Monitoring & Policy | Rules vs Supply

Which of your rules is blocking supply?

When permits do not come, the zoning usually is not the problem — a cost rule layered on top of it is. Parking, fees, setbacks, and timelines each quietly subtract from a builder's return. One of them is usually the binding constraint.

The core problem we solve

Every cost rule pushes lots toward the 'won't get built' side

Density too low

Nothing gets built

Below a certain number of units, a multiplex can't cover land plus construction. Builders walk. The lot stays a single house and the upzoning produces no housing.

The viable range

Homes actually get built

Enough units that the project clears a builder's return threshold — so permits get pulled and units get delivered. This is the band you're trying to hit.

Density too high

Infrastructure can't take it

Past a point, servicing, traffic, and community capacity can't absorb the density — and council and neighbours push back. The plan stalls for a different reason.

Too little
Too much

The rules that move feasibility most

Parking minimums

Each required structured stall can add $40,000–$60,000 in cost. On a narrow lot that one rule can push a viable project into the red.

Development charges

DCCs and amenity charges hit per unit. Set high, they quietly remove the smaller projects — the exact gentle density the policy wanted.

Setbacks & lot coverage

Tight setbacks shrink buildable floor area. Less sellable space means a lower return on the same land and the same fees.

Height & storeys

A storey cut after public pushback can drop a six-plex to a four-plex — and four units often falls below the line where financing and feasibility work.

Unit-mix mandates

Family-unit requirements are good policy, but they change achievable rents and the proforma. Worth knowing the cost so you can keep the benefit.

Process & timeline

Carrying cost during a long approval is real money. Slow files do not just frustrate builders — they change whether the deal pencils at all.

Partner cities only

Find your binding constraint

We run your actual rules through a proforma on real lots and change one input at a time, so you can see which rule is quietly costing you the most housing.

  • The single rule that, relaxed, unlocks the most viable lots
  • Cost-per-stall and fee impact on real project math
  • Before/after viable-lot share for a proposed change
  • Evidence you can take to council instead of a hunch
Request access for your city

Frequently asked questions

How do you tell which rule is the binding constraint?+
We run your actual rules through a development proforma on real lots, then change one input at a time. The rule that, when relaxed, moves the most lots from "does not pencil" to "gets built" is your binding constraint. It is often not the one people expect.
Does this mean we should drop our standards?+
No. The point is to see the trade-off clearly. If a family-unit requirement costs you some supply, you may keep it on purpose — but now you know the price and can decide. If a parking rule is quietly killing projects for little public benefit, that is a different conversation.
Can you model a change before we adopt it?+
Yes — that is the core of the partnership. We show how a specific parking, fee, or density change would shift the share of viable lots, so you take evidence to council instead of a hunch.

Want this for your municipality?

We already track multiplex permit uptake and lot-by-lot feasibility across BC. Tell us your city and we'll show you what your data says — and how a monitoring partnership works.