15-27 W Hastings rezoning application
The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from DD (Downtown) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 40-storey mixed-use rental building and includes:
- 441 market rental units;
- 108 below-market rental units operated by a non-profit operator;
- Commercial space on the ground floor;
- A floor space ratio (FSR) of 22.28; and
- A building height of 117 m (384 ft.).
The Samuel Tower is located in the Victory Square sub area of the Downtown Eastside Plan(External link). The proposal requests consideration of height in excess of the existing policy. The Victory Square sub-area allows a maximum height of 32 m (105 ft.).
This application is being processed and reviewed concurrently with the application to rezone 8-36 W Cordova St.
Application drawings and statistics are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.
The previous 2023 rezoning application has been withdrawn, and replaced by this application.
The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from DD (Downtown) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 40-storey mixed-use rental building and includes:
- 441 market rental units;
- 108 below-market rental units operated by a non-profit operator;
- Commercial space on the ground floor;
- A floor space ratio (FSR) of 22.28; and
- A building height of 117 m (384 ft.).
The Samuel Tower is located in the Victory Square sub area of the Downtown Eastside Plan(External link). The proposal requests consideration of height in excess of the existing policy. The Victory Square sub-area allows a maximum height of 32 m (105 ft.).
This application is being processed and reviewed concurrently with the application to rezone 8-36 W Cordova St.
Application drawings and statistics are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.
The previous 2023 rezoning application has been withdrawn, and replaced by this application.
The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from April 2-15, 2025.
We post all questions as-is and aim to respond within two business days. Some questions may require coordination with internal departments and additional time may be needed to post a response.
Please note that the comment form will remain open after the Q&A period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.
-
Share The Downtown Eastside Plan clearly identified the urgent need for self-contained social housing at deeply affordable rents. It explicitly supported increased density and building height—but only in the context of projects delivering 100% social housing. The intention was to enable this through both modifications to existing zoning and through a more flexible rezoning process. The current proposal appears to deviate significantly from these priorities. It seeks a dramatic increase in building height—up to 40 storeys—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. How does this align with the priorities outlined by community? What measures are being proposed to address noise, air pollution, and dust over the years of expected construction? What steps is the City taking to ensure these developments will not accelerate gentrification or loss of affordable housing nearby? The scale and massing of a 20-storey tower in Gastown and a 40-storey building in Victory Square are entirely incompatible with the historic character, established streetscapes, and human-scale design of these unique and culturally significant neighbourhoods. Approving developments of this magnitude would set a troubling precedent for wide spread gentrification that does not centre the needs of the average community member on Facebook Share The Downtown Eastside Plan clearly identified the urgent need for self-contained social housing at deeply affordable rents. It explicitly supported increased density and building height—but only in the context of projects delivering 100% social housing. The intention was to enable this through both modifications to existing zoning and through a more flexible rezoning process. The current proposal appears to deviate significantly from these priorities. It seeks a dramatic increase in building height—up to 40 storeys—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. How does this align with the priorities outlined by community? What measures are being proposed to address noise, air pollution, and dust over the years of expected construction? What steps is the City taking to ensure these developments will not accelerate gentrification or loss of affordable housing nearby? The scale and massing of a 20-storey tower in Gastown and a 40-storey building in Victory Square are entirely incompatible with the historic character, established streetscapes, and human-scale design of these unique and culturally significant neighbourhoods. Approving developments of this magnitude would set a troubling precedent for wide spread gentrification that does not centre the needs of the average community member on Twitter Share The Downtown Eastside Plan clearly identified the urgent need for self-contained social housing at deeply affordable rents. It explicitly supported increased density and building height—but only in the context of projects delivering 100% social housing. The intention was to enable this through both modifications