The Broadway and Birch Fiasco. It's time for a Forensic Audit.

I read this week that Jameson's Broadway & Birch project is now a court-ordered sale. I opposed that development back in 2020 when I learned about it from a SFU professor who lived near the property. From day one, I had several concerns. For one thing, There is no doubt that we need to allow higher densities to achieve greater affordability. But when is big too big? Some will argue that FSR is just a number. It’s meaningless. I disagree. It is a measure of a building relative to its surroundings and while some argue one building may not destroy the neighbourhood, a row of similar scale buildings might. That’s why I would like to see an overall study completed for the Broadway corridor before allowing such dramatic FSR and height increases. 

So why did I oppose it? Because at 10.28 FSR it was more than 3 times the allowable FSR at the time, and was being proposed in advance of the Broadway Plan.

But also, I thought the below market family units that justified this excessive FSR were not very livable, especially for lower-income households with children for whom they were intended. Here are just a few examples.

I once worked with someone who said his four least favourite words were "I told you so." That's how I feel about this project and so many more recently approved projects that are completely out of scale with their context and offering very little livability for those in greatest housing need.

While th developer did not seem to care whether the suites were livable or not, as long as the governments were willing to fund the project, recently it become known that this project was not working as  a rental housing development, and was supposedly going to be sold to an entity planning a hotel for aboriginal visitors to the nearby Vancouver General Hospital. An appraisal was used to justify a much higher value and sales price. But fortunately, the sale fell through. Now the project is a court-ordered sale, and I can't say I feel sorry for the developer one bit. Indeed, if anything I feel a certain schadenfreude. They wasted a lot of public money.

"Pulling an Eby" October 24, 2026

 As reported by National Post columnist Adam Pankratz, "A new word entered the political lexicon of British Columbia Saturday night: “to Eby.” 

Sadly for its namesake — outgoing premier David Eby — it is not an auspicious word. It means massive self-inflicted failure due to a colossal and hubristic miscalculation. Indeed, the scale and magnitude of Eby’s misreading of the B.C. electorate in calling his early snap election cannot be understated and it may well be the greatest political blunder in Canadian history. The resultant electoral rout will be studied and referenced for decades as a stunning backfire and cautionary tale of what can happen when a politician loses sight of the people and makes decisions for their own political benefit."

Adam is spot on in his assessment. Eby called this election, in the middle of the municipal elections, because he thought the opposition was in disarray and he could improve the NDP's standing. Kerry-Lynne Findlay had won the Conservative Leadership Race and immediately alienated much of the party. Three other parties had been formed, Centre BC; another led by Peter Milobar who had lost to Findlay; and One BC, a very right wing party led by Dallas Brodie. So Eby called the election claiming it was to fight Trump and no one believed him. So soon he changed his tune and said it was to increase the party's narrow majority. This time people believed him but were disgusted and it showed last night when the Conservatives routed the NDP. 

In years gone by, I liked Eby and even donated to one of his early campaigns. But as I watched John Horgan's $5 billion surplus dissipate into a $13.4 billion deficit, and the NDP announce increases to its Speculation and Vacancy Tax and Additional School Tax (AST), both of which were seriously harming the development community; and cancel badly needed seniors facilities and funding for community housing; and then announce an Empty Condo Tax to stop developers from HOARDING unsold condos, I desperately wanted to see him go. 

Last night Eby won his seat, but resigned in disgrace as leader since his party went from approximately 46 seats to 27 seats. 

Now the question is what NDP policies will the Conservatives change. They have already announced they are going to switch the proposed tunnel under the Fraser back to a bridge. They also promised to repeal Bill 44, the Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing Program that absurdly allows multiplexes on every single-family lot in the province in communities of 5,000 or more. Now the question is whether he'll repeal Bills 43 (which sets municipal housing targets without any regard to availability of services or market conditions) and 47 the Transit-Oriented Area legislation which sets MINIMUM heights and densities, or modify them. I am hoping he will also revisit the Speculation and Vacancy Tax and Additional School Tax and make amendments so that they are less harmful.

For those who don't know about the AST, it was introduced as a tax on luxury homes and severely impacts the Westside of Vancouver and West Vancouver. Notwithstanding its name, the revenue doesn't go towards the funding of schools. It just goes into general revenues. Moreover, while most people think it just taxes luxury houses, it also applies to residential development sites awaiting approvals and a start of construction. It's terribly ill-conceived and should either be repealed or seriously amended.

Time will tell. It will also tell whether we have elected a party of anti-vaxer rascists, as many on Facebook fear, or just some people with a lot of common sense who are committed to getting the economy back on track. Let's hope it's the latter.

The Additional School Tax. A little known impact on affordable housing

 

I spent two days this week at the BC Assessment Office on Robson Street appealing the application of the Additional School Tax on a West Vancouver property for which I have served as a planning and development consultant since 2021. While most people know this tax as the 'Luxury Tax' imposed on homes worth more than $3 million in 2018, what few people know is it also applies to residential development sites awaiting a start of construction.  You can find some details below: 

Since a decsion has not yet been released on my appeal, I prefer not to discuss the details any further. But as someone familiar with the Property Assessment Appeal Board wrote to me after reading the BC Assessment lawyer's 64 page submission " Look what poorly written legislation begets. A ton of stated cases with various interpretations." 

Hopefully after the decision on my case is released, the government, along with appraisers, lawyers, UDI, and others in the development community who are being seriously harmed by the tax can work together and improve the legislation. In the meantime, in addition to having an Empty Condo Tax, we will be stuck with a confusing, unfair and totally ill-conceived Empty Development Site Tax. And it will be increasing 50% on January 1, 2027.

David Eby's Empty Condo Tax

Although it has been a couple of months since I last wrote an entry on this blog, I am so upset with David Eby I just had to write.

In recent years, governments have tried to create affordable housing by introducing various taxes, as illustrated above. As a former BC Finance Minister once said to me, taxing for housing affordability is like bombing for peace. He's right.

On September 25th, I received a message from Stephen Chang, a CKNW story producer for the Jas Johal Show. He wanted to know if I had heard about David Eby's latest housing tax, an Empty Condo Tax. I couldn't believe it. It wasn't that long ago Eby wanted to convert unsold condos into Rent-to-Own units. It was completely ill-conceived. I did speak with Housing Minister Christine Boyle's Chief of Staff and shared information with him that I hoped would kill the idea. It might have.

But Stephen wanted me to know that Eby wanted to now tax these empty condos THAT WERE BEING HOARDED BY DEVELOPERS. Would I come on the show and talk about it. So I drove down from Furry Creek where I had been spending the day and connected with Jas around 4:30. 

I had to admit that it was probably great politics since I have learned over the years that the public loves empty home taxes, whether issued by Vancouver, a province like BC or Ontario, or even the federal government which once introduced an Unused Housing Tax. Fortunately, the government soon realized this was unecessary and cancelled the program.

However, I also shared with Jas some of the reasons why I opposed this tax, and the other empty home taxes - the provincial Speculation and Vacancy Tax, and he Vancouver Empty Home Tax. They always have unintended consequences. In the case of the SVT and EHT, they significantly reduce housing demand from those wanting second homes. When they apply to unsold inventory they also discourage supply and add to cost. 

I could go on but there are a few things Eby needs to be told. First, the developers are not HOARDING these units. They just can't sell them. Yes, they would sell if the price was reduced, but developers are not always at liberty to reduce prices. They are obligated to sell for a price agreed to with the lender, and if they are sold at a discount below that price, the lender can ask the developer to inject more equity. I suspect Eby has no understanding of this.

There are other reasons. Some of these units are in projects that are in receivership, or about to go into receivership. Therefore, it can take a while before the court-ordered sale can be soreted out and the units can be sold. And yes, developers are reluctant to sell below cost. I know this from first hand experience.

This action, and many of Eby's other recent promises have angered me more than I have ever been angered by politicians before. In the past, I have been an NDP voter. I liked Eby when I was first introduced to him by Milton Wong. I even donated to one of his campaigns after a meeting at Darlene Marzari's home.

