This article cites a net increase of 170,000 housing units from 2000 to 2010. I can't find an exact comparison for SF, but it looks like SF has less than 25k net increase from 2000 to 2012.
Some of the most important points he made:
-80% of the city's growth will occur in 20% of the city's area.
-Neighborhoods are in opposition to projects which follow community-crafted plans that were designed to encourage growth. He argues that it is not the amount of growth, but the rate of growth that those neighborhoods are opposed to.
-Large segments of the city are zoned to protect industrial and production businesses.
-Last year, SF reviewed 8,000 permits (for everything from routine window replacements to new construction). Of those, 6,000 were considered "routine" and were issued over the counter while 1,800 became "cases" that require additional review and hearings. For comparison, NYC (a city with 10 times the population of SF) reviewed only 500 equivalent "cases". It issued most permits (including one for a building that purports to be the tallest residential highrise in North America) "as-of-right" without any review by their planning department.
TL;DR: SF's planning code is much more strict than that of NYC and gives residents a lot of veto power.
Let me simplify it - NYC continues to build up, SF doesn't.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/12/sa...
http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/san-francis...
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/07/19/plan-bay-area-passes-in...