What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rent Is Too Damn High
From prominent political thinker and widely followed Slate columnist, a polemic on high rents and housing costs—and how these costs are hollowing out communities, thwarting economic development, and rendering personal success and fulfillment increasingly difficult to achieve.
Rent is an issue that affects nearly everyone. High rent is a problem for all of us, extending beyond personal financial strain. High rent drags on our country’s overall rate of economic growth, damages the environment, and promotes long commutes, traffic jams, misery, and smog. Yet instead of a serious focus on the issue, America’s cities feature niche conversations about the availability of “affordable housing” for poor people. Yglesias’s book changes the conversation for the first time, presenting newfound context for the issue and real-time, practical solutions for the problem.
Rent is an issue that affects nearly everyone. High rent is a problem for all of us, extending beyond personal financial strain. High rent drags on our country’s overall rate of economic growth, damages the environment, and promotes long commutes, traffic jams, misery, and smog. Yet instead of a serious focus on the issue, America’s cities feature niche conversations about the availability of “affordable housing” for poor people. Yglesias’s book changes the conversation for the first time, presenting newfound context for the issue and real-time, practical solutions for the problem.
80 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 5, 2012
52 people are currently reading
1164 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
June 12, 2013
Yglesias makes a convincing argument for a surprising cause of US's worsening economic inequality : Pervasive low-density residential zoning.
The US economy is built out of a relatively small number of skilled workers and capitalists earning lots of money, with the rest of the employment in services supporting them (and in services supporting the people supporting them, and so forth.) High density living is prohibited by law in most of the country, so the people working in those support jobs can’t live near the places where it is most profitable to work them. This makes everyone worse off, but the poor most of all.
For instance, the tech industry is booming in Silicon Valley, but very few people can benefit from that boom, because very few people can live close enough to benefit from it. This leads to shortages and high prices for essential services. For instance, there are a ton of young professional couples in the valley with young children, yet childcare is expensive and hard to find. This is largely because the people who would provide child care (and would make a comfortable income doing so) can't afford to live in the valley due to its misguided land use restrictions.
The most interesting point I picked up from reading this: We as a society just don't know how to think about land use and development. We have the wrong language for it, and incoherent mental models for how things actually work. These misconceptions cause much of the political conflict about it.
For instance:
Misconception: Houses are an investment.
A house is a depreciating consumption good like a refrigerator. The land under the house is the investment. Nobody buys a refrigerator expecting to sell it for more than they paid for it. Decoupling these two ideas is essential to understanding these issues.
Misconception: There is a natural conflict between homeowners and renters, where renters should naturally prefer higher density, and homeowners should prefer lower density.
Both renters and homeowners benefit from higher density zoning, renters because it lowers their rent, homeowners because it increases the value of the land they own.
Misconception: Gentrification is caused by development.
Gentrification is caused by high demand. High density development is the only thing that can mitigate gentrification.
Misconception: High rents are caused by high land prices.
When land prices rise, people build taller buildings. It is only when they are prohibited by law from building taller buildings that rents rise.
The US economy is built out of a relatively small number of skilled workers and capitalists earning lots of money, with the rest of the employment in services supporting them (and in services supporting the people supporting them, and so forth.) High density living is prohibited by law in most of the country, so the people working in those support jobs can’t live near the places where it is most profitable to work them. This makes everyone worse off, but the poor most of all.
For instance, the tech industry is booming in Silicon Valley, but very few people can benefit from that boom, because very few people can live close enough to benefit from it. This leads to shortages and high prices for essential services. For instance, there are a ton of young professional couples in the valley with young children, yet childcare is expensive and hard to find. This is largely because the people who would provide child care (and would make a comfortable income doing so) can't afford to live in the valley due to its misguided land use restrictions.
The most interesting point I picked up from reading this: We as a society just don't know how to think about land use and development. We have the wrong language for it, and incoherent mental models for how things actually work. These misconceptions cause much of the political conflict about it.
