Two weeks ago, we held our 8th Passive House Canada Conference in Richmond, BC. With hundreds attending both in person and virtually, we celebrated, presented, challenged, and inspired a community committed to one simple idea: buildings should perform better.
And it was not lost on any of us – architects, engineers, builders, manufacturers, tradespeople, energy modelers, and policymakers – that just a few kilometres away, Vancouver City Council had days before voted to take a significant step away from higher building standards.
For many in attendance, it felt like a gut punch.
The decision to pause higher building performance standards in the name of “affordability” fundamentally misunderstands what affordability actually means.
Affordability is not simply the upfront cost of construction. It is the total cost of living in a building over time; the mortgage or rent, utility bills, maintenance costs, repairs, occupant health, comfort, and the long-term value and resilience of the asset itself.
If affordability is truly the goal, then Vancouver should be doubling down on better-performing buildings, not retreating from them.
Higher-performance buildings dramatically reduce energy consumption. They lower heating and cooling costs. They improve durability and reduce maintenance. They provide healthier indoor environments through better air quality, thermal comfort, and moisture control. They increase resilience during extreme weather events and help protect owners from future retrofit costs as standards continue to evolve.
These are not luxuries.
They are essential elements of healthy, affordable housing.
The argument that weakening standards or “cutting red tape” will solve housing affordability challenges is appealing in its simplicity, but the evidence tells a different story. The largest driver of housing costs in Vancouver, and in most Canadian cities, remains land value, not building performance requirements.
In many cases, higher-performance construction represents a modest incremental investment that delivers decades of operational savings and social benefits. Evaluated across the full life cycle of a building, better performance is not a burden. It is one of the smartest affordability tools available.
Jurisdictions serious about serving their citizens do not race to the bottom on building quality. They recognize that durable, efficient, healthy, resilient buildings are foundational infrastructure. Short-term savings achieved by lowering standards often create larger long-term costs for residents, owners, and governments alike.
Vancouver spent years establishing itself as an international leader in sustainable, high-performance building policy. Walking back that leadership now serves short-term interests at the expense of long-term affordability.
The real question is not whether we can afford to build better. It is whether we can afford not to.
As we left Richmond, we did so with renewed energy and a renewed sense of purpose. The conference reminded us that this movement is strong. The knowledge exists. The technology exists. The expertise exists.
What remains is the work of adoption.
The Vancouver vote reminds us that progress is not guaranteed. Better buildings will not win simply because the evidence is on our side. They will win because people continue to advocate for them, design them, finance them, build them, and demand them.
So let this moment serve as a reminder.
Don’t stop.
Don’t stop educating.
Don’t stop demonstrating.
Don’t stop building.
Don’t stop leading.
Because every Passive House project completed today becomes the evidence that helps win the argument tomorrow.
And there is still far too much work left to do.
