MAJOR UPDATE: The City has released a memo that includes an explanation of the proposed tenant protections. See pages 3 to 8 here. Notably, they say that returning tenants will be able to lock in their rent at 20% below the citywide average years before moving in, and it will only increase by the same amount allowed by the Province for occupied apartments (currently restricted to the inflation rate). This is the example they describe for a 1 bedroom in Appendix A (page 8):

If a 2% rent increase per year is assumed and it takes 4 years for the new building to be constructed then the below-
market rent in the new unit would be $1,290/month and the tenant’s original rent would have been $1,695/month if no
redevelopment had occurred

Disclaimer: The following is intended to clarify, in the most abbreviated form practical, the tenant protection policies proposed in the Broadway Plan and potential amendments. The answers are taken from the publicly available sources referenced. We have reached out to planning staff for verification of the answers here (and more) but have not yet received confirmation of accuracy from the City.

What protections for tenants currently exist in the City of Vancouver?

In addition to the Residential Tenancy Act, tenants in Vancouver are protected by the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy (TRPP). The TRPP includes measures such as right of first refusal, communication requirements, moving allowance, and assistance finding new accommodation. See the following questions for more details.

What additional measures does the draft Broadway Plan propose to protect renters?

In addition to the measures in the TRPP, tenants in rental buildings within the Broadway Plan area will have a few options if their building is redeveloped. These options include:

1. The right to return to the new building with rent at a 20% discount to CMHC city-wide average rents.

AND

1. One of either:
   1. Compensation equal to between 4 months of rent (1-5 year tenancies) and 24 months of rent (>40 year tenancies), OR
   2. A top-up subsidy to keep their existing rent at a new apartment while they are waiting to move into the new building.

The major improvement in the Broadway Plan is that tenants will be able to move back into a new building at a 20% discount to average rents for market rental buildings city-wide (per CMHC), whereas the TRPP only offers a 20% discount to starting rents in the new building. So, for example, if market rent in a 1 bedroom apartment today were $2200, the discounted rent for returning tenants would be $1760 under the TRPP, but would be only about $1216 under the Broadway Plan policy.

The proposed protections are described in more detail on page 7 of the Draft Housing Policies.

Press Read More for the rest of the FAQ.

Should people be able to live near clean, rapid transit?

That is the question at stake when the future of the Broadway Corridor will be decided this Wednesday, May 18th.

The Plan calls for up to 30,000 additional homes over the next 30 years. It is a small but key step towards building the estimated 136,000 more homes needed by 2032. And being beside the coming Broadway Skytrain will allow tens of thousands of Vancouverites to live a sustainable, low carbon lifestyle. The plan also enacts some of the strongest renter protections anywhere in Canada.

The draft Vancouver Plan is out! It seeks to be a guiding vision for creating a greener and more affordable, vibrant and equitable city. It is just a rough sketch, not a detailed plan for specific streets and neighbourhoods. To become useful, it has to get through multiple stages of approvals and detailed planning and policy development. Right now, your support will help the best parts of the vision get approved by Council, and maybe even win some improvements! But hurry, the survey closes April 24th!

When answering the survey (scroll down on the linked page to choose your survey language), we recommend choosing either "Strongly Agree" or "Somewhat Agree" for basically everything. Disagreement will most likely be interpreted as wanting to do less rather than wanting to do more. The text boxes at the bottom of every page let you say exactly what improvements you would like to see. Read on for more detailed suggestions of how to answer each question!

The Broadway Plan will shape Vancouver's "second Downtown" for the next 30 years and beyond. Thousands or tens of thousands of homes, including below-market homes, are at stake. You can add your voice to those calling for more homes by filling out this short survey from the City. But hurry, it closes Tuesday, March 22nd.

Not sure what to say? Read our walk-through below. We recommend choosing "I really like it..." or "I like most aspects..." for every question, as mixed/dislike will most likely be interpreted as wanting a less ambitious plan rather than more.

UPDATE: The long-delayed Secured Rental Policy for near local shopping areas is continuing at public hearing this Tuesday, November 9th, at 6:00 p.m. It will enable rezonings within 1 block of an arterial street, as long as the location is close enough to shopping, parks and schools. The same proposal will also change C-2 zoning, commercial zones that currently allow 4-storey condos, to allow 6-storey mixed-use rental buildings without a hearing (mixed-use means that the buildings also have commercial space on the first floor). Council notionally gave the thumbs up to these same proposals back in 2019, but in 2020, NIMBYs complained at the first public hearing and Council sent it back for moar consultation. Now, finally, at the end of 2021, we may be nearing the real implementation of these policies that have been called for since at least 2017! Your support is needed to ensure these policies make it all the way past the finish line this time.

Click here to send comments to Council, and use subject "1. Streamlining Rental Around Local Shopping Areas" and choose Position: "Support". Better yet, click here to register to speak to Council. A few hundred NIMBYs are fighting this hard, your voice can make a difference!

Here are some points you might want to mention:

- "I support this policy proposal"/"Please approve this item"

- The C-2 rental option is long overdue. Rental rezonings in C-2 areas are never rejected in practice, this is a practical step that will save everyone time and make rental more competitive with condo development, which does not require a rezoning.

- The streamlined rezoning policy for transition areas is also long overdue. Renters deserve to be able to live off of busy, polluted arterial streets. This was approved by Council in 2019 and Staff have been working on it since then, consulting widely with a range of Vancouverites of different backgrounds. It would not be fair to taxpayers, nor to the people who participated in shaping this policy, to reject it now.

- This will help prevent urban sprawl. Other cities in Metro Vancouver are still cutting down forests to build housing on the outskirts of the metro, usually close to highways and far from public transit. Housing policy is climate policy.

- The policy has additional incentives to help build social housing. Social housing providers support this policy.

- The simplified rezoning process is important and will help get more rental built. Not requiring a public hearing or a rezoning at all would be much better.

- Some of the proposed changes are an improvement on the former Affordable Housing Choices policy. This is not a radically new policy and rental rezonings are regularly covered in the media, as was consultation for this policy. Polling by Research Co shows that Vancouverites support these missing middle housing options: "fewer than one-in-five [oppose] 6-storey rental buildings (19%), ...[and] 4-storey rental buildings (14%)..."

- Recent academic research matches housing economists' intuition: Building new apartments helps lower rents nearby, and at the metro level. The large majority of people that move into new apartments in Vancouver already live in the metro area; freeing up cheaper apartments for new tenants.

- That being said, the transition areas policy does not go nearly far enough:

• Renters should be allowed to live more than one block off of arterial streets. It is not fair, not equitable, and not reasonable to reserve quiet streets only for multi-million dollar houses. Council has already passed a motion stating that rental does not belong only on busy arterial streets, but that is not reflected in this policy.
• Some of Vancouver's best-loved neighbourhoods, like the West End, Mt. Pleasant, and Kerrisdale, integrate lots of apartment buildings on side streets.
• According to the City's own analysis, off-arterial apartments will not be viable in many locations. Expanding the eligible area to two (or more) blocks from the arterials would help get more apartments actually built. Council can do this at the hearing, or approve the proposal as-is and direct staff to come back with a proposal to expand the eligibility map.
• This new map excludes many areas that were included under the previous rental policy. Places like Shaughnessy need apartments, and local-serving retail too, and should not be excluded.
• Some of the below-market rental options are especially uneconomical and unlikely to see much uptake. Council should look at improving these in the future. All of the below-market rental options are on arterials, as only 4-storey buildings are allowed off-arterial and they do not offer enough density to make a below-market component economical.
• The majority of new development in Vancouver is still detached houses and duplexes. Every torn down house is an opportunity for better land use, every new detached house is a missed opportunity.

Note on the map: "Community Plan Areas" in hatched lines are excluded from the policy. (Should they be though?)

Background Info:

A blog post explaining the policy and why it is needed

City of Vancouver's page for the Streamling Rental

Why Secure Rental is Important (PDF, City of Vancouver)

Proposed Changes for Low-Density "Transition" Areas (PDF, City of Vancouver)

The multi-year Vancouver Plan has entered its "Options & Trade-offs" phase and planners are looking for your input. This is an important opportunity to tell City Hall that apartment buildings should be legalized throughout the city, and that the super-majority of our residential land must not be reserved only for the wealthy. The status quo is terrible, with exclusionary zoning making Vancouver less affordable, pushing people out, exacerbating urban sprawl, making commutes longer, and accelerating climate change. Please raise your voice to ensure we get the change we so badly need. But, tickets for the virtual workshops are selling out fast, so register for one today!

You can register for the workshop listed for the neighbourhood you currently live in, or any neighbourhood/area you are interested in. Click on the links below to register:

Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Marpole: Mon Nov. 1, 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM OR Tue Nov. 2, 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

Grandview-Woodland, Hastings-Sunrise, Kensington-Cedar Cottage: Mon Nov. 8, 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM OR Tue Nov. 9, 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

Sunset, Victoria-Fraserview, Renfrew-Collingwood, Killarney: Tue Nov. 9, 6:00 PM-7:30 PM OR Wed, Nov. 10 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

West Point Grey, Kitsilano, Arbutus Ridge, Dunbar-Southlands: Mon Nov. 15, 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

Downtown, West End, Downtown Eastside, Strathcona: Mon Nov. 15, 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM

There is also an opportunity to drop-in to the "Open House" running at City Lab, 511 W Broadway, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Mondays from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm until November 25th. We still recommend signing up for the virtual workshops first, if you can, so you can discuss with your neighbours, get the full presentation, and have your views recorded as part of the focus group. But you can do both!

Don't forget to tell your friends we need "4 floors and corner stores," everywhere!

Survey on Rental in “Transition Areas” and Some Commercial Zones Closes Soon; Fill it out Today!

The City of Vancouver wants to hear from you about their revised policy allowing apartments near arterial roads. The policy will allow single-family (RS) and duplex (RT) lots to be rezoned for small rental buildings, generally up to 6-storeys on arterial roads and 4-storeys up to one block away. Kitsilano NIMBYs are fighting this hard, the policy is at risk of being watered-down even more. Your voice can make a difference!

TL;DR: Here are a few important points to consider before answering the survey (direct link here - ends July 27th):

Question 1: The City should encourage the construction of secure market rental housing/below market rental housing/social housing in more neighbourhoods?

• We strongly agree with all three of these points.

Question 2: Would the proposed changes make it faster and easier to build new secure rental housing / complete neighbourhoods / to address climate emergency?

• We agree with all three of these points, with some reservations.

Question 3: Do you have any comments specific to the zoning changes for rental housing in C-2 areas [busy commercial streets]?

• This change will allow rental housing at 6-storeys to compete with condos/strata on a more level playing field. This is overdue.
• More options, such as 12-storey mass timber buildings, should be considered, especially on larger sites or near rapid transit.

Question 4: Do you have any comments specific to the rezoning policy changes for rental housing in low density areas, or the new standard rental zones?

• Still Breathing Diesel Fumes: This policy still only allows apartments within 1 block of arterial streets. Renters deserve to be allowed to live on quiet, clean side streets too. The 1 block limit should be removed entirely: apartments should be allowed anywhere near schools, parks, or shopping nodes (or just anywhere!).
• More Options for Moderate Income Rental: There are not enough incentives for moderate income rental apartments and the incentives described do not appear very financially attractive. Only a 9% increase in floor space is offered for reserving 20% of an apartment building for below market apartments, and this small bonus is only allowed directly on arterial streets. The City is running way behind the rental targets in the Vancouver Housing Strategy, there should be more and better incentives, such as allowing 6-storey buildings with moderate income homes off-arterial and providing options for 12-storey mass timber construction in at least some locations.
• This is an important policy for creating much-needed rental housing. The scale of this policy has not changed much from what has been allowed for years; which ignores the worsening crisis, a critical shortage of rental housing and the rapidly rising rents over the past several years. More ambitious policies are needed now.

 You can answer the survey and read more about the policy at the City’s consultation page, but be sure to submit your thoughts as the survey closes soon!

 Want to know more? More analysis after the flip…

Survey Closes March 31st

The "Phase 2" consultation for the Broadway Plan has been posted with a detailed survey that is open until the end of March. The Emerging Directions give a general, if vague, idea of the kinds of land use changes currently expected for the many sub-areas in the Broadway Plan. The Broadway Plan area stretches from Clark in the East to Vine in the West, with sub-areas for Mt. Pleasant, Fairview, and Kitsilano.

