Again, this was already done years ago in multiple different cities and hasn't worked. (As you already mentioned yourself).
But sure, do a few more. I'm not against it, It just won't fix the problem alone.
> If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction
If the empty / unused property appreciates in value more than the profit from construction would provide, then the housing won't get built. If the needs are greater for housing, but the profit is greater in other uses (like retail or tourism) then the housing won't get built.
This is a big reason why "filtering" doesn't happen in housing, but does for other things like automobiles. Developers can often make more money misusing property than using it. Eliminating zoning actually makes that problem slightly worse by incentivizing developers to speculate like this on even greater portions of every city.
I don't recall mentioning that it hadn't worked, precisely because the rent-seeking, market failure, zoning density restrictions are in place.
We need to remove them, at the federal level as Japan has done, if necessary.
It may be that the money of wealthy landowners is just too much to fix the problem at the local level and that federal action as in Japan may be necessary.
If a developer can make a profit, I don't see why some enterprising firm wouldn't go ahead and do the construction -- if not incumbents then developers who are new to that market.