World Obesity Day - March 4, 2025 - The Nature of Things - Weight of the World

This past Tuesday was World Obesity Day. Like many people, I struggle with maintaining my weight at an acceptable level. But my interest in obesity is as much professional as it is personal. That is because in 2003, I participated in the production of a documentary film featured on David Suzuki's The Nature of Things that examined how good planning can reduce obesity. I would like to share some background as to how this came about.

In 1999, I was appointed President and CEO of a new corporation established to develop approximately 200 acres of land adjacent to the Simon Fraser University campus on Burnaby Mountain. The goal of the development was to enhance campus life and generate revenue for various university programs. I thought there was also an opportunity to undertake a more exemplary type of development compared to that usually created by the private sector. In our case, we wanted to create a truly sustainable community. Yes, I know it's an overused word today, but in 1999 this was still a somewhat novel idea.

In 2002 I received an invitation to attend the 2nd Annuall New Partners for Smart Growth  planning conference in New Orleans. The theme was building safe, healthy and livable communities and since we were wanting to create a livable community and since I had never been to New Orleans, it seemed like a worthwhile conference to attend.

Upon arrival, I recall looking at the program and noticing a lot of the speakers were doctor this and doctor that. I assumed they were simply pretentious academics until I attended the first session and realized they were medical doctors. At first I was suprised until I remembered that the origins of planning and zoning were all about maintaining good health - separating the noxious industrial uses from residential areas and so on.

However, at this conference, the topics were much broader. As noted in the program:

"The purpose of this conference is to educate a broad range of practitioners in how we can redesign existing urban neighborhoods and improve the design of new neighborhoods to create safe, walkable, bikeable urban environments. Doing so will improve public health by increasing physical activity, reducing air and water pollution, decreasing violent crime, and reducing the number of pedestrian traffic accidents."

I returned from the conference truly inspired. While many of the concepts discussed at the conference were already incorporated in the master plan developed by Norm Hotson and Margot Long and others, we refined our planning approach and designs to a more fully create a healthy community. This included introducing a community transit pass that would allow residents to travel on public transit throughout the region at a fraction of the cost of a regular three-zone pass. 

We also decided to ban fast food restaurants in favour of restaurants that served healthy food. This meant no McDonalds, no Burger Kings, etc.

I started to go around giving talks about this and Glynnis Whiting, a documentary film maker heard about this. She was in the process of making a film for the National Film Board on how good planning can contribute to good healthy. She had already lined up Stockholm's Dr. Stephan Rossner, an obesity specialist, and Dr. Lawrence Frank, a UBC professor who had written books on the correlation between good planning and good health. His studies revealed that people who lived in higher density neighbourhoods that promoted walking were healthier than those in car-dependent low-density suburban neighbourhoods.

The program aired on December 3, 2003 titled "The Weight of the World". I must confess that while I have always thought highly of my work, never in my wildest dreams did I expect to hear David Suzuki telling a national audience about the good work I was doing as a property developer!

You can watch the video here. https://www.nfb.ca/film/weight_of_the_world/

We Are in the Midst of a Growing Housing Crisis - Conversations Live - March 4, 2025

On March 4th, Stu McNish of Conversations Live organized a housing panel discussion on what has been happening in Metro Vancouver housing markets over the past year, and what might happen in the year to come. The panel included Metro Chair Mike Hurley, mayor of Burnaby, Bob Rennie, Beau Jarvis, Neil Chrystal and me. The Vancouver Sun was one of the key sponsors.The event has attracted considerable publicity, in part thanks to a shout out by Mark Goodman of The Goodman Report, one of the program sponsors.

While I suspect you have little time to watch podcasts, I would urge you to watch this one since you will hear that we are in the midst of a growing housing crisis. However, as Beau Jarvis pointed out, the crisis is the cost of creating new ownership and rental housing as much as affording what is built.

Both Bob Rennie and Neil Chrystal discussed the challenges of pre-selling and financing new developments when the investor market has dried up; first time buyers can't arrange the required down payments; and empty nesters do not want to wait three or four years for their new home to be completed.

It was also reported that rental projects are becoming increasingly difficult to finance since rents are finally dropping due to increased supply coming onstream, combined with reduced immigration and people moving away or into their parents' basements. It was on this that Bob Rennie and I were again in total agreement. 

We are building more rental housing so that rents will come down. But now that rents have come down, rental projects may no longer be feasible. It's a Catch-22!

During the course of the evening, I shared two concerns related to Vancouver projects with which I am involved. I have asked city officials, including the capable people in the mayor's office, to follow up.

Financing municipal fees. The first is the challenge trying to finance projects like a new 61-unit Cambie Corridor condominium project approved at public hearing in 2023, when the municipal charges and permit fees total $9.3 million. That's more than $150,000 per unit.

Unreasonable Off-site Engineering fees.This amount includes the entire cost of a new traffic signal even though three other developers are required to share the cost. Unfortunately, it is city policy that the first developer must pay, and then hopefully recover from the others through a Latecomers' Agreement. Given the financing crisis facing developers, this will no longer work.

Now is not the time to expect a developer to not only arrange financing for his own project but also finance other developers' obligations. This city policy needs to change right away.

Although not publicly discussed by the panel, the need to defer timing of certain municipal fees until occupancy was also discussed amongst those in attendance. Hopefully, the city will soon announce that it is willing to implement this change. (I understand Council may be considering a motion by Cllr Rebecca Bligh to consider this on March 12).

Application of Empty Home Tax to Unsold Inventory. The other issue I raised relates to the application of the Empty Home Tax to unsold inventory. 

As a result of successful lobbying by UDI, developers of projects with five units or more do not have to pay EHT on unsold inventory. 

(As an aside, I was president of UDI from 1984 to 1985 and in the subsequent years, under the direction of Maureen Enser, and Anne McMullin, it has become a most effective voice for the development industry.)

However, EHT does apply to unsold inventory in a four-unit multiplex project, or any housing development comprising less than five units if units remain unsold for six months or more in a year. I hope you agree this seems most unreasonable. 

As soon as this becomes more widely known, and it will, few small developers will want to risk developing much-needed multiplex projects, or duplexes for that matter.

Given the housing funding crisis facing us in the coming years, I urge the city to now implement changes the EHT Bylaw so that unsold inventory is not subject to EHT regardless of whether it is in a project with more than five units, or less than five units. Especially since for tax reasons, it is not reasonable to expect these units to be rented out.

You can watch the entire panel discussion here. Given the thoughtful voices sitting beside me on the panel, I hope you will watch this discussion. I have also asked senior city staff to follow up on my concerns. I'll keep you posted.   https://www.conversationslive.ca/archive/030425-real-estate-update

REAL ESTATE REPORT - Conversations Live - Stu McNish - March 4th at 6pm

Conversations Live with Stuart McNish is a long form, thoughtful, public affairs dialogue addressing the big topics of our times. A social purpose venture, we are seeking to advance our understanding and seek solutions through dialogue.

For each episode we bring together panels of individuals with deep experience in the month’s topic for a constructive and unscripted conversation, aiming to bring out the full story behind the headlines and soundbites.

Our events are webcast free of charge on the Vancouver Sun and our own website, and available for video replay and as audio podcasts afterwards. Host Stuart McNish is a long-time broadcaster, moderator and interviewer. We hope you will join us for the conversation.

Last February, I was pleased to participate in a housing panel discussion with Housing Minister Ravi Khalon, Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart, and representatives of real estate banking, rental housing, and economics.

Tomorrow, March 4, at 6pm, another housing panel discussion will take place. As Stu McNish observes 

"Last year at this time the headlines were filled with Real Estate Crisis stories. The Province and the Feds were making announcements upon announcements. Bills 44 and 47 were introduced with the idea that they would force municipal governments to increase density.

It is legislation that was supposed to increase certainty of supply, stabilize prices and boost construction. But did it work?"

I am delighted to be invited back to join Bob Rennie, Neil Chrystal, Beau Jarvis, and Metro Chair Mike Hurley to review what happened over the past year and whether the housing legislation has worked. 

While I will save most of my remarks until tomorrow, I intend to point out that while the province has certainly played a role in encouraging municipalities to approve higher density housing, the sad reality is that presale markets have dried up. Investors have been driven out of the game by bans on foreign buyers, short-term rentals, second-home buyers, and higher interest rates. Empty-nesters who are interested in downsizing to a townhouse or apartment are not willing to buy three or four years before completion.

Rental housing markets are not much better. Many condo projects have converted to rental, thus increasing supply, while demand has been curtailed by reduced immigration and many younger people moving to Alberta or back into their parents' basements.

Furthermore, ever-increasing municipal CACs, DCCs/DCLs, and off-site engineering fees (that sometimes require developers to front-end payments to be recovered from nearby developers at some time in the future) are making it impossible to finance many new projects. Especially since these fees must be paid before the project can even proceed.

This is evident from the number of projects that have been approved in principle, but not proceeded to final approval and construction.

Each of this year's panelists is experienced, knowledgeable and thoughtful. I am anticipating a very lively, informative, and entertaining conversation. While there is a lot going on tomorrow, I hope you can tune in. And if you can't, you can always watch the video. Details can be found here: https://www.conversationslive.ca/

Catch-22 and the Economics of Building Rental Housing

Those of you who read Catch-22 will no doubt like me have fond memories of the book. There are two aspects of the book that seem relevant to Vancouver's current rental housing crisis.

The first is how the squadron's Mess Officer, Milo Minderbinder, managed to buy eggs for seven cents, sell them to the mess halls for five cents, and still make a profit. As I recall, he claimed he made money on volume!

The other was Yosarrian who tried to get out of flying more missions. To get out of flying missions he had to prove he was mad. But that didn't work since anyone who wanted to stop flying missions couldn't be mad. Or something like that.

So why is Vancouver's rental market like this. Well, in order to bring down rents, we need to increase the supply of rental housing. But if rents do indeed come down, as they are, in part due to increased supply, then new projects will no longer be financially feasible. So eventually, rents will go back up. Are you following me? 

Russil WVong's post reporting on Cressey's numbers.

I thought about this today when I received an email from Russil Wvong. It offered several important observations. The first is that larger suites, which are most needed, are not financially viable. The cost is greater than the rent that can be charged. So they have to be subsidized by smaller suites that we don't really need.

While Cressey's numbers are overly simplified (a small suite is usually more expensive to build on a cost per sq.ft. than a larger suite, etc.) the point being made is absolutely valid.

The other point is that the more we build, the more rents come down, and as a result, we will not be able to build more, until rents rise again. That's why I thought of Catch-22. Read on!

The conclusion is right. We don't need to just reduce rents. We need to reduce costs. And one way to do that is reduce municipal fees. Fortunately, I think municipal politicians and officials are now getting the message. But if they don't, they just need to wait until a few more developments go into foreclosure. It won't take much longer.

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Vancouver needs more housing 2BR and 3BR apartments need cross-subsidy Data from Hani Lammam of Cressey Russil Wvong Feb 27   READ IN APP   Economics for market rental. Cressey Inside The Cost-Profit Analysis Of Three-Bedroom Units In Metro Vancouver. Howard Chai, Storeys, October 2024. The city of Vancouver requires that market rental projects have a minimum of 35% apartments with two or more bedrooms. Strata projects must have a minimum of 25% apartments with two bedrooms, and a minimum of 10% apartments with three bedrooms. Family Room Policy. The problem is, the 3BR and even 2BR apartments end up being cross-subsidized by the studio and 1BR apartments. This raises the floor for rents on studio and 1BR apartments. "The real problem, though, is not that we don't make money off of the three-bedroom units, it's that we have to drive the revenue [higher] on the one-bedroom units in order to subsidize the three-bedroom units," Hani Lammam explains. "It's not good enough not to make money on it. In order for me to be able to finance the project, I have to average out a return across all of it, so what really happens is the one-beds are subsidizing the three-beds. That's really what happens." Why don’t market rents for 3BR and 2BR apartments reflect the cost to build them? Yes, $4,000 a month for an apartment in Vancouver may be an achievable price, but that becomes less true if families have options to rent a townhouse in Surrey or Langley for around the same price. "Once you get to a certain rent or purchase price, as a buyer, I have options," said Lammam. "The one-bedroom or even two-bedroom apartment appeals to that young, upstart new family, but the moment that family grows, it's hard to stay in an apartment, and I don't think it's the ideal. I don't think a family wishes they can live in an apartment, I think they wish they can live in a house." As asking rents decline, fewer rental projects are viable Of course the other headwind here is that asking rents are declining. The February 2025 report from rentals.ca says that the asking monthly rent for a 1BR in the city of Vancouver is $2522. For a 2BR, it’s $3433. To keep building rental housing as rents decline, we need to reduce costs.   Like Comment Restack   © 2025 Russil Wvong Vancouver, Canada Unsubscribe

Another story about destruction caused by the Broadway Corridor Plan - Kerry Gold - Globe and Mail, January 17, 2025

I, and many others, appreciate the genuine interest and concern Vancouver journalist Kerry Gold has displayed in writing about the destructive aspects of the Broadway Plan. She has now written several articles about the failings of the plan, from the perspective of residents of more affordable rental buildings, and now property owners in the neighbourhood.

I hope you will read this article. But before doing so, I would like to elaborate on my concern with the city's requirement that 20% of the units be affordable. After all, this would seem most reasonable and important.

The problem is that the suites being designed for low-income families and individuals are often just awful. The city is giving away millions of dollars by waiving Development Cost Levies, yes millions, in order to get these suites included. 

Before you read the story below about the havoc the Broadway Corridor Plan proposals are creating, and what other respected voices have to say about the completely inapporpriate urban planning aspects of the plan, take a look at this floor plan for a lower income households in the building described in this story.

This is a three bedroom family suite. As a former CMHC social housing architect I can tell you that this layout, designed by the respected architectural firm of MCM, formerly Musson Cattell Mackie, is not livable. It does not even meet code. There isn't a coat closet. There are no bedroom closets; there is no washer or dryer, (although the developer says there is a European-style washer/dryer in the kitchen). The kitchen is so tiny, the kitchen sink is right next to the stove, which is illegal, and I can't see adequate space for a dishwasher. Can you? Any of you?

CORRECTION. Kerry Gold and I previously wrote that the city's record of comments related to this development included the following comment from architect Peter Busby: "The proposal is ludicrously out of proportion to the neighbouring buildings, and an offence against common sense urban aesthetics." 

We are now advised that the architect Peter Busby did not write this. It may have been another Peter Busby or someone pretending to be Peter. Kerry Gold and I apologize to Peter for being duped by this comment as found in the City's record of correspondence. A copy of an email exchange between the City and Peter can be found at the end of this post.

Why does this building look like Bentall Centre? 

Frank Musson, a gentleman I highly respect was the architect for the 1970's Bentall Centre. I mention this since this building seems like a bulky, 1970's building dropped into a lovely, tree lined residential street full of duplexes and single-family houses.The developer and city planner both assured city council that the existing street trees would be kept. 

Will the existing trees be kept as promised by the developer and staff? 

