What would the members on here consider a valid concern(s) for the neighborhood?

Personally i cant think of any

IMO Jealousy. At least in terms of the people who make the Nimbyism claim.

There is a portion of those people who are just upset that someone else has something they don't, and care more about "sticking it to those 'rich homeowners' " in some way than actually listening to any rational arguments or addressing any valid concerns.

I'm not sure what the line is though one is whether the concerns are fact based or not - most claims NIMBYs make are nothing but racist or classist arguments cloaked in gentler terms ("preserving character"). Once in a while they remove their masks and will actually say things about how they're better than others and just don't want to poor people (or other types) in the area (this literally will happen in city council meetings).

People have a right to be concerned about noise and crime and they probably have limited rights to be concerned about the impact to their own property but I don't think they have a specific right to reject housing that land is zoned for. They can vote for people who want to restrict housing the way they want but if the electorate wants more housing (and they OVERWHELMINGLY do) then they really don't have much ground to stand on. If they don't like it, they can move.

FWIW, I live in a one of the areas that BC has designated as a transit oriented development - it means that they can build 8 story apartments next door to me now. I may not love the idea of a 8 story building right next to me but I'd be a hypocrite YIMBY if I fought it. People have a right to housing and we all have to do our part to make this possible.

So if they built a 8 storey apartment and allocated the first 2 floors for low-income or a homeless shelter you'll accept it?

Better yet, throw in a safe-injection site on the ground floor that operates 24/7. :troll:

IMO if the neighbourhood change is limited to individual cases -- eg. your next door neighbour is building a 4-plex and you oppose it, then it is a fairly obvious case of NIMBYism.

This situation is actually happening to me because at 4 of my neighbours are rebuilt houses that massively increased the number of households occupying the same lot. I think 3 of them are big houses with a main unit and 2 basement suites, with one of them possibly having a laneway house as well. The other is a 4-plex. The presence of these houses have totally destroyed the street parking situation. I don't like it at all, but I can't complain because all this is happening on an individual basis over a span of 7 - 8 years.

On the other hand, a nearby neighbourhood received a proposal from the City to dramatically increase housing density last year. Currently, the neighbourhood is almost entirely comprised of low rise multi-family dwellings -- I'm not entirely sure whether they should be considered townhomes or low rise appartments, but let's say it's a mix of those two. One of the City's proposal was to turn the entire neighbourhood into 20-storeys high rises with some 20-30% of the new units reserved for social or supportive housing, but there was no indicated plans of upgrading any of the tiny neighbourhood streets to accommodate the additional traffic. IMO this proposal was absolutely disasterous for a multitude of reasons, including but not limited to massive congestion, gentrification, and totally changing the character of the neighbourhood. The local neighbourhood FB group flared up with a lot of opposition as well, and it seemed like a lot of people wrote back in response to the City's consultation request. Ultimately and thankfully, the plan was dropped by the City.

In thise case, I'd say the opposition wasn't a matter of NIMBYism. Instead, it had been shot down out of legitimate concerns for the well-being of the neighbourhood.

I'd say these 2 examples that I've cited are more clear cut, and there'd be 50 shades of gray inbetween these 2 rather obvious examples.

Your comment reminds me of the recent proposal and community opposition to the supportive housing program at 5389 Imperial -- basically the section between Macpherson and Royal Oak. The supportive housing project has been shot down, and for me, that was an obvious and unfortunate case of NIMBYism.

There was a lot of opposition from the community, and unsurprisingly, I know a large portion of that opposition came from the Chinese community. I consider this one to be a case of NIMBYism because the immediate area is really more of a light commercial / industrial area than anything else. If it was in a quiet residential neighbourhood, I can understand the opposition. But along that stretch of Imperial? Short of building the supportive housing right at DTES, I feel like areas like this (5389 Imperial) is as good a location as you can find these days.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2026/02/...ect-Goes-Down/

YES.

Would I have questions and concerns? Yes but I've got no problem with low income folks and I lived next to a supportive housing apartment building in Victoria for 5.5 years and it was a trouble free experience.

I was a vocal supporter of the supportive housing project at Imperial that was cancelled so it wouldn't be consistent of me if I didn't also say that I'm fine with that project being next door to me (for the record, the odds that it'd ever happen next to me are next to zero but it might make sense at the end of my block).

I live in a transit friendly area that naturally should be densified and densification brings with it resources and amenities - it's entirely unreasonable for me to expect my neighbourhood to not change as the city grows. If the densification doesn't work for me, that's on me and I should move.

the key is the operator and how they manage it, as well as the resources to support them with said operations. if either fail/insufficient, you'll see the symptoms of that radiate to the surrounding area/community.

The misconception out there is that supportive housing equals crime. That isn’t entirely true. Not all supportive housing is filled with drug users or criminals. Much of it is for seniors and people with complex mental health needs who require specialized care.

And the issue on the westside is that it was historically protected and largely immune to affordable housing, but that has changed over the past 5 years as policies opened the door to more density. While there isn’t much supportive housing there YET, many new developments now include below market rental units. That means someone with an $8M mansion could end up next to an 8 plex, which will affect property values and change neighbourhood dynamics.

I think over the next decade, the westside will likely see the biggest changes since it’s one of the last areas in the city with large single family lots, making it easier to densify.

But they won't touch Shaughnessy though! 447 hectares (more than double the size of Monaco) of the most valuable land in the world zoned for giant mansions and nothing but. Only 9000 people live there (out of ~660k Vancouver residents).

It’ll happen within the decade. There’s too much underused land, and developers are itching to get in.

