I don't live in SF, but having spent most of the past 15 years in Europe, which is dense: it's almost completely a supply problem. SF is not really very dense at all for a place with such a high demand for housing.
Apples to oranges. SF has always been more of a boomtown. Neither of the cities you mention have experienced the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has in recent memory.
When you have sudden surges in demand you can't just pin it on supply. You have to think about macroeconomic objectives for the city (i.e. preserving low and mid income housing) as well as how to plan for the long term, like when the boom turns to bust and lots of those new residents leave.
> Neither of the cities you mention have experienced
> the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has
> in recent memory.
They haven't? According to what? I just looked this up for Milan real quick:
SF had 350k people in 1900, and 800k in 2010[1], a growth of ~2.3x. Milan had 550k people in 1900 and 1.3 million in 2010[2], a growth of ~2.35x.
I don't understand how you think SF is the exception in this example. Both of these cities have had similar population growth, Milan slightly more actually. It seems the difference is that Milan decided to build up.
First, you are looking at the wrong time scale. Second, population growth is not the same as demand. In just a few years SF has experienced a massive surge in demand, i.e. the price new residents are willing to pay for housing.
Well of course population growth isn't the same as demand, that's the point!
What davidw was observing was that there's plenty of cities that do better at satisfying the demand for housing than San Francisco does.
You can have a growing population in the same area while demand goes down, if you're building enough new housing to offset the demand. The examples davidw and I have been citing here show cities that have faced similar population growth that have built up rather than succumbing to SF's housing problems.
I think your claim that it's apples to oranges is invalid. Yes SF has been a boomtown, but plenty of cities all over the world have been boomtowns without the same issues.
The issue is that SF has been a boomtown AND hasn't gotten its act together when it comes to building up density. That's what makes it a special case, and that's why both the demand for housing housing prices are ridiculous there.
> cities that have faced similar population growth
You've simply ignored my point about the rate of growth in demand. That introduces a new factor, which is the need to control displacement of lower-income people and maintain healthy economic diversity.
Also, the issue here is not that SF is opposed to density. SF has many high-density neighborhoods and virtually all new construction is higher density. The issue is how hard the city should negotiate with developers to set aside price-controlled units to maintain economic diversity.
When was the last time SF had too much housing? Obviously prices have gone down at times in the past but it's hard to argue there's ever been an oversupply....
Parent said that SF has to "plan for the long term, like when the boom turns to bust and lots of those new residents leave."
I don't think that's something that needs to be planned for. Even in a worst case scenario there will be plenty of demand to fill up any the new housing that's coming up in SF.
It's even worse in the suburbs. Everything is incredibly sprawled out. Every major city I've been to has apartment towers. It's just a more economical way to use land. Given how much demand for housing there is, there are obviously regulations in place keeping anything very tall from being built. The bay area doesn't want to grow.
That's awesome! What is the interior like? Is it two rooms stacked on top of each other, or does the house go further back?
EDIT: I actually just noticed the street view image cuts off part of the house, making it seem tinier than it actually is. Originally, I thought it was a "micro-house" or something.
Random place in SF: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7718267,-122.4388549,3a,75y,...
Near where I lived in Padova, which is way smaller than SF, and way, way less well off:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3850829,11.8706466,3a,75y,18...
They look fairly similar, despite a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in that area of the suburbs in Padova going for under 200K euro.
Here's what Milan looks like, which does have a decent economy, for Italy: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4582853,9.2105922,3a,90y,219...
None of this 2/3 story crap, even if it's fairly far out from the city center. They've built up.