[handmodel]

If the population of California were to grow by 35% in the next 30 years but only 5% more housing units were built - do you posit the housing prices would get more expensive or less?

That is pretty much what has happened. It is clear building more lowers the average. Keep in mind that homeless people may not have even been in "affordable housing" five years ago! Imagine how much better financial situation someone who lost their job last year would be in this year if they had been paying $1000 rent instead of $1400 for five years. Sure they would have spent slightly more in other areas - but they also would have saved more on average and have more fallback.

[jeffbee]

The marginal economic model of housing is much easier to explain. If I were to bulldoze a million houses, what would happen to the price of houses?

Now what happens if I build a million houses?

[handmodel]

100% agree.

I understand induced demand can exist but this is a second order effect that is clearly far less impactful than the first order effect of supply and demand.

[istillwritecode]

Another thing that will reduce prices is to reduce desirability. Growing the population by another 30% might be good for bar crowd, but will degrade the value of the bay area's natural areas for many. The increased traffic in the bay area has also reduced livability. Living is SF and commuting to Apple by bus is only sustainable if we get many more people to commute by bus (not just FAANG employees). I see almost nothing being done to solve congestion problems and this is intimately tied to housing and population growth. Unfortunately we are squandering resources on HSR.