So you're telling me that the government should build millions of new units in NYC, until they control 40% of the market? Am I understanding that correctly?

Seize the less developed parts, and build high-density affordable housing there. Yes, that’s the only action that’d have a chance at solving this issue.

I think he wants the government to seize housing from others.

Which will ensure that absolutely no one develops anything in that state again

Bullshit.

Vienna hasn't seized those properties, they just invested and built them themselves. NYC could to the same.

Create better and cheaper transport and the problem will go away

If the private market won’t do it, why not?

Because the private market can't do it. When most cities in the US have 80%+ of its land zoned for single-family units, developers can not build anything other than expensive McMansions.

Don't forget parking minimums, rent control, environmental studies in excess of what is needed, and the endless town-halls full of people trying to veto change. All this just to build an apartment complex. You have to retain half the state bar to build anything around me and consequences are evident in the rent prices.

> cities in the US have 80+ of its land zoned for single-family units

How is that even a city? Single family zoning is a suburban desert at best. Even remote villages have more life and vibrancy than that.

80% of Seattle is zoned for single family units. It's not exactly a suburban desert, but it could be much better. Unfortunately, even very limited legislation (HB 1782) allowing upzoning to duplexes/quadplexes ("missing middle" housing) within walking distance of public transit hubs failed earlier this year. NIMBYism abounds.

Most of Manhattan is built out to the maximum allowed by zoning, but we could raise those limits

Ah, from your original comment, I thought you were advocating for seizure + rent control.

If you are instead suggesting some form of eminent domain of low density housing, and then building higher density housing in its stead, with a target of 40% of housing controlled by the state, I'm more inclined to think that would work.

To my mind though, I think targeting meeting current demand + demand growth (or some margin therein) would be the target, rather than what feels to me the arbitrary target of 40% (unless you have figures that show that's where demand+growth meets.)