At any given density, replacing low-rises with high-rises will bring rent down, as long as construction isn't overly burdened with neighborhood review and low-i

At any given density, replacing low-rises with high-rises will bring rent down, as long as construction isn't overly burdened with neighborhood review and low-income-unit requirements. Sure, a lot of units will need to be constructed for rents to come down a significant amount, but a massive swath of the western sections of the city consists of 1-3 story single family houses, maybe with a shop on the first floor, which are ripe for conversion into 5-story walk-ups. That alone will provide a significant boost to housing stock without the seismic and elevator costs of high-rises. SF isn't my favorite city either, but what has happened in my current and favorite city (Boston) has made my less sympathetic to NIMBYs, both the high-income (I want my house to appreciate without doing any work!) and low-income (I want 20% of units just for me!/Screw the middle class!) types--they are the ones making things worse. Cities grow because businesses move there, and businesses move there because they want to be close to and network with other businesses. Employees can't exactly prevent that by staying in Nowhere, KS. I agree, there isn't any moral imperative for cities for keep growing, but for now at least, there is a practical one, and thus there is a moral imperative for cities to accommodate those to wish to live there.