You can't do much "infill" development in SF while you still can in Seattle. That's very much a "physical bottleneck" that must be accounted for when comparing the two cities. In SF, if you want to build something, that means tearing something else down. In Seattle, there is still open space that can be built on. Of course politics plays a role, but lets not pretend that there aren't very real physical bottlenecks to building in SF.
> Of course politics plays a role, but lets not pretend that there aren't very real physical bottlenecks to building in SF.
There's a difference between "physical challenges" and "physical bottlenecks" to building in SF. Of course there are physical challenges. I'm claiming that the physical challenges are not the bottleneck, or in other words, if people were legally allowed to purchase property, tear down existing buildings if necessary, and build new taller buildings, I strongly suspect they would do so.
