@ChuckMcM - I always enjoy your comments, thank you for the perspective you bring to HN. I've seen the argument you present used frequently, and I can understa

@ChuckMcM - I always enjoy your comments, thank you for the perspective you bring to HN. I've seen the argument you present used frequently, and I can understand where it is accurate in many markets. In Seattle, a very similar argument is being made as a cure for the lack of affordable housing -- greater density of construction will lower costs through greater housing supply. What I see happening in actuality though is that one house that would have fetched ~$900,000 today (and maybe $400,000 just a few years ago, post-recession) is torn down, and four condos put up in the same footprint. Ok - so supply increased, right? Not exactly, because if each unit is priced at ~$700,000, it's still above affordability for most people. So then those units get swallowed up by speculators and investors, the same as what's happened NY, Paris, London, and Vancouver. I also recall in Seattle there is some building regulation where new apartment buildings get a tax rebate or some similar incentive that lasts 5 years - and then after that the units get converted to condos (or maybe its the other way around). In any event - my point is that there can be a lot of shenanigans that get in the way of the market.