One perverse way to think about development is that it is a tool to transfer costs away from people who don't want to pay for stuff to people who don't know they're paying for stuff. Two good examples of this are development levies and inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is a popular policy tool to create affordable housing because nobody feels like they're directly paying for the requisite subsidies (i.e. no public money) and it does, to varying degrees, result in affordable housing.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, for instance, enacted IZ policy in 1998 and, up until the market turned in 2022, it created just shy of 1,600 affordable homes. This only works out to ~66 units per year, but Cambridge doesn't build that many new homes. Starts over the last five years have hovered somewhere around 500 new homes per year. But now starts are falling and new projects simply aren't penciling (as is the case in many cities).

Here's a specific example from the Boston Globe:

The project at 2400 Mass. Ave. helps explain why. With 60 condominium units, North Cambridge Partners figured their project would generate about $108 million in sales if all the units were sold at market prices, said Tim Rowe, the developer’s lead investor, who is also the founder and CEO of the Cambridge Innovation Center. But with 12 of those units sold at far-lower “affordable” prices under the city’s inclusionary rule, that amount drops to about $90 million.

The developers figure they’ll sell the market rate units at somewhere around $1,500 per square foot, or perhaps a bit less. That’s a very steep figure, one that’s partially driven by high construction costs and the need to offset the discount on the affordable units. The price for affordable units, under the city’s rules, would come in closer to $275 per square foot.

Rowe estimates the six-story, 72,000-square-foot building would cost $85 million to build, leaving the developers with $5 million in profit. But to come up with that $85 million to begin with, they’d need to find an equity investor willing to put up about 35 percent of the money — $30 million — and then borrow the rest. The investors the developers have talked with about financing the project are seeking such a high rate of return that the project would need to net roughly $16 million, Rowe said, $11 million more than what the developers currently project to make.

I'm impressed the developer shared this much about their economics.

What is clear is that the affordable units don't come close to covering the close to $1,200 psf it would cost to build the building. And so somebody has to cover this shortfall. Nobody wants to spend public money on this and so it gets passed onto the market-rate buyers who don't exactly know what they're paying for, but frankly don't have a choice either way if they need a new home.

When the market is robust, this can clearly work. But when the market softens, it can shut off development. Today, there's debate in Cambridge about whether the 20% requirement should be lowered to spur more supply. This would certainly help but it gets at the real conundrum of inclusionary zoning. Lowering the burden will create more market-rate housing. And so what is the most equitable and ideal percentage of affordable housing that should be mandated in IZ policies?

In other words, exactly how much cost should we transfer from the people who don't want to pay for stuff to the people who don't know they're paying for stuff? In my view, it shouldn't just be new homebuyers who pay to subsidize the creation of new affordable housing. Why only them? If there's collective agreement that more affordable housing is a good thing for our cities, then there should be a more broad-based solution.

Cover photo by Henry Dixon on Unsplash

I had a call with a developer in Paris earlier this week and it was interesting to hear him talk about the new home market over there. It sounded a lot like Toronto. Higher interest rates cooled demand. Individual investors largely disappeared. And now developers are having to rethink their strategies and floor plans (including suite sizes).

But in his view, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It now means that you actually have to be a reasonably good developer in order to have a chance at succeeding. You have to design thoughtful floor plans and build great housing. It's a return to fundamentals, and I would argue that the same thing is happening here in Toronto.

My other noteworthy takeaway was around social housing. All new developments in the Île-de-France region are subject to inclusionary zoning. I believe the requirement is 30% of the suites. These suites are then purchased by social housing operators, and it is one of the ways that new supply is created in the market.

We talk a lot about IZ on this blog, but what's interesting about this approach is that it becomes a forward sale for the developer. Meaning, it helps to de-risk projects. Before doing anything, you know you've sold 30% of your inventory, and somehow the numbers all work. European social housing math is baffling to me.

I am now wondering if this creates some kind of incentive to keep development costs in check. Because if social housing operators are expected to buy 30% of all new homes, then they too are going to want them to be as cost effective as possible. I'm speculating though; I don't know that this is the case.

If you're a developer or real estate person in Paris, please get in touch. I'd love to learn more about your market and trade notes.

The City of Burnaby recently passed an amendment to its inclusionary rental requirements. It has now been removed from the southeast portion of the city, which, according to Burnaby Now, has one of the lowest median incomes in the city.

Here's an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that was approved in early October:

The analysis explored the impacts of increasing the density of developments in the Edmonds Town Centre area to try and improve revenues. However, the results showed that at current values, additional density is not able to offset the costs of providing the non-market housing, and that the equity needed to pursue large developments became prohibitive. As such, it is recommended that inclusionary rental requirements apply city-wide, with a delayed effective date for the Southeast Burnaby CMHC rental zone (the “SE Burnaby CMHC Zone”), until such time that inclusionary rental requirements become financially viable.

What's noteworthy about this amendment is that it acknowledges the real costs associated with non-market housing and shows how important high market rents are to subsidizing them. There's no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. In the end, somebody always has to pay.