Vancouver Sun: How B.C. real estate is shaping up for the year ahead. December 20, 2025

During the past year, I was often asked what I thought would happen to Vancouver’s housing market. My response was simple. There is no Vancouver housing market.

There is a downtown highrise market which differs from the Fraser Valley townhouse market. Similarly, there are rental housing markets and ownership markets catering to first-time buyers, move-up buyers and last-time buyers.

That said, industry associations and experts often generalize about overall sales, housing starts and prices.

At the end of 2024, the B.C. Real Estate Association (BCREA) predicted realtors would enjoy a 13 per cent sales jump in 2025 driven by lower mortgage rates and government policies. Prices were expected to rise modestly.

However, due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs announced in early February, it soon became apparent sales were falling far short of expectations and BCREA revised its outlook.

It is now estimated that 2025 will be the year during which the Lower Mainland experienced the lowest number of home sales this century.

While home sales dropped off significantly here, it was even worse in Toronto. In October, only twenty-five new condominiums were sold in the city. To put this in perspective, it is less than the number of players on the unforgettable Toronto Blue Jays baseball team.

Trump’s tariffs also impacted new housing starts. In January 2025, MLA Canada, one of B.C.’s most successful project marketing firms, predicted 125 condominium projects would launch across the Lower Mainland.

However, by year end, MLA tracked only forty-nine launches, sixty per cent below their forecast and only half the Lower Mainland’s ten-year average. However, some of these were subsequently put on hold or converted to rental.

MLA has not issued a 2026 forecast. However, it expects that the coming year could look a lot like last year. For one thing, investors are almost non-existent due to declining rents and a plethora of government policies that discourage investment.

Furthermore, Rennie Intelligence, estimates there could be 3,400 completed and unsold condominiums on the market by year end, and many more thousands still under construction but not yet sold.

In 2026, thousands of purpose-built rental units are also scheduled for completion which could further bring down rents. While this is good news for renters, it is bad news for developers.

Dozens of other condominium and rental projects have approvals in place but are not proceeding since they are no longer financially viable. This is due to a low level of consumer confidence, excessive municipal fees and high interest and construction costs.

To encourage some of these projects to get underway, Vancouver recently agreed to a myriad of measures that include reductions in development fees and engineering requirements, and deferred payments of fees.

I agree with this approach, since fees charged to condominium developers are usually passed on to new homeowners. It seems misguided to expect those who do not own homes to finance the costs of growth, rather than those who already own homes. Especially since based on 2021 Census data analyzed by SFU’s Andy Yan, nearly 50 per cent of Vancouver homeowners have no mortgage.

While condominium living offers many benefits, people moving out of these mortgage-free single-family houses are often apprehensive about moving into a development that might be run by a strata council whose president may have wanted to be prime minister of Canada but ended up overseeing eighteen townhouses.

For these reasons, I have been urging governments to make it easier to build ‘fee-simple,’ individually owned townhouses as an alternative to condominium townhouses. Although commonplace in Toronto and elsewhere around the world, they are rarely developed here.

The same applies to duplexes. Many people buy a duplex without realizing they are buying into a strata development. Even though it is made up of only two strata lots, the owners are required to abide by the rules and regulations of the Strata Property Act.

There is a ‘fee-simple’ alternative to the duplex — a ‘semi-detached’ house — one of the most common forms of housing in the U.K. and elsewhere around the world. But like fee-simple townhouses, they will not be built here until municipalities make it easier to subdivide properties into smaller lots and establish reduced permit and hook-up fees.

Now that the provincial government is aggressively mandating small-scale, multi-unit housing throughout the province, fee-simple townhouses and semi-detached homes could be attractive alternatives to strata-titled four- and six-unit multiplexes.

Although fee-simple townhouses did not become popular in 2025, another type of housing which I have often promoted in these year-end columns did finally gain popularity. I refer to factory-built modular housing which was recognized by Prime Minister Mark Carney as an effective way to build new homes.

While we will not likely see the 4,000 modular home starts promised by the Prime Minister, I agree with him and federal Housing Minister Gregor Robertson that factory production offers many benefits in terms of construction quality, speed of erection and cost effectiveness.

I would like to conclude with something completely different.

