![](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/spacingvancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/features\/indepth_feature-VAN.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In Vancouver today, rezoning doesn\u2019t necessarily mean building. Increasingly, it means something else: securing entitlements<\/i> \u2014 legal permissions that inflate a property\u2019s value regardless of whether anything is actually constructed. Nowhere is this clearer than at 1780 East Broadway<\/a>, the high-profile Safeway redevelopment at Commercial-Broadway Station.<\/span><\/p>\n At first glance, the proposal is a win: three towers, a thousand new rental homes, and a redeveloped grocery store at a major transit hub.<\/span><\/p>\n But this site isn\u2019t just another parcel of land slated for redevelopment. For decades, the Safeway at 1780 East Broadway served as a vital community hub\u2014both functionally and symbolically. In 2015, it was at the centre of one of Vancouver\u2019s most ambitious participatory planning efforts: the Grandview-Woodland Citizens\u2019 Assembly<\/i><\/a>. This citizen-led body was formed in response to community backlash against early proposals for high-rise towers at the site. After months of deliberation, the Assembly<\/i> endorsed a modest development plan: mid-rise buildings, a public plaza, and a pedestrian-oriented retail precinct.<\/span><\/p>\n City Council\u2019s 2016 Grandview-Woodland Plan<\/i><\/a> adopted many of these recommendations, suggesting building heights between 12 and 24 storeys and designating the site as a “community heart.” Yet what was approved in 2025\u2014three towers reaching up to 44 storeys\u2014is a dramatic departure from that original vision. What began as a landmark experiment in community-based planning has become a case study in how public engagement can be overridden by speculative ambition.<\/span><\/p>\n But listen to the developer’s own words. During a November 2024 investor call, Crombie REIT CEO Mark Holly stated plainly<\/a>: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt is a JV [joint venture] with Westbank…We are optimistic that sometime in the first half of 2025 we will have that fully entitled… Once we get to that point we are going to review our options. Which will include a monetization of that asset.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n This isn\u2019t a side note\u2014it\u2019s the business model. It reveals a broader truth behind this and many similar rezonings under the Broadway Plan: these aren\u2019t necessarily about delivering homes. They\u2019re about manufacturing tradable rights\u2014a kind of paper gold\u2014that can be held, leveraged, or flipped for profit.<\/span><\/p>\n The rezoning journey for this site has taken years. Since 2019, the proposal has grown in height and shifted in focus\u2014from a mix of strata and rental units with a floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.53, to a 100% rental plan with more than 1,000 units. The approved rezoning includes an FSR of 8.3 and a building height of 479 feet, described as 44 storeys\u2014though with amenity levels, the number could climb to 47.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet only 10% of the units will be rented at \u201caverage citywide rents\u201d\u2014a benchmark that doesn\u2019t even meet basic affordability standards. The project lacks the 20% below-market housing component typically required under city policy.<\/span><\/p>\n To permit this level of development, the City approved an FSR increase of 2.6 over the Grandview-Woodland Plan\u2019s original guideline (8.3 vs. 5.7), translating to approximately 274,800 additional buildable square feet\u2014worth an estimated $40 million at $150 per buildable square foot. This windfall was granted with no guaranteed community benefit. On paper, the project aligns with housing goals. In reality, it\u2019s more about maximizing marketable entitlement than delivering urgently needed housing.<\/span><\/p>\n Entitlements have real monetary value. When Council approves a rezoning, land value rises\u2014not because of any actual development, but due to the possibility<\/i> of it. That speculative potential alone can justify massive gains for landowners.<\/span><\/p>\n As noted in the Trifecta of Control<\/i><\/a>, many approved developments remain unbuilt\u2014not because of permitting delays, but because developers are waiting for more favourable market conditions. Entitlement plays a central role in this dynamic. <\/span><\/p>\n According to the City of Surrey, over 44,000 approved units remain unbuilt<\/span><\/a>, while Burnaby has another 25,000<\/span><\/a> stalled in a similar holding pattern. These units aren\u2019t delayed by bureaucracy\u2014they\u2019re delayed by design, waiting to extract maximum value from market timing. Entitlements allow developers to hold land with increased financial leverage while deferring delivery indefinitely.