London UK - en route to the Venice Architectural Biennale

I am writing from London England. My time here has been sandwiched with a five-day trip to the 19th Architectural Biennale in Venice. While I have been writing about this trip on Facebook, I never got around to writing it up on this blog. Much of the following is from my Facebook Posts with some additional commentary.

My wife often asked why I write all these things out since she's certain nobody ever reads them. She's probably right. But I enjoy documenting these activities to be read at a later date when I can no longer travel. That said, I also enjoy sharing my travels with other people, and must confess I'm always intrigued by the responses to my Facebook posts.

Choosing a hotel. A major consideration on every trip is where to stay. In the past, I have often stayed at the Hilton Hotel attached to the Paddington train station. For one thing it's easy to get there on the Heathrow express. It is also easy to get around London from there. I also like the excitement of a train station.

On this trip I arrived at Gatwick Airport. The train from Gatwick arrives at Victoria station and so I booked the Clermont Hotel, which seemed to be  the most attractive hotel close to the station. When I arrived I was pleasantly surprised to discover that like the Hilton, it also was .attached to the train station.

I initially planned to stay there two nights but it turned out to be so convenient and once I got a larger room it was a most enjoyable stay. The hotel offers a very expansive daily breakfast buffet which they included as part of the room cost.

Hop-On-Hop-Off Bus tour. One of the other things I always do in any new city is buy a one or two day ticket for the hop on hop off bus. There are now about four different tour lines offering this service. I booked on Tootbus since they first approached me. While it didn't have as many buses as some of the others, and the commentary was often weak, it was just fine. I would love to have the time to try out all the tours to see who has the best commentary.

Wealth Taxes. I was once told if you want to know the future, talk to someone who has lived it. I think the same holds true for countries. In many respects England is just an older version of Canada. When I arrived in London, the big news was new wealth taxes.

I think it's just a matter of time before new wealth taxes will come to Canada.

Personally, I don't see any harm taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If the money was properly used to address homelessness, street crime, mental illness, and the myriad of other conditions which are increasingly making life less pleasant in Vancouver, I wouldn’t object tosuch a tax. But you and I know this is not likely to happen.

I think one of these buildings got its design inspiration from a whale. Can you tell which one it is?

Decorative architecture. Looking at all the decorative architecture around London I can't help but think of the plain, unadorned boxes we are now building around Vancouver, all in the name of affordability.

While there are a lot of rather strange new buildings in London, I think the Shard is one of the best. and a great addition to the skyline.

Did you know EHT can be charged on unsold inventory in projects of 4 units or less, but not in projects of 5 units or more?

This Wednesday October 29th, a report is going to Vancouver City Council recommending some minor modifications to the Empty Home Tax policy, to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the EHT. 

Unfortunately, the need for a more significant policy change, in the name of fairness, is not included in the staff report. This relates to the fact that small builders of projects with less than 5 units must pay EHT on their unsold inventory if it is not sold by a certain date. However, builders of larger projects are not charged the EHT on unsold inventory.

So we now have a situation whereby if a small builder cannot sell a duplex by a certain date due to market conditions, they must pay 3% on the assessed value. Larger builders are not in the same situation. 

The city's response? Rent them out. However, if they rent out the unit, how do they repay the loan? They also must pay the GST knowing it will be much harder to sell a 'used' rather than new unit. 

I worry than one of these builders is going to commit suicide. Maybe then, the Mayor and Council will finally take notice. And I'm not being overly dramatic. I know of one builder who is so stressed out I truly worry about his health.

So here is a letter I have sent to the mayor and council. I can't attend the meeting and speak to the matter since I'm in London. But if you agree this seems most inequitable, maybe you will let council know by sending a letter or speaking to the matter. 

Here's a link to the staff report and how to contact the city. https://council.vancouver.ca/20251029/pspc20251029ag.htm

https://vancouver.ca/your-government/contact-council.aspx

Letter to Mayor and Council

I note the purpose of the Empty Home Tax amendment report is to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the Empty Homes Tax (EHT).  

While I do not have any concerns regarding the amendments going forward, it is unfortunate that a much-needed policy amendment that I have been discussing for the past year with the empty home tax office, the mayor's office, and members of council is not included in this list of amendments.

I refer to the current inequity that allows unsold inventory in projects with 5 or more units to be exempt from EHT, while the units are actively being offered for sale, but units in a project of less than 5 units can be subject to EHT while being actively offered for sale.

