From Calgary's blanket upzoning repeal to Metro Vancouver mayors demanding changes, the backlash against 'boxy' multiplexes is growing. Here's what's driving the debate—and what it means for homeowners considering development.
The honeymoon period for Bill 44 is officially over. What began as a rare moment of political consensus in September 2023—when Vancouver’s council unanimously approved sweeping upzoning for multiplexes—has evolved into one of the most contentious urban planning debates in recent BC history.
As Douglas Todd reported in the Vancouver Sun this week, resistance is mounting from multiple directions: 16 Metro Vancouver mayors have urged the province to kill Bill 44’s mandates, Calgary has repealed its similar blanket upzoning, and Burnaby has already reduced maximum heights and lot coverage in response to public outcry.
For homeowners considering multiplex development, this shifting landscape demands attention. Here’s what’s actually happening, what it means, and how to navigate the uncertainty.
The Core Complaints: What’s Driving the Backlash
The criticism of Bill 44 multiplexes clusters around several interconnected issues.
Design and Neighbourhood Fit
The most visceral objection is aesthetic. Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley didn’t mince words: “They’re untenable. They don’t fit in with neighbourhoods. I know there are a lot of upset people out there, and rightly so.”
Planning consultant Michael Geller, who has built multiplexes throughout his career, attributes the design problems to inexperience: “I suspect the problem is the designers most builders are working with have little experience with multiplexes. Another thing is they’re trying to maximize space and volume while reducing costs. The result is these very plain, boxy and oftentimes unadorned buildings.”
The criticism has merit. Many early Bill 44 projects were developed by builders whose experience was limited to single-family homes. The jump to multi-unit design requires different skills—understanding massing, articulation, material variation, and how buildings relate to streetscapes.
Environmental Impacts
Mayor Hurley highlighted the loss of tree canopy and green space: “Forget about any sunlight getting to your neighbour. Forget about growing anything in your backyard.”
When a 60% lot coverage allowance replaces a typical single-family footprint of 35-40%, the change is dramatic. Mature trees that took decades to grow disappear in hours. Backyard gardens become concrete patios. The cumulative effect on neighbourhood character is significant.
Parking Chaos
Bill 44’s failure to require parking has created ongoing conflicts. “Even before this, the city has been refereeing a lot of parking disputes,” Hurley noted. A six-unit building with zero required parking spots doesn’t mean residents don’t own cars—it means they park on streets already at capacity.
The Townhouse Extinction Problem
Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West raised a consequence that’s gotten less attention: “The zoning mandates in Vancouver have basically made townhouses extinct.”
West explained that townhouses had been his city’s “bread-and-butter form of housing” with “green space, trees, playgrounds and other amenities that create a true community, with enough parking.” Since Bill 44 passed, Port Coquitlam has seen “zero townhome applications as builders can no longer assemble the necessary lots to make it feasible.”
This is a real trade-off. The economics of multiplex development on individual lots have undercut the economics of townhouse development on assembled parcels. Whether that’s a net positive for housing supply and livability is genuinely debatable.
Municipal Responses: What’s Actually Changing
Different municipalities are responding differently to the backlash.
Calgary: Full Repeal
Calgary’s city council took the most dramatic action, repealing blanket upzoning for four units on single-family lots in December. This signals that the political consensus around densification isn’t as solid as proponents assumed—when enough residents push back, councils will respond.
Burnaby: Restrictions Within Framework
Rather than repeal, Burnaby amended its regulations:
- Maximum height reduced from four storeys to three
- Lot coverage reduced from 60% to 45%
These changes significantly constrain what can be built while staying within Bill 44’s framework. A three-storey building with 45% lot coverage produces substantially fewer units than the original four-storey, 60% coverage maximum.
Metro Vancouver Mayors: 16 Against, 3 Holding Firm
Sixteen Metro mayors have urged the province to eliminate Bill 44’s mandates, particularly the requirement for six strata units within 400 metres of transit.
The three who didn’t sign: Vancouver’s Ken Sim, New Westminster’s Patrick Johnstone, and North Vancouver City’s Linda Buchanan.
Vancouver: Holding the Line (For Now)
Vancouver council remains committed to the original upzoning. All four civic parties with council seats—ABC Vancouver, the Greens, OneCity, and COPE—approved it unanimously in 2023.
The only opposition comes from TEAM for a Liveable Vancouver, which currently holds no council seats. Former councillor Colleen Hardwick, seeking TEAM’s mayoral nomination for the fall election, has proposed reducing maximum units from six to four.
What This Means for Vancouver Homeowners
If you own a single-family lot in Vancouver and are considering multiplex development, here’s how to interpret these developments.
Vancouver’s Rules Aren’t Changing Soon
Despite the regional backlash, Vancouver’s current council shows no inclination to follow Burnaby’s example. The fall 2025 election could change this, but for now, the city’s permitting framework remains intact.
This creates a window of regulatory certainty. Projects that move forward in 2026 are operating under known rules. Whether those rules persist beyond the next election is less certain.
Design Quality Matters More Than Ever
The backlash is primarily about design, not density per se. Geller’s observation that “hopefully, in the year to come, we will see more builders using standardized plans” points toward a solution.
Well-designed multiplexes that respect neighbourhood character face less community opposition and regulatory risk. They also command premium prices—buyers and renters prefer attractive buildings.
If you’re developing a multiplex, investing in quality design isn’t just aesthetically responsible, it’s financially prudent. The cheapest possible box may face permitting challenges, neighbour complaints, and reduced marketability.
Experienced Builders Are Worth the Premium
Geller’s diagnosis—that many problematic buildings come from “small companies that previously built only detached homes”—highlights a selection criterion.
Builders with multiplex track records understand:
- How to achieve required density while maintaining visual appeal
- Material choices that age well and reduce maintenance
- Site planning that preserves some green space
- Neighbourhood relations and permitting strategies
The builder premium may be 5-10% on construction costs, but it reduces risk substantially.
The Parking Question Requires Strategy
Zero parking requirements don’t eliminate parking demand. If your development target market includes families or professionals likely to own vehicles, planning for parking is strategically important.
Some developers are including parking despite no requirement, recognizing that marketability improves. Others are targeting demographics less likely to need parking—young professionals near transit, downsizing seniors, students.
The right approach depends on your location, target market, and financial model.
The Bigger Picture: Housing Supply vs. Neighbourhood Character
The multiplex debate reflects a genuine tension in urban planning.
The density argument: Vancouver faces a housing crisis. Prices are unaffordable. Vacancy rates are critically low. Enabling more housing on existing residential land is one of the few tools available. Perfect is the enemy of good—if we wait for ideal designs, we’ll never build enough.
The character argument: Neighbourhoods are more than housing units. They’re communities built over decades. Trees, gardens, human-scale architecture, and adequate parking aren’t luxuries—they’re what makes neighbourhoods livable. Rapid densification without design standards destroys the very qualities that make Vancouver desirable.
Both arguments have merit. The question isn’t whether to densify, but how. The backlash isn’t against density per se—it’s against poorly designed density imposed without community input.
Key Takeaways
- Political consensus around Bill 44 is fracturing, with Calgary repealing upzoning and 16 Metro mayors demanding changes
- Burnaby has already reduced maximum heights and lot coverage in response to complaints
- Vancouver council remains committed to original upzoning, but fall elections could change the landscape
- Design quality is emerging as the critical variable—well-designed projects face less opposition
- Experienced multiplex builders are increasingly valuable as the regulatory environment becomes uncertain
- The townhouse market has been disrupted, changing development economics across the region
Frequently Asked Questions
Will Vancouver follow Burnaby and reduce multiplex allowances?
Not under the current council. All four parties with seats approved the original upzoning unanimously. However, the fall 2025 election could bring change—TEAM for a Liveable Vancouver has proposed reducing maximum units from six to four. Homeowners considering development should factor in electoral uncertainty.
Are multiplexes still a good investment given the backlash?
Yes, but with caveats. The fundamental economics—land value, construction costs, end-unit values—haven’t changed. What has changed is political risk. Well-designed projects in supportive jurisdictions remain attractive. Marginal projects in municipalities trending toward restrictions face more uncertainty.
How do I ensure my multiplex project doesn’t face community opposition?
Invest in quality design. Work with architects and builders experienced in multi-unit residential. Consider exceeding minimum setbacks if feasible. Preserve mature trees where possible. Include parking even if not required. Engage with neighbours early. Projects that respect neighbourhood character generate less opposition.
Should I wait to see how the political situation develops?
It depends on your timeline and risk tolerance. Waiting provides more certainty but may mean building under more restrictive rules. Moving forward now means operating under current rules, which in Vancouver remain permissive. There’s no universally right answer—it depends on your specific situation and appetite for uncertainty.
What design features make multiplexes more acceptable to neighbours?
Articulated facades (not flat boxes), varied materials, pitched roof elements or varied rooflines, setback upper storeys, preserved street trees, landscaping, and adequate parking. The best new multiplexes don’t look like “small apartment blocks”—they look like thoughtfully designed multi-family homes.
Next Steps: Navigate the Uncertainty
The multiplex landscape is more complex than it was two years ago. Regulatory certainty has given way to political debate. Design quality has emerged as a critical success factor. Builder selection matters more than ever.
If you’re considering multiplex development on your Vancouver property, getting expert guidance early in the process helps you navigate these uncertainties. I can help you understand your lot’s potential, connect with experienced builders, and structure a project that succeeds regardless of political shifts.
Contact Greyden Douglas directly at (604) 218-2289 or book a call to discuss your Vancouver real estate goals.
