Hurricane Katrina. Glaeser questions the wisdom of this strategy. "It never made sense to spend more than $100 billion putting infrastructure in a place that lost its economic rationale long ago," he writes. It would be better, he argues, to simply distribute the money directly to the people affected in the form of checks or housing and school vouchers, and let them decide how—and where—to spend it.

Human capital does not always benefit cities. While successful cities attract smart people, sometimes smart people institute not-so-smart policies. Glaeser is critical of thriving cities that impose arcane building regulations, complex zoning, and restrictive conservation rules to limit new construction. Curtailing the building supply simply raises real-estate prices and drives growth into surrounding suburbs, as it has done in New York, SanFrancisco, and Paris. Also in Mumbai, which surprisingly has some of the most expensive urban real estate on the planet. What is the alternative? Encourage cities to densify. Glaeser proposes replacing the current regulatory maze with a sort of congestion tax: developer fees on the negative effects of new construction such as increased traffic, blocked views, and so on. According to him, a straightforward tax would not only be more transparent—and more speedy—it would also benefit the community directly. He also proposes limiting the powers of historic preservation boards and community groups to block new building. Such an immodest proposal would take a triumph of the will, indeed.

Full disclosure: Glaeser provided an endorsement for my latest book.

Witold Rybczynski is an architect, professor, and writer. From 2004–2010, he was