Polite Density

by Greg Bryant
May 10, 2026

The housing crisis is caused by inequality.

In the US, inequality has accelerated since the 1970s because of deregulatory, neoliberal, supply-side, trickle-down, extreme-capitalist policies, ushered in by the regimes of Reagan and Thatcher. Before that, the US had nearly four decades of high taxes on the very richest, along with a serious fight for redistribution of wealth. 

Since there was a larger middle class, and more equal income, small developers could target a vast swath of the public, 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 -- and workers constantly fought the abuses of the ruling class, including infiltration in, and cooptation of their labor organizations.

After the start of neoliberalism, capital required compounding, ever-increasing profits. Capital demanded more growth, higher productivity, lower wages, higher returns on investment, and a roll-up of small businesses into oligopolies, such as larger and more bullying corporate developers and landlords. These forces destroy old neighborhoods by convincing governments to upzone (destroying diverse downtowns during urban renewal's heyday; and older, owner-occupied neighborhoods during this new push for 'upzoning') . Ironically, upzoning doesn't target sprawling post-WWII suburbs, but mixed-use, cared for, 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 (basically reviving a fair, localist, self-sufficient economy) -- 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 was invaded and stolen from them, 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 anti-democratic, ignorant technocratic 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.

Within these private villages buildings can go up to four stories without effecting the neighborhood, because of the large distance from houses that aren't 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, as the city becomes more attractive, and migration to the city increases?

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 forces gain power.

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

It cannot be assumed that everyone is happy with each other, at this point. There are more kinds of unequal relationships emerging. But we can assume that they agree to make rules and agreements about what can and cannot be built. These earliest ‘codes’ were clearly discussed publicly, and became living customs. Maybe these people were not best friends, but they could agree with each other, and be polite with each other, on these matters.

When does that equilibrium break?

So far, even if the neighbors aren’t equally powerful, in terms of money, influence, or  violence, everyone has a say. Everyone is recognized as a stakeholder. Nobody is completely powerless, and groups of neighbors, which form just with friendships or relations, can certainly influence and maintain a level of polite equilibrium.

But ... what if you live in a city where a bad culture is emerging? Let's say there's growing, and unchecked, power and wealth, where the ambitions of the individual begin to exceed the quality of life of the community? 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 will be 'successful' at times, and 'lose' to the community at other times, depending upon the power of the masses to organize and fight back. Of course, the most powerful will try to divide and rule, and after many such fights (which never really stop) there is often emergence of a technocracy: a rule book with enforcement .

So, 'politeness' is then negotiated, and temporarily codified, through codes and officials with discretionary power. The city can be more authoritarian, or more democratic. It becomes 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, deliberative, directly 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 true civic engagement guides the decisions, so everyone has genuinely ownership of the city.