The article presents a 'gentrification' view of development. Building new housing simply allows landowners and developers to build another luxury condo tower, a

The article presents a 'gentrification' view of development. Building new housing simply allows landowners and developers to build another luxury condo tower, and for additional rich and high skilled workers to move in. The network effects of which only drive up land values and costs even further. Concluding that upzoning and building only allows landlords to switch out low revenue tenants for high revenue tenants. First off it seems to me like every city would love to have this sort of problem. "We can't possibly build enough housing to satisfy all the demand from highly paid/skilled knowledge workers who want to move to our city." To a city government sounds a lot like "I can't build enough garage space to park all my lamborghinis!" Secondly, what happens when we run this theory in reverse? If we bulldoze a quarter of the housing does that mean that home prices go down? I guess at some point that might actually be true. It might constrict business/growth enough that the remaining houses would be less expensive. Call it the Detroit plan for affordable housing. Make all the high paying jobs leave and housing prices become more affordable. Which I guess 'works' to supply affordable housing.