Good.
Treating increasing unaffordability as a good thing is an insane part of American culture. We didn't celebrate car prices going through the roof during the pandemic, and neither does it make sense to celebrate skyrocketing housing prices.
The ideal price of housing would be zero, same as other products.
Your argument is basically that we should start salting farm land to decrease its value.
Destroying wealth because you've lowered the price of goods and make them more accessible, is not the same thing as destroying wealth by actually destroying the utility of something.
If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole.
Truth be told, the value of the land itself in these cities, I don't think will change very much. The value of the property on top of that land though, that'll probably change, as the total housing supply increases.
No, no wealth would be destroyed. Some of the old agricultural sector's wealth would be transferred to you. The rest would stay with the purchasers of food. Again, no wealth is destroyed when you make something more productive. In fact, your food replicator creates wealth because people get the same amount of food and have more money.
Again, I think you're getting confused by the concepts of destroying wealth and transferring wealth. In your scenario, you're transferring and creating wealth through innovation. In my anecdote, wealth was destroyed. It didn't go anywhere. It just ceased to exist.
The long term solution of housing being cheap is obviously superior to the long term solution of housing prices doubling every generation until nobody but the very wealthy can afford to buy a home.
My parents own a home in the bay area, so it does actually indirectly affect me. But so did leaving the bay area because it was insanely expensive (and similarly, almost everyone from my graduating class left too).