Exploring Inclusionary Zoning to Support Affordable Housing

Bill 23 passed by the Ontario legislature in November targets inclusionary housing directly by limiting it to 5% of units in a project and 80% of market rents. These provisions relegate inclusionary zoning to an optics program which sounds good but can only deliver marginal benefits to a small number of people. The bill also gives the provincial government the authority to eliminate rental replacement bylaws leaving tenants in up-zoned areas vulnerable to displacement.

We need to develop strong alternative policies and programs which give people real relief.

It seems odd to consult the public on a specific policy tool like inclusionary zoning. This seems more like a matter for professional planners and experts to consider rather than the general population. I don't feel equipped to provide informed insights about this.

Affordable housing should be mandated in all new builds. Not centralized in particular areas. This creates pockets of crime, lower property valley ajd stigma. There is zero reason this has to be centralized. I have all confidence that the region will continue to destroy our towns.

I live in uptown Waterloo, there is a mixture of single family homes, semi-detached, triplexes, eightplexes in my neighbourhood. These were built over70 to 80 years ago and have produced a mixture homes and people. The newer neighbourhhoods are cookie cutter houses and are not a mixture of homes. I believe we should stop mass development by a few wealthy developers and mandate a percentage of a mixture of homes with different prices. The developers are already making enough money on holding land for years. I do not support corporate welfare.

Also, I believe that we should be very careful of gentrification. In terms of affordability, the Region needs to get its spending under control so that people can remain in their homes.

I am concerned that "upzoning" for the very valid goal of providing more housing options, will instead incentivize the full scale demolition and redevelopment of older neighbourhoods and low density heritage properties. Can the IZ considered by Kitchener ensure that in already built neighbourhoods, additional units are clearly secondary or subordinate to existing heritage properties? Further, that when IZ is implemented in policy, adaptive reuse of structures be promoted above all other forms of new development, to not only capitalize on embodied carbon in existing structures but to also maintain the unique characteristics of our built environment.

There needs to be a way to have a broader set of tools to make IZ good for those who need it. Beyond the lower incomes, there are many new families who need to live in 2+ bedrooms and those units are not being met with high rise buildings, 3/4 of which are 600 sf one bedroom units. Zoning rules are being flouted in the name of higher density needs. However, we also are in a climate emergency and medium rise and family oriented units are NOT being built. In addition, we need to plan whole communities that have the facilities for those living in them: schools, hospitals, small businesses, and the parkland that supports all of our needs for green space. Everyone has a right to housing; business have an obligation to their investors. It is up to government to redress this balance by any means and that means insisting on having a certain percentage of units/houses being affordable for a minimum of 99 years, as Toronto has done. The percentage is now 5-10%, increasing to 22% by 2030. We need a system such as Toronto's or we will face higher and higher prices for the foreseeable future.

I am encouraged to see inclusionary zoning as part of their regulatory tool box. I hope that it will be one of many tools to address the current housing crisis, such as increasing the area of the City where mixed use and mid-rise developments can be built or infilled, investments in social housing and housing cooperatives, and requirements or bonusing to ensure that the majority of new housing units are multi bedroom units (one bedroom units have very little utility for a diverse segment of the population and are not as flexible as population demographics change).

We have to do WAAAY more to help those that can no longer afford to live in the downtown cores; especially families. Families are the heart and soul of a downtown. To do this, we need to have more purpose built 2 and 3 bedroom and designated "affordable" units in the downtown (everywhere really, but especially in the downtown). Research out if the University of Waterloo supports this huge demand and the region (as well as the municipalities) should actively look at ways to encourage/force developers to include these units in any new build. Current rules of affordable housing go nowhere near far enough to support cheaper, affordable housing. Every new build should have a minimum percentage of units geared towards our most marginalized.

The sort of exclusionary zoning we see in Canada and the US, where all you can build on a large part of the city is single-family homes, is an international aberration. The alternative isn't to require developers to include "affordable" housing (which often isn't affordable at all to those on low wages) in high-rise developments, but to have mixed-use neighbourhoods with amenities, public transport, and a range of homes all within the same area. And I don't mean a "range of homes" as Kitchener City Council seems to view it, which appears to be building towering high-rises next to 1.5-storey detached homes, but residential neighbourhoods with a variety of low-rise homes, like walk-up apartments, row houses, four-plexes, in addition to any existing detached homes in the neighbourhoods. This is how cities in many parts of Europe manage to have much more density than somewhere like Kitchener without compromising their historic town centres with high-rises.

In a city like Edinburgh, for instance, nearly two-thirds of all homes are apartments (or flats, as they're known there). It's not uncommon to have entire neighbourhoods of 3-storey walk-ups and townhouses, the majority of which are owner-occupied with low or no condo fees. And, despite being the most expensive city in Scotland with a large number of flats in the city centre bought up by AirBnB investors, it is still possible to buy a 2-bedroom flat for under $250,000 with condo fees of less than $150/month.

Compare this to Kitchener, where 55% of homes are single-family homes and 70% of residential land is zoned for detached houses, while the remaining land primarily houses high-rise condominiums whose units are overwhelmingly owned by investors, which has driven up prices for these so much that the average cost of an apartment-style condo in Kitchener is approaching $500,000. Rents are high (1-bedroom apartments in the buildings proposed across the street from Eastwood are expected to cost $1500/month) and there are limited options for home-buyers other than the expensive detached houses.

As an aside, the low-rise model is also environmentally-friendly. By having mixed-zoning in all areas, it's possible to have amenities within a 5-minute walk of a large number of homes. In the neighbourhood I lived in in Edinburgh, for instance, I was no more than two blocks from: a park, the dentist, my doctor, the local library, a fish and chip shop, two grocery stores, a number of small businesses, an elementary school, and - and this is what I miss the most - a bus stop where I never waited more than 5 minutes for a bus into the city centre. Many people in my neighbourhood did not own cars, yet still had access to amenities and plenty of greenspace. Moreover, high-rises carry an enormous carbon cost due to all the steel and concrete used in their construction. It is impossible to create steel without burning coal or coke, but low-rise buildings do not require the use of steel the way high-rises do.

What is being described here is not "inclusionary zoning". Exclusionary zoning is where things like minimum lot sizes, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, and so on prevents a heterogenous mix of housing types from getting built and instead stratifies neighbourhoods into economic zones. "Inclusionary zoning" means getting ride of residential zones that only permit single-family homes in them—currently about 70% of Kitchener's residential area—and allowing triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, three-storey walk-ups, low-rise apartments, and other low-rise buildings in *all* residential areas.

The current zoning laws are why we get only get luxury high-rise condos or single-family homes in sprawling suburbs that fewer and fewer people can afford. The new RES-1 through RES-7 zones proposed by Kitchener will not alleviate this issue as all they did was mildly collapse some of the zone for mid- and high-rise development and did nothing for the low-rise zones. Very, very little residential land in Kitchener allows the building of triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, three-storey walk-ups, small apartments, and other low-rise housing types.

Kitchener needs to truly enact inclusionary zoning, and requiring developers to include affordable units just won't do it.

forcing a mix of this within all new developments is a poor idea. you would be much better of imposing a levy based upon some form of a reasonable calculation to raise new funds to be applied toward the new construction of designated affordable housing developments. if you try to mix it within the same property you will most likely stall the uptake of the high density developments as non affordable housing buyers will not want to locate in a model of this nature.

I agree that there is no affordable housing here. My children will not be able to afford their own home. I've lived here all my life and my children will not be able to afford their own home. On top of that, there are not many well paying full-time jobs. I see there were many part time jobs created, but I imagine those are all minimum wage.
It also concerns me that all these investors are swooping up houses and renting them, instead of allowing people who live and work in this community, who want to own, now have to compete with these investors that have more money.
I do not want kitchener to become a concrete jungle like Toronto. I do not want to look out my windows, of my expensive bungalow, to 2 25 story buildings infront of Rockway (like Vive developers want to do) Leave those types of developments to newer areas that have taller structures.
This whole thing irked me and fellow lifetime residents who can no longer enjoy our quiet city.

