There are two related issues: one is density overall, and the other is the housing to jobs ratio. Adding a tall office building adds to density but skews the h

There are two related issues: one is density overall, and the other is the housing to jobs ratio. Adding a tall office building adds to density but skews the housing to jobs ratio. Probably increases inequality, worsens transit problems, and increases housing prices. Adding a tall apartment building in SF or Palo Alto would rebalance the ratio of jobs to housing, alleviate transit problems, and make housing more affordable. I guess the article is arguing that imcreasing density in the abstact increases inequality, which may be true. But the argument is not to just "build"; it's "build housing to rebalance the ratio" which actually would solve a lot of problems. Density had positives and negatives. If you want to keep a given density ina given city, then fine. But crazy skew where you puts jobs far from housing is just bad policy. It might be more precise to say "either build housing or raze office space" but it seems a little ridiculous to tear down vibrant office buildings, so the answer is to build housing.