What’s so weird about this article is that in the middle he basically admits that the YIMBY argument is correct.
https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1347965569216241670
Here he says that if a new development lures new rich people to the city it puts upwards pressure on all housing! This is the YIMBY argument! If you build more luxury housing and it increases the per capita stock it puts downwards pressure on all housing! 
Even in this concocted argument where inwards migration causes prices to rise, it must by the same argument be putting downwards pressure on the city they left.
And the argument is largely concocted because rich people can always move to a new city, it’s the people they push down the ladder that get forced out. If you can afford a luxury flat you don’t have to wait for a new one to be build, you can just buy and renovate a townhouse.
A nicer framing about new housing is ‘when I build new housing, do I want to increase the average quality of housing or decrease it?’. In reality, the total rent/housing costs is largely fixed by the total pay of workers in a region, who all pay ~30% in rent.
So it’s right to always build the nicest housing you can because if housing quality and quantity relentlessly rises eventually everyone has nicer housing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
