Polite Density

by Greg Bryant
May 10, 2026

The housing crisis is caused by inequality. In the US, inequality has accelerated sinces 1970s to now, because of deregulatory, neoliberal, supply-side, trickle-down, pro-capitalist policies, ushered in by the likes of Reagan and Thatcher. Before that, there had been taxes on the rich and a serious attempt at redistribution of wealth. Since there was a larger middle class, and more equal income, small developers could target a vast swath of people, making housing more affordable for everyone. (Of course, native peoples, abused races, the remaining poor, and the rest of the world were exploited to concentrate that prosperity here in the imperial core.)

Capital required ever-increasing profit, demanded more growth, higher returns on investment, and a roll-up of small builders into larger and more bullying corporate developers and landlords. These forces destroy old neighborhoods by convincing governments to upzone (older buildings during urban renewal's heyday, and historic neighborhoods during this new push for 'upzoning') . Ironically, these don't target sprawling post-WWII suburbs, but older, mixed-use, relatively dense, beautiful, ecologically sustainable, pre-zoning neighborhoods -- raising rents through an increasing  monopolization of housing, as rentals push out owner-occupied housing, allowing more extraction of local community wealth to Wall  Street. 

The specific proven solutions to the housing crisis -- which most capitalist governments are absolutely not employing, because they're afraid to address the growing power imbalances that cause inequality -- we'll discuss in another article. But let's start with some basics about the need for real democratic participation.

A towering apartment building is erected in the middle of one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half story houses. Everyone in the apartment can look down into the house and garden of their neighbors. Obviously, this bothers everybody. The neighbors’ privacy is invaded, and the apartment dwellers are constantly accused of looking and spying. 

Nobody wants this. Nobody wanted this. So who made this bad densification happen?

The developers, obviously, and their investors, who are maximizing profits and asset values. These oligarchs are colluding with authoritarian government officials, who don’t care, and who want to help their friends, a favor they hope will return to them later. They also want a tiny increase in tax revenue and borrowing capacity for the city.

This is impolite densification. 

It erodes the possibility of an ecological city, with no sunlight for gardens for subsistence, and a city developed from one end to the other, too tall to be sustainable, draining resources from the surrounding world.

One of these private villages can build up to 4 stories without really effecting the neighborhood, because of the large distance from houses that are not part of the owner’s property. People who build several buildings for themselves are quite familiar with the phenomenon: if that’s your building, you build it so the windows don’t face each other, and even when you see something, that’s your building, so its not an invasion of privacy. It’s like your own little city.

All still very polite.

Let’s say the whole neighborhood consists of these private villages, with somewhat different morphologies but, mostly, serving the same purposes.

What then happens to the opportunities that everyone can see between these properties?

If it’s common land, and the space between consists of forest, springs, streams, or some other important or pleasant amenity, then we assume there’s a neighborhood agreement to preserve it. That’s kind of the appearance of neighborhood governance, which they may or may not be able to maintain in the future as larger political bodies emerge, and larger economic force gain power.

But let’s say the neighbors still see obviously more mutual interest. And say two of these private villages see no reason why they shouldn’t sell the land between them, or add buildings to it themselves. They of course build so they are not disturbed, and so the new buildings don’t disturb each other. They may see an opportunity to build row houses, or houses over shops, which don’t face each other, or face similar buildings across the road which are far enough away to maintain privacy.

It cannot be assumed that everyone is happy with each other, at this point. But we can assume that they agree to make rules about what can and can’t be built. The earliest ‘codes’ were clearly discussed, and became customs. Maybe not your best friends, but people you could agree with, and still be polite with, on these matters.

When does it break?

So far, even if the neighbors aren’t equally powerful, in terms of money, influence, or  violence, they have a say. Nobody’s powerless, and groups of neighbors, which form just with friendships or relations, can certainly influence and maintain a level of polite agreement.

But what if you live in a city where a bad culture is emerging -- because of growing and unchecked power and wealth -- where the ambitions of the individual begin to exceed those of the neighborhood? What if that imbalance and those ambitions lead to a coalition of imbalanced ambitious individuals trying to wrest control of the city from the neighbors and neighborhoods, from people less ambitious about power and wealth, from people who just want to live their lives?

The powerful are successful at times, and then have to back off at other times, when the power of the masses of people become organized and fight back. So, politeness is negotiated through city codes, and city officials with discretionary power is the city if more authoritarian, or city officials acting in the public interest if the city is truly democratic. It’s an endless battle among capital, political leaders, popular organizations, and the media. 

It’s a mess. It’s also endlessly impolite. 

And yet, the majority of people want it to be polite. That’s often whey they stay out of the battle, even if they suffer because of their inaction. Even more, people tend to believe that those in power are being polite, as long as their rhetoric tends that way -- even if their actions and allies are murderous. 

The ‘solution’, in the sense of a goal, is transparent, evidence-based, direct democratic decision-making, and the protection of such a system. We have the opposite in the United States: oligarch-controlled authoritarian mayors, councils, city managers, and staff who, even if they occasionally act in the public interest, even if they are transparent, do nothing to empower the people of the city, and reorganize the society, polity, and economy so that civic engagement is a big part of life, so everyone is genuinely part of the city.