Go Back

325 E 6th Ave rezoning application

Share 325 E 6th Ave rezoning application on Facebook Share 325 E 6th Ave rezoning application on Twitter Share 325 E 6th Ave rezoning application on Linkedin Email 325 E 6th 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 residential building and includes:

  • 131 residential units with:
    • 22 social housing units (20% of the floor area); and
    • 109 market strata units.
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.0; and
  • A building height of 60.9 m (199.8 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.


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 residential building and includes:

  • 131 residential units with:
    • 22 social housing units (20% of the floor area); and
    • 109 market strata units.
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.0; and
  • A building height of 60.9 m (199.8 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.


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

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from July 17 to July 30, 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 I echo Jessica MacDaniel's comments: "Additionally, I am writing to let you know that I oppose a 20-storey development next to a building that was limited to be 7-stories (including a subgrade level). 311 east 6th avenue was limited to be this size to have a better relationship to adjacent newer developments; the District, the Shine, the Social and the Artist. Why would then a 20-storey building (double the size) be stuffed between 311 east 6th avenue and 349 east 6th avenue? This proposal has no consideration to the character or context of the neighbourhood. This is clear from the 3-d fly-through of the proposed building.This proposal does not support urban design principles of gradual densification and has no regard for a setback or relationship with 311 east 6th avenue, The Wohlsein. Overall, I support a redevelopment of this site, but not the proposed development. The new building should have an appropriate relationship to the recently redeveloped adjacent buildings. Please consider a podium with an outdoor amenity space, limiting the height of this building to no more than 10 stories, a larger setback from 311 east 6th avenue. The ground floor amenity space at 349 east 6th avenue is under utilized - I have never seen it in use, and it is undesirable. Tying in another ground floor amenity space to this one makes no sense." My questions are for both council and to the developer: 1. Will the old growth trees currently situated along East 6th be removed? We are strongly opposed to this, as it directly impacts the view for those at 311 East 6th and is an important "green" fixture for us. Residents may be open to the trees being replanted between the buildings (311 and 325), but we imagine other residents on the street won't favor losing this green space either. These trees provide privacy and shade on the street for many months of the year. 2. Can the city consider restricting the height of the building to 6 to 10 stories max? We are not in favor of the current proposed height or positioning of the building on the lot. This WILL impact property values, especially for those in the penthouses with roof decks. We request that the building be placed on the other side of the lot (east side) instead of the west side and that a green belt with mature trees, 7 to 8 stories high, be created to separate 311 and 325, at the developer's expense. 3. We'd like to request that residents of 311 East 6th, who are impacted by 325, have the option of installing smart windows at the developer's cost. We want to be able to choose the provider and ensure that the provider's product will address our privacy concerns. 4. What support can/will the city provide to ensure our needs are met throughout this process? on Facebook Share I echo Jessica MacDaniel's comments: "Additionally, I am writing to let you know that I oppose a 20-storey development next to a building that was limited to be 7-stories (including a subgrade level). 311 east 6th avenue was limited to be this size to have a better relationship to adjacent newer developments; the District, the Shine, the Social and the Artist. Why would then a 20-storey building (double the size) be stuffed between 311 east 6th avenue and 349 east 6th avenue? This proposal has no consideration to the character or context of the neighbourhood. This is clear from the 3-d fly-through of the proposed building.This proposal does not support urban design principles of gradual densification and has no regard for a setback or relationship with 311 east 6th avenue, The Wohlsein. Overall, I support a redevelopment of this site, but not the proposed development. The new building should have an appropriate relationship to the recently redeveloped adjacent buildings. Please consider a podium with an outdoor amenity space, limiting the height of this building to no more than 10 stories, a larger setback from 311 east 6th avenue. The ground floor amenity space at 349 east 6th avenue is under utilized - I have never seen it in use, and it is undesirable. Tying in another ground floor amenity space to this one makes no sense." My questions are for both council and to the developer: 1. Will the old growth trees currently situated along East 6th be removed? We are strongly opposed to this, as it directly impacts the view for those at 311 East 6th and is an important "green" fixture for us. Residents may be open to the trees being replanted between the buildings (311 and 325), but we imagine other residents on the street won't favor losing this green space either. These trees provide privacy and shade on the street for many months of the year. 2. Can the city consider restricting the height of the building to 6 to 10 stories max? We are not in favor of the current proposed height or positioning of the building on the lot. This WILL impact property values, especially for those in the penthouses with roof decks. We request that the building be placed on the other side of the lot (east side) instead of the west side and that a green belt with mature trees, 7 to 8 stories high, be created to separate 311 and 325, at the developer's expense. 3. We'd like to request that residents of 311 East 6th, who are impacted by 325, have the option of installing smart windows at the developer's cost. We want to be able to choose the provider and ensure that the provider's product will address our privacy concerns. 4. What support can/will the city provide to ensure our needs are met throughout this process? on Twitter Share I echo Jessica MacDaniel's comments: "Additionally, I am writing to let you know that I oppose a 20-storey development next to a building that was limited to be 7-stories (including a subgrade level). 311 east 6th avenue was limited to be this size to have a better relationship to adjacent newer developments; the District, the Shine, the Social and the Artist. Why would then a 20-storey building (double the size) be stuffed between 311 east 6th avenue and 349 east 6th avenue? This proposal has no consideration to the character or context of the neighbourhood. This is clear from the 3-d fly-through of the proposed building.This proposal does not support urban design principles of gradual densification and has no regard for a setback or relationship with 311 east 6th avenue, The Wohlsein. Overall, I support a redevelopment of this site, but not the proposed development. The new building should have an appropriate relationship to the recently redeveloped adjacent buildings. Please consider a podium with an outdoor amenity space, limiting the height of this building to no more than 10 stories, a larger setback from 311 east 6th avenue. The ground floor amenity space at 349 east 6th avenue is under utilized - I have never seen it in use, and it is undesirable. Tying in another ground floor amenity space to this one makes no sense." My questions are for both council and to the developer: 1. Will the old growth trees currently situated along East 6th be removed? We are strongly opposed to this, as it directly impacts the view for those at 311 East 6th and is an important "green" fixture for us. Residents may be open to the trees being replanted between the buildings (311 and 325), but we imagine other residents on the street won't favor losing this green space either. These trees provide privacy and shade on the street for many months of the year. 2. Can the city consider restricting the height of the building to 6 to 10 stories max? We are not in favor of the current proposed height or positioning of the building on the lot. This WILL impact property values, especially for those in the penthouses with roof decks. We request that the building be placed on the other side of the lot (east side) instead of the west side and that a green belt with mature trees, 7 to 8 stories high, be created to separate 311 and 325, at the developer's expense. 3. We'd like to request that residents of 311 East 6th, who are impacted by 325, have the option of installing smart windows at the developer's cost. We want to be able to choose the provider and ensure that the provider's product will address our privacy concerns. 4. What support can/will the city provide to ensure our needs are met throughout this process? on Linkedin Email I echo Jessica MacDaniel's comments: "Additionally, I am writing to let you know that I oppose a 20-storey development next to a building that was limited to be 7-stories (including a subgrade level). 311 east 6th avenue was limited to be this size to have a better relationship to adjacent newer developments; the District, the Shine, the Social and the Artist. Why would then a 20-storey building (double the size) be stuffed between 311 east 6th avenue and 349 east 6th avenue? This proposal has no consideration to the character or context of the neighbourhood. This is clear from the 3-d fly-through of the proposed building.This proposal does not support urban design principles of gradual densification and has no regard for a setback or relationship with 311 east 6th avenue, The Wohlsein. Overall, I support a redevelopment of this site, but not the proposed development. The new building should have an appropriate relationship to the recently redeveloped adjacent buildings. Please consider a podium with an outdoor amenity space, limiting the height of this building to no more than 10 stories, a larger setback from 311 east 6th avenue. The ground floor amenity space at 349 east 6th avenue is under utilized - I have never seen it in use, and it is undesirable. Tying in another ground floor amenity space to this one makes no sense." My questions are for both council and to the developer: 1. Will the old growth trees currently situated along East 6th be removed? We are strongly opposed to this, as it directly impacts the view for those at 311 East 6th and is an important "green" fixture for us. Residents may be open to the trees being replanted between the buildings (311 and 325), but we imagine other residents on the street won't favor losing this green space either. These trees provide privacy and shade on the street for many months of the year. 2. Can the city consider restricting the height of the building to 6 to 10 stories max? We are not in favor of the current proposed height or positioning of the building on the lot. This WILL impact property values, especially for those in the penthouses with roof decks. We request that the building be placed on the other side of the lot (east side) instead of the west side and that a green belt with mature trees, 7 to 8 stories high, be created to separate 311 and 325, at the developer's expense. 3. We'd like to request that residents of 311 East 6th, who are impacted by 325, have the option of installing smart windows at the developer's cost. We want to be able to choose the provider and ensure that the provider's product will address our privacy concerns. 4. What support can/will the city provide to ensure our needs are met throughout this process? link

    I echo Jessica MacDaniel's comments: "Additionally, I am writing to let you know that I oppose a 20-storey development next to a building that was limited to be 7-stories (including a subgrade level). 311 east 6th avenue was limited to be this size to have a better relationship to adjacent newer developments; the District, the Shine, the Social and the Artist. Why would then a 20-storey building (double the size) be stuffed between 311 east 6th avenue and 349 east 6th avenue? This proposal has no consideration to the character or context of the neighbourhood. This is clear from the 3-d fly-through of the proposed building.This proposal does not support urban design principles of gradual densification and has no regard for a setback or relationship with 311 east 6th avenue, The Wohlsein. Overall, I support a redevelopment of this site, but not the proposed development. The new building should have an appropriate relationship to the recently redeveloped adjacent buildings. Please consider a podium with an outdoor amenity space, limiting the height of this building to no more than 10 stories, a larger setback from 311 east 6th avenue. The ground floor amenity space at 349 east 6th avenue is under utilized - I have never seen it in use, and it is undesirable. Tying in another ground floor amenity space to this one makes no sense." My questions are for both council and to the developer: 1. Will the old growth trees currently situated along East 6th be removed? We are strongly opposed to this, as it directly impacts the view for those at 311 East 6th and is an important "green" fixture for us. Residents may be open to the trees being replanted between the buildings (311 and 325), but we imagine other residents on the street won't favor losing this green space either. These trees provide privacy and shade on the street for many months of the year. 2. Can the city consider restricting the height of the building to 6 to 10 stories max? We are not in favor of the current proposed height or positioning of the building on the lot. This WILL impact property values, especially for those in the penthouses with roof decks. We request that the building be placed on the other side of the lot (east side) instead of the west side and that a green belt with mature trees, 7 to 8 stories high, be created to separate 311 and 325, at the developer's expense. 3. We'd like to request that residents of 311 East 6th, who are impacted by 325, have the option of installing smart windows at the developer's cost. We want to be able to choose the provider and ensure that the provider's product will address our privacy concerns. 4. What support can/will the city provide to ensure our needs are met throughout this process?

    Lindsay_S asked 9 months ago

    Your question has already been asked. Here’s a copy of the earlier response:

    Staff are currently reviewing the proposed tree coordination plan within the context of the Urban Forest Strategy. If a proposed tree removal is not supportable, staff may set conditions of development including revisions to the site plan or building footprint, and the retention or replacement of trees.

    The site is within the Mount Pleasant North Apartment Area – Area A (MNAA Policy 10.19) of the Broadway Plan, at this location the Broadway Plan allows consideration of: a strata ownership housing tenure with a minimum 20% of the residential floor area to be delivered as turnkey social housing units to the City, up to a maximum building height of 20 storeys.

    Thank you for your comment. Staff will include a summary of comments provided from the public in a Council report if the project proceeds for Council consideration.

  • Share I asked a question about the noise level of the condensing units to be placed on the roof of the building. The applicant responded that there will be 8-10 units, and the noise level will be average 81.06 dB for 8 units and 91.06 for 10 units. Any noise exceeding 70 dB is considered disturbing. Isn't this in contradiction with the Vancouver's noise control bylaws? on Facebook Share I asked a question about the noise level of the condensing units to be placed on the roof of the building. The applicant responded that there will be 8-10 units, and the noise level will be average 81.06 dB for 8 units and 91.06 for 10 units. Any noise exceeding 70 dB is considered disturbing. Isn't this in contradiction with the Vancouver's noise control bylaws? on Twitter Share I asked a question about the noise level of the condensing units to be placed on the roof of the building. The applicant responded that there will be 8-10 units, and the noise level will be average 81.06 dB for 8 units and 91.06 for 10 units. Any noise exceeding 70 dB is considered disturbing. Isn't this in contradiction with the Vancouver's noise control bylaws? on Linkedin Email I asked a question about the noise level of the condensing units to be placed on the roof of the building. The applicant responded that there will be 8-10 units, and the noise level will be average 81.06 dB for 8 units and 91.06 for 10 units. Any noise exceeding 70 dB is considered disturbing. Isn't this in contradiction with the Vancouver's noise control bylaws? link

    I asked a question about the noise level of the condensing units to be placed on the roof of the building. The applicant responded that there will be 8-10 units, and the noise level will be average 81.06 dB for 8 units and 91.06 for 10 units. Any noise exceeding 70 dB is considered disturbing. Isn't this in contradiction with the Vancouver's noise control bylaws?

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    This question was forwarded to the Applicant, this was their response:

    The combination of the following items has been considered and will be further developed in the next stages to reduce the ASHP noise level to meet Vancouver‘s noise control bylaws:

    1. The units are proposed for rooftop mounting;
    2. Acoustic treatment to be provided for the units (in discussion with the equipment supplier);
    3. Application of acoustic screening on-site (design coordination); and
    4. Control strategy for the ASHP to operate at reduced capacity (mechanical control in coordination with equipment supplier).
  • Share I just received a response to the question “What evidence do you have that this type of development increase affordability?” I asked the question because there is some evidence that affordability objectives are not being met. The response was to quote intentions in the Broadway Plan and theories about achievements. This is not evidence. I want to know if displacing people and changing neighborhoods with towers is actually meeting the goals of making housing more affordable in Vancouver. Because that’s why the Broadway Plan was developed, right? You should know there are direct links before you make these neighbourhood changing decisions, don’t you think? I’m seeing four floors of new potentially affordable housing for low income tenants. Theoretically, the units on the upper floors will provide market housing. Will they be affordable, so the sacrifices are worth the effort? It seems that will be in the hands of the developer and investors in the units who are for-profit operators. Are we actually providing more affordable housing, or is this just an opportunity to get rich for people who are likely living in large single houses probably in West Vancouver with protected views. How do we know investors won’t just buy them and sit on them like they did in the Coal Harbour towers? Why are we building towers for single occupants. The tradition in Vancouver is to have roommates in houses or several families in single houses. That’s how younger people typically find affordable housing. What market will be targeted with market prices and rental rates? Those that can afford it. So, what are the guarantees of affordability for a diverse population? on Facebook Share I just received a response to the question “What evidence do you have that this type of development increase affordability?” I asked the question because there is some evidence that affordability objectives are not being met. The response was to quote intentions in the Broadway Plan and theories about achievements. This is not evidence. I want to know if displacing people and changing neighborhoods with towers is actually meeting the goals of making housing more affordable in Vancouver. Because that’s why the Broadway Plan was developed, right? You should know there are direct links before you make these neighbourhood changing decisions, don’t you think? I’m seeing four floors of new potentially affordable housing for low income tenants. Theoretically, the units on the upper floors will provide market housing. Will they be affordable, so the sacrifices are worth the effort? It seems that will be in the hands of the developer and investors in the units who are for-profit operators. Are we actually providing more affordable housing, or is this just an opportunity to get rich for people who are likely living in large single houses probably in West Vancouver with protected views. How do we know investors won’t just buy them and sit on them like they did in the Coal Harbour towers? Why are we building towers for single occupants. The tradition in Vancouver is to have roommates in houses or several families in single houses. That’s how younger people typically find affordable housing. What market will be targeted with market prices and rental rates? Those that can afford it. So, what are the guarantees of affordability for a diverse population? on Twitter Share I just received a response to the question “What evidence do you have that this type of development increase affordability?” I asked the question because there is some evidence that affordability objectives are not being met. The response was to quote intentions in the Broadway Plan and theories about achievements. This is not evidence. I want to know if displacing people and changing neighborhoods with towers is actually meeting the goals of making housing more affordable in Vancouver. Because that’s why the Broadway Plan was developed, right? You should know there are direct links before you make these neighbourhood changing decisions, don’t you think? I’m seeing four floors of new potentially affordable housing for low income tenants. Theoretically, the units on the upper floors will provide market housing. Will they be affordable, so the sacrifices are worth the effort? It seems that will be in the hands of the developer and investors in the units who are for-profit operators. Are we actually providing more affordable housing, or is this just an opportunity to get rich for people who are likely living in large single houses probably in West Vancouver with protected views. How do we know investors won’t just buy them and sit on them like they did in the Coal Harbour towers? Why are we building towers for single occupants. The tradition in Vancouver is to have roommates in houses or several families in single houses. That’s how younger people typically find affordable housing. What market will be targeted with market prices and rental rates? Those that can afford it. So, what are the guarantees of affordability for a diverse population? on Linkedin Email I just received a response to the question “What evidence do you have that this type of development increase affordability?” I asked the question because there is some evidence that affordability objectives are not being met. The response was to quote intentions in the Broadway Plan and theories about achievements. This is not evidence. I want to know if displacing people and changing neighborhoods with towers is actually meeting the goals of making housing more affordable in Vancouver. Because that’s why the Broadway Plan was developed, right? You should know there are direct links before you make these neighbourhood changing decisions, don’t you think? I’m seeing four floors of new potentially affordable housing for low income tenants. Theoretically, the units on the upper floors will provide market housing. Will they be affordable, so the sacrifices are worth the effort? It seems that will be in the hands of the developer and investors in the units who are for-profit operators. Are we actually providing more affordable housing, or is this just an opportunity to get rich for people who are likely living in large single houses probably in West Vancouver with protected views. How do we know investors won’t just buy them and sit on them like they did in the Coal Harbour towers? Why are we building towers for single occupants. The tradition in Vancouver is to have roommates in houses or several families in single houses. That’s how younger people typically find affordable housing. What market will be targeted with market prices and rental rates? Those that can afford it. So, what are the guarantees of affordability for a diverse population? link

    I just received a response to the question “What evidence do you have that this type of development increase affordability?” I asked the question because there is some evidence that affordability objectives are not being met. The response was to quote intentions in the Broadway Plan and theories about achievements. This is not evidence. I want to know if displacing people and changing neighborhoods with towers is actually meeting the goals of making housing more affordable in Vancouver. Because that’s why the Broadway Plan was developed, right? You should know there are direct links before you make these neighbourhood changing decisions, don’t you think? I’m seeing four floors of new potentially affordable housing for low income tenants. Theoretically, the units on the upper floors will provide market housing. Will they be affordable, so the sacrifices are worth the effort? It seems that will be in the hands of the developer and investors in the units who are for-profit operators. Are we actually providing more affordable housing, or is this just an opportunity to get rich for people who are likely living in large single houses probably in West Vancouver with protected views. How do we know investors won’t just buy them and sit on them like they did in the Coal Harbour towers? Why are we building towers for single occupants. The tradition in Vancouver is to have roommates in houses or several families in single houses. That’s how younger people typically find affordable housing. What market will be targeted with market prices and rental rates? Those that can afford it. So, what