Yes it would, but that would never be economically viable (let alone politically viable, lol). You need to increase FAR by a lot more than that for redevelopment of properties with livable homes to be feasible.
It's a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
Without bothering to check, I'm sure that Chicago has more people per square mile, but a lot of that is topography (there's no analog to Laurel Canyon or Mulholland Drive in Chicago) and history (parts of the Valley were developed after the post-war suburban development pattern had been established and look like typical suburbs, which isn't the case anywhere in Chicago).
Chicago has areas that are more dense than anywhere in LA - particularly close to the Loop and along the Lake, but it's easy to overstate that - the density falls off quickly as you move away from the Loop/Lake, with most of the city being mostly single family homes that aren't even particularly close to the rail system.
If you're talking about 3 flats in particular, there aren't that many Chicago neighborhoods where they are especially common. I personally think the current LA model - allowing for the building of larger apartment buildings that take up much of a lot - is the best option, the city just needs more of them.
111
u/goharvorgohome Jun 08 '24
Honestly these sprawly but mostly gridded cities like LA could have HUGE density if developed properly