The article author argues that more housing = more people = more powerful network = increased value of housing = increased willingness to pay = increased prices

The article author argues that more housing = more people = more powerful network = increased value of housing = increased willingness to pay = increased prices; and I think the author is concerned that the increased prices from network growth outpace, or at least keep pace, with decreased cost from increased stock. I don't think this is fundamentally at odds with supply and demand - one force is shifting the whole curve, while the other is moving the city along the curve.