So builders are pocketing the profits, and people (presumably middle-income) like their own space and privacy? Those seeking affordable housing may be happy enough to have a place to live even if it is an apartment. Multiple-unit buildings are less expensive per unit to build than single-family houses, and zoning needs to change to allow them.

The question isn't would it work but rather should it be illegal. People build, buy, and rent what makes sense to them based on what is available. You might like a yard, but if theres another home without a yard that is cheaper, all else being equal, its a choice to consider. Not being allowed the option is harmful to people who may benefit from it.

But can anyone even afford the ‘middle housing’? Did they try subsidizing house building through the government like they did a long time ago when we needed more housing? Start making small towns? No? Oh..

nooo you don't say... the builders get all the kickbacks?? MAB has a lot to do with that, no doubt

Whoever these professors are don’t understand the law of supply and demand. By restricting supply, you raise prices, and by increasing the supply, you reduce prices. Also, not everyone wants to live in detached single family housing. The supply of multi-unit housing has been artificially constrained due to Soviet style central planning (i.e. zoning laws) which make it illegal to build missing middle housing. Abolishing zoning laws will allow the free market to produce a greater variety of housing at a lower cost by utilizing the land more efficiently.

Against housing due to cultural implications and/ or differences is essentially what I heard that one professor say and that's very troubling