And, in a more ideal world, we'd also be capturing (expropriating?) a lot of rising land values to roll back into direct/indirect public housing housing provision.

In my mind, this is still a supply story, it's just a matter of exploring all the mechanisms for producing more supply relative to need

agreed - this is meant as a very narrow answer to the question of whether devs will ever "oversupply a market"

the more important point is thing is letting densification reduce per capita land consumption as land prices increase (these being the lion's share of real estate cost in major metros)

question then - would you be onboard with the idea that, even if privately funded housing dev cannot save us, we still need to reform all the same laws, regs, processes that YIMBYs go on about? (b/c the people and systems blocking housing block all types of housing - irrespective of fin model)

And fwiw, all that applies to public or BMR housing - the enviro review that kills a duplex also kills the 100% BMR project.

I'd love to see more housing subsidy in the US; but even pumping federal money into the system as-is wouldn't solve our problems.

(Last comment and then I'll shut up)

That article misses the point.

What we need to legalize are different types of housing products that let people consume less land and also that can be financed in ways diff ways.

(2) a lot of this is about allowing people to reduce their per capita consumption of land. In high cost US metros, the land component can be something like 66% of the overall cost - legalizing more (and more types) of housing that sit on smaller lots is a huge part of solution.

(1b) you correctly point out the difference between ADUs vs apartments in a diff comment, super important - missing middle housing, which is illegal in most places, could be funded in ways/by people who won't expect the same type of returns as volume devs (this is a big @strongtowns.org point)

(1a) devs will absolutely oversupply a market, specifically by building themselves off a cliff into a downturn. This only happens to the extent that we allow them to actually build during the boom (it's also aided when we have a permitting process that can be navigated in months instead of years)

Respectfully, and with the caveat that I'm not familiar with the housing situation in the U.K., I think this is broadly wrong.

Yeah, I personally don't love the Corbusier towers in the park kinda development, but given the situation housing is housing and it maximizes revenue to the Squamish so whatev *shrug*