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

by Edward Glaeser

  Vancouver’s trajectory during the twentieth century followed a familiar pattern. Its population stagnated during the Great Depression and then fell during the heyday of suburbanization between the 1960s and the early 1980s. But since then, the city has expanded from 415,000 to 610,000 people, an increase of almost 50 percent. Vancouver’s boom has been fueled by a passionate attention to quality of life, a willingness to build up, and a flow of talented Asian immigrants.

  In many areas, Vancouver is typical of prosperous non-American cities, with clean streets, a generous safety net, and high taxes. Vancouver’s more distinctive features are its physical bones and the remarkably diverse set of people who make its structures come alive. There is even an urban planning philosophy, called Vancouverism, which is defined by open spaces, tall slender skyscrapers that afford ample views, and plenty of public transportation.

  Arthur Erickson is often called the father of Vancouverism. He was born in Vancouver but left to fight with the British army in World War II. After the war, inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright, he studied architecture at McGill University in Montreal and earned a fellowship to study buildings around the world. After his wanderings, he returned to Vancouver, started teaching at the University of British Columbia, and began an architectural partnership with the well-connected Geoffrey Massey, whose father, Raymond, was a famous Canadian actor and whose uncle was Canada’s governor general.

  As early as 1955, when Vancouver was still a modest town on Canada’s edge, Erickson had a vision of a soaring skyline. His Plan 56 remains a stunning vision of a high-rise city, where buildings are not massed together as in New York, but elegantly arranged in an undulating cascade that complements the city’s natural beauty. Erickson did more than just dream. In 1963, he won the competition to build British Columbia’s Simon Fraser University—now one of Canada’s best. Two years later, Erickson got the chance to actually change Vancouver’s skyline when he was picked by forestry giant MacMillan Bloedel to build its new office building, a twenty-seven-story, half-million-square-foot “concrete waffle,” which has since become an architectural icon. In the 1970s, Erickson designed Robson Square, the 1.3-million-square-foot civic center that brought together law courts, UBC’s downtown campus, and plenty of open space.

  Erickson became a national icon, described by the Toronto Globe and Mail in his obituary as “the greatest architect we ever produced.” Following his vision, Vancouver has built up and generally built well. A Chinese immigrant, James Cheng, who came to Vancouver to learn from Erickson, has designed more than twenty structures with more than twenty stories in Vancouver since 1995. Cheng is known for his combination of green glass and concrete, which has helped give Vancouver its distinctive look. Good planning has meant that many of these structures, like Cheng’s Living Shangri-La, Vancouver’s tallest building, are mixed-use, which helps to cut commutes and ensure that the city’s downtown doesn’t become deserted at night. Good planning also places these buildings far enough apart to let in light and views and provide plenty of open spaces.

  And good urban planning, along with Canada’s eminently sensible immigration policy, has helped Vancouver attract human capital. A full 40 percent of the city’s population is foreign-born, and a quarter of its citizens were born in Asia. Moreover, its immigrants are disproportionately skilled, like those in Canada as a whole. More than half of the people who came to the country in 2006 have a college degree, making them far better educated than native Canadians. Also, nearly half of the Canadians with a PhD were born somewhere else.

  Canada has an abundance of land, and fertility levels among its native-born people are well below replacement rates. The more than two hundred thousand immigrants who arrive during a typical year help keep the country growing. Like the United States, Canada gives some preference to relatives of the native-born, but the bulk of visas are granted to so-called independent immigrants, who are admitted based on a points system that, according to the Canadian government, rewards “education, language ability, employment experience, age, arranged employment, and adaptability.” Canada has proven particularly attractive to Asians, like the many Hong Kong residents who fled that city before it became part of the People’s Republic of China. Vancouver has drawn those immigrants because it is a tolerant city on the Pacific Ocean with well-established Asian communities. A fifth of its residents are ethnic Chinese—only slightly less than the 26 percent who describe themselves as being of English extraction.

  Those immigrants have helped make the city culturally interesting and economically vital. James Cheng is responsible for much of the city’s skyline. Members of the Chan family, also from Hong Kong, rank among Vancouver’s most generous philanthropists. From restaurants to skyscrapers to investment houses, Vancouver’s immigrants have helped turn a picturesque logging town into a global city.

  The Growing City: Chicago and Atlanta

  One of the morals of chapter 2 of this book, on urban failure, was that building in declining cities with little housing demand does no good and that it was a fallacy to think that soaring skylines could bring back declining cities. One of the morals of chapter 7, on sprawl, was that Houston has attracted so many Americans with the abundance of affordable housing that results from unrestricted building in places with sufficient demand. Building can allow a place to expand and attract exciting people not just in the Sunbelt sprawl, but also in older cities, if they have enough else going for them.

  When I moved to the South Side of Chicago in 1988, the city was splendid but grim. Great stone structures, like the Beaux Arts-style Museum of Science and Industry, which greets drivers on their way to the University of Chicago’s campus, served as reminders of a more glorious urban past. Neighborhoods near the university had grand mansions, like those that once housed Chicago’s beef magnates and Muhammad Ali, but they were selling for a fraction of construction cost because of the area’s high crime rate.

  Chicago lost almost 18 percent of its population between 1970 and 1990, a lot less than Cleveland or Detroit but far more than New York or Boston. In the twelve years after the death of longtime mayor Richard J. Daley in 1976, Chicago had five mayors, none of whom was able to consolidate power or reduce the crime rate. But since 1990, Chicago has been one of the few large Midwestern cities that has grown, despite the facts that its population is not as well educated as that of Minneapolis or Boston and that its weather can be brutal.

  Chicago succeeds by offering the benefits of density while still remaining affordable and pleasant. The city’s economy depends on information-intensive industries, like finance and business services, that seem to particularly value density. Financial entrepreneurs, like the billionaire hedge-fund manager Kenneth Griffin, choose Chicago because it has the size and the well-educated workforce to provide the professionals and services that their organizations need, while still maintaining a strong quality of life and a family-friendly, wholesome Midwestern feel, as compared with Manhattan.

  The city’s longtime mayor, Richard M. Daley (son of the other longtime Mayor Daley), has proven himself to be one of America’s most effective urban leaders. He knows that the city can succeed only by providing a business-friendly environment and a decent quality of life. When he took office, he made a fetish of tree planting. He built the city’s Millennium Park by generating substantial private donations. He took over and improved the public schools. He has also fervently supported construction. Numerous new buildings have made Chicago a far more affordable alternative to New York or San Francisco.

  Chicago’s construction has given it plenty of high-quality, attractive real estate that appeals to the type of people who work for Ken Griffin. Between 2002 and 2008, Chicago issued 68,000 housing permits, equal to about 6 percent of its year-2000 housing stock. In the same period, Boston issued 8,500 housing permits, equal to only 3.3 percent of its 2000 housing stock. Chicago issued more than three times as many housing permits as San Jose, California, a city that is almost as large and far less dense. Among Chicag
oans, 10.8 percent live in housing built since 1990, which is significantly higher than the 7.6 percent figure for New Yorkers or the 8.3 percent figure for Bostonians. Moreover, Chicago has allowed plenty of building along its long, beautiful lakefront, while New York has decided to “preserve” almost all of the best blocks facing Central Park.

  Chicago’s real estate is both newer and cheaper than either Boston’s or New York’s. Census data shows that median rents are 30 percent higher in Boston than in Chicago, and housing prices are about 39 percent higher. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sales price of a condominium in the Chicago metropolitan area in the second quarter of 2010 was $186,000, as opposed to $290,000 in the Boston area and $405,000 in the San Francisco area. In downtown Chicago, $650,000 can get you a three-bedroom condominium with 1,650 square feet in a new glassy tower. An equivalent unit in New York City would cost at least twice as much.

  Chicago also builds plenty of offices—almost 40 million new square feet of office space was built in the metropolitan area between 1990 and 2009. That new space keeps the cost of doing business down. Office rents in Chicago have, for many years, been about 30 percent cheaper than rents in Boston or San Francisco.

  In other cities, like Boston and San Jose, preservationists and fans of lower density have pushed city leaders to restrict new construction, but Daley lets them build. Why? All those cranes create structures that house highly skilled workers. Lower housing costs allow employers to pay lower wages, which helps keep Chicago economically competitive. The mayor knows that and also knows that Chicago won’t survive unless its costs are lower than those in coastal America. Building can’t save places like Buffalo or Detroit, where demand is just too low, but in places that are more attractive, reducing the barriers to new construction can provide a major comparative advantage.

  Unfettered construction has also been a critical part of the success of many Sunbelt cities, like Houston and Miami, but only one of those cities has managed to both expand rapidly and become highly educated. The Atlanta metropolitan area added 1.12 million people between 2000 and 2008, more than any area in the United States except Dallas. All that growth would have been impossible without plenty of construction, both in the sprawling suburbs and in glossy downtown skyscrapers that house offices and condominiums. Atlanta’s office space has grown by more than 50 percent since 1990, and as a result, its business space is typically 20 percent cheaper than even Chicago’s.

  As Atlanta has grown, it has also become remarkably well educated. The central city has about the same share of adults with college degrees as Minneapolis and more than Boston, the self-proclaimed Athens of America. More than 47 percent of Fulton County’s adults have a bachelor’s degree, making them better educated than those in Westchester County, New York, or Fairfield County, Connecticut, or Santa Clara County, California, and almost as well educated as adults in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Atlanta’s education reflects history, proeducation policies, and also housing.

  Atlanta has a wealth of older colleges and universities. It was a center for the Union Army after the Civil War, and its remarkable roster of historically black colleges generally formed during that era. Emory and Georgia Tech, the latter explicitly modeled on Massachusetts schools, also opened their doors in the decades after the Civil War.

  More recently, Georgia decided to use its state lottery earnings to fund the Hope Scholarship program, which provides generous financial aid to any academically successful student who attends college in state. As a means of righting social inequities, the policy is a flop, for its largesse flows disproportionately to the prosperous. But as a means of attracting talented parents who care about educating their children, and as a tool for keeping talented scholars in state, the program is clearly a success.

