IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mfg/wpaper/13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trading Density for Benefits: Toronto and Vancouver Compared

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron A. Moore

    (University of Toronto)

Abstract

This paper describes and evaluates the process for negotiating and distributing density for benefit agreements (DBAs) in Toronto and Vancouver. DBAs allow municipalities to secure cash contributions or amenities from developers in return for allowing them to exceed existing height and density restrictions. The City of Toronto employs Section 37 agreements, while Vancouver secures Community Amenity Contributions. It examines how the two cities determine the value of the benefits; the type of benefits they secure from developers; how the cities determine which type of benefits to secure; and who benefits from the agreements. It also examines the three most common rationales to justify their use: sharing the wealth created by development, funding related infrastructure, and compensating those negatively affected by the development. The analysis shows that the process of negotiating DBAs lacks transparency, and that there are valid arguments for abolishing DBAs or for replacing them with alternative tools such as inclusionary housing provisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron A. Moore, 2013. "Trading Density for Benefits: Toronto and Vancouver Compared," IMFG Papers 13, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    • Handle: RePEc:mfg:wpaper:13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/81255/1/imfg_paper_13_moore_2013-02-26.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Friendly, Abigail, 2020. "Sharing the unearned increment: Divergent Outcomes in Toronto and São Paulo," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Aaron A. Moore, 2018. "Buildings with Benefits: The Defect of Density Bonusing," e-briefs 276, C.D. Howe Institute.
    3. Daniel Henstra & Jason Thistlethwaite, 2017. "Climate Change, Floods, and Municipal Risk Sharing in Canada," IMFG Papers 30, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    4. Bob Baldwin, 2015. "Municipal Employee Pension Plans in Canada: An Overview," IMFG Papers 23, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    5. Zack Taylor & Alec Dobson, 2020. "Power and Purpose:Canadian Municipal Law in Transition," IMFG Papers 47, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    6. Haas, Astrid & Kriticos, Sebastian, 2019. "Considerations for land value capture reform in the Greater Amman Municipality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103072, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Jean-Philippe Meloche & François Vaillancourt, 2021. "Municipal Financing Opportunities: How Do Cities Use Their Fiscal Space?," IMFG Papers 52, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    9. Murray, Cameron & Gordon, Josh, 2021. "Land as airspace: How rezoning privatizes public space (and why governments should not give it away for free)," OSF Preprints v89fg, Center for Open Science.
    10. Kim, Minjee, 2020. "Upzoning and value capture: How U.S. local governments use land use regulation power to create and capture value from real estate developments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Yidi Wang & Ying Fan & Zan Yang, 2022. "Challenges, Experience, and Prospects of Urban Renewal in High-Density Cities: A Review for Hong Kong," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    density; infrastructure; large cities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H72 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Budget and Expenditures

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mfg:wpaper:13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Enid Slack (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imfutca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.