From 2010 to 2019, 57% (57%!) of new residential floor area built in Vancouver was built as single-family homes. At the current pace and under current policy, we have an implicit target to build about 1,300 new homes every year for people making $270k+.

We put up all sorts of barriers and expensive restrictions for multi-family homes, but single-family homes get a "go straight to go" card and don't need to go to a public hearing or seek Council approval.

And since we are really committed to this target, we go the extra mile and subsidize single-family homes by giving them a break on development fees---fees for new apartments are ~4x what we ask new single-family homes to contribute.

Vancouver is planning to fast-track and subsidize 13,000 homes for the 1% over the next ten years. On what grounds is this defensible policy?

Staff's report is here: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/memo-housing-policy-recalibrating-housing-vancouver-targets.pdf

How big of a problem is this? Since 1985, @vb_jens says we've replaced ~24,000 older, smaller, more affordable SFH with newer, bigger, more expensive SFH. Imagine if these had been replaced with 4x/8x/12x as many homes in a mix of social/supportive, market rental, and strata.

Worried about pace of change, or losing green space, or more windfalls to already-windfalled homeowners? Me too. How about a zero-net loss of green space provision combined with @TomDavidoff 's auction, in which home builders pay for the rights to a set # of new upzoned lots?

Don't like auctions? Fine, go with @Lanefab 's set community amenity contribution rate, waived for social-purpose developments (social/supportive, heritage, etc.). We've got options!