Learn how real estate lawyers support Canadian buyers and sellers during property transactions, including title searches, legal documents, and closing procedures.
A real estate lawyer is a legal professional who specializes in property law, assisting with the legal aspects of buying, selling, or refinancing real estate.
Why Do Real Estate Lawyers Matter in Real Estate
In Canadian real estate, lawyers are often required to complete transactions. They ensure all legal documentation is properly prepared and reviewed, and that the title transfer process is completed without issues.
A lawyer protects the buyer’s or seller’s legal interests and ensures the transaction complies with provincial real estate law. They are especially critical in complex cases such as:
Estate sales
Foreclosures or power of sale
Disputes over easements or zoning
Understanding the role of a real estate lawyer helps ensure that your property transaction proceeds smoothly, lawfully, and with minimized legal risk.
Example of a Real Estate Lawyer in Action
A homebuyer in Alberta hires a real estate lawyer to review their purchase agreement, ensure the title is clear, and handle the legal closing process.
Key Takeaways
Manages legal aspects of real estate deals.
Required for closings in most provinces.
Ensures title and funds are properly transferred.
Reviews legal documents and resolves disputes.
Protects client interests in property transactions.
CRA stands for the Canada Revenue Agency, the federal body responsible for tax administration, compliance, and enforcement in Canada, including taxes. more
Common elements refer to shared spaces and systems in a condominium development that are jointly owned and maintained by all unit owners through the. more
The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) is a federal law that allows large insolvent corporations in Canada to restructure their debt and. more
Houses in a suburban BC neighbourhood/Shutterstock
Five consecutive quarters of relief. The lightest mortgage burden in three years. Scan the headlines and you might believe Canada’s housing crisis is finally turning a corner.
It isn’t.
What we’re seeing is less of a comeback and more of a comedown, a gentle easing after years of punishing highs. According to the Q1 2025 Housing Affordability Monitor by the National Bank of Canada, the national MPPI, or mortgage payment as a percentage of income, now sits at 55.4 percent, a level not seen since early 2022. On paper, that looks like progress.
But real affordability isn’t captured in data points. It is felt in day-to-day life. And for most Canadians, homeownership remains as distant as ever.
Yes, mortgage rates have edged down. Incomes have nudged higher. But home prices (in the markets considered) continue to climb, both quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year. And in many major cities, the cost of carrying a mortgage still eats up more than half of what the average household brings in. To call this a recovery would be misleading. It is merely a pause in a housing system that remains fundamentally out of reach for many.
Nowhere does the gap between perception and reality feel sharper than in Toronto.
The numbers hint at progress. The city’s MPPI fell by 1.6 percentage points in Q1, outpacing the national average. Mortgage rates eased. Yet despite these gains, Toronto remains one of the least affordable housing markets in the country. The typical buyer now faces a mortgage burden of 77.8 percent of their income, far above both the national figure and the city’s own historical norm.
A median home (all dwellings), at present, requires an income of more than $267,000 to qualify. Even in the condo segment, where prices dipped slightly, households still need to earn over $161,000 just to get in.
It remains a market out of reach, not because people aren’t willing to buy, but because even with more listings on the table, the prices still don’t make sense for most.
The Condo Conundrum
In most Canadian cities, the condo market has long been positioned as the affordable entry point, the starter home for young professionals. The Q1 data supports that narrative on the surface: the average MPPI for condos across major markets is 41.4%, significantly below the 61.7% required for non-condos.
But beneath that surface lies a less reassuring story.
In cities like Vancouver, Hamilton and Toronto, even the condo market is burdened with unsustainable premiums. Buyers in these cities pay 30% to 47% more per month to own a condo than to rent an equivalent two-bedroom unit. In Victoria, that premium is nearly 27%. And despite being the “affordable option,” condos in these markets still require downpayments exceeding $45,000, along with qualifying incomes well over $140,000.
If this is the on-ramp to ownership, it’s increasingly steep and sparsely travelled.
While much of the national discourse focuses on monthly mortgage payments, the more intractable barrier is often the downpayment.
In Toronto, it would take over 9.5 years of disciplined saving, at 10% of pre-tax income, to accumulate the minimum required downpayment for a median-priced home. In Vancouver, that wait stretches to 11.5 years. These timelines assume steady income, no financial setbacks, and near-perfect saving habits, assumptions that rarely hold in real life.
In nearly every region, downpayment timelines have grown longer, not shorter. When compared to their own 25-year averages, most markets show a widening gap, a sign that while monthly affordability has improved, the upfront cost of entry continues to drift further out of reach.
Lessons from the Prairies
Contrast this with Edmonton and Winnipeg, where housing affordability appears almost anachronistically reasonable. In Edmonton, the MPPI sits at just 29.8%, a whisper away from its historical average. In Winnipeg, it’s 31.4%.
Downpayment timelines in these markets are measured in months, not decades. Condo buyers in Edmonton need just $14,000 down and can qualify with incomes under $66,000. These cities remain among the last outposts of middle-class affordability in a landscape of hyper-concentrated wealth.
Their stability offers a rare and increasingly attractive alternative for buyers priced out of larger markets.
Why Is Affordability Improving?
The short answer: mortgage rates are falling, and incomes are rising, slightly. Since peaking in late 2023, 5-year mortgage rates have declined by 91 basis points. Median incomes are up around 0.8%, enough to tilt the MPPI down even as home prices rise modestly.
But this balance is fragile. The Bank of Canada’s future moves are uncertain. Wages may stagnate if economic momentum slows down further. And in some cities, especially in Quebec, home prices continue to creep up significantly.
This is a rate relief. And it won’t last forever.
Renting Makes More Sense in Some Cities
One of the more striking dynamics in this report is the widening gap between renting and owning, particularly in urban condo markets.
In a healthy market, homeownership is expected to cost more in the short run but pay off over time through equity building and stability. But in markets like Vancouver, Hamilton and Toronto, the ownership premium has grown so large that it undermines that assumption.
At what point does paying $700–$1,000 more per month than rent cease to be a sound investment, especially in an environment when price growth is modest and carrying costs are elevated? In many cities, the ownership premium has outpaced potential returns, and the math no longer supports the old narrative.
And Canadians seem to know it. Recent consumer sentiment surveys, such as the one by CMHC, show that first-time buyer activity remains sluggish, even as mortgage rates dip and inventory climbs. The fear of being priced out has largely faded. Instead, a cautious, cost-conscious mindset has taken hold. For a growing number of households, renting makes the rational choice.
We’re Not There Yet
The headline figures in this quarter’s report may suggest progress. But affordability is a structural problem, not a momentary trend. And that problem, in most major cities, remains deeply entrenched.
