Tag Archives: suburbs

Quick Review: The Stepford Wives (2004)

Posted on by

Not too long ago, I watched and reviewed the original Stepford Wives film (made in 1975). Due to some of the slow pacing of the original, I recently watched the newer version (made in 2004) to see how it compared. Some quick thoughts:

1. The newer version is made to fit modern times: the main character, Joanna Eberhart (played by Nicole Kidman),  is a reality TV maven, the character of the husband (Walter, played by Matthew Broderick) is developed more, and the ending has a twist that is meant to demonstrate the power of love over rigid gender ideologies.

2. The suburban critique is similar: suburbs promote gender stereotypes that need to be challenged.

3. On one hand, I could see why the makers thought a remake was needed. The original film looks like a film from the mid 1970s: the pacing is slow, the camera shots are clunky, and the ending is perhaps unsatisfying since the main character doesn’t resolve her issues with Stepford. The newer film is snappier, more colorful, and packs more in. On the other hand, the remake suffers from its own issues: a storyline that seems like it tries too hard to be modern, rapidly shifting emotional moods (particular between Joanna and Walter who alternate between barely seeing each other and having intimate conversations), and an ending that doesn’t have the same payoff as the original. The character Joanna seems thin; the original spent more time showing the audience her interests, her passions, and her friendships. The new film doesn’t have time for this.

Overall, this film is uneven though more palatable to modern viewers. In the end, the move to include more of a love story between Joanna and Walter takes away from some of the biting suburban criticism of the original.

(This movie was not well-received by critics: it is only 27% fresh, 43 out of 162 reviews, at RottenTomatoes.com.)

Proclaiming the end of the “McMansion era”

Posted on by

CNBC reports that the real estate site Trulia.com says “the McMansion era is over.” This is based on evidence that more people want smaller homes:

Just 9 percent of the people surveyed by Trulia said their ideal home size was over 3,200 square feet. Meanwhile, more than one-third said their ideal size was under 2,000 feet.

“That’s something that would’ve been unbelievable just a few years back,” said Pete Flint, CEO and co-founder of Trulia. “Americans are moving away from McMansions.”

The comments echoed those made in June by Kermit Baker, the chief economist at the American Institute of Architects.

“We continue to move away from the McMansion chapter of residential design, with more demand for practicality throughout the home,” Baker said. “There has been a drop off in the popularity of upscale property enhancements such as formal landscaping, decorative water features, tennis courts, and gazebos.”

“McMansions just look and feel out of place today, given the more cautious environment everyone’s living in,” said Paul Bishop, vice president of research for the National Association of Realtors.

And homebuilders are heeding the call: In a survey of builders last year, nine out of 10 said they planned to build smaller or lower-priced homes.

This is interesting information – the McMansion was and is commonly cited as part of the excess of the late 1990s and early 2000s. But I have a few questions and thoughts:

1. We are in the middle of a housing crisis, one that is virtually unprecedented in recent history. Could these results simply be the result of this period? Look at the data over time: Americans since 1950 have progressively wanted larger homes. Might this change as soon as the economy or housing market picks up again?

1a. We would have to wait and see whether this shift might be a longer-term move to an emphasis on quality and appointments rather than sheer space. Since family size has dropped over the years, it makes sense that homes might not get so large. Or perhaps more people subscribe to some green ideas about having a small footprint.

2. There is still some demand for homes over 3,200 square feet. If you look at the Trulia infographics, most people seem to want homes around the 2,000-2,600 square foot range. These are not small homes – they would be slightly smaller than the average size of new homes built in most years of the 2000s and are larger than most American homes built after World War II.

3. This is survey data which gives us some measure of what people want to buy. However, people still have to make choices on the open market – will they turn down larger houses for smaller houses for an extended amount of time?

4. Will home prices go down or stay low in the long run – or will builders make up for having smaller homes with more features that will cost more?

5. There are some questions about whether a downturn in McMansions is part of a larger, more radical shift toward a new kind of suburbia. Perhaps. But even if this were the case, it would take a while for these new developments to be large enough in number to counter the typical views of suburbia and it would also require Americans to develop a new sense of community.

Will the future be ruled by cities or suburbs?

Posted on by

Two commentators disagree in a special issue of Foreign Policy on global cities: one says cities are the places of the future while another says suburbs are key.

1. In Foreign Policy, Parang Khanna discusses global cities, a concept developed by sociologist Saskia Sassen. Khanna suggests such cities are growing to a point where they exceed the ability for nations or the United Nations to control them. The conclusion is that cities are quite important:

What happens in our cities, simply put, matters more than what happens anywhere else. Cities are the world’s experimental laboratories and thus a metaphor for an uncertain age. They are both the cancer and the foundation of our networked world, both virus and antibody. From climate change to poverty and inequality, cities are the problem — and the solution.

