on most undeveloped land, you're not allowed to build. In CA, you can go to the exurbs and there will be a tiny plot of land with maybe a couple hundred houses scrunched together like some kind of nazi concentration camp for houses, fenced in like a chicken coup. Meanwhile, there's nothing but open land in every direction you look. it's totally disfunctional and yet voters seem to love it.
Do you realize how much undeveloped land even California has that you are free to build on? Many many times the size of all the cities combined.
There are more acres than people, even in CA. But, you're certainly not free to build on it.
By all means, where is it?
Almost nobody wants to live in the middle of nowhere. That's why nobody's there.
Conversely, if too many people want to live in the same place, of course it's going to get expensive.
which is why you upzone
Like New York, which is still too expensive.
New York isn't as upzoned as it could be. Not a lot of 20-30 story mediums priced apartment buildings being built like you'd see in Chinese cities.
doesn't have to be. Houston is one of the fastest growing cities in the US, and grew at a population increase rate x5 faster than SF, and yet it remains cost effective with far fewer homeless than SF.