I was having a conversation this week with a few friends in the industry about the future of parking. We were specifically talking about Toronto, but I would imagine that much of this holds true for many other cities around the world.
Here in Toronto, it's not uncommon to see new parking spaces in central locations selling for upwards of $200k. For those that are not in the industry and not seeing the work and immense costs that go into building parking, this often comes as a surprise.
But as I have said many times before on the blog, parking is often a significant loss leader for new developments. Even at relatively high prices, most developers aren't covering their costs. So developers naturally aren't racing out to build more of it. They're trying to build just what is absolutely necessary for the market.
Given the strong incentives to build less parking, it's no surprise that parking ratios continue to decline. But consider some of the other parking headwinds:
Push toward watertight undergrounds across the city (higher costs)
Tipping fees for disposing of contaminated soil (higher costs)
Increasing development charges / levies (higher costs)
Introduction of inclusionary zoning (higher costs)
Inflationary construction cost environment (again, higher costs)
There is a lag between changing cost structures and what the end consumer sees and feels. Junction House, for example, is fully tendered from a construction standpoint and so we are building with a kind of historic cost structure that would be impossible to replicate today. When the next project comes around, they'll have higher costs and will have to price their homes accordingly.
As rising costs and new policies (like the ones I mention above) begin to work their way through the system, I think it's fairly obvious that parking ratios will continue to be one of the first things that gets looked at and ultimately chopped down. This will make parking even more scarce in the city and surely far more expensive.
(Back in 2018, Hong Kong had the record for the most expensive parking spot in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if it still holds this title.)
But as I have argued before, I am of the opinion that building around the car is not the way to build big and well-functioning global cities. Many of us recognize that we need to focus on alternative forms of transport -- everything from public transit to new micro-mobility solutions. And given where costs are going, I don't think we'll have much choice.
Photo by Sven Mieke on Unsplash
Toronto's new inclusionary zoning policy went to Planning and Housing Committee this week. Agenda item, here. The recommendations were approved, which means that the item will move onto City Council next month for final approval.
Here's a summary of some what is being proposed (though keep in mind that I am not a planner and you should probably do your own due diligence if you're looking to buy land and/or develop here):
IZ to come into force next year in 2022.
IZ to only apply on projects with 100 or more residential units.
Three distinct market areas across the City with differing set aside rates (see below charts). This strategy acknowledges the fact that you generally need submarkets with expensive housing and rising prices to be able to absorb the financial burden of the affordable housing units. I've written a lot about this dynamic on the blog. Relevant posts, here.
It's in the chart, but it's perhaps worth repeating: Purpose-built rental projects will not be required to deliver any affordable housing units at the outset of this policy. This is important to note because the margins on purpose-built rentals are razor thin.
The set aside rates are planned to increase to 8-22% by 2030.
The affordable units will need to remain affordable for 99 years. And the rents and prices are to be geared toward low and moderate income households, which are currently defined as those earning between $32,000 and $92,000.
Clear transition period for the development industry.
Ongoing monitoring of the policy to make sure it doesn't suck.
If you're interested, the full staff recommendation report can be found here and the draft OPA and zoning by-law can be found here and here.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1451744401923973121?s=20
It upsets me when I read things like this (click here if you can't see the embedded tweet above). I think it creates a false sense of a free lunch and ignores all of the nuances and complexities associated with inclusionary zoning.
IZ is an obligation to provide a certain number of affordable units in new housing developments. There's a lot of detail and debate around where this should apply, how much needs to be provided, and at what degree of affordability.
But at the end of the day, it's important to keep in mind that at meaningful levels of affordability, these IZ homes are going to be built at steep losses. More info on the economic impacts of IZ can be found here.
The simple math is that the costs to build these homes are going to be greater than the revenues that they bring in. Which is why developers aren't out building affordable housing everywhere. There's no margin.
In order to build, somebody or something needs to provide a subsidy so that this revenue-expense shortfall can be made up. How this works its way through the market is where I have tried to focus the discussion when writing about IZ. There are complexities. Some lessons from Portland, here.
But to just assume that these costs will get magically absorbed by housing developers, with no other knock-on effects or distortions to the market, is incorrect.