Also: SF's refusal to build is having repercussions elsewhere, like here in Oregon where there is a steady stream of people who can't afford a house for their family in the bay area. In turn, they're pricing out people here, and so on.
Also, there's nothing 'extreme' about the population density of San Francisco. Density in Paris is 21,000/km^2 and in SF, 7,124/km^2
But if SF's refusal to build is having repercussions in Oregon, and all SF needs to do is build… well, then shouldn't Portland be able to solve its problems by doing the same thing?
Or has NIMBYism morphed into NIMSOTPNW (not in my section of the pacific northwest)?
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/03/charlie...
It'd probably be best if it were fixed in several places at once. For instance, Bend is a town of 80K people, and it could (and should) add a bunch of density. But if all that just goes to soaking up 1000's of "refugees" from California, it's not as effective as it could have been. In other words, California can produce many more people looking for a cheaper, better place than Bend can hope to absorb, so it'd be nice if the Bay Area fixed some of its own mess, as well as Portland, Seattle, Austin, Boulder etc...
We might wonder what will happen this momentum is deflected. Technical talent will disperse, and we'll end up with a more distributed workforce? Or will it simply concentrate somewhere else?
Right now, the Bay Area is in an extremely enviable position: it has a high concentration of extremely profitable companies; it has a high concentration of highly skilled workers; it has a high concentration of wealth; and, except for housing, it's a desirable place to live.
The Bay Area's residents and local governments oshould be able to leverage these positive factors to maintain the strong economy while making the area a better place to live for skilled workers who want to set down roots and raise families. Of course, it's more likely that nothing will happen and living conditions will become less and less sustainable.
I know this is ancient history, but I keep having to remind folks that the fetish for locating tech companies in SF didn't start until the late 1990s. Then it crashed, and didn't pick up again until the mid/late 'aughts.
Viewed dispassionately, the "momentum" of SF as a technology hub looks more like a fad that happens at the peak of VC consumer investment cycles.
Of course, that might not be in the Bay Area's interest but they seem to be voting firmly against it already.