2079-2085 W 5th Ave rezoning application

Share 2079-2085 W 5th Ave rezoning application on Facebook Share 2079-2085 W 5th Ave rezoning application on Twitter Share 2079-2085 W 5th Ave rezoning application on Linkedin Email 2079-2085 W 5th Ave rezoning application link


The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from RM-4 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 20-storey mixed-use rental building and includes:

  • 200 social housing units;
  • Commercial space on the ground floor and one level of office space;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 10.0; and
  • A building height of 65.2 m (214 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan, and requests consideration of density in excess of the existing policy.

The City’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy applies to this site. This policy provides assistance and protections to eligible renters impacted by redevelopment activity. To learn more visit: vancouver.ca/protecting-tenants.

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 City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from RM-4 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 20-storey mixed-use rental building and includes:

  • 200 social housing units;
  • Commercial space on the ground floor and one level of office space;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 10.0; and
  • A building height of 65.2 m (214 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan, and requests consideration of density in excess of the existing policy.

The City’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy applies to this site. This policy provides assistance and protections to eligible renters impacted by redevelopment activity. To learn more visit: vancouver.ca/protecting-tenants.

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

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from February 18 to March 3. 

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 This multi-part question is again related to the city's definition of social housing, which the present proposal is said to meet. 1) In the previous answer on this forum, the proposed development is referred to as an "100% social housing development". I am confused about the role of "100%" in this phrase. What is the 100% in your phrase referring to? As discussed elsewhere in the forum, it does not refer to the percentage of units in the building whose rents will be "affordable" to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing. Is there a plausible scenario in which a new development would be classified as (say) "50% social housing" given the city's own definition of the term social housing? 2) The applicant here is listed as Claire Hooper of Colliers, obviously a for-profit company with international shareholders. How does the role of Colliers in this application impact the city's classification of the building as "100% social housing"? Will Colliers have a relationship to this building after it is developed? 3) What (if any) will be the role of taxpayer dollars - via BC Housing or any other public agency or crown corporation - in this redevelopment project and the ongoing life of the building in its first 60 years? 4) What do we know about the 30% of units in this building allocated to be affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing? Do we know how many studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bdrm units will be included in this group? Do we know where in the building these suites will be located? How will these units be tenanted? Will BC Housing control tenanting or will Brightside? How will prospective residents apply to live there? Would an increase in a tenant's income above the HIL targets during their tenancy hypothetically make that tenant ineligible to continue living in one of the "affordable" units or could they continue living there on the basis of their income at the time of application? on Facebook Share This multi-part question is again related to the city's definition of social housing, which the present proposal is said to meet. 1) In the previous answer on this forum, the proposed development is referred to as an "100% social housing development". I am confused about the role of "100%" in this phrase. What is the 100% in your phrase referring to? As discussed elsewhere in the forum, it does not refer to the percentage of units in the building whose rents will be "affordable" to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing. Is there a plausible scenario in which a new development would be classified as (say) "50% social housing" given the city's own definition of the term social housing? 2) The applicant here is listed as Claire Hooper of Colliers, obviously a for-profit company with international shareholders. How does the role of Colliers in this application impact the city's classification of the building as "100% social housing"? Will Colliers have a relationship to this building after it is developed? 3) What (if any) will be the role of taxpayer dollars - via BC Housing or any other public agency or crown corporation - in this redevelopment project and the ongoing life of the building in its first 60 years? 4) What do we know about the 30% of units in this building allocated to be affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing? Do we know how many studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bdrm units will be included in this group? Do we know where in the building these suites will be located? How will these units be tenanted? Will BC Housing control tenanting or will Brightside? How will prospective residents apply to live there? Would an increase in a tenant's income above the HIL targets during their tenancy hypothetically make that tenant ineligible to continue living in one of the "affordable" units or could they continue living there on the basis of their income at the time of application? on Twitter Share This multi-part question is again related to the city's definition of social housing, which the present proposal is said to meet. 1) In the previous answer on this forum, the proposed development is referred to as an "100% social housing development". I am confused about the role of "100%" in this phrase. What is the 100% in your phrase referring to? As discussed elsewhere in the forum, it does not refer to the percentage of units in the building whose rents will be "affordable" to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing. Is there a plausible scenario in which a new development would be classified as (say) "50% social housing" given the city's own definition of the term social housing? 2) The applicant here is listed as Claire Hooper of Colliers, obviously a for-profit company with international shareholders. How does the role of Colliers in this application impact the city's classification of the building as "100% social housing"? Will Colliers have a relationship to this building after it is developed? 3) What (if any) will be the role of taxpayer dollars - via BC Housing or any other public agency or crown corporation - in this redevelopment project and the ongoing life of the building in its first 60 years? 4) What do we know about the 30% of units in this building allocated to be affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing? Do we know how many studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bdrm units will be included in this group? Do we know where in the building these suites will be located? How will these units be tenanted? Will BC Housing control tenanting or will Brightside? How will prospective residents apply to live there? Would an increase in a tenant's income above the HIL targets during their tenancy hypothetically make that tenant ineligible to continue living in one of the "affordable" units or could they continue living there on the basis of their income at the time of application? on Linkedin Email This multi-part question is again related to the city's definition of social housing, which the present proposal is said to meet. 1) In the previous answer on this forum, the proposed development is referred to as an "100% social housing development". I am confused about the role of "100%" in this phrase. What is the 100% in your phrase referring to? As discussed elsewhere in the forum, it does not refer to the percentage of units in the building whose rents will be "affordable" to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing. Is there a plausible scenario in which a new development would be classified as (say) "50% social housing" given the city's own definition of the term social housing? 2) The applicant here is listed as Claire Hooper of Colliers, obviously a for-profit company with international shareholders. How does the role of Colliers in this application impact the city's classification of the building as "100% social housing"? Will Colliers have a relationship to this building after it is developed? 3) What (if any) will be the role of taxpayer dollars - via BC Housing or any other public agency or crown corporation - in this redevelopment project and the ongoing life of the building in its first 60 years? 4) What do we know about the 30% of units in this building allocated to be affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing? Do we know how many studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bdrm units will be included in this group? Do we know where in the building these suites will be located? How will these units be tenanted? Will BC Housing control tenanting or will Brightside? How will prospective residents apply to live there? Would an increase in a tenant's income above the HIL targets during their tenancy hypothetically make that tenant ineligible to continue living in one of the "affordable" units or could they continue living there on the basis of their income at the time of application? link

    This multi-part question is again related to the city's definition of social housing, which the present proposal is said to meet. 1) In the previous answer on this forum, the proposed development is referred to as an "100% social housing development". I am confused about the role of "100%" in this phrase. What is the 100% in your phrase referring to? As discussed elsewhere in the forum, it does not refer to the percentage of units in the building whose rents will be "affordable" to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing. Is there a plausible scenario in which a new development would be classified as (say) "50% social housing" given the city's own definition of the term social housing? 2) The applicant here is listed as Claire Hooper of Colliers, obviously a for-profit company with international shareholders. How does the role of Colliers in this application impact the city's classification of the building as "100% social housing"? Will Colliers have a relationship to this building after it is developed? 3) What (if any) will be the role of taxpayer dollars - via BC Housing or any other public agency or crown corporation - in this redevelopment project and the ongoing life of the building in its first 60 years? 4) What do we know about the 30% of units in this building allocated to be affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing? Do we know how many studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bdrm units will be included in this group? Do we know where in the building these suites will be located? How will these units be tenanted? Will BC Housing control tenanting or will Brightside? How will prospective residents apply to live there? Would an increase in a tenant's income above the HIL targets during their tenancy hypothetically make that tenant ineligible to continue living in one of the "affordable" units or could they continue living there on the basis of their income at the time of application?

    spottedcat asked about 2 months ago

    1. 100% social housing means that all residential units will be owned and operated by a non-profit (or government agency), secured through a Housing Agreement and Section 219 Covenant for the longer of the life of the building or 60 years, and that at least 30% of units will be affordable to incomes at or below the Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing, in accordance with the City’s definition of Social Housing. This applies to all 200 units of housing proposed for 2079-2085 W 5th Avenue.

     As all units in this project will be owned by a non-profit, Brightside Community Homes Foundation, and will meet the other above-noted requirements of the City’s definition, the building is considered 100% social housing. The requirement for 30% HILS units is a minimum affordability threshold. The applicant is working to maximize the affordability of the remaining units, with funding confirmed later in the development process. Brightside has indicated that the vast majority of their 1000+ rental homes throughout Vancouver are rented at rates that are geared to income (approx. 30% of household income), with a limited number of new low-end-of-market rental homes that balance the feasibility of new projects. 

     2. Colliers supports Brightside through the development approvals process across Brightside’s housing portfolio, similar to the way an architect or engineer supports a project. Colliers is a development advisory and project management service provider and not involved in an ownership or operational capacity of the social housing. Collier’s role as a consultant in the development approvals process has no impact on the social housing classification. 

    3. Noting that the depth of affordability is determined largely by available funding models, Brightside is seeking funding streams that will maximize the depth of affordability, such as CHF funding through BC Housing. Consistent with Council policy on social housing, the project is expected to be self-sustaining over the long-term and does not require further operating subsidies and property tax exemptions from the City. 

    4. Brightside is targeting the majority of the units to be rented at rates that are geared to income, with a limited number of low-end-of-market. There is no specific unit mix requirement for the 30% minimum required HILS units, but there will be a mix of unit types across the building. The plans as-submitted to the City propose 30% family size (2+ bedroom) units. Independent-living seniors are the key target demographic for studios and one-bedroom units. 

    Brightside will manage the leasing of the building and will accept applications from prospective residents. Income testing requirements are determined by the funding model that supports the development. Tenants whose rents are geared to income will be income-tested yearly or every other year. Tenants paying low-end-of-market rental rates are typically tested only once upon initial application – to determine eligibility – as per provincial (BC Housing) regulations, and may be subsequently income-tested in the instance of a change in household composition. 

  • Share What is the point of residents taking part in years of engagement for the Broadway Plan, when you’ve got a developer-funded City Hall pushing through projects, like civic mobsters? This project contravenes several Broadway Planning mandates. The project interferes with solar access on West 4th, which is considered a high street. Why is that approved? This project is way too tall and too many stories, beyond limits of the Broadway Plan of 6 stories. Why is that approved? This project does not have enough parking for the proposed street, which will wreak havoc for the neighborhood. Why is that approved? This project will displace a building full of seniors. How does that fit in with the City’s plans? This building will destroy a heritage 1910 building. Why was that approved? This building does not have an approved set back as defined in the City’s own Broadway Plan. Why was that approved? The zoning for this site is 6.5 FSR yet this project is 10.0 FSR. Why is this approved? Tower floor plates are 6793 sq.ft, which is above the 6500 sq.ft in the Broadway Plan. Why is this approved? Is there a conflict of interest with this development being put forward by Brightside, whose board chair Frank Chong, CEO William Azaroff are donors to OneCity? on Facebook Share What is the point of residents taking part in years of engagement for the Broadway Plan, when you’ve got a developer-funded City Hall pushing through projects, like civic mobsters? This project contravenes several Broadway Planning mandates. The project interferes with solar access on West 4th, which is considered a high street. Why is that approved? This project is way too tall and too many stories, beyond limits of the Broadway Plan of 6 stories. Why is that approved? This project does not have enough parking for the proposed street, which will wreak havoc for the neighborhood. Why is that approved? This project will displace a building full of seniors. How does that fit in with the City’s plans? This building will destroy a heritage 1910 building. Why was that approved? This building does not have an approved set back as defined in the City’s own Broadway Plan. Why was that approved? The zoning for this site is 6.5 FSR yet this project is 10.0 FSR. Why is this approved? Tower floor plates are 6793 sq.ft, which is above the 6500 sq.ft in the Broadway Plan. Why is this approved? Is there a conflict of interest with this development being put forward by Brightside, whose board chair Frank Chong, CEO William Azaroff are donors to OneCity? on Twitter Share What is the point of residents taking part in years of engagement for the Broadway Plan, when you’ve got a developer-funded City Hall pushing through projects, like civic mobsters? This project contravenes several Broadway Planning mandates. The project interferes with solar access on West 4th, which is considered a high street. Why is that approved? This project is way too tall and too many stories, beyond limits of the Broadway Plan of 6 stories. Why is that approved? This project does not have enough parking for the proposed street, which will wreak havoc for the neighborhood. Why is that approved? This project will displace a building full of seniors. How does that fit in with the City’s plans? This building will destroy a heritage 1910 building. Why was that approved? This building does not have an approved set back as defined in the City’s own Broadway Plan. Why was that approved? The zoning for this site is 6.5 FSR yet this project is 10.0 FSR. Why is this approved? Tower floor plates are 6793 sq.ft, which is above the 6500 sq.ft in the Broadway Plan. Why is this approved? Is there a conflict of interest with this development being put forward by Brightside, whose board chair Frank Chong, CEO William Azaroff are donors to OneCity? on Linkedin Email What is the point of residents taking part in years of engagement for the Broadway Plan, when you’ve got a developer-funded City Hall pushing through projects, like civic mobsters? This project contravenes several Broadway Planning mandates. The project interferes with solar access on West 4th, which is considered a high street. Why is that approved? This project is way too tall and too many stories, beyond limits of the Broadway Plan of 6 stories. Why is that approved? This project does not have enough parking for the proposed street, which will wreak havoc for the neighborhood. Why is that approved? This project will displace a building full of seniors. How does that fit in with the City’s plans? This building will destroy a heritage 1910 building. Why was that approved? This building does not have an approved set back as defined in the City’s own Broadway Plan. Why was that approved? The zoning for this site is 6.5 FSR yet this project is 10.0 FSR. Why is this approved? Tower floor plates are 6793 sq.ft, which is above the 6500 sq.ft in the Broadway Plan. Why is this approved? Is there a conflict of interest with this development being put forward by Brightside, whose board chair Frank Chong, CEO William Azaroff are donors to OneCity? link

