In the US, people have been complaining about this for 100 years. I haven't found any successes yet. I suspect it's because it's a demand problem, not a supply one. Make high-demand areas less attractive and low-demand areas more attractive.
You don't have to overcomplicate things. Supply less than demand > price goes up. Increase supply > price goes down. The data shows the same pattern over and over again[1]. See Japan as an international example or Minneapolis[2] and Austin[3] as US examples.
[1] https://deny.substack.com/p/tracking-the-anglo-worlds-housin...
[2] https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181d...
There goes the entire marketing industry. And taxes on cigarettes.
> The exception being the demand manipulating industry that is used every day by every product being sold to consumers
What would a Venn diagram of these two categories look like.
So, 100 years, and three weak successes (if you can call them that) - doesn't sound like a winning strategy.
A demand view gives other routes to explore, at least.
Figure out how to sell Atherton on affordable housing and the Bronx on gentrification and you’ll have a solution.