Given that these smaller projects are usually developed by small builders who are often under considerable financial stress, how can this possibly be deemed to be equitable?

Especially at a time when the market is so very soft, and even when substantial discounts are being offered, duplex and similar units are not selling.

I became aware of this inequity when I was approached by a small builder who has several unsold duplexes on the market. He has been doing his best to sell the units and reduce the price on several occasions.

It has been suggested to him that he should just simply rent them out, but this is not a practical solution since he has a loan to pay back, and this requires payment of the GST. It will also make it more difficult to sell the unit at a later date.

I have spoken to several builders undertaking four unit multiplex projects, and none of them were aware of this provision in the EHT policy. Similarly the Homebuilders Association of Vancouver was not aware of this until I informed them.

Charging small builders who are unable to sell their duplexes or multiplex units a 3% EHT is put simply, most unfair, especially when builders of larger projects are exempt.

 I would therefore urge council to either defer this report until this issue can be addressed and included, or instruct the EHT office to not enforce this aspect of the bylaw until market conditions improve.

As someone who has been advocating for more duplex, triplex and multiplex units for 50 years, I would hate to see builders not proceed with these types of projects once they learn about this aspect of the EHT bylaw. Once more are being charged the tax, this will become very public.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

I fear the City of Vancouver is about to make a terrible mistake -

 URGENT - Establishing a Wholly Owned Government Business Enterprise for the purpose of developing market rental housing

Michael Geller <michaelarthurgeller@gmail.com>	14:52 (11 minutes ago)
to Mike, Peter, Sarah, Lisa, Pete, brian.montague, Lenny, Rebecca, Ken, Josh, Brad, lucy.maloney, sean.orr, Cameron, Alison, alazenby, Dan, Jami, Mike

I have so many concerns about this proposed initiative I wish I was in Vancouver and able to talk directly with each of you about them., However, I am in London England where considerable discussion is also taking place regarding the respective roles of the public and private sector when it comes to the development of affordable housing.

My credentials. I'm writing as someone who has had 50 years experience in the public sector development of housing. Given this background, I want to urge you to be very cautious about approving the proposed motions before you. You should defer the matter for the following reasons.

As some of you know I have five decades experience in the development of housing by the public, private, and institutional sectors. More specifically:. 

• I spent 10 years at CMHC where I oversaw the development of South Shore False creek on behalf of the corporation, and development of more than a dozen rental housing projects.
• I also spent seven years as President and CEO of the SFU Community Trust where I built both rental and ownership housing in partnership with others, and entered into leases for thousands of units and commercial facilities.. 
• I spent six years on the board of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation at a time when we were exploring how deeply involved we should be in the development of new projects. 
• I also served for two years on the Board of the Surrey City Development Corporation and 
• three years on the Board of the University of Calgary's Real Estate Corporation

It has been suggested to me that I probably have more experience in public sector development of housing than anyone else in Vancouver. And that is why I'm delaying my dinner in London to share the following thoughts with you.

A desire to generate revenues from the PEF lands. I fully agree with the city's desire to generate revenue from its PEF lands to help offset property taxes There's nothing wrong with this since it too was the goal of the Surrey City Development Corporation. It was so motivatied to make money some board members wee planning to buy  presale condominiums from a local developer and flipping them on completion at a profit. I strongly opposed this and eventually the staff and other Board members decided not to proceed.

I share this since It highlights how a municipally owned development company must be very careful when trying to make money from real estate..

Why is the corporation so focussed on building market rental housing? 

Everyone I speak to in the private sector cannot understand why this corporation wants to start off building 40 and 54 storey rental apartment buildings. This makes absolutely no sense especially for the foreseeable future 

I don't need to tell you how many concrete purpose-built rental projects are sitting on the back burner because the economics don't work. 

 I have not seen any proformas prepared by your staff  but if you speak to prominent real estate consultants including Altus or Ryan and the major development companies in the business, they will tell you that 54-storey rental housing projects will not make money over the next five years. 

Yes over the long term you willmake  money, but I suspect there's a very high probability that you will lose money in the short term and need to feed the Corporation with much more than the $8 million seed money.

