Obviously its going to depend on the context of your country/city/culture, but i'd point out that your theory of reduced housing supply is a bit counter-intuiti

Obviously its going to depend on the context of your country/city/culture, but i'd point out that your theory of reduced housing supply is a bit counter-intuitive given that these tend to be the areas with the higher density of housing, ceteris paribus. I think its much more straight forward in that car ownership is actually quite expensive, in both time, infrastructure, and money, density creates opportunities of scale, and employment is a net attraction. Successful areas that favour walking/public transport over cars tend to have more jobs, higher wages, are net attractors, and people are able to substitute away the expense of other things to live there because of the economies of scale: thus their demand functions, budgets and competition to live there are quite high and people compete strongly for them. Those areas that are dense and attractive start to increase demand for pedestrian/public transport over cars organically as well, so it sort of feeds back on itself to some degree. There's also a bit of survivorship bias, if that's the right phrase. An area that is attempted to be designed for pedestrian/public-transport, but which doesn't thrive tends to become a ghetto/ghost-town, because there's neither demand/people there, and its not an attractor, and people will find driving there hard/pointless. These areas will either be abandoned or be primed for redevelopment: and if the later works, it will push up values/demand...