From pretextual planning to prezoning: The case of vancouver, british columbia

Abstract

Discretionary planning systems have long structured urban development in North American cities by prioritizing negotiated outcomes over predictable, rule-based governance. Such systems often facilitate pretextual planning, in which zoning regulations function as instruments of negotiation rather than regulation, enabling municipalities to extract public benefits through exemptions from floor space ratios, parking minimums, or height limits. This article critically examines Vancouver's ongoing transition from a pretextual, discretion-based planning regime to a prezoned, by-right development framework. Drawing on qualitative document analysis and semi-structured interviews with planners, developers, and housing advocates, it investigates how institutional design mediates both procedural fairness and policy effectiveness in urban governance. Situated within broader theoretical debates on equity planning and institutional reform, the study demonstrates that discretionary systems, while designed to achieve flexibility and public benefit, often entrench inequitable power relations and generate administrative inefficiencies. Discretionary planning, particularly when pretextual, embeds negotiation, uncertainty, and politicization into regulatory practice, thereby undermining both equity and effectiveness. In contrast, prezoning and standardized approval processes enhance transparency, predictability, and accountability, facilitating more inclusive and efficient governance outcomes. The case of the Commercial–Broadway Safeway redevelopment exemplifies how discretionary processes delay housing production, elevate development costs, and reproduce patterns of exclusion through procedural contestation. Vancouver's recent reforms, including citywide upzoning, simplification of zoning codes, and the standardization of amenity charges, constitute a significant institutional reconfiguration toward rules-based planning. Though not a panacea, the article concludes that cities confronting housing affordability crises should systematically remove discretionary ordinances from their planning codes.