Ontario is looking to pass legislation that would allow municipalities in the province to implement something known as inclusionary zoning. If passed and should municipalities decide to use this tool (
Ontario is looking to pass legislation that would allow municipalities in the province to implement something known as inclusionary zoning. If passed and should municipalities decide to use this tool (
Ontario is looking to pass legislation that would allow municipalities in the province to implement something known as inclusionary zoning. If passed and should municipalities decide to use this tool (
Politically, inclusionary zoning tends to be popular. It’s believed to be a way for governments to create new affordable housing using relatively small public subsidies. Not surprisingly though, the development industry generally hates IZ. It’s another cost that needs to be added to the development pro forma – though some municipalities rightly offset these additional costs with additional density, breaks on levies, and so on.
What I always think about when this topic comes up is the broader economic impact of the land use policy. Because I’m suspect that it’s as simple as: mandate affordable housing; get more affordable housing for free. Generally there are always trade-offs.
So here’s some reading material for you all this morning.
In a classic paper (1981) by Yale Professor Robert C. Ellickson – called The Irony of Inclusionary Zoning – he argues that these practices can actually increase general house prices:
As a counterargument Owen Pickford over at The Urbanist argues that IZ simply reduces land prices as a result of the new tax. Land, after all, is the residual claimant. Therefore, he believes it’s an effective affordable housing policy. (I’m not so sure I believe that land prices would decrease in practice.)
There’s also debate about the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning to actually deliver affordable housing at a meaningful scale. City Observatory wrote a post that looked at the total number of units produced (through IZ) across a number of American cities and the results were spotty. It should, however, be noted that not all inclusionary zoning policies are mandatory.
Finally, the Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy at New York University published a housing policy brief back in 2008 that looked at this exact topic. While they admit that the data is scarce, they come to the conclusion that IZ had no meaningful impact on the prices and production of single-family housing in San Francisco, but that IZ seems to have slightly decreased production and slightly increased pricing in the suburbs of Boston.
What this last point suggests is that inclusionary zoning policies are not all created equal. So like all difficult questions, the answer to this one is likely: it depends. If anyone can point me to better data on inclusionary zoning, I would love to see it.
{ Explore the CITY } by Thai Hoa Pham on 500px
Melbourne is famous in urbanist circles for the revitalization of its central area. In 1992, 40% of the buildings were empty above the first floor and only 5 (yes five) residents actually lived in the core. Everyone had fled to the suburbs and the city had hollowed out.
Today, there are over 29,000 residents in the central area and Melbourne has become revered around the world for its vibrant public spaces and innovative laneway repurposing.
Here’s a quick 11 minute video that explains how they did it (via The Urbanist). Click here if you can’t see it below.
[vimeo 131396094 w=500 h=281]
What is clear from the video is that it took a lot of work convincing property owners and getting them to buy into the vision. Being able to repurpose the laneways often meant punching through blank walls at the base of buildings. And so there was pushback.
Here in Toronto I’ve heard people say that we’re not Melbourne and we shouldn’t expect to have similar kinds of urban spaces. Well guess what, neither was Melbourne in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a dying city. But they made it happen.
Politically, inclusionary zoning tends to be popular. It’s believed to be a way for governments to create new affordable housing using relatively small public subsidies. Not surprisingly though, the development industry generally hates IZ. It’s another cost that needs to be added to the development pro forma – though some municipalities rightly offset these additional costs with additional density, breaks on levies, and so on.
What I always think about when this topic comes up is the broader economic impact of the land use policy. Because I’m suspect that it’s as simple as: mandate affordable housing; get more affordable housing for free. Generally there are always trade-offs.
So here’s some reading material for you all this morning.
In a classic paper (1981) by Yale Professor Robert C. Ellickson – called The Irony of Inclusionary Zoning – he argues that these practices can actually increase general house prices:
As a counterargument Owen Pickford over at The Urbanist argues that IZ simply reduces land prices as a result of the new tax. Land, after all, is the residual claimant. Therefore, he believes it’s an effective affordable housing policy. (I’m not so sure I believe that land prices would decrease in practice.)
There’s also debate about the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning to actually deliver affordable housing at a meaningful scale. City Observatory wrote a post that looked at the total number of units produced (through IZ) across a number of American cities and the results were spotty. It should, however, be noted that not all inclusionary zoning policies are mandatory.
Finally, the Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy at New York University published a housing policy brief back in 2008 that looked at this exact topic. While they admit that the data is scarce, they come to the conclusion that IZ had no meaningful impact on the prices and production of single-family housing in San Francisco, but that IZ seems to have slightly decreased production and slightly increased pricing in the suburbs of Boston.
What this last point suggests is that inclusionary zoning policies are not all created equal. So like all difficult questions, the answer to this one is likely: it depends. If anyone can point me to better data on inclusionary zoning, I would love to see it.
{ Explore the CITY } by Thai Hoa Pham on 500px
Melbourne is famous in urbanist circles for the revitalization of its central area. In 1992, 40% of the buildings were empty above the first floor and only 5 (yes five) residents actually lived in the core. Everyone had fled to the suburbs and the city had hollowed out.
Today, there are over 29,000 residents in the central area and Melbourne has become revered around the world for its vibrant public spaces and innovative laneway repurposing.
Here’s a quick 11 minute video that explains how they did it (via The Urbanist). Click here if you can’t see it below.
[vimeo 131396094 w=500 h=281]
What is clear from the video is that it took a lot of work convincing property owners and getting them to buy into the vision. Being able to repurpose the laneways often meant punching through blank walls at the base of buildings. And so there was pushback.
Here in Toronto I’ve heard people say that we’re not Melbourne and we shouldn’t expect to have similar kinds of urban spaces. Well guess what, neither was Melbourne in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a dying city. But they made it happen.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog