City of Vancouver ODP

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

The game changer here is the reduction of the social housing requirement from 60 percent (at graduating subsidy), to a much more reasonable and developer friendly, 20 percent.

I believe there will be a demand for the dtes if you start from the edges and work your way in. The Woodwords block is completely functional, so the next block over is the next logical step.

The Bronx did it. So can the DTES.

The change to the proportion of social housing is proposed for the DEOD. The rest of the DTES has allowed more market housing, both rental and condos. Recently we've seen a condo building completed in Chinatown, with a high percentage of the units not sold even at completion. That's pretty much the only condo building completed in years. We've seen another condo building completed, but as a hotel, and a site with an approved condo building sold to a nonprofit housing organization for social housing.

With rentals, there are several recently completed social (and supportive) housing buildings, and more under construction, (one with shared ownership market units). There's a modest market rental building under construction on West Hastings, approved under the existing policy. The site next door to it was approved for a larger market rental building years ago, but was never built, and has now been proposed as a 100% social housing tower. Further east there are proposed market rental towers, and there's market rental proposed on the Army and Navy block.

The ODP reflects the existing DTES plans, although it anticipates the changes to be considered by Council next month. The consultation on those changes produced some consistent responses - a concern that there won't be enough welfare rate homes generated by development to replace those being lost, and those needed to move the dial on homelessness, (which is still climbing). The private sector developers were doubtful that the changes would make much difference to the viability of projects, without support for from government or nonprofit housing organizations.

There's been a steady (small) addiction of market housing (mostly market rental) in the DTES in the past decade under existing policy. There's a significant addition to supportive housing in the same period, almost all thanks to CMHC and BC Housing funding. It's a slight net gain on the SROs that have been lost to gentrification and demolition, but it's not been enough to reduce homelessness so far. We'll see if the new policy changes make any difference, but the overall demand for market rental and the number being built outside the DTES will probably have an impact on whether there's any difference in the rate of development in the area.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

The game changer here is the reduction of the social housing requirement from 60 percent (at graduating subsidy), to a much more reasonable and developer friendly, 20 percent.

I believe there will be a demand for the dtes if you start from the edges and work your way in. The Woodwords block is completely functional, so the next block over is the next logical step.

The Bronx did it. So can the DTES.

It's surviving, I'm not sure I'd call it completely functional. Just look at the issues with the retail there.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's surviving, I'm not sure I'd call it completely functional. Just look at the issues with the retail there.

Exactly. Look at JJ Bean and TD Bank.

I'm surprised the parkades to the north of Woodwards weren't included in COV's rental housing plans.

[seamusmcduff]

The Vancouver ODP has been approved.

Projects with greater than 50% residential that meet the plan will no longer require Public hearings.

[Chirpythecougar]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

The Vancouver ODP has been approved.

Projects with greater than 50% residential that meet the plan will no longer require Public hearings.

It's not no longer required - they're prohibited from having public hearings.
https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/council-approves-vancouver-odp-mar-2026.aspx

[officedweller]

For lack of a better place to put this here's a history of the City of Vancouver's amalgamation:

LEGISLATING CITY BOUNDARIES: VANCOUVER’S EVOLUTION
https://farris.com/content/uploads/2026/01/Legal-Anecdotes-and-Miscellanea-January-2026.pdf

[Changing City]

There's a report about to go to Council on rezonings currently in the system, that aren't compatible with the ODP. There are 17 rezonings that now have to be consulted with first Nations and the VSB/CSF (and one with TransLink), and the Council motion on the Molson Brewery development which needs to go to Metro and the province as well.

"In the future, new rezoning applications requiring a Vancouver ODP amendment will complete consultation concurrently with the rezoning application. These consultation reports will be brought forward to Council early in the rezoning process to ensure this required legislative step is completed without delaying application processing.

In most cases, both the rezoning and the Vancouver ODP amendment will be brought to a public hearing for decision at the same time. The summary of feedback from all consulted groups will be included within the rezoning referral report."

[jollyburger]

Podcast interview with Josh White on the ODP

https://www.vancouverrealestatepodcast.c...ouver-building-code-change-housing-2025/

[jollyburger]

How can they say with a straight face say Vancouver is one of the most dense cities in Canada and reject the Villages plan.. meanwhile almost all those intersections are surrounded by single family houses and low rise commercial.

Michael Geller, a developer and retired architect, said the city is using the villages plan to rezone too many city lots — 750 in total — solely for four- to six-storey apartment buildings, with required retail outlets on the ground floor. “It’s an incredible number of properties,” Geller said.

The strict zoning for up to six-storey buildings effectively “sterilizes” each proposed village, he said, because it doesn’t allow for more mixed structures, including townhouses, other styles of small apartments and laneway houses.

In terms of individual impact, Geller has talked to a homeowner who is facing troubles because he lives on a property in the west side’s Mackenzie Heights, near 33rd Avenue, which is destined to be zoned under the villages plan exclusively for up to six-storey buildings.

That means the owners, who are remaining anonymous, will not be able to do anything else with their land, Geller said. They will be stuck with waiting for a would-be developer to include their detached lot in a land assembly.

On another front, Geller said it is a mistake to demand that each new four- to six-storey building in the Villages plan have retail outlets at the sidewalk level.

