Introduction
“Cities… our species’ greatest invention.” (Glaeser, 2011) This essay will look at Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser and primarily the work in his book titled ‘Triumph of the City’ where he celebrates cities as humanity’s greatest invention which “makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier”. These are bold claims considering the conventional thinking that is usually associated with cities: cities are full of poverty, illness, and crime (Phillis et al., 2017). But contained in the sections to follow will be urban planning through the lens of a hopeful economist.
The body of this essay is split into four sections. First, a very brief background on Edward Glaeser and why I chose to look at his work is provided, followed by the key ideas of ‘Triumph of the city’, this section will be further split into two sub-sections to reflect the key themes of the book. Following the key themes will be a section on the contribution of these ideas to planning, and finally, how his work has been received by the wider planning community.
The information discussed in the body will be collated in the conclusion to show the implications of Glaeser’s ideas and its value for the world today as we battle numerous issues not limited to poverty, crime, disease, and land-use.
Body
1. Background
1.1. Who is Edward Glaeser?
Edward Glaeser is an American Economist and Professor of Economics at Harvard University in the US (“Harvard University”, 2018). His passion for cities is highlighted through his work which focuses on economic growth in cities, urban governance and the integral function of cities as a place of sharing and learning ideas (“Harvard University”, 2018).
Jane Jacobs is Glaser’s role-model when it comes to cities, and mentor in a way through her various works (Glaeser, 2011). But as we will soon see, Glaeser does not agree with all of her views on how cities should be (Glaeser, 2011).
1.2. Why I chose Edward Glaeser.
I found Glaeser particularly intriguing because his views contradicted much of what is believed of cities today. It was also interesting to see the overlap between Economics and Planning and how Economic theory complements matters in the field of Planning.
2. Key ideas from Triumph of the City
Anyone who follows Edward Glaeser’s work will know that he is always almost reciting that ‘the city’ is mankind’s greatest invention (Glaeser, 2011). But what does he mean by that? This is answered in the 270 pages that is ‘Triumph of the City’. The main claim that the book makes which sums up the contents of its 270 pages, is that cities are our greatest invention because they play to our greatest asset, which is our innate ability to learn from each other by being near each other (Glaeser, 2011).
Glaeser gives examples of how this innate ability has been beneficial to people since the very early versions of cities, to the cities we know today (Glaeser, 2011).
2.1. Skills / Education / Human Capital
“He aha te mea nui o te ao. He tāngata, he tāngata, he tāngata. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people. It is people. It is people.” (Maori Proverb)
The Maori proverb above highlights what Glaeser believes embodies urban success, in his book and throughout his research, he states that human capital is the most vital ingredient for a successful city (Glaeser, 2011). Physical infrastructure plays a key role in the success of a city, but it is the skill of the people that is the ultimate decider of success (Glaeser, 2011). By using college degrees as a measurement of skill, it is proven that there is a direct correlation between education and urban success (Glaeser, 2011). On average, an individual would expect an 8% increase in income with each extra year of school (Glaeser, 2011). At a larger scale, if entire populations had an extra year of school, they would on average accumulate an increase in per capita GDP of more than 30% (Glaeser, 2011). As the number of skilled people continues to grow, human capital externalities come into play (Glaeser, 2011). ‘Human capital externalities’ is the term that economists use to describe the situation where skilled people become more productive working with other skilled people and when skilled people produce a spill-over effect where people who do not have a University degree, for example, can also benefit from their compatriot's skill sets (Glaeser, 2011). Our innate ability.
Glaeser (2011) draws on Silicon Valley and Bangalore as he does with a number of cities in his book to illustrate the power of human capital externalities, and why it is important. Although Silicon Valley is a region and not a city, Glaeser (2011) refers to Silicon Valley to illustrate the value of skilled people living and working near each other. Silicon Valley is known as the high-tech capital of the United States and is home to the headquarters of many world-renowned companies such as Facebook, Apple Inc., eBay and Intel (“Silicon Valley”, 2017). Similarly, Bangalore known as the Silicon Valley of India is also home to India’s multi-million-dollar information technology companies (Glaeser, 2011). These Silicon Valley’s effectively reached their current status through the fostering of human capital (Glaeser, 2011). The original Silicon Valley in the US was primarily farming land 100 years ago, till wealthy businessman and senator Leland Stanford built Stanford University, a prestigious institution which remains to this day (Glaeser, 2011). Early students of Stanford created an industrial park next to the University, with the vision of making it the base for businesses that specialised in technology (Glaeser, 2011). In short, this vision became a reality and Silicon Valley continues to grow (Glaeser, 2011). Skilled workers and skilled businesses go there to be near other skilled workers and over time, which has been the case in both Silicon Valley and Bangalore, businesses that are related to technology businesses also join in and both places continue to attract more people wanting their piece of the opportunities that are wide-spread in these areas (Glaeser, 2011).
“Cities do not make people poor. Cities attract poor people.” (Glaeser, 2011, p.70).
2.2. Cities are Greener
When people think about places of mass pollution, cities are at the top of their lists (Philis et al., 2017). This is a view that Glaeser sets out to dispel through statistics that he reveals in his book. Upon heading out with a colleague to measure carbon emissions of different housing areas throughout the US, they found that (excluding emissions related to foreign products), in 2006 the US was leading the world in its level of carbon emissions, coming second only to China (Glaeser, 2011). To most people, this revelation may not come as a surprise. But what might astonish many is that the bulk of carbon emissions came from low-density suburban areas and not the high rise, high-density cities that one would initially picture as the culprit (Glaeser, 2011). Residential energy use and the use of motor vehicles each accounted for about 20% of America’s carbon dioxide emissions (Glaeser, 2011). Unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation between area density, distance and the amount of gasoline used (Glaeser, 2011). They found that on average, where there were more than 10,000 people per square mile, a household would use 687 gallons of gas per year (Glaeser, 2011). This is in comparison to the average annual usage of 1,164 gallons of gas for households in places with less than 1000 people per square mile (Glaeser, 2011). Density matters because people drive to an array of places (Glaeser, 2011). They drive to pick up their children from school, they drive to the supermarket for groceries, restaurants, and places of entertainment (Glaeser, 2011).
The distance that people travel to reach these various destinations and therefore the amount of gasoline that they use, will be determined by the distance of these places from their homes and in places of low density, these trips may mean driving for up to 25 minutes to one location and back (Glaeser, 2011). In a city, people are more likely to walk to these places, or to take mass transit which burns less energy than 1000 people driving millions of miles to-and-fro (Glaeser, 2011).
They also found that cities used less electricity than their suburban counterparts, due to the fact that urbanites live in smaller units (Glaeser, 2011). The likes of New York City and Las Vegas were found to use less electricity than places of sprawl such as Dallas and Phoenix (Glaeser, 2011).
3. The Contribution of Edward Glaeser’s work.
Glaeser has given us reasons with supporting evidence for why cities are the most economically and environmentally friendly places to live (Glaeser, 2011). He shows us moments in history when human capital and proximity aided the rise of current world powers (Glaeser, 2011). He also shows us how rural and suburban living can, in fact, be detrimental to our environment (Glaeser, 2011).
For so long, urban planners have tried to incorporate the countryside in the city (March, 2007). As was said by Ebenezer Howard, one of the most acclaimed personalities in planning history, “the country must invade the town” (Howard, 1902, p.147). It was the visions of individuals such as Howard and Olmsted that have shaped much of what defines good planning today (March, 2007). Restrictive land-use controls and the creation of parks and gardens in the city became what everyone sought after as ideal and aesthetically pleasing (March, 2007). But in the words of Edward Glaeser, this dream has become more of an “ecological nightmare” (Glaeser, 2011, p.205). The dream of garden living Glaeser argues is, in fact, more harmful to nature than the dream of a towering metropolis (Glaeser, 2011). Because while parks were set up in the middle of cities for urbanites to enjoy the tranquillity of nature alongside skyscrapers, advances in transportation overtime meant that living amongst nature and still working in the city became an option for people who tired of sharing parks or who grew unsatisfied with the little gardens outside their houses (Glaeser, 2011). As was recounted in the previous section, this does not bode well for the environment. In the meantime, millions of acres of land in cities are fiercely protected with strict regulations and countless development opportunities are unable to be realised (Glaeser, 2011).
