Go Back

2158-2170 W 1st Ave rezoning application

Share 2158-2170 W 1st Ave rezoning application on Facebook Share 2158-2170 W 1st Ave rezoning application on Twitter Share 2158-2170 W 1st Ave rezoning application on Linkedin Email 2158-2170 W 1st 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 with a 4-storey podium and includes:

  • 185 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • Commercial space on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.8; and
  • A building height of 64.6 m (212 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

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.

Announcements

September 16, 2024

The Q&A period will be extended by an additional week. Please note that feedback and questions can still be submitted after the Q&A period ends. Following the Q&A period, questions and feedback can be emailed directly to the Rezoning Planner at oskar.eriksson@vancouver.ca


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 with a 4-storey podium and includes:

  • 185 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
  • Commercial space on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.8; and
  • A building height of 64.6 m (212 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

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.

Announcements

September 16, 2024

The Q&A period will be extended by an additional week. Please note that feedback and questions can still be submitted after the Q&A period ends. Following the Q&A period, questions and feedback can be emailed directly to the Rezoning Planner at oskar.eriksson@vancouver.ca


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

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from September 4 to September 24, 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 What calculations have been made on the climate impacts of this proposal (demolition waste, use of concrete, construction emissions, future heating and air conditioning emissions, etc?) on Facebook Share What calculations have been made on the climate impacts of this proposal (demolition waste, use of concrete, construction emissions, future heating and air conditioning emissions, etc?) on Twitter Share What calculations have been made on the climate impacts of this proposal (demolition waste, use of concrete, construction emissions, future heating and air conditioning emissions, etc?) on Linkedin Email What calculations have been made on the climate impacts of this proposal (demolition waste, use of concrete, construction emissions, future heating and air conditioning emissions, etc?) link

    What calculations have been made on the climate impacts of this proposal (demolition waste, use of concrete, construction emissions, future heating and air conditioning emissions, etc?)

    KitsCitizen asked about 2 months ago

    At rezoning, the applicant is required to show specific documents/reports on how the project will comply with the City’s Green Buildings Policy. These documents include the type of heating, hot water use, cooling measures, materials used, etc and its corresponding emissions. The documents provided for this project show that the project is on track to meet carbon limits.

    The Vancouver Green Buildings Policy sets limits on the project’s energy and emissions performance. This is related to the City’s Climate Adaptation Strategy to reduce carbon pollution by 50% by 2030 and becoming carbon neutral by 2050.

  • Share Do you acknowledge that high rises with 20% of the units at 20% lower than market prices might not positively impact affordability in the Broadway Plan area? Have you reviewed the hundreds of other markets around the world with the same affordability problem and questioned why such a solution you are proposing here hasn't proved to be effective in all of these other hundreds and hundreds of markets? If it is this easy (i.e. rezoning to high rises with a very low affordability ratio, have you questioned why these other zones plagued with this same problem haven't solved their own affordability crisis using the same solution? on Facebook Share Do you acknowledge that high rises with 20% of the units at 20% lower than market prices might not positively impact affordability in the Broadway Plan area? Have you reviewed the hundreds of other markets around the world with the same affordability problem and questioned why such a solution you are proposing here hasn't proved to be effective in all of these other hundreds and hundreds of markets? If it is this easy (i.e. rezoning to high rises with a very low affordability ratio, have you questioned why these other zones plagued with this same problem haven't solved their own affordability crisis using the same solution? on Twitter Share Do you acknowledge that high rises with 20% of the units at 20% lower than market prices might not positively impact affordability in the Broadway Plan area? Have you reviewed the hundreds of other markets around the world with the same affordability problem and questioned why such a solution you are proposing here hasn't proved to be effective in all of these other hundreds and hundreds of markets? If it is this easy (i.e. rezoning to high rises with a very low affordability ratio, have you questioned why these other zones plagued with this same problem haven't solved their own affordability crisis using the same solution? on Linkedin Email Do you acknowledge that high rises with 20% of the units at 20% lower than market prices might not positively impact affordability in the Broadway Plan area? Have you reviewed the hundreds of other markets around the world with the same affordability problem and questioned why such a solution you are proposing here hasn't proved to be effective in all of these other hundreds and hundreds of markets? If it is this easy (i.e. rezoning to high rises with a very low affordability ratio, have you questioned why these other zones plagued with this same problem haven't solved their own affordability crisis using the same solution? link

    Do you acknowledge that high rises with 20% of the units at 20% lower than market prices might not positively impact affordability in the Broadway Plan area? Have you reviewed the hundreds of other markets around the world with the same affordability problem and questioned why such a solution you are proposing here hasn't proved to be effective in all of these other hundreds and hundreds of markets? If it is this easy (i.e. rezoning to high rises with a very low affordability ratio, have you questioned why these other zones plagued with this same problem haven't solved their own affordability crisis using the same solution?

