SF is on a peninsula and Manhattan's an island. Chicago is relatively low-rise as well, but there's a lot more land in back of it. I hate the SF planning process, but there's no question that the city's growth is partly constrained by geography.
Yes but over 1/3 of the city population is concentrated in the lakefront neighborhoods. Everywhere you look there are shiny, new condos and apartment buildings.
I am thinking of moving to the Chi and was surprised that rent is less than half of the average bay area price. A lot of craigslist ads even tell applicants that they require a check for eviction court as part of their deposit. In total contrast to SF's rent controls.
(2) Definitely move here. Chicago is a fantastic city and the reason you don't hear about it more is that it's underrated.
If there's a kind of neighborhood you're interested in living in, I'm happy to help point you in the right direction. You should have no trouble finding a place.
Obviously you have several factors in play, and available land is one of them. But both SF and Manhattan would be cheaper than they now are if they had Chicago's more liberal attitude towards development, construction, and rent controls. Not as cheap as Chicago in the limiting case, but still cheaper. Indeed, even if SF had only New York's somewhat more draconian attitude towards development, it would be a lot cheaper than it is now. Rents in SF are comparable to Manhattan even though Manhattan has half the land area and twice the population.
There is also the sunset which has good food, cheap rent, and the M, L, K and N to get you places.
But the issue here is there is nothing good in soma besides jobs. In the weekend, I don't want to go to soma. I want to go to Northbeach or the mission or the castro.
All that being said, I haven't lived in Dogpatch, so it could be fantastic.
Would you rather pay for transit twice a week or five times a week? And dogpatch is relatively nice, especially if you include Potrero Hill which is a short walk away.