Harvard economist Edward Glaeser was a guest on The Daily Show. His book, Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier is the subject of the segment. Just as Lewis Mumford observes in his classic "The City in History," Glaeser states that the proximity of people within cities allow interactions that increase our knowledge. In modern times, life expectancy is actually greater in cities due to better lifestyle habits, such as walking, and due to investments in key health technologies such as the provision of clean water. Additionally, cities are economically stronger places.
Despite these advantages, Glaeser points out anti-urban federal policies such as the home mortgage interest deduction ("we make a fetish of home ownership in this country") and higher highway subsidies in suburban areas ("[funded] two to one in the lowest density areas").
Obviously, no place or form is perfect. Every neighborhood must choose its own best solution. But I believe that Glaeser is setting up an important point: if cities are so bad, why do we subsidize the suburbs?
h/t to Studio Cascade for bringing this to my attention!
There's an excerpt from Glaeser's book in this month's Atlantic where he extolls the virtues of high rises. Corbusier would be so proud!
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, it's a great article, and it can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/03/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/8387/