> very tall skyscrapers be built with minimal delays

Coming from HK, it is indeed a way to make housing more affordable in 5-10 years, until big cash invest in them and then the entry price just goes straight up.

The ways to prevent that to happen quickly are limit how many skyscrapers apartments can be built in the next decade and how many must be reserved as affordable housing, plus restricting foreign money. But I am sure there will be resistance.

As I said, coming from HK, I was used to living in a city surrounded by walls and bricks. Then NY felt a lot different. Then this summer I went to MV for an internship and when I came back NY was strange to me. I say we can't build a lot of skyscrapers. I don't want to be surrounded by walls again.

I don't think too many people prefer the concrete-and-wall environs of HK compared to the Victorian promenades of SF. However, we are all constrained by reality and scarcity. There is scarcity of space in SF. It must be alleviated by either increasing supply or suppressing/diverting demand. If supply is increased to a much larger extent, an HK scenario is possible which might decrease subsequent demand due to reduced aesthetic value. There are no perfect states here, and choices must be made. Restrictions can stay in place, however, no one should delude themselves into thinking that this isn't a cartelized capture of value by existing property owners in bed with the city council. It doesn't mean you can't support this option, but the reality must be kept in mind.