Amazon plans to spend $15 billion for the largest construction project in Indiana history, building data center campuses in Northwest Indiana and creating 1,100 new jobs, officials said…
Sites for them have not yet been finalized, although AWS is in negotiations with multiple communities, he said Monday…
Not too many years ago, BP’s $3.8 billion Whiting Refinery expansion was considered the largest construction project in state history. The work at the refinery kept tradespeople working through the Great Recession, Ennis noted. Building data centers will keep tradespeople working in the region for years to come…
This project’s impact on the communities’ tax base can’t be calculated until the communities are chosen and incentives are finalized, but the impact will be huge. When Microsoft chose LaPorte for a $1 billion data center, Mayor Tom Dermody said it would effectively double the city’s tax base.
Indiana is not the largest state in size or population but it is not the smallest either: it is 38th in land area and 17th in population. So I think it means something that this would be the largest project in the state’s history. The amount of money, work, and land is worth noting.
The article mentions briefly that some Indiana communities have said no to data centers. Others seem interested (as noted above). I wonder if data centers and less desirable land uses will cluster in red states or certain communities where they are seen more as business opportunities rather than community liabilities. If tech companies say they need data centers, presumably some places will approve their construction.
In this particular case, what if some of the data center activity that could go in the Chicago suburbs located in Illinois ends up in northwest Indiana? Will some Illinois and Indiana communities look back and think they missed an opportunity or will they be grateful they had the foresight to say no?
Many people believe that growth will only continue. “We’re gonna need stadiums full of electricians, heavy equipment operators, ironworkers, HVAC technicians,” Dwarkesh Patel and Romeo Dean, AI-industry analysts, wrote recently. Large-scale data-center build-outs may already be reshaping America’s energy systems. OpenAI has announced that it intends to build at least 30 gigawatts’ worth of data centers—more power than all of New England requires on even the hottest day—and CEO Sam Altman has said he’d eventually like to build a gigawatt of AI infrastructure every week. Other major tech firms have similar ambitions.
Listen to the AI crowd talk enough, and you’ll get a sense that we may be on the cusp of an infrastructure boom.
Throughout American history, growth is good. Construction is a sign of growth and provides jobs. A new industry is underway. Society is progressing. Data centers are all over the place (and will end up somewhere even if some communities do not all them). Americans are used to booming construction as this happened across housing and numerous industries throughout the country’s history.
What that growth might lead to is another matter. How do these data centers contribute to communities and landscapes? Do all the data centers in suburbs transform suburban life? When the growth slows, what happens then? Will the data centers still be there in 50 or 100 years or will they be vacant properties?
All this is a reminder that while many Americans will encounter AI through devices and data going through the air, it has a significant physical footprint. To power real-time AI responses to whatever we as users need requires buildings, land, resources.
The Chicago suburb of Huntley is a little more than 50 miles from downtown Chicago. With the planned opening of a new passenger rail line from Chicago to Rockford, here is how city officials responded:
Huntley officials confirmed Friday that the village has decided against having a train station come to town.
Huntley had been slated to have a stop on the Chicago-to-Rockford rail line that’s expected to start operations by 2027, but the village recently notified project leaders they no longer wanted a station.
Village officials cited potential parking and traffic issues, among other things, downtown as well as uncertainty with ridership numbers and village financial commitments…
In nearby Marengo, which isn’t scheduled to have a train stop despite the rail line going through the center of town, the City Council has expressed its support for having the train stop there.
For a long time, suburbs would have wanted a stop on a commuter rail line. This offers nearby residents – in the particular community with a stop but also residents in nearby communities – opportunities to go to the city. Not having a train station means other communities could benefit from the commuting options and the business and residential opportunities that might go with it.
But the reasons cited above suggest a railroad today might be seen as more trouble than its worth for suburban communities. Parking and traffic concerns come up with any new development. Ridership and money figures could be hard to forecast.
I wonder if another matter at play is the rapid growth of the community in the last few decades. As late as 2000, the suburb had 5,730 residents. In the 2020 Census, the community has 27,740 residents. Would a train line contribute to that change? Might it encourage denser development around a train station, something that has happened near numerous Chicago suburban train stations?
Also, the community already has transportation options. It is along a major highway, I-90, to and from Chicago. Residents can access train lines to Chicago in the nearby suburbs of Elgin or Cary, roughly 25 minutes drive away, if they really want a train.
Still, I wonder if the suburb will regret not having a train stop. The train will run through the community anyway; would a train station disrupt life that much and/or might it add something for residents?
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?
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:
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?
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.
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?
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:
The environmental costs of data centers including high water and electricity usage plus possible pollution and noise.
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?
A sense that tech and/or certain companies are dangerous or they could corrupt communities.
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?
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.
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.
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?
“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?
Legally Sociable 