I've been interested in a possible analysis for a while (maybe I should finally dig in and do it myself). My hypothesis is that San Francisco isn't as nimby-istic as it appears, that this is an artifact of a political and geographical oddity. San Francisco is a 7x7 square mile city and county that is already reasonably dense (on average - parts are extremely dense, the only place outside NYC with 100k+/sq mi density, whereas other neighborhoods 4 miles away are leafy suburbs). It's also a peninsula, and much of the area to the south is designated open space.

Here's the thing - I'd be interested in analyzing other metro regions where a long standing, dense urban core isn't its own city and county, and see what percentage of growth happens within it or outside it. In other words, let's look at sub-regions with existing stable population density of above (say, 20,000 inhabitants per square mile for the last 50+ years) and see how much construction has occurred within them.

For instance, does Atlanta have a small, historic downtown with an existing housing base that has been relatively dense and stable for 50 years? Has the growth in Atlanta come from tearing down 80 year old buildings in neighborhoods with 20k/sq mile populations dating back a while, or has it been in the suburbs and exurbs that count as "Atlanta" but wouldn't count as "San Francisco"?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I think it's an important one to answer before concluding that SF is uniquely "nimby-istic" toward housing in some cultural or political way. You can probably tell where I'm leaning with this, though - that the NIMBY attitude, to the extent that it exists, has more to do with low density areas like mountain view resisting new housing than high density areas like much of SF.