Talk Housing to us, but tell us what you really mean

Post by Michael Geller in


What on Earth are Vision trying to say in their latest confusing policy pronouncement?

Ask Vancouverites what is the most pressing issue facing our city and many will respond that it is the cost and availability of affordable housing. For this reason, the city’s recent Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021 that went before Council on July 26, 2011 is a very important document.

As a former official with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and a housing planner and developer with a longstanding interest in ‘affordable housing’, I was particularly interested to read what the city was planning for the coming decade, and next three years. While the document offers some lovely words and obtuse statements, there is a paucity of details to help the reader fully understand what the city planners and politicians really have in mind.

So, for those of you who have not taken the time to read the report, or may never have the time or inclination to do so, I would like to share a few observations. In setting out these thoughts, my intention is not to criticize those who wrote the document or directed its preparation. Rather, I would like to offer some perspectives that will hopefully lead to better and more cost effective housing policies, and more coherent strategic actions.

I should note that I did attend one of the city’s numerous ‘consultative’ workshops related to rental housing and homelessness leading up to the preparation of this report. It was not a terribly satisfying experience, since rather than have a genuine opportunity to offer ideas, I felt that I was there to hear what the city housing planners had already decided. I was not alone in this observation.  Downtown Eastside Community activist Jean Swanson, with whom I worked 35 years ago during my tenure at CMHC, felt the same way. Although she seemed to really enjoy the food being served during her session.

The report to city council includes a lot of numbers, totaling 38,900 units over the next ten years. Yes, 38,900! However, of these 7,900 are non-market housing (supportive and social housing); 11,000 are Market Rental Housing including ‘purpose built’ and secondary market (basement suites, laneway housing, etc.); and 20,000 are Condos and Affordable home ownership. While this seems like a lot of units, some analysts point out that when one looks at the number of non-market housing units already underway, (thanks in large part to the efforts of the past administrations), and other exemptions, the number of non-market units being proposed over the next three years, is actually less than what was proposed in previous housing strategy reports.

While I question whether the city should be subsidizing 11,000 market rental housing units, and am curious how and where the 20,000 condos and affordable home ownership units are going to be built, of greater interest is the underlying intent behind many of the somewhat obtuse strategies set out in the report.

For example:

