Manhattan is dense, but plenty of people commute every day from suburbs with yards and spacious homes. The Economist doesn't really go into transportation excep

Manhattan is dense, but plenty of people commute every day from suburbs with yards and spacious homes. The Economist doesn't really go into transportation except for a brief mention at the end. New York has a better transportation hub than the Bay Area. At 3 AM on a weekday or weekend, I can catch trains going to New Jersey, or Long Island, or upstate New York, or Connecticut, or the subway which runs all night. In the Bay Area, the last Caltrain headed to the peninsula leaves at midnight, and there are no more trains until 5 AM! There are plenty of places to live which are a 30 minute commute from Manhattan (by subway, train, ferry etc.) Wasn't San Francisco destroyed in an earthquake in 1906? Weren't 63 people killed, and thousands injured, by the 1989 earthquakes? Instead of better public transport, the Economist suggest building up, up, up. I suggest reading this - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake - if you never saw the damage done by the 1989 earthquake. Remember the 1906 earthquake as well.