Some cities are not big enough, and most do not have housing for homeless people or even working people. If cities could decide what would make their size optimal, and then provide housing - in the way that cities sometimes now provide electricity or water if there is not a vendor of these services - cities could build to an optimal size, and provide the kind of housing that meets the population needs. Currently, property tax is a huge component of housing cost, and that might go to the state. Also, the cost of property transfer within market rates due to shortages also increases the cost of housing. New York City provides much housing ... what other cities do? A negative aspect is that housing is usually just for "low income" which locks people in - sometimes having to move when they marry, for example, with no place to move because the outside prices are too high. I think there could be a mix. If cities provided the housing, such housing could be infill into areas where more is needed to improve density for public transportation and for markets. They would, of course, have to have rental rates that met costs, and even provided margin to build more housing - but buildings can last 100 or more years. Think about scale. One of the things I like most about my house is that it is paid for (except the taxes and utilities). But I feel as though I will be able to afford to live in it in my really old age - and that I have provided this for my children, as well.