Let me tell you about Spain. It appears to be a relatively low density country, but if you look at where people live, an extremely high percentage of the population lives in an apartment. Your average Spaniard lives in a square km that is about as dense as NY's upper east side. Therefore, based on your argument, you'd expect a lot of renters, right?
As it happens, While about a third of Americans rent, only about a fifth of Spaniards do: 78% of households live in an apartment they own. That's because regulation is set up in ways that make renting a pretty bad deal. I live in some midwestern suburb, and half of my street rents, as companies have outbid individual sellers when the people that originally bought their houses died or downsized. They are owned by Delaware companies, and good luck figuring out who is really behind them.
So while it might be a good idea to minimize renters, the tie between rentals and apartments in urban living is just regulatory. Suburbs are in no way immune to being purchased by investors: It's just that investors try to aim for properties that are expected to grow up in value the fastest, and it just happens that those tend to be in urban centers and in suburbs that are very close to said centers.
So really, limiting building dense housing is, if anything, going to make the problem worse, as it limits housing supply. If you want to prevent renting, make it a worse deal, tax wise, for companies to own and manage rental property. Again, the very dense Spanish cities do a better job at this than the US does.
Anecdote but dated a Spanish person who claimed that housing is very static for them and that the idea of young people moving out and buying their own place is extremely uncommon
As it happens, While about a third of Americans rent, only about a fifth of Spaniards do: 78% of households live in an apartment they own. That's because regulation is set up in ways that make renting a pretty bad deal. I live in some midwestern suburb, and half of my street rents, as companies have outbid individual sellers when the people that originally bought their houses died or downsized. They are owned by Delaware companies, and good luck figuring out who is really behind them.
So while it might be a good idea to minimize renters, the tie between rentals and apartments in urban living is just regulatory. Suburbs are in no way immune to being purchased by investors: It's just that investors try to aim for properties that are expected to grow up in value the fastest, and it just happens that those tend to be in urban centers and in suburbs that are very close to said centers.
So really, limiting building dense housing is, if anything, going to make the problem worse, as it limits housing supply. If you want to prevent renting, make it a worse deal, tax wise, for companies to own and manage rental property. Again, the very dense Spanish cities do a better job at this than the US does.