What is less obvious is that this still increase housing supply. It's not new affordable housing, but the people moving in to the new expensive houses are leaving their old houses, and the people who buy those are leaving their old houses, so eventually the price drops happen on the older, smaller homes at the bottom end of the market.
I keep seeing this, but if the housing being vacated is in a different, less-desirable market, it's a bit tree-falling-in-the-woods for locals.
If a $450,000 house in a Chicago suburb is freed up by its owners moving to a $700,000 condo in Seattle, the people who can't afford a house in Seattle don't see the benefit of the condo building and aren't going to buy the house in Chicago, and the people who can't afford a house in Chicago don't recognize the Seattle development as the cause of the house hitting the market.
If someone in Chicago moves to Seattle, then our policy options are (1) no new condo in Seattle or (2) new condo in Seattle.
Under policy 1, the new buyer from Chicago must outbid locals for the fixed housing supply; they will wind up buying older housing stock, which otherwise would have gone to existing local residents. Prices go up.
With policy 2, the new entrant buys the new condo and does not compete for pre-existing housing stock.
In this scenario, whatever house is freed up in Chicago is irrelevant to the housing stock in Seattle. I'm not sure why you included it.
The entire question can be contained by the assumption that "there is someone new coming to Seattle" and whether it would be better to have a new condo unit to sell to them or have them compete for existing fixed stock. The whole bit about the Chicago housing market is a distractor, because it stays the same under either policy.
Is the existence of the $700,000 condo the limiting factor for those people moving? If it isn't built would they instead bid up an existing unit in Seattle and put it more out of reach of existing Seattle residents?
The effect is so minimal when you zoom into a single sale of one home and purchase of one condo, but in aggregate this causes real noticeable price movement.
There's no technical reason why building some shelter that keeps the rain out and the heat/cold where it should be is not something that could not be done cheaply at large scale using affordable materials. People have been building shelter for tens of thousands of years and it's easier than ever with modern materials. It's not rocket science to keep people dry and comfortable.
People routinely buy recreational vehicles that, because they have wheels, are not considered houses. So, suddenly there are much less rules and you can just produce those efficiently in factories. Except getting permission to park those and live in them is really hard to come by in many places. It's OK for recreational use. But not for living permanently. Which of course some people do anyway. But it's highly stigmatized.
Recreational vehicles come out of factories. Houses are built artisanally at great cost. The only functional difference that matters is mobility and wheels. Why should people not be able to get a nice second hand RV for a few thousand dollars and park it in a nice spot and live there?
Answer: it would immediately devalue the notion of owning brick and mortar.
The minimum lot size requirements don't help the situation either.
It likely would be more efficient and profitable to build a townhouse, or even a mid-rise, and let more people live on the same parcel of land, but zoning restrictions often prevent that.
A better benchmark would be a manufactured home. Transported on wheels, built in a factory, but intended to be used full time indefinitely.
IIRC, stick-built homes are only like 15% more expensive than the equivalent manufactured home, and you have a lot more flexibility in the design. Probably this is most of why manufactured homes are only popular in particular niches.
Crime and social class segregation is another aspect. Who lives in a neighborhood matters as much as the physical assets. Bans on MDUs (multiple dwelling units), permanently parked RVs, and manufactured homes serve as a barrier to entry. It’s not explicitly stated but the effect is the same as saying “If you can’t afford a $410,000 house we don’t want you as a neighbor.”
As I commented elsewhere, that’s the paper math version that doesn’t resemble reality for those of us living in it. Buyers of new luxury stock are increasingly just leveraging prior housing equity to fund the new purchase and renting out old stock at “market rates”, which doesn’t actually increase supply or decrease pricing. Laws have made short-term rentals and long-term landlording immensely profitable for those who got into the game early, especially in major metros that lack regulations on rent control or have preferential property taxation schemes. When actually affordable housing is built (i.e. starter homes), they’re frequently snapped up by PE firms and investors rather than being sold to first-time homebuyers.
The “property cycle” you mention does not exist anymore, and that’s by design. It’s why meaningful legislation and taxation policies are needed to deter landlording of SFH properties and prevent exploitation of renters by implementing rent controls.
Ok, but they have finite leverage and financing. The market can easily overwhelm their access to capital, no investor class has anywhere near enough access to capital to fully corner the behemoth that would be a healthy housing market.
If you're only legally or practically able to build and sell so many cars, then you're gonna focus on Lexuses more than Toyotas. But if you can build and sell as much as you want, that's when you start seriously addressing the mainstream market.
I don’t think a lot about the pricing of my rental units and I’m not quick to raise them but when some new development comes into town and puts up billboards with their eye-popping prices and runs ads in the paper and on web sites and on the radio I think “Gee…. I must be leaving money on the table because I could raise my rates 50% and it would still undercut what they’re advertising a lot”
Of course the money they are spending on advertising indicates that their pricing is aspirational and they may very well next year be telling the city that they can’t afford their property taxes because they can’t fill the units and might be telling their lenders the same in a few years.
In Ithaca we got “luxury housing for seniors” that was nuclear reactor late and they can’t fill
https://ithacavoice.org/2025/03/library-place-to-sell-at-a-l...
(Don’t seniors with money go to Florida?)
A few market rate projects had an affordable component which has been part of a surge which has taken a bite out of our homeless colony but it is now like that talking heads song where they’re “burning down the house”
https://ithacavoice.org/2025/08/inside-asteri/
My understanding is many “luxury” developments are shoddily built and not a good place to live
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/realestate/condo-defects-...
Building densely is actually more profitable, there’s already incentive to build as densely as possible for developers. Adding an extra story and creating a duplex, triplex, etc doesn’t cost much more and means you can sell multiple more units. Building as tall as possible and getting more units into the same footprint is almost always more profitable than just building one single family house.
The problem is that zoning limits what type of building is allowed to be built on a site. Who controls zoning? Existing homeowners that already live in the area, so of course they are going to make sure that new builds are low-density, as it impacts them less (parking, traffic) and keeps their home values high.
Source: I tried to build dense housing myself and was stymied by zoning.
If there was such as thing as a $250k house within a few hours drive, I would buy all of them and just sit on them, maybe rent them out.
> eventually the price drops happen on the older, smaller homes at the bottom end of the market
I'd be interested in how long "eventually" takes for single-family homes. I think for rental units it happens very quickly.
This effect, in this context, is called "filtering."
this logic makes zero sense to me.
No, they are saying that building one high-end house still has the slightly unintuitive effect of increasing the supply of low-end homes. They also give their reasons for believing this.
Americans also think in terms of stories with actors, and supply and demand doesn’t have any obvious actors. “Prices are high because bad people are choosing to keep them high” is an easy narrative for people to understand. There’s an obvious villain, and the success simply requires the hero to defeat the villain. This leads to a funny meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/13l1lmn/present...
I do not believe this is accurate, at least not in the last ~10 years or so. The houses are purchased by hedge funds and other smaller investors.
The hedge fund thing is way overblown. Even if they buy up homes in hot markets, their incentive is still going to be to sell them if/when the market cools. Corporations do not enjoy the same tax incentives as homeowners in this country, and the risks/costs to rent out older homes just doesn't pen out for non-local investors. If PE wants to get into housing, it's such a better deal for them to just build apartments.
Currently less than a percent of homes are owned by private equity. And the majority of those are owned for the purpose of turning around and selling them, like Home Partners.
(Zillow also tried buying up homes for the purpose of arbitrage and it ended up blowing up in their face).
With greater supply, there comes a point where you can make better investments than buying up empty houses. And so they will stop buying them.
Two things to think about when making this argument:
* Older housing could have been torn down to build new housing. So before, you had a rooming house with 10 or so low cost tenants, and now you have three town homes with three very rich families moving in. Life just became a lot harder for people in the lower end of the market. Gentrification of entire neighborhoods is an extreme example of this: a blighted neighborhood is great for cheap housing options, but then people start coming in and redeveloping it and...it is no longer blighted, the neighborhood is better, and the cheap housing is gone replaced by much more expensive housing.
* Demand is induced by new supply. We accept this as a fact for highway construction, but it is somewhat also true for housing in a hot market where everyone wants to live. So building a bunch of new housing in Seattle could attract new resident, causing the population to grow, rather than adding supply to deal with fixed demand. Yes, adding housing in Buffalo isn't going to run into that, and yes, overall the situation becomes better for the country (or world if you are inducing demand from other countries), but locally you feel like you are going nowhere with the problem. A more extreme example of this is handing out housing to your unhoused population (you'll almost certainly wind up with more unhoused than when you started even though you've given some housing).
Induced demand is only a thing with highways because use of the highways is free; there's no counterveiling cost pressure unless and until traffic jams start forming. By definition induced demand doesn't exist where the market can set prices for using newly created resources.
Closer to your point (if we stretch really hard) would be something like lowering crime. If Seattle successfully lowers crime without, say, increasing taxes, then Seattle becomes a nicer place to live, and people can (and will) move there to enjoy lower crime without having to directly incur the cost of lowering that crime. One of the externalities of that "induced demand" would be an increase in housing prices. So obviously Seattleites who oppose residential development should just promote more crime.
The fundamental issue here is that people don't like being subject to market forces and the insecurity that engenders, particularly when it comes to housing and labor. That's understandable. They do like market forces when they get to enjoy lower prices, though. But the feeling of insecurity is particularly acute when it comes to housing and the issue of new development. That's also understandable, notwithstanding that it's simply irrational and empirically disproven that NIMBYism makes for lower prices than the alternative of allowing market development. You get higher prices with NIMBYism than YIMBYism, period; though there's simply no guaranteeing that absolute prices will come down, especially for a city that permits development where others don't. That's a collective action/free-rider problem, where the positive externalities of good public policies of one community are captured in part by other, cheating groups.
So even areas where population is stable, and housing supply increases, it can result in very few tangible gains at the margin.
Those families' kids have now grown up, and the houses have appreciated, sometimes as much as 2-3x, due to a nearby light rail development connecting the neighborhood to the city at large on cheap transit. So those families are cashing out their housing by selling primarily to out-of-market elderly wealthy downsizers, typically from California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Texas.
The result is a neighborhood of 3- and 4-bedroom homes that once housed families of 4 or more people now mostly inhabitated by 2 or fewer people (many left vacant more than half the year as these wealthy retirees frequently travel). They also refit these former starter or second homes to accommodate these elderly inhabitants' reduced mobility and/or increase the home's luxury.
When these residents die in 10 or so years, even if the market corrects prices downward, these homes will now be even less suitable for anything but wealthy elderly inhabitants. The intelligent thing for the city to do would be to tear them down and replace them with accessible and affordable density; the reality is that the wealthy elderly who haven't died yet will spend the rest of their lives blocking such efforts out of spite.
Or, they're just protecting their property value and neighborhood composition, like anyone else would do.
^ This...
> demand housing is much, much more elastic than people realize
^ ...does not imply this.
If the only housing that is available is 3000sq.ft. for a family of 3, that family doesn't have the option to split it up and only buy 1500sq.ft. of it. They need to be able to afford the whole thing.
(Also, I question the extent to which this premise is true, at least in cities. Everything else I've been seeing is that people are living in much less space than they used to, due to the rising prices. Taking a studio apartment rather than a 1-bedroom, living with roommates, etc. But even if the premise is true, it doesn't imply your conclusion.)
Could that also be explained perhaps by the fact that people are willing to live farther away from cities (where land / homes are cheaper and larger) because they only have to work 3 days a week from the office? Or because commuting is less painful with newer cars?
It's a mix of car culture, proprty value being lower farther away from cities so develops can create a high margin on building neighborhoods marketed on big, new houses.
"All these developers are building is just expensive new luxury apartments"
And as the study mentions:
> To the extent that ordinary people form loose mental associations between “housing development” and “housing affordability,” they may well associate more development with higher prices rather than greater affordability. New housing, being new, tends to be more expensive than existing, depreciated housing.
It is just a perception bias thing. You don't really "see" everything around you aging because it happens slowly.
Except that’s not the reality. The reality is that a large chunk of the market (as much as 25% in some areas) is speculative in the form of PE-owned inventory and rentals. It’s not used as shelter, it’s used as a vehicle of growing capital. When that’s pointed out, suddenly economists blame the very same people who can’t get onto the “property ladder” for failing to “compete in the free market”.
In a vacuum, their original idea makes sense. In reality, it’s heavily exploited for the gains of those already on the ladder at the ongoing expense of those they actively prohibit from joining them. It’s societal exploitation leveraging the singular most basic human need after food and clean water: shelter.
This is false.
It is absolutely used as shelter. It's used for renting. Investors don't generate just sit on housing and leave it empty (unless they're remodeling it or something).
