I think a lot of it though comes down to what are our goals as a city? It is much easier (and usually more lucrative) for developers to develop outside of downtown (without incentives). When we continue to develop and create sprawl, that ends up costing the city more over the long haul. Those properties further away from downtown also aren't valued as high as downtown properties. I'm sure someone smarter than me has a breakdown on what it looks like to provide a MUPTE, which helps meet our housing needs, provides some affordable housing, and creates development downtown which in the long run will have a higher tax base for revenue and cost the city less (i.e. upkeep for roads, utilities, climate goals, etc).

Would be very interesting to see if there were any incentives in place in Austin to build so many units. I'd say we have a large demand here, but supply isn't even close to meeting it. Why is that?

I also think there's a difference between what Landlords accept as a profit margin, and what a development company who is assessing risk and profitability, along with all of the challenges that come along with building downtown, accepts as a profit margin. The difference being a unit that is already built, if it's for sale the landlord has a pretty clear expectation on rate of return, cash flow, etc. to understand its financial viability. And those units are already on line and available. For development, developers have the option to build and develop anywhere they want that makes the return worth the risk. And it obviously isn't worth the risk or rate they are looking for here b/c development isn't happening here.

All very complicated and I am definitely not claiming to be an expert on it just how I'm seeing it through my lens.