This has been updated to include Part 2 (written on April 14, 2026). Part 1 was originally published on March 8, 2026.
Part 1: Housing and Affordability in Port Moody and Our Region
In 2025, Metro Vancouver released three major (and related) reports that showed the state of housing in our region and how it relates to affordability. Together, these reports tell a clear story of where we are and where we need to go. You can read these reports here:
- Regional Housing Needs Report, February 2025
- Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study, 2025 Update, August 2025
- Affordable Housing Gap Analysis, September 2025
Each of these reports deserves its own deep dive, but this post offers only a high-level view, along with my interpretations and thoughts. It is intended to provide the foundation for a more detailed look at what kind of housing we are building and who it’s for.
We are all concerned about providing affordable housing and want to see action. We all want simple explanations, and we all bring our own biases or lens to the problem, but data tells a complex story.
In July 2025, Jens von Bergmann, MountainMath and Nathan Lauster, UBC Sociology, wrote:
“…we want to take this to the logical conclusion and explain that housing is a housing problem … on a structural level, the biggest issue is simply that we don’t have enough housing.”
They go on to say: “This is not to say that fixing the housing shortage will solve all housing problems, but that fixing the housing shortage is necessary to solve most of our housing problems. Correspondingly, every kind of housing that adds on net to supply can help. Moreover a good chunk of the other issues that keep getting brought up are downstream of shortage.” [emphasis mine]
“…downstream of the shortage.” What does this mean?
The supply shortage (lack of sufficient numbers of housing units) is the foundation of the crisis, where demand has exceeded supply, but it doesn’t explain everything. Affordability is shaped by interconnected forces: incomes that haven’t kept pace with the cost of living, high housing prices, zoning and other regulatory policies, and tenure options that need to reflect how people live and what they can access.
When any one of these parts of the system is broken, others have to strain to compensate. We observe that across the region, a disproportionate number of our residents spend more than 30% of their income on housing (or are in less-than-ideal living situations), defer major life decisions, or can’t live in the community of their choosing. Fix the shortage, and you don’t solve everything, but you create the conditions in which the other tools — affordability requirements, non-market investment, tenure diversity — can actually work. None of these levers works in isolation, and Port Moody can’t solve this alone. But our choices are meaningful contributions to a regional solution.
Tenure is part of that picture too.
Our market is heavily skewed towards ownership. In Port Moody, 76% of households own (2021 Census) compared to 67% and 70% for British Columbians and Canadians, respectively. According to research completed by OECD, “In most countries, home ownership rates increase with income.” Port Moody’s median income is greater than both BC and Canadian median income, so the higher rate of ownership is not surprising. This matters because it means Port Moody’s ownership-heavy housing tenure reflects who can already afford to live here, not necessarily who wants or needs to live here in the future.
Transportation Costs Are Eating Into Household Budgets
Metro Vancouver’s new 2025 Housing & Transportation Cost Burden Study gives us a clearer picture of what affordability really means in our region. It’s not just about the price of a home; it’s about where you live, what services are nearby and how you move around. When you include transportation, the numbers tell a different story about where people can truly afford to live.
For Port Moody, with two SkyTrain stations, and where the 2017 Official Community Plan contemplated density around these stations (and the 2026 OCP draft reinforces), these findings reinforce why smart, transit‑focused development matters. This is exactly the kind of environment the study identifies as most affordable overall.
The region’s average household now spends about $41,000 a year on housing and transportation combined. In Port Moody, this is $46,000; $23,000 each for housing and transportation. To reduce living costs, housing costs need to decrease, and we need cheaper transportation options. In a practical sense, this means:
- The more we grow around transit,
- The more we support walkable neighbourhoods,
- The more we encourage mixed housing options near stations…
…the more we help households avoid the burden of expensive long commutes or multi‑car lifestyles.
Of course, this does not mean everyone is expected to use transit, but it provides options, so a family may only need one car versus two, or some trips can be made by transit. That has certainly been true for my family, and at one point, we didn’t even have a car, opting for cycling, transit and car share.
And as we grow around transit and build walkable neighbourhoods, which include access to grocery stores, our walk score will improve, which is a practical measure of how easy it is to access our daily needs.
Our walk score as a city is 42, meaning most errands require a car, but when you look closer at the neighbourhoods of Suter Brook and Newport, the walk score exceeds 90 (Walker’s paradise), meaning you can access most of your daily needs without a car.
Legend: Greener areas are more walkable.
Suter Brook Walk Score
But: density by itself doesn’t create affordability.
The report identifies that what works is the combination of density, transit access, and diverse housing options, especially rental. This aligns with Port Moody’s direction (2017 OCP, draft 2026 OCP): thoughtful growth focused in Moody Centre TOD, the Inlet Centre neighbourhood, and our transit corridors — while preserving the natural character of our hillside and waterfront areas.
One of the strongest findings was that rental and non‑market rental housing near transit has the greatest positive impact on affordability. In our context, this underscores why:
- We need rental supply in Moody Centre and Inlet Centre.*
- Purpose‑built rental near SkyTrain is a critical community investment.
