[marssaxman]

Some people would prefer not to live in the suburbs, but do so anyway, because they can't afford anything else.

If it were legal to build low-rise, medium-density housing throughout the cities, more people would choose to live there, rather than the suburbs, because commuting sucks and city amenities are great.

Instead, restrictive zoning codes set aside large swaths of the city for single-family homes; the large plots of land they occupy mean that only rich people can afford them, which forces everyone else to compete for a limited number of apartments. Land for apartments being artificially limited means that construction cannot keep up with demand, so apartment prices rise too. The working class get forced out to the suburbs; eventually the middle-class have to go, too, whether they like it or not.

We should repeal these zoning codes and let people build dense housing wherever it's economically justified. Then, the choice really could be "to each his/her own": people who genuinely prefer to live in the suburbs could still go there, while people who would rather live in the city could do that instead.

[refurb]

I disagree 100%. I would agree some people prefer the city and can’t now.

We have suburbs because people want them.

The best example is when I lived in Singapore. Great public transit and high density housing. No need for a car.

When I talked to Singaporeans, most dreamed of owning a single family home (a landed home) with its own yard and a car. And we’re talking 90% preference.

[marssaxman]

Perhaps you're right. Why don't we put it to the test? If I'm right, the current US regime of restrictive zoning is causing serious harm, and ought to be repealed; if you're right, however, the market is already doing a good job of satisfying demand, which means restrictive zoning is merely an unnecessary administrative burden. Either way, we would come out ahead by liberalizing urban zoning codes.