Cambridge, Massachusetts, requires that 20% of the new space in larger housing developments include affordable homes. This, as we have talked about many times before on this blog, is known as inclusionary zoning (IZ). According to the Pioneer Institute, there are more than 141 communities in the state that have some sort of IZ policy.

But now, what is happening is that the numbers don't work on new housing projects. In the 30 years since the ordinance was enacted, it is reported that it helped create 1,603 affordable homes. However, since 2017 — the year the city increased the affordable requirement to 20% — only 200 new affordable homes have been created. That's approximately 20-22 new affordable homes per year — not much.

These numbers also don't speak to the number of new housing projects that could have been built, but weren't feasible precisely because of the IZ policy. This is the greater risk, because even new "luxury" projects help to relieve housing pressures within a market.

It is for this reason, along with others, I'm sure, that a developer is now suing the City of Cambridge, arguing that inclusionary zoning is unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringes upon people's property rights. To quote the developer, "I [would] have to build at a loss. Eventually, you just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work."

If successful, this case could help to change how cities tax new housing and how they aim to create new affordable housing, though I should mention that there have already been prior rulings on this issue.

Customarily, the way municipalities try to offset the burden of inclusionary zoning is to allow additional density and/or waive certain development levies. However, to accomplish this, you ideally need a planning framework where it's perfectly clear what maximum density would have been permitted without IZ.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, requires that 20% of the new space in larger housing developments include affordable homes. This, as we have talked about many times before on this blog, is known as inclusionary zoning (IZ). According to the Pioneer Institute, there are more than 141 communities in the state that have some sort of IZ policy.

But now, what is happening is that the numbers don't work on new housing projects. In the 30 years since the ordinance was enacted, it is reported that it helped create 1,603 affordable homes. However, since 2017 — the year the city increased the affordable requirement to 20% — only 200 new affordable homes have been created. That's approximately 20-22 new affordable homes per year — not much.

These numbers also don't speak to the number of new housing projects that could have been built, but weren't feasible precisely because of the IZ policy. This is the greater risk, because even new "luxury" projects help to relieve housing pressures within a market.

It is for this reason, along with others, I'm sure, that a developer is now suing the City of Cambridge, arguing that inclusionary zoning is unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringes upon people's property rights. To quote the developer, "I [would] have to build at a loss. Eventually, you just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work."

If successful, this case could help to change how cities tax new housing and how they aim to create new affordable housing, though I should mention that there have already been prior rulings on this issue.

Customarily, the way municipalities try to offset the burden of inclusionary zoning is to allow additional density and/or waive certain development levies. However, to accomplish this, you ideally need a planning framework where it's perfectly clear what maximum density would have been permitted without IZ.

Last September, Dubai announced a new initiative called the Urban Think Tank & Design Lab (officially D.M-ULab). Then, this month, they announced that architects Santiago Calatrava and Kengo Kuma would be joining the think tank as "principal contributors."

The lab is focused on several key areas, but grouping them together, it's broadly focused on encouraging participatory design (as opposed to top-down planning), driving the use of new technologies such as AI, and enhancing quality of life through human-centric urban design.

This includes the creation of 20-minute communities where 80% of daily needs are within walking or riding distance.

This last focus area is particularly interesting because one could easily argue that modern Dubai started on the opposite end of this spectrum. Rather than focusing on the human scale, it was focused on the global-attention-grabbing-superlative scale.

When a remarkable new building is announced, the focus tends to be on the building as a symbolic object, not how it meets the ground and fits into its broader urban context. That's largely irrelevant to a global audience.

But it is this latter quality that will largely determine how human-centric the city ends up feeling — it's the spaces in between the buildings where public life happens.

So, how does this think tank intend to shift the city's focus? One of the first projects is the renewal of the city's older neighbourhoods through the creation of Barcelona-like superblocks that push vehicular traffic to their edges.

Last September, Dubai announced a new initiative called the Urban Think Tank & Design Lab (officially D.M-ULab). Then, this month, they announced that architects Santiago Calatrava and Kengo Kuma would be joining the think tank as "principal contributors."

The lab is focused on several key areas, but grouping them together, it's broadly focused on encouraging participatory design (as opposed to top-down planning), driving the use of new technologies such as AI, and enhancing quality of life through human-centric urban design.

This includes the creation of 20-minute communities where 80% of daily needs are within walking or riding distance.

This last focus area is particularly interesting because one could easily argue that modern Dubai started on the opposite end of this spectrum. Rather than focusing on the human scale, it was focused on the global-attention-grabbing-superlative scale.

When a remarkable new building is announced, the focus tends to be on the building as a symbolic object, not how it meets the ground and fits into its broader urban context. That's largely irrelevant to a global audience.

But it is this latter quality that will largely determine how human-centric the city ends up feeling — it's the spaces in between the buildings where public life happens.

So, how does this think tank intend to shift the city's focus? One of the first projects is the renewal of the city's older neighbourhoods through the creation of Barcelona-like superblocks that push vehicular traffic to their edges.

Many years ago, a real estate broker said this to me, and it has stuck ever since. I often go back to it in my mind. The logic behind it is as follows.

The best answer is customarily "yes." "Would you like to invest $100 million into my development project?" "Yes, I'd love to! Where should I send the money? I'll do that right now." This is the outcome you want.

The second-best answer is "No, I don't like you and I don't like your project." This is not what you want to hear, and it will probably sting at first, but it's the next-best answer in that it offers complete certainty. You know where the person stands, and you can move on.

The absolute worst answer is a "no" disguised as a "maybe." "I don't know. Seems interesting. We'll see. Let me talk to my partners about it and get back to you." This answer creates false hope and delays things. Whenever possible, you want to suss out and avoid delaying an inevitable "no."

It's, of course, okay to need to think about things and do due diligence when it comes to important decisions, but ultimately, the goal is to get to either a "yes" or a "no" as quickly as possible.

It's okay to just say "no." In fact, it's the second-best answer you can give to someone.

Cover photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash

Many years ago, a real estate broker said this to me, and it has stuck ever since. I often go back to it in my mind. The logic behind it is as follows.

The best answer is customarily "yes." "Would you like to invest $100 million into my development project?" "Yes, I'd love to! Where should I send the money? I'll do that right now." This is the outcome you want.

The second-best answer is "No, I don't like you and I don't like your project." This is not what you want to hear, and it will probably sting at first, but it's the next-best answer in that it offers complete certainty. You know where the person stands, and you can move on.

The absolute worst answer is a "no" disguised as a "maybe." "I don't know. Seems interesting. We'll see. Let me talk to my partners about it and get back to you." This answer creates false hope and delays things. Whenever possible, you want to suss out and avoid delaying an inevitable "no."

It's, of course, okay to need to think about things and do due diligence when it comes to important decisions, but ultimately, the goal is to get to either a "yes" or a "no" as quickly as possible.

It's okay to just say "no." In fact, it's the second-best answer you can give to someone.

Cover photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash