Curious framing to present social housing and market densification as relatively either/or choices. The solution in Vancouver is clearly of the both/and variety. https://twitter.com/josie_k_/status/1291080998990430209

It's possible and necessary to increase funding for social housing and design policy to address the needs of marginalized communities, while also expanding the supply of urban housing more broadly.

A useful exercise is to ask what the alternative would be for a given development. Is it more housing? Less? Would an alternative vision require more public support? Where would that support come from, if so?

If the alternative is less housing, or an unfunded project, then market housing is a net benefit over the other available options, assuming your goal is to reduce housing costs (or at least constrain their relentless increase).

But you don't have have to take my word for it. Here's a great thread on the subject of housing affordability in Vancouver from @Khelsilem. https://twitter.com/Khelsilem/status/1291458798985519104?s=19