Fox Valley Mall “near Naperville” Part 1 – status

I recently heard a radio ad for a store located at Fox Valley Mall which was said to be “near Naperville.” The mall is officially located in Aurora so why would a store there claim to be in the next suburb over? One word: status.

In this particular location, Aurora and Naperville are separated by Illinois Route 59. On the east side, containing a number of stores just across the street from the mall, is Naperville. On the west side, including the mall plus additional stores, is Aurora. Aurora is the bigger community – roughly 200,000 people – but Naperville is the wealthier, higher status community. Some of the figures: Naperville has a median household income of over $110,000 and 4.9% of residents are in poverty. In contrast, Aurora has a median household income of almost $64,000 and 14.0% of residents are in poverty. The communities also differ in race and ethnicity: Aurora is significantly less white (over 30%) and more Latino (35% more) and Black (5% more).

So, when a store says they are “near Naperville,” what are they trying to hint at? They want to associate their store and the shopping experience with a wealthier community rather than Aurora. They want people to think of an upscale and safe place, rather than the diversity of incomes and races/ethnicities of Aurora. Ultimately, they want shoppers to come and spend money like they have Naperville resources.

If it is the case that the store wants to associate with Naperville, why is it located in Aurora? The bigger question: why is the mall in Aurora? To be answered tomorrow.

See the new skyscrapers soon to be added to Chicago’s skyline

Curbed Chicago takes a quick look at eleven skyscrapers, seven proposed or approved and four under construction, that could alter the iconic skyline of Chicago:

Vista Tower.
Studio Gang

Vista Tower

Status: Under Construction

Currently rising along the south bank of the Chicago River’s main branch, the 1,198-foot Vista Tower is posed to become the city’s third tallest building. It’s angular design from Chicago architect firm Studio Gang is made up of three stacks of undulating geometric frustums wrapped in alternating bands of shaded of glass.

Work progressed quickly after Vista broke ground in 2016 and recently reached the halfway mark. Delivery of its 406 luxury condos, a 192-room five-star hotel, and impressive amenities is expected in 2020…

Golub & Co./CIM Group

Tribune Tower East

Status: Proposed

At 1,422 feet, this proposed addition to Chicago’s neo-gothic Tribune Tower is gunning for the title of Chicago’s second tallest building. Slated to replace a parking lot just east of its historic neighbor, the yet-to-be-named skyscraper will contain a 200-key luxury hotel, 439 rental apartments, 125 condominiums, and 430 parking spaces.

The design from hometown architecture firm of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill is quite slender by Chicago standards—partly due to a protected view corridor requiring Tribune Tower to remain visible from the Ogden Slip to the east.

A skyline is important to the status of a city, particularly for one like Chicago that takes pride in a history of important architectural works (particularly in the Loop as it transformed from a commodity based economy to a finance center) and consistently works to assert its importance as a global city. These new buildings will add more glass as well as more height to the skyline. It will take some time for all of them to become accepted and recognized parts of the a skyline for a long time that was fairly set (roughly from the early 1970s to the early 2000s with the three tallest buildings).

It would be interesting to consider how Chicago compares to other cities in the approval and construction rate of skyscrapers. Even on this list, the majority of the tall structures are not yet under construction. Chicago always seems to have some supertall buildings in the works (see this earlier post) but many do not come to fruition. Is this common in all major cities? Does Chicago have more proposals than normal or a lower ratio of completed buildings?

When all the suburban homes are the same, how can residents set themselves apart?

Continuing to draw from a 1953 Harper’s study of six mass-produced suburbs, Harry Henderson discusses an interesting aspect of the cookie-cutter houses:

Henderson3.png

We are used to the idea that a home, like many other goods one owns, is a means by which people differentiate themselves from others. Your car reveals your personality (or your financial resources). Your clothes celebrate your individuality. Your favorite TV show provides deep insights into your psychology. Your McMansion impresses those driving by with its size. And so on. But, what if residents do not have the luxury of differentiating their exterior?

Henderson suggests they then move their differentiation into activities: what groups are you a part of, what are you contributing, who do you know. But, I think this misses two features about homes:

  1. Even if these homes were mass-produced, it wouldn’t take long before residents could alter their homes and yards. Indeed, Barbara Kelly in Expanding the American Dream details how residents of Levittown made changes to their homes. People add additions, make landscaping decisions, paint their exteriors, and more. If you look at the streets of these homes sixty years later, you can both pick out some of the common architectural features as well as see significant efforts to stand out.
  2. After the section cited above, Henderson then goes on to say that the residents then emphasize interior decorating. They may be cookie-cutter homes from the outside but could have very different feels. While this is not as visible to the neighborhood, it does present an opportunity to show family and friends your own unique self.

