In the new book Zoned Out! Race, Displacement, and City Planning in New York City, CUNY's Tom Angotti criticizes upzoning; he favors lots of new public housing for poor people, but it is not clear to me whether he favors any market-rate housing anywhere. 

Angotti argues that new housing actually increases rents; he reasons that upzoning "increases the future value of land."(p. 29) and that as a result "new development drives up land values and rents in surrounding blocks and tenants in the buildings on those blocks can't affford to pay higher rents and are forced out." (p. 37). I critiqued this argument in a Planetizen blog post a couple of months ago. (If you don't feel like clicking on the link, here's my one-sentence summary: cities that have downzoned don't seem to be very successful in keeping rents down.)

Moreover, Angotti makes concessions that damage his argument. If upzoning is always bad, it logically follows that anti-density exclusionary zoning should lower housing prices and should be welcomed. But Angotti seems to oppose exclusionary zoning in the city's suburbs and outer boroughs. After discussing a wide variety of common zoning policies such as minimum lot size requirements, he notes correctly that "Zoning can be used ... to make it impossible to build housing affordable to low-income people" (p. 51). He also adds that such exclusionary zoning is not limited to the suburbs: New York's outer boroughs still have "predominantly white enclaves [that] continue to be protected by zoning" (p. 52). For example, Angotti complains that in Hasidic Boro Park, "[i]nstead of contemplating a rezoning that would encourage new higher density residential development—and possible racial change," (Id.) the city zoned to protect the status quo. Similarly, he notes that in affluent Park Slope anti-density zoning "protected... the relatively affluent white portion of the neighborhood" (Id.) And in Staten Island, a plan that "would have brought higher-density development to the low-density white borough ... was rejected [due to racial fears]" (p. 55). So it seems to me that Angotti believes that 1) in middle-and upper-class white areas, restrictive zoning keeps property values high and blacks and Hispanics out while and 2) in racially diverse areas, restrictive zoning is necessary to keep property values low. I am not sure how both these propositions can be true. 

Having said that, Angotti's arguments are tethered to factual reality in one important respect: it is true that in some rapidly gentrifying areas, upzonings were followed by rent increases far exceeding those of citywide levels. (Angotti focuses on Williamsburg, Harlem and Chinatown.) So based on this data set, he concludes that upzoning leads to rent increases which leads to displacement. These cases certainly present a challenge for market urbanists—but it seems to me that there is more than one possible explanation for this phenomenon.