> Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.

No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.

That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble, while beautiful traditional houses decay into dust just 3-4 hours away.

> The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily.

Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).

Again, this is simple observable truth.

> The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.

Yeah. The goal is social engineering to force people into shoebox-sized apartments, to be ruled by their benevolent masters.

That's also why we're getting a global pushback against it.

> No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.

This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.

>Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).

They did temporarily in Austin - 19% after accounting for inflation.

Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country. Even if the prices are really high, it reflects the economic activity of that city. Why would a house cost ~$800k if the person living there won't make multiples of it with their wages?

> That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble

Are you really making an argument that rents in a place like Tokyo are not supported by real value creation? Are we supposed to all live in "beautiful, traditional" heritage houses? Those houses are often a luxury, and favored by the wealthy who can live with the resulting inconveniences. They're not a sustainable solution for the masses.