https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper
But you don't really need those in most places. Simply building 'in' more and up 2/3/4 stories would add a ton of housing in much of the bay area.
They can hold a lot of people without too much land, but they don't reduce the land requirements for transporting goods and supplies to and waste products away from those people.
Sure, you can hold a lot more people in San Francisco if you fill the city with high-rises, but that's not going to, e.g., suddenly give the city a greater supply of water to support that population, or a greater ability to handle the solid waste produced by that population.
Look up Geoffrey West, of the Santa Fe Institute, who does all kinds of research on scale and scale effects. Including of cities.
2/3/4/5/6 stories are significantly cheaper to build.
> Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).
High rises don't require those things. People require those things.
Quite likely, just as many (if not more, in both absolute and proportional terms) people in SF will be unhappy with adoption of high-rises as the solution; the lack of availability under the current regime constrains some of the problems because it limits the ability of people to move in regardless of their desire to do so; relieving that constraint -- especially if the problems besides finding places to store the bodies aren't addressed -- just makes all the other problems of density worse.