That stipulation not only restricts design possibilities, Geller said in an interview, it can cut into developers’ cost margins. Many new retail outlets will go unleased, he predicted.

“There’s just not enough retail action expected in the next 20 years in Vancouver to fill up all these retail centres.”

Geller joins Ducote and other Metro Vancouver urbanists in urging city council to focus more on creative ideas to revive existing neighbourhood commercial centres that are struggling.

They include Dunbar Street, Point Grey Village on West 10th Avenue, the West End’s Denman Street, Kingsgate Mall in Mount Pleasant, and downtown’s International Village Mall.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni...lages-will-increase-uniformity-sterility

[Migrant_Coconut]

"Uniformity, sterility..." as opposed to the vibrancy of a strip mall across the street from a gas station across the street from a parking lot in front of a Safeway... and the exact same thing down the street.

[LeftCoaster]

Calling Frank Ducote an urbanist is an absolute farce. He's a suburbanist at best. Anti-density everywhere.

[GenWhy?]

"because it doesn’t allow for more mixed structures, including townhouses, other styles of small apartments and laneway houses."

Maybe I'm missing something, but one of my sites was recently pre-zoned by the City for R5-3 (Broadway high-rise), but that still permits lower forms to be built, which is the same for R zones - you *don't* HAVE to build a multi-plex, you can build a detached mansion if you want.

Hell, on my R5-3 site it looks like we could build a duplex!

"will not be able to do anything else with their land, Geller said. They will be stuck with waiting for a would-be developer to include their detached lot in a land assembly."

So unless this is some completely new way of doing zoning for Vancouver... I'm either missing something or he's using his credentials as a political soapbox - which he isn't very extreme about but (if it's the same as current zoning rules) would be a big lie for a professional like him.

Other posts from him mention he's mainly peeved about the expansion of commercial areas and how it would be both incompatible for the area, delay projects, and leave us with vacant CRUs. And he would know better, because the whole area allows more residents not just the commercial designated lots (which there are few of in the Villages Plan).

Anyway, rant over. I hate this man very much.

Is he lying on purpose? I think so because he's a smart guy and a professional in the field.

[logan5]

The strict zoning for up to six-storey buildings effectively “sterilizes” each proposed village, he said, because it doesn’t allow for more mixed structures, including townhouses, other styles of small apartments and laneway houses.

Not sure why Gellar is saying this. Under the Villages plan, you can build Multi-plex, townhouse, and low rise apartments. It's the perfect mix.

On another front, Geller said it is a mistake to demand that each new four- to six-storey building in the Villages plan have retail outlets at the sidewalk level.

Pretty sure this isn't true either. The plan designates retail, mixed use areas, that encompasses a relatively small area of each village plan.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think so because he's a smart guy and a professional in the field.

He's really not though. He hasn't been an active developer or architect in any capacity for many many years. And even when he was, he wasn't blowing the doors off with any amazing projects.

He just likes the sound of his own voice and has an outsized ego.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

Not sure why Gellar is saying this. Under the Villages plan, you can build Multi-plex, townhouse, and low rise apartments. It's the perfect mix.



Pretty sure this isn't true either. The plan designates retail, mixed use areas, that encompasses a relatively small area of each village plan.

I missed that quote, which is a lie they way it's been generalized, because commercial is only like 1/5 of the pre-zone areas in the update. The other 4/5 are residential only low-rise.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

He's really not though. He hasn't been an active developer or architect in any capacity for many many years. And even when he was, he wasn't blowing the doors off with any amazing projects.

He just likes the sound of his own voice and has an outsized ego.

Oh I though he was like a consultant and was still doing number crunching on the side

[GenWhy?]

"Geller joins Ducote and other Metro Vancouver urbanists in urging city council to focus more on creative ideas to revive existing neighbourhood commercial centres that are struggling."

Are their suggestions mentioned anywhere?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is he lying on purpose? I think so because he's a smart guy and a professional in the field.

Seems like it's mostly an ego thing about their decades of experience being ignored.

RE: shopping areas in the draft Villages Plan document

FG1.8.3 Shopping Areas: Expand existing retail clusters along streets less impacted
by traffic noise and pollution. Where existing retail clusters do not exist, explore
opportunities to locate retail near community uses such as schools, public and nonprofit childcare, and community infrastructure.

FG1.8.4 Shopping Areas: Consider a minimum of two continuous blocks of retail to
improve business viability.

https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/villages/villages-planning-program-draft-villages-plan.pdf

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"Geller joins Ducote and other Metro Vancouver urbanists in urging city council to focus more on creative ideas to revive existing neighbourhood commercial centres that are struggling."

Are their suggestions mentioned anywhere?

Seems like they are masking NIMBYism under the guise of having too many retail areas (i.e. encroachment of retail into residential areas).

West 10th Ave. (Point Grey Village) needs more residents to patronize the stores since all the UBC students now have alternate stores within campus.

West 57 and East Boulevard is well suited for densification before a future LRT down the Arbutus corridor.

I think all of the suggested "villages" are in areas with already existing commercial strips.

[GenWhy?]

Anyway enough about him...

If anyone here cares about local retail or services expansion, be aware that the expansion is very minimal and in many areas designated for retail have very new buildings on them, as well as the Commercial Street area commercial is designated but the new building is 100% residential.

So this is pretty minimal