Great article that adds a lot to a nuanced and controversial topic. I'm surprised they don't consider time as a dimension of market segmentation, i.e. what is

Great article that adds a lot to a nuanced and controversial topic. I'm surprised they don't consider time as a dimension of market segmentation, i.e. what is "luxury" today might become "standard" or even "basic" as time progresses. Even things that you'd think would stay static over time don't -- houses are larger today than they used to be, and I could very much imagine people standing around 100 years ago talking about only "the rich with their luxury running water" can afford to live in a certain area. I think long-term the solution really is just to build, and build, and build. Over time, if builders consistently add supply to the top of the market, it will gradually slide downmarket as it ages and its amenities become more standard. I think the biggest problem is that in California, the normal process of adding luxury units has been paused for 20 years due to anti-developer sentiment, and they're trying to make up for it now, at all once. I'm reminded of a saying: the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the second-best time is today. Another thing, and I wasn't even going to mention it, but any Bay Area real estate developer will tell you [0], it's very difficult adding supply to the middle of the market here because things are just so damn expensive. Affordability is not and never was the priority. It's 500K to build a middle-market affordable unit before the developer makes a cent of profit. For that, thank buy-local regulations, environmental legislation like CEQA, organized labor, huge "developer impact fees", extremely long wait times (years) for permits to get approval, and now "inclusionary housing" requirements that force developers to cross-subsidize below-market rate housing by jacking up the prices of the market-rate units. It's madness. [0] I'm married to an architect working in the Bay Area.