Vancouver needs more rental housing than ever—so why are small-scale landlords and developers saying it’s harder than ever to build or operate it? A closer look at how overregulation may be suffocating the very supply we claim to support.
Everyone agrees that Vancouver needs more rental housing. With immigration targets rising, homeownership out of reach for many, and vacancy rates stuck below 1%, adding purpose-built rentals and secondary suites should be a civic no-brainer. Yet in the very same breath that policymakers endorse rental development, a quieter—and more contradictory—phenomenon is unfolding: a steady increase in regulatory friction that’s making it harder to build, operate, or even retain rental housing stock.
It’s a tension that doesn’t make headlines the way luxury presales or foreign buyer bans do. But speak to small landlords, infill developers, or non-profit housing operators, and you’ll hear the same refrain: it’s getting harder to make the numbers work. Permit delays, opaque zoning rules, shifting tenant protections, mounting compliance costs, and political resistance at the municipal level are all contributing to a system that’s fundamentally out of sync with its stated goals.
Take the example of secondary suites and laneway homes. In theory, these are ideal “gentle density” tools—low-impact, family-oriented, and typically more affordable than strata condos. But in practice, the permitting process can take months, design restrictions are often prescriptive to the point of inflexibility, and building code compliance adds costs that quickly eat into viability. Add in new requirements for energy efficiency, tree preservation, and heritage character, and suddenly the average homeowner or small builder is looking at six figures and a year of red tape before even breaking ground.
For purpose-built rental developers, the picture isn’t much better. Vancouver’s Development Cost Levies (DCLs), Community Amenity Contributions (CACs), and changing rental replacement policies introduce levels of financial unpredictability that deter mid-sized projects. Even with density bonuses and expedited approvals for rental under the city’s “Streamlining Rental” policy, many proponents argue that the incentives don’t go far enough to offset land costs, carrying costs, and long-term rent control obligations. In a market where construction costs have risen dramatically and financing has tightened, squeezing the margins even further through regulation can be enough to shelve a project entirely.
But the regulatory pressure doesn’t stop at the front end—it continues into ongoing operations. Small landlords, especially those renting out basement suites or duplexes, face increasing scrutiny. Eviction rules have tightened, renovation protocols are more complex, and rent increase limits are strictly enforced, even when property taxes and maintenance costs soar. While tenant protections are absolutely vital, there’s a growing concern that the balance has tipped too far—disincentivizing owners from entering or staying in the rental market.
In some neighborhoods, the message from local councils and vocal residents is clear: more housing, yes—but not here, not now, and not like that. Rental rezonings are delayed or opposed on the grounds of traffic, shadowing, or “neighborhood character.” It’s a dynamic that reveals the deeper contradiction in Vancouver’s housing narrative: we claim to want affordability and equity, but too often our systems protect the status quo.
Even well-intentioned policies can have unintended consequences. Take the city’s requirement for one-for-one rental replacement in redevelopments involving older rental stock. It’s a fair idea on paper—preserve affordability and prevent tenant displacement. But in execution, it adds layers of complexity and cost that can stall projects or shift the financial focus toward higher-end units just to make a build viable.
The result? Less new rental than we need, and more strain on existing inventory.
There’s no denying that the city has made progress in recent years. The approval of multiplex zoning, the Rental 100 program, and the new provincial push for missing middle housing all signal positive momentum. But if these reforms are layered on top of an already burdensome framework, their impact may be muted. Without a serious audit of municipal processes, interdepartmental coordination, and the cumulative effect of competing regulations, we risk undermining our own housing goals.
Meanwhile, investors and builders are taking note—and in some cases, taking their capital elsewhere. Cities like Calgary, Edmonton, and even smaller B.C. municipalities are becoming more attractive by comparison. The danger isn’t just that Vancouver becomes unaffordable. The danger is that it becomes unbuildable—a place where political signaling overshadows practical policy, and where we legislate ourselves into a housing shortage we can’t regulate our way out of.
This isn’t a call for deregulation or carte blanche development. It’s a call for coherence. If we want more rental housing, then every level of policy—from zoning to permitting to tenant law—needs to support that goal, not quietly chip away at it.
Because if we keep treating rental housing like a problem to be tolerated rather than a solution to be embraced, we may wake up to a city that’s beautifully planned but fundamentally inaccessible. And no amount of design guidelines or consultation rounds will change the fact that a rental project not built helps no one—not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
