Re:A Physicist Solves the City
by gabrielroth on Saturday December 18, 2010 @11:26PM
(#2021089)
The idea that increasing density is good for the environment has been conventional wisdom among environmentalists and planners for decades. (Synonyms that are often used for popular appeal include 'transit-friendly,' 'smart growth,' and 'anti-sprawl.') If West has made progress in quantifying this effect, that's great, but the conclusion alone would be much too banal to be the lede of an article in 2010.
I think you underestimate how banal people in 2010 are willing to make a lede. As evidence for this, I offer the first paragraph of the article in question.
I found the lead-in fascinating, the "search of fundamental laws". I have to admit that the first paragraph wasn't about that directly, but I also found it intriguing ("allergic to food", heh) - probably because I identify with the absent-minded professor portrayed (or would like to).
The "lead" of a story is partly a matter of perspective. Eg. did Einstein reveal a deeper view of reality, or facilitate nuclear weapons, or help end a war, or prove everyone wrong, or get away with crazy hair? The "lead" depends on the reader.
Small communities might look green, but they consume a disproportionate amount of everything. As a result, West argues, creating a more sustainable society will require our big cities to get even bigger. We need more megalopolises.
That's what they call "burying the lead". Or "lede", depending on what country you're in. It should have been in the very first sentence of the article: holy crap, big cities are green. It's a counterintuitive assertion, and sure to draw in readers. Instead, the whole first paragraph is a bunch of human-interest waffle that has nothing to do with anything. I almost stopped reading right there.