I rediscovered the maps and work of Alasdair Rae this morning. (He has appeared on this blog before in posts like this one here .) Alasdair works in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Sheffield and is author of the blog, Stats, Maps n Pix . Recently, he's been publishing maps showing population densities around the world. He also gets into the details of how they're made. They are pretty cool to see.
Let's say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. That is the market value of the land based on its highest and best use at this particular point in time. Now let's assume that the land was just encumbered with a new burden: inclusionary zoning . All of a sudden there is now a requirement to make available X% of any residential units built at 50% of average market rents for the area.
Technically, the land is now worth less than $100. And there is a school of thought out there that, in instances like this one, the price of all land should automatically reset downward to offset and account for the inclusionary zoning burden. But as I have argued before on the blog , land prices tend to be fairly sticky, unless the owner is distressed and really needs to sell.
So what can often happen is that the land owner will stubbornly cling to the original $100 number. The thinking being, "I was once told that my land is worth $100 and so that's the minimum price I'm willing to accept." In this scenario, you may need a broad increase in rents in order for a transaction to occur. This way the market rate units might be able to fully subsidize these new affordable units, preserving any margins and justifying the original $100 number.
Of course, the impact of inclusionary zoning is a hotly debated topic and there are a number of variables to consider. And so I will leave it at that for today. The real purpose of this post is to consider another permutation. Let's once again say that we have a piece of development land worth $100. But instead of being owned by 13 siblings -- and 3 cousins that live abroad and can't be reached other than by fax -- it's owned by the government.
In this case, the government wants to sell the land and is considering two options. It can either (1) sell it for $100 and maximize immediate taxpayer revenue or (2) it can sell it for $80 with the condition that the buyer agree to deliver X% of affordable units (and a bunch of other goodies and positive externalities). I would also add that this fictitious town is experiencing what some might call a housing crisis.
If you were a private sector actor, you would probably choose option 1. You would take the additional $20 and retire to Florida (I'm off by a few zeros). But this is the government we're talking about and presumably the government is thinking about the broader public good. Which option do you think is better at maximizing that?
Today I am going to talk about 3 things that recently happened and/or that are on my mind.
Sidewalk Labs pulled out of Toronto. I think this is sad. A lot of people have said that they're surprised, but not surprised. The official reason is that this unprecedented environment has made it financially infeasible for them to develop the 12-acre site, while still adhering to their core principles. I don't have any inside knowledge of the situation, but I can't help but think that this is probably just an opportune excuse. They were getting beat up pretty badly by Toronto on all fronts, even though they had put forward an incredibly ambitious development proposal. As I said before , I can't imagine many (or any) "conventional" developers coming forward with something like this. The last plan I saw was 1/3 non-residential, and 40% of the residential component was to be priced below market. And never mind all of the other innovations that were being contemplated.
In other tech news, Uber just led a $170 million investment in Lime (the micromobility scooter company). I think this is smart -- both from an overall mobility standpoint and, selfishly, as a shareowner of $UBER. It is being reported that this round of investment values Lime at about $510 million. This is a 79% decline from April 2019 when it raised its last round. So presumably, Uber is getting a pretty good deal here. The bet is that the urban landscape demands multi-modal transportation solutions, everything from bikes and scooters to cars and public transit. There is also an argument to be made that in the short-term , our post-pandemic world is going to gravitate toward individual mobility and away from things like public transit. I've heard a few people say that, as we re-open the global economy and try to maintain social distancing, we're going to face two major mobility bottlenecks: transit and elevators. Sounds like more testing would be a prudent idea.
Above, I was very careful to say "in the short-term" because I think the narrative that is emerging around the demise of urban density is entirely overblown. Few of us are clamoring to jump back into a mosh pit right now (perhaps a metaphorical mosh pit), but I also don't believe that we will suddenly look to sprawling Brasilia as a source of urban inspiration. While it is true that " disease did shape architecture in the 20th century " ( Alex Bozikovic wrote a good piece on this over the weekend) and that there have been oscillations in terms of how we view urbanity, I also know that this isn't the first pandemic that our cities have lived through. The Hong Kong flu of 1968 is thought to have killed one million people around the world after, allegedly, emerging in one of the densest cities ever created. Hong Kong's relationship with Beijing is a tenuous one right now, but it still remains one of the world's most important global cities.
Perhaps cities are more resilient than we give them credit for.
