Go Back

210-220 W 6th Ave and 2224 Alberta St rezoning application

Share 210-220 W 6th Ave and 2224 Alberta St rezoning application on Facebook Share 210-220 W 6th Ave and 2224 Alberta St rezoning application on Twitter Share 210-220 W 6th Ave and 2224 Alberta St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 210-220 W 6th Ave and 2224 Alberta St rezoning application link

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on February 27, 2025.

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from I-1 (Industrial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 11-storey industrial and office building with heritage retention and includes:

  • Manufacturing, office, and service space;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.60; and
  • A building height of 43.3 m (142 ft.).

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

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

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on February 27, 2025.

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from I-1 (Industrial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 11-storey industrial and office building with heritage retention and includes:

  • Manufacturing, office, and service space;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.60; and
  • A building height of 43.3 m (142 ft.).

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

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

Consultation has concluded

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from March 27 to April 9, 2024.

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 Hi, I would like to know if the developer or City has considered or investigated the harmful effects that the shadowing of this tall building proposal would have on the magnificent, giant and rare ancient Monterey Cypress tree across the street? Have they considered the harms of what over 9 months of shadows from this building (which is requesting 20% additional density) will have on the fig tree and gardens of the “block” house at 233 W. 6th which is on the first Mt. Pleasant Heritage Walking Tour? Or how it might affect the proposed outdoor urban farm green space and gardens at 237 W. 6th? Thanks, David on Facebook Share Hi, I would like to know if the developer or City has considered or investigated the harmful effects that the shadowing of this tall building proposal would have on the magnificent, giant and rare ancient Monterey Cypress tree across the street? Have they considered the harms of what over 9 months of shadows from this building (which is requesting 20% additional density) will have on the fig tree and gardens of the “block” house at 233 W. 6th which is on the first Mt. Pleasant Heritage Walking Tour? Or how it might affect the proposed outdoor urban farm green space and gardens at 237 W. 6th? Thanks, David on Twitter Share Hi, I would like to know if the developer or City has considered or investigated the harmful effects that the shadowing of this tall building proposal would have on the magnificent, giant and rare ancient Monterey Cypress tree across the street? Have they considered the harms of what over 9 months of shadows from this building (which is requesting 20% additional density) will have on the fig tree and gardens of the “block” house at 233 W. 6th which is on the first Mt. Pleasant Heritage Walking Tour? Or how it might affect the proposed outdoor urban farm green space and gardens at 237 W. 6th? Thanks, David on Linkedin Email Hi, I would like to know if the developer or City has considered or investigated the harmful effects that the shadowing of this tall building proposal would have on the magnificent, giant and rare ancient Monterey Cypress tree across the street? Have they considered the harms of what over 9 months of shadows from this building (which is requesting 20% additional density) will have on the fig tree and gardens of the “block” house at 233 W. 6th which is on the first Mt. Pleasant Heritage Walking Tour? Or how it might affect the proposed outdoor urban farm green space and gardens at 237 W. 6th? Thanks, David link

    Hi, I would like to know if the developer or City has considered or investigated the harmful effects that the shadowing of this tall building proposal would have on the magnificent, giant and rare ancient Monterey Cypress tree across the street? Have they considered the harms of what over 9 months of shadows from this building (which is requesting 20% additional density) will have on the fig tree and gardens of the “block” house at 233 W. 6th which is on the first Mt. Pleasant Heritage Walking Tour? Or how it might affect the proposed outdoor urban farm green space and gardens at 237 W. 6th? Thanks, David

    DavidYacht asked about 1 year ago

    It is difficult to know what the impacts of shadows will be on a mature tree, as there are many external factors and variables that could impact its long-term viability. Staff are fairly confident that between the spring and fall equinox (during the growing season) there will be minimal shadowing on the tree’s canopy, based on the proposed building height. Regarding impacts to the fig tree and gardens of the “block” house and the proposed urban farm and green space, staff can’t comment on this since their specific locations are unknown. However, there will be increased shadowing in the area to the south of the large tree.

