A smattering of interesting thoughts scattered and hidden in an incoherent mess of writing. ( )

If you're into urban economics at all, or even just have an interest in how living in whatever city you're in improves your life, anything by Glaeser should be mandatory reading. He's a Harvard economist who also writes for the New York Times' Economix blog about urban issues, and this book is a synthesis of much of his recent work on cities.

The first part of the book is dedicated to enumerating the many economic advantages that urban areas provide over non-urban areas, especially in their role as innovation incubators. One great insight he throws right at the beginning is that cities themselves are actually an invention - the concept of collecting buildings close together to facilitate trade and idea-sharing was something akin to the concept of running electrical pulses across wires or building irrigation channels for crops - and that this insight, that people do their best work when surrounded by other people, has helped spur countless other inventions since. The multiplier aspect of cities, the way that they encourage the commerce and idea-sharing that improves human lives, is something he explores at great depth, and it doesn't take long at all before the reader is caught up in his infectious enthusiasm for the many benefits of urban living. Each chapter in the beginning and the end thirds is full of mini-history lessons from around the world - Nagasaki's role as a port town, Bangalore's place in India's technology boom, Silicon Valley's genesis as a research center, New York City's struggles with growth and crime, Baghdad's history as an intellectual mecca - each of which are the distillation of vast amounts of research, and the cumulative impact of the artfully linked statistics is enormous.

Even the most hardened suburbanite would be forced to reconsider their SUV and backyard patio after just that first section. Glaeser himself was born in Manhattan, which he admits colors his judgment, but that never obscures the facts that back him up, and the middle third of the book, once he's finished touting the substantial health, educational, and romantic benefits that cities have brought to humanity, is an explanation of why so many people, including him, have eventually turned their back on these dynamic growth engines and decamped for the suburbs. There's a somewhat poetic cast to this story of migrations from farms to towns to big cities to suburbs to exurbs, but in Glaeser's reckoning, the biggest contributors to sprawl and deurbanization in the US are prosaic things like the invention of the automobile, the popularity of air conditioning, and in particular overzealous land regulations in the older, colder Northeast metro areas. Cities may have profound influences on economic activity but they are not exempt from the laws of economics themselves, and if housing supplies are limited by historical preservation boards, rent control laws, mandatory parking lot statutes, and poor zoning regulations, then the cost of living will increase and people will move to areas where there are fewer artificial constraints on growth.

Now that the data from the 2010 Census has been released, it's become clear just how dramatic the consequences of different attitudes towards growth are: Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and other metropolitan areas that place few obstacles to housing construction have expanded dramatically, while New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, etc. have struggled to move beyond their decades-old population plateaus and in some cases, like Buffalo, Detroit, and Cleveland, are seemingly unable to stop their slow downward spirals. Now obviously there are many potential factors behind these shifts, such as national-level phenomena like business cycles, taxation rates, immigration patterns, the shift from manufacturing to services, explicit and implicit car subsidies, the aging of America, and many more, but it's hard to look at the vast cost, quality, and lifestyle difference between buying a tiny TriBeCa studio and the equivalently-priced Friendswood ranch house and conclude that this choice plays no role in determining where people choose to live.

There's a fascinating breakdown of The Woodlands, a master-planned community a few miles northwest of Houston. I happen to have some friends from this city, and so I enjoyed that what they all consider the epitome of a bland exurban wasteland was originally designed as an environmentally-responsible garden city. The enduring paradox behind "environmentally friendly" developments like The Woodlands is that the more their architects plan for parks, green spaces, and open wooded areas to preserve a sylvan character, the less environmentally friendly they actually become. New Yorkers (and residents of big, dense cities) use vastly less energy in heating and transportation than Woodlanders do because they're able to take advantage of economies of scale and proximity - the true tragedy of modern NIMBY environmentalists is that by pushing people to the suburbs and less dense cities with restrictive zoning laws and historical preservation districts, they encourage much more harm to the environment than if they had simply let more people move to New York.

