Yule Heibel's Bookmarks tagged edward_glaeser → View Popular

You are here: Diigo Home > Yule Heibel's Bookmarks

Ads by Google

Expand All 1 - 5 of 5

18Expand

Green Cities, Brown Suburbs by Edward L. Glaeser, City Journal Winter 2009

Ed Glaeser makes the point that cities are much greener than non-urban areas, all things considered. Your country or suburb carbon footprint is huge compared to your urban carbon footprint.

Tags: edward_glaeser, city_journal, urbanism, green_strategies, suburbs, cities on 2009-03-10 and saved by 3 people -All Annotations (18) -About

more fromwww.city-journal.org

if you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it. Move to high-rise apartments surrounded by plenty of concrete. Americans who settle in leafy, low-density suburbs will leave a significantly deeper carbon footprint, it turns out, than Americans who live cheek by jowl in urban towers.
second paradox follows from the first. When environmentalists resist new construction in their dense but environmentally friendly cities, they inadvertently ensure that it will take place somewhere else—somewhere with higher carbon emissions. Much local environmentalism, in short, is bad for the environment.
Matthew Kahn, a professor of economics at UCLA, and I have quantified the first paradox.
we’re trying to determine where future home construction would do the least environmental damage.
Add Sticky Note
- - that's key.
  posted by lampertina on 2009-03-10
In almost every metropolitan area, carbon emissions are significantly lower for people who live in central cities than for people who live in suburbs.
New York City has the largest gap in emissions between central city and suburbs of any metropolitan area in the country—unsurprisingly, since New York’s central city is the epitome of dense urban living. Our estimate is that an average New York City resident emits 4,462 pounds less of transportation-related carbon dioxide than an average New York suburbanite. The reductions in carbon emissions from home heating and electricity are comparably large, thanks to New York’s famously tiny apartments. Manhattan is one of the greenest places in America.
These four cities notwithstanding, the data suggest a strong general pattern: households in dense urban areas have significantly lower carbon emissions than households in the suburbs. The lifestyle that Thoreau preferred, living surrounded by green space, tends to be far less kind to the planet and far likelier to raise global temperatures, just as Thoreau himself did that afternoon in 1844.
There is a large and growing literature, ranging from complete skepticism to ultra-alarmism, devoted to the question of just how much environmental damage is associated with carbon emissions. The widely cited Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change claims that each ton of carbon dioxide emissions causes $85 worth of damage to the planet. More commonly accepted estimates are considerably lower; one meta-study suggests an average cost of about $15 per ton of carbon dioxide. The right number probably lies somewhere between $15 and $85.
Even if, like many economists, you think that the Stern Review overstates the true damage per ton and you chop its proposed cost in half, then the average new home in Memphis still does about $620 worth of environmental harm per year more than an average new home in San Francisco, since San Francisco homes are associated with 14.65 fewer tons of carbon dioxide each year. Once you crunch the numbers, that makes the lifetime environmental cost of building in Memphis, rather than San Francisco, $12,400 per home—a big number relative to Memphis’s average housing price of $90,000.
Before even considering carbon taxes, the country should rethink its land-use policies, which currently push people toward high-emissions areas and away from green ones.
The chart shows a strong negative correlation between restrictiveness and carbon dioxide emissions.
But California’s abundant restrictions on new construction don’t do much to deter building across America as a whole. No matter what the Bay Area does, plenty of new households will come into being, and they will need new homes. By restricting local development, California regulators just make sure that construction occurs someplace else. That someplace else tends to be a lot less environmentally friendly than the California coast, blessed as it is with a superbly temperate climate. The net result of this process: land-use restrictions in California increase carbon emissions and raise the risks of global warming.
The great irony, of course, is that land-use regulations are so often justified by environmental arguments.
So California environmentalists have things exactly backward. If climate change is the major environmental challenge that we face, the state should actively encourage new construction, rather than push it toward other areas. True, increasing development in California might increase per-household carbon emissions within the state if the new development, following the current model, took place on the extreme edges of urban areas. A better path would be to ease restrictions in the urban cores of San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego. More building there would reduce average commute lengths and improve per-capita emissions. Higher densities could also justify more investment in new, low-emissions energy plants.
Similarly, limiting the height or growth of New York City skyscrapers incurs environmental costs. Building more apartments in Gotham will not only make the city more affordable; it will also reduce global warming.
Thoreau was wrong. Living in the country is not the right way to care for the Earth. The best thing that we can do for the planet is build more skyscrapers.
Add Sticky Note
- Best ending sentence, ever.
  posted by lampertina on 2009-03-10

2Expand

The Frontal Cortex : Urban Innovation

Jonah Lehrer discusses Ed Glaeser's recent post in the NYT blog on NYC and why it's "America's most resilient city." Lots of great points, interesting comments thread, too. Closing line by Lehrer nails it.

Tags: jonah_lehrer, frontal_cortex, urbanization, creative_class, innovation, talent, edward_glaeser on 2009-01-01 -All Annotations (2) -About

more fromscienceblogs.com

The Bellows » How Good is Houston?

Ryan Avent of "The Bellows" critiques Ed Glaeser's piece for the New York Sun, which, according to The Bellows, is riddled with errors and is undermined by Glaeser's own research. Glaeser's neo-con thesis in the NY Sun article is that Houston is middle-class-friendlier and somehow more affordable due to its libertarian anti-regulationist stance, and that NYC is unaffordable because it's regulated to the nines. It's a very familiar argument in some circles, and it's interesting to see Ryan take it apart quite deftly.

Tags: nyc, edward_glaeser, ryan_avent, urban_development, regulation, affordability on 2008-07-19 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.ryanavent.com

4Expand

CEOS for Cities - Conversations - CEO Blog - Can Buffalo Ever Come Back?

Ed Glaeser dissed Buffalo in a City Journal article, and is subsequently asked to come to Buffalo to explain himself. His strategy: apologize, but then hammer home the point that buildings do not a successful city make --it's the people-talent, stupid. Interesting advice.

Tags: ceos_for_cities, edward_glaeser, urbanism, cities, place_making on 2008-04-21 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.ceosforcities.org

What Ed seems to be railing against -- with good reason -- is the unhealthy reliance some cities have on the shiny new physical bauble to be a magic bullet for what ails them. (Keep in mind that Buffalo is planning to make a major public investment in a Bass Pro Store on its waterfront.) Ed's message was, invest in people, not buildings. And when physical investments are made, he favors flexibility.

"There is little evidence that development projects fix decline," Ed told his audience.
On the other hand, Ed makes a strong case for density, which is "particularly valuable for an idea economy" since "proximity enables ideas to move quickly."

"People learn from one another," Ed said. "You get smart by hanging out with smart people. It's the way you build skills."
1. Invest in building skills not building buildings.

2. Quality of life is economic development.

3. Always ask who benefits from policy. (Too many place-based policies tend to benefit either the connected business.)

4. There is little reason to favor one region over another. But it costs more to provide services to people who start with less, which provides a strong rationale for state and federal governments to pay for social services. And different forms of development have different environmental impacts so that should also be taken into account in state and federal policy and funding.

Put people ahead of place, Ed admonished.
But the paradox is that people increasingly choose where they want to live because of place, not because of the job. So I think his formula is too simplistic. Another formulation would be, "Make smart investments in place, and honestly appraise those investments before they are made."

40Expand

How Should We Be Thinking About Urbanization? A Freakonomics Quorum - Freakonomics - Opinion - New York Times Blog

A "quorum of smart thinkers" discusses what problems and opportunities majority urbanism presents, "What effects has it had on our local and global culture? Economy? Health?"

Tags: alan_berube, cities, dolores_hayden, edward_glaeser, freakonomics, innovation, james_kunstler, opinion, robert_bruegmann, urban_development on 2007-12-20 and saved by 6 people -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromfreakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

Most observers tend to extrapolate current trends and assume that what we see now will continue moving in the same direction — ever-larger cities, etc. I don’t see it that way. The global energy predicament now gathering around us will synergize with climate change to produce a very different outcome.
Add Sticky Note
- - of course he has to say that, since he has staked his speaking career on "the long emergency"...
  - Kunstler drives me nuts.
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Some of our cities will not make it. Phoenix, Tucson, and other Sunbelt cities will dry up and blow away. In Las Vegas, the excitement will be over. Other mega-cities will have to downscale or face extreme dysfunction.
Add Sticky Note
- - it's obvious that he used to write science fiction, too
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins.
Add Sticky Note
- - see previous comment
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Edward Glaeser, professor of economics at Harvard and director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the Kennedy School of Government:
Add Sticky Note
- - his entire text is worth highlighting!
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
A central paradox of the twenty-first century is that declining communication and transportation costs have made cities more vital than ever.
Add Sticky Note
- - I wonder how the declining transportation costs aspect would sit with Kunstler, who would presumably counter with "just you wait, that'll be over soon"...
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
In the developing world, cities are the intellectual gateways between the human capital of India and China and the markets of the West. In the developed world, cities have enjoyed a remarkable resurgence over the last 25 years as the density that once made it easier to move hogsheads onto clipper ships now serves to spread knowledge in finance and new technology.
Globalization and the death of distance increased the returns for being smart, and you become smart by hanging out with smart people. As such, cities remain important because they create the intellectual connections that forge human capital and spur innovation.
Add Sticky Note
- - an important aspect here is that "smart" also means smart in different ways, and as Aristotle said (paraphrase): a city is composed of many different kinds of people (ok, he said men, but we mean people), and it's that rubbing up against difference (and tolerance) that makes cities so very valuable.
  - disagreement is good
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Cities sometimes have a bad reputation because of their association with problems like poverty, pollution, and disease; but this association does not imply causation.

Cities are full of poor people because cities attract poor people, not because cities make people poor. Millions of the least advantaged come to urban areas not because cities are bad for them, but because cities are good for them.
Add Sticky Note
- - exactly! Or, in the West's case, because the poor can expect to access services that they wouldn't get in less urban places
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
There is no doubt that the general process of industrialization and growth adversely impacts the environment, at least initially, but cities shouldn’t be blamed for every smokestack. Cities are not factories. They are the concentration of people at high densities, and that concentration is pretty green. After all, we use a lot less energy when we cluster together in cities than when we spread throughout the country and drive hundreds of miles each day in commuting.
Humans are a social species, and our greatest achievements are all collaborative. Cities are machines for making collaboration easier. Thus, I am delighted that our planet has become increasingly urban.
Add Sticky Note
- - well said.
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Robert Bruegmann, professor of art history, architecture, and urban planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago:
In the long run, however, the policies were probably less important than the eventual result — an equally massive move from the cities back into the countryside. In virtually every affluent nation on earth, the old Nineteenth-century industrial cities have exploded outward, allowing densities to plummet at the core as residents move further and further out into low-density suburbia and a very low-density exurban penumbra around that. The city of Paris today has a third fewer residents than it did a century ago, and the suburban and exurban territory around it leapfrogs more or less from the English Channel to Burgundy. In this process, the very distinction between urban and rural has all but disappeared as citizens in almost every part of affluent societies are able to participate in what is essentially an urban culture.
Add Sticky Note
- - that's a very interesting (and different) way to characterize sprawl... much more "organic," with interdependencies...
  - have to think about this one...
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Of course, this huge outward migration of people has caused problems, just as the migration to the cities did. And public authorities have once again tried to slow or halt the process, now pejoratively called “sprawl,” often with the explicit aim of preserving the distinction between the urban and the rural. This effort is likely to be just as futile as the effort to stop people from moving into the cities, and just as likely to be counterproductive. No one knows what the next chapter of urban history will bring, but if there is any lesson to draw from what has happened to date, it is that abstract ideas about the proper form of settlement, whether urban or rural or hybrids we can’t yet imagine, tend to lag far behind the reality on the ground.
Dolores Hayden, professor of architecture, urbanism, and American studies at Yale and author of Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000:
Old divisions between “city” and “countryside” have become misleading in urbanized nations like the U.S. “City” in the U.S. today really means “metropolitan region,” because we are a predominantly suburban nation. After almost two centuries of peripheral urban growth, American suburbs have overwhelmed the centers of cities, creating urban regions largely formed of suburban parts. By 2000, more Americans lived in suburbs than in central cities and rural areas combined.
For years, when urban historians wrote about the “city,” they meant the center, the skyline, downtown. Suburbs were left out of traditional “city biographies” emphasizing economic development, population growth, and the achievements of business leaders. Everyone knew that large suburbs existed and had something to do with the process of urbanization. But most historians thought they were less significant than the city center: spatially, because they were less dense than centers; culturally, because more of their attractions involved nature than architecture; and socially, because their daytime activities involved women and children more than men.
Add Sticky Note
- - that's an excellent precis!
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Because of prejudices about density, high culture, and gender, suburbia resisted scrutiny for decades. It evaded both art historical analysis (based on the aesthetic assessment of outstanding buildings), and urban analysis (based on demographic and economic statistics).
Today, Americans need to come to terms with the urbanized landscapes we have created. As Harlan Douglas, a perceptive sociologist, defined the urban region composed of suburbs in the 1920s, “It is the city trying to escape the consequences of being a city while still remaining a city. It is urban society trying to eat its cake and keep it, too.”
Since the mid-1930s, the federal government has encouraged green field development on raw land outside of urban centers, usually through tax subsidies rather than direct spending. These incentives account for extended metropolitan expansion promoted by “growth machines” — alliances of bankers, developers, and business leaders profiting from hidden federal subsidies for suburban development.
Excessive green field growth lies behind the national energy shortage and the mortgage crisis. Using federal incentives to constantly expand urban peripheries with commercial and residential development has had serious consequences. Reliance on imported oil, pursuit of war in the Middle East, and the credit crunch shaking Wall Street suggest that wise patterns of urban land use are more important to economic well-being than many Americans recognize.
Add Sticky Note
- - really well put; another reason to remediate brown fields and build on them; conserve greenfields.
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Alan Berube, research director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program:
The way the U.N. — and most economists — look at it, a city encompasses not just the political geography that lies at the heart of an urban region, but the entire surrounding metropolitan area that functions as an economic whole. So New York isn’t just the five boroughs (population 8.2 million), but the enormous labor market that extends from Rockland County upstate, west to the Poconos, east to Suffolk County, and south to the Jersey Shore (population 18.8 million). What separates us from the world’s developing nations (and many developed ones, too) is that most Americans who live in these “cities” or “urban agglomerations” would describe themselves as living in the suburbs.
But if you live in Westchester County, N.Y.; Cobb County, Ga.; Lake County, Ill.; or Collin County, Tex., would you really have a reason to be there if it weren’t for New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, or Dallas?
Regardless, the same economic forces that are attracting people to large urban regions in the developing world apply here in the U.S. (and really always have). Firms and workers derive benefits from co-locating in large metro areas, in that they can each find a better “match” with one another given a greater variety of options. Big urban areas can cost-effectively support critical infrastructure like international airports, passenger and freight rail, and wireless networks. And urban proximity generates spillovers across workers, firms, and universities, embodied in the “network innovation” that powers areas like Silicon Valley (and in the venture capital that is its lifeblood). The result: big places are getting bigger. While the nation’s 100 largest metro areas (containing at least half a million people) contain 65 percent of U.S. population, they have captured 76 percent of its recent population growth. No wonder; as Ed Glaeser has argued, urbanization makes us more productive and, in the end, wealthier.
Add Sticky Note
- - the benefits of co-location
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
My colleagues at Brookings and I have argued that in light of this reality, we ought to begin to tackle critical national challenges — on economic growth, education and skills, infrastructure, and the environment — with a keener eye toward the big, complex, messy, metropolitan way in which the majority of Americans (and now, our global counterparts) live their lives.
Add Sticky Note
- - interesting -- argues for the importance at fixing infrastructure *because* the Friedman model ("the world is flat" and it matters not where you live) isn't going to become a reality any time soon. Quite the opposite.
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20
Kunstler is a nostalgic fear-mongerer. Why are we listening to the opinions of a guy who was a theater major in college?
Add Sticky Note
- - that's what I ask myself, too...
  posted by lampertina on 2007-12-20

1 - 5 of 5

List 20 50 100

Notation: * = Private bookmark and comment|… = Clipping [?] | … = Public highlight [?]

Yule Heibel's Related Tags

Selected tags

edward_glaeser

Related tags