What do you think?
Rate this book
Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality, and Urban Crisis
Analyzes the skyrocketing urban land prices driving our global housing market.
How can urban housing, and the land underneath, now account for half of all global wealth? According to Patrick Condon in Broken City , the simple answer is that land has become an asset rather than a utility. If the rich only indulged themselves with gold, jewels, and art, we wouldn’t have a global housing crisis. But once global capital markets realized land was a good speculative investment, runaway housing costs ensued. For example, in Vancouver, land prices increased by six hundred percent between 2008 and 2016. How much wealth have investors extracted from urban land? In this engaging, readable, and insightful treatise, Patrick Condon explains how we have let land, our most durable resource, shift away from the common good and proposes bold strategies for how cities in North America can shift it back.
How can urban housing, and the land underneath, now account for half of all global wealth? According to Patrick Condon in Broken City , the simple answer is that land has become an asset rather than a utility. If the rich only indulged themselves with gold, jewels, and art, we wouldn’t have a global housing crisis. But once global capital markets realized land was a good speculative investment, runaway housing costs ensued. For example, in Vancouver, land prices increased by six hundred percent between 2008 and 2016. How much wealth have investors extracted from urban land? In this engaging, readable, and insightful treatise, Patrick Condon explains how we have let land, our most durable resource, shift away from the common good and proposes bold strategies for how cities in North America can shift it back.
250 pages, Paperback
Published May 28, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 13, 2024
The central thesis of this book is that speculative investment in land is the main cause of the housing affordability crises that have plagued English speaking nations around the world. Unfortunately, in his enthusiasm to make this argument, Condon is outright dismissive of other potential causes of declining affordability. Condon routinely dismisses widespread criticism of development restrictions negatively impacting affordability made by a wide spectrum of observers, including many economists, without giving that point of view the examination and/or rebuttal it warrants in any book focused on this topic. Condons image of the economics profession and economic “consensus” as it were, is a blatant strawman that more closely resembles the talking points of neoliberal politicians than a real cross section of what the economics literature has been saying about the housing crisis. I am not an economist, but even I know that Condon isn’t being fair to them in this work.
Condon seems to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of land rents that he is so obsessed with in his book. Anyone familiar with the works of Henry George should be able to see that development rights, as a non-renewable resource, should be considered as a form of land when targeting rent seeking behaviour. For a book that references George constantly, this is a major oversight. By severely restricting the supply of developable land and development rights on that land, governments, especially local governments, have encouraged rent seeking on development rights. Condon seems to almost reach this conclusion in his book, when he talks about how automobiles opened up huge areas of land for development, but fails to make the obvious connection that doubling, tripling, or further increasing the zoned capacity of a city would have the similar effects on on overall land value vs housing value dynamics by drastically reducing the monopoly power of owners of development rights. Condon dramatically downplays how restricted the urban land supply really is by planning measures, usually to only a few decades of supply across an entire housing market and usually not located in areas with the greatest housing demand.
However, the biggest problem with this book is when Condon starts talking about residual land values. He is clearly out of his depth here and it shows. To argue that land residual will absorb all the value from increases in density allowances, preventing housing prices from falling, Condon assumes a fixed sale price of housing. Unfortunately that is circular reasoning because of course housing prices can't decrease if you assume they are fixed. Fixed prices are only a reasonable assumption to use when calculating the approximate value of a single parcel after a rezoning, since a single building that is viable to build in the first place is not likely to change regional housing prices anymore than a single field of wheat is likely to change global wheat prices. However, it becomes completely ridiculous when applied to policy decisions affecting a larger area like a city or regional housing market, where large changes in zoned capacity and housing supply is highly likely to impact prices.
Condon also seems far too optimistic about using planning tools such as CACs, inclusionary zoning, etc. as indirect and complicated schemes of land value taxation, despite presenting his readers with the example of such schemes failing spectacularly in Vancouver and referencing the political challenge of maintaining them over the long term. Annual property and/or land taxes levied on all real property in a given municipality or province seems like a simpler and more effective tool for the job. It's also much easier to calibrate an annual tax to capture land rents than something like an inclusionary zoning system that effectively acts as a large lump sum tax paid once every few decades (or centuries) at a time decided by developers, who can and will try to negotiate with local governments or time their developments to reduce their tax burden. It's also less punitive to directly tax everyone benefiting from land price appreciation as it happens (including landlords not currently seeking development approvals), in my opinion.
In the conclusion of the book, the author makes a persuasive argument for capturing land rents to provide social benefit, and I strongly agree. However, I strongly disagree that local planning policy is a good method for capturing those rents. Direct and/or annual taxes on land rents are far superior as a tool for this job. I tend to have the opinion that taxation decisions should be largely separate from land use planning decisions, wherever possible. This is especially true with housing where most schemes to capture land value are likely to have a neutral or even negative impact on local housing affordability in a way that simply isn’t going to happen with direct land and property taxes. The administrative costs alone are significant. No construction is going to face delays from an annual land tax, but negotiations and approvals for density increases and development fees and affordable housing requirements can result in major delays, which may impose costs on society far in excess of the revenues raised for social benefit.
This book is a worthwhile read to get people thinking about the subject, but I think the central thesis is poorly presented and supported by Condon. Land speculation and bad planning are both problems in the housing market, they are not mutually exclusive and Condon presents little convincing evidence that widespread restrictions on residential densities, major delays in permitting and rezoning processes, and a whole myriad of other barriers to housing creation imposed both unintentionally and intentionally by local governments in the name of “good” planning isn’t a major part of the problem. Even though I agree that speculation and rent seeking on land (and development rights) is a problem in the housing market, Condon’s proposed solutions seem problematic when subjected to scrutiny for both practical and political reasons.
Condon seems to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of land rents that he is so obsessed with in his book. Anyone familiar with the works of Henry George should be able to see that development rights, as a non-renewable resource, should be considered as a form of land when targeting rent seeking behaviour. For a book that references George constantly, this is a major oversight. By severely restricting the supply of developable land and development rights on that land, governments, especially local governments, have encouraged rent seeking on development rights. Condon seems to almost reach this conclusion in his book, when he talks about how automobiles opened up huge areas of land for development, but fails to make the obvious connection that doubling, tripling, or further increasing the zoned capacity of a city would have the similar effects on on overall land value vs housing value dynamics by drastically reducing the monopoly power of owners of development rights. Condon dramatically downplays how restricted the urban land supply really is by planning measures, usually to only a few decades of supply across an entire housing market and usually not located in areas with the greatest housing demand.
However, the biggest problem with this book is when Condon starts talking about residual land values. He is clearly out of his depth here and it shows. To argue that land residual will absorb all the value from increases in density allowances, preventing housing prices from falling, Condon assumes a fixed sale price of housing. Unfortunately that is circular reasoning because of course housing prices can't decrease if you assume they are fixed. Fixed prices are only a reasonable assumption to use when calculating the approximate value of a single parcel after a rezoning, since a single building that is viable to build in the first place is not likely to change regional housing prices anymore than a single field of wheat is likely to change global wheat prices. However, it becomes completely ridiculous when applied to policy decisions affecting a larger area like a city or regional housing market, where large changes in zoned capacity and housing supply is highly likely to impact prices.
Condon also seems far too optimistic about using planning tools such as CACs, inclusionary zoning, etc. as indirect and complicated schemes of land value taxation, despite presenting his readers with the example of such schemes failing spectacularly in Vancouver and referencing the political challenge of maintaining them over the long term. Annual property and/or land taxes levied on all real property in a given municipality or province seems like a simpler and more effective tool for the job. It's also much easier to calibrate an annual tax to capture land rents than something like an inclusionary zoning system that effectively acts as a large lump sum tax paid once every few decades (or centuries) at a time decided by developers, who can and will try to negotiate with local governments or time their developments to reduce their tax burden. It's also less punitive to directly tax everyone benefiting from land price appreciation as it happens (including landlords not currently seeking development approvals), in my opinion.
