Subscribe
On Monday the province of Ontario posted a draft regulation intended to establish a framework for inclusionary zoning. It builds on a bill that passed last year allowing municipalities – should they choose – to require affordable housing in new developments and redevelopments.
Below are some, but not all, of the things that are being considered in the draft regulation. Some of these items were recommendations made by the development industry through the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) and the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
- The total number of affordable units or gross floor area dedicated to affordable housing units would not exceed 5% of the total units or 5% of the total gross floor area (excluding common areas). This number increase to 10% in high density transit station areas.
- The affordable period would be a minimum of 20 years but no greater than 30 years.
- There may be opportunities to provide the inclusionary zoning units off-site.
- The policies would only apply to developments / redevelopments with 20 or more units.
- The affordable component could not be used to determine community benefits under Section 37. Section 37 would also not apply if the proposed development (with IZ) is in a location where a development / community planning permit is used.
- Municipalities would be required to offer incentives to help offset the IZ cost burden, but only if the development is not subject to a development / community planning permit. The incentives could include a waiver or reduction in application fees, parkland dedication fees, development charges, and so on. These offsets are very important to the industry and the affordability of the market rate units. But interestingly enough, increases in height and/or density are not being contemplated as a possible incentive or financial contribution.
- The financial contribution would be based on the following formula: (A - B) x 0.4. A is the total sum of the average market price for all of the affordable housing units and B is the total sum of the affordable price for all of the IZ housing units. In other words, the intent is that municipalities would be required to offset 40% of the costs associated with providing the affordable units.
Click here for the rest of the draft regulation. The OHBA also published this media release following the draft. They like the “partnership model” but were advocating for a 50/50 public/private cost share on all government-mandated units.
If you’re looking for more reading on inclusionary zoning, check here, here, and here.
Photo by Omair Khan on Unsplash
It’s the Christmas and holiday season, which means two very important things.
One, it’s time for the latest rendition of Urban Capital’s annual Naughty or Nice party. That was last week and it was #7. Here are the obligatory photo booth snaps to prove it happened.
Aaron Terrazas, who is a Senior Economist at Zillow, recently gave this presentation about the US and Virginia Beach housing markets. (I discovered it through City Observatory.)
There are a bunch of interesting graphs/stats in the presentation. Home values in Virginia Beach, for example, have yet to fully recover from the 2007-2008 financial crisis. They are still 8% below their pre-crisis peak, which was in July 2007. (I presume the presentation is dealing in nominal dollars.)
I’ll give two more examples.
Below is a chart comparing average home prices for rural (dark blue/purple), suburban (blue), and urban (green) homes. In the late 90′s, suburban and urban homes were roughly equal in terms of average prices. But since then, urban homes have shown greater appreciation. The spread also appears to be widening.
On Monday the province of Ontario posted a draft regulation intended to establish a framework for inclusionary zoning. It builds on a bill that passed last year allowing municipalities – should they choose – to require affordable housing in new developments and redevelopments.
Below are some, but not all, of the things that are being considered in the draft regulation. Some of these items were recommendations made by the development industry through the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) and the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD).
- The total number of affordable units or gross floor area dedicated to affordable housing units would not exceed 5% of the total units or 5% of the total gross floor area (excluding common areas). This number increase to 10% in high density transit station areas.
- The affordable period would be a minimum of 20 years but no greater than 30 years.
- There may be opportunities to provide the inclusionary zoning units off-site.
- The policies would only apply to developments / redevelopments with 20 or more units.
- The affordable component could not be used to determine community benefits under Section 37. Section 37 would also not apply if the proposed development (with IZ) is in a location where a development / community planning permit is used.
- Municipalities would be required to offer incentives to help offset the IZ cost burden, but only if the development is not subject to a development / community planning permit. The incentives could include a waiver or reduction in application fees, parkland dedication fees, development charges, and so on. These offsets are very important to the industry and the affordability of the market rate units. But interestingly enough, increases in height and/or density are not being contemplated as a possible incentive or financial contribution.
- The financial contribution would be based on the following formula: (A - B) x 0.4. A is the total sum of the average market price for all of the affordable housing units and B is the total sum of the affordable price for all of the IZ housing units. In other words, the intent is that municipalities would be required to offset 40% of the costs associated with providing the affordable units.
Click here for the rest of the draft regulation. The OHBA also published this media release following the draft. They like the “partnership model” but were advocating for a 50/50 public/private cost share on all government-mandated units.
If you’re looking for more reading on inclusionary zoning, check here, here, and here.
Photo by Omair Khan on Unsplash
It’s the Christmas and holiday season, which means two very important things.
One, it’s time for the latest rendition of Urban Capital’s annual Naughty or Nice party. That was last week and it was #7. Here are the obligatory photo booth snaps to prove it happened.
Aaron Terrazas, who is a Senior Economist at Zillow, recently gave this presentation about the US and Virginia Beach housing markets. (I discovered it through City Observatory.)
There are a bunch of interesting graphs/stats in the presentation. Home values in Virginia Beach, for example, have yet to fully recover from the 2007-2008 financial crisis. They are still 8% below their pre-crisis peak, which was in July 2007. (I presume the presentation is dealing in nominal dollars.)
I’ll give two more examples.
Below is a chart comparing average home prices for rural (dark blue/purple), suburban (blue), and urban (green) homes. In the late 90′s, suburban and urban homes were roughly equal in terms of average prices. But since then, urban homes have shown greater appreciation. The spread also appears to be widening.
And two, the latest issue of Site Magazine (from Urban Capital) is now out.
This year I wrote a piece called “The Canada mission”. It’s all about Urban Capital’s pan-Canadian mission to build from coast to coast. How it happened. The challenges. What’s driving it. And what have been the results.
The article includes case studies from Urban Capital’s two newest markets: Saskatoon and Winnipeg.
One of the things that I didn’t fully appreciate until I started researching for the article was just how pioneering these projects were. At the time, there were no proof points to suggest that the pro formas would work. And this is a leap of faith that Urban Capital has had to make on many of its projects.
Click here to download a PDF of the full magazine.
And here is a graph showing the share of mortgage borrowers in a negative equity position. That is, the value of the home is less than the outstanding balance of the mortgage.
Now this is only covers people who have a mortgage. According to this Washington Post article, about 34% of all US homeowners don’t have one. Either they have paid it off or they never had one.
Still, the above numbers stood out to me. They speak to the severity of the financial crisis. At the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, over 30% of borrowers were in a negativity equity position. And in Virginia Beach it was more than 1/3 of all borrowers at the peak.
For the full presentation, click here.
And two, the latest issue of Site Magazine (from Urban Capital) is now out.
This year I wrote a piece called “The Canada mission”. It’s all about Urban Capital’s pan-Canadian mission to build from coast to coast. How it happened. The challenges. What’s driving it. And what have been the results.
The article includes case studies from Urban Capital’s two newest markets: Saskatoon and Winnipeg.
One of the things that I didn’t fully appreciate until I started researching for the article was just how pioneering these projects were. At the time, there were no proof points to suggest that the pro formas would work. And this is a leap of faith that Urban Capital has had to make on many of its projects.
Click here to download a PDF of the full magazine.
And here is a graph showing the share of mortgage borrowers in a negative equity position. That is, the value of the home is less than the outstanding balance of the mortgage.
Now this is only covers people who have a mortgage. According to this Washington Post article, about 34% of all US homeowners don’t have one. Either they have paid it off or they never had one.
Still, the above numbers stood out to me. They speak to the severity of the financial crisis. At the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, over 30% of borrowers were in a negativity equity position. And in Virginia Beach it was more than 1/3 of all borrowers at the peak.
For the full presentation, click here.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog