26 ms·

I agree with nearly everything you say. I'm of the opinion that regulation/bureaucracy are being scapegoated to an extent. Supply of knowledgeable builders and

I agree with nearly everything you say. I'm of the opinion that regulation/bureaucracy are being scapegoated to an extent. Supply of knowledgeable builders and development finance is not very elastic and does not increase easily even when there is less regulation. The real reason I feel is the higher risk = higher reward equation is broken. Building fewer units means increasing scarcity, allowing increased prices despite there being lower (due to building less houses). Developers are chasing good profit margins rather than revenue. Less regulation just means even better profit margins for these developers.

throwaway11460 2y ago
Where I live there would be 100 people waiting to buy an apartment you just built, giving you absurd amounts of money for it. There is no reason to build less than the absolute maximum possible. There are many developers and builders who want to do it, could do it and eventually will do it - but getting an approval takes 11 years.
- bombcar 2y ago
  The timeline is a killer, because 11 years (and more) from beginning to end means you could end up with your new building opening just as the area goes into a slump. When the turnaround time is shorter, the builder is taking much less risk, and so they're more willing to build. (They can still overextend as happened during the last housing bubble, mind you.)