2202-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application

Share 2202-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application on Facebook Share 2202-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application on Twitter Share 2202-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application on Linkedin Email 2202-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application link


Announcement

A community information session is scheduled for Thursday, November 6, 2025 from 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm at Kitsilano Neighbourhood House (2305 West 7th Avenue). City Staff and the applicant team will be available to answer any questions and provide information on the proposal.


Application

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from C-7 (Commercial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 25-storey mixed-use rental building with a four-storey podium and includes:

  • 221 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • Telecommunications use on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.65; and
  • A building height of 77.6 m (255 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

Application drawings and statistics are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

Please note, a development permit for the new, smaller telecommunications facility has been submitted and is currently under staff review. The proposed telecommunications use is permitted under the existing zoning. If you have questions related to the development permit (DP-2025-00227), please contact Bryce Casidy, Project Facilitator - bryce.casidy@vancouver.ca – 604-871-6707.




Fly Through Video (Uploaded July 14th, 2025)




Announcement

A community information session is scheduled for Thursday, November 6, 2025 from 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm at Kitsilano Neighbourhood House (2305 West 7th Avenue). City Staff and the applicant team will be available to answer any questions and provide information on the proposal.


Application

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from C-7 (Commercial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 25-storey mixed-use rental building with a four-storey podium and includes:

  • 221 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • Telecommunications use on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.65; and
  • A building height of 77.6 m (255 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

Application drawings and statistics are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

Please note, a development permit for the new, smaller telecommunications facility has been submitted and is currently under staff review. The proposed telecommunications use is permitted under the existing zoning. If you have questions related to the development permit (DP-2025-00227), please contact Bryce Casidy, Project Facilitator - bryce.casidy@vancouver.ca – 604-871-6707.




Fly Through Video (Uploaded July 14th, 2025)



​The Q&A period has concluded. Thank you for participating.

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from July 9-22, 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 Broadway Plan requires that rezonings align with citywide policies like the Housing Vancouver Strategy and Social Housing Initiative. Yet this proposal: Offers no partnership with a non-profit, co-op, or public agency Provides no mechanism for public ownership or long-term affordability Delivers just six undersized 3-bedroom units — well below the SHI’s family housing goals Under the Social Housing Initiative, how can a 100% for-profit project, with no delivery by a public or non-profit partner, no permanent affordability guarantees, and no community ownership or equity — be considered compliant with the SHI’s stated policy goals? on Facebook Share The Broadway Plan requires that rezonings align with citywide policies like the Housing Vancouver Strategy and Social Housing Initiative. Yet this proposal: Offers no partnership with a non-profit, co-op, or public agency Provides no mechanism for public ownership or long-term affordability Delivers just six undersized 3-bedroom units — well below the SHI’s family housing goals Under the Social Housing Initiative, how can a 100% for-profit project, with no delivery by a public or non-profit partner, no permanent affordability guarantees, and no community ownership or equity — be considered compliant with the SHI’s stated policy goals? on Twitter Share The Broadway Plan requires that rezonings align with citywide policies like the Housing Vancouver Strategy and Social Housing Initiative. Yet this proposal: Offers no partnership with a non-profit, co-op, or public agency Provides no mechanism for public ownership or long-term affordability Delivers just six undersized 3-bedroom units — well below the SHI’s family housing goals Under the Social Housing Initiative, how can a 100% for-profit project, with no delivery by a public or non-profit partner, no permanent affordability guarantees, and no community ownership or equity — be considered compliant with the SHI’s stated policy goals? on Linkedin Email The Broadway Plan requires that rezonings align with citywide policies like the Housing Vancouver Strategy and Social Housing Initiative. Yet this proposal: Offers no partnership with a non-profit, co-op, or public agency Provides no mechanism for public ownership or long-term affordability Delivers just six undersized 3-bedroom units — well below the SHI’s family housing goals Under the Social Housing Initiative, how can a 100% for-profit project, with no delivery by a public or non-profit partner, no permanent affordability guarantees, and no community ownership or equity — be considered compliant with the SHI’s stated policy goals? link

    The Broadway Plan requires that rezonings align with citywide policies like the Housing Vancouver Strategy and Social Housing Initiative. Yet this proposal: Offers no partnership with a non-profit, co-op, or public agency Provides no mechanism for public ownership or long-term affordability Delivers just six undersized 3-bedroom units — well below the SHI’s family housing goals Under the Social Housing Initiative, how can a 100% for-profit project, with no delivery by a public or non-profit partner, no permanent affordability guarantees, and no community ownership or equity — be considered compliant with the SHI’s stated policy goals?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    This rezoning application is not being assessed against or required to comply with the Vancouver Social Housing Initiative (VSHI). This proposal is for market rental with below-market rental housing, and is being assessed against the policies for new market rental outlined in the Broadway Plan. The VSHI only applies to projects providing 100% social housing, owned and operated by a non-profit corporation or level of government.

  • Share Recent CMHC reports show that many new purpose-built rental buildings — especially those offering small studio and 1-bedroom units — are sitting vacant longer than expected, while the highest demand remains for affordable, family-sized homes. Given this, and considering that the “below-market” units in this application do not meet the City’s own affordability benchmarks (i.e. 30% of gross household income), how does the City evaluate whether these proposed units are meaningfully contributing to the affordability goals outlined in the Broadway Plan and Housing Vancouver Strategy? Is there a process in place to assess whether the type and pricing of new rental supply aligns with actual community need? on Facebook Share Recent CMHC reports show that many new purpose-built rental buildings — especially those offering small studio and 1-bedroom units — are sitting vacant longer than expected, while the highest demand remains for affordable, family-sized homes. Given this, and considering that the “below-market” units in this application do not meet the City’s own affordability benchmarks (i.e. 30% of gross household income), how does the City evaluate whether these proposed units are meaningfully contributing to the affordability goals outlined in the Broadway Plan and Housing Vancouver Strategy? Is there a process in place to assess whether the type and pricing of new rental supply aligns with actual community need? on Twitter Share Recent CMHC reports show that many new purpose-built rental buildings — especially those offering small studio and 1-bedroom units — are sitting vacant longer than expected, while the highest demand remains for affordable, family-sized homes. Given this, and considering that the “below-market” units in this application do not meet the City’s own affordability benchmarks (i.e. 30% of gross household income), how does the City evaluate whether these proposed units are meaningfully contributing to the affordability goals outlined in the Broadway Plan and Housing Vancouver Strategy? Is there a process in place to assess whether the type and pricing of new rental supply aligns with actual community need? on Linkedin Email Recent CMHC reports show that many new purpose-built rental buildings — especially those offering small studio and 1-bedroom units — are sitting vacant longer than expected, while the highest demand remains for affordable, family-sized homes. Given this, and considering that the “below-market” units in this application do not meet the City’s own affordability benchmarks (i.e. 30% of gross household income), how does the City evaluate whether these proposed units are meaningfully contributing to the affordability goals outlined in the Broadway Plan and Housing Vancouver Strategy? Is there a process in place to assess whether the type and pricing of new rental supply aligns with actual community need? link

    Recent CMHC reports show that many new purpose-built rental buildings — especially those offering small studio and 1-bedroom units — are sitting vacant longer than expected, while the highest demand remains for affordable, family-sized homes. Given this, and considering that the “below-market” units in this application do not meet the City’s own affordability benchmarks (i.e. 30% of gross household income), how does the City evaluate whether these proposed units are meaningfully contributing to the affordability goals outlined in the Broadway Plan and Housing Vancouver Strategy? Is there a process in place to assess whether the type and pricing of new rental supply aligns with actual community need?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    The City evaluates new market and below-market rental housing proposals - including those under the Broadway Plan – based on City approved policies, including affordability and unit mix. These policies balance housing needs with project viability. As such, below-market rents must be at least 20% below CMHC average rents by unit type at the time of occupancy, and 35% of the units must be family sized (2+ bedrooms). However, rents are not directly tied to income, so the City recognises that these units therefore may not meet the needs of lower income households. 

