Discussion about this post

User's avatar
RMW's avatar

If I'm understanding Alexander's argument, he believes that a denser population itself makes a city even more desirable to live in. To me, that sounds like a positive externality, which strengthens the argument for policies which encourage more housing in dense areas. Is that a sensible way of thinking about agglomeration, or is that already "baked in" to the upwards sloping demand curve you drew?

Expand full comment
Adam Millsap's avatar

I think this argument is unnecessarily complicated. A denser Oakland with the better amenities Scott assumes--greater consumption variety, more walkable layout, agglomeration effects on productivity--is not the same good as it was prior to the density. Improving the quality of the good mid-discussion is not ceteris paribus, which is a crucial assumption for the partial equilibrium analysis most are doing when they discuss more supply leads to lower prices. Of course there could be general equilibrium affects that *appear* to raise the price of the same good, but that is caused by secondary effects that feedback into the initial analysis, some of which can even change the good in question (as with neighborhoods). A denser Oakland is a different Oakland (if amenities increase as Scott assumes), just like an iphone 14 is not the original iphone. No upward sloping demand curves are needed to explain any of this.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts