Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…
So, what would that look like.. Some thoughts..
Good luck staffing jobs at the current SF minimum wage. You want baristas and servers and bar backs? And you want them to commute into the city? You'll get some (as you do now) but enough to run all of the cities establishments? We're talking a massive number of jobs. Sure, people will do it, for the right wage. So you're seeing wage inflation that will hurt small business owners a great deal.
Ethnic diversity would take a big hit. You'd see asian american and caucausions pushing out other groups that are on balance less affluent.
You can easily see NIMBY taken to an even further extreme that it currently is.
Commercial rents would presumably follow residential rents, further reducing low-margin businesses (like restaurants) in favor of high end retail and similar. (See: the Grove in Marina closing for this very reason).
I could go on, and certainly I am not listing the positive consequences of such a transformation. But I see strength through diversification and so I can't shake the feeling that this would be a weaker, less desirable San Francisco.
And if that were the case, if it truly did make it a less desirable place, well, now you have the positive feedback loop moving in the opposite direction, leading people OUT of the city until an equilibrium is found.