Most people who currently live in San Francisco/San Jose don't particularly want to turn it into a global metropolis and don't give a damn about abstract concepts like "cultural relevance". Cultural elitists should have some humility and not presume that they know best.
Another option would be to set policies that encourage greater economic development and job growth in Stockton so that residents aren't forced to commute long distances. There's nothing special about the SF Bay Area: it's just another place.
The Los Angeles example pretty much proves that spinning out employment into multiple areas does not mean people will just move to the closest area to their job; it just adds another destination to the list of "places people drive an hour to."
It is not really that people living in Stockton already are commuting into the Bay, but Bay Area workers are being displaced into Stockton. The Bay Area has added more jobs than housing for a while now.
LA _could_ be much more like Tokyo if USA cared to make mass transit work.
# Service accurate enough to set a clock by.
# Service mesh that provides walk-able freedom.
# Safety and cleanliness (both a culture and enforcement issue)
Yes, there would need to be a slight increase in density as well as much more transit service; but that metro area could scale up were there enough water.
Most people move to the Bay to get a good job, which is only possible in a large, vibrant, globally connected city. Everyone -- every single person -- who buys or rents a house in the SF bay today does so because they either have or want have "a good job." Is there a single person alive who has bought a house on the peninsula recently because it's a quiet place where nothing much happens?
The Bay Area is extremely special. It's the only place to go to get a good job! There are probably 500,000 people who would move in next week if we had the apartments to house them. That is absolutely not true of Stockton.
Someone who commutes to SF from Stockton isn't a resident of Stockton. They're a resident of SF who is priced out!
Are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe that nonsense? There are a huge number of places outside the SF Bay Area that have good jobs available. Lots of openings in North Dakota for good oil and gas production jobs. Plenty of high paying work in Cleveland for anyone with healthcare skills. The list goes on and on.
Personally I wouldn't want to live in SF proper even if it was cheap. Most of the city is kind of a shithole and the governance is atrocious in a way that goes far beyond just failed housing policies.
Another option would be to set policies that encourage greater economic development and job growth in Stockton so that residents aren't forced to commute long distances. There's nothing special about the SF Bay Area: it's just another place.