it costs a lot less to build up than to build out This is another fair point, but consider the land is massively more expensive. The dynamic is relative scarci

it costs a lot less to build up than to build out This is another fair point, but consider the land is massively more expensive. The dynamic is relative scarcity and bargaing power. The more scarcity, the more the economics look like monopoly on the underlying asset. At that stage, the cost of building out is sort of second order. The other examples, such as London, Geneva, and SF have a combination of massive wealth (in both flow and assets stocks) combined with constraints on the ability to build due to geography/history/etc. I agree some of ths (like greenbelt and listed buildings in london) is by way of law, but most rent control follows from the combination of scarcity/wealt co-existing prior to legislative means to "provide access". In other words, those laws follow the sort of self-evident understanding that if left unchecked, the dynamic of quasi-monopoly rents being extracted from the real-estate market will lead to all kinds of bad things down the road (social tension, and its variants, primarily). The other counter-example perhaps to chicago or LA is tokyo (which is pretty spread out). But again, there is a social dynamic of scarcity (JP is very hiercarchial/aristocratic society) and Tokyo is both the financial/business and political capital of JP. Even in the 80's the somewhat absurd cost/ft did not hinder people from needing to be in Tokyo for their careers. Rather, the all just gave up having more than 1 kid to afford the astronomical cost of living. A generation later, the population growth is almost not feasible given the entrnched cost structure of real-estate and the need for the few young (workers) to support the many old (retired).