Glaeser has three suggestions for municipal governments to reduce this flight. First, replace permitting with simple fees based on easy criteria. If adding a bar to a residential neighborhood imposes hidden costs on that neighborhood, then simply set a price on those costs and charge the bar owner up front, rather than going through a tortuously slow approval process. Second, cap the number of undemolishable landmarks the city can have. Cities are all about growth and change, and, contra Jane Jacobs, the more buildings get designated as historical and therefore immune to demolition, the higher prices have to rise in surrounding land to accommodate demand. Setting a reasonable cap would allow cities to add new buildings as appreciation for their merits grows (remember that even the Eiffel Tower was hated at first), and also force them to delist buildings which would be better served by a wrecking ball. Finally, and this is where he loses me, he suggests devolving some powers of zoning/building approval from City Hall to individual neighborhoods. In my experience, the fiercest opponents of growth are the people most directly impacted by it, who moved to a neighborhood expecting a certain lifestyle and want to freeze their own preferred configuration of shops, libraries, offices, and parks in time.

While Glaeser's points about the downsides of centrally-directed growth are well-taken (that Baron Hausmann had the backing of the Emperor for his revitalization of Paris was surely key to its success in the face of the massive number of people his works displaced), I think it's difficult to look at the fierce opposition to growth as embodied by Regional Growth For Northcross, to use a random Walmart-hating example from my hometown of Austin, and conclude that neighborhoods actually don't have enough say in who sets up shop down the street. Strengthening the property rights of land owners is probably a safer bet for cities that want growth, and this means all land owners - individual homeowners and shopping mall builders alike.

One aspect I wish he had spent more time on was the legal regime on the state level that encourages sprawl - in the US, cities are creations of their states, whose legislatures are dominated by rural and suburban interests. I've long thought that things like funding and transportation planning should be done on a metro-level basis, because that seems like a more appropriate unit of urban policy than the state or city limit-level mechanisms in place now. Seeing cities as integrated systems and adjusting resource allocation accordingly rather than the atomized units they're currently treated as would go a long way towards allowing people to make choices about where to live that are less heavily tilted towards the suburbs, and in the process would save us a lot of money. That theme - progress as fairness, with the removal of barriers to urban growth as one of the single best ways we have to ameliorate poverty and create wealth - is reiterated here as eloquently and effectively as you'll find anywhere. ( )

Fascinating but a bit too political. I don't like liberals who slag off scotch eggs and see nothing but rainbows in unicorns even in the darkest of slums. A bit of cynicism would'be improved this book. ( )

too much NYC porn/dick sucking. ( )

I find Glaeser makes an excellent case for the city dispelling many myths about cities a providing critical insight into why cities are awesome as well as why seem to abandon them. The downside to Glaeser's text is that he does not dedicate sufficient space in this text to discuss the racial motivations that were so critical phenomenon like suburbanization and geographic concentration of minority groups and how that influences perceptions of urban areas. ( )

How our greatestinvention makes us richer, smaarter, greener, healthier, and happier

Fascinating book about cities and what makes them successful. The main things I learnt were that cities depend on people, and that smart talented people are attracted to and make vibrant cities, that cities are very environmentally friendly (compared to rural living), and that environmental NIMBY decisions are VERY costly in environmental terms when considered on a wider (even global) scale. Message for Jersey, above all, is to invest in education and attracting smart people to the island. ( )

This is not a very deep book but it covers a lot of territory. The book starts with a look at Detroit which is a case study for what not to do when a city is facing problems. The author compares policies that were adopted in Detroit and compares them to policies taken in New York City. There's a lot to learn here.

The book goes on to highlight how even cities with slums like Mumbai and Sao Paolo are better for the city residents than having the people stay in rural poverty and stagnation.

There were some very new ideas in this book for me. I thought I would share one that struck me as eye opening. The author discusses how the lack of new construction may limit a cities growth. He points out how Houston, with no zoning laws, grows and grows and grows while the California coastal cities grow so slowly. He identifies an environmentalist attitude that looks at no growth in California as a win for the environment, but he suggests we consider that growth that does not happen here occurs in other places such as Houston. Growth in California coastal cities would be much more green than growth in sprawling, hot Houston. I think the book was well worth the read to learn about how much government policies impact city growth and how education really has such a strong influence on city growth. ( )

A pleasure to read from beginning to end, Ed Glaeser writes intelligently and provocatively about cities. If all you care about is the bottom line you need read no further than the title: "Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier." But if you want an enjoyable and intellectually interesting tour through the world's major cities, both past and present with some speculation about the future, you won't want to miss the rest of the book. ( )