What we’re seeing today is a reprieve. A temporary easing of pressure made possible by falling rates and modest wage gains. But unless housing prices fall materially, or incomes rise dramatically, the system will remain tilted against aspiring homeowners.
Affordability is improving, but not nearly fast enough to matter for the people who need it most.
Build upwards not outwards has become the mandate of urban centres around the world, Toronto included. Population growth, increased housing demand, skyrocketing land values, and the perils of urban sprawl have necessitated increased density, and meanwhile, we've seen the emergence of innovative engineering as buildings stretched higher and higher into the clouds.
This combination of necessity and technology have led developers and architects to turn to more extreme heights in the form of aptly-named 'supertalls,' which, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), are buildings with heights of 300 metres (984 feet) or more.
Supertalls have been around since the 1930s, with the 1,049-ft (319-metre) Chrysler Building being the first to hit the impressive height milestone, but began popping up around the world in greater numbers throughout the late-2000s. And while Toronto may be one of Canada's largest urban centres, Global Director of the Architecture & Urbanism Division at Arcadis, Mansoor Kazerouni, tells STOREYS the Ontario capital is behind other major cities when it comes to supertalls.
"In many ways, Toronto is actually playing catch up to the rest of the world," says Kazerouni. "If you think about it, our tallest planned tower right now is around 350 meters, right? Well, that wouldn't even put us among the 80 tallest buildings in the world."
The tower Kazerouni is referencing is the SkyTower at Pinnacle One Yonge, one of eight supertall buildings currently under construction or approved in the city, which will reach 105 storeys at its highest point. Arcadis is the architecture firm tasked with designing the second tallest project in the supertall pipeline which is the 99-storey, 1,040-ft 19 Bloor tower.
To better understand the role supertalls have to play in Toronto, alongside their benefits and unique construction challenges, we spoke with Kazerouni and Shane Fenton Partner and COO of one of 19 Bloor's developers, Reserve Properties.
Location Is Key
Kazerouni and Fenton agree that the main role of a supertall is to provide the maximum amount of housing possible on a single plot of land. But location is paramount. This means developing close to higher-order transit in walkable communities where existing built forms would exist in harmony with a supertall. For Fenton, 19 Bloor Street West ticked all these boxes.
“We see [the 19 Bloor] site as centre ice in the City of Toronto," says Fenton. "It doesn't get better in terms of location and planning, and in terms of something that could be built at a high rise scale.” Surrounding the site, he highlights, are dozens of other tall buildings, access to Line 1 of the TTC, educational institutions like the University of Toronto and Toronto Metropolitan University, and a plethora of dining, retail, and entertainment options.
Shane Fenton, Partner and COO at Reserve Properties
Building up density around higher-order transit and urban amenities has become a major mandate of the City in combatting the housing crisis, and supertalls have come as a welcomed tool in areas where their development is appropriate. As such, Fenton says the City was "very supportive" of the 19 Bloor project. "They expected us to be coming forward with that type of overall concept of design for the site," he says.
Design Challenges
Conceptually, supertalls are simple; they provide high density housing on a small plot of land by building higher. But in practice, they present a host of material challenges that architects like Kazerouni are tasked with overcoming.
Over 980 feet up in the air, wind becomes a major issue as residents in upper floors can experience an uncomfortable swaying motion. To combat this, architects like Kazerouni can do a number of things to lessen wind resistance, such as placing a very heavy mass at the top of the building, sculpting the exterior to reduce wind resistance, or even incorporating giant holes half way up the building to let wind through.
Height also becomes an issue within the building where mechanical systems, plumbing, and ventilation will fail if pushed to extremes. To remedy this, architects will essentially divide the buildings interior systems in two.
"We often start to introduce mid-level mechanical systems, almost independent for the lower half and the upper half of the tower, so that it starts to become two towers stacked over each other," explains Kazerouni. "For the elevator service, we oftentimes do dedicated stacks — low-rise, mid-rise, high-rise — so that you can bypass the lower floors to get to the upper floors."
Creating Diverse Communities And Sustainability
Innovative solutions like what Kazerouni is describing allow for a highly livable building that provides unique opportunities for residents. In other cities like New York, many supertalls serve as luxury buildings, offering only around 100 units despite their height. But in Toronto, Kazerouni points out, "we've tended towards smaller units for reasons of affordability."
The ability to provide a range of unit types, from smaller, more varied units closer to the ground to larger upper-floor and penthouse units can allow for diversity to flourish within the building.
"I think it gives us an opportunity to segment the tower so you can actually get diversity in terms of economic diversity, demographic diversity, and diversity in the size of units," says Kazerouni. He also floats the idea of having amenity spaces at higher levels so all residents can enjoy panoramic views afforded by living in a supertall. "It allows you to experience the city in different ways, not just the floor you live at."
Mansoor Kazerouni, Global Director of the Architecture & Urbanism Division at Arcadis
On top of fostering diverse communities, Kazerouni points out that supertalls can be a sustainable development opportunity. By maximizing housing density near transit, you reduce what could have been a much larger carbon footprint.
"You are reducing the need for urban sprawl, the need for additional roads, additional highways, and expensive infrastructure that inevitably leads to long commutes and chokes our highways," says Kazerouni.
The Future Of Supertalls
Toronto may be playing catch up in the supertall arena, but Kazerouni and Fenton say the stage has been set for Toronto to lean in on developing these high-density buildings in some of the city's most built up, transit-oriented nodes.
"[Building higher] is the inevitability of world-class cities that continue to be in demand and grow," says Kazerouni. "And if we don't want to spread and create endless urban sprawl, the only other way to go is up, right? So I think you will see more supertalls in Toronto."
On top of that, Fenton points out the long-term implications of failing to deliver high-density, height-intensive buildings where possible throughout the city.
“You really get one shot. Because once you build the building, that thing is going to be there for the next 100 years," he says. "So if you start building on sites that can accommodate a greater density and under-utilize what you can put there, you've done a disservice to the city.”
Construction at the Signal project by Oxford Properties and Intracorp in Vancouver. / Axiom Builders
As the real estate market continues its downward turn, local governments across Metro Vancouver (and beyond) have shown a strong willingness to tweak their policies in an effort to provide some relief to homebuilders and to get shovels in the ground. The latest municipality to do so is the City of Vancouver.
"Development viability is under increasing strain due to a wide range of factors, such as construction cost escalation, impending tariff implications, an elevated interest rate environment, and recent changes to immigration policy, all of which have created greater uncertainty and dampened consumer and investor confidence," said the City in a report that will be considered by Council next week. "At the same time, the cost basis for construction – including land, labour, regulatory requirements, and government charges – has dramatically outpaced inflation since 2019, while home prices have approached affordability ceilings."