For instance:
Misconception: Houses are an investment.
A house is a depreciating consumption good like a refrigerator. The land under the house is the investment. Nobody buys a refrigerator expecting to sell it for more than they paid for it. Decoupling these two ideas is essential to understanding these issues.
Misconception: There is a natural conflict between homeowners and renters, where renters should naturally prefer higher density, and homeowners should prefer lower density.
Both renters and homeowners benefit from higher density zoning, renters because it lowers their rent, homeowners because it increases the value of the land they own.
Misconception: Gentrification is caused by development.
Gentrification is caused by high demand. High density development is the only thing that can mitigate gentrification.
Misconception: High rents are caused by high land prices.
When land prices rise, people build taller buildings. It is only when they are prohibited by law from building taller buildings that rents rise.
January 9, 2014
More people need to be thinking about real estate. Matthew Yglesias, a writer I don't generally agree with, has made a valuable contribution to the conversation. His central insight, which like all important ones seem blindingly obvious in retrospect, is that we should make it easier for people to live in our richest cities. People can make more money by living around rich folks. A doctor, yoga instructor, janitor or shoe shine boy will make more money in New York than he will in Peoria. By allowing the housing stock to be limited in rich cities, and therefore too expensive, we miss one of the most important economic opportunities provided in our country. The whole book is worth your time.
February 13, 2019
As a young person, I'm aware of the implications and difficulties of finding affordable housing in places where people want to live without high other costs. This book makes an compelling argument to ask public officials to rethink public zoning laws and allow more accessibility across the board to affordable housing.
November 10, 2019
A very interesting case for the deregulation of the housing market from a progressive, that made me rethink how I view gentrification. Though I'm not 100% convinced that his solution is the right one (seems like a lot of unpredictable variables), it certainly seems worth a try. At times I was uncertain if it wouldn't be better suited as a long article in the Atlantic than a book, though.
February 21, 2019
The Rent is Too Damn High provides a clear and concise summary of the current housing situation in American cities and how we arrived at this point, Yglesias addresses everything from rent control to public transportation, environmental concerns, and gentrification, and offers a clear vision of how we can move forward on the local and federal levels. Quick and easy to consume, I don't know why anyone WOULDN'T read this.
July 13, 2020
I share Matty Y's politico-aesthetic preference for dense, livable, affordable, walkable, & transit-rich cities & against the cultural fetish & government subsidy of homeownership; however, his prescriptions for markets, deregulation, & localism to accomplish that goal is delusion, we need strong city planning & public housing initiatives to get there
November 28, 2020
Could have basically been summed up in one word: zoning prevents building.
I would have liked to hear more about how to intervene/when local governments HAVE changed zoning laws/etc.
I would have liked to hear more about how to intervene/when local governments HAVE changed zoning laws/etc.
February 7, 2021
I'm late to the party.
Easy to understand and convincing book that makes a normally complicated housing policy issue clear as air that we need less housing regulation and more multi-dewelling homes in expensive land in cities. The benefits are many and the downside is it might get a little noisy.
Easy to understand and convincing book that makes a normally complicated housing policy issue clear as air that we need less housing regulation and more multi-dewelling homes in expensive land in cities. The benefits are many and the downside is it might get a little noisy.
March 23, 2012
Matt Yglesias is a young journalist, formerly with The Center for American Progress, who is now writing on the economy for Slate magazine. Anyone who has followed his recent reporting or Twitter feed is aware that one recent focus of his work has been the supply-limiting effects of needless regulation, and particularly building and zoning codes. Now, taking his lead from Jimmy McMillan, the recent joke candidate for New York Governor on "The Rent Is Too Damn High" ticket, Yglesias lays out his argument for increasing the supply of creating affordable housing in desirable locations by reducing or eliminating zoning and building requirements that distort the market.
