> Americans overwhelmingly prefer single-family detached homes when given other options. How is choosing a higher-quality of life option “wasted”?

It's not. But it's wasteful in an urban core, where that lack of density forgoes real economic opportunity. It also creates an easily-identified cause for the lack of housing supply.

> that lack of density forgoes real economic opportunity.

Which is why SF is so poor and underdeveloped.

> It also creates an easily-identified cause for the lack of housing supply.

An easily identified excuse. Now do suburban Tennessee.

> Which is why SF is so poor and underdeveloped.

No, it's one reason why some US cities are becoming increasingly unlivable for anyone outside the upper-middle class - those who sell your groceries, make your lunch or deliver your packages (to name only a handful of occupations).

> An easily identified excuse. Now do suburban Tennessee.

Is suburban Tennessee an urban core?

I think if people were given the choice - particularly somewhere like San Francisco - they'd would much prefer to live in an apartment they could reasonably afford vs a detached home they could only afford if they travelled back in time 30+ years.

They're given the choice, which is overwhelmingly taken by 99.9% of the people in the world, of not living in SF.

Very clever, but there is more than one city in the USA and, in fact, the world. Current trend is for people to choose to move from towns and villages - where detached housing is the norm - to cities where apartments are more common.

higher quality of life for the many who commute more than one hour each way in and out of SF this definitely is not...