Also it's not mostly private equity -- that's a tiny percentage. It's mostly small investors, like a mom and pop who own and rent two other homes to help fund their retirement.
Investors are not taking away living space. And many areas don't have enough rental properties (remember, not everyone wants to own, especially people on a short-term job or relocation), so conversion to rental helps here and brings down rental rates (as happens whenever supply increases).
As a solution to the housing shortage, building new is 25% inefficient? Great, it's 75% efficient. That's not bad for a solution. So let's do it, in volume, and actually make a dent in the problem.
And for the builders, they don't care. A speculator bought that house? It payed me just the same. But even better, the demand is still there, so I should build another one.
> "All these developers are building is just expensive new luxury apartments"
Nobody with enough money and exposure to large amounts of real-estate wants to kill the golden goose. Look at the post-Covid-migration build stories. Rents start to soften and development dramatically slows.
Like Austin - https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2024/08/as-construction-sl...
Or Denver - https://www.denverpost.com/2025/07/24/apartments-housing-rea...
You would need continued serious government investment to make sure focus continues to be on total units and consumer price instead of investor ROI.
Because even adding four fancy town-houses or condos helps if what used to be there was single-family or duplex. But it doesn't help NEARLY as much as adding 100 units by converting an old shopping center or 30-unit apartment. But there are strong incentives against developers doing "too much" of the latter if they know they can make the same ROI by selling fewer, nicer units.
Individual residential property owners take a lot of blame here but they're not even benefiting THAT much - every crazy price increase is putting any upgrade to their own situation further out of reach. And fighting low-density residential NIMBY-ism is a slow process if you still only can buy one lot as a time as it becomes available. So focus on underutilized commercial and industrial near major hubs or transit corridors where most of what you're displacing is ugly parking lots and empty storefronts that contribute to crime as well.
That is, adding supply lowers prices. And lowering price reduces potential profit such that fewer people will build. With fewer people building, prices should go up again.
Stated differently, thin margins reduce the number of people offering products in a market. Ironically, the main way to get more building is with bigger builders in that scenario.
1) If people see their costs going up while they also see new construction, the correlation machine's gonna jump to the wrong conclusions
2) If costs are still going up people are still going to be unhappy and worse off
Supply can increase AND price can still go up, and so for people to be won over and convinced you need to crack the second part, not just the first part. In a libertarian "just reduce regulation" approach that's often pitched, the natural equilibrium will be closer to "supply increase and price go up slowly", and people skeptical of "just reduce regulation" as a solution are more accurate than they're given credit for. Gotta actively intervene to make supply increase enough for any sustained period of time - we only see it in cases of macro shocks. Like the 2008 recession, or the post-Covid-bullwhip.
One legitimate reason to not think supply reduces prices is because of big financial companies buying up lots of houses and having effectively free rein to price how they want. It removes the competitive piece. In many areas the new houses are built by a few large home builders doing a few large developments, and the new apartments are owned by a few large corporate owners. That can slow down prices reaching their market value.
https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-stabiliz...
Yet those large housing companies charge on average between 7-8 €/m² and are nowhere near to holding a majority of the housing share.
Big corporations don't have unlimited money to do this kind of thing.
And in practice, the expensive areas they do it in, are usually very limited in how much new housing goes up, they're still very much supply constrained markets.
If what you're suggesting was really happening, then what you'd expect to see is an area with a relatively high vacancy rate (due to all the new supply), like 8% or even higher, but stubbornly high prices in spite of that. And I can't think of any examples where that happened. Can you?
https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-stabiliz...
At any rate, if a buyer notices it happening in their area, then "it's not happening that much" is not only not going to make them feel better, it's going to also make them feel like you don't want to fix it.
This just isn't true and isn't supported by the data. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/corporations-arent-the-reason-...
No, its not. If only one big company was allowed to do that in each locality, and they had the ability to buy up all the supply no matter how much new housing was built, that would be a reason; absent monopoly power, they don't have free reign to price how they want, and can price higher the less supply there is, even if you assume all of it is owned by similar big firms and used as rentals.
Because all the same voters (demographically, if not also frequently literally the same individuals) voted for a bunch of red tape that's only passable for the big vertically integrated businesses and even then it's only profitable when they're doing cookie cutter single family on .25ac or 5 over one apartments.
If this comment section is anything to go by, there seem to be plenty of people that firmly believe that increasing housing supply doesn't actually increase housing supply, let alone the bigger leap that increasing housing supply decreases prices.
They’ve been building houses in my area non-stop since 2010 or so. Prices haven’t gone down.
There are other factors than supply. But most of the new supply is large houses. If you don’t want 4+ bedrooms and a 2000+ sq. ft. house the supply hasn’t changed much at all.
And my impression is that, when we talk about the housing shortage, we're talking about apartments to starter homes, not about 4+ bedrooms. So what we seem to have is a disconnect between what the market needs and what builders are building.
But maybe that's only "seem". I'd bet that a 4+ bedroom house sits on the market a lot longer than a starter house. Maybe starter houses are being built, but not enough to satisfy the market, and so they're going almost immediately?
Real or nominal?
> There are other factors than supply.
It is not uncommon for places with a lot of housing development to also be places with rising housing demand because it is a growing area.
> If you don’t want 4+ bedrooms and a 2000+ sq. ft. house the supply hasn’t changed much at all.
And many of the people buying large new home are moving out of a smaller existing home.
Nonetheless, I don’t think this has much to do with the public policy as it stands because the people who make the policy do understand this. So while I think the assertion is correct, people do not believe it, I do not think that is a large factor and why the policies restrict housing.
But I have been looking at the cost to build a home, it costs even more to build than to buy a used one. Who, exactly, is going to be able to afford to buy the new houses while selling their current home at a lower price than it would currently fetch?
Maybe if AI replaces all the software developers they can flood the home construction market in their quest to find new work and push the price of labor down, thus reducing the cost to build a house, but otherwise...
Increasing the supply of labor, thus reducing the cost to build the home, was spoken to.
The average construction worker makes $30/hr. Get that down to minimum wage and the cost of a house will come down pretty quickly. You still might not be able to afford one on a minimum wage salary, perhaps, but the goal of reducing housing prices is met.
Normally if you make essentially the same product for 15 years, production costs fall.
It is just general demand, really. Every step of the way can charge more, as compared to 15 years ago, because people are willing to pay more for their services.
Like the headline suggest, the solution is to increase supply. Except, not of houses, but the inputs that go into houses (materials, labor, etc.). Until supply is met there, the cost to build cannot come down, and until the cost to build can come down used homes cannot come down either. Alternatively, we could stop wanting so many houses, but that is likely less practical.
As mentioned, if you get all the software developers building houses instead the price would drop pretty quickly. But... good luck convincing them to do that. That is what has to be overcome.
One piece of data I’ve found is that 65% of Americans are homeowners (meaning American families, not rentals or investments), which is also about the percentage of Americans who make $50K or more per year (~68%).
For people with a middle class networth (not income, I mean networth, which is about ~1M-9M when compared with the top of US society), homeownership currently works as a wealth-building mechanism because of scarcity. There’s also the desire to live close to certain areas, but why not make more neighborhoods or areas worth living in?
Regardless, if the goal is to maintain scarcity for wealth building, then I think the scarcity mechanism will remain intact if homeownership is increased to a high rate while balancing the cost of materials and labor, and building houses specially for certain income levels, as mentioned already in other posts.
But no one seems to be doing materials innovation, or construction innovation. I don’t think 3D printing is there quite yet, and might be more expensive. Where’s the push on automating construction? Why not build with a genetically engineered bamboo that’s cheaper and more sustainable than wood? Seems materials innovation will help with both housing and sustainability goals.
None of this is really allowed anymore and it's very hard to find a piece of land to do it with. Enabling this sort of construction and forcing or incentiving small plots of land might open up options for people on the lower end.
price of land + price of materials + cost of labor + margin + other (marketing, admin, fees, financing, etc.)
When you try to boost the number of homes, you also boost demand for construction labor, materials, and buildable land. Those inputs tend to rise or at least not fall much, so there isn’t a big, easy savings there. That leaves soft "other" costs or developer margin. Other is a relatively small slice, and typical margins aren’t huge push them too low and projects stop penciling, so fewer homes get built.
Even if margins were squeezed, the price drop would usually be too small to bridge the affordability gap for most households.
The bigger issue is that household incomes haven’t kept pace with housing prices over the last few decades.
These two hypotheses sound like the same thing to me. Homeowners organize to protect themselves from negative externalities that affect their property values (and quality of life).
