Talk:Colleen Hardwick

Editorializing that I argue "without evidence"

The article currently states that I oppose increases in housing supply. This is false and consequently unsupported. It states I have argued "without evidence" that density exacerbates housing affordability. "Without evidence" is the editor and source writer’s personal opinion, not a neutral fact. My positions are heavily based on data, specifically the criticisms of upzoning inflating land values without the justifying data. I also made repeated requests and motions for data from the city to justify the land upzoning push.

In the news article cited, this statement precedes the Ponzi scheme quote and provides context: “In the process of encouraging more residential development to pay for growth, she believes the use of rezoning tools and density-catalyzing area plans by consecutive City Councils has greatly exacerbated Vancouver’s housing affordability crisis by pushing land values upwards.” That is what I believe and is a fair statement.

• Proposed fix: Please remove the false statement that I oppose increases in housing supply. Replace it with “Hardwick opposes upzoning which inflates land value.” Please remove the subjective phrase "without evidence" so the sentence is neutral. If anything, this quote fully reflected what I said: “In the process of encouraging more residential development to pay for growth, she believes the use of rezoning tools and density-catalyzing area plans by consecutive City Councils has greatly exacerbated Vancouver’s housing affordability crisis by pushing land values upwards.”
• Sources:
  • https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/colleen-hardwick-vancouver-housing-supply

Colleen Hardwick (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Already done Appears to have been done in June. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Selective quoting on the Kitsilano (2nd & Larch) project

A single quote of mine ("why are we promoting development to the detriment of our residents?") is taken entirely out of context to frame my vote against a 5-storey building as simply being "anti-rental." The rezoning meeting transcript (link) shows that I noted that the previous week had voted in favour of two similar proposals containing below-market housing. In reality, I opposed the Kitsilano project because it was a "bait and switch" for luxury rentals that ignored neighbourhood context. Two other councillors opposed the upzoning proposal, as the article mentioned.

Proposed fix: Please restore the missing context so my legislative record is not misrepresented. The complete statement was “Our job is to manage, not promote development. So why are we promoting development to the detriment of our residents?" To counter the anti-rental implication, note that my objections were to that specific site, not to building rentals.

Sources:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-kits-rezoning-apartment-decision-1.5400935

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/real-estate/vancouver-council-approves-controversial-kitsilano-five-storey-rental-project-3113351 Colleen Hardwick (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: It does not appear that you linked to a source that confirms any other votes or potential quotes. I have removed the quote and cited concerns from the neighbors (which is what the CBC article says). Packrat3860 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Source clarification: I have updated the request above to include the timestamped video of my closing comments at the December 18, 2019 public hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ybX9-iDV8&t=6989s

The City of Vancouver's official minutes also record the final vote on 1805 Larch Street, with Councillors Carr, Hardwick and Swanson opposed:

https://council.vancouver.ca/20191212/documents/phea20191212min.pdf

I am providing the video for the context of what I said and the official minutes for the voting record. I hope this makes the basis of the request easier for an uninvolved editor to assess. Thank you.

Colleen Hardwick (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

These are both very "raw" primary sources. Analyzing these for relevant direct quotes seems too close to WP:OR for my liking. Unless there is a secondary source reporting some other quote I prefer to leave the paragraph on Kitsilano in its current form. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Film and technology career details

The article currently discusses my work with MovieSet and PlaceSpeak, but it omits an earlier and substantial part of my pre-political career in the film and television industry.

Before entering the technology sector, I worked as a location manager and production manager and later founded New City Productions. Vancouver Magazine's 2021 profile describes New City Productions as both a production-services company and its own production house, and discusses its work producing Canadian film and television projects.

Proposed addition: Please consider adding a brief description of this earlier career to the "Early career" section, before the existing discussion of MovieSet. For example:

"Before entering the technology sector, Hardwick worked as a location manager and production manager and founded New City Productions, which operated as both a production-services company and a film and television production house."

