City of Vancouver ODP

[jollyburger]

(deleted)

[jollyburger]

Clarification of proposed policy and rationale for retail high streets in Villages

Staff have discussed and received comments and questions from the public about the
proposed Villages Plan. Staff also met with Councillors Zhou and Meiszner where the
Councillors shared feedback from a neighbourhood meeting (focused on another topic)
that raised these same comments and questions. In response, Staff would like to address
several common misconceptions amongst some members of the public so that all
members of Council are able to respond to any additional questions on this topic.

• The retail expansion areas in the Villages Plan, per Sections 2.1 and 3.2 of the
Draft Plan, provide the local shops and services necessary to support
complete, walkable neighbourhoods. The retail expansion areas represent
fewer than 4% of the total number of lots that are proposed to be governed
by the Villages Plan.
• 96% of lots allow a full array of housing options that include single detached
houses, duplexes, multiplexes, townhouses, Space-Efficient Stair (SES) buildings,
and 4-6 storey apartments (see page 8 of the Referral Report) if redevelopment
occurs. Some members of the public have been told by other residents that all
parcels in the Villages plan are required to either have 4-6 storeys and/or must have
ground-floor retail. This is incorrect; only in the retail expansion areas would
development be required to provide ground-floor commercial space.
• Nevertheless, Staff are aware of and acknowledge the public comments. If Council
wants to respond to these concerns at the public hearing, Council can amend the
proposed Villages Plan and associated by-laws to give effect to representations
made at the public hearing

https://council.vancouver.ca/20260714/documents/phea1_memo.pdf

[jollyburger]

One of the dumbest thing you'll ever read about the Villages Plan.

Patrick Condon
@pmcondon2
This is the proposed Vancouver "Villages Plan".
The new density allowance is for approximately 140 families per acre or 750 families per block.

Current built density in these areas is about 15 families per acre or 75 families per block.

The plan covers 600 city blocks.

If fully built out it would accommodate 900,000 people

Current population of Vancouver 660,000

Blue areas are proposed villages up-zones
Tan areas previously identified neighbourhood centers from un executed 2005 CityPlan.
Grey = existing zoned commercial strips.

Thank you Eric Villagomez for this plan.

https://x.com/pmcondon2/status/2074591779400339623

[seamusmcduff]

It's almost like it's a long term plan, and there's no intention of it likely ever meeting full buildout.

I want to say they clearly don't understand how planning works, but I know they do and are just being disingenuous

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

It's almost like it's a long term plan, and there's no intention of it likely ever meeting full buildout.

I want to say they clearly don't understand how planning works, but I know they do and are just being disingenuous

But even in 100 years the 900,000 figure seems whacky with those FSRs.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

One of the dumbest thing you'll ever read about the Villages Plan.

It's Patrick Condon you didn't have to repeat yourself.

[logan5]

It would help to see the math laid out, but I presume it is assuming the highest density for every plot of land, which means all social housing buildings at 2.7 FSR, to achieve that 900 000 number. Need some clarification there.

The reality is, most of the buildings will be strata, given that a rental building with only 2.4 FSR is not very popular with developers, and social housing is very rarely built.

I would say that there will be a strong build out on the west side though. Even at only 2.5 FSR (I believe) along the Cambie Corridor, strata buildings went up at breakneck speed. I expect the same thing will happen in the Villages Planning Area's in the west side, with an FSR of 1.75. Townhouse development will be popular as well on smaller orphaned lots, with an FSR of 1.2, vs multi-plex at only 1 fsr.

I'll also add that everything will already be zoned for 4 story strata, once the City passes the zoning amendments, so no rezoning process, so these developments are even more attractive.

[mcj]

There's this City Hall Watch post that claims there are 14,000 lots. For argument's sake, take them at their word.

The eight east-side villages (Fraser, Knight, Commercial, two Nanaimo, Wales, Victoria, Kerr) are mostly 33 ft × 122 ft lots ≈ 375 m² each.

The nine west-side villages (two Macdonald, two Mackenzie, Granville/41st, Heather/33rd, two Oak, Angus/57th) are usually 50 ft frontages ≈ 560 m², with some 33-footers mixed in.

Let's assume an average lot size of ~450 m².

14,000 × ~450 m² = ~6.3 km² of developable land.

At 2.7 FSR, and assuming 1 person for every 500 sqft of built space, that would be about ~360,000 people.

You'd need to go down to 200 sqft of built space per person to get 900k people in there, or 6.75 FSR on average with an assumption of 500 sqft per person.

[logan5]

I'm interested in hearing peoples thoughts on the viability of rental projects in the Villages Plan, at 2.4 FSR, given these developments can go through without the time consuming rezoning process.

[jollyburger]

Meanwhile Cityhallwatch has gone full on cuckoo mode.

Its hallmark is the exercise of asymmetrical power serving private interests rather than the public good. The results are unmistakable: a weakening of democratic oversight, the displacement and disruption of families, a further concentration of wealth, and a sharp shift toward autocratic, technocratic governance. Our homes have been converted into de-risked investment products, resulting in massive wealth outflows from our local economy directly into the pockets of global capital.

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/05/28/introducing-endgame-2026/

[Migrant_Coconut]

So they've finally gone full International Banking Conspiracy. Who wants to bet they'll remove the mask entirely soon and endorse TEAM or the CEA?

[seamusmcduff]

Is it the children who are wrong? No, clearly there is a global cabal out to destroy the City by allowing more housing options.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Meanwhile Cityhallwatch has gone full on cuckoo mode.

I'm finding this all highly amusing. When I was younger I had a more limited view on housing as I didn't see many options - so therefore that was all that should ever be built. Since then I've grown up, seen more and understand that different people have different housing needs. It doesn't mean I like all of it (we all have our preferences) but just because I don't like something doesn't automatically make it bad. I also don't expect everything to always stay the same - change is inevitable.

[jollyburger]

They pretend they are worried about land owners meanwhile I doubt we'll see anyone crying if they can cash in on a land sale if the economic/population numbers ever recover.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Meanwhile Cityhallwatch has gone full on cuckoo mode.



https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/05/28/introducing-endgame-2026/

Could be worse, we could have people go Full Edmonton:

In Edmonton, a covenant to defy democracy
The Editorial Board
Published 10 hours ago
Updated 30 minutes ago
For Subscribers

There’s a budding separatist sentiment in Alberta. No, not that one. This is a move by a small number of homeowners in Edmonton to exempt their properties from the city zoning rules that they don’t like. To opt out, effectively, of a major city hall decision shaping the future of Edmonton.

The movement remains on the fringes, with a tiny percentage of Edmonton homeowners having signed what are called “restrictive covenants.” The city does not track these, but a group advocating for it says such an approach exists or is being contemplated in dozens of neighbourhoods. It is a sign of the lengths to which some people will go to try to prevent change in their area.

Edmonton has moved further than other major Canadian cities in legalizing small apartment buildings in residential neighbourhoods...

.....With a restrictive covenant, homeowners band together to make a legal agreement not to develop their properties. This agreement is then added to the titles of all the properties involved and binds future owners. Removing a restrictive covenant typically requires the consent of the owners of all of the properties that are party to the agreement.....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...n-edmonton-a-covenant-to-defy-democracy/

[GenWhy?]

Whoa City Hall Watch is a wild ride:

"These are Vancouver’s Villages. The aqua polygons will never be villages, unless the existing centres/BIAs are allowed to decline and eventually die. This could ultimately happen if Council approves the villages strategy next week."

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/07/08/stop-calling-them-villages-hein/#more-117043

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Whoa City Hall Watch is a wild ride:

"These are Vancouver’s Villages. The aqua polygons will never be villages, unless the existing centres/BIAs are allowed to decline and eventually die. This could ultimately happen if Council approves the villages strategy next week."

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/07/08/stop-calling-them-villages-hein/#more-117043

[GenWhy?]

Really looking forward to Hardwick ticking another council / mayoral loss on her score card

[jollyburger]

This is even better.. Brian Palmquist

A six storey building under construction near Trafalgar and 16th Ave. The proposed Villages zoning wants 200 of these—like this but all with continuous ground level retail—across 17 locations around the city that will prevent any of the 500 affected adjacent homes from building anything except another of these.

“What do you mean?” asked my son, incredulously, “That’s all you can build in this area—ever? What if someone just wants to build a duplex or add a laneway home, or even a multiplex?”

We were standing across the street from a six storey residential building under construction, tight to a home of newer vintage. The taller building had been permitted after an individual public hearing about a year ago, before the “Villages” plan.

We have not discussed urban design for a while. My son lives in East Vancouver now with the never-ending traffic delays, diversions and dead ends arising from building and infrastructure projects between us. Across town is now at least a 3/4 hour travel event—each way. So we see a bit less of each other than we did. But here we were, with me trying to explain city staff’s most recent initiative, developed top down with almost no public input.

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026...e-the-village-idiots-17-villages-july14/