Much of the post-fire development used unreinforced masonry and was built on poor-quality fill. We saw the effects of this during the 1989 quake in areas like the Marina district.
The preponderance of fill (and depth to bedrock) in the densest areas of SF is well-illustrated by the Millennium Tower fiasco[0]. The MT's pilings do not even reach bedrock!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisc...
Also, the issue of some buildings being built to (allegedly) inadequate standards is a red herring. If that were the case, the city would be more than happy to have them condemned, and all manner of more useful structures (for affordable housing or otherwise, put in their place).
A comparatively tiny portion of the city actually. But anyway, this is far afield from the original topic of this thread.
Well, there's also the fact that, unlike NYC and SF much of that city was destroyed during what Wikipedia calls "the single most destructive bombing raid in human history". So it's not like they had all that much historic architecture to protect, anyway.
Apples and oranges, in other words.
These "rent-seeking" restrictions are a regressive tax transferring income from renters to wealthy landlords including Donald Trump.
Oh please. The Trumps made their money through, first, being notorious slumlords; then through mob connections and tax loopholes; and finally, as money launderers for the post-Soviet elite.
Not through the "overuse of historic landmark status", by even the most fantastic stretch of the imagination. (As an illustration, look into the history of the building that preceded Trump Tower at the same location).