RR Discussion

Yamamoto Architecture and Alabaster Homes
Published December 19, 2025

For the first installment of our RR Discussion series, Taizo Yamamoto of Yamamoto Architecture met with Maryna Shmyk and Jeff Skinner of Alabaster Homes, to discuss their experience with City of Vancouver’s RR rental policy. The video offers an industry perspective that encapsulates both YA and Alabaster’s experience working within RR, with the aim of informing evolution and improvements in future policies.

In this discussion they consider: What challenges remain within the current approvals process? What possibilities might there be to further improve and quicken approvals? Is affordability possible within this typology? What regulations and guidelines might need re-evaluation?  Further insight into Alabaster and their experience with the policy in summarized in the written interview below.

Can you describe Alabaster’s involvement in Rental projects within the COV?
All of Alabaster’s current apartment (multi-family) projects in the pipeline are rental tenure. We have 201 units in steam, additional 140 in predevelopment.

You’ve worked on more traditional Rezonings before the RR zoning was established, can you compare the differences between the two process streams?
The biggest difference is the upfront work. The RR zoning and Secured Rental Policy have brought a level of predictability that lets us move quicker with due diligence, analyze project yield, and submit a simplified rezoning application. Since the SRP doesn’t require drawings at the time of rezoning application, it allows the team to begin the land rezoning process while taking the required time to develop the design, form, and massing in parallel.

How long does a traditional Rezoning take compared to the projects that were Rezoned to RR before a design was submitted?
In our experience, traditional rezoning would require about 4 months to prepare an application package, and then 12-14 months before council approval. The SRP enables an application package for an RR rezoning to be prepared in 3 weeks, with staff review and public engagement through to CoV council approval still taking up to 12 months.

How many active rental projects does Alabaster have, and how many of these are within RR zones?
Currently three, all are within RR zones.

What do you see as the main advantages of this type of RZ process, and where could it be improved further?
The main advantage is that it’s made things more predictable and less costly upfront. By separating rezoning from design development, it’s allowed projects to move forward faster and with more confidence before engaging full consultant teams. That said, the process could still be improved. We haven’t seen a meaningful decrease in staff review times to prepare a report to council and get to public hearing in under 12 months. Also, the handoff between rezoning and DP isn’t always seamless, projects that are SRP policy compliant at rezoning sometimes get re-reviewed with new requirements at DP.

There’s also a bigger picture issue at the moment where some RR zones don’t fully reflect current market realities. Certain built forms and density levels are reserved for mixed-use or below market housing, leaving fewer options for delivering 100% market rental projects. Unfortunately, we’ve found that including a below market component simply doesn’t work in today’s market. It’s not financially viable without a significant increase in allowable density to offset the cost. If this isn’t addressed, it will continue to limit the full potential of delivering rental projects in these zones.

Can you comment on the impact of prescribed massing step-backs on construction efficiencies and costs?
Would you encourage more simple massing envelopes for future Zones / Guidelines?Absolutely. Prescribed massing step backs add complexity to both the design and construction process, resulting in higher costs due to irregular floor plates, additional framing transitions, and more complicated waterproofing and cladding details. They can also reduce efficiencies, which impacts both buildable area and the overall proforma. As mentioned above, this reality is actually acknowledged in the RR zoning guidelines, since simpler massing is permitted for social/below market projects.

How much do holding costs contribute to overall project budget, and would significantly reduced approvals time enable more affordable rents?
What really affects project viability is timing and predictability. When approvals stretch out, carrying costs rise, financing terms change, and construction pricing moves. Shorter and more reliable timelines help us meet the market where it’s at today. That’s critical for rental projects, because we can better align our costs, financing, and rents to current conditions.

What do you see as the main hurdles in delivering rental housing, and affordable rental housing?
The main hurdles in delivering rental housing right now are economic. Revenues have softened as rent growth slows and operating costs rise, while raising equity remains difficult in the current market. At the same time, high construction costs and municipal fees haven’t come off, and CMHC financing requirements have become more stringent. All this combined has made it harder to make purpose built rental projects happen.

For affordable rental, the challenge is even greater. The achievable rents are fixed, but the costs aren’t. Without new funding tools or greater flexibility around zoning and density, many projects that could otherwise move forward are struggling to remain viable even at market rents, with below market options simply not achievable under current conditions.

Are you working in other municipalities, and can you provide any examples of what Planning Departments in those municipalities are doing well?
We are primarily active in Vancouver, but have some experience with Burnaby as well. The Burnaby planning team has been in the midst of large scale zoning bylaw re-write, and its been challenging to progress an application in the midst of change. That said,  we’ve found that Burnaby is slightly less prescriptive, which creates room for collaboration and flexibility. The tradeoff to this flexibility is more variability in interpretation and a lot of back and forth, so timelines can run longer, but the possibility of workable project specific outcome is higher.

How active do you see Alabaster continuing to be in delivery of rental homes?
Alabaster remains committed to continuing to deliver rental housing. We’re currently taking a strategic approach where we are focusing on building strong relationships with our capital partners so that we are aligned and well positioned to continuing growing our rental portfolio as market conditions and financing environments become more favorable as time goes on.

Aside from the changes within new Zones and Guidelines, how do VBBL and BCBC updates affect your ability to reduce risk when starting a project?
VBBL and BCBC updates affect our ability to reduce risk mainly by adding uncertainty early in the process. Updates make it difficult to know which standards will apply by the time a project reaches application. That uncertainty makes it harder to lock in design, cost, and schedule with confidence.

Another factor is the shift in intent behind many of the updates. The codes are moving beyond life safety and building performance to include broader social and policy related goals. While those priorities are important, introducing them through the building code adds new layers of interpretation and complexity that are difficult to quantify and may not be appropriate across all project types.

How many rental units will Alabaster deliver under RR based on current in-stream projects?
201 units in steam, additional 140 in pre development.

For further insight into Alabaster, visit alabasterhomes.ca