The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us

by Joel Kotkin

" The Human City presents the most cogent, evidence-based and clear-headed exposition of the pro-suburban argument. . . . enriching our understanding of what cities are about and what they can and must become.” — Wall Street Journal

Around the globe, most new urban development has adhered to similar tall structures, small units, and high density. In The Human City , Joel Kotkin—called “America’s uber-geographer” by David Brooks of the New York Times —questions these nearly ubiquitous practices, suggesting that they do not consider the needs and desires of the vast majority of people. Built environments, Kotkin argues, must reflect the preferences of most people—especially those of families—even if that means lower-density development.

The Human City ponders the purpose of the city and investigates the factors that drive most urban development today. Armed with his own astute research, a deep-seated knowledge of urban history, and a sound grasp of economic, political, and social trends, Kotkin pokes holes in what he calls the “retro-urbanist” ideology and offers a refreshing case for dispersion centered on human values.

This book is not anti-urban, but it does advocate a greater range of options for people to live the way they want at all stages of their lives.

Genres: Nonfiction, Architecture, Urban Planning, Cities, Sociology, Urbanism, Urban Studies

304 pages, Hardcover

First published April 12, 2016

About the author

Described by the New York Times as “America’s uber-geographer,” Joel Kotkin is an internationally-recognized authority on global, economic, political and social trends.

Reviews

[Stephen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible book. The author has a definite right wing agenda. He seems to enjoy denigrating anyone who opines differently than he does, quotes anecdotal evidence repeatedly from 'someone in Singapore' or 'a local resident', and insults secularists beliefs. He also advocates a strong family structure, which is fine, but then goes on to imply that it can only survive in the suburbs. As if that wasn't enough he goes on to imply that secular views are inconsistent with family values! I think the most egregious sentiment in this book is how he goes on to blame problems of cities on immigrants who don't share 'western values', as defined by himself of course.

I noticed that the author quotes this person named Cox extensively throughout the book. It turns out that Mr Cox actually works/writes for the author's website. A quick look at this website reveals a strong right wing agenda as well.

I bought this book on a whim partly because the subject of new urbanism interests me and partly due to a quick look at reviews of his previous books from the NYT and the WSJ. Big mistake. Here's hoping you learn from my error and skip this one.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book's major message is that we need a variety of community types, from densely urban to rural, for a healthy society. In addition the paternal, top-down method of city planning ignores the desires of the average citizen. I'm currently live in Mountain View, CA and I see first hand what havoc a development-crazed planning department can wreak.

A few major points from the book:
1. Dense urban areas have a very low birth rate and at least one country(Japan) is already experiencing population collapse. Expensive and cramped housing is a good form of birth control. I think this is OK because as the population shrinks I think housing will get cheaper and larger. But that's only one factor.
2. Workaholic companies that punish people for taking family time, especially women. A worldwide issue pushing birthrates down, requires a major cultural shift to fix. Career or children?
3. In developed counties women are now independent, why marry some jerk when you can be happy on your own waiting for that perfect someone, see Modern Romance for amusing anecdotes on this subject.
4. While most city planners detest the suburbs, see books like Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier while many citizens, especially those with children, prefer them. Most 'burbs in the US aren't the lily-white enclaves of the 50's anymore, so at least there's improvement. The suburbs and rural areas have a higher birthrate which will hopefully prevent traumatic population loss.
5. Many of the fixes proposed for cities will work for suburbs as well, no reason not to make them greener as well.

This book emphasizes the potential catastrophe of a rapidly shrinking population, a problem that has some countries freaked out. I'm less concerned about the US, we still have a high birth rate and hopefully a continued high rate of immigration. I'm more worried about the continued paternalism of most planning departments and architects. No Mr. Crow (Le Corbusier), the designs of you and your followers suck and I hope we can keep such monstrosities as museums as examples of bad design.

For far more balanced designers read Christopher W. Alexander or Frank Lloyd Wright though in Wright's case you'll like his houses better if you're short and don't mind leaky roofs!

I recommend the e-book version for those with e-doohickeys, 25% of this book is links to articles.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. Kotkin pushes back against the widespread elite belief that settlements should constantly seek to become more dense, more urban. He points out that this does not always equate a higher standard of living, especially in megacities around the world--many cramming the slums of Jakarta, Sao Paolo, Saigon, etc. would probably be better off back in the countryside. Meanwhile, in the developed world, suburbs have gotten a bad rap, but they do not deserve them. They offer cheaper housing than urban cores, and are the preferred option for those seeking to raise children (many of those pushing a return to cities are, quite frankly, either anti-child or oblivious to their needs).

This book kind of meanders all over the place, but it is consistently captivating. Kotkin is certainly not "anti-city"; he merely wants us to consider what is best for human flourishing, and plan accordingly. Sure, some are attracted to the new 300 square foot micro-apartments in Greenwich Village, but such folks shouldn't look down on the family of 5 in a 3,000 square foot house on the edge of the metropolis.