     

    The city monitors CMHC data, including vacancy rates across different unit sizes and tenures, and uses Housing Needs Reports to assess demographic and economic trends and project housing needs. These reports inform housing targets, but do not prescribe specific unit types or affordability levels on a project basis. 

     

    For renters whose needs may not be met in the market, social housing seeks to address the needs of lower income households. The Housing Vancouver Strategy and Three Year Action Plan set a target for 10,000 new social and supportive housing units between 2024 and 2022. The City of Vancouver defines social housing as rental housing of which 30% must be rented to households with incomes below BC Housing’s housing income limits, and rented at no more than 30% of household income.  

  • Share Given that the City’s own November 2024 Housing Needs Report highlights a sharp mismatch between what is being built and what is actually needed — specifically noting that most new rental units are unaffordable and not aligned with the needs of low-income and larger households — how does this particular rezoning application address that misalignment? Further, what safeguards or policy mechanisms does the City intend to use to ensure that approved rezonings just like this one actually contribute to meaningful progress on Vancouver’s stated housing goals, particularly in terms of unit size, affordability, and timely construction? on Facebook Share Given that the City’s own November 2024 Housing Needs Report highlights a sharp mismatch between what is being built and what is actually needed — specifically noting that most new rental units are unaffordable and not aligned with the needs of low-income and larger households — how does this particular rezoning application address that misalignment? Further, what safeguards or policy mechanisms does the City intend to use to ensure that approved rezonings just like this one actually contribute to meaningful progress on Vancouver’s stated housing goals, particularly in terms of unit size, affordability, and timely construction? on Twitter Share Given that the City’s own November 2024 Housing Needs Report highlights a sharp mismatch between what is being built and what is actually needed — specifically noting that most new rental units are unaffordable and not aligned with the needs of low-income and larger households — how does this particular rezoning application address that misalignment? Further, what safeguards or policy mechanisms does the City intend to use to ensure that approved rezonings just like this one actually contribute to meaningful progress on Vancouver’s stated housing goals, particularly in terms of unit size, affordability, and timely construction? on Linkedin Email Given that the City’s own November 2024 Housing Needs Report highlights a sharp mismatch between what is being built and what is actually needed — specifically noting that most new rental units are unaffordable and not aligned with the needs of low-income and larger households — how does this particular rezoning application address that misalignment? Further, what safeguards or policy mechanisms does the City intend to use to ensure that approved rezonings just like this one actually contribute to meaningful progress on Vancouver’s stated housing goals, particularly in terms of unit size, affordability, and timely construction? link

    Given that the City’s own November 2024 Housing Needs Report highlights a sharp mismatch between what is being built and what is actually needed — specifically noting that most new rental units are unaffordable and not aligned with the needs of low-income and larger households — how does this particular rezoning application address that misalignment? Further, what safeguards or policy mechanisms does the City intend to use to ensure that approved rezonings just like this one actually contribute to meaningful progress on Vancouver’s stated housing goals, particularly in terms of unit size, affordability, and timely construction?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    The City of Vancouver acknowledged the misalignment between housing supply and actual community needs in its November 2024 Housing Needs Report. While there is still progress to be made in aligning supply with community needs, this rezoning application works towards addressing this alignment by:

      • Securing 20% of the units as below-market rental, with rents set at least 20% below CMHC average market rents.  
      • At least 35% of the units must be family sized (2+ bedrooms). 
      • All units will be secured by a Housing Agreement ensuring the units cannot be converted to strata ownership, preserving long term rental stock. 

     

    In addition to the above, other examples of safeguards and policy mechanisms to ensure progress on Vancouver’s stated housing goals, include

    • The Housing Vancouver Strategy (2018–2027) and its updated 10-Year Targets (2024–2033) aim to deliver 83,000 net new units, with a strong emphasis on rental and social housing. 
    • The City is required to meet Provincial Housing Targets under the Housing Supply Act, with annual reporting and potential provincial intervention if targets are not met. 
    • Development incentives to incentivise rental development, including DCL Waivers and parking reductions.
    • Streamlined rezoning processes to allow for rezoning to standard rental districts in low-density transition areas (E.g. RR-3B). 

     

  • Share This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? on Facebook Share This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? on Twitter Share This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? on Linkedin Email This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? link

    This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your question. This application is being reviewed under the Broadway Plan, which allows for higher building heights and densities than those permitted by the Transit-Oriented Areas (TOA) Policy. Under the Broadway Plan, the proposed 25-storey building could be supported. However, the final decision—whether to approve, deny, or request revisions—rests with Mayor and Council. The Broadway Plan envisions a gradual transition in building height and density moving away from SkyTrain stations. This site is close to the future Arbutus Station and has a street frontage of over 150 feet, which makes it eligible for consideration as a high-density building form.

  • Share You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? on Facebook Share You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? on Twitter Share You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? on Linkedin Email You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? link

    You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    Engineering review is still on-going. Details related to off-site upgrades and/or safety measures will be identified within the forthcoming report to Council. 

  • Share The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? on Facebook Share The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? on Twitter Share The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? on Linkedin Email The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? link

    The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    The flythrough is intended to be conceptual in nature. Currently, they are not required to indicate existing buildings or the development potential for the surrounding area. The flythrough is more intended to demonstrate the proposed building form and design. Details on the submission requirements are publicly available here: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/application-for-cd1-rezoning-guide.pdf

  • Share What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. on Facebook Share What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. on Twitter Share What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. on Linkedin Email What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. link

    What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan.

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    As part of the application requirements, the applicant is required to submit a title search, a summary of all legal charges on title, as well as a BC Company summary that outlines the applicant’s corporate structure. The BC Company summary is reviewed by the City’s legal department to ensure the applicant is in “good standing” which means the company has met all its legal and regulatory obligations with the BC Corporate Registry. Based on staff’s research, historically, BC Tel lands were private with no transition from public to private ownership. 

  • Share It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? on Facebook Share It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? on Twitter Share It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? on Linkedin Email It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? link

    It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    Council has the discretion to adjust the enactment timeline for rezoning applications, particularly in cases where there are concerns about land speculation or delays in housing delivery. For example, Council may require the applicant to submit a development permit application within two years, complete land consolidation through subdivision, and execute all necessary legal agreements before the rezoning is enacted. These additional steps help ensure the applicant is committed to moving the project forward. However, it is important to note that Council cannot require construction to begin or be completed within a specific timeframe.

  • Share This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? on Facebook Share This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? on Twitter Share This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? on Linkedin Email This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? link

    This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your question. At present, the City does not have a policy requiring owners of secured market or below-market rental buildings to lease out all units immediately following occupancy. Ultimately, developers are incentivized to lease out units in order to generate revenue. Where units are secured at below-market rents through housing agreements, the City does require annual reporting to ensure affordability targets are met. Staff recognize the importance of ensuring that public benefits translate into real housing outcomes, and this issue remains a priority as part of ongoing policy development.

  • Share Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? on Facebook Share Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? on Twitter Share Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? on Linkedin Email Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? link

    Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain?

    crashkate asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for your question. The strip of private land along Marstrand Ave has a statutory right-of-way (srw) registered on the title of 2228 Marstrand Ave. Staff have not yet reviewed the legal document that enables the srw, however, it is likely the srw permits public access. The question surrounding specific use and the maintenance is a fair question. Planning will coordinate a more detailed response with Engineering and get back to you. 

Page last updated: 07 Oct 2025, 10:58 AM