I wonder if there's a distinction to be made between suburban communities, which are often meticulously planned and cities like San Francisco that have develope

I wonder if there's a distinction to be made between suburban communities, which are often meticulously planned and cities like San Francisco that have developed more organically over time. Those kinds of suburban communities can be replicated. If there's new demand from potential residents, entire new neighborhoods can be constructed in new locations that are roughly the same distance from city centers. But you can't build another San Francisco because the first one is too crowded. If someone moves into a suburban neighborhood where everyone is part of the same HOA, I can absolutely see that they'd want to be very NIMBY about maintaining the way of life that they bought into and controlling change. But someone who bought in SF shouldn't have nearly that expectation of control. Cities are places that are about concentrating humans in close proximity to enable enterprises and efficiency that isn't possible with lower population densities. You have to assume that when there's increased demand to live in cities, population density will go up.