What do you think of this beautiful low-rise apartment building? It is called Spadina Gardens and it was built (allegedly illegally) on Toronto's Spadina Avenue in 1906, shortly before the City enacted an outright ban on "disease-breeding tenements" (i.e. apartment buildings) in all residential neighborhoods.
This, of course, is a form of exclusionary zoning. Our predecessors had decided that apartments were bad, they promoted disease and immorality, and that they were likely to destroy or at least corrupt Toronto by making it, you know, less waspy.
Important studies are underway here in Toronto, and across North America, to determine whether we should do something about this longstanding city building tradition. Should we allow a mixture of different housing types in our residential neighborhoods, or should we keep things just the way that they are? That being low-rise and single-family.
In the meantime, we are implementing things like inclusionary zoning, which I guess makes some people feel better about themselves and the current state of affairs. But in the end, it sits very much on top of our exclusionary past.
Low-rise single-family home neighborhoods remain off limits. Apartments should only go in select locations (provided they don't bother the single-family homes). And any efforts to create greater affordability and diversity should only impact the new apartments and not the low-rise single-family homes that already exist.
I would encourage all of you to have a listen to 99% Percent Invisible's recent episode about Toronto's "missing middle." It does a great job explaining why Toronto looks and performs the way that it does today, and why it's time that we do something about it. It's also highly relevant to not just Toronto, but many cities across North America.
I spent much of this morning reading about and listening to discussions about what's happening in Ukraine and so, instead of a typical post this morning, I'm just going to share a mélange of links.
Monocle 24 Foreign Desk episode talking about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Speakers are Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, former NATO chief Richard Shirreff, Russian journalist Ekaterina Kotrikadze, and Russia expert Mark Galeotti. I found this helpful in better understanding some of the dynamics at play here and what might happen going forward -- though, of course, who knows. All of this is both deeply sad and frustrating. [Link]
Discussion in Bloomberg Green about the feasibility of the EU shutting off Russian gas right now, as opposed to through a protracted transition. Currently, the EU satisfies about 20% of its total energy needs through gas and about 40% of it comes from Russia. [Link] Also, a chart showing Russian natural gas exports, by destination. [Link]
Warren Buffet published his widely read annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this weekend. He likes to deliver news like this on a Saturday so that people have time to digest it before the markets reopen on Monday. The overall message was one that we have heard before: BH has a lot of cash (~$144 billion to be exact) and they're not finding very many compelling opportunities in which to deploy it. [Link]
To add to the above, here is a longish Q&A session with Buffet's partner, Charlie Munger. He continues to be worried about excess money in the system and high inflation. [Link]
Construction has been recently completed on a Mies van der Rohe design from 1952 that had been forgotten and buried in some archives. Originally commissioned to be a fraternity house at Indiana University, the building is now the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design. This is a supremely cool story, particularly for an architecture school. [Link]
Yet another simple example by Bobby Fijan on how highly restrictive zoning codes and design guidelines don't always produce the end results that we might want. Different times and different contexts in this example. But it's interesting to think about how best to promote design excellence in our cites. Is more creative market freedom the answer? [Link]
My friend Randy Gladman, who is senior vice-president of development advisory at Colliers here in Toronto, published an opinion piece in the Financial Post last week about the hidden costs of inclusionary zoning. It is consistent with the ad nauseam discussions that we have been having on this blog for the past few years, but it of course remains an important read. [Link]
Steve Pomeroy of Focus Consulting makes an argument in the Globe and Mail that elevated home prices in Canada isn't primarily the result of a supply deficit. Using recent census data that allegedly shows that housing supply in Vancouver actually kept pace with demand (over how long of a period?), Pomeroy instead points to the other typical culprits: strong demand, low interest rates, unused homes owned by non-residents, and so on. This one likely deserves a dedicated post at some point. [Link]
Ironically, the post turned out to be wordier than my usual ones.
When I was living in Philadelphia as a graduate student, new development was seen as a bit of a gift. I remember developers telling me that it costs the same to build in Philly as it does in New York, except that the rents are obviously a fraction in the former relative to the latter. So it was tough to make projects pencil.
At the same time, Philadelphia had a 10-year residential tax abatement program in place. I think it's still in place, but it may have been modified since I was there. Either way, it was essentially an incentive to develop or redevelop existing residential properties. In the case of a renovation, the taxes associated with any improvements were what got abated for the 10 years.
Put differently, it was an invitation to gentrify. Come buy an old row home, fix it up, and then don't pay any additional property taxes on those improvements. This was the way things felt at the time. So it was interesting to learn today that Philly's current development boom is about to get throttled down with a new mandatory inclusionary zoning policy that will take effect later this year. Gentrification, it would now seem, is a problem.
The policy requires that 20% of the units in any new housing development (with 10 or more units) must be affordable for at least a 50-year period. For rental households, affordability means 40% of the area median income (AMI). And for owner-occupied households, it means 60% of AMI.
I have already said pretty much everything I can say about inclusionary zoning. But one of the unique things about Philly's policy is that it is only going to apply to two of its Council Districts. It is not a citywide policy. This is going to create a strong disincentive to develop in these areas, and will likely force new development into surrounding ones. But maybe that's part of the point.