statman's review against another edition
4.0
I first heard of this book from a Freakonomics podcast episode. The premise is clearly stated - cities are better than the alternatives. They bring people together for connection and innovation. They are better for the environment. It is a convincing arguement and highlights the need to look more broadly at solutions to problems we face in society.
I wrote more about this book in this blog post.
https://cocreativelythinking.com/how-more-development-in-cities-is-better-for-the-planet/
I wrote more about this book in this blog post.
https://cocreativelythinking.com/how-more-development-in-cities-is-better-for-the-planet/
rachelnotter's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
Honestly, not a well done book. It is filled with case studies that never end and when they do end, no salient point was made. The author does not provide data that is worth reading, only long-winded stories about removing height restrictions on buildings and letting people keep driving their cars in the suburbs.
rossbm's review against another edition
4.0
I read this as a physical book. I really liked it. It does a good job of laying out the benefits of cities, and the the drawbacks of car centred policies. Glaesar is an economist, so I like the approach. It's pretty fun and quick read. Good balance of stories and facts/analysis. It focuses too much on American policies for my taste, especially advocating for school vouchers, which doesn't seem to have much to do with a book on urban economics. It also seems to advocate for segregation within the school system, based on performance?
kettlepot's review against another edition
4.0
Having lived in a major city for the past 6 years, this was an interesting look at the history and value of cities, their problems and potential.
wingsyuenanna's review against another edition
4.0
I have just become familiar with the importance of living in cities before reading this book. Glaeser heavily emphasized the need to live in cities and to invest in people not in projects.
As I experience living in Cambridge, right next to Harvard and MIT, I see the impact of education hubs and programs daily. There are lots of improvements to be made in Boston (stronger public transportation infrastructure, expensive rent :'), for sure), but there are also a lot of things that make Boston/Cambridge work living in. It's safe to walk around most areas and there are many local programs to help with people. I have traveled to a handful of cities this year and I can Boston definitely is a very convincing place to live in for me.
Glaeser emphasized the need to be in close proximity with other people to get flow of ideas and the improvements in technology have not substituted this need. But, as with all things after Covid, there is a new argument that the internet can bring flow of ideas between people in very far places, which could change the need for cities from a non-environmental perspective.
As I experience living in Cambridge, right next to Harvard and MIT, I see the impact of education hubs and programs daily. There are lots of improvements to be made in Boston (stronger public transportation infrastructure, expensive rent :'), for sure), but there are also a lot of things that make Boston/Cambridge work living in. It's safe to walk around most areas and there are many local programs to help with people. I have traveled to a handful of cities this year and I can Boston definitely is a very convincing place to live in for me.
Glaeser emphasized the need to be in close proximity with other people to get flow of ideas and the improvements in technology have not substituted this need. But, as with all things after Covid, there is a new argument that the internet can bring flow of ideas between people in very far places, which could change the need for cities from a non-environmental perspective.