Tag Archives: suburbs

Instituting racial covenants for whole neighborhoods outside of Kansas City

Posted on by

Developer J.C. Nichols helped popularize the implementation of racial covenants for whole suburban subdivisions:

Photo by Giancarlo Rojas on Pexels.com

Also known as covenants, they’d existed for decades, typically as an agreement between a developer and buyer on a single lot, proving unpopular to Americans who didn’t want to be controlled on their own property. But Nichols sensed he could foster long-term stability, which would be profitable for him and for homeowners. He initiated restrictions on entire neighborhoods, placing them on the land before any lots were sold—a private zoning system before municipal zoning was widespread. He’s credited as the first developer to emphasize the covenants for middle-class areas and to make them self-renew after periods of 25 to 40 years unless a majority of residents objected, ensuring they’d essentially last forever. For enforcement, he set up homeowners associations.

Nichols’ restrictions started with a few sentences on neighborhood plat documents and eventually ran for a few pages. They set minimum prices for home construction, mandated single-family housing and banned apartments, required a specified amount of space on the fronts and sides of homes, and regulated routine housing elements like chimneys, trellises, windows, vestibules, and porches.

There were also racial restrictions that barred Black residents from owning or renting homes. An early billboard for Nichols’ Country Club District development described the area as “1,000 Acres Restricted.” Newspaper ads claimed that Nichols’ neighborhoods blocked “all undesirable encroachments” and promised that “complete uniformity is here assured.”…

Nobody had seen a swath of suburbia as vast his neighborhoods, which comprised the Country Club District: By the 1940s there were more than a dozen contiguous upper-class and middle-class subdivisions filled with bubbling fountains, tree-lined vistas, and cul-de-sacs, providing homes for as many as 50,000 people across two states. Many subdivisions were buffered by parks and golf courses, and they were all tied together with restrictive covenants. It was the “American’s domestic ideal,” opined a visitor from the New Republic.

Nichols wasn’t the only builder applying covenants. Their use accelerated after 1910, imposing segregation and strict land-development rules across the country. But he was their most prominent proselytizer, promoting their spread through speeches and articles and in leadership roles with national real estate organizations. Nichols’ covenants in Sunset Hill and Mission Hills, two of his poshest neighborhoods, were said by his company to have been copied in more than 50 cities.

Developers, officials, residents, and others developed and put into practice a number of measures to keep people out of white suburban subdivisions. Today, these measures tend to be more economic and zoning-based with fewer explicit references to race and ethnicity. But, as noted above, the outcomes are clear: the suburbs were segregated by race and ethnicity.

More suburban sprawl = disappearing night sky

Posted on by

A resident of Naperville, Illinois describes one consequence of the growth of the suburb and the Chicago region:

Photo by Benjamin Suter on Pexels.com

Growing up, Carhart said he learned the intricacies of the Milky Way from his suburban backyard in Naperville. But slowly, the 64-year-old said, he watched the stars disappear. If someone were to visit his childhood home today, he said, they could count the number of stars they see on their fingers…

“The light pollution is tremendously worse. Out by Naperville we could see the glow in the nighttime sky of Chicago off in the distance, but it only went a little ways up in the sky,” he said. “Over the years we watched it get brighter and then extend overhead and all the way to the other horizon and just take over the sky.”

What can help reduce this light pollution in a large metropolitan area?

The National Park Service suggests considering whether outdoor lighting is necessary, or if reflective tape or reflective surfaces could be used instead. Other sustainable outdoor light specifications, according to the Park Service, are LEDs at 2700 Kelvin. These lights emit a warm color hue instead of blue or white. The Park Service also recommends purchasing LED bulbs that have the lowest lumens possible — the unit of measurement used to specify brightness — and ones that can accommodate motion detectors or dimmers, which it says can enhance health and safety…

Referencing a study from 2020 that found only about 20% of a city’s brightness can be linked to streetlights, Walczak said regulation or policies surrounding light pollution should be directed toward commercial businesses, such as parking lots or building facades.

The proposed solutions – and another suggested later in the article that uses special equipment to avoid certain light wavelengths – are efforts to work around the sprawl of the region. If there are over nine million people living in the Chicago region, is it possible to have a visible night sky?

This could be another argument against suburban sprawl. As Americans develop more land outside of cities, light spreads. Homes and yards have lights. Roadways have lights. Buildings have lights.

Naperville’s success – rapid population growth, vibrant downtown, lots of jobs – comes with lights. It could come with less light than it might have now . But, how many suburbanites are willing to trade lights for seeing the night sky? How many lights are for safety purposes that suburbanites care about (roadways, properties, etc.)?

It would be interesting to see some major suburban communities lead the way on this. And it would likely take significant regional efforts or numerous communities going this direction to make a visible difference.

Who benefits from preserving open space in the suburbs?

Posted on by

I was reading through some newspaper articles from the 1990s about development in my suburban county. In an article on a $75 million bond proposal for county voters to preserve 2,300 acres of open space (which voters did approve), here is one explanation why county voters should increase their property taxes for this purpose:

Photo by David Boozer on Pexels.com

Bond issue proponents have stressed that preserving open land will help everyone by making DuPage County an even more desirable place to live. Saving open space will improve wildlife habitats, help control flooding, improve stream water quality, avoid added congestion and protect property values, Oldfield said. (Lynn Van Matre, “DuPage voters to decide on open space,” Chicago Tribune, November 2, 1997)

The reasons listed for voting in favor of spending this money appear to split into two areas: (1) environmental concerns (wildlife, flooding, water) and (2) a particular quality of life marked by property values and limited traffic.

But, I wonder if the first category is a subset of the second set of concerns. Suburbanites in Chicagoland care about property values and have concerns about drug treatment centers, waste transfer facilities, religious buildings, apartments, and anything else they think threatens their financial investment.

Do suburban residents care more about environmental concerns or about what development might go into these open spaces? From the perspective of some (and this was also expressed in the article above), such land could be used for affordable housing or for community amenities. To keep it as open space means it could not be other uses that people could benefit from.

If preserving property values is the top concern regarding land development, this is the sort of decision that might be made. Such a decision does not come cheaply; local property owners pay more but they do so in order to hopefully boost their investment even more.

(See earlier posts involving questions about who benefits from open space in New Jersey and the motives behind acquisitions by forest preserves.)

Chicago suburbs lobbying at the federal level – and it might pay off?

Posted on by

Multiple Chicago suburbs employ lobbyists in Washington and those lobbyists may pay for themselves:

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Crashes at one of the state’s most dangerous rail crossings, in Elmwood Park, have killed seven people and injured at least 27 over the last few decades. Village officials want to build an underpass to make the intersection safer, but the village can’t do it alone — the $121 million price tag is more than four times the western suburb’s annual budget, according to Village Manager Paul Volpe…

Elmwood Park has paid $230,000 since 2020 to the transportation lobbying firm Tai Ginsberg and Associates, according to federal lobbying records. So far, the village has received $3 million in federal funds, Volpe said…

Illinois cities, towns, villages and counties besides Chicago spent about $838,000 on federal lobbyists in 2020, $1 million in 2021 and $1.4 million in 2022, lobbying disclosure records kept by the U.S. Senate and analyzed by the Chicago Tribune/Pioneer Press show. This year, they have spent a total of $720,000 so far, per lobbying disclosures. The grand total is slightly inexact because lobbyists are not required to report receipts under $5,000.

One town that’s turned its attention to opportunities in Washington is north suburban Niles, where the village board recently renewed a $60,000 contract with lobbying firm Smith, Dawson and Andrews…

So far, Alpogianis said the village is more than satisfied with that change. He pointed to a recent $200,000 federal grant for the Niles Teen Center the village secured with the help of U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin’s office.

Suburbanites tend to like local government because they believe it is easier to convey their interests and they can see and experience local decisions. So getting more federal money that can be directly used to improve a local quality of life is a win, right?

I could imagine two primary objections:

  1. Do lobbyists always pay for themselves? The story cited highlights several examples of successes. Does this work for every suburb?
  2. Is federal money the money suburbs want? Local government beholden to federal dollars? Some might object, others may not care where helpful money comes from.

It would be interesting to hear from the lobbyist side about firms or individuals that do well for suburbs. What is their success rate?

The Chicago suburbs have 99 million square feet of office space

Posted on by

The suburbs are not just places where people live. The Chicago suburbs have a lot of office space:

Photo by 500photos.com on Pexels.com

While higher-end properties are outperforming less expensive options among the suburbs’ 99 million square feet of office space, they still saw a decline in the year’s second quarter, ending a yearlong run of gains, according to data collected by the Chicago-based firm.

The Pentagon has 6,500,000 square feet of space so the suburban office space is over 15 times that of the Pentagon. The Willis Tower in Chicago has roughly 4,000,000 square feet of space so the suburbs have roughly 25 times more space. A football field is 57,600 square feet is the office space covers over 1,718 football fields. If the average new American home is about 2,500 square feet, this office space is nearly 40,000 new average homes.

Note: another website suggests the Chicago suburbs have 162 million square feet of office space, putting the Chicago suburbs behind the Washington D.C. suburbs, the Dallas-Forth Worth suburbs, the Bay Area suburbs, and the New Jersey suburbs.

Whichever number is correct, it is hard to put this much space in perspective. The suburbs may be primarily about single-family homes but they have plenty of space for business.

Capping the population of suburbs

Posted on by

What if each of the thousands of American suburban communities had a maximum population? I had the idea after rereading David Macaulay’s City:

What could the benefits be for American suburbs? As described here, the problems that come with more residents than resources would not occur. Suburbs could be a similar size. Each suburb could have facilities for residents to access and infrastructure they need.

This would go against the American ideal that growth – including population growth in suburbs, cities, and communities – is good. Some suburbs are bigger than others. Americans might often assume because those communities are more successful and desirable. They have competed well. But, that might not be the full story. Are some communities small for particular reasons? Is growth always good?

I am under no illusions that most Americans would want a population cap for suburbs or any other community. And simply capping the population does not address all the issues communities and their residents face. But, it is interesting to consider what good might come from planning ahead for meeting needs in communities with a maximum population.

Suburbs as diverse, welcoming to all (but not criminals), and open for business

Posted on by

The village president of Oak Brook touted the suburb’s approach to crime as part of its success. He ended the op-ed with this:

Photo by Ketut Subiyanto on Pexels.com

Oak Brook is a diverse community, welcoming to everyone except criminals. We’re open for business!

A little bit more on each of the three pieces of diversity, welcomes, and business activity.

Regarding diversity, the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts say the community of just over 8,000 residents is 61.8% white, 30.3% Asian, 4.5% Hispanic or Latino, and 0.6% Black or African American. The median household income is $146,409, the median housing value of owner-occupied units is over $801,000, and the poverty rate is 4.9%.

Many suburbs say they are welcoming and few, if any, would say they welcome criminals.

The community has plenty of business activity as it is home to Oakbrook Center and numerous offices along I-88.

Is this formula – diversity + welcoming + business – the secret to suburban community success? Or, is this a viewpoint from suburbs with certain features and character?

Office vacancies in Chicago suburbs hit record high

Posted on by

The Chicago suburbs are also experiencing high levels of office vacancies:

Photo by Marc Mueller on Pexels.com

The office vacancy rate in the suburbs has ticked up again and is now at a record high. Real estate services firm Jones Lang LaSalle says the suburban office vacancy rose to 28.9% in the second quarter, up from 28.5% in the first quarter. A year ago it was 27.1% and at the beginning of 2020 it was 22.1%. The data is further evidence that companies are still shrinking office footprints as remote work continues. JLL says the suburbs have lost more than 3 million square feet of office space since 2020, nearly the same amount that was lost during the Great Recession that started in 2008.

