It is obvious that a lot of people like living in New York. I think it is too crowded. So when does a city decide that any further development would result in overcrowding? Unlimited addition of housing could very well kill the reason people want to live there in the first place — trees, parks, low traffic, clear air, quietness, etc.
Looking at Vancouver: One reads about a housing shortage. Does this automatically mean that more housing must be built within the existing boundaries? If someone decides to live here, do they have a right to housing despite what it may ultimately do to the existing aesthetics of the city?
I know developers will rape a city of its open space to make a dollar, and do it with the PR line that they are helping, but their purpose is always profit — not a city’s longevity. Two examples of other cities: Detroit, in January 2013, had 47 houses listed for $500 or less, with five properties listed for $1 (per Wikipedia). On the other hand, Beverly Hills, Calif., makes no attempt to accommodate anyone just because they may want to live there. Its current median price is $3,074,700.