Yglesias's targets include building height limitations, minimum lot size requirements, and parking requirements that subsidized car ownership. Yglesias argues that not only do these regulations force up housing prices, they also prevent cities from creating the dense, walkable neighborhoods that Boomers and Gen Xers want.
Think liberals are always trying to impose restrictive regulations on private enterprise? "The Rent Is Too Damn High" is a rebuttal of those claims. Concerned about the cost of housing and how the market can address the housing needs of your community? Then you should read this and start talking to your city's planning and zoning departments about what they're doing to fix things.
Yglesias's targets include building height limitations, minimum lot size requirements, and parking requirements that subsidized car ownership. Yglesias argues that not only do these regulations force up housing prices, they also prevent cities from creating the dense, walkable neighborhoods that Boomers and Gen Xers want.
Think liberals are always trying to impose restrictive regulations on private enterprise? "The Rent Is Too Damn High" is a rebuttal of those claims. Concerned about the cost of housing and how the market can address the housing needs of your community? Then you should read this and start talking to your city's planning and zoning departments about what they're doing to fix things.
January 7, 2013
A fast, interesting read. One point Yglesias makes that I'd never considered: your primary home is not an investment. If its value goes up, great. You have more money on paper. But unless you plan to move onto the street or live out of your car, you won't realize those gains. At most you'll move to another house, which is also likely to have appreciated in value. The only way you come out ahead is if your property appreciates more than average, which there is no reason to expect.
Having read this book, I feel better about living in a new high rise building in a gentrifying neighborhood of NYC. But I do wonder what Mr. Yglesias would want to do with some of the classic neighborhoods of San Francisco, much of whose character comes from their two- and three-story Victorian homes. He briefly mentions that Paris has achieved extremely high density without high rises, but never explains how. I would have liked to hear more about this.
Having read this book, I feel better about living in a new high rise building in a gentrifying neighborhood of NYC. But I do wonder what Mr. Yglesias would want to do with some of the classic neighborhoods of San Francisco, much of whose character comes from their two- and three-story Victorian homes. He briefly mentions that Paris has achieved extremely high density without high rises, but never explains how. I would have liked to hear more about this.
Read
April 7, 2012Short, which is nice. More books should be short like this. You get to the end of the chapter and you're like, oh, great, that chapter is done. Substance? Well it is a good analytic argument in favor of urban density or more specifically against zoning regulations that limit urban density. I guess the argument is correct and it is certainly not an area of public policy that many people think much about which makes it worthwhile. I live in a small city so I wondered how the basic framework might apply here or not. The Wausau area like a lot of small cities has been growing in the direction of sprawl but lately the city seems to be building a denser city center with more multi-unit residences, so maybe we are moving in the right direction.
September 6, 2016
I really enjoyed reading this book, as my family and I are currently on the hunt for land and house/s to own, this book is not only relevant to our situation, but many young families in similar circumstances. Australia has similar if not almost the same housing circumstances as the U.S, it's just magnified as the cost of housing and rent doesn't match the average yearly salaries of the middle class. Short book, that had a wealth of knowledge and possible solutions. Great read.
May 1, 2022
I really liked the logical and persuasive argument behind the book, and found it compelling, but it’s a book about policy and policy implications and was frustratingly devoid of anything tangible — no examples of how this thinking has worked, how it could work, etc. And I feel like if you’re arguing a contrarian or at least counterintuitive position, you need something a little more concrete in order to justify why “this thing that maybe doesn’t initially seem intuitive is actually correct.”
January 18, 2017
Some convincing points and opened me up on understanding we face with rising rents
October 17, 2020
Property rights in America no longer guarantee your right to use your land as you see fit, instead property rights now guarantee your right to control how your neighbors use their land. A slew of conservative and liberal policy decisions in America have conspired to inflate housing costs by restricting new, dense residential construction in metropolitan areas. Homeowners show up to local meetings to protest their neighbor's construction of an attached apartment, cities mandate that a building not build more units than it has parking spaces, and height restrictions limit the amount of people who might call a city home. The result is that inflated rent and housing costs are leeching away Americans' earnings, blocking economic opportunities for people who can't afford to move into high cost areas, and damaging the climate by pushing people from dense walkable areas to car-heavy locales. Even dense American cityscapes are peppered with parking lots (which displace housing).
