This piece from Works in Progress uncovers a rare anomaly in global housing policy: a scenario where Indigenous land rights and aggressive upzoning have converged to solve a severe affordability crisis. It is not a story of government benevolence, but rather a case study in how removing restrictive planning rules for a specific stakeholder can unlock massive value that benefits the entire city.
The Anatomy of Dispossession
The narrative begins with a stark historical correction, dismantling the myth that Vancouver's current scarcity is inevitable. Works in Progress details how the Squamish Nation was forcibly removed from their ancestral village at Kitsilano in 1913 under a provincial amendment to the Indian Act. The article notes that "the land seizure itself was the primary goal," driven not by immediate financial gain but by a desire to enforce public order and silence traditional ceremonies.
"The city officials originally intended to designate the land for either courthouses or a public park, but had no fixed plans."
This detail is crucial; it exposes how bureaucratic whims can displace communities decades before those locations become economic powerhouses. The article highlights that the removal was unlawful even at the time because the province lacked federal consent to seize federally held reserve lands. Yet, for nearly a century, the Squamish were barred from legal recourse by the very laws they sought to challenge.
The commentary here is sharp: it reframes the "Indian Act" not just as a tool of oppression, but as a complex legal barrier that required decades of subversive advocacy to dismantle. The piece credits anthropologists Dorothy Kennedy and Randy Bouchard, working with Chief Louie Miranda, for assembling the evidence needed to win the 2001 Mathias vs Canada case. Their work reconstructed genealogies by cross-referencing oral history with Catholic church records, proving that "the church was reluctant to hand over information" yet ultimately provided the key to the land claim.
"All of the success was thanks to Chief Miranda."
This section effectively argues that the restoration of rights is often a slow, granular process of evidence-gathering rather than a sudden political victory. However, one might argue that the piece slightly underplays the role of broader Indigenous legal movements in Canada during this period, which created the necessary pressure for these individual victories. The focus on the Squamish is compelling, but it sits atop a wider tide of resistance.
The Grand Bargain and the Zoning Loophole
The core economic argument of the piece emerges when discussing the 2002 settlement: the return of 11.7 acres of land alongside a cash compensation fund. Unlike most municipal developments in Vancouver, which are shackled by decades of restrictive zoning, this specific parcel was exempt from the city's rigid single-family housing rules.
"Freed from the restrictive planning rules that hold back densification in the rest of Vancouver, the Squamish decided in 2019 to use the land to build apartment blocks."
This distinction is the piece's most vital insight. While the rest of the city struggles with a "suppressed household" backlog estimated at up to 200,000 people, the Senakw development is set to house 9,000 residents and generate roughly C$10 billion in income. The article contrasts this efficiency with Vancouver's standard planning model, where "planners extract funding for parks, childcare centers, and affordable housing units in exchange for permission to build," a process that is described as "slow, expensive, and unpredictable."
"Big developers just cough up when planners demand."
The piece argues that the current system favors large, concentrated towers because smaller builders cannot navigate the complex negotiation landscape. By bypassing this bureaucratic maze entirely, the Squamish Nation demonstrates that when a community stands to benefit directly from density, the political will to build appears almost automatically. This challenges the prevailing narrative that NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) is an insurmountable cultural barrier; instead, it suggests the barrier is often financial and structural.
"Senakw shows that when local residents stand to benefit from development, obstacles to housebuilding can be overcome."
Critics might note that this model relies on a unique convergence of historical land rights and legal exemptions that are not easily replicable for other municipalities or Indigenous groups without similar court victories. The "Squamish solution" is powerful, but it may be difficult to scale as a general policy prescription for non-Indigenous cities facing similar crises.
Bottom Line
The strongest part of this argument is its demonstration that zoning reform is not just about changing laws on paper, but about aligning the economic incentives of landowners with the housing needs of the city. The piece's biggest vulnerability lies in the uniqueness of the legal settlement; while inspiring, it offers a specific historical remedy rather than a universal blueprint for urban planning. Readers should watch to see if other Indigenous nations or municipalities can replicate this "grand bargain" model by decoupling development rights from restrictive municipal codes.