Cities are considered by many to be a blessing and a curse. Large cities generate considerable wealth, they are home to many high paying jobs and are seen as engines of innovation. But cities also generate pollution, crime and poor social structures that lead to the urban blight that plagues their very existence.
The old way of thinking about cities is as if they are an organism, which consumes resources and grows in size. Oftentimes, cities are referred to as its own ecosystem and many use the metaphor of it acting like a biological organism, economist Jose Lobo said. But the team found that this was a false metaphor.
“In the case of cities, it is actually the opposite,” he added. “As cities get larger they create more wealth and they are more innovative at a faster rate. There is no counterpart to that in biology.” In fact, Lobo said, the larger the city the greater return on investment.
“The practical application of this work is that the problem is not large cities, the problem is the conditions in which some of the people live in large cities,” Lobo added. “Policies should be directed to making large cities more livable not making them smaller.”
“We are not saying that any large city is assured of prosperity forever, but if you look at the collection of cities, large cities have managed to outrun their problems,” Lobo added. “Large is smart.”
You can click into the abstract at the National Academy of Sciences site. There’s a link there to download the .pdf – just over 1mb.
Try to maintain a sense of time-scale while you read this. These guys are generally looking at the last 150 years of a city’s life. A worthwhile read to reflect upon if you are inclined to rely on science rather than politicians, pundits or priests for data-mining.
At this point in our history, there are too many of us to live in rural areas or suburbs. We need to live stacked on top of each other to reduce our footprint on the land.
Cities also usually have better public transportation. And, modern buildings can be a lot greener than most peoples’ individual houses.
If you can see your nearest neighbor, you’re living too close together. Public transportation is a horrifying last-ditch option. Cities are a good place to work, but no-one should be allowed to live in one.
1,
And the City gets more taxes…DUH..
The corporate IDEAL comes with they can have 1 STORE to cover the WHOLE city, insted of a smaller store every 1-5 miles.
The Gas, Electric, and Water pipes can ALL be run in 1 area insted of Giving everyone a YARD to mow.
With ALL that concrete, asphalt, and Buildings, where does the RAIN go?? With alittle room…And if everyone has a decent sized YARD, the water goes into the yard..
MOST of the buildings have 1 problem…The MORE they employ the MORE people NEED to live NEAR it, IF they want to save gas and money…But, how many CAN.
DID you know, that you COULD give Everyone in the USA 1 sq mile of land, and STILL not take up the land in Texas…
#2 – You are delightfully broken record…
Urban living beats the unholy fuck out of backwoods hick living any day of the week.
#2 – TheGlobalWarmer,
Why would you post something so obviously ridiculous? What does that even mean? Does it mean that people in hunter-gatherer societies were already too densely populated? If so, then perhaps we agree.
#3 – ECA,
And the City gets more taxes…DUH..
Do you mean that people who live in cities pay more taxes? If so, yes. We also earn more. Or, do you mean that somehow the city collects taxes from the people not living in the city? If so, by what mechanism?
The corporate IDEAL comes with they can have 1 STORE to cover the WHOLE city, insted [sic] of a smaller store every 1-5 miles.
Good. Less waste for everyone. A smaller store is less efficient in terms of real planetary resources.
The Gas, Electric, and Water pipes can ALL be run in 1 area insted [sic] of Giving everyone a YARD to mow.
Ditto. All of this can be combined for greater efficiency in a city.
With ALL that concrete, asphalt, and Buildings, where does the RAIN go?? With alittle [sic] room…And if everyone has a decent sized YARD, the water goes into the yard..
Actually, there is more concrete per person in suburbia. In the city, yes, there is more locally. But, we can leave a whole lot of undeveloped land. Perhaps this might be good if we don’t want to be the only species on the planet. Remember, we need other species for our own survival too.
Also, with high-rises, instead of everyone getting a tiny yard (and yes, a half acre is tiny), everyone gets a large park. And, each of the residents can avoid mowing the lawn. All landscaping of the park would be done by a landscaper. People who like to garden can do so in the park as volunteers, of course, as happens in Central Park.
And, the park can have large areas of unmanicured, naturalistic habitat so that other species can enjoy the park too. People may also enjoy watching these other species. I know I do. I know many people go to Central Park with binoculars, so I am not alone in this.
MOST of the buildings have 1 problem… The MORE they employ the MORE people NEED to live NEAR it, IF they want to save gas and money…But, how many CAN.
