Villages Plan bait and switch? I am confused!

On the left, the proposed Macdonald & 16th Ave “Village” from the Villages Plan dated June 30th; on the right the same “village”plan in the referral report going to Council, dated May 26th, a month earlier—which is correct?

“So is Choices at 16th and Trafalgar able to redevelop if and when it wishes? It looks like it’s part of the Macdonald and 16th “village” so unable to redevelop except as the ground level retail and residential above?” This question from my friend David seemed to have an obvious answer in the Report to Council that I had studied for my last City Conversation and which underpins the proposed Villages rezoning at the right of the above illustration—Choices is not affected by the Macdonald/16th village plan. Or so I thought. But David is always careful and thoughtful about what he says and asks, so I requested him to send me the illustration he based his question on. He sent me the illustration above on the left, taken from the Villages Plan that is what folks see when they visit the city’s planning website at ShapeYourCity.ca.

This innocent question and the image from my friend David sent me down a rabbit hole I may still not have found the bottom of. When I saw the contradictions in the Macdonald/16th “village” plan, I felt compelled to check out the other 15 proposed villages that have core areas with restrictive zoning:

My summary of the number of blocks included in the Villages Plan, and the number of homes with restricted zoning. The Villages Plan document that the public can see on the Planning Dept. website is on the left of each pair of columns, the referral report results, which Council sees, are on the right.

What I found was staggering. There are 30%+ discrepancies between what the public sees and what’s going to Council—that’s 167 blocks and 252 homes that apparently disappeared between the Village Plan on ShapeYourCity and the report Council will vote on after the Public Hearing. Worse still, the Villages Plan with higher numbers is dated a month after the report to Council. I am confused.

A cursory reading of the two documents might cause you to say, if you’re against the Villages Plan, “Well that’s good, the affected area going to Council has been reduced.” But has it? It would be a simple matter for staff to recommend the higher Villages Plan quantities at or after the Public Hearing—a confusing but simple sounding amendment would do it.

Meantime, after my last City Conversation I am receiving requests from readers for the boundaries of the village nearest them, or which they have been told they are a part of—city staff have apparently sent a postcard to homeowners affected by the restrictive zoning proposals, although some have only arrived in the last few days—presumably plenty of time to read the 329-page referral report and the similar length document on ShapeYourCity? What should I send them?—the Villages Plan they would see on Shape Your City, or the referral Report to Council? And what if their home is in a restricted zone in one report, and not in the other?

I have received and seen an unprecedented amount of commentary about the proposed Villages Plan, most of it negative. I fear these huge discrepancies will not allay citizen fears.

My suggestions:

1. Sign up to speak at the Public Hearing scheduled July 14th—details are in my previous City Conversation.

2. Send to each Councillor and the Mayor a simple email1 saying something like: “[your address]: Given the large discrepancies between what I see and what you see, am I inside or outside the nearest village? Please explain your answer referring to both the Villages Plan on ShapeYourCity and the different plan in the referral report to Council? I am confused and concerned that if some version of this Villages Plan is passed, I will never again have the opportunity to speak to Council about what arises from whichever plan is approved.”

I hope to see you at the Public Hearing on the 14th. I am speaker #15 (in person). Bring a good book!

This post is just over 700 words—about as long as the the 5 minutes citizens are allowed when they are allowed with less and less frequency to speak to the current Vancouver City Council, in their efforts to suppress democracy. If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

Brian Palmquist writes in the ancestral lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. City Conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he is threatening to write a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places where we love to live. Some of its content may appear above.