It allows to subdivide lots down to 600 sq ft parcels. I can find endless examples in the core of every major California city, including San Francisco, where this is applicable, and could 5x or 10x the number of houses in single family areas[1]. San Francisco currently zones for a minimum of 4000 sq feet lots in RH-1 zones, and at least 1000 sq ft lot per residence in RH-3.
Should it or would it? Probably not. But this weird image of the suburbs vs "the city" (someone else used the term "metro" which humorously includes the suburbs, but whatever) doesn't seem reality based.
Doubly so given that the suburbs are car-centric, and plans like this are car-antagonistic. It seems to specifically exclude the suburbs, if anything.
[1] This law only applies to multi-family zoning, which in SF is RH-3. Regardless, funny to see people saying this is some low density suburb thing when many of the cores of cities have zoning requiring significantly more land.
> (someone else used the term "metro" which humorously includes the suburbs, but whatever)
Not really sure where the humor is being found. There are areas where suburbs grew into their own cities that now blend back into the larger urban area they were once separated from. They are no longer suburbs, and it is now more than one city, so metroplex/metropolitan area is the term used.
I was referring to someone saying "works for suburbs I'm guessing - I don't see how it helps out in metro areas?".
A "metro area" is by definition the overarching container (often including multiple cities and the suburbs of those cities, such as the Bay Area metro area), most definitely containing said suburbs. So if something "works for the suburbs", it works for the metro.
Should it or would it? Probably not. But this weird image of the suburbs vs "the city" (someone else used the term "metro" which humorously includes the suburbs, but whatever) doesn't seem reality based.
Doubly so given that the suburbs are car-centric, and plans like this are car-antagonistic. It seems to specifically exclude the suburbs, if anything.
[1] This law only applies to multi-family zoning, which in SF is RH-3. Regardless, funny to see people saying this is some low density suburb thing when many of the cores of cities have zoning requiring significantly more land.