That builders can't construct housing in whatever form-factor they want and whatever part of a municipality they want might be a problem. But the analysis of why these kinds of restrictions exist, to my mind, is not correct.
Do niche interest groups have influence on housing policy? Sure. But these niche interest groups don't usually have a monetary interest in the outcomes they're promoting. But individual homeowners (who often band into interest groups of their own) and large real estate conglomerates do have such a monetary interest. They consider certain types of housing built in a certain way to have *more value* and be worth more. So they promote politicians who introduce zoning and other rules to protect that value.
For someone looking to make a profit off of housing (or even to invest in housing), what is more appealing? A traditional U.S. suburb? Or a Kowloon walled city? One is denser, cheaper per capita, and (if you're not careful) unappealing to look at. In other words, it's worth less. So there is a great monetary pressure from people who already own homes to prevent "mixing" this type of housing into existing planned communities. People who need homes, on the other hand, are a little bit less discerning (to say the least). They don't have a monetary interest necessarily. They're primarily looking for a permanent residence.
So I just don't buy this "abundance" stuff in general. If you remove all of these restrictions, will some companies start building housing? Some will. But my guess is most will say the juice is not worth the squeeze -- the profit margins and the long-term values of these properties will make it unappealing. Just like it's unappealing for grocery stores to set up in big urban areas. Or for hospital providers to set up in rural areas. Food deserts don't exist because of too much government intervention. A lack of rural hospitals is not a problem because of too much government intervention. It's because those things are not profitable.
So in my opinion, if you want to reform zoning rules or things of that nature, it's only really going to be effective if you *force* (or if you want to be politically correct, "incentivize") housing companies to build in these areas too.
I don't really consider this an "anti-trust" argument. It can be equally true if there's a lot of competition in the housing market and if there's next to no competition. It's more of an incentives argument. This is an argument that, like with medical care, we're treating something that is a fundamental need of every living human to have a stable and peaceful and fruitful life as if it were a standard market commodity. And when you do that, you get poor outcomes. We need to support the building of housing *even if* it's unaffordable or has low (or even non-existent) profit margins