I wrote a big paragraph responding to this but then I remembered something I'd read and as usual, someone else has said it better than I could. >Even if, in ag

I wrote a big paragraph responding to this but then I remembered something I'd read and as usual, someone else has said it better than I could. >Even if, in aggregate, land values increase, densification of an existing neighborhood creates risks for individual property owners they many not wish to bear. If an apartment block is built next door, my old neighbor may have gotten rich from selling, but my plot may not be suitable for putting up yet another tower, and my home may be worth less for its busy, unquaint new neighbor. People experience individual not aggregate outcomes, and individual outcomes are usually riskier than aggregate outcomes. Absent some insurance mechanism, it is rationally hard to persuade individuals to consent to policy changes that, in aggregate terms, would meet a return-to-risk hurdle but at an individual level might not. When market urbanists point to how much more productive and awesome the city as a whole might become, they are missing this point. http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6287.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6287.html