Well, in the end I did like this book - but along the way various things irked me. Above all, sometimes I felt like screaming at the book, as there were lots of counterarguments which seemed obvious to me but that the author did not mention.
Some of it may depend on the fact that mostly this is an argument for the triumph of American cities, so that a number of very apparent problems in Europe may be less of an issue in the less densely populated USA. But one argument in favour of the building regulations that Galeser sees as a curse is the environmental devastation they can bring, and the subsequent fall in demand which then leaves deserted, abandoned buildings - that is, what happens to the buildings in those cities that have been unable to reinvent themselves? Also, building tall buildings does not equate to building nice buildings, and many inner cities in Europe are blighted by ugly social housing that deteriorate and where people no longer want to live. In short, even embracing Glaeser's argument in full, I'd still see a role for at least some building regulations.

There is another argument that I think Glaeser's doesn't really address: it is not clear that building tall and beautiful residential blocks would stem demand - at least, this does not seem to be the case in Singapore. I may be missing something here, but it would have been nice if Glaeser had tackled this issue. Sure, you would expect that increasing supply of desirable accommodation would reduce prices. But elsewhere in the book we are also given the argument that building more roads does not decrease congestion, as more cars seem to use then. So in a world of flexible households where if California does not build more, people favour settling in Houston, why would desirable tall buildings in California, say, not encourage more demand for housing in California with the result that price would not fall? There is an easy argument to be made to explain why this analogy fails, and I think he should have made it.

And there is one last issue: inner city living in small compact spaces is not nice, and creates problems that design alone cannot eliminate. The neighbour that slams his door when going to work on an early shift; the neighbour with the newborn baby who screams at night; the kids in the next block who party when their parents are out, but that you can do nothing about as you cannot identify the flat they live in; the lady who is hard of hearing and keeps her telly really loud; the garrbage truck that comes at three in the morning and wakes you even if you are on the fifth floor (somebody must live on the fifth floor, too) - you do not need to live in a problem neighbourhood to experience all those little nags that make you long for your own private space, where you can either sleep in peace, or blast your stereo without the neighbours complaining.

Nevertheless, I'd recommend anyone to read this book, it is definitely engaging and thougth provoking. ( )

This book should come with a surgeon general's warning: Reading this book may harm your brain and heart. The harm to the heart is caused by the author's extreme callousness. Glaeser is the poster-child of the "some are more equal" Reagan revolution. His Upper West Side Ivy Prep School features 113 faculty for 613 students, a ratio a struggling kid in the Bronx certainly will equalize by displaying greater effort. The unity in the school's Dutch motto "Eendracht Maakt Macht" probably applies only to the select few.

He applauds poor people's misery. Individually, the author claims that misery pressures poor people to seek to market and explore their true talents in a Social Darwinian competition. Collectively, poverty in a city, according to the author, is a sign of success, because the reserve army of the poor could be living in even more desperate places in the countryside. The struggling poor alone, however, are necessary but not sufficient for the triumph of a city. For this, a city needs to answer the question Glaeser asks multiple times: What makes a city attractive to a billionaire? Coddling the billionaires is the main purpose of this book. Let the poor, who, in a US context, are of a different pigmentation than the author, eat cake! In a twist of history, the poor today are no longer hungry (at least, those not on food assistance or food deprived) but obese (because, as Glaeser writes in another paper, they "have self-control problems".). A truly ugly mind.

Apart from his philosophy, his facts are questionable too. Much is pure "truthiness" of the David Brooks and Tom Friedman variety. One of his key examples for the triumph of the city is Silicon Valley which takes quite a bit of mind-bending before one can subsume it under the term "city". What he actually means is known as cluster development theory developed by Michael Porter or Paul Krugman (both absent in Glaeser's book intellectually and in the bibliography). In his muddled understanding of clusters, Glaeser's key recommendation is investment in education (which only works if the educated contribute and create to a city's unique competitive advantage which nowadays has to be near global). Glaeser also fails to understand specialization. His advice is for the world to become more like Manhattan, Singapore or London. The world, however, does not need multiple Manhattans. To the contrary, Manhattan's first mover advantage means that many industries cluster there and it would be futile to try to compete with them from afar.

