Not until zoning or ownership laws change. More people want to live in the places then there are places to live. There are three ways to fix this: incentivize builders to build more places to live, have the government build housing, or penalize investors. Or any combination of the three.
The option of "growing to meet exponential need" rarely, if ever, actually works in the end. By works i mean "leads to an equilibrium that actually is any good"
Usually what happens is people push on creating housing, and think once they've done it, the rest will take care of itself. This is the easy part. The rest is much worse - now you have more people! The density and scale of population will increase until the local governments/etc fail hard enough at providing services, which often happens quicker than one would expect. Being effective at providing public transportation/police/fire/schools/health/etc in a dense, populous area is much harder and more expensive than often seems thought. Especially if you haven't been planning to do it for 50 years and setting yourself up for it. It also requires ever more careful planning as it grows (in how land is laid out, etc), and you will hit tons of problems anyway. For a random example: When your police/fire grows large enough, it ends up with lots of political power of its own.
It's also much harder for governments to stay efficient in spending at all as they grow, making services/etc even more expensive to provide. The places that i knew that were successful at becoming denser were willing to admit this. The ones that were not, often pretend they will make it back in increased taxes on their own, but they never did (and often end up in cycles of tax increase/drops/etc until the infrastructure fails)
Once you are forced to raise taxes/bonds/etc, you end up with a whole host of practical problems (politicians winning on short-term-lower-taxes-long-term-destruction platforms)
This is just a sampling. Overall, it's like scaling anything human. Having a team of 10 works really well. Having a team of 1000 is really hard.
Lots of cities that go down this path end up as basically tax revenue Ponzi schemes - they have to keep growing because they need to keep borrowing against the ever-more-expensive future
In the end, it simply isn't unreasonable for cities to not want to play the game, and to be happy with sustainable size, services, and tax revenue, even if it makes things unhappy for others who want to join in.
Thankfully population growth is slowing down, and we are below replacement rate right now.