I know that some might argue that "build baby, build" is the solution. However, in an earthquake-zone (which I recall California is), isn't it risky to build skyscrapers and other large structures?
Governments are sometimes oblivious to general needs, but there must be a good reason why more housing-construction has not been approved in some areas.
(I'm thinking in densely-populated cities like Berlin, London and Paris, congestion and pollution might be issues they have to worry about also)
Earthquakes certainly aren't the reason for SF. It's the city's byzantine planning process, and NIMBYs and entrenched interests who get in the way of new development in the name of "not changing the character of the city".