[selectodude]

Of course it is. You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand. That implies that it’s functionally infinite seeing as it’s currently less dense than Brooklyn or the north side of Chicago - dense places but not quite Manhattan or Manila.

[dventimi]

> You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand

No, I don't. I claim it's difficult and unlikely.

EDIT: so long as it offers an urban playground to people earning high salaries, that is

[selectodude]

So then there’s obviously infinite demand to live in San Francisco. It’s not difficult - we’re actively accomplishing it in other cities that have tons of wealthy people (detached single family in my neighborhood is >$2mm) and relatively affordable housing (an apartment is under $1000/bd).

[dventimi]

Continue to say there's infinite demand if you like, but I won't be joining you.

As for "we're actively accomplishing it in other cities", I'm interested in these questions:

1. Who's "we"?

2. Which cities?

3. What exactly is being accomplished?

[selectodude]

>1. Who's "we"?

Humans.

>2. Which cities?

My example is Chicago.

>3. What exactly is being accomplished?

Letting people who want to live in San Francisco live there.

If you’re not saying that San Francisco can’t build enough housing to satiate demand, what are you saying, exactly?

[dventimi]

> Humans

Can you be more specific?

> Chicago

Chicago's tech sector, while growing, is still smaller than SF's and was much smaller in the past.

> Letting people who want to live in San Francisco live there

Obviously, that's not being accomplished.

> If you’re not saying that San Francisco can’t build enough housing to satiate demand, what are you saying, exactly?

I'm saying such a program would be unlikely to succeed and would be too disruptive to satisfy me, personally (and evidently many other San Franciscans as well). I'm also saying there's another option to increasing supply to meet demand: reducing demand to meet supply.