Daily News
Sinking Cities: Why Parts of Phoenix—and Much of Urban America—Are Slowly Dropping
A new study confirms Phoenix and 27 other U.S. cities are sinking—putting millions of people and buildings at long-term risk.
Phoenix is sinking. Not metaphorically, but literally. According to a 2025 study published in Nature Cities, Arizona’s capital is subsiding at an average rate of 0.8 millimeters per year, with some areas dropping by up to 2 centimeters annually. While that might sound minor, the implications are anything but.
The study, which analyzed satellite data across 28 major U.S. cities, revealed a troubling trend: every single city examined is experiencing some form of land subsidence. And the causes are largely human-driven.
📉 What’s Happening Beneath Phoenix?
The ground beneath Phoenix is slowly compacting due to a combination of natural and human-induced factors. Chief among them is groundwater depletion. Over the past century, large-scale pumping of underground aquifers caused the soil above to compress. While Arizona implemented the Groundwater Management Act in 1980, and water use has since stabilized, the lingering impact of past overuse remains.
Some areas in the Phoenix metro region have already experienced up to 18 feet of subsidence over the last 40 years, and the newly published data shows that areas housing 1.4 million people and 113,000 buildings remain at moderate to high risk of structural damage.
🌆 Sinking Cities Across the U.S.
Phoenix isn’t alone. The Nature Cities study revealed that nearly 34 million Americans live on land that is subsiding, and over 29,000 buildings nationwide sit in zones of high or very high risk.
Here are some key findings from other cities:
Houston, TX is the most affected, with 42% of its area sinking more than 5mm/year and localized zones dropping up to 5 cm annually. Dallas–Fort Worth, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver are also seeing significant ground shifts. Even cities you might not expect—Portland, Boston, and Philadelphia—are experiencing measurable sinking, largely due to natural geologic changes or compaction from development on soft soils.
🛠️ What Causes Subsidence?
There’s no single cause, but several primary drivers are contributing:
Groundwater Overuse: This is the dominant factor in most regions, especially in arid and agricultural areas. Oil and Gas Extraction: Particularly in Texas, removing underground fossil fuels causes the surface to sink. Post-Ice Age Rebound Effects: In northern cities like Chicago and New York, the land is still adjusting from glacial movement thousands of years ago. Urbanization: The weight of skyscrapers, concrete, and infrastructure can compress soft soils underneath. Landfill & Soil Compaction: Areas built on old lakes, wetlands, or landfills—common in coastal cities—are inherently less stable.
⚠️ What’s at Risk?
The consequences of even slow land subsidence can be serious:
Building damage: Foundations can crack, tilt, or become unstable. Infrastructure stress: Roads, pipelines, and electrical lines can be misaligned or fractured. Flood risk: As land sinks, especially in coastal cities, the risk of storm surge and sea-level rise intensifies. Water infrastructure: Subsidence can affect aquifer storage and groundwater recharge.
✅ What Can Be Done?
While stopping subsidence entirely is nearly impossible, smart urban planning and resource management can mitigate the damage:
Limiting groundwater use through stricter regulation and conservation. Investing in resilient infrastructure designed to adapt to ground shifts. Monitoring subsidence hotspots with regular satellite data. Educating the public and developers on long-term land risks before building.
🧭 Final Thoughts
Phoenix’s slow descent is a reminder that cities are not static—they live, breathe, and shift over time. As climate change and population pressures increase, the invisible motion beneath our feet demands more attention. Cities that plan for it now will stand taller in the decades to come—even if the ground beneath them doesn’t.
Related Articles:
Yes, Phoenix Is Sinking. What Does That Mean for the City? – Phoenix New Times
Cities Are Sinking Across the U.S. – CBS News
Why Houston and New York Are Sinking Fast – Business Insider
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Community
Local governments provide proof that polarization is not inevitable
Local politics help mitigate national polarization by focusing on concrete issues like infrastructure and community needs rather than divisive symbolic debates. A survey indicates that local officials experience less partisanship, as interpersonal connections foster recognition of shared interests. This suggests that reducing polarization is possible through collaboration and changes in election laws.
Lauren Hall, Rochester Institute of Technology
When it comes to national politics, Americans are fiercely divided across a range of issues, including gun control, election security and vaccines. It’s not new for Republicans and Democrats to be at odds over issues, but things have reached a point where even the idea of compromising appears to be anathema, making it more difficult to solve thorny problems.
But things are much less heated at the local level. A survey of more than 1,400 local officials by the Carnegie Corporation and CivicPulse found that local governments are “largely insulated from the harshest effects of polarization.” Communities with fewer than 50,000 residents proved especially resilient to partisan dysfunction.
Why this difference? As a political scientist, I believe that lessons from the local level not only open a window onto how polarization works but also the dynamics and tools that can help reduce it.
