The author clearly has an agenda and basically wrote the article around it. Why all the conjecture?
I was bored so I did a very crude estimate.
Houston has 982,694 homes according to the census data in 665 square miles.
Austin has 426,899 homes in 271 square miles.
So Austin is denser and more expensive. To me this makes sense. Denser areas are more popular, and popularity results in high income people coming in and biding up prices. This is why there are no dense areas that are cheap.
No per Capita analysis? No income analysis? Only two cities?
This is actually a challenging question to answer. Thankfully other people have done research and we can reference that if we actually want to know the answer, rather than just prove our priors to ourselves.
I think this is worth raising because the article sweeps across a broad range of topics that -- in my humble opinion -- are not necessarily "post capitalism." And it may be the case that some political concerns mentioned are in opposition to a post capitalist world. For example, what if the fastest way to a post capitalist world is a changing American politics and then using American hegemony to export those politics?