Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ryukafalz 1533 days ago
> Supply issues aside, I would argue that most people would move to a suburb rather than a dense city all other things equal.

I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as that.

https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-...

1 comments

No need for inferred preference, actual preferences of where Americans would prefer to live are 19% urban, 46% suburban, and 35% rural [1]. 71% of urban residents who would like to move want to move to a suburban or rural area, in contrast, 23% and 20% of suburban and rural residents who would like to move respectively want to move to an urban area [2]. Contrary to what your blog post implies, most people have some idea of what each type of living condition is like, and they are making an educated choice.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/america...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/what-un...

Those are stated, not choices made. Since we know how much people ACTUALLY bid, we know those statements are inaccurate.
There are cheap high-density areas and expensive low-density areas. According to your and that blogpost's logic, Silicon Valley's high housing prices in single-family neighborhoods and the fact that people want to move there are proof that people ACTUALLY want a suburban lifestyle, not an urban one.

Looking at where people live and where they want to live is a better source of their actual preferences than looking at housing prices in a handful of expensive neighborhoods and guessing what the average person wants.

All you have to do is delete zoning and you’ll let people decide for themselves - no measurement necessary!
Sure, as long as we also get rid of all urban growth boundaries. Be careful what you wish for, a free market city won't look like what you think it will.
Go for it. A free market city won’t go outward because nobody is willing to pay usage based pricing for highways.