In results, yes, though the methods proposed are of dubious efficacy, and distasteful in principle.

SIDEBAR RANT
One of the things that I detest about the liberal mindset that goes beyond the difference of opinions, is the absolute refusal to acknowledge the underlying concerns principles and philosophies of the constrained political outlook. We are perfectly willing to concede their self-image of concerned and generous people who want to alleviate human misery in various ways, however impractical or restrictive we believe the methods or illusory, the goal, to be. But they absolutely will not credit our perception of, for example, abortion being about the life of a fetus. Their counter-arguments would be fine and dandy for almost any other issue (and note the absolute lack of conservative agendas to do ANYTHING else to your body, beyond preventing you from killing children that are temporarily attached to it), but the life of a human being simply trumps just about any moral argument. Change our minds about the fetus, argue about the real issue. Stop demonizing us as anti-women or prudes. And in the case relevant to the linked article, we have the usual illusory free-market appeal with "subsidies" and tax incentives. That is NOT free market, that is a manipulated market. The point of the free market is that the aggregate choices of people based on their own self-interest determines in a roughly democratic fashion what the optimal allocation of limited resources & production energies should be. Tilting the playing field by offering other people's money as bribes to get the outcome you want, is no more free than bribing voters in an election is a fair result, or tampering with the control group in an experiment is scientific. Breaking up cities by bribing people to live elsewhere is no better a solution than sending in demolitions troops.
/SIDEBAR RANT

The problem with cities is the same as with a degenerate population: you're not going to get a workable free society when it happens, and no amount legislating will make either issue go away. Cities are a symptom that exacerbate to the sickness, a self-sustaining cancer on the body politic, which are the reason why all societies eventually collapse and fail, and why all great civilizations fall from within. Cities are material lures to trap worker bees in easily managed hives for the convenience of a ruling class or plutocracy, to strip them of their self-sufficiency and anesthetize their slavery with convenience. They concentrate a population into a critical mass where it becomes a mob, easily led by simple emotional images and pandering to the least common denominator, and the ruling class harnesses mob-power to extort the sustenance of the rest of the country. The simple mechanism of this phenomenon is the bell curve, where the greater the population, the more diluted and diminished the effects of the extraordinary members thereof. It's Harrison Bergeron, but with the mediocrity being imposed by a general human wave, rather than individually targeted impediments. That's where you get the phenomena described by the article's author when he details the failures of cities to produce the desired liberal outcomes.

And there is really nothing you can do about it, other than wait for nature to take its course and burn the whole thing down to start over again, because the only cures are worse than the disease, or else depend on some sort of mass miracle sea change in the attitudes of the population. And there are too many people in a city, and it is too addictive to shake the hold the kyriarchy has on the general run of people.