[Soren Molander · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thorougly enjoyed this book, and as I have relocated myself many times in Sweden I see the trends of urbanization everywhere, and how it affects people. University cities are winners, the countryside the loosers. Well educated affluent people drive up rents and costs of living. Thanks to the internet, many can work from home and use teleconferencing. Thanks to the EU people like myself move abroad for work and a change in lifestyle. I think we need more visionary architects who dare challenge the narrow minded economic thinking that has been plaguing us the last 20 years, and build cities and town for everybody, not just the wealthy. People where families can thrive, retired people can be safe in and young professionals can feel at home in, and where transit systems dont quench people with pollution. More importantly, we need more humane cities and a more humane version of globalization that puts less stress on the money you make, and more on the time we spend being humans.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author makes useful points about the future of cities around the world. It's an iconoclastic book, arguing that the conventional wisdom -- that we should encourage higher-density development -- is inconsistent with the fundamental desires of humans. Families, in particular, have always wanted space in which to raise children. Land-use policies that discourage suburban building will have counterproductive effects, limiting the chances of millennials to reach their goal of homeownership and accentuating problematic trends like aging and declining populations.
The book is tightly argued, with an 82-page bibliography and 36 pages of endnotes. For that reason it is somewhat slow-going at times, so I gave it only 4 stars. On the other hand, the text is only 210 pages.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a truly ill-informed and unfounded view of the modern city. I could go on, but this book review from CPDR (https://www.cp-dr.com/node/3911) nails it better than I could. I suggest you read it before wasting your time on The Human City.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is trash. The status quo is held up as the golden standard and used to make arguments for why things shouldn’t change. Market forces are not acknowledged for how they shape decisions and perceived “preference.”

Forget the fact that our earth is on fire, this sorry excuse for an author claims that America’s high carbon footprint lifestyle that spreads us increasingly further apart and makes us less healthy and more and more dependent on fossil fuels is the way it should be simply because that’s how we live today.

Leave this book behind and read another book that hasn’t been endorsed by media idiots like Tucker Carlson.

[Wade · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting to read on the heels of Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream

[Jim]

mentioned in this editorial which also appeared in my local paper.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michae...

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

You cannot bash the burbs until you contend with this book. An outstanding defense of suburbia.

[Susan Card · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like Kotkin's articles and he has some good things to say but he went crazy with the stats. Follow him and others on newgeography.com

[Pete · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us (2016) by Joel Kotkin is an interesting book where the author puts forward the idea that less dense cities of fewer than 10M people are the way many, if not most people want to live. 

Kotkin doesn't just assert this fact. He points out that most of the growth in population in the US has been suburban and exurban, even in the 2000s. Some critics have countered that this is because it is so hard to increase density in suburbs due to planning regulations. Kotkin would presumably point out that people in the US have been voting with their feet and moving to sprawling cities in the sunbelt instead of more dense cities in the Northeast. Kotkin also states that both high density and lower density housing should all be available. He also makes the point that in rich countries all over the world when people have a family they often try to live in a single family house in suburbia. 

Kotkin is firmly against restrictive land-use policies that he see as having driven up housing prices. He points out the incredible statistic that in 2014 Houston added as many new houses as the whole of California. 

The book also makes an interesting case against megacities pointing out that megacities have dramatically lower birth rates than the countryside where they draw people from. 

The Human City is an interesting book that makes the case for less land regulation and for lower densities. It's a worthwhile counterpoint to the many books that are against suburbs. 

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book starts off promisingly as a history of cities, then veers into the author's research on contemporary cities, including his views on what makes a city livable. He is concerned about cities that are overly costly to live in, but seems to oppose policies to promote densification, which are typically aimed at building more affordable housing. He seems to praise newer cities in the South, which have not been built up over as long a period, which still have lots of vacant land on which to build. His suggestions seem much less practical in older cities with limited vacant land on which to build. There is some good information in the book, but like a lot of social conservatives, the author becomes too prescriptive, and generally doesn't look at the material in all that much detail.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting book that seems to confirm some things I’ve long thought, namely that suburbs are goods that can be more than disdainful blight.

The book is very well researched and incorporates insights from global cities. Some parts were a little dry, but the stuff on family formation and the draw to the suburbs, the need for “green spaces,” and rethinking suburbs to incorporate things associated with older cities was great.

So much of the book described my experience, from the draw to living in urban cores to eventual suburban migration. I hope planners and city officials take these insights to heart so we can have more sustainable human cities.

[Cassandra · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was excited to read about cities and how we might create built environments for all classes. I agree that we shouldn't just build for young and wealthy urbanites. But I also don't think follow consumer taste is the answer, isn't that what we have? The book is not taking a step back and assessing the situation, it is more promoting population growth and conservative principles. It infuriated me but got me forming my own thoughts and questions. There are interesting things to consider in the book. Nevertheless, the book never makes an argument or really lays out any causal relationships and I am not sure the author realizes the lack of sound argument. I learned about perspectives different than my own, but some opinions are offensive to me as a woman and egalitarian. Straight up anti-muslim, for example. 1.5 stars.

[Vladimir Dzalbo · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was just terrible: a bunch of repetitive mundane banalities with an absolute right-wing agenda and (not even very good) manipulation of facts.

The author oversimplifies New Urbanism ideas and attacks only one side of it: densification conveniently leaving all other concepts aside.

Badly written too.

Giving it 2 stars instead of 1 only because I actually managed to read it all the to the end.

[Hagop T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some interesting points, including:

--Density is closely linked with population decline
--Many megacities have minimal economic logic and are far too expensive to maintain
--Homeownership changes the way people engage with the world
--Commute times in big cities are often worse than commute times from suburbs

[Nicole Venezia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good points but others that could have been further fleshed out.

[David Shane · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book that takes issue with the idea that "denser is always better" when it comes to city growth. Actually the book barely felt like an argument as much as it felt like a collection of statistics, which I like. In short - dense city developments tend to work well for young professionals and very wealthy people, and also attract poorer individuals that serve these last two groups. They tend not to work well, especially, for families, that need more space at a reasonable price, and also value things like privacy and good schools that dense cities often lack. So the book is, in a way, a defense of suburbs, from both a theoretical perspective and from a "look at the surveys, people who live in the suburbs tend to actually like it there" perspective. If you're wondering if you live in a suburb, if you live in a house (and not in the countryside), not an apartment, then you probably do, as far this author is concerned.

[Michael Lewyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

My (mostly critical) review of this book is at

http://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/29/...