There are current parallels to the dilemma Henderson poses: residents of condos, townhomes, and apartments have similar issues as their exteriors share characteristics with others around them.

This is also a reminder of a tendency of modern humans to look for ways to secure a higher status for themselves. Even in a supposed middle-class society, Americans want to be seen as their own individual, even if their housing choices are constrained.

New record set by the number of skyscrapers built in 2017

Skyscrapers have truly spread around the globe in recent years:

The current global boom in tall buildings shows no signs of slowing. In its annual Tall Building Year in Review, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) found that more buildings 200 meters tall or greater were finished last year than any other year on record.

A total of 144 such structures were completed in 69 cities spread across 23 countries, part of a wave of tall towers, the fourth-straight record-setting year in terms of completions. Last year’s new tall towers set records across the globe as well: new tallest buildings took shape in 28 cities and 8 countries…

The U.S. completed 10 such structures, including four in New York, two in Chicago, and the record-setting Wilshire Grand Center in Los Angeles. This new class of skyscrapers forms the bulk of North America’s 17 new towers, representing 10.4 percent of the worldwide total.

But as has been the case for years, Asia, specifically China, was the center of the action. Chinese construction projects added 76 new skyscrapers, representing 53 percent of the global total. The city of Shenzhen, which added 12 new buildings, accounted for 8.3 percent of the worldwide total, more than any country outside of China.

While these buildings may be constructed in some places because of high densities and a need for interior space, I suspect the status factor is big here. Being able to project an impressive skyline is a nice feature for today’s big city to have. To be a major city in the eyes of the world, skyscrapers help. Buildings alone cannot catapult a city to the top of the global city rankings but they can certainly make an impression on residents and visitors as well as provide space for new bustling activity.

Can a list of the most beautiful homes in Dallas include McMansions?

An earlier article I published suggested McMansions are not viewed as negatively in Dallas compared to New York City. The list of “the hand-down 10 most beautiful homes in Dallas” from D Magazine includes two references to McMansions:

Each year of the last decade, the editors of D Home have canvassed the city to bring you a list of “10 Most Beautiful Homes” that hopefully appeal to every taste. While on the road, we’ve spilled endless Diet Cokes due to sudden stops, exposed ourselves to the occasional McMansion, and risked looking like embarrassingly low-tech private investigators snapping photos with our iPhones. We do it all for you!…

We once named Tokalon Drive the most beautiful street in Dallas, which we suppose makes this 4236-square-foot dwelling the most beautiful home on the most beautiful street in Dallas. Plus, it reminds us why turrets are actually totally cool and not just something that just gets thrown on a McMansion. All that’s missing is a moat.

Yet, the list of 10 homes includes no McMansions. While these are large and expensive homes, all were constructed prior to World War II and have an architectural coherence that many McMansions lack. However, homes on this list for previous years did include newer homes and I would guess some of these 2017 selections have had major work done to them which might also negate some of their old-image charm.

Even in Dallas, such lists may not be able to select or trumpet McMansions as beautiful homes. If you run in certain circles – particularly when your readers are educated and wealthy – McMansions are a dirty word. A magazine like this that considers itself “a member of the original generation of city magazines: New York Magazine, Washingtonian, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago” could likely not support such as crass consumer item as the McMansion.

Historical irony: Naperville magazine suggests “discover Hinsdale”

Naperville’s size, wealth, accolades, and amenities make it a suburban behemoth outside of Chicago. Yet, when Naperville Magazine features in its current issue the story titled “Discover Hinsdale” (see the cover image below), it is a reversal of history regarding which community was more desirable.

NapervilleMagazineSep17

Naperville was founded first in the early 1830s though Hinsdale was not far behind (and the community was originally known as Brush Hill and then Fullersburg). The two communities share a rail line in and out of Chicago, originally the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy, which opened in the mid-1860s. While the two communities were similar in size until the postwar era, Hinsdale was the wealthier town. It had a hospital. It attracted executives as residents. It was at the eastern edge of DuPage County and just 15 miles from downtown Chicago. Naperville, in contrast, was seen more of a farm community, there wasn’t much development between it and Aurora (and little at all to the south or southwest), and it had lost some luster after losing the county seat to Wheaton in 1867.

Long-time Naperville resident and real estate agent described the relationship between the two suburbs in Is it Eden? Is it Camelot? It is Paradise? Better yet…It’s Naperville.

