In Brief: 30 years of Canada’s first co-housing, Mark Carney’s plan to expand ports in British Columbia for independence, and a union pushing back against a sale of B.C. Place.
Canada’s co-housing turns 30: how one community in British Columbia changed the way we think about neighbours
In Langley, a suburb of Vancouver, the community of Windsong recently celebrated its 30th anniversary—Canada’s first co-housing project, which helped lay the groundwork for an entirely different approach to housing. An idea that came from Denmark and remained niche for years is now experiencing something of a renaissance: there are 24 co-housing communities in the country, and another 21 in the building or planning stage. This surge in interest is driven not only by the housing crisis, but also by a deeper human desire—to live not just beside people, but with them, sharing not only walls but life itself.
Co-housing is a model in which a group of people buys land together and acts as its own developer, designing homes around their own needs. Units are sold at market price, but the architecture and the way the community is managed are set up so residents intentionally create an environment for connection: shared workshops, gardens, guest rooms, music studios, and large kitchens. According to Windsong’s founders, it’s the collective use of resources that gives co-housing a financial advantage over traditional condominiums. The story of this community began almost by accident: in 1990, Howard Staples received a birthday book from his wife Miriam—written by American architects Chuck Durrett and Katie McCamant—who coined the term “co-housing.” “Everything—there was no way we couldn’t do it,” Howard recalls. “We had no idea what we were doing.”
The Windsong founders started by placing an ad in the local newspaper—which generated huge interest and helped recruit future residents. They invited the book’s U.S. authors to help plan the community and define its goals. One of the first buyers was Ron Asher, who at the time was living in a rented home with a young family and dreamed of something bigger. “I remember how I felt every ‘for sale’ sign between downtown and Blanchard Street was like a punch in the gut,” he says. “I wanted something bigger—and it wasn’t just about money. I wanted a sense of community.” Asher came up with the name Windsong. The response from others suggested there was pent-up demand, but the path was long and complicated. Five years of negotiations, searching for land, and approvals paid off: a 5.8-acre site in the Walnut Grove area turned out to be only partially suitable for development—a salmon-bearing creek ran through the property, and four acres had to be set aside as a protected area. That forced the architects to increase density in what remained: the result was 34 clusters of multi-level homes with an underground parking garage, and the centrepiece became an internal “street” under a cathedral-style glass roof of about 930 square metres. The project went on to win the prestigious Georgie Award for environmental achievement.
Participants say the process was full of compromises, but the lack of a developer-seller made it possible to make decisions in favour of long-term security rather than short-term gain. That was especially important against the backdrop of the “unsold condominiums” crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, when thousands of apartments in British Columbia were affected by construction and design defects, with fixes costing billions of dollars. Local residents initially met Windsong with suspicion. “They were afraid that we were bringing in drug addicts and hippies,” Asher jokes. Over time, though, the community proved its value. Howard and Miriam raised three children there; today, retired, they rent out the lower rooms of their three-storey home as a separate unit. Their daughter, Lani, became a realtor and specialises in sales at Windsong, where a four-bedroom townhouse of just 123 square metres is listed for CA$739,900 plus monthly fees of about CA$553. The small size is a deliberate choice, since residents have shared spaces.
Anyone can buy into a co-housing community—there is no special selection process—but, as Staples notes, most buyers are already predisposed to the idea of mutual help among neighbours. The model is especially attractive to people moving to a new city. Karin Macdonald of Burlington, Ontario, bought a unit in the new Compass Commons project, which opens in Langley this fall and will be the second co-housing community in the city. She has been involved in planning the 40 units and community areas since 2021, connecting with future neighbours online. Moving west, closer to her grown children, no longer scares her. “My friends say, ‘How brave of you to move alone,’ but I already feel that I have a group of people I know—the foundation for a new life. I just can’t wait to sit and talk to people, drink coffee or a glass of wine after work, and listen to their stories. People want that.”
As The Globe and Mail notes, the growth in co-housing projects reflects not only the housing crisis, but also the loss of connections in today’s vertical city, where neighbourly interaction often amounts to just a couple of seconds in an elevator. Co-housing is an attempt to reclaim the right to neighbourhood life by combining market mechanisms with human warmth. And while the movement’s scale remains modest—24 communities across the country—its significance is far greater than it first appears. Windsong has shown that ordinary people can design and build their own homes, create a setting where people want to grow old, raise children, and simply live. Notably, three decades after this Denmark-inspired experiment began in Canada, another two dozen similar projects are already in the pipeline. Perhaps this is more than just a trend—maybe it’s a slow, but steady return to a time when home was not only a fortress, but also a shared backyard.
Canada’s “port” for independence: Carney pitches expansion of British Columbia’s harbours
A surprising but telling item has moved to the centre of Canada’s economic agenda. Former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor Mark Carney, known for his cautious approach to monetary policy, is now backing an initiative that, at first glance, sits in a completely different realm. The proposal is a major expansion of British Columbia’s port infrastructure. As reported by CTV News, Carney links this infrastructure project less to logistics than to Canada’s political and economic independence. His logic is straightforward: in an era of global instability and growing pressure from traditional partners, Canada needs to diversify its trade flows and strengthen its sovereignty. Expanding ports on the Pacific coast is meant to be a key element of that strategy, enabling the country to redirect its export streams away from the south and toward rapidly growing markets in the Asia-Pacific region.
At the heart of Carney’s proposal is the argument that Canada has relied too long on a single trading partner—the United States. Historically, more than 70% of Canadian exports go to the U.S., leaving the Canadian economy highly vulnerable to political shifts and protectionist measures. The Port of Vancouver, the largest in the country, already handles a significant portion of cargo, but its capacity is approaching its limits. Carney is not only calling for expanding existing terminals, but for creating new logistics corridors that would move Canadian resources—ranging from grain and lumber to energy products and critical minerals—more quickly and efficiently to Asian markets. This would not only reduce dependence on the southern neighbour, but also open new opportunities for economic growth, particularly for western provinces that have traditionally felt neglected by the federal centre.
What’s interesting is that Carney is presenting the project not purely as an economic exercise, but as a strategic one—woven into a broader national security framework. His rhetoric makes the connection explicit: trade is also part of sovereignty. By strengthening its export capacity, Canada gains more room for manoeuvre in political decision-making. In a context where Washington increasingly uses trade tariffs as a tool of pressure, Ottawa’s ability to rapidly reorient trade flows becomes less a question of competitiveness and more one of survival. Expanding ports is not just concrete and cranes—it’s a kind of “insurance policy” for the entire Canadian economy. Carney emphasises that ports are gateways to the future, and that if they are not expanded, the country risks being left behind in global trade, which is shifting ever more toward the Indo-Pacific region.
That said, it would be naïve to assume the plan will receive unanimous support. Environmental organisations are already expressing concern about increased shipping and the construction of new terminals that could harm fragile coastal ecosystems. Indigenous peoples in the region also have special rights to these lands and waters, and construction cannot proceed without their consent. Carney, as an experienced politician, likely understands these risks; however, he stresses that modern technologies make it possible to build “green” ports that minimise carbon footprints. In effect, he is trying to turn an environmental challenge into a competitive advantage: Canada could become a model for sustainable port infrastructure for the rest of the world. That’s very much in Carney’s style—during his tenure as governor of the Bank of England, he often argued that climate risks should be taken into account in financial policy.
The key question is how real this initiative is. The internal logic suggests that without private investment and provincial support from British Columbia’s government, the project would remain little more than a polished campaign slogan. Carney—who is now actively positioning himself as a potential leader of the Liberal Party—is using this topic to show he can think decades ahead and offer concrete solutions, not just criticise those in power today. His argument is persuasive: if Canada wants to maintain its sovereignty and standard of living in a world where economic blocs are being reshaped before our eyes, it must act now. And expanding ports is one of the most visible and measurable ways to demonstrate that the country is ready for these changes. Otherwise, Canada risks becoming a raw-material appendage of its southern neighbour—dependent on someone else’s will and someone else’s decisions.
“People in British Columbia have put too much into it”: union opposed to the sale of B.C. Place
A union representing workers at the B.C. Place stadium in Vancouver has issued a strong statement against the possible sale of the venue to private owners. BCGEU president Paul Finch said on Wednesday that the union does not support, in principle, the idea of privatising the facility because it is of enormous importance to both the employees and all residents of the province. He said people in British Columbia have already put too much into the stadium to now hand it over to private hands.
The concern was sparked by recent comments from provincial employment minister Ravi Kahlon, who suggested the government would consider a “significant offer” to buy the stadium—such as one from the Vancouver Whitecaps—if it came within the “right parameters.” Kahlon also clarified that this does not mean there would be guaranteed approval for any deal, and that the amount would have to be so large that, judging by his tone, it is unlikely anyone would come forward to make such an offer. Even that cautious opening, however, triggered a response: the Canadian soccer club British Columbia Lions has already sent an official expression of interest in buying the stadium. Kahlon confirmed this in an interview with CityNews on Tuesday, while also trying to downplay the likelihood of any deal.
Finch said he was surprised by the very framing of the question about whether the stadium could be sold, because the government’s position previously seemed unequivocal—that the asset would not be sold. He also questioned the wisdom of transferring the stadium to any single entity as sole owner, noting that neither the Whitecaps nor the Lions use the stadium intensively enough to justify majority ownership. The point highlights a key issue: B.C. Place serves as home to multiple teams and many events, and handing it to one of them would likely not align with the interests of other users and the public. In its coverage, The Province notes that even discussing a sale has already set a precedent, and the union now intends to push the government for clear guarantees that the stadium will remain in public ownership.
For readers unfamiliar with the context, it is worth explaining that B.C. Place is Vancouver’s largest indoor stadium, built for Expo 86 and renovated in 2011. It is home to the British Columbia Lions (Canadian football) and the Vancouver Whitecaps (MLS), and it also hosts concerts and major events. BCGEU, the British Columbia Government and General Employees’ Union, is one of the province’s largest unions, representing tens of thousands of workers, including those who help operate the stadium. An “expression of interest” is a preliminary, non-binding request to signal intent to participate in a transaction—one that, however, indicates to the seller how serious a potential buyer is.
The main takeaway from this story is that the provincial government appears to be trying to balance budget needs with public pressure. On the one hand, selling an asset like this could bring significant money into the public treasury; on the other, unions and fans see B.C. Place as a public asset that should not become someone’s private property. Notably, even after the minister’s comments about possibly considering offers, he himself stressed just how unlikely such a scenario is. That could mean the government is simply demonstrating openness to dialogue, but in reality has no intention of giving up the stadium. However, the union’s statement and the Lions’ activity show that any mention of a sale immediately sparks public backlash and counter-moves from interested groups—so the future of B.C. Place is likely to remain on the agenda for a long time to come.
