Why more housing won’t deliver affordability — and what will

A common belief in housing policy is that increasing the supply of new homes will reduce prices and make housing more affordable. But in practice, this rarely happens — especially not in urban areas with high demand. Why? Because housing is not produced in a neutral system. It’s produced within a capitalist economy, where the flow of money is driven by profit, not by human need.

This profit logic plays out through two interconnected dynamics: capitalist production and rent extraction. Developers operate under capitalist production, but that doesn’t mean they compete to lower prices. Like all capitalists, they pursue the highest possible return on investment (ROI) — which is why they avoid building affordable homes with low profit margins. Instead, capital flows into high-end developments in high-demand areas, where luxury apartments promise fast and high returns. These projects don’t just extract profit — they also make the area more attractive to wealthier residents and investors, which drives up land values and housing prices even further. As prices rise, it becomes financially unviable to build anything less luxurious — so more modest or affordable housing is priced out of the equation entirely. Once the market is saturated at the high end, and further ROI becomes uncertain, capital moves on to the next “up-and-coming” area. But the area it leaves behind is now expensive, under-supplied, and in high demand. This is when rent extraction kicks in fully: housing becomes a scarce, high-value asset, and those who remain — tenants, first-time buyers, workers — are left competing for access. In this way, the system ensures that prices rarely fall. Even when new housing is added, it’s produced and priced to maximize profit — not to meet actual housing needs.

This is the fundamental flaw: the building industry does not exist to solve the housing crisis. It exists to generate return on investment. That alone explains why building more housing doesn’t translate into more affordable housing.

Let’s break it down.¹

1. Profit determines what gets built — not human need

In a capitalist economy, all actors in the housing sector — from developers and investors to landowners and municipalities — operate under the logic of profit maximization.

This includes our pension funds, which are legally obligated to pursue maximum financial returns. These funds invest in real estate not to provide housing for people, but to grow wealth. That means capital flows toward projects that promise the highest return — luxury housing, not affordable homes.

Even when cities face a clear shortage of affordable housing, the market does not respond by building smaller, lower-cost units. Why? Because in high-demand urban areas, these units generate lower profits. The result is a mismatch between what people need and what gets built.²

2. High land prices lock in high-end construction

In urban areas with high demand, land becomes extremely valuable. Landowners and municipalities know this and price their land accordingly — seeking to sell or lease it for the maximum possible price.

This means that before a single brick is laid, developers face high input costs. To make the math work, they have to build homes that can sell or rent at high prices. There’s no room for affordable, modest homes in this equation — even if those are exactly what the population needs.

Moreover, as construction costs rise — due to energy price shocks, geopolitical instability, and climate impacts — developers are under even more pressure to push up prices and maximize returns per square meter. The result? Larger, more luxurious units designed for high-income buyers or investors — not single-income households or low-wage workers.³

3. Developers aren’t building homes — they’re building financial assets

Here’s a critical point: many new housing developments aren’t built to be lived in — they’re built to be sold, held, and traded like stocks. They function as financial assets for global investors.

Sometimes, entire buildings are sold before completion. Sometimes only a few apartments are put on the rental market. The rest are left vacant or semi-occupied. Why? Because the main source of profit isn’t rent — it’s capital appreciation. The value of the property increases over time, and holding onto it (even if empty) becomes more profitable than housing people.

This speculative dynamic inflates prices further and drives housing out of reach for ordinary people — even when new units are technically being added to the market.²

4. The market chases profit — city after city

This is not a one-off problem. Once one city becomes unaffordable, global capital moves on to the next city with cheaper land and a promise of high returns. The same pattern repeats: build luxury units, drive up land values, price out residents, and extract profit.

This is a structural cycle — not an anomaly. And it will continue until most urban spaces are unaffordable to those who live and work in them.¹

5. Rent extraction ensures prices stay high — even when more is built

Once capital has flowed into a promising area, it typically funds high-end developments that promise fast, high returns. These luxury buildings don’t just attract wealthy buyers — they also increase the overall desirability of the area, which drives land values and housing prices even higher. As a result, it becomes financially unviable to construct anything less profitable, like affordable or modest homes, because the land is now too expensive and the return too low. When the potential for further profit slows down, capital simply moves on to the next cheaper location, repeating the cycle. But the area it leaves behind still has high demand and limited supply — and now the conditions are perfect for rent extraction. Owners can charge high prices not because the housing is new or better, but because access to it is scarce. In this way, the system is structured to perpetuate scarcity and prevent prices from falling. Rather than solving the affordability crisis, building more — when driven by profit — often locks in unaffordability.²

6. This isn’t just about economics — it’s about design and demographics

Let’s not forget that housing needs are changing. More people than ever are living alone or in non-traditional households. Most rely on a single income. That means we need smaller, more flexible, more affordable homes.

But the market doesn’t respond to need — it responds to where the highest profits lie. And in today’s urban real estate market, the highest profits lie in building fewer, larger, high-end units for speculation — not in building for everyday people. 

Because in a capitalist society, when wealth is concentrated at the top, the market will favor producing goods and services for that small elite—because in markets, value is determined by what someone is willing to pay. This means a billionaire’s mansion holds more value and offers a higher return on investment than a small affordable housing unit build for the average citizen. In other words, luxury Mansions is valued more than buildings that meet basic human needs. Luxury becomes overpriced, while survival becomes invisible. An economy that puts profit over need will always prioritize the wants of the few over the needs of the many.

7. So what’s the way forward? Democratizing housing production

If we want more affordable housing, we need to change not just how much we build — but who builds, what gets built, and for what purpose. That means removing housing from the speculative economy and democratizing access to land and construction.

Here’s what that could look like:

• Unlock underutilized space. Allow communities, tenants, and housing associations to renovate, retrofit, and subdivide existing homes and buildings. There’s enormous potential in making better use of what we already have.⁴

• Remove land from speculation. Stop selling land to the highest bidder. Enable municipalities or public trusts to retain ownership and lease land for affordable housing development at non-market rates.⁵

• Introduce strong regulations. Implement rent controls, ban the purchase of housing you don’t live in, and phase out ownership models that prioritize speculation over shelter.⁶

• Transition private housing into social and cooperative housing. Support models that are not driven by shareholder profits, but by long-term affordability, democratic control, and care for residents.⁷

• Subsidize renovations, not just new construction. Shifting investment toward improving and repurposing existing buildings reduces environmental impact, avoids the need for new infrastructure, and supports a more circular economy.⁸

8.The benefits go far beyond housing

This isn’t just a housing strategy — it’s a social and environmental strategy:

• You eliminate land purchasing costs, making affordable housing financially viable.

• You reduce the pressure to generate high returns, because housing associations and cooperatives aren’t bound to investor expectations.

• You avoid the need to expand infrastructure, since new units are integrated into the existing urban fabric.

• You reduce environmental destruction, because reusing buildings emits far less carbon than constructing new ones.

This model doesn’t just deliver affordability — it delivers social equity, climate resilience, and long-term urban stability.

In conclusion

More housing won’t solve the crisis if it’s built to serve capital, not people. As long as housing is treated as a commodity rather than a human right, building more will simply fuel the very dynamics that make cities unaffordable.

To create real affordability, we must shift away from speculative construction and toward democratic, regenerative, community-led housing models. That means reusing what we have, regulating what we build, and redistributing control over who gets to shape the city.

Until we do that, more housing will just mean more profit — not more homes.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Interested in the companies shaping our sustainable future? See on illuminem’s Data Hub™ the transparent sustainability performance, emissions, and climate targets of thousands of businesses worldwide.

References

1. Beitel, K. (2016). Circuits of capital, ground rent and the production of the built environment: A (new) framework for analysis. Human Geography, 9(3), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277861600900303

2. Moreno Zacarés, J. (2024). Residential accumulation: A political economy framework. Housing, Theory and Society, 41(1), 4-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2023.2292567

3. Lee, Y., Kemp, P. A., and Reina, V. J. (2022). Drivers of housing (un)affordability in the advanced economies: A review and new evidence. Housing Studies, 37(10), 1739-1752. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2022.2123623

4. V!GØR ApS & EFFEKT Arkitekter ApS. (2024). Del Hus Vidensprojekt: Muligheder og barrierer ved opdeling af enfamiliehuse til flerfamiliehuse [Opportunities and barriers in dividing single-family houses into multi-family houses]. Foreningen Del Hus. https://www.delhus.dk/ 

5. Yu, M. H. (2015). Ground leasing for housing affordability: An ancient land tenure form reinvented. . https://doi.org/10.7916/d8513xdm

6. Kholodilin, K. (2020). Long-term, multicountry perspective on rental market regulations. Housing Policy Debate, 30(6), 994-1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2020.1789889

7. Ferreri, M., and Vidal, L. (2021). Public-cooperative policy mechanisms for housing commons. International Journal of Housing Policy, 22(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2021.1877888

8.  Hu, M., and Świerzawski, J. (2024). Assessing the environmental benefits of adaptive reuse in historical buildings. a case study of a life cycle assessment approach. Sustainable Environment, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2024.2375439