>I totally agree that these mid-density housing options are excellent for maintaining a smaller land base while still providing units. I know a few of them have gone up in Eugene in the past few years, it just seems the backlog of demand has really outstripped supply.

5 stories tall for blocks on end would put it in the top densities in America. Most towers are surrounded by like grass and then a parking lot so there isn't nearly as much or lower density than staying lower and it's just preference at some point.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/3/comparing-approaches-to-achieving-density

What I'm saying you could be 11x denser than the fan with just that...

>Like the recent infrastructure bill that has been sorely needed, we need some kind of construction subsidization bill to get people in reasonable mortgages. I think the amount of stability for a family that ownership provides will create huge economic benefits down the line. And even though it may hurt my own home value, its a hit i'm willing to take to solve this overall problem. I would like to imagine others would as well, but NIMBY has never been more specifically applicable than with this problem!

I think increasing housing will continue the increase in housing prices, walkability would likely increase and most density changes would lead to people who want the suburban home near the middle of the city. Your prices would rise while per unit prices would hopefully be stable/fall.

I think we can solve a lot of this through regulations and pilot programs to get some development started. Allowing things to be built is step 1.