Housing in SF and NYC are on some level substitute goods. Many of the people living there are mobile and the ones deciding prices on the margin. If SF rent was $10k and NYC was $3k, many are going to leave SF to get a similar type of lifestyle in NYC for cheaper, raising demand for NYC housing. If SF zoning laws allowed building an incredible amount of housing, lowering rents to $2k, while NYC is at $4k, many people would leave NYC, lower housing demand and thus rents, to get a similar urban lifestyle in SF.
This is the whole crux of why NIMBY is such a collective problem. When NYC doesn't build because SF should, when SF doesn't build because the Bay Area should, when the Bay Area shouldn't build because Texas should, everyone collectively pays higher prices because overall housing supply is reduced and many people move between them.
yeah i don't think NYC people are gonna leave SF for NYC. those are two totally different cities with different experiences and different culture. you can live an urban lifestyle in all 50 states btw
Not everyone, not even a majority, but many people would trade their ideal urban lifestyle for a different urban lifestyle if it came at a significant housing price discount. We already see this across the country, even in non-urban preferences, where cheap housing in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida are attracting the most significant portions of migrations, not due to their superior lifestyle, but because housing, and consequently other things, are much more affordable
This is the whole crux of why NIMBY is such a collective problem. When NYC doesn't build because SF should, when SF doesn't build because the Bay Area should, when the Bay Area shouldn't build because Texas should, everyone collectively pays higher prices because overall housing supply is reduced and many people move between them.