This should not have come as a surprise. Simply adding housing supply does not necessarily drive down overall prices. In many cases, it does the opposite, since developers almost always build for the top of the market, not for the greatest need; real estate functions as plural—rather than singular—markets, meaning that increasing supply at the top of the market does nothing to reduce demand at the bottom; purchasers of luxury housing often do not live there full time, thereby creating an enormous market for empty apartments; people generally do not move frequently, so the kind of “self-sorting” required for residents to meet their “market equilibrium” does not actually take place; and in the absence of tight and universal rent controls, the rise of big flashy buildings is more likely to raise than diminish neighbors’ rents. Because luxury real estate is such a reliable and under-taxed investment in New York City, it is exceedingly rare for tall new buildings in gentrifying neighborhoods to rent or sell at rates that are affordable to those who live nearby. In most cases, they are the kinds of luxury projects that result in displacement—either directly through demolition, or indirectly by elevating rents in the surrounding area.