[vineyardmike]

I'll give you a direct answer that no one wants to say, but disclosure, I no longer live in SF due to work. I also don't own land or have a financial incentive to have high prices.

TLDR: I would rather have SF as it is now (because i like it now and dislike change) than an affordable SF. "Manhattanization" is worse than the attempt of keeping it affordable.

I would rather (to a limit) have an expensive SF than an SF that has more people in it. The manhattanization is not likely to drive down prices significantly. I read a article (cant find source) that said there would need to be ~4x the number of rental units in the city before prices fell meaningfully due to supply/demand. Even if the actual number isn't true, demand is so high that i don't believe any achievable increase in housing would help at any meaningful way.

If you accept the premise that prices won't go down (this is an assumption of course), you need to consider if more people would be better. Of course more people can enjoy it, and that is good, but here is why i think it will make the city a worse city:

SF is great in many ways. There are so many parks, all so close together so its very fun and walkable. So many restaurants and shops all so close. Walking SF is a joy compared to many cities, where most of SF is great for walking while some cities only have a few neighborhoods that are great for walking. This is my opinion on SF, not all agree.

The "manhattanization" of SF would destroy some of that by changing the "street view" details of the city. Sure, its just more people and likely no fewer "things", but bigger facades that change less "per foot" are more boring - bigger buildings tend to have fewer doors and things per foot of sidewalk frontage. Not universally true, but often true. Also, SF has some great historic architecture, and that would get lost as new building destroy the existing "feel" of a neighborhood. Some neighborhoods this would be good, but some are great how they are, and new buildings should improve not deteriorate the beauty of the city.

[kelp]

I have some understanding of your view. However, it often makes me think of living in a museum. Wanting to make the whole city like a museum.

But museums are full of dead things.

[vineyardmike]

Sure, i agree. Not everything needs to be saved, but some things should be. We have museums full of modern art, and museums with 4k year old Egyptian stuff. Often the same museum.

I think i may have overstate the "save the old". Its not just about age, although we should save nice things that are old. Its primarily that "big" buildings (new or old) tend to be less human-scale than smaller ones (new or old).

[webdood90]

There is not a better example of a NIMBY than this

[vineyardmike]

Look, just being honest. Yes, that's exactly what it is. Many people just don't want to admit it.

[incadenza]

I hear you. I get where people are coming from in a general sense. On the other hand, it strikes me as a kind of provincialism. I feel like the same argument could have been made in 1930s San Francisco: “ok everybody, time to hit the pause button, I like it here now!” But on the other hand people should have a say in what their cities are like and how they develop.

[imtringued]

If you want a city for enjoyment then realize that this is something only the rich can afford. The poor don't have enough money to afford an increasing level of luxury.

Ok, but this requires governments to build competitive cities where the less well off can thrive. The way California is going is that literally every city is thinking the exact same thing you just said. There is nowhere to go.