Alan Ehrenhalt recently published a balanced piece in Governing that largely reflects my own views on inclusionary zoning. It’s called: Why Affordable Housing Is So Hard To Build.

His argument is that there are lots of cities trying to build more affordable housing, but that most strategies have not yet proven to be all that successful.

I’ve written a few posts on inclusionary zoning. The most recent is this one. And though I believe that a mix of incomes is a critical component of good city building, I am having a hard time believing that inclusionary zoning is the silver bullet that will get us there. Admittedly, it sounds like a great idea. But how does that translate into reality?

Here’s a snippet from Alan’s article (shout out to Daniel Hertz of City Observatory who seems to get cited in almost every article I read these days):

Just about every city that has tried an inclusionary zoning law in recent years has had a similar experience. In some cases, the results have been much worse. According to BAE, Chicago’s inclusion law produced $19 million in 11 years, but only 760 affordable units. Thirteen years of inclusionary zoning in Seattle brought the city $31.6 million in fees and a grand total of 56 units. As the urbanist Daniel Hertz wrote recently, inclusionary zoning has been “more powerful as a symbol than as a way of helping people.”

Of course, the devil is in the details. Many inclusionary zoning policies allow cash in lieu of actual housing:

San Francisco actually has had an inclusionary zoning law since 2002, and it has been a flop. It mandates a 12 percent affordable set-aside, but allows developers to escape the mandate by paying a fee to the city. As in Arlington, this is what they have done. A study by the research firm BAE Urban Economics found in 2014 that after 12 years the San Francisco law had brought in $58.8 million in developers’ fees and had generated 1,560 units. That’s better than nothing, but it’s a drop in the bucket for a city facing an affordability problem in virtually every neighborhood.

All this said, I’m still not so sure that it’s as simple as eradicating the cash in lieu option and forcing mandatary inclusionary zoning. As Alan rightly points out in his article, if we set the bar too high, then all of a sudden it starts making some market rate housing infeasible to build. 

And if this ends up lowering the overall supply of new housing, then we could be hurting affordability while at the same time trying to mandate more of it. Does that make sense? Clearly this is not as simple as it may seem.

I get the appeal for cash poor cities. It sounds like free affordable housing. But I’m always suspect of “free” lunches. In any event, I think we can all agree that this is an important discussion to be having.

The Economist recently published an essay called, A Planet of Suburbs – The world is becoming ever more suburban, and the better for it. The argument is basically that the “great urbanization” that everyone loves to talk about these days is actually a misnomer. From Chicago to Chennai, it’s not the urban core that’s growing. It’s the suburbs. And so what we’re seeing should actually be called the great suburbanization.

The basis for this argument is that wealth fuels sprawl. As people become richer, they naturally consume more of everything – including space. It’s a natural market outcome.

Take for example, the path of many of Toronto’s ethnic groups. In the first half of the 20th century, College Street was the Little Italy. Then it shifted north and St. Clair Avenue West became the more authentic Little Italy. Today, many Italians now live north of the city in Woodbridge. In fact, last weekend I was on St. Clair West and was disappointed to learn that one of my favorite butchers had closed up shop and “moved to Woodbridge.”

However, there are also many supporters of the exact opposite outcome. From Edward Glaeser to Alan Ehrenhalt, many have argued that we’re in the midst of a “great inversion.” The suburbs are no longer a threat to urban centers. It’s the urban centers who are threatening the suburbs. The suburbs are dead. Long live the city.

So which is it?

Well, The Economist does cite two examples where true urbanization is actually taking place. It’s happening in Tokyo and London. In both cases, it’s the city center that is growing the fastest – not the suburbs. The explanation for Tokyo is its aging population. And the explanation for London is its restrictive greenbelt, which effectively stops the possibility of any further sprawl.

Here in Toronto – where there is also a greenbelt in place – we know that the population of the downtown core is growing at an incredible pace. A recent report by the city – called Comprehensive to the Core – revealed that the downtown core is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city.

But what about the suburbs?

If we look at the province of Ontario’s growth projections, it is indeed the suburbs which are expected to grow the fastest up until 2036. Here is a diagram showing percentage growth rates:

In absolute numbers, the city of Toronto alone is expected to add about 0.66 million people between 2012 and 2036, and the suburbs are expected to add almost 1.9 million.

There are a number of potential explanations for this differential, but I think it’s largely because land is cheaper in the suburbs, it’s easier to add new housing supply, population densities are lower, and we’re talking about very different land areas.

The city of Toronto is 630 square kilometers. If you tack on the suburbs, the Greater Toronto Area is 7,124 square kilometers. That means Toronto makes up less than 9% of the total land area. And yet it is expected to contribute 25% of the region’s population growth. 

Still, the suburbs are where the bulk of the population growth is expected to happen over the coming decades.

However, the “great inversion” that authors like Alan Ehrenhalt have been talking about should not really be interpreted as the death of the suburbs. What he’s instead talking about is a socioeconomic or demographic reversal: center cities used to be poor and now they’re becoming rich.

Here’s how he put it:

What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place.

In this context, we are still living through the great urbanization. We’re seeing a shift in consumer preference and a shift in where wealth is choosing to locate. That’s a profound change.

And while we’re obviously still suburbanizing, I don’t agree that we’re better for it. In fact, left unchecked, this demographic inversion could actually prove to be quite damaging to our suburbs.

