The San Francisco height / bulk map is pretty enlightening. https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/zoning-map-heightbulk-di...
All those light colored areas are max 40 feet.
It’s why it’s cheaper to live in Brooklyn than Manhattan, even though Brooklyn is mostly low-rise construction.
However there are important second order effects to consider too. The density is a big part of the appeal of Manhattan. If it was lower then it might push economic activity away and make people not want to live there as much. Maybe finance sector might move to say Chicago. This would push prices down.
Yes, Manhattan is more desirable than Brooklyn. It’s desirable for many different reasons; scarcity is a big reason.
Would Manhattan be even more expensive if it didn’t have skyscrapers? Sure. But it’s irrelevant to my point: skyscrapers are not a magical panacea to housing prices. Objectively, factually, a short subway commute lowers prices significantly in NYC, even if you’re commuting to a land of low-density construction. Thus, again we see that Land is the high-order bit on real estate prices. Aways was, always will be. Everything else is a detail.
If SF is to fix it’s housing crisis, there are exactly two ways: reduce demand, or increase accessible land area. The only way to effectively do the latter is good transit. All of the rest of this stuff is wishful thinking by people who don’t understand real estate.