> There'd be an apartment for every man, woman, child, and many pets in San Francisco, given the size of its population.

Right, we agree so far.

> Whether they could afford them is not clear

Why isn't it clear? What are the possibilities?

To me, the owner will have a bunch of buildings that are costing them money sitting empty. They list them for $4,000/month. No one rents. $3,000/month. No one rents. They try to sell the building, but no one wants to buy a vacant apartment building. $1,500/month and people become interested.

That is supply reducing pricing.

If you don't think or aren't sure pricing will get lower, what do you think will happen instead? The owners just keep them listed for $4,000/month with 0 tenants, and just lose money into bankruptcy?

> you've cited research papers on how zoning regulations affect the number of housing units that get built in certain

If you think that's the topic you might be literally illiterate. Or, more likely, you're just misrepresenting it because in your imagination you think it makes it seem like your unwillingness to learn is you winning an argument.

> As soon as you cite an actual city, we can discuss what the effects of luxury housing have been there.

Against my better judgment, I will do some reading for you and pull out a few of the cities referenced in the paper: Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis.