I would strongly argue that building code is the driver of costs. In China, there's hardly a building code, yet the housing supply is vastly overpriced. Besides

I would strongly argue that building code is the driver of costs. In China, there's hardly a building code, yet the housing supply is vastly overpriced. Besides, building codes are a great thing. They are the minimum standards of occupancy that we've developed after fires, building collapses, earthquakes, and everything else that we've had to deal with. As to compliance changes. I've never seen a building torn down because it's out of compliance. Most buildings get grandfathered as the code changes. Perhaps you can show me an example. I think you can argue that the artificial control of labor by unions in some areas (NYC) leads to an increased price of construction, but the response might be that those labor costs are necessary to avoid exploiting the local workers where living costs are higher too. But licensing alone? I doubt it. Certainly some licensing is overdone, but generally I'm extremely glad to have licensing standards for the trades - see the changes in structural steel in the trades because of the LA earthquake. Only licensing gets that information out there fast. I've never seen code over enforced. However, I certainly have seen my share of corruption and collusion between developers and politicians. It means that bad projects get built, but I'm not sure how much it impacts affordable housing per se. It something that we need to be vigilant about though. I agree.