Regulation isn't really the limit there. Regulation is the mechanism that implements the limit. The limit comes from the combined views of the citizenry about what sort of place they'd like their city to be.
Is it really the combined views of the citizenry? Or is it primarily the views of a minority of wealthy landowners who have political influence more proportional to their wealth than their numbers?
It's combined through a complicated weighting function, and we can certainly argue about that function.
But I'll note that just last year there were a pair of ballot propositions where circa 2/3rds of voters rejected raising height limits for a big new project:
I don't buy this argument at all. They were proposing to build 134 condos at $5 million each. That isn't increasing the housing supply (much), it is giving away the one-of-a-kind waterfront for some pied-à-terres for rich out of state buyers.
It's actually the other way around. Major landowners want to build more units because there's plenty of money to be made.
It's existing renters who are stopping new development. Long term renters have fantastic rates because of how rent control laws are written. And they want to keep their rent low (for themselves, new arrivals can get screwed), their streets sunny (instead of being overshadowed by high rises), and their neighborhoods not too crowded.
I live in SF and I feel something different. The regulations are consistent with versions of SF that most of its citizenry would not like (e.g. like Malibu).
