Wednesday, August 20, 2025

The future of the Downtown Eastside? En francais and English! Julie Landry - Radio Canada July 30, 2025


In July I met with Julie Landry, a journalist with Radio Canada in a Downtown Eastside cafe. She was preparing a short documentary regarding the challenges facing the community and had come across my previous articles and speeches regarding the need to create a new plan to 'regenerate' the neighbourhood.

In addition to speaking to me she met with Jean Swanson (of course) and Dan Garrison, the city's director of housing. Suffice it to say, my message was quite different than those from Jean and Dan.

My view is that in order to create a healthier neighbourhood, with fewer vacant, derelict storefronts, and a greater sense of civic pride there is a need to revise the plan to allow a broader mix of housing, including ownership housing. Otherwise, there won't be the buying power to support the local shops.

Jean and others take this to mean I want to gentrify the area and force out the poor people. Not at all. But over the years the DTES has deteriorated to the point that there must be a new approach.

Here is Julie's documentary, en francais!

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/ca-nous-regarde/segments/rattrapage/2140024/revitalisation-downtown-eastside-a-vancouver-reportage-julie-landry

Also, some links to previous articles about what I think needs to be done. 

https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/michael-geller-time-rethink-downtown-eastside-plan-8271206

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.438102

https://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-future-of-dtes-submission-of-inner.html

CBC Early Edition - Ways to Advance Housing Affordability. August 20, 2025

At 7:10 this morning, David Ley and I were invited to join Chris Walker, (the CBC Kelowna morning host who is filling in for Stephen Quinn) to discuss a letter sent by a group of planners, architects, and academics to David Eby and Christine Boyle on how to advance housing affordability. This letter was similar to the letter sent to Prime Minister Mark Carney and federal housing minister Gregor Robertson, and referenced in some of the previous posts on this blog.

At issue is what is the best way to address housing unaffordability and stimulate production at a time when the presale condominium market is dead, and many purpose-built rental projects are also stalled or being put on the back burner.

Chris Walker noted that while I signed the letter to the federal government, I didn't sign the most recent letter to the province. The reason is that I differ somewhat from the rest of the signatories in terms of what needs be done to stimulate new projects and the role of the private sector. I also have a difference of opinion in terms of how we should finance growth. 

More specifically, the signatories generally think we should look at the current crisis as an opportunity. We must not continue doing what we have been doing which has got us into the current situation. Governments should focus on the construction of non-profit and rental housing and the conservation of older apartment buildings that offer affordable housing. 

While I agree with this, especially since I was once CMHC's manager of social housing in the mid 1970s, I also think we need to figure out how to put the private sector back to work, since without new projects many people in the allied professions and construction trades are going to be put out of work. While more housing does not necessarily lead to more affordable housing, if we stop building, the situation will not improve.

The real problem. As long as banks insist on presales, developers must design and market their projects to investors. 'End-users' including move-up buyers and move down 'empty nesters' do not want to buy a home three years before it is completed.To my mind, this is the real problem. So what's the solution?

Back to the future. When I first started in the housing development business, there was no such thing as a presale requirement before a condominium project could be financed by the bank. The lender reviewed the developer's market analyses and track record, and underook its own analysis. It then made a decision on whether to finance a project or not. As the project neared completion, model suites were set up and the homes were sold.

To a certain degree, this changed in the mid-80s as a result of a project by Tridel in Toronto, called The Polo Club. The presale program included 'priority registration', the brainchild of Stan Kates, a Toronto marketing consultant. It was the first significant pre-sale condominium project with buyers lining outside a sales trailer on Bay Street. 

The success of this marketing program was featured on CBC's The National anchored by Knowlton Nash. Developers across Canada took notice.

I know about this since at the same time I was involved with the development of The Lagoons in False Creek in partnership with the Belzberg's First City Financial. Brent Belzberg saw people lining outside the sales centre and asked me to invite Stan and his sidekick Marty Atkins (with whom I went to highschool) to Vancouver to see if they could work their magic on our project. They came to town and we put them up at the Hyatt. But once we showed them our plans, they told us we had the wrong type of project. For their program to work we could not have more than three different unit designs!

Eventually Bob Rennie and Dan Ulinder began implementing presale programs in Vancouver. I believe the first project was for Wall Financial on Howe Street. Before we knew it, aggressive marketing programs offering smaller condos targetted to investors became the norm and lenders soon decided that rather than try to properly assess a project's feasibility as they had done in the past, they would simply demand presales as proof of a project's viability. And the situation ballooned from there.

So, to my mind, the best way Mark Carney and David Eby can bring back some normalcy to the housing market would be to tell the banks to stop demanding presales. Allow projects catering to homebuyers, not investors to proceed, because once they are finished, if they offer good suite layouts and fair pricing, they will sell upon completion. 

Now you might reasonably ask why all the current unsold condos aren't selling?

For several reasons. Firstly, there is a lot of uncertainty in the market. But more importantly, too many of the unsold condos in Metro Vancouver are smaller studio, one-bedroom and 'junior' two-bedroom suites designed to be purchased by investors and rented, not lived in by end users. Unfortunately, since rents have come down, (yes, a good thing if you're a renter), and there is little expectation that prices are going to keep going up, the economics of buying and renting these small units no longer work.

While our 11 minute time limit this morning didn't allow me to get into all of this, you can listen to this morning's interview at the link below:

ps. Someone observed that Chris Walker seemed very prepared for the interview. That's because like Stephen he's obviously a very intelligent guy. But credit should also go to Caroline Chan, a journalist and story producer at the CBC with whom I spoke yesterday afternoon and asked some very thoughtful questions.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-91-the-early-edition/clip/16164622-ways-advance-housing-affordability






Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Golfing during a housing crisis - Kerry Gold - Globe and Mail June 2025


In late June I had a call from Globe and Mail journalist Kerry Gold. She wanted to know if I wished to comment on the number of major real estate firms laying off staff. I told her I wasn't surprised this was happening given the poor state of the housing market. In my case, so many of my projects had stalled, due in part by excessive government fees, I had played golf five days in a row. 

Ms. Gold asked if she could quote me and while I wondered whether anyone would care, I told her I didn't mind if she did. I was wrong. After references to the article were posted on Facebook, several people were astounded that I would be playing golf while there was a housing crisis. Others misconstrued the article and assumed I was playing golf in an effort to force governments to reduce development fees! 




Below are excerpts from Ms. Gold's story. 

Vancouver’s real estate industry had a great run at the height of the pandemic, but three years on, major marketers and developers are laying off staff and selling off assets.

The most recent is Wesgroup Properties – developer of the master-planned community River District – which announced the layoff of 12 per cent of its staff last week. Prior to that, condo marketing company Rennie Group announced the layoff of 25 per cent of its staff.

Developer, architect and consultant Michael Geller said that he’s playing more golf these days because of the downturn. It’s not that developers are asking for a “bail out” of sorts from government, but more of a return to the way things were, so that housing continues to get built, he said.

“I do think that we are in a situation that could take years to sort out,” he said.

To get housing starts going again, the industry would like to see reduced municipal fees and a lift on the federal foreign buyer ban on real estate, he said.

“There is generally a movement developing to ask the federal government to lift that,” said Mr. Geller. “It will have some ramifications, because foreign buyers were part of the market, especially the presale market.

“Foreign buyers really impacted my projects, not because they bought units in my developments … but because the foreign buyers were buying the homes of the people who were buying into my project. So, to that extent, it really was a factor.”

The Vancouver region saw historically high housing starts in 2023 – an increase of 33,000 units from the year before, according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Mr. Geller points out that there are tens of thousands more units that have been approved since then that have stalled.

Andy Yan, associate professor of professional practice in urban studies at Simon Fraser University, said the layoffs appear to be more periodic than disastrous.

“Is this an end of sunny days or a prolonged period of climate change for the market residential industry?” said Prof. Yan.

Sunday, August 17, 2025

A Presentation to the 2017 Dunbar-Southlands Residents Association AGM


Over the years, I have often been critical of neighbourhood associations opposing what I thought were thoughtful and appropriate rezoning proposals. For example, in the 1980s, the Oakridge-Langara Residents Association (OLRA) opposed a proposal for a fourth rental tower at Langara Gardens. It was eventually approved, but towers 5,6 and 7 were rejected.

Oak Gardens. Local residents were concerned with the building height and lack of adequate parking. Today there are dozens of empty spaces in the garage. NSDA Architects.

OLRA also opposed a four storey seniors-oriented condominium on Oak Street between West 42nd and West 43rd. It eventually was approved as a three-storey building today known as Oak Gardens. You can barely see it behind the double row of trees I planted.

The Lanesborough. Not quite the large blank wall feared by then Alderman George Puil. NSDA Architects.

The Dunbar Southlands Residents Association opposed my proposal for a three storey seniors condominium on West 41st between Balaclava and Carnarvon. Then Alderman George Puil amplified their concerns, arguing the building would end up looking like the white blank wall of the downtown Eatons. Really. After it was approved, Polygon Homes finished the project and today it is known as The Lanesborough.

Over on the North Shore, the Ambleside Dundarave Residents Association (ADRA) aggressively opposed my proposal for Hollyburn Mews, a nine-unit infill project comprising six duplexes and three coach houses replacing three older single-family houses. It was located across from West Vancouver United Church and next to the Recreation and Seniors Centres. Over 100 people wrote letters or spoke in opposition at the Public Hearing. Eventually, it was approved by a 4-3 vote.

Hollyburn Mews in Ambleside. Today it has become a 'poster child' for the type of development many residents want more of. Formwerks Architectural

It was against this background that I was both surprised and delighted to receive an invitation to speak at the 2017 Annual General Meeting of the Dunbar-Southlands Residents Association. Anticipating much opposition to my ideas, I carefully prepared a slide presentation that I hoped would not upset or anger too many people. As it turned out, the evening went quite well.  

Below is a link to the presentation. I invite you to view it, if only to see how many of the ideas I was promoting a decade ago are now becoming planning policy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1crvsII9PkBIqkQ7pkxPHo8eHCBjtheqaQpj/view?usp=sharing

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

Vancouver Developers Push for Foreign Buyer Ban Changes Howard Chai, Storeys, July 2025

In July, BC's most prominent developers publicly called upon the Federal government to remove the ban on foreign buyers to help spur condo presales. While the request might have been legitimate since without local and foreign investors, condominium presales have effectively dried up, as one of my colleagues put it, how could they be so tone deaf to make their request so very public? 

After all, whether rightly or wrongly, the general public blames foreign buyers for our current affordability crisis.

While this is a federal ban, the province was quick to respond. The premier and housing minister Christine Boyle loudly announced  "We're not returning to the wild west when foreign buyers inflated prices and left so many homes empty!" 

In fact, this is not what anyone called for or expected. For one thing, the developers were arguing that we copy Australia which only allows purchases of new units, not existing homes. Furthermore, there now is a municipal Empty Home Tax, a provincial Speculation and Vacancy Tax, and a Federal Underutilized Home Tax to discourage housing from being left vacant.

As noted elsewhere, as long as banks are requiring presales before construction can proceed, I reluctantly support foreign investment. But I would prefer to see the banks relax their presale requirements so that developers can build what is truly needed...larger two and three bedroom suites for those ready to move up or downsize.



 

Duelling BC Letters to Carney on housing crisis expose clash over way forward July 31, 2025


Both the developers' letter and the letter sent by our group received considerable media attention. This prompted Douglas Todd to write about them in an opinion column. 

Following the publishing of this column, Jas Johal invited me on his CKNW show to explain why I would sign a letter supporting the ban on foreign buyers when the developers had argued this was necessary. I told him that as long as lenders were insisting on presales, I did not oppose lifting the ban, but instead thought we should be pressuring lenders to relax their presale requirements. 

Unfortunately, I quickly discovered how right my late father was whenever he told me we judge people by what they say and do, but expect others to judge us by our motives!

Douglas Todd opinion column

A clash of values is on stark display in two different letters that B.C. property developers and a group of Metro Vancouver housing experts have sent to Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The major B.C. real-estate developers, facing a cyclical downturn in construction, this week delivered a coordinated statement to Ottawa and the provinces declaring they have an urgent need for more foreign investors in Canadian housing.

Their letter came a week after a group of 27 well-known Metro Vancouver scholars, retired city planners, urbanists, developers and architects sent an open letter to Carney and federal Housing Minister Gregor Robertson urging the opposite.

“Do not reintroduce foreign capital or investor demand to reflate prices artificially,” said the group of veteran B.C. housing experts.

“The current market correction presents an opportunity — not a threat,” the specialists wrote. “Governments should not bail out speculative housing development models, but instead use this moment to invest in non-market housing, preserve existing affordability and ensure that public subsidies serve long-term public outcomes.”

In contrast, the developers spelled out how foreign investment has long been crucial to B.C. residential construction — largely because it has provided the capital to start large condo projects, particularly hundreds of high-rises.

The developers’ letter, signed by companies such as Westbank, Wesbild, Edgar, Amacon, Cressey and Polygon, readily acknowledges the importance of a financial mechanism that many B.C. developers have long tried to keep quiet: That many of their building projects have relied heavily on investors, domestic and especially foreign.

In the past, many B.C. developers, condo marketers and their allies have accused scholars and others who cite evidence of significant foreign capital in the province’s urban real-estate of being racist and xenophobic.

Robertson, when he was mayor of Vancouver, once made such an allegation against Prof. Andy Yan, head of SFU’s City Program, who is one of the signatories to last week’s letter to Carney, which was copied to B.C. Housing Minister Christine Boyle and Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim.

However, now that B.C. developers are struggling with moderately slipping prices — and dealing with how the federal, B.C. and Ontario governments earlier imposed legislation to reduce foreign ownership — the industry is being more direct about how it has long needed offshore financing for its projects, often of the luxury variety.

“New condo development requires presales to meet financing thresholds, part of which relies on investor-focused buyers,” said the developers’ letter, which is titled “open” despite being watermarked with the word “confidential”.

“In the absence of foreign investors, fewer projects will meet presale financing thresholds, suppressing supply delivery, which serves no one in a housing crisis as projects will not start.”

The B.C. developers, whose message is supported by real-estate players in Toronto, say that if something doesn’t change, housing supply will continue its slowdown. They argue that will mean, down the road, prices will again start to rise.

The open letter from the more than two dozen housing experts — including UBC’s David Ley, Patrick Condon and Penny Gurstein, as well as eight retired planners for Vancouver and Burnaby — takes a dramatically different approach to foreign investment, housing supply and related issues.

In addition to urging Ottawa and provincial governments to retain restrictions on offshore capital in housing, the specialists argue that governments’ aggressive efforts to greatly expand supply will not ease Canada’s severe housing affordability crisis.

The benchmark cost of a dwelling in Greater Vancouver remains stuck at about $1.2 million, while in Metro Toronto it is about $1.1 million.

The independent housing experts say such unaffordability levels, among the worst in the world, continue even while housing supply has “increased significantly in cities like Vancouver, where housing starts have outpaced population growth for decades, yet prices remain disconnected from incomes.”

Many of the letter’s signatories have argued in recent years that inappropriate, non-family housing is often getting built, particularly tiny units that are mostly attractive to investors, foreign and domestic — that is, people who plan to rent them out rather than actually live in them.

Developers, aided by city councils, are often “building the wrong kinds of housing, in the wrong places, for the wrong reason,” says the experts’ open letter.

That includes hundreds of new Metro Vancouver residential towers, which they say the industry and governments should not so heavily emphasize. “Towers have their place, particularly in transit-rich areas, but they are not always the best form.”

Increasing housing density alone is insufficient to produce affordability, say the experts. “Without addressing land value inflation, financial speculation and tenure security, supply-side interventions risk worsening the very crisis they aim to solve.”

On a positive note, the authors urge federal, provincial and civic governments to retain and strengthen some policies that have proved effective. “Recent short-term rental regulations, adjusted immigration targets and demand-side measures have already helped reduce pressure on rents.”

Here are four more recommendations from the group of experts, some of which go against the desires of developers:

• “Do not use public funds to bail out over-leveraged speculative developments.”

• Avoid tearing down existing rental buildings, to replace them with more expensive dwellings. “Preserve existing affordability, and build new homes that serve real people, not just markets.”

• Return to policies of “growth pays for growth.” Governments should again demand developers provide significant infrastructure and amenities in exchange for construction approvals. “The costs of growth should not be downloaded to municipalities, ie. local taxpayers.”

• Prioritize federal funds and grants for co-ops, land trusts and non-profit housing.

Other signatories to the open letter to the prime minister include: Larry Beasley, Vancouver’s former co-chief planner; Christina DeMarco, former lead planner for Metro Vancouver regional district; Ralph Segal, former chief urban designer for Vancouver; architect David Wong, previously with the City of Vancouver; retired architect Barbara Gordon, former director of capital planning for UBC; and one-time developers Michael Geller and Arny Wise.

