Of course, the zoning, parking regulations, mortgage subsidies &c. which led to the present situation are all also instances of making folks live the way planners want.
Weren't those mostly in place before most people who currently live in those places moved there, and don't people often chose where to live based on the rules and regulations of that place?
I wouldn't call moving into a place being forced to live under the rules and regulations of that place.
Changing the rules and regulations on people who already live there, though, I'd say is forcing because it can be a major effort to move somewhere else, especially if they are an owner rather than a renter.
They changed the rules and regulations that made housing prices go roughly 3x before I was old enough to buy a house. Why is locking me out of the housing market by preserving other people's paper wealth a moral imperative? Are they more deserving of the money because they're older? Because they already have it?
I know the real answer is because they can vote for things that preserve it, and I can't vote for things that erode it.
People complain that millenials aren't buying into the american way of life while simultaneously making it so unaffordable as to be roughly financial suicide to participate.
Housing policy is already being forced upon you in the US. Today, we call it zoning, along with various governmental services and political boundaries for them. On the less obvious level, it's also taxes, exemptions, and infrastructure such as bridges and roads. As Kim-Mai Cutler has been recording over the past 2-3 years, housing policy today is, in part, the result of explicit choices for low-density suburbs.
So while you have a point from a purely anarchist point of view (and that's not a slur on you, ok? anarchists have a great critique of existing systems), that ship has sailed so long ago in the first world that I don't think there's any meaningful point in trying to recall it.
Costs are specifically because people want to live there. Housing costs are dominated by infrastructure costs not by what specific homeowners spend. Thus, 'protecting' an investment is silly when it's not homeowners that made the real investment.