*There are a few projects underway that will help meet this need. Examples of purpose-built rentals include the PCI development (5% affordable rental, remainder market rental), the Jamakhana (Anthem), which includes 15% affordable, potentially Anthem at Williams and St Johns, Mary Anne’s Place on Clarke, and more recently, Inlet District (342 rentals with 25% below market). These developments also bring other amenities, such as grocery stores, artist spaces, daylit creeks, and community gathering spaces.
The study highlights that the region’s most affordable areas (when housing and transportation are combined) are the ones served by SkyTrain, including areas in Vancouver, Burnaby, and Surrey. These locations form an affordable “core,” while higher‑cost areas ring the outside.
Port Moody sits within that transit‑rich core, and our planning choices can ensure that we become a more accessible and affordable city for a range of households (sizes and incomes).
This study reinforces that by focusing new housing around transit, expanding rental options, and supporting walkable neighbourhoods, Port Moody can help residents keep more of their income for the things that matter — not long commutes, rising vehicle costs or housing costs. Specifically, the Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study states:
“On average, moving ten percent closer to a SkyTrain station lowers annual combined costs roughly by a modest $117 per household per year (2025 dollars), with the financial benefits increasing exponentially within walking range of SkyTrain stations.
In Part 2, I’ll look at how our dwelling and unit sizes changed over time, why we are seeing more studio and 1-bedroom units in upcoming developments, and why that might be a good thing.
Part 1 References:
Mountain Doodles, Housing is a housing problem, July 6, 2025, https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/posts/2025-07-06-housing-is-a-housing-problem/#a-hypothetical-example
Statistics Canada. 2023. (table). Census Profile. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2021001. Ottawa. Released November 15, 2023.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed March 5, 2026).
OECD (2025), “HM1.3 Housing tenures”, OECD Affordable Housing Database, https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Affordable_Housing_Database/HM1-3-Housing-tenures.pdf.
Walk Score, https://www.walkscore.com/CA-BC/Port_Moody
Part 2: What are we building, and for whom?
A surprising number of people insist that the affordability crisis is not driven by a shortage of homes, with references to unsold condo inventory in Vancouver (as an example), but as Part 1 established, the data tells a more complex story: supply shortage is the foundation of the crisis and the question isn’t just whether we’re building but what we are building and for whom.
Critics frame the development issue as too much density, wrong unit mix and unsustainable growth. Beyond the question of what constitutes “too much” or “wrong”, the supply evidence suggests the opposite problem: we haven’t built enough, and the gap between who lives here now and who wants and needs to live here in the future is growing.
Metro Vancouver’s 2025 Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Report gives us a clearer picture of what affordability really means in our region. It’s not just about the price of a home; it’s about where you live, what services are nearby and how you move around. When you include transportation, the numbers tell a different story about where people can truly afford to live.
Port Moody, with two Skytrain stations and a long-standing commitment to transit-focused density, from the 2017 Official Community Plan through the 2026 draft OCP, is exactly the kind of environment the study identifies as most affordable overall.
The Regional Housing Needs Report (which aligns with Port Moody’s numbers, read the Council Report here) estimates that we need 3,063 dwellings for 2022-2026. While Council has approved several significant applications (compared to the last few terms of council), this does not mean that these will become occupied within the five years that the provincial housing targets cover; many of the projects approved are those with ~20-year build-outs (e.g., Inlet Centre, Beedie TOD, and Portwood developments).
[At the time of writing, the PCI development has paused.]
As a recent example, the first Suter Brook buildings received occupancy permits in 2005; the last were finally occupied in 2023/24. Further to this point, and a reflection of the economic conditions, the PCI development at Moody Centre is not going ahead at this time; this means the delay of over 800 rental units, including 5% below market rentals.
I also wanted to talk about the types of units we are getting. We’ve talked a lot about family-friendly housing. Recently, we updated our Well-Being Guidelines to include minimum unit sizes, based on BC Housing’s 2026 minimum sizes. While most development applications met or exceeded the minimum unit sizes, a few did not, and Council felt it was important to lay out our expectations more clearly.
Unit sizes are one part of the equation, but what about unit mix? Family-friendly housing, which generally means 2+ bedrooms, is part of the requirements for developments. In Port Moody, our Family-Friendly Units Policy requires a minimum of 25% of units in multi-family residential buildings (MURB), and sets maximums for studio and 1-bedrooms.
Too many homes for single people, couples or those downsizing?
One thing I have heard a few times at the council table is that we are approving too many studio and one-bedroom units. Individual applications with 70% studio and one-bedroom units are understandably concerning. But a single application is only a snapshot, and not the full picture of the unit mix available across the community. So I went looking for community-wide data.
Of course, data is never all in one place and in the interest of transparency, here’s where I found the data:
- Canada, Census Profiles, Port Moody, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021
- City of Port Moody, 2021 Housing Needs Report, updated 2024
- City of Port Moody, Housing Targets, Progress Reports, 2024 and 2025
I was interested in the unit mix, both existing and considering our targets, and what is the breakdown of our household size (e.g., what percentage or how many 1-person, 2-person, etc households there are in Port Moody) and how those have changed over time.
A few caveats: I didn’t include projects that have been approved but have not started, nor those currently under construction, as they will likely not be completed within the timeframe of the housing targets (2028). I was more interested in looking at the trends. Additionally, the 2026 Census will be completed this year and will provide more up-to-date information (likely released in 2027).
Here’s the data:
Table 1: Units by Size (Source: Housing Needs Report, updated 2024)
| Units by Size | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | 2021 |
| Studio | 130 | 75 | 35 | 70 |
| 1 bedroom | 900 | 1,250 | 1,285 | 1,335 |
| 2 bedroom | 2,180 | 3,740 | 3,930 | 3,945 |
| 3 bedrooms | 6,920 | 7,565 | 7,729 | 4,335 |
| 4+ bedrooms | * | * | * | 3,425 |
| Total | 10,130 | 12,630 | 12,979 | 13,110 |
Table note: * included in the 3-bedroom total for census years 2006, 2011, and 2016.
Table 2: Household Size (Source: Housing Needs Report, updated 2024 and Census data)
| Household Size | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | 2021 |
| 1 person | not available | 2,820 | 2,980 | 2,950 |
| 2 persons | not available | 4,080 | 4,190 | 4,400 |
| 3 persons | not available | 2,340 | 2,460 | 2,545 |
| 4 persons | not available | 2,420 | 2,410 | 2,355 |
| 5 or more persons | not available | 970 | 940 | 860 |
| Total households | 12,630 | 12,980 | 13,110 |
Here it is in a more visual format:
Not much has changed in 10 years.
Since the Province set housing targets for Port Moody (with accompanying reporting requirements), we’ve added 645 units between 2023 and 2025. Table 3 shows the breakdown by unit size, comparing the 2021 Census and the additional units added from October 2023 to September 2025. 2022 data is not readily accessible, but given the broad trends I’m examining, this gap is unlikely to matter for the purposes of this analysis.
Table 3: Housing Targets Progress Report
| Units by Size | 2021 | Period ending 2024-09-30 (total new) | Period ending 2025-09-30 (net new) | New Units | Combined total (2021 + new units) |
| Studio | 70 | 0 | 35 | 35 | 105 |
| 1 bedroom | 1,335 | 63 | 207 | 270 | 1,605 |
| 2 bedroom | 3,945 | 137 | 211 | 348 | 4,293 |
| 3 bedrooms | 4,335 | 41 | 24 | 65 | 4,400 |
| 4+ bedrooms | 3,425 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 3,442 |
| Total | 13,110 | 168 (net of demolitions) | 477 | 645 (net) | 13,755 |
Table Notes:
- For the period ending 2024-09-30, there were 258 new units, with 96 demolitions, for a net total of 168 new units. Historically, the City did not collect bedroom information when issuing demolition permits. This has changed for subsequent reporting years. Details can be found on page 2 of Housing Targets Progress Report (November 12, 2024). Since there are no details for demolitions, I am using the gross units count for unit size – this is overstating the number of new units, but for comparison, it is sufficient.
- For the period ending 2025-09-30, these are net new units. During this reporting period, there were 15 demolitions. Details can be found on page 2 of the Housing Target Progress Report Form (October 20, 2025).
We are starting to see a small shift within categories – an increase by 1% of 1- and 2-bedrooms, and a corresponding 1% decrease in 3- and 4+ bedrooms. This does not represent a decrease in the actual number of 3 and 4+ bedroom units; it means that the proportion of 1- and 2-bedroom units has increased, relative to 2021.
Why does this matter?
Historically, Port Moody has been a suburb of predominantly single-family homes, and as the city has evolved, this has shifted. As you can see in the pie charts below, single-detached and semi-detached made up almost half of all residential dwelling types in 2001.
Twenty years later, those had decreased to one-third due to an increase in apartment buildings (both fewer and greater than five storeys). Row houses (townhouses) maintained their relative share of dwelling types.
The pie charts show the share of the total by dwelling types. The total number of dwellings has increased by 4,575, meaning that there were 4,575 more dwellings in 2021 compared to 2001. The increase occurred across all dwelling types except moveable dwellings, which decreased from 10 units (2001) to 5 units (2021). Apartment buildings have seen the greatest increases in the past 20 years.
Conclusion
Family-friendly housing is important, especially as more families are choosing to live in multi-family buildings; however, we still need housing that suits 1- and 2-person households of all ages, including seniors looking to downsize within the community they call home.
Historically, Port Moody has not had many options for these households, but this is changing. So while new developments are prioritizing studio and 1-bedroom units, this helps meet the needs of one and two-person households, including those experiencing suppressed household formation (people who would choose to live independently if suitable housing existed). It is a trend worth monitoring, but for now, I am comfortable with the proportion of studio and 1-bedroom units, as per our policy, while we also continue to add 2- and 3+ bedroom units.
Ultimately, this shift in unit mix is one piece of a larger affordability puzzle. When more households can live close to transit in appropriately sized homes, the combined housing and transportation burden, which averages $46,000/year in Port Moody, becomes more manageable. That’s the goal. Affordability.