Opinion: B.C.'s housing crisis will be amplified by the homes we don't build today | Daily Hive

Residential towers under construction in North Vancouver. (Adam Melnyk/Shutterstock)

Written for Daily Hive Urbanized by local realtor Nick Baronian.

British Columbia has spent years talking about one central problem in housing: we do not have enough of it. However, right now we are facing a strange contradiction that some do not seem to grasp. We have an important provincial election this Saturday, Oct. 24, 2026, and it is crucial that people understand our current environment and exactly what is at stake.

There are thousands of completed homes sitting unsold. Buyers have more choice than I have ever seen in my real estate career. The presale market has tumbled, and as a result, developers are delaying projects or cancelling them altogether. At the same time, housing remains unaffordable to a huge number of hard-working British Columbians.

To the everyday person looking from the outside in, it would be very easy to look at the inventory available and conclude that we have more than enough homes. It would also be easy to assume that we are somehow working our way back toward affordable pricing and that much-needed relief is just a couple more imposed taxes away.

I think that would be a serious mistake.

You might also like:

The housing market does not operate in real time. The decisions being made today determine how many homes we will have three, four, five, even seven years from now.

Unfortunately, right now a lot of those decisions are simply not to build.

According to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), condominium apartment starts in Vancouver fell another 40 per cent during the first half of 2026. CMHC has also explicitly warned that weakness in condominium construction threatens our future supply of homes available for people to purchase. This should concern us.

The problem is not that B.C. suddenly stopped needing homes. The problem is that, in many cases, the economics of building them no longer work. Projects simply do not pencil anymore. Developers have to acquire land, navigate years of municipal approvals and regulations, pay municipal fees, secure financing, absorb construction and holding costs, and ultimately sell enough homes at prices buyers are willing and able to pay. At the end of the day, if those numbers do not work, the project does not get built.

This is where I think the housing conversation has become disconnected from reality. We tend to treat developers, investors, homeowners, renters, and governments as if they are all on opposing teams, when ultimately the goal should be the same: we need more homes.

Renters need more options, buyers need more attainable ownership opportunities, governments need communities that can accommodate growth, and developers and investors are the ones taking on much of the financial risk required to actually build that supply. These groups do not have to agree on everything, but we should at least recognize that solving the housing shortage requires all of them to be part of the solution.

For that to happen, housing has to be financially viable to build, and the environment has to be predictable enough for people to invest in it.

This concept applies to all businesses. A business owner relies on some level of predictability in the marketplace as part of their business plan. They need to understand the rules of engagement and the ins and outs of their industry. When that stability exists, entrepreneurs are more willing to put their capital at risk, hire people, innovate, and build. If they turn a profit, great. Hopefully they have employed people and contributed to the economy along the way. If they fail, they absorb that risk too.

That is one of the fundamental principles of capitalism, and it has been central to North America’s economic success. Private enterprise, competition, and the possibility of earning a return encourage people to take risks. That risk-taking promotes ingenuity, investment, and economic growth. Housing should not somehow be exempt from that reality. We can regulate development in the public interest without creating an environment where the rules, costs, and risks become so unpredictable that fewer people are willing to invest in building the homes we need.

That does not mean developers should be immune from regulation or taxation, nor does it mean governments should not demand infrastructure, community amenities, or responsible development. It means we have to understand that every additional cost and every additional layer of risk eventually becomes part of the decision about whether or not the next project moves forward. We are already seeing what happens when that equation stops working: presales slow down, projects get cancelled, housing starts fall, and capital moves elsewhere.

The irony is that this can happen at exactly the moment when the market appears to have plenty of supply. Today’s completed homes were not started today. They were planned, financed, and put under construction years ago, when market conditions looked a lot different. Likewise, the projects being cancelled today will not show up as missing homes tomorrow. We will feel their absence several years from now.

That is why I have concerns when governments respond to what I believe is, to a significant degree, a policy-driven housing slowdown by proposing additional costs on the very industry we are relying on to produce tomorrow’s supply. Interest rates are influenced by monetary policy. Immigration levels are determined by government policy. Approval timelines, zoning, development charges, taxation, investor rules, and housing regulation are all shaped by public policy.

Of course, government policy is not the only force affecting a housing market. However, when governments influence both the demand for housing and the environment in which housing gets financed, approved, built, bought, and sold, we cannot pretend policy is somehow separate from the market conditions we are experiencing today. In my view, we spent years allowing demand to outpace supply and then responded to the resulting affordability crisis with layers of measures designed, at least in part, to cool demand, discourage speculation, and change investor behaviour.

Some of those policies may have been introduced with legitimate objectives, but policies also have consequences beyond their immediate objective.

The danger is that we temporarily suppress demand without fixing the structural problem underneath it: B.C. still needs substantially more housing over the long term. If weaker demand, increased regulatory risk and deteriorating project economics result in fewer homes being built today, then we haven’t solved the supply problem, we’ve just postponed it.

Take David Eby’s BC NDP’s proposed tax on completed, unsold condominiums, for example. I understand the political appeal. If thousands of completed homes are sitting unsold while people are struggling with affordability, it is reasonable to ask why those homes are not being sold. However, we also have to ask what happens if a developer cannot sell those homes at a price that covers the project’s obligations. The answer cannot simply be, “Too bad, so sad. Greedy developer.” Not if we actually want to address our structural supply issue over the long term.

An unsold condominium is not necessarily being deliberately withheld from the market. Sometimes there simply are not enough buyers at the price required to make the project financially viable. Adding another cost does not create a buyer. It does not improve someone’s income, lower mortgage qualification requirements, change developer financing agreements, or reduce construction costs. What it can do is change the calculation for the next project.

Those calculations ultimately determine where capital gets invested. Additional costs and uncertainty can make other jurisdictions more attractive places to invest capital and contribute to an environment where B.C. is viewed as increasingly risky or unpredictable for businesses making long-term investment decisions. That matters not only for the projects struggling today, but for the projects investors and developers are deciding whether to pursue tomorrow.

B.C. absolutely has an affordability problem. We need more attainable housing, more rental housing, and more ownership opportunities for younger people and families who increasingly feel locked out of the market. But we cannot regulate our way around basic project economics.

If homes cost more to build than buyers can afford to pay for them, fewer homes will get built.

If we allow today’s slowdown in construction to continue long enough, we risk creating the conditions for another supply shortage when demand eventually strengthens. We have seen this cycle before. When the market is weak, building slows. When demand returns, supply cannot respond overnight because housing takes years to approve, finance, and construct. By the time we realize we are short again, it is already too late to quickly fix it.

The goal should not be to protect developers from market forces. The goal should be to create an environment where competition can actually produce more housing. That means looking seriously at construction costs, municipal charges, approval timelines, financing conditions, taxation, and the cumulative impact of government policy. Housing policy should ultimately be measured against a simple question: Does this make it easier or harder to build the next home?

B.C.’s next housing crisis may not be defined by the condominiums sitting unsold today. It may be defined by the homes we decide not to build because of them. This Saturday, Oct. 24, do your research, understand what is at stake, and don’t just vote, but vote responsibly. That is your civic duty.

You might also like: