> Sure, there's more room to grow here, fewer people, and a smaller economy, so it's not a completely fair comparison, but take a moment and look on a satellite

> Sure, there's more room to grow here, fewer people, and a smaller economy, so it's not a completely fair comparison, but take a moment and look on a satellite map at how much land in the bay area is completely undeveloped, most of it on hillsides. To say it's not a fair comparison is putting it rather lightly. Those are the three biggest factors that influence pricing. Your entire premise is that Bay Area rents are high because of an excess of "completely undeveloped land". That defies credulity and is far from evident from satellite imagery.