The 2025 Vancouver by election is about many problems but only one Issue— open communications between government and governed

Cc#145— Part 1—Housing Affordability

There is only one issue in this by election

“But Dad,” asked my slightly exasperated son, “with so many problems in the city, how can you say there is only one issue? And “open communications” as the issue? Come on.”

We were chatting—for us, chat and debate are interchangeable, so long as there’s beer—and I was making the case that the upcoming by election’s two Council seats represent perhaps the last opportunity to re-engage with Vancouver’s hapless citizens.

“Okay,” I responded, “pick any subject you feel is an issue.”

He blinked a moment, then responded. “Let’s start with affordability, specifically housing affordability. Surely that’s more than a communications issue?” He seemed pleased at his proposition.

I responded. “We currently inhabit a city where there are more than 100 residential rezoning proposals, most of which involve displacement of existing residents, mostly established rental tenants.” He shrugged, awaiting my explanation. “The city has not communicated how many tenants will be displaced. Instead it has communicated that, say, 40 existing rentals will be replaced with 100 new rental apartments. Seems like a net benefit, right?” He nodded cautiously so I continued.

“But while city staff and Councillors tout 100 new rental apartments, they neglect to note that the rules around those 100 new apartments work like this:

• Demovict 40 existing tenants, with tenant replacement policies that are vague, implemented by developers because the city dismantled its tenant protection office. These replacement policies have yet to be verified by any experience, mainly because the time between demoviction and reopening is about three years or more.

• Add 100 new replacement apartments, of which only 30 need be offered at “below market rate,” which is itself a moving and rising dollar target only established when the new building’s construction phase is completed. Emerging evidence is that “below market rate” is set at the top end of the averages used to identify market rents, and remains unaffordable to entry level teachers, firefighters or nurses, who are identified as the critical workers Vancouver needs to house. Never mind our retired seniors and many established families, which this City government seems determined to completely ignore.

• The remaining 70 of 100 apartments have no limits to their rents. But we know they are already more costly than the 30% “below market” that are unaffordable to our core service workers, seniors and many families. Who will live in these 70% remains a mystery, although recently, such a project went to City Council asking to simply delete the 30% “below market” as unprofitable for them.

So we demovict 40 existing tenants in favour of 100 apartments the existing tenants will never be able to afford. City staff and Councillors have so far communicated to citizens that this equation will result in “trickle down” affordability, just as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher predicted! That’s where wealthier folks move from their more affordable digs to the newer apartments, making them (apparently) available for the unfortunates abandoned by the city’s lack of tenant protection policies. It’s worth noting that homelessness skyrocketed in the USA and England after the Reagan/Thatcher “trickle down” policies—a coincidence, I guess.”

I continued. “Not only are they unaffordable, the 30% “below market” homes are often below any standards of reasonable occupancy. I’m not allowed to criticize architectural design lest the Architectural Institute accuse me of unprofessional conduct, but other (retired, hence less attackable) architects, as well as urban planners and designers have analyzed what’s on offer as affordable, finding it to be below any current or historic North American design standards. They fear this “affordable” housing will foster future criminals and misfits.”

Seeing no counter argument, my son elected to move on.

“What about the mess of homelessness and associated drug and mental health issues? How is that a communications issue?”

I smiled as I fetched us another beer. “Let’s take a break before we address that big issue.”

---

The post above is about 640 words, about 30 seconds longer than the three minutes that Vancouver City Council now permits for public presentations at its meetings. Means we can address at most one aspect of city communications within their own time limit.

---

If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, 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 50-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.” A glutton for punishment, he recently started writing a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places we love to live.