Tag Archives: broadway plan

#VanPoli | The Villages Plan | An Open Letter to Vancouver City Council

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, City Development Planning, Housing, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Development, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , ,

Open letter to Vancouver City Council on the “Villages Plan”
Patrick Condon, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia
UBC School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

Subject: Serious Concerns with Vancouver’s Villages Plan

Dear Mayor and Council,

I write to challenge key elements of Vancouver’s Villages Plan Programme.

Together with the recently approved Official Development Plan and Broadway Plan, the City is now granting private owners of more than 80,000 parcels the right to build roughly 700,000 new housing units.

This represents enough capacity to house an extra 1.4 million people — more than double Vancouver’s current population of 670,000.

At today’s 1% annual population growth rate, this single decision delivers over 100 years of future housing supply. Yet even the projects already in the approval pipeline (roughly 78,000 units) would satisfy 30 years of trend growth.

Contrary to this city’s long standing policies for new density approvals, this massive landowner entitlement is being provided free of charge, with no expectation of payment for these new land rights.

These land rights are worth many billions of dollars.

The City is giving them away for free in the hope that this will somehow make housing more affordable.

This is an odd notion for our planners to hold. If adding hundreds of thousands of new units to existing neighbourhoods truly lowered prices, Vancouver would have North America’s cheapest housing.

It has North America’s most expensive housing. (charts below)

It defies logic to expect an “unleashing of the housing market” — the primary justification provided for the Villages Plan — to produce affordable housing when we have spent decades trying to do just that. Vancouver has tripled its housing stock since the 1960s, all within a city where virtually every private parcel was in urban use. This is a higher percentage increase of infill development than that of any other North American centre city. If adding housing to existing city districts was the sure fire path to affordability we would have seen positive results by now.

Based on this evidence, it is clear: if affordability is the main justification for this plan, it obviously fails the test.

Massively over-zoning a city above reasonable expectations for population growth serves little purpose. The only purpose it serves is to support the false narrative that only “restrictive zoning” stands in the way of affordable housing. It doesn’t. It never has. It can’t.

The claim is false.

On the contrary, if any city proves that it is possible to use zoning as a positive public policy tool, it is the City of Vancouver. We tripled housing units city-wide. No other centre city did that — an unheard-of achievement.

While this sadly did not make the city more affordable, as we had hoped, it did make the city better. Much better.

How was this 200 percent growth accomplished? By working with residents, not against them. Community planning with local communities was the means to this achievement. Planning with communities was not an impediment, as some now claim. It was the democratic path to a better city.

But sadly it is now obvious that our decades-long effort to encourage the housing market, in the hope that housing would stay affordable, has failed us. Given this evidence, it seems foolish to upzone so aggressively, hoping against hope that, in 30 or 40 years, housing will be more affordable.

Achieving durable affordability much sooner than this requires a major change in direction. We don’t lack housing; we lack affordable housing. Given this fact, we should follow a path that other similar cities have charted — one where the bulk of new housing built is affordable to average wage earners. This can be done by reviving the Vancouver tradition of building non-market housing at scale, largely financed through “land lift” taxes as applied in Yaletown.

Our own internationally famous False Creek South serves as a storied precedent. Service workers to business owners have found homes in that lovely, self-sustaining community.

The pattern is obvious. Reuse it.

Unfortunately, the Villages Plan moves us in exactly the wrong direction. It virtually rules out any form of land value capture tax, based on the mistaken fear that it would raise home prices. It won’t — and it can’t.

A properly designed land-lift tax simply reduces the inflated “land price residual” that now funnels unearned speculative windfalls into private pockets. A properly designed “land lift” tax channels those gains into public benefit — without increasing the price buyers ultimately pay.

I urge you to revise these plans by deeply involving residents from every corner of the city in a highly collaborative, bottom-up, neighbourhood-focused planning process. One that might arrive at much stronger inclusionary zoning requirements.

The people of Vancouver would rally behind such plans — plans that ensure that their sons and daughters, and the workers who keep this city running, can afford to live in the very neighbourhoods they serve and call home.

Do not pass this plan.

Let us turn instead to plans that are sustainable in scale, equitable in outcome, and shaped not for the market alone, but for the people who live and work here.

Yours truly,

Professor Emeritus Patrick M. Condon
University of British Columbia

More voices weigh in on ABC Vancouver’s Villages Plan development proposal

Steve Jedreicich — principal of Vancouver’s SJ Development Ltd., brings over 30 years of local urban planning and real estate consulting experience to the housing discussion —  weighs in on ABC Vancouver’s contentious Villages Plan proposal.

WBN News Vancouver publisher Karalee Greer’s published article on the impact of the Villages Plan development proposal currently before Vancouver City Council, in particular its impact on Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighbourhood. At present, well more than 1000 speakers are set to address the controversial Villages Plan proposal, in meetings that thus far have lasted well into the night at Council.

Randy Helten and Steve Bohus, the good, hard working, dedicated folks behind the informative CityHallWatch website offer a backgrounder on Vancouver’s Villages Plan proposal, suggesting the plan “was born in the USA.” CityHallWatch offers six more Villages Plan articles the site published in the months of June and July. Click on the multi-coloured links below to access the articles.

Yes, there are even more Villages Plan articles available to you.

As is his wont — and thank goodness for that — The Daily Hive’s well-respected, incredibly hard working urban affairs reporter Kenneth Chan, early in July, published a thorough and well-researched article on Vancouver’s Villages Plan proposal.

Well worth a read.

Vancouver Broadway Plan, and Its Impact on the Kitsilano Neighbourhood

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Food & Health, News, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , ,

This past Thursday evening, in an event sponsored by CityHallWatch — the online activist civic affairs journal — in a crowded, overflow event held at Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, a broad spectrum of speakers addressed the Broadway Plan — an extensive development plan for the future of Vancouver’s Broadway corridor, a growth plan that envisions an additional 50,000 residents who will take up residence along the corridor from Clark to Arbutus streets, between 1st and 16th avenues — and the implications of the Plan on the Kitsilano neighbourhood.


The Broadway Plan will provide a framework for the types of buildings, with towers between 20 to 40 storeys allowed in the light blue ‘centres’. The graphic above was supplied by the City of Vancouver.

The evening was MC’d by Larry Benge, a co-founder and co-Chairperson of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods — an alliance of more than 20 community and residents’ associations, who have long sought and continue to seek a respectful relationship between the powers that be at City Hall,  and the 23 neighbourhood communities that comprise and are at the heart of the City of Vancouver.


Video | Vancouver’s Broadway Plan: What does it mean for Kitsilano? Townhall Meeting March 14, 2024

Well-informed, respected and accomplished speakers at Town Hall included …

    • Brian Palmquist, a Vancouver-based architect, and publisher of the ‘you must subscribe to’ City Conversations substack, an in-depth journal that provides detailed coverage of development in the City of Vancouver, and its implications for the health, safety and well-being of those of us who reside in the city;
    • Arny Wise, an urban planner, retired developer, and mediator of municipal housing disputes in Vancouver;
      In front, l-r: Stephen Bohus, Brian Palmquist, Randy Helten. In behind: Arny Wise.
    • Michael Geller, an urban planner, real estate consultant and property developer, who serves on the adjunct faculty of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Sustainable Development and School of Resource and Environmental Management. His blog may be found at gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca;
    • Scot Hein, a retired senior urban designer employed by the City of Vancouver for more than 30 years, and at present an Adjunct Professor in the Master of Urban Design Programme at UBC where he works with his colleague …
    • Patrick Condon, the James Taylor chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, and the founding chair of the UBC Urban Design programme.

    In addition to those named above, during the question, answer and commentary portion of the meeting, former Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick spoke about the lack of civic democracy, while an architect present with his family in attendance spoke of the work of an old Simon Fraser University pal of VanRamblings, the University of Victoria’s Robert Gifford, a Professor of Psychology and Environmental Studies, who in his paper titled The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings [PDF], writes …

    “… high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, are sub-optimal environments to raise children, social relations within high-rise towers tends to be more impersonal and less than satisfactory than is the case with more ground-oriented housing forms, there is an increased incidence of crime and fear of crime among those who reside in high-rise developments, social cohesion is more difficult and substantively less present in tower developments, while independent studies have found that tower high-rise living may well be a strong contributory and determinative factor that can lead to an increased incidence of suicidal ideation and actual suicide among residents who live in concrete, steel and glass tower constructed buildings.”


    The future of the Kitsilano neighbourhood along the West Broadway / West 4th Avenue corridors

The thrust of Arny Wise’s address to those gathered at the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House Town Hall was that the advent of environmentally unsound steel, concrete and glass towers to increase density in the Kitsilano neighbourhood is simply not an optimal form of development to achieve the density desired by planners at Vancouver City Hall.

Scot Hein made reference to the Arbutus Walk neighbourhood, west of Arbutus Street and West 12th Avenue that, originally, was presented by the Molson-Carling developers and planners back in the day at Vancouver City Hall as three 50-storey concrete and steel towers — a development which the neighbourhood residents very much objected to — that under Mr. Hein’s watch was transformed into a neighbourhood-friendly and livable townhouse, 3-5-and-10 storey condominium and affordable housing development, with a walkable green space centering the development, and a 10-storey housing co-op established in the northwest corner.

It should be noted in passing that the final Arbutus Walk neighbourhood achieved much higher densification, overall, than would have been the case had the originally planned three 50-storey podium and tower development gone forward.

Two final notes for today (there’s more coming tomorrow) …

As UBC’s Patrick Condon pointed out at meetings’ end …

“Vancouver has tripled the number of housing units in our city since the 1970s, more than any other urban centre on the continent, certainly a laudable and unprecedented development feat, far outstripping the number of developments elsewhere. Yet, if supply is “the answer”, why is it that even with a 300% increase in development in Vancouver, we have the poorest supply of affordable housing for residents, the highest land prices, the highest rents of any jurisdiction across the continent, and the most expensive condominiums? Supply, alone, is not the answer.”

And, finally, on a somewhat hopeful note: both Arny Wise and Brian Palmquist pointed out during their presentations that the Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability Department at City Hall has had a change of heart respecting tower development along the Broadway corridor. No longer will citizens face the prospect of dark corridors lined with towers on either side of arterial streets.


Sensitive Urban Infill Charette Report City of Surrey. Drawing: Neda Roohnia, Landscape / Urban Design

Rather, arterial streets like the Broadway corridor will allow six storey developments, while the allowable 20-to-40-storey tower developments will be situated one block behind either side of the arterial street, so as “to prevent shadowing” and obviate the dark arterial corridor residents have made known in no uncertain terms to Vancouver City Hall that, that under no circumstance they want or desire.

Arterial streets must remain walkable, and neighbourhood friendly.

Not good news, of course, for those residents who live along the tree-lined streets, off Broadway (9th Avenue), along West 10th and West 8th Avenues.

But there you have it, for what it’s worth. As we say above, more tomorrow.