Lament for a city I love
City Conversation #113: The possible approval of the Arbutus SRO highlights three Fails for Vancouver
“Some day, the cities will choke themselves and one by one have grinding, groaning seizures like overpowered engines that have run out of oil.”—Ronald Woodall, Magnificent Derelicts
A few of the hundreds opposed to the Arbutus and 7th SRO
I was asked by friends to speak at the Development Permit Board (DPB) meeting on August 21st about the proposed SRO at 7th and Arbutus—the last chance except litigation to stop a development opposed by 94% of all citizens [1]who have expressed an opinion. Instead, I am writing this from away—like many Vancouverites, I am on holiday as the DPB considers this proposal, which has been challenged by hundreds at every step of its evolution—but to no avail so far.
The DPB is comprised of four senior city staff persons—no members of the public, business or the professions, no elected officials—so for the Arbutus SRO, this is quite possibly a “done deal.”
This is what I would say to the DPB:
Speakers to the Development Permit Board will focus on all the confusing and disingenuous ways this proposal has changed since it was first introduced more than a year ago. Still other speakers may remind you of its dangerous proximity to a toddler park and an elementary school. I would just like to highlight this proposal’s fundamental three fails: a failure of concept; a failure of urban design; and a failure of civic democracy.
Fail #1—the Congregate Concept. The innocuously named congregate housing approach that this proposal personifies has been debunked by all but the politicians and self-serving activists who continue to promote it. Years of independent scientific research (as opposed to unsubstantiated statements and research-lite narratives) now has significant “Is safe supply enough?” data to refer to, pointing to the real results of this housing concept—little evidence of rehabilitation, rather steadily increasing levels of addiction directly linked to providing so-called safer supply that is then “diverted” to increase the number of new, often younger addicts who believe that “If government says it’s okay, then it must be!” Objective data also points to steadily increasing overdose deaths, exacerbated by the concentration of citizens needing help, such as proposed here, when research points to dispersal throughout the community supported by mobile mental health support, rather than congregating in one location, as by far the better approach. A hundred extra police and mobile mental health professionals may not be enough, but even that political promise has not been close to achieved.
Fail #2—urban design. The latest proposal tabled continues to present an unfriendly, walled in face to the community. It continues to overhang and shadow a child-rich area of Kitsilano while crowding sidewalks heavily used on a daily basis by school children, toddlers and their parents. It promotes a high-rise prefabricated modular small metal box archetype, very different from the temporary modular, low-rise, smaller buildings that have been more quietly and (somewhat) sensitively inserted into various city neighbourhoods. I’m not saying the existing modular buildings are the best solution, but they are at least small enough (number of occupants, height, etc.) to avoid major harm to their neighbourhood. Some of the many studies that the affected Kitsilano community has sponsored show how even a mid-rise six storey concept might be a viable alternative, especially if it includes women and families in need as opposed to the high-rise single-men-only approach of this concept.
Each of these SRO-style boxes will cost half a million dollars to build and install, by the city’s own estimates ($64 million for 129 small studio units)—private industry could build these homes conventionally in a shorter building for a fraction of that cost and well before the 2026 completion date now forecast. The concept has become so untenable that its original architect has abandoned the sponsoring firm, which was his firm.
Fail #3—civic democracy. Many of the opportunities for citizen input about this proposal have been scheduled during spring breaks and summer holidays, including this meeting. Public commentary has been carefully curated by city staff run surveys, designed to avoid the unpleasantness of recognizing opposition—the true level of manipulation is revealed in the staff report informing the DPB meeting, which gives equal weight to the 19 people who submitted comments favouring this proposal, as compared to the 450+ who oppose it—that’s the 94% against. The provincial government has weighed in with threats to the essential nature of the rezoning process, saying by its legislation that it will unilaterally impose this solution despite overwhelming local objections and scientific data. The DPB meeting may thus become a Star Chamber [2]charade designed to give the appearance of democracy.
Make no mistake. If this proposal is approved unchanged in the face of overwhelming community opposition, then all Vancouver and BC communities will have to see it for what it is: forcing a deeply flawed housing concept that is scientifically disproven and completely out of character with its neighbourhood, with the threat of provincial government over reach and threats to the public hearing process as background. Two other similar high-rise congregate houses[3] have already been approved in Vancouver at public hearing, at least one despite significant neighbourhood opposition.
Safe supply and congregate narratives are destroying major cities throughout the democratic world—Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles that I am aware of in North America, plus many others in Europe and other areas of the democratic west.
Please listen to the truly independent experts on mental health and addiction treatment and most importantly to the affected community, instead of activist lobbying backstopped by provincial government threats. Refuse this proposal as currently configured. Make its proponents listen to the science and listen to the community. Thank you.
You can register here[4] to speak at the DPB meeting on August 21st starting at 9:30am.
If you appreciated this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at https://brianpalmquist.substack.com/ in order to remain in touch at least until the complaint against me[5] that somewhat limits my writing is resolved.
Brian Palmquist is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired for the moment, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 45+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” and working on a book about how we can accommodate a growing population in the cities we love.

[1] The 94% figure was obtained just a few days ago when the city released the staff report to the DPB.
[2] “It was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people sufficiently powerful that ordinary courts might hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded. “—Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
[3] Knight St. and King Edward Ave, and Grandview Highway adjacent the Italian Cultural Centre
[4] https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/2086-2098-w-7th-ave-and-2091-w-8th-ave-2/widgets/153415/key_dates#48000
[5] https://brianpalmquist.substack.com/p/shall-i-write-no-more-forever
I think what it boils down to is that it’s a great idea but just not a great idea for the West Side. Right?
Stephanie, sorry I was clearly not clear enough. Congregate housing of this nature is a bad idea anywhere in any city. The science says no.