Tag Archives: development

Starbucks as a symbol of neighborhood or community success, closing locations edition

Posted on by

Starbucks recently announced they will close some locations:

Photo by Well Naves on Pexels.com

While Starbucks has yet to disclose the total number of closings or the specific locations, Niccol said in his open letter that the company would end the fiscal year with nearly 18,300 stores in North America, which is down from 18,734 at the end of the third quarter, according to financial filings.

This is national news but it also has local ramifications. For several decades, having a Starbucks in a neighborhood or community signals some level of local success. Starbucks does not locate just anywhere – even with over 18,000 locations in North America – and each location hints at the potential local customers who purchase coffee and other goods. And closing locations also involves local jobs.

Workers rallied Thursday at the Starbuck’s store at Clark Street and Ridge Avenue in Chicago’s Edgewater neighborhood, one of the locations targeted for closure, according to the union. The store is set to work its coffee grinders and espresso machines for the last time Saturday…

On a crisp and sunny fall Saturday morning, a few customers filtered into the Glencoe Starbucks to get their last coffee at their local shop, and to say their goodbyes to the baristas. The store was set to close for good that evening. The store employees will find out Sunday if they’ve been transferred to another store or laid off, a barista said while whipping up a coffee.

Even as the number of store closings appears to be relatively small – perhaps several hundred out of more than 18,000 – it will be interesting to see how local communities are affected. If a Starbucks closes in a city neighborhood or in a suburb, does this then mean a loss of status or hint at decline? Some of this might depend on what goes into where the Starbucks was located. Will another national chain move in? Could a local business fill the gap? Will whatever ends up there provide the same status and tax revenue?

On the other hand, some people have concerns about Starbucks. It is a national brand and some prefer to see local businesses do well. Starbucks can be viewed as part of gentrification, changes to communities that displace long-term residents in favor of new residents with more resources and new expectations. A closed Starbucks presents a new opportunity.

Five or ten years from now, following up on these closed locations could provide a look at the brand and communities. Where are they expanding, where are they leaving? If they continue to move to drive-thru locations, how does this affect places?

When suburbs resist affordable housing proposals, what positive outcomes are possible?

Posted on by

The Chicago Tribune describes concerns leaders and residents of two North Shore suburbs have regarding affordable housing proposals:

Photo by David Brown on Pexels.com

Case in point: Evanston’s Land Use Commission narrowly voted last Wednesday to recommend denial of a zoning application to build a 31-story, 430-unit apartment building in downtown Evanston. The tower would be among the tallest in all of Chicago’s suburbs. All the apartments would be studios, 1-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms, with 86 of the units deemed “affordable.”

The commission isn’t the last word on the project; the City Council will have that final say. But the 4-3 vote against the project reflected divisions within the community about growth. Speaking at the commission meeting, Chris Dillion, president of Chicago development firm Campbell Coyle (which isn’t developing the 605 Davis project that was the subject of the proceeding), clearly was frustrated: “Downtown Evanston cannot be preserved for only those who already are here. We need to make room for everyone,” he said, according to the Evanston RoundTable.

A majority of commissioners nonetheless thought the project was too big…

In Highland Park, another lakefront community about 14 miles north of Evanston, a fierce debate is underway about the redevelopment of a 28-acre vacant tract once the site of a Solo Cup factory. Prominent Chicago developer The Habitat Co. has proposed building 232 townhomes.

A recent meeting of the village’s Plan Commission on the project featured pointed criticisms, jeering and disruptions from residents complaining about the usual things when substantial residential developments are proposed — traffic and the impact on schools. But one resident complained that because some of the units were envisioned as rentals, the new residents would be “transient” and not invested in the future of Highland Park, according to a Tribune report.

The commission didn’t vote on whether to recommend approval, but a majority of commissioners expressed misgivings. Habitat partner Kathie Jahnke Dale said that any major reduction in the density, which already had been scaled back from a prior proposal, would lead the developer to walk away, likely leaving the site “vacant for another 15 years.”

This resistance is not unusual. For decades, suburbanites in the Chicago and across the United States have often resisted proposed developments that would bring denser and/or affordable units to their communities. Leaders and residents bring up concerns about noise, traffic, density out of line with the surrounding area, threats to property values and local quality of life, and concerns about the residents who would live in new residences.

Given this consistent opposition, what positive outcomes are possible regarding suburban proposals for affordable housing? Some thoughts on the possible options:

  1. Approval of the proposal in its initial form. This is rare. But there must be examples that could serve as models that others could learn from. What factors in suburbs lead to approving needed affordable housing from the start?
  2. A significantly smaller proposal. This happens quite a bit with proposals for suburban development: the initial pitch from the developer is considered and in the discussion with the community, the number of units is reduced. Take the Evanston example above slated for 31 stories and 430 units. Given the concerns expressed, perhaps the community would be okay with 15 stories and 200 or so units. Or with townhouses as in the second example, the density is reduced a bit with more open space provided. These changes can lessen the affordable housing contribution made but at least some affordable housing units are added.
  3. I do not know if proposals that are rejected all together can be positive. Perhaps it encourages an ongoing conversation in the community? Perhaps turning down a reasonable proposal galvanizes local efforts to support affordable housing?

For new affordable housing to be constructed in suburbs, my sense is that significant support needs to come from local leaders and residents who can articulate how this will benefit the community. Since many suburbanites will see such proposals as a threat, what about them adds to the community?

The reasons Americans give for fighting against data centers in their communities

Posted on by

As the number of data centers in the United States is growing, some residents are fighting back:

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

Meanwhile, grassroots resistance to unchecked growth is on the rise. In Memphis, locals are trying to shut down an xAI facility powered by turbines they say are polluting the air in a historically black community that already suffers high rates of respiratory illness. A couple in Georgia told reporters their water taps went dry after Meta broke ground on a $750 million development in Newton County. In suburban northern Virginia, where the massive warehouses have become a fixture of everyday life, citizens complain that the developments are encroaching on neighbourhoods and homes at an alarming rate. In Prince William County, locals have even coalesced to try to change local ordinances and put an end to the incessant low-grade roar produced by data centre cooling systems.

In Alabama, residents in McCalla and in the City of Bessemer are united against Project Marvel. “We might be fighting an uphill battle,” David says, “but we’re going to fight it to the very end.” Locals have spent months pouring over academic reports and technical documents, trying to understand how data centres have been received in other communities and what risks might attend the development. They’ve also built a substantial coalition of allies in opposition to the project location, if not to the project itself, including Jefferson County Commission President Jimmie Stephens, State Representative Leigh Hulsey, and a wide range of environmental and other public advocacy organisations.

Generally, American communities think growth is good but they do reserve the right to try to have growth on their terms.

Reading this article and seeing online conversation opposed to data centers near me, I wonder which if these factors is more influential in the concerns people have:

  1. The environmental costs of data centers including high water and electricity usage plus possible pollution and noise.
  2. The sense that a community could find or approve better uses for the land rather than for a data center. How many jobs will actually be generated? Will the community actually see some benefits?
  3. A sense that tech and/or certain companies are dangerous or they could corrupt communities.
  4. Resistance to a potential change in local character that having a data center might represent.

Some of these are common responses in American communities to proposals for land use and others are more specific to data centers.

According to this article, there are already over 5,000 data centers in the United States. How many communities will say no to data centers and which ones will say yes?

Who suburban townhomes are intended for, Naperville edition

Posted on by

A new proposal to build townhouses in Naperville includes discussion who would live in these denser neighborhoods compared to single-family home subdivisions:

Photo by Curtis Adams on Pexels.com

Through the 1990s and early 2000s, there was so much single-family construction in Naperville that “I think there’s probably a little bit of a need to diversify housing product,” Whitaker said.

“I would say it’s not just townhomes, but I think you’ve also seen more senior housing, more apartments,” he said.

Whitaker also pointed to changing demographics in Naperville. It’s always been a great place to raise a family, but today, the population is aging, he said. “We’ve got a great supply of single-family homes in neighborhoods like Ashbury and Tall Grass in south Naperville, and frankly, it would be hard to … build new single-family homes at a price that is cost competitive to what exists in those communities,” Whitaker said. “And so I think the goal has been to diversify a little bit and find some different niches…

“The development will meet a significant community need by creating a housing opportunity that is suitable for many types of homebuyers,” the petition states, “including some of the fastest growing housing segments of our population, young professionals and empty nesters.”

