Or you could just upzone. The nine-county Bay Area is larger in size than the Keihanshin area containing Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe and has 12 million less people.
Yeah. Bay Area denizens also would be wise to note that if they hate towers so much, part of how Japan stays low rise with higher density is by having smaller roads and more transit. So you still should be building those trains (and downsizing those roads!)
I am biased in that I live in Tokyo and am used to "a ton" meaning 150+ rail lines in this metropolis [1], constructed in a lattice that makes it hard to be very far from any train line within a large radius of the city center. What most Americans think is "a ton" is, in my view, closer to "bare minimum", but that's probably since I live in a city with an order of magnitude more transit than the most built out city in the USA.
I agree that the local land use is a total disaster, but even if they made it better, SF has a few skinny tendrils of transit which creates a few skinny corridors of transit-accessible area.
The constant excuse I kept hearing when I was living there was that there isn't enough space!! But that's only true if you won't do anything to increase the viable space to live in (and optimize the space that is present, through better land use). Even densifying the transit along these corridors, San Franciscans will still whine and complain about how there's no space, ignoring the obvious solution.
The answer to me is to do it both, yesterday. But I'm not a San Franciscan anymore and I understand that my values differ from theirs.
Aside, it's also worth mentioning that in Tokyo as well, single family homes near train stations abound. The difference is that they're smaller and denser, and mixed in with apartments. There aren't that many towers here! But the roads are mini-sized and they pack units tightly to better use land. If San Franciscans hate towers that cast shade, they have alternatives.
Sad to think the obvious solutions can’t happen in the SF Bay Area due to its politics.