• About
    • Links to Articles, Academic Papers and Books
  • Market Urbansim Podcast
  • Adam Hengels
  • Stephen Smith
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Jeff Fong
  • Nolan Gray
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Podcast
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Transportation
  • zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • How to Fight Gentrification

Want Density? Turn the Free Market Loose

June 10, 2008 By Adam Hengels

Matthew Yglesias – What Price Density

The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it’s cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it’s more practical to build new infrastructure if there’s a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens.

And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the “drive until you qualify” phenomenon that’s currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel.

In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes:

Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing drivers to commute from further-out places. So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit. If individual commuters were to pay for their use of the roads, many would alter their habits and perhaps where they choose to commute to / from. The change in location preference will, no-doubt, increase density.

Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, so density doesn’t necessarily equal affordability for those who live densely. However, building higher density where there is high demand releases pent up demand to gentrify less desirable areas. Overall affordability improves for a city as a result of allowing the market to provide additional supply.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Economics, housing, Transportation, zoning Tagged With: Building, congestion, construction, density, development, Free-market, housing, infrastructure

About Adam Hengels

Adam is passionate about urbanism, and founded this site in 2007, after realizing that classical liberals and urbanists actually share many objectives, despite being at odds in many spheres of the intellectual discussion. His mission is to improve the urban experience, and overcome obstacles that prevent aspiring city dwellers from living where they want. http://www.marketurbanism.com/adam-hengels/

  • Bill Nelson

    Here is my comment that I left on Mr. Yglesias’ blog:

    Note the use of the word “we”, which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias’ personal tastes.

    Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the “poor”, that “we” should impose his “solutions” on them and on everyone else.

    Setting aside the issue that “poor” people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities — there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.

    Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?

    Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they’re not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as “solutions”.

    The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.

    Government really is the problem.

  • Bill Nelson

    Here is my comment that I left on Mr. Yglesias’ blog:

    Note the use of the word “we”, which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias’ personal tastes.

    Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the “poor”, that “we” should impose his “solutions” on them and on everyone else.

    Setting aside the issue that “poor” people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities — there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.

    Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?

    Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they’re not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as “solutions”.

    The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.

    Government really is the problem.

  • MarketUrbanism

    looks like you accidentally posted it 3 times on that site. Oh, well…

  • Market Urbanism

    looks like you accidentally posted it 3 times on that site. Oh, well…

  • Bill Nelson

    Well, I clicked “post” and everything froze for about three minutes, so I reloaded, did not see my post, so I hit “post” again. And again.

    Sorry for making free-market people look like idiots…

  • Bill Nelson

    Well, I clicked “post” and everything froze for about three minutes, so I reloaded, did not see my post, so I hit “post” again. And again.

    Sorry for making free-market people look like idiots…

  • MarketUrbanism

    I almost did the same thing.

  • Market Urbanism

    I almost did the same thing.

Market Urbanism Podcast

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • Mini review: Vanishing New York, by Jeremiah Moss
  • The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies
  • The Rent is Too High and the Commute is Too Long: We Need Market Urbanism
  • The Progressive Roots of Zoning
  • “Curb Rights” at 20: A Summary and Review
  • High Rents: Are Construction Costs the Culprit?
  • Cities Should Not Design for Autonomous Vehicles
  • Does Density Raise Housing Prices?
  • The “Geographically Constrained Cities” Fantasy
  • The Role for State Preemption of Local Zoning
  • Exempting Suburbia: How suburban sprawl gets special treatment in our tax code
  • old posts
My Tweets

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Cafe Hayek
  • Culture of Congestion
  • Environmental and Urban Economics
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Let A Thousand Nations Bloom
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Mike Munger | Kids Prefer Cheese
  • Neighborhood Effects
  • New Urbs
  • NYU Stern Urbanization Project
  • Peter Gordon's Blog
  • The Beacon
  • ThinkMarkets

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Austin Contrarian
  • City Comforts
  • City Notes | Daniel Kay Hertz
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Emergent Urbanism
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Old Urbanist
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen Radar
  • Reinventing Parking
  • streetsblog
  • Strong Towns
  • Systemic Failure
  • The Micro Maker
  • The Urbanophile

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Market Urbanism

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.