As I noted yesterday, the primary way Naperville can grow in population in the future is to develop denser housing. Growth has been a key trait of the community for decades. But more and more townhouses is a change from single-family homes.

Additionally, these comments suggest townhouses in Naperville are aimed at particular residents. Specifically, townhouses could provide housing for seniors/empty nesters or young professionals. Might there be other homebuyers who could live in the townhouses?

Long-term, will more townhouses be palatable in the community if they are at particular price points and particular residents live there? There likely will be some pushback for townhouses regardless because of changes to character of the community and to the neighbors who own homes nearby.

When suburbanites tell you who they do not want to live in apartments near them, Darien edition

Posted on by

The City Council of the suburb of Darien recently approved a new apartment complex. The public discussions of the proposal and the discussions of a different apartment proposal in 2021 showed why residents did not want apartments:

Photo by Emre Can Acer on Pexels.com

Neighbors objected, saying they’d prefer condos to apartments. Some said they feared the apartments would turn into Section 8. Others raised the prospect of crime…

Alderman Joe Kenny said then that the building in question would not be an issue if the developer planned condos instead of apartments…

“I felt some of the comments in the emails came off as really derogatory. The tone in those statements, they came off to be kind of racist, and it promoted a level of classism that Darien is not proud of,” said Vaughan, who was the council’s only African American.

In response, a man stormed out of the room. Others denied that race was a factor.

But race was explicitly mentioned in one of the dozens of comments that the city posted to its website.

Across suburban communities, these two reasons are commonly mentioned in opposition to apartments: (1) who will live in the apartments and (2) preference for condos or other forms of residences that require ownership. Regarding the first, sometimes the language is veiled and sometimes it is not. It sounds like those who opposed apartments in Darien were clear about who they did not want in the community. And that building condos instead would address their concerns.

And what is the answer in suburbs to these concerns? Here is one answer given in Darien:

He said The Jade was a “beautiful building,” occupied by young professionals. An alderman said something similar recently.

To assuage the fears of residents, these reasons are often provided: the new apartments will look high-quality and young professionals will live there. These are intended to show that these apartments will be occupied by people residents will find acceptable in the community.

This is a way that suburban exclusion continues. I have found similar discussions happening for decades for Chicago area suburbs. Another reason sometimes provided by objectors is that apartments will disturb the character of the community. This reason is often related to the two explicitly mentioned above.

Decisions about development are not just about properties and buildings; they are about who community members want in their suburb.

New golf courses as signs of wealth

Posted on by

If you are wealthy, building a new golf course may just be the way to put that money on display:

Photo by Thomas Ward on Pexels.com

Lately, though, there’s a rash of billionaires breaking ground on new golf clubs for reasons that seem to defy economic logic and environmental sanity. It seems they are so rich that they are willing to spend whatever it takes to build their dream playgrounds, and it’s less important, in many cases, whether the new enterprise makes money or not.

“Many are ‘financed’ by wealthy people who want to do something great, and know how to work the system to get tax breaks etc. from localities eager to have a great project providing jobs and tourism [dollars] in their backyard,” Tom Doak, the great golf-course architect, wrote on Golf Club Atlas, a popular blog, last year…

Last year, more than 25 new golf courses were opened around the country, the most in the past decade. Many of these were add-ons to existing resorts or in remote private locations, such as Mauk. Land and building costs have become too pricey to justify the construction of new golf courses and clubs in Metropolitan areas, according to the National Golf Foundation, but in remote locations like Mauk, there’s plenty of room and the costs are often low…

Ground zero of golf madness is almost certainly Florida, which has more courses than any other state in the country by far, with nearly 1,200. Between the warm, humid weather; the flat, sandy terrain; and the abundance of wealthy retirees with plenty of time and money on their hands, the state is incredibly attractive to developers. It doesn’t hurt that the rich are flocking there in droves, thanks in part to the fact that there’s no state income tax…

“It’s all about controlling the number of people who have access to maintain the quality of the experience,” Nathan explains. “That’s the funny thing about golf. Every golfer’s dream is to be on this amazing piece of land, on this perfectly manicured golf course. And to be out there alone with their group.”

