No, the alternative is less careful controlled growth. Uncontrolled growth is impossible: you need unlimited labor.
The market controls growth. Of course many factors manipulate the market (interest rates...). Boom/Bust is always going to be a factor because it isn't possible to know perfectly how much space we need before we need it. Boom/bust isn't even all bad, those who need space after the bust can get it cheap and start something interesting that they wouldn't otherwise) - artists for example need cheap space if they are to start a studio.
That sounds beautiful in theory. In practice, whoever has surplus capital controls it. Growth ends up a product of a few people's bets, and they can afford playing against the 'invisible hand' and making big mistakes. The human cost will be paid for by the communities where the game plays out.
Many people have surplus capital. They might not be willing to risk it, but they have it. I could cash in my retirement account for example. There are a lot of people who have this cash, and some make small bets all the time. Sure to do a large development costs a lot of money, but there are a lot of small projects that cost less, and they add up. 100 people putting in $5000 wouldn't be hard to find, and that can do a medium sized project.
Why ask why careful controlled growth is always better if you believe it is the only option? The market doesn’t control anything. The word control implies some sort of telos which is not present in an aggregate of individual purchasing decisions.
The market controls growth. Of course many factors manipulate the market (interest rates...). Boom/Bust is always going to be a factor because it isn't possible to know perfectly how much space we need before we need it. Boom/bust isn't even all bad, those who need space after the bust can get it cheap and start something interesting that they wouldn't otherwise) - artists for example need cheap space if they are to start a studio.