I’m trying to parse this out to a meaningful statement. Nope. I failed. Please restate this so that I can understand what you mean.
IMO, the staff required to maintain a high-rise building is lower than the staff required to maintain 200 identical houses.
DID you know, that you COULD give Everyone in the USA 1 sq mile of land, and STILL not take up the land in Texas…
But, then we’d all have to live in Texas. And, Texas would be one enormous suburb. Yecch!!
4. Right, everyone who doesnt live in the Urban sprawl is a hick, got it.
there is a reason that the word “civilization” comes from the Greek word for “city.”
My father went to college in the early 1930s and held a deep belief in urban planning as the solution to a lot of social ills. He held out Central Park, Golden Gate Park, and the frequent small parks of Washington DC as exemplars of how high density housing could allow outdoor access without losing the advantages of centralized services. And he thought redevelopment could be used as a great economic leveler.
Then he saw how redevelopment projects were really used, how they victimized the poor instead of helping them, and got pretty deeply disillusioned. He had “misunderestimated” (thanks, Dubya) the greed that drives how most social projects are actually executed.
But I think he was right – with good urban planning, as a society the U.S. could stop paving over or drowning the most fertile land and could offer opportunity as well a decent living conditions to pretty much everybody.
Not too old to dream.
#6 – Well, no… I didn’t actually say that.
Nor did I say anything about the almost as dreary “urban sprawl”. I’m merely telling my good friend and well known “hick”, “The Global Warmer” that I love living in the city. That means actually in the city. Not in the suburbs… not in some industrial municipality… not in some gated community or bedroom community… but actually inside the city. Preferably in a high rise with a balcony overlooking the skyline or the ocean or some such…
And keep in mind how many posts the kindly Warmer makes disparaging large cities.
Currently, I am depressed as hell to say, I don’t live in the city. Instead I live in a little bumpkin town called Indianapolis, so obviously not everyone who lives outside the city is a hick. But aside from me, there are many other people who aren’t hicks who live here as well.
Obviously, I have a little stricter definition of “city” than what most folks use, but I am merely stating my preference. I do apologize if you felt slighted. The vast wilderness outside New York and Chicago (and the like) is often pleasant to visit for short periods of time, but I wouldn’t wanna live there (despite the fact that I actually do for the time being).
IMHO, city living is best. “Hick” living might be second. Suburbia has all of the disadvantages of rural living and all of the disadvantages of city living with none of the advantages of either.
But, for minimizing out footprint on the planet, we must continue to move to taller cities. Assuming we want our species to continue, anyway.
I’ve never said we shouldn’t have cities. They’re necessary in many ways. All I ever say is that people shouldn’t live in them. Suburban living sucks too. There’s nothing wrong with driving 90min or more each way to/from work at freeway speeds. Ideally you have enough land around your home that most of the time you have to drive from the house to the mailbox to get the mail. There’s nothing to do in the city.
#10 – There’s no reason to minimize our footprint. When you come down to it, carbon footprint is an accurate measure of standard of living. Reduce carbon footprint you reduce standard of living. If you don’t have the majority of the population leaving their privately owned homes to drive privately owned vehicles bazillions of miles all the time, there’s no reason for the species to continue. Better to fry and die.
Franlkly I believe that NYC is the capital of the world, the new Rome, and every other place to live is at best an approximation of happiness. 8 million people live together with more culture, art, food, music, and fun than any one person can assimilate at any time. We also have a crime rate about half that of LA.
#11 – TheGlobalWarmer,
I’ve only got another 30 years of life expectency to go. I hope not to live to see the start of the Great Human Die-off. If I do, I know I’ll be among the first to go. I’ll make sure of it.
I do hope however, that with your wonderful views on humanity that you live to see a lot of the grizzly details of it that you so enjoy causing. It will be soon. It will be horrific. Unless, of course, people suddenly notice the real problem and stop breeding like rats. If we don’t reduce our population, it will be reduced for us.
As for your point about carbon footprint, certainly we need to reduce it. We, as a species, can’t afford to continue the lifestyle we have. The planet is already not supporting it.
But, in this case, I was talking about our literal footprint on the planet. The total acreage devoted to human housing must also be reduced. Else there will be no place to grow food and no place for the many other species we barely notice, but depend on for our survival.
Reducing lifestyle is reducing standard of living. Period. Do what you want but don’t tell me to.