![](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/spacingvancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/features\/indepth_feature-VAN.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a word that shows up a lot in housing debates\u2014one that tends to end conversations rather than deepen them: viability<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n I hear this word constantly in comments to articles I write and in the media covering housing\u2014particularly those <\/a><\/span>that <\/span>focus on supply-side solutions to the housing crisis. <\/span>The critique goes something like this: \u201cSure, it\u2019s easy to critique new development. But if the project isn\u2019t viable, it won\u2019t get built. So, what\u2019s your alternative?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Fair enough. But that kind of response often smuggles in a much bigger assumption: that the only projects worth discussing are the ones that \u201cwork\u201d under current financial and regulatory terms. In that framing, any alternative that doesn\u2019t immediately \u201cpencil\u201d is dismissed as unrealistic, or worse, ideological. Yet, many of our deepest housing challenges stem from the fact that our current definition of viability is far<\/i> too narrow.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with how viability is typically understood. In real estate, a viable project is one that \u201cpencils out\u201d: the expected revenue exceeds the cost of land, construction, financing, and other expenses, plus a target return for the developer. If that math doesn\u2019t work, the project doesn\u2019t proceed.<\/span><\/p>\n This is not irrational. Developers, especially those using outside capital, are operating under real constraints. <\/span>But what often gets lost is that the system itself<\/i> is shaped by a series of policy decisions that privilege outcomes with high financial returns\u2014”high” being broadly defined relative to investor expectations, often in the range of 5\u201315% or more<\/a>, and usually exceeding what many community-oriented or non-profit models can offer.<\/span><\/p>\n In this way, the viability formula resembles a casino\u2019s rules: it may look neutral, but it\u2019s calibrated to favour the house.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s consider a few examples:<\/span><\/p>\n When these levers stack, they form a system in which only the highest-return projects are viable by design<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Too often, finance-driven tools like pro formas<\/a>\u2014meant to respond<\/i> to policy\u2014are used to reshape it. We\u2019re told that zoning, height, setbacks, or affordability targets are \u201cunviable\u201d because they don\u2019t pencil. But this flips the logic: instead of the public setting the rules and the market responding, we\u2019re told that financial models must dictate what the rules can<\/i> be.<\/span><\/p>\n In reality, when elected officials change the rules, the numbers adjust. The issue isn\u2019t the math\u2014it\u2019s the insistence that math must lead. It\u2019s a political choice<\/i> to let finance-driven viability override public vision\u2014and those benefiting from it know this. That\u2019s why we see consistent lobbying, advocacy, and pressure<\/a> to frame financial models not just as policy responses, but as reasons to reshape them in their favour. <\/span><\/p>\n The well-known CURV development in Vancouver\u2019s West End is a classic example of this phenomenon. Originally home to two older, affordable rental buildings, the site was bought, flipped multiple times, and rezoned to allow a 60-storey tower with a promised social housing component. But over time, the social housing was replaced with a cash-in-lieu payment that undervalued the original public benefit. The project received further density bonuses\u2014and now, despite these concessions, it has entered receivership. No housing has been delivered.<\/span><\/p>\n Along the way, multiple parties profited. CURV stands as a pure case study of how policy-enabled value creation can be captured through land speculation, entitlement flipping, and rezoning\u2014without producing the housing outcomes initially promised.<\/span><\/p>\n This isn\u2019t about whether that particular project is good or bad\u2014it\u2019s about how the system enables <\/i>a logic where land price appreciation, not housing delivery, becomes the central outcome.<\/span><\/p>\n Now, some have criticized the use of the term “speculation” in these conversations, suggesting it’s a rhetorical slight or unfair generalization. So let\u2019s define it clearly.<\/span><\/p>\n Speculation<\/i> refers to the practice of purchasing or holding property primarily to benefit from its future increase in value, rather than for its use value\u2014that is, rather than to live in it, use it, or develop it for immediate needs. In housing, speculation isn\u2019t limited to individual investors flipping condos. It includes landowners’ banking sites in anticipation of rezoning, developers acquiring properties based on density assumptions, and financial actors treating housing as a low-risk asset class.<\/span><\/p>\n Think of speculation like reserving all the best seats at a restaurant\u2014not because you’re hungry now, but because you expect someone else to pay you more for them later.<\/span><\/p>\n I want to be very clear: this isn\u2019t about villainizing specific actors. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s about recognizing that speculation is a system-level feature<\/i>, not an anomaly. And when left unchecked, it pushes land costs upward, locks parcels out of productive use, and inflates the threshold for what counts as “viable.”<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s the catch: if our system only allows high-return projects to proceed, we\u2019re not just filtering by feasibility\u2014we\u2019re filtering by exclusion<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Think of it like a sieve with holes so large that only the biggest, most profitable forms of housing can get through. What gets left behind? Co-ops. Non-profits. Gentle infill. Secondary rental. Preservation of older, more affordable stock. Mixed-income models. These may not deliver 15% returns, but they deliver something else: housing security, tenure diversity, and social stability.<\/span><\/p>\n If you’re a renter wondering why nothing affordable is getting built\u2014or why your old building is being torn down for something you can’t afford\u2014this is why: the system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as it was set up to.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n Viability as currently defined makes these options nearly impossible without deep public subsidy\u2014which is increasingly scarce. As governments stepped back from directly providing housing, the private market took the lead, with public tools scrambling to fill the gaps\u2014often through modest carve-outs in market-driven towers.<\/span><\/p>\n What if we broadened our understanding of \u201cviability\u201d to include other important issues relevant to the 21<\/span>st<\/sup><\/span> century?<\/span><\/p>\n If we take these other dimensions seriously, we must also ask who bears responsibility for supporting them\u2014especially since they come with real financial and political trade-offs.<\/span><\/p>\n Financial viability matters. But it should be one<\/i> input\u2014not the sole arbiter of what gets built. <\/span><\/p>\n Too often, the housing debate in this city collapses into a false binary: either you support every project because we\u2019re in a crisis, or you\u2019re an obstructionist stuck in the past. But those are caricatures. <\/span><\/p>\n The real question is not whether to build, but how<\/i> and for whom<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s agree\u2014as several in the development community have noted\u2014that the private market alone cannot deliver the full spectrum of housing options. We need to talk seriously about the tools, partnerships, and policies that will.<\/span><\/p>\n We also need to stop treating current conditions as immutable. The system we have was designed and built\u2014and it can be redesigned and rebuilt. But only if we stop mistaking a narrow definition of viability for a moral or practical absolute.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s be clear: calling out the limitations of the current model is not an attack on development. It\u2019s an invitation to think more ambitiously about what\u2019s possible, including the role that government must play in ensuring long-term affordability. Responsibility must be shared.<\/span><\/p>\n We need to build. <\/span><\/p>\n But we also need to ask: what is our housing system designed to deliver? And what do we want it to deliver in the decades ahead?<\/span><\/p>\n Because if we don\u2019t ask those questions now, we\u2019ll keep mistaking what\u2019s “viable” for what\u2019s valuable. And in the process, we\u2019ll leave too many people behind.<\/span><\/p>\n Viability shouldn\u2019t just mean what makes money. It should mean what makes cities work\u2014for everyone<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Related articles on Spacing Vancouver:<\/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
\n
\n