Though no one has tried this yet, there is a loop-hole in the Davis law that says very tall buildings are legal anywhere. The author wants a brash, no holds bared kind of real estate investor to push the boundaries and try this for real.
Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Palo Alto, Cupertino, and (my favorite) Atherton, will also soon see their housing limits invalidated as noncompliant, based on their current (bad-faith) plans they're trying to squeak by, and in _those_ markets, I guarantee you someone _will_ try to take advantage of it. Maybe not as skyscrapers, but as fourplexes, 10-plexes, and missing middle housing this state so desperately needs in affluent areas. As an example: Beverly Hills is now required to zone 3096 net-new housing units that are likely to be re-developed in the next 10 years. Last year they zoned... 4. Good luck fudging that!)
This is a return to market-based development, too, and not some government intervention: real estate developers still aren't going to build where it doesn't make sense to, but now they'll have some of the red tape artificially holding development back removed in places where it does make sense.
I love the brash interesting solution the author has brought up! It's how we move into the future, trying new things. Is it the right thing for Davis? Probably not, but it sure would be interesting.
I struggle between novelty, interesting, and sustainable. :)
It's just that you probably want the biggest building possible so the potential profit is worth the years of delay while inevitable legal challenges and possibly an EIR work their way through the courts and planning process.
...to maximize the loss when the lack of local infrastructure to support people using a building of that size makes it impossible to sell or lease space in it.
There's still giant holes in the ground from abandoned skyscrapers the Sacramento market wouldn't support a decade ago, and that was a place not obviously insane for them.
I'll also note that the alternative to infill housing is single family home suburban sprawl, which is a lot more taxing infrastructure wise - apartment dwellers use less water, less electricity, and are less likely to own a car than suburban single family homeowners. Further the consequence of less homebuilding in California is more homebuilding in places like Texas, which are a lot less friendly for the environment.
If that is true, then it would seem like one plus five, one plus four, 5 over 1, and 4 over 1 buildings would refer to how many wood floors the building has above the first floor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
I do not know how good the source is for Wikipedia, but I have only ever seen 5 and 6 story buildings, and never 7 or more stories with the first floor having masonry/steel and then wood for the rest.
The only reason Target had to be that far out is no place in the city center area had space for the literal sea of parking Target wanted. It's had major chains much closer to downtown for a long time (Borders and then Whole Foods right in downtown, Gottschalks at UMall until the chain went bankrupt in 2009, etc.)
It's all about social class. There's no website dedicated to calling people who shop at Target landwhales.
It's the cachet of having the French store[0] in the area, over one that's from flyover-country. ;)
But theres also no law stating this would be profitable, even as a oneoff
Does Davis have anything worth seeing? The Central Valley is all flat farmland with the dry side of some mountains in the distance.