If these office spaces are lost permanently, here are several things suburban communities would lose:

  1. Property tax revenue. These payments contribute to municipal budgets and might help reduce property tax burdens for residents.
  2. Prestige. Having office space and big corporations is a source of civic pride. Not all suburbs have this. These are visible symbols of economic success.
  3. Jobs within the suburb. Even if a majority of employees come from outside of the particular suburb in which the offices are located, communities and leaders can tout the number of jobs located in the suburb.

On the flip side, if a number of these jobs permanently move to people’s residences, particularly single-family homes, this might help redefine what the suburban single-family home includes. The suburban home might no longer be a strong, private refuge from the outside world, but instead be a combination workplace and home.

A wealthier suburb debates who affordable housing is for

Posted on by

The Chicago suburb of Glen Ellyn has a proposal in front of it regarding transforming vacant hotels into affordable housing. Who might live in the affordable housing?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Affordable housing advocates say the hotel site “checks all the boxes.” It’s accessible to public transit, schools and health care. It’s across the street from a park and within a quarter-mile of three grocery stores…

Exorbitant housing prices in Glen Ellyn keep entry-level teachers, police officers and health care workers from living in the town they serve, advocates say. Parents of young adults with disabilities say their children should be able to stay in their community as they gain independence, but affordable, supportive housing options are scarce…

But Glen Ellyn’s median home value was $465,200 in 2020 — nearly $150,000 higher than the county median. Smaller, more affordable homes are being demolished and replaced with larger ones as Glen Ellyn becomes more affluent…

Full Circle partners with other organizations to provide on-site supportive services. The Elgin complex offers transportation assistance, health and wellness programs, and case management. In Glen Ellyn, Full Circle would build units for people with disabilities and a range of incomes.

Affordable housing is not a concept some suburbanites want near them. They might see such housing as a threat to their property values and/or the local quality of life.

Of those who advocate for more affordable housing in wealthier suburbs, who might might live in such residential units? Is it people who cannot afford housing in the community, surrounding area, or region? Is it lower-income residents or lower-wage workers? Or, is it intended for public servants like firefighters and teachers? Or, is it needed for people with disabilities? Or is it for those who are older and downsizing and want to stay in the community? Or, is it for young professionals who want to start out in the community?

In the public discussions I have seen in wealthier suburbs (see an example here), the latter sets of people tend to attract more support regarding affordable housing. What these discussions can signal is who is more welcome or not in a community.

Selling suburbs where the daytime population swells

Posted on by

I recently heard a radio advertisement for the suburb of Schaumburg, Illinois. The pitch included this fact: the suburb has a daytime population of 150,000 people.

According to the Census Bureau, the population of Schaumburg is over 76,000 people.

Photo by Ingo Joseph on Pexels.com

A suburb that almost doubles in population during the day is not the typical image of suburbs in the United States. Yet, it is one part of the increasingly complex suburbia where some communities are the stereotypical bedroom suburbs and others are office and retail centers.

Schaumburg was an “edge city” as identified by Joel Garreau in 1991. These suburbs have lots of retail and office space and more workers than residents.

Why advertise the number of people in Schaumburg during the day even if they are not there overnight? The daily population presents a business opportunity. What might all those workers, shoppers, and visitors be interested in? Perhaps they need food or a particular good or certain services. In a region with over nine million residents, being able to reach 150,000 each day could be attractive.

(On the other hand, do residents of Schaumburg want more businesses or office space? The suburb is not a small one in terms of population. Is the brand residents want to promote? See previous posts on advertisements for Schaumburg here and here.)