Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 634

It was recently announced that the City of London -- the historic town center and primary CBD of the region -- is aiming to create at least 1,500 new residential units in the Square Mile by 2030. Part of its strategy is to convert disused office buildings into residential. Currently, the City has about 7,850 residences, which is a drop in the bucket and whole lot smaller than its 19th century population of 125,000.

Tony Travers, director of LSE London, is quoted in FT saying that the City is really facing "twin challenges." You've got Brexit, which caused prime office cap rate rates to stagnate in the UK, and you've now got the whole work from home thing. Nobody really knows how this latter piece will fully shake out when it's all said and done, but we shouldn't forget the power of agglomeration economies . It's what powers cities.

Calgary is another example of a city that is looking to encourage change. Last month a $1-billion plan was approved to help convert office buildings into housing. (Shout out to Steven Paynter of Gensler who is quoted in the article talking about what makes for a suitable office conversion project.)

What's interesting about these announcements is that oftentimes cities cling to their non-residential spaces out of fear that once that supply gets converted it will never come back. That is certainly the case here in Toronto with its office replacement policies, although many years ago when downtown living wasn't nearly as cool, there was a similar push to encourage more residential development in the core. Looks like that idea worked.

We know that office space isn't going away. Zoom is an awful substitute for in-person interactions. People need to congregate (and tend to like doing it). Urban agglomeration economies drive innovation. Bigger cities with higher population densities tend to create more wealth for their inhabitants. So perhaps the takeaway from these announcements should be that, yeah, office space is vital, but it's okay to do a little rebalancing once in a while.

The National Association of Realtors in the US has a " Community and Transportation Preference Survey " that it conducts usually every two years. Last year (2020), wasn't supposed to be a survey year, but given the pandemic, they decided to run it in June and see if people's preferences had changed at all during that time.

Last June feels like eons ago to me and I bet that if you asked people how they were feeling today it may be slightly different. Nonetheless, the survey asked 2,000 adults from the fifty-largest metro areas a bunch of questions about where and how they live and where and how they might want to live in the future.

The topline results can be found over here . But for a bit of context, 58% of respondents were people who lived in a single-family detached house; 26% of respondents were people who lived in a building with two or more apartments and condos; and the rest of the respondents were split across townhouses, rowhouses, mobile homes, trailers, and other. (I'm kind of curious about the 2% who answered with other.)

One of the questions that I thought might be interesting to this audience is this one here about housing preferences going forward:

The question asks the respondents to imagine that they are moving into another home. It then asks about priorities and, more specifically, about their preferred trade-off between amenities and walkability versus a large detached house with a big yard.

Overall the split in preferences has remained close to 50/50 over the last three surveys. But there appears to be a small uptick toward large homes and less amenities. I wouldn't be surprised if the pandemic contributed to this thinking last summer. But who knows if this will persist. At the same time, actions speak louder than words.

My response to the above question would be less space, greater walkability, and more amenities. I have no desire to live in a low-rise grade-related house, especially one that is disconnected from the city. I like urbanity. What about you?

Inclusionary zoning has been on my mind this week and so I thought I would revisit some of my old posts on the topic. I wrote about it here , here , here , here , here , and probably in a bunch of other places that I am forgetting right now. A number of these posts go as far back as 2015-2016.

As well-intended as inclusionary zoning may be, I have never been able to get my head around it. There are lots of cities with inclusionary zoning polices in place and what history generally tells us is that it tends to reduce overall housing supply and increase market rents/prices.

This makes intuitive sense when you consider that inclusionary zoning is in effect a tax on new development. And one of the only things I remember from my economics classes is that it's generally good practice to tax the things we want less of. You know, things like cigarettes and carbon.

This is why I have also been a strong supporter of road pricing over the years on this blog. Traffic congestion is bad (demand also happens to be relatively inelastic). So tax it and redirect the funds toward transit.

Housing supply, on the other hand, isn't bad. It's pretty good and fairly useful. So in my simple mind, I don't know why we would want to apply a tax to it instead of figuring out way to simultaneously encourage and incent the supply of new affordable housing. Here's one idea .