Fortunately for San Francisco, "commercial on street level and residential above" does describe many of its neighborhoods

That doesn't describe SF in the least.

Didn't say it did.

OP said this is how cities die, my point is there's a type that is more at risk, and most U.S. cities are that type.

Then I don't understand your comment.

Grandparent said "this is how cities die" related to remote working and emptying the downtown core - as is happening SF.

You then said "This is how cities -- cities without commercial on street level and residential above, cities where you need to own a car -- die."

The topic is San Francisco. So am I to read your comment as completely unrelated to the topic at hand?

The phrase "cities without commercial on street level and residential above, cities where you need to own a car" is adding a condition onto "this is how cities die" to say that the original prediction doesn't apply to SF. Because SF has "commercial on street level and residential above" and you don't "need to own a car", people in the rest of the city depend less on the downtown. While downtown may be abandoned, it's not heart of the rest of the city.

At least that's what Terretta is saying. I haven't even visited SF in over a decade, so I don't know what its current situation is like.

You don’t need a car in SF. Also can you name a city that has “died” recently? Maybe Detroit?

The greater Detroit area has not been in great shape for decades, but my understanding is that the core of the city is thriving.

OP to whom I replied said "This is how cities die."

My point was they have no resilience and can die if they are automobile commuter cities with a hollowed out resident-free center.