  Atlanta, like Houston, has a powerful business community that has long pushed the region’s growth. That community sees the value of education and the value of building up. As a result, Atlanta offers educated people remarkably cheap housing, which has helped attract more educated people to an already highly educated metropolis. Between 2000 and 2008, Fulton County’s share of college graduates has grown two thirds faster than that of the country at large.

  Too Much of a Good Thing in Dubai

  Dubai never had the chance to be an imperial city, but it seems to have tried almost every other strategy we’ve discussed here. Historically, Dubai succeeded, like Hong Kong or Singapore, by having a good location and good economic institutions. Dubai came under British protection in 1892, and early in the twentieth century, the city’s proximity to India made it a natural connector between the subcontinent and the Middle East. Dubai has some oil itself, but the city’s real growth is due to its port, which is a conduit for the vast flow of black gold from other countries, like Saudi Arabia.

  Dubai’s ports, however, handle more than just oil. The city competes effectively for international trade by offering good, modern infrastructure and business-friendly institutions. Just as Hong Kong thrived by being an oasis of economic freedom next to once highly restrictive Communist China, Dubai succeeds by offering better economic institutions than its neighbors. The Jebel Ali Free Zone attracts businesses by giving them freedom from both taxes and regulations. Dubai isn’t just more business-friendly than its Middle Eastern neighbors; its good legal institutions and excellent infrastructure also make it an easier place to do business than overregulated India, making it a natural commercial hub for the entire region. In Mumbai, you can meet plenty of businesspeople who work in Dubai but come back home on weekends.

  While those Indians see Dubai as a place to work, not play, Dubai’s leadership has decided to transform it from an oil-shipping port into a consumer city, which attracts financiers and entrepreneurs. The two urban functions are intimately linked. Dubai can succeed as a business center if it convinces people throughout the Middle East that they’d rather be there than somewhere else, like Kuwait or Cairo. If Dubai becomes the most exciting place to live in the Middle East, the thinking goes, it will also attract businessmen who’ll make sure that the city is more than a mere tourist destination.

  Just as Las Vegas grew by offering pleasures outlawed in more restrictive states, Dubai could grow because it’s relatively free from the religious restrictions that bind so much of the region. Sheikh Mohammed’s personal faith doesn’t seem to prevent him from building a city that is almost as free-spirited as any wandering businessperson might want.

  Dubai could have easily succeeded as a midsize center of fun and commerce, but Sheikh Mohammed’s ambitions go far beyond that. In 2008, Dubai was one of the largest construction sites on earth. The Burj Al Arab, built on an artificial island, was the tallest hotel in the world when it was built, at 1,027 feet. It has only 202 oversize suites—the smallest of which is eighteen hundred square feet. A 2,684-foot mixed-use building opened in 2010; it is now the tallest man-made structure in the world. The Dubai Mall contains 5.9 million square feet of internal space, 12 million in all, making it one of the biggest in the world. Sheikh Mohammed had envisioned an artificial three-hundred-island archipelago, modestly called the World, and a 230-building central business district called Business Bay, and an entertainment complex, Dubailand, to be larger than Disney World.

  In principle, the combination of construction and quality of life is sensible, but the extraordinary extent of the sheikh’s building far exceeds the level needed to satisfy current demand for his city. Mayor Daley is only allowing private developers to build; construction in Chicago reflects their independent assessments that prices there will cover their costs. Sheikh Mohammed is investing huge amounts of public funds, so Dubai’s construction reflects to a large extent his own judgment that a vastly larger city will thrive. But the market seems to have found his exuberance somewhat irrational, and Dubai defaulted on its loans in 2009. Only with the financial help of neighboring Abu Dhabi was Dubai spared the pain of an even more dramatic failure.

  The sheikh’s general
vision of history is correct. Cities like Dubai must move beyond a purely economic model of success by embracing quality of life. Cities must build to succeed. But that doesn’t mean that any place can become New York or Shanghai. City builders must be visionaries, but also realists.

  CONCLUSION:

  Flat World, Tall City

  There is little that you own or use or know that wasn’t created by someone else. Humans are an intensely social species that excels, like ants or gibbons, in producing things together. Just as ant colonies do things that are far beyond the abilities of isolated insects, cities achieve much more than isolated humans. Cities enable collaboration, especially the joint production of knowledge that is mankind’s most important creation. Ideas flow readily from person to person in the dense corridors of Bangalore and London, and people are willing to put up with high urban prices just to be around talented people, some of whose knowledge will rub off.

  Rousseau famously wrote, “Cities are the abyss of the human species,” but he had things completely backward. Cities enable the collaboration that makes humanity shine most brightly. Because humans learn so much from other humans, we learn more when there are more people around us. Urban density creates a constant flow of new information that comes from observing others’ successes and failures. In a big city, people can choose peers who share their interests, just as Monet and Cézanne found each other in nineteenth-century Paris, or Belushi and Aykroyd found each other in twentieth-century Chicago. Cities make it easier to watch and listen and learn. Because the essential characteristic of humanity is our ability to learn from each other, cities make us more human.