And it's a reason why "just build denser housing" is not a complete solution. More density makes an area more desirable, so prices will remain flat or in rare cases increase since the demand continues to outstrip supply. I believe the solution involves dramatically looser building regulations and major investment in public transit (essentially, get to Tokyo levels of density). Places like SF or NYC are in that uncanny valley of building just enough to keep demand high but not enough to drop prices.
There is the notion of induced demand but it follows a logistic curve rather than a monotonically increasing one. At the limit, you will eventually build enough housing to satiate demand without creating more; there are only a limited amount of people on the planet, after all.
Zoning laws that discourage mixed use developments. One of the only cities in the US that works well with the more European style model of mixed use developments with apartments and businesses all next to or on top of each other is NYC.
I can understand residents not wanting businesses right next door, but how many cities ban apartments on top of businesses? That seems pretty common IME, but maybe I've misunderstood what I was seeing.
I could support that, though maybe not in a place that's unavoidably car-dependant. As you probably know, parking eats up real estate and drives up prices.
That’s basically your argument. Living in a LCOL area is not comparable to living in NYC.
There is a reason millions want to live in NYC and almost no one actually wants to live in, say, Iowa.