The Broad Strokes of the Broadway Plan

The Good

The Emerging Directions have a strong focus on protecting tenants and maintaining affordability. The Plan will consider detached and duplex (RS/RT) zones that were previously off-limits, to help create new apartments where the risk of displacement of renters is the lowest. The large Queen Elizabeth Park view cone that greatly restricts development in the area will be reviewed to ensure that Broadway can add enough height to function as Vancouver's 'second downtown' while maintaining affordability. In Commercial "villages", including busy arterial Main Street, an approach similar to the West End will be pursued, where the lower scale of the commercial high street is maintained in favour of adding housing off-arterial (in the residential areas, because housing is residential!).

The Not as Good

The plan alludes to a highly incremental approach that may not work in practice. Making big promises about affordability and public realm improvements requires much bigger change in what types of housing are allowed, for two reasons. First, maintaining market affordability (the vast majority of existing housing is market-rate) requires building enough to satiate the strong demand to live in a vibrant, central and growing area like this. Secondly, increases in allowed floor-space and height are what create the "land-lift" that allows the City to raise money for improvements, social housing, and below-market rental. An incremental approach intended to reduce speculation will more likely result in too little housing, too late, and thus continued spiraling rents combined with only modest increases in the number of below-market homes. The 2016 Grandview-Woodland Plan also pursued a policy of incremental increases in height in many areas, and has so far achieved 0% of its population growth target!

Survey Walk-through / Cheat Sheet

The survey is rather long, but you can choose how much of it you want to do. To make sure you can finish, you may want to skip one or two neighbourhoods so that you can focus on the ones you are interested in. With that, it's time to open the survey in a new tab and click "Read More" below to get started!

Important Survey Closes this Weekend (March 22nd)

Planners are asking residents for their thoughts on housing, displacement and exclusion in the City's neighbourhoods. You can take the survey at this link, or read more on the ShapeYourCity page for Vancouver Plan - Housing.

Some thoughts on key questions:

Question 2 is about the definition of residential displacement, the types of which are defined as:

• Physical (direct) displacement - i.e. having to leave your home because it is being renovated or redeveloped, is in an unlivable condition, or you have been evicted;
• Economic (indirect) displacement - i.e. having to leave your home because you can no longer afford rent or you can no longer afford or access your daily needs such as a grocery store; and
• Cultural displacement - i.e. leaving your neighbourhood because you can no longer afford or access your cultural needs such as culturally appropriate stores, spaces or services.

I partly disagree: The working definition basically assumes that people will live their entire lives in the exact same home. If someone has to leave their preferred neighbourhood because their housing needs change and no suitable housing is available that is affordable to them, that is still displacement. The definition could be extended to people who would prefer to live in a given area, say near their work, but cannot afford to move there in the first place, as the only difference between this and the proposed definition is incumbency. Additionally, if someone can afford to move into a suitable nearby home when they are "physically" displaced from their current home, then they are not really being displaced.

The False Creek South (FCS) co-ops were intended to be a master-planned, utopian dream of socially mixed co-ops on beautiful waterfront city land. 

According to the city’s FCS community profile document, “False Creek South was designed to be a compact, self-sufficient and socially mixed community that would accommodate all household types, age levels and income groups.” It sounds quite lovely, doesn’t it?

It may surprise you to hear that in reality, it’s a progressive’s nightmare and a serious failing of city planning. What has resulted is the exact opposite of the stated goals - a whiter, richer neighbourhood that houses few families. 

The facts are thus:

• False Creek South has a 20% higher median household income than the city overall, despite 80% of the land being publicly owned. The city median income is $65,000, compared to the FCS median income of $78,000. The city land, worth no less than approximately $700 million, is being used to house relatively well-off people, not poorer people that you’d expect from a public subsidy. The intent was to do the latter, but the outcome was the former.
• False Creek South also doesn’t house many families. Only 23% of households are families with children, compared to 33% for Vancouver as a whole. Households are smaller, yet have higher incomes, so per capita income is even higher.
• False Creek South has a disproportionately low proportion of low-income households compared to the rest of the city. FCS houses 32% fewer low-income households compared to the city as a whole. Again, there is a serious mismatch of intent vs. outcome.
• False Creek South also egregiously lacks diversity. Only 17% of the residents during the 2016 census were visible minorities compared to 51% for Vancouver as a whole. Residents whose mother tongue is English is more dominant in False Creek South (76%) compared to the city overall (53%). FCS is largely white and English-speaking, another major failing. 

So what on earth happened? Why did FCS end up being a wealthy, white enclave, the exact opposite of its stated goals?