Congratulations on having completely different priorities than 99% of people that buy a house.
For the other 99%, time marches on - they want to have children and raise those children in a house _within a fixed timeline_. Because of time, they are unable to wait forever, so they (figuratively) put a stake in the ground and realize that a house is a home - not an investment - where they can raise a family. Since those 99% of people aren't waiting for the lowest price, housing prices don't collapse and rental prices don't skyrocket.
Rent what inventory? If everyone wants to rent the monthly rent goes up until the market reaches equilibrium. Once again, look at cars. Do you see a majority of the people renting cars because "prices will be lower for the same model next year"?
Not if the government keeps building new housing like this article is mentioning. There will always be supply.
Like I mentioned in another comment it’s different if the housing is being built simultaneously nationwide, like Japan, then people don’t have an option. That represents a nationwide shift in mentality where housing is no longer an investment. Cars are pretty evenly priced across the nation (within a few thousand) so people don’t have an alternative. But that’s not the case here.
Either renting is so bad that people will still rather buy the house, or renting is actually not that bad and then it's not an issue if people rent instead of buying the house. It can't be both at the same time.
Also I think your calculation of "rent until price bottoms out" only makes sense if the price is dropping by more, each month, than a month's rent. Idk but that seems like a dramatic drop.
To live in the house.
>Why develop new housing blocks (as a private developer) if it is a depreciating asset.
To sell to people who want to live in the house.