There's no argument against increasing supply. There's an argument against increasing expensive supply. It's like saying, "I'm going to lose weight, by eating

There's no argument against increasing supply. There's an argument against increasing expensive supply. It's like saying, "I'm going to lose weight, by eating only pizza 24/7". Sure, you technically could do it from a calories in/calories out perspective, but it's going to do a hell of a lot of damage to your body along the way. It might be less damaging to your body to lose weight by eating healthy first (building affordable housing, building public housing). But the urbanists are generally against this, they want to only eat pizza (only build high-end / 'market rate') while pretending that counts as an effective weight loss program, because "weight lost is exclusively just calories in vs calories out" -- "housing is exclusively just supply vs demand". --- Does their approach work? Technically, if you build a metric-insane amount of high end housing, you eventually slightly decrease a tiny percent off the yearly rental growth at the highest-end of the market (Seattle is the textbook example of this). Is this a healthy approach for the city at large? I'd argue no -- it does massive damage to the poor/middle-class, and to the climate in general, all of which is all completely ignored while Urbanists focus exclusively on bringing luxury housing down tiny percentages for a tiny few people who qualify for them.