8-36 W Cordova St rezoning application

Share 8-36 W Cordova St rezoning application on Facebook Share 8-36 W Cordova St rezoning application on Twitter Share 8-36 W Cordova St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 8-36 W Cordova St rezoning application link

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from HA-2 (Historic Area) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 20-storey mixed-use rental building with a five-storey podium and includes:

  • 219 rental units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • 179-room hotel;
  • Commercial space on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.03; and
  • A building height of 66.4 m (218 ft.).

This proposal is located in the Gastown sub area of the Downtown Eastside Plan(External link). The proposal requests rezoning consideration of height in excess of the existing policy. The Gastown sub-area allows a maximum height of 22.9 m (75 ft.).

This proposal includes a number of heritage properties, and as such, the City’s Heritage Policies(External link) apply. The application proposes primarily façade-only retention for the Cohen Block (Vancouver Heritage Register-listed buildings).

(External link)

This application is being processed and reviewed concurrently with the application to rezone 15-27 W Hastings.

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The previous 2023 rezoning application has been withdrawn, and replaced by this application.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 HA-2 (Historic Area) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 20-storey mixed-use rental building with a five-storey podium and includes:

  • 219 rental units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • 179-room hotel;
  • Commercial space on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.03; and
  • A building height of 66.4 m (218 ft.).

This proposal is located in the Gastown sub area of the Downtown Eastside Plan(External link). The proposal requests rezoning consideration of height in excess of the existing policy. The Gastown sub-area allows a maximum height of 22.9 m (75 ft.).

This proposal includes a number of heritage properties, and as such, the City’s Heritage Policies(External link) apply. The application proposes primarily façade-only retention for the Cohen Block (Vancouver Heritage Register-listed buildings).

(External link)

This application is being processed and reviewed concurrently with the application to rezone 15-27 W Hastings.

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

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—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This raises serious concerns, as it does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. What concrete steps is the City taking to ensure that developments of this scale do not accelerate gentrification, or directly contribute to the erosion of existing affordable housing stock? What mechanisms are in place to prevent displacement and maintain the socio-economic diversity of the DTES? 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 gentrification that will not priviledge 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—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This raises serious concerns, as it does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. What concrete steps is the City taking to ensure that developments of this scale do not accelerate gentrification, or directly contribute to the erosion of existing affordable housing stock? What mechanisms are in place to prevent displacement and maintain the socio-economic diversity of the DTES? 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 gentrification that will not priviledge 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—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This raises serious concerns, as it does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. What concrete steps is the City taking to ensure that developments of this scale do not accelerate gentrification, or directly contribute to the erosion of existing affordable housing stock? What mechanisms are in place to prevent displacement and maintain the socio-economic diversity of the DTES? 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 gentrification that will not priviledge 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—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This raises serious concerns, as it does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. What concrete steps is the City taking to ensure that developments of this scale do not accelerate gentrification, or directly contribute to the erosion of existing affordable housing stock? What mechanisms are in place to prevent displacement and maintain the socio-economic diversity of the DTES? 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 gentrification that will not priviledge 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—primarily for market-rate housing, with little indication that the development will meet the deeply affordable housing goals outlined in the DTES Plan. This raises serious concerns, as it does not align with the social and planning objectives articulated by the community. What concrete steps is the City taking to ensure that developments of this scale do not accelerate gentrification, or directly contribute to the erosion of existing affordable housing stock? What mechanisms are in place to prevent displacement and maintain the socio-economic diversity of the DTES? 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 gentrification that will not priviledge the average community member

    S.O.K asked about 2 months ago

    Under the Downtown Eastside Plan, market rental housing can be considered on the site at 8-36 W Cordova through a Development Permit process. However, this proposal deviates from the Downtown Eastside Rezoning Policy(External link), which says that “rezoning applications will not be considered for market residential development or for increasing the heights and densities from what current zoning permits”. 

    In terms of existing housing, there are no existing residential units at 8-36 W Cordova. This proposal provides 219 new rental units, with 20% of the residential floor area dedicated to below-market rental units. In terms of commercial/economic considerations, this application proposes to replace the former Army & Navy department store commercial space with new ground floor retail space, as well as a 179-unit hotel.

