For almost as long as I’ve covered the urban-issues beat in Vancouver, people have talked about how great it would be if we had fee-simple townhouses — that is, townhouses where the owners don’t have to belong to a strata. They just own their particular row/townhouse individually, with some agreement about how to handle common walls — just as many Ontario and Quebec owners do.
The concept represents a middle ground between the complexity of strata ownership and the simplicity of detached home ownership. In traditional strata developments, owners must navigate monthly strata fees, special assessments, annual general meetings, and collective decision-making about everything from roof repairs to landscaping choices. For many potential buyers, particularly those accustomed to the autonomy of single-family home ownership, this shared governance model feels restrictive and bureaucratic.
Fee-simple townhouses eliminate most of these complications. Each owner holds individual title to their unit and the land underneath it, much like owning a detached house. The only shared responsibility involves maintaining the common walls between units, which is typically handled through simple legal agreements rather than complex strata bylaws. This arrangement gives owners much more control over their property decisions while still providing the density and affordability benefits of attached housing.
I thought the dream was still unrealized when Michael Geller tweeted out a picture of some fee-simple townhouses in Coquitlam. There was an ensuing Twitter discussion, with me expressing surprise. Then Surrey’s city manager, Jean Lamontagne, contacted me by email to tell me that such rare things were starting to appear in Surrey.
The emergence of these developments reflects growing recognition among municipal planners and developers that traditional strata ownership creates barriers for certain demographics. Older buyers, in particular, often express reluctance to enter strata arrangements after decades of independent homeownership. Similarly, investors sometimes prefer the clarity and control that comes with fee-simple ownership, where they’re not subject to rental restrictions or other limitations that strata councils might impose.
The legal and planning frameworks that enable fee-simple townhouses require careful coordination between developers, municipalities, and legal professionals. Unlike strata developments, which follow well-established patterns, fee-simple townhouses must navigate more complex subdivision and title processes. Each unit requires individual legal descriptions, separate utility connections, and clear agreements about shared infrastructure like driveways or party walls.
Hence, my story in the Globe, which took a look at the little shoots of experimentation happening in various places, including Nanaimo, on this issue. (Thanks to whomever tweeted about Nanaimo, which also prompted me to call there.)
The geographic spread of these early projects suggests that fee-simple townhouses aren’t just a response to Vancouver’s specific housing challenges, but reflect broader shifts in housing preferences across British Columbia. Nanaimo’s involvement is particularly interesting because it demonstrates that the concept has appeal beyond Metro Vancouver’s hypercompetitive housing market. In smaller markets, where strata fees might represent a higher percentage of total housing costs, the fee-simple model could offer significant economic advantages.
The technical challenges of implementing fee-simple townhouses help explain why they remain relatively rare. Traditional strata developments benefit from economies of scale in everything from insurance to maintenance contracts. Fee-simple developments must find alternative approaches to shared services like snow removal, landscaping, or exterior maintenance. Some developments handle this through homeowners’ associations with limited powers, while others rely on individual contracts with service providers.
So why care about this form of housing? As more than one person has told me over the years, a lot of older couples don’t want to move to condos because they don’t want to have to have their lives governed by a committee. As a result, they stay parked in their four-bedroom homes all over the city, which is an inefficient use of housing. If this could catch on, it might encourage more of those people to pass on their homes to people who actually need four bedrooms.
This housing choice paralysis has significant implications for Vancouver’s housing ecosystem. When empty-nesters remain in large family homes, it constrains supply for growing families who need the space while preventing those older residents from accessing more appropriate housing. The result is a misallocation of housing resources that contributes to both affordability pressures and inefficient use of existing stock.
Fee-simple townhouses could help address this mismatch by providing downsizing options that don’t require buyers to sacrifice autonomy or take on the complications of strata ownership. For many older homeowners, the prospect of monthly strata meetings, special assessments, and collective decision-making represents a significant quality-of-life concern that outweighs the financial benefits of downsizing.
The broader housing policy implications are equally important. If fee-simple townhouses prove popular and economically viable, they could become a valuable tool for creating gentle density without the governance complexities that sometimes make strata living unappealing. This could be particularly valuable in neighbourhoods where residents are open to modest density increases but concerned about the impacts of large-scale condo or apartment developments.
