Physicist Geoffrey West explains in the NYT Magazine, “A Physicist Solves the City,” that he now understands cities:
In essence, they arrive at the sensible conclusion that cities are valuable because they facilitate human interactions, as people crammed into a few square miles exchange ideas and start collaborations. â€śIf you ask people why they move to the city, they always give the same reasons,â€ť West says. â€śTheyâ€™ve come to get a job or follow their friends or to be at the center of a scene. Thatâ€™s why we pay the high rent. Cities are all about the people, not the infrastructure.â€ť
… As [Jane] Jacobs pointed out, the layout of her Manhattan neighborhood â€” the short blocks, the mixed-use zoning, the density of brownstones â€” made it easier to cope with the strain of the metropolis. Itâ€™s fitting that itâ€™s called the Village.
In recent decades, though, many of the fastest-growing cities in America, like Phoenix and Riverside, Calif., have given us a very different urban model. These places have traded away public spaces for affordable single-family homes, attracting working-class families who want their own white picket fences. West and Bettencourt point out, however, that cheap suburban comforts are associated with poor performance on a variety of urban metrics. Phoenix, for instance, has been characterized by below-average levels of income and innovation (as measured by the production of patents) for the last 40 years.
Yet, what could account for the lower rates of patents in Riverside or Phoenix than in equally suburban Silicon Valley or North San Diego County?
It`s a mystery!