I don't understand how you think any of the text you quote contradicts, let alone discredits, the statement of mine you're responding to.

Good. Then we agree that "higher price" does not mean "higher demand." So the mere fact that dense urban housing tends to be priced higher than suburban housing does not mean there is more demand for the former than for the latter.

As for trends, the most recent Census Data contradicts the claim that there has been a shift towards higher densities and more urbanism. Between 2000 and 2006, more than 90% of the population growth in U.S. cities was in suburban areas. Less than 10% was in core city areas. Many core cities actually lost population over this period, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, San Francisco and Minneapolis. See:

http://www.demographia.com/db-msacore.pdf

Sadly, not true, or at least not true in the vast majority of situations I have observed over 20+ years where communities have had the opportunity to zone for greater density.

Many people fear density, and elected officials--who are much more likely to vote directly on the zoning regulations than are individual citizens--have a knack for listening to those who fear density over those who do not.

This I can't believe is a point that people are still making, and on this blog of all places. I can't count how many times this argument has been discredited. Try this Charles Komanoff study from way back in 1994:
http://www.komanoff.net/cars_II/Subsidies_for_Traffic.pdf

Here are some extracts:

"Motor vehicle-user expenditures in New York State exceed motor vehicle user-derived revenue by $2.4 billion annually. That is, New York State drivers receive $2.4 billion annually in taxpayer subsidies. This subsidy is paid by the general public through taxes not tied to motor vehicle use, i.e., property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes."

"Most of the taxpayer subsidy of motor vehicles in New York State is borne at the local level, i.e. by New York cities, towns and counties, at a rate of $2.15 billion a year."

"Over 80% of local government spending to support motor vehicles in New York localities outside of New York City is raised through general taxes -primarily property taxes."

"These figures do not account for the estimated $21 billion a year in environmental and social costs imposed by motor vehicles through air and noise pollution, accidents, use of land and congestion in New York City alone."

Yes I understand basic laws of supply and demand. I also understand that what people say they want depends on characteristics of the market as well. When you ask people "If you could live anywhere in the United States that you wanted to, where would it be?", and more of them say suburbs, that most means Americans like suburbs. But that does not a trend make.

2/3 of America's 258 cities with populations over 100K are experiencing growth rates higher than the national average of roughly 1% (http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/us-cities-growth-2007.html). And those cities' demographics are shifting from less affluent to more affluent as you can read about in this article on Chicago (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=264510ca-2170-49cd-bad5-a0be122ac1a9) or this one on D.C.(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89803663), where home prices in the suburbs have fallen 18 percent while those in the District have risen 11 percent. That is a trend. Not a survey of people saying they want to live in Denver. From the article about Chicago: "We are not witnessing the abandonment of the suburbs or a movement of millions of people back to the city all at once. But we are living at a moment in which the massive outward migration of the affluent that characterized the second half of the twentieth century is coming to an end."

See my last post. Roads are funded primarily by gasoline and vehicle taxes paid by road users themselves. The more you drive, and the heavier your vehicle, the more you pay.

About 5%. An additional 53% is covered by gasoline and vehicle taxes paid by highway users. So about 58% of highway costs are funded by usage fees. Versus only 28% of transit costs.

What percentage of highway maintenance costs are covered by highway tolls?

You can't assess demand from price alone. Price also depends on the cost of supply and other characteristics of the market. A pound of caviar costs more than a pound of potatoes, but that doesn't mean there's more demand for caviar than for potatoes.

No, most local zoning laws do not require that. But even if they did, zoning laws are the product of the democratic process. If people wanted zoning laws that were more conducive to higher densities, they'd lobby and vote accordingly.

Auto sprawl has been massively subsidized for decades while mass transit and cities have been starved and decimated by highway construction.

Transit is massively subsidized. Fares cover only about 27% of total transit costs. The rest comes from public subsidies. The claim that transit has been "starved" of public funds is laughable.

Americans have overwhelmingly chosen the sprawl-and-autos option over the density-and-transit one.

Of course they have. Auto sprawl has been massively subsidized for decades while mass transit and cities have been starved and decimated by highway construction.

Today, the market is sending very clear signals on what Americans want:

Compare the price of houses in Greenwich Village or any other walkable, transit-oriented, urban place in America with the price of houses in Stockton, California or any other sprawling, isolated, urban dependent place in America.

The demand for urban places far outstrips supply. The demand for auto-dependent sprawl is cratering. Suburbs are becoming slums and ghost towns.

It costs $2 million to own a 3,000-square-foot home in Park Slope; its costs one-tenth that to own a similarly sized place 80 miles west of NYC. The commute seems like an acceptable trade-off, until gas hits $4.50 a gallon and you begin to realize you only see your house in daylight on weekends.

In famous example, in market research, Pepsi beat Coke in sip tests in the 80's. Coca-Cola responded to those sip tests by launching New Coke, with a taste dictated exclusively by market research. It was one of the most notorious product flops of all time. Original Coke is still vastly preferred when buyers make their choice of which to consume in the marketplace. Sip tests do not tell the whole story.

Another example is that pilots of All in the Family and the Mary Tyler Moore Show did horrible in market research, yet they eventually became two of the most popular programs in television history. They tested poorly because they were very different from what viewers at that time were accustomed to watching in sitcoms.

A lot of times people will vote for what they know, not what they prefer. An AIA national architecture survey showed that America's favorite house is the White House. Are you telling me that because of this we should be designing all our houses stark white, featuring grand porches with tall columns and flags on top and those will be the best selling?

It's just like big market radio. The programming of all the private radio stations in New York are based on market survey data. And yet everyone in New York thinks that local radio here sucks.

I want data about what people choose, not what they say they want when taking a survey. Tell me, of all the people of means who moved voluntarily in the last 3 years from one "zone" (city, suburb, small town, rural) to a different zone, how many of those people were moving to a more dense zone? I'd bet it was 4/5 or more.

Or howabout simply assessing market demand using market value? "Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.... It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development." - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

We could build denser, walkable communities based on what purchase data shows there is demand for, or we could build based on poorly-phrased market research studies like David Brooks recommends, and we'll end up with a flop bigger than New Coke.

Because most local zoning laws require developers to build sprawl and because most federal transportation money has gone to freeways.

If we got the gummint of their backs, more Americans would choose walkable neighborhoods.

Given the price of each, yes. Which points to the stupidity of asking people whether they "prefer" density-and-transit or sprawl-and-autos. The real question is which alternative they CHOOSE given the differences in price and other real-world considerations that influence that choice. And Americans have overwhelmingly chosen the sprawl-and-autos option over the density-and-transit one.

The main selling point of auto-dependent places is isolation, especially in the context of public school, from people too poor to afford cars.

It being uncool to come right out and be a racist, housing policy and real estate advertising keep the focus on ostensibly class and race neutral talk about "Density" and "Lifestyles."

I live right next to the Salt River/ Pima Indian Reservation.
You have 90 blocks of sprawl to Central Phoenix. Like a line drawn in the desert, the madness ends and the farm fields start growing cotton.

The most craziest thing you could ever image.