Last year, several reports surfaced linking reduced fertility rates to a lack of suitably designed and affordable family housing. The result was that Canada’s fertility rate hit a new record low of 1.25 children per woman. This did not surprise me.

For years, young couples have told me they were not having children because they could not afford family friendly two- or three-bedroom apartments. While a house with a basement mortgage-helper would be perfect, that was completely out of their price range.

To address this concern, twenty-five years ago during the planning of SFU’s UniverCity community, I proposed designing apartments with a second or third bedroom with its own door to the corridor that could serve as a basement suite equivalent.

Initially, the suite could be rented out as a mortgage-helper. Over time, as the family grew, it would revert to a second or third bedroom.

Fortunately, the City of Burnaby agreed to change its zoning so that a percentage of the apartments could include these lock-off suites.

Former Tyee journalist Monte Paulsen, who sadly died in 2024, called them ‘basement suites-in-the-sky’ and they have subsequently become quite popular. An increasing number of municipalities now allow them.

In 2026, it is my hope that more developers will consider incorporating lock-off suites in their apartment buildings, especially since lenders now recognize the rental income when determining mortgage amounts. This could allow more households to enjoy future holiday seasons with their children.

On this happy note, my best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2026.

Michael Geller FCIP, RPP, MLAI, Ret. Architect AIBC is a Vancouver-based planner and real estate consultant. He also serves on SFU’s adjunct faculty. You can reach him at geller@sfu.ca and find his blog at www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com.

 

My 2025 Holiday Greeting Card - Wishing for better planning in 2026.

While my 12 ideas for the 12 days of Christmas may be getting a bit tiresome, I'm pleased to offer these ideas related to projects with which I have been involved over the past 55 years! Happy Holidays and best wishes for 2026.

Proposed new DTES Plan. Sadly, I predict this will fail just as I correctly predicted the 2014 plan would fail

My letter to senior staff, Mayor and Council 

In advance of tonight's Public Hearing on a new DTES plan, I would like to confirm a couple of things. 

1. Am I correct in observing that the city is now proposing buildings up to 11 FSR and 32 storeys in the DTES DEOD but they must be restricted to rental and social housing? Ownership housing will continue to be banned.
2. Is it correct that Coriolis Consulting has prepared a proforma (attached) that reveals that even at these excessive heights and densities, a project with 80% market rental and 20% social housing (to be gifted to the city) generates little or no profit and at best a 4% annual return for the developer or landlord?
3. If both of these statements are correct, then why in the world would the city be proposing this model for the regeneration of the DTES? Is it just so land values don't increase? 

In 2014 I appeared at Council when the last DTES Area Plan was being considered and told everyone who would listen that what was being proposed would not work. It would not generate new homes and would not result in the desired regeneration of the neighbourhood. Sadly I was right.

Yesterday Global TV called me to do an interview about the plan since they knew I have had a longstanding interest in trying to improve the neighbourhood. I had to tell them that I had not had any discussions with the city during the preparation of this plan. However, just as I was right 11 years ago, unless changes are made to what is now being proposed, this plan will also fail to deliver the desired results. The reason? Too much emphasis was being placed on ensuring land values would not increase. The only difference is that I'll not likely be around in 11 years to say "I told you so". 

Below is an article I wrote for Business in Vancouver in April 2023 setting out concerns and recommendations following the 2014 plan. I must add the excessive heights and densities now being proposed are not the answer. 

I therefore hope this plan is not approved and we can then have a more fulsome discussion on what really needs to be done to address the challenges of this neighbourhood. 

Michael Geller: Time to rethink the Downtown Eastside plan

Continuing to ban a broad social and income housing mix needs to be rethought

Michael GellerApr 11, 2023 10:15 PM

The limits on housing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside are limiting the redevelopment of the area, argues planner and consultant Michael Geller. | Photo: City of Vancouver

Do you think there should be a neighbourhood in Vancouver where new rental housing is not permitted? Now, do you think there should be a neighbourhood in Vancouver where new ownership housing is not permitted?

I first posed these questions a decade ago when Vancouver council was considering a new plan for the Downtown Eastside that prohibited any new ownership housing in the Oppenheimer District (DEOD). This is the area bounded by Gastown on the west, Chinatown and Strathcona on the south, the waterfront on the north and an industrial district on the east.

