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:

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.

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 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.

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:

*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.

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