"The investor pool is shrinking, driven by the end of foreign investment, stagnating rent yields, and diminished expectations of future appreciation," added GM of Planning Josh White, who authored the report and hinted at the changes in an interview with STOREYS last month. "This shift has left both purpose-built rental and strata development financially challenging, particularly at the scale, price points, and speed required to meet the city’s housing needs. Without intervention, supply will continue to lag behind demand, exacerbating affordability pressures and excluding key market segments – especially families and middle-income earners – from viable housing options."
In response to the aforementioned challenges, the City is proposing a series of changes to support the financial viability of development projects. Most of the changes relate to when and how the City collects development fees. How much the City collects is not changing, as no changes to rates have been proposed.
Development Cost Levies (DCLs)
The first change is pertaining to development cost levies (DCLs), which are known as development cost charges (DCCs) in other municipalities.
Under existing policy — dictated by the Province's Local Government Act — developers are required to make their DCL payments upon issuance of the building permit (BP) for their project, which is one of the last steps before construction. Many developers — such as those involved in the letter-writing campaign in September 2024 — have said that paying it all upfront is a burden because they are often financing the payment with debt for the duration of construction, as Wesgroup's Brad Jones previously told STOREYS.
Thus, the City has proposed a policy change to allow DCLs to be paid in three equal installments: a third upon building permit issuance, a third 12 months after BP issuance, and the remaining third 24 months after BP issuance. This change would apply to all projects with DCLs — inclusive of City-wide DCLs, area-specific DCLs, and Utilities DCLs — totalling $500,000 or more. The DCL rate will be locked in upon BP issuance, will not be subject to rate increases that occur afterwards, and will not accrue interest. As assurance for the City, the developer will be required to provide a "pay-on-demand" Surety Bond or Letter of Credit and default on any of the installments will result in the full remaining balance becoming due.
"While deferral of DCLs could pose a sizeable one-time impact on funding for infrastructure and amenities to support growth in the next capital plan (2027-2030), collections are expected to stabilize thereafter," the report states. "To mitigate such impact, staff recommend using interim financing, repayable over 10 years, to bridge the funding gap."
Community Amenity Contributions (CACs)
The second big change is pertaining to community amenity contributions (CACs), which the City levies on projects that require rezoning.
"Currently, the City's CAC policy for rezonings provides discretion to allow for deferral for the portion of cash CACs exceeding $20 million, with interest at Prime + 3% applicable to the deferred payment and payment due by the earlier of 24 months of rezoning enactment or prior to issuance of the first building permit," according to the report. "Up to 50% of the deferred CAC may be secured by 'pay-on-demand' Surety Bond and the remainder by Letter of Credit."
"Under the proposed amendments, the City may, at its discretion, allow for deferral for the portion of cash CACs exceeding $5 million, with interest at Prime + 1% applicable to the deferred payment and payment due by the earlier of 24 months of rezoning enactment or prior to issuance of the first building permit. The first $10 million of the deferred CAC may be secured, at the City’s discretion, by 'pay-on-demand' Surety Bond and the balance over $10 million may be secured by a combination of 'pay-on-demand' Surety Bond (up to 50%) and Letter of Credit."
The effect of this change is similar to that of the DCLs change, which is to reduce the upfront financial burden, and the City says this CAC change would apply to new, in-stream, as well as approved rezonings that have not been enacted yet. (In the City of Vancouver, rezoning approvals like what was granted this week for the Commercial-Broadway Safeway redevelopment are only in principle and the applicant must then meet various conditions for the rezoning to be officially enacted.)
A list of rezonings that have been approved but not enacted, which are eligible for the CAC deferral. / City of Vancouver
Annual Inflationary Adjustments To Development Fees
Like other municipalities, the City of Vancouver conducts regular reviews of its rate schedules for DCLs, CACs, and density bonus contributions (DBZs), oftentimes adjusting — increasing — rates to account for inflation.
In recent years, Council has already approved deferring this rate adjustment in both 2023 and 2024, and is proposing that the adjustment for 2025 — an increase of 3.2% — again be deferred.
The deferral means that when the rates are next adjusted, they will jump substantially to reflect the inflation that has occurred over several years, not just one year.
"Forgoing the 2025 inflationary adjustment to DCLs, CAC Targets and DBZs will reduce development contributions in the following year by ~$4 million based on recent historical collections," the report states. "Foregoing the implementation of the deferred 2024 inflationary adjustment to CAC Targets and DBZs will reduce development contributions by an additional ~$2 million in the following year."
"Pay-on-Demand" Surety Bonds
Another change is as it relates to the aforementioned "pay-on-demand" Surety Bonds.
"The City has traditionally relied on Letters of Credit to secure infrastructure and amenity obligations as part of development," according to the report. "In recent years, the City has started to accept 'pay-on-demand' Surety Bonds on a limited basis to secure delivery of turnkey amenities above $20 million and cash CAC payment deferral. Surety Bonds are a financial instrument where the surety guarantees the obligation of the developer to the City. 'Pay-on-demand' Surety Bonds are intended to function like Letters of Credit in that the City is intended to have the right to demand payment or fulfillment of an obligation of the developer from the surety, by providing a notice of default and the surety contracts that it will fulfill the obligation. However, there are key differences between Letters of Credit and 'pay-on-demand' Surety Bonds, which creates the potential for greater collection risk."
The risk is increased because, while letters of credit are issued by chartered banks and those banks generally require that the developer has the funds in their account, surety bonds are instead issued by insurance companies that are not holding the funds. In the event of a default and the City demands payment, the insurance company is nonetheless required to fulfill the obligations of the developer, but the collection procedure is different and usually entails more time compared to letters of credit.
Nonetheless, the City has proposed that the eligibility threshold for the use of such Surety Bonds be reduced from $20 million to $5 million, as well as that Surety Bonds also be allowed on infrastructure and amenity obligations with an aggregate value per project of over $5 million (with a minimum of $3 million pertaining to infrastructure).
Floorplates
The final significant change is pertaining to floorplates, which is the size of a single floor, measured in square footage.
Currently, the City has a floorplate "guideline" of 6,500 sq. ft, but believes this has "become outdated due to evolving building codes, energy requirements, and rising construction costs."
"To better support project viability, a shift towards a more flexible, principles-based framework is necessary. Smaller sites will still require tighter limits to achieve urban design goals like tower separation and sunlight access, while larger or less constrained sites – especially those for mass timber or social housing – may accommodate up to 8,000 sq. ft. floorplates. Additionally, taller buildings and larger sites offer opportunities for additional flexibility rooted in sound urban design principles. However, this flexibility requires stricter tower separation standards to maintain livability. Floorplate sizes should be flexible, allowing professional discretion to achieve high-quality, context-sensitive urban design."
The City has published a bulletin outlining the changes that indicates the floorplate guideline of 8,000 sq. ft will apply not just to mass timber towers and social housing projects, but also towers that exceed 40 storeys. The floorplate guideline for all other towers ranges from 4,000 sq. ft to 7,200 sq. ft, depending on whether the site is one that can accommodate a tower, whether it is a corner or mid-block site, and the site frontage.
This particular change is under the authority of the Director of Planning (Josh White), does not require Council approval, and already came into effect on June 3.
All of the above changes, except for the floorplate change, are up for Council approval on Tuesday, June 17, and the report states that the City will continue to look for changes.
"Staff are continually reviewing policies and process improvements to ensure they are appropriately applied and streamlined to support development viability. This ongoing work aims to enhance clarity and efficiency while balancing the need for timely project delivery with the City’s commitment to building complete communities and delivering essential amenities for residents."
Additionally, on June 18, Councillor Rebecca Bligh will be introducing a motion called "Jumpstarting Rental Housing: Bold Action to Boost Rental Housing Construction in Tough Economic Times," which asks staff to "report back on options to design a program of tax abatement for projects that prioritize rental and below market rental units while deferring increases in property taxes for properties redeveloped for rental housing, holding the tax rate based on the assessed value prior to redevelopment, for a determined period."
Carttera acquired 1266 Queen Street West earlier this month. / Carttera
[Editor's Note: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified Republic Developments as the owner of 1266 Queen Street West. They were the developer of the property, but not the owners.]
A large high-rise project set for the Queen West neighbourhood of Toronto has changed hands, with real estate developer and investment manager Carttera acquiring the project after it was initiated by Republic Developments.
The site of the project is 1266 Queen Street West, directly adjacent to the Parkdale Amphitheatre at the intersection of Queen Street West and Dufferin Street, as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks. The property is currently occupied by an old low-rise commercial building.
Earlier this week, Carttera announced that they had acquired the site in a transaction brokered by Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers. The property is now held under 1266 Queen Street West GP Inc.
The property was previously owned by DKI Queen Inc., who retained Republic Developments as a consultant on the project.
"In what continues to be a challenging and highly selective market for development sites, getting this deal across the finish line is something our entire team is proud of," said Republic Developments in their own announcement this week. "It speaks to the value of the asset, the resilience of good real estate, and the strength of relationships that make these transactions happen."
Transaction details were not disclosed by either party, but Carttera acquired 1266 Queen Street West from DKI Queen Inc. for $27,900,000 on June 6, according to transaction info from commercial real estate intelligence firm Altus Group.
According to City of Toronto records, the project has been in the works since at least April 2023, when Republic submitted the original application. The original proposal was for 25 storeys and 381 residential units, before being reduced to 23 storeys and 329 units in October 2023.
Another set of revised plans was submitted to the City earlier this year by Carttera, which was the first indication that the project was changing hands. Carttera's proposal is now for a 27-storey tower with 362 units, with all of the residential units now proposed as rentals instead of condos. A planning rationale prepared by Batory Planning + Management cites the federal government's elimination of GST on new rental construction and the City of Toronto's reduced property tax incentive as some of the reasons for the pivot to rental.
Notably, although the number of floors has been increased, the height of the tower remains exactly the same as the previous proposal, which was approved in July 2024.
The 362 rental units are split between 197 one-bedroom units, 128 two-bedroom units, 36 three-bedroom units, and one four-bedroom unit. Carttera's proposal eliminated all of the studio units and reduced the number of one-bedroom units, while increasing the amount of family-sized units.
Other changes include the building podium being reduced from five to three storeys, the tower floorplate being increased, the amount of indoor and outdoor amenity space both being increased, and the number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces both being reduced.
BDP Quadrangle remains the architect of the project, and the firm will be targeting LEED Silver certification as a minimum and Zero Carbon certification from the Canadian Green Building Council.
"The revised development continues to make efficient use of underutilized commercial land located within a Settlement Area and within 500 metres of the future Liberty Village GO Station – areas explicitly designated for intensification by the Provincial Planning Statement (2024)," the planning rationale states. "The revised proposal conforms with the objectives of the Built Form and Public Realm policies of the Official Plan, being designed to fit within its surrounding context, transition appropriately to and limit overlook, sky view, wind, and shadow impacts on adjacent properties. The proposal is also consistent with the general intent and direction of the relevant Design Guidelines."
In a cover letter submitted along with its revised proposal, Carttera said that it is hoping to complete the Site Plan Control application by Q4 2025 so it can commence construction on the project in Spring 2026.
From the outside, Smithe House looks like any other Vancouver apartment building. But the interior tells a different story.
This design-forward property, located in the city’s "swish" Yaletown neighbourhood, is what’s known as an aparthotel: a serviced apartment that gives people all of the amenities of a hotel, combined with the comfort and convenience of an Airbnb. It’s a product offering that is growing in popularity around the world.
Smithe House was opened by Vancouver-based Kalido Hospitality Group in October of last year, and instantly began attracting Vancouver visitors who craved a different way to stay. And now, Kalido is gearing up for its second Vancouver aparthotel venture: a sister property called Keefer House that’s set to open in Chinatown in July.
According to Kalido partner Chris Evans, their aparthotel model is targeting two main benefits that the Airbnb customer has grown to love.
“Being able to rent residential-sized homes for short-term stays gave people the opportunity for one, space, and two, location and neighbourhood,” he says. “Our approach was to deliver that type of product in a purpose-built building — but really living on those two main attributes of providing people space that they wanted, and doing it in neighbourhoods that we also believed would have great demand.”
Inside the Smithe House
Deluxe two-bedroom living area
But unlike at an Airbnb, Smithe House and Keefer House guests are not staying in someone’s home or vacation property, forced to live amongst their kitschy art choices, old DVDs, and awkward family photos. Also unlike an Airbnb, housekeeping is included (although it’s only offered every two weeks, but can be requested more frequently for a fee). Kalido’s properties also offer a hyperlocal spin, allowing guests to interact with Vancouver through curated products and amenities — including coffee from Pallett, tea from Tealeaves, dishware from Fable, and home care items from Tallu.
“You get the benefits of a boutique hotel-type experience and service,” says Evans, “within the product type that you would have traditionally seen in an urban Airbnb.”
