What If San Francisco Solved Its Housing Crisis in the 1990s?

The Actual History

San Francisco's housing crisis has deep historical roots that date back to the 1970s and 1980s but accelerated dramatically during the 1990s dot-com boom. The city, constrained by its 49-square-mile geography and surrounded by water on three sides, has always faced natural limitations to expansion. However, the crisis was significantly exacerbated by policy decisions and economic forces that converged in the late 20th century.

In the early 1990s, San Francisco was still recovering from the economic downturn of the late 1980s. Housing was relatively affordable compared to today's standards, with median home prices around $300,000 (about $600,000 in 2025 dollars). Rent control, implemented in 1979, provided some stability for existing tenants, but did little to encourage new construction. The city's zoning laws, many dating back to the 1960s and 1970s, heavily favored single-family homes and low-density development, particularly in the western and southern neighborhoods.

The watershed moment came with the internet boom of the mid-to-late 1990s. As technology companies flourished in Silicon Valley and increasingly in San Francisco itself, thousands of high-earning tech workers flooded into the city. South of Market (SoMa), once an industrial area, began transforming into a tech hub. Companies like Wired magazine, Salon.com, and numerous startups established headquarters in the city, while larger tech firms in Silicon Valley hired workers who preferred San Francisco's urban lifestyle.

Between 1995 and 2000, median home prices in San Francisco increased by approximately 80%, far outpacing wage growth for non-tech workers. The city, however, failed to respond with significant housing policy reforms. Housing production remained anemic, averaging only about 1,500 new units per year during the 1990s despite population growth that demanded at least twice that number.

Several factors contributed to this failure:

Restrictive Zoning: Approximately 70% of San Francisco's residential land was zoned exclusively for single-family homes or low-density housing, making apartment buildings illegal in most of the city.
Entrenched Opposition: Homeowner associations and neighborhood groups, often termed "NIMBYs" (Not In My Back Yard), successfully opposed most higher-density development proposals.
Complex Approval Process: New housing projects faced a labyrinthine approval process that could take years and cost millions in legal and administrative fees before construction could begin.
Proposition M: Passed in 1986, this measure limited office space development to 950,000 square feet annually, indirectly constraining housing development that might have accompanied commercial expansion.

The dot-com crash provided only temporary relief. By the mid-2000s, housing prices began climbing again, accelerating dramatically with the post-2010 tech boom. Between 2011 and 2019, median home prices more than doubled, reaching approximately $1.4 million. The city's response remained inadequate, with housing production consistently failing to match job creation.

By 2025, San Francisco has become one of the world's most expensive housing markets, with deep inequality between longtime residents in rent-controlled apartments, wealthy homeowners who purchased before the booms, tech workers earning sufficient salaries to afford current prices, and a diminishing middle class increasingly pushed to distant suburbs. Homelessness has reached crisis levels, with over 8,000 people living on the streets or in shelters, and formerly middle-class neighborhoods have experienced extensive gentrification and displacement.

The failure to address the housing crisis in the 1990s, when solutions might have been implemented before prices skyrocketed, represents one of the most consequential missed opportunities in San Francisco's recent history.

The Point of Divergence

What if San Francisco had implemented bold housing reforms in the mid-1990s, just as the first tech boom was gaining momentum? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where city leaders recognized the early warning signs of a housing crisis and took decisive action before prices spiraled beyond control.

The point of divergence occurs in 1995, when Mayor Frank Jordan, facing a difficult reelection campaign and sensing the changing economic winds, decided to make housing policy reform his signature issue. Several plausible scenarios could have triggered this different approach:

In our timeline, the early signs of the housing crunch were evident by 1995, with rents beginning to rise rapidly in neighborhoods like SoMa and the Mission. Perhaps in this alternate reality, a particularly compelling economic report from the San Francisco Planning Department or Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco clearly projected the housing shortage that would result from the nascent tech boom. This report, more comprehensive and alarming than any produced in our timeline, could have created political momentum for immediate action.

Alternatively, a coalition of business leaders, including forward-thinking tech entrepreneurs who understood that housing affordability would eventually threaten their ability to attract talent, might have aligned with progressive housing advocates in an unusual alliance. Companies like Wired magazine, whose founders had a uniquely prescient understanding of how technology would transform the economy, could have played a pivotal role in this coalition.