    Cejr asked about 2 months ago

    As part of our policy research, we look at and collaborate with other cities facing similar affordability challenges. Policies and their effectiveness can vary greatly depending on local contexts, including economic conditions, regulatory environments, and social factors. The affordability crisis can’t be addressed with a single policy, but rather a whole suite of actions that target housing across the continuum, and work on both supply and demand sides. In Vancouver, this program incentivizing rental construction by granting additional density in exchange for a portion of units at affordable rents is accompanied by numerous other policies and programs. Our strategies and actions can be found in the Housing Vancouver Strategy started in 2017, the Vancouver Plan adopted in 2022 as well as updated 10-year housing targets and new 3-year action plan adopted in June 2024. Part of our work on housing policy is also to keep monitoring the market, how it responds to policies and look at different or innovative solutions that might work in Vancouver.

  • Share In agreement with these existing comments. I’m curious whether the city is planning on the current need of different types of housing based on demand, or based on property developer goals? The whole point of having neighborhoods is because they represent a certain level of community and environment. We’re currently swamping Kitsilano with thousands of units and multiple huge high rises which completely changes the entire feel of the neighborhood. We already have inadequate parking and road infrastructure to deal with the current density of the neighborhood with no realistic requirements for these huge buildings on parking garages etc. take Senakw. No one is opposed to building housing necessary but it does seem to feel like we’re just grabbing at whatever lots we can and throwing up buildings that will still be completely unaffordable for the majority of people. I find it hard to believe we currently have this many people in need of a 1 bedroom apartment for $2800 a month. When all that does is attract new movers from outside of Vancouver and maybe solves a solve percentage of availability for people making a decent salary to move. Bit everyone else is still without housing if they make $65-85K a year but can’t afford $3000 for a unit. Can we not consider mid-level housing buildings that keep the neighborhood charm and vibe and appeal. Yes we must grow and accommodate growth, but soon enough all our neighborhoods won’t be neighborhoods anymore and all the beauty and things that make our city great will be destroyed or blocked or inaccessible to most people. I saw the plan for where the city is wanting to plan kid and high rise buildings and the were all along the seawall and beach areas in Kits, completely destroying the entire environment if they proceed. Even on my street. We can have the best of both worlds but I feel like entire plan is disjointed and not what we actually need. Below market value only means instead of $2800 a month you pay what $2240? But someone who’s low middle class and single still can’t afford over $2000 in rent a month. It doesn’t add up to solve the housing issues. Anyways, just thoughts from someone who is lucky enough to afford to live here. on Facebook Share In agreement with these existing comments. I’m curious whether the city is planning on the current need of different types of housing based on demand, or based on property developer goals? The whole point of having neighborhoods is because they represent a certain level of community and environment. We’re currently swamping Kitsilano with thousands of units and multiple huge high rises which completely changes the entire feel of the neighborhood. We already have inadequate parking and road infrastructure to deal with the current density of the neighborhood with no realistic requirements for these huge buildings on parking garages etc. take Senakw. No one is opposed to building housing necessary but it does seem to feel like we’re just grabbing at whatever lots we can and throwing up buildings that will still be completely unaffordable for the majority of people. I find it hard to believe we currently have this many people in need of a 1 bedroom apartment for $2800 a month. When all that does is attract new movers from outside of Vancouver and maybe solves a solve percentage of availability for people making a decent salary to move. Bit everyone else is still without housing if they make $65-85K a year but can’t afford $3000 for a unit. Can we not consider mid-level housing buildings that keep the neighborhood charm and vibe and appeal. Yes we must grow and accommodate growth, but soon enough all our neighborhoods won’t be neighborhoods anymore and all the beauty and things that make our city great will be destroyed or blocked or inaccessible to most people. I saw the plan for where the city is wanting to plan kid and high rise buildings and the were all along the seawall and beach areas in Kits, completely destroying the entire environment if they proceed. Even on my street. We can have the best of both worlds but I feel like entire plan is disjointed and not what we actually need. Below market value only means instead of $2800 a month you pay what $2240? But someone who’s low middle class and single still can’t afford over $2000 in rent a month. It doesn’t add up to solve the housing issues. Anyways, just thoughts from someone who is lucky enough to afford to live here. on Twitter Share In agreement with these existing comments. I’m curious whether the city is planning on the current need of different types of housing based on demand, or based on property developer goals? The whole point of having neighborhoods is because they represent a certain level of community and environment. We’re currently swamping Kitsilano with thousands of units and multiple huge high rises which completely changes the entire feel of the neighborhood. We already have inadequate parking and road infrastructure to deal with the current density of the neighborhood with no realistic requirements for these huge buildings on parking garages etc. take Senakw. No one is opposed to building housing necessary but it does seem to feel like we’re just grabbing at whatever lots we can and throwing up buildings that will still be completely unaffordable for the majority of people. I find it hard to believe we currently have this many people in need of a 1 bedroom apartment for $2800 a month. When all that does is attract new movers from outside of Vancouver and maybe solves a solve percentage of availability for people making a decent salary to move. Bit everyone else is still without housing if they make $65-85K a year but can’t afford $3000 for a unit. Can we not consider mid-level housing buildings that keep the neighborhood charm and vibe and appeal. Yes we must grow and accommodate growth, but soon enough all our neighborhoods won’t be neighborhoods anymore and all the beauty and things that make our city great will be destroyed or blocked or inaccessible to most people. I saw the plan for where the city is wanting to plan kid and high rise buildings and the were all along the seawall and beach areas in Kits, completely destroying the entire environment if they proceed. Even on my street. We can have the best of both worlds but I feel like entire plan is disjointed and not what we actually need. Below market value only means instead of $2800 a month you pay what $2240? But someone who’s low middle class and single still can’t afford over $2000 in rent a month. It doesn’t add up to solve the housing issues. Anyways, just thoughts from someone who is lucky enough to afford to live here. on Linkedin Email In agreement with these existing comments. I’m curious whether the city is planning on the current need of different types of housing based on demand, or based on property developer goals? The whole point of having neighborhoods is because they represent a certain level of community and environment. We’re currently swamping Kitsilano with thousands of units and multiple huge high rises which completely changes the entire feel of the neighborhood. We already have inadequate parking and road infrastructure to deal with the current density of the neighborhood with no realistic requirements for these huge buildings on parking garages etc. take Senakw. No one is opposed to building housing necessary but it does seem to feel like we’re just grabbing at whatever lots we can and throwing up buildings that will still be completely unaffordable for the majority of people. I find it hard to believe we currently have this many people in need of a 1 bedroom apartment for $2800 a month. When all that does is attract new movers from outside of Vancouver and maybe solves a solve percentage of availability for people making a decent salary to move. Bit everyone else is still without housing if they make $65-85K a year but can’t afford $3000 for a unit. Can we not consider mid-level housing buildings that keep the neighborhood charm and vibe and appeal. Yes we must grow and accommodate growth, but soon enough all our neighborhoods won’t be neighborhoods anymore and all the beauty and things that make our city great will be destroyed or blocked or inaccessible to most people. I saw the plan for where the city is wanting to plan kid and high rise buildings and the were all along the seawall and beach areas in Kits, completely destroying the entire environment if they proceed. Even on my street. We can have the best of both worlds but I feel like entire plan is disjointed and not what we actually need. Below market value only means instead of $2800 a month you pay what $2240? But someone who’s low middle class and single still can’t afford over $2000 in rent a month. It doesn’t add up to solve the housing issues. Anyways, just thoughts from someone who is lucky enough to afford to live here. link

    In agreement with these existing comments. I’m curious whether the city is planning on the current need of different types of housing based on demand, or based on property developer goals? The whole point of having neighborhoods is because they represent a certain level of community and environment. We’re currently swamping Kitsilano with thousands of units and multiple huge high rises which completely changes the entire feel of the neighborhood. We already have inadequate parking and road infrastructure to deal with the current density of the neighborhood with no realistic requirements for these huge buildings on parking garages etc. take Senakw. No one is opposed to building housing necessary but it does seem to feel like we’re just grabbing at whatever lots we can and throwing up buildings that will still be completely unaffordable for the majority of people. I find it hard to believe we currently have this many people in need of a 1 bedroom apartment for $2800 a month. When all that does is attract new movers from outside of Vancouver and maybe solves a solve percentage of availability for people making a decent salary to move. Bit everyone else is still without housing if they make $65-85K a year but can’t afford $3000 for a unit. Can we not consider mid-level housing buildings that keep the neighborhood charm and vibe and appeal. Yes we must grow and accommodate growth, but soon enough all our neighborhoods won’t be neighborhoods anymore and all the beauty and things that make our city great will be destroyed or blocked or inaccessible to most people. I saw the plan for where the city is wanting to plan kid and high rise buildings and the were all along the seawall and beach areas in Kits, completely destroying the entire environment if they proceed. Even on my street. We can have the best of both worlds but I feel like entire plan is disjointed and not what we actually need. Below market value only means instead of $2800 a month you pay what $2240? But someone who’s low middle class and single still can’t afford over $2000 in rent a month. It doesn’t add up to solve the housing issues. Anyways, just thoughts from someone who is lucky enough to afford to live here.

