The vast majority of residential there is single family homes. Why do you think this?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-map-single-family-...
> 38% of the city’s land is zoned for single-family homes, which is almost two-thirds of all the land zoned for residential purposes.
You can’t say building density doesn’t work when it hasn’t even been tried in the last 30 years.
> You can’t say building density doesn’t work when it hasn’t even been tried in the last 30 years.
What do you mean? I lived in Beijing for 9 years, and it was plenty dense, and plenty expensive to rent for locals.
Is that supposed to mean something? Most housing there doesn’t look like a The Painted Ladies anyways, and being denser amongst the most middling cohort possible isn’t an accomplishment.
> I lived in Beijing for 9 years, and it was plenty dense
What’s plenty? Why do you think it’s enough? And idk if you’ve noticed, but China has had an insane urbanization rush for the last 20+ years, so high housing costs in their cities isn’t surprising.
Row house are dense housing. No yards, they don’t take up much space on the ground. If you are comparing it to people who live in apartments sure, not as dense, but the SFHs you think exist in SF don’t really, the neighborhoods are all fairly dense given the land costs involved.
> And idk if you’ve noticed, but China has had an insane urbanization rush for the last 20+ years, so high housing costs in their cities isn’t surprising.
How is that different from “The popular place everyone wants to live should build enough housing to support that affordably”? Consider:
IDK if you’ve noticed, but a lot of people want to live in Seattle in the last 20+ years, so high housing costs in Seattle isn’t surprising.
Are you just using another standard for China, or do you mean the situation is truly different?