I would rather see rents controlled in an area by requiring that sufficient housing is built.

Address the issue with more supply.

(At a livable standard of living, including proper sound isolation and fresh air, and even a space for vehicle storage* because people need to leave the city some time... *: Having an in city goods and services transport layer in weather controlled environments that leads to peripheral IO structures such as mega parking garages is fine.)

> requiring that sufficient housing is built.

I realize what you are trying to say (I think), but your phrasing is curious.

Shortages are almost always caused by government intervention in a market by increasing the burden for suppliers and/or capping prices. There is no need to mandate anything, but instead just let developers do what they already want to do, build. It is the prohibitions (zoning regulations) on development that are the problem, not disinterest by developers.

Actually construction wants to expend the least effort for the most profit. Given how critical the housing gap is in most areas* (that are near jobs) right now all that 'wants' to be built is the upper end of housing. If the market hadn't reached these levels that /would/ be fine, since then previous housing from that category would depreciate in to the lower income strata in an actual trickle down method. What will happen instead is that only enough housing will be built to maintain the current status of an unhealthy market.

In order to have an actual //correction// in current trends directed building must be several times beyond a normal build rate to make up for the decades of under-performance.

I'd rather tackle things like speculation and improper use (high volume airbnb) before going after rent controls.