Liberal land use and other rules would eventually bring down prices to affordable levels for most families. But not all of them. Every country has to have some strategy to provide housing for the bottom of the income range, since they typically won't be able to afford "dignified" housing based purely on the Capex/depreciation/opex value of the housing (they will always be renters).
So you need something like liberal land use to provide for 80%, and then some kind of government intervention for the bottom 20% (numbers will vary based on the location/nation/etc)
Disincentivize investor ownership, and it will be harder to tell the story of investors buying up all the property, and the rest may fall into place at best, and at worst you get marginally lower prices and less validation of the investor price inflation stories.
Even if the number of units increase, the price can actually go up.
The relative market power matters most. A developer with cheap bridge financing and a large portfolio of unsold units has every incentive to hold prices to set expectations, while buyers who are occupiers generally are compelled to buy in a certain time frame and location.
- Building cost is often marginal compared to land.
- Land value is highly correlated to economic opportunities around it.
- Economic opportunities are following a power law around economic centers (highly non-linear).
- There is a density ceiling, with some variations depending on cultural traditions but still constrained by transportation technologies and psychological factors.
- The location of economic centers is not randomly distributed but constrained by geography, especially access to water transportation routes.
Financial speculation and building restrictions are second orders effects of the inherent housing scarcity, amplifying it, but not a root cause.
Here in the UK it's really hard to convince people that it's really hard to address our housing shortage through building alone when we bring in about a million people every year. Even a lot of economists seem to think supply/demand doesn't apply when it comes to wages and house prices if you introduce immigration as a variable.
Unless it's undeniable I find people will just believe whatever suites them personally. Which is fair enough. I guess I'm just surprised at how unconscious this bias is for most people. Or at the very least they seem to truly believe that the housing market is an exception to supply/demand dynamics.
What would happen if real estate investors/developers by law also had to dwell in the most dense type of housing they built?
Hypothesis: Humans by and large are all looking for a bit more breathing room, privacy, and quality of life in their choice of home. (In other words, qualities diametrically opposed to the black hole compression cubicle end game of 'efficient housing for the masses').
interesting video :
You need to also consider what is being built. NYC has built a lot of ultra-luxury property that really amounts to money laundering and will never increase the supply to ordinary residents.
The private sector will never solve this problem on their own.
The problem is that demand for housing is relatively fixed, in that every human needs a shelter, and every human wants a home. That doesn’t change outside of population statistics: in a vacuum, all things being equal, every human would buy a home.
The issue is that the supply side is so heavily gamed by existing players that the entire market is deliberately engineered for maximum extraction of wealth from new buyers to prop up valuations of existing owners and builder/landlord margins.
Relatedly, this is why I’ve stopped fighting each niche front individually and instead focused on the “nuclear option” of mandating affordable housing as a human right. That would open the floodgates to lawsuits against communities, states, and companies that hoard existing stock and bar newer, denser construction. It would add a sorely needed lever of pain to deter hostile housing practices, by threatening things like rent/price controls or forced divestitures unless the supply problem was meaningfully addressed post-haste.
In places where a third of renters are spending half their income on rent (as some stats have shown for CA), it is implausible to believe that nibbling around the edges of the problem is going to result in enough of a reduction to make a difference. I haven't seen any estimates of how many market-rate units would need to be built to, say, reduce the number of rent-burdened households to 10% or 5%, but presumably it would need to be in the millions. I haven't seen any studies of supply/price issues that contemplate anything like that scale.
Just as important, such studies generally ignore the issue of inequality. It doesn't really matter what rents are; if there is someone who can afford to own multiple vacation homes that sit empty most of the year, rents should be lower.
Edit: Here I am getting downvoted by people who don’t have the bravery to confront their own contradictions and realize that their own beliefs are being manipulated to ruin their own lives.
Central London monthly rent for a 3-bed house is around £3500, but a 1-bed flat rents for £2100. So split the house into two flats and the landlord makes more money.
Hence relaxing zoning restrictions will push prices up.
If you build houses, they’ll just buy them and rent them out for profit.
Eventually if supply keeps up that will change, and longer still the wealth may trickle back down. But imho it would be faster to focus on avoiding the concentration in the first place through SFH as investments, via simple tax policy that discourages mom and pop investors from purchasing extra homes.
House prices are so high because some people own too many of them. A home shouldn’t be an investment strategy