> To put it another way, if you really think that building more housing will make things worse, then why not argue for the destruction of existing housing stock

> To put it another way, if you really think that building more housing will make things worse, then why not argue for the destruction of existing housing stock to make things better? I don't personally believe that. I think capacity solves shortage needs, consistently. But most don't. Most people really believe your reasoning is valid, and they advocate for the exact destruction you've mentioned (see "Road Diets" / freeway removal / any article from CNU / etc). > The difference between housing and cars-on-the-road is that housing is generally seen as a positive thing that people get real value out of, whereas cars-on-the-road are an unfortunate side effect of people not having housing near where they live I think most people agree with you, but I personally believe this is a very dystopian view. Transportation is an inherently positive thing too, that real people get real value out of. Even if every single human lived right next to their work place, it's still a good thing that people have fast reliable easy freedom of movement in whatever method they prefer. Even if you live right next to your workplace, your next job won't be. Your spouses job, or next job, won't be. Your parent's home won't be, your children's school won't be. Unless your constantly moving every 2 years, this idea of "transportation is just a bad side effect of not living inside your workplace" doesn't really hold up to regular life, in my opinion.