Sen̓áḵw, the New York Times, and the Future of Vancouver

 

Sen̓áḵw

Sen̓áḵw, the New York Times, and the Future of Vancouver

I was surprised to open the New York Times and find a lengthy opinion piece about Sen̓áḵw, the new Squamish Nation development rising beside Burrard Bridge in Vancouver.

The article praises Sen̓áḵw as a model for North America. Its argument is straightforward: Vancouver has one of the worst housing affordability crises on the continent, and Sen̓áḵw demonstrates what can happen when a community has the authority and determination to build thousands of homes quickly.

There is truth in that argument.

For decades, Vancouver has struggled to add enough housing for a growing population. Rents have climbed, home ownership has become unattainable for many people, and younger generations often wonder whether they have a future in the city at all.

The story of Sen̓áḵw is also a story of history. The original village stood on these lands before residents were displaced more than a century ago. The return of a portion of the land and the decision by the Squamish Nation to develop it represents an important chapter in reconciliation and self-determination.

The towers themselves are striking. In the golden evening light, they can look almost futuristic. Looking at them recently, I was reminded of the optimism that accompanied many great engineering projects of the past.

The New York Times article compares Sen̓áḵw to a housing solution. I found myself thinking about another famous project: the Empire State Building. It was built during difficult economic times by workers from many backgrounds, including Irish, Italian, and Mohawk ironworkers. It became a symbol of ambition, engineering skill, and the belief that great things could be built.

Yet Vancouver's housing crisis is more complicated than simply building more towers.

The city faces questions about wages, pensions, poverty, disability support, and the growing gap between incomes and housing costs. Many seniors, workers, artists, and families are struggling not because there are no homes, but because the homes that exist are increasingly beyond their financial reach.

Building more housing is important. So is asking who can afford to live in that housing.

Perhaps the real lesson of Sen̓áḵw is not that one side of the debate is right and the other is wrong. Perhaps the lesson is that Vancouver needs both ambition and compassion. We need enough homes for future generations, but we also need a city where ordinary people can afford to stay.

As I read the New York Times article, I found myself in an unusual position.

The author sees Sen̓áḵw as a symbol of what North America needs more of: housing built quickly, at scale, and close to jobs and transit.

Tomorrow, I am touring a studio there.

For economists, planners, politicians, developers, and journalists, Sen̓áḵw is a debate about zoning, density, reconciliation, and housing supply.

For me, it is much simpler.

Can I afford to live there?

I won't receive my full pension until February. Until then, finding roughly $2,000 a month for rent is a real challenge. I suspect many Vancouver residents would understand that feeling.

That does not mean Sen̓áḵw is the wrong project. In fact, I admire much about it. The architecture is beautiful. The story behind the land is important. The ambition is impressive. The towers remind me of other great projects that changed skylines and challenged people to think differently about what was possible.

While I still dream of a tiny house surrounded by a small garden, I also recognize that cities need many kinds of housing. Not everyone wants a detached home, and not everyone can afford one. The challenge is creating communities where people from different backgrounds, ages, and income levels can find a place to belong.

Housing is not only about buildings.

Housing is about people.

It is about seniors wondering if they can stay in the city they helped build. It is about young workers trying to get started. It is about families searching for stability. It is about Indigenous communities reclaiming a place in the city. It is about newcomers looking for opportunity.

The New York Times asks whether Vancouver has learned to say yes.

As I prepare to tour a studio in Sen̓áḵw, I find myself asking a different question:

Can Vancouver become a city where enough people can say yes to living here?

The answer will shape Vancouver's future long after the last Sen̓áḵw tower is completed.

— Tina Winterlik (Zipolita)

Reflective Questions

1. Can building more housing alone solve Vancouver's affordability crisis, or are other changes needed?
2. How should cities balance the concerns of existing residents with the needs of future residents looking for housing?
3. What role should Indigenous nations play in shaping the future of urban development in Canada?
4. Can market-rate housing help improve affordability over time, or is more subsidized housing required?
5. What can Vancouver learn from Sen̓áḵw about housing, density, and city planning?
6. How can cities remain welcoming to seniors, artists, workers, families, and young people as housing costs rise?
7. If you could design your ideal community, what would it look like?
8. Would you choose a high-rise apartment in the city or a tiny house with a small garden? Why?

Keywords

Senakw, Vancouver housing crisis, affordable housing, Squamish Nation, reconciliation, Indigenous development, New York Times, urban density, housing affordability, tiny house, Vancouver real estate, rental housing, city planning, Jericho Lands, community building

Hashtags

#Senakw #Vancouver #HousingCrisis #AffordableHousing #SquamishNation #Reconciliation #UrbanPlanning #HousingForAll #CityBuilding #TinyHouseDream #VancouverBC #CommunityMatters #HousingDebate #FutureOfCities #Zipolita