It upsets me when I read things like this (click here if you can't see the embedded tweet above). I think it creates a false sense of a free lunch and ignores all of the nuances and complexities associated with inclusionary zoning.

IZ is an obligation to provide a certain number of affordable units in new housing developments. There's a lot of detail and debate around where this should apply, how much needs to be provided, and at what degree of affordability.

But at the end of the day, it's important to keep in mind that at meaningful levels of affordability, these IZ homes are going to be built at steep losses. More info on the economic impacts of IZ can be found here.

The simple math is that the costs to build these homes are going to be greater than the revenues that they bring in. Which is why developers aren't out building affordable housing everywhere. There's no margin.

In order to build, somebody or something needs to provide a subsidy so that this revenue-expense shortfall can be made up. How this works its way through the market is where I have tried to focus the discussion when writing about IZ. There are complexities. Some lessons from Portland, here.

But to just assume that these costs will get magically absorbed by housing developers, with no other knock-on effects or distortions to the market, is incorrect.

Bloomberg CityLab has a new video out talking about how Vienna has seemingly solved the housing unaffordability problem that is impacting most global cities around the world. Each year Vienna builds about 14,000 new housing units and about half of this is supply is "affordable." Already over 60% of Viennese live in an affordable home. The title of the video suggests that their approach is radical, but is that really the case?

What was clear to me when I watched the video is that there are perhaps two key differences in terms of how Vienna approaches this problem. One, they quite simply care about delivering high-quality affordable housing to the middle class. They think it's culturally important and they believe that architecture and design matters. Two, they are willing to invest in it, both up front and over time (maintenance).

In the video, the former Vice Mayor of Vienna talks about how the City will go out and buy land (or use already owned land) and then make it available (sale or lease) at discounted rates so that it makes economic sense for non-profit housing developers. If the math still doesn't work for the private sector, then there are other subsidies available.

I'm certainly not an expert on Vienna's approach to housing delivery. And I'm not suggesting it's perfect. My knowledge base comes largely from one 13 minute episode by CityLab. But I think it's notable that I didn't pickup anything in the video about inclusionary zoning leading the way (which I have argued before tends to shift the burden to the remaining market rate housing units). Instead, they value it and they invest in it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Image: CityLab

News has just dropped that architect Bjarke Ingels, Roni Bahar, and Nick Chim are launching a new "design living" company called Nabr. Their website says that it is "coming soon to Silicon Valley" and so presumably there will be tech involved and we should actually be calling it a startup.

The video embedded at the top of this post (link here) will tell you a little bit about it. But from what I can glean from their website, the focus is on using technology and modular construction to deliver housing that is more personal / adaptable, more sustainable, and more attainable. There is a note on their site about buying with only 1% down.

We have talked a lot on this blog about the antiquated and slow-moving nature of design, development, and construction. So what it absolutely clear is that there are many problems to be solved here. I am excited to see what the team brings forward.