to existing zoning and through a more flexible rezoning process. The current proposal appears to deviate significantly from these priorities. It seeks a dramatic increase in building height—up to 40 storeys—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. How does this align with the priorities outlined by community? What measures are being proposed to address noise, air pollution, and dust over the years of expected construction? What steps is the City taking to ensure these developments will not accelerate gentrification or loss of affordable housing nearby? The scale and massing of a 20-storey tower in Gastown and a 40-storey building in Victory Square are entirely incompatible with the historic character, established streetscapes, and human-scale design of these unique and culturally significant neighbourhoods. Approving developments of this magnitude would set a troubling precedent for wide spread gentrification that does not centre the needs of the average community member on Linkedin Email The Downtown Eastside Plan clearly identified the urgent need for self-contained social housing at deeply affordable rents. It explicitly supported increased density and building height—but only in the context of projects delivering 100% social housing. The intention was to enable this through both modifications to existing zoning and through a more flexible rezoning process. The current proposal appears to deviate significantly from these priorities. It seeks a dramatic increase in building height—up to 40 storeys—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. How does this align with the priorities outlined by community? What measures are being proposed to address noise, air pollution, and dust over the years of expected construction? What steps is the City taking to ensure these developments will not accelerate gentrification or loss of affordable housing nearby? The scale and massing of a 20-storey tower in Gastown and a 40-storey building in Victory Square are entirely incompatible with the historic character, established streetscapes, and human-scale design of these unique and culturally significant neighbourhoods. Approving developments of this magnitude would set a troubling precedent for wide spread gentrification that does not centre the needs of the average community member link
The Downtown Eastside Plan clearly identified the urgent need for self-contained social housing at deeply affordable rents. It explicitly supported increased density and building height—but only in the context of projects delivering 100% social housing. The intention was to enable this through both modifications to existing zoning and through a more flexible rezoning process. The current proposal appears to deviate significantly from these priorities. It seeks a dramatic increase in building height—up to 40 storeys—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. How does this align with the priorities outlined by community? What measures are being proposed to address noise, air pollution, and dust over the years of expected construction? What steps is the City taking to ensure these developments will not accelerate gentrification or loss of affordable housing nearby? The scale and massing of a 20-storey tower in Gastown and a 40-storey building in Victory Square are entirely incompatible with the historic character, established streetscapes, and human-scale design of these unique and culturally significant neighbourhoods. Approving developments of this magnitude would set a troubling precedent for wide spread gentrification that does not centre the needs of the average community member
S.O.K asked about 2 months agoUnder Section 7.1 Victory Square sub-area of the Downtown Eastside Plan, additional density through rezoning may be considered for a secured market rental housing building. This proposal proposes 100% of the residential floor area as secured rental housing, with 411 market rental units and 108 below-market rental units. The proposal requests height in excess of the Victory Square sub-area policies of the Downtown Eastside Plan.
On construction impacts, the applicant will comply with all municipal bylaws including the City’s Noise Control By-law.
- Construction on private property must be carried out between 7:30 am and 8 pm on any weekday that is not a holiday, and between 10am to 8pm on any Saturday that is not a holiday. Construction is not permitted on Sundays.
- The City’s Noise Control By-law limits construction-related noise for private development to these same times.
- There are some circumstances where a variance to construction times may be permitted. This usually occurs when major construction activities are taking place (crane installs, large deliveries) and extra time is needed for equipment setup/takedown and safety precautions to be implemented. These allowances are typically accepted on weekends to reduce impacts to the community by enabling the work to be condensed to a day or two as opposed to multiple days mid week to reduce impacts to the community.
The applicant proposes to implement dust control measures specifically for demolition and excavation (water spray and soil cover as required). According to the applicant, air pollution will be mitigated by having a no-idle zone for deliveries.
