This is a nice model, generally, for the currently drearily car-centric US - however I would have reservations about it specifically in SF, as wide streets are

This is a nice model, generally, for the currently drearily car-centric US - however I would have reservations about it specifically in SF, as wide streets are desirable there as fire-breaks and places for buildings to fall into, rather than each other, in the case of quake. You'd also need public transit, which is something cities built prior to the car have generally invested in, but is virtually absent in the US, as part of the equation is getting people out of their cars. You could always have the new buildings over the street comprise a mix of commercial and residential, so that people don't have to drive to the nearest WalMart to buy everything, instead they can nip across the street to the butcher, the baker, and even the chandler. I've not owned a car in over a decade (with the exception of the odd banger I buy to drive take on a rally), as I simply don't need one here. Every service I need, including my place of work, is in walking distance. Oh, one last benefit of this that the OP missed - Urban Heat Island removal. City temperatures are usually higher than the surrounding countryside as black asphalt absorbs and radiates heat like nobody's business, and narrower streets tend to be better shaded, and even on a hot summer's day, hold nothing fiercer than a cool breeze. The upshot here being both a nicer environment in which to live and work, and lower energy requirements, as without a noisy street outside, and with cool air outside... shock, horror, one could open a window rather than running the AC!