I was, and still am a great fan of Glen Clark. I liked John Horgan. But I am now hoping that this election will prove to be his undoing. Otherwise, expect our economy to futher deteriorate, along with housing development activity. 

So why was the massive Holborn Bay Parkade proposal approved?

 

Since Holborn's proposal was first made public in May in the Vancouver Sun I have been somewhat conflicted about the Holborn proposal. For one thing, I am not a fan of Holborn for several reasons. 

Little Mountain. I was part of Polygon's team that submitted a bid proposal for the Little Mountain property. We were all upset when they blew all their competition out of the water with an excessive bid for the property, after somehow negotiating a sweetheart deal with the Province. They then took years to follow through on the project. 

After delaying the development for years, they sought a concession from the city to allow them to alter the phasing of the social housing. The city council foolishly agreed, and they subsequently showed their appreciation by seeking approval to put some dog parks on the property to avoid having to pay $315,000 in property taxes each year.

As an aside, I think the new development looks quite mundane. There is little beauty in the project.

Dunsmuir House. Holborn also deliberately neglected this heritage building to the point that in December 2024, the City's Chief Building Official called a special council meeting to seek approval to order the building demolished. It was a shame since it would have been attractive to incorporate at least the facade in any new development of the site.

I publicly criticized Holborn for what Cllr Sarah Kirby-Yung called their egregious behaviour. When she asked what might be done to somehow punish the company for their actions, I decided to launch a third party appeal of the property's assessment, and won. The result was a tripling of their taxes.

Meanwhile, although I wasn't aware of it, their architects, Henriquez Partners had been busy working on plans for the total site that excluded the heritage building. This plan was submitted to the city in June 2025. I only became aware of it a year later when it was featured on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.

Bay Parkade Proposal and Higher Buildings While there is no doubt that the plan prepared for the Bay Parkade and Dunsmuir Hotel site is most impressive, its height considerably exceeded the maximum permitted height in the city. As a result,  the city embarked on a Higher Buildings Planning Review to seek public input into whether taller buildings should be permitted. Many of us participated in this review, which included a display at the top of the Harbour Centre development.

While I didn't know what the results of the review would be, it seemed appropriate that any decision on the Bay Parkade proposal should await the completion of the planning review. However, Holborn did not want to wait, presumably because they were concerned that a new council might be elected that wouldn't be so willing to approve their approval. So at the last minute, at the end of July, council approved the Holborn proposal. Most reasonable people know this showed very poor judgement and a total lack of respect for all the people who participated in the planning review.

To add insult to injury, the planning department produced a Q&A which stated that approval of this project would not necessary impact whether taller buildings would be allowed in the downtown. How absurd! Of course it will. 

I will not likely be around when this building is completed, if indeed it is completed. So I will leave it to others to decide whether the last minute approval of this project was a mistake or not. 

So why was Vancouver's Villages Plan defeated?

Given the number of vacant businesses along Dunbar street, there is little justification for creating several new highstreets nearby. This was one of the reasons why the city's plan was completely misguided. What were they thinking?

It is interesting to listen to the various explanations as to why the ABC councillors led the vote against the Villages Plan. There are numerous explanations. Some say wealthier westside NIMBYs brought it down. Others blame eastside yuppies who didn't want to see higher density apartments along their streets.

I would like to see some independently minded university professors and students undertake a comprehensive post-mortem to understand why the plan got off the rails. But I think I know what happened. 

When the plan was initiated, it was all about making it easier to include a broader mix of housing choices in neighbourhoods around the city where there was some limited retail area. However, the focus soon turned to enhancing these retail areas by creating 17 new 'high streets'. While those of us who have lived in Vancouver for a long time questioned the need for these new highstreets, it is no secret that senior people in the planning department thought they were required.

But that wasn't the real problem. The real problem is how staff thought these new village highstreets should be implemented. Their approach was set out in a key sentence in letters sent to approximately 500-700 property owners along these future high streets. You can read it below: 

"Residential-only forms will no longer be considered under this zoning such as multi-plexes, laneway houses, single-detached houses, and others....Existing buildings can continue to exist and renovations that do not increase the floor area or building height would still be permitted."

