Vacancy Didn’t Rise. Affordability Failed.

 Vacancy Didn’t Rise. Affordability Failed.

Why CMHC’s “good news” on Vancouver rentals doesn’t match lived reality

For the first time in nearly four decades, Metro Vancouver’s rental vacancy rate has reached approximately 3.7%, according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Housing officials and politicians have been quick to frame this as positive news, pointing to the familiar idea that a 3–5% vacancy rate is “healthy” because it gives renters more choice.

On paper, this sounds encouraging.

In real life, it feels disconnected.

What CMHC’s vacancy rate actually measures

CMHC’s vacancy data applies only to purpose-built rental apartments. It does not include:

• Condos rented by investors
• Basement suites and secondary units
• Informal or precarious housing
• Units priced so high they are effectively unreachable

This distinction matters.

So when we hear “vacancy is rising,” what it often really means is this:
new, expensive buildings are sitting empty because people cannot afford them.

Vacancy didn’t rise.
Affordability failed.

A “healthy market” isn’t the same as healthy people

The idea of a “healthy vacancy rate” is a market benchmark, not a measure of human well-being. It assumes rents rise alongside wages, that people have stable incomes, and that displacement is rare.

None of that reflects Vancouver’s reality.

Vacancy can increase at the same time homelessness increases — because empty units are not accessible to the people who need housing most. A unit renting for $2,800 a month does nothing for someone on social assistance, a senior on a fixed income, or a worker earning close to minimum wage.

Healthy for the market does not mean healthy for communities.

CMHC’s uncomfortable role in the housing crisis

CMHC often presents itself as a neutral observer, but its history tells a more complicated story. For decades, it has insured investor mortgages, enabled large landlords and REITs to expand, and supported housing as a financial asset rather than a human necessity.

That doesn’t make the data false — but it does make the framing selective.

Why B.C. Housing’s optimism rings hollow

B.C. Housing has also struggled to earn public trust. High executive salaries, chronic maintenance issues, and a tendency to count “units announced” instead of homes people can actually live in have left many British Columbians skeptical of official optimism.

When officials say rising vacancy means people “have options,” the question remains: options for whom?

The story governments need right now

Housing affordability has become politically explosive. Governments are under pressure to show progress, even if the underlying system remains broken.

So the narrative becomes:

Vacancy is rising. Pressure is easing. Things are improving.

Instead of:

The market is rejecting overpriced units while affordability continues to collapse.

That difference matters.

Lived experience still tells the truth

CMHC measures units. Governments track markets. But people live in homes — or struggle without them.

For those who have spent years navigating B.C.’s housing system, advocating for change, or living on the margins, this sudden optimism feels premature at best and misleading at worst.

Until housing policy centers dignity instead of market optics, vacancy statistics will continue to ring hollow.

Because vacancy alone doesn’t house people.