How is it “backwards”? Nothing you’ve said is inconsistent with what I wrote. I am certainly not trying to suggest that Manhattan is only expensive because skys

How is it “backwards”? Nothing you’ve said is inconsistent with what I wrote. I am certainly not trying to suggest that Manhattan is only expensive because skyscrapers. Yes, Manhattan is more desirable than Brooklyn. It’s desirable for many different reasons; scarcity is a big reason. Would Manhattan be even more expensive if it didn’t have skyscrapers? Sure. But it’s irrelevant to my point: skyscrapers are not a magical panacea to housing prices. Objectively, factually, a short subway commute lowers prices significantly in NYC, even if you’re commuting to a land of low-density construction. Thus, again we see that Land is the high-order bit on real estate prices. Aways was, always will be. Everything else is a detail. If SF is to fix it’s housing crisis, there are exactly two ways: reduce demand, or increase accessible land area. The only way to effectively do the latter is good transit. All of the rest of this stuff is wishful thinking by people who don’t understand real estate.