Yglesias hammers home the point that people are denied the option to live where they want because we've artificially inflated the cost of living in the most prosperous parts of the country. A drive around Silicon Valley, the most expensive housing market in the U.S., reveals that there's no lack of space. But if a developer were to buy a plot and try building new apartments to house dozens of families of land previously reserved for a few single-family homes, the NIMBYs and regulations would come crawling out of the woodwork to stop them. The objection to the shade cast by new construction is the most absurd evidence of this.
Americans have spent the last 12 years bemoaning weak economic growth, and yet they lock arms and try their hardest to prevent the economy from growing when they lock young people out of the dynamic regional economies throughout this country. Americans insist that they want entrepreneurs and small business owners, but they just don't want those upstarts living anywhere near their homes.
Yglesias hammers home the point that people are denied the option to live where they want because we've artificially inflated the cost of living in the most prosperous parts of the country. A drive around Silicon Valley, the most expensive housing market in the U.S., reveals that there's no lack of space. But if a developer were to buy a plot and try building new apartments to house dozens of families of land previously reserved for a few single-family homes, the NIMBYs and regulations would come crawling out of the woodwork to stop them. The objection to the shade cast by new construction is the most absurd evidence of this.
Americans have spent the last 12 years bemoaning weak economic growth, and yet they lock arms and try their hardest to prevent the economy from growing when they lock young people out of the dynamic regional economies throughout this country. Americans insist that they want entrepreneurs and small business owners, but they just don't want those upstarts living anywhere near their homes.
January 4, 2021
If I could somehow make everyone in SF, NY, and LA read one book, this might be the one. Simple, short, clear distillation of why housing costs have run amok and why high rents cascade into inequality in other areas too.
The book is fairly old now, but the issues it talks about are as relevant as ever in major US cities. If I could make some updates for 2021, I'd bring in more data about how dense urban cores have a lot less carbon emissions, and to talk about the ties between redlining and single-family zoning. High density zoning and viable transit is anti-racist (for all the reasons Yglesias gets into here about inequality between geographies, the return of the landowning class), the overwhelming number of older nimby's who believe the reverse is definitely one of the craziest and most maddening aspect of American politics today.
Anyway, you should read this book. It is just the length of a few New Yorker articles stitched together, it explains one of the biggest public policy levers available to reduce inequality, increase median quality of life, and save the planet. And it's a lever more susceptible than any other to individual people showing up to meetings to have their voices heard.
The book is fairly old now, but the issues it talks about are as relevant as ever in major US cities. If I could make some updates for 2021, I'd bring in more data about how dense urban cores have a lot less carbon emissions, and to talk about the ties between redlining and single-family zoning. High density zoning and viable transit is anti-racist (for all the reasons Yglesias gets into here about inequality between geographies, the return of the landowning class), the overwhelming number of older nimby's who believe the reverse is definitely one of the craziest and most maddening aspect of American politics today.
Anyway, you should read this book. It is just the length of a few New Yorker articles stitched together, it explains one of the biggest public policy levers available to reduce inequality, increase median quality of life, and save the planet. And it's a lever more susceptible than any other to individual people showing up to meetings to have their voices heard.
September 20, 2021
The Rent is Too Damn High (2012) by Matthew Yglesias is a good short summary of the US’s housing issues.
Yglesias makes the point that the modern economy tends toward services and those services are best done by people in the same area. More people would move to high wage places like The Bay Area, Los Angeles or New York. But they don’t because zoning has made housing in those places too expensive. Instead people more to the Sunbelt where there is ample cheap housing.
Yglesias also mentions the work of Ed Glaeser on calculating the cost of zoning.
