I really dislike the use of the qualification "luxury" for land developers. People constantly complain about how ridiculously expensive the bare minimum housing

I really dislike the use of the qualification "luxury" for land developers. People constantly complain about how ridiculously expensive the bare minimum housing is getting in high demand areas, but endlessly complain that "new luxury apartments" aren't going to solve the problem. I think that this is just a bias that is blinding people to the inherent contradiction. The reason that shithole apartments become so expensive is because there are people with the money to spend who "need" (i.e. work in the area) that apartment. It has nothing to do with construction or maintenance costs, just demand. Even the "luxury" apartments have inflated prices compared to their material values. Which means that there is a lot of room to move up. Basically what I'm saying is that people need to stop complaining about the "type" of housing. If someone builds 50,000 cubicle apartments or 50,000 luxury flats in a high demand area, your shithole apartment's value/rent is going to change the exact same amount. Because there is plenty of room for the people generating the demand to "afford" better (in strict material/construction terms). It shouldn't matter to anyone who isn't already in the mid-range of units to begin with (i.e. people complaining about the rent on their 400sqft hole in the wall). The real issue is that these places are "only" building 50k (or whatever the number) new units, when they actually need far more. Maybe building cheaper (and therefore smaller) units could make allocating the area for this number of units more palatable, but that is still a secondary problem. This just runs into the issue that as much as people bitch about "luxury" condos, they want crappy high density ones nearby even less.