I don't think it's crazy. There's already over 60,000 units in the development pipeline: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/02/a-record-62000-units-in-san-

I don't think it's crazy. There's already over 60,000 units in the development pipeline: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/02/a-record-62000-units-in-san-franciscos-housing-pipeline.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/02/a-record-62000-un... This timeline is measured in decades, but imagine if San Francisco was easier to get permits to build? Large swaths of the city are built under their _currently allowed_ zoned height (there was a map that went around, I wish I could find it). Add a few stories to some existing buildings, build on empty/underutilized lots, reduce parking requirements, legalize in-law units, add in the affordable housing bonus program...you'd be talking about tens of thousands of units. I do agree there is a strong argument that this wouldn't be enough (Bay Area-wide coordination is necessary), but it would slow the rate of increase. For example, after an apartment building boom, Seattle rents are now decreasing: http://cityobservatory.org/in-some-cities-the-housing-construction-boom-is-starting-to-pay-off/ http://cityobservatory.org/in-some-cities-the-housing-constr...