Why we still need cities
There's lots of interesting stuff in Ed Glaeser's new book, "The Triumph of the City." One of Glaeser's themes, for instance, is the apparent paradox of cities becoming more expensive and more crowded even as the cost of communicating over great distances has fallen dramatically. New York is a good example of this, but Silicon Valley is a better one:
The computer industry, more than any other sector, is the place where one might expect remote communication to replace person-to-person meetings; computer companies have the best teleconferencing tools, the best internet applications, the best means of connecting far-flung collaborators. Yet despite their ability to work at long distances, this industry has become the world's most famous example of the benefits of geographic concentration. Technology innovators who could easily connect electronically pay for some of America's most expensive real estate to reap the benefits of being able to meet in person.
A wealth of research confirms the importance of face-to-face contact. One experiment performed by two researchers at the University of Michigan challenged groups of six students to play a game in which everyone could earn money by cooperating. One set of groups met for ten minutes face-to-face to discuss strategy before playing. Another set of groups had thirty minutes for electronic interaction. The groups that met in person cooperated well and earned more money. The groups that had only connected electronically fell apart, as members put their personal gains ahead of the group's needs.
The overarching theme of Glaeser's book is that cities make us smarter, more productive and more innovative. To put it plainly, they make us richer. And the evidence in favor of this point is very, very strong. But it would of course be political suicide for President Obama to say that part of winning the future is ending the raft of subsidies we devote to sustaining rural living. And the U.S. Senate is literally set up to ensure that such a policy never becomes politically plausible.
Posted by: DavidCEisen | March 4, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: Hazelite | March 4, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: johnsonr1 | March 4, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: Amphigory | March 4, 2011 10:04 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: harold3 | March 4, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: AuthorEditor | March 4, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: mkarns | March 4, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: willows1 | March 4, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: nickthap | March 4, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: nickthap | March 4, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: RichardHSerlin | March 4, 2011 10:13 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: truck1 | March 7, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: truck1 | March 7, 2011 7:49 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: gjdodger | March 7, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: OliviaG | March 9, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: BethDonovan | March 10, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse