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

Our cost consultant, Finnegan Marshall, gave our team a presentation today on what's happening with construction costs in Toronto and across Canada. I've said this before, but hard costs are no joke right now.

One of the areas that they focused on was the impact that inclusionary zoning is likely to have on development economics here in Toronto. To illustrate the point, a sample high-rise condominium pro forma was used. Think something in the 30-35 storey range.

Assuming a requirement of 10% affordable (the policy details are still TBD), there is going to be a real cost to development pro formas that will need to be somehow paid for.

One school of thought is that land prices will simply adjust downward. In this case, the landowner would be the one paying. I don't think this will be the case (land prices tend to be sticky), but if they were to adjust downward, it would need to drop by $44 per square foot buildable to maintain the project's margins in this example. (That's $13.2 million on a 300,000 sf project.)

If, on the other hand, the price of the remaining market rate condominium suites were to increase to offset the cost of the affordable component, they would need to increase by $91 per square foot. This translates, in the above example, into a sticker price increase of approximately $60,000 per suite.

These numbers are, of course, not exact. That is not the point of this post. Every project is different. But hopefully it gives you an idea of some of the levers that will invariably need to be pulled when inclusionary zoning comes into force.

My sense is that this latter scenario is more likely to happen. I have yet to see land prices adjust downward in the face of rising costs. So all of this is likely to be bad for broad-based affordability, but good if you want to be bullish on market rate home prices.

Inclusionary zoning has been on my mind this week and so I thought I would revisit some of my old posts on the topic. I wrote about it here, here, here, here, here, and probably in a bunch of other places that I am forgetting right now. A number of these posts go as far back as 2015-2016.

As well-intended as inclusionary zoning may be, I have never been able to get my head around it. There are lots of cities with inclusionary zoning polices in place and what history generally tells us is that it tends to reduce overall housing supply and increase market rents/prices.

This makes intuitive sense when you consider that inclusionary zoning is in effect a tax on new development. And one of the only things I remember from my economics classes is that it's generally good practice to tax the things we want less of. You know, things like cigarettes and carbon.

This is why I have also been a strong supporter of road pricing over the years on this blog. Traffic congestion is bad (demand also happens to be relatively inelastic). So tax it and redirect the funds toward transit.

Housing supply, on the other hand, isn't bad. It's pretty good and fairly useful. So in my simple mind, I don't know why we would want to apply a tax to it instead of figuring out way to simultaneously encourage and incent the supply of new affordable housing. Here's one idea.