Sustainability History Project

I have often heard that cities are the bane of modern society because of the resources they consume and the pollution they produce. Henry David Thoroeau seems to hold this perspective when he writes:

The West of which I speak is but another name for the Wild; and what I have been preparing to say is, that in Wildness is the preservation of the world. Every tree sends its fibres forth in search of the Wild. The cities import it at any price. Men plow and sail for it. From the forest and wilderness come the tonics and barks which brace mankind.

I have also heard just the opposite: That cities are inherently more sustainable because they concentrate populations in a given area and allow for rural and undeveloped lands to continue to be used for food production, natural resource extraction, and recreation.

Economist Edward Glaeser asserts this latter point, and has written a book to support his position: Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier.

This morning, Glaeser appeared on KUOW’s Weekday program with Steve Scherr: “Is City Living Better than the American Dream?“:

The American dream has typically been owning a home in a leafy suburb with a white picket fence, a well–mowed lawn and an apple pie cooling on the window sill. The reality is over two–thirds of Americans currently live in cities. Is the American dream changing? Is living in an apartment in a dense urban neighborhood actually better than owning your own home in the suburbs? Economist Edward Glaeser argues that cities magnify human strengths. We’ll ask him what he means.

In what ways is increased urbanization more or less sustainable — in terms of economics, environment, and equity?

–