Its not that pressure is bad, but bottom up would be better than top down. The rich top already have pleny of disposable income, it doesn’t change their lives all that much to get a bit more. More affordable housing in the bottom would mean a revolution to the people affected, they’d suddenly have money for education, travel, quality cars and luxeries. The rent is too damn high, and it doesn’t matter for the top but means the world to the bottom.
It could easily not drop prices in the bottom rungs. SO long as they are cheaper than the average price of apartments, they are still good to offer. They can get a little closer to average price and still be competitive.
It might not drop prices on the lower end but if these places didn't exist the people now houses in them would be displacing the people currently housed in more modest dwellings.
The liberal claim is that we need to fix zoning that makes supply expensive instead of goodwill regulations that can't work long term because they don't address the fundamental root supply problem.
If developers build expensive housing beyond demand they can't fill as intended, driving prices down, why should this not be better than nothing? Even if it's less lucrative for them than expected, it should be net positive for renters...
Well... good? Seems like the system is working. More supply = lower prices across the board, even if the supply is not exactly what was "needed".