Thinking about two suburban shopping malls recently demolished in the western suburbs of Chicago (here and here), how might a suburb go about marking – if at all – where the shopping mall once stood?
Both malls operated for over four decades. People from the suburb in which they were located and nearby suburbs shopped and gathered there. The communities in which they were located gathered and used the tax revenue generated by the mall.
As redevelopment plans get underway, is it worth marking where the mall once stood? Imagine a roadside marker that says “Former site of the Stratford Square Mall.” Or within the new development some indication on the ground of the footprint of the mall. Or naming some part of the new development after the mall that was once there.
Perhaps marking the former mall site in some way is going too far. Plenty of suburban redevelopment happens without much concern with what was there before. Historic preservation groups and efforts can save or identify properties worth holding on to. But it takes money and local will to remember past land uses and buildings. Would there be enough interest in remembering these shopping malls?
One feature I like about Google Streetview is that with over a decade of streetscape images, you can go back and see what an address looked like years ago. This might be possible to do with other mediums, such as overlaying older photographs or drawings over current images, but it can be difficult to track down such images. The malls will live on in Streetview, even as the sites are transformed.
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?
In the last few years, license plate cameras have popped up across suburbs near where I live. It took me a while to recognize what they were, but now that I know what they look like, I see they are in many locations. Why has there been little resistance to the presence of these cameras? I find it hard to imagine suburbanites would have liked this happening several decades ago. Why so little discussion or opposition today?
Two conjectures (with no evidence for either outside of my own knowledge of suburbs):
Fear of crime. They see and hear many stories about crime and the role of cars in those crimes. If license plate cameras can track people who commit crimes and do so quickly, that may be a small price to pay to keep their suburban community safe. (See also use of doorbell cameras in efforts to combat suburban crime.)
The surveillance state is already here, whether there are license plate cameras or not. People can be tracked by their phones, their credit card activity, their social media use, through cameras mounted inside and outside buildings. Why fight a system that is already in place and to which we already assented (by using smartphones, social media, etc.)? (See the term “surveillance capitalism” first used in 2014.)
There could be other factors at play. Companies and organizations have pushed these cameras as opportunities and solutions? People haven’t noticed them or don’t know what they are? This is just part of technological and social change?
I will be looking to see if there is more public discussion of their presence and how much information is available about how often they are used.
“Several municipalities, particularly in the suburbs have adopted their own rules regarding e-bikes,” Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias told us. “Right now, it’s a hodgepodge or local ordinances and regulations, depending on where you live. That inconsistency is problematic because it makes roads less safe for all of us.”
Suburbs like local control, the ability to set their own local rules and ordinances. In this situation, some have responded to the number of e-bikes and e-scooters with regulations and others have not.
Here are some possible future pathways regarding e-bike and e-scooter regulation, ranked from what I think is most unlikely to happen to what I think is most likely:
Suburbs work together to have common rules. They decide the common suburban experience is threatened, whether it could be the safety of riders or difficulties drivers face encountering these vehicles. It would make sense for suburbs sharing borders to have the same rules as it is not always obvious when you are crossing from one suburban community to another. But since suburbs tend not to work together, I do not think this is likely to happen. What might get them to work together? A far-fetched scenario: the city of Chicago says any suburbanites riding e-bikes or e-scooters in the city has to pay an extra tax so suburban communities fight back by saying they allow residents to ride freely in their suburb .`
State laws are passed that then take precedence over local regulations. As noted in the editorial, the state can change the classifications for e-bikes and e-scooters. Or perhaps they could adjust roadway rules. A coalition of state lawmakers can come together to address this pressing issue facing suburban and other kinds of communities. This could happen if the political will is there.
Suburbs continue to make their own regulations if they want. Perhaps they lobby hard to keep local control or political movement at the state level does not take place. Slowly, more suburbs adopt regulations and it all becomes less of “a hodge-podge” in a few years as consensus emerges about how best to regulate these vehicles.
Birkenstock is continuing its U.S. retail expansion with its first Midwestern store in the Chicago suburb of Naperville, Ill.
According to the German footwear brand, the new store is located at 20 W. Jefferson Avenue and offers Birkenstock’s full footwear collection for men, woman and kids, along with the Care Essentials line of premium, all-natural foot care products.
David Kahan, president of Birkenstock Americas, told FN that the company decided to open this location after hosting a pop-up at local retailer Naperville Running Company a few years ago.
“[The pop-up] gave us our first glimpse into just how special the local community is,” Kahan said. “The passion and dedication of our fans, particularly around the post-run sport world was truly inspiring. It highlighted the opportunity to connect in a bigger way throughout the year, and we’re excited to return with a dedicated space to share the full Birkenstock collection with Naperville.”
According to the Birkenstock store locator, they have many resellers: nearly 4,700 locations. But they operate only 9 of their own stores. Here are these locations and their urban/suburban status:
From this list, six of the nine locations are suburban. Birkenstock stores are in the suburbs of the country’s three largest metropolitan areas – New York, LA, Chicago – and are also outside several other sizable cities – Phoenix, San Francisco, and Phoenix. Can we expect new locations outside Dallas, Miami, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Philadelphia soon (the remaining top 10 metropolitan areas by population)?
Additionally, Birkenstock has stores in two cities: two locations in New York City and one in Nashville.
Residents from all over the United States can access Birkenstock products online or through thousands of retailers. But the company has picked these largely suburban locations to put a company store and that tells us something about their intended market and their brand.
I grew up on a 64-acre apple orchard in rural Ohio. To reveal my origin story to a new acquaintance is inevitably to watch their pupils dilate as they picture bucolic scenes of fruit-laden trees, decorative cornstalks, tractor-pulled hayrides, and caramel-doused apples plunked onto sticks. Orchards, I’ve come to see, are like catnip to the imaginations of boho-chic suburbanites, TikTokking wanderlusters, and harried parents on the edge of a nervous breakdown. If apple pie enjoys symbolic stature as the wholesome, patriotic dessert of America, the orchard is its hallowed birthplace and cradle—a mythical agricultural space that conjures bygone days of bliss and childhood innocence.
As a suburbanite, I am not a frequent visitor to apple orchards. What I know largely comes from advertisements for orchards and conversations with others who visit orchards. From what I can gather, the orchards are now less about apples and more about entertainment and being a mini theme park. Food options. Corn mazes. Activities for kids. Various pricing levels. Yes, some apple picking options or apple purchasing options before leaving.
Does this appeal to “boho-chic suburbanites”? Does that include people who want a controlled and cheap setting for fun with their kids, an interesting setting for selfies and family pictures, a way to fulfill some vision of what fall is supposed to look like, or some connection to an agricultural past that some have a long connection to?
I am sure there are a few good academic papers that could be written about apple orchards in 2025 as sites of consumption, social interactions, late-stage capitalism, and modern connections to nature.
Today’s generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They have rejected their materialistic backgrounds, the goal of a well-paid job, suburban home, automobile, country club membership, first-class travel, status, security, and everything that meant success to their parents. They have had it. They watched it lead their parents to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of “the good life.” (xiv)
By this point, the American suburbs of the postwar era had existed for roughly two decades. The growing communities outside major cities had typically catered to middle-class white residents who sought a particular vision of the good life with a home, some space, and opportunities for their children to succeed (plus multiple reasons for leaving cities).
But Alinsky is hinting at how some who lived in these suburbs or grew up in him did not find them to be the good life. Their experiences suggested the suburbs were found wanting. The answers the suburbs supposedly had did not materialize or they were not the right answers. The suburban life could not address particular and/or difficult social issues.
On the other hand, many Americans continued to move to the suburbs even as some suburbanites were disillusioned. The percentage of Americans living in suburbs continued for multiple decades after Alinsky wrote the book. How many young adults rejected this suburban way of life and turned to something else? The percentage might have been small compared to the mass of suburbanites, even as Alinsky’s work proved influential.
Imagine a suburban municipality full of data centers. It could help serve the needs of the surrounding region. It could draw on its own water and electricity supply (or make its own deals for these resources). It would not have to worry about being located near residences or other land uses where residents feel threatened.
This is not the first time I have thought of this idea. It could work for waste transfer sites. Landfills. Warehouses. Industry. Marijuana dispensaries. Religious congregations (see examples of opposition from my own research here and here)? This could work for the multiple land uses that suburban residents often object to or communities see as threats to their established way of life.
Creating such communities could be difficult. Given that many metropolitan areas are full of development, there might be three primary options to find land for such an endeavor:
Locate the new municipality on the fringes of the region. This has the advantages of not changing densely developed land and it is already located further away from residences.
Convert an existing suburb into such a place. While the image of American suburbs is often that of wealthy and exclusive communities, industrial suburbs have also been around for a long time. There are already suburbs with fewer residents that might be willing to take on more data centers.
Take a bit of land from several existing communities and create this new municipality. This could be hard to do as suburbs are likely to resist losing land. But if the tradeoff is giving up land so that the perceived threat of a data center is not their responsibility, perhaps a conversation can start.
Any of these are unlikely. Not impossible. But suburban leaders and residents have resisted certain land uses for decades. The hope seems to be in each community that if they can successfully keep the land use out, that is success and good luck to other communities in addressing the issue.
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?
Here is how GOBankingRates.com developed the list:
GOBankingRates analyzed the top 1,000 cities by household mean income across the United States to find the safest and richest cities using data from the US Census American Community Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, Zillow Home Value Index, Federal Reserve Economic Data, AreaVibes, and the FBI. The property crime rate per 1,000 residents, violent crime rate per 1,000 residents, livability score, household mean income, and the average total cost of living were scored for each location and sorted to show the safest and richest cities. All data was collected on and is up to date as of August 4th, 2025.
Not all of these are small towns; some might even be considered small cities. All have household mean incomes of over $200,000.
Going further through the top 50 suburbs, few are really large. Naperville comes in at #49, the largest suburb by population on the list by far.
To make this list, a suburb does not have be small and exclusive. It can be slightly larger and exclusive. I wonder if this is due to using the household mean income rather than the median. The mean is more likely to be pulled up by a small number of really high earners while the median gets at the midpoint of the distribution.
Legally Sociable 