Vancouver's Plan to die and what we can do to save it—#12 Mitigate massive multiplexes
CC #210—The distance between affordability and gross over reach is not that much
This is the sixth in my series of up to 22 discussions about the factors that are destroying Vancouver and what citizens can do to save it. Apologies for recent delays, resulting from a combination of a visit to Japan and awaiting the arrival of our first grand child.
Not so bad if they weren’t so greedy1
If there was ever an issue that could be solved by common sense, multiplex madness is it! For whatever reason—lack of staff experience and poor research, deferring to the greediest of small building developers, inability to measure height and depth—take your pick—the early application of Vancouver’s December 2025 Low Density Housing Options How-To Guide has managed to infuriate residents throughout the city. I decided to try to figure out why, and how to improve the issues.
Vancouver’s 1980s “monster house” on the left. Today’s neighbour on the right.
I do have some cred in this area. In 1980 I was working with Architect Rick Hulbert who was retained by the city to investigate and make recommendations about what were called “monster houses” beginning to appear throughout the city (sound familiar?). I ended up as Project Architect. Following intensive neighbourhood research and meetings (Remember when that was a thing?), we made recommendations that were largely adopted by City Council, and most importantly, the problem went away—at least until a couple years ago.
In addition to invaluable input from neighbours, we benefited from an environment where planning regulations largely followed Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) Site Planning Criteria,2 which included recommendations about the separations between homes that were research and experienced based, something arguably absent from much of the multiplex zoning work in Vancouver and elsewhere in the province.
An illustration from Site Planning Criteria, breathtaking in its simplicity
Rather than focus on arbitrary setbacks, CMHC’s criteria established minimum open space dimensions adjacent to different types of room usage—essentially 4.5m (15’3) adjacent a living space, 1.5m (5’) adjacent most other spaces such as bedrooms. Since most buildings face neighbours across property lines, the actual space between two building faces was the sum of the separation spaces—so 3m (10’) between bedrooms facing across property lines, 9m between facing living rooms. In Vancouver, this was very little more than the 2.4m (8’) that most buildings would have between them as a minimum.4
For a main building facing a secondary building such as a laneway home, the sum of the separation spaces might be as much as 9m (30’), 4.5mx2. Remember that 9m.
Up until 2022, the general site configuration expected for the vast majority of RS (single family) lots looked like this5:
To be more specific, for a typical 37m (122’) deep x 10m (33’) lot:
Minimum rear yard between main and secondary building was 14.87m, almost exactly the 15m CMHC was expecting between two facing living rooms.
Minimum front yard depth was 7.4m (24.4’), minus an allowance for stairs to the main living level.6
As to height and density, the key irritant in my opinion is the way that height and density are now calculated as compared to historic measures7:
Up until recently, the zoning’s expectation for a standard lot (diagram above) was that a home’s mass would start to be reduced from 4.9m (16’) above grade, with a third storey’s massing reducing further above 7.6m (25’). Although not stated in the zoning bylaw, one result of this modified “wedding cake” approach is to improve overlook privacy and access to sunlight for existing neighbouring homes.
The height of a home was capped at as much as 10.7m (35’), but subject to the setbacks in the diagram above.
There have been enough iterations of the RS zonings in recent times that it’s often difficult to identify which one resulted in which new homes, including laneway homes, in Vancouver. It’s what’s happened most recently that concerns many folks who are otherwise accepting of greater height and density:
Maximum building heights for both single homes and multiplexes have been increased to 11.5m (37.7’), and roofs can be flat and extend to the outside edges of the storeys below.
Rooftop decks and accesses to them no longer need to be even partially contained within the slope of a roof.
The “courtyard” space between front and rear buildings has been reduced to 6.1m (20’) as compared to the 14.87m (49’) previously. Noting that front buildings may be three tall storeys (11.5m / 3 = 11-1/2’ per storey)8, actually four conventional height storeys, and the rear building may be 8.5m (27.9’) high, typically a two-storey laneway atop very high parking spaces. I can reliably predict that there will be limited if any sunlight in those courtyards and nobody will use these 20-foot wide canyons because they are too narrow for privacy. Neighbouring yards will also lose much of their sunlight.
“Courtyard” between multiplex front and rear buildings. Photo by Brian Palmquist
Meanwhile at the street side of a multiplex, front yards may be reduced by 1.8m (6’) for entry porces, plus 2.4m (8’) for stairs leading to raised entries.
Multiplex erosion of front yards. Photo by Brian Palmquist
There is no urban design rationale on offer for these latest multiplexes. As with many recent zoning changes, specialist groups such as builders and developers have been consulted, just not neighbours and ordinary citizens.
I have no disagreement that the previous lower density residential zones in the city have become overly complex. Noting that this complexity arose from city planning staff, and that private sector consultants successfully massaged RS zoning when last called on, after extensive community consultation, I have no doubt we can do the same again.
Coda: Residential development in Tokyo. Photo by Brian Palmquist
This post is about 1250 words—about double the 3-5 minutes citizens are allowed when they are allowed with less and less frequency to speak to the current Vancouver City Council, in their efforts to suppress democracy. If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist writes in the ancestral 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. City 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 is threatening to write a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places where we love to live. Some of its content may appear above.
This illustration is a composite of images from Vancouver’ proposed Official Development Plan.
I managed to find the one and only physical copy of this document in the Vancouver Public Library Main Branch—it was discontinued in the early 1980s when CMHC got out of the design review business.
The feet and inches equivalencies here are rounded: 5 feet is actually 1.55m, not 1.5. The metric dimensions govern in the zoning and building codes, yet many folks still think in feet and inches, hence my inclusion of both, with the rounded imperial measures usually within 2-4 inches of the metric.
Both the Vancouver Building Bylaw (VBBL) and the BC Building Code (BCBC) require 1.2m (4’) between a home and its side property line. In older homes such as mine, built before codes, the side yard setbak may be as little as 0.9m (3’). Zoning bylaws actually allowed a 1m setback with mandatory sprinklering and reduced window areas.
from Page 8 of Consultation Draft of RS-1 zoning at https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/regulation-redesign/rs/zoning-by-law-district-schedule-rs-1-draft.pdf.
This allowed for a secondary entry to a secondary suite that was usually located with its floor a few feet below grade.
from Page 12 of https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/regulation-redesign/rs/zoning-by-law-district-schedule-rs-1-draft.pdf
Pardon the confusion and metric to imperial switching. The new 11.5m height limit is equivalent to four storeys, each 8’-6” clear inside height. All the affordable housing I have ever designed has 8’ clear inside storey heights.