Supply and demand is a part of housing affordability but is not the whole picture. We've had years where the rental vacancy rate increased and rental prices still increased year-over-year. The trickle-down economics of "just keep building more high-end housing and eventually everything else will be affordable to low-income people" is honestly comical to me at this point. I think that claiming this project will benefit affordability in the community is delusional.
That being said, as the mayor pointed out in the council meeting, there are far more affordable housing projects in the works around the city right now than there have been in decades (Firehall, Crosstown, Vic High development, Burnside School, 210 Gorge Rd, Yates and Meares supportive housing projects, etc.). That's the kind of stuff that is ultimately going to be the greatest net benefit to housing affordability in the CoV. She made the point that we can make room for higher end developments like this one as long as we continue to see momentum in building affordable housing alongside it. I'd agree with her on that point. Most that were in opposition (Isitt, Loveday, Dubow, Potts) argued that the affordable housing that is being built is not equitable between neighborhoods and affordable housing is rapidly diminishing in neighborhoods like Fairfield. I'd agree with them on that too, but I don't think it's enough for me to give it a "no" if I was in their position, given the benefits that I think the development would bring in terms of public realm improvements and the creation of walkable/bikeable neighborhoods.
Edited by Brantastic, 27 November 2020 - 06:21 PM.