7% vacancy rate is about the historical average for the US I think. Around there or a bit higher would probably be healthy.
> And where?
Supply needs to meet demand: we most need new housing where the economy is booming and jobs are being added.
But you act like we need some federal authority to say, "okay guys, put housing HERE". That's totally unnecessary: if regulations are streamlined sufficiently, developers will build where demand exists. No central authority required.
> But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas.
???
I'm sorry, are you unaware that most jobs aren't remote or something? This is a very strange and simple thing to misunderstand.