If the problem is that apartments are difficult to turn a profit on and condos are comparatively easy, is there a reason to think we'd get 40 and 40 instead of

If the problem is that apartments are difficult to turn a profit on and condos are comparatively easy, is there a reason to think we'd get 40 and 40 instead of 20 and 20? Or worse, maybe just the 20 apartments that were already going to be built? None of which are rent controlled at all, mind you. If this seems counterintuitive - and it did to me at first - consider that the money being spent to develop that housing has plenty of alternatives. Not all of which are SF housing. SF isn't guaranteed some level of privately-funded construction each year, after all. Trying to shift the mix runs the risk of adjusting the size of the mixture too, exactly as your suggested model does.