Personally I support increased density and housing in SF, but it's an uphill battle with the other residents who want to fight the "Manhattanization" of SF.
Manhattan is a different world of density. The daytime population (which is what you think of when you think Manhattan-like density) is over 3 million people in 22 square miles. Midtown Manhattan is probably at 200k+ people per square mile in the day time.
My neighborhood in Chicago was ~50k per square mile, and it could seem pretty empty on the weekend (skyscrapers aside). If San Francisco were developed to that density uniformly, it could fit 2m+ people.
Of course any such reform is a long shot. It's hard to change the character of a city. The best hope for San Francisco is for the tech industry to find it worth staying in the city despite the costs (like finance has done with New York). Otherwise, you might just see a lot of that growth shift to friendlier places like Seattle.
I hate to say it, but maybe we should just leave SF to be sort of a "jewel." Let the tech companies and employees who can afford to live there remain.
Then, why not pick a place like Oakland or Alameda or perhaps somewhere more south of San Francisco, and build the mega dense business center of our dreams?
Maybe it makes more sense to recognize that SF is beautiful, rare, and limited in space, and leave it be. After all, it's basically the size of some "elite" neighborhoods in other big cities. Do the poor have a right to be accommodated in SF? There is a ton of space around it that can be developed more affordably and let's not forget about the rest of the country.
No, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone.
I've lived in New York for 7 years and I'll be leaving (at least for a while) soon and there is exactly one major negative of New York: the cost of real estate.
Of course, there are cultural problems-- douchebags, shitty cutthroat people, unimaginative technology scene-- but all of that garbage flows directly from the extreme cost of living.
Given that San Francisco has now been fully infected by the one major negative of Manhattan, and is already experiencing the attendant cultural complications, it really has nothing to lose by fully Manhattanizing.
the author has said that there's a far more modest development plan somewhat mirroring his proposal: http://www.grandboulevard.net
Which really is the jewel in the bay area. SHhhh....
Put this floating place just off shore and let singles and couples rent the places.
Bike --> Bart --> Cal-Train --> Bike (and reverse, $20 total)
This is one thing that interestingly has been both ignored and solved by tech companies. FB, Goog, Gene - they all have very effective troop transport. But by-in-large, silicon valley has done nothing to provide a solution to the problems with transportation and data access.
(WRT data access: DSL wasn't available in the heart of SV for several years after it was widely avaialble. Cellular coverage from AT&T has had the SAME EXACT dead spots on 280 and 101 corridors for TEN FREAKING YEARS! -- No widely available wifi, data coverage on CalTrain and Bart is horrendous!)
Although, in a way, the Bay Area is already Shanghaied without a solid method of medium distance transportation.