  1. One of the strategic directions is to refine and develop new zoning approaches. What does this mean? I have heard that some city housing planners and politicians have been considering the creation of ‘rental zones’ in the city, where only rental housing would be built. Is this what is intended? I do hope not.
  2. Another strategy is to pursue a new business model to enhance affordable housing delivery. Now what does this mean? During the last municipal election, Cllr Geoff Meggs and I were invited to debate the merits of setting up a City Housing Corporation as one way of facilitating the delivery of affordable housing in the city. Is this what’s intended? If not, what is being said between the lines?
  3. Another strategic direction proposes maintaining and exploring opportunities to improve Rate of Change regulations…The Rate of Change bylaw was introduced in the 80’s during the tenure of former City Councillor George Puil as a means of protecting the older rental housing stock in the city, especially in neighbourhoods like Kerrisdale and the West End. In some respects it has succeeded. However, in others it has failed in that many of the properties have been allowed to deteriorate. And while they provide more affordable rental housing, especially to longstanding senior residents, soon some of these buildings may be uninhabitable. While I agree with the need to improve the regulations, it would be helpful if the city planners shared what they are thinking. Will it be possible to demolish and replace some of these units under certain circumstances? I do hope so.
  4. The document seems to support the continuation of the STIR program, and other similar programs. While I am the first to admit that this program has encouraged a few developers to build market rental housing, rather than just condominiums, I am not convinced the results are worth the expense. Indeed, in many respects, the program has done more harm than good. Personally, while I support reduced parking requirements, fast-tracking applications, and reasonable density bonuses for rental housing, I do not support the kind of subsidies the city has approved to date. I would rather see limited City dollars directed towards the creation of affordable rental housing, not market rental housing.
  5. There is another idea in the report that does worry me…the establishment of a Rent Bank by the city and other partners, to prevent evictions due to tenants’ short-term financial crisis. While I can understand the underlying benevolent intent, I must question the appropriateness of the city participating in such a venture, given the potential financial and administrative costs, let alone the propriety of such an undertaking. When I questioned this idea during a recent CKNW Civic Affairs Panel, fellow panellist Frances Bula seemed to defend the idea noting that both the City of Surrey and Toronto had established similar Rent Banks. While I would like to learn more, this does not seem like a good reason to undertake such a potentially questionable idea.
  6. Another proposition in the report is to make City lands available at a reduced cost for affordable housing. Personally, I can support this idea, since it is similar to an initiative undertaken at SFU’s UniverCity community. However, at SFU, there was considerable debate about the notion of equity, and who might qualify for such housing. In the end, it was decided that the housing would only be available to faculty and staff, especially those with children. According to an interview with Cllr Louie in today’s Vancouver Sun, the city has some ideas about how such a program might be implemented. However, they are not set out in the report. I think it is important that the city share with us which sites might be made available, the potential costs to the city, and how it intends to address the question of equity.
  7. Finally, this document is significant for what it doesn’t include. For example, there is absolutely no reference to how best to deal with the ‘20% social housing sites’ that have been set aside by Concord Pacific and Marathon Realty, that remain undeveloped due to a lack of capital and operating funds. To my mind, this is a very pressing issue since it not only addresses supply, but also the desire for socially mixed communities, something which compelled the city to retain at great cost, the very expensive social housing units at the Olympic Village (which also is not mentioned anywhere in the report). I believe there are solutions that would result in affordable housing on these sites, at no cost to the city, which I would be happy to share, if asked.

In conclusion, this is an important document. However, to be truly meaningful to the taxpayers of the city and potential partners in future endeavours, it needs to be fleshed out with substantive details, specific examples, and more complete financial implications. I would urge the authors to now revise the document by adding a 'for example' at the end of every strategic action. Then we all might better understand what the authors and City Council have in mind.

Please don’t keep us in suspense.


Editor's Note: NPA Mayoralty candidate Suzanne Anton also wonders what Gregor Robertson's confusing housing policy paper is supposed to mean also. Anton expresses her concerns in a recent media release.

NPA mayoral candidate Suzanne Anton says Gregor Robertson's new housing strategy is an un-costed muddle with no clear path to create new housing, which re-announces thousands of social & supportive housing units secured during the previous NPA term of government. The Mayor's new strategy also dilutes longstanding city commitments to end homelessness.

Housing policy analyst Nathan Crompton over at has done an excellent breakdown on the numbers behind Vision's 'muddled' housing promise. As the NPA's release states, many of the units of social housing promised are simply being re-announced after being secured by the NPA.

The three-year action plan announces 3,650 new units of non-market housing. Immediately, observers will recognize that almost half of these 3,650 new units are not new at all: they are part of the 14 sites, which were promised for completion by 2010 at the latest, not 2014. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for these sites was signed in 2007 and construction was supposed to start in 2008...

Once the 14 sites are subtracted from the 3-year total, the City is committed to building only 1,950 new housing units. However, a further significant portion of these 1,950 units are also falsely included. 319 of them are not planned for actual construction, since, as the report says, they “currently have no identified funding source.” In addition to this, 276 further units cannot be genuinely counted since they are drawn from the Little Mountain housing development. Little Mountain does not represent new units for the housing stock, since the 224 units of public housing at Little Mountain, built in 1954, were destroyed and all residents were promised to be re-housed by 2010...

Anton has a series of questions for council, which she cannot ask because Mayor Gregor keeps shutting off her microphone in city council. We'll share these questions with our readers below.

  • How much will all these proposals cost taxpayers?
  • How can housing promises be made which require federal or provincial funding that doesn't exist yet?
  • Who is supposed to fund the promised "rent bank" to pay rents for tenants facing eviction? Who will collect the interest?
  • Why does the report suggest targeting social housing into some but not all neighbourhoods as is traditional city policy?
  • Why does the report ignore costs associated with the most expensive social housing units in North America at the Olympic Village? How many are still empty?
  • What has been the value of STIR and the per-unit subsidy, believed to be in the six figures per unit?


- post by Michael Geller. Michael is a Vancouver architect, planner, real estate consultant and property developer. From 1972 to 1981 he was an official with CMHC during which time he oversaw the development of thousands of affordable housing units and the preparation of numerous housing policy and strategy documents. He can be reached at


Thank you for this report Mr. Geller. I agree many more questions need to be asked...and answered.

I would like to add one more question.

With the Stir units in a development, is this unit to remain affordable for the life of the building or does it revert back to the developer after X amount of years.

Mr. Geller

Robertson and Vision will continue issue simplistic deceptive projections on future housing plans unless you or I call them on their lies.

Please be sure to inform the voters that Robertson intends to find ways to show that housing is created at any cost so long as it appears to be as a result of his actions.

The voters and taxpayers must show Vision that Vancouver is fully aware that provincial funds are needed and not to try to cause city taxes or borrowing to have any part in housing those who are essentially taxing us out of Vancouver.

Send the message that we are not to be tapped for Robertson's idiotic housing plan.

When asked to vote for any borrowing for housing during the next civic election VOTE NO!

Forget the bike lanes, put dubious hiring to one side, it is Vision's housing policy that should destroy them.

I used to believe that Robertson and his crew were inept but sincere about the housing problem that bedevils this city. That was naive. Their actions and policies have been characterised by cynicism, by deceit, by prejudice, by cronyism, by pandering, by betrayal on a shocking scale.

Independent voices in COPE, characterised by The Mainlander, are willing to call out this gang of poseurs but tragically as a party it has chosen to wed itself to a selfish, self absorbed vehicle for personal ambition, Vision Vancouver, whose past and present policy is immoral and has failed those most in need while enriching its wealthy and privileged paymasters. Viewed from left or right that is wrong and this truth needs to be hammered home.

For the NPA to become a force for social justice may seem to many an extraordinary turnaround but on this issue that is exactly what it can be, if it chooses.

Now we are talking, david hadaway...

This is so true on so many levels..

Anyone that questioned Stir during the last election, folks that saw through the facade, severely had their wrists slapped..

NPA or any Independent Politicians should heed what david hadaway has to say...he speaks more truth than he knows..


'Wrists slapped' is a mild description.

More accurately would be 'had their lives systematically dismanteled'

So true Max,
The first names that come up are Ark, Charlene, Marg..there are many that understand...or know things.

Hopefully they will speak out, time..

It is an interesting plan with few specifics and I'm glad Geller has raised some flags. But at the same time lack of affordable housing and homelessness are major issues that the City must deal with. The NPA wants to form municipal government and as such shouldn't the NPA be putting out its own plan on how to address lack of affordability and homelessness in the City? I would hope that Ms Anton rather than just critiquing her competitor would put forth some ideas of her own.

It would appear that at least 80% of this proposal is true in the West End:

"I have heard that some city housing planners and politicians have been considering the creation of ‘rental zones’ in the city, where only rental housing would be built. Is this what is intended? I do hope not."

Refer to WEMAC's Recommendation #5 at the following link:

Because it would seem that the West End having the largest proportion of rental housing in the City is just not must be made higher...


I know it is off topic but why City of Vancouver Councilors are getting involved in the dispute between a private enterprise and their employees is beyond me….oh wait, right, the business owner is the Chair of the NPA.... Politics at its worse or best depending on your point of view.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic Paul.
Could I ask for a little clarification please.

Shaking my head at this.

I wonder how possibly hurting Mr. Armstrong's business helps the employees?

Loss of business = layoffs.


and tax base...

this is more about the it stands...there are people working, I'm sure they are very content..

