Somebody on Twitter responded to my recent post about inclusionary zoning and asked: Aren't all the upzonings that the City is already doing a kind of density bonus? In other words, and this is me elaborating here, why is there an economic "shortfall?" Why does there need to be any other sort of subsidy in order to mitigate the economic impacts of inclusionary zoning?
A density bonus can mean and can be used in a number of different contexts. Sometimes it is used as an incentive with landowners, whereby they get a bonus on top of their sale price if the developer manages to achieve a certain amount of density on the site. But in this particular case -- IZ subsidies -- we're talking about something else.
We're talking about density above and beyond what you might normally achieve on a particular site in order to directly offset -- maybe partially or maybe entirely -- the economic shortfall brought about by inclusionary zoning. The fact that upzonings are happening all over the city doesn't necessarily qualify them as bonuses. In the case of Toronto, the market is just responding to out-of-date zoning.
Here's a specific example.
Let's say you have a development site with in-place zoning that would allow you to build 20,000 sf of density. This is the as-of-right or by-right density. No need to rezone the site. Just file your building permits and you're off making things. If this is the most you could build, then the market would value the land based on this density. As we have talked about before, land is the residual claimant in a development pro forma.
However, if the zoning was out of date and it was fairly clear that one could rezone the site and build up to 100,000 sf, then the market would no longer value the site based on its in-place zoning. It would instead value it based on its future expected density. Again, because land is the residual claimant, more density = higher land value.
In this second scenario, the additional 80,000 sf is, in my view, not a density bonus. Give or take a bit here and there, it is the density that everyone is generally expecting. The market has already priced it in. A true bonus / subsidy, would be something above and beyond the base of 100,000 sf. Something that is only available to developers if they do X -- which could be build affordable housing.
Maybe the bonus is perfectly tuned to exactly offset the economic drag of doing X, or maybe the bonus is designed to serve as an incentive to do X. In this latter case, the bonus would more than offset the drag and be accretive to the pro forma, which would mean that every sensible developer would now want to do X. More carrot, less stick.
One of the challenges with this hypothetical scenario is that, for such a bonus structure to work, you need to know the baseline that you're bonusing against and you need to ensure that nobody gets the bonus unless they do the thing -- the X. Using the above example, that means that the 100,000 sf needs to be fairly firm and that anything above that number only happens with the delivery of affordable housing.
So, this seems dumb.
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors recently voted 8-3 in favor of rejecting a new 495-unit residential project at 469 Stevenson Street in SoMa. The property is currently a parking lot used by Nordstrom.
Of the project's 495 units, 73 were to be offered at affordable rents (about 14% of the project). In addition, the developer was prepared to donate a nearby parcel for additional off-site affordable housing. This would have brought the total count up to 118 units (or about 1/4 of the project).
Apparently gentrification was a serious concern with this project:
“It’s very clear to me that this will have a very significant displacement and social-economic impact on the Sixth Street corridor, on the Filipino community, and the broader low-income community here,” said District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton.
The mayor seems to get it though:
“This project met all the criteria for approval, and it would have created 500 new homes on what is currently a parking lot surrounded by tall buildings, located near transit,” Breed told the Chronicle. “We can’t keep rejecting new housing and then wondering why rents keep rising.”
Toronto's new inclusionary zoning policy went to Planning and Housing Committee this week. Agenda item, here. The recommendations were approved, which means that the item will move onto City Council next month for final approval.
Here's a summary of some what is being proposed (though keep in mind that I am not a planner and you should probably do your own due diligence if you're looking to buy land and/or develop here):
IZ to come into force next year in 2022.
IZ to only apply on projects with 100 or more residential units.
Three distinct market areas across the City with differing set aside rates (see below charts). This strategy acknowledges the fact that you generally need submarkets with expensive housing and rising prices to be able to absorb the financial burden of the affordable housing units. I've written a lot about this dynamic on the blog. Relevant posts, here.
It's in the chart, but it's perhaps worth repeating: Purpose-built rental projects will not be required to deliver any affordable housing units at the outset of this policy. This is important to note because the margins on purpose-built rentals are razor thin.
The set aside rates are planned to increase to 8-22% by 2030.
The affordable units will need to remain affordable for 99 years. And the rents and prices are to be geared toward low and moderate income households, which are currently defined as those earning between $32,000 and $92,000.
Clear transition period for the development industry.
Ongoing monitoring of the policy to make sure it doesn't suck.
If you're interested, the full staff recommendation report can be found here and the draft OPA and zoning by-law can be found here and here.