Triumph of the City: Book Report
The future is not Orange County. The future is not West Bloomfield, Michigan. The future is not Rye, New York. The future is Detroit. As preposterous as that statement might seem, it is one Edward Glaeser and I, both believe to be true. While suburbs are always going to be a part of the American and international lifestyle, in my opinion, they will never be the focal part of our future. Cities, on the other hand, have always been a fixture and will always be a fixture. That is a point that is hammered down in Edward Glaeser’s book Triumph of the City. Glaeser makes a number of claims in his book mainly revolving around urbanization and while I do not agree with all of his points, I strongly side with a high …show more content…
Having survived that long, it is easy to deduce that they are pretty important to civilizations. Glaeser believes that not only are they pretty important, rather they are fundamental to human growth. His first main point is about the importance of human capital. This is a point he recalls multiple times through the text. According to Glaeser, the value of a city comes from humans rather than buildings. He talks about how close human interaction “leads to more trust, generosity, and cooperation than any other sort of interaction" (Page 34). In my mind his point is that humans are at their most innovative when they are surrounded by other humans. For example, a person is more likely to invent something or come up with an idea when they are surrounded by humans. This is because they are more likely to see problems people are faced with or more efficient ways to do something compared to living in a suburb where human interaction is considerably lower. I have personally experienced this as moving to Los Angeles from the suburbs of Michigan has greatly increased my human interaction which has led me to learn things I never would have before. Be it different cultures or different activities I can certainly say I have learned more after I moved here. Glaeser also touches upon the assumption that technology decreases the need for human interaction. He debunks that as he believes that rather than being detrimental to …show more content…
While I am not an advocate of “big government”, I believe that the points he makes are well taken. He calls out cities who do not have their priorities in order. “Cities need to provide clean water while safely removing human waste.” (Page 93) Cities like Mumbai, major cities in developing countries, are guilty of this. I lived in Mumbai for four years and can attest to this fact. I have seen multiple skyscrapers go up while less fortunate families struggle to get water. I completely agree when he says that governments should fight to eliminate situations like this. Other aspects he wants governments to have an influence on are to lower crime and corruptions, two huge deterring factors in the growth of
The future is not Orange County. The future is not West Bloomfield, Michigan. The future is not Rye, New York. The future is Detroit. As preposterous as that statement might seem, it is one Edward Glaeser and I, both believe to be true. While suburbs are always going to be a part of the American and international lifestyle, in my opinion, they will never be the focal part of our future. Cities, on the other hand, have always been a fixture and will always be a fixture. That is a point that is hammered down in Edward Glaeser’s book Triumph of the City. Glaeser makes a number of claims in his book mainly revolving around urbanization and while I do not agree with all of his points, I strongly side with a high …show more content…
Having survived that long, it is easy to deduce that they are pretty important to civilizations. Glaeser believes that not only are they pretty important, rather they are fundamental to human growth. His first main point is about the importance of human capital. This is a point he recalls multiple times through the text. According to Glaeser, the value of a city comes from humans rather than buildings. He talks about how close human interaction “leads to more trust, generosity, and cooperation than any other sort of interaction" (Page 34). In my mind his point is that humans are at their most innovative when they are surrounded by other humans. For example, a person is more likely to invent something or come up with an idea when they are surrounded by humans. This is because they are more likely to see problems people are faced with or more efficient ways to do something compared to living in a suburb where human interaction is considerably lower. I have personally experienced this as moving to Los Angeles from the suburbs of Michigan has greatly increased my human interaction which has led me to learn things I never would have before. Be it different cultures or different activities I can certainly say I have learned more after I moved here. Glaeser also touches upon the assumption that technology decreases the need for human interaction. He debunks that as he believes that rather than being detrimental to …show more content…
While I am not an advocate of “big government”, I believe that the points he makes are well taken. He calls out cities who do not have their priorities in order. “Cities need to provide clean water while safely removing human waste.” (Page 93) Cities like Mumbai, major cities in developing countries, are guilty of this. I lived in Mumbai for four years and can attest to this fact. I have seen multiple skyscrapers go up while less fortunate families struggle to get water. I completely agree when he says that governments should fight to eliminate situations like this. Other aspects he wants governments to have an influence on are to lower crime and corruptions, two huge deterring factors in the growth of