  • Share Is it correct to say that you are looking to demovict the residents and their pets from the existing rental apartment units at 2224 Alberta Street, with no option for them to return? Yes or no. Whatever happened to the best tenant protection policies that were touted when the Broadway Plan passed? Are all of these renters really on their own? on Facebook Share Is it correct to say that you are looking to demovict the residents and their pets from the existing rental apartment units at 2224 Alberta Street, with no option for them to return? Yes or no. Whatever happened to the best tenant protection policies that were touted when the Broadway Plan passed? Are all of these renters really on their own? on Twitter Share Is it correct to say that you are looking to demovict the residents and their pets from the existing rental apartment units at 2224 Alberta Street, with no option for them to return? Yes or no. Whatever happened to the best tenant protection policies that were touted when the Broadway Plan passed? Are all of these renters really on their own? on Linkedin Email Is it correct to say that you are looking to demovict the residents and their pets from the existing rental apartment units at 2224 Alberta Street, with no option for them to return? Yes or no. Whatever happened to the best tenant protection policies that were touted when the Broadway Plan passed? Are all of these renters really on their own? link

    Is it correct to say that you are looking to demovict the residents and their pets from the existing rental apartment units at 2224 Alberta Street, with no option for them to return? Yes or no. Whatever happened to the best tenant protection policies that were touted when the Broadway Plan passed? Are all of these renters really on their own?

    redpanda asked about 1 year ago

    The tenants at 2224 Alberta will receive protections under the City’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy. This includes financial compensation based on length of tenancy, help with moving expenses, and additional support for tenants with housing barriers. As well, the City's primary focus will be on helping tenants find suitable alternative housing that aligns with their needs and preferences. The City is not able to permit new residential to replace existing residential in any industrially-designated area, such as the Mt. Pleasant Industrial Area, in accordance with Metro Vancouver’s land use regulations.

  • Share To add onto the questions below, what is the city doing to offset the removal of affordable residential stock? The units in the building have some long-term tenants and the fact that it is an older building means that the rent has been relatively reasonable, especially given its location. While there may be housing stock added with the Broadway Plan, the market rates will likely be unaffordable for many of the residents in the building and compensation can only temporarily support those displaced. The need for more industrial land and the economic growth it can provide is important but is there not other opportunities to increase industrial stock around Metro Vancouver that does not result in displacing housing? on Facebook Share To add onto the questions below, what is the city doing to offset the removal of affordable residential stock? The units in the building have some long-term tenants and the fact that it is an older building means that the rent has been relatively reasonable, especially given its location. While there may be housing stock added with the Broadway Plan, the market rates will likely be unaffordable for many of the residents in the building and compensation can only temporarily support those displaced. The need for more industrial land and the economic growth it can provide is important but is there not other opportunities to increase industrial stock around Metro Vancouver that does not result in displacing housing? on Twitter Share To add onto the questions below, what is the city doing to offset the removal of affordable residential stock? The units in the building have some long-term tenants and the fact that it is an older building means that the rent has been relatively reasonable, especially given its location. While there may be housing stock added with the Broadway Plan, the market rates will likely be unaffordable for many of the residents in the building and compensation can only temporarily support those displaced. The need for more industrial land and the economic growth it can provide is important but is there not other opportunities to increase industrial stock around Metro Vancouver that does not result in displacing housing? on Linkedin Email To add onto the questions below, what is the city doing to offset the removal of affordable residential stock? The units in the building have some long-term tenants and the fact that it is an older building means that the rent has been relatively reasonable, especially given its location. While there may be housing stock added with the Broadway Plan, the market rates will likely be unaffordable for many of the residents in the building and compensation can only temporarily support those displaced. The need for more industrial land and the economic growth it can provide is important but is there not other opportunities to increase industrial stock around Metro Vancouver that does not result in displacing housing? link

    To add onto the questions below, what is the city doing to offset the removal of affordable residential stock? The units in the building have some long-term tenants and the fact that it is an older building means that the rent has been relatively reasonable, especially given its location. While there may be housing stock added with the Broadway Plan, the market rates will likely be unaffordable for many of the residents in the building and compensation can only temporarily support those displaced. The need for more industrial land and the economic growth it can provide is important but is there not other opportunities to increase industrial stock around Metro Vancouver that does not result in displacing housing?

    D Anonymous asked about 1 year ago

    With redevelopment projects, there is a need to balance rental supply and protection with maintaining and growing the valuable industrial land uses in the city. Only seven percent of the city’s land area is dedicated for industrial uses, including the Mt. Pleasant Industrial Area. In accordance with Metro Vancouver’s land use regulations, the City is not able to permit new residential in any industrially-designated area.

    The City of Vancouver’s Tenant Relocation Protection Policy (TRPP) will apply to these tenants, and they will receive financial compensation based on length of tenancy, help with moving expenses, additional support for tenants with housing barriers and early and ongoing communication by the applicant around the TRPP and development process. Since a residential building is not permitted on this site, there is no opportunity for right-of-first-refusal or rent top up. Instead, the City's primary focus will be on helping tenants find suitable alternative housing that aligns with their needs and preferences.

  • Share Hello - I would like to echo both David and Tom's inquiries about the loss of valuable residential units. I live in the Mt Pleasant Industrial area and accept that in doing so I am living alongside light industrial uses. Given our city's housing crisis, it should be imperative to retain residential units, regardless of whether they are in an area that is predominantly light industrial. Why isn't the elimination of residential units prohibited, full stop? Preserving the predominantly industrial usage should also be an imperative - why isn't it? The city has already allowed for a great deal of conversion of industrial to commercial in this neighbourhood and it should not be promoting more of that, and especially not at the expense of residential units. So far, I don't see that the justifications provided are sufficient and I'd like the City to reconsider and respond. My second question is, why would the city allow such a gargantuan building right beside the retained heritage building? It dwarfs the existing heritage building and looks silly and clearly only adheres to the letter of heritage values, not the intent or spirit of the rules that are in place to preserve heritage buildings. Can the developer not make a better effort here? It looks really quite clumsy. Can the city not require a more well-integrated vision for this proposal? Thanks, K on Facebook Share Hello - I would like to echo both David and Tom's inquiries about the loss of valuable residential units. I live in the Mt Pleasant Industrial area and accept that in doing so I am living alongside light industrial uses. Given our city's housing crisis, it should be imperative to retain residential units, regardless of whether they are in an area that is predominantly light industrial. Why isn't the elimination of residential units prohibited, full stop? Preserving the predominantly industrial usage should also be an imperative - why isn't it? The city has already allowed for a great deal of conversion of industrial to commercial in this neighbourhood and it should not be promoting more of that, and especially not at the expense of residential units. So far, I don't see that the justifications provided are sufficient and I'd like the City to reconsider and respond. My second question is, why would the city allow such a gargantuan building right beside the retained heritage building? It dwarfs the existing heritage building and looks silly and clearly only adheres to the letter of heritage values, not the intent or spirit of the rules that are in place to preserve heritage buildings. Can the developer not make a better effort here? It looks really quite clumsy. Can the city not require a more well-integrated vision for this proposal? Thanks, K on Twitter Share Hello - I would like to echo both David and Tom's inquiries about the loss of valuable residential units. I live in the Mt Pleasant Industrial area and accept that in doing so I am living alongside light industrial uses. Given our city's housing crisis, it should be imperative to retain residential units, regardless of whether they are in an area that is predominantly light industrial. Why isn't the elimination of residential units prohibited, full stop? Preserving the predominantly industrial usage should also be an imperative - why isn't it? The city has already allowed for a great deal of conversion of industrial to commercial in this neighbourhood and it should not be promoting more of that, and especially not at the expense of residential units. So far, I don't see that the justifications provided are sufficient and I'd like the City to reconsider and respond. My second question is, why would the city allow such a gargantuan building right beside the retained heritage building? It dwarfs the existing heritage building and looks silly and clearly only adheres to the letter of heritage values, not the intent or spirit of the rules that are in place to preserve heritage buildings. Can the developer not make a better effort here? It looks really quite clumsy. Can the city not require a more well-integrated vision for this proposal? Thanks, K on Linkedin Email Hello - I would like to echo both David and Tom's inquiries about the loss of valuable residential units. I live in the Mt Pleasant Industrial area and accept that in doing so I am living alongside light industrial uses. Given our city's housing crisis, it should be imperative to retain residential units, regardless of whether they are in an area that is predominantly light industrial. Why isn't the elimination of residential units prohibited, full stop? Preserving the predominantly industrial usage should also be an imperative - why isn't it? The city has already allowed for a great deal of conversion of industrial to commercial in this neighbourhood and it should not be promoting more of that, and especially not at the expense of residential units. So far, I don't see that the justifications provided are sufficient and I'd like the City to reconsider and respond. My second question is, why would the city allow such a gargantuan building right beside the retained heritage building? It dwarfs the existing heritage building and looks silly and clearly only adheres to the letter of heritage values, not the intent or spirit of the rules that are in place to preserve heritage buildings. Can the developer not make a better effort here? It looks really quite clumsy. Can the city not require a more well-integrated vision for this proposal? Thanks, K link

    Hello - I would like to echo both David and Tom's inquiries about the loss of valuable residential units. I live in the Mt Pleasant Industrial area and accept that in doing so I am living alongside light industrial uses. Given our city's housing crisis, it should be imperative to retain residential units, regardless of whether they are in an area that is predominantly light industrial. Why isn't the elimination of residential units prohibited, full stop? Preserving the predominantly industrial usage should also be an imperative - why isn't it? The city has already allowed for a great deal of conversion of industrial to commercial in this neighbourhood and it should not be promoting more of that, and especially not at the expense of residential units. So far, I don't see that the justifications provided are sufficient and I'd like the City to reconsider and respond. My second question is, why would the city allow such a gargantuan building right beside the retained heritage building? It dwarfs the existing heritage building and looks silly and clearly only adheres to the letter of heritage values, not the intent or spirit of the rules that are in place to preserve heritage buildings. Can the developer not make a better effort here? It looks really quite clumsy. Can the city not require a more well-integrated vision for this proposal? Thanks, K

    MtPleasantIndustrialFamily asked about 1 year ago

    In accordance with Metro Vancouver’s land use regulations, the City is not legally able to permit new residential in any industrially-designated area (such as I-1).  This regulation has been strengthened and enforced through the Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy. The Broadway Plan does not just protect the industrial uses, it also allows an increased amount of industrial floor area on the site. The table below summarizes what the permitted base density would be under the current base Zoning (I-1) versus what the Broadway Plan is requiring for the MIAA sub-area. The rezoning will result in more industrial in the area, and the increase in commercial density helps facilitate this, by making redevelopment feasible. 

     

     

    Site area:  1,262 m²



    Base existing zoning:
    I-1 District Schedule

    Rezoning:
    Broadway Plan (MIAA)

    Industrial

    Floor area

    1,262 m²

    3,786 m²

    FSR

    1.00

    3.00

    Commercial

    Floor area

    2,524 m²

    3,786 m²

    FSR

    2.00

    3.00


    The City of Vancouver’s Tenant Relocation Protection Policy (TRPP) will apply to the tenants of 2224 Alberta, and they will receive financial compensation based on length of tenancy, help with moving expenses, additional support for tenants with housing barriers and early and ongoing communication by the applicant around the TRPP and development process. The project will be reviewed by the Vancouver Heritage Commission and staff will also look for ways to improve the conservation of the original building where possible. Staff will also relay the concerns to the applicant and their heritage consultant for their review. 

  • Share Hi, I would like to know what benefits the developer is hoping to gain by retaining the “heritage” structure, what value/significance the building facade has from an architectural or historical perspective and if the benefits they wish to obtain are similar to other recent developments in this neighbourhood. In reference to the other question from Tom I would like to know why the City would allow the loss of valuable residential units only to have that building used for commercial purposes, when it is industrial space that is in short supply, not commercial space and the area is not zoned for commercial. Thanks, David on Facebook Share Hi, I would like to know what benefits the developer is hoping to gain by retaining the “heritage” structure, what value/significance the building facade has from an architectural or historical perspective and if the benefits they wish to obtain are similar to other recent developments in this neighbourhood. In reference to the other question from Tom I would like to know why the City would allow the loss of valuable residential units only to have that building used for commercial purposes, when it is industrial space that is in short supply, not commercial space and the area is not zoned for commercial. Thanks, David on Twitter Share Hi, I would like to know what benefits the developer is hoping to gain by retaining the “heritage” structure, what value/significance the building facade has from an architectural or historical perspective and if the benefits they wish to obtain are similar to other recent developments in this neighbourhood. In reference to the other question from Tom I would like to know why the City would allow the loss of valuable residential units only to have that building used for commercial purposes, when it is industrial space that is in short supply, not commercial space and the area is not zoned for commercial. Thanks, David on Linkedin Email Hi, I would like to know what benefits the developer is hoping to gain by retaining the “heritage” structure, what value/significance the building facade has from an architectural or historical perspective and if the benefits they wish to obtain are similar to other recent developments in this neighbourhood. In reference to the other question from Tom I would like to know why the City would allow the loss of valuable residential units only to have that building used for commercial purposes, when it is industrial space that is in short supply, not commercial space and the area is not zoned for commercial. Thanks, David link

    Hi, I would like to know what benefits the developer is hoping to gain by retaining the “heritage” structure, what value/significance the building facade has from an architectural or historical perspective and if the benefits they wish to obtain are similar to other recent developments in this neighbourhood. In reference to the other question from Tom I would like to know why the City would allow the loss of valuable residential units only to have that building used for commercial purposes, when it is industrial space that is in short supply, not commercial space and the area is not zoned for commercial. Thanks, David

    DavidYacht asked about 1 year ago

    The Broadway Plan and existing zoning, require that industrial is the primary intended use. The proposal includes a significant net increase to industrial floor space, from what is currently on site, and to what is permitted under existing I-1 zoning. Both the Broadway Plan and existing industrial zoning, allow commercial uses, which are compatible and complementary to industrial uses. This includes office and retail. Commercial is more compatible and complementary to industrial uses than residential, as it has fewer conflicts. Industrial zoning allows early morning and late night deliveries, 24 hour industrial operations, the storage of potentially toxic chemicals, and noise and pollution levels not allowed in residential areas. This make residential on the same site untenable.

    The Broadway Plan allows for consideration of up to 10% additional density (FSR) for projects which retain, conserve and designate a heritage building on the Vancouver Heritage Register. The applicant has decided to apply for an additional 10% density. Staff will review the proposal against the Broadway Plan, Heritage Policies, other relevant policies, and urban design performance.

  • Share Hi, There seem to be around 10 dwellings in the heritage building on the site. Given the housing/renting affordability crisis and a lot of city policies right now revolving around the topic (which has already been called out for beeing too little too late), how is getting rid of those units without any replacement justified? Thanks, Tom Skorczynski on Facebook Share Hi, There seem to be around 10 dwellings in the heritage building on the site. Given the housing/renting affordability crisis and a lot of city policies right now revolving around the topic (which has already been called out for beeing too little too late), how is getting rid of those units without any replacement justified? Thanks, Tom Skorczynski on Twitter Share Hi, There seem to be around 10 dwellings in the heritage building on the site. Given the housing/renting affordability crisis and a lot of city policies right now revolving around the topic (which has already been called out for beeing too little too late), how is getting rid of those units without any replacement justified? Thanks, Tom Skorczynski on Linkedin Email Hi, There seem to be around 10 dwellings in the heritage building on the site. Given the housing/renting affordability crisis and a lot of city policies right now revolving around the topic (which has already been called out for beeing too little too late), how is getting rid of those units without any replacement justified? Thanks, Tom Skorczynski link

    Hi, There seem to be around 10 dwellings in the heritage building on the site. Given the housing/renting affordability crisis and a lot of city policies right now revolving around the topic (which has already been called out for beeing too little too late), how is getting rid of those units without any replacement justified? Thanks, Tom Skorczynski

    Tom Skorczynski asked about 1 year ago

    Yes, there are 12 residential units in the building at 2224 Alberta Street, and there are no replacement residential units required or provided in the rezoning application. The residential building was built in 1913, before the area was designated as industrial land in the 1930s. Today the land is zoned I-1 (industrial) and is protected as industrial land by Metro Vancouver. 

    As well as the scarcity of affordable housing, there is also a scarcity of industrial lands in the region. Industrial lands are where noisy, smelly and potential hazardous work can be done throughout the night and day. Industrial lands are important for employment and business supply chains, which makes them critical to the region’s economy. The Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy doesn’t allow for residential uses in industrial-designated areas, because adding residential increases the cost of the land and makes it unsuitable for industrial activity. Metro 2050 applies to all municipalities in the region, not just the City of Vancouver.