>>1904886What substitutions do you imagine there are? Nobody wants to be homeless, and renting is just as much of an issue as owning due to undersupply of units. Not everyone can afford to move somewhere else, and the higher prices go the more working class and middle class get priced out and eventually become homeless as we're seeing in San Fran and Los Angeles. This ends with the city losing sanitation workers, clerks, construction workers, bus drivers, teachers, all the people that make the city run on a day-to-day basis.
>>1904889It'll be nice. I honestly see ADUs as a NIMBY compromise to not have to upzone any more rather than as an actual solution, but if more duplex/fourplex/sixplex/etc buildings can start getting put up, I'd be very happy. And then there's also this glorious monstrosity, picrel
>>1904893Anon, I want you to think back to your high school econ class. When supply floods, what happens to price? I know you can handle this, it's pretty basic. We're at the point where in many areas even middle and upper-middle class can't afford to rent or own in cities where they grew up or got jobs in, even as jobs are being added to these cities. If all of the supply is still priced too high for these people, those units are going to sit empty and cost the landlord cash. This will cause the landlord to lower the price so that they can get people in the units and generating cash. Developer doesn't care what the landlord wants to initially price it at, they just want to make their sale to the management company that's going to act as the landlord once construction is complete. The developers WANT to build, because that's how they make their cash. Their problem, and why the only remaining developers are the big companies and trusts you hate so much, is because municipalities have blocked new construction for so long that those big developers are the only ones left. It's a self-inflicted issue and the ONLY way it gets better is by building more housing.
