You’d think, in a time of a brutal housing shortage, skyrocketing rents, and soul-crushing commutes, that city councils across British Columbia would leap at the opportunity to build more homes near major transit hubs. You’d think they'd seize the moment, take the province's firm-but-fair direction on increased density, and roll out thoughtful, modern plans that help actual humans live near where they work and move.
You’d be wrong.
Because what we’re seeing—what I’m personally watching in real time through multiple email threads with city councils—is a full-blown, passive-aggressive resistance campaign. One where municipalities pretend to cooperate while simultaneously dragging their feet, neutering real reforms, and tailoring every communication to an audience that already owns their home, hasn’t taken a bus since the ‘80s, and believes “density” is a dirty word.
And yes, we’re talking about the boomer voter bloc. The same one that shows up to every city meeting, opposes bike lanes with apocalyptic fervor, and complains about “shadowing” from three-storey buildings as if it’s a nuclear threat.
The Province Finally Stepped In—And Cities Immediately Played the Victim
Let’s back up.
In December 2023, the BC government introduced legislation requiring cities to allow higher-density housing around transit-oriented development (TOD) zones—think: SkyTrain stations, bus exchanges, and other public transit anchors. The idea? To build more homes where people actually want and need to live. Crazy, I know.
Municipalities were given firm deadlines:
By June 2024, identify high-density zones around key transit hubs
By December 2024, update zoning to comply
By 2025, begin implementation and reporting
What happened next was predictable—and maddening.
Instead of treating this as a golden opportunity to fix decades of bad land use, city councils across Metro Vancouver turned to their usual tactics:
Stalling with “public consultation” surveys designed to reflect fear rather than need
Issuing vague statements about “needing more time to study impacts”
Publishing tone-deaf newsletters where the only concerns addressed were traffic, parking, and “neighbourhood character”
And worst of all, writing to residents (and me!) like we’re all 65+ and terrified of apartment buildings
I’ve emailed several city councils over the past few months—some as a curious constituent, some with pointed questions—and what I received in return is practically a masterclass in boomer-centric PR spin.
One city official wrote to me that “rapid densification can cause irreversible changes to the tranquil nature of our community.” Another expressed concern about “maintaining appropriate sunlight access and views.” A third declared that any province-mandated zoning “should be carefully balanced with the needs of existing homeowners.”
Let me translate that for you:
They’re not talking to renters. They’re not talking to young families. They’re not talking to immigrants or service workers or students or transit users.
They’re talking to homeowners who bought in the '80s, paid off their mortgages by 2005, and now want the city preserved in amber.
Transit-Oriented Development Should Be a No-Brainer—So Why Is Everyone Scared of It?
Here’s the thing about transit-oriented development: it works. It’s sustainable, cost-effective, climate-friendly, and massively in demand. You build apartments near transit, and—surprise—people use less gas, commute less, and spend more money locally.
You know who does this well?
Tokyo
Copenhagen
Vienna
Even Calgary, whose TOD zones around the LRT have quietly outperformed expectations
Vancouver, meanwhile, has a SkyTrain station beside… a gas station, a car dealership, and a row of single-family homes with million-dollar lawns. In 2023, a report from the Urban Development Institute found that more than 35% of land within 800 metres of SkyTrain stations was still zoned exclusively for single-family homes.
That’s the most expensive land in BC. And we’re using it to store hedges and SUVs.
Instead of saying, “Wow, here’s our chance to fix this,” many city councils are fighting back like they’re the ones under siege. And they’re doing it because they think their only job is to protect homeowners from renters, not plan cities for people who don’t already own a detached house.
In fact, some cities are trying to minimize densification by reducing the number of units allowed, keeping strict height caps, or shrinking the definition of “transit-adjacent” zones to exclude areas that obviously qualify. It’s loophole politics—and it’s directly undermining the province’s intent.
The Boomer Echo Chamber: Who Are Cities Really Planning For?
It’s no accident that city newsletters, mailers, and consultation invites feel like they were written for the retirement home mailing list. They’re trying to appease the loudest voices in the room—and those voices are overwhelmingly older, wealthier, and anti-change.
You won’t hear them say it outright, but what’s really behind the pushback is this:
“I don’t want apartments near me because I don’t want them near me.”
Where them = students, newcomers, renters, young people, working-class people, anyone who might need to take a bus to work instead of an Audi to yoga.
It’s textbook exclusionary zoning, dressed up in “community values” and “livability” language. And if you challenge it—if you email the city and say, “Actually, I rent and I want to live near the SkyTrain”—you get polite replies that quietly imply your housing needs are disruptive.
What Cities Could Be Doing Instead—If They Stopped Writing for Boomers
Let’s imagine an alternate universe where city councils did the brave thing: planned for the future, not the past.
Here’s what that might look like:
Proactively upzoning entire corridors near transit—not just station-adjacent blocks
Creating diverse housing types, including family-sized rentals, co-ops, and mid-rise buildings with ground-floor retail
Replacing surface parking lots with mixed-use housing
Reaching out to renters, students, and newcomers in planning surveys—not just homeowners associations
Treating TOD like what it is: a chance to rebuild broken housing systems
Cities could issue statements like:
“We’re excited to work with the province to bring much-needed housing to transit-rich areas.”
“We recognize the need to house all residents—not just those who bought decades ago.”
“We’re prioritizing affordability, sustainability, and accessibility in our zoning updates.”
But they won’t. At least not yet. Because that would mean confronting the fact that cities have been NIMBY enablers for decades—and now they’re being told, gently but firmly, that the party’s over.
Stay Tuned:
This fight isn’t over. The province is demanding compliance, but some cities are still trying to get away with lip service. I’ll be publishing some of my email exchanges with councils in a follow-up piece, exposing just how deeply this resistance goes—and how coded their messaging is.
Until then, ask yourself:
Who is your city really planning for? And why is it still so afraid to build for you?