Over the weekend, we spoke about how the "GTA condo market is in a state of economic lockdown." What this generally means is that the math isn't making sense to build new condominiums. And so the market is necessarily pausing.

We spoke about what this will likely mean for supply in the coming years, but I think it's also interesting to talk about this in the context of something else: unfunded inclusionary zoning.

As a reminder, inclusionary zoning is, in its most basic form, a requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing as part of new housing developments. And what I mean by "unfunded" is that there are no subsidies or other incentives being provided to the project.

This means that the cost of providing this housing -- and there is an additional cost -- needs to be shouldered by the project, which ultimately means the market-rate units need to pay for it.

Which is why if you look at most policy studies, you'll often find recognition that, because of this economic reality, IZ tends to work better in areas where home prices/rents are higher. And again, that's because the market-rate homes need to shoulder the cost.

We have questioned, many times, on this blog, whether this is the right approach to delivering affordable housing, but I think this question becomes even more critical in our current market environment.

If the entire market is, for the most part, in a state of economic lockdown, should we really be layering on additional costs and making it broadly more difficult to build any sort of new housing? It seems counterintuitive.

For more on this topic, check out this recent Sightline article by Dan Bertolet.

Over the weekend, we spoke about how the "GTA condo market is in a state of economic lockdown." What this generally means is that the math isn't making sense to build new condominiums. And so the market is necessarily pausing.

We spoke about what this will likely mean for supply in the coming years, but I think it's also interesting to talk about this in the context of something else: unfunded inclusionary zoning.

As a reminder, inclusionary zoning is, in its most basic form, a requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing as part of new housing developments. And what I mean by "unfunded" is that there are no subsidies or other incentives being provided to the project.

This means that the cost of providing this housing -- and there is an additional cost -- needs to be shouldered by the project, which ultimately means the market-rate units need to pay for it.

Which is why if you look at most policy studies, you'll often find recognition that, because of this economic reality, IZ tends to work better in areas where home prices/rents are higher. And again, that's because the market-rate homes need to shoulder the cost.

We have questioned, many times, on this blog, whether this is the right approach to delivering affordable housing, but I think this question becomes even more critical in our current market environment.

If the entire market is, for the most part, in a state of economic lockdown, should we really be layering on additional costs and making it broadly more difficult to build any sort of new housing? It seems counterintuitive.

For more on this topic, check out this recent Sightline article by Dan Bertolet.