How Strata Rules Are Quietly Excluding Families Across BC

Strata living in British Columbia was supposed to be about community. Developers marketed towers and townhome complexes as miniature utopias: vibrant, diverse, multi-generational enclaves where people share space, share costs, and live harmoniously in carefully managed urban density. Families priced out of detached homes would supposedly find their place here. Condos were the future of the “missing middle,” the solution to sprawl, the affordable gateway to ownership.

The reality on the ground is much less idyllic. Behind the glossy renderings of happy children in courtyards and staged photos of toddlers on bikes is a world of fine print, rules, and bylaws designed not to welcome families but to politely, persistently push them out. Strata corporations across BC have become quasi-governments — part landlord, part legislature, part HOA police force — with powers that can shape who belongs and who doesn’t. And increasingly, families are discovering they don’t belong.

It doesn’t happen with big headlines or overt bans (though age-restricted “55+ only” complexes still exist, legally). It happens quietly, through parking rules, noise bylaws, occupancy caps, and pools of retirees who dominate AGMs and vote to enshrine lifestyles where children are treated like unwelcome guests. This quiet exclusion is one of the least discussed but most consequential forces reshaping housing in British Columbia.

The Illusion of Family-Friendly Density

Walk into a pre-sale centre in Surrey or Burnaby and you’ll be greeted by renderings of “family-friendly” density. A smiling couple walks a stroller through a rooftop garden. Kids kick soccer balls in what looks like a shared green space. Developers promise “multi-generational living” and “amenities for the whole family.”

But open the strata bylaw handbook, and the story changes quickly. That rooftop garden? Bylaws prohibit ball games. That courtyard? No bikes or scooters allowed. That shared lounge? No birthday parties without a $500 refundable deposit and a week’s notice.

The marketing material is a fantasy. Strata rules, written by owners with more time than tolerance, ensure that children are tolerated only so long as they are quiet, invisible, and unobtrusive. The result: condos that look family-friendly from the outside but feel hostile once you actually move in with kids.

How Rules Push Families Out

Stratas don’t write bylaws that say “no children.” That would be illegal under the BC Human Rights Code. Instead, they use lifestyle bylaws and occupancy restrictions that disproportionately affect families.

Occupancy caps are one of the most common tools. A “two-bedroom” unit may seem like a natural fit for a family of four, but if the strata sets a maximum of three occupants per unit, that family is barred. These limits are justified under the guise of “safety” or “fire code compliance,” but in practice, they’re often arbitrary numbers voted on at an AGM.

Noise bylaws are another weapon. Kids crying at night, toddlers running in hallways, teenagers playing music — all of it can generate fines and warning letters. Families learn quickly that their normal daily life is considered a violation.

Amenity restrictions take it further. Pools may be “for everyone,” but with rules like “children under 14 must be accompanied by an adult” and “no children in the gym,” families pay the same strata fees as everyone else while getting limited use of the amenities. A single retiree can use the rooftop hot tub every morning; a family of four may never get the chance.

Age Restrictions and the 55+ Loophole

Until recently, many BC stratas openly enforced age restrictions — 19+ or 55+ only. In 2022, the provincial government moved to eliminate most of these bylaws to open up housing stock. But they left one glaring exception: 55+ stratas are still legal.

That means entire buildings remain off-limits to families with children, by law. The justification is that seniors need protected housing — and that’s true. But the consequence is that a chunk of the condo market is permanently closed to anyone under 55. In a province already starved for family-sized housing, that’s a blow families can ill afford.

Families vs. Retirees

The deeper story here is generational. Many BC condo buildings are dominated by older owners who bought decades ago when prices were sane. For them, the condo isn’t just a home; it’s a retirement strategy, an investment, a financial asset to be protected at all costs. Their voting power at AGMs ensures that bylaws tilt toward quiet, controlled environments — environments that make life easier for them but harder for families.

It’s not that retirees consciously conspire against children. It’s that when questions come up at AGMs — whether to allow ball games, whether to set occupancy caps, whether to restrict amenity use — they vote for peace and quiet. Families, juggling work and kids, often don’t show up to vote at all. The result is rule by default: the people with time to attend meetings decide what life looks like for everyone else.