I discovered an overlooked “fact of life” one Saturday afternoon when a well-dressed, house-hunting couple entered our office. Both were quite disappointed to learn that our town had no tree-lined street full of gracious, period-type houses built in the 1920’s and 30’s, the likes of which they could find in some affluent suburbs east of us. They were also shocked to find we had so little “speculative” building and that our listings were generally of very old homes. The wife then made a biting comment that raised the hairs on my neck. She said, “Did you know that Naperville is rated a class ‘C’ town in some Hinsdale real estate offices?” “What in the world do you  mean!” I sputtered through clenched teeth. “Oh, don’t get made,” she replied, “Just in the area of ‘income per capita’.” “What in the world do you mean!” I sputtered through clenched teeth. “Oh, don’t get made,” she replied, “Just in the area of ‘income per capita’.” Well, Hal, I admit that I was truly deflated. Deflated because, even though it seemed such a minuscule area to me in light of all of Naperville’s ENDURING values, it was a fact of life, and there would be more people of this bent for us to deal with in the future. Hinsdale today is probably still the “class” community of the western suburbs. Time, effort and planning have earned it its reputation. Housing costs in Hinsdale are, on average, 30% higher than in Naperville. However, by now we must have about caught up in “income per capita”. I would (secretly) like to challenge Hinsdale to a rating battle based on “percent of residents with advanced college degrees.” Maybe then I might be able to walk into a realty office in their town and square a long-remembered rebuke by saying, “Did you know that in Naperville, some real estate offices rate Hinsdale a Class ‘B’ community?” I wonder if they’d squirm a little, as I did?” (“Dear Hal” column, Aug 28, 1981, The Naperville Sun)

A later story:

For as long as I can recall, having a Hinsdale (Ill.) residence address had the same effect on others as did the car, wristwatch, or college on attended – it “made a statement.” Aesthetic Hinsdale, with a population of only 17,000, has the highest income per capita of any community in DuPage County… ((“Dear Hal” column, May 17, 1981, The Naperville Sun)

The Naperville Magazine piece is similar to many you can find in suburban magazines. Here is the primary text that then leads to a list of attractions:

Just about halfway between Naperville and Chicago you’ll find the village of Hinsdale, known for its stop-and-stare-worthy homes along tree-shaded streets and a cute, compact downtown lined with shops and restaurants. Though the abundance of women’s clothing boutiques and pampering salons make it a popular destination for a ladies’ day out—no question—there’s a little bit of something for everyone in Hinsdale.

Hinsdale is now the quaint and wealthy suburb to visit. There are upscale restaurants and shops to explore as well as a few historical sites. The community is still wealthy and on average has higher incomes and housing values than Naperville. The teardown phenomenon seems to have begun earlier in Hinsdale in the 1980s before spreading to Naperville (according to several late-1980s columns by Herb Matter). Local celebrities seem to live more in Hinsdale than Naperville.

Yet, Naperville is the more vibrant place. It is clearly bigger. The downtown is more lively. Hinsdale is older money, Naperville more emblematic of the late-twentieth boom among the white-collar and educated.

“Why Parents Can’t Resist Buying…the Hottest Gifts”

A sociologist discusses the compulsion parents across social classes feel to purchase the season’s hottest gifts:

After observing and interviewing children and parents from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, Pugh published “Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture” in 2009, which explored commercial culture and how it relates to economic inequality and community. Since then, the spending trend hasn’t let up – even through the recession – and she typically fields media calls around this time of year on the topic.

Parents often have trouble deciding what to do in response to their children’s “I want’s,” Pugh found when she studied a range of families in Oakland, California. She found that both affluent and low-income parents disliked the pressure they felt to buy the most popular gifts for their kids; affluent parents were worried about giving in to materialism, while low-income parents knew that popular items cost money they would prefer to spend on household essentials…

Affluent parents often said they were uncomfortable about buying the latest popular items and they didn’t want their children to be so materialistic. Nevertheless, even if they decided to forego a certain product – which Pugh calls “symbolic deprivation” – they bought a lot of other things for their children that they thought added to what’s perceived as a good childhood.At the other end of the spectrum, lower-income parents were willing to forego some basic needs at times to buy products for their children, to show that they were capable of fully caring for their children – which Pugh called “symbolic indulgence.”

Wanting to belong – or on the flip side, not to be left out – is a powerful human motivator. And what American parent wants to be held responsible for their kid not fitting in? Arguably, this sort of logic drives much consumerism: as a number of scholars have shown, companies decades ago shifted advertising from emphasizing what products could do to what lifestyles were associated with having the product. Do you need the latest smartphone because it has such revolutionary technology or you do you want to be seen as part of a certain group? Do you need the clothing with the brand label to signal your status or to cover yourself?

It would be interesting to follow some of these same families to see how these choices about buying the hottest gifts influences children. Does it lead to more materialistic attitudes and behaviors? Do families who do not purchase such items encourage different kinds of behaviors?