 


Letter to Mark Carney and Gregor Robertson from 27 'Housing Experts'


In early July, along with a list of respected housing planners and academics including Norm Hotson, Larry Beasley, Chris deMarco, Penny Gurstein, and others, I received an email from Elizabeth Murphy expressing concern about many of the planning initiatives taking place in Vancouver.  She noted that a
 lot had happened since many of us had sent a group letter to the city expressing concerns about aspects of the Broadway Plan.

The email also noted that staff had just completed a so-called "consultation" on the proposed "Social Housing Initiative" for social and supportive housing that would allow 20 storey towers on many residential streets across the city, without a rezoning and public hearings. This despite the fact that we thought Council had finally come to realize that large scale high-rise supportive housing projects are the wrong model and in some cases 70% of the units could have market rents.

It was therefore believed there was a need for knowledgeable people such as our group to advise government on our views related to long term housing affordability..

The email proposed that maybe it was time for another open letter to all levels of government and follow-up with key officials. This led to the drafting of a letter to Carney and Robertson.

While I was not involved with the drafting, and did not agree with everything in the letter, including an extension of  the foreign buyers ban, opposition to reintroduction of MURBs, and recommendations on how best to finance growth, I agreed with enough of the letter to sign it.

Below is the letter that was sent to Ottawa and publicly shared on The Tyee and elsewhere.

1. Canada’s housing strategy must deliver affordability, not just more supply

Canada’s housing crisis is, above all, a crisis of affordability. Supply has increased significantly in cities like Vancouver — where housing starts have outpaced population growth for decades — yet prices remain disconnected from incomes. Vancouver provides one of the most comprehensive real-world tests of this theory. Between 1960 and 2020, it increased its housing stock by over 200 per cent while population grew by only 78 per cent — more than any other North American central city. Yet its housing affordability declined dramatically, and it now has the highest home-price-to-income ratio on the continent.

This data, drawn from Statistics Canada and U.S. census sources, suggests that increasing housing density alone is insufficient to produce affordability. Without addressing land value inflation, financial speculation and tenure security, supply-side interventions risk worsening the very crisis they aim to solve.

2. Use the market correction as an opportunity, not something to resist

  • Do not use public funds to bail out overleveraged speculative developments.
  • Do not reintroduce foreign capital or investor demand to reflate prices artificially.
  • Take advantage of falling land costs and freed-up skilled labour to invest in non-profit, co-op and public housing that will remain affordable long-term.
  • Policy — not just construction — can influence affordability. Recent short-term rental regulations, adjusted immigration targets and demand-side measures have already helped reduce pressure on rents.

3. Public subsidies must deliver public benefit outcomes

  • Prioritize federal financing and grants for co-ops, land trusts and non-profits.
  • Since CMHC-backed programs like MLI Select are not producing the right kind of supply that is affordable and livable, while it puts CMHC [Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.] at undue risk, reconsider if more of CMHC resources should go towards co-op housing with permanent affordable housing instead.
  • Require minimum livability standards, especially for family-friendly housing.
  • Ensure affordability is defined relative to local incomes, not market medians, and is long-term permanently secured through strong covenants and housing agreements.

4. Preserve what’s affordable, don’t displace it

  • Make tenant protection and zero net loss of affordable units, mostly through protecting existing rental buildings from demolition, a condition for accessing federal infrastructure or housing funds.
  • Support rehabilitation and retrofits of existing rental buildings as climate-resilient, affordability-preserving alternatives to demolition.
  • Recognize the human toll of displacement — the best tenant protections are to protect existing rental buildings.
  • Ensure that public funds do not create the wrong kinds of supply that inflate land values and market rents, like CMHC’s MLI Select financing is currently doing, with the impacts on land values of tower development in particular.

5. Reform delivery and financing models to align with residents’ needs

  • Provide tax, financing and policy incentives to encourage individual end-users to build more secondary suites and infill developments that can create both more rentals and mortgage helpers.
  • Support gentle, ground-oriented density options that better match household needs and local context.
  • Avoid making towers the default solution. Towers have their place — particularly in transit-rich areas — but they are not always the best form. The right supply is livable, secure and suited to local neighbourhoods without triggering demovictions.

6. Rebalance costs and benefits between all orders of government

  • The costs of growth — especially infrastructure and amenities — should not be downloaded to municipalities (i.e., local taxpayers and communities).
  • Tie federal support to reforms that ensure new development pays its fair share for growth-related amenities, transit and public services.

Conclusion: We encourage and support building more affordable livable housing rather than continuing to build the wrong kinds of housing, in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons.

We believe the federal government can lead the way by restoring affordability as the central objective of housing policy.

That means resisting short-term pressure to rescue flawed models and instead embracing long-term investment in public, non-profit and community-led housing.

It also means preserving existing affordability, and building new homes that serve real people, not just markets.

We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to explore how these strategies can shape a more sustainable and just housing future for all Canadians.

Signed,

David Ley, OC, FRSC, PhD, urban geographer, professor emeritus, UBC;
Christina DeMarco, urban and regional planner, former lead planner for the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy;
Penny Gurstein, PhD, MCIP (retired), professor emeritus and former director, School of Community and Regional Planning, co-director, Housing Research Collaborative, UBC;
Larry Beasley, CM, FCIP, former co-chief planner, City of Vancouver, author, Vancouverism;
Patrick Condon, professor, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, UBC, author, Broken City, former city planner, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments;
Scot Hein, retired architect, MAIBC, former City of Vancouver and UBC senior urban designer and development planner, adjunct professor, urban design, UBC, SFU Faculty Continuing Studies, founding board member, Urbanarium, board member, Small Housing BC, housing advocate;
Brian Palmquist, award-winning architect and author, AIBC, MRAIC, BEP, CP, LEED AP;
Arny Wise, B.Comm., M.Sc. (planning), U of T, professional planner, MCIP, RPP (retired), board of directors, Toronto Economic Development Corp. (1990-99);
Sean McEwen, architect, AIBC, FRAIC, affordable housing advocate;
Barbara Gordon, retired architect, AIBC, retired director of capital planning, UBC;
Lance Berelowitz, AA Dipl., RPP, MCIP, principal, Urban Forum Associates;
Michael Geller, FCIP, RPP, MLAI, retired architect, AIBC, urban planner, real estate consultant, developer and adjunct professor, SFU;
Elizabeth Murphy, private sector project manager formerly with the City of Vancouver’s housing and properties department, BC Housing and BC Buildings Corp.;
Bill McCreery, B.Arch., UMan, Sub-Lt., RCNR, helped create North and South False Creek and thousands of units of developer and public housing in Vancouver;
Graham McGarva, FRAIC, retired architect, AIBC, MA;
Erick Villagomez, lecturer, School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC, principal, Mētis Design|Build, editor-in-chief, Spacing Vancouver;
Norman Hotson, retired architect, AIBC, FRAIC, RCA, HonPIBC;
Mary Pynenburg, MRAIC (retired), MCIP (retired);
Robert Renger, BES, MCP, consultant city planner, former senior development planner and city’s lead for UniverCity at SFU, City of Burnaby;
Andy Yan, FCIP, RPP, GISP, director, City Program, lifelong learning and associate professor of professional practice, Urban Studies Program, SFU;
Tom Phipps, retired senior planner, City of Vancouver (33 years);
Sandy James, former City of Vancouver city planner, managing director, Walk Metro Vancouver;
Ralph Segal, MAIBC (retired), former chief urban designer, City of Vancouver;
Elvin Wyly, PhD, urban geographer, housing researcher;
Mary Beth Rondeau, retired architect, AIBC, former urban designer, City of Vancouver;
Frank Ducote, principal, Frank Ducote Urban Design, former senior urban designer, City of Vancouver;
David Wong, architect, AIBC, formerly with Engineering and Planning Department, City of Vancouver [Tyee]

Vancouver's Social Housing Initiative - Douglas Todd Vancouver Sun July 10, 2025

 

In June I discovered that Vancouver's Planning Department was proposing that social housing projects could be approved throughout the city without a rezoning and without a public hearing. I wrote about it here: https://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2025/06/vancouvers-proposed-social-housing.html

I was therefore to read this Douglas Todd article which included many of my concerns. Let's hope some changes are made before the policy is approved. 


Despite confusing signals from the City of Vancouver, planners are forging ahead with a recommendation to blanket upzone almost a third of the city for social-housing highrises of up to 20 storeys. No public hearings would be allowed.

Vancouver’s social housing initiative would mean automatic approval of at least three types of social-housing highrises. In addition to “mixed-income” and “cooperative” housing, there would also be “supportive” housing highrises, where on-site services are provided to marginalized people.

However, citizens and experts, who generally support the concept of putting social housing in every neighbourhood, say it is a mistake to go so tall.

Vancouver’s social housing initiative is advancing highrises that would be a jarring 10 times more dense than homes in low-rise neighbourhoods, says planning consultant Michael Geller. And studies have shown, he says, that residents of most kinds of social housing, especially children, are healthier and happier in low- to medium-rise dwellings.

Even while city planners, at the request of city council, are pushing to get blanket upzoning for social-housing highrises, contradictory signals are coming from the city and province.

For example, in late May, the Kitsilano Coalition and others thought they had won a victory when the city and province abandoned plans for a 13-storey supportive housing complex at the corner of 8th and Arbutus, meant to provide on-site service to struggling people.

At the time, Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim said, “It’s clear this location wasn’t the right fit for the scale and type of housing that was proposed. … The number of individuals with substantive mental health and addictions issues in one location would have been a significant concern.”

A few months earlier, Sim and his ABC majority created headlines when they voted to pause the building of new supportive housing, arguing other municipalities in Metro Vancouver should first do their share.

But when Postmedia this week asked the city how it is interpreting council’s position of no “net-new” supportive housing, staff provided a long list of exemptions. For instance, the pause does not cover housing for seniors, women, youth, families, or those who need health care or “occasional supports.”

In the midst of the mixed signals, it turns out the long-range intentions of Vancouver council and the city planning department are to automatically approve — without re-zoning or public hearings — many types of social housing in highrises of 15 to 20 storeys in one-third of the city.

That includes, according to city planning maps, large sections of Kitsilano, Marpole, Killarney, Champlain Heights, central Main Street, Point Grey, Dunbar, and East Hastings Street and Commercial Drive.

The city’s plan is to add social-housing apartment blocks of up to six storeys on another fifth of the city.

Adding to the confusion, the definition of “social housing” is very broad in Vancouver. The city generally, but not always, uses “social housing” as an umbrella term to refer to supportive housing and mixed-income and cooperative housing. In addition, social housing, according to the city, entails projects in which “all units are owned by non-profits or the government.”

Amid the political cross-talk, Jan Pierce, of the West Kits Neighbourhood Association, feels that while citizens may have won a small battle to stop the government-financed 13-storey supportive housing project on Arbutus, they are losing their larger effort to encourage supportive housing in smaller structures.

“This seems to me to often be the case: That when residents fight back and win on something, that the result is to remove the influence of residents even more,” said Pierce, referring to how new social-housing highrise proposals would be subject to scant citizen input.

Michael Geller, a former architect, says the city’s social housing highrise initiatives have been flying below the radar, but have a lot of momentum.

In the past couple of weeks, Geller has had lunch with Vancouver head planner Josh White and participated in a meeting with a group of city planners.

“There was absolutely no reference made by staff to that council decision in February (to temporarily pause new supportive housing). I think many people just take it as a stop-gap measure.”

Geller, a one-time manager of social housing for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., believes subsidized housing is important, saying, “Allowing social housing everywhere is the right thing to do.”

However, Geller also believes the city is getting carried away with highrises.

“Allowing 15- to 20-storey buildings along so many local neighbourhood streets throughout the city is most inappropriate. Indeed, it is bordering on the absurd from an urban design and planning perspective.”

In regard to housing that provides on-site services, Geller argues, “It’s not appropriate to create highrise supportive housing buildings with 150-plus units.”

Instead, he said, “These buildings should be limited to about 60 units, for improved management and community integration. Similarly, research generally supports lower buildings for households with young children. A six-storey limit would be preferable.”

Asked about his recent lunch with the head of planning, Geller said he found White to be “forthright and responsive.”

Still, Geller said, White “somewhat dismissed my concerns about highrises in leafy, single-family streets.”

The head planner claimed, Geller said, the highrises won’t be “massive.”

Although it may seem a relatively small thing, Geller added it was “disingenuous and indeed misleading” for the city to use a cover photo on its social housing initiative report that shows an area of Vancouver “completely devoid of any towers.”

When approached by Postmedia, city staff said the aerial photo depicts the neighbourhood south of South China Creek Park, near St. Catherines Street and Seventh. The image was chosen, they said, because it contains several existing social housing buildings.

The problem is the planning report image, like politicians, doesn’t reveal the full story about what the city has in store for social housing, including in highrises. Potentially monumental changes are set to come.

dtodd@postmedia.com