Have you consulted the former Director of Real Estate or Director of Housing? Before writing these comments, I reviewed my concerns with Bruce Maitland the city's former Director Real Estate who was instrumental in acquiring properties for the PEF, including some now being contemplated for development,, and Cameron Gray the a highly respected former Director of housing for the city. Both are copied on this email. Both share my concerns that the city may be about to make a terrible mistake.

If you did speak to them they would tell you the three options that staff have set out are overly simplistic and ignore other important opportunities. I would urge you to direct Mr. Foster, and others who will be involved in this initiative to speak with them and others who know much more about public sector development of housing.

Why are you selling all of the sites to The Corporation? Both the UBC properties Trust and SFU Community Trust spent considerable time exploring how best to vest their new corporate entities with the lands. Neither did what you're being asked to do. Instead we came up with a much wiser approach which ensured that the parent entity maintained sufficient control while making the lands available when needed. Did any of you discuss the various options?

I doubt anyone at the city has even explored the best way to do this because if you had Council would not be approving a sale of all the lands.. You should not be selling all of the land worth hundreds of millions of dollars to this corporation at this time. You don't need to.

Conflict of Interest. There is so much more I would like to discuss but I will finish off with two points. The first is whether there's validity to my concern that the city should not be competing directly with the private sector when it comes to building market rental housing. This is something that was discussed extensively by all of the public entities referenced above and it was agreed that there is often too much potential for conflict of interest when an entity is both the approving officer and a developer. (And please don't tell me they are different departments! It's the same Council!)

Especially if the city is building a rental housing project on a site near a major private sector project that is going through the approval process at the same time. Finally...

Why not develop ownership housing on leased land? While I think it is wrong for the city to be developing market rental housing at this time, as a joint venture partner or using its own forces, I think it would be most appropriate to promote affordable ownership housing on leased land. The city has a distinct advantage over every private developer in the city in that it can develop on lease land. Private developers cannot lease land. 

As I told the Vancouver's Sun, by utilizing graduated payment leases and other creative lease structures the city can both help create much needed affordable ownership housing and generate significant revenues.

I therefore urge you to defer any decision on this iniitative until some further discussion can taken place with those who know much more about the pitfalls of building rental housing in 40 and 54 storey buildings, especially as a municipal Development Corporation. 

Sadly these conversations have not sufficiently taken place. Cameron Gray was never consulted. Bruce Maitland was never consulted. And I suspect many other people who have much to contribute were never consulted. 

I hope you will push the pause the button on this to avoid more municipal mistakes like those made in the past by Vancouver's first non-profit housing corporation headed up by Morris Jeroff. (I suspect most of you have never heard of this.) and the mistake made by the city when it tried to generate revenues by leasing land to VLC properties for market rental housng. (This isn't even mentioned in the report! ) I suspect neither Mr. Foster nor most of you know the details of this either.

If you have read this far. Thank you. I am happy to discuss this further when I am back in Vancouver.

This Thanksgiving - who to thank for high housing prices? Vancouver Sun October 6, 2025

When I spoke to CKNW's Jas Johal on October 6th, I mentioned that for many developments, government fees are higher than the land price. What I didn't know was that very morning this graphic was featured on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. It shows that on average, government charges, which include things like Community Amenity Contributions, Development Cost Levies, development and building fees, inspection fees, property taxes, property transfer tax, GST and Provincial Sales Tax total 35.6% of the cost of a new home. The land cost, on average, is 21%. 

So if you want to see the cost of new housing reduced, hopefully this will help you understand why just increasing density isn't going to work, especially since as densities increase, land values increase. 

Similarly, don't blame the contractor or the window suppliers, or even the developers for their excessive profits. No, the major cost component is government fees and charges, not just at the municipal and regional level, but also at the federal and provincial levels.

Happy Thanksgiving.

CBC The National October 10, 2018 - Putin's Paradise with Chris Brown

Seven years ago this week I was working in Moscow and had a call from Chris Brown at CBC. He had heard I was giving a talk to the Strelka Institute and wanted to know if they could film it. Of course I said, thinking they never film my SFU lectures, but they are interested in what I have to say to Russians. As you will see if you watch this news storey that appeared on CBC's The National, not only did they film a portion of my lecture but Chris and I got to wander around the city and explore how the city had been transformed.

