For centuries, people have painted cities as unnatural human conglomerations, blighted by pathologies such as public health crises, aggression and exorbitant costs of living. Why, then, do people throughout the world keep leaving the countryside for the town? Recent research that is forming a multidisciplinary science of cities is beginning to reveal the answer: cities concentrate, accelerate, and diversify social and economic activity.

The numbers show that urban dwellers produce more inventions and create more opportunities for economic growth. Often large cities are also the greenest places on the planet because people living in denser habitats typically have smaller energy footprints, require less infrastructure and consume less of the world’s resources per capita. Compared with suburban or rural areas, cities do more with less. And the bigger cities get, the more productive and efficient they tend to become.

This article was originally published with the title Bigger Cities Do More with Less.

6 Comments

1. 1. rwstutler 08:19 PM 8/19/11

   makes me think "economy of scale"

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. mesmoiron 02:54 AM 8/25/11

   That might be so; but on the other hand at least some people think of going back to greener regions with their digital weapons. Ipad, smartphone, ebooks and all the things that can be put in a gadget. And the mega barns turned into a free lab? Wouldn't that be fun. Best of both worlds. Because infrastructure is mostly (digital)roads. Because depending on your budget; all those extra entertainment is very, very costly to families. So why do we live in cities then?. Or are we better of working in the city and like the French get a life outside it? Btw Dutch cities are mere small towns in comparison to New York or so. Maybe we have just the right mix. Between mega and micro. The bottomline there is much more to it - to the science of cities.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. scots engineer 08:07 AM 8/26/11

   It is a bit simplistic to say that urban dwellers consume less because some valuations are done at wholesale prices and some at retail prices. If urban dwellers, on average, buy less goods than rural dwellers, it may be because there are a larger number of urban poor to skew the figures, and a few very rich coming out to the countryside to skew that average the other way.People do not have limitless choice about where they live, and the concentrations of money wealth are in the large cities and that is what affects all other markets.Urban poor are more visible than rural poor

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. zoladegorgon 02:59 AM 8/30/11

   The nearest farm is generally further from the center of a large city than it is from a small one. You also need more food and more farmland to support a larger city, so you end up having to transport food in from further away through more congested streets to supply a large city. Since it's got further to travel in less efficient traffic conditions, you're more likely to require refrigeration. There have been studies (Brookings, for instance) claiming inhabitants of large cities have a lower carbon footprint because they can walk or take the subway to stores. I have yet to see one that considers any of the numerous factors such as this one that may contradict the desired conclusion.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. wywong 10:25 PM 9/9/11

   I doubt the author's claim that cities do more with less than rural areas. In the article "All Climate is Local" in the same Sept. issue, a study is quoted as saying "cities may actually be responsible for roughly 80 percent of emissions if one takes into account their consumption of electricity, food and other commodities...". Clearly on a per capita basis cities contributes more to emissions. For sure if one has to live the same urban lifestyle in a rural area, one will consume more fossil fuel, but the fact is most rural people don't. They don't drive to work, most of their daily needs don't require that much transportation and refrigeration, and in many developing countries most rural people don't have cars or even electricity!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. rroto1 09:28 PM 12/26/11

   More and less have little meaning with a reference point. If we knew what we were getting more of and what we were getting less of it would a better article.
   
   I nature larger animals are more efficient in some respects, but in terms of survival the bacteria and virus may have a better chance. It is evident that big cities have some good and bad characteristics.
   
   I would bet that the writer of the article must be a city dweller. He had to overlook crime, traffic, and quality of life issues to say more people in less space is more efficient.
   
   There are ratios that are optimal in each individual situation. When cities get too big to maintain these ratios they are less efficient. Over population is becoming a global problem as well as a local one.
   If a city had a bad mayor, or a poor police department, could size alone overcome these problems?
   A large city magnifies the efficiency of a catastrophe. Fires, nukes, and plagues are more efficient when applied to a large city. In terms of human population social systems and technology hold the key to efficiency not the size of the city. Improvement in these areas allows a city to increase in size and remain efficient. It is not the other way around.
   
   
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this