    What is the point of residents taking part in years of engagement for the Broadway Plan, when you’ve got a developer-funded City Hall pushing through projects, like civic mobsters? This project contravenes several Broadway Planning mandates. The project interferes with solar access on West 4th, which is considered a high street. Why is that approved? This project is way too tall and too many stories, beyond limits of the Broadway Plan of 6 stories. Why is that approved? This project does not have enough parking for the proposed street, which will wreak havoc for the neighborhood. Why is that approved? This project will displace a building full of seniors. How does that fit in with the City’s plans? This building will destroy a heritage 1910 building. Why was that approved? This building does not have an approved set back as defined in the City’s own Broadway Plan. Why was that approved? The zoning for this site is 6.5 FSR yet this project is 10.0 FSR. Why is this approved? Tower floor plates are 6793 sq.ft, which is above the 6500 sq.ft in the Broadway Plan. Why is this approved? Is there a conflict of interest with this development being put forward by Brightside, whose board chair Frank Chong, CEO William Azaroff are donors to OneCity?

    June asked about 2 months ago

    Application drawings and studies are posted online as-submitted to the City. Following public engagement and staff reviews, a report will be brought forward for Council’s consideration at a Public Hearing. The application is currently under review and has not been approved.

    The Broadway Plan allows consideration of up to 20 storeys in this location, up to 6.5 FSR. The application currently complies with the Plan for height, but seeks additional density for the provision of social housing. The Broadway Plan also allows exemptions to the solar access for 100% social housing developments, such as the subject application. The supportable form of development, including tower floorplate size and underground setbacks will be included in the report that is brought forward to Council for Public Hearing. As a note, the building is seeking Rick Hansen standard for accessible design throughout the building, which is why tower floorplate is slightly larger. 

    Existing eligible tenants are protected by the City’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy. Brightside currently owns and operates the social housing building on the site, and has initiated their tenant relocation strategy with their residents, with plans to reserve homes within their existing portfolio for residents of this site, should the residents choose that option. 

    Neither of the existing buildings are on the Heritage Register, nor are indicated as potential heritage sites or cultural landscapes in the Broadway Plan. 

    If approved, the application will be required to comply with the Parking By-law at the time of the Development Permit. Parking and loading will need to be provided on the site and not on the street. 

  • Share Does this rezoning break the Broadway Plan Solar Access policies by introducing new shadows on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets, in this case on the north side of West 4th Avenue on the equinoxes between 10am and 4pm? Can you please answer with "yes" or "no". Thank you. on Facebook Share Does this rezoning break the Broadway Plan Solar Access policies by introducing new shadows on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets, in this case on the north side of West 4th Avenue on the equinoxes between 10am and 4pm? Can you please answer with "yes" or "no". Thank you. on Twitter Share Does this rezoning break the Broadway Plan Solar Access policies by introducing new shadows on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets, in this case on the north side of West 4th Avenue on the equinoxes between 10am and 4pm? Can you please answer with "yes" or "no". Thank you. on Linkedin Email Does this rezoning break the Broadway Plan Solar Access policies by introducing new shadows on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets, in this case on the north side of West 4th Avenue on the equinoxes between 10am and 4pm? Can you please answer with "yes" or "no". Thank you. link

    Does this rezoning break the Broadway Plan Solar Access policies by introducing new shadows on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets, in this case on the north side of West 4th Avenue on the equinoxes between 10am and 4pm? Can you please answer with "yes" or "no". Thank you.

    redpanda asked about 2 months ago

    For 100% social housing developments, such as the proposed, the Broadway Plan allows exceptions to solar access policies. See page 287 of the Broadway Plan. 

    In response to your question, the proposal does not contradict the solar access policies of the Plan. 

  • Share As we can see from page 13 (Relationship to Context), the immediate area here could see in the future numerous high-rise buildings constructed in what is currently a predominately mix of rental and condo buildings reaching 3 to 4 storeys. The residents of the buildings who are NOT redeveloped into condos, including renters and many condominium owners (i.e. on the 2200 or 2100 block of West 5th), will be living next to this construction. Can these residents expect multiple towers in the same block or adjacent blocks to be built potentially at the same time, subject to (only) market conditions? Some of us are parents of very young children. Others are seniors planning to age in place. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the developers and/or of the city to these neighbours, as we experience our residential neighbourhood transformed into a second downtown? on Facebook Share As we can see from page 13 (Relationship to Context), the immediate area here could see in the future numerous high-rise buildings constructed in what is currently a predominately mix of rental and condo buildings reaching 3 to 4 storeys. The residents of the buildings who are NOT redeveloped into condos, including renters and many condominium owners (i.e. on the 2200 or 2100 block of West 5th), will be living next to this construction. Can these residents expect multiple towers in the same block or adjacent blocks to be built potentially at the same time, subject to (only) market conditions? Some of us are parents of very young children. Others are seniors planning to age in place. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the developers and/or of the city to these neighbours, as we experience our residential neighbourhood transformed into a second downtown? on Twitter Share As we can see from page 13 (Relationship to Context), the immediate area here could see in the future numerous high-rise buildings constructed in what is currently a predominately mix of rental and condo buildings reaching 3 to 4 storeys. The residents of the buildings who are NOT redeveloped into condos, including renters and many condominium owners (i.e. on the 2200 or 2100 block of West 5th), will be living next to this construction. Can these residents expect multiple towers in the same block or adjacent blocks to be built potentially at the same time, subject to (only) market conditions? Some of us are parents of very young children. Others are seniors planning to age in place. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the developers and/or of the city to these neighbours, as we experience our residential neighbourhood transformed into a second downtown? on Linkedin Email As we can see from page 13 (Relationship to Context), the immediate area here could see in the future numerous high-rise buildings constructed in what is currently a predominately mix of rental and condo buildings reaching 3 to 4 storeys. The residents of the buildings who are NOT redeveloped into condos, including renters and many condominium owners (i.e. on the 2200 or 2100 block of West 5th), will be living next to this construction. Can these residents expect multiple towers in the same block or adjacent blocks to be built potentially at the same time, subject to (only) market conditions? Some of us are parents of very young children. Others are seniors planning to age in place. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the developers and/or of the city to these neighbours, as we experience our residential neighbourhood transformed into a second downtown? link

    As we can see from page 13 (Relationship to Context), the immediate area here could see in the future numerous high-rise buildings constructed in what is currently a predominately mix of rental and condo buildings reaching 3 to 4 storeys. The residents of the buildings who are NOT redeveloped into condos, including renters and many condominium owners (i.e. on the 2200 or 2100 block of West 5th), will be living next to this construction. Can these residents expect multiple towers in the same block or adjacent blocks to be built potentially at the same time, subject to (only) market conditions? Some of us are parents of very young children. Others are seniors planning to age in place. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the developers and/or of the city to these neighbours, as we experience our residential neighbourhood transformed into a second downtown?

    ForgottenNeighbour asked 2 months ago

    Application drawings are posted online as-submitted to the City. The study on page 13 is hypothetical in nature, and does not consider tower per block limitations or likelihood of redevelopment. Please reference Figure 7.4 of the Broadway Plan, for tower limit policies and mapping. 

    An interactive map of active rezoning applications can be found here. Rezoning applications in process today will (if approved) take several years to construct, and not all approved applications end up being built. For the projects that do proceed to construction, there are several factors that will moderate the pace of development including: market absorption rates (which, in part determine when developers choose to construct), labour capacity, supply and cost of construction materials, construction periods than can span multiple years, and access to capital. 

    In terms of mitigating construction impacts, the City has a Noise Compliance By-law which regulates construction-related noise for private development (Weekdays 7.30am-8pm, Sat 10am-8pm, not permitted on Sundays/holidays). Developers are required to coordinate construction and street use with the City’s Engineering Department and obtain necessary permits, and provide traffic management plans when road closures are required. 

  • Share P.13 ("Relationship to Context") shows a proposed 21-storey high-rise at 2154 West 5th. Where is the proposal? As a resident of this block, I have not heard of it, nor have the other neighbours that I know. on Facebook Share P.13 ("Relationship to Context") shows a proposed 21-storey high-rise at 2154 West 5th. Where is the proposal? As a resident of this block, I have not heard of it, nor have the other neighbours that I know. on Twitter Share P.13 ("Relationship to Context") shows a proposed 21-storey high-rise at 2154 West 5th. Where is the proposal? As a resident of this block, I have not heard of it, nor have the other neighbours that I know. on Linkedin Email P.13 ("Relationship to Context") shows a proposed 21-storey high-rise at 2154 West 5th. Where is the proposal? As a resident of this block, I have not heard of it, nor have the other neighbours that I know. link

    P.13 ("Relationship to Context") shows a proposed 21-storey high-rise at 2154 West 5th. Where is the proposal? As a resident of this block, I have not heard of it, nor have the other neighbours that I know.

    ForgottenNeighbour asked 2 months ago

    The application drawings posted online are as-submitted to the City. The ‘Relationship to Context’ page in the booklet is hypothetical and does not take into account tower limitations per block or likelihood of redevelopment.


    As per Figure 7.4 of the Broadway Plan, tower limits apply to portions of North Kitsilano. For 5th Avenue, between Vine and Cypress Streets, here is a 2 tower limit per block for the north side of the street. 

    An interactive map of the active rezoning applications in the City can be found here.

  • Share The application's language describes "200 social housing units" and "200 affordable rental units" as being provided by the building. I presume that 200 are the total number of units in the building. Is this correct? If so, the language is misleading to the average citizen. Is it not the case that (only) 30% of units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters that meet BC Housing's Household Income Limits (HIL)? Can you please clarify for me (1) the total number of units in the building and (2) the number of units within the total that are currently guaranteed to be affordable to renters who meet the HIL thresholds. on Facebook Share The application's language describes "200 social housing units" and "200 affordable rental units" as being provided by the building. I presume that 200 are the total number of units in the building. Is this correct? If so, the language is misleading to the average citizen. Is it not the case that (only) 30% of units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters that meet BC Housing's Household Income Limits (HIL)? Can you please clarify for me (1) the total number of units in the building and (2) the number of units within the total that are currently guaranteed to be affordable to renters who meet the HIL thresholds. on Twitter Share The application's language describes "200 social housing units" and "200 affordable rental units" as being provided by the building. I presume that 200 are the total number of units in the building. Is this correct? If so, the language is misleading to the average citizen. Is it not the case that (only) 30% of units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters that meet BC Housing's Household Income Limits (HIL)? Can you please clarify for me (1) the total number of units in the building and (2) the number of units within the total that are currently guaranteed to be affordable to renters who meet the HIL thresholds. on Linkedin Email The application's language describes "200 social housing units" and "200 affordable rental units" as being provided by the building. I presume that 200 are the total number of units in the building. Is this correct? If so, the language is misleading to the average citizen. Is it not the case that (only) 30% of units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters that meet BC Housing's Household Income Limits (HIL)? Can you please clarify for me (1) the total number of units in the building and (2) the number of units within the total that are currently guaranteed to be affordable to renters who meet the HIL thresholds. link

    The application's language describes "200 social housing units" and "200 affordable rental units" as being provided by the building. I presume that 200 are the total number of units in the building. Is this correct? If so, the language is misleading to the average citizen. Is it not the case that (only) 30% of units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters that meet BC Housing's Household Income Limits (HIL)? Can you please clarify for me (1) the total number of units in the building and (2) the number of units within the total that are currently guaranteed to be affordable to renters who meet the HIL thresholds.

    ForgottenNeighbour asked 2 months ago

    200 units is the total number of proposed units in the building. 

    The City’s definition of Social Housing requires:

    • 100% of the units in the building must be owned by a non-profit or government agency;
    • At least 30% of the units are affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing or equivalent publication; and
    • That the site is secured with a housing agreement, registered against the title, to ensure the site remains social housing for 60 years.


    The intent of the City’s current social housing definition is to set a minimum threshold that is achievable for most new non-market housing development. Often the affordability is greater than the City’s minimum threshold prior to building opening, as senior government funding is generally committed later in the development process. The applicant will meet the 30% threshold of units secured at HILs, and is working to maximize the affordability of the other 70% of units, noting that the affordability is determined largely by available funding models. 

    The applicant, Brightside, is a non-profit affordable housing provider with almost 75 years of experience, strives to provide rental housing that is as affordable as possible with affordability increasing over time. The vast majority of the rental homes Brightside provides are rented at rates that are geared to income, with a limited number of new low-end-of-market rental homes that balance the feasibility of new developments.  

    The HILs are based on figures established by CMHC, and are intended to reflect the minimum income required to afford a unit in the private market.  HILs is the maximum gross household income for eligibility in many affordable housing programs. The HILs units in social housing are available for tenants who earn at or below this number. For more information, see here for the City of Vancouver’s social housing definition and BC Housing’s current HILs.

  • Share Could you please clarify the mix of full market rentals and the below market rentals in this application? Is the application coming in at 70% market rental and 30% HILs rate units? on Facebook Share Could you please clarify the mix of full market rentals and the below market rentals in this application? Is the application coming in at 70% market rental and 30% HILs rate units? on Twitter Share Could you please clarify the mix of full market rentals and the below market rentals in this application? Is the application coming in at 70% market rental and 30% HILs rate units? on Linkedin Email Could you please clarify the mix of full market rentals and the below market rentals in this application? Is the application coming in at 70% market rental and 30% HILs rate units? link

    Could you please clarify the mix of full market rentals and the below market rentals in this application? Is the application coming in at 70% market rental and 30% HILs rate units?

    redpanda asked 2 months ago

    The City of Vancouver’s definition of ‘social housing’ requires: 

    • 100% of the units in the building must be owned by a non-profit or government agency;
    • At least 30% of the units are affordable to incomes at or below Housing Income Limits (HILS) as published by BC Housing or equivalent publication; and
    • That the site is secured with a housing agreement, registered against the title, to ensure the site remains social housing for 60 years.


    This project will meet or exceed this social housing definition, and senior government funding is being investigated to further deepen affordability.

    The intent of the City’s current social housing definition is to set a minimum threshold that is achievable for most new non-market housing development. Often the affordability is greater than the City’s minimum threshold prior to building opening, as senior government funding is generally committed later in the development process after the municipality has approved the project.

    The 30% of units available at or below HILs incomes ensures that units are affordable for tenants who cannot afford market rates. The HILs are based on figures established by CMHC, and are intended to reflect the minimum income required to afford a unit in the private market.  HILs is the maximum gross household income for eligibility in many affordable housing programs. The HILs units in social housing are available for tenants who earn at or below this number. The project has not confirmed what the rental rates will be for the remaining 70% of units that are not required to be at or below HILs.

    For more information, see here for the City of Vancouver’s social housing definition and BC Housing’s current HILs.

     

  • Share To quote the Broadway Plan: Solar Access, “Proposed new development should avoid creating new shadow impacts on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets (see Character Areas Chapter 6 for locations of villages) from the spring to fall equinoxes between 10AM and 4PM”…“For new buildings south of a village high street, protections apply to the northern sidewalk.” This design would clearly introduce new shadow impacts on the north side of West 4th Avenue. Is this not the case and the application does not follow the Broadway Plan? Furthermore, page 13 of the application booklet illustrates 6 similar towers on the north side of West 5th Avenue. Three of these sites are labelled “A. Proposed High Rise = 21 storeys” while 3 are “D. Potential New Development”. Can you confirm if staff are indeed processing another three 21 storey highrises on the north side of West 5th as shown in the applicant's illustration that do not follow the Broadway Plan Solar Access policy? on Facebook Share To quote the Broadway Plan: Solar Access, “Proposed new development should avoid creating new shadow impacts on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets (see Character Areas Chapter 6 for locations of villages) from the spring to fall equinoxes between 10AM and 4PM”…“For new buildings south of a village high street, protections apply to the northern sidewalk.” This design would clearly introduce new shadow impacts on the north side of West 4th Avenue. Is this not the case and the application does not follow the Broadway Plan? Furthermore, page 13 of the application booklet illustrates 6 similar towers on the north side of West 5th Avenue. Three of these sites are labelled “A. Proposed High Rise = 21 storeys” while 3 are “D. Potential New Development”. Can you confirm if staff are indeed processing another three 21 storey highrises on the north side of West 5th as shown in the applicant's illustration that do not follow the Broadway Plan Solar Access policy? on Twitter Share To quote the Broadway Plan: Solar Access, “Proposed new development should avoid creating new shadow impacts on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets (see Character Areas Chapter 6 for locations of villages) from the spring to fall equinoxes between 10AM and 4PM”…“For new buildings south of a village high street, protections apply to the northern sidewalk.” This design would clearly introduce new shadow impacts on the north side of West 4th Avenue. Is this not the case and the application does not follow the Broadway Plan? Furthermore, page 13 of the application booklet illustrates 6 similar towers on the north side of West 5th Avenue. Three of these sites are labelled “A. Proposed High Rise = 21 storeys” while 3 are “D. Potential New Development”. Can you confirm if staff are indeed processing another three 21 storey highrises on the north side of West 5th as shown in the applicant's illustration that do not follow the Broadway Plan Solar Access policy? on Linkedin Email To quote the Broadway Plan: Solar Access, “Proposed new development should avoid creating new shadow impacts on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets (see Character Areas Chapter 6 for locations of villages) from the spring to fall equinoxes between 10AM and 4PM”…“For new buildings south of a village high street, protections apply to the northern sidewalk.” This design would clearly introduce new shadow impacts on the north side of West 4th Avenue. Is this not the case and the application does not follow the Broadway Plan? Furthermore, page 13 of the application booklet illustrates 6 similar towers on the north side of West 5th Avenue. Three of these sites are labelled “A. Proposed High Rise = 21 storeys” while 3 are “D. Potential New Development”. Can you confirm if staff are indeed processing another three 21 storey highrises on the north side of West 5th as shown in the applicant's illustration that do not follow the Broadway Plan Solar Access policy? link

