> Enough housing means supply meets or exceeds demand which means prices fall

While this seems obvious on the surface (if there are more houses than people in some area, prices should drop right), are there real world example of this working that way?

More housing just creates more demand which drives more density and yet more demand. The densest area in the US is Manhattan, not known for being a cheap place to live. Second densest is SF, also not a bargain for housing.

Ya, this could be a case of induced demand that we see in freeway building. Making more housing in a hot area where people want to live could conversely encourage more people to move to that hot area. Unless you just have slow growth like Japan/Tokyo, or some kind of residency restriction, I don’t see a way to cheaper prices just by adding in more supply. The increased density is still a win, just don’t expect it to make housing much cheaper.

More housing doesn't create demand, the city's economy creates demand. This is exactly why people have kept pouring into NYC and SF over the last few decades while the rate of new construction has slowed down to a crawl and nothing is affordable.

> More housing doesn't create demand, the city's economy creates demand.

I doubt there is a simple one-way causation, it's a feedback loop.

The economy of a city only grows if more and more people and businesses move in, which means more housing and density which in turn grows the economy and prices even more.

Is there any example of a city where housing was quite expensive and over time housing became cheap merely by building more of it, while still remaining a thriving city?

As far as I can see, once a city is thriving and expensive it only becomes cheap through economic collapse (e.g. Detroit) which isn't the solution anyone wanted.

Yeah, and it’s a faulty assumption that all investors price housing on the basis of rents. I recall reading that in Vancouver, BC they had a large influx of foreign money pouring into their housing market because it was a way for foreigners to expatriate their money. Drove prices through the roof. They had to impose measures to discourage it. Those properties, I read, often sat empty because using them for housing was never the intent of the owners.

Manhattan and SF has built almost no housing over the past several decades, and demand has continued to rise anyway, causing skyrocketing prices. Those metro areas are proving the exact opposite point you are trying to make. Building more housing is not what is creating more demand.

One of two things is happening.

Either induced demand is real which implies if you bought a corn field in Idaho and built enough high density housing you could make the housing more expensive than Manhattan and walk away richer than god.

Or high demand drives housing density and high prices.

> bought a corn field in Idaho

For an example how trying to build something up artificially in the middle of nowhere can fail, see California City. OTOH, for a counterexample see Las Vegas.

> Or high demand drives housing density and high prices.

Yes, and it also drives even more demand and even higher prices.

The premise of the OP is that you can make housing become cheap in an expensive city by building a lot more of it. If that works, there ought to be a few success story cities where it happened. Which ones are they?

But who will build enough housing? And will they be able to do it at a reasonable profit? There have to be the appropriate incentives for builders to produce.

Kind of my concern as well, maybe banning them from buying used housing but no restrictions on them owning new housing so that the money is even more focused on acting as a prime originator for new housing allowing it to trickle down later.

Also give like a 10 year or something proptery tax reduction for new construction also increase homestead exemptions to help homeowners but with increased proptery taxes to also encourge them to sell off and not rent housing after the intial honeymoon period.

Also would encourge them to purchase demolish and rebuild older housing and ruined housing so they could invest in it healing some of the older rundown areas.

Just allow more new construction. Upzone and speed up the approval process.

You mention ways to accelerate new housing, but we should maybe just take our foot off the break before we look into acceleration.

Wouldn't removing demand from the likes of Wall St make the required supply much easier to achieve?

Wall Street would lose interest if the housing market stopped being pumped.

Yep.

"Cities and municipalities suddenly start building enough housing to meet current and even maybe expected-future demand" is often in the "Known Risks" section of the SEC filings of these sorts of businesses.

No. The renters would then push into the house buying market. The demand would be the same.

That's the required supply I am talking about though