Most cities would like to keep their growth in check somehow so they have the appropriate infrastructure ready for it. Things that distort that (AirBNB, Chinese speculators, etc...) throw all of that off.
It sounds like you are claiming that it is impossible to out build housing demand. This cannot be true. There is a finite population of people that want to live in any one place.
The NY Metro area is the definitive example of what you are talking about. Every lane of highway or bridge built increased traffic because it enabled someone to get the house they wanted cheaper somewhere else.
Now, construction costs are too high and land is in tight supply. The result? Infill of formerly blighted areas (aka gentrification).
With housing, the induced demand is mediated by housing prices. More housing lowers prices, which attracts more demand, which raises prices. But it's not going to raise prices above where they would have been had no new housing been built. (If prices were higher in the more housing scenario, what's stopping the person who moved to the city at those higher prices from moving in the less housing scenario?)
Also there are cities where housing prices have stayed in check, and generally they have done it by building more supply. Here is a ink to a graph that show the difference between Dallas and Atlanta and San Francisco ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oe8E ). For reference Atlata had over twice as many new units constructed per year as San Francisco with half the population. This is why I say denying the supply side fix is dishonest. There is no reasonable measure where what you claim about supply attracting demand is true.
Dallas and Atlanta are nit great examples, as they basically have unlimited land to expand on.
House prices are not growth, and they generate the tax revenue that you say helps get the infrastructure ready.