Reddit reviews Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier

This person fundamentally misunderstands and misinterprets almost every facet of urbanism and cities in the 21st century. It's absolutely incredible how willfully ignorant and purposefully dishonest this article is... the neurosis and cynicism is oozing from the page. The whole thing reads like someone attempting to veil their own depression, frustration, and anger at their own life in a bunch of pseudo-facts and floppy rhetoric. The amount of times the author tosses in 'cultural marxism' when he runs headlong into a mental wall and can't find anything meaningful to say would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

His reason for why cities are experiencing a renaissance and are desirable places to live for educated millennials?

>"[they] move to the big city.... in order to extend this infantile and adolescent lifestyle."

His evidence being that they want to get fucked up at festivals and hook up with people. What an incredibly intelligent and cogent analysis.

News flash, buddy: cities have been engines of innovation since Plato and Socrates bickered in an Athenian marketplace. Millennials couldn't possibly be moving to cities because of their role in fostering human achievement, or how they spur innovation by facilitating face-to-face interaction, or how they attract human capital and sharpen it through competition, or how they encourage entrepreneurship, or how they allow for social and economic mobility in ways that other places just can't match? It couldn't be because of their booming economic opportunities, or how they spur artistic innovation?

Nope, it's just because people want to have fun and have sex. Actually, so what if that's true? Why is it so bad that people are increasingly choosing where to live on the basis of pleasure as well as productivity? People like amenities and things to do-- theaters, restaurants, festivals, et cetera. Would you rather live within a few blocks of a dozen restaurants, a movie theater, music venues, and parks, or would you rather have to get into a car and drive 30 minutes to reach even one of these places? An increasingly prosperous world will continue to place more value on the innovative enjoyments that cities can provide, and that's not a bad thing. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the educated millennials who are enjoying these amenities are gainfully employed and are net producers of economic output and essential services (law, health care, research, tech, design, schools, banking, et cetera). Their jobs help each other and help others and the city at large.

This entire rant sounds like the dusty, envious frustrations of a person that feels they've "missed out" and is desperately trying to justify their place in the world in whatever way they possibly can.

Whoever wrote this abysmal, sad excuse for an article should pick up this book and see what actual evidence-based research says about the history of power of cities.

You can't mandate affordable housing. We tried that in the US in the 60s and 70s. What actually works is loosening of zoning restrictions and barriers to density in order to profitably and rapidly expand the housing stock. Unless you want to fully nationalize real estate and construction, you have to have policies that enable profitable construction and careful shepherding of restrictions so that they protect clean and functional living space, but do not place arbitrary limits that drive up housing costs, as is the case in most "liberal" cities.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gated-City-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B005KGATLO

This response ignores the fact that cities are not made up of buildings, cities are made up of people. While interstates helped create suburban sprawl (which isn't of itself a bad thing), they also lead to huge innovation in supply chain management which has led to much cheaper consumer products. Cheaper goods act as an income boost to everyone. Offsetting the large cost of investment. Triumph of the city by Edward Glaeser is a good read if you're interested about this sort of stuff

You thinking more Poor Economics or Why Nations Fail? There's also some good stuff on urbanization's role in development in Triumph of the City which has a lot of implications for developed-world city policy too.

The simple answer is that no, it's absolutely not too late. My suggestions, having recently been in your position:
-
(1) Graduate and work for a year or two, preferably (for income purposes) in the field you majored in. Going straight from undergrad to graduate school is usually mistake, especially if you have undergraduate debt. Live frugally and pay that off. Who knows, you may end up loving the field you originally chose. You can also take a shot at an entry-level urban planning job/internship if you already have the preferred skills/connections.

(2a) During this time, read as much as you can on urban planning and urban economics. Start with classics like "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" and "Triumph of the City". You can find dozens of great threads in this subreddit listing out the "essential" texts. Blogs are a great way to stay on the up and up on current issues in urban planning. A few that I like are Sidewalk Talk, Market Urbanism, and Old Urbanist. Planetizen is also a great aggregator for urban planning news and discussion.

(2b) During this time work on developing the quantitative skills that would set you apart. These include programming languages/tools for data analysis (R, Python), digital mapping (ArcGIS is preferred, but you can use QGIS for free), and math if you haven't already taken any. You can find plenty of free online courses in these areas. Having these skills will set you apart in a big way.

(3) By this point, you should have a general idea of what in particular you would like to study/research/work in within urban planning and a basic groundwork of relevant skills. This will set you apart among the applicant pool. I also had no academic/professional experience when applying, but I made it clear through my application that I was passionate, well-read, and had developed the necessary skills. It will also allow you to pick degrees (Master of City and Regional Planning? Master of Public Administration? Master of Public Policy?) and programs tailored to your specific interests. The application process can take anywhere from a year to six months, if you start studying early for the GRE. If you do end up taking a shot at graduate school, I found this guide to be very helpful.

Hope this helps.

Edit: I have no idea why this isn't formatting correctly

These results show that we should be building more housing near transit stations, since people want to live there. Limiting Capitol Hill heights to 65" (or 85" on top of the new station) is crazy. Mass transit and density are yin and yang. Edward Glaeser details why in Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier.

High rents and housing costs are not a law of nature. They're a political choice.

Building vertically has huge benefits both economically and environmentally. Of course it doesn't do much in terms of historic preservation and its visual impact is debatable. This book is a good read on the issue: http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549

Trickle down economics is bullshit because people hoard wealth. However, no matter how rich you are you're probably only going to live in one unit in any given city. Completely different concepts. We're talking about basic supply and demand.

While I don't agree with all of the arguments in the book, I remember some studies in Triumph of the City. I'd recommend the read.

Because the population was smaller and cities were less popular / economically important then. Now they are very important while at the same time we have made building more units illegal, thus raising the cost of housing. The problem is almost entirely political and legal.

I don't think "everything needs to be centralized." If people want to live in the suburbs or rural areas, good for them!

But cities are really awesome and really useful. The state officeworkers probably want some places to eat. This location is literally across the street from a sandwich shop. In addition, there are dozens of other food options within a mile or so. Because there's a big cluster of people working, people have to travel less far to get lunch and they have a wider variety of options.

All the people who work there would probably like to live nearby where they work. But so would the people who work at the lunch places, and they'd both like to live near where their kids go to school, and their church, etc. If they were far outside the city, at least some of things they'd want would be very far away and harder to access.

I could go on and on, but if you're interested, I suggest reading the very short Gated City by Ryan Avent about the economic benefits of cities or much longer (and more boring) Triumph of the City by Edward Glaeser.

This book is a good read

One of the core ideas is that, counterintuitively, technological connectivity has made space in cities more valuable, not less, because despite things like video chat and email, etc, the best place for a business is still in the places where people are physically nearby.

YIMBY, see Glaeser.

Here is a secondary source (in portuguese, sorry)
http://www.akatu.org.br/Temas/Mobilidade/Posts/Transportes-sao-responsaveis-por-90-da-poluicao-em-SP

Can't find a primary one...

But anyways, that is dated from 2006. Biggest offenders in atmospheric pollution in big service oriented cities are traffic and heating for winter. source

Since São Paulo's economy is services-oriented and we have a temperate climate without need of serious heating, that isn't a farfetched conclusion.

Haha, I share your aversion. However, when I say Glaeser is a brilliant writer, I mean it. I have dreams about his zoning essay. I find him better than Friedman.

http://www.amazon.it/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549 this is his recent one

http://www.amazon.it/The-Geography-Jobs-Enrico-Moretti/dp/0547750110/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=51gWwxQtmCL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=1P23JD8ZZBE8R8YBGM1K this is another one i read

>Wages are low

In cities? Wages are lower in rural areas and the sunbelt.

>job opportunities are limited

This is what I think about LCOL rural areas with only a few low wage opportunities.

>So leaving is the best option if you can't get into that industry

Well different cities have different predominant industries. I think getting into an industry you in enjoy in a city that is the predominant area for that industry is the best plan of action. Reading this book, Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier really influenced my thinking. https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549/.

Cities are great. Tons of regulations and subsidies they have are terrible. But they decide their own laws and regulations, it would be extreme federal overreach if Trump took any power in this area.

reed

>No, I just assumed you're a rich city dweller who's never actually had to work a day in the field, and look to lose the least, and gain the most from the development of the world.

Spot on. Now we're talking. I sure hope that urbanisation keeps going the way it is. It's almost as if...cities are better. It could also be that I think my ancestors made a great move by coming to the city and I want to encourage and vouch for the process so that millions more can have better lives.

Luckily for me, voters keep voting for higher growth and more development.

"Individuals matter"

Happy? There, I stated the obvious. Would you like me to state other obvious things? 2+2=4 perhaps?

If you e-mail/Tweet at the authors, they are actually really helpful. Search Google & Twitter and you should be able to contact them.

Also, while on the topic of books: check out Triumph of the City, by Edward Glaeser: http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549

https://www.amazon.com/Devil-White-City-Madness-Changed/dp/0375725601

> Is any of that a fact?

http://www.amazon.ca/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451419653&sr=8-1&keywords=triumph+of+the+city

Read chapter 1. Compares history of detroit and history of NYC.