So, nice areas shouldn't have restaurants? Paying waiters and busboys enough money to live in downtown SF while their counterparts in the suburbs are paid what they're getting now will distort the labor market in ways that break the whole thing.
That’s a distortion that is what the property owners in California want. Y’all get your million dollar studio apartments with $1000 property taxes and tent cities on the curb outside.
San Francisco can be a playground for the rich until they get sick of paying for $30 lattes or whatever and flee to low cost locales like Manhattan that have affordable housing and transit.
It won’t be “fixed” until we’re all backed into an economic corner where it becomes politically acceptable for the property owners to lose bazillions of dollars.
I don't know how you got to that, other than by assuming that nice areas have to be expensive. The fact that SF is unable to achieve both is an indicator of broken local markets and politics, not an ironclad rule for every other locality.
Edit: Another framing is that "nice" and "fancy" are different things, as much as extremely unequal markets like SF distort the distinction.
What's your qualification for "nice"? For me, it's decent public infrastructure, convenient access to both basic goods (groceries) and "light" luxuries (restaurants, bars), and a broad lack of concern that I'm going to be victimized by a crime.
Most of the US satisfies these constraints, especially if you own and don't mind driving a car.
