One way to shop for things is to make a list of all the things you want and/or need, and then go to a location that sells as many of those things as possible. As I understand, this is more or less what people do when they go to a place like Costco.
Another way to shop is to just order things piecemeal, and have them delivered to you when you want them and in the least amount of time possible. And it turns out that this latter option is pretty popular.
It is popular because it involves (1) not going anywhere and (2) not having to make a list and think proactively about the things you may want and/or need in the future. But it does mean that we need specific infrastructure to support this method of consumption. Generally speaking you need urban spaces close to where people live and work, and you need people to transport the goods.
I mention all of this because it has translated into two areas of concern within our cities: (1) we now have "dark spaces" that are embedded into urban areas but don't have any public-facing components and (2) we now have throngs of delivery vehicles starting to annoy local communities.
In fact, France has already responded with a new federal policy that is expected to reclassify "dark stores and "ghost kitchens" as warehouses. This is intended to give local municipalities the power to shutter these sorts of spaces. Part of the thinking is that we all did just fine before delivery apps, so why not just go back to doing what we were doing?
One way to shop for things is to make a list of all the things you want and/or need, and then go to a location that sells as many of those things as possible. As I understand, this is more or less what people do when they go to a place like Costco.
Another way to shop is to just order things piecemeal, and have them delivered to you when you want them and in the least amount of time possible. And it turns out that this latter option is pretty popular.
It is popular because it involves (1) not going anywhere and (2) not having to make a list and think proactively about the things you may want and/or need in the future. But it does mean that we need specific infrastructure to support this method of consumption. Generally speaking you need urban spaces close to where people live and work, and you need people to transport the goods.
I mention all of this because it has translated into two areas of concern within our cities: (1) we now have "dark spaces" that are embedded into urban areas but don't have any public-facing components and (2) we now have throngs of delivery vehicles starting to annoy local communities.
In fact, France has already responded with a new federal policy that is expected to reclassify "dark stores and "ghost kitchens" as warehouses. This is intended to give local municipalities the power to shutter these sorts of spaces. Part of the thinking is that we all did just fine before delivery apps, so why not just go back to doing what we were doing?
My own view is that this shift in consumption is here to stay. And so we would be better served by figuring out how to respond in a way that is both sensitive to communities and that maintains the vibrancy of our urban environments. We also managed without things like refrigerated food and mobile phones, but I'm pretty happy to have these tools available to me.
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.
Following the lead of San Francisco, a new non-profit, member-supported organization for New York tech companies has just launched. It’s called Tech:NYC. Here are their goals, taken from this blog post:
Tech:NYC’s primary goals are to support the growth of the technology sector in New York City, to increase civic engagement by leaders of the New York tech community, and advocate for policies that will attract tech talent, jobs, and opportunity to NYC.
Tech:NYC will advocate for policies that: 1) underscore a regulatory environment that supports the growth of technology companies and technology talent in NYC; 2) promote inclusivity; and 3) ensure access for all New Yorkers to connectivity, technology tools, and training.
What makes something like this important is that many public policy issues are now rooted in the tech sector. Think about all the debate regarding ride-sharing, home-sharing, drone regulation, contract employees, and so on.
But what is also clear is that many cities are struggling to deal with these issues. As I’ve argued before, just saying no to innovation that doesn’t fit neatly into our currently regulatory boxes is often shortsighted.
So how do we put in place policies that deliver the right results and that are balanced? How do we grow the tech base while at the same time managing the disruptive fallout? That’s what this group hopes to do.
And it strikes me that every big city could likely benefit from an organization like this.
My own view is that this shift in consumption is here to stay. And so we would be better served by figuring out how to respond in a way that is both sensitive to communities and that maintains the vibrancy of our urban environments. We also managed without things like refrigerated food and mobile phones, but I'm pretty happy to have these tools available to me.
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.
Following the lead of San Francisco, a new non-profit, member-supported organization for New York tech companies has just launched. It’s called Tech:NYC. Here are their goals, taken from this blog post:
Tech:NYC’s primary goals are to support the growth of the technology sector in New York City, to increase civic engagement by leaders of the New York tech community, and advocate for policies that will attract tech talent, jobs, and opportunity to NYC.
Tech:NYC will advocate for policies that: 1) underscore a regulatory environment that supports the growth of technology companies and technology talent in NYC; 2) promote inclusivity; and 3) ensure access for all New Yorkers to connectivity, technology tools, and training.
What makes something like this important is that many public policy issues are now rooted in the tech sector. Think about all the debate regarding ride-sharing, home-sharing, drone regulation, contract employees, and so on.
But what is also clear is that many cities are struggling to deal with these issues. As I’ve argued before, just saying no to innovation that doesn’t fit neatly into our currently regulatory boxes is often shortsighted.
So how do we put in place policies that deliver the right results and that are balanced? How do we grow the tech base while at the same time managing the disruptive fallout? That’s what this group hopes to do.
And it strikes me that every big city could likely benefit from an organization like this.
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.
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.
