On Friday, July 22, Council members will meet to discuss, amend, and vote on the Vancouver Plan, a City strategy to guide growth through to 2050. If approved, it will become Vancouver’s official city-wide plan.

This is an important change to be aware of, not only because of the mass densification it foresees, but also because, if approved, the Plan will repeal all existing community plans that were created by neighbourhoods in collaboration with the City. What does this mean? If future developments conform to the Vancouver Plan, public hearings will no longer be required. From UKRA’s point of view, this represents a further erosion of democracy in our city.

The Plan calls for heavy densification across the entire city, including towers on every block, some of which could rise as high as 39 storeys or more near subway stations and major development projects.

There is still time to write to Council with your concerns. You can also watch the upcoming live July 22 video broadcast at 9:30 am, when the meeting begins.

Check previous stories on our site for more information on the Vancouver Plan.

The Supportive/Social Housing Development at 7^th to 8^th Avenues and Arbutus Street: Public hearing continues

After four days of public hearings on the contentious project, the majority of citizens who have responded to Council are strongly opposed to the plan.

Speakers made it clear that, while they approve of both supportive and social housing in the neighbourhood, they do not favour low-barrier housing for the site, which they say lacks appropriate support for residents — most of whom suffer from drug and alcohol addictions as well as mental health issues.

Common concerns from speakers at the July 14 hearing included the scale of the 13-storey building (equivalent to 18 storeys due to new ceiling heights) and its proximity to Saint Augustine Catholic Elementary School, and Delamont Park, which is visited by young children and their families. Many worried that the local low-income seniors and members of the Woman’s Supportive Recovery Program would also be at risk. Other respondents were troubled by the coming traffic congestion in the general area and said the safety of children could be jeopardized.

Supporters of the plan, including an 11-year resident of Kitsilano, called the housing project a “reasonable common-sense proposal” that is “forward looking” and one that offers safe and affordable housing to the homeless or those on the verge of homelessness. She was followed by another woman, also strongly in favour of the project,  who spoke about her own struggles with homelessness and mental illness. 

One speaker brought up the damning report by Ernst & Young detailing a lack of oversight at BC Housing. (The May 2022 review found that multimillion-dollar grants were given to non-profits without any documented reports, and that some properties were purchased without any details on how decisions were made. This led to the ousting of seven board members only a week after the results of the probe were released this month). Another speaker criticized the makeup of the units, which are for single tenants only, with no larger units proposed for couples or families; yet another expressed frustration about the public being barred from asking questions about the types of renters the project will house.

Cllr. Jean Swanson raised a point of order during the meeting that the public should not make disparaging remarks about any of the building’s future residents. Speakers and Councillors were told repeatedly they were not allowed to make any kind of comment or ask questions about the coming residents.

One speaker, who served on the City’s seniors advisory committee for three terms, said the project has not been assessed by the public health authority or by Vancouver Police.

Another said that maximizing the number of people in one large building seems to be the only goal of BC Housing, which appears to have no clear plan for the proposal. BC Housing and the proposed site’s operator, the MPA Society, attended an earlier hearing in which representatives from both organizations said they cannot answer questions regarding future tenants or the services they would receive until after Council had approved the project at a later stage in development.

As of July 18, 1,294 people have written to City Council opposing the plan (plus an online petition containing another 1,422 signatures in opposition), and 527 people are in support of the housing project.