> Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. But isn't it already the case

> Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. But isn't it already the case? I believe that there are a bit more houses in US then there are households. So the problem is not lack of houses, it's that people don't want to live in some places where houses are abundant. They don't want to live there for the most part due to lack of good jobs. The solution then could be to even out the wage gap and job market capacity across the country. I know that US situation is somewhat unique w.r.t. density due to suburbia and obviously this has to be addressed somehow. But it worries me a bit when people are saying "build more" as the only solution to housing prices. I live in a city which added 50% in population last 20 years, which means about 2.5 million new people. It looks like [1] and it's terrifying, the city is not suitable for living anymore, I'm now looking for somewhere to move from the place where I was born and was living for 35 years, where my friends and parent live. All this is the result of "we should build more housing". That, and corruption of course. The city which is UNESCO world heritage site is gone forever. By the way, real estate prices still doubled last year, so even this crazy tempo doesn't help. It's akin to fighting traffic jams by building more and wider roads - it only attracts more cars. I am aware about overly restrictive zoning rules in US and probably building more is a part of the solution, but I don't believe it's the whole solution. Be careful what you wish for. [1] https://imgur.com/X5GrRfO https://imgur.com/X5GrRfO