I first learned about this letter and the proposed restrictions from an architect who lived on West 33rd between Mackenzie and Macdonald. This was one of the proposed highstreets. As someone experienced with retail development, he also read the Urban Systems report that examined, in some detail the market demand for retail in the 17 different villages. Below is an excerpt related to his village highstreet which essentially says there will not be any demand for new retail space for the foreseeable future. In other words, his property, and many like it would be sterilized for years to come. Nothing could happen to it.

His wife, in whose name the house is owned, became most distraught and I promised to see what I could do. I posted comments on Facebook and was soon invited to discuss the situation with the media. At a Dunbar community meeting that had been organized to discuss multiplex housing, I and others raised this concern with Peter Meiszner and Lenny Zhou. They were not even aware of the letter and we showed it to them.

In my opinion, it was this aspect of the Villages Plan that ultimately led to its defeat. As the mayor said, in a fundraising letter to ABC supporters "Vancouverites should be the ones deciding what happens with their property, not City Hall," said Mayor Ken Sim. "Moving forward with this proposal would have been a mistake. Today, Council made the decision to reject it."

While there were other aspects of the plan that were concerning to thousands of other residents, I believe this was the key problem. Below is the written statement that I submitted in advance of the start of the Public Hearing. 

Geller concerns with the Villages Plan.

The planning staff desire to create more successful walkable communities with more

nearby local retail is admirable and well intentioned. However, this planning program is so

misguided and fraught with problems it is difficult to know where to start in setting out

objections. But here are a few thoughts based on my 50 years experience planning and

developing new projects in Vancouver.

Many of the proposed new highstreets, lined with high density 4-6 storey mixed-use

buildings, (yes high density up to 3.7 FSR), are not needed. They are in locations that may

not be commercially viable for the foreseeable future, according to the city's own retail

consultant, and in the opinion of other retail experts.

Moreover, they could negatively impact the existing neighbourhoods since no other forms

of redevelopment will be allowed. No laneway houses; no multiplexes or townhouses; not

even an addition to a house.

All these properties become non-conforming uses. If a house burns down, it cannot even

be rebuilt.

As seen elsewhere, if properties can only be sold for future land value, the neighbourhoods

will slowly begin to deteriorate. Just look at the undeveloped properties along Oak Street

and Cambie Street. Boarded up, with unkempt grounds. This could happen along West

33rd and 16 other proposed new high streets as they await commercially viable

redevelopment.

This alone should be justification for not approving the plan now. But another concern is

that by creating these new retail areas, other struggling retails streets like Dunbar and West

10th (and others) will likely be further compromised.

Finally, it is wrong that this important matter is being considered in the middle of the

summer, in the middle of a FIFA world event; and at a time when so many other

applications are being rushed forward since many developers fear a new council could be

elected in the fall that might not be so supportive of new development.

At the risk of sounding political, those councillors who approve this application in the face

of so much community opposition, (even with some modifications), probably deserve to be

defeated in the fall election, since this proposal will likely negatively impact 17 lovely

neighbourhoods around the city.

The Villages Plan - Why it's time for Vancouver City Council to postpone the balance of the Public Hearing

Today I attended the second day of the Public Hearing on the Villages Plan. I gave up an afternoon to attend since I believe the plan is so flawed the Public Hearing should be stopped now. As you will see from the following slide show that I had intended to present, the presentation materials prepared by staff are very seductive.. But they are most misleading since they show how things might look in 50 years. But they don't show the chaos that could occur while the plan evolves.

(As it happened, I wasn't allowed to show my presentation since it wasn't submitted a day before the first Public Hearing. Now why would this be city policy when most thoughtful presenters want to avoid repeating what has already been said, over and over again?)

These are the 21 slides I wanted to share. My key message? End the public hearing before listening to the next 200 speakers and direct staff to prepare maps and illustrations that show what the proposed new high streets might look like say every four years, and also show what's happening to the existing high streets like Dunbar, or Fraser, or West 10th in Point Grey.