I'm guessing I'm who you meant to reply to, since I'm the one that mentioned Seattle. What we're doing differently: * Building way more. We had (have?) the mo

I'm guessing I'm who you meant to reply to, since I'm the one that mentioned Seattle. What we're doing differently: * Building way more. We had (have?) the most cranes per capita of any US city, and price inflation noticeably slowed – flatlining at times – in response to increased housing availability. * Building taller: in addition to more development overall, I see more multi-story construction here, anecdotally. * Investing and policing transit more aggressively. The light rail is much newer and better maintained than BART. Both trains and stations have officers on regular rotation. Stations are clean, and fare enforcement is a thing sometimes. Seattle's major stations (Westlake, Capitol Hill) feel nothing like their SF equivalents (Powell, Mission). * The harsher climate isn't a thing we're "doing", but it likely makes Seattle a less desirable destination than SF for the chronically homeless, so it feels dishonest not to mention it as a factor. This isn't to say that we're free from these issues – our problems differ in degree, but not in kind. But that change in degree has a palpable impact on everyday life. Namely: * It is possible (albeit expensive) for non-millionaires to purchase a home and raise a family here * Traveling around the city on foot and via public transit is fairly pleasant outside (outside of rush hour)