2. Joel Kotkin responds and claims a more dispersed population, in suburbs, can lead to better outcomes in areas like generating wealth, less inequality, and a cleaner environment. He suggests this is particular an issue if we encourage large cities in the developing world:

The goal of urban planners should not be to fulfill their own grandiose visions of megacities on a hill, but to meet the needs of the people living in them, particularly those people suffering from overcrowding, environmental misery, and social inequality. When it comes to exporting our notions to the rest of the globe, we must be aware of our own susceptibility to fashionable theories in urban design — because while the West may be able to live with its mistakes, the developing world doesn’t enjoy that luxury.

An interesting debate – both places have their own issues.  One could ask what residents would prefer to live in (both in the developed and developing world): the wealthy and glamorous megacity or the comfortable and affluent suburbs? Or perhaps different nations could have different planning and policy goals? Or perhaps we need some of both cities and suburbs…

Quick Review: Pleasantville

Posted on by

I’ve seen parts of this 1998 film before but I watched it again recently to see if I want to use it in a class on suburbs. Two modern-day teenagers end up back as part of a family in a 1950s suburban world and they start bringing color to this less-than-idyllic community. Some quick thoughts about the film:

1.The film is a critique of suburban life, particularly that of 1950s television shows like Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It To Beaver. The critiques are typical: suburban residents are repressed (more on this in a moment), women are in a subservient role, and the people are conformists who just like things to stay the way they are.

2. Sexual repression is the major theme throughout. The teenage female protagonist quickly charms another high school boy and sets off big changes at Lovers Lane. The mother of the family explores her feelings, the manager of the diner does as well, and the whole town generally goes crazy. While there are other themes, like conformity, patriarchy, and being closed off from the outside world, they are not explored as much.

3. The whole black and white vs. color scheme is a clever tool. The two teenagers who end up back in the 1950s find a black & white world but as this world opens up, things turn to colors. It is visually interesting to watch this contrast throughout the film.

4. The sexual repression theme is somewhat heavy-handed by the end though there is a twist: the teenage female protagonist who first introduces sex to the community finds out that there is a value in books and ideas. While the rest of the teenagers want to go nuts, she pulls back and decides there are more important things for her to explore.

5. In the ending scenes, the characters ask what they are supposed to be doing in life and the response is “we don’t know.” While on one hand this is a refutation of the 1950s world where “we just do things because that is how they are done,” this is not very satisfying: the better alternative is left unexplained.

An interesting film with some surprises. I wish it could have explored some other suburban issues beyond sex and conformity…but perhaps that is a lot to ask.

(This film was generally well-received by critics: it is 85% fresh, 70 fresh out of 82 reviews, at RottenTomatoes.com.)

The rise of “smart growth”

Posted on by

Reuters reports on “smart growth” initiatives across the United States with Rockville, Maryland as a prime example. With a weakened economy, more buyers seem to prefer locations closer to downtowns where they can walk, more easily access amenities, and avoid some of the pitfalls of suburban sprawl.

From the article:

Rockville’s renaissance over the past four years shows how the shift toward urban-style living has reached the suburbs. And urban planners insist the trend has legs.

Dubbed “smart growth,” the movement favors the development of a mix of housing and businesses in and near existing cities. At the same time, it discourages the Topsy-like growth of peripheral suburbs, known disparagingly as “sprawl.”

“Sprawl” is a term commonly used to describe the suburbs. It implies automobile dependence, spread out houses, strip malls, big box stores, and a lack of open space. In contrast, “smart growth” offers something different: more dense development, mixed-use development, more thought-through development principles, and a lessened reliance on automobiles.

More suburban communities seem to desire “smart growth,” particularly to help revive their downtowns. This translates into certain development goals: building around existing transportation facilities (like railroads), constructing condos and more dense residential units, and seeking to attract dining, retail, and entertainment uses that can expand a downtown from just a place to errands in during the day.

h/t The Infrastructurist

The first Target arrives in Manhattan

Posted on by

Ariel Kaminer writes in the New York Times about shopping at the first Target in Manhattan which is located in East Harlem:

It is a sharp contrast to hopping from store to store for kitchen tools here, socks there, electronics in yet another place… That dominant New York shopping model has its charms, but really, remind me what they are. I like local merchants as much as the next New York nostalgist, but on a torpid summer day there is much to be said for the suburban efficiency of one-stop shopping…

It all seems so convenient (and cheap) that you start to think you should just buy everything then and there, to have on hand when you need it.

But what did I need? … Four Riedel wine glasses ($39.99)? (When the same brand is available at Target and Tiffany, it’s time to re-evaluate the distinction between mass and class.)…

After several hours, I found myself wandering through the aisles with my shopping cart, glassy-eyed from the sheer glut of choices, idly reaching for things that I felt no special connection to. It was time to go.

Kaminer appears to be thinking through the implications of  of big box shopping stores that offers consumers many cheap options (and even some high-end fare). Granted, this one-stop shopping has not just been the domain of suburbanites: it has been available in department stores for a long time. But the experience of going to a downtown Macy’s or Marshall Field’s still seems quite different than going to Target. Those department stores were and still are more of an experience and you pay for that experience as opposed to a Target or Wal-Mart or Home Depot where the goal is primarily efficiency and low prices.

Additionally, the construction of urban malls and shopping centers (but usually lacking the abundant parking lots) really lowers the walls between the urban and suburban shopping experience. This Target is located in “the first retail power center in Manhattan” that also features Best Buy, Old Navy, and Costco. Though it is mainly accessible by subway, the dominant world of American shopping – malls and big box stores – is now available to Manhattanites.

Quick Review: The Stepford Wives (1975)

Posted on by

I recently watched the original version of this film from 1975 as opposed to the 2004 version with Nicole Kidman and others. The movie starts with a family of four moving from New York City to the suburbs where the mother, Joanna, starts uncovering some of the secrets of Stepford. The film attempts to make some pointed commentary in two main areas: gender relations and suburbia. Some quick thoughts:

1. On gender relations. Released in the mid 1970s (and based on a book published in 1972), the movie clearly draws upon a growing feminist movement. The heroine is married to a lawyer and has two children but also has dreams of becoming a recognized artistic photographer. Her husband seems sympathetic but then is drawn into a secretive men’s club in Stepford. Many of the women in town are supposedly what men want in wives: women who clean, cook, care for the children, and generally aim to please their husbands in all they do. Of course, Joanna eventually finds why the women are this way and is horrified.

2. Closely tied to these ideas about gender is the setting. In the city, Joanna seems to find life but feels trapped in the suburbs and comments on the lack of noise. In Stepford, the men do the important work while the women are expected to do traditional female tasks. New York City represents freedom and choices; Stepford is about repression and servitude. The film is clear: suburbia may be good for men (particularly those who high-status jobs) and children but it certainly bodes ill for women.

3. The ending is not very hopeful. I imagine the filmmaker (and book author) thought the suburbs were dragging down life across America. Of course, this film is not alone in these thoughts; there are plenty of books(fiction and non-fiction), TV shows, movies, and more that present a similar perspective. It is not too far of a leap from this film to the world of Desperate Housewives.

4. I was reminded by this film how far movies have come since the mid 1970s. The pace of the film was rather slow with some longer scenes and many took place without any music in the background. (It is hard to find movies these days that are conservative with their use of music – today, it generally seems to be amped up in order to enhance the emotional pull.) The camera shots and angles seem primitive and some of the zoom-ins were clunky. The story still comes through but the presentation these days is much smoother and manipulative.

Though the film is clunky at points, it is interesting for its attempt at commentary in the mid 1970s.

Unique planned communities in America

Posted on by

CNN Money takes a quick look at a few of “the most unusual planned communities” in the United States. From a large town for active retirees to a Martha Stewart designed community to a community built around a new Catholic university, these places certainly are interesting.

Celebration, Florida also makes this list. Celebration was developed by Disney and is the subject of several interesting books that focus on the early years of the community:

–Celebration, U.S.A.: Living in Disney’s Brave New Town, Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, 2000

–The Celebration Chronicles: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property Value in Disney’s New Town, Andrew Ross, 2000

Designing the suburban future

Posted on by

Allison Arieff writes in the New York Times about a design competition sponsored by the Rauch Foundation for the future of suburbs on Long Island. The blog post includes pictures of some of the 212 entries. Looking quickly at the five entries listed by Arieff, I am intrigued by #1 (a new transportation system better connecting suburb to suburb) and #3 (building compounds that combine uses). Some interesting ideas are out there regarding the future of suburbia…

The effects of decreased mobility

Posted on by

Christianity Today explores the implications of decreased American mobility for churches. According to Census figures:

Despite commercial air travel, interstate highways, mobile phones, and e-mail, the mobility rate has declined steadily since the U.S. Census Bureau began tracking such data in 1948. In the aftermath of World War II, as suburbs began sprouting from farmland, a record 21.2 percent of Americans moved between 1950 and 1951. But only 13.2 percent of Americans moved between 2006 and 2007. Then in April 2009, the Census Bureau reported that a mere 11.9 percent of Americans moved in 2008. This rate was the lowest in recorded U.S. history, and the 1.3 percent drop between 2007 and 2008 was the second-largest one-year decline. The number rebounded only barely in 2009, to 12.5 percent.

Looks like people are staying put though 35 million Americans still moved in 2008. This also suggests the suburbs are no longer drawing people like they used to – perhaps the result of many Americans growing up in suburbia and then sticking around. Some of these suburbs (and their churches) will become established places and will have to move past an image of being “new” or “recent.”

I would think this mobility rate will increase when the economy picks up again.