The City of Vancouver is working on a Villages Planning Program. A public hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, July 14, 2026.According to their timeline, I am a bit late, as they have been collecting feedback since Fall 2024. But here is my submission:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback on the Villages Plan. The following comments address seven distinct aspects of the proposal, ranging from implementation methodology and planning horizons to housing density, ground floor land use, renter protection, and the conditions needed to make car-free household viability a delivered outcome. Each section identifies a specific gap or concern and closes with a question inviting the plan to address it directly. The intention throughout is constructive, to strengthen a proposal that carries real potential to shape livable, equitable, and genuinely complete neighbourhoods across the city.
Daily Needs Retail options
The term “daily needs” occurs 19 times in the proposal, and these are in the context of offering retail options. It is hardly defined, and I am suspicious about what the planners envision here. But when I hear about retail and daily needs, I am reminded of corner stores — which can be operated by a small team. Does the proposal describe that? I don’t think so. Therefore, when it comes to describing a goal for this option, I suggest the following formulation:
Every village should offer residents a genuine daily shopping access within a five-minute walk, served by small independent operators embedded in the neighbourhood.
It makes little sense to me to have someone working in the village but not living there.
What kinds of measurable standards for daily needs retail can be established? What kinds of structural conditions would enable personable retail options?
Trees
The proposal provides:
3.4.2.3 In residential areas, attention should be provided to protect and preserve existing healthy trees on private property, without impacting trees on neighbouring properties, where possible. Locate and design buildings in accordance with the Protection of Trees Bylaw, the Zoning and Development Bylaw and any applicable design guidelines
I find it difficult to judge how these bylaws and rules will work out in practicehere. However, I don’t see how this proposal can make a noticable difference in terms of housing without many trees being removed. Trees are important not only for the esthetic but also for habitat and city climate and maintaining moderate temperatures.
How can the loss of trees be minimized?
Clustering
My impression is that Vancouver’s neighbourhood planning has fallen at least a decade behind, which is why we are facing the current problems. In other words, the Villages Plan arrives at a moment when housing gaps, retails deserts and car dependency have compounded without adequate policy response for over ten years. A plan that then delivers change incrementally, Village by Village across 17 separate nodes, risks arriving late again.
Visually, many of these Villages fall into about 5 geographic clusters, Why not propose the changes for such larger clusters, and give the market a coherent long-term picture, enabling developers, home owner and operators to make investment decisions with confidence.
Otherwise will we not have a similar discussion in 2035?
Other than retail/residential
The Villages Plan frames neighbourhood economic life almost exclusively through residential and retail uses. This leaves out the full range of economic activity that makes a neighbourhood genuinely complete.Small businesses providing services, light manufacturing, maker spaces, trades and professional services all generate employment, build local economic resilience and create the neighbourhood character the plan aspires to deliver. The plan warrants explicit policy direction for this broader range of uses. Ground floor spaces suitable only for retail excludes the productive and service economy entirely.
How will the plan to define and protect a diverse mix of commercial uses across Village areas, with deliberate provision for small business services, light manufacturing and trades alongside retail?
Duplexes
The plan explicitly enables duplexes as part of its missing middle housing range. Duplex construction delivers one additional dwelling per lot — too modest to meaningfully advance housing supply, neighbourhood density, or the foot traffic that supports viable Village retail.
How will the plan ensure that Village areas prioritize housing forms that deliver meaningful density gains?
Renter protection
The plan commits to minimizing displacement of existing renters, which is laudable! But I feel it names no party that is responsible for covering relocation coss, temporary housing or right to return guarantees. It does not establish a dispute resolution process for disagreements between developers and tenants.
How can vulnerable populations be protected, with respect to cost coverage, process administration, and dispute resolution?
In closing, the Villages Plan addresses important and complex challenges for Vancouver’s future. I hope I have raised some valuable questions, and that they can be addressed.