For the city to become involved might imply we the citizens agree with the stance of the union..not everyone does..

this was a great post..

Restrict residential real estate purchases only to those who file a tax return with Revenue Canada. Voila, housing price issue solved.

As left earlier @ The Mainlander

Glissando Remmy says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:46 pm

The Thought Of The Night

“Vision Vancouver(def): Group of experts in various subjects they don’t have any expertise in, what-so-ever; catch and release technique in fly politicking; parasitic infection transmitted through public releases…”

So, there you have it.
Affordability is simply an euphemism for ‘one day you’ll own your home but not too soon’ kinda thing.
There are people out there especially behind the bureaucratic curtain, well paid and fed that thrive on messages like this. If you read some of the reports you may get a headache.

In the same way they want to control the message at the VSB level, and you know to whom I am referring to,same way through the use of cheap rhetoric, and the use of generally recognized words like: sustainable, solar energy, geothermal, green roofs,etc. they are trying to change the message into something like ‘it’s going to cost more, way more, but it’s going to be healthier, more sustainable, yeah, a bit more expensive, but still affordable considering…’
“More expensive”,in Bob Rennie’s sales pitch have become, “But still affordable considering”.
Exactly. considering what?

IMO, this type of approach coupled with what I can only see as a City Approved Developer’s Slush Fund will be the beginning of the end for ‘affordable’ housing in Vancouver.
In my experience, you give anyone, anyone in any business you can think of, more money to keep… and they will keep it all! Guaranteed.
It’s called ‘Human nature’. Tell this to the Vision Superheroes though…

And as the story goes,courtesy to Vision Vancouver, now, development in the city have become more ‘affordable’ for the developers.

Great analysis Sean. This was a hell of a concise, crystal clear, well researched piece you put together.
If we could only find a “professional storyteller” to spread out the message around the Vision’s square minded table.

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.


Praise for Michael Geller for a well written Housing/ STIR autopsy. Could Vision Vancouver overdose on Ego and Arrogance? One can only hope...

Also what David H. and Bruce W. said!

Does the city have the power to do this? (Restrict purchase to people filing a tax reutrn with Revenue Canada).

Yes, it would be nice to know what the NPA's policies will be, other than attempts at mega development and casinos. I don't even no where they stand on bike lanes. But I am hoping they will come out with some positions in the early fall so that we can have an election based on clear policy alternatives. Hoping ...

@dear cc staff...

You tweeted about a surprise for today's CC offering... waiting..

Please post before I leave for my volunteer gig!!!!

Suspense killing us(me)..hovering...


Approx 2 weeks ago, a Chinese Real Estate Network TV crew were in Vancouver profiling it for Chinese investors.

Even thought people here have a tough time renting/buying, the properties are considered cheap by the Chinese.

In China, they are required to put down 50% of the net cost of the purchase property and have to pay the blance off over a 3 year period. Like here, there is also a divide between those that can afford, and those that cannot.

Yet, there are 64 million apartments sitting empty and they keep building in order to prop up their economy.

This might give some insight into NPA policy. This was released right before STIR was adopted.

(NPA council candidate) Mike Klassen was sitting on the Vancouver City Planning Commission at the time. So was Bob Ransford.

Hi George,

I was being sarcastic as I had read the link you posted. I think it is wholly inappropriate for the City to wade into a private company labour dispute. The citizens of Vancouver don’t pay them to do that. To add insult to injury, they are doing it for (imho) poltical reasons only and not out of concern for employees. If the Rocky Mountaineer was owned by say Joel Solomon, you wouldnt hear boo from them.

Tx Paul..thought so but thought I'd check...

Thank you Sean for posting the links to the VCPC proposal to encourage rental housing. An important difference between the VCPC proposal and Vision Vancouver's STIR program is the defined 1.5 FSR density bonus for rental housing in the VCPC framework. The flawed STIR program includes no such "ceiling" which has lead to proposals like the 4.9 FSR bonus requested on the project at 1401 Comox Street.

Check out!

Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement