If you only allow giant lots with mansions on ocean view land 30>min from downtown, you only get the wealthiest living there. This is what we mean when we say housing is “endogenous” to population growth. https://twitter.com/vb_jens/status/1264982830225842182

If you only build mansions, you keep out any people that can’t afford mansions, thereby keeping population growth to a minimum (or even negative population growth, in the case of West Van!)

This is, quite frankly, exactly what District of North Van and West Van have historically done, and why they’re the two wealthiest municipalities in all of Canada.

You see low population growth and high prices in west side of Vancouver as well, e.g. Shaughnessy, West Point Grey, Dunbar, Arbutus Ridge. Not because people don’t want to live there, but because it’s basically a gated community; you need to be mansion-buying-wealthy to pass.

People who already own and live there LOVE this status quo. They get ever-increasing land values while excluding any new (more diverse/racialized) people that might park and add traffic on “their” (public) streets! Why allow change when it would affect their “livability”?

Seriously let’s please be critical of people using trendy terms like “livability” and “local control” and “resilience.” Who wins? Who loses? Landowners vs not owners have opposing interests, and guess which group has representation and control of city hall?