[cyberax]

> The high prices for small condos in urban centers are an indication that there are fewer of them in supply relative to what the market demands.

Here's a simple fact. Densification never leads to lower prices. As you build more housing, it _always_ becomes more expensive faster than you can build it.

I analyzed the database of all real estate sales in the US for the last 25 years, and I have not found a single example where densification led to price drops. Other scholarly literature found similar results, at most you can expect single-digit percentage drops on rents from new construction.

> There's nothing wrong with letting urban centers densify

Yes, there is. Densification forces jobs to migrate to urban centers, because companies in dense cores have a competitive advantage in the access to a larger pool of talent.

So your choices are:

1. Densify to hell and then in a couple of generations your children will live in apartments where you can shit into your toilet, while cooking food at the same time. See: microapartments in Tokyo.

2. Limit density and promote suburban lifestyle.

That's it. It's not a false dilemma, there are really no in-between choices that are stable long-term.

[swexbe]

You have the cause and effect reversed. Areas densify because they become more expensive. This is the classic “more medicine causes higher mortality” Simpson's paradox.

Edit: Also, looking at one country for less than a generation is not conclusive enough to make a general rule.

[cyberax]

> You have the cause and effect reversed. Areas densify because they become more expensive.

The thing is, with Simpson's paradox you'd expect at least _some_ inversions. You'll have at least _some_ people who are eating a lot of medicine and not dying.

There are _no_ examples of higher density leading to lower prices in the US. This strongly suggests a causal relationship.

And some examples are rather extreme. The number of units in Seattle has been growing by about 2.2% YoY for the last ~12 years. This is already at the upper range of the possible construction rate. Yet Seattle's price growth curve has been basically mirroring SF.

> Edit: Also, looking at one country for less than a generation is not conclusive enough to make a general rule.

I don't have data for more than 25 years and for other countries. And probably you can find counterexamples somewhere in Brazil.

[scelerat]

I’ll take Tokyo over the car-dependent sprawl of the suburbs. That’s a really easy choice to make