Blood plasma centers showing up in wealthier suburbia

Suburban strip malls and office buildings now house more blood plasma centers:

Photo by Charlie-Helen Robinson on Pexels.com

Every day, an estimated 215,000 people donate plasma, the yellowish liquid component of blood. Mr. Briseño is among them. He is not jobless or facing eviction, but, like many in the American middle class, he is caught in the vise of rising expenses and wages that aren’t growing fast enough to cover them. So he is turning to a method more commonly associated with the lowest-income Americans. For people like him, an extra $600 or so a month can mean making a mortgage payment or covering increased health-insurance costs.

While no one publishes statistics on the exact incomes of people who sell their blood plasma, the location of the centers suggests a shift toward a less financially desperate clientele. A recent study by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Colorado, Boulder, observed that while older plasma centers are clustered in low-income areas, newer centers were increasingly likely to open in middle-class neighborhoods. A New York Times analysis shows the trend has continued: Centers have sprung up in more than 100 such neighborhoods, in suburbs and wealthier sections of cities, since researchers finished collecting their data in 2021…

For decades, plasma centers have been concentrated largely in impoverished and under-resourced neighborhoods and faced charges of exploitation. In her 2023 book, “Blood Money: The Story of Life, Death, and Profit Inside America’s Blood Industry,” Kathleen McLaughlin explored how plasma centers targeted, among others, laid-off autoworkers in the Rust Belt and communities along the U.S-Mexican border.

The article interprets the findings as even the people who made it to suburbia – often assumed in American society to be wealthier – also feel the financial need to donate plasma.

But I wonder if this is the best way to interpret this. Suburbia is much more complex and diverse than the images of white and wealthier bedroom suburbs in the postwar era. The era of a single earner supporting a growing suburban family is long gone. Across metropolitan regions, a variety of residents live with wealthier communities right next to working-class communities, places with lots of white collar jobs near places with manual labor and working-class jobs.

And what if this is not just about financial need. For Americans of different social classes, what do they see as moral or permissible to sell or do if they need money? What if the perceptions about selling plasma have changed more broadly in American society?

Or what if this is more about expanding markets. If there are already concentrations of plasma centers in lower-income neighborhoods, perhaps this is the next stage of finding more people to donate. The other areas are already saturated; this is a growing industry. The article says there are billions of dollars at stake in the industry.

I have not seen any local suburban concerns about this but I wonder if some communities or leaders or residents see plasma centers as a negative use of land in the kind of community they are in.

Would you put a “Museum for the Middle Class” in Schaumburg, Illinois?

A 2004 Onion article imagined a “Museum for the Middle Class” in the Chicago suburb of Schaumburg:

Photo by Tom Fournier on Pexels.com

“The splendid and intriguing middle class may be gone, but it will never be forgotten,” said Harold Greeley, curator of the exhibit titled “Where The Streets Had Trees’ Names.” “From their weekend barbecues at homes with backyards to their outdated belief in social mobility, the middle class will forever be remembered as an important part of American history.”

Museum guests expressed delight over the traditions and peculiarities of the middle class, a group once so prevalent that entire TV networks were programmed to satisfy its hunger for sitcoms…

During the modern industrial age, the middle class grew steadily, reaching its heyday in the 1950s, when its numbers soared into the tens of millions. According to a study commissioned by the U.S. Census Bureau, middle-class people inhabited great swaths of North America, with settlements in the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains, the Pacific Northwest, and even the nation’s urban centers…

One of the 15 permanent exhibits, titled “Working For ’The Weekend,’” examines the routines of middle-class wage-earners, who labored for roughly eight hours a day, five days a week. In return, they were afforded leisure time on Saturdays and Sundays. According to many anthropologists, these “weekends” were often spent taking “day trips,”eating at chain family restaurants, or watching “baseball” with the nuclear family.

If there were such a museum, would it make sense to have it in Schaumburg? Here are a few pros and cons for doing so:

Pros: Schaumburg is a postwar suburban community incorporated in 1956. It is home to nearly 80,000 residents today. It has a large shopping mall within village limits and it has plenty of office space. (More on this in the Cons section.) It has access to multiple major highways and a train station on a line to Chicago, facilitating travel throughout the region. Locating a museum about middle-class life in a successful suburb makes sense given that suburban life is often associated with middle-class life.

Cons: Schaumburg is a particular kind of suburb, an edge city, with lots of retail and office space next to major highways. It is less of a bedroom suburb full of quiet single-family home neighborhoods and more of a suburban commercial center. It is less about a bucolic suburban lifestyle and more about easily-accessible stores and entertainment options. If a middle-class American life was about providing opportunities for their kids and having a single-family home, plenty of other suburbs could showcase this.

Perhaps the 2004 Onion was correct: the American middle-class of the turn of the twenty-first century might become a relic. If it does, where it is commemtorated will be interesting to see.

The Chicago bungalow as a symbol of early 20th century success

Living in a Chicago bungalow became a symbol of a successful life:

Photo by Haley Cao on Pexels.com

The humble bungalow made it possible for Chicagoans to realize the American Dream of home ownership. In the first part 20th century, between 80,000 and 100,000 bungalows were built in Cook County. The majority went up between the end of World War I and the beginning of the Great Depression, making many about 100 years old. Many were home to first-generation immigrants. They formed an arc around the city’s center known as the Bungalow Belt.

It “stretches all around the city, from South Shore to Marquette Park, out west to Austin to the Northwest Side and West Rogers Park,” Dominic Pacyga, a Columbia College urbanologist, told the Tribune in 2000…

In 1997, a Tribune declared: “Bungalows Were Better Than A Place To Live. They Told The World Who You Were” over a story that declared the humble home to be “an idea, a symbol, a trophy, a style, an approach to life.”…

Chicago’s bungalow builders left that idea behind, while appropriating the concept that the middle class deserved homes with little artistic touches, like those the wealthy took for granted: leaded window glass, red or yellow brick with checkerboard patterns, bay fronts either octagonal, squared or rounded.

Three quick thoughts:

  1. This highlights the coming and going of residential architectural styles. This design emerged in a particular era, took off, and now has been replaced by other designs that address the wants of residents and builders and that also became symbols of joining the middle class. (See the suburban ranch home or the McMansion.)
  2. How exactly does a particular home style become a status symbol? The article hints at the role of developers (selling the image that goes with this particular home), politicians (promoting the style and protecting the homes in later decades), and residents. Could we add in famous cultural works that take place in or highlight or celebrate the bungalow? The role of zoning officials and historic preservationists?
  3. How many of these homes initially were owned by white residents of Chicago and how much has this changed over time? How much did bungalows contribute to long-standing patterns of residential segregation and differences in wealth among homeowners?

Ben Folds and “Rockin’ the Suburbs”

In 2001, Ben Folds released an album and song with the same name critiquing suburban life. From the chorus of “Rockin’ the Suburbs“:

Photo by Njukeng George Njukeng on Pexels.com

I’m rockin’ the suburbs
Just like Michael Jackson did
I’m rockin’ the suburbs
Except that he was talented

The song pokes fun at “being male, middle-class, and white” as the protagonist angrily goes through life. Folds highlights one group of suburbanites – what would he do with the increasingly complex suburbia?

Folds suggested the song was done in the style of two groups popular at the time:

The song parodies Korn and Rage Against the Machine. Folds stated of the song “I am taking the piss out of the whole scene, especially the followers.”[1]

This reminds me of a sidewalk square nearby in suburbia that immortalizes “Korn.” Both groups provided music and lyrics that could be used to express discontent about a suburban America.