Case Studies

In the West End of Vancouver, a spacious 1970s mid-rise looked like a good fit for a family of four. But the strata had set occupancy at three per unit. The parents and two children were technically illegal residents. After a year of fines and constant conflict, they sold and left.

In a Surrey tower, a young family learned that their children couldn’t play in the courtyard because of a bylaw banning “recreational activity.” Even chalk drawings were treated as vandalism. The family stopped using the common spaces altogether, retreating into their unit.

In Burnaby, parents tried to book the amenity room for a child’s birthday party, only to be told they’d need a $500 refundable deposit, $200 cleaning fee, and insurance coverage in case of damage. The party moved to a community centre. A year later, the family moved to a townhouse.

These are not isolated anecdotes. They are representative of how strata rules subtly but powerfully shape the lived experience of families — and often push them out.

The Human Rights Gap

The BC Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on family status. In theory, stratas can’t pass rules that exclude children. In practice, enforcement is weak and slow. Families have to file formal complaints, wait months or years for hearings, and often move long before the process ends.

Tribunal cases exist, but they’re rare. Most families don’t have the time, money, or patience to fight. They simply leave and find housing elsewhere, which is exactly what exclusionary stratas count on.

The Economic Ripple Effect

Excluding families from condos has ripple effects across the entire housing market. Families who might have chosen to live in a two- or three-bedroom condo end up competing for townhouses or detached homes. That inflates demand for family-sized housing stock, which is already scarce.

The dream of “family-friendly density” collapses when stratas make life unlivable for children. Instead of condos absorbing demand, families are pushed back toward car-dependent suburbs, undermining every planning principle BC claims to stand for. It’s not just a cultural issue — it’s an economic distortion with real consequences for land values and affordability.

Global Parallels

This isn’t unique to BC. In Toronto, similar fights play out in condo towers dominated by investors and retirees, where family life is quietly constrained by bylaws. In Singapore, rules around “family eligibility” for public flats determine who gets access and who doesn’t, shaping demographics tower by tower. In Australia, condo boards have fought legal battles to restrict children from pools. The pattern is global: where collective governance exists, it often defaults to exclusion.

Why Governments Stay Quiet

The provincial government could strengthen protections. It could ban occupancy caps that exclude children, penalize stratas for discriminatory bylaws, or enforce family-friendly design standards. But intervening in strata governance is political dynamite. Hundreds of thousands of condo owners — many of them retirees who reliably vote — would revolt.

So governments settle for half-measures. They tweak age restrictions, they issue guidelines, they make sympathetic noises. But they leave the core problem untouched: stratas are mini-parliaments with enormous unchecked power, and they wield that power in ways that reshape demographics without ever calling it discrimination.

The Satirical Strata Handbook

If stratas were honest about their rules, the handbook would read like this:

• “Children are welcome, so long as they are neither seen nor heard.”

• “Recreational activity is prohibited in all recreational spaces.”

• “The pool is open to all residents aged 16+, except when closed for cleaning due to children using it.”

• “Occupancy limits ensure your unit is comfortable for investment purposes, not for families.”

• “Strata fees are equal for everyone, but amenities are equal only for the child-free.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so accurate.

Conclusion

BC’s housing debate often focuses on the big, visible forces: interest rates, foreign buyers, speculation, taxes, supply. But beneath those headlines, strata bylaws are quietly shaping who can actually live in the homes we build. And right now, those bylaws are pushing families out of condos, reinforcing generational divides, and undermining the promise of density.

Families in BC are already squeezed by prices. They’re now squeezed again by rules that tell them, implicitly if not explicitly, that their children don’t belong. Unless governments find the courage to intervene — or families flood AGMs and take back control of strata governance — the quiet exile will continue.

We will keep building towers. We will keep marketing them as family-friendly. And we will keep writing bylaws that ensure they are anything but.

Because in the strata world, community isn’t about inclusion. It’s about control. And families are learning, one bylaw at a time, that they are not the ones in control.