I like a lot of Scott's work but this is an uncharacteristically shallow analysis. On his chart he considers SF more dense than NYC, this is a misleading compar

I like a lot of Scott's work but this is an uncharacteristically shallow analysis. On his chart he considers SF more dense than NYC, this is a misleading comparison. It seems like he is only considering the urban area in each metro, which totally misses the point. NYC is over 50% denser than SF and the surrounding metro area of NYC is nearly five times denser than that of SF. Yet on his first chart housing is significantly more affordable in NYC. I can't find good numbers quickly but having lived in both places and with quick spot-checking living in a denser suburb in the greater NYC area with a 20-30 minute train commute to downtown Manhattan is significantly more affordable than a similarly located apartment in the Bay Area. There is also some weirdness in comparing cities directly because NYC has absorbed a lot more of the surrounding area and is much larger than SF so comparing the two is not straightforward. This is just one data point swap but to me it calls the whole method into question, he even considers LA denser than NYC which is simply ridiculous. A common YIMBY complaint is that single family zoning forces urban areas to become even denser because they are the only places where multi-family housing is allowed. This is totally consistent with the data presented here. Does that mean it is true? Not necessarily, but the analysis does little to explore options simply referring to the induced demand effect as "obvious". It seems he is out of his element here.