Case studies have been prepared for a number of inclusionary housing programs in the US and in Canada.
The Wellesley Institute sponsored the preparation of these case studies, in order to provide a better understanding of how they work and what they have achieved.
These case studies are based upon a review of the available literature on these programs as well as current municipal regulations and in-house reports, and also interviews with the program administrators and other key staff.
All of these examples, despite their many differences, are inclusionary housing programs. By this it is meant that they all in some way rely upon municipal regulatory and approval powers to require private developers of market housing to provide for affordable housing according to codified requirements imposed consistently on all or most new housing developments.
This distinguishes them from incentive-based inclusionary policies that are applied ad hoc and on occasional sites, mainly those of the developers’ choosing. This distinction is important because the former programs have been shown capable of producing affordable housing on an on-going basis, and the latter policies have not.
The six American case studies are drawn from among the better-known and generally more successful of these programs. They were also selected to include examples from communities of different sizes and from various locations across the US. While each illustrates different and often innovative approaches, they all conform to the basic inclusionary zoning model used across that country.
The three Canadian case studies include the most comparable examples of inclusionary programs in this country. None of these can be called inclusionary zoning; the Canadian practices to date are different to those in the US in many important and fundamental ways, due in large part to the more limited powers available to municipalities in this country. Unlike in the US, no common inclusionary model has evolved in Canada, but these examples do share certain features that could provide the basis for such a model.
American Case Studies
- Case Study: Chicago IL
Chicago, with its population of 2.8 million, is now the largest jurisdiction with an inclusionary zoning program. Recently adopted after resistance from a powerful mayor, this program represents a political compromise that falls short of what was sought by the proponents of the program.
- Case Study: San Francisco CA
San Francisco, a city of 750,000, is one of two major cities first to adopt inclusionary zoning. This program has been adapted in substantial ways over the years to make it more productive and demanding. It imposes a different affordable housing obligation on developments needing re-zoning and those proceeding as-of-right. It possibly is the only program that does not provide density bonuses or other cost off-sets for as-of-right developments.
- Case Study: Davis CA
Davis, a small city of 65,000 in northern California, is known for its progressive planning and environmental policies. This program is notable for its efforts to provide a fuller range of housing types, including a variety of affordable ownership and rental housing as well as the dedication of land for social and special needs housing.
- Case Study: Montgomery County MD
Montgomery County, a large county of 950,000 directly outside of Washington DC, adopted one of the earliest and probably the single most productive program so far. Despite its success, it cannot be considered a model program, as it continues to take a different approach on key aspects that have not been widely followed by later programs.
- Case Study: Burlington, VT
Burlington, a small city of 40,000 in northern Vermont, is known for its many and progressive affordable housing initiatives. Its inclusionary program draws upon and incorporates many of the best practices developed elsewhere, while introducing innovations of its own – notably, imposing a higher affordable housing obligation in developments serving higher income levels.
- Case Study: Boston, MA
Boston, a city of 600,000, has one of the two earliest programs adopted by a major city. Like its counterpart in San Francisco, it introduced a new approach in which inclusionary requirements were applied to developments going through the re-zoning process, while allowing the cost off-sets to be determined through negotiation.
Canadian Case Studies
- Case Study: Toronto ON
The basis for an inclusionary housing program in Toronto has been established by policy 9 of its Official Plan – its so-called ‘large sites policy’. Toronto’s Official Plan was approved by Council in 2002, but part of this policy was appealed by the development industry to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), and did not come into effect until mid-2006 after mutually-agreed clarifications were made.
- Case Study: Montreal QC
This strategy – called a ‘strategy for inclusion of affordable housing in new residential projects’ – was adopted by the city in August 2005. This strategy applies in the city of Montreal, the largest jurisdiction in the Montreal metropolitan area. Since the de-merger in 2006, the city contains a population of 1.6 million in its 19 constituent boroughs. The wider metropolitan area contains a total of 3.6 mil and 82 local governments.
- Case Study: Vancouver, BC
The city introduced its inclusionary housing program in 1988 through a policy initially called its ‘20% core need housing policy’, but now more commonly its ‘non-market housing policy’. The purpose of the policy was to ensure that housing was provided in all new neighbourhoods for low and modest-income households, and especially those with children.
Recent Comments