well it's restricted supply, especially in SF. If more high-rise apartments were built in downtown SF (and there's demand, but just too much pushback from local officials), this debate would probably not be happening at all.
It's not like SF is crowded, it's just that we've built really bad buildings for holding a lot of people.
I don't know. In every built up city I've been to, I live in one now (on the 16th floor of a 30 story apartment)...with high density, the prices just seem to go up and up with the high rises.
Can you point out a city that built up and is affordable (with a good economy also)?
Chicago's economy isn't San Francisco's, or New York's, and it doesn't have many exciting software jobs or world-class outdoor recreation. But it is still a big city with big-city opportunities and many well-paying jobs. And it clearly demonstrates that a sufficient housing stock guarantees no building type, even skyscrapers, are inherently tied to high prices. Just as San Francisco's predicament demonstrates that keeping old buildings in place doesn't hold down prices.
Tokyo is pretty reasonable. A 1-person apartment is under $1k/month no matter where in the city you are, you can get something student-sized for $600 a month. Not $3k/month for sure.
From personal experience, at least, supply is _not_ an issue in Tokyo. You can go to a real estate agent and go see like 4 or 5 places in a day and take it almost immediately.
This is compared to (second hand stories) of apartments in Paris where you have 10 people show up to look at 1 apartment and it's a crapshoot whether you can get it.
It's not like SF is crowded, it's just that we've built really bad buildings for holding a lot of people.