Vancouver city council decisively rejected a plan aimed at introducing new small shopping and residential hubs, known as "villages," throughout the city. The proposal, part of the official development plan adopted in 2022, sought to rezone 17 intersections in predominantly low-density neighbourhoods to permit six-storey multifamily buildings with ground-floor retail and street improvements. Despite extensive preparation—including a three-day public hearing and significant taxpayer investment—the plan was defeated in a 10-1 vote on July 28, with only OneCity Councillor Lucy Maloney supporting it.

The initiative was designed to address the city’s anticipated growth of an additional 260,000 residents by 2050 by creating walkable neighbourhoods distanced from busy streets and providing housing options for those otherwise unable to live in Vancouver. Tim Barton, a senior consultant with Street Matters who collaborated with the city’s transportation planning team, noted the rationale behind the villages plan aligned with efforts to accommodate this growth. Barton pointed out that the villages strategy was considered relatively modest in scope and was expected to be less contentious than other density proposals.

However, Barton and other experts acknowledged shortcomings in the city’s public engagement efforts. Although staff engaged with residents beyond simple notices—holding face-to-face meetings—the overall approach did not sufficiently draw community support. Barton emphasized the need for improved engagement methods, such as co-creation models that allow greater public involvement and shared decision-making to better integrate residents’ perspectives.

Several urban planning professionals have criticized the villages approach as overly broad and insensitive to neighbourhood characteristics. Larry Beasley, a former co-director of planning for Vancouver who played a significant role in shaping the city’s downtown towers, called the plan “brutal and naïve.” Beasley warned that rezoning large swaths of the city risked triggering speculative market activity and uneven property value impacts, including potential devaluation in areas overshadowed by new development. Residents expressed fears about inadequate transition zones between low-rise homes and taller buildings, loss of trees, and disappearance of local shops. Beasley predicted this could lead to community displacement, retail decline, and fragmented development outcomes without coordinated management.

Instead of citywide rezoning for the villages, Beasley recommended targeted, neighbourhood-specific density adjustments that respond to local contexts through collaboration with communities. He noted the public reaction was particularly intense given recent rezoning changes allowing more multiplex housing—a move that many saw as poorly executed with insufficient community input.

Sandy James, director of Walk Metro Vancouver and a member of the professional advocacy group Housing Reset, echoed calls for a more nuanced approach that respects the distinct identities of Vancouver’s many neighbourhoods. James suggested the council’s rejection reflected electoral considerations as municipal elections approach but anticipated a revised plan would reemerge. She criticized the proposal for relying on blanket rezoning favoring developer interests over community needs and for attempting to construct artificial “villages” rather than strengthening existing commercial areas, many of which face high vacancy rates.

James lamented the loss of a more collaborative planning tradition in Vancouver, where strong relationships between planners and communities helped shape more accepted growth strategies. Both she and Beasley stressed that future housing policies must better engage neighbourhoods to ensure sustainable and inclusive urban development as the city continues to grow.