Very much insufficient IMO. People are resisting a proposal to build a residential tower at the site of a current parking lot across the street from Journal Square PATH station. If people can't see the need to prioritize humans over cars at that location, we're in big trouble.
I'm not saying it's right, but I do understand why NIMBY syndrome exists. People would be fine with more housing, more skyscrapers, or whatever if their home price wasn't directly affected.
That and all the usual complaints about "it will be harder to find parking", "the streets will become too congested", etc.
So, the fraction of existing stock that is being developed is about 2% rather than 1%. Although, I don't know how many of these proposed units replace existing units, so perhaps the estimate was also too generous in the other direction.
I agree there needs to be a far faster rate of housing development if you want to see housing cost reductions, I just don't think the comparison you're drawing makes much sense.
There is substantial (if also insufficient) housing development going up in NJ, parts of NY outside the city limits, etc.
The comparison needs to either include all of those units, or only compare against the NYC population instead of the metro population.