I understand the argument about exacerbating commutes (even though it sounds crazy for a short-distance move) but I think this one is quite weak.
Let's do the math.
There are 24 hours in a day. You should be sleeping for ~8 of those leaving 16. Assuming you are supposed to be at the office for 8 hours (pipe dream, but let's just go for it) that leaves 8 hours of time for other stuff. If you previously had a great 15-30 minute commute then you would have 7 hours of free time to work on side projects and do things you want to do. That would be a pretty sweet normal life. Adding an extra hour to the commute cuts your free time down by ~30%. That is a big deal.
I also find it very helpful to include any time spent commuting as "working time" when considering where to work. You should also consider the increased cost to commute from a more like this. An extra hour of driving 5 days/week represents a non-trivial amount of money. So the salary needs to compensate, or the time at the office needs to go down.
No matter how you look at this, a move like this is asking all of the employees on the short end of the stick to effectively take home less money (not exactly a pay cut, but the end result is the same).
Edit: oh and I'm not from SF, I live in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. This has nothing to do with SF.
The bay area has something like 15 million people.
Do the math.
One either has a shitty rent/house payment or a shitty commute.
2013 US Census estimate is 837,442, which is considerably more than 500,000. [1]
> The bay area has something like 15 million people.
The 9-county Bay Area has approximately 7.1 million people as of 2010. [2]
NYC by comparison has ~2.5x in the metro for every 1x in the City.[1]
__________
[1] 19.9 million vs 8.4 million.
All this drama about relocating office a couple subway stops seems ridiculous.