A third possibility involves external influence: perhaps a dramatic housing success story from another city, such as Portland, Oregon's implementation of urban growth boundaries coupled with densification, provided a compelling model that San Francisco leaders felt pressured to emulate.

The most plausible scenario combines elements of these factors. In this alternate timeline, Mayor Jordan, initially skeptical of major zoning changes, became convinced by a coalition of tech leaders, housing advocates, and economic experts that the coming tech explosion would fundamentally alter the city's housing market. Rather than approaching housing as a neighborhood-by-neighborhood political issue as happened in our timeline, the city adopted a comprehensive approach.

The divergence manifested as the "San Francisco Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Act of 1995," a package of reforms that aimed to dramatically increase housing production while protecting existing residents from displacement. Unlike our timeline's incremental and often ineffective measures, this alternate legislation fundamentally reformed the city's approach to housing development while still maintaining San Francisco's unique character.

This pivotal legislation, narrowly passed by the Board of Supervisors and signed by Mayor Jordan in September 1995, set San Francisco on a dramatically different trajectory just months before the internet boom truly exploded onto the scene.

Immediate Aftermath

Political Reverberations

The passage of the San Francisco Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Act of 1995 immediately sent shockwaves through the city's political establishment. Mayor Frank Jordan, who had gambled his political career on the controversial legislation, found himself simultaneously attacked and praised from multiple directions.

Neighborhood associations from the city's western and northern districts, particularly in areas like the Richmond, Sunset, and Marina, mounted immediate legal challenges to the zoning changes. However, the carefully crafted legislation had incorporated sufficient neighborhood protections and aesthetic guidelines to survive these initial legal assaults. The courts upheld the core provisions in early 1996, establishing crucial legal precedent for the zoning reforms.

In the November 1995 mayoral election, Jordan faced Willie Brown, who had initially criticized aspects of the housing reforms. However, seeing the coalition of business interests, younger voters, and progressive housing advocates backing the changes, Brown pivoted to supporting an enhanced version of the reforms. After winning the election, Mayor Brown expanded the housing initiative with his "21st Century Neighborhoods" program, which added significant transit investments to complement the densification strategy.

Implementation and Initial Construction Boom

The legislation's practical effects began materializing by mid-1996. Key elements of implementation included:

Streamlined Permitting: The creation of a "Housing Priority" approval track reduced permitting times from years to months for projects that included at least 25% below-market-rate units. By late 1996, the first fast-tracked developments broke ground in SoMa and along major transit corridors.
Upzoning Transit Corridors: Areas within a quarter-mile of major transit lines (BART stations, key MUNI routes) were rezoned to allow buildings of 6-10 stories, compared to the 3-4 stories previously permitted. The N-Judah and Mission corridors saw the first wave of these "transit villages" begin construction in 1997.
Accessory Dwelling Units: The legalization and encouragement of in-law apartments and backyard cottages led to approximately 1,500 new legal units in formerly single-family neighborhoods within the first 18 months, providing relatively affordable housing options with minimal visible change to neighborhood character.
Anti-Displacement Measures: Strengthened tenant protections and the creation of a "Neighborhood Stability Fund" using fees from new development helped minimize displacement in the initial phase. The Mission District, in particular, benefited from these protections, allowing it to maintain much of its Latino cultural character while still accommodating new housing.

By 1998, construction cranes dotted the city landscape. Housing production, which had averaged 1,500 units annually before the reforms, jumped to nearly 4,500 units in 1997 and 6,000 in 1998. This surge in supply came just as the dot-com boom was accelerating, creating a critically different market dynamic than in our timeline.

Early Economic and Social Effects

The dot-com boom of 1997-2000 still transformed San Francisco, but with notably different patterns:

Moderated Price Increases: While housing costs still rose significantly during this period, the increased supply helped moderate the spike. By 2000, median rents had increased approximately 30% from 1995 levels, compared to the 60-70% increase seen in our timeline. This moderation kept the city accessible to a broader range of residents.
Tech Industry Distribution: The greater housing availability encouraged tech companies to establish more substantial operations within San Francisco itself, rather than concentrating exclusively in Silicon Valley. By 1999, San Francisco had developed a robust "Multimedia Gulch" centered in SoMa but extending into bordering neighborhoods, creating more local jobs and reducing commute pressures.
Transportation Adaptations: The concentration of new housing along transit corridors led to increased MUNI ridership and prompted service improvements. The city implemented dedicated bus lanes on key corridors by 1999, improving commute times and enhancing the viability of car-free living.
Cultural Preservation: The anti-displacement measures, while not perfect, helped preserve much of the city's cultural diversity during the initial tech boom. The Western Addition, Mission, and Tenderloin neighborhoods retained significant portions of their African American, Latino, and Asian American populations, respectively, maintaining the cultural institutions that defined these areas.

