Row Houses & the "vanishing" starter home

I love living in and driving around Old Town Fort Collins, Colorado. The quaint tree-lined streets are filled with a diverse selection of houses that represent the best of how American towns used to be developed. Nearly every street in the area is filled with cozy, comfortable one and two bedroom cottages and bungalows, which are located right alongside beautiful mid-size craftsman and colonials. Those same streets have a pleasant smattering of gorgeous large Victorians and estate-style houses. That sort of mixed-market neighborhood creates a solid community, one which offers a vanishing relic - the starter home.

People tend to have their own understanding, but starter homes are typically perceived as being on the smaller side, in need of renovation, or both. Buyers often go in expecting to stay a few years to build equity, then trade up for something bigger and generally better. But the concept is antiquated given current prices and big floor plans, a dynamic that’s icing out many entry-level shoppers.

Builders have been constructing bigger and bigger homes during the past half-century. Homes with four or more bedrooms made up nearly half of all new construction in 2022, according to Census Bureau data. That compares with 1 in 5 in the 1970s.

More rooms and more upgrades mean more costs. The U.S. median home price is $410,800, up nearly $100,000 since 2019, federal data shows. Layers of local regulations, as well as market dynamics, have pushed builders to go big, rather than catering to first-time buyers with less to spend. “You have zoning requirements that have encouraged large lot sizes,” said Dennis Shea, a housing expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “Home builders, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession, where they were very negatively impacted, find it easier to build larger homes that have higher profit margins.”

The key to the newly-coined "affordability crisis" obviously starts with housing. And finding a way back to the starter home, or a society more accepting of townhouse and rowhouse construction, could be an important key to the national economy in the new era.

David Brooks leaving NY Times for The Atlantic

Even though I taught English for three decades, I still tell people that when I grow up, I want to be David Brooks of the New York Times. Or, I add, perhaps an author like Michael Lewis. As the son of a editor and feature writer, I have been a fan and voracious reader of the "newspaper column" for as long as I can remember. Readers of this blog might recall that I've written about the high esteem I had -- still have -- for the work of legendary Chicago columnist Mike Royko. I feel the same about George Will. 

And, of course, I have always been a fan of David Brooks ... or at least since the late 1990s when I read his work for the Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and eventually the New York Times, where he has been a regular columnist for more than two decades. And, I truly enjoyed and began to follow his writing more regularly after he published a very cool book of pop culture criticism called Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How It Got There. Granted, Brooks definitely has his critics and detractors, and he's by no means perfect, but as an erudite and insightful scholar and cultural commentator, I've always found Brooks to be worth the read.

And, Brooks isn't going away, but he is making a change. This morning Brooks and the New York Times announced that he is leaving his longtime home for a new position at The Atlantic, along with a new podcast and a position at Yale University. Brooks bid farewell to times readers with an extended column, "Time to Say Goodbye." 

It’s been the honor of a lifetime to work here, surrounded by so many astounding journalists. But after 22 wonderful years, I’ve decided to take the exciting and terrifying step of leaving in order to try to build something new. When I came to The Times, I set out to promote a moderate conservative political philosophy informed by thinkers like Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton.

When I think about how the world has changed since I joined The Times, the master trend has been Americans’ collective loss of faith — not only religious faith but many other kinds. In 2003, we were still relatively fresh from our victory in the Cold War, and there was more faith that democracy was sweeping the globe, more faith in America’s goodness, more faith in technology and more in one another. As late as 2008, Barack Obama could run a presidential campaign soaring with hopeful idealism.

The post-Cold War world has been a disappointment. The Iraq war shattered America’s confidence in its own power. The financial crisis shattered Americans’ faith that capitalism when left alone would produce broad and stable prosperity. The internet did not usher in an era of deep connection but rather an era of growing depression, enmity and loneliness. Collapsing levels of social trust revealed a comprehensive loss of faith in our neighbors. The rise of China and everything about Donald Trump shattered our serene assumptions about America’s role in the world.

