Surprised you are being downvoted, you are absolutely right. "Housing" supply is kind of a joke, because what we're really talking about is land, which is fixed

Surprised you are being downvoted, you are absolutely right. "Housing" supply is kind of a joke, because what we're really talking about is land, which is fixed in supply. And not just any land, but prime land that is near jobs and infrastructure. You can build as much housing as you want, in the middle of nowhere, and it will be useless. What is needed is housing in prime areas, but those areas are held as speculative investments, because it is cheaper and safer to just wait for the price to rise than to take on the risk and cost of actually doing something with the land. Or maybe they only do some trivial use, like a surface level parking lot, in an area suited for skyscrapers. Every vacant lot or abandoned building is owned by someone. The trick is to make it too expensive to idly hold. At that point, the artificially high demand for land as a speculative holding will go away, and prices will decline. But, rent itself will always approximate the value of the location, and if the location keeps getting more valuable, the prices will keep going up. The question is whether they are high because of real production or artificial speculation.