This is typical real-estate developer rhetoric "we can continue growing forever". Don't look behind the curtain, though, at the real reason redeveloped neighborhoods are sometimes more affordable i.e., you get what you pay for. IMO not every city is well served by demolishing large tracts of historic buildings for the glass-facade utilitarian apartment buildings predicated on Quonset hut structural engineering principles (cheap, fast, profitable, not to be confused with architecture). Let the developers work where they're needed, Brisbane, Millbrae, SSF, etc. but leave San Francisco's character and beautiful neighborhoods to those who appreciate _living_ in them (vs profiting off of them).

The Examiner did a great article on the damage done to the City by redevelopment of the type this article advocates, in the 50s and 60s. Seems now to be available at USA Today: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-09-245099... IMO, if you want to see exactly what Gabriel Metcalf is talking about go to the City's Western Addition and while there ask yourself if it was worth it.