In the conclusion of the book, the author makes a persuasive argument for capturing land rents to provide social benefit, and I strongly agree. However, I strongly disagree that local planning policy is a good method for capturing those rents. Direct and/or annual taxes on land rents are far superior as a tool for this job. I tend to have the opinion that taxation decisions should be largely separate from land use planning decisions, wherever possible. This is especially true with housing where most schemes to capture land value are likely to have a neutral or even negative impact on local housing affordability in a way that simply isn’t going to happen with direct land and property taxes. The administrative costs alone are significant. No construction is going to face delays from an annual land tax, but negotiations and approvals for density increases and development fees and affordable housing requirements can result in major delays, which may impose costs on society far in excess of the revenues raised for social benefit.
This book is a worthwhile read to get people thinking about the subject, but I think the central thesis is poorly presented and supported by Condon. Land speculation and bad planning are both problems in the housing market, they are not mutually exclusive and Condon presents little convincing evidence that widespread restrictions on residential densities, major delays in permitting and rezoning processes, and a whole myriad of other barriers to housing creation imposed both unintentionally and intentionally by local governments in the name of “good” planning isn’t a major part of the problem. Even though I agree that speculation and rent seeking on land (and development rights) is a problem in the housing market, Condon’s proposed solutions seem problematic when subjected to scrutiny for both practical and political reasons.
November 17, 2024
Much thanks to the Passages gift shop on the Queen of New Westminster for offering this book for my library.
This book is a great survey of various housing policies and their economic effects which is sorely lacking in the discourse. The analysis of commonwealth and American zoning and municipal taxation policies is very helpful, and this book does a good job of getting out of the rut that most of the discourse finds itself on supply vs. NIMBY vs. whatever else you witness if you are unfortunate enough to stumble into a public hearing at City Hall pretty much anywhere.
The book's strength in my opinion is it's connection to nuts and bolts economics, and its focus on land rent, a concept sorely missing from the conversation. However it focuses on Georgism only and while that perspective obviously has its strengths over the perverted application of classical economics to the real-estate problem, I feel as though the author fends off the classicists but has no acknowledgement or counter of the people who have spilled the most ink on the topics he discusses, namely David Harvey, Neil Smith, or even Mike Davis, who, while "Marxists", fit much better into his analysis than Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. If one is going to throw out the 'left' and the 'right' and centre-in on a third way as Condon does, it would be helpful to show a better reading of the left. Especially as the author hints at but doesn't address the important role that politics has to play as the substrate of our current dilemma. It seems to me that a cause of many of the problems in planning departments across the world is fidelity to a 'third way'.
My favourite part of the book was the second-to-last chapter which discusses the Community Amenity Contribution model in Vancouver in the 1990s and its success. I think the conversation would benefit from a deeper focus into this. The brief chapter is an analysis that I haven't seen before and I was pleasantly surprised. In the toxic and much too online discourse around housing economics in Vancouver in particular, a pat on the back to a successful program, with an analysis of how it's goose was cooked, was insightful and provides some insights I hope the next batch of city staff will read.
This book is a great survey of various housing policies and their economic effects which is sorely lacking in the discourse. The analysis of commonwealth and American zoning and municipal taxation policies is very helpful, and this book does a good job of getting out of the rut that most of the discourse finds itself on supply vs. NIMBY vs. whatever else you witness if you are unfortunate enough to stumble into a public hearing at City Hall pretty much anywhere.
The book's strength in my opinion is it's connection to nuts and bolts economics, and its focus on land rent, a concept sorely missing from the conversation. However it focuses on Georgism only and while that perspective obviously has its strengths over the perverted application of classical economics to the real-estate problem, I feel as though the author fends off the classicists but has no acknowledgement or counter of the people who have spilled the most ink on the topics he discusses, namely David Harvey, Neil Smith, or even Mike Davis, who, while "Marxists", fit much better into his analysis than Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. If one is going to throw out the 'left' and the 'right' and centre-in on a third way as Condon does, it would be helpful to show a better reading of the left. Especially as the author hints at but doesn't address the important role that politics has to play as the substrate of our current dilemma. It seems to me that a cause of many of the problems in planning departments across the world is fidelity to a 'third way'.
My favourite part of the book was the second-to-last chapter which discusses the Community Amenity Contribution model in Vancouver in the 1990s and its success. I think the conversation would benefit from a deeper focus into this. The brief chapter is an analysis that I haven't seen before and I was pleasantly surprised. In the toxic and much too online discourse around housing economics in Vancouver in particular, a pat on the back to a successful program, with an analysis of how it's goose was cooked, was insightful and provides some insights I hope the next batch of city staff will read.