    To quote the Broadway Plan: Solar Access, “Proposed new development should avoid creating new shadow impacts on the opposite sidewalk in village high streets (see Character Areas Chapter 6 for locations of villages) from the spring to fall equinoxes between 10AM and 4PM”…“For new buildings south of a village high street, protections apply to the northern sidewalk.” This design would clearly introduce new shadow impacts on the north side of West 4th Avenue. Is this not the case and the application does not follow the Broadway Plan? Furthermore, page 13 of the application booklet illustrates 6 similar towers on the north side of West 5th Avenue. Three of these sites are labelled “A. Proposed High Rise = 21 storeys” while 3 are “D. Potential New Development”. Can you confirm if staff are indeed processing another three 21 storey highrises on the north side of West 5th as shown in the applicant's illustration that do not follow the Broadway Plan Solar Access policy?

    redpanda asked 2 months ago

    Application drawings and statistics posted online are as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the report to Council will outline conditions of approval, including requirements related to form of development/building design.  

    The drawing on page 13 is theoretical in nature and does not take into account tower limitations per block or likelihood of redevelopment. An interactive map of active rezoning applications can be found here. The subject application is currently the only rezoning application on the north side of 5th Avenue in the immediate area. As per Figure 7.4 of the Broadway Plan, tower limits apply to portions of the block, the north side of 5th Avenue, between Vine and Cypress Streets. 

  • Share Does this application fall under Section 11.4 and does it comply with Section 11.4.8 of the Broadway Plan? "Underground parking structures should be set back from the front property line and exterior side yard (where applicable) by 3.7 m (12 ft.) to ensure adequate soil depth for healthy trees are desired. Where roughly equivalent site area is provided, alternative alignments for underground setbacks may be considered to better accommodate high-value tree retention, onsite tree planting (e.g. within an enhanced open space setback), or to support green rainwater infrastructure associated with blue green systems. " on Facebook Share Does this application fall under Section 11.4 and does it comply with Section 11.4.8 of the Broadway Plan? "Underground parking structures should be set back from the front property line and exterior side yard (where applicable) by 3.7 m (12 ft.) to ensure adequate soil depth for healthy trees are desired. Where roughly equivalent site area is provided, alternative alignments for underground setbacks may be considered to better accommodate high-value tree retention, onsite tree planting (e.g. within an enhanced open space setback), or to support green rainwater infrastructure associated with blue green systems. " on Twitter Share Does this application fall under Section 11.4 and does it comply with Section 11.4.8 of the Broadway Plan? "Underground parking structures should be set back from the front property line and exterior side yard (where applicable) by 3.7 m (12 ft.) to ensure adequate soil depth for healthy trees are desired. Where roughly equivalent site area is provided, alternative alignments for underground setbacks may be considered to better accommodate high-value tree retention, onsite tree planting (e.g. within an enhanced open space setback), or to support green rainwater infrastructure associated with blue green systems. " on Linkedin Email Does this application fall under Section 11.4 and does it comply with Section 11.4.8 of the Broadway Plan? "Underground parking structures should be set back from the front property line and exterior side yard (where applicable) by 3.7 m (12 ft.) to ensure adequate soil depth for healthy trees are desired. Where roughly equivalent site area is provided, alternative alignments for underground setbacks may be considered to better accommodate high-value tree retention, onsite tree planting (e.g. within an enhanced open space setback), or to support green rainwater infrastructure associated with blue green systems. " link

    Does this application fall under Section 11.4 and does it comply with Section 11.4.8 of the Broadway Plan? "Underground parking structures should be set back from the front property line and exterior side yard (where applicable) by 3.7 m (12 ft.) to ensure adequate soil depth for healthy trees are desired. Where roughly equivalent site area is provided, alternative alignments for underground setbacks may be considered to better accommodate high-value tree retention, onsite tree planting (e.g. within an enhanced open space setback), or to support green rainwater infrastructure associated with blue green systems. "

    wheatgerm asked 2 months ago

    Application drawings and statistics posted online are as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the report to Council will outline conditions of approval, including requirements related to site design and form of development/building design.  

Page last updated: 20 Mar 2025, 02:05 PM