[kelnos]

What's really so iconic about it that would make it "not San Francisco" if it were removed? The Golden Gate Bridge, perhaps? Sure. Coit Tower? Maybe, but... eh? Transamerica Pyramid? Cool, but I wouldn't care much if it was gone. Palace of Fine Arts? Sure, I'd be really sad to see that go, but it's not "San Francisco".

I've lived in SF for 14 years and I don't think "because it's iconic" is in my top 10 reasons for liking it here.

Also consider that cities always change. SF in 1924 looked a lot different. It was desirable then. It changed. It's desirable now. It'll change again, and still be desirable.

I'm a homeowner here, and would absolutely love it if many many more people had the opportunity to own homes in SF, without mortgaging their entire life.

Hell, I wouldn't mind my home value dropping all that much, either. Sure, I'd lose money when I eventually want to sell, but at least my property taxes would go down. (But honestly, I don't think my home value would drop all that much, if at all. Demand so far outstrips supply here that we'd probably have to double or triple the housing stock before home prices would drop all that much.)

[BenFranklin100]

As a side point, if SF was upzoned to allow, say, six-plexes where possible, one could probably sell ones property to a developer for more than it is worth now as a single family home. At the same time, the per unit cost of the six-plex would be less than your current home price. Everybody in the transactions wins: you, the builder, and the five new families. The environment wins too, as five families can live closer to where they work instead of driving, and the new home are more energy efficient.

https://www.apartments.com/303-e-43rd-st-kansas-city-mo/q2fj...