  • Share 1. Why was the 20% below-market housing target chosen instead of aligning with the DTES Plan's 60% social housing goal? 2. How does the project meet the intent of the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines, particularly regarding scale and massing? 3. Was the BC Indigenous Housing Society involved in early design and planning, or only brought in as an operator? 4. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) will be delivered, and how will they benefit existing DTES residents? Are any CACs going to support overdose prevention, food programs, or Indigenous healing spaces, or is this just retail and condos wrapped in a heritage label? 5. How is this project ensuring it does not accelerate displacement or gentrification in the surrounding area? 6. Has a displacement impact assessment been done, and will the City require mitigation strategies? on Facebook Share 1. Why was the 20% below-market housing target chosen instead of aligning with the DTES Plan's 60% social housing goal? 2. How does the project meet the intent of the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines, particularly regarding scale and massing? 3. Was the BC Indigenous Housing Society involved in early design and planning, or only brought in as an operator? 4. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) will be delivered, and how will they benefit existing DTES residents? Are any CACs going to support overdose prevention, food programs, or Indigenous healing spaces, or is this just retail and condos wrapped in a heritage label? 5. How is this project ensuring it does not accelerate displacement or gentrification in the surrounding area? 6. Has a displacement impact assessment been done, and will the City require mitigation strategies? on Twitter Share 1. Why was the 20% below-market housing target chosen instead of aligning with the DTES Plan's 60% social housing goal? 2. How does the project meet the intent of the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines, particularly regarding scale and massing? 3. Was the BC Indigenous Housing Society involved in early design and planning, or only brought in as an operator? 4. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) will be delivered, and how will they benefit existing DTES residents? Are any CACs going to support overdose prevention, food programs, or Indigenous healing spaces, or is this just retail and condos wrapped in a heritage label? 5. How is this project ensuring it does not accelerate displacement or gentrification in the surrounding area? 6. Has a displacement impact assessment been done, and will the City require mitigation strategies? on Linkedin Email 1. Why was the 20% below-market housing target chosen instead of aligning with the DTES Plan's 60% social housing goal? 2. How does the project meet the intent of the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines, particularly regarding scale and massing? 3. Was the BC Indigenous Housing Society involved in early design and planning, or only brought in as an operator? 4. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) will be delivered, and how will they benefit existing DTES residents? Are any CACs going to support overdose prevention, food programs, or Indigenous healing spaces, or is this just retail and condos wrapped in a heritage label? 5. How is this project ensuring it does not accelerate displacement or gentrification in the surrounding area? 6. Has a displacement impact assessment been done, and will the City require mitigation strategies? link

    1. Why was the 20% below-market housing target chosen instead of aligning with the DTES Plan's 60% social housing goal? 2. How does the project meet the intent of the Gastown HA-2 Design Guidelines, particularly regarding scale and massing? 3. Was the BC Indigenous Housing Society involved in early design and planning, or only brought in as an operator? 4. What specific Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) will be delivered, and how will they benefit existing DTES residents? Are any CACs going to support overdose prevention, food programs, or Indigenous healing spaces, or is this just retail and condos wrapped in a heritage label? 5. How is this project ensuring it does not accelerate displacement or gentrification in the surrounding area? 6. Has a displacement impact assessment been done, and will the City require mitigation strategies?

    Logan M. asked about 2 months ago

    Under the Downtown Eastside Plan, market rental housing can be considered on the site at 8-36 W Cordova through a Development Permit process. However, this proposal deviates from the Downtown Eastside Rezoning Policy(External link), which says that “rezoning applications will not be considered for market residential development or for increasing the heights and densities from what current zoning permits”. 

    With respect to the HA-2 Design Guidelines, the proposed conservation strategy is facade-only retention of the three heritage buildings that are protected by municipal designation: (the Dunn-Miller Block (8 W Cordova St), the Callister Block (30-34 W Cordova St), and the Hayes McIntosh Block (36 W Cordova St). It also proposes the construction of a multi-storey contemporary building that is recessed from the façades in order to preserve the historic character of the streetscape.

    The proposed form, scale and massing of the contemporary building is characterized by the following:

    1. a podium that is recessed from the Dunn-Miller Block façade, with a height of approximately 71 ft., which is below the maximum permitted height of up to 75 ft.

    2. a tower that is recessed from all three heritage façades, with a height of approximately 218 ft., which is beyond the maximum permitted height of up to 75 ft. 

    The applicant is proposing to rezone the site to vary the maximum building height as outlined in the HA-2 district schedule, even though rezonings should not be considered to increase heights and densities from what the current zoning in Gastown permits.

    BC Indigenous Housing Society is not involved in the design of the project at 8-36 West Cordova Street. Please consult the information for the application at 15-27 West Hastings regarding the involvement of BC Indigenous Housing Society.

    Any public benefits or CACs coming from this project are currently under review.

  • Share The courtyard with trees in the cohen block looks amazing. It is described as a hotel oasis. Will it be accessible to the public? Public space with trees is extremely limited in Gastown. on Facebook Share The courtyard with trees in the cohen block looks amazing. It is described as a hotel oasis. Will it be accessible to the public? Public space with trees is extremely limited in Gastown. on Twitter Share The courtyard with trees in the cohen block looks amazing. It is described as a hotel oasis. Will it be accessible to the public? Public space with trees is extremely limited in Gastown. on Linkedin Email The courtyard with trees in the cohen block looks amazing. It is described as a hotel oasis. Will it be accessible to the public? Public space with trees is extremely limited in Gastown. link

    The courtyard with trees in the cohen block looks amazing. It is described as a hotel oasis. Will it be accessible to the public? Public space with trees is extremely limited in Gastown.

    hkoyote asked about 2 months ago

    The courtyard is a commercial space and part of the hotel design. It is not a public amenity. Hotel guests and the public may access the courtyard space as part of hotel or retail activities during hours of operation.

  • Share Why on gods green earth would it be allowable to build something this high that does not conform with the Downtown Eastside plan? on Facebook Share Why on gods green earth would it be allowable to build something this high that does not conform with the Downtown Eastside plan? on Twitter Share Why on gods green earth would it be allowable to build something this high that does not conform with the Downtown Eastside plan? on Linkedin Email Why on gods green earth would it be allowable to build something this high that does not conform with the Downtown Eastside plan? link

    Why on gods green earth would it be allowable to build something this high that does not conform with the Downtown Eastside plan?

    Sandra G asked about 2 months ago

    While the rezoning application is non-compliant with respect to the City’s policies, we cannot stop a developer from submitting a non-compliant application. We are procedurally obliged to process the application and present it to Council, who is the ultimate decision maker. Through this consultation process, we are receiving public feedback about the proposal, which will form part of the staff report back to Council.

  • Share I just looked through the original 2023 proposal. Why was that proposal withdrawn and replaced with this significantly larger, more intrusive development, and was community feedback involved in this current rezoning application? on Facebook Share I just looked through the original 2023 proposal. Why was that proposal withdrawn and replaced with this significantly larger, more intrusive development, and was community feedback involved in this current rezoning application? on Twitter Share I just looked through the original 2023 proposal. Why was that proposal withdrawn and replaced with this significantly larger, more intrusive development, and was community feedback involved in this current rezoning application? on Linkedin Email I just looked through the original 2023 proposal. Why was that proposal withdrawn and replaced with this significantly larger, more intrusive development, and was community feedback involved in this current rezoning application? link

    I just looked through the original 2023 proposal. Why was that proposal withdrawn and replaced with this significantly larger, more intrusive development, and was community feedback involved in this current rezoning application?

    LLM asked about 2 months ago

    The previous 2023 rezoning application was withdrawn by the applicant because it was no longer a viable project for the developer. Community feedback on the current rezoning application is being collected now through this online consultation platform.

Page last updated: 08 May 2025, 09:46 AM