USA Sprawl Festival continued: St. Louis

[Bond James Bond]

Link to the first thread in this series.
Note: Please do not reply to this first thread in the series anymore, it's too big.
USA Sprawl Festival

Or, click on the following links to see just individual cities in that thread:

Kansas City
Some northern Denver suburbs
Albuquerque
Seattle
Las Vegas
Dallas-Fort Worth
Some western & southern Minneapolis suburbs
Orange County, California
Philadelphia
Tucson
Orlando
Northern Virginia/DC
Cleveland
Houston
Northern Atlanta suburbs
Indianapolis
Long Island, New York
Jacksonville
Boston

And the 2nd round ones:

Phoenix-East
Phoenix-South
Phoenix-North
Phoenix-West
Portland
Silicon Valley
Los Angeles
San Bernardino County, California
San Diego - south
San Diego - north
Buffalo
Broward County, Florida
Dallas-Fort Worth II
Riverside County, California
Denver - south suburbs
Orange County II
Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey
Milwaukee
Columbus, Ohio
El Paso, with some Juarez
San Antonio
Detroit
Tampa
Cincinnati
East Bay Area, Kollyfornia
Sacramento, Kollyfornia
Memphis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ST. LOUIS

I thought I'd make this one a bit educational, with a few stats thrown in for context.

In a typical year, between 1 and 1.5 million new single-family houses are built in the US. With numbers like that, it's little surprise we get so many cookie-cutter houses.


In a typical year, about 300,00 to 350,000 new multifamily units are built in the US. Hence, we get mass-produced, cookie-cutter apartments, too.


American consumers spent $369.9 billion just in December. Total retail sales for all of 2006 came to $4.4 trillion, up 6% from 2005. In comparison, the size of the entire economy of Japan is a little over $4 trillion. No wonder we see so much of this.


The Chrysler assembly plant in Fenton. In 2005, the US produced 4,321,272 cars and 7,202,978 light trucks.


In 2005, suburban markets added 12.4 million square feet of new office space.


The top 130 US metros contain 12.7 billion square feet of industrial space.


A record total of 76,043,902 fans attended Major League Baseball games in the 2006 regular season, representing a 1.5 percent increase over the previous record set in 2005. The Cardinals sold out every game, with 3,407,104 attending the new Busch stadium.


For the 2005-2006 season, a record 17,340,879 people attended regular-season NFL games, for an average of more than 67,000 fans per game.


I tried to find out how many residential demolition permits were issued nationwide in any recent year but couldn't find anything. It's fairly easy to find it for states, cities and metro areas, but I had no luck nationally.


I also tried to find out how many miles of new freeway were constructed in any recent year, but had no luck there, either.


In 2005, airlines carried 660,480,345 domestic passengers on 10,090,274 flights.


Well those are the basic stats, on with the rest of the pics . . .







New and old sprawl.




This looked kinda interesting. Couldn't figure out what those green terrace things were.




More cookie-cutter apartments . . .


. . . followed by more cookie-cutter houses.


Close-up of the cookie-cutter houses.


And some cookie-cutter trailers, too.






Getting a site ready for more.


South and west of the city there were lots of hills with subdivisions platted on the crest of the hills but with the valleys in-between left intact.


Another one of that type.


Another close-up.




The obligatory mall. This one with an office attached.


And yet another mall. This is where some of that $4.4 trillion went last year.


Yuck.




Close-up of some of those cookie-cutter apartments.


Respite from the sprawl. Nice.


I think this is a high school.


Another respite from the sprawl.


I suppose I should have looked up how many acres of farmland were lost to residential development in any recent year, but I got lazy.




McHouses and McMansions.




Another one of those developments-on-the-ridge in the southwest metro. You can't really tell from these particular shots that there's a little valley or gully in-between the streets, but if you look at the aerial you can tell this is the case.




At least the streets are straight.






These townhouse thingys look OK.

[The Cebuano Exultor]

OMG! America is, indeed, the world's greatest consuming nation.

Btw, Japan's 2006 GDP exceeds $4.7 trillion. So, I guess, it still has a slightly larger overall economy than America's 2006 retail sales.

But, damn...$4.4 trillion is a lot of money just for spending on retail items (Does this include sales in fastfood and other restaurants?). No wonder the U.S. is often considered as the 'last-resort consumer' of the world. But, if I were American, I'd be very worried about the low savings rate of my country. Isn't it true that Americans already have negative average saving rates?

*************************************************************
QUERIES:

Why do relatively small office buildings in Midwestern America, such as the one in the 18th picture, need large sprawling parking lots. Is there really enough parking demand so as to justify such?

Do you think Americans have already achieved a state or point of satity wherein America has reached a point where consumption must slowly plateau because there's no more room for more consumption?

Thanks for the pics and thanks, in advance, for answering my queries.

[Bond James Bond]

I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Re: Japan.
I got my Japan GDP figure from the CIA World Factbook (2005 figure). So if my number is wrong, blame them.

Re: Savings rate.
Yes, I believe Americans have a negative savings rate. But when we spend $4.4 trillion on stuff at the mall, what do you expect? Yes, I think that $4.4 trillion number includes restaurants. But I'm not 100% certain.

Re: Parking lots in Midwest office parks.
As for the 18th picture, I think that parking lot was also for other buildings which were just outside the photo. A lot of the other ones with unusually large parking lots are older office parks which were built when parking codes required more parking than was needed. At the time, they were simply making their best guess as to how much parking was needed. But still, even newer office parks still have a lot of parking. This is because they're in the suburbs, and disproportionate numbers of people drive to work instead of taking transit. Shame on them. But that's how it goes.

Re: Point of satity.
No, I doubt Americans will ever be satisfied with their levels of consumption. For example, look at housing. Average houses built nowadays contain many features that only expensive houses had 30 years ago (3-car garages, atruim-style entrances, hot tubs, etc.). Once these things become popular among the rich, everyone else thinks they have to have one, then the thing becomes commoditized and relatively inexpensive, so before you know it, everyone can have one. But in the meantime, the rich think of "something else" they can add to their houses or lifestyles to set them apart from everyone else. But, alas, before long that, too, will become commoditized, and your average-Joe will be able to afford one. I can't really see this ending. In 50 years, your typical new house will probably have 3 stories, an elevator (or maybe an escalator), paint on the walls that can change color, robotics and electronic sensors embedded in everything, and . . . who knows what else. Maybe they'll put a shopping center in the basement. So zillions of typical middle-class Americans will be enthralled by these new houses, and houses like the ones below will move downmarket, becoming "slums" which the "poor" people will move into. We will have the nicest slums in the world!



You're already seeing a lot of older suburbs in the US moving downmarket to become "slums" (even though the houses were/are still pretty nice, 50's or 60's middle-class stuff). Why does this happen? Because the (many) people with more money can afford something even better, like this:



As I've looked through these sprawl pics, and as I've observed my own suburb and the ones around me, it never ceases to amaze me how many people here can afford $30,000 SUV's and $500,000 McMansions. There is no end to it.

[Bond James Bond]

Oh yeah, speaking of American consumer culture I had one other experience during the Holidays which added to all this . . .

I was doing a temporary job in a department store (Macy's) in a fancy shopping mall near me. I was working the the women's accessory's section - handbags, stockings/socks, winter overalls. I *could not believe* how many women there are who were so willing to pluck down $200, $300 or more just for a stupid handbag!! The big brand that women went ga-ga over the most was Coach. You can see from the link the prices of these things. The woman who was the head of this department told me they sold several of them every day. So, we're talking at least 1,000 of these $200-$500 handbags sold every year . . . just in that one department store. Coach also had a standalone store elsewhere in the mall, and the Nordstrom in the mall also sold Coach bags. So, just in this one mall, we're probably talking about 3,000 or so Coach handbags sold every year.

And that's just Coach. There were many other brands, too, including several which are just as expensive as Coach, if not moreso.

After doing this job for a couple weeks, I got curious and went over to the woman's handbag section in the Nordstrom. Nordstrom, in case you don't know, is a much more upscale department store than Macy's. I looked at some of the brands they had there, and checked the prices. About the *cheapest* bags they had there were the Coach ones - nearly everything else was *more* expensive, or at least about the same. And yet there were swarms of women in there, scooping them up by the fistful.

In this women's handbag section in Nordstrom there was also a nook dedicated just to Gucci handbags. I just had to check this out. The cheapest one I saw was about $700, and most were around $2000. For the life of me, I didn't really think they'd sell too many of these, maybe a few each month. So I started talking to the two saleswomen who were working in that section. I told them I was doing a temp job in the handbag section in Macy's and had become curious about the industry. I asked them how many Gucci handbags they sold there in a typical week or month. They told me they sold about 200 per month . . . much more during the Christmas season! Yes, that's at least 2,400 handbags costing $700 or more each year, just in this one Gucci nook in this one department store in this one mall in one suburb in the US (in all fairness, she said the only other Gucci outlet in the NW USA was in downtown Seattle, and you had to go to California to find the next-nearest one . . . but still).

Anyway, this little anecdote should give you an example of the vast spending power of the American consumer.

[The Cebuano Exultor]

Re: Nordstrom

Yeah, I know about this brand of department stores.

Re: America's Luxury Goods (Particularly, Luxury Handbags) Market

That's cool to know that not only Japanese women are going ga-ga over luxury stuff but American women as well. Note, though, that America is just the second largest luxury market. Japan is and has always been (for the better part of the 1990s upto now) the largest luxury market. What you saw in Seattle [referring to the ga-ga-over-expensive-handbags phenomenon back there in Seattle] is nothing compared to what is happening in Japan. When Louis Vuitton (the most luxurious--and expensive--brand of handbags out there) opened their Japanese Flagship Store in Tokyo's Omotesando Area, there was a more-than-a-mile long line of women eager to get their hands on the latest Louis Vuitton fashion accessories. In Tokyo, you can hardly see women without a Louis Vuitton (...Prada, Gucci, Burberry, Coach, and what have you) handbag. It's like a social necessity to sport these luxury items back there.

Anyway, what I find amazing is that, despite Japan having the world's largest luxury goods market, its retail sales are no where near that US$ 4.4 trillion figure consumed by U.S. consumers. At first, I was really puzzled. But then, after my constant researches on the internet, I found explanations.

Though, American's spend a bit less than the Japanese in luxury items, they spend an aweful lot more on non-luxury goods sold at sweatshop (think: Made-in-China stuffs) dependent cheap-to-medium priced goods retailers like the countless: Wal-Mart(s), Lowe's(s), Best Buy(s), Target(s), Costco(s), Sears(s), J.C. Penney(s), Macy's(s), Nordstrom(s), IKEA(s), May Department Store(s), Federated Department Store(s), The Home Depot(s), Rite Aide(s), Kwik Save(s), Koreger(s), Walgreen(s) and what have you; spread accross America.

What I find peculiar about American consumption is that an average American consumer has the tendency to buy cheap stuff (mostly made in China, Mexico and Vietnam) that are easily destroyed after just a few uses so that he'd go back and buy yet another of such cheap item. Imho, that's really a wasteful and unsustainable type of consumption. In contrast, Japanese people are frugal consumers in that they are very picky in choosing the items they buy. That may be the biggest reason why they choose to buy luxury-items/goods rather than cheap-goods because they know that these goods will last longer and would serve its purpose more efficinectly than cheap-items/goods.

I know that, as of now, it is hard to say that Americans would eventually learn not to be 'spoiled' (), but I think, in the long-run, a global economic balancing between surplus producing China and excessive consuming America will be corrected and/or rebalanced because I'm damn well sure that America trade deficits cannot continue forever (indefinitely). Moreso, Americans may soon find that having negative savings rates is detremental to America's long-term economic stability.

[Lee]

^In case you have not been listening to the news, America's trade deficit is now shrinking, and is now recording a budget surplus (as of October). Once the budget is totally rebalanced, the trade deficit should start to shrink further. Oh, and our savings rate is no longer negative. Wages are booming here, so no need for that.

[Bond James Bond]

Just a little FYI . . .

When I was working in the woman's handbags department, I discovered that all those $300 Coach bags were Made in China as well, it wasn't just the cheap stuff. Perhaps the Gucci bags aren't, but those are a much smaller market than the Coach ones.

I personally have my doubts that many "luxury" goods are any better-made than the cheap stuff, but that's a topic for another thread.

There were a couple of Japanese brands in the women's handbag department, but it was all stuff covered with designs that looked like Hello Kitty. It made me think that Japan was filled with women who went around carrying handbags that looked like they were meant for teenagers.

[Clay_Rock]

"In a typical year, between 1 and 1.5 million new single-family houses are built in the US. In a typical year, about 300,00 to 350,000 new multifamily units are built in the US."

WOW! That's amazing. I didn't realize so many housing units were built each year.

You got me thinking, so I decided to look for Canadian data. According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation there were approximately 227,400 new home starts in 2006. The Calgary area saw over 17,000 housing starts, which is 25 % more than 2005!

[Bond James Bond]

^
Here's a chart showing US housing starts between 1978 and 2005:
http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sec...cContentID=554

Interestingly, in the mid-80's there was twice as much multifamily construction going on as there is now.

[Philamerican]

** I recently attended a meeting on TOD (Transit Oriented Development) legislation north of Philadelphia. There was talk of extending rail service from Philadelphia northward and New York Eastward to a number of small towns/cites such as Harrisburg, Reading, Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and Trenton.

The Lehigh Valley has been especially hit by sprawl, and the new "RenewLV" board is going "full steam" (yuk yuk) toward TOD and limiting sprawl.

[ranny fash]

as a european i'm always amazed at the size of new houses being built in the US. they're fucking huge! those average homes would be considered very large here. the mcmansions are insanely big. and there's so many of them, looking at google earth.

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

Oh yeah, speaking of American consumer culture I had one other experience during the Holidays which added to all this . . .

I was doing a temporary job in a department store (Macy's) in a fancy shopping mall near me. I was working the the women's accessory's section - handbags, stockings/socks, winter overalls. I *could not believe* how many women there are who were so willing to pluck down $200, $300 or more just for a stupid handbag!! The big brand that women went ga-ga over the most was Coach. You can see from the link the prices of these things. The woman who was the head of this department told me they sold several of them every day. So, we're talking at least 1,000 of these $200-$500 handbags sold every year . . . just in that one department store. Coach also had a standalone store elsewhere in the mall, and the Nordstrom in the mall also sold Coach bags. So, just in this one mall, we're probably talking about 3,000 or so Coach handbags sold every year.

And that's just Coach. There were many other brands, too, including several which are just as expensive as Coach, if not moreso.

After doing this job for a couple weeks, I got curious and went over to the woman's handbag section in the Nordstrom. Nordstrom, in case you don't know, is a much more upscale department store than Macy's. I looked at some of the brands they had there, and checked the prices. About the *cheapest* bags they had there were the Coach ones - nearly everything else was *more* expensive, or at least about the same. And yet there were swarms of women in there, scooping them up by the fistful.

In this women's handbag section in Nordstrom there was also a nook dedicated just to Gucci handbags. I just had to check this out. The cheapest one I saw was about $700, and most were around $2000. For the life of me, I didn't really think they'd sell too many of these, maybe a few each month. So I started talking to the two saleswomen who were working in that section. I told them I was doing a temp job in the handbag section in Macy's and had become curious about the industry. I asked them how many Gucci handbags they sold there in a typical week or month. They told me they sold about 200 per month . . . much more during the Christmas season! Yes, that's at least 2,400 handbags costing $700 or more each year, just in this one Gucci nook in this one department store in this one mall in one suburb in the US (in all fairness, she said the only other Gucci outlet in the NW USA was in downtown Seattle, and you had to go to California to find the next-nearest one . . . but still).

Anyway, this little anecdote should give you an example of the vast spending power of the American consumer.

OK, an update on this.

I went to the downtown Seattle Nordstrom today and went into the Gucci nook there. This is the only other Gucci outlet in the NW USA (the one in the Bellevue Nordstrom I mentioned before is the other). I told the saleswoman there I was interested in the woman's handbag industry and asked her about how many sales of Gucci bags they get in that store in a month. She said she gets about 1/day during a slow month, and about 3-4/day during Christmas.

So let's say there's 6 slow months (with 1 sale/day), 4 medium months (with 2 sales/day) and 2 Christmas months (with 3.5 sales/day). Do the math, and that comes out to about 630 Gucci bags sold per year in this one store.

Now, add in the ~2,400 Gucci bags sold in the Bellevue store per year, and we're talking roughly 3,030 Gucci bags sold in the NW USA per year. Let's say the average sales price is $1,000. That's $3,030,000/year just in sales of Gucci bags in the NW USA.

If you figure that Gucci's share of the woman's handbag market in the NW USA is probably something like 0.5%, we're talking something like $606 million in sales of woman's handbags in total just in the Northwest USA every year!!

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by ranny fash

as a european i'm always amazed at the size of new houses being built in the US. they're fucking huge! those average homes would be considered very large here. the mcmansions are insanely big. and there's so many of them, looking at google earth.

Here ya go. In suburban St Louis, 3,204 square feet, with 4 bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths, living/dining room, family room, breakfast area, bonus room and 3-car-garage (SUV not included). For only $296,990.



http://www.newhomesource.com/search/...5834&cid=34509

[Bond James Bond]

Good god, there's some cheap houses around St Louis!

"Juniper (2543 sq. ft.) is a 2-story home with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1 half bath and 2-car garage. Features include living room and master bed upstairs."

$208,990



http://www.newhomesource.com/search/...p=cr&cid=34109

[LtBk]

I don't think the U.S is building freeways anymore, just extensions or improvements(which take forever).

[El Huarache for Real]

I find very very stupid, moronic, that a lot of people are willing to pay $700 for a handbag that cost probably $10. And in other places, you can find the same handbags without the *luxury logo* for $12.

Are the majority of americans stupid ?

This is why the gap between rich people and red necks is improving:

80% or more (the medium-class worker) are stupid. It is sad to say that, but it is the true.

Why Warren Buffet is rich?

He only buy things when those things (shares and other stuff) have a price lower than the real price (the cost to made the thing).

Chinesse people actually have much more the Warren Buffet`s mentality that the majority of the americans. That is why they will run the world.

[Bond James Bond]

I find very very stupid, moronic, that a lot of people are willing to pay $700 for a handbag that cost probably $10. And in other places, you can find the same handbags without the *luxury logo* for $12.

Are the majority of americans stupid

LOL, I think it's dumb, too. But it's so decadant it amazes me.

[Bond James Bond]

Here, this Coach handbag is "only" $498.



If you go to JC Penny you can find something similar for about $30. But it wouldn't be the same, because it wouldn't be a Coach!

[The Cebuano Exultor]

Although I agree with you that it is quite stupid for people to buy sought-after 'luxury' handbags for US$ 700 or more even when the cost is, most probably, just US$ 10; I have to disagree with you that following the Chinese people's savings/thrift binge is good for them. Remember, China via needs American consumption in order for their surplus production to avoid collectig dust on shop shelves global trade.

I'm not saying consumption or, rather, over-consumption is good either. What I'm trying to say is that a nation's economy will only be sustainably prosperous and/or stable in the long-term is through a balance between both consumption and production.

The world economic status quo, wherein United States (being the most significant consuming nation) and China (being the most significant manufacturing nation) having trade imbalances [the U.S. gets huge deficits while China having large surpluses], is the main driving force behind the semi-robust state of the World Economy for quite sometime now.

These two engines of the world economy have their economies so inter-related/inter-twined that if one fails the other will fail as well. For example, China needs America's large consumption for their surplus production. At first it looks like America is in a better position than China. But then, one should note that Americans are extremely indebted citizens. Now you ask the question...where do they get money then? Well, that is the time China will use its excessive quantities of surplus dollars (from trade with the U.S.) to buy large amounts of U.S. Treasury Bills. In that process, China lends hundreds of billions of dollars to America in exchange for U.S. Treasury Bills. The money lent to America by China will again be used by Americans in their continues consumption frenzy. Now, in this scenario, China clearly has leverage over America. This example depicts the extremely mutual China-U.S. trade relations.

So, what's wrong?!

This year (2007), U.S. consumers spending will slowdown. This'll be a big problem for Chinese exports.

SOLUTION:
Americans should learn to spend less while the Chinese need to boost their spending.

[NorthStar77]

I'm glad I have a rational girlfriend. Brands is even less important for her than for me. I don't think she has ever bought a handbag costing more than 30$.