again, higher costs != shortage. It just means "desirable"
Just build more of the thing that people want!
Just build more of the thing that people want!
And how do you build more land for single-family houses? Around 80% of people in the US would prefer to live in a SFH.
But even putting that quip aside, you physically can't keep up with the demand. Large cities physically can't grow fast enough to keep up with the demand.
A typical apartment unit now requires about 2 work-years of labor to build. So if you're growing your city by 5% a year, then 10% of the city will be apartment construction workers! And then you'll need to keep upgrading the infrastructure, and this is usually exorbitantly expensive.
To give some perspective: one mile of Manhattan subway now costs as much as 1500 miles of modern 6-lane freeway.
74% of people live in SFH right now in the US. How many of those have actually never experienced living in multi-family homes? Probably most of them. How can you prefer something you've never even tried?
Also, keep in mind that in many places SFH is literally the only choice right now.
Given real estate prices in places like Boston and NYC I think multi-family housing is doing just fine
Yeah, and you don't even need multi-family houses. A bunkbed would do, like in Singapore!
> 74% of people live in SFH right now in the US. How many of those have actually never experienced living in multi-family homes? Probably most of them. How can you prefer something you've never even tried?
They also did not experience living in buildings without AC or heating. Remove them.
> Given real estate prices in places like Boston and NYC I think multi-family housing is doing just fine
Then invert your argument. Can a person in NYC who hates living in a multi-family home have an option to NOT do that?