> I've offered you examples of cities that actually built a lot of luxury housing, and yet other housing there didn't get cheaper

I showed you how population growth outstripped housing growth, and why prices going up still fit my increased demand=higher prices model.

I also provided many academic resources that agree with what I'm saying.

So far, you can't even explain what you think is happening, let alone provide any corroborating evidence. I don't know what else to do to get you to explain your own logic. I asked multiple times, and provided a quote of yourself criticizing the exact behavior you're partaking in now.

> The problem isn't in asking specific questions, it's in asking vague deflective questions like, "What's your solution?"

Is it poor reading comprehension, or a failing memory that is causing you to misquote what I asked? To ask you for the third time, what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow? I am crossing my fingers hoping that you'll actually attempt to explain what you think the housing market will do this time. Third time's the charm...?

>including in Providence itself.

Providence is in the same situation as San Francisco. Supply has dropped in relation to demand, so prices are higher.

2011: 72,600 housing units; 178,000 people

2020: 74,800 housing units; 190,000 people

That's 2,200 new units, and 12,000 new people. More demand, higher prices.

Were you just straight up making stuff up and hoping I wouldn't check, or do you really think that population has nothing to do with housing pricing?

> Give examples where your theory actually worked as claimed.

I gave you studies with data tables, which you immediately demonstrated your unwillingness and/or inability to read and/or understand. You failing to read the thing you asked for is no longer my problem. You are willingly choosing ignorance.