Let's be clear about what happened in Detroit: the city experienced a once-in-a-century economic and population collapse. Entire neighborhoods were abandoned. Land became essentially free. Developers swooped in, built some units on dirt-cheap lots, and now charge above-median rents to newcomers. As one Bay Area resident put it, "Some developer bought some abandoned land in Detroit, developed it into some 1 bedroom units, and now charges above median rents to some hipsters. What does that have to do with the Bay Area?"

The answer? Almost nothing.

The Bay Area's housing crisis isn't a mystery, and it doesn't require "innovation." We know exactly what's wrong: decades of restrictive zoning, byzantine permitting processes, environmental review abuse, and neighborhood groups wielding veto power over any project taller than a mailbox. The result is a region with explosive job growth and virtually no new housing to match.

Another local nailed it: "Innovation is not needed. Just build denser housing around transportation hubs and stop with the red tape."

That's it. That's the whole policy platform. You don't need a case study from a city that lost two-thirds of its population to figure out that building more homes where people actually want to live will bring prices down. You need political will — and a government willing to get out of the way.

Every dollar spent on consultants studying "housing innovation" from post-apocalyptic real estate markets is a dollar not spent on streamlining approvals. Every year wasted on pilot programs and task forces is another year rents climb and young people leave.

San Francisco and the broader Bay Area have BART stations surrounded by parking lots and single-family homes. We have commercial corridors begging for mixed-use development. We have the demand. We have the capital. What we don't have is a government that trusts the market to build.

Stop looking to Detroit. Start looking at your own zoning map. The answer has been there the whole time.