By "size exploding" do you mean "reducing the number of units"? Because then I might agree. Really, though, allowing them to put up a high rise where there ar

By "size exploding" do you mean "reducing the number of units"? Because then I might agree. Really, though, allowing them to put up a high rise where there are currently single family homes reduces the overall pressure everywhere. Of course, SF will never subsidize empty lot development, even if there were any empty lots to build on; the right to build in SF is far higher than in any other US city - double that of (as of 2007) Los Angeles or New York: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-of-two-town-houses/306334/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o... I don't know what you mean by "affordable housing practices", but the reality of it is building lots of housing units. You can subsidize the poor, but that will just push out those just rich enough not to qualify for the subsidies; it's a supply/demand problem, and the only solution is more supply or less demand. I'd agree the entire metro could benefit.