This is for suburbia. There isn't massive demand for AirBnB in suburbia. There's such a massive shortage of housing that the small AirBnB demand is large relative to the supply of empty houses, but that's because a small number divided by a number very close to zero results in a large number. More supply will help a lot more than limiting AirBnB.
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.
Instead of high density housing this will do slightly higher density in low density zones. You cannot really increase density by that much with it, but you for sure can cut the yards... And parking space.
I'm pretty sure this won't make housing more affordable by much. Or will even have an opposite effect.
To build these houses a pretty serious investment or Amish-sized group is required. Who has that?
> but you for sure can cut the yards... And parking space.
As if each of the people moving into the subdivided spaces still won't need parking. Now, you've actually increased the demand for parking. Where is that parking going to happen?
> I thought the post says one person buys the lot and then sells it to friends who individually fund the houses.
One company buys the lot and then sells it to its own subsidiaries who individually fund the houses.
I'm sure there are numerous ways to juggle the finances.
Additionally, what happens after 5 years when the first friend moves out? I see this complex as a terrible HOA-in-the-making since neighbors will be sharing more resources. Reminds me of when I was doing factory work and living in a punk house.
Yeah the "friend compound" thing seems nebulous, and one of the stated benefits is specifically that it can be financed independently and resold to third parties. So basically it's just higher density housing and pretty soon it's just very close houses of random people with some sort of weird condo fees for the commons (surely there is shared walkways, etc), etc.
It may seem odd to people who grew up in the single-family detached housing world of the postwar US,
but there are cultures and societies around the world even today where multi-family housing is common.
See for example Casas de Vecindad,
a typical form of housing in the US/Mexico borderlands for hundreds of years.
