Post

Urbanist housing is best by far, but plentiful anti-urbanist housing still beats insufficient housing in terms of politics. If it means keeping electoral college votes in certain states, a temporary bonanza now may be worth it for longer-term urbanism. I hate that I have to consider this.

How are you accounting for the difference in demand/deficit between 'liberal' and 'conservative' cities? Migration has been to Hou & Phx, while Chi & NYC as seen much lower in migration (and, therefore, pressure on rents).

More room in Houston and Phoenix for additional houses than in Chcago or NYC. Wouldn't geography be a factor?

Liberal metropolitan areas like NYC & Seattle are highly desirable areas to move to, as opposed to most conservative metro areas. (Birmingham, Alabama, anybody? Oklahoma City?) That means their residents have a wide variety of housing to choose from, including new construction. That's bad, is it?

When I examined trends among cities, I found that cities with more conservative residents added housing much more quickly... *But* more liberal cities added much more housing in infill areas. Liberal cities did a better job adding homes through construction in existing neighborhoods.

We’re calling Houston conservative????

FYI, we apparently had forgotten to actually post the pre-print PDF on that page, but now have done so! www.urban.org/research/pub...