I’m tired of hearing the same old reasoning. I can site 2 examples of this argument being used to gain higher density – “let us build higher and we’ll include affordable housing.” Well it’s a lie – look at Olympic Village – the whole point was 30/30/30 to gain the permits and give the land to a private developer. Well – it’s now 100% market. Concord Pacific was allowed to build higher on the North False Creek as long as they included affordable housing. That was the last on the drawing board and when it came to build, Concord pleaded with the City “it’s too expensive, we can’t afford to build it” and what did the City say – “keep to your promise”? NO – the City said “okay, we understand, you don’t have to build it anymore.” It’s all promises but action does not follow. Hold these developers to their promises – require them to build the affordable housing first – house the homeless before selling to off-shore investors!!!!!

My friend from Ontario came to visit and she noticed how there must be certain zoning regulations in particular areas because there are some wonderful glimpses of the mountains where expensive homes are located. Why wouldn’t they build bigger, she asked.

I wonder if the people who say they don’t care about the view corridors really won’t feel the impact of increased high-rise buildings. Many more could change the whole feel of the city. However, I don’t know what other options are possible for creating much needed affordable housing.