Inclusionary Zoning in North Vancouver
Updated: Oct 2
Inclusionary zoning is a way for cities to secure affordable homes as new housing is built.
The basic idea is simple. When a new development is approved, a share of its homes must be offered at rents below a defined benchmark. The details matter because the percentage, depth of affordability, and length of the commitment determine what the policy actually delivers.
North Vancouver has an inclusionary requirement for new secured-rental developments. Here is how it works, where it helps, and why the results need to be measured.
What CNV requires
Ten percent of the homes in a new secured-rental development must be inclusionary.
For studios, one-bedroom homes, and two-bedroom homes, the rent must be at least 10% below the average rent reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
For homes with three or more bedrooms, the required discount is deeper at a minimum of 30% below the CMHC average.
Those rents are secured permanently. That last point is important. The affordability does not disappear after a 20-year or 30-year agreement expires.
The CMHC benchmark is also worth understanding. It reflects average rents across the rental stock, including older tenancies. It is not the same as the asking rent someone may see when searching for a newly available apartment today.
What the rents look like
Using the 2026 figures shown by the City, the average rent for a one-bedroom home is $1,912. The inclusionary rent would be $1,721.
For a two-bedroom home, the average is $2,407 and the inclusionary rent would be $2,166.
For a home with three or more bedrooms, the average is $3,872. With the deeper discount, the inclusionary rent would be $2,710.
That difference for family-sized housing matters. Larger rental homes are already scarce in North Vancouver, and market rents can put them beyond the reach of families who work in the community.
These rents will not be affordable to every household. Inclusionary zoning serves one part of the housing need. Residents with lower incomes may require non-profit, co-operative, supportive, or deeply subsidized housing backed by public land and government funding.
Why the balance matters
It can be tempting to say the City should simply require a larger share or a deeper discount in every project.
The policy has to be tested against project economics. Below-market rents reduce the revenue available to build and operate the development. If the requirement goes beyond what a project can reasonably support, the development may be delayed, redesigned, or not built.
In that case, the city receives fewer rental homes and no inclusionary homes from that site.
Set the requirement too low, however, and the public may receive less affordability than the project could have supported. Land values, interest rates, construction costs, rents, and other City requirements all change over time. A policy that was appropriate several years ago may need adjustment.
The goal is not the highest percentage on paper. The goal is more affordable homes actually completed and secured for the long term.
How I would go further
I would keep a strong inclusionary baseline and review it regularly as market conditions and project costs change.
Where the financial analysis supports it, the City can reward deeper affordability with tools such as additional density. Any exchange needs to be transparent and should produce a clear public benefit.
Inclusionary zoning should also sit alongside stronger support for non-profit and co-operative housing. Public land, faster approvals, grants, and targeted fee relief can help those providers reach affordability levels that a market rental project cannot.
Different levels of affordability require different tools. Expecting one policy to meet every housing need will leave gaps.
Publish the results
Residents should be able to see what the inclusionary policy delivers each year.
At a minimum, the City should report:
How many inclusionary homes were approved and completed
The rents charged compared with market and CMHC averages
How many homes have two, three, or more bedrooms
How many projects did not proceed and why
Whether the policy could reasonably secure deeper affordability
That information would allow Council to adjust the policy based on actual outcomes rather than assumptions.
My approach would be to set a meaningful affordable rate, test the economics honestly, measure what gets built, and push further where the evidence supports it.
Affordable housing policy should be ambitious. It also has to produce homes.
Sources:
