But for addressing your concern this is good news: "before people either do or don't come up with a consensus on what society and growth should look like."
Unless there is a dramatic shift in policies to allow MASS immigration or everyone starts breeding like rabbits in the USA, we do not really have a problem here where our urban spaces will develop into unpleasent places. In fact it's actually the underinvestment in our urban spaces that precisely creates many of the issues people connect to cities.
Cities and states need to address the supply and infrastructure problem to allow people to live affordably, with a good standard of living, in the places that they want to live.
And since that topic is associated with race, good luck having an objective discussion in a Western country. In Canada, if you even suggest there is a discussion worth having, a huge percentage of the population will immediately assume you are a Trump supporting racist. More subtler topics like the obvious fact that some segments of immigrants are not contributing to the economy via income taxes while massively increasing housing demand are completely beyond discussion.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
"Or take immigration policy: Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research has called for increasing the number of doctors, dentists, and other professionals allowed into the U.S. while limiting the number of less-skilled people, like would-be retail clerks, custodians, and housekeepers. The reason is that high-skilled immigrants squeeze the wages of upper-middle-class professionals, who can afford to take a hit while lowering the cost of various services for poorer people by giving them the option of going to cheaper doctors and dentists. By contrast, bringing in retail clerks, custodians, and housekeepers makes life cheaper for the upper-middle-class professionals while squeezing the wages of working people, particularly immigrants who already live in the U.S. Want to guess how popular the idea of increasing the wages of nannies is with the upper-middle-class people who employ them? I’d love to know, but I’m sorry to report that upper-middle-class pollsters have yet to ask the question."
It is a really good article, I encourage everyone to read it.
I said "demand can only be controlled through restriction on immigration...". For example, if the Bay Area wants to control demand to keep house prices lower, it has no ability to that because it does not have a border. It cannot stop people moving there. Only the federal government can do that at a national level by controlling how many people can cross the border to immigrate. And as a second matter influence birth rates through public health programs (but birth rates aren't a problem in the USA).
> The US currently had supply and demand issues amongst it's growing and declining cities.
Yes, but cities and states cannot control demand. They can only control supply.
Agree with your first sentence, but I quibble with this part. Demand for real estate is local, and defined as something resembling density: it's an intensity distributed over some area. That area is limited by development and infrastructure.
For example, you can alleviate the intensity of demand by widening the area in which those consumers can be satisfied. In other words, build more transportation that makes it more palatable to live further afield. The article even mentions it specifically: running the commuter shuttle to Gunnison more frequently eases the pain of living there and working in Crested Butte.