    Pumagirl asked about 2 months ago

    We thank you for your sharing your thoughts. The Broadway plan provides direction on what type of development a developer can pursue. For example the policy provides direction on land use, the inclusion of below-market housing, building height depending on tenure (rental or strata), the housing mix (by setting a minimum required number of family-sized units), maximum number of towers in a block etc. Beyond these set parameters the developer/owner has flexibility to design and deliver a development to their liking.

  • Share Curious what the intention of this Q&A is. Below, I asked a total of 19 questions on topics such as amenities, transportation, affordability, climate change, infrastructure etc after reviewing relevant policies and documents. How come the City’s response answered zero of my 19 relevant questions? on Facebook Share Curious what the intention of this Q&A is. Below, I asked a total of 19 questions on topics such as amenities, transportation, affordability, climate change, infrastructure etc after reviewing relevant policies and documents. How come the City’s response answered zero of my 19 relevant questions? on Twitter Share Curious what the intention of this Q&A is. Below, I asked a total of 19 questions on topics such as amenities, transportation, affordability, climate change, infrastructure etc after reviewing relevant policies and documents. How come the City’s response answered zero of my 19 relevant questions? on Linkedin Email Curious what the intention of this Q&A is. Below, I asked a total of 19 questions on topics such as amenities, transportation, affordability, climate change, infrastructure etc after reviewing relevant policies and documents. How come the City’s response answered zero of my 19 relevant questions? link

    Curious what the intention of this Q&A is. Below, I asked a total of 19 questions on topics such as amenities, transportation, affordability, climate change, infrastructure etc after reviewing relevant policies and documents. How come the City’s response answered zero of my 19 relevant questions?

    vgioreva asked 2 months ago

    The purpose of the online Q&A session is to provide an accessible and interactive opportunity for members of the public to pose questions and receive answers that are available publicly for the duration of the project. During the Q&A period, staff and the applicant share information about the proposal, listen to concerns and get input from the public, while providing clarifications on the proposal or enabling policy. Public feedback is included in the staff report and informs Council’s decision. At any time during the rezoning review, members of the public are also welcome to forward additional questions to the rezoning planner via email.

  • Share Regarding the Development Application for 2158-2170 W 1st Ave as well as 2090 W 1st Ave, 2233 W 3rd Ave, 2268-2280 W 3rd Ave and 2170 W 3rd Ave. If any of these are approved as proposed, it will result in the destruction of one of Vancouver's most coveted neighbourhoods. The very nature and character of Kitsilano will be lost forever. The impact of a Foor Space Ratio (FSR) of 6.8 on these properties with no building setback on grade and 20 storey height building forms will be catastrophic to the look and feel of Kitsilano. It is abundantly clear that planners and municipal officials responsible for potentially allowing such structures do not understand the build implications these values represent and certainly how such structures will negatively affect this iconic neighbourhood. In terms of Provincial Bill 47 and as it applies to these properties, the requirement is for 8 storeys and an FSR of 3.0 according to Transit Orientation Area (TOA) mandate, Tier 3. NOT 20 storeys with a FSR of 6.8! Why is the City not following Provincial guidlines and planning above and beyond requirements when this project and others are clearly out of place for North Kitsilano? on Facebook Share Regarding the Development Application for 2158-2170 W 1st Ave as well as 2090 W 1st Ave, 2233 W 3rd Ave, 2268-2280 W 3rd Ave and 2170 W 3rd Ave. If any of these are approved as proposed, it will result in the destruction of one of Vancouver's most coveted neighbourhoods. The very nature and character of Kitsilano will be lost forever. The impact of a Foor Space Ratio (FSR) of 6.8 on these properties with no building setback on grade and 20 storey height building forms will be catastrophic to the look and feel of Kitsilano. It is abundantly clear that planners and municipal officials responsible for potentially allowing such structures do not understand the build implications these values represent and certainly how such structures will negatively affect this iconic neighbourhood. In terms of Provincial Bill 47 and as it applies to these properties, the requirement is for 8 storeys and an FSR of 3.0 according to Transit Orientation Area (TOA) mandate, Tier 3. NOT 20 storeys with a FSR of 6.8! Why is the City not following Provincial guidlines and planning above and beyond requirements when this project and others are clearly out of place for North Kitsilano? on Twitter Share Regarding the Development Application for 2158-2170 W 1st Ave as well as 2090 W 1st Ave, 2233 W 3rd Ave, 2268-2280 W 3rd Ave and 2170 W 3rd Ave. If any of these are approved as proposed, it will result in the destruction of one of Vancouver's most coveted neighbourhoods. The very nature and character of Kitsilano will be lost forever. The impact of a Foor Space Ratio (FSR) of 6.8 on these properties with no building setback on grade and 20 storey height building forms will be catastrophic to the look and feel of Kitsilano. It is abundantly clear that planners and municipal officials responsible for potentially allowing such structures do not understand the build implications these values represent and certainly how such structures will negatively affect this iconic neighbourhood. In terms of Provincial Bill 47 and as it applies to these properties, the requirement is for 8 storeys and an FSR of 3.0 according to Transit Orientation Area (TOA) mandate, Tier 3. NOT 20 storeys with a FSR of 6.8! Why is the City not following Provincial guidlines and planning above and beyond requirements when this project and others are clearly out of place for North Kitsilano? on Linkedin Email Regarding the Development Application for 2158-2170 W 1st Ave as well as 2090 W 1st Ave, 2233 W 3rd Ave, 2268-2280 W 3rd Ave and 2170 W 3rd Ave. If any of these are approved as proposed, it will result in the destruction of one of Vancouver's most coveted neighbourhoods. The very nature and character of Kitsilano will be lost forever. The impact of a Foor Space Ratio (FSR) of 6.8 on these properties with no building setback on grade and 20 storey height building forms will be catastrophic to the look and feel of Kitsilano. It is abundantly clear that planners and municipal officials responsible for potentially allowing such structures do not understand the build implications these values represent and certainly how such structures will negatively affect this iconic neighbourhood. In terms of Provincial Bill 47 and as it applies to these properties, the requirement is for 8 storeys and an FSR of 3.0 according to Transit Orientation Area (TOA) mandate, Tier 3. NOT 20 storeys with a FSR of 6.8! Why is the City not following Provincial guidlines and planning above and beyond requirements when this project and others are clearly out of place for North Kitsilano? link

    Regarding the Development Application for 2158-2170 W 1st Ave as well as 2090 W 1st Ave, 2233 W 3rd Ave, 2268-2280 W 3rd Ave and 2170 W 3rd Ave. If any of these are approved as proposed, it will result in the destruction of one of Vancouver's most coveted neighbourhoods. The very nature and character of Kitsilano will be lost forever. The impact of a Foor Space Ratio (FSR) of 6.8 on these properties with no building setback on grade and 20 storey height building forms will be catastrophic to the look and feel of Kitsilano. It is abundantly clear that planners and municipal officials responsible for potentially allowing such structures do not understand the build implications these values represent and certainly how such structures will negatively affect this iconic neighbourhood. In terms of Provincial Bill 47 and as it applies to these properties, the requirement is for 8 storeys and an FSR of 3.0 according to Transit Orientation Area (TOA) mandate, Tier 3. NOT 20 storeys with a FSR of 6.8! Why is the City not following Provincial guidlines and planning above and beyond requirements when this project and others are clearly out of place for North Kitsilano?

    Rocket asked 2 months ago

    The Provincial regulation outlines minimum requirements that the city must consider. For an area like Kitsilano that is centrally located in the Vancouver metropolitan area and given the well developed transit options in the area, the plan enables rezoning to allow for buildings that exceed the provincially legislated minimums.

  • Share How many of the apartments in the two buildings that would be demolished are currently being rented at "below market" rates? And how would "below market" be calculated for the new building? "Below market" for a brand new concrete building with new appliances, air conditioning, etc, or "below market" by sq ft for the area? on Facebook Share How many of the apartments in the two buildings that would be demolished are currently being rented at "below market" rates? And how would "below market" be calculated for the new building? "Below market" for a brand new concrete building with new appliances, air conditioning, etc, or "below market" by sq ft for the area? on Twitter Share How many of the apartments in the two buildings that would be demolished are currently being rented at "below market" rates? And how would "below market" be calculated for the new building? "Below market" for a brand new concrete building with new appliances, air conditioning, etc, or "below market" by sq ft for the area? on Linkedin Email How many of the apartments in the two buildings that would be demolished are currently being rented at "below market" rates? And how would "below market" be calculated for the new building? "Below market" for a brand new concrete building with new appliances, air conditioning, etc, or "below market" by sq ft for the area? link

    How many of the apartments in the two buildings that would be demolished are currently being rented at "below market" rates? And how would "below market" be calculated for the new building? "Below market" for a brand new concrete building with new appliances, air conditioning, etc, or "below market" by sq ft for the area?

    KitsCitizen asked about 2 months ago

    The units in the existing building are market rental units, and are not secured as below-market rental units. However units in the older market rental stock are often rented at rates below current market rates, particularly where tenants have remained in the same unit for a long time. To protect the privacy of existing tenants, we cannot specify current rents being paid by existing tenants in the building. For the new building and as defined under the Broadway Plan, the below-market rental units will rented at a 20% discount to CMHC Average Market Rents for the City, as published annually. Rents at initial building occupancy will be based on a 20% discount to CMHC rates current at the time of occupancy, and reset to the same discount to CMHC based on CMHC rates at the time of unit turnover. BMR rents, based on the latest CMHC data (2023) are provided below. Further information can be found under Section 2.4 of the Rental Incentives Bulletin. 

     Existing tenants that are eligible under the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy (TRPP) will be offered a Right of First Refusal (RoFR) to return to a new below-market rental unit in the building, at either their existing rent, or 20% below CMHC rates (as described above), whichever is less. Further information on the TRPP can be found here. 

  • Share What plan is there for the additional day care spaces, seniors programming, recreation facilities, etc. required for an additional 200+ residents in this area? Is the developer required to contribute anything towards these services? on Facebook Share What plan is there for the additional day care spaces, seniors programming, recreation facilities, etc. required for an additional 200+ residents in this area? Is the developer required to contribute anything towards these services? on Twitter Share What plan is there for the additional day care spaces, seniors programming, recreation facilities, etc. required for an additional 200+ residents in this area? Is the developer required to contribute anything towards these services? on Linkedin Email What plan is there for the additional day care spaces, seniors programming, recreation facilities, etc. required for an additional 200+ residents in this area? Is the developer required to contribute anything towards these services? link

    What plan is there for the additional day care spaces, seniors programming, recreation facilities, etc. required for an additional 200+ residents in this area? Is the developer required to contribute anything towards these services?

    KitsCitizen asked about 2 months ago

    The developer is contributing to expansion of services and infrastructure through collected development levies. The Public Benefits Strategy of the Broadway Plan outlines how public amenities and infrastructure will be replaced and expanded. Refer to page 469 of the Broadway Plan here.

  • Share This proposal is at the north and west boundary of the Broadway Plan area. The walk to the future Arbutus station is 9 blocks up a steep hill. Will the City prioritize applications that are closer to the future transit hubs? What studies have been done on how far people will actually walk to a transit hub? on Facebook Share This proposal is at the north and west boundary of the Broadway Plan area. The walk to the future Arbutus station is 9 blocks up a steep hill. Will the City prioritize applications that are closer to the future transit hubs? What studies have been done on how far people will actually walk to a transit hub? on Twitter Share This proposal is at the north and west boundary of the Broadway Plan area. The walk to the future Arbutus station is 9 blocks up a steep hill. Will the City prioritize applications that are closer to the future transit hubs? What studies have been done on how far people will actually walk to a transit hub? on Linkedin Email This proposal is at the north and west boundary of the Broadway Plan area. The walk to the future Arbutus station is 9 blocks up a steep hill. Will the City prioritize applications that are closer to the future transit hubs? What studies have been done on how far people will actually walk to a transit hub? link

    This proposal is at the north and west boundary of the Broadway Plan area. The walk to the future Arbutus station is 9 blocks up a steep hill. Will the City prioritize applications that are closer to the future transit hubs? What studies have been done on how far people will actually walk to a transit hub?

    KitsCitizen asked about 2 months ago

    General findings in transit studies suggest that people are willing to walk up to 800 meters (about 10 minutes) to reach high-quality rapid transit services and 400 meters to reach local transit services.

    There is no direction in the Plan that prioritizes rezoning applications located closer to transit hubs.

  • Share Given the considerable risk that these developments will not promote affordability, can you please tell me why you are not proceeding in stages such as: Phase 1 (Immediate): Allow high-rise, mixed-use developments along business corridors such as Burrard, Broadway, and Granville, where high rises will be well supported; 2. Phase 2 (after 5 Years or so): Reassess affordability. If the objectives are being met, expand high-rise development in a height scaled way to areas within 400 meters of new SkyTrain stations, promoting transit-oriented growth. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing; 3. Phase 3 (after 10 Years or so): Reevaluate the impact. If housing affordability continues to improve, then allow further height scaled applications in the broader Broadway area. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing. A phased approach incorporates ongoing reassessment allowing for data-driven, flexible decision-making and ensuring that adjustments can be made to avoid unintended consequences and protect the neighborhood livability. The city can monitor the effectiveness of high-rise development in improving affordability while minimizing the risk of irreversible damage to neighborhood character. It also follows the new guidelines put forth by the province in Bill 47. Doesn't this make sense? on Facebook Share Given the considerable risk that these developments will not promote affordability, can you please tell me why you are not proceeding in stages such as: Phase 1 (Immediate): Allow high-rise, mixed-use developments along business corridors such as Burrard, Broadway, and Granville, where high rises will be well supported; 2. Phase 2 (after 5 Years or so): Reassess affordability. If the objectives are being met, expand high-rise development in a height scaled way to areas within 400 meters of new SkyTrain stations, promoting transit-oriented growth. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing; 3. Phase 3 (after 10 Years or so): Reevaluate the impact. If housing affordability continues to improve, then allow further height scaled applications in the broader Broadway area. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing. A phased approach incorporates ongoing reassessment allowing for data-driven, flexible decision-making and ensuring that adjustments can be made to avoid unintended consequences and protect the neighborhood livability. The city can monitor the effectiveness of high-rise development in improving affordability while minimizing the risk of irreversible damage to neighborhood character. It also follows the new guidelines put forth by the province in Bill 47. Doesn't this make sense? on Twitter Share Given the considerable risk that these developments will not promote affordability, can you please tell me why you are not proceeding in stages such as: Phase 1 (Immediate): Allow high-rise, mixed-use developments along business corridors such as Burrard, Broadway, and Granville, where high rises will be well supported; 2. Phase 2 (after 5 Years or so): Reassess affordability. If the objectives are being met, expand high-rise development in a height scaled way to areas within 400 meters of new SkyTrain stations, promoting transit-oriented growth. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing; 3. Phase 3 (after 10 Years or so): Reevaluate the impact. If housing affordability continues to improve, then allow further height scaled applications in the broader Broadway area. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing. A phased approach incorporates ongoing reassessment allowing for data-driven, flexible decision-making and ensuring that adjustments can be made to avoid unintended consequences and protect the neighborhood livability. The city can monitor the effectiveness of high-rise development in improving affordability while minimizing the risk of irreversible damage to neighborhood character. It also follows the new guidelines put forth by the province in Bill 47. Doesn't this make sense? on Linkedin Email Given the considerable risk that these developments will not promote affordability, can you please tell me why you are not proceeding in stages such as: Phase 1 (Immediate): Allow high-rise, mixed-use developments along business corridors such as Burrard, Broadway, and Granville, where high rises will be well supported; 2. Phase 2 (after 5 Years or so): Reassess affordability. If the objectives are being met, expand high-rise development in a height scaled way to areas within 400 meters of new SkyTrain stations, promoting transit-oriented growth. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing; 3. Phase 3 (after 10 Years or so): Reevaluate the impact. If housing affordability continues to improve, then allow further height scaled applications in the broader Broadway area. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing. A phased approach incorporates ongoing reassessment allowing for data-driven, flexible decision-making and ensuring that adjustments can be made to avoid unintended consequences and protect the neighborhood livability. The city can monitor the effectiveness of high-rise development in improving affordability while minimizing the risk of irreversible damage to neighborhood character. It also follows the new guidelines put forth by the province in Bill 47. Doesn't this make sense? link

    Given the considerable risk that these developments will not promote affordability, can you please tell me why you are not proceeding in stages such as: Phase 1 (Immediate): Allow high-rise, mixed-use developments along business corridors such as Burrard, Broadway, and Granville, where high rises will be well supported; 2. Phase 2 (after 5 Years or so): Reassess affordability. If the objectives are being met, expand high-rise development in a height scaled way to areas within 400 meters of new SkyTrain stations, promoting transit-oriented growth. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing; 3. Phase 3 (after 10 Years or so): Reevaluate the impact. If housing affordability continues to improve, then allow further height scaled applications in the broader Broadway area. If not, work with the public to explore the many alternative solutions to affordable housing. A phased approach incorporates ongoing reassessment allowing for data-driven, flexible decision-making and ensuring that adjustments can be made to avoid unintended consequences and protect the neighborhood livability. The city can monitor the effectiveness of high-rise development in improving affordability while minimizing the risk of irreversible damage to neighborhood character. It also follows the new guidelines put forth by the province in Bill 47. Doesn't this make sense?

    Cejr asked about 2 months ago

    We thank you for your suggestion and we will share it with our implementation team. However, as part of the Broadway Plan implementation process, City Council has directed staff to avoid implementing the Broadway Plan in phases.

