make for a fun sight.

While this is not new, I was reminded on these recent drives that many American buildings have hard or cold exteriors. This means a lot of brick, stone, metal, or glass. These materials might be durable or fit a particular style, but this does not mean the buildings necessarily look inviting or warm.

What you see when you drive in American cities: lots of motor vehicles

Posted on by

In recently driving in and around several big cities, I was struck by what I could (and could not) see. I certainly observed a lot of motor vehicles on highways and roads.

Photo by Miguel Barrera on Pexels.com

It is long evident that Americans prioritize cars and trucks on their roads. There might be room for some pedestrians (be safe!), mass transit, and bicyclists and scooter users but these are not as numerous as all of the cars and trucks.

The range of vehicles really does run the gamut. On the same major roads, one can find all sorts of trucks (delivery trucks, dump trucks, tankers, car carriers, etc.) and cars ranging from expensive luxury models to those who look pieced together to newer electric vehicles. If I wanted to see what Americans are driving for personal and business trips, I would recommend driving some of the highways that go right through urban centers and one can observe a wide variety.

Even with at least some people working from home, there are plenty of vehicles at many hours of the day. For many residents and companies, it is easiest to go via vehicle than other option. Driving is still a preferred method, even in cities with busy roadways.

If a driver truly wanted to be safe and only focus on the road around them, there is plenty to see. On many of these busy roads, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of vehicles might pass by each day.

Pedestrian deaths in US hit record, continue to rise

Posted on by

Keep safe, American pedestrians:

Photo by Ketut Subiyanto on Pexels.com

More than 7,500 people were killed last year after being struck by vehicles while walking along or across U.S. roadways — the most pedestrian deaths in more than four decades, according to a new report.

This sobering trend was not surprising to experts who track the numbers. But they were dismayed by the consistent increase — up 77% since 2010.

The article goes on to suggest multiple possible reasons for the increase. In a society that privileges driving, pedestrians need to exercise caution.

From a social problems perspective, at what point would pedestrian deaths become a sufficient issue that people and governments would devote significant resources to addressing it? I am trying to imagine a pedestrian lobby that brings together different groups and it is hard to envision such a movement coming together. Perhaps it requires major marches on population centers? Could local walkers or walking groups join together with park districts, outdoor companies, and others with a stake in pedestrian activity to collectively act? The ability to walk safely should be prioritized, but it is not the primary concern in transportation or with roadways.

(Additionally, American roadways are not safe for drivers either. According to one source, “The United States has the most traffic deaths per capita of any developed country.”)