However, if you look at this drawing you'll see the existing street trees are gone. Instead they are replaced by some smaller trees. And if you look even closer, you'll see the shadows from the sun assume the sun is in the north. Why, because the developer doesn't care and the city staff are too busy to notice these things.MCM should be ashamed of itself for allowing this building design and drawing to be released to the public

At the public hearing for this project a structural engineer who lives nearby says it will be impossible for the developer to save the existing trees. Why? Because it will not be possible to safely erect a crane to construct the building without taking out the trees.

What I don't understand is why the Mayor and sensible members of Council aren't demanding more of their staff when it comes to projects like this. Why are they allowing them? I suspect it is just to get the 20% below market units. 

The mayor says he wants to do the right thing. 

On Tuesday morning I was at a breakfast with the mayor, who, along with Trevor Ford, his Chief of Staff assured those of us present that the city really does care. about the community and doing the right thing. If this is the case, I hope city politicians and staff give us some answers.

Will the existing street trees be kept?

Will the building be completely redesigned so that the below market unit sizes are all increased and made livable?

Will some effort be made to ensure this building is redesigned to fit in better with the street?

And finally, 

Since there are more than 10,000 rental units currently being contemplated along the corridor, why doesn't the city impose a moratorium on new projects at places like 1st and Yew and the streets like West 14th and 15th, far away from Broadway? Why not focus new buildings along Broadway and the streets immediately to the north and south, and around transit?

As one of my critics wrote on Twitter, why pay attention to an affluent old man like me, with old-fashioned planning ideas, when I'll be dead when the plan is being implemented? 

I would suggest the real question should be why am I speaking out and alienating staff and members of Council, (one of whom recently told a mutual colleague that "I think Geller is losing it" when I will be dead when the plan is being implemented?

The answer is because I care about this city, and as I was quoted in the 500 Dunsmuir story, (prviously posted on this blog) the city council has become so obsessed with doing what they think is right to create more affordable housing, they are disregarding the things that made Vancouver such a special place to live in recent years.

W

Jennifer Irvine purchased her Kitsilano duplex on Vancouver’s west side eight years ago, but now that her neighbours have assembled their properties to develop an 18-storey tower, she says her leafy picturesque street is undergoing a new form of blockbusting.

Last fall, a company called Havn Development obtained a rezoning permit on behalf of three property owners with a proposal to build a 170-unit rental tower with podium at 2156-2172 W. 14th Ave., between Yew and Arbutus streets. The site currently consists of a detached house and two duplexes, but the city has plans to create a second downtown for the low- to mid-density neighbourhoods within the 500-block Broadway Plan. That includes the approval of high-rise towers in the middle of quiet side streets.

“At this stage, when the fear happens, people just go, ‘Okay, I guess that’s it. I’m out,’” said Ms. Irvine, a retired city hall employee. “I’m not ready. I knew I was going to leave this place, but I assumed I would when I wanted to, and I would sell it to somebody who really wanted to live here. I’m not ready.”

Unlike lower forms of density, the prospect of high-rise towers sends a ripple of fear that is uprooting neighbourhoods. Thousands of renters in the Broadway Plan are being displaced by proposed redevelopment of their older buildings, while homeowners are planning to leave for their own reasons.

The W. 14th Avenue project, critics say, is an example of how the new blockbusting works. It starts when a homeowner decides to cash out to an investor or developer, often at a premium and then neighbours must decide whether to endure years of construction and living adjacent to a tower – or also sell and move on. The resident living near the tower might see their home lose value, unless they too can become part of an assembly. But there is a limit on the number of towers per block, so not everyone can get in on the tower action.

“If by virtue of their location they are not able to sell their property for a similar tower development … the value will go down,” said developer, real estate consultant, urban planner and retired architect Michael Geller, who’s in favour of high-rises but is adamantly opposed to the W. 14th proposal. His concern is as a planner; he lives outside the Broadway Plan.

“If another tower is permitted on the adjacent lots, and their lot could be part of an assembly, it might increase. But generally, a tower next door or even across the lane will likely reduce the value if the property is likely to stay as a single-family house or duplex.”

Ms. Irvine said her street has become more divisive, and she questions if the stress will be worth it. Will truly affordable housing be the result? Havn Development has two other rezonings within the Broadway Plan area, all remarkably similar, but the company has no track record of previous developments, which has made some wonder if they are planning to flip the property.

Adrian Lai, of Havn Developments, said they intend to apply for a development permit this year and follow through with construction. He said they have no intention to sell the site.

”As a developer we have done some smaller scale projects. This would be the first sort of large multifamily project that we have done. But just because we are new doesn’t mean we don’t have the ability to execute,” he said.

”I do sympathize with the people in the neighbourhood – it’s a big change. I’d probably feel the same way if I were in their shoes,” said Mr. Lai. “But we are following the Broadway Plan. We are not doing anything not permitted within the Broadway Plan.”

Council approved the project despite considerable public pushback.

Architect Peter Busby called the proposal “ludicrously out of proportion to the neighbouring buildings,” and “an offence against common sense urban aesthetics.” He argued that the building should be limited to six storeys.

Former Vancouver mayor and B.C. premier Mike Harcourt said the plan is “totally inappropriate and out of scale to this fine old neighbourhood.”

Aimee Gabor is a retired realtor whose lane backs onto the W. 14th proposal, and her daughter lives next door to the tower project. Ms. Gabor and her husband hope to stay in their duplex with their grandchildren down the alley. But she said there’s a sense that busting up the neighbourhoods might be an intended consequence.

“The city wants to increase density, which is wonderful, but they didn’t consult us about what would fit in because they don’t want us to live here. They want us out,” she said. “This is the plan for pushing out the people from this beautiful neighbourhood, to push them out and build another [neighbourhood] like the north side of the False Creek,” she said, referring to the downtown area packed with skyscrapers. “That is what they want to turn Kitsilano into.”

Mr. Geller is calling for a moratorium on side street towers two blocks outside Broadway. The middleman that assembles properties and flips them only drives up prices, which won’t result in affordability for the end-user, he said. Market rents for new purpose-built apartments are about $5.50 per square foot, or $2,200 for a 400-square-foot unit.

He also criticizes the city policy that requires 20 per cent below-market housing because the other 80 per cent usually subsidizes those units, which makes those market-rate rentals expensive and drives up the rents for the area. Politicians are approving poorly designed buildings just to get the 20 per cent below market rental units, he said.

Filmmaker David Fine, an Oscar winner who’s making a documentary about the Broadway Plan displacements, has become a community organizer.

“No one is saying, ‘don’t build towers anywhere,’ but [instead] there should be a process for building out from transit and adding considerable densification in these areas.

“But why are people and their opinions and views completely meaningless to the city?” he asked.

“I think there is a school of thought that says, ‘if we can drive people out of their homes and build towers instead, then the city is better off, because we are building more density, and you can double property taxes.’

“I just feel it’s a cruel way to develop a city … and the social fabric is not being respected in any way.”

Email exchange re: Peter Busby comment.

Another story about 500 Dunsmuir which will be demolished today. John Mackie, Vancouver Sun, January 18, 2025

Should the facade of the Vancouver heritage building at 500 Dunsmuir St. be retained?

The former Dunsmuir Hotel has been vacant since 2013.

By John Mackie Published Jan 16, 2025

Built in 1907, the Dunsmuir Hotel was initially a large tourist hotel and in recent decades has been an SRO. Vacant since 2013, the City of Vancouver has ordered it torn down because it's in bad shape.

The demolition of the red-brick heritage building at 500 Dunsmuir St. is to begin Friday morning, but unlike some earlier cases, the facade of the 115-year-old former hotel will not be preserved.

In the past, the city has encouraged developers to preserve the facades of heritage buildings. The 1901 Terminus Hotel at 36 Water St. was largely destroyed in a fire in 1998, but the facade was saved and propped up by steel beams for several years before it was incorporated into a condo development in 2006.

