There is actually plenty of housing in the US.

A home is useless if it isn't where you need it. People need jobs, food, and family to survive. We have plenty of open space in this country to build a million housing units in the wilderness of Wyoming or Nevada. But that wouldn't solve the crisis.

Access to livable wages are disproportionately concentrated around our urban centers, and with artificially limited density, housing prices around these centers skyrocket and few people are allowed access to these valuable locations. Those wages are no longer livable when the prices scale to the location.

In the last 50 years we've tried to solve this by adding fast car access to our city-centers, to enable people from a broad geographical region to commute into the city. But this model quickly reaches a limit. Past 20 miles, the commute time inherently becomes an obstacle. And even before that point, traffic builds up and makes even a 5-10 mile commute into over 30 minutes.

How to solve the housing crisis? It's simple, but not comfortable. Build abundant housing in our most valuable urban cores, within walking distance to job centers. It's uncomfortable because it will require a rethinking of transportation and infrastructure in these areas. Increased density means you need better transit, more walkability, and more bike lanes -- transportation modes that handle more people in a smaller area. This takes away space from cars, and may make driving temporarily inconvenient.

Increased density changes the feel of a neighborhood. A suburban area with large front yards may become more enclosed, with buildings up to the street. Row houses become apartments, apartments become high-rises, high-rises become skyscrapers. Your childhood neighborhood may change to become something unfamiliar. It's different, but it doesn't have to be bad. Here is an amazing breakdown on what density looks like.

How much density is needed? That depends entirely on the city, and it changes over time. If apartment prices are far above the cost to build the apartment, supply is probably too low. For instance, if an apartment costs $400 per square foot to build, then 800 sq foot apartments would cost $320k each. So if you're seeing every apartment in an area is $600k, then supply is probably too low. You should expect a range of pricing for different levels of luxury.

In most places in North America, density could be increased easily through infill. We have plenty of parking lots and empty lawns to build on. This is far cheaper than building 10 story buildings.

Residents oppose greater density because of this discomfort, because change requires restructuring, especially restructuring transportation. But we don't have a choice. Without increased density, a nation plunges into poverty because it's not taking advantage of its economic assets.

If instead you allow housing supply to keep up with demand, then you see a natural spiral of economic growth in our valuable urban centers, as people are given geographical access to employment.

We talk a lot about the health and social benefits of increased density. But density is an emergency and frankly we don't communicate that enough.