> In no place in the US is this true Induced housing demand is common in the majority of cities across the US. The act of creating urban housing makes an area

> In no place in the US is this true Induced housing demand is common in the majority of cities across the US. The act of creating urban housing makes an area in higher demand than the housing just built could actually supply. The action of creating 100 units of supply simultaneously generates ~120+ units of demand. Most people refer to this as "gentrification", even if that label isn't totally accurate. It obviously doesn't last forever, you can't generate more demand indefinitely. But it absolutely does happen -- we see the results all the time. And to be clear that's not an argument against new housing -- we obviously need to build more housing. But it's a common observation that new 'market-rate' urban housing does not lower prices, but raises them in short and medium length timeframes (yes even in non-coastal cities, yes even in small towns, etc). We see this in Seattle too. Seattle rents are 4.5% higher than last year, or 50% higher than they were 5 years ago, according to the articles own data. They'll be even higher next year, and Seattle Times will write an article about the winter slowdown in leasing, and rents will rise even higher again a year later. Until the bubble pops, the cycle will continue.