> As for rural communities, they are not comparable in the slightest to cities.

Anything can be proven by discarding data that doesn't fit. Rural population is in decline, and prices drop with it. You can even buy entire towns in Appalachia for a song.

> Detroit

Your own cite says: “New housing construction has barely kept pace with the growth in housing demand over the past decade.”

>Your own cite says: “New housing construction has barely kept pace with the growth in housing demand over the past decade.”

This is an empty statement the article writer wrote to attempt to justify it. Housing demand in Detroit cannot have increased, because the population of Detroit was and is decreasing. If you can explain to me how a decreasing population can mean an increase in demand, I'd be all ears.

What groups of people are moving in and out of Detroit? One explanation could be that people who previously could afford rents in Detroit can no longer do so, and the ones moving in are the ones who can afford these rents and mortgages. A lot of these low income neighborhoods in inner city Detroit have been raised and left to nature over the years, historic supply in the city center has been destroyed and what is left or is currently being constructed might be pricier housing comparatively. The working class greatly outnumbers the capital class everywhere. Take it with a grain of salt as I don't have any data in front of me, I'm merely postulating, but this would explain this trend.

The rate of occupied housing in Detroit has drastically decreased, while average rent has increased. If the supply and demand hypothesis of the real estate market held, one would believe that given the fungibility and non-stratified nature of housing in a given city, cratering occupancy rates would correspond to a decrease in average rent priced. If you believe that housing is indeed stratified and that the surplus of affordable housing has so little an effect on the average price of rent in the entire city, whose average income I should remind you is of under 30 000$ while the average price of rent is of more than 12 000$ a year, then I see no way that building luxury apartments could still mean a sizeable decrease in the price of affordable housing in say, Toronto.

> empty statement

Sorry, it's your cite.

> explain

Simple. People sharing living arrangements deciding to not share anymore. Fewer families with children, more single professionals. Confusing Detroit the city with Detroit the metropolitan area.

Both the detroit city and detroit metropolitan areas have decreasing populations and drastically increasing rent prices.

The share of unoccupied housing exploded from 2010 to 2018, to 23%, according to the census. This is a sure-fire indicator that supply is far, far superior to demand. And yet, the price of rent increased. This means that supply and demand simply does not explain the rising price of rent. I don't see anyway that demand might be higher than supply, while unoccupancy rates are above 10%.

Also, if you want a source that doesn't make empty, baseless economic statements without backing them by facts, there is this one: https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2019/03/06/is-...

I simply used the one above because it was clearer about the primary source used. But of course, websites run by real-estate investors will make baseless claims about supply and demand, without backing them up with any data, that is simply a fact of the matter as such a mentality seems to be widespread.

Again, your own cite contradicts your thesis:

"Despite the increases in Detroit, the city's average rent is still among the lowest in the nation at $610. But that's quickly changing in and near downtown and Midtown, where the flow of new residents is creating a greater demand for housing."