SF population density is something like 18k/sqmi. NYC's is 27k across all the boroughs, ranging from ~10k in Brooklyn to ~20k in Queens to 66k(!) in Manhattan.
The analysis is trickier in the midwest. Chicago has a citywide population density of 12k, seemingly lower than that of SF. But Chicago dwarfs San Francisco, and the average is brought way down by places like South Chicago and Ashburn. Lakeview, for instance, has a density around 30k. You'd presumably have even worse problems making comparisons to a place like Detroit, which has large areas that are virtually depopulated within it's city limits.
Communities like Lakeview and Lincoln Park in Chicago do not seem to have taken a major quality of life hit despite being far more dense than San Francisco. They consist of tree-lined streets and relatively capacious 2-flats and 2-3-4bdr apartments. I would 1000x rather live in a vintage stone Lakeview apartment, with an alley and a parking garage, than share a rickety wooden apartment in the Mission.
You think of people with a fixation for low-density living as those wanting lots of living space, a yard, plenty of parking, low crime, that sort of thing. But the median San Francisco resident gets none of that. It really seems like a worst-of-all-worlds situation, unless you've been grandfathered in to a huge house that you bought in the 90s, or have struck it rich and decided to plow all your winnings into real estate.
They certainly didn't do themselves any favors by comparing every city to Dhaka.