The Surprising Math around the Broadway Plan
City Conversation #56: Looking closely at Vancouver’s real Population + Housing projections reveals a big surprise—we don’t need the Broadway Plan!
220602 summary from my Homes for Whom database
“What do you mean, we don’t need the Broadway Plan! You and others have been writing and arguing against it for months! For nothing?” My wife was having trouble believing my bombshell conclusion. “This is going to bring the wrath of God down on your head! You’d better be sure before you publish that.”
“Believe me, I understand that,” I replied. “What got me here was email correspondence from a retired Vancouver planner who sent me their back-of-napkin calculations of the multitude of housing rezoning applications approved and in process that suggested the Broadway Plan (BP) in its totality was way out of line with what the city really needs.” She gave me that same waiting for it look that I get from my son, equal parts respect and cynicism, so I pressed on.
“I decided I needed to do a major update to my Homes for Whom (HFW) database, where I track all spot rezoning activity in the city—so I did that yesterday, including new spot rezoning applications for the past two months, updates on the numbers, that sort of thing. HFW automatically updates total numbers and percentages every time something is added or modified—the weak link is me, having to take the time to enter the data, which currently includes 379 applications started since the current City Council was elected.”
“So how do you get from HFW to there’s no need for the Broadway Plan?”
“I start from Metro Vancouver’s projections on how many homes for how many people the city needs to the year 2050. Metro Van stats are the most objective that are readily available.” She kept staring so I kept going.
“Let’s start with population. Vancouver’s population is projected to grow by 164,520 residents from now through 2050, about 24% more than we have now:”
“What about the 1 million figure I keep seeing?” she interrupted.
“That number covers all of the communities in Metro Vancouver—Metro Van has determined the city of Vancouver’s fair share is 164,000+. Their population projection chart is longer, includes all municipalities, but we’re just talking about the city of Vancouver.” She nodded hesitantly so I proceeded.
“Moving from population to homes, Metro Van calculates the city needs 76,750 more homes over the next 30 years, about 25% more than now—so population and housing requirements are pretty much in tandem.”
“So far, so good,” she interrupted again. “I repeat, how do we get from there to we don’t even need the Broadway Plan?”
“Let’s keep the 76,750 more homes in mind for a moment. Here’s what my HFW database tells me (summary at the top of the page):
We currently have 51,906 homes in the rezoning pipeline—that’s most but not all of the 379 projects in the HFW database;
We have an additional 46,896 homes committed—that includes: the ongoing duplexing happening throughout the city (about 150/year); laneway home construction (about 400/year); additional rental from the Streamlining Rental Program (4,700 in total, of which we are already well on the way); and the build out of the East Fraser Lands, Langara Gardens, Little Mountain, Northeast False Creek, and Senakw’—the numbers I use for those are based on what the proponents have published.
Just those two categories bring us to 98,802 homes—almost 29% more than what Metro Van projects we need to 2050. But I’m not done yet!
If we add in the Jericho Lands’ 10,000 homes, the Broadway Plan’s 30,000 and the 10,000 proposed by the Mayor’s Making Home program, that’s another 50,000;
If Jericho and the Broadway Plan were to build out what their plans actually contemplate, that would provide another 57,000 homes;
And finally, these numbers do not include any new area plans such as a renovation to the south shore of False Creek, or the Rupert & Renfrew and Nanaimo Skytrain Station Area Plans. Nor do they include the incremental growth through existing zoning, you know, where the old one storey mom and pop shops are gradually replaced by what’s already in the zoning—typically three storeys of residential atop one storey of commercial at grade.”
She paused for a few moments, taking in my deluge of numbers, then asked: “Clearly there are many folks already in Vancouver who are under housed—homes that are too small, too old or otherwise—what about them?”
“Well, we already have more than 22,000 more new homes in the current pipeline than we will need by 2050 (98,802 minus 76,750). I’m not against some densification along Broadway, or on the Jericho Lands—most Vancouverites aren’t. But we don’t need 40-storey towers, even 20-storey towers. Various volunteers are developing low and mid-rise concepts for the Broadway Plan area and the Jericho Lands, which are far cheaper and more sustainable to build and operate. There’s just no need to carpet the city with a pox of high-rise.”
“What about the need for more rental homes?” she asked, smiling slightly in remembrance of our own initial struggles, including camping for the first month after we arrived in 1975.
“I think we’ll be good there,” I answered. “Only 36% of the homes in the pipelines are strata—50% more than that are rental or social housing. Much as I often disagree with City Council, they are doing a great job on the rental side, although not on rental affordability.” She looked over my shoulder at my computer screen, frowning.
“Your percentages only add up to 90%—where’s the last 10%?”
“Many of the 46,896 homes committed, almost 10,000, do not yet have a breakdown of strata versus rental versus social. I will amend the HFW database as these numbers are provided by applicants—the percentages will automatically recalculate and approach 100% in total as the blanks are filled in.”
She paused for a few moments. “What will you say when city staff and others jump all over your numbers, insisting they are accidentally or deliberately wrong?” I smiled.
“I’ll just do what I’ve done before, both with numbers and our 3D modelling of the Broadway Plan. I’ll say, ‘Let’s sit down with your numbers and mine and compare. Show me your 3D models and real, not aspirational numbers, that are different than mine.’ —so long as city staff refuse to share, to have real dialogue with their citizens, I’ll stand by my work because it’s all true and all we’ve got to go on.”
About the Homes for Whom Database
“Remind me why you even need to do this?” she asked. My wife was asking why I was knee deep in city housing statistics, so I obliged—be careful what you wish for!
“City Council passed a motion sponsored by Cllr Colleen Hardwick two years ago asking for information about existing zoned capacity of the city and what’s in the development “pipeline,” as planners like to call it—that’s projects proposed and in some stage of progress through city hall’s byzantine approval process.” I paused for a sip of coffee, continued.
“Two years later the information is still not available in an aggregated form.” She frowned so I explained. “The city has a Shape Your City set of websites, one for each project, but nowhere is there a publicly accessible summary. CityHallWatch (CHW) started publishing the list of rezonings applied for, so I spent several evenings tracking down each of the more than 300 individual Shape Your City websites to that date to transcribe their key data to a web-based database I developed, which I call Homes for Whom. Each month CHW publishes the previous month’s applications, which I visit and transcribe. In May, for example, there were 11 new applications, bringing the current total to 379.”
“Hasn’t city staff challenged this work?” she asked.
“Individual city staffers periodically attack my numbers on social media, but officially, city staff just ignore me. On those occasions when individual staff have challenged me, I always respond, ‘Let’s sit down and compare stats.’ Then the line goes dead, meaning they don’t have stats, or do not want to share, or do not want to compare theirs to mine. So I continue and will do so until the city makes available true numbers.”
“But what do they use to support their numbers, such as the 30,000 homes they say the Broadway Plan needs to provide?” I smiled at her question, continued.
“City statistics come from two sources that I can figure: the 30,000, for example, is an aspirational number based on nothing concrete beyond the gleam in a planner’s eye. Other big numbers come from online surveys where they do things like ask folks if they would like better housing (who wouldn’t?) then turn every “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a bigger home with a private yard” into the need for another new additional home.”
Calls to Action
It’s too late now to speak to Council about the Broadway Plan. But you can still email Mayor and Council with your thoughts right up until they finish deliberations on June 9th—earlier would be better.
Vancouver’s civic election is October 15th of this year. Lots more damage can be done to our city before that date—and it will continue, and worsen, unless TEAM for a Livable Vancouver elects a majority (6 of 10) City Councillors—less than 6 and not much will change. If you are concerned that what you’ve just read is an example of what’s wrong with our city, and want to bring back its livability, join TEAM and work with us to restore Vancouver as a place we can all afford to call home.
Today’s question: Do you think city staff should make available to Councillors and citizens a summary of the real numbers underlying the various types of development proposed for the city? Why or why not?
I read and respond to all comments made below. If you enjoyed this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
I am a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). I am semi-retired for the moment, still teaching and writing, so not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on my 40+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. I am the author of the award winning Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” I am also a member of TEAM for a livable Vancouver, a new political party dedicated to restoring a livable Vancouver starting with the 2022 civic election. Although I am not a candidate for TEAM or any other civic party, City Conversations are generally congruent with TEAM policy, so if you like the ideas that I’m writing about, please consider joining TEAM.
Yes, and most of the City's action is years out of date. There is a 'crisis' (although I can point out about 8 other housing crisis headlines over the last 50 years, and even one where the crisis was that there was too much housing and no tenants!), and the crisis gets bigger, then at the peek the City starts to study the situation, then the crisis starts to subside, then the City starts to act, then the crisis wanes and the City continues full steam to correct a problem that does not require intervention. See Tom Gunton about 1983.
This is a very interesting analysis. While we don't need the Broadway Plan to provide sufficient housing, your argument does not address the City's claim that it has to have all that density proposed under the Broadway Plan to justify and support the subway. What is your response to that?