Jane Jacobs is another key figure in Planning with views that Glaeser disputes (Buntin, 2011). Glaeser’s main disputation is around Jacobs’ stance on preserving old buildings (Glaeser, 2011). In her book ‘The death and life of great American cities’, Jacobs’ (1961) speaks of the need for cities to preserve simple old buildings of low value. Jacobs’ (1961) primary reasoning behind this was cost related. She stressed the importance of having old buildings, because new buildings were costlier, either in rent, or the costs of construction, or in the costs of high-interest payments (Jacobs, 1961). Therefore, it seemed logical for cities to keep old buildings for the element of affordability (Jacobs, 1961). However, Glaeser is adamant that this is something that Jacobs got terribly wrong (Silver, 2011). In fact, keeping older houses are costlier than building new houses and this is explained by the simple economic theory of supply and demand (Glaeser, 2009). If demand for housing increases and supply does not rise to meet this demand, the inevitable result is a hike in the price of housing (Glaeser, 2009). Glaeser (2011) argues that this is exactly what happened in Jacobs' hometown of Greenwich village, today the very houses that Jacobs fought so tirelessly to keep for low to middle-income families can only be afforded by people who possess a substantial amount of wealth. Such is also the case in cities like Paris and New York (Glaeser, 2011). In Paris, strict regulations on development and preservation, coupled with strict height limits on buildings mean that the costs of living in the French capital are incredibly high (Economic Intelligence Unit, 2013). As more and more people seek to live in central France, they are met with minimal options to choose from, many of which low to middle-class income earners cannot afford and unsurprisingly, this pushes people out of the city and instigates urban sprawl (Glaeser, 2011).
Jane Jacobs famously wrote that "Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody" (Jacobs, 1961, p.238). However, Glaeser looks to the urban success that is Singapore today, to illustrate why in some situations, an authoritarian top-down leadership style may be warranted (Glaeser, 2011). If Lee Kuan Yew had not taken charge in heading the creation and implementation of Singapore’s master plan, it is hard to imagine that it would be the glistening metropolis that we see today (Glaeser, 2011).
With Edward Glaeser opposing views that have formed the foundation for much of modern planning theory and practice, a new version of an ideal city emerges. Unlike the gardens, and parks that Ebenezer Howard and Olmsted envisioned, this city is a cluster of high rise buildings that prevent urban sprawl and charges drivers to eliminate congestion (Glaeser, 2011). While Glaeser (2011) acknowledges the value in preserving buildings of heritage, in this ideal city, development will be encouraged and not every post-war brick building will be preserved. There will be continual investments in human capital through education, and opportunities for inhabitants to navigate different industries and gain new skills (Glaeser, 2011). A strong central government must be in place, with a healthy mix of free market economy and state-owned enterprises (Glaeser, 2013). Maintaining this balance and providing a place of proximity where people can connect and learn from each other away from nature, is what Glaeser believes to be the ultimate environmentally friendly living arrangement (Glaeser, 2011).
During a time when the world is experiencing high levels of population growth and with the chilling effects of climate change becoming more visible, Glaeser offers us a solution. A way that everyone can enjoy a comfortable life and the promise of prosperity while also safeguarding our environment.
4. How his work has been received by the wider Planning Community.
As is to be expected, Glaeser’s ideas have garnered mixed reactions from the wider planning community (Scott, 2012). Some are intrigued by his take on traditional planning issues, while some view his work to be clouded by his statistics and making him blind to the real issues (Scott, 2012). Glaeser is a fairly recent sensation and though he is no Ebenezer Howard or Jane Jacobs in the eyes of planners today, he has certainly got them thinking. While there are those who are sceptical to the ‘green-ness’ and value of cities as Glaeser portrays them, they also admit that Glaeser is more of a humanitarian than some give him credit for (Stephen, 2011). His compassion for people is clear throughout his work, he considers first the people before physical buildings and acknowledges cities as essentially an embodiment of human capital, much like the thinking of Jane Jacobs (Stephen, 2011).
Since the publishing of Triumph of the City, Glaeser has had a far-reaching influence and has sparked conversations of urbanization in cities across Europe, to cities in the Middle East (Buntin, 2011). He has been the keynote speaker in a number of conferences on Urbanization and cities in the developing world, including being the keynote speaker at the annual American Planning Association (APA) conference in 2011 (American Planning Association, 2011).
Perhaps of
particular importance, is his influence here in New Zealand. In 2015 the Auckland City Council and the mayor of Auckland invited Glaeser to be the keynote speaker at the City Council organised event, Auckland Conversations (“Auckland Conversations”, 2015). The purpose of that particular event was to discuss the issues that were preventing Auckland from being the world’s most liveable city, the vision of the first Auckland plan (“Auckland Conversations”, 2015). With Auckland’s aims of economic growth, a strong CBD, quality housing for all, while still being as environmentally friendly as possible, Len Brown, the mayor of Auckland at the time sought out Edward Glaeser to speak at this event to members of Parliament, council staff and local board representatives about how they could better plan Auckland City (“Auckland Conversations”, 2015). Harre (2017) the editor of New Zealand needs an urbanisation project, writes an article about Glaeser’s influence in New Zealand citing a report of the Ministry of Finance: ‘Quantifying the impact of land use regulation: Evidence from New Zealand’, which he believes to be a direct result of Glaeser’s stance on land use regulation.
The fact that Glaeser’s ideas have had such a wide-spread effect in relation to the amount of time that he has been active in this area speaks volumes about the need for a new ideal city, and his appeal at an international level and throughout the wider planning community.
Conclusion
Edward Glaeser has had a keen interest in cities and the way that they function since his early days, but it was not until the publishing of his book Triumph of the City in 2011 that he gained significant international attention (“Harvard University”, 2018). Many people tend to misinterpret Glaeser’s intention when it comes to his obvious love for cities. Although Glaeser does indeed believe that Cities are the way forward in terms of economic growth, happiness, health and environmentally friendly living, what he is advocating for is the freedom of people to live in cities if they want to (Glaeser, 2011). Hence why he is always critical of land-use regulations and height restrictions, because whenever we say no to building up, we are saying no to a family who long to relish in the gifts of proximity and closeness that cities provide (Glaeser, 2011). As it just so happens, it is cheaper to build new and up than to maintain the old and push people out (Glaeser, 2013).
On the premise of caring for the environment, Glaeser believes that we should not be aiming for the garden cities of Howard or the national parks of Olmsted (Glaeser, 2011). The message is simple if we care about the environment, the best thing we can do for it is to leave it alone (Glaeser, 2011). The statistics on this are also clear, suburban living is more detrimental to the environment than it is to live in a small high-rise unit in the city (Glaeser, 2011). In the case of community planning, his intention is not that we should do without collaboration, there is indeed immense value in it (Glaeser, 2011). However, there may be cases, particularly in developing countries where a strong central government is needed to direct their rise above poverty, perhaps some degree of authoritarian leadership must be their trade-off for being better off (Glaeser, 2011). Whether Lee Kuan Yew’s style of leadership will work and produce the same result in other developing countries, we cannot know for certain. What we do know is that under Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore became one of the most celebrated planning successes of all time (Henderson, 2012).
Cities give us the opportunity to foster our innate ability to learn from one another, a characteristic we are all born with (Glaeser, 2011). They are more than just high-rise buildings, they harbour the promise of a better life (Glaeser, 2011). Granted that cities have poverty and illness caused by proximity, but Glaeser (2013) believes that these costs are worth bearing and able to be remedied through sound public policy. Gandhi memorably prophesied that the future of India would be in its villages, but Glaeser and perhaps history tells us that this is not the case, the future of India lies in its cities (Glaeser, 2011).
If there are strong political institutions that fight corruption, provide the most basic necessities of clean water and hygienic living spaces, encourage development and provide platforms where people can be innovative and flourish, then human capital externalities will do the rest (Glaeser, 2013). It has been proven throughout history, that proximity and the willingness to learn and innovate has always worked to our advantage (Glaeser, 2011). Despite the technological advances that have taken place over time making it possible to see each other and have conversations whilst separated by millions of miles of ocean, we still travel long distances to meet people face-to-face (Glaeser, 2011). Thus, confirming that there is no perfect substitute for face-to-face learning and conversation (Glaeser, 2011). This is why, Glaeser (2011) explains, that when done right, cities will always succeed.
Glaeser gives planners a new way of seeing cities, and though he has not climbed to the heights of influential figures such as Jane Jacobs and Ebenezer Howard, he has started them thinking, and sometimes that is all that it takes.
With 7.6 Billion people in the world today and countries becoming increasingly environmentally conscious, perhaps Glaeser has found the way forward.
“…whether in London’s ornate arcades or Rio’s fractious favelas, whether in the high-rises of Hong Kong or the dusty workplaces of Dharavi, our culture, our prosperity, and our freedom are all ultimately gifts of people living, working, and thinking together – the ultimate triumph of the city.” (Glaeser, 2011, pp.