And, critically, it supersedes the hot issue of the day, meaning in theory it prevents “ends justify the means” approach even with explicit approval from the population.

I agree- we need more midrise buildings throughout.

IMO Canada’s problem isnt one of feasibility but of desire. By and large, people dont WANT midrise apartment buildings. The vast majority of people want the white picket fence dream in a subdivision and two cars. I think the govt needs to get back into building housing on both the federal and provincial level, not just leaving it up to the upper tier municipalities. The housing that IS built by those municipalities typically is exactly what you’re requesting - less car centric, cheaper, midrise buildings. They just don’t build enough of them. If we can make enough of those buildings by the govt (who can ignore the low profitability of those builds), maybe we can make them desirable enough that people change their mind about suburbia. At the very least, providing apartments meant for a full family would be a huge step forwards compared to the current offerings.

I haven’t heard any arguments that maintaining property values is a bottleneck preventing more buildings. How does that make sense?

I’ve heard that policies that crater home values can’t be chased (ie increased taxes on selling property, or other tax disincentives for houses to be so expensive or a vehicle for investments) but even those proposals don’t actually address the root problem of not enough homes.

Literally none of the “build more houses” they’ve attempted so far has succeeded on provincial, municipal, or federal levels. We have significant bottlenecks that cannot be addressed in any short period of time, so limiting the incoming strain into the system WHILE also building more houses is the only realistic path.