Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier
America is an urban nation. More than two thirds of us live on the 3 percent of land that contains our cities. Yet cities get a bad rap: they're dirty, poor, unhealthy, crime ridden, expensive, environmentally unfriendly.. ...more
More lists with this book...
One of the things he advocates for ...more
Q: CHAPTER 1 What Do They Make in Bangalore?... Ports of Intellectual Entry: Athens (c) So, it's a good thing I'm not really opposed to some inherent weirdness. Even though Athens are not precisely in Bangalore. Well they weren't the last time I checked.
Of course I'm kidding but meandering is how it goes. Across the world, across the time. A big wonder how we didn't end up somewhere across the galaxy.
A nice glimpse into congestion pric ...more
Most of the book is written as separate chapters, touching on various mainstream urban ideas that are loosely knit together. The best parts are when the author begins to explore the role of serendipity and historical decisi ...more
The first part of the book is dedicated to enumerating the many economic advantages that urban areas provide over non-urban areas, especially in their role ...more
Now this is a book with a lot of factoids and a series of ideas that gets one thinking.
I was taken by the statement on page one> Factoid 1: All of humanity could fit in Texas,all with our own personal townhouse.
However impractical, uncomfortable and destine to immediate catastrophe such an arrangement would be ...more
My problem with the book isn't the city love but the overall lack of structure and purpose. It is easy to understand why cities would have richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier citizens than rural areas - this could have been summed up in an essay. While Glaeser did an excellent ...more
I give up. I didn't expect a DNF so early in the year and especially not from this book. I had hoped for a more structured writing style and a more scientific take on things. Many of Edward's statements, provocative on purpose but failing their cause, did not agree with me. ...more
I really wish I had liked this book, which made my read of it all the more disappointing. As somebody who has lived in cities my entire adult life, I felt that this book was going to be a great opportunity to gain some new knowledge and put some facts behind my intuition that cities are a good thing for our bodies, minds, and environment. What I found instead was a lazy, jumbled mass of stories, facts, anecdotes, and opinions bent to attribute all good things that have eve...more
After reading the first chapter, I was very concerned about the rest of the book. It presented a whole bunch of opinions, stated as fact, with very little to back them up. I felt like arguing with all of them, even the ones I agreed with.
Luckily I did better with the rest of the book, where the arguments are arranged logi ...more
Edward Glaeser argues that this transformation of the way we live is a very, very good thing. As compared with their rural cousins, people who live in cities have a much smaller carbon footprint. They are 50% more productive, if they live in a city over one million people. They live longer. T ...more
When he finally comes down to brass tacks, tho ...more
As you would expect from the title, the book is basically a eulogy to cities and an attempt to frame why the drive towards suburban living in America and el ...more
"Cities enable collaboration, especially the joint production of knowledge that is mankind's most important creation."
While transportation costs have fallen, proximity is more valuable today than ever before.
- Three percent of the U.S. landmass is urban, but over 80 percent of Americans live in those urban areas. Cities have formed because proximity has its advantages.
- In the 18th century, that advantage mainly consisted in town walls protecting traded goods.
- In th ...more
The argument is t ...more
A lot of challenging positions are asserted by Glaeser and he provides a lot of examples showing how var ...more
This is a stirring defense of cities, and the benefits they can offer. As someone who grew up in Detroit, I've spent the last ten years defending it. Glaeser spends a whole chapter (and constant asides elsewhere) explaining what happened to Detroit, and why it will be so hard to bring it back. (The short version: large c ...more
* Cities don’t cause poverty, they attract the poor (which is actually the sign of a strong city)
* By metrics shown in the book, city dwellers are more productive and happy
* Cities need a network of smaller innovators to make technology thrive. Cities with a small handful of giant companies ultimately decline (e.g. Detroit)
* Some suggested rules for regulating growth, with comparisons for how San Francisco a ...more
The very first experiment in social psychology was conducted by a University of Indiana psychologist who was also an avid bicyclist. He noted that “racing men” believe that “the value of a pace,” or competitor, shaves twenty to thirty seconds off the time of a mile. To rigorously test the value of human proximity, he got forty children to compete at spinning fishing reels to pull a cable. In all cases, the kids were supposed to go as fast as they could, but most of them, especially the slower ones, were much quicker when they were paired with another child. Modern statistical evidence finds that young professionals today work longer hours if they live in a metropolitan area with plenty of competitors in their own occupational niche.
Supermarket checkouts provide a particularly striking example of the power of proximity. As anyone who has been to a grocery store knows, checkout clerks differ wildly in their speed and competence. In one major chain, clerks with differing abilities are more or less randomly shuffled across shifts, which enabled two economists to look at the impact of productive peers. It turns out that the productivity of average clerks rises substantially when there is a star clerk working on their shift, and those same average clerks get worse when their shift is filled with below-average clerks.
Statistical evidence also suggests that electronic interactions and face-to-face interactions support one another; in the language of economics, they’re complements rather than substitutes. Telephone calls are disproportionately made among people who are geographically close, presumably because face-to-face relationships increase the demand for talking over the phone. And when countries become more urban, they engage in more electronic communications.”