-
Share 1. Why does this proposal only offer 20% below-market rental housing, when the Downtown Eastside Plan calls for at least 60% social housing in new developments in this area? 2. What measures are in place to prioritize tenancy for existing DTES residents, especially Indigenous people, elders, and those currently living in SROs? 3. Is BC Indigenous Housing Society acting as a true partner or just an operator? Was this project co-created with them? 4. How does building a 39-storey tower in a heritage district align with the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines and the Downtown Eastside Plan? 5. Why does this proposal breach protected view cones (Queen Elizabeth Park 3.2.3 and Creekside Park J1)? What public benefit justifies this trade-off? Was an alternative massing design considered that respected the view cones and heritage scale? 6. How will this development avoid setting a precedent for more height violations in protected heritage and low-income neighbourhoods? 7. How are you ensuring that this development doesn’t accelerate displacement or gentrification in the DTES? 8. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are being offered? Will these directly support existing DTES residents through housing, health, or cultural services? on Facebook Share 1. Why does this proposal only offer 20% below-market rental housing, when the Downtown Eastside Plan calls for at least 60% social housing in new developments in this area? 2. What measures are in place to prioritize tenancy for existing DTES residents, especially Indigenous people, elders, and those currently living in SROs? 3. Is BC Indigenous Housing Society acting as a true partner or just an operator? Was this project co-created with them? 4. How does building a 39-storey tower in a heritage district align with the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines and the Downtown Eastside Plan? 5. Why does this proposal breach protected view cones (Queen Elizabeth Park 3.2.3 and Creekside Park J1)? What public benefit justifies this trade-off? Was an alternative massing design considered that respected the view cones and heritage scale? 6. How will this development avoid setting a precedent for more height violations in protected heritage and low-income neighbourhoods? 7. How are you ensuring that this development doesn’t accelerate displacement or gentrification in the DTES? 8. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are being offered? Will these directly support existing DTES residents through housing, health, or cultural services? on Twitter Share 1. Why does this proposal only offer 20% below-market rental housing, when the Downtown Eastside Plan calls for at least 60% social housing in new developments in this area? 2. What measures are in place to prioritize tenancy for existing DTES residents, especially Indigenous people, elders, and those currently living in SROs? 3. Is BC Indigenous Housing Society acting as a true partner or just an operator? Was this project co-created with them? 4. How does building a 39-storey tower in a heritage district align with the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines and the Downtown Eastside Plan? 5. Why does this proposal breach protected view cones (Queen Elizabeth Park 3.2.3 and Creekside Park J1)? What public benefit justifies this trade-off? Was an alternative massing design considered that respected the view cones and heritage scale? 6. How will this development avoid setting a precedent for more height violations in protected heritage and low-income neighbourhoods? 7. How are you ensuring that this development doesn’t accelerate displacement or gentrification in the DTES? 8. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are being offered? Will these directly support existing DTES residents through housing, health, or cultural services? on Linkedin Email 1. Why does this proposal only offer 20% below-market rental housing, when the Downtown Eastside Plan calls for at least 60% social housing in new developments in this area? 2. What measures are in place to prioritize tenancy for existing DTES residents, especially Indigenous people, elders, and those currently living in SROs? 3. Is BC Indigenous Housing Society acting as a true partner or just an operator? Was this project co-created with them? 4. How does building a 39-storey tower in a heritage district align with the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines and the Downtown Eastside Plan? 5. Why does this proposal breach protected view cones (Queen Elizabeth Park 3.2.3 and Creekside Park J1)? What public benefit justifies this trade-off? Was an alternative massing design considered that respected the view cones and heritage scale? 6. How will this development avoid setting a precedent for more height violations in protected heritage and low-income neighbourhoods? 7. How are you ensuring that this development doesn’t accelerate displacement or gentrification in the DTES? 8. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are being offered? Will these directly support existing DTES residents through housing, health, or cultural services? link
1. Why does this proposal only offer 20% below-market rental housing, when the Downtown Eastside Plan calls for at least 60% social housing in new developments in this area? 2. What measures are in place to prioritize tenancy for existing DTES residents, especially Indigenous people, elders, and those currently living in SROs? 3. Is BC Indigenous Housing Society acting as a true partner or just an operator? Was this project co-created with them? 4. How does building a 39-storey tower in a heritage district align with the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines and the Downtown Eastside Plan? 5. Why does this proposal breach protected view cones (Queen Elizabeth Park 3.2.3 and Creekside Park J1)? What public benefit justifies this trade-off? Was an alternative massing design considered that respected the view cones and heritage scale? 6. How will this development avoid setting a precedent for more height violations in protected heritage and low-income neighbourhoods? 7. How are you ensuring that this development doesn’t accelerate displacement or gentrification in the DTES? 8. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are being offered? Will these directly support existing DTES residents through housing, health, or cultural services?
