I'm somewhat surprised at this given the intensity of California housing NIMBYism but I'm pleased to see it happen. Allowing fourplexes in some cases is a nice

I'm somewhat surprised at this given the intensity of California housing NIMBYism but I'm pleased to see it happen. Allowing fourplexes in some cases is a nice plus. This won't end the housing crisis. It'll take a long time for this to have a large impact but it's still an important step. To anyone saying you need high rise apartments like NYC, it's not as simple as that. You can't just plop a 500 unit high rise in the middle of a city like LA and hope for the best. There are a lot of considerations. For example: 1. How will you deal with all those cars; 2. Will there be enough public services in the area? 3. Is that even a good idea given that LA is an earthquake zone. Sure Japan has high rises but it's extremely land-constrained and people live in much smaller units, which partially offsets the higher costs of building in an earthquake zone. LA has been spending billions on a rail network and continues to do so. I don't know LA but I've heard people say it doesn't take you anywhere useful. There has also been resistance for adding stations in richer areas (eg Santa Monica) because it brings the riffraff in. But if you are going to build higher-density housing, the obvious place to do it is around train stations. You'll be less car dependent and you'll increase ridership of the light rail. The same applies to the Bay Area. Higher density housing should be a no-brainer along the SF to SJ Caltrain corridor.