> mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base This presumably drives things away from

> mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base This presumably drives things away from market equilibrium (a mandate wouldn't have been needed otherwise). What is it that gets to bear the cost of this? Does the cost come in the shape of, say, fewer homes, or fewer offices? Is the intent to make the city a better place, but for fewer people (compared to what a market would have done)?