Overall, the effect of these density and use-limiting restrictions seems to be to concentrate financial benefits in the hands of incumbent homeowners (by inflating the values of homes), while impoverishing the city as a whole (by substantially devaluing the property tax base while increasing the cost of both rentals and new home purchases).
One last point: simply because permissive zoning increases land values, does it necessarily follow that eliminating some or all density-related restrictions -- minimum lot sizes, height limits, etc. -- will provide a net economic benefit to the city? I'd suggest Michael Lewyn's work as a good starting point on that issue, but in a follow-up post I'll venture a couple more thoughts on the topic.
Related posts: Did Zoning Ever Conserve Property Values?
*See On the effects of minimum-lot-size zoning, S. Bucovetsky. This paper deals with minimum lot sizes only, but logically the same analysis should apply to other restrictions, such as FAR ratios and other density and use limitations.
**The higher per square foot prices paid in certain instances that I was able to identify suggest that buyers, at least in this market, are willing to give up large amounts of square footage in exchange for a reasonable price -- to the extent of taking a apartment 60% smaller than a new duplex home for a price only 30% less. This could indicate an undersupply of mid- and small-sized apartments in this area (almost certainly true) or that the marginal value of each additional square foot above, say, 1200 sq. ft. is quite low for the type of buyers who are looking in the area.