Problems are more concrete
Local governments deal with concrete issues – sometimes literally, when it comes to paving roads and fixing potholes. In general, cities and counties handle day-to-day functions, such as garbage pickup, running schools and enforcing zoning rules. Addressing tangible needs keeps local leaders’ attention fixed on specific problems that call out for specific solutions, not lengthy ideological debates.
By contrast, a lot of national political conflict in the U.S. involves symbolic issues, such as debates about identity and values on topics such as race, abortion and transgender rights. These battles are often divisive, even more so than purely ideological disagreements, because they can activate tribal differences and prove more resistant to compromise.
Such arguments at the national level, or on social media, can lead to wildly inaccurate stereotypes about people with opposing views. Today’s partisans often perceive their opponents as far more extreme than they actually are, or they may stereotype them – imagining that all Republicans are wealthy, evangelical culture warriors, for instance, or conversely being convinced that all Democrats are radical urban activists. In terms of ideology, the median members of both parties, in fact, look similar.
These kinds of misperceptions can fuel hostility.
Local officials, however, live among the human beings they represent, whose complexity defies caricature. Living and interacting in the same communities leads to greater recognition of shared interests and values, according to the Carnegie/CivicPulse survey.
Meaningful interaction with others, including partisans of the opposing party, reduces prejudice about them. Local government provides a natural space where identities overlap.
People are complicated
In national U.S. politics today, large groups of individuals are divided not only by party but a variety of other factors, including race, religion, geography and social networks. When these differences align with ideology, political disagreement can feel like an existential threat.
Such differences are not always as pronounced at the local level. A neighbor who disagrees about property taxes could be the coach of your child’s soccer team. Your fellow school board member might share your concerns about curriculum but vote differently in presidential elections.
These cross-cutting connections remind us that political opponents are not a monolithic enemy but complex individuals. When people discover they have commonalities outside of politics with others holding opposing views, polarization can decrease significantly.
Finally, most local elections are technically nonpartisan. Keeping party labels off ballots allows voters to judge candidates as individuals and not merely as Republicans or Democrats.
National implications
None of this means local politics are utopian.
Like water, polarization tends to run downhill, from the national level to local contests, particularly in major cities where candidates for mayor and other office are more likely to run as partisans. Local governments also see culture war debates, notably in the area of public school instruction.
Nevertheless, the relative partisan calm of local governance suggests that polarization is not inevitable. It emerges from specific conditions that can be altered.
Polarization might be reduced by creating more opportunities for cross-partisan collaboration around concrete problems. Philanthropists and even states might invest in local journalism that covers pragmatic governance rather than partisan conflict. More cities and counties could adopt changes in election law that would de-emphasize party labels where they add little information for voters.
Aside from structural changes, individual Americans can strive to recognize that their neighbors are not the cardboard cutouts they might imagine when thinking about “the other side.” Instead, Americans can recognize that even political opponents are navigating similar landscapes of community, personal challenges and time constraints, with often similar desires to see their roads paved and their children well educated.
The conditions shaping our interactions matter enormously. If conditions change, perhaps less partisan rancor will be the result.
Lauren Hall, Associate professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
STM Daily News
Chinamaxxing: The Viral Trend Turning Geopolitics Into Aesthetic Fantasy
A viral social media trend called “Chinamaxxing” is turning geopolitics into aesthetic comparison—revealing more about generational frustration than China itself.
Last Updated on February 11, 2026 by Daily News Staff
At first glance, the videos seem harmless enough.
Clean subways gliding into spotless stations. Neon skylines glowing at night. Clips of high-speed trains, cashless stores, orderly crowds. Overlaid text reads something like, “Meanwhile in China…” or “They figured it out.”
This is “Chinamaxxing,” a loosely defined but increasingly visible social media trend where mostly young users frame China as a model of efficiency, stability, and modernity—often in contrast to life in the West.
What makes the trend notable isn’t just its subject, but its tone. Chinamaxxing is rarely explicit political advocacy. It’s not a manifesto. It’s a mood. Aesthetic admiration blended with subtle critique, delivered through short, visually compelling clips that invite comparison without context.
And that’s precisely why it has sparked debate.
What Is “Chinamaxxing,” Really?
Despite the provocative name, Chinamaxxing isn’t a coordinated movement or ideology. It’s better understood as an algorithm-driven pattern—a recurring style of content that rewards certain visuals and emotional cues.
Most Chinamaxxing content emphasizes:
- Infrastructure and urban design
- Technology embedded in daily life
- Perceived order and efficiency
- Implicit contrast with Western dysfunction
What it typically omits:
- Political repression and censorship
- State surveillance
- Limits on speech and dissent
- The lived diversity of Chinese experiences
The result is a highly curated portrayal—less about China as a nation, and more about what viewers want to believe is possible somewhere else.
