It's very possible I'm wrong. We'll see what the rate hikes will do to home prices in the next 2-4 years, and already we're seeing relaxing of zoning in many metros, so we'll see the effect of that in 5-10.
> I don't think it will meaningfully reduce cost of home ownership.
More housing would absolutely meaningfully reduce the cost of home ownership. Just look at cities like Detroit and Pittsburgh that, for a time, had a surplus of housing and a declining population: houses became super super cheap.
What's happening now is that housing stock is increasing 0.5% per year, while city population is increasing 5% per year, and then policymakers are turning around and saying "look, we're building more housing, and prices keep rising, it's not working!" -- of course, because cities need to build enough housing to satisfy demand, not just "more housing". Each year we have a new housing deficit, the housing "debt" goes up. To reduce prices, you need to build more than the demand is, which we are so far from doing it is laughable.
> Infill development is more expensive
This, too, is per policy. The sweet spot price-wise for construction costs alone is 4-5 story apartment buildings; outside parts of SF, Manhattan, and a few other inner cities, we aren't there yet. But the cost of infill development these days also includes (1) drafting environmental impact reports; (2) multiple sets of meetings with neighbors to convince them not to oppose your plans; (3) delay and stalling tactics from well-heeled neighbors who oppose your plans anyway (see: CEQA); (4) extensive requirements on insulation, window area, solar panel inclusion, etc. that push costs upwards; and finally (5) years of paying property taxes while you attempt all of the above to get your plans approved. That's leaving out (6) extremely high labor costs for construction, because construction workers need housing too, and their rent is also super high.
We are not going to see meaningful change until we remove at least some of the constraints on housing construction and new supply can begin to exceed new demand. In California, lawmakers are starting to wake up to the problems, but solutions are slow to come.
I am flummoxed every time the discussion of housing prices shows up. Seems like 95% of everyone who comments is completely clueless to the most basic aspects of it.
In the vast majority of Western regions, high home prices are caused by a deliberate decision not to allow building enough homes to match demand, in the places where people want to live. It's really that simple.
In itself, this is a state of affairs we could accept as the current democratic consensus, but it's really stupid when most discussion of the problem pretends that the root cause is something else.