We have become a sadder, meaner and more pessimistic country. One recent historical study of American newspapers finds that public discourse is more negative now than at any time since the 1850s. Large majorities say our country is in decline, that experts are not to be trusted, that elites don’t care about regular people. Only 13 percent of young adults believe America is heading in the right direction. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say they do not believe in the American dream.

Brooks' column is definitely worth reading for the perspective and insight he brings to "what's happened to America" in the twenty-first century. If nothing else, he is a well-educated and broadly talented writer with enough background knowledge to offer a thoughtful long view on the past, present, and "hopeful" future.

Godspeed, David. Looking forward to what comes next.

Screen Time for Young Kids

Michael Coren, an advice columnist for the Washington Post, believes he has "cracked the code on toddler screen time." I'm a bit suspicious, believing "toddler" and "screen time" really don't go together at all. I'm basing my position about screen time and children on the standards and recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Basically, best practice in raising your kids around "screens" - and that goes back to the anachronism of 'television' for the past fifty years or so - is that children under six months old should have "zero screen time," and up to the age of two, it should be limited to no more than thirty minutes a day. 

How to structure good screen time for toddlers and avoid parental guilt - The Washington Post 

Peer Grading in K12 Education is Unnecessary and Wrong

"Ok, now trade papers with a classmate and take out your red pen."

It's a sentence everyone who has ever gone to school has heard. For as long as teachers have been saying it, a number of kids in every class have always cringed. And it's not always the kids who struggle. In fact, as a coordinator of gifted education for many years, I know the highest achieving students -- the ones who likely have "nothing to worry about" (so it's claimed) by peers seeing their work -- are often the ones who dread the practice the most. They may simply be anxious about their work, classic perfectionism. Or more likely, they're ironically embarrassed by their success and don't want to be mocked or even criticized by students who didn't do as well.

I've never really liked or approved of the practice of peer grading, as a student or a teacher, and I never practiced it in any class I taught. That puts me at odds with many, if not most, educators. And, while the legality of the issue was resolved back in 2002 by the Supreme Court after a family sued over the practice as a violation of family and student privacy, it still comes up from time to time in schools and among teachers as schools and departments debate and discuss their standards for "best practice" in the classroom. Though I've retired from teaching, I am still around schools and teachers, and I still engage int the debate, arguing that the practice is wrong.

Basically, it comes down to this -- Some kids are mean, some kids are insecure and anxious, and outside of those concerns, the practice is simply unnecessary in the learning process. Granted, the world - especially school - is an imperfect place where some people will always be mean and others will always be insecure or anxious or meek or just modest. Teachers can't solve all problems, ease all burdens, and smooth all bumpy paths. Everyone needs to learn resilience, and school plays a big role in that. However, there are some choices we can make that diminish the risk of problems, and peer grading is one of them. 

Now, many teachers over the years have countered that the practice works well as long as teachers set clear expectations, modeling the appropriate behaviors, and dealing with any violations of the protocols. But I feel that view is rather naive. Of course we want to set expectations, model good behavior, and deal with the problems. But does a teacher always know when it’s happening? When kids are inappropriate and cruel? Hardly. Any educator or parent knows most bullying happens in the dark and victims rarely complain out of fear.

And what about kids who give favors to other kids who are friends? How does the teacher know? Happens all the time, as we know from being students. With that in mind, I'd argue the practice and the grades are inauthentic at best.

So, regardless of whether a teacher could effectively manage it all the time, the practice is quite simply unnecessary. If it’s just homework or daily practice, then kids can grade themselves. They know if they’re being honest. And if it’s a true assessment then kids have no business seeing another kid's grade anyway.

Colorado Band Velvet Daydream battles AI version of itself

Well, this was bound to happen, right? It's like cloning meets Tron ... or something like that.

With the rise of AI and a social media world filled with deep fakes, it's becoming harder to maintain your own identity and simply exist as yourself with no competition from ... other artificially created versions of you. The publishing world has seen this with authors discovering fake AI-generated writing in their names, even using their own intellectual property. And now in the music world, a Colorado band is battling an AI version of a band with the same name.

Velvet Daydream, an excellent retro-hard rock band I wrote about a year ago, recently learned of another eerily similar and entirely fake band using the same name. 

“A few months ago, someone sent us a message and showed us there was an AI band with our name,” says Ryder King, the vocalist/guitarist of the actual, human band (which makes incredible rock music, by the way). “I found out later that they were actually directly correlated to Velvet Sundown. … I went to the Velvet Sundown Spotify, and it said they appeared on the [AI] Velvet Daydream’s album. It doesn’t say that anymore, but I have a screenshot of it.”

If you visit The Velvet Daydream’s Spotify page, you’ll find a truly haunting image of its poreless AI members, who appear very similar to the Velvet Sundown. And unless rock bands have started using FaceApp like a Real Housewife, I don’t see how anyone could believe these are real people. Listening to the music is even worse; it’s also just as comical. “Somewhere in Europe” is a madlib of indie sadboi tropes: “Smoking cigarettes / Making plans for my life…” Meanwhile, “I Heard the City Breathing In Its Sleep” describes how “every window glowed like a holy womb.” The effect is singularly uncomfortable — almost as much as Taylor Swift’s song “Wood.

The Wonderful, Weird, and Waning World of Harry Potter

It's hard to believe but it has been twenty years since the release of Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and penultimate book in a "children's fantasy" book series that is undoubtedly the publishing phenomenon of the past half-century. The literary and publishing world - and the world in general - has never seen anything like Harry Potter, and likely won't ever see something like it again.

As a reader, as an English teacher, and as a parent whose children were born in 2002 and 2005, I was completely immersed in and fascinated by the world of Harry Potter from the moment I picked up the first book, roughly a year before the first movie came out. I was so taken with Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone that I read the book out loud to all my high school classes, every day, a couple of pages at a time. And I was stunned with how captivating it was for even junior-level high school boys who were not readers in any sense of the word. 

This book is something special, I thought, something altogether different.

For an avid reader and pop culture fan who came of age at the dawning of the Star Wars franchise phenomenon, the Harry Potter books represented all the magic that storytelling can be. But, that said, it's equally fascinating how the books, the films, the stories, the franchise, ... dare I say, "the magic," has faded into history far more quickly than I would have thought. And that's the subject of a fascinating piece of cultural commentary from British writer Louise Perry who suggests, "Millennials, It's Time to Leave Hogwarts." 

It’s been almost 20 years since the final Harry Potter book was released. The wizarding world is still generating interest — book sales remain strong, and the 2023 video game Hogwarts Legacy, topped 40 million sales. HBO is working on a TV adaptation of the books, set to be released next year.

But the relevance of the franchise is waning. “We’ve seen our audience age up,” conceded a Warner Bros. executive of the recent spinoff films. When the first of these, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” premiered in 2016, just 18 percent of cinema goers were actual children.

How does anyone pursue American Studies anymore?

How does one study America?

As the contemporary world's relatively newest major nation begins to celebrate its 250th birthday, the study of the American concept, the American Dream, American history, and American culture is being pulled in so many directions, it's difficult the find a defining narrative to something that for most of our lives seemed pretty obvious. 

In the past couple weeks, the Wall Street Journal has published two pieces of commentary that begin to dig into the complicated question asked for most of American history:  as Michel Crevecoeur asked in Letters from an American Farmer -- "What then is the American, this new man?" It was a question explored by the French diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville in the esteemed Democracy in America.

Ben Fritz, the entertainment reporter for the WSJ delves into the concept of American "culture," specifically the vanishing idea of a singular national monoculture in terms of arts and entertainment, with a piece on "The Rise and Fall of the American Monoculture," asking the important question: For most of the 20th century, pop culture was the glue that held the U.S. together. But what will it mean now that everything has splintered?

“I Love Lucy.” “Star Wars.” “Thriller.” It doesn’t get more American than that.
All nations are held together by culture, but the U.S. is unique for the power of its pop culture. Our music, television shows and movies are a multitrillion-dollar business and the first way that billions of people around the world get to know us.

For most of the 20th century, they were also the glue that held the country together. In a sprawling nation founded on the precept of individual liberty and populated primarily by immigrants from around the world, there was hardly one American experience. Maids in Boston, factory workers in Chicago and farmers in California lived much different lives despite being part of the same country.

Cinemas, radios, television sets and records changed all that. Americans might do different things during the workday, but at night and on weekends, we were watching and listening to the same things—things made in America, primarily for Americans, by the first modern celebrities.

It was the birth of the monoculture—a word that captures the historically unique power of American entertainment in the 20th century. An estimated 200 million tickets were sold for “Gone With the Wind,” which came out in 1939, when the population of the U.S. was 130 million. The “Amos ’n’ Andy” radio show was so popular that movie theaters scheduled around it and piped the audio in on their speakers. In 1983, more than 100 million people watched the finale of “M*A*S*H.”

And, on the opinion page of the WSJ this week, policy analysts Richard D. Kahlenberg and Lief Lin discuss the complicated issue in the world of cultural criticism that "American Studies Can't Stand Its Subject."

The 250th anniversary of America’s founding provides an opportunity to reflect on—and fight over—the country’s extraordinary story. Unfortunately, many of the serious scholars who study America—its history, literature and culture—fail to provide a balanced and nuanced account of the country’s complex tale.

On the one hand, America’s is a story of greatness: The U.S. is the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. Its founders created what is now the world’s longest-lasting liberal democratic constitution. The Declaration of Independence put forth revolutionary ideas about human freedom and equality that ushered in a new era for the world. At the same time, the American experience is complicated. Our history includes the mistreatment of Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow, and high levels of economic inequality that persist to this day.

Yet we found only one part of this narrative presented in most of almost 100 articles we examined from over a three-year period in American Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Studies Association. Published by Johns Hopkins University, it’s widely considered the country’s premier journal of American studies.

An NFL Family like none other

The NFL is filled with siblings ... and sibling rivalries. The Kelce brothers are a prominent duo, as are the Manning boys, and then there's the Watt family trio. Literally hundreds of sibling pairs have played in the National Football, which might seem surprising consider the elite status that requires, but is also understandable considering that same factor. However, a family that sends four young men to the pros is something special, and the Elliss family, whose sons Jonah (Broncos) and Christian (Patriots) face off in the AFC championship game between Denver and New England this weekend, is an incredible and heartwarming story like none you've heard before. 

On Sunday, the Elliss crew will count names and invade Denver, with Broncos outside linebacker Jonah and Patriots ILB Christian facing off in the AFC Championship Game. The two, both biological, are close as any within the group of 12 kids. Christian told New England reporters this week that he and Jonah have a “side bet” on the outcome Sunday, and Luther’s excited to watch his boys “bump heads” on special teams.

A former team chaplain for the Broncos during their 2015 Super Bowl season, Luther’s life has always been deeply rooted in faith. He figured he and Rebecca would have a large family; four to six kids, maybe. They never looked to adopt. But Rebecca called Luther one day after a workout class, talking about a baby a friend had told her about that was in transitional care in Utah.Not a week later, they brought home Isaiah Elliss.

“It just kinda spiraled pretty quickly,” Rebecca said.

Along the way, the Ellisses became one of the most prominent football families in the modern world. Jonah, Christian and Kaden are biological children and have grown into standout NFL linebackers, as is Elijah Elliss, a current Utah linebacker. Noah Elliss was adopted.

A family that sends four of its children to the professional sports level is truly an incredible story. But the Elliss family narrative is so much more than that, a story of a couple who chose unconditional love above all else.

The Return of Mark Twain Tonight!

Perhaps no one in American history has had his finger on the pulse of the seamy underbelly of the American psyche than an ol' rascal from Hannibal, "Missoura." Mark Twain was, is, and always will be the sly, sardonic, but loveable curmudgeon that America has definitely but reluctantly needed since its founding. And, with the way things are going lately, the republic needs him now more than other.

Thankfully, Mark Twain is back, and coming to a theater near you.

I am, of course, talking about the Richard Thomas' revival of the beloved and revered one-man show "Mark Twain Tonight!" conceived, developed, and delivered with masterful effect by the late great Hal Holbrook. 

I have the good fortune to have tickets to the show at Denver's DCPA next week, when an old colleague and fellow Twain fan will join me for an evening of acerbic wit, clever wisdom, and unapologetic scrutiny of the times in which we live ... according to a man whose guile and insight are nothing short of timeless.

Healdsburg - a tiny gem in California wine country

I just placed my final club membership order for the year with Seghesio Vineyards, a wonderful little zinfandel-focused winery in Sonoma that has been vinting for more than a century. My wife and I discovered Seghesio during a visit to Sonoma last year, though we had to make the trek out to the charming little town of Healdsburg, forty-minutes north, for the pleasure of tasting Seghesio's zinfandels. And it was worth every minute. 

So, I was not surprised to run across this article in Travel & Leisure in my Apple news feed this morning, which states, "This Tiny Town Is the Jewel of California Wine Country, With Some of the World's Top Restaurants and Resorts."

Healdsburg could fairly be described as the jewel of California Wine Country. “It’s a charming little town where you can eat incredible pastries on a park bench under redwoods in the morning, taste wine and spirits at the source, grab an organic burger or wood-fired pizza for lunch on a patio, detox with a shrub or tea tasting in the afternoon, and dine on three-Michelin-star cuisine at night before walking back to your hotel—all without getting in a car,” says Healdsburg expert Lisa Mattson, a Sonoma County denizen of more than 20 years. (She's also the author of “The Exes In My Glass: How I Refined My Taste in Men & Alcohol” and a food and wine contributor for Wine Country Table.)

It’s the only town in wine country that sits at the epicenter of three different wine regions—Russian River Valley, Dry Creek Valley, and Alexander Valley—each with unique climates and grape varietals, Mattson adds. This distinctive year-round destination is home to just over 11,000 residents. Healdsburg is a true epicurean hot spot with an extremely charming town square, around which some of its best hotels, restaurants, and shops sit, not to mention approximately 40 tasting rooms. “The culinary scene has the kind of diversity you find in a big city, but it's all centered around this quaint town’s park-like plaza,” says Mattson, adding that “Valette [is] the poster child for what a local wine country restaurant should be.”

For people who appreciate wine, regions like Napa and Sonoma and Santa Barbara and Willamette certainly ring a bell, and they might even know towns such as Calistoga, Yountville, Solvang, Santa Ynez, and Dundee Hills. But the wonderful towns outside of Sonoma -- specifically Healdsburg -- are known to the true wine afficionados. And if Healdsburg isn't on your wine radar, it should be.

Become a Teacher -- It's a great gig

Yesterday, I read a post on Threads from a mom who said this:

I was talking to my son about what he wants to do after he finishes school, and he said he thinks he'd be a great teacher. He's exactly who we want teaching our kids ... and I'm advising him against it. The pay is low, teachers don't get to decide best practices, and they're not respected. Saddest advice I've ever had to give my kid.

And, I was disappointed in the response, though I understand why she said it. It was sad, though, and honestly, she didn't have to give it, and probably shouldn't have. I responded with the following:

Hard disagree, especially because that "advice" is rooted in misinformation and misunderstanding - and I say that as a 32-year veteran educator with experience in both public and private schools. It's a demanding career, to be sure. Always has been. And, yes, "things" are changing and somewhat different now. But it's also an incredibly enriching and rewarding vocation - especially for a job that is only in session for 36 of 52 weeks each year, offering full benefits and potential "retirement" at age 52-55, with as much as 80% of salary.

And, there's so much more to the story. Coincidentally, I wrote a column about this idea several years ago for The Villager. I thought it would be a good time to repost.

(Don’t?) Become a Teacher

“Don’t become a teacher.”

That advice unfortunately enters my mind too often these days when talking to students. As they share thoughts on the future and mention an interest in teaching, I can’t help but pause. My reservation is not surprising. Even our most revered educators have concerns about steering young people down our career path, as in 2015, when the national Teacher of the Year Nancie Atwell shocked educators and the general public by warning students away from our profession.

Though it’s disheartening to hear, the profession has long had difficulty attracting and retaining educators, and it has a high attrition rate with more than one-third of new teachers leaving the field within their first five years. Now the precarious nature of teaching is in the news again after the Denver Post reported a poll showing 40% of Colorado teachers are considering leaving the profession. After a stressful and draining pandemic year, teachers cited safety concerns, unmanageable workloads, and low pay as primary reasons for walking away.

The revelation is troubling, but it represents a growing trend as the state and local districts continue to tighten budgets while increasing responsibilities. Nationwide, schools struggle to find qualified educators for the fifty-five million children enrolled in school. Education programs produce fewer graduates every year, and districts find themselves traveling far and wide to lure young people to the field. Additionally, the financial question is tough for future teachers, for they will knowingly enter a profession earning among the lowest starting salaries for any credentialed college degree. They will spend their entire career making 20% less than their private sector counterparts. The reluctance to commit is not hard to understand.

In addition to being content experts and masters of pedagogy, teachers are expected at a moment’s notice to become counselors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and even security guards. At times of social unrest, such as the political protests that flooded our nation following tragedies like the killing of George Floyd, students often naturally turn to their teachers to help them process and understand. They may even speak to their teachers about issues they would never discuss with their families. Yet teachers can often feel unprepared, unqualified, and even unapproved to talk with students about the issues.

Additionally it can be dispiriting to enter a profession where so much seems beyond your control. Non-school factors are the predominant motivators of academic achievement. And issues such as vocabulary and knowledge gaps from the moment kids enter kindergarten create a daunting and seemingly insurmountable task for educators. Keep in mind that between their first day of kindergarten and their high school graduation, students spend 90% of their time outside of school. Thus, the classroom learning opportunity is a very small window to impact a young person’s life. Yet that is the commitment and expectation.

Of course, no one enters teaching thinking about those problems, worrying about those challenges, or focusing on the money. We think about our passion for learning and how we want to share it with kids. And when we think about the times a student shares an insight we’d never considered before, or asks a great question that had never occurred to us, or solves a problem in a unique way, or simply shows their joy about learning, we remember why we do this. We remember what an honor it is to be a person of trust to another human being, and we realize sometimes we might be the only one. When our students say “thank you” after we’ve given them a really hard test, we marvel at their good nature, and we’re grateful to have found such a rewarding vocation.

A longtime colleague used to pass me in the hallways before class, and he'd say, “Hey, they need you today. Bring your ‘A’ game. They need your best.” So, yes, I hesitate when young people describe a desire to teach, but then I speak from the heart when answering.

“Go for it,” I tell them. “Become a teacher. We need you.”

College Athletes Who Aren't Students

College sports has gotten really weird.

According to an online post I saw, "Carson Beck has played six years of college football. The last two years he's been the quarterback for the Miami Hurricanes [who lost to Indiana-U last night in a truly thrilling CFP national championship]. He graduated from the University of George with a degree two years ago. He has not attended a single class at the University of Miami. But he has been the school's starting quarterback during that time, and he makes $4 million a year in NIL money as the team's QB."

Apparently, this is true after the supposed "college" athlete turned heads with a basic admission of that status during a pre-game press conference. 

When asked if he attended class earlier in the week ahead of Monday night's title game, he laughed off the question. "No class. I graduated two years ago," Beck said.

Beck, who attended Georgia before transferring, added that he is "working toward other degrees now that I’ve gotten to Miami, but these programs take a little longer than just a year to finish."

"Obviously, I'm not enrolling again next semester. I'll be done after this season," Beck continued.

And that is, in my opinion, just really bizarre.