[ic0n0cl4st]

3x as dense??????? We are already 17,000 per square mile. New York is 28,000 per m^2.

You seriously think San Francisco would be livable at 51,000 pe m^2? It would literally cost $500bn in infrastructure investment to make that possible just inside the city.

101 and 280 would need to be 15 lames wide each, bulldozing 1/8 of the peninsula. We would need a half a dozen new transbay bridges and tunnels.

SFO would probably need another couple of runways and terminals.

You’re talking trillions of dollars in investment because tech companies prefer open office spaces to Zoom.

[asdff]

Koreatown in los angeles is a bit more than 1/3 the size of SF and achieves 42,000 per mile and is basically a mix of single family homes and 3-5 story apartments over parking. There is a subway that comes every 10 minutes. The 101 through here is not 15 lanes wide each, it's 4. The city still functions at this density, and could probably stand a lot more and function just as well.

[shuckles]

Tripling the density of residentially zoned land is not the same as tripling the density per square mile. There’s lots of non-residential land between roads, parks, commercial areas, etc.

Why would we need more freeways if amenities are local? In fact, we could probably demolish freeways if more people who worked in San Francisco could afford to live here.

People don’t disappear if you don’t have housing for them. Why is building infrastructure in Phoenix preferable to growing it here? There are returns to scale with all of this. OAK is underutilized as an airport as well.

Have you considered that San Francisco is a pleasant place to live, and people want to live here independently of their employment situation? Prices were high before technology employment.