Policy enabling 20-storey social, supportive housing towers across Vancouver axed | Daily Hive

City Council rejects policy enabling social and supportive housing towers up to 20 storeys across Vancouver

Proposed Vancouver social housing rezoning, Fall 2025 concept. (City of Vancouver)

A controversial major package of proposed policies aimed at dramatically expanding affordable housing development across Vancouver has been rejected.

On Tuesday, the ABC Vancouver party-led majority in Vancouver City Council voted down the proposal by City of Vancouver staff, which would have introduced new zoning relaxations and amendments to bylaws to enable the accelerated creation of 100 per cent social housing, co-operative housing, and supportive housing developments.

City staff proposed eliminating the need for individual rezoning applications for such affordable housing projects in many areas of Vancouver — changes they estimated could shorten development timelines by up to a year. Instead, such projects would be able to begin from the development permit application process, as the areas would undergo City-initiated rezoning.

You might also like:

Furthermore, there would be increased height allowances for such buildings — up to about 20 storeys in “Neighbourhood Centre” areas and up to about six storeys in “Village” areas. As well, ground-level retail/restaurant uses would be required for commercial areas.

But in Fall 2024, earlier in the public consultation process, heights of up to 15 to 18 storeys were proposed in the “Neighbourhood Centre” areas. Prior to that, the proposed heights were 12 storeys.

The impacted areas include West Point Grey, Dunbar-Southlands, Arbutus Ridge, Shaughnessy, Oakridge, Riley Park, Sunset, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, Victoria-Fraserview, Grandview-Woodland, Hastings-Sunrise, Renfrew-Collingwood, and Killarney. Much of these areas are currently single-family residential neighbourhoods.

Svancouver social housing initiative policy 2025 creenshot

Proposed Vancouver social housing rezoning, Fall 2025 concept. (City of Vancouver)

Most public speakers during the public meeting with City Council spoke in opposition. As well, City staff’s public consultation also showed a sharp divide, with 48 per cent opposed to the policies, 22 per cent mixed or neutral, and 30 per cent supportive.

Some people argued the proposal did not go far enough to guarantee deeply affordable units, noting that the policy required only 30 per cent of units to rent below Housing Income Limits.

Other concerns ranged from building heights, infrastructure strain, and changes to neighbourhood character to fears of displacement, with some opponents questioning why only affordable housing projects would be granted exemptions from standard planning rules — raising what they saw as an inconsistent approach compared to market developments.

“It is a fundamental rewrite of Vancouver’s zoning map”

Some city councillors argued that allowing taller buildings in traditionally low-density areas risked undermining public trust in city planning, especially with reduced opportunities for site-specific public hearings. Several raised concerns about the initiative’s flexibility for high-rise forms in “Neighbourhood Centres,” saying it exceeded what the Vancouver Plan originally envisioned.

ABC city councillor Lenny Zhou took issue that 37 per cent of Vancouver — over 33,000 lots — would be effectively rezoned to enable high-rise towers without requiring a rezoning application, neighbourhood planning, or meaningful public input. This is far greater than the early directions City Council provided to City staff.

“When Council was first debating this concept, that was about three years ago, the direction was six to 12 storey buildings, a scale that fits into the neighbourhood and reflects the kind of gentle mid-rise density that many communities can accept. I supported that vision. The proposal in front of us today is not that. It has shifted dramatically from mid-rise to 20-story high-rise across more than one-third of the city,” said Zhou during the meeting.

“This is not a small adjustment. It is a fundamental rewrite of Vancouver’s zoning map. Supporting housing does not mean eliminating every check on the balance or bypassing public input. We can streamline approvals without opening the doors to high-rise forms everywhere at once… I want to support social housing, absolutely, but not at the cost of responsible planning and a community trust.”

His comments reflected a theme that came up repeatedly throughout the debate: support for social housing did not necessarily translate into support for sweeping, citywide upzoning.

That concern was taken even further by city councillors, who further emphasized that the proposal would reshape neighbourhoods without giving residents a meaningful say.

ABC city councillor Peter Meiszner put it bluntly, “This is putting 20-storey high-rises all over the city with no public hearing, straight to development permit. We’re talking about 20-storey social housing high-rises in neighbourhoods that don’t have any high-rises currently, from the north to the south of the city, right next to two- and three-storey houses. And to me, those dramatic changes require much more public consultation than what we saw through this process. We need to get to a place where we can at least get the public on [our] side. The consultation results of this initiative or the consultation that was done showed overwhelming opposition among Vancouverites to this initiative.”

When asked by City staff why the proposed heights for such developments have increased from 12 storeys — as outlined in the Vancouver Plan — to up to 20 storeys, it was explained that this change was made after input from non-profit housing organizations. It was determined that taller heights for greater economies of scale would be needed to financially support a concrete tower project. Without this viability, it was noted by City staff that they would generally default to the six-storey woodframe building option.

No public hearings for supportive housing for people with complex challenges

Some of the controversy also stemmed from the proposed shift away from case-by-case oversight for affordable housing projects, regardless of their specific uses, size, or location.

Generally, social and co-operative housing serve residents capable of independent living, and Vancouver’s non-market buildings typically include a mix of affordability levels for low-income and lower-middle-income households.

Supportive housing, however, has become the most contentious form of affordable housing in recent years. Several projects opened during and after the pandemic have generated significant concern among nearby residents and businesses, who point to issues such as increased crime, vandalism, public disorder, open drug use, excess garbage, and other illicit activity. This includes locations near public parks and childcare facilities. When operational issues are raised at some of these sites, concerned residents and businesses have indicated that governments and non-profit operators have not been responsive.

People who live in permanent purpose-built supportive housing are coming directly from medical facilities, temporary modular housing, SROs, shelters, and homelessness.

Under the rejected policy changes, a supportive housing tower far taller than the cancelled Arbutus supportive housing project in Kitsilano could have been approved in designated “Neighbourhood Centre” areas across Vancouver without a rezoning application or public hearing — proceeding directly to the development permit application. Critics argued this would eliminate meaningful opportunities for public input on projects intended to house residents with complex mental health and addiction challenges.

“It is a relief that this inappropriate initiative was not approved,” said Colleen Hardwick, a former Vancouver city councillor and former TEAM for a Livable Vancouver mayoral candidate, in a statement reacting to the decision.

“While I think we all agree that distributed social housing is a good thing, allowing 20-storey towers to be randomly jackhammered into neighbourhoods at 10 times the height and density with no public process was ill-advised — not to mention undemocratic.”

You might also like: