It's not so much the skyline in SF, it's that somehow "not building anything" has become a sort of "progressive" litmus test - if you are in favor of making any

It's not so much the skyline in SF, it's that somehow "not building anything" has become a sort of "progressive" litmus test - if you are in favor of making any changes that would result in more housing being developed, you are a neocon shill for developers who wants to "Manhattan-ize" all of our neighborhoods, and if you want to continue preventing any substantial amount of housing from being built, you are a true progressive defending the poor and downtrodden. And everyone in the Bay Area wants to be a progressive, so you end up with this weird groupthink where because "not letting developers make profits" is progressive and everyone identifies as progressive there's this incredible opposition to making the policy changes that would result in more housing getting built. It's really weird and makes no sense to me, especially since the people who get really fucked by this are people working in services who end up commuting from places where housing is cheap like Tracy all the way to San Jose where all the jobs are, who are exactly the kind of people you would expect "progressives" to be doing anything to help. Also, San Francisco (and the Peninsula) really don't need to develop anything really tall, they just need to develop a lot more 3-8 story buildings, particularly in areas that are currently single-family homes. Nearly all of the Peninsula and most of San Francisco are currently single-family homes on ~1/4 acre lots, i.e. very suburban character.