I am comfortable with editors choosing different wording if another formulation better reflects the sources and fits the article.

Sources:

• Nathan Caddell, "Inside Colleen Hardwick's Polarizing Path Through Vancouver City Hall," Vancouver Magazine, September 27, 2021:

https://www.vanmag.com/city/politics/colleen-hardwick/

• Fasken, "MovieSet raises US$3.5 million financing," July 2008:

https://www.fasken.com/en/solution/clientwork/2008/07/movieset-raises-us$3,-d-,5-million-financing

• VentureBeat, "Movie Set Inc. piles on $1.5 million more for total $5 million in Series A funding," July 24, 2008:

https://venturebeat.com/entrepreneur/movie-set-inc-piles-15-million-more-for-total-5-million-in-series-a-funding/

The Vancouver Magazine source supports the requested addition concerning my earlier film and television career and New City Productions. The Fasken and VentureBeat sources provide independent contemporary sourcing for the subsequent MovieSet portion of my pre-political career.

I am not presently asking editors to add specific operating dates for New City Productions or details of its sale to Sextant Entertainment Group, as I would prefer to provide an independent published source for those details first.

Response: 2026-09-18

Done Added a paragraph about it.

Also as a note, removing someone else's talk page comment is generally considered poor form. If you want to resubmit you can change the {{edit COI}} template above to read <code>{{edit COI|answered=no|}}</code>.

Packrat3860 (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies as I didn't know correcting the original request that way would've overwritten everything, including your comment. Thank you very much for the edit.

I wanted to add my own imdb profile link, but I'm also struggling to figure out how to do this properly. Can you help me include this as a source? My last name on the link is my prior married surname. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0638867/ ~2026-51376-45 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Understood, no harm done. I can add the IMDB link as an external link but per WP:IMDB please note that it is not generally considered a reliable source.

Also I'm assuming this is Colleen Hardwick. You don't necessarily have to log in, but it does help to keep track of the conversation. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Yes, it was me, Colleen Hardwick. Didn't log in properly when I sent the last comment. Colleen Hardwick (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Added COI Tag

User:Kerrisdalian you have a declared conflict of interest on your userpage with Colleen Hardwick. Please do not edit this article directly, as per WP:COI it is strongly discouraged. You can make requests using the {{edit COI}} template instead. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding the 50 Neighbourhoods Project

Hello everyone. I am Colleen Hardwick, the subject of this article. I want to respect Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest, so I am not editing the article myself. I have put together missing details and factual corrections that I am hoping volunteer editors would be willing to review and add to the page for me.

The article does not currently mention the 50 Neighbourhoods Project, a public consultation initiative I launched while serving on Vancouver City Council. Contemporary reporting described the project as a year-long effort to visit Vancouver neighbourhoods and gather residents' views about growth, planning, housing, and density.

Because this initiative received independent news coverage and relates directly to my work on planning issues while in office, I would appreciate editors considering whether a brief mention is appropriate.

• Proposed addition: "In 2020, Hardwick launched the 50 Neighbourhoods Project, a year-long initiative to visit 50 Vancouver neighbourhoods and gather residents' views on growth, planning, housing and density."
• Sources:
  • https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/real-estate/why-is-this-city-councillor-visiting-every-vancouver-neighbourhood-this-year-3114726
  • https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-plan-vancouver-nov-2019-1.5359969

Colleen Hardwick (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Response: 2026-09-18

Not done: I can't find any independent reporting calling it the "50 Neighbourhoods Project". The CBC article seems to support adding a segment on your opposition to the city plan, but it doesn't talk very much about yours except that you object to the "official" process. The Vancouver Is Awesome article is an interview with you, which isn't really an independent source. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for reviewing the request. I would like to clarify the sourcing, because I think there is more independent and contemporaneous documentation of the initiative than my original request made clear.

:First, the Vancouver Is Awesome / Vancouver Courier article is not simply about my opposition to the Vancouver Plan. It directly reports the launch of the initiative, describing it as a "50-neighbourhood, year-long tour of the city" beginning in Marpole, intended to collect residents' feedback about where density should be located. It also explains that the boundaries of the 50 neighbourhoods came from earlier work with UBC geography students.

:https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/real-estate/why-is-this-city-councillor-visiting-every-vancouver-neighbourhood-this-year-3114726

:There is also later independent reporting that addresses the naming issue directly. Daily Hive reported in October 2022 that earlier in my council term I had "launched a '50 Neighbourhoods' project of public consultation" by touring neighbourhoods to discuss how residents wanted to accommodate growth, and noted that the pandemic disrupted the effort:

:https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/colleen-hardwick-team-broadway-plan-vancouver-plan-repeal/

:There is additional contemporaneous documentation showing that the initiative was actually carried out. Architect and urban-planning writer Brian Palmquist published a June 2021 halfway report describing the neighbourhood meetings, stating that 26 of the 50 neighbourhoods had been heard from at that point and explaining how the meetings were conducted:

:https://brianpalmquist.substack.com/p/vancouvers-50-neighbourhoods-142

:I recognize that Palmquist participated in some of the meetings, so I am not suggesting that his article should carry the same weight as the independent Vancouver Courier or Daily Hive reporting. I am offering it as supplementary documentation of the initiative's implementation and progress.

:There was also a contemporaneous video explaining the initiative:

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdo3uj-NZmc

:The Grandview Woodland Area Council independently linked to that video when announcing my February 2020 neighbourhood meeting and stated that I was visiting Vancouver neighbourhoods as part of the initiative:

:https://grandviewwoodlandareacouncil.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/councillor-hardwick-guest-at-monday-february-3rd-gwac-meeting/

:Given these sources, I think a short mention of the initiative is supportable even if "50 Neighbourhoods Project" is not treated as a formal proper name. I would be comfortable with wording that follows the sources more closely, for example:

::"In 2020, Hardwick launched a '50 Neighbourhoods' public-consultation initiative, a planned year-long tour of Vancouver neighbourhoods to gather residents' views on growth and density."

:The Vancouver Courier and Daily Hive sources would be the principal sources for that sentence; the Palmquist article, neighbourhood-council notice and video are additional documentation rather than the basis for establishing independent coverage.

:I hope this additional sourcing addresses the concern, and I am happy for an uninvolved editor to use different wording if it better reflects the sources. Thank you. Colleen Hardwick (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Response: 2026-09-23

Not done: The Vancouver is Awesome article linked here is an interview with you. Brian Palmquist's blog is not a reliable source, and neither is a youtube video filmed by you on your youtube channel. The CBC article mentions on sentence about it (aside from a direct quote from you):

Hardwick has created her own custom map with 50 neighbourhoods and hopes to hold meetings in each of them over the next year.

The Daily Hive article also mentions your project briefly:

Earlier in her term as a city councillor, Hardwick launched a “50 Neighbourhoods” project of public consultation by touring 50 neighbourhoods to discuss how local residents desire to accommodate growth in their area, but the onset of the pandemic put a wrench in her approach.

Both of them discuss in detail the majority plan and your opposition to it. Including this seems like a lot of weight to give to an event that our available independent sources don't focus on. If another independent editor wants to give a second opinion I'll listen, but as it stands I'm inclined to say that including this would hurt the balance of the article. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you. I understand the distinction you are making, and I want to address the source and weight points separately.

:On the sources, I understand why you would not treat my own YouTube video as an independent source. I included it only as contemporaneous documentation showing how the initiative was publicly described at the time, not as evidence that Wikipedia should give the initiative weight. I am happy to leave the video out of the sourcing used for the proposed article sentence.

