Safeway megatowers passes rezoning
Sean Orr (COPE) voted No, Pete Fry (Green Party) abstained
The rezoning public hearing for the so-called Safeway Megatowers project at 1780 E. Broadway resumed Tuesday afternoon. They were able to get through the rest of the speakers list in about five hours, and proceed to debate and decision.
Passed (around 9:30 pm) with Sean Orr (COPE) voting No and Pete Fry (Green) abstaining. It’s taken nine years to get to this point.
Sean Orr votes No
Sean Orr’s No vote got quite a lot of negative feedback, since his message during the by-election was “Fight for Housing.” I was surprised myself, since there’s no displacement of existing renters - this project is replacing a Safeway and parking lot.
It seems that Orr didn’t trust or believe city staff when they said that there was no more financial capacity to add more non-market housing to the project. My sense is that he puts a lot of weight on non-market rentals, and not much weight on market rentals.
His closing comments:
Thank you everyone for taking their time. Thanks for my colleagues for asking some really great questions of staff, and staff for doing all the work.
This is a tough one for me as well. I do agree that this is one of the most important public hearings, at least in my short time that I've been here, other than maybe Jericho, and that we've been kicking this down the line.
I think both sides made excellent points, some of which were very entertaining, but some that were also kind of heartbreaking as well. 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 non-market rentals, they’re not even below-market rentals.
I still have concerns about the plaza, it being just kind of a throughway to Safeway, as well as the private nature of the courtyard, although we did address that in the amendment. I hope I'm wrong, I hope artists will activate the space and it'll be a beautiful fun place to to be.
I also don't agree with all the opposed comments, 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 citywide average 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, we need rental units. But I worry that we are giving the developer double the height, and we're not seeing the full public benefits that we could be seeing at the site. We don't want a heritage parking lot, but transit-oriented density can't be a blank check to a Real Estate Investment Trust.
I do appreciate the staff has tried to balance that below-market rental and the public amenity. But we are doing this in other parts of the city.
So this is a tough one for me. I'm worried that filtering will take too long, that land value increases will lead to displacement, that frontline workers won't be able to afford the rents here, that maybe some parts of community consultation were ignored or not heeded fully.
We do need homes here, but we need bold action here, and I don't know if I see that here. So at the risk of upsetting Accordion Man, I'll be voting No on this.
Political implications
If COPE isn’t a reliable Yes vote on housing, even when there’s little or no displacement, this fractures the left-of-centre coalition, making OneCity more isolated.
The main axis in municipal politics is still left-right. But for many voters, housing is increasingly salient.
My interpretation of the by-election is that a lot of people voted for both Sean Orr and for Lucy Maloney (OneCity). With the unanimous approval of the Jericho plan, it looked like there was a pro-housing consensus: housing is a good thing. A left-of-centre, pro-housing voter could plan to vote for a combination of OneCity and COPE candidates in 2026, shifting council to the left of centre without losing momentum on housing.
But after this vote, it's now apparent that Sean Orr and the Vancouver Tenants Union aren't convinced by the “housing is good, not building housing is like pushing down on a balloon” argument. As Redditors put it, Sean is the new Jean Swanson.
A left-of-centre, pro-housing voter can still vote for OneCity. But even if OneCity runs a mayoral candidate and five council candidates, will they be able to elect all of them?
Sean Orr is defending his decision on Twitter by saying that it was a protest vote, he knew the motion would pass anyway. But that seems like a bad framing for COPE: if COPE ends up running things after the 2026 municipal election, what will happen to projects like this?
Saying “No, we’re going to reject this project, there isn't enough subsidized housing" is killing the golden goose.
More
Previously: speaking notes, the Happy Megatowers Polka
Safeway redevelopment at SkyTrain's Commercial-Broadway Station approved by Vancouver City Council. Kenneth Chan, Daily Hive.
City of Vancouver approves controversial Broadway-Commercial tower development. Justin McElroy, CBC News.