Gift giving in the neoliberal city: Polanyi's substantivism and the exchange of density for affordable housing in Vancouver

Abstract

The policy of density agreements, allowing extra density for condominium developers in exchange for affordable housing units, is seen as an example of the neoliberalization of urban governance in North American and European cities. The consensus of scholarship on urban neoliberalism has suggested this practice is indicative of the rise of the entrepreneurial, market-orientated local state. Through a study of urban development in Vancouver, British Columbia. I illustrate how exchanging density for affordable housing also operates on the basis of gift giving. In doing so I integrate Karl Polanyi's framework of substantivism, which highlights various forms of economic exchange including markets, redistribution, and reciprocity, into research on urban governance. Applying the principles of substantivism to the case of Vancouver, I argue that reciprocity obfuscates the negative effects of the privatization of affordable housing provision by making social welfare contingent on increasing profits for developers, concealing the role of political power in land-use decisions, and gentrifying low-income neighbourhoods. These findings hold implications for the study of urban politics, the neoliberalization of affordable housing, and urban-economic research more generally.

Rise Overrun: Condoization, Gentrification, and the Changing Political Economy of Renting in Toronto

“…Relatedly, Rosen and Walks (2015, p. 290) have theorized "condo-ism" as a mode of urban development "dependent upon continued intensification and real estate development in the city, with mortgage credit displacing industrial expansion as the primary driver of the urban growth machine," and that promotes neoliberal policy solutions and the privatization of space in the era of "third wave" urbanization identified by Scott (2011). The condominium boom underlies a core economic development strategy in Toronto itself, one sustained by what Devine (2007, as cited in Lehrer & Pantalone, 2018, p. 91) calls "let's make a deal planning"-a boosterist political urban economy premised on developers negotiating with city councillors for higher density allowances in exchange for public amenity contributions (see also Biggar, 2021;Hyde, 2021). As a consequence of this combination of density bonusing policies and government policies designed to intensify development while preserving the "greenbelt'' around the Greater Toronto Area (GTA; particularly Ontario's Provincial Growth Plan from 2006, and the Places to Grow Act 2006), vertical development has come to dominate and even define urbanization in the GTA (Rosen, 2017).…”

Confronting the Joint Legacies of the Holocaust and Colonialism in Alex Miller’sLandscape of Farewell

“…Or if it is kept, something of similar value should move on in its stead, the way a billiard ball may stop when it sends another scurrying across the felt, its momentum transferred." 26 This distinction clearly applies to Landscape of Farewell, where the transformative power of synergy operates between Max and Vita, on the one hand, and between Max and Dougald, on the other, through a network of gift exchanges. Vita's friendship with Max saves his life, literally, and it is she who arranges for Max and her uncle Dougald to spend time together, thus setting the gift in motion.…”

Planning deregulation as solution to the housing crisis: The affordability, amenity and adequacy of Permitted Development in London

“…Here, the ‘speeding up’ of planning, and its orientation towards boosting the overall numbers of housing units, has been a particularly important move, allowing developers to reduce the time between land acquisition and housing completion, cutting their costs (Brill and Durrant, 2021). In a context of rising house prices, ‘land-value capture’ or ‘planning gain’ is hence the dominant logic though which city authorities extract benefits from developers, making social welfare contingent on developers’ profits (Hyde, 2023; Penny, 2022). This reliance on land-value capture has in turn weakened planners’ ability to influence future development, raising concerns about democratic planning processes intended to secure the best use of land.…”