When the dot-com crash hit in 2000-2001, San Francisco was still affected but proved more resilient than in our timeline. The diversified housing stock meant that even as some luxury developments struggled to find buyers, middle-income housing remained relatively stable. The crash also provided a crucial breathing period for infrastructure to catch up with the rapid development of the preceding years.

By 2002, as the immediate effects of the crash began to recede, San Francisco had emerged with a fundamentally different urban landscape and housing market than our timeline—one that was better positioned to absorb the even greater tech boom that would follow a decade later.

Long-term Impact

Housing Market Transformation (2002-2010)

The most profound long-term changes manifested in San Francisco's housing market structure. After weathering the dot-com crash, the continued implementation of the 1995 reforms and subsequent enhancements reshaped the city's residential landscape:

Sustained Production Levels: Unlike our timeline, where housing construction remained anemic even after the economy recovered, alternate San Francisco maintained average annual production of 5,000-7,000 units through the 2000s. This consistent supply expansion created a fundamentally different market dynamic.
Diversified Housing Typology: By 2010, the city had developed a rich middle ground between single-family homes and large apartment blocks. "Missing middle" housing—duplexes, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, and six-to-eight-unit buildings—became common throughout formerly low-density neighborhoods, providing family-suitable housing at more moderate price points.
Neighborhood Evolution: Districts transformed at varying paces. The Sunset and Richmond, once almost exclusively single-family areas, gradually incorporated more multi-unit buildings, particularly along commercial corridors like Irving Street and Geary Boulevard. These changes, implemented with design standards that respected neighborhood character, proved less disruptive than opponents had feared.
Economic Stratification Patterns: While economic inequality certainly persisted, the spatial pattern of wealth distribution evolved differently. Rather than creating stark wealth contrasts between adjacent neighborhoods (as in our timeline), economic diversity became more block-by-block and building-by-building, with subsidized units integrated throughout the city.

By 2010, median home prices in San Francisco had reached approximately $750,000—significantly higher than the national average but roughly half the level seen in our timeline. This relative affordability preserved economic diversity that would otherwise have been lost.

Tech Industry Development (2010-2020)

The post-2010 tech boom unfolded dramatically differently in this alternate San Francisco:

Distributed Tech Ecosystem: Rather than concentrating exclusively in SoMa and Mission Bay, tech companies established presences throughout the city. Twitter still renovated the historic Market Street building for its headquarters in 2012, but other major firms like Airbnb, Uber, and Salesforce expanded into newly developed mixed-use districts in areas like Bayview-Hunters Point and along the revitalized Central Subway corridor.
Employee Housing Patterns: Unlike our timeline, where extreme housing costs forced even well-paid tech workers into distant suburbs or crowded group houses, the alternate city's greater housing supply allowed more industry employees to live in the city, often within walking or biking distance of their offices. This reduced commute pressures and fostered stronger community connections between tech workers and long-term residents.
Startup Evolution: The more moderate housing costs allowed startups to remain in the city longer before relocating due to cost pressures. This created a more diverse tech ecosystem, with smaller, bootstrapped companies able to compete for talent alongside venture-backed unicorns—a contrast to our timeline's increasingly winner-take-all environment.
Tech-Community Relations: The tension between tech workers and long-term residents, which became highly antagonistic in our timeline (exemplified by the 2013-2014 "Google bus" protests), took a different form. While some friction persisted, the reduced displacement pressure and more integrated living patterns fostered greater understanding between these groups.

The tech industry still transformed San Francisco, but in this timeline, the transformation was more organic and less disruptive to the city's existing social fabric.

Transportation and Urban Form (2010-2025)

The early focus on transit-oriented development yielded compounding benefits over decades:

Enhanced Transit Network: The concentration of housing along transit corridors generated the ridership and political will necessary for significant transit investments. The Central Subway, which in our timeline faced delays and cost overruns before opening in 2022, was completed by 2016 in this alternate reality. Additional light rail lines along Geary Boulevard and 19th Avenue, merely discussed in our timeline, became operational by 2020.
Reduced Car Dependency: Higher density, improved transit, and thoughtful mixed-use zoning reduced car ownership rates to approximately 0.5 vehicles per household by 2020 (compared to 0.8 in our timeline). This shift alleviated parking pressures and allowed the repurposing of some street parking for protected bike lanes, parklets, and expanded sidewalks.
Neighborhood Commercial Vitality: The increased population density supported vibrant neighborhood commercial corridors throughout the city. Unlike our timeline, where many neighborhood businesses struggled with declining foot traffic and rising rents, the alternate San Francisco maintained economically diverse commercial districts with both legacy businesses and new establishments.
Climate Resilience: The denser development pattern, combined with reduced car dependency, lowered the city's per-capita carbon emissions significantly. By 2025, San Francisco's transportation emissions were approximately 45% lower than they would have been under the development pattern of our timeline, establishing the city as a global leader in urban climate action.

Social Impact and Cultural Legacy (2020-2025)

By 2025, this alternate San Francisco presents a strikingly different social landscape:

Preserved Economic Diversity: While still an expensive city by national standards, San Francisco retained much of its economic diversity. Teachers, nurses, artists, and service workers could still afford to live in the city, often in the newer multi-unit buildings or accessory dwelling units. The share of middle-income households (earning 80-120% of area median income) remained at approximately 25%, compared to just 15% in our timeline.
Homelessness Reduction: The combination of more affordable housing options and dedicated supportive housing developments significantly reduced homelessness. By 2025, the city's homeless population numbered approximately 2,500, compared to over 8,000 in our timeline. This reduction allowed social services to focus more effectively on those still experiencing homelessness.
Cultural Preservation: Many of the cultural institutions that were displaced in our timeline—iconic music venues, theaters, and community spaces—remained viable in this alternate reality. The Mission District, while still experiencing some gentrification, retained much of its Latino character and businesses, becoming a model for inclusive neighborhood evolution.
Policy Influence: San Francisco's housing success established it as a policy model studied by other cities facing similar challenges. Cities like Boston, Seattle, and Austin adopted elements of the "San Francisco Model" of transit-oriented densification combined with strong anti-displacement measures, creating a cascade effect that influenced urban housing policy nationwide.

The city still faced challenges—income inequality, though moderated, remained significant, and some displacement still occurred despite the protective measures. However, by solving its housing crisis in the 1990s, this alternate San Francisco managed to preserve much of its diversity, creativity, and unique character that has been threatened or lost in our timeline.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Kimberley Robinson, Professor of Urban Economics at UC Berkeley, offers this perspective: "What makes the San Francisco housing counterfactual so compelling is that it was entirely achievable. The 1995 intervention point represents a moment when market forces hadn't yet fully taken hold, and modest zoning changes could have yielded enormous long-term benefits. The compounding effect of early action on housing supply can't be overstated—each year of adequate production builds on the previous, creating an entirely different market equilibrium. Had San Francisco acted decisively in 1995, we would likely see a city today with housing costs 30-40% lower than our current reality, with all the associated benefits for economic opportunity and diversity."

Marco Gonzalez, Director of the California Housing Coalition, provides a more political analysis: "San Francisco's failure to address housing in the 1990s represents a classic case of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. Homeowners who blocked development saw their property values skyrocket, while the costs were spread across thousands of potential residents who couldn't move to the city or were eventually displaced. In an alternate timeline where reforms passed in 1995, the political coalition would have been self-reinforcing—each new resident benefiting from the increased housing supply would have a stake in continuing the policies. The tragedy of our actual timeline is that by the time the crisis became undeniable in the 2010s, the economic incentives against reform had become nearly insurmountable."

Dr. Sophia Lai, Historian of Urban California at Stanford University, contextualizes the alternate scenario: "What's particularly interesting about this counterfactual is how it might have altered the relationship between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. In our timeline, the extreme housing costs in San Francisco pushed many tech operations to maintain headquarters in suburban office parks, reinforcing car dependency and spatial segregation. A more affordable San Francisco might have accelerated the urban shift of the tech industry by a decade or more, potentially creating a more integrated innovation ecosystem spanning from SoMa to San Jose. This would have had profound implications not just for housing, but for transportation infrastructure, venture capital patterns, and even the nature of the technology developed in the region."