Why It’s Gaining Traction Now
The rise of Chinamaxxing says as much about the West as it does about China.
For many young users, particularly Gen Z, the backdrop is familiar: rising housing costs, student debt, healthcare anxiety, political polarization, and a growing sense that institutions no longer function as promised.
In that environment, visually persuasive content showing order and functionality carries emotional weight. It offers relief from chaos—real or perceived.
Social platforms amplify this effect. Short-form video rewards clarity, contrast, and immediacy. A clean subway platform communicates more in five seconds than a policy analysis ever could. Nuance does not trend well. Aesthetics do.
The Social and Political Criticism
Critics argue Chinamaxxing crosses a line from curiosity into distortion.
By focusing exclusively on infrastructure and surface-level efficiency, the trend risks:
- Normalizing authoritarian governance through lifestyle framing
- Reducing political systems to consumer experiences
- Ignoring the tradeoffs that make such systems possible
Supporters counter that Western media has long flattened China into a single negative narrative, and that admiration for specific aspects of another society is not the same as endorsing its government.
Both perspectives, however, miss something important.
What the Trend Actually Reveals
Chinamaxxing isn’t primarily about China. It’s about disillusionment.
It reflects a generation that:
- Feels let down by existing systems
- Engages politics emotionally rather than institutionally
- Uses visual culture to express dissatisfaction indirectly
In this context, China becomes a projection surface—not because it is perfect, but because it appears functional.
That distinction matters.
Why This Matters
Chinamaxxing highlights how political understanding is evolving in the digital age. Governance is increasingly consumed not through debate or civic participation, but through comparison clips, memes, and aesthetics.
The risk isn’t admiration. It’s oversimplification.
When complex societies are reduced to visuals alone, public discourse loses depth. But when those visuals resonate, they also signal real unmet needs: stability, competence, and trust in institutions.
Ignoring that signal would be a mistake.
The STM Daily News Perspective
Chinamaxxing is not an endorsement, a conspiracy, or a joke. It is a cultural artifact—one that reflects generational anxiety, algorithmic storytelling, and the widening gap between expectations and reality.
The question it raises isn’t whether China is better.
It’s why so many people feel their own systems are no longer working.
Related Reading
- BBC News: China Coverage and Global Context
- The Atlantic: Technology, Media, and Internet Culture Analysis
- Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes and Political Perception
- The New York Times: China and International Affairs
- Brookings Institution: China Policy and Global Governance
More on This Topic from STM Daily News
Stay tuned to STM Daily News for more stories exploring internet culture, social media trends, and how digital platforms shape public perception. We’ll be publishing in-depth pieces that break down the societal impact of viral phenomena like Chinamaxxing, the psychology behind online political trends, and the evolving language of Gen Z culture.
Want alerts? Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Daily News
Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl Halftime Show Fits the NFL’s Long Game to Win Latin America
The NFL aims to expand its reach into Latin America through strategic marketing and high-profile performers like Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl halftime show. While the choice has sparked controversy, particularly among conservatives, the league sees it as a business move to attract more fans, particularly in Mexico and Brazil.
Last Updated on February 7, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Jared Bahir Browsh, University of Colorado Boulder
Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl show is part of long play drawn up by NFL to score with Latin America
Donald Trump, it is fair to assume, will be switching channels during this year’s Super Bowl halftime show.
The U.S. president has already said that he won’t be attending Super Bowl LX in person, suggesting that the venue, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, was “just too far away.” But the choice of celebrity entertainment planned for the main break – Puerto Rican reggaeton star Bad Bunny and recently announced pregame addition Green Day – didn’t appeal. “I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible,” Trump told the New York Post.
National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell likely didn’t have the sensibilities of the U.S. president in mind when the choice of Bad Bunny was made.
One of the top artists in the world, Bad Bunny performs primarily in Spanish and has been critical of immigration enforcement, which factored into the backlash in some conservative circles to the choice. Bad Bunny’s anti-ICE comments at this year’s Grammy Awards will have only stoked the ire of some conservatives.
But for the NFL hierarchy, this was likely a business decision, not a political one. The league has its eyes on expansion into Latin America; Bad Bunny, they hope, will be a ratings-winning means to an end. It has made such bets in the past. In 2020, Shakira and Jennifer Lopez were chosen to perform, with Bad Bunny making an appearance. The choice then, too, was seen as controversial.
Raising the flag overseas
As a teacher and scholar of critical sports studies, I study the global growth of U.S.-based sports leagues overseas.
Some, like the National Basketball Association, are at an advantage. The sport is played around the globe and has large support bases in Asia – notably in the Philippines and China – as well as in Europe, Australia and Canada.
