The price of a good will reflect demand for that good.
But John Tierney appears have forgotten Econ. 101, if he ever knew it.
We have our house for sale. It’s a 3 bedroom, 1 bath, ranch, in Mahopac, New York, about 60 miles north of the City. We’re asking $379,000. As you move closer to the City, selling prices increase. A two-story Cape Cod, of about the same age and with similar amenities to ours, but on 1/4 acre and in Yorktown Heights, 12 miles south of us, was offered for $450,000. A two-bedroom, 1 bath, 900 sq. ft. cottage on less than 1/4 acre in the village of Katonah was listed for $475,000. Listings in southern Westchester for similar properties are even higher. Similar properties in the city list for seven digits.
This pattern is not peculiar to New York, nor is it confined to large cities. All other things being equal, village homes are worth more than others.
What does this tell us? That demand exceeds supply. We’re given no details of the survey of preferences which Mr. Tierney cites in stating that 85% of people prefer suburban homes. Extrapolating from myself, what we say we prefer is more for our dollar: If I’m paying 7 figures, I damn well want a godawful huge monstrousity. Given small apartment A, in poor school system A, for $500,000; or large house B, with a lawn, in highly-regarded school system B, for $500,000, buyers prefer to say B.
If 85% of people did hate them, urban properties would be cheaper.