The uncomfortable love-hate relationship between the City and its suburbs, gets the treatment in the Chron:
It may well be that many Bay Area people, particularly those who are affluent, may not see this as a problem. As the hotbed of environmentalism and "smart growth" sentiment, the Bay Area, and the towns in its suburban sprawl, have been notable in opposition to new housing development, particularly single-family homes. This was true during the boom of the '90s, and it is true today.Yup, that about covers it. Save the city's "character," ensure no one will be able to live here.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. Harvard's Ed Glaeser has pointed out that a similar process is occurring in the Boston area, where suburban growth has been choked off under the guise of environmental protection or to preserve quality of life. As a result, demographers have traced a growing out-migration of young people to less-expensive places such as New Hampshire or the sunbelt.
Part of the problem lies in the past success of regions like the Bay Area and Boston. Well-educated, affluent residents, often sitting on properties worth close to a million dollars, have little reason to share their lifestyle. This is particularly true for those who work in the more sophisticated, globalized sectors of the economy, or in the bulging nonprofit sector, where cash flows are not tied to the local economy