And I remember years back they said the SkyTrain would never run through Point Grey which is why UBC never got a station and there would never be apartments. Well, Jericho Hill happened, and it’s opened the floodgates.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/musq...riginal-rights

Thoughts on this? What does this do to house prices and land ownership?

https://images-dh-production-baselay...auto&width=988

Bunch of mumbo jumbo that means nothing

Having seen the outcome of the Cowichan ruling, the Musqueam FN is playing it smart by engaging in negotiations instead of litigation. Then again, they have the Cowichan ruling in front of them.

From the sound of it, the final outcome is gonna be a work-in-progress through negotiations. I never understood why the Cowichan ruling should cause the lenders to be stop issuing mortgages to the private properties there, since the FN tribe has said time and again that they were not coming after private properties. With this Musqueam agreement, I think both Musqueam and the federal gov are gonna try hard to avoid doing anything that would spook the lenders.

SELL YOUR HOUSE, SELL YOUR KIDS, HIDE YO WIFE THE FEATHER INJUNS ARE COMING TO TAKE IT ALL AWAY FROM YOU!

I don't get it, did they claim squamton reserve too?

This showed up on my FB feed today...

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BERDm1L7n/

I'm glad to see the comment section took the author to task.

The guy who wrote that post, Michael Gellar, is such a hypocrite. For years he was a big housing advocate who pushed for density and now that he's a retired old man he's against damn near everything. He helped educate a lot of us younger folks (the 50 and under crowd) about the benefits of density and how to do it in a liveable way and now he's one of the worst NIMBYs around. It's basically like when Hulk Hogan joined the NWA.

imo anything significantly changing the density or otherwise impacting surrounding properties. A few blocks from me a land assembly got turned into some massive townhouses and now the street is so clogged up you can barely drive down it and the house next to it has a bunch of units staring into their yard and windows. To me that's b/s and something that significantly devalued the surrounding properties.

In the other direction a field got turned into a bunch of townhouses with a new road. That's also packed with cars but they're not on the existing streets that have houses on them so no impact to anyone around it, which is the way it should be done.

You could argue the first example, the SFH prices in the area have increased, because now every SFH is open to larger development

Cambie corridor, if im not mistaken, house prices were X for the longest time, then they started developing into 4-6 story units, and those some houses EXPLODED in value

If your upset your "view" of your neighbors backyard is gone, you failed to account for that when buying that property, that development "would not happen"

As for traffic............ Boo hoo, your own street now has an extra 2 minute drive, on your 45 minute commute to work

Those same people, that dont want to densify an area, fail to realize that, THEY densified an area by building that house 60 years ago. The neighborhood "used have 1000 people" and now theres 1001.
60 years later, now its going from 10000, to 10060 due to a new condo, and someone is upset, the irony is ...... Funny

As i always say, if you dont like change, go buy a house 50km away from the nearest town. If you live anywhere in the GVRD, you gave up those rights the day you purchased

Everyone wants to live here, condos and microcondos are the future of GVRD (and well.... townhouses for the ultra rich)

City planning is something thats simply not possible after a city surpassed X amount of population.
Go play city skylines, it will open your eyes to the struggles of planning 5, 10, 50, 100 years ahead, and keeping everyone happy

i think he lives in the interior so i can understand the disappointment

in vancouver proper, the difference on the side street for parked vehicles between west side and east side is staggering

the amount of people that dont want towers and say they want gentle density but blow up when missing middle is actually built is a bit comical

im sure they want more affordable housing, just keep a 3km radius away haha

i WILL say that there does seem less risk of car getting windows smashed in the backalley, and I haven't seen a single rodent yet (besides in the deli 10 min away lol), freaking impressive by vancouver standards

Regarding the Aboriginal Land Agreements ... it certainly doesn't help that feds are making these agreements and province has no idea about it. They are as clueless as you and me.

‘I don’t think the public are buying it’: Fallout from the Musqueam agreements

https://globalnews.ca/news/11715046/...agreements-bc/

The fallout from three Aboriginal rights agreements, signed last month between the federal government and the Musqueam First Nation, continued on Tuesday.

It was a hot topic in question period in the BC legislature.

“Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Indigenous Relations stood up and he said he had no idea about any agreement with the federal government and the Musqueam,” BC Conservative interim leader, Trevor Halford, said during question period.

What I don't get is why they want to do social housing in places like Van West?

It doesn't make any economic sense at all. You force that requirement down to developer, where multi-million dollar worth of stock needs to be allocated to social housing, it just drives up the price for everyone else.

Yes, I get that it's only certain neighbourhood still got lands large enough to make acquisition easier, but I think it's much cheaper to do land assembly in cheaper areas to buy the same amount of land. In fact, use NIMBY philosophy to the max. "We'd build social housing here either way. You can choose to sell us and move somewhere else if you don't like it or we'd just build a smaller units, but either way, it's going to be here."

I think there's a meaningful distinction between what happens on private property and the impacts to the public space that distinguishes what is NIMBY-ish.

For the most part we don't have rights to what happens on other people's private property - as long as they follow applicable laws (in this case zoning) then complaints about it related to housing are NIMBY-ism IMO. Government fully owns the right to how they want cities to develop (this is why it's great that BC is now requiring all cities to have updated community plans - aka OCPs). If you don't like the OCP, vote for people who want an OCP that looks like what you want but calling out individual developments? That's NIMBY-ism.

OTOH, it's perfectly reasonable to be unhappy with the impacts to public space as a result of what happens on private property - this is a well established norm. Traffic got worse? Parking is more difficult? More litter? Schools are now more crowded? Lack of streetlights for the new density? All perfectly reasonable complaints that's not NIMBY-ism. You feel new developments should pay for more of the costs of upgrading the city? Make your claim, vote for it.