Is that true? I'd imagine building a big block of, say, 100 units to be far more capital efficient than building a few freestanding homes, if zoning laws allowed it.
Other than Singapore are there any blocks of units that don’t get run down over time and left to rot? (Seriously question as I’m curious)
We need policy that requires mixed units. Some for the affluent, some for service workers, etc.
I don't disagree that there is disincentive for developers to build mid-level properties. They want huge expensive homes or the ability to cram many people into one space. I think this is a problem, but is not the only reason for the lack of availability, as described by the grandparent and in my former paragraph.
This is a simple supply-demand problem, not anything complicated. The solution is equally simple - make zoning laws basic and limited in scope.
Did the free market supply the homeowner and title insurance ?
Did the free market determine the rules for zoning that plague most large metro areas and adjoining suburbs?
If housing shortage was solved then that also kills the profit motive of renting out all but the most ideal houses for renting.
The root cause in Canada is the neoliberal policy that started in the 90s that ended government building low income housing. They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because that’s profitable for builders and largely left the poor/young to be screwed.