At 80 pages ‘The Rent is Too Damn High’ is an excellent short overview of an important issue.
Yglesias makes the point that the modern economy tends toward services and those services are best done by people in the same area. More people would move to high wage places like The Bay Area, Los Angeles or New York. But they don’t because zoning has made housing in those places too expensive. Instead people more to the Sunbelt where there is ample cheap housing.
Yglesias also mentions the work of Ed Glaeser on calculating the cost of zoning.
At 80 pages ‘The Rent is Too Damn High’ is an excellent short overview of an important issue.
January 5, 2020
I didn't learn much from this because I had already read numerous Matt Yglesias articles about housing policy, and there wasn't much beyond that in the book. But I have to rate it highly because the content, whether you read it in book form or article form, is excellent and got me to be very interested in the subject.
September 14, 2025
I've read dozens of books about housing policy. The Rent is Too Damn High will certainly be among the select few that I would first recommend to a policymaker or anyone trying to understand the landscape. This short book is highly accessible, logically consistent, and even more relevant now than when it was first published in 2012. I will undoubtedly re-read it and recommend widely.
August 23, 2018
"... in the US" should be called the title
April 25, 2021
Perhaps more of a revelation when it was published. In 2021, this books seems too to be basic and much of his ideas are common knowledge, especially for YIMBY adherents.
October 1, 2022
Sparse housing bad. Dense housing good.
July 4, 2023
Summary: mo' density, mo' betta.
Read
February 8, 2021a brisk two-hour must-read for YIMBYs. the case for loosening zoning laws + building denser housing in places people want to live is stronger, or perhaps a bit different, than i thought. if people want to live in places where there are jobs, good schools, short commute, etc., we need to have housing to support that or else rents will be driven up even more and many people will be shut out of opportunity. and building more housing is not a cause of gentrification but rather is something that can alleviate the increasing housing costs associated with a place becoming a more desirable place to live
February 9, 2017
The topic of the book, how local government regulation stifles the construction of new homes in opportunity-rich cities across the United States, is vital and pressing, unfortunately something that has been ignored by most politicians. The rent is too high because supply has not coped up with demand. And the supply has been low is not because we don’t have the ability to meet the demand, but because there is no free market in home construction as a huge web of regulations have thwarted builders. It may be surprising for some to learn that in many places, making tall buildings is outright illegal and in others, foolish rules mandating free parking makes them prohibitively expensive to construct.
Yglesias touches upon several important topics. One is the confusion among many people about housing prices. House owners feel happy when prices go up and generally, housing is looked upon as an investment. But in reality, this is a mirage as the profits made from a house sale will necessarily have to be used in purchasing another home to live in and so it is a wash. The increasing costs of housing takes a huge chunk of the monthly paycheck of the average American, reducing their quality of life. I would add that house prices should be treated as “inflation” as opposed to treating it as it is the same as a stock price increase so that people get the picture.
The author explains the paradox where the cities where the highest incomes can be obtained are the ones that are not growing the fastest, because housing is only available at prohibitive prices, or simply not available. Also, despite improvements in construction technology, we are not utilizing them much such as in making tall buildings because of regulations.
In the book, Yglesias also shows how both sides of the political divide have aligned themselves on the wrong side of the debate. The Left has a natural affinity for regulations, aesthetics, and preservation, combined with an instinct against rich developers and fails to see how this is affecting the pockets of middle-class and poor Americans. The Right should be a natural constituency to repeal some of these regulations, unfortunately identity politics has made them align against urbanism and adapt ironically apocalyptic rhetoric against Big Government supposedly forcing rural dwellers to move to the city.
Yglesias touches upon several important topics. One is the confusion among many people about housing prices. House owners feel happy when prices go up and generally, housing is looked upon as an investment. But in reality, this is a mirage as the profits made from a house sale will necessarily have to be used in purchasing another home to live in and so it is a wash. The increasing costs of housing takes a huge chunk of the monthly paycheck of the average American, reducing their quality of life. I would add that house prices should be treated as “inflation” as opposed to treating it as it is the same as a stock price increase so that people get the picture.
