Written for Daily Hive Urbanized by David Fine, who is an award-winning local filmmaker, an outspoken housing policy critic, and a moderator of the VanPoli Facebook group.
Last week, a number of proposed towers were up for rezoning hearings at Vancouver City Council. According to Daily Hive Urbanized, these towers are among the first of over 150 projects in the pipeline under the terms of the Broadway Plan and so they are very important opportunities for the public to weigh in.
I myself was unable to attend owing to travel, but I did manage to listen to a lot of it online and couldn’t help but feel frustrated by the process.
Firstly, the oxymoron which is the City’s Shape Your City online platform. It formed the basis of feedback which City staff reported to City Council. Concerned residents wrote to staff with long, impassioned letters explaining their issues or support for the given rezoning.
All these letters, all the feedback via the website, all of it compressed into a statement which lasted less than 60 seconds. The public feel that they are being asked to help “shape your city,” but the reality is that this whole process, distilled into a summery lasting less than a minute, is really a con.
Residents are led to believe that giving feedback will be meaningfully considered, but the reality is that most all of it is as much as ignored by the “system.”
This is why public hearings are so important — they are often the only opportunities for residents to be properly heard, even if it is only for three minutes of public speaking time.
Example of a City staff summary of volumes of residents’ feedback into a statement of less than 60 seconds. (City of Vancouver)
Having said that, the public hearing process is subject to its own issues. There were clearly two types of speakers at City Council. One being residents who will be directly impacted by the subject application and have concerns or comments which impact the community they care about, and the other being activists who make it their business to uncritically support each and every application in their pursuit of their greater goal, to get towers built, with all other planning considerations written off as collateral damage.
It is unlikely any of the activists speaking in support aim to live in these towers or will be directly impacted by their construction. They just seek to convince City Council to build and frame the opposition as nothing more than selfish NIMBYism.
The notion promoted is that residents who have invested in their community, social bonds, and homes should hold no sway over how their own “backyard” is developed. None. It’s about residents who may possible move there, that is until they do, then they too will be ignored and classed as “NIMBYS” when future changes are considered.
The same activists line up to speak over and over to each development application. They call out to supporters on Reddit to flood the City’s website with comments in support, cutting and pasting the same line, “I support this development. We need more housing,” over and over.
Likely most have not read the application or considered any of the details of the application. Their job is to boost numbers so the City can uncritically parse the totals into so many for and so many against.
Their votes come in a wave literally the day of the hearing. One moment, there are a couple of dozen in support. A few hours later, there are suddenly over 250, most with the cut and paste comment. This is distinct from opposition comments, which trickle in over the period and are all unique and personal.
The activists who did speak, ply similar lines in support, but the claims are eyebrow raising. Let’s examine some of the assertions.
“We want this tower because UBC students need housing.” The development applications all feature tiny, expensive units which will be totally unaffordable to most all students, so this is nonsense. What student will pay in excess of $3,000 per month for a small one-bedroom unit? This is not student housing and will never address this need.
“Teachers will live in this Westside tower instead of commuting to Kitsilano Secondary School from Surrey.” These are tiny spaces with barely any storage space. Perhaps a young, single teacher could afford a studio or a couple could rent a one-bedroom unit for upwards of $3,000, but these are not suitable or affordable for families, so families will not live in them. Most teachers will need to live further out precisely because this type of housing does not serve the needs of families (given that many teachers have families). A couple with two kids will need more space than any of the units in these developments can provide.
Example of small unit sizes in a tower proposal in the Broadway Plan. (Submitted)
“We desperately need this housing.” We do desperately need more housing, but the Broadway Plan’s focus is on one type only; towers with small, expensive units, and we already have thousands of those coming online via Senakw, Heather Lands, Jericho Lands, and towers along Broadway, which is what most understood when the Broadway Plan was promoted. The below-market rental units are helpful, but with a minimal number and at 20% below totally unaffordable, such homes will still be too expensive for average earners. Almost all the housing being created under the Broadway Plan is one type, and it will be only so useful.
By way of reference, the recently completed five-storey L2 Apartments rental housing building, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Larch Street and West 2nd Avenue in Kitsilano, remains 40% vacant since it came on the market last May. Why? Because the units are tiny, and the rent is expensive.
This is not the housing we need and that is why 20 units out of 53 sit empty at L2.
Is this a race to hit housing target numbers, or an opportunity to create the kind of housing we truly need? While towers have their place, we should also prioritize low-rise, spacious, family-sized housing. Quiet residential streets can densify by up to 500% with the addition of townhouses and low-rise buildings — avoiding blockbusting towers — while offering a range of housing options. These may not cater to low-income households but can serve as an entry point for families who cannot afford a single-family home. This approach must be part of the Broadway Plan.
“The Broadway Plan features robust tenant protections.” Yeah, on paper. The reality is somewhat different. Speaking with numerous tenants reveals a far less rosy picture than some would have us believe. Many face eviction from homes they have loved and lived in for years — sometimes decades — without knowing where they will go or when (or if) they’ll return. When they do return — three, four, or even five years later, if ever (as seen with Little Mountain) — they are often offered units significantly smaller than what they had. For example, a single retired man in a 600 sq ft one-bedroom unit might be offered a 370 sq ft studio, deemed “appropriate” for a single man.
There is no adequate way to protect tenants whose homes are being demolished. Instead, the Broadway Plan should avoid demolition and ensure evictions do not proceed until substantial new housing is built and ready for occupancy. This is a 30-year plan — good, well-maintained, and affordable homes should not be sacrificed in the first few years.
Artistic rendering of 2156-2172 West 14th Avenue, Vancouver. (Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership/Havn)
There is another very troubling aspect to the Broadway Plan, and that is the rampant land value speculation. For example, a new developer named Havn has submitted three separate rezoning applications, and all three towers share similar, poorly designed architectural features like multiple curved archways and very blocky massing. A speaker at City Council pointed out that Havn has no prior history whatsoever building anything. Not a single building.
The City should do everything it can to discourage this kind of harmful, inflationary practice, which is not about building housing, but profiteering. Approving rezonings from a developer like this is the last thing Vancouver needs.
We need a Broadway Plan that promotes a range of housing, includes more affordable and more family housing options, which are in short supply. And yes, we also need towers where residents expected towers to be when this plan was announced, along Broadway adjacent to the new subway stations.
City Council can make the Broadway Plan work if they take a moment to appreciate where it’s going wrong and seek to fix it.