  • Share It's almost as if you completely ignore the questions being asked when providing answers. Is that intentional? It's certainly not instilling any confidence that we have with this project as direct neighbours. For example, my question about what's being implemented as far as road usage, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, street parking, etc. was completely dodged. You referred vaguely to non-specific details about a Climate Emergency Action Plan, which has virtually nothing to do with what I asked. You also dodged my questions about parking spaces and whether the developer is required to follow through with creating the total number of parking spaces outlined in their application. So, let me ask my questions as pointedly as I can, and please answer them as pointedly as you can: 1. Is the developer required to create the total parking spaces outlined in their proposal if approved for development (to be clear, if the building is built, is it guaranteed to have 99 private parking spaces)? 2. If this development is approved, how is the city of Vancouver going to ensure safe streets for people who NEED to drive (and can't take public transit, walk, or cycle as a feasible option). Thanks, Dave on Facebook Share It's almost as if you completely ignore the questions being asked when providing answers. Is that intentional? It's certainly not instilling any confidence that we have with this project as direct neighbours. For example, my question about what's being implemented as far as road usage, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, street parking, etc. was completely dodged. You referred vaguely to non-specific details about a Climate Emergency Action Plan, which has virtually nothing to do with what I asked. You also dodged my questions about parking spaces and whether the developer is required to follow through with creating the total number of parking spaces outlined in their application. So, let me ask my questions as pointedly as I can, and please answer them as pointedly as you can: 1. Is the developer required to create the total parking spaces outlined in their proposal if approved for development (to be clear, if the building is built, is it guaranteed to have 99 private parking spaces)? 2. If this development is approved, how is the city of Vancouver going to ensure safe streets for people who NEED to drive (and can't take public transit, walk, or cycle as a feasible option). Thanks, Dave on Twitter Share It's almost as if you completely ignore the questions being asked when providing answers. Is that intentional? It's certainly not instilling any confidence that we have with this project as direct neighbours. For example, my question about what's being implemented as far as road usage, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, street parking, etc. was completely dodged. You referred vaguely to non-specific details about a Climate Emergency Action Plan, which has virtually nothing to do with what I asked. You also dodged my questions about parking spaces and whether the developer is required to follow through with creating the total number of parking spaces outlined in their application. So, let me ask my questions as pointedly as I can, and please answer them as pointedly as you can: 1. Is the developer required to create the total parking spaces outlined in their proposal if approved for development (to be clear, if the building is built, is it guaranteed to have 99 private parking spaces)? 2. If this development is approved, how is the city of Vancouver going to ensure safe streets for people who NEED to drive (and can't take public transit, walk, or cycle as a feasible option). Thanks, Dave on Linkedin Email It's almost as if you completely ignore the questions being asked when providing answers. Is that intentional? It's certainly not instilling any confidence that we have with this project as direct neighbours. For example, my question about what's being implemented as far as road usage, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, street parking, etc. was completely dodged. You referred vaguely to non-specific details about a Climate Emergency Action Plan, which has virtually nothing to do with what I asked. You also dodged my questions about parking spaces and whether the developer is required to follow through with creating the total number of parking spaces outlined in their application. So, let me ask my questions as pointedly as I can, and please answer them as pointedly as you can: 1. Is the developer required to create the total parking spaces outlined in their proposal if approved for development (to be clear, if the building is built, is it guaranteed to have 99 private parking spaces)? 2. If this development is approved, how is the city of Vancouver going to ensure safe streets for people who NEED to drive (and can't take public transit, walk, or cycle as a feasible option). Thanks, Dave link

    It's almost as if you completely ignore the questions being asked when providing answers. Is that intentional? It's certainly not instilling any confidence that we have with this project as direct neighbours. For example, my question about what's being implemented as far as road usage, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, street parking, etc. was completely dodged. You referred vaguely to non-specific details about a Climate Emergency Action Plan, which has virtually nothing to do with what I asked. You also dodged my questions about parking spaces and whether the developer is required to follow through with creating the total number of parking spaces outlined in their application. So, let me ask my questions as pointedly as I can, and please answer them as pointedly as you can: 1. Is the developer required to create the total parking spaces outlined in their proposal if approved for development (to be clear, if the building is built, is it guaranteed to have 99 private parking spaces)? 2. If this development is approved, how is the city of Vancouver going to ensure safe streets for people who NEED to drive (and can't take public transit, walk, or cycle as a feasible option). Thanks, Dave

    DaveW asked 2 months ago
    1. Engineering staff will perform a review of transportation impacts as part of the rezoning process but the final number of parking spaces to be provided will not be confirmed until development permit stage.  
    2. If the need is identified, the Engineering review will result in a number of requirements to mitigate traffic impacts and improve road safety for all road users. These requirements would need to be met as part of the rezoning approval process.
Page last updated: 25 Sep 2024, 08:42 AM