This is the city’s map, slightly upgraded by CityHallWatch to improve readability. As you’ll see, much of Dunbar is open to either 20-storey towers or six-storey social housing apartments with no public hearings required.
By Carol Volkart
The city is taking another step this week toward allowing 20-storey social housing buildings in the blocks around Dunbar Street, as well as six-storey social housing buildings in the area east of Blenheim.
The Social Housing Initiative, which will spread social housing to many areas of the city, comes to City Council Tuesday Nov. 4 for referral to a public hearing. If approved at the public hearing, it would be rolled into the Official Development Plan that will guide the city’s development for the next 30 years.
Residents are being urged to contact city councillors before Tuesday’s council meeting to ask them not to refer the plan to public hearing. That would buy some time for a broader discussion and more public input.
“Time is of the essence,” according to CityHallWatch, the online site that keeps a close eye on the workings of City Hall.
It noted that once the referral is made, councillors are not supposed to receive or consider any public input until the formal hearing. “And historically, by the time a policy reaches that stage, major changes are rarely made – the hearing becomes more of a formality to fulfill, rather than an open-ended conversation.”
The social housing plan is controversial because it means 20-storey and six-storey social housing buildings can be built without public hearings in wide areas of the city where they otherwise may not have been allowed. In Dunbar, that means towers from Wallace to Blenheim and from 16th to 41st, and six-storey apartments in the area east of Blenheim.
The buildings must be owned by governments or non-profits, but only 30 percent of the units must be offered at rents for lower-income residents. That’s raised the spectre of very tall towers with high market rents being built without public hearings in previous no-go areas, under the guise of “social housing.”
As one commenter told the city this spring: “With only 30 percent affordable rents, how does this differ from the market-driven high-rise model already adopted for the Broadway Plan and other parts of the city? How can that be called social housing?”
Meanwhile, public support for the plan is falling, according to the results of two city engagement processes.
One held Sept. 18 to Dec. 4, 2024 received 60 percent positive comments, 22 percent mixed and 18 percent opposed.
The next, held June 10-July 8, 2025, showed 57 percent opposed, 20 percent supportive and 23 percent mixed.
“Compared to the level of support observed during phase one of engagement, there was a notable increase in negative sentiment during phase two,” the staff report to City Council noted.
“Public feedback submitted through the comment form was largely negative. Concerns were raised about the citywide scope of the proposal, the high-density tower forms, the capacity of existing infrastructure, and safety issues.”
However, the staff report recommending approval said the plan will help address the housing affordability crisis. It will “simplify and improve the development approvals process and streamline the delivery of housing, prioritizing homes for those most in need,” it said.
“The proposal works toward implementing the complete communities and equitable housing directions in Vancouver Plan and makes progress toward the City’s affordable housing targets.”
I am absolutely opposed to this development as it is totally ridiculous and needs to be stopped at all costs. Please do the best that you can to stop in it’s tracks and advise us what we need to do.
Thanks Much
John Lynch
Hi John. I assume it will be sent to public hearing, probably later this month. If you want to oppose it, the best thing is to write and speak to city council, either by phone or in person, at the public hearing. And persuade as many other people as you can to do the same. Council may push it through regardless. But 2026 is an election year, and now is a good time for citizens to start flexing their muscles!
Opposed , strenuously