Not only were condominiums prohibited, but new residential developments required 60 per cent social housing units and 40 per cent rental units. By comparison, along the north shore of False Creek and Coal Harbour, the city’s policy allowed a broader mix of tenures with 20 per cent social housing and 80 per cent market ownership and rental housing.

The DEOD plan also required that new storefront retail serve only residents, rather than the city at large. This was in response to neighbourhood resident concerns about higher end restaurants like PiDGiN that catered to people not living in the neighbourhood.

At the time I wrote “if approved, these zoning changes would result in the DTES remaining the worst crime-ridden and impoverished ghetto in any Canadian city”. Yes, strong words; but I argued that a zoning bylaw prohibiting home ownership was a contradiction of everything planners knew about creating healthy neighbourhoods.

The city’s rationale for prohibiting condominiums was to keep land values low so social housing would be more financially viable. However, I feared the zoning proposal was wrong from other financial perspectives. There were limited senior government funds for social housing and Rich Coleman, then provincial minister responsible for housing had announced funding for new social housing projects would be limited to those in greatest need, namely the homeless and those suffering from mental illness and addictions.

I also questioned how many rental housing buildings would be built under the new zoning, especially when they had to include 60 percent social housing.

Rather than ban condominiums, I advocated for more developments like the Woodwards complex that combined ownership, rental, and social housing with new stores and offices, and Simon Fraser University’s School for Contemporary Arts.

Sadly, community activists opposed developments like Woodwards. They claimed they would lead to gentrification and attract new residents who would make neighbourhood residents feel uncomfortable. I disagreed. Rather than lead to gentrification, which means the ‘gentry’ will force out existing low-income residents, I argued mixed tenure developments would lead to a much-needed regeneration of the neighbourhood.

Sadly, council agreed with those arguing for a prohibition on ownership housing and retail uses catering to a broader public. Today we can see the results.

Recently, the Urbanarium Society, a non-profit organization promoting dialogue on planning and urban issues, organized a debate on whether the 2014 DTES Plan should be rethought. Local journalist Frances Bula agreed to serve as the moderator, but as she told the audience, the organizers had difficulty finding people willing to participate, for either side.

Given my concerns about the Downtown Eastside dating back to 1974 when I was a CMHC architect and planner overseeing the design of neighbourhood social housing, I agreed to participate on the ‘pro’ side. I was joined by former city councillor and provincial Attorney General Suzanne Anton.

Former city planner Nathan Edelson, who had participated in the preparation of the 2014 DTES plan, and Tanya Fader, Director of Housing for PHS Community Services Society were on the ‘con’ side. During the debate, they argued it was a 30-year plan and had only been in place for 10 years. Moreover, both were convinced that allowing ownership housing would force out low-income residents.

To ensure broader participation, the Urbanarium organizers invited neighbourhood residents and merchants to participate in the event. At the end of the evening, the audience was asked to vote on who won the debate. The majority sided with those arguing against a rethink of the plan.

In my closing remarks, I agreed that the DEOD should remain a predominantly low-income neighbourhood and residents should have a say in its future. However, without higher income homeowners in the community, too many of the storefronts will remain vacant for another decade. In addition to bringing buying power, homeowners would bring an infusion of civic pride into the neighbourhood.

I also agreed the SROs should eventually be phased out and replaced with self-contained homes with private kitchens and bathrooms. But in the meantime, the city should enforce its Standards of Maintenance bylaw so that existing buildings, many of which are so disgusting residents prefer to sleep on the streets, are renovated and made livable.

In preparing for the debate, I visited the Oppenheimer neighbourhood and took photos to compare the planners’ 2014 vision, as illustrated in the plan, with today’s reality. I would encourage all Vancouver residents to take a walk along Hastings and Main Streets, and other nearby streets, and consider whether continuing to ban a broader social and income mix is a sensible planning approach.

I also invite Vancouver residents to join me in urging the new council to direct city planners to rethink their 2014 plan and propose revisions that will transform the Oppenheimer District into a more diverse and healthy community.

Vancouver's Social Housing Initiative - Dunbar Community Cafe Monday, December 8, 11 am Room 102