Beofett linked to a great answer above. Let me add a few observations of my own:
First of all, what you plan is different from what you get. Many biological reasons can cause it to take a long time, even years, for the first baby to arrive. And there's no guarantee against such difficulties for the following babies, either. Or you might get two or three all at once! So whatever your plans are, be aware that Nature might have a very different idea of things.
One obvious "pro" about quick succession to me is to get those dirty, noisy baby years behind you as quickly as possible. But that also means that this precious, special time will pass very soon.
When kids are spaced a couple of years apart, the younger can inherit things which the older no longer uses - toys, clothing, even furniture! This saves money but may require some storage space. It might also cause some unhappiness in the younger child that never gets anything new. If they're spaced close together, there is bound to be some overlap in age groups that prevent this inheritance scheme.
Quick succession gives you less time for each child in the early years. As you mention, babies require more attention, and it's much easier to attend to a 1yo when the elder sibling is 4 rather than 2.
Quick succession is a mental and physical and financial strain on you because so much happens at once. Spreading it out more distributes the load and the stress. But you'd then have to deal with it longer.
Quick succession may make holiday planning easier because the kids will be in the same schools longer, so there are fewer external organizations to coordinate.
Quick succession lets the children have a closer relationship because they have more in common, but their relative age difference evens out after 10-15 years anyway, unless they're many years apart.