There’s also a heritage facade project currently being built at 150 Robson St., where a 29-storey condo tower will rise behind the facade of the 1928 Catholic Charities building.

The order to demolish 500 Dunsmuir came from the city’s chief building official due to public safety concerns.

But planner/real estate consultant Michael Geller still believes part of the facade could have been preserved.

“I’m not a chief building official, so it’s dangerous or foolish for me to contradict him,” said Geller. “But going down to the site and looking at it, yes, there were portions of that building that were in terrible shape and the walls were cracking, but the most important facades along Dunsmuir look just fine.”

Civic historian John Atkin said that saving the facade would be tricky, and costly.

“Part of the problem is the design of the building,” said Atkin. “It’s not a single facade across the front, it’s actually three narrow facades with two sides in an end piece … The structural damage is such that the complexity of the steel work to hold that brick work up would mean you wouldn’t be saving anything really worth saving.”

Still, Atkin said the facade could be rebuilt in a new development.

“You would say to (the developer), Holborn, ‘This building is dangerous, you have to demolish it,’ ” he said. “ ‘And a condition of any development permit for anything you do on the site is the reconstruction of the side and front and inset facades as accurately as can be done.’ ”

In an email, the city of Vancouver said “the property owner may be required to incorporate or replicate heritage features as part of their redevelopment plan. The details will depend on what is being proposed by the owner.”

But, it added, “due to concerns about potentially hazardous building materials, the property owner will not be required to retain building materials.”

The pending demolition of 500 Dunsmuir is a case of what heritage activists call “demolition through neglect,” where a building owner lets a building sit vacant for several years, it deteriorates and is torn down.

In this case the building had been vacant since 2013. Holborn owns most of the block around 500 Dunsmuir, including The Bay parkade.

“It’s a heritage building but the company that owned it really wanted to see it demolished so that they could then redevelop the entire block,” said Geller. “And so they simply neglected it, and for reasons that are harder to understand, the city just simply allowed the building to deteriorate.”

Geller said heritage doesn’t seem to be a priority with the city.

“There just doesn’t seem to be the same interest in protecting heritage or protecting views,” he said. “Everybody is simply obsessed with trying to bring down the cost of housing to the point that we’re going to lose all of the things that made Vancouver so special.”

The city said in its statement that it was “disappointed that the owners of Dunsmuir House, a building with significant heritage value, neglected the building to the point where demolition became the only viable option to ensure public safety.”

“Property owners have a responsibility to keep their buildings safe, and allowing a property to fall into disrepair and become a hazard to public safety is unacceptable.”

A message to Holborn CEO Joo Kim Tiah wasn’t returned by deadline.

The company has been at odds with the city and province before. It owns the controversial Little Mountain site, where hundreds of low income residents were displaced and the site is largely vacant, almost two decades after Holborn purchased it.

The block around 500 Dunsmuir is zoned commercial but Holborn has been angling to build residential. The company released architectural renderings with three condo towers on the block in 2020, including one that went up to 900 feet, the equivalent of 90 storeys

But that plan included the retention of 500 Dunsmuir, which started out as the Hotel Dunsmuir tourist hotel, became a Salvation Army men’s shelter called Dunsmuir House and was last rented as an SRO to B.C. Housing in 2013.

After it became vacant, the City of Vancouver tried to collect an empty home tax on the building, which had 187 SRO units in 2013. But The Tyee reported Holborn took the city to court, arguing the city had rezoned it commercial. The city dropped the empty homes tax request.

“You can charge the empty home tax (for residential apartments or houses), but you can have an empty (commercial) building,” said Atkin.

The city can charge a developer a $300,000 per lost SRO unit. If the city charged that for 187 units, it would be $56,100,000.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has asked the provincial government to allow municipalities to charge a tax for empty buildings.

jmackie@postmedia.com