Two words. "Build Up". San Francisco needs high rise apartments.
It's ironic to hear the ones who just made that same lifestyle decision complaining about the high prices. If you just moved to SF for the city life in spite of the rents when you could have worked in Texas, you're kind of part of the problem.
(And then everybody else fusses about how it isn't fair they can't afford a flat on Wall Street or a 2br house on the beach in Kauai)
The price of a house in SV has quadrupled (or more) in the last 25 years. Wages have increased,but not nearly as much. Newcomers have it disproportionately harder than the longtimers here.
That said, I agree with your comment.
I don't live in a mansion by the beach, I'm 22 miles inland, downhill from one of the world's most effusive volcanoes. Where I can afford to live.
The buildings they are putting up there, however, have foundations drilled down so deep, they are well in to the bedrock below. They aren't going to come down.
I don't know how I feel about being on the street if that happens, though.
The average building height is also about 3 stories instead of just over two in SF. The majority of housing is single family houses and owner occupied. And Toyko has much, much less parking.
The result is a comfortable, walkable city at double the density of SF without high-rises and with less traffic.
The key difference is that SF is planned, laid out, regulated, permitted, and platted very badly and Tokyo is planned well.
Also, the peninsula cities are required by law to sprawl at low density, constricting SF's ability to spread medium-density growth that would keep housing affordable. Any upzoning, even around transit stops, is blocked and housing supply remains severely limited.
Why is that? To protect people's vacation homes on the beach?
(There are a lot of tall buildings in Tokyo)