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, real estate investment trusts openly acknowledge this logic. Crombie REIT, in its 2024 Annual Report, notes that it calculates fair value for redevelopment properties in part based on “progress through entitlement.” Similarly, CAPREIT’s 2023 Annual Report describes how its development team works on “identification and entitlement” of underutilized land\u2014entitlements that can then be sold off as shovel-ready assets. For them, entitlement isn\u2019t a step toward housing\u2014it\u2019s a milestone of profit.<\/span><\/p>\n At 1780 East Broadway, all signs point to the site being sold before construction begins. And why not? With rezoning secured and no obligation to build promptly, the entitlement becomes the commodity.<\/span><\/p>\n As housing researchers Cameron Murray and Joshua Gordon argue<\/a>, rezoning isn\u2019t just a regulatory change\u2014it\u2019s a transfer of public property rights. Cities, by upzoning land, grant landowners access to more public space in the sky: in effect, they privatize public airspace<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cLand,\u201d they remind us, is a bundle of socially constructed rights and permissions around height or density that belong, until rezoned, to the public. Without robust value-capture mechanisms, governments give away public assets for free, deepening inequality and failing to ensure more housing. <\/span><\/p>\n In this light, entitlements are not just financial instruments. They\u2019re public gifts, repackaged as private property<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Architect and scholar Matthew Soules offers more insight into this process. In his work on the financialization of architecture<\/a>, he describes how buildings have evolved into investment vehicles\u2014optimized for capital rather than community. Building types like \u201cultra-thin towers\u201d reflect financial logic more than urban design.<\/span><\/p>\n The Broadway towers follow this pattern. They are tall, narrow, and configured to maximize entitlement and exchange value\u2014not human scale or livability. As Soules argues, such architecture distances itself from everyday urban life, turning buildings into abstract financial tools. What\u2019s being constructed isn\u2019t just housing\u2014it\u2019s vertical capital<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n This isn’t merely speculative\u2014it actively undermines the public good. Even when entitlements include obligations\u2014such as affordability targets\u2014the City has often watered them down in response to developer pushback. The CURV tower<\/a> on Nelson Street, for instance, had <\/span>its below-market commitments quietly reduced after approval. <\/span><\/p>\n The message: push hard enough, and you\u2019ll get what you want.<\/span><\/p>\n This pattern also appears in city-initiated rezonings. At 520\u2013590 West 29th Avenue, for example, staff declined to demand below-market housing, citing a 2018 rezoning that had already inflated land value, without securing community benefits. Entitlement inflation, in other words, cuts both ways.<\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, assessments based on \u201chighest and best use\u201d can drive up surrounding property taxes\u2014not based on actual development, but on the hypothetical potential<\/i> introduced by rezoning.<\/span><\/p>\n And now, developers are lobbying for protection from the tax consequences of their own entitlements. A June 2025 motion brought forward by Councillor Rebecca Bligh<\/a> proposed a tax abatement scheme that would freeze property taxes at pre-rezoning levels for rental developments. Although the motion ultimately failed, it illustrates an ongoing push by some political actors to further protect entitlements and shield developers from the fiscal consequences of upzoning. <\/span><\/p>\n The rationale? <\/span><\/p>\n That rezoning-driven tax increases could deter construction. In effect, Council is being asked to create windfalls, then protect developers from the costs those windfalls create. It\u2019s a burden shift that leaves the public footing the bill while reinforcing the notion that entitlement should be consequence-free.<\/span><\/p>\n From the BC Assessment perspective, the Safeway site will now likely be valued based on its approved future build-out\u2014not its current grocery store use\u2014raising assessments and, potentially, costs for nearby businesses and renters.<\/span><\/p>\n The 2025 rezoning wasn\u2019t unanimously approved<\/a>. Councillor Sean Orr voted against it, citing a lack of affordability. Councillor Pete Fry abstained\u2014a procedural move that still counts as support but signaled discomfort. Public input was also significant: 619 written submissions opposed the project versus 459 in support, with over 140 people signing up to speak at Council.<\/span><\/p>\n Social media messaging from ABC Vancouver presented the project as a major win: \u201c1,044 new rentals,\u201d \u201con a transit hub,\u201d and \u201cwith a childcare centre + plaza.\u201d But critics were quick to challenge this framing. As Sean Orr put it, \u201cdouble the height, no below-market rentals\u2026 not a plaza.\u201d The cheapest projected units remain well above the neighbourhood\u2019s median income, and no 20% below-market requirement was enforced.<\/span><\/p>\n At heart, this was never a vote on whether to build housing, but whether to continue letting speculation masquerade as public interest. Beneath the language of housing, the vote sanctioned something else entirely: the use of public power to manufacture private windfalls.<\/span><\/p>\n Nevertheless, the rezoning passed\u2014demonstrating how entitlements are increasingly pushed forward in the name of supply, even when delivery remains uncertain.<\/span><\/p>\n Worse, once a rezoning is approved, the entitlement becomes legally entrenched. Reversing it\u2014even in the public interest\u2014would likely trigger costly legal action. Future councils are effectively bound by today\u2019s speculative decisions. Entitlements become not just financial assets but political handcuffs.<\/span><\/p>\n Vancouver has previously used time limits to encourage developers to proceed. Some rezonings have included a two-year deadline for enactment or lapse of approval. This creates a time-sensitive boundary: if the developer fails to meet it, the approval expires. Enactment often requires substantial payments\u2014such as Development Cost Charges (DCCs), Community Amenity Contributions (CACs), and bonding for in-kind amenities\u2014demonstrating a serious intent to build.<\/span><\/p>\n However, developers have increasingly pushed to defer these obligations until after enactment or even after construction begins, replacing traditional financial guarantees with weaker alternatives. This trend dilutes the city\u2019s leverage and further weakens incentives to actually build.<\/span><\/p>\n Once a rezoning is enacted, undoing it requires a full re-zoning\u2014often a legal and political impossibility. Despite calls to mandate delivery timelines under the Broadway Plan, no such policies have been introduced to date.<\/span><\/p>\n Many now see the 1780 East Broadway approval as precedent-setting. With its record 44-storey height and just 10% of units priced at \u201caverage citywide rents,\u201d it invites other developers to pursue similarly unbalanced projects. It risks normalizing a model of entitlement-first, delivery-later development.<\/span><\/p>\n As one city observer put it: Council believed it approved housing; in reality, it approved a financial instrument<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n If Vancouver is serious about addressing its housing crisis, it must stop mistaking speculative entitlements for real solutions. Rezoning should be a path to building, not a shortcut to profit. Until City Hall closes the loopholes that allow speculation to masquerade as supply, the public will continue to lose.<\/span><\/p>\n Because in today\u2019s market, you don\u2019t need to build homes to make money\u2014you just need to be entitled.<\/span><\/p>\n And entitlement, both in planning and in psychology, is a learned behaviour. Reward it, and it grows. Indulge it, and it metastasizes. Soon, you\u2019re not regulating development\u2014you\u2019re appeasing it.<\/span><\/p>\n Vancouver has cultivated a development culture that expects approvals without obligations, density without delivery, and public decisions that function like private allowances. When challenged, the response isn\u2019t accountability\u2014it\u2019s a tantrum, often backed by lawyers.<\/span><\/p>\n This isn\u2019t just poor governance. It\u2019s negligent parenting<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n If the city doesn\u2019t start enforcing limits, the tantrums will only grow louder\u2014and public trust will continue to erode.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Related <\/em>Spacing Vancouver pieces:<\/em><\/p>\n **<\/span><\/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":"![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/06\/ABC_Orr-171x300.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n