Population of Tokyo: ~9M.
Population of the Bay Area: ~7M.
The BA starts around 11,500 houses per year. Roughly similar in population -- a tenth of the housing being built. Wtf.
There have been many stories posted here and elsewhere how nearly every attempt to build housing is derailed, usually under the guise of setting aside for "affordable housing", followed by union workers only, followed by environmental concern; one was defeated for adding a few hours of shade to twenty percent of a play area/park of a school!; to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. It comes down to money for politicians and those already there not wanting "those people" living among them.
Heck in my local metro area they have squads to clear out the homeless and undesirables every time a convention or big game comes in; a town which has been blue for most all this century and most of the previous. One where you will hear the politicians stamp their feet about how unfair it is and if only they had more power and money they could fix it, yet they never have. Instead a new stadium displaced an older black church, go figure.
On the other hand, why do people need to build a new, ugly modern high-rise buildings in historical parts of the city? Is there not enough of other land?
Historical parts better stay historical forever and there should be no new buildings, I think. Because no tourist will ever come to see modern, ugly concrete buildings.
Historic, historic, architecturally beautiful, indescribably beautiful San Francisco...
But I would believe the number if they really do just mean central Tokyo housing starts, that seems like a reasonable number. And that would make it potentially even more embarrassing for SF.