> It's not like housing would become more affordable anyway, Seattle only builds luxury housing for the rich (and they're having a hard time filling these units!).

They only build luxury housing because housing supply is restricted and the rich can outbid the poor for that restricted development.

And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

>And no, they aren't having a hard time filling units.

Seattle Times says otherwise.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/free-amazo...

That's like saying I'm having a hard time becoming a billionaire. Of course I am...but that in no way implies I'm having a tough time paying my bills.

Building housing for the rich has a displacing effect. Either they are locals and their old place goes to sale or rent or they no longer displace existing residents. And absent sweetheart deals incoming rich with their increased tax revenues should allow the city to upgrade public transit, build public housing or other solutions. But it is up to the city to solve their problems.

Apparently in Boston contrary to concerns luxury high rises didn't act as gentrification locuses but stemmed its tide in other areas instead.

Houses are generally built for/by the richer class. Then in a few tens of years the rich build a new house and sell the old one to someone poor.