Well firstly, I think that the world will continue to become more and more technologically advanced and there’s little we can do about it. This is definitely a good thing in some ways. Technology has given us artificial limbs, the internet, and my Kitchenaid mixer which has changed my life forever.
That being said, I think I tend to lead more towards the “techno-pessimist” side. People are starting to rely less and less on other people and more and more on machines. Next time you ride the train look up; I guarantee at least 90% [this is my own unsupported guess] of the riders are using their phones (listening to music counts). I know that I am starting to sound like someone’s grandmother during the classic “kids these days” speech but it’s true. There already have been abundant problems concerning hacked personal information, bombs that could turn every living thing into dust, and the ever present threat of robots taking over (this one I don’t actually believe is a real concern).
In relation to the articles that I have lead for this week I still believe that technology and building bigger will not be a cure all. While the first article was particularly dense for someone with an economics background consisting of a single intro class in high school, what I did manage to glean from it was that cities are more sucessful when their population consists of educated people. However, this is not a deciding factor because a college degree may have more weight in one city than another due to the arbitrary presence of certain companies. This is incredibly disheartening because the means to a successful metropolis is a paradox. Moretti says that having a platform innovative company locate in a certain area is what creates a brain hub. But for an area to become a brain hub there must be a successful innovative company to attract other companies. Although venture capital cities have helped not only the intellects but also the poor living in the area, they are partially responsible for the decline of other cities such as Detroit. There is no real formula for attracting innovators.
Technology obviously plays a big role in the development of cities. Figuring out where all of the new residents will (can afford to) live is a huge issue, especially in New York. Glaeser’s book (or the sections I’ve read) discusses this problem. To be completely honest, I think that he is wrong. For one, building hundreds of new skyscrapers in the city will create an influx of wealthy people. Perhaps rent in the less popular neighborhoods will decrease a small amount, but I doubt significantly. Secondly, there is not a lot of land left to build on. The land that is potentially available consists of green spaces and the more residential areas in the outer boroughs, Brooklyn included. We just had an extensive conversation about gentrification last class so I hate to beat a dead horse, but skyscrapers equal a new type of neighborhood which leads to an increase in rent prices and displacement. I do not think that it is possible (in New York) to build more skyscrapers and suddenly have a moderately priced apartment for everyone. There is a constant influx of people into successful cities which means we would constantly have to build new places to keep prices down.
So in conclusion,
Gif courtesy of Kevin Rawdon’s Facebook
Logan, I agree with you, but Glaeser argues in favor of skyscrapers both because of a lack of open land to build on and the environmental benefits of high-density settlements instead of suburban sprawl. He just throws into the equation his bias in favor of market forces and against government regulation of rents.
You’re right that we don’t know why innovative companies and individuals locate in specific areas. Sometimes it’s a matter of luck and proximity to resources–historically, rivers, but now, universities.
And it’s not 90% of people in a subway car using their cell phones, it’s more like 60% at most, during morning rush hour. I was curious too, so I’ve counted them.
Professor Zukin