That means the best parts of an Airbnb (a full kitchen, in-suite laundry, a cool neighbourhood) with the creature comforts of a hotel (an onsite gym, a beautiful aesthetic, a true sense of security). Guests complete check-in via their mobile phones — no waiting in long lobby lineups. Kalido uses technology that allows guests to unlock their suites from their phones, too, and also offers a digital concierge service to help with neighbourhood tips and restaurant recommendations.
“The entire customer experience can be curated much more specifically with control of the entire property, as opposed to just leasing or renting one unit,” Evans explains. “It mimics much more of what you would experience in a traditional hotel stay, with the caveat that it is really the property being empowered with technology that provides a seamless ease of customer experience.”
A sneak peek of Keefer House
Price-wise, Smithe House currently runs around $550 per night for a studio apartment, and $630 for a one-bedroom. Comparatively, the boutique Loden Hotel in the same neighbourhood starts at $700 for a regular room. Airbnb rentals in Yaletown of a similar calibre range between $400 and $600 per night.
Unlike Airbnbs that exist in the grey areas, aparthotels are completely above board, and are zoned as hotels. Keefer House — which is set to open just in time for Vancouver’s busiest tourist season — is a brand-new build, but Smithe House is actually located inside a former office building that had been sitting vacant. Kalido worked with the City of Vancouver to rezone it; the whole process — application, approval, construction — only took about a year and a half. It’s perhaps not surprising, considering that the city is in dire need of more hotel rooms.
Vancouver needs a reported 10,000 new rooms by 2050 in order to keep up with fast-increasing demand. It’s a problem that adds more stress onto an already strained housing system: Metro Vancouver currently sports a yearly housing supply gap of some 22,600 residential homes. In April, Destination Vancouver released its Hotel Community Impact Assessment, which outlined some solutions for increasing hotel occupancy — including pre-zoning in commercial and transit-oriented areas, and deferring building cost charges. Shortly thereafter, Council approved updates to the City’s hotel policy, with the aim of encouraging more growth, including allowing additional density for hotels on high streets, and relaxing some restrictions on mixed hotel-residential projects in the downtown core — which currently has 43% of the city’s overall hotel room supply.
With all of this top of mind, Evans is confident that the real estate community is going to start chasing hotel projects — be they aparthotels or traditional ones — at a more rapid rate.
“I think you will certainly begin to see, and you’re already seeing, more and more of the real estate community looking at hotels as an option for development,” says Evans. “And I believe that will certainly stay the case going forward.”
Clockwise from top left: Vera Gisarov, Jennifer Kosloski, Leigh Rosar, Adriana Fritsch, Vincci Wilson
This week, Toronto CREW, the networking organization for women in commercial real estate, unveiled its Board of Directors for the 2025-2026 term, which includes some returning members, as well as four new faces: Jennifer Kosloski (President-Elect), Marta Stach (Treasurer), Adriana Fritsch (Director, Programs & Professional Development ), and Vincci Wilson (Director, Mentorship & Real Jobs Day).
In a LinkedIn post, the organization welcomed the new elects, and also thanked the outgoing members: Tania Laroche, Robyn Brown, and Alicia Vera. “We greatly appreciate your dedication and commitment to serving Toronto CREW and helping the chapter fulfill its mission of transforming the commercial real estate industry by advancing women to positions of leadership and influence,” the post said.
Toronto CREW renews its Board of Directors annually, with a call for nominations issued each spring. Members can nominate themselves or others through a process overseen by an independent Nominating Committee.
To be considered for a Board position, nominees must demonstrate a strong interest in serving and a clear understanding of Toronto CREW’s goals and mission — typically gained through experience on committees or in roles such as Vice-Chair, Chair, or Director. Professional experience relevant to a specific position may also be considered, according to the organization’s website.
The full Board of Directors for the 2025-2026 term is as follows:
Cam Good has been with real estate marketing firm KEY Marketing for over 16 years.
As the real estate market, and specifically the presale condo market in Vancouver, continues to struggle, developers big and small wanting to tough things out are turning to creative solutions to bring buyers and investors off of the sidelines.
As previously reported by STOREYS, many have introduced incentives for presale purchasers, like relaxed deposit structures and other financial discounts. More recently, some have also been highlighting the federal government's elimination of GST for first-time buyers on homes under $1 million and reduced GST on homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.
This market downturn — a market valley may be more accurate, considering its length — has lasted for close to two years and, thus, some are turning to increasingly daring and bold incentives in an attempt to cut through the noise, sell homes, and get their coffee (because coffee's for closers).
One example that has received attention recently is Square Nine Developments making 78 units at their 30-storey Belvedere tower in Surrey available at a 25% discount on May 31 in a one-day flash sale dubbed "Condo Day." Another developer, Allure Ventures, also began offering both a rental income guarantee and a buyback guarantee last month for its 32-storey SkyLiving tower, also in Surrey. The common denominator of both: real estate sales and marketing firm KEY Marketing.
In an interview with STOREYS on June 4, Cam Good, Partner at KEY Marketing who has been in the industry for over 20 years, discussed where the concept for Condo Day came from, the strategy behind it from both the buyer’s and developer’s perspectives, the psychology of the presale market, and future Condo Days.
Responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
To start off with, where the idea for Condo Day come from? Was it your idea or was it something the developer wanted to do?
I started it back in 2008. I was trying to figure out how to sell condos and it was not easy. As you might remember, it was a tough time. I found, on YouTube, a video of university students who approached the owner of a liquor store and said, "If we brought the whole campus here to buy out every bottle in your store, what kind of deal could you give us?" And the owner offered them a significant discount. They made up posters, hired a band, and brought the whole campus there. They took a video of this day at the liquor store, of people buying up all the booze, and I saw this video and thought that we could sell condos that way.
Based on that, I did a campaign in 2008-2009 called MAC Bulk in a 50/50 partnership with MAC Marketing [the company that merged with BLVD Marketing in 2017 to form MLA Canada]. We were hugely successful the first months of 2009. We sold 400 condos [across five projects for Onni Group] in this campaign.
Now, all these years later, we were wondering whether a similar strategy would work, because the trouble with a buyers' market is that it's too scary for buyers to buy, which makes it more of a buyers' market and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Condo Day, the strategy behind it, is it creates a safe buying environment where a lot of the fear is eliminated. The first fear buyers have is the fear of negotiating. They don't feel confident. What's the right price? What's a lowball? Should I lowball? All that stuff is out the window because the deal is the same for everyone, and that's nice for buyers.The second big fear buyers have in a market like this is, 'Am I making the wrong decision? Should I not be buying this? Is this not a good deal?' But when buyers are able to buy on one day, with dozens of other people buying at the same time, it feels good. They want to buy and that just helps them feel comfortable buying. That's the real strategy behind it. The weird thing is buyers actually prefer buying in a sellers' market. Isn't that strange?
Why do you think that is?
It's about safety. Buyers, they like being in a crowd. It's the most natural thing in the world, like back to when we were hunting and gathering 100,000 years ago when the saber-tooth tigers were after us. People feel safe in a crowd. They like lining up. They like being in a crowd. It just feels better. But it's ironic in that way. Buyers really should buy in a buyers' market, but they don't. They prefer to buy in a sellers' market. Condo Day kind of fixes that.
In terms of the results of Condo Day, I understand 63 of 78 available units were sold and that was split relatively evenly between investors and end users. I'm curious if that 50/50 split came as a surprise to you. Were you expecting more end users than investors, or perhaps the other way around?
I was expecting more end users, more first-time homebuyers, because in our presale presentation centre, 70% of buyers are first-time homebuyers right now. So I expected that to continue into Condo Day. We actually wrote on paper. We didn't use any software because the software costs $25,000 and we're trying to save as much money as we can, so that the deal for buyers can be better. So we saved the $25,000, we wrote on paper, old school, and we don't really have the data. All the deals are still in rescission, so we're not calling the buyers to question them and ask them to fill out a survey or things like that. So my estimation of the 50/50 split is anecdotal, based on the people I spoke to that day and what I saw happening.
What about just general interest, including people who didn't end up buying? Was it a similar split?
I was very surprised that there were as many investors as there were. A lot of the interest was first-time homebuyers and end-users. Those are the people that engaged, those are the people that registered, and I was surprised on the day that there as many investors buying rental properties as there were. That was a surprise.
How would you explain that? Is it just simply that it was a good deal? That the units are already completed? A mix?
I think your first guess is right. I think it's just a good deal and investors know it. And they have a bit of a thicker skin. There were a lot of parents helping their kids buy. But investors, they know what they're doing, they've done it before, they know a good deal when they see it. I am rooting for the end users. Nothing makes me happier, personally, helping young people get onto the property ladder, so to speak. We have homes that are discounted $300,000. I just love that we're selling homes under appraisal and that there's equity on their first day of ownership.
From the perspective of the developer, I'm curious how they can make this work, financially. I understand, in typical scenarios, developers hit their presale targets to get construction financing, they'll construct it, and hold back some units to sell afterwards and make up some of the profit on the back-end. For this, the leftover units are being sold at a discount. Are they essentially being sold at a loss?
They're being sold at the developer's cost for sure, or maybe even below. That's the reality of where these prices are. But for the developer it is still a good deal. They way they look at it is their capital is tied up in this inventory. You're right, some of it they did hold back — the whole penthouse level, for example — to sell later. Some of it is made up of 20 or so units in the tower where the buyers didn't complete and left behind deposits that are essentially being passed along to the new buyers. But in this case, the whole podium the developer kept to rent out. It was a bit of a last-minute decision. It was not set up as a separate air parcel like a developer would normally do, in order to keep a rental asset and potentially set it to somebody. But the rental market is down for the first year in 20 and with all of the rental supply coming, the developer has become a little bearish on rental. Instead, they're happy to give these deals to buyers, take the capital, and use it to grow their project pipeline.
When it's a buyers' market for buyers of condos, it's also a buyers' market for developers, too. Back in 2009 when we did this for Onni, Onni took that $150 million or whatever it was that they made from those 400 units, leveraged it, and really launched that company. I don't know if you remember the size of the company back then, but it was nowhere near what it is today. But they had all the capital and all that leverage, they were able to buy at a time when nobody else was, and it really took that company to the next level, and I think this developer has that same kind of vision.
Was the decision to do that back then for Onni also the result of market conditions?
It was a different cause. Back then it was the global financial crisis creating a time of uncertainty. What's interesting about the presale market is that it's really sentiment-driven, more than fundamentals. I told Ravi Kahlon this recently: If you want to know where the mindset of the British Columbia real estate buying public is at, watch the presale market. When British Columbians believe the presale market is going up, they decide to buy presale and they'll line up around the block. And when they believe the market is flat or going down, that faucet turns off. Instantly. They just stop buying.
In 2008, they stopped buying because the Lehman Brothers had collapsed and the global financial crisis was happening, and buyers just stopped buying completely. What we're seeing in this market is much longer, actually. This market suffered, frankly, a systematic dismantling from all three levels of government. And the result of that is never overnight, like the global financial crisis or the pandemic, but it's been quite incremental, almost like death by a thousand cuts. The result is we've been in a downturn for a year and a half. The global financial crisis — as huge and impactful as it was — only lasted six months. It really started in the summer of 2008. In 2009, we sold 400 units in the first quarter. Even the pandemic, it started in mid-March 2020 and in September, KEY Marketing launched two projects — one in Vancouver, one in Coquitlam — and sold them out in very short order. It's amazing that those two global crises only lasted six months and this one has been over a year and a half.
You mentioned "death by a thousand cuts." What would you say are the bigger and more notable "cuts?"
Anything that creates a sentiment in real estate buyers that values aren't going up or are going down. That causes presale buyers to not buy. The biggest impact is what they read, what they hear about the market, and the media — what they're saying about it.
People have often asked, about our presale projects, is it investors buying or end users? And the truth is, of the presale world, that all buyers are investor-minded. Many times they might be a pure investor looking to flip or buy a rental property, but even in the end-user category, whether it's parents helping kids buy or a couple buying on their own, they're also investment-minded. The reality of presales for a very long time has been that if they really just needed a place to live, they could buy something built down the street for less. They're paying a premium for presale because it's easy and because they like the leverage that they get with time and are bullish in the market going up during the period of construction. End users and investors in presale — they have that in common.
You asked about the factors. Media and what's being said is the biggest one, and then it's government action. The causal stuff. Immigration is a big one, the cost of debt, anything related to extra taxes that sort of penalizes investors, whether it's the empty homes tax or the flipping tax. It's death by a thousand cuts. It's many, many little things that create a very cool climate for an investment-minded buyer. That's what affects presale the most.
You also mentioned completions and that some of the original presale buyers for Belvedere ended up not completing. How big of an issue is that in the market right now?
It's an issue and it's a bigger issue than it's ever been. There's more buyers not completing now than ever before — or at least in the 21 years I've been doing this. But it's not hugely significant. We've never had a project with significant non-completions. It's never say more than 10% of the homes — and usually less, frankly. We haven't had a situation where 20% of the buyers say they don't want it anymore. That hasn't happened. Developers have the right to not only keep a buyer's deposit, but they can also legally compel a buyer to buy. The developer of Belvedere did not do that. They chose Condo Day instead.
Can you tell me about the strategy and thought process for Allure Ventures' project?
The project is called SkyLiving and it's a presale tower in Surrey. The problems we're facing there is again around fear from investors. The main fear investors have is around appreciation and will there be any. If I pay $1,100 a sq. ft on a presale condo right now, what's it gonna be worth in four years? So to overcome that, we are offering buyers an unprecedented rental guarantee where they get 20% of the purchase price back over the two years following completion. And those numbers are phenomenal. Investors that are more focused on cash flow are attracted to that because they're cash-flow positive for two years. The other thing that does is it pushes their timeline horizon out two years, so they have three to four years of construction, plus two years. They're thinking five or six years out, what's Surrey going to be like? What's the market going to be like? Six years is a very long time. It feels more like 10. Everybody is bullish on real estate in the long-term. It's really the short-term that causes a lot of fear. So that helps people think more long-term.
But that's only half the story. The other thing all the buyers are being offered that is also unprecedented is a buyback agreement with the developer. We're going to sell 40 or 50 homes at SkyLiving this week, which is a huge number for presale right now. When they come into the sales centre at SkyLiving, instead of just leaving with an ordinary presale purchase agreement, buyers leave with three agreements: they have the ordinary presale purchase agreement, an ordinary lease agreement, and the third agreement is a conditional purchase agreement where the developer is willing to buy it back from them at the price they paid if they change their mind. It's a condition that favours the buyer, where they can remove it and tell the developer to buy it back from them. Again, very easy for them and their realtor to understand. It feels very safe. That's why I expect 40 to 50 people to buy within a week, which for presale is amazing and will finance construction, cause we're that close.
[Editor's Note: Both incentives are not unprecedented on their own. Bosa Properties has offered a similar rental incentive and a buyback guarantee has been offered for CURV, for example, but what is unique is offering both simultaneously.]
Big picture, what do you think needs to happen for the presale market to turn around a bit?
Well the main thing that needs to happen is deal flow — liquidity. There's a logjam in the market. Nobody's buying. Good news like Condo Day, good news about the sales. We're gonna have more Condo Days with different developers. The standing inventory needs to be dealt with. Very few people are gonna pay $1,100 a foot for presale if the completed version of that is $800 a foot. What a bad idea that would be. So we need to work through the standing inventory, the buyers are gonna get great deals, and once there's deal flow happening we should get back to a balanced market, which I think is what everybody wants.
The market is just frozen. If sellers are delusional about what their real estate is worth and buyers are delusional about what they think they can get it for, then no deals are gonna get done. The closer those two groups get together is where the market becomes balanced — when they agree on what the current market value is.
You mentioned there will be future Condo Days. Can you share more about that? Which developers or projects?
I can share that top-tier developers have reached out and have asked for meetings to discuss it. I think they're attracted to the sales philosophy and it also protects the developer's brand. If you are buying anything and you gathered up 60 of your friends and you all bought together at the same time, no matter what it is, everyone knows you're gonna get a deal for that. It's an effective way for a developer to give a deal without having to worry about looking bad or depreciating their project
Also, I find developers I'm speaking to as recently as this morning understand that if they, let's say, have 100 units left in their building and now everybody's completed and moved in and they have these 100 units to sell, there's really a kindness to the existing buyers that are already in there to sell the 100 all at once and get it over with, so that the investors or really anybody in the building that now wants to sell on their own can do so. All 100 are sold on Condo Day, now the only ones for sale are from people in the building trying to sell and they're looking for fair market price on that. That's a kindness. What's unkind is a developer that's got 100 units to sell in a building and then for the next three years is just selling at a lower cost base and undercutting every other person who's trying to sell their home in the building. How horrible would that be? You're in the building, you want to move, or you want to sell for whatever reason, and you're trying to compete with the developer who's literally in at a lower cost base than you and you can never beat them on price. That's horrible. It's much kinder to tear the band-aid off rather than deal with it all slowly.
With the developers showing interest in doing their own Condo Day, are they all similar situations where they're dealing with standing inventory?
You're right actually. They're not about-to-complete; they're all standing inventory. For a developer with completions coming up, they don't want to discount their inventory because that would potentially depreciate and make it harder for the buyers to close. So they'll let the buyers complete and then they'll do it after. The developers of presale projects, they're constrained by the appraisals upon which their construction loan was granted — the appraisal of the value of all the condos in the building. If they accept as a condition of their loan that they sell at those appraised prices, when they sell for more than 5% below those prices, the lender will not count those deals as qualified towards the construction loan requirement, which is usually 65% or 70% of all the homes being sold. After they finance the construction, it's more possible, but it's still not a perfect fit because they don't want to jeopardize the 70% that they've already presold. So it's standing inventory. That's really the point of Condo Day: to help the market heal, to get through a lot of the standing inventory, to get some great deals to buyers, and get us back to a balanced market, which is better for everyone.
Renderings of the three towers planned for 1780 E Broadway in Vancouver. / Perkins&Will, Westbank, Crombie REIT
After countless revisions, endless opposition, and an extended public hearing, Vancouver City Council finally granted rezoning approval for the three-tower redevelopment of the Safeway adjacent to Commercial-Broadway Station on Tuesday, a project that has been in the works in some form for about a full decade.
Set for 1780 E Broadway on a site currently occupied by a Safeway and its surface parking lot, the project — by Westbank and Nova Scotia-based Crombie REIT (TSX: CRR.UN) — was originally planned as three towers up to 30 storeys and primarily strata. The housing mix was shifted towards rental over the years and the heights were also steadily increased. Approved for the site are now three towers between 36 and 43 storeys that will include 1,044 market rental units, 100 below-market rental units, 32,000 sq. ft of public space, a new expanded Safeway, 24,000 sq. ft of additional retail space, and a 37-space childcare facility that will be gifted to the City.
The final decision came at approximately 9:30 pm, after the public hearing on May 15 ran for four hours and had to be recessed until yesterday. Local residents both in support and in opposition of the project continued to exercise their right to voice their opinions to Council and last night's proceedings ran for just under 6.5 hours.
Although the final tally of people who spoke at the public hearing was lower, a total of 459 people submitted written comments in support of the project, while 619 submitted comments opposing the project and 32 submitted comments classified as "other."
With the Green Party's Pete Fry abstaining and ABC Vancouver's Brian Montague absent, Council ultimately approved the rezoning application with an 8 to 1 vote, with Mayor Ken Sim, all of his ABC Vancouver partymates who were present, independent Councillor Rebecca Bligh, and OneCity Vancouver's Lucy Maloney all voting in support of the project and COPE's Sean Orr being the lone opposing vote.
The rezoning application for 1780 E Broadway was passed with an 8-1 vote.
Research has shown that public hearings are over-representative of those in opposition and that 92% of items that make it to a public hearing ultimately get approved regardless of opposition, meaning that there was little to no suspense ahead of the final vote and that approval for this project was more or less inevitable. However, while individual comments that were made may not have directly impacted the final decision, the collective comments and recurring themes did seem to be absorbed by Council.
"I too wish that there was more affordable housing components in this," said Councillor Rebecca Bligh. "Unfortunately, this is the project we have before us. The site can't sit empty any longer. In the area of Granville and Broadway, there's the high-speed transit line coming in, there's been a high-speed transit line at Commercial and Broadway for almost 35 to 40 years — with no density around it. I think it just has really misled us as a city that that's normal and it's just not. 39 storeys at Granville and Broadway has been built and it's significantly changed the skyline and all the things that people are concerned about, but now there's 39 storeys of rental units that people can live in and they can go to the shops and they can go to the restaurants and they can get to their jobs and get downtown. They can access the high-speed transit line. That is an appropriate use. And again, it's disruptive, it's change, but people drive by it everyday and you don't even notice the height of that building anymore because as human beings we adapt."
"I heard a concern that there are investors and there's a financial play here," added Bligh, who is also the President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. "There's been 10 years of various applications that have come forward for this site that started out as strata condo units, and I can honestly say I prefer the rental units. I think that's more appropriate for what our city needs. Our city doesn't need strata luxury condos. These are not safety deposit boxes in the sky — that's the rhetoric for condos. These are rental units and rental units mean that people can come in and they can rent them. Is it expensive? Yes, living in the city is expensive, but the more units we have coming online, the further down our rents are going. That's just the reality. I know that's not what people who don't want to see this project get built want to hear, but that's actually the truth and that's what the data shows us."
A rendering of the three towers planned for 1780 E Broadway in Vancouver. / Perkins&Will, Westbank, Crombie REIT
"We heard a lot from a number of speakers around 'we don't need condos,'" said Councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung, when it was her turn to speak. "They're not condos. They're all rental homes. They are market rents and we know that market rents are tough. Affordability is a tough issue across the city as a whole and we're looking to bring them down as a whole. 10% isn't as affordable as people would like to see. Not everything is achieved in every single development and every single proposal. [...] I know they're not going to be affordable for everybody, but they are a lot more affordable than other options. If we built them earlier, they'd be even more affordable."
"We do get the childcare turnkey facility, which I think is an important amenity," added Kirby-Yung, who also introduced a motion asking staff to work with the applicant during the development permit stage to maximize daily public access to the proposed courtyard. "I think the challenge is that it's a really hard trade-off between which amenities do you bring in. If there was more affordability in this project, some folks might like it more, but then we would also hear concerns that we didn't have any other public amenities. So we have public amenities and we have a daycare, but then we hear concerns that we don't have the level of affordability that we would want. These are trade-offs that have to be made and I think it's a juggling act and you don't get everything in one development."
"This is a significant number of rental homes with public benefits," said Councillor Peter Meiszner. "The things that stand out for me are the fact that there is no displacement, this is a grocery store with a large surface parking lot, this is at the busiest transit hub in Vancouver and arguably one of the busiest ones in the region — about to be busier when the Broadway Line opens. We are seeing similar scale developments at transit hubs in Vancouver and also in the region. [...] I really believe that this will be an improvement over what's currently on the site. Would I like to see more affordability? Yes. But right now there is no affordability on the site cause there's no homes on the site."
"This is a bit like Groundhog Day," said Councillor Pete Fry, who ultimately abstained from voting. "This project's been bouncing around for so long, but each iteration that comes back, it comes back bigger and denser than before, so I think there is an imperative to get on with things. The next round might literally bring us Brentwood-scale 60-storey towers at this site. It has been happening for a while. It's time to move on. [...] Where I struggle with this project is that we're doubling the legislated [TOA minimum] heights, but we're halving the below-market. Where our expectation is typically 20% below-market, this project's only doing 10%. And it's not even below-market. It's average market rents."
"We've driven all these projects to deliver on public benefits and affordable housing and this particular project represents a shift away from those expectations that we've imposed on all those other developers," he added. "I very much appreciate that our staff have negotiated the benefits and the land lift on this project, working with the real estate investment trust [Crombie REIT] and reviewing their proformas, but I still don't have the confidence. I recall a developer once telling me actually that there's three types of proformas: there's one for the banks, there's one for the builders, and then there's one for the City, but they're not the same. But I don't know. I haven't seen [it] and I don't know the finances. [...] As it's contemplated, the density bonus here seems to me to be a major benefit to the land owner and, by extension, the real estate investment trust shareholders, but it's not delivering much in return other than new market rental housing — which is and of itself a benefit, of course."
A rendering of the public plaza planned for 1780 E Broadway in Vancouver. / Perkins&Will, Westbank, Crombie REIT
"I think both sides made excellent points, some of which were very entertaining, but some that were kind of heart-breaking as well," said Councillor Sean Orr, the lone opposing vote. "I do think that the number of opposed speakers slightly outweighs those who support, and I think there should be at least one vote that reflects those speakers. I do think this is precedent-setting as Councillor Fry said, in terms of the decrease in below-market rentals."
"I also don't agree with all the opposed," added Orr, who was elected in the April by-election. "The critique of the built form — I'm not overly concerned about the height of the building or that it will destroy Commercial Drive. They aren't condos, but I do agree that using the City-wide average [rent] is flawed and that it's only 100 units. It's not a ton of childcare spaces. I do appreciate that there's no direct displacement on this site, that we need transit-oriented density, that we need rental units, but I do worry that we are giving the developer double the height and we're not seeing the full public benefits that we could be seeing."
"Everyone's views are completely valid, said Mayor Ken Sim, who was the final member of Council to comment before the vote. "There are no wrong views here. That's just the reality. I do think it's important that we're clear as to, as a Council, why we're going to support one or the other. I do support this project and the reason I support this project — first of all: love the neighbourhood. Actually, the first rental I remember as a little kid growing up was on McSpadden [Avenue] right by McSpadden Park. I lived in the 'hood and it's an incredible neighbourhood and every time we go to the 'hood we go by 1772 McSpadden."
"We've been clear that there's a housing crisis in our city and we're gonna create an environment where we can build more housing of all types, be it social, middle-income, market housing," added Sim. "We've created a Vancouver Housing Development Office, as an example, to bring 4,300 more units of housing that's going to help middle-income folks. We're supporting a whole bunch of different types of housing in the city and I think sometimes we have to zoom out to look at what we're actually trying to achieve here."