I'm all for policy like that, as well as generally reducing zoning restrictions in general as far as housing capacity goes. Japanese nuisance zoning is a pretty good system, for example.
But my main point is, it takes interventions that intentionally constrain the way the market works, to get a fair system going. To institute a sane proportion of housing to jobs nowadays that preserves a mix of affordable and luxury housing, you're going to need to do a hell of a lot of subsidizing to make that affordable housing worth it to construct in the first place. So who's up for subsidizing it?
I don't really think you have to subsidize anything. Zone for density and sq. ft ensuring there is a stable _variety_ of each, zone housing and business only so each can be equal to the other in population (basically as many people commuting out of your city as commuting in), and tax vacancy 10x occupied rates. Let the market free within those confines.
If a city does not want to add much density, I am fine with that as long as they are not allowed to keep adding jobs.
160,000 more people work in San Francisco than work there.
But my main point is, it takes interventions that intentionally constrain the way the market works, to get a fair system going. To institute a sane proportion of housing to jobs nowadays that preserves a mix of affordable and luxury housing, you're going to need to do a hell of a lot of subsidizing to make that affordable housing worth it to construct in the first place. So who's up for subsidizing it?