Illusion of Local: Why Zoning for Greater Density Will Fail to Make Housing More Affordable

The real estate market isn't local anymore at Pacific Standard magazine.

Theme: Globalization and gentrification.

Subject Article: "Why Vancouver housing is unaffordable and what to do about it."

Other Links: 1. "Gentrification Is in the Eye of the Beholder."
2. "Stash Pad."
3. "Gentrification of the City."
4. "New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy."
5. "S.F. falls behind planning for growth."
6. "Apartment Rents Rise as Incomes Stagnate."
7. "More NYC—a Progressive Campaign for Upzoning New York."
8. "The quiet, massive rezoning of New York."
9. "The Pseudoscience of Jane Jacobs and Innovation Districts."
10. "Pity the bohemians and their high-rent woes."

Postscript: Save for the last two paragraphs of the article by Doug Saunders ("Pity the bohemians and their high-rent woes."), I thought I was reading a piece that would support David Ley's model of the Vancouver housing market. Instead, Saunders shoehorns in the conventional wisdom about greater density. As a geographer, the scale mismatch is obvious. But I'll take a few steps back. Should we expect local planning tools to deal effectively with international flows transforming the urban landscape? Does scale matter? Anyone familiar with urban planning theorists who discuss dealing with globalization?