The author explains the paradox where the cities where the highest incomes can be obtained are the ones that are not growing the fastest, because housing is only available at prohibitive prices, or simply not available. Also, despite improvements in construction technology, we are not utilizing them much such as in making tall buildings because of regulations.
In the book, Yglesias also shows how both sides of the political divide have aligned themselves on the wrong side of the debate. The Left has a natural affinity for regulations, aesthetics, and preservation, combined with an instinct against rich developers and fails to see how this is affecting the pockets of middle-class and poor Americans. The Right should be a natural constituency to repeal some of these regulations, unfortunately identity politics has made them align against urbanism and adapt ironically apocalyptic rhetoric against Big Government supposedly forcing rural dwellers to move to the city.
August 24, 2016
The Rent Is Too Damn High: What To Do About It, And Why It Matters More Than You Think does not deserve the disparaging ratings/comments posted on Amazon. It is a fine book written by a market urbanist who explains basic supply and demand very well.
I can sum the book up with a few quotes:
"The point is that there are many ways in which expensive land can contain large numbers of people. The question is whether we’ll adopt rules that permit this rather than sticking with rules that often ban row houses and multifamily structures, generally require low buildings and large amounts of parking, and typically prescribe minimum lawn sizes—even minimum apartment sizes...This directly reduces real wages by increasing the cost of living for people in high-income metro areas. It indirectly reduces real wages by preventing people from migrating to places where job opportunities are most robust...infrastructure improvements can and should be tied to a demonstrated desire to increase population density...Progressives and urbanists need to move beyond their romance with central planning and get over their distaste for business and developers. Conservatives need to take their own ideas about economics more seriously and stop seeing all proposals for change through a lens of paranoia and resentment. Last, politicians of both parties who like to complain about “regulation” and “red tape” ought to spend some time looking at the specific area of the economy where red tape and regulation are most prevalent."
Yglesias advocates deregulation of housing and zoning, and even hypothesizes that such regulations are what is contributing to the "Great Stagnation" popularized by Tyler Cowen (my review). He aims to convince Progressives that this deregulation will lower rent in cities, shorten commutes, and improve the standards of living for people in the bottom end of the income spectrum. He criticizes conservatives for hypocritically opposing this deregulation. He explains ideas taught by Adam Smith and David Ricardo very clearly for the lay reader. In a perfect world, Yglesias would be appointed to be HUD commissioner.
4.5 stars. The only thing keeping this book from five stars is the lack of a bibliography for the economic studies Yglesias cites.
I can sum the book up with a few quotes:
"The point is that there are many ways in which expensive land can contain large numbers of people. The question is whether we’ll adopt rules that permit this rather than sticking with rules that often ban row houses and multifamily structures, generally require low buildings and large amounts of parking, and typically prescribe minimum lawn sizes—even minimum apartment sizes...This directly reduces real wages by increasing the cost of living for people in high-income metro areas. It indirectly reduces real wages by preventing people from migrating to places where job opportunities are most robust...infrastructure improvements can and should be tied to a demonstrated desire to increase population density...Progressives and urbanists need to move beyond their romance with central planning and get over their distaste for business and developers. Conservatives need to take their own ideas about economics more seriously and stop seeing all proposals for change through a lens of paranoia and resentment. Last, politicians of both parties who like to complain about “regulation” and “red tape” ought to spend some time looking at the specific area of the economy where red tape and regulation are most prevalent."
Yglesias advocates deregulation of housing and zoning, and even hypothesizes that such regulations are what is contributing to the "Great Stagnation" popularized by Tyler Cowen (my review). He aims to convince Progressives that this deregulation will lower rent in cities, shorten commutes, and improve the standards of living for people in the bottom end of the income spectrum. He criticizes conservatives for hypocritically opposing this deregulation. He explains ideas taught by Adam Smith and David Ricardo very clearly for the lay reader. In a perfect world, Yglesias would be appointed to be HUD commissioner.
