[jseliger]

See the article I linked to above: "Meanwhile, San Francisco—one of the most expensive cities in the United States—added just 418 new housing units in 2011, the fewest since 1993. What’s more, 149 existing units were removed, leading to a nearly nonexistent increase in housing supply."

So: No.

[_delirium]

That's a 1-year measure, which has a lot of fluctuations; something like a 10-year measure, showing a general trend, is more interesting to me.

Clicking through a few times to http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/17/after-a-lull-s..., 2011 is apparently an anomaly, and around 20-25k new units (net) were added over the past decade. In addition, 2k new units were approved in 2011. Still not too high, admittedly (a 7% increase in housing stock over a decade).

[tomkarlo]

During that same decade, the population of SF grew by about 60,000. 25K net new units in a city with 60K net new residents (and one of the lowest percentages of children in the country) is effectively no growth in housing stock.

Additionally, a lot of those 25K units are not market-rate housing (they're for low-income) which means that for market-rate housing, the numbers would look even worse since most of the new residents are not eligible for low-income housing.