Four Reviews of Happy City by Charles Montgomery - Test 4

C1 Advanced · Cross Text Multiple Matching · C1 Advanced Trainer 2, Cambridge University Press

You are going to read four extracts from reviews of a book called Happy City by Charles Montgomery. For questions 1–4, choose from the reviews A–D. The reviews may be chosen more than once.

The last twenty years have seen a significant growth in the field of happiness studies and a revival of interest in urban design. Using insights from both fields, Charles Montgomery develops fresh perspectives on a number of key issues, and does so in an accessible, engaging manner. Pre-eminent among his notions is the view that people are happier if they lead a connected life, and that connectedness is best secured through regular relationships with people they meet through simple residential proximity. Montgomery finds that suburban sprawl, in which cars and roads dominate, mitigates against connectedness; it’s hard to argue with the proposition that spending a large proportion of your life in a car is more isolating than walking among fellow citizens or travelling on a bus. Montgomery provides detailed descriptions of such developments as the pedestrianisation of Copenhagen and the enhanced cycle lanes and public transport of Bogotá to illustrate his themes very effectively.

My first challenge in reading Happy City by Charles Montgomery was to get past the title – it suggests something sentimental, insubstantial and illusory. Then I had to get past the occasionally over-the-top prose about figures like the former mayor of Bogotá, Enrique Peñalosa, who radically reversed policies favouring motor traffic and instead promoted cycling and buses and invested in public buildings and spaces. Montgomery also gushes about Vancouver, a thriving, partly high-rise city in which people of different levels of income live close together, with its streets animated by multiple activities. Having said that, Bogotá and Vancouver both demonstrate admirably what Montgomery points out can be done to truly enhance urban life. The bottom line with this book, however, is that it says forcefully what can’t be said too much: that the growth of low-density, car-dependent development on the outer edges of cities is, for the most part, no recipe for happiness.

‘The most important psychological effect of the city is the way it moderates our relationships with other people,’ says Charles Montgomery in a typically lucid, thought-provoking fashion. Densely populated cities, which encourage people to travel on foot or by public transport, and offer mixtures of housing types, create more opportunities for interaction – which leads to happiness. The opposite is true of the dispersed urban landscape, in which the car is king. All this seems self-evident, although there’s no harm pointing it out. It’s unlikely that you’ll never have come across these notions before, however. They’ve been debated over the past half-century. It should also be said that Montgomery doesn’t strive for impartiality. He chooses the worst case of suburban sprawl he can find – a town whose residents spend four hours a day commuting – and at the other extreme, the ultra-civilised setting of Copenhagen as an unrealistic benchmark for what cities elsewhere can achieve.

I admit that I indulged in some wishful thinking when I picked up Happy City by Charles Montgomery. I was hoping for unexpected, acute insights into modern life. Instead, it’s more of the standard urbanist message that we have long been fed. Montgomery thinks that living in the city – and here city means a dense, probably high-rise urban village where everyone knows your name – is the answer to all our problems with unhappiness, loneliness, ill-health and lack of spiritual fulfilment. He gives short shrift to all the legitimate reasons why people might choose ‘suburban sprawl’ over ‘urban jungle’. Fear of crime and desire for privacy and space – justifiable feelings of many who choose the suburbs – get passing mentions, but Montgomery seems to think these are silly prejudices. The insulting implication is that people don’t know what’s best for them. Laden with starry-eyed, but empty, turns of phrase, the book is repetitive and, at nearly 400 pages, too long.

Which reviewer shares C’s view about Montgomery’s writing style?

Which reviewer has a different view from B regarding the examples of cities that Montgomery uses to support his arguments?

Which reviewer expresses a different view from the other reviewers regarding Montgomery’s thinking about suburbs?

Which reviewer has a different view from C on the extent to which Montgomery’s ideas are new?

Four reviews of Happy City by Charles Montgomery

Available as a free printable PDF worksheet with an optional answer key.

More C1 Advanced Cross-Text Multiple Matching practice · All C1 Advanced practice