Sounds like the author is confusing correlation with causation.
The fact that the biggest cities have enjoyed growth during the last few years doesn't necessarily imply that making them even bigger will produce even more growth in the future.
The fact that the biggest cities have enjoyed growth during the last few years doesn't necessarily imply that making them even bigger will produce even more growth in the future.
People create jobs, not places, not governments, not even money... people. Yes, all these things can help (sometimes dramatically) but ultimately all jobs are the product of the creativity and hard work of people.
The whole SF housing debate -- both sides of it -- is completely irrational. One side believes that unrestricted building will solve everything, despite ample evidence to the contrary. The other believes that nothing should be built unless it's 100% affordable, despite clear evidence that this won't work, either.
Meanwhile, SF continues to encourage tech companies to relocate to the city by offering substantial tax incentives. If only we could do something to reduce the severity of the crisis...
What evidence?
http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/
The economics are clear and intuitive: the "filtering" effect of new construction happens on a decades-long basis. Building today won't have a downward impact on prices on any timeframe relevant to the people involved in this discussion. So fine, build more...but don't expect it to solve your problems.
Considering that the current housing crunch began in ~2012, it's far more likely that we can impact prices on a timeframe that matters by discouraging the (acute) crisis in demand. We can start by reversing the ill-conceived tax incentives we give tech companies to move to San Francisco.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/apartment-...
http://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/12/12163544/san-francisco-rent-p...
That's what's so irrational about this debate: the construction market may be inefficient on the margins, but it's basically functioning as you would expect. The "build up" crowd has a poor understanding of the practical impacts of their proposals, and the "affordable housing only" crowd has a poor understanding of local real estate economics.
Meanwhile, everyone ignores the elephant in the room.
Housing assistance would obviously help, but longer term, you need to start the filtering cycle that that article describes.