I'm talking about publicly subsidized housing construction, along the lines of Singapore model[1].
Public housing in the US is stigmatized because there's a focus on the deliberately ghettoized, designed-to-fail low income housing that was built in the 20th century. This is held up as the definition of public housing, but there are other version of it that were and are successful.
A high percentage of public housing is not the only solution to limit rent prices: any non-market housing is often enough to keep the prices down, although public housing is the most proeminent across the world, associative housing work very well, and can be taken from existing stock (friends of mine inherited 4 appartments and let them be rented by an association, a sort of 20 years free lease where the only obligation for the association is to take care of the renovations and keeping the appartments appliances up to date).
100%, Vienna would be my other example of how to do it right.
The US 'attempt' to do public housing is like your child, being told to wash the dishes, simply smashes all the dishes and says that this chore is impossible because look, all the dishes got broken. Meanwhile the kids next door have built an entire dishwashing machine in the time your child spent complaining it wasn't possible.
Public housing in the US is stigmatized because there's a focus on the deliberately ghettoized, designed-to-fail low income housing that was built in the 20th century. This is held up as the definition of public housing, but there are other version of it that were and are successful.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore