Pathways 3 RD Unit3 Lesson A Main Ideas

LIVING ON AN URBAN PLANET

CONSIDER THIS: In 1800, less than three percent of the world’s population lived in cities. Only one city—Beijing, China—had a population of more than a million people. Most people lived in rural areas, and many spent their entire lives without ever seeing a city. In 1900, just a hundred years later, roughly 150 million people lived in cities. By then, the world’s ten largest urban areas all had populations exceeding one million; London—the world’s largest—had more than six million people. By 2000, the number of people living in cities had exceeded three billion; and, in 2008, the world’s population crossed a tipping point more than one-half of the people on Earth lived in cities. By 2050, that could increase to more than two-thirds. The trend is clear and the conclusion inescapable—humans have become an urban species.

• Less than three percent of the world’s population lived in cities in 1800.

• More than one-half of the people on Earth now live in cities.

What fraction of the world’s population could live in cities by 2050? (Paragraph A)

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, as large urban areas began to grow and spread, many people viewed cities largely in negative terms—as crowded, dirty, unhealthy environments that were breeding grounds for disease and crime. People feared that as cities got bigger, living conditions would get worse.

Recent decades,however, have seen a widespread change in attitude toward urbanization. To a growing number of economists, urban planners, and environmentalists, urbanization is good news. Though negative aspects such as pollution and urban slums remain serious problems, many planners now believe big cities offer a solution to dealing with the problem of Earth’s growing population.

• In recent decades, attitudes toward living in cities have changed.

• In the 19th century, many people viewed cities negatively.

Why did many people view cities in negative terms in the 19th and early 20th centuries? (Paragraph B)

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser is one person who believes that cities bring largely positive benefits. Glaeser’s optimism is reflected in the title of his book The Triumph of the City. Glaeser argues that poor people flock to cities because that’s usually where the money is. Cities are productive because of “the absence of space between people,” which reduces the cost of transporting goods, people, and ideas. While the flow of goods has always been important to cities, what is most important today is the flow of ideas. Successful cities attract and reward smart people with higher wages, and they enable people to learn from one another. According to Glaeser, a perfect example of how information can be exchanged in an urban environment is the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street. There, employees work in one open, crowded space sharing information. “They value knowledge over space. That’s what the modern city is all about.”

• Successful cities attract and reward smart people.

• Cities bring largely positive benefits.

According to Edward Glaeser, what are two benefits of living in cities? (Paragraph C)

Another champion of urbanization is environmentalist Stewart Brand. From an ecological perspective, says Brand, moving people out of cities would be disastrous. Because cities are dense, they allow half of the world’s population to live on about four percent of the land, leaving more space for open country, such as farmland. People living in cities also have less impact per capita on the environment. Their roads, sewers, and power lines are shorter and require fewer resources to build and operate. City apartments require less energy to heat, cool, and light than larger houses in suburbs and rural areas. Most importantly, people living in dense cities drive less. They can walk to many destinations, and public transportation is practical because enough people travel regularly to the same places. As a result, dense cities tend to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per person than scattered, sprawling suburbs.

• Urbanization is good for the environment.

• People living in dense cities drive less.

According to Stewart Brand, what is one benefit of dense cities? (Paragraph D)

Because of these reasons, it is a mistake to see urbanization as evil; instead, we should view it as an inevitable part of development, says David Satterwaite of London’s International Institute of Environment and Development. For Satterwaite and other urban planners, rapid growth itself is not the real problem—the larger issue is how to manage the growth. There is no one model for how to manage rapid urbanization, but there are hopeful examples. One is Seoul, South Korea.

• Seoul, South Korea, is an example of how to manage rapid urbanization.

• The biggest issue facing urban planners is how to manage urban growth.

Seoul today is one of the densest cities in the world. It has millions of cars, but it also has an excellent subway system. Overall, life has gotten much better for South Koreans during the past few decades of rapid urbanization. Life expectancy has increased from 51 years in 1961 to 79 years today. South Korea’s transformation into a country with great economic power cannot be easily copied, but it proves that a poor country can urbanize successfully and incredibly fast.

• Seoul has millions of cars, but it also has an excellent transportation system.

• Overall, life has improved for Koreans during the decades of rapid urbanization.