While I do not want to celebrate anything Putin does, (I despise what he's doing in Ukraine and elsewhere) but there is no doubt that he has created some very attractive areas in Moscow. While I was in Russia to discuss what lessons they can learn from Vancouver, as I tell Chris there are lessons we can learn from them when it comes to creating beautiful lively pedestrian streets.

You can watch Chris Brown's presentation here. https://www.cbc.ca/news/national-moscow-urban-renewal-putin-1.4847400 and here https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.4858141

e

CTV Interview regarding Vancouver's forthcoming Official Development Plan - October 8, 2025

Yesterday morning a got a call from a very delightful Demetra Maragos, a journalist with CTV. She was doing a story about the City of Vancouver's recent request for feedback on its forthcoming Official Development Plan. While I was aware that Vancouver had approved an overall development framework called the Vancouver Plan in July 2022, and was now required to prepare an Official Development Plan by June 2026, until I received Demetra's call, I wasn't aware that the draft ODP had been issued for review.

If you were also not aware of this, you can find the latest document here: https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/odp/draft-vancouver-odp-eng-full.pdf It is a 104 page beautifully illustrated document with a lot of information. 

This morning I received notification that CTV has published the short TV spot that aired last night on the 6pm news. It includes my comments along with those of Tom Davidoff. 

I should note that my comments were somewhat abbreviated and while it appears I am suggesting the city is listening to developers more than the public, this was my poorly worded way of noting that given both the provincial government legislation and the recent Council decision regarding the Broadway Plan there will no longer be a requirement for Public Hearings if a future project is in accordance with the new ODP. 

I therefore urged CTV viewers to study this document and share their comments with the city. Although I must confess, I suspect most residents will not take the time to do this. Indeed, I suspect most architects and planners won't do this either. But you should!

Below is the CTV segment on this matter and here is the link to the video. https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/city-of-vancouver-asks-for-feedback-on-official-development-plan/

The City of Vancouver is looking for the public’s feedback on the draft of the Vancouver Official Development Plan, also known as the city’s “ODP.” This plan has the ability to shape the city for decades to come, with guidelines that span to 2050 and beyond.

The ODP is in development in response to a new provincial requirement to have a citywide plan in place by June 2026. Retired architect and real estate planning consultant Michael Geller told CTV News it’s about time for a plan like this.

“Virtually every other municipality has an overall development plan,” Geller said. “Until now, Vancouver has never really ever had one.”

A large portion of the report focuses on the city’s Generalized Land Use Designations also known as “GLUs.” The strategy behind GLUs is to promote growth across various neighbourhoods, trying to strike a balance between public amenities, housing and employment. GLU designations range from parks and open spaces to mixed-use highrise buildings.

While the ODP is not an explicit rezoning policy and does not guarantee approval of specific developments, it will be implemented over time through strategic plans. The report outlines that rezonings will be spearheaded by private property owners or the city.

“I don’t think there’s one part of the city that isn’t expected to change,” said Geller.

The ODP will be reviewed every five years, and the city is asking for the public’s feedback on its current draft until Oct. 29. Geller hopes that all voices will be heard equally.

“The city is trying to be responsive to the concerns, certainly of the development community. If anything, perhaps not as responsive to the concerns of neighbourhood residents,” said Geller.

CTV News reached out to Tom Davidoff, an associate professor at UBC’s Sauder School of Business, about the rollout of GLUs.

“There is an issue that if you do development one site at a time, it can be hard to plan infrastructure,” Davidoff said. “There are a lot of expensive infrastructure needs in the city and the region, and so it certainly does make sense to unroll major upzonings neighbourhood by neighbourhood for that reason.”

He added if the right projects are approved, it could help the city’s bottom line.

“I think if the city plans infrastructure improvements, that’s going to make land in certain areas inevitably more valuable as it’s better-served land,” he said. “There’ll be more demand to build towers.”

Related Stories

CKNW interview with Jas Johal - October 6, 2025

On Monday I was invited to join Jas Johal at CKNW to discuss a recent report by the Missing Middle Initiative, an Ottawa-based Think Tank, that estimated that 20,000 development and constrution industry jobs could be lost in 2025. 

While I wasn't aware that the interview was being filmed, I just received this YouTube Video which is now online. I don't dare watch it in case I am picking my nose during the interview. Furthermore, while I enjoy listening to Jas, I have a difficulty listening to what I have to say. But I am told it was an interesting discussion. Perhaps you want to decide for yourselves.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFYYphVM9Mc