This is an argument I see all the time from the supply & demand denier side of the housing argument, and I'm sorry but it's just so incredibly stupid.
It would be like if someone was dying of dehydration, they drink a couple drops of water but are still dehydrated, then conclude oh well, I guess water is not what I need.
If you're not going to address the quantities involved how can you possible conclude that it's not working? I know less about Toronto but to use San Francisco as an example, there were something like 150,000 new jobs added in the last decade and 20,000 new housing units built. Of course it's not solving the problem yet, it doesn't mean that we don't need more housing, exactly the opposite.
This wasn’t an argument for anything. I was just responding to the ability to build taller buildings, which isn’t an issue in many places facing rising housing costs. All I’m saying is being able to build taller buildings doesn’t solve the housing cost issue, so I agree with you.
If 1M people want to move to your city but you only build housing for 100k of them, it's not really going to move the needle very much on price, even if you built "a lot" of housing. The amount of housing built has to be considered in comparison to the demand for more housing. The absolute numbers matter much less than the relative ones.