June 8, 2026
In response to rising housing costs, many commentators have argued in favor of eliminating or loosening zoning rules in order to allow the construction of new housing, thus increasing housing supply and reducing rents and home prices.
Condon is most of the most interesting opponents of this point of view. Unlike some of the "Not In My Back Yard" activists who dominate American zoning policy, he admits that housing prices are out of control in the Anglosphere.
But Condon supports more government regulation rather than less, endorsing not only increased investment in public housing but also restrictive policies such as rent control, inclusionary zoning and impact fees. While some economists believe that these policies reduce housing supply by making it less profitable to be a developer or landlord, Condon believes that these policies reduce land costs and thus reduce housing costs. But the places that have adopted these policies (such as New York City and many California cities) tend to be almost as expensive as Vancouver, so I am not persuaded.
His most controversial view (I suspect) is that allowing new housing makes land more valuable instead of reducing housing prices. But this doesn't really explain why (at least in the U.S.) metro areas that allow lots of new housing (mostly in the Sun Belt) are cheaper than many metro areas that, like New York and San Francisco, allow only modest amounts of new housing. And if Condon's theory was correct, the most restrictive metro areas would have lower land costs than more permissive Sun Belt metros.
There are two categories of books I frequently disagree with- "waste of time" and "worth grappling with." Condon's creative arguments put his book in the second category.
Condon is most of the most interesting opponents of this point of view. Unlike some of the "Not In My Back Yard" activists who dominate American zoning policy, he admits that housing prices are out of control in the Anglosphere.
But Condon supports more government regulation rather than less, endorsing not only increased investment in public housing but also restrictive policies such as rent control, inclusionary zoning and impact fees. While some economists believe that these policies reduce housing supply by making it less profitable to be a developer or landlord, Condon believes that these policies reduce land costs and thus reduce housing costs. But the places that have adopted these policies (such as New York City and many California cities) tend to be almost as expensive as Vancouver, so I am not persuaded.
His most controversial view (I suspect) is that allowing new housing makes land more valuable instead of reducing housing prices. But this doesn't really explain why (at least in the U.S.) metro areas that allow lots of new housing (mostly in the Sun Belt) are cheaper than many metro areas that, like New York and San Francisco, allow only modest amounts of new housing. And if Condon's theory was correct, the most restrictive metro areas would have lower land costs than more permissive Sun Belt metros.
There are two categories of books I frequently disagree with- "waste of time" and "worth grappling with." Condon's creative arguments put his book in the second category.
August 30, 2026
Land prices have increased astronomically and are a massive contributor to the housing crisis, to the point where the free market probably can’t counter the positive correlation between new density and increased land value. When a city makes progress by adding jobs and skilled labor, nearly all of this productive activity is vacuumed into land price. We gotta do something to limit land inflation and potentially reverse it.
March 4, 2025
Excellent diagnosis of the reasons for skyrocketing housing prices. Increasing supply is not the answer.
“Adding density largely enriches the land speculator and adds fuel to the fires of unbridled land Rent. Landowners gain, but renters do not.”
“Adding density largely enriches the land speculator and adds fuel to the fires of unbridled land Rent. Landowners gain, but renters do not.”
August 11, 2024
I’ll never not think of the ideas in this book when I hear Real Estate Up Only speak; which is a constant drone in Vancouver. Truly hopeful despite the grim survey of our created and avoidable housing crisis reality. Congratulations Professor Condon for cracking the case and explaining how we got here and what we can do about it so well.
April 4, 2025
Fantastic piece of work!
This is the best book I have come across on understanding the housing crisis. It clearly identifies the key problem: LAND RENTS - and offers practical solutions that would address it. Non technical and jargon free (easy read), it should be recommended reading for policy makers and housing affordability advocates as well as academics.
This is the best book I have come across on understanding the housing crisis. It clearly identifies the key problem: LAND RENTS - and offers practical solutions that would address it. Non technical and jargon free (easy read), it should be recommended reading for policy makers and housing affordability advocates as well as academics.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews