This paragraph summarizes the entire article: > They agree that housing is part of the problem: “Housing market failures can imperil local economic growth and

This paragraph summarizes the entire article: > They agree that housing is part of the problem: “Housing market failures can imperil local economic growth and generate problems such as segregation, long commute times, deteriorating quality of life, homelessness, and barriers to social mobility for certain populations,” they write. But housing policy, and zoning restrictions in particular, are certainly not the be-all and end-all of urban problems. Upzoning expensive cities is no match for the deep divides within—and especially between—cities, and is wholly insufficient to remedy them. I haven't heard anyone argue that just "upzoning San Francisco" is going to fix all urban problems, much less "[set] up Los Angeles and San Francisco as the new golden land for people in less prosperous regions," as the article says. However to say that "It mainly leads to building high-end housing in desirable locations," is practically a tautology. Upper / high-end housing in desirable locations is virtually all that developers have ever built. [1] The article is completely missing the domino effect, and why "mostly building high-end housing in desirable locations" is still helpful. Where there is high-income job-creation (like SF or NYC) there WILL be wealthy people moving in. You can either (a) build nice new houses for them, or (b) let them buy up the existing stock of housing and displace everyone who is lower than them on the economic ladder. That's the part that's basic supply and demand. Thus the domino effect - with fixed supply the wealthy displace the less wealthy. Where I think the article is really missing the point is in its failure to see how restricting housing in the hottest job markets just makes the domino effect even broader. If it were feasible for San Francisco to soak up all the tech jobs it probably would. Instead, many "mid market" companies are being displaced to secondary hubs like Seattle and Austin, where -- shocker -- they have similar restrictive policies and are experiencing exactly the same housing crisis and displacement problem just with scaled down dollar amounts involved. American cities - and many others around the world - are dealing with fundamental problems of scaling. In the industrial era we were a bit better at scaling up: we built simple grids that could be extended indefinitely, and when the technology came around we built trams and subways to help move people about the region. The building codes of the era allowed neighborhoods to change over time so long as the health and safety standards were met. And then we fell in love with our cars, adopted the suburban car-oriented pattern and passed laws that mostly forbid the development of anything else. That pattern is specifically designed not to change over time - so we shouldn't be suprised when it buckles under the load of steady population growth. [1]: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-housing https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-develo...