I think it is important to constructively find a way forward to support affordable good housing, especially now when we have inflationary housing regionally at a time of covid-depressed economics. However, the offset option of "increased planning permissions" could negatively affect reception of the program in older treed neighbourhoods with historic homes if existing residents receive reduced consideration of their concerns.
Another option not proposed would be a unit design change to socially assist with amalgamation of "households" from most desirable of single unit/person to multi-unit/multi-generational akin to newer design strategies of pods within a unit, employed in some Canadian University residences. So, residents have both private and communal living space. Familial multi-generational living has social benefit of assisting with elder care while coalescence of multiple single person units provides community.

I like that the City and Region are looking at affordable housing from many angles, but it still feels like IZ is a small stop gap that may backfire.
1) Even with incentives, I fear developers will still price their market units even higher out of reach. IZ is aimed to help those within 30-60th percentile of household income, but being in the ~70th percentile (as of 2015 census), we are already priced out of home ownership altogether and are fortunate we do not have to move apartments as we would also be priced out of our desired communities.
2) I am concerned that using Gross Floor Area for the set-aside rate will not help to keep our communities diverse by encouraging developers to create more 1 bedroom units. So few buildings have 3 or 4 bedroom units. Families do want to live in these denser areas but have no choice but to move elsewhere. It would be great id there could be some sort of mix of requirements - Gross Floor Area and Unit Types.
3) Currently about 65% of residential zoning in Kitchener is for single family homes. THAT IS YOUR KEY PROBLEM. I agree that we need density but it does not have to be only downtown or only adjacent the LRT. Other areas of the city need to densify too. We need more low-rise and mid-rise buildings everywhere, and more mixed-use buildings. (I loved my building in Montreal that had a bakery, pizza place, flower shop, convenience store and more at its base). I actually think this would be even more amenable to developers as it may offset any losses from affordable units as business rentals usually charge more. Have Mixed-Use apartments allowed throughout the city would also encourage community engagement - it's a lot easier to get to know neighbours if you pop into the same convenience store in your building, rather than driving/taking bus to the nearest grocery store.

Requiring developers to provide permanent lower cost housing is only going to drive up the sale or rental prices of the other units because the developers are not going to sacrifice their profits. So instead of only the 60th percentile and lower earners having problems finding affordable housing, now it's the 65th percentile or maybe even the 70th who have problems finding affordable housing.

Better to redesign our zoning bylaws to encourage building "missing middle" housing, and to get rid of single-family-home-only zones that take up 70% of out city's residential lands.

The new proposed RES-x residential zones to replace the R-x don't go far enough. All they really do is collapse 9 zone types into 7 and add duplexes, which is ludicrously inadequate to increasing the housing supply, especially since most lot size, setback, height limit and coverage rules are retained. Zones need to be designed to encourage the "missing middle".

In *all* residential zones triplexes, fourplexes and low-rise apartments should be allowed; along with allowing low-density commercial like cafés, restaurants, and small stores to encourage walkability.

All traffic arteries should be zoned multi-use midrise to encourage commercial on the bottom and residential up top.

I am aging and walking is a big concern for the aged and disabled persons. How are you going to address these issues for the affordable housing and for the transportation hub? I also need to be with people that are in the senior age group for housing I would think that it should be subdivided as well. How are you doing the planning for these issues for the community? I am on a waiting list for housing and need it ASAP. I can not continue to do stairs and pay high rent that leaves me with $200 a month for food and expenses? How are you getting thru the housing lists for people like myself age 55 plus who are physically impaired etc?

Most of the condos in the core are owned by investors who rent them for a profit. This is the problem. There are all kinds of affordable condos however the developers and agents sell them to investor keeping first time buyers out.

This will cost everyone. Don't do it

Less density and modern integrated architecture will make this more acceptable.