I don't think you can see all that much from the first floor of one of those houses. Higher density doesn't have to be ugly. Compare this random small street in Berlin

https://goo.gl/maps/hvkzDG4u9Tp

with this random "small" street in SF

https://goo.gl/maps/dJzn86V9ers

It's even more stark when you compare larger streets. Berlin:

https://goo.gl/maps/hBg7aMA2Feu

SF:

https://goo.gl/maps/YFcVLSWHPzS2

I guess you can see why I thought the density in SF to be pretty ridiculous.

Low density wouldn't be so much of a problem, imho, if the zoning would be better. Why does a large fraction of the population have to commute downtown to the skyscrapers? Couldn't the offices be spread out a bit more? Why are supermarkets to far apart? I did a lot of walking while in SF and in many parts of the city I had the feeling that sidewalks were more decorative than meant for transportation, because there were no shops or small businesses for a kilometer or more around.

Berlin is half as population dense as SF, and has more surface area to spread out. SF is stuck in a single 49 mi^2 peninsula. That's not to say issues can't be solved in a variety of ways, it just doesn't seem like Berlin is a good point of comparison.

https://www.google.de/maps/@52.5351488,13.4089075,266a,35y,2...

This sort of layout in Berlin is something common in Europe that I kinda of wish existed in US cities. (Barcelona is similar too?)

I don't like comparing cities' density numbers as given by Wikipedia because many cities, Berlin included, include large areas that have really low density. Berlin for example has more than 4000 hectares of forest inside its city limits where nobody lives. If you go by these numbers, SF is denser than Tokyo.

Yeah, was trying to get at that with `has more surface area to spread out`. Suburban sprawl doesn't work as well in SF.

That seems like double-counting, then. The density numbers are based on the total area divided by the total residents. If the residents are squeezed into half the area, it should not be said that there is lower density and more space to spread out. The lower density is already because of the space.

I don't think so, the point there is that SF physically has no room for suburban sprawl because it's a single stranded peninsula. Berlin is both currently less dense, and also has further room to expand geographically. One might disagree but it makes sense that way to me

You know, you can design for green spaces with densely packed housing so the views are better - and you can build walking spaces with this. You can design buildings so they aren't plain block houses - facades exist. You don't have to make every apartment tiny.

You can also move to another city. Get another job. If your concern is your view or lack thereof, you are probably well off enough to do such a thing - which is a freaking luxury. Lots of folks are too poor to afford housing, let along going to another city. Can't get a proper bank account without an address. No drivers license in some states, nor proper ID instead. I'm not even sure if you can register a car if you are homeless. These things make you more mobile.

That's a perfectly fair stance to take, but then people will simply have to accept that rents will be sky high in cities like SF in perpetuity. The high prices are fundamentally a supply issue; build enough housing and prices will inevitably fall.

That's also likely real opposition, people with inflated assets want them to stay inflated.

In don't understand this. If you can get permission to knock down a two-storey house and build a six-storey apartment block, doesn't that increase the value of your house?

Not if your house is the one next to it.

Why not? If my neighbor gets planning permission to do something, doesn't that increase the chance that I might also get such permission in future? If so, doesn't that increase the value of my house?

Only 1/N homes would be converted to apartment complexes. If 1/N * (gain for selling home to build apartments) < (average loss in home values) it's a net loss for the community.

So, the real question is how much home density are you are adding. Further, density can get vastly higher as people would be adding 20 story buildings not just smaller apartments which means most homes would not be converted.

The whole rest of the country is out there and is exactly what you are looking for. Why should the nostalgia of a few be allowed to impede progress for a whole country? These decisions should be taken out of local, parochial hands and made at higher levels of government. That way they can be made for the benefit of all, instead for the benefit of a small group of incumbents.

As I understand it, that's how they do it in Japan. Zoning is done at the national level.

I am not sure why those people should have much say about what's going on. Most of the US already looks like you're describing.

Would that necessarily be the outcome of greater housing density? Are the views of apartments in Paris or Singapore so bad?

Surely Paris levels of density is something SF residents could learn to live with?

Paris is not something people should strive to replicate. Lack of green space, bad side walks, entirely walled off blocks. Perfect for young people with no kids and tourists but not much else.

FUCKING HELL.

The rent is 2.5k * 12 = 30k a year. If someone makes $15/h * 2000 hours a year = 30k. 100% of income on a 1BR. Is your fucking view worth the costs you impose on others?

Enjoy your artificial restrictions on supply, as everyone with even one grain of common sense moves to Texas or Washington.

P.S. Rich software morons can afford it, but just because they can doesn't mean they want to get ripped off by (30k rent) + (20k state taxes) a year. Location is sticky, but once they get the equivalent job literally ANYWHERE else, they will take it, or an internal transfer.