Deeply affordable housing is mostly infeasible to build.

This is why you don't see the market naturally building this kind of housing on its own. It, for the most part, doesn't make any economic sense to do so. So this is also why the US has fabricated things like low-income housing tax credits. They are a way to make up the economic shortfall that exists with low-income rental housing and get the private sector building this kind of housing.

We sometimes try to convince ourselves -- or maybe it is a way of shirking responsibility -- that there can be such a thing as no-cost affordable housing through things like inclusionary zoning. But I think we all know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is ultimately going to need to pay. The big question, of course, is who should that be?

By definition, we acknowledge that the people who will ultimately live in these affordable homes cannot afford to pay market rates. So by default, the subsidies will need come from somewhere else. But again, from where and from who? Should it be specific people who pay or should it be mostly everyone who pays?

If we return to the Toronto building industry's favorite topic right now -- development charges -- you'll see that under the current rates, every new 2 bedroom or larger apartment that is constructed must pay $3,727 toward affordable housing. Under the proposed rates, this will increase to $12,545 for every new large apartment. It's by far the largest proposed percentage increase (237%) and also one of the largest service items.

This raises two interesting philosophical questions.

One, should the buyers of new housing be responsible for contributing to affordable housing in this way? Because what we are in effect saying to these people is, "Hey, you can afford to buy a new market rate home, so we're going to collect some additional money from you -- $12,545 to be exact -- so that we can try and help those that aren't in the same position as you. We're also going to mandate additional affordable homes within your building and we'd like you to subsidize those too." This is one way to redistribute wealth.

But if the goal is to try and create more broad-based affordability, an alternative approach might be, "Hey, you already own a home and it has gone up a lot in value, so we're going to collect some additional money from you over time so that we can try and help those that aren't in the same position as you." This would be the property tax approach. It's probably not perfect, but might it be a more fair and equitable way to redistribute wealth?

The second interesting philosophical question has to do with whether this is consistent with the dogma that growth should pay for growth. The idea behind development charges (also known as impact fees in some parts of the world) is that they should pay for the cost of new development. This makes complete sense. When you build new housing you certainly need some additional stuff -- everything from additional school capacity to emergency services.

But the question here is whether the construction of new housing in and of itself creates a direct need for more affordable housing, and therefore should be charged for it. Asked in the opposite way, if you weren't building this new housing, would you then no longer need this affordable housing, just like you no longer need that additional school capacity?

This is definitely not the case. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. If you don't build any new housing in a growing city, you actually exacerbate the problem of affordability. So here's a provocative thought. Rather than a charge, should this affordable housing line item actually be a credit towards each new project given that it benefits affordability?

While it may not make any economic sense to build affordable housing, I think that many of us would agree that it makes a lot of social sense to build affordable housing. We know that our cities are at their best when they are both diverse and inclusive. The problem is that we can't agree on who should pay for it.

San Diego-based Jonathan Segal is a unique kind of builder in that his firm doesn't have any clients. They act as both the architect and developer for all of their projects. This gives them a lot of control over the building process, but also more freedom to experiment.

ULI recently interviewed Segal about his micro-housing project on 320 West Cedar Street in San Diego's Little Italy (called The Continental). And I think it's a pretty interesting case study for us to discuss here on the blog.

It's a 5,000 sf corner site, and Segal developed it with 42 micro units (5 of which are priced at 65% of AMR), two retail spaces at grade, and a separate "single-family townhouse" for his son that sits on top of the retail space at the corner.

The idea was to create relatively affordable "workforce" housing, which is why there's also minimal parking. The 37 market-rate units are currently priced between $1,595 and $1,995 per month, and the affordable ones are about $900 per month.

Segal is forthright in the interview in saying that leasing velocity was slow following completion in December 2019. It was hard to rent these kinds of units in San Diego without any parking. But he viewed the project as an experiment and eventually he did find product-market fit.

The mix of housing types here is also noteworthy. Presumably his son could have just gone out and built a more typical grade-related home. But why do that when you can build on top of an urban retail space and add 42 other homes to the lot?

The great housing debate continues: Are we building enough housing, or are we not?

Right now the media is talking about a new report from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which is claiming that cities in British Columbia are actually building enough housing to keep pace with population demand.

Between 2016 and 2021, the province's population grew by 7.6% and the number of new dwellings grew by 7.2%, according to the report. So supply appears to be lining up with demand.

One problem with this robust analysis is that many people, including the Housing Minister, don't agree. Here's an excerpt from the Globe and Mail:

“The overly naive analysis comparing housing to population growth to declare the adequacy of our housing supply fails to understand that housing and population growth are intimately related,” said statistics analyst Jens von Bergmann, a regular decoder of housing statistics for Vancouver and Canada. “It’s a slap in the face of those who have been pushed out, or those who failed to move here, because of the unavailability of housing.”

And on a related note, here is a recent piece by Shawn Micallef (Toronto Star) talking about why the left can't get Toronto's housing right.