Urban planning serves property
Urban planning presents itself as scientific city management for the common good. This is institutional theater. Urban planning exists to maximize property values while maintaining the appearance of public service.
──── The zoning deception
Zoning laws are marketed as protecting neighborhoods from “incompatible uses.” The reality is more precise: zoning protects property values from anything that might reduce them.
Single-family zoning doesn’t exist because apartments are inherently harmful to communities. It exists because apartments reduce the scarcity value of single-family homes. The “character of the neighborhood” is code for “protection of asset appreciation.”
Mixed-use development gets restricted not because it creates chaos, but because it makes areas more walkable and less car-dependent, which threatens the suburban property model that requires car ownership and spatial separation.
──── Housing as investment vehicle
The housing crisis is not a crisis of production. It’s the intended outcome of treating housing as an investment commodity rather than shelter infrastructure.
Urban planners know exactly how to create affordable housing: build more units, allow density, reduce regulatory friction. They don’t do this because it would crash property values for existing owners.
“Affordable housing” programs are designed to be marginal enough to not threaten the broader property market. They’re pressure release valves, not solutions.
──── Municipal capture by property interests
City planning departments are structurally captured by the interests they claim to regulate.
Property developers fund political campaigns, hire former planning officials, and provide “expertise” for planning decisions. The revolving door between planning departments and development firms ensures alignment.
Public hearings on development projects are designed to create the appearance of democratic input while being structurally biased toward property owners who have the time and resources to participate.
──── The NIMBY-YIMBY false opposition
The NIMBY vs YIMBY debate obscures the real issue: both sides accept that property values should drive policy.
NIMBYs want to protect their property values through scarcity. YIMBYs want to increase property values through development and gentrification. Neither questions whether property value optimization should be the primary goal of urban planning.
“Housing abundance” becomes another property investment strategy when the underlying land value capture mechanisms remain intact.
──── Gentrification as planned displacement
Gentrification is not an accidental side effect of urban improvement. It’s a systematic strategy for extracting value from working-class neighborhoods.
Urban planners identify “undervalued” areas with good bones—existing infrastructure, central location, architectural character. They then implement “improvements” that make the area attractive to higher-income residents while pricing out current residents.
Transit improvements, park upgrades, and zoning changes are calibrated to increase property values, not to serve existing communities.
──── The public-private partnership fraud
Public-private partnerships in urban development socialize the costs while privatizing the benefits.
Cities provide land, infrastructure, tax breaks, and regulatory approval. Private developers capture the value appreciation. This is described as “leveraging private investment” when it’s actually subsidizing profit extraction.
The “public benefit” from these partnerships typically amounts to a few units of affordable housing or some public space—token gestures that don’t offset the massive wealth transfer to private interests.
──── Environmental planning as property marketing
“Green building” standards and “sustainable development” have become marketing tools for premium property development.
LEED certification costs more to implement but allows developers to charge higher prices and attract environmentally conscious buyers with higher incomes. The environmental benefits are often marginal compared to the property value premium.
Climate adaptation planning focuses on protecting high-value coastal and urban properties while accepting that low-income areas will be abandoned to rising seas and extreme weather.
──── Transportation planning as spatial segregation
Transportation infrastructure gets planned to serve property values, not mobility needs.
Highway expansion serves suburban property development by making car-dependent sprawl viable. This simultaneously undermines urban property that depends on walkability and transit access.
Transit systems get designed to move workers from low-property-value areas to high-property-value employment centers, then back again, without enabling them to afford living near their work.
──── The smart city property extraction
“Smart city” technology is marketed as efficiency and sustainability but functions as a property value optimization system.
Real-time data on foot traffic, noise levels, air quality, and social activity gets fed into property pricing algorithms. Smart infrastructure makes areas more attractive to high-income residents while enabling more sophisticated displacement strategies.
Predictive policing and “public safety” technology get deployed to manage the social contradictions created by extreme property value inequality.
──── Historic preservation as value protection
Historic preservation serves current property owners by limiting new supply while creating scarcity value for existing buildings.
Buildings get designated as “historic” not based on their actual historical significance but on their ability to prevent new development that might threaten property values in surrounding areas.
“Character preservation” becomes a tool for excluding new residents, particularly those who might change the demographic composition of an area.
──── The professional planning mystification
Urban planning as a profession exists to provide technical legitimacy for political decisions about resource allocation.
Complex zoning codes, environmental impact reports, and planning processes create the impression that these are technical decisions requiring expertise, when they’re actually political choices about who gets access to space and resources.
Planning education teaches students to optimize within existing property-based systems rather than questioning whether those systems serve human needs.
──── The alternative that won’t be discussed
Real urban planning for human needs would treat land as shared infrastructure rather than private commodity.
It would prioritize accessibility, affordability, and ecological sustainability over property value appreciation. It would plan for social reproduction—childcare, eldercare, community spaces—rather than just economic production.
This alternative doesn’t get discussed in planning schools or city halls because it would eliminate the property speculation that drives both private wealth and municipal revenue.
──── The institutional lock-in
Urban planning serves property because it’s structurally dependent on property taxes for municipal revenue.
Cities need high property values to fund services, creating a built-in incentive to prioritize property value appreciation over human needs. This locks municipalities into serving property interests even when individual planners might prefer different outcomes.
The system reproduces itself through professional training, regulatory frameworks, and political structures that make property value optimization seem like natural law rather than political choice.
────────────────────────────────────────
Urban planning will continue serving property until we build alternative institutions that serve human needs instead. This requires acknowledging that the current system works exactly as designed—not to create livable cities, but to extract maximum value from urban space.
The question is not how to reform urban planning, but how to create systems of spatial organization that prioritize social reproduction over capital accumulation.