The NFL, by contrast, is largely entering markets that have comparatively little knowledge and experience with football and its players.
The league has opted for a multiprong approach to attracting international fans, including lobbying to get flag football into the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Playing the field
When it comes to the traditional tackle game, the NFL has held global aspirations for over three-quarters of a century. Between 1950-1961, before they merged, the NFL and American Football League played seven games against teams in Canada’s CFL to strengthen the relationship between the two nations’ leagues.
Developing a fan base south of the border has long been part of the plan.
The first international exhibition game between two NFL teams was supposed to take place in Mexico City in 1968. But Mexican protest over the economy and cost of staging the Olympics that year led the game, between the Detroit Lions and Philadelphia Eagles, to be canceled.
Instead, it was Montreal that staged the first international exhibition match the following year.
In 1986, the NFL added an annual international preseason game, the “American Bowl,” to reach international fans, including several games in Mexico City and one in Monterrey.
But the more concerted effort was to grow football in the potentially lucrative, and familiar, European market.
After several attempts by the NFL and other entities in the 1970s and ’80s to establish an international football league, the NFL-backed World League of Football launched in 1991. Featuring six teams from the United States, one from Canada and three from Europe, the spring league lost money but provided evidence that there was a market for American football in Europe, leading to the establishment of NFL Europe.
But NFL bosses have long had wider ambitions. The league staged 13 games in Tokyo, beginning in 1976, and planned exhibitions for 2007 and 2009 in China that were ultimately canceled. These attempts did not have the same success as in Europe.
Beyond exhibitions
The NFL’s outreach in Latin America has been decades in the making. After six exhibition matches in Mexico between 1978 and 2001, the NFL chose Mexico City as the venue of its first regular season game outside the United States.
In 2005, it pitted the Arizona Cardinals against the San Francisco 49ers at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. Marketed as “Fútbol Americano,” it drew the largest attendance in NFL history, with over 103,000 spectators.
The following year, Goodell was named commissioner and announced that the NFL would focus future international efforts on regular-season games.
The U.K. was a safe bet due to the established stadium infrastructure and the country’s small but passionate fan base. The NFL International Series was played exclusively in London between 2007 and 2016.
But in 2016, the NFL finally returned to Mexico City, staging a regular-season game between the Oakland – now Las Vegas – Raiders and Houston Texans.
And after the completion of upgrades to Latin America’s largest stadium, Estadio Azteca, the NFL will return to Mexico City in 2026, along with games in Munich, Berlin and London. Future plans include expanding the series to include Sydney, Australia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2026.
The International Player Pathway program also offers players from outside the United States an opportunity to train and earn a roster spot on an NFL team. The hope is that future Latin American players could help expand the sport in their home countries, similar to how Yao Ming expanded the NBA fan base in China after joining the Houston Rockets, and Shohei Ohtani did the same for baseball in Japan while playing in Los Angeles.
Heading south of the border
The NFL’s strategy has gained the league a foothold in Latin America.
Mexico and Brazil have become the two largest international markets for the NFL, with nearly 40 million fans in each of the nations.
Although this represents a fraction of the overall sports fans in each nation, the raw numbers match the overall Latino fan base in the United States. In recent years the NFL has celebrated Latino Heritage Month through its Por La Cultura campaign, highlighting Latino players past and present.
Latin America also offers practical advantages. Mexico has long had access to NFL games as the southern neighbor to the United States, with the Dallas Cowboys among the most popular teams in Mexico.
For broadcasters, Central and South America offer less disruption in regards to time zones. Games in Europe start as early as 6:30 a.m. for West Coast fans, whereas Mexico City follows Central time, and Brasilia time is only one to two hours ahead of Eastern time.
The NFL’s expansion plans are not without criticism. Domestically, fans have complained that teams playing outside the U.S. borders means one less home game for season-ticket holders. And some teams have embraced international games more than others.
Another criticism is the league, which has reported revenues of over US$23 billion during the 2024-25 season – nearly double any other U.S.-based league – is using its resources to displace local sports. There are also those who see expansion of the league as a form of cultural imperialism. These criticisms often intersect with long-held ideas around the league promoting militarism, nationalism and American exceptionalism.
Bad Bunny: No Hail Mary attempt
For sure, the choice of Bad Bunny as the halftime pick is controversial, given the current political climate around immigration. The artist removed tour dates on the U.S. mainland in 2025 due to concerns about ICE targeting fans at his concerts, a concern reinforced by threats from the Department of Homeland Security that they would do just that at the Super Bowl.
But in sticking with Bad Bunny, the NFL is showing it is willing to face down a section of its traditional support and bet instead on Latin American fans not just tuning in for the halftime show but for the whole game – and falling in love with football, too.
Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
