[dathinab]

> Supply. The answer is and has always been to build more housing.

IMHO not really

The supply of affordable housing in the place where it's needed often can not be increased due to physical limitations and building luxury flats being more profitable. And the "demand" is often not driven by people living there, but investment stuff.

I.e. if we purely look at "supply of housing" (ignoring price) and "demand of housing" (to live in) there isn't a problem at all in most cases.

Through I agree with NIMBY making it worse, especially given that it's often not even their backyard. But the neighborhood of properties/land bought as investments and them blocking things for investment reasons.

Through the main reason is IMHO still housing being used roughly "like stocks".

[rangestransform]

Luxury flats absorb demand that would otherwise outcompete locals for the existing housing

Unless you make all existing housing so shitty that local professionals would turn their nose up at it, in which case you have bigger problems

Not building luxury housing at all would only be a solution with domestic mobility restrictions like China

[dathinab]

> locals for the existing housing

no it doesn't

that would only happen if the demand is based on people who want to move there

but if it is based on interest/dynamics more similar to stock markets like we currently have then there isn't a physical limit on (artificial) demand as such local housing gets bought up first (to potentially be upgraded to luxury flats) and then they still build more luxury flats

[satvikpendem]

It's been statistically shown that any type of housing reduces market pressures simply because it is more supply in the market and over time that makes a difference.