>>The real world is generally not well captured in unrestrained markets. You got externalities and tragedy of the commons not taken into account. What negative

>>The real world is generally not well captured in unrestrained markets. You got externalities and tragedy of the commons not taken into account. What negative externalities does densification impose? He provides evidence that the laws limiting building height increase housing costs and reduce economic opportunity. Providing market freedom, where such freedom would provide a clear social and economic benefit, in the absence of evidence it produces negative externalities, is economically sound, and the anti-libertarian insistence that it's not is what is the actual ideologically-motivated position. >>today I must say that most of the cities I enjoy most are not cities with tall buildings. So move to a smaller town, or the suburbs, where land expense doesn't drive densification? Why oppose what people prefer, and artificially limit the density of the economic cores of large metropolises? These economic cores are a very limited set of geographically restricted zones that are hugely in demand places, for people all over the world to live, hire and work, and generate positive externalities for the entire world, to the extent that they can - through rising density and better transportation networks - build on their agglomeration effects that raise the per capita productivity and innovativeness of their residents. There are a great many alternatives to these regions if what one prefers low-density living. It's not reasonable to deny the development path that is clearly the aggregate preference of society at large just to maintain low density in these select locales.