Logan M. asked about 2 months agoUnder Section 7.1 Victory Square sub-area of the Downtown Eastside Plan, additional density through rezoning may be considered for a secured market rental housing building. This proposal proposes 100% of the residential floor area as secured rental housing, with 20% of that area offered at below-market rental rates. The proposal requests height in excess of the Victory Square sub-area policies of the Downtown Eastside Plan. Note that the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines do not apply to this site at 15-27 W Hastings, as it lies in Victory Square sub-area, not Gastown.
The project’s encroachment into the (External link)(External link)Public Views(External link)(External link)(External link) from Queen Elizabeth Park 3.2.3 and Creekside Park J1 is under review. Any public benefits or CACs coming from this project are currently under review.
BC Indigenous Housing Society (BCIHS), the proposed operator of the below-market housing units, has provided the following response:
“BCIHS has been actively involved in this project from its inception and is more than just an operator, we are a true partner in shaping the vision, design, and approach, with a strong emphasis on cultural safety and Indigenous perspectives.
Our organization exists to serve Indigenous peoples, and [BCIHS] prioritizes Indigenous tenants at all our sites. While we do not offer preferential treatment within specific Indigenous groups, we ensure fair, transparent, and culturally informed tenancy processes. Our tenant selection involves a robust screening process that includes an application, references, and a focus on housing stability, community connection, and support needs.
[BCIHS] understand the importance of housing for current Downtown Eastside (DTES) residents, especially for Indigenous Elders and those living in SROs, and our goal is to help create opportunities for those who need them most. Final details regarding unit types (subsidized, rent geared to income, or lower end of market) will depend on BC Housing’s funding decisions, which are still to come.
[BCIHS is] committed to building housing that reflects the needs of the community and honours the healing journey of Indigenous peoples.”
-
Share The following questions, as well the justification for asking these as part of this rezoning application, were also submitted as part my comments to the city. While the questions might not seem to be completely relevant to the rezoning application, they do help inform an understanding of what could be achieved as a condition of the rezoning application in order for the applicant to align their envisioned development with City policies regarding this property. The historic buildings comprising the subject property of this rezoning application includes the 1909-built Buscombe Block (19-27 West Hastings) and the 1913-built Rex Theatre (13-17 West Hastings). - Have any heritage assessment and/or evaluation of either of the two impacted historic buildings been undertaken by the applicant and/or City’s Heritage Planners with Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability? If not, why? And if so, what were the outcomes and recommendations of these assessments? - Will City Staff have the applicant explain and justify to them how is the demolition of century-old masonry/concrete structures, eliminating their decades of embodied carbon and depositing of their building material in the landfill, sustainable? (refer to “embracing sustainable best practices” in their rezoning rationale booklet). - Has there been any studies completed by the applicant to determine the feasibility of the façade retention of the Buscombe Block? - Has there been any investigation by the applicant to determine the extent of surviving historic exterior architectural features of the Rex Theatre? on Facebook Share The following questions, as well the justification for asking these as part of this rezoning application, were also submitted as part my comments to the city. While the questions might not seem to be completely relevant to the rezoning application, they do help inform an understanding of what could be achieved as a condition of the rezoning application in order for the applicant to align their envisioned development with City policies regarding this property. The historic buildings comprising the subject property of this rezoning application includes the 1909-built Buscombe Block (19-27 West Hastings) and the 1913-built Rex Theatre (13-17 West Hastings). - Have any heritage assessment and/or evaluation of either of the two impacted historic buildings been undertaken by the applicant and/or City’s Heritage Planners with Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability? If not, why? And if so, what were the outcomes and recommendations of these assessments? - Will City Staff have the applicant explain and justify to them how is the demolition of century-old masonry/concrete structures, eliminating their decades of embodied carbon and depositing of their building material in the landfill, sustainable? (refer to “embracing sustainable best practices” in their rezoning rationale booklet). - Has there been any studies completed by the applicant to determine the feasibility of the façade retention of the Buscombe Block? - Has there been any investigation by the applicant to determine the extent of surviving historic exterior architectural features of the Rex Theatre? on Twitter Share The following questions, as well the justification for asking these as part of this rezoning application, were also submitted as part my comments to the city. While the questions might not seem to be completely relevant to the rezoning application, they do help inform an understanding of what could be achieved as a condition of the rezoning application in order for the applicant to align their envisioned development with City policies regarding this property. The historic buildings comprising the subject property of this rezoning application includes the 1909-built Buscombe Block (19-27 West Hastings) and the 1913-built Rex Theatre (13-17 West Hastings). - Have any heritage assessment and/or evaluation of either of the two impacted historic buildings been undertaken by the applicant and/or City’s Heritage Planners with Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability? If not, why? And if so, what were the outcomes and recommendations of these assessments? - Will City Staff have the applicant explain and justify to them how is the demolition of century-old masonry/concrete structures, eliminating their decades of embodied carbon and depositing of their building material in the landfill, sustainable? (refer to “embracing sustainable best practices” in their rezoning rationale booklet). - Has there been any studies completed by the applicant to determine the feasibility of the façade retention of the Buscombe Block? - Has there been any investigation by the applicant to determine the extent of surviving historic exterior architectural features of the Rex Theatre? on Linkedin Email The following questions, as well the justification for asking these as part of this rezoning application, were also submitted as part my comments to the city. While the questions might not seem to be completely relevant to the rezoning application, they do help inform an understanding of what could be achieved as a condition of the rezoning application in order for the applicant to align their envisioned development with City policies regarding this property. The historic buildings comprising the subject property of this rezoning application includes the 1909-built Buscombe Block (19-27 West Hastings) and the 1913-built Rex Theatre (13-17 West Hastings). - Have any heritage assessment and/or evaluation of either of the two impacted historic buildings been undertaken by the applicant and/or City’s Heritage Planners with Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability? If not, why? And if so, what were the outcomes and recommendations of these assessments? - Will City Staff have the applicant explain and justify to them how is the demolition of century-old masonry/concrete structures, eliminating their decades of embodied carbon and depositing of their building material in the landfill, sustainable? (refer to “embracing sustainable best practices” in their rezoning rationale booklet). - Has there been any studies completed by the applicant to determine the feasibility of the façade retention of the Buscombe Block? - Has there been any investigation by the applicant to determine the extent of surviving historic exterior architectural features of the Rex Theatre? link
The following questions, as well the justification for asking these as part of this rezoning application, were also submitted as part my comments to the city. While the questions might not seem to be completely relevant to the rezoning application, they do help inform an understanding of what could be achieved as a condition of the rezoning application in order for the applicant to align their envisioned development with City policies regarding this property. The historic buildings comprising the subject property of this rezoning application includes the 1909-built Buscombe Block (19-27 West Hastings) and the 1913-built Rex Theatre (13-17 West Hastings). - Have any heritage assessment and/or evaluation of either of the two impacted historic buildings been undertaken by the applicant and/or City’s Heritage Planners with Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability? If not, why? And if so, what were the outcomes and recommendations of these assessments? - Will City Staff have the applicant explain and justify to them how is the demolition of century-old masonry/concrete structures, eliminating their decades of embodied carbon and depositing of their building material in the landfill, sustainable? (refer to “embracing sustainable best practices” in their rezoning rationale booklet). - Has there been any studies completed by the applicant to determine the feasibility of the façade retention of the Buscombe Block? - Has there been any investigation by the applicant to determine the extent of surviving historic exterior architectural features of the Rex Theatre?
Thomas Crush asked about 2 months agoThe developer has provided the following responses:
• The Buscombe Block and Rex Theatre are not included in the City of Vancouver’s Heritage Register, and a formal heritage assessment was not required.
• The applicant is following the City of Vancouver Embodied Carbon Guidelines to limit carbon in construction. Most buildings target 50% to 75% waste diversion from landfill, these recycled materials, such as recycled concrete and steel and timber, will be repurposed into the new design or reused in other buildings or engineering projects locally where possible.
• The Buscombe Block has not been studied for facade retention as it is not on the City’s Heritage Register.
• The Rex Theatre is not listed on the City’s Heritage Register. The original leading roof cornice line and arched pediment that is visible in historic images of the Rex Theatre is visibly absent from the building today. Furthermore, based on visual comparison of historic images and the current building the location and position of the existing facade cladding appears set back from the original Rex Theatre facade which suggests the original facade was either removed or severely cut back. The full degree of intervention and alteration is unknown but appears significant.
-
Share A project of this scale will take many many years to complete. What is the estimated construction timeline, how will disruptions to the surrounding area (noise, dust, street closures, traffic) be mitigated, and how will local residents and businesses be affected during that time? on Facebook Share A project of this scale will take many many years to complete. What is the estimated construction timeline, how will disruptions to the surrounding area (noise, dust, street closures, traffic) be mitigated, and how will local residents and businesses be affected during that time? on Twitter Share A project of this scale will take many many years to complete. What is the estimated construction timeline, how will disruptions to the surrounding area (noise, dust, street closures, traffic) be mitigated, and how will local residents and businesses be affected during that time? on Linkedin Email A project of this scale will take many many years to complete. What is the estimated construction timeline, how will disruptions to the surrounding area (noise, dust, street closures, traffic) be mitigated, and how will local residents and businesses be affected during that time? link
A project of this scale will take many many years to complete. What is the estimated construction timeline, how will disruptions to the surrounding area (noise, dust, street closures, traffic) be mitigated, and how will local residents and businesses be affected during that time?
LLM asked about 2 months ago• The developer estimates that the duration of demolition and construction activities could take up to 4.5 years.
• Prior to construction, the developer is required to meet with and coordinate construction and street use impacts with the City’s Engineering team. Appropriate permits are required to secure street space, and any closures must be permitted in advance with proper traffic management plans approved. Traffic management plans are reviewed closely by Engineering staff to ensure there are safe vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian provisions during construction to provide access for the local residents and businesses.
• Construction on private property must be carried out between 7:30am and 8pm on any weekday that is not a holiday, and between 10am to 8pm on any Saturday that is not a holiday. Construction is not permitted on Sundays. The City’s Noise Control By-law regulates construction-related noise for private development to these same times.
• There are some circumstances where a variance to construction times may be permitted. This usually occurs when major construction activities are taking place (Crane installs, large deliveries) and extra time is needed for equipment setup/takedown and safety precautions to be implemented. These allowances are typically accepted on weekends to reduce impacts to the community by enabling the work to be condensed to a day or two as opposed to multiple days mid week to reduce impacts to the community.
-
Share I was under the impression that the a Woodward’s building was the only tower that was going to be granted approval for building over 15 stories in height. Has the by law changed? Why? on Facebook Share I was under the impression that the a Woodward’s building was the only tower that was going to be granted approval for building over 15 stories in height. Has the by law changed? Why? on Twitter Share I was under the impression that the a Woodward’s building was the only tower that was going to be granted approval for building over 15 stories in height. Has the by law changed? Why? on Linkedin Email I was under the impression that the a Woodward’s building was the only tower that was going to be granted approval for building over 15 stories in height. Has the by law changed? Why? link
I was under the impression that the a Woodward’s building was the only tower that was going to be granted approval for building over 15 stories in height. Has the by law changed? Why?
Burns asked about 2 months agoThis is a rezoning application. Should the rezoning application be successful, the underlying zoning (i.e land use by-law) will change. The rezoning application requests a height in excess of the Downtown Eastside Plan (DTES Plan), which only permits buildings up to 105 ft. in height (approx. 10-storeys). Therefore, it does not comply with the DTES Plan. It is up to City Council to decide whether to approve the rezoning application.
Key dates
-
March 03 2025
-
April 02 → April 15 2025
-
May 05 2025
-
May 07 2025
Location
Application documents
Applicable plans and policies
Contact applicant
-
Phone 604-209-2686 Email jwanklyn@bosaproperties.com (External link)
Contact us
-
Phone 604-829-9576 Email chee.chan@vancouver.ca (External link)