4.5 stars. The only thing keeping this book from five stars is the lack of a bibliography for the economic studies Yglesias cites.
October 15, 2015
Alright, sure, I probably like this book a little because I was already inclined to agree with it. But it is a great overview of the current state of ridiculously-priced housing markets, and since I live in one, I'm always on the lookout for a nice, simple introduction to the problem as a way of countering some of the frankly crazy political talking points I see from well-intentioned people around me.
The simple fact is, dense cities are good. Good for housing prices, good for developers, good for renters, good for the environment, good for the poor, the rich, and everyone in between. I suppose it's not as good for apartment managers only too happy to take ridiculous rents for small, crappy apartments. Nor is it good for single-family homeowners near the expanding city who feel they should be able to dictate what the owners of neighboring property can do. But I'll admit my sympathy for both groups isn't particularly high when looking at the real harm that restrictive zoning regulations have on everyone.
And it is density that offers a solution to problems of higher rent. As demand grows higher for a supply that legally can't meaningfully increase, we have no simpler, or better, recourse than to challenge the laws and regulations that hold back meaningful development. Rent control is a kiss of death to new development and accelerates urban sprawl, placing more stress on the environment and reducing the virtuous cycle that places service providers near people who can pay top dollar for them. Low-income housing is a worthy goal, but with increased density we can make rents better for literally everyone.
Yglesias rightly points out that both liberals and conservatives have weird blind spots around this issue, and I'd like nothing more than to convince both of what appears to be the most obvious solution to the problem. If you're on the fence, pick this up! It's cheap, it's quick to read, and you might even learn something!
The simple fact is, dense cities are good. Good for housing prices, good for developers, good for renters, good for the environment, good for the poor, the rich, and everyone in between. I suppose it's not as good for apartment managers only too happy to take ridiculous rents for small, crappy apartments. Nor is it good for single-family homeowners near the expanding city who feel they should be able to dictate what the owners of neighboring property can do. But I'll admit my sympathy for both groups isn't particularly high when looking at the real harm that restrictive zoning regulations have on everyone.
And it is density that offers a solution to problems of higher rent. As demand grows higher for a supply that legally can't meaningfully increase, we have no simpler, or better, recourse than to challenge the laws and regulations that hold back meaningful development. Rent control is a kiss of death to new development and accelerates urban sprawl, placing more stress on the environment and reducing the virtuous cycle that places service providers near people who can pay top dollar for them. Low-income housing is a worthy goal, but with increased density we can make rents better for literally everyone.
Yglesias rightly points out that both liberals and conservatives have weird blind spots around this issue, and I'd like nothing more than to convince both of what appears to be the most obvious solution to the problem. If you're on the fence, pick this up! It's cheap, it's quick to read, and you might even learn something!
September 29, 2012
If there is any chance of a Progressive-Libertarian fusionism, Matt Yglesias will be its (Progressive) standard-bearer. Imagine an entire book, written by a self-proclaimed leftist, extolling the virtues of urban life, with nary a syllable devoted to using the government to prod people into living life his way? No grand plans. No haughty insults denigrating those who make different lifestyle choices (the wrong "different" lifestyle choices). Just a tightly argued, sensible, thoughtful public policy plea, aimed primarily at people of his own political persuasion who, he rightly thinks, tend to adopt a very misguided approach to land use regulation.
The basic argument, which could have, and doubtless has, come out of an number of free-market think tanks, is that stifling land use regulation which prevents higher density housing frequently inhibits innovation and prevents the economy from efficiently using resources, resulting in higher housing costs which most harm precisely the people the left claims to care about.
That's actually simple Free Markets 101, albeit in a tone more congenial to a progressive audience than anything I've read from the Cato Institute.
A new (to me) thought is that, as it happens, this inhibition is especially damaging in a post-industrial "service" economy, in which proximity to a diverse range of services is even more important than it had been in the industrial economy of yore. This argument is persuasive to me, but I'd like to read some counterarguments. One might also want to channel Matt Ridley and add that since wealth tends to go with increased specialization and trade, as the society becomes wealthier, proximity to an ever more diverse set of traders becomes increasingly valuable.
The basic argument, which could have, and doubtless has, come out of an number of free-market think tanks, is that stifling land use regulation which prevents higher density housing frequently inhibits innovation and prevents the economy from efficiently using resources, resulting in higher housing costs which most harm precisely the people the left claims to care about.
That's actually simple Free Markets 101, albeit in a tone more congenial to a progressive audience than anything I've read from the Cato Institute.
A new (to me) thought is that, as it happens, this inhibition is especially damaging in a post-industrial "service" economy, in which proximity to a diverse range of services is even more important than it had been in the industrial economy of yore. This argument is persuasive to me, but I'd like to read some counterarguments. One might also want to channel Matt Ridley and add that since wealth tends to go with increased specialization and trade, as the society becomes wealthier, proximity to an ever more diverse set of traders becomes increasingly valuable.
March 10, 2012
This book is a fairly short (less than 70 pages) claim for the easing of building codes in America's urban spaces. The author is known primarily for being a neo-Liberal thinker and writer (he works for a left-wing think tank), but he argument her relies on standard economic rules of supply and demand to solve the problem of rents in desirable urban living spaces being too high for many people to afford. His prescription of a solution is pretty straight-forward: build more housing units in the desirable space. This doesn't naturally happen because most places have building codes that limit the height of buildings (such that high-rise apartment complexes, which can house hundreds of people in a relatively small geographic footprint, can't be built), or require a minimum acreage of lot size, or don't allow multi-family housing units to be built at all. According to the author, these rules end up hurting the poor the most, as when a neighborhood gets improved infrastructure and becomes more desirable to live in, the fact that you physically can't put more people in the neighborhood means that rents naturally rise as supply is unnaturally constrained. Thus, poor people are forced to move out of the improved neighborhood that they can no longer afford. The argument really does make basic economic sense, but I'm someone who doesn't understand most building code restrictions, as they generally seem illogical to me, or purposefully punitive. So, a good argument that makes good sense.
January 23, 2016
This book presents some great ideas and greatly changed the way I looked at renting/owning a house or a piece of land. The main idea: to deregulate more and let the free market decide on the rules of urbanisation is very much aligned with my political views and an idea I agree with. Further I realised that I possessed certain misconceptions such as: «The reason house and rent prices are increasing is because this is in the interest of house owners, who will by having a higher demand on houses get a better valuation of their property» - this the author argues is short sighted as more density brings with it so many advantages in the long term that the value of the _land_ will increase more.
It's a short story and it only took me an hour or so to read it, well worth it. It's heavily focused on the United States, but that's OK because the ideas presented are applicable (I think) in most larger-than mid-sized cities. It'll be one of those books you refer to when (inevitably) you'll have a discussion about _why_ the hell renting and buying housing is so expensive. Enjoy being the one with the best answer :)
Taking the rating down to a 4-star one is the intro and first few chapters of the book where the stories are more introductory and perhaps anecdotal. I can understand they establish a lot of theory and background, but for me the latter part was most enjoyable all in all.
It's a short story and it only took me an hour or so to read it, well worth it. It's heavily focused on the United States, but that's OK because the ideas presented are applicable (I think) in most larger-than mid-sized cities. It'll be one of those books you refer to when (inevitably) you'll have a discussion about _why_ the hell renting and buying housing is so expensive. Enjoy being the one with the best answer :)
Taking the rating down to a 4-star one is the intro and first few chapters of the book where the stories are more introductory and perhaps anecdotal. I can understand they establish a lot of theory and background, but for me the latter part was most enjoyable all in all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews