Rethinking Infrastructure Concerns in British Columbia’s Housing Dilemma

Introduction

In British Columbia, the housing crisis continues to swell, characterized by soaring home prices and rampant rent increases. In response, discussions around building more homes—particularly denser, lower-cost options like apartments—are often met with resistance. Opponents claim that local communities lack the infrastructure—ranging from roadways to schools—to support an influx of new residents. However, these concerns may mask deeper issues related to ineffective zoning policies and an enduring reluctance to embrace denser housing solutions. This article aims to unpack these dynamics and highlight the importance of advancing both housing and infrastructure in British Columbia.

The Infrastructure Argument: A Double-Edged Sword

Critics of proposed density increases argue vehemently that new housing is unfeasible without necessary infrastructure upgrades. While this argument has merit—decades of underinvestment have indeed left a growing backlog of infrastructure needs—it should not serve as an excuse to block the development of new homes. Research underscores that building infrastructure to accommodate denser housing options like apartments is significantly more cost-effective than doing so for lower-density developments like single-family homes.

For instance, when assessing infrastructure needs for 100 homes in an apartment complex versus 100 detached houses, the former requires fewer resources. Apartments demand shorter pipelines and wires, ultimately resulting in lower maintenance and operational costs. By resisting apartment builds, municipalities inadvertently push housing demand into exurban areas where infrastructure costs tend to be higher.

Collaborative Solutions for Infrastructure Challenges

To genuinely tackle the interconnected concerns of housing shortages and infrastructure deficits, a collective approach involves regional collaboration and innovative funding mechanisms. By fostering intermunicipal cooperation and seeking assistance from local, regional, and federal levels, cities can more effectively navigate the challenges of urban density.

This shared strategy should not only embrace the development of apartments but also ensure they are backed by proper infrastructure investments. This could involve new funding programs akin to the one proposed by the incoming BC NDP government, which hints at the creation of an infrastructure investment fund linked directly to housing starts.

Exclusionary Zoning Policies: Keeping Housing at Bay

Indeed, some municipalities use infrastructure concerns as a convenient excuse to maintain exclusionary zoning policies—an approach that outright bans apartments on most residential land. These policies favor low-density development, which exacerbates the infrastructure issue by pushing new housing to the edges of urban areas. Consequently, communities dealing with a housing shortage may create precisely the conditions they claim to avoid.

Research consistently demonstrates the inefficiencies of sprawl—cities that implement low-density zoning inadvertently complicate their efforts to upgrade aging infrastructure while also escalating overall public costs. By approving more housing in urban centers, municipalities can maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure investments.

The Real Infrastructure Gap: A Call to Action

In British Columbia, the gap between the demand for adequate public infrastructure and its supply is indeed pressing. Estimates suggest that Canada faces an infrastructure deficit of $150 billion to $1 trillion, with British Columbia alone needing over $24 billion in core infrastructure upgrades in the next decade. Addressing this gap requires a willingness to evolve zoning laws and permit denser housing developments.

Ending apartment bans will not magically solve infrastructure woes, but it will significantly reduce the costs associated with expanding services in a sprawling urban landscape. Cities like Vancouver should embrace the benefits of higher-density housing, as it has been shown that public infrastructure costs for apartments are impressively lower—by five to nine times—compared to those for detached homes.

The Case for Denser Housing: A Solution to Multiple Problems

Not only does supporting denser housing solutions combat the pressing housing crisis, but it also offers numerous ancillary benefits: easing tenant displacement, increasing housing diversity, and even reducing transportation costs and air pollution. Municipalities could alleviate urban sprawl pressures if they dismantle apartment bans and approve projects that better reflect the needs of a growing population.

Cities like Vancouver showcase successful models of high-density living, which prove that increased housing can harmoniously coexist with the necessary supporting infrastructure. In this context, new housing does not merely symbolize an increase in residents; it embodies an opportunity for sustainable urban growth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, British Columbia’s housing and infrastructure dilemmas are intimately connected, demanding a multifaceted approach that allows for higher density residential builds. To catalyze positive change, it is crucial to challenge restrictive zoning policies, embrace denser housing options, and secure adequate funding for infrastructure improvements.

Hidden beneath the surface of infrastructure arguments lie deeper concerns about NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard attitudes) that hinder meaningful progress. If British Columbia is to create thriving communities for all residents, it must shed outdated zoning paradigms and invest in a future where adequate housing and infrastructure reinforce each other.

As urban centers continue to evolve, the blueprint for sustainable communities must prioritize both housing and infrastructure to ensure a bright, accessible future for all British Columbians.