Image: Flickr

Alan Ehrenhalt recently published a balanced piece in Governing that largely reflects my own views on inclusionary zoning. It’s called: Why Affordable Housing Is So Hard To Build.

His argument is that there are lots of cities trying to build more affordable housing, but that most strategies have not yet proven to be all that successful.

I’ve written a few posts on inclusionary zoning. The most recent is this one. And though I believe that a mix of incomes is a critical component of good city building, I am having a hard time believing that inclusionary zoning is the silver bullet that will get us there. Admittedly, it sounds like a great idea. But how does that translate into reality?

Here’s a snippet from Alan’s article (shout out to Daniel Hertz of City Observatory who seems to get cited in almost every article I read these days):

Just about every city that has tried an inclusionary zoning law in recent years has had a similar experience. In some cases, the results have been much worse. According to BAE, Chicago’s inclusion law produced $19 million in 11 years, but only 760 affordable units. Thirteen years of inclusionary zoning in Seattle brought the city $31.6 million in fees and a grand total of 56 units. As the urbanist Daniel Hertz wrote recently, inclusionary zoning has been “more powerful as a symbol than as a way of helping people.”

Of course, the devil is in the details. Many inclusionary zoning policies allow cash in lieu of actual housing:

San Francisco actually has had an inclusionary zoning law since 2002, and it has been a flop. It mandates a 12 percent affordable set-aside, but allows developers to escape the mandate by paying a fee to the city. As in Arlington, this is what they have done. A study by the research firm BAE Urban Economics found in 2014 that after 12 years the San Francisco law had brought in $58.8 million in developers’ fees and had generated 1,560 units. That’s better than nothing, but it’s a drop in the bucket for a city facing an affordability problem in virtually every neighborhood.

All this said, I’m still not so sure that it’s as simple as eradicating the cash in lieu option and forcing mandatary inclusionary zoning. As Alan rightly points out in his article, if we set the bar too high, then all of a sudden it starts making some market rate housing infeasible to build. 

And if this ends up lowering the overall supply of new housing, then we could be hurting affordability while at the same time trying to mandate more of it. Does that make sense? Clearly this is not as simple as it may seem.

I get the appeal for cash poor cities. It sounds like free affordable housing. But I’m always suspect of “free” lunches. In any event, I think we can all agree that this is an important discussion to be having.

The Economist recently published an essay called, A Planet of Suburbs – The world is becoming ever more suburban, and the better for it. The argument is basically that the “great urbanization” that everyone loves to talk about these days is actually a misnomer. From Chicago to Chennai, it’s not the urban core that’s growing. It’s the suburbs. And so what we’re seeing should actually be called the great suburbanization.

The basis for this argument is that wealth fuels sprawl. As people become richer, they naturally consume more of everything – including space. It’s a natural market outcome.

Take for example, the path of many of Toronto’s ethnic groups. In the first half of the 20th century, College Street was the Little Italy. Then it shifted north and St. Clair Avenue West became the more authentic Little Italy. Today, many Italians now live north of the city in Woodbridge. In fact, last weekend I was on St. Clair West and was disappointed to learn that one of my favorite butchers had closed up shop and “moved to Woodbridge.”

However, there are also many supporters of the exact opposite outcome. From Edward Glaeser to Alan Ehrenhalt, many have argued that we’re in the midst of a “great inversion.” The suburbs are no longer a threat to urban centers. It’s the urban centers who are threatening the suburbs. The suburbs are dead. Long live the city.

So which is it?

Well, The Economist does cite two examples where true urbanization is actually taking place. It’s happening in Tokyo and London. In both cases, it’s the city center that is growing the fastest – not the suburbs. The explanation for Tokyo is its aging population. And the explanation for London is its restrictive greenbelt, which effectively stops the possibility of any further sprawl.

Here in Toronto – where there is also a greenbelt in place – we know that the population of the downtown core is growing at an incredible pace. A recent report by the city – called Comprehensive to the Core – revealed that the downtown core is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city.

But what about the suburbs?

If we look at the province of Ontario’s growth projections, it is indeed the suburbs which are expected to grow the fastest up until 2036. Here is a diagram showing percentage growth rates:

In absolute numbers, the city of Toronto alone is expected to add about 0.66 million people between 2012 and 2036, and the suburbs are expected to add almost 1.9 million.

There are a number of potential explanations for this differential, but I think it’s largely because land is cheaper in the suburbs, it’s easier to add new housing supply, population densities are lower, and we’re talking about very different land areas.

The city of Toronto is 630 square kilometers. If you tack on the suburbs, the Greater Toronto Area is 7,124 square kilometers. That means Toronto makes up less than 9% of the total land area. And yet it is expected to contribute 25% of the region’s population growth. 

Still, the suburbs are where the bulk of the population growth is expected to happen over the coming decades.

However, the “great inversion” that authors like Alan Ehrenhalt have been talking about should not really be interpreted as the death of the suburbs. What he’s instead talking about is a socioeconomic or demographic reversal: center cities used to be poor and now they’re becoming rich.

Here’s how he put it:

What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place.

In this context, we are still living through the great urbanization. We’re seeing a shift in consumer preference and a shift in where wealth is choosing to locate. That’s a profound change.

And while we’re obviously still suburbanizing, I don’t agree that we’re better for it. In fact, left unchecked, this demographic inversion could actually prove to be quite damaging to our suburbs.

Image: Flickr