Full disclosure. This is a really tough book to review, because there is such a wide gap between the physical contents of the book and all the post-release connotations/adaptations of the term “edge city”. If we are being honest, the latter certainly shines brighter than the former, but surely some of that must come from the book…
Anyways, Garreau has provided a rather suburban style of book, with lot of page space containing rather sparse bursts of content intertwined with lots & lots of primary sources. His journalist connections provide readers with multiple lengthy interviews with major power brokers across his diverse selection of metro areas, 9 in all (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston/Dallas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Detroit, Washington). Within each of these case studies, Garreau highlights the primary edge cities of the metro and then different distinguishing features of that metro that highlight broader edge city trends (eg the automobile for Detroit, racism for Atlanta, history for DC).
The book also contains a ….generous…. appendix with a list of edge cities, important vocab terms, and phrases used by developers. Each chapter begins with a map of that metro area and identified edge cities (as well as emerging ones). Despite the page length, it is a relatively quick read. Chapters are given appropriate lengths, the decision to make DC a detailed case study is aided by the chunking out of that chapter. The ordering is sensical and none of the metros feel unnecessary (though I find it strange that Detroit is the only Midwestern metro).
The aforementioned qualities are all things I absolutely praise in other books, but here they almost feel like rubbing salt in the wound that is the rest of this book.
Don’t get me wrong, it is not bad, but it is certainly not what I was hoping for. There is a certain tendency for “pop academic” works to have an academic writer overly water down the material to appeal to a general audience, compromising the content using a style they clearly are not as well versed in. I think Garreau does the opposite here in Edge Cities.
I don’t mean to insult Garreau, he seems to be a good reporter who correctly identifies relevant power brokers to interview, but he is not an academic… Within any nonfiction work, the writer should be cognizant of the portion of the book containing primary material from original sources and original critical analysis. Different pieces require different ratios, but you usually don’t want to have a situation where the primary heavily outweighs the original, especially when the premise of the book is to develop a new and original concept. I think you can see where this is going…
There will just be pages and pages of Garreau entertaining these goofy figures from across the country, perhaps to highlight the subtle absurdity of the edge city, but I think more so out of a deference to his journalistic style. This is not to universally condemn that style, but I don’t think it works here. Garreau consistently fails to critically analyze the contentious views he presents throughout the metros; furthermore, he does not seem to gather their views on the concept of an edge city (with the exception of the New York chapter).
Speaking of Edge City, Garreau’s definition sucks. Despite not being an academic, his definition is way too wonky and specific. There is no other major urban term broadly understood with such a specific technocratic definition. Also, much like the rest of this book, the “wasn’t here 30 years ago” aspect of the definition necessarily makes his concept/definition outdated. Yea, you can really tell this was late 80s and early 90s. Additionally, I am partial to Robert Lang’s assessment of Garreau, in that it is likely several of the edge cities he identifies doesn’t actually fit his specific technocratic definition. San Jose is the largest city in Northern California and one of the 10 largest in the country, it’s not an Edge City. Additionally, Tyson’s Corner; the Galleria’s; and Phoenix’s Urban Villages would likely be offended in being lumped in the same category as several of the other “edge cities” on his list.
However, I hesitate to further my harshness because of what came from this book. I don’t contest the existence of Edge Cities (particularly of the Tyson’s Corner/Galleria nature), and Garreau deserves credit for the original formulation and distribution. I have issues with his definition, but the faults are understandable given the context of the writing (also I am likely spoiled from better definitions from decades of hindsight). Cities are undergoing much more complicated patterns of development that no longer just include an urban/rural dichotomy, and are even veering from the urban transect. I think Edge Cities are one of many useful concepts to help us make sense of this messy web of bloated development. After all, if it is good enough for Mike Davis to include in his urban models, surely it must be good.
Finally, I should mention the sensibilities of the author. Garreau has a sense of humor of someone who loves thinking about all these cities, but doesn’t quite have that deep critical urban lens. Which is totally fine for a journalist, but not my style of humor (though I can see why a lot of people really picked up on it).
It is a 5 star concept, but I can’t give the book itself more than 3. For those interested in these concepts, and wanting a deeper understanding of the late 20th century intricacies of the ever Inter-tangling American urban web, I recommend Robert Lang’s Edgeless Cities, he does a phenomenal job clarifying the distinction between old urban, old suburban, edge, and Edgeless cities.
Still, this book has its historical place, and probably deserves to be the most read book by Garreau on GoodReads :)