The next idea Glaeser manages to misunderstand is urban density. Again, he sees Manhattan's sky scrapers as the perfect solution. Stupid Paris and London, which do not want to bulldoze their old buildings for skyscrapers in the heart of their city centers. At least, Glaeser acknowledges that in those cities, their sky scrapers are clustered outside the center, easily reachable by public transportation. Glaeser's view of Paris seems to be shaped more from Amélie than the real city, but facts have never been much of an impediment to anti-French sentiment in the US. If Glaeser had researched beyond his dream of urban business and condominium towers for the rich, he might have become aware that the anonymity and lack of public surveillance can create enormous social problems (see French HLM or Chicago or Philly projects). His skyscraper utopia could turn ugly really quickly (but then, it would only confirm his prejudices about "those people").

His final idea is uncontroversial in enlightened societies. Urban people use less natural resources than those living in rural areas. Glaeser examined a truly unhelpful question. Texas would naturally become greener if it looked like New York city, but how likely is that? A sensible approach would have compared energy utilization in Texas compared to one in, say, Southern Europe, thus exposing the giant energy waste in Texas. Glaeser straddles the idea of ecological behavior with a soft climate change denialism (either a personal opinion or in deference to his audience). As he is "not a climatologist", it "appears", "seems" etc. that climate change is happening. The science is in. Or does he think that the Holocaust "seems" to have occurred, because as a non-historian he can not venture beyond a guess? Climate change denial today is not far from denying the Holocaust. Only those who pursue a certain agenda have a need to engage in word play. It is truly strange that so called economists should have a problem with a carbon tax to compensate for externalities.

In sum, a book only partially grounded in reality, based on an incomplete and often wrong understanding of theory, mixed with a truly toxic political philosophy, is the perfect candidate to become a US bestseller and to be praised by The Economist and the usual suspects. Cities, if well managed, were, are and will be the drivers of economic growth. Glaeser's book only detracts from the discussion. Avoid. ( )

I don't agree with everything Glaeser says but overall I found it really interesting, thought-provoking and it opened my eyes to a lot of things. I already agreed with him that the density of cities is great and breeds connectivity, new ideas, and creativity. And I also knew that it is much better for the environment for people to cluster together in cities where they use less gas, less energy and contain their impact (as opposed to spreading out in suburbs and rural areas. But I used to be a big fan of preserving all old buildings and not allowing high rises. Glaeser makes a really good case for why we should build up and preserve strategically, not preserve everything blindly. Unless we want our beautiful old cities to only be playgrounds for the rich, and want builders to go elsewhere and sprawl all over the rest of the country....As environmentalists, we need to think about the good of the whole, not just the good of our neighborhood. I still think that there is perhaps an in-between strategy. between low two story buildings and sky-scrapers. And I don't have his blithe faith in the free market. But he makes a lot of really good points and has changed my mind on a number of issues. I hope that politicians, ecologists, and urban planners will all read and discuss this. ( )

Glaesar's book is an analysis of the city as one of the great inventions of humanity and the connections the city fosters being a moving force behind human ingenuity and progress. Cities are seen as a place with poor people living in slums yet Glaesar demonstrates that cities actually draw poor people because cities offer them opportunities to improve their lives. Glaesar also demonstrates that cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbs. He criticizes how government policies tend to encourage sprawl and expensive housing. Several cities (including my own, Boston) are cited as examples of successful cities. If there's one thing that does make me uneasy about this book is Glaesar's uncritical support of free-market capitalism, but he does make a good point that governments should spend money to help the poor but not spend money on poor places, an important distinction. My opinion is already biased toward cities, but I believe this book makes a great argument toward encouraging dense well-managed cities as the sustainable way to go for humanity's future.

Favorite Passages:

"The strength that comes from human collaboration is the central truth behind civilization's success and the primary reason why cities exist. To understand our cities and what to do about them, we must hold on to those truths and dispatch harmful myths. We must discard the view that environmentalism means living around tree and that urbanites should always fight to preserve a city's physical past. We must stop idolizing home ownership which favors suburban tract homes over high-rise apartments, and stop romanticizing rural villages. We should eschew the simplistic view that better long-distance communication will reduce our desire and need to be near one another. Above all, we must free ourselves from our tendency to see cities as their buildings, and remember that the real city is made of flesh, not concrete." - p. 15

( )

Glaeser's thesis is that cities are a critical force in human civilization, and are much greener and more sustainable than sprawl. I now understand why New York is such a magnent, and why my husband and I both travel a considerable distance to well paying jobs in our field in New York. The issue is critical mass, and the kind of stimulation and cross fertilization that comes from the very density that on a bad day drives us nuts! Well worth a read, particularly if you need lessons in appreciating the awesome power of the urban lifestyle that you are feeling ambivalent about.

An excellent book. Although somnewhat more of a free market liberal economist approach than I would normally take, I have to agree with his basic premises that succesful cities are better for society and mankind generally than the suburbs and rural areas. And to have succesful cities we need migration, education, good governance, space for clever people to interact, quality cultural/leisure activities, a social system that maintains the poor and rich who equally drive the economy and a rebalancing of the pro-suburb bias in national tax and spend policies. Achieving the last is unlikely.

But the book still reminded me why I love living in central London. ( )

I live somewhat in the suburbs and about 5-10min from the heart of downtown by car. I doubt I would ever want to live in a big city of the kind Glaeser describes, but this book is the most convincing argument for the metropolis I've ever read. Even the hugely controversial carbon tax he argues for is reasonably explained. I still don't agree with it, but I understand better why the debate is valid.

The book's best message, that the core of cities are its people and not its buildings, changed my viewpoint substantially. And that helped me see another of his points, that the urban poor in cities are better off there than anywhere else. It's necessary to understand this because so much of our judgments against cities are judgments against the poor living there.

The only reality that Glaeser doesn't address well enough is that most people don't want to live in cities if given a choice. The smaller community, the suburb, seems to be preference for the majority - damn all the consequences of commuting and higher gas prices. ( )

I'm having some trouble with capturing my reaction to this book. Overall, the content and presentation were very interesting, but I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.After reading the first chapter, I was very concerned about the rest of the book. It presented a whole bunch of opinions, stated as fact, with very little to back them up. I felt like arguing with all of them, even the ones I agreed with.Luckily I did better with the rest of the book, where the arguments are arranged logically and supported with studies of particular cities. There were still some conclusions that I did not feel were supported by the facts given, and some where I could see the argument being made but still didn't agree. These were outweighed by the number of times the book had me thinking about issues and solutions I hadn't even considered before.This would be a good book to read with a friend or two, to discuss the ideas and to compare notes on experiences with different cities. I've got some quibbles with his comments on Silicon Valley, the only "city" mentioned that I have real experience with. I wonder what people from other parts of the country (or world) would think.

Edward Glaeser is a Harvard economist who has lived much of his life in major cities. In this highly-readable book he provides an economist's view of how and why cities work (or fail to work). The book is full of examples drawn from major cities of the U.S. and the world (Boston, New York, Detroit, Houston, Paris, Vancouver, Bangalore, etc.)

Glaeser describes the interactions between growth and affordability, arguing that cities which restrict growth via height limits, excessive preservation, and NIMBYism are much more expensive to live in (New York, Boston, Silicon Valley), while cities with less restrictive development rules are more affordable (Houston).

Glaeser also argues that public policy should address poverty (urban poverty in this case) by investing in people, not places. So he favors government efforts to provide education and to make cities safe and healthy, but large infrastructure projects in a declining city will not reverse the city's fortune.

In his discussion of urban sprawl, Glaeser describes the many ways that government policies tilt the table in favor of suburban sprawl and away from cities. While Glaeser clearly likes cities, this is not a diatribe against suburban living. He repeatedly says that it is fine for people who want large houses on large lots to live that way. He simply argues that it isn't good for the government to subsidize this life-style choice more than others.

And there's lots of other interesting material here---why the age of the internet isn't the death-knell for dense urban centers, "consumer cities" that attract people who want to enjoy the amenities they offer, cities and the environment, etc. Throughout, Glaeser also provides historical overviews of urban trends (cities as a reflection of the local transportation networks, the rise of the suburb, the role of sanitation in keeping cities healthy) and interesting factual tidbits that illustrate his points. For example, "In the United States as a whole, as of 2008, there are 1.8 times as many people working in grocery stores as in full-service restaurants... In Manhattan there are 4.7 times more people working in restaurants than in groceries."

A pleasure to read from beginning to end, Ed Glaeser writes intelligently and provocatively about cities. If all you care about is the bottom line you need read no further than the title: "Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier." But if you want an enjoyable and intellectually interesting tour through the world's major cities, both past and present with some speculation about the future, you won't want to miss the rest of the book. ( )

This book, full of interesting statistics and fun trivia about cities, also has a more serious message to convey. Glaeser maintains that cities are absolutely essential for the elevation of civilization. They “magnify humanity’s strengths” by virtue of putting people and ideas in close proximity with one another. They encourage “competition and diverse innovations.” Moreover, he avers that cities are greener (in terms of carbon footprints) than suburbs, and amasses an impressive array of information to prove it. And he calls for more “spacially neutral” policies that advance the cause of cities rather than favoring suburban sprawl.

