For some of them, the requirements (for the same number of people and the same overall outcomes) increase with density, so, in a sense, high-rises (or other arrangements which increase density) do require them.
I didn't state my point well enough; people are the driving factor here. The density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way to deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the problem in any way people are going to be happy with.
> The density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way to deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the problem in any way people are going to be happy with.
Quite likely, just as many (if not more, in both absolute and proportional terms) people in SF will be unhappy with adoption of high-rises as the solution; the lack of availability under the current regime constrains some of the problems because it limits the ability of people to move in regardless of their desire to do so; relieving that constraint -- especially if the problems besides finding places to store the bodies aren't addressed -- just makes all the other problems of density worse.
> Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).
High rises don't require those things. People require those things.