> I'm saying that on average, whatever you observe in the world is already "economically optimal". You may believe that there's a better way to use land, but if

> I'm saying that on average, whatever you observe in the world is already "economically optimal". You may believe that there's a better way to use land, but if reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, there's usually a good reason. I got it, this is just misunderstanding. I meant that upbuilding is "econimically suboptimal", but current situation is optimal. > In other words: owners know what the land is worth Actually, no. Some of developers told us that the problem with market is that most of the land is not for sale because owners just don't know that they can sell on a good price, they are not thinking about this at all. Developers are willing to buy land up to x10 more that they are currently buying. > It has nothing to do with regulation. In regions where there are a huge crisis in housing local government can introduce a new type of a Tax - Underdevelopment Tax. This will reduce margins of the owners that hold their land for "investing" opportunity and force them to sell their land to developers. Even if this tax will be low, they will start to think about selling their land right now and this help to the market a lot.