To Glaeser, United States cities are marvelous institutions, but they could be even better if the federal and local governments pursued more rational economic policies. According to Glaeser, three main aspects of current governmental policies favor suburbs over cities:

1. The federal tax deduction for home mortgage interest is not available to most city dwellers, who tend to be renters.

2. Transportation dollars disproportionately go for highways and access to outlying areas, rather than to light rail or subway systems for intracity movement.

3. Local funding for neighborhood schools cause the best schools to be built and maintained in the most prosperous (read “suburban”) neighborhoods. Urban schools, run by a “public quasi-monopoly,” generally cannot compete with the superior schools found in the suburbs.

Glaeser proposes a number of remedial policies:

1. Embrace nationwide quality schooling funded at the top-most level of government, or adopt a large-scale voucher program that would inspire urban competition for better schools. Especially in declining cities, spending on education should take precedence over spending on infrastructure.

2. Streamline city building and land-use codes that over regulate and thus drive up the cost of residential construction in urban areas by artificially constraining the supply of housing.

3. Deal with poverty at the national level so that city denizens cannot escape the financial burdens of their neighbors’ poverty by fleeing to the suburbs.

4. Stop subsidizing home ownership. This practice not only rewards suburban sprawl, but also “encourages Americans to leverage themselves to the hilt to bet on housing … and actually pushes up housing prices by encouraging people to spend more.”

5. Impose a tax on carbon emissions. Since cities generally are greener than suburbs, such a tax would be borne primarily by suburbanites who do not drive fuel-efficient cars or live in energy-efficient houses.

Discussion: Glaeser received his Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago. Like almost all “Chicago school” economists, he believes in the power of markets to allocate resources efficiently.

Glaeser discounts or ignores “values” that are not economic in nature. In so doing, he takes issue with the groundbreaking theories of Jane Jacobs, whose influential 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities challenged the way planners understood urban spaces and public policy. Advocating low-density dwellings, her concept of a city was a beehive of diversity, spontaneity, and dynamism. The appeal of Jacobs’ city streets, which ideally pulsate with blues, barbeque, boutiques, and book fairs, is undeniable. But Glaeser argues that preserving older one-story buildings means that housing supply cannot meet demand. Prices will inevitably increase, and cities become affordable only to the prosperous, eliminating the diversity so cherished by Jacobs.

Unlike many of the Chicago school, Glaeser sees a significant role for the federal government as an instrument in rationalizing the burden of dealing with poverty. But his idea that the federal government should take steps to ameliorate urban poverty is not likely to be implemented even if it does identify the most efficient venue for dispensing such aid. As he points out himself, the inherent conservatism of the U.S. government, combined with the effect of racial cleavages on sympathy for the poor, militate against the enactment of wide scale remedial action.

James Trefil, a physicist who examines cities from a scientific point of view in A Scientist in the City, makes many of the same observations as does Glaeser, but comes up with a different conclusions. He believes that advances in information technology along with changes in the nature of warfare will make a pivotal difference in the evolution of cities.

Because the effects of terrorism are so disruptive - especially if skyscrapers are involved, Trefil doesn’t think highly centralized systems make much sense. New developments in high-speed trains can reduce car dependency to go from “Edge Cities” and suburbs to the center, if travel is necessary. But information technology – including increased use of video conferencing - may eliminate even that need.

If, Trefil proposes, just half of the labor force works from home on any given day, the harmful environmental effects of commuting will be eliminated, and each worker’s time will become more efficient as well. Shopping can also be done online, and restaurants “will join the dispersion” as in fact they always have done. Trefil’s book is a good companion volume to Glaeser's, because he has a different emphasis (i.e., the natural forces that shape cities) and because his analysis of the same phenomena differs somewhat as well.

Evaluation: Glaeser’s book can be read on two levels. On the one hand, it is an entertaining, fact-filled compendium about the past and recent history of cities. It is also a treatise on how cities can thrive in the future, and indeed, why they should. This thought-provoking book is enjoyable on both levels. ( )