I am interested to know the scale of tax breaks available for such courses. If local governments are willing to offer tax breaks, does this mean they find a golf course and associated development to be an improvement over the current state of the land? If so, how much money do they expect that course to generate (vs. how much it could generate without the same tax break or with the ongoing non-golf course use of the property)? It sounds like this is a tool for more rural areas to quickly jump start development but it is harder to know the longer-term consequences.

It would also be interesting to know what happens to golf courses and clubs long-term after they get past their opening and first generation of members. It is one thing to plan the course and see it come to fruition. Do kids and grandkids then continue that legacy or do they sell their portion? Do these courses become their own institutions that go on for generations beyond or even in different directions compared to the original vision cast?

Data centers as public utilities

Posted on by

As one company looks for approval to build a data center in an Illinois town, they made this argument:

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

“When you use your phone to order an Uber or make a doctor’s appointment, it’s likely going through one of our data centers,” Baumann told a Minooka Village Board meeting in January.

“We consider ourselves a utility, like water or sewer or electricity. It has that kind of importance to everyday life,” he said.

But Equinix is not a regulated utility like ComEd or Peoples Gas. Equinix is a publicly traded company whose top shareholders are Wall Street titans such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. 

It’s a supplier that’s kept on a tight leash by the big dogs of artificial intelligence, namely, its partners, including Microsoft and Google.

Contrasting opinions here from the corporation’s real estate director and the Chicago Tribune. On one hand, it is hard to imagine life today without the Internet, social media, and smartphones. All that data transmitted through the air requires infrastructure including cables, towers, and data centers.

On the other hand, all of this is not considered a utility in the same way by the federal and state government. Gas, electricity, and water have all sorts of regulations so that everyone can access them. They are considered essential to housing. The right to the Internet does not exist yet. And the nod above to the private market may or may make sense; other utility companies are publicly traded and seek profits.

Is this a convincing argument in the long run? Would local officials and residents be more inclined to approve a data center if they think of like a utility or more like a company?

Who the nice new apartments in Chicago’s northwest suburbs are for

Posted on by

Multiple suburbs northwest of Chicago have constructed apartments in their downtowns and/or along transportation options. Who lives in these new residences? A VP for a real estate development firm answers:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Suburbs such as Niles, Des Plaines, Buffalo Grove, Palatine, Wheeling, Elk Grove Village and Rolling Meadows no longer are flying under the radar. And based on strong supply-demand fundamentals as well as greater municipality support, the future looks even brighter for new rental options in the Northwest suburbs…

While those starting their careers continue to make up the bulk of renters, Gen Xers and baby boomers also are drawn to the maintenance-free and resort-like lifestyle renting offers them at a time when they are looking to downsize and enjoy retirement.

And with high interest rates and low for-sale housing inventory, even 30- and 40-year-olds who are in the thick of raising children and typically gravitate to single-family homes have turned toward renting in recent years — both out of necessity and choice.

The city of Chicago’s uncertain political environment and higher taxes also have increased the suburbs’ draw for some people, with rental communities near Metra stops or major expressways providing an appealing alternative for professionals who prefer the slower pace of the suburbs while still enjoying an easy commute.

And while there are suburbs hesitant to embrace rental housing, a growing number of municipalities understand the many economic benefits of new, high-quality rental options — such as increased foot traffic in their downtowns and activating underutilized sites.

If there is demand for housing, developers will want to build but suburbs often want housing that fits their particular goals and character. How will apartments fit into communities often full of single-family homes? What might apartments do to daily life in downtowns and around transportation corridors? Who will live in these apartments?

In my research on suburban development, I have seen discussion and debate involving all three of these questions. Focusing on the last one, the description above highlights the ideal apartment dwellers in suburbs. The first group is young professionals. These residents might be coming off finishing their education and are looking to establish themselves. They may have smaller households. They may not have the financial resources yet to purchase a home or they like the idea of living in a more vibrant location. Then there are those looking to downsize. They want an easier life. They may have owned homes in the past but do not need all that space or the trouble of maintaining a home and property. And “even” those who families may want to rent.

And these are not necessarily cheap or affordable rentals. These are places that are “high-quality” and “resort-like.” Their location near walkable amenities and transportation likely drives up demand and cost.

If the goals were to provide more units at prices accessible to more residents and prospective resident, the apartments might meet with more concern from local residents and leaders who could view them as threats to a particular quality of life and to their property values.

Building a community around a new semiconductor plant

Posted on by

A semiconductor plant under construction in Phoenix, Arizona may eventually be surrounded by a new community:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

“Halo Vista,” as it is now known, will surround a manufacturing complex developed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—which is already under construction and is being developed by New York-based Mack Real Estate Group in collaboration with McCourt Partners…

“It’s not just a science park, and not just a manufacturing district: It’s a community. It’s a city within a city.”

The project will include 2,300 acres with more than 28 million square feet of mixed-use development capacity, with will include up to 8,960 residential units as well as industrial, retail, and office spaces.

“Our vision is for chip designers and engineering students, not just suppliers and manufacturers, to co-locate here, to create a value added ecosystem beyond just what it takes to build chips, and that’s how we’re going to create more value in the Phoenix economy,” Mack said.

Build the facility for the hot industry and let the development grow around it.

While it sounds like the community would be independent from the company and manufacturing facility, is this a new version of a company town? There is a long history in the United States of communities developing around industry, whether it is the Pullman district in Chicago or development around auto plants in and near Detroit to Silicon Valley growth. This can all “work” if the industry is humming along.

At the same time, it may not be so great for those not involved with good jobs in that industry. It may not necessarily be good for the community as a whole. And if the industry itself stops growing or declines, there can be trouble for these communities.

Examining gentrification in the suburbs

Posted on by

While gentrification is often associated with neighborhoods in cities, scholar Willow Lung-Amam describes what gentrification can look like in Maryland suburbs:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Just as there was nothing natural about the processes that prompted suburban decline, there was nothing natural about the vast funds poured into these communities to make redevelopment happen. County and state governments led the way through planning, policies, and public investments meant to entice private investment. As Silver Spring and Wheaton vividly revealed, their efforts were layered and robust: enterprise zones, urban and art districts, eminent domain, tax breaks, parcel assemblage, parking regulations, new transit investments and infrastructure. Public agencies created new market pressures that directed and enabled profitable private development. They served as the promotional arm of private corporations, advertising new suburban downtowns as safe for middle-class consumers and residents. They were critical actors in creating displacement pressures and were, as many activists argued, responsible for their redress.

But for the millions of dollars in tax breaks, incentives and assistance that developers were given, what was asked in return for those who lost their homes, businesses and sense of community? What was gained for those who had lived with broken sidewalks and run-down playgrounds for decades? Were they the beneficiaries of this progress – or was the development, as many suspected, for someone else?

As visions for new suburban downtowns emerged, long-standing communities could scarcely see themselves in the sketches of shiny new plazas and pedestrian streets. As in downtown Silver Spring, these images projected futures that allowed for the comfortable return of the white middle classes, catering to their tastes and preferences for what an authentic and safe urban experience looked and felt like. They did not honor marginalized groups’ deep histories, struggles or valued places. If suburban boosters dared to look back at all, their visions sugarcoated the past in ways that did not trouble their present plans.

Even diversity became a selling point. In Wheaton, multicultural festivals crowded the downtown plaza and colorful art displays featured faces from across the world. Yet many wondered whether its fragile diversity was simply a transition to a future in which they no longer existed.

This is gentrification — and it is suburban. While the language of retrofitting or renaissance may be much more genteel, their processes are no less brutal nor disruptive. They affect the lives and livelihoods of countless neighborhoods and threaten the sense of place that people of color and new immigrants have fought to establish and protect, sometimes with, but largely in the absence of, white neighbors and public support.

This sounds similar to what studies of urban gentrification find: the promises of new development and growth can have negative consequences for residents already there.

I wonder if resisting gentrification in the suburbs might be harder for two reasons:

  1. Growth is good in the United States. This is true across numerous American communities but might even be more baked into the idea of suburbia. Suburbs are meant to grow. To resist growth is to resist a higher status. (An exception might be that communities that are already well-off and exclusive can resist growth.)
  2. It can be hard at times to find local suburban narratives that highlight the difficulties some face in the suburbs or the ways that exclusion shaped suburban communities. The argument above appears to highlight that gentrification limits opportunities; this goes against local and broader narratives that suburbs are about opportunity and securing a portion of the American Dream.

I look forward to reading this book and considering further gentrification in suburbia.