![](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/spacingvancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/features\/indepth_feature-VAN.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In the 1960s, planning decisions in Vancouver\u2014like many North American cities\u2014were made behind closed doors. Freeways bulldozed working-class neighbourhoods. \u201cUrban renewal\u201d was synonymous with demolition. Public input wasn\u2019t sought; it was treated as an impediment.<\/span><\/p>\n But Vancouver residents pushed back. They stopped a planned freeway, saved Strathcona, and gradually reoriented the city\u2019s planning culture around community participation. Imperfect, yes\u2014but built on the belief that people should help shape the places they live.<\/span><\/p>\n Today, that hard-won civic footing is quietly being dismantled\u2014undone by a new era of centralized planning driven not just by provincial fiat, but by coordinated lobbying efforts from the development industry.<\/span><\/p>\n On June 3, 2025, Vancouver City Council passed the Development Approval Procedure (DAP) Bylaw<\/i><\/a>\u2014one of the most consequential planning changes in recent history. Released just three business days before the vote, it appeared procedural, even dull. But beneath the surface, it accelerated a provincial effort to shift power upward, away from communities and into the hands of provincial ministries and unelected staff.<\/span><\/p>\n This is not just a technical update. It\u2019s a democratic transformation\u2014one happening largely out of public view.<\/span><\/p>\n The reforms present themselves as efforts to \u201cmodernize\u201d an outdated system. In reality, they rely on a trifecta of control<\/i>:<\/span><\/p>\n Together, these tactics disorient and preempt. They also tend to unfold in a distinct order. First, you don\u2019t hear about the change: new policies are introduced quietly, often buried in procedural language or released with little notice. Then they\u2019re passed before the public can even react. And when residents finally do try to engage, they\u2019re met with dense technical jargon that cloaks the stakes in ambiguity and administrative fog.<\/span><\/p>\n As we will see, this trifecta applies not just to local changes like the DAP\u2014it is embedded in the very structure and passage of the provincial directives themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n The Development Approval Procedure<\/i><\/a> bylaw, however, exemplifies all three. Although framed as a compliance measure, it significantly limits when public hearings are required (stealth<\/b>), shifts decision-making to staff (speed<\/b>), and formalizes a planning regime where efficiency takes precedence over dialogue (complexity<\/b>).<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019ve seen versions of this before. Jane Jacobs warned against governments imposing rigid order on city life. True livability, she argued, comes from the bottom up\u2014from neighbourhood knowledge, human interactions, and informal networks. When that vitality is flattened by centralized authority, cities don\u2019t just lose their charm. They lose their democratic soul.<\/span><\/p>\n This quiet dismantling of transparency is not incidental\u2014it\u2019s foundational to how urgency is now being wielded.<\/span><\/p>\n Since 2022, the Province has enacted a cascade of top-down legislative directives. That year, the Bill 43<\/a><\/em> (Housing Supply Act<\/i>) set up the framework for imposing housing targets on municipalities\u2014creating a \u201cnaughty list\u201d of defiant cities\u2014and a schedule for adopting official community plans and the prohibition of public hearings<\/span><\/p>\n In 2023, <\/i>Bill 44<\/i><\/a> (Housing Statutes Amendments Act – Residential Development<\/i>) mandated upzoning for multi-unit housing on formerly single-family lots, and Bill 47<\/i><\/a> (Housing Statutes Amendments Act – Transit-Oriented Development<\/i>) for towers of 8 to 20 storeys for 800 metres in Transit Oriented Areas around stations. In 2024, the Vancouver Charter was further changed under Bill 18<\/i><\/a> (Vancouver Charter Amendment Act<\/i>) for Official Development Plans. <\/span><\/p>\n The DAP bylaw removes public hearings for rezonings aligned with Official Development Plans as required under Bill 18<\/i><\/a>. Council also loses its final say on project design; that authority will now rest with City staff\u2014likely effective this month. These directives compress timelines (speed<\/strong>) and narrow public visibility (stealth<\/strong>), while enshrining procedural barriers to comprehension (complexity<\/strong>).<\/span><\/p>\n A detailed summary of the key legislation\u2014Bills 26, 44, 46, 47, 13, 15<\/i>, and 18<\/i>\u2014underscores how each bill, in its own way, contributes to this centralized realignment of planning authority. A reference table outlining these changes and their democratic consequences is included at the end of this article.<\/span><\/p>\n On paper, the process still looks participatory. In practice, it\u2019s a closed loop<\/i>\u2014directives flow from the Province to staff, bypassing the civic forums where conflict, consensus, and public input once lived.<\/span><\/p>\n This isn\u2019t just a shift in governance mechanics. It\u2019s a shift in values. Whose voice counts? Who gets to shape the city\u2019s future?<\/span><\/p>\n The Development Approval Procedure<\/i><\/a> bylaw\u2019s passage reveals how quickly this transformation can happen. The document was released on Thursday, May 29. The deadline to sign up to speak at Council: 5 p.m. on Monday, June 2. The vote occurred the next afternoon. One of the most consequential planning changes in recent memory passed in only three business days\u2014with no meaningful public debate. Stealth. Speed. Complexity<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n And it\u2019s not the first time.<\/span><\/p>\n In April 2022, then-Housing Minister David Eby met privately with the Urban Development Institute<\/span><\/a>, a major developer lobby. The meeting\u2014titled \u201cHong Kong Model, Transit Density<\/i>\u201d\u2014was revealed through a Freedom of Information request<\/span><\/a>. Within 24 hours, Cabinet drafted a concept paper: Provincial Intervention in Local Zoning to Allow More Homes<\/i>. The language of Bills <\/i>44<\/i><\/a>, <\/i>46<\/i><\/a>, <\/i>47<\/i><\/a> & 18<\/i><\/a> closely mirrors UDI proposals, suggesting this wasn\u2019t a crisis response, but a coordinated strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n While some praised these bills for addressing exclusionary zoning, their origins raise difficult questions: Whose interests shaped the law? And who was excluded from the conversation?<\/span><\/p>\n Industry lobbyists have painted community members as selfish obstructionists. But this narrative conceals its own self-interest: by framing public input as a nuisance, the development industry seeks to eliminate anything that might slow or challenge its profit-driven agenda.<\/span><\/p>\n Planning in Vancouver has always balanced competing pressures\u2014growth and preservation, speed and scrutiny, private interest and public good. These reforms upend that balance.<\/span><\/p>\n The DAP bylaw makes this explicit. If a rezoning checks the right boxes\u2014mostly residential, aligned with an existing plan\u2014the public no longer has a statutory right to be heard. Proposals that fall outside those bounds may proceed through internal pre-application meetings without wider civic engagement.<\/span><\/p>\n For tenants, advocates, and everyday residents, that means fewer access points, less transparency, and a growing sense of disconnection from the decisions that shape their lives.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, notifications are still issued. But what is a notification without the right to influence?<\/span><\/p>\n Worse still, even the public notice requirements\u2014once a minimal safeguard of transparency\u2014have been quietly weakened. The DAP bylaw makes opaque references to the Vancouver Charter<\/i><\/a> but omits the actual section numbers that define public notice obligations. The result is strategic ambiguity: it\u2019s now harder for residents to know when, how, or even if notice will be posted. <\/span><\/p>\n Section 6.2 of the bylaw<\/a> uses discretionary language\u2014staff \u201cmay\u201d<\/i> post signage\u2014meaning that in many cases, public notification becomes optional, entirely at the whim of the Director of Planning. This isn\u2019t just bureaucratic oversight. It\u2019s complexity deployed with intent.<\/span><\/p>\n Supporters argue that the reforms are necessary to solve the housing crisis. And urgency is real. But urgency cannot justify secrecy. <\/span><\/p>\n Even the Union of BC Municipalities<\/i><\/a> (UBCM)has raised the alarm: the Housing Supply Act<\/i><\/a> enables the Province to override local planning authority through ministerial orders, appointed advisors, and bylaw interventions. Yet this warning came late, well after the legislation was passed and implemented. And that delay is telling. <\/span><\/p>\n The trifecta of stealth, speed, and complexity doesn\u2019t just bypass residents\u2014it outpaces the very institutions meant to defend them. Caught flat-footed by wave after wave of legislation, even UBCM has been reduced to reacting after the fact, once the damage is already done.<\/span><\/p>\n And they are not alone. Most media outlets and advocacy organizations have struggled to respond in a timely manner\u2014sometimes due to institutional sluggishness, but often because they are constrained by non-disclosure agreements or advisory roles that prevent them from speaking out. These are not just communication failures; they are features of a system designed to stay ahead of scrutiny.<\/span><\/p>\n Their recent analysis notes that developers could exploit this top-down pressure to bypass community amenities, and that municipalities, under fear of intervention, may fast-track projects without due diligence or consultation. But urgency cannot justify secrecy. Efficiency does not excuse exclusion.<\/span><\/p>\n The belief that more market supply alone will deliver affordability has long been challenged by housing scholars. Without requirements for non-market housing and without integrated plans for schools, transit, and infrastructure, we risk building faster but not more fairly. Cities risk becoming pipelines for capital, rather than homes for people.<\/span><\/p>\n Even the justification for speed rings hollow. Across Metro Vancouver, tens of thousands of development approvals are already on the books\u2014waiting, not on permits, but on market conditions. In Surrey alone, over 44,000 approved units sit unbuilt<\/a>; Burnaby has another 25,000, according to Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley<\/a>. <\/span>These are not being delayed by red tape. They are being held back by developers watching the market, waiting to maximize return.<\/span><\/p>\n Worse, we risk cultivating a governance culture that prizes delivery over deliberation\u2014treating the messiness of democracy not as a value to protect, but a problem to solve.<\/span><\/p>\n British Columbia has long championed participatory planning. But the democratic process isn\u2019t self-sustaining. It requires vigilance, culture, and habit.<\/span><\/p>\n Vancouver\u2019s Development Approval Procedure<\/i><\/a> bylaw\u2014and the broader reforms around it\u2014signal more than just a new policy direction. They reflect a new vision of governance, where public trust is seen not as a foundation to build on, but a bottleneck to remove.<\/span><\/p>\n The question isn\u2019t just \u201chow do we build more housing?\u201d It\u2019s \u201cwho decides what gets built, where, and for whom?\u201d And just as urgently: \u201cWhat happens when the public is no longer invited to answer that question?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The window to speak on the DAP bylaw closed before many even knew it existed. That fact alone should raise alarms.<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s still time\u2014but not much.<\/span><\/p>\n This is not just about planning. It\u2019s about power. When process is shortened (speed<\/b>), language obscured (complexity<\/b>), and public voice sidelined (stealth<\/b>), democracy itself is under renovation\u2014without permits, without plans, and without the people.<\/span><\/p>\n We need housing. We need speed. But we also need memory, accountability, and care. The future of our cities should not be decided in silence\u2014not by design, not by default, and definitely not by those who fear the sound of a collective voice.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Below is a summary table of the recent B.C. legislation affecting municipal zoning, planning powers, and public involvement.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n *** **<\/p>\n Related Spacing Vancouver pieces:<\/em><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Erick Villagomez<\/i><\/b> is the Editor-in-Chief at Spacing Vancouver and teaches at UBC\u2019s School of Community and Regional Planning. He is also the author of <\/i>The Laws of Settlements: 54 Laws Underlying Settlements Across Scale and Culture<\/a>.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/06\/Trifecta_Headline_d2-600x334.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n