:I also understand your concern about Brian Palmquist's article. For context, I did not know Mr. Palmquist when I originally put together and began the 50-neighbourhood tour. He became involved later in the process. I recognize, however, that his later participation can affect how Wikipedia assesses the independence of his subsequent article. I am therefore not asking that his article be used to establish due weight. I mentioned it because it documents that the initiative was actually carried out, including the meetings that had taken place by the time he wrote his halfway report.

:Where I respectfully disagree is on whether the remaining independent coverage makes a single sentence undue.

:The CBC article independently reports that I had created a 50-neighbourhood map and intended to hold meetings in each neighbourhood over the following year. The Daily Hive article later independently reports that I had "launched a '50 Neighbourhoods' project of public consultation" and describes its purpose as discussing how neighbourhood residents wanted to accommodate growth.

:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-plan-vancouver-nov-2019-1.5359969

:https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/colleen-hardwick-team-broadway-plan-vancouver-plan-repeal/

:I also understand your point that the Vancouver Is Awesome / Vancouver Courier article is structured around an interview with me. My reason for citing it was not my own quoted statements in the interview, but the reporter's factual description of the initiative in the article itself. The article reports that I was launching a 50-neighbourhood, year-long tour beginning in Marpole to collect feedback about where residents thought density should be located.

:https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/real-estate/why-is-this-city-councillor-visiting-every-vancouver-neighbourhood-this-year-3114726

:I agree that none of these sources devotes an entire article exclusively to the initiative. But I am also not requesting a separate section or extensive treatment of it. I am asking for one brief sentence. My understanding of due weight is that the amount of coverage in the Wikipedia article should be proportionate to the amount and significance of the reliable-source coverage. Brief coverage in multiple independent publications would seem to support brief treatment here rather than no treatment at all.

:I think the context within the existing article is also relevant. The article already devotes a substantial subsection to my positions and actions concerning housing, density, rezoning and city planning. This initiative was an actual council-term activity in that same area: a planned neighbourhood consultation about growth and density. My reason for requesting its inclusion is not to counterbalance criticism or portray my record more favourably, but to give readers a somewhat more complete account of what I actually did on the planning issues the article already discusses.

:To keep the weight modest, I would be comfortable with a very short formulation such as:

::"In 2020, Hardwick launched a 50-neighbourhood public-consultation initiative to gather residents' views on neighbourhood growth and density."

:I am also happy for an uninvolved editor to shorten or reword that further.

:If you still consider even a single sentence to be undue, I would welcome the second opinion you suggested. Thank you for considering the additional context. Colleen Hardwick (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your position and I can understand why it's important, but I am not really convinced here. I have filed a request for a "Third Opinion" (there's your opinion, there's my opinion, and we're going to add one more) at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. This request is technically nonbinding (which is to say that Wikipedia policy does not require that either of us defer to the third opinion if one is offered) but I'm happy enough to let them be the final word on this. If they think this should be included I'll include it and if they think it doesn't warrant inclusion with the current sources I'll leave it out. Hopefully a fresh set of eyes can get us to a satisfactory consensus. ^-^ Packrat3860 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello, I'm going to attempt to give a third opinion. I am not familiar with the local politics, so I will focus primarily on the sources presented above. As I understand it, the summary is that the CBC independently reported that Hardwick had created a 50-neighbourhood map and intended to hold meetings in each neighbourhood, and the Daily Hive reports that she had launched a "50 Neighbourhoods" public consultation project and described its purpose; however, neither gives the initiative extensive coverage. This is a due weight question. I do not believe that the limited amount of coverage necessarily means that any mention would be undue. The Wikipedia due weight policy requires treatment in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. In this case, the limited coverage seems to support a brief mention to me, but not a subsection or any extensive discussion. Further, whether a brief mention is appropriate should be considered in the context of the article as a whole, because the article already gives a lot of coverage to Hardwick's activities concerning housing/city planning/density. With this in mind, I think a brief mention is appropriate. An omission would not be wrong either; we don't need to have this. But the sources do support mentioning it. If included, I would support having a diminished version, such as In 2020, Hardwick launched a public consultation initiative involving meetings in Vancouver neighbourhoods about accommodating growth and omit the potentially promotional/project branding aspect of "50 Neighbourhoods". Especially because this is a current political candidate's BLP, I think it's important to be careful about this. Also, to Hardwick, thank you for correctly using an edit request rather than adding it directly. I'd like to note that the policies on neutral points of view, biographies of living people, and conflict of interest indicate that beyond the proposed edit, the question of whether or not this should be included should be decided by exclusively uninvolved editors. Hijiri Suzuki (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Beyond the 3O, I'd like to give a general opinion that this article does already give substantial weight to Hardwick's work on housing and city planning. Rather than focusing on this specific sentence, if we are worried about undue weight broadly it may be worth looking at the concentration of information those subjects in the article as a whole.

Please reply to the 3O message about the 3O opinion, and consider opening another talk section regarding this comment if further discussion is necessary, by the way; I am leaving this reply separately intentionally Hijiri Suzuki (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

>I am not familiar with the local politics

The 2026 Vancouver municipal election is happening in a couple of weeks, maybe you knew this already but mentioning just in case. Theevu (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep; before making the 3O I checked and I acknowledge that this is an active candidate's BLP. I'd be happy to consider other opinions as well. Hijiri Suzuki (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely the focus of the article in its current form. I think in fairness it is the focus of most of the sources that I read through (although I also am not any sort of expert in Vancouver politics). Packrat3860 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree with your assessment and I appreciate you taking the time. I have added this to the article:

In 2020, Hardwick launched a public consultation initiative involving meetings in Vancouver neighbourhoods about accommodating growth. The project could not be completed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I added the segment on COVID-19 interrupting the project as it is supported by the source and explains what happened with the project (which is otherwise left open ended). I have cited The Daily Hive for this paragraph.

User:Colleen Hardwick: Thank you for your patience. Is this a satisfactory resolution to you? Packrat3860 (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you to Hijiri Suzuki for taking the time to provide a third opinion. I appreciate the independent review.

I am satisfied with the inclusion of a brief mention and agree that it does not need a separate subsection or the "50 Neighbourhoods" branding.

I have just one small wording question. The Daily Hive source says that the onset of the pandemic "put a wrench in" the initiative, whereas the article now says that it "could not be completed due to the COVID-19 pandemic." Would it be more precise to say something like:

"The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the initiative."

That seems a little closer to what the cited source actually establishes.

Also, I would appreciate if you can include the name of the initiative in this sentence as follows given that was the whole point: "In 2020, Hardwick launched a public consultation initiative, named The 50 Neighbourhoods Project, involving meetings in Vancouver neighbourhoods about accommodating growth".

Otherwise, I consider the request satisfactorily resolved.

Thank you again.

Colleen Hardwick (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding 2005 election result to Electoral record

Hello. I am Colleen Hardwick, the subject of this article, so I have a conflict of interest and am requesting that uninvolved editors review this proposed addition.

The article already discusses my 2005 candidacy for Vancouver City Council and states that I placed thirteenth. However, the "Electoral record" section currently contains election-result tables for my later campaigns while omitting the 2005 election.

In the 2005 election I appeared on the ballot under my then-married name, "Colleen Hardwick Nystedt." The 2005 Vancouver municipal election results list me as an NPA candidate with 46,737 votes, placing 13th when ten councillors were elected.

Would editors consider adding the 2005 council results to the Electoral record section, using the name under which I appeared on the ballot? This would make the electoral record consistent with the political-career text and with the later election tables already included in the article.

'''Sources:'''

* 2005 Vancouver municipal election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Vancouver_municipal_election

* City of Vancouver, Chief Election Officer, "Results of the November 19, 2005 General Local Election":

https://council.vancouver.ca/20051213/documents/a7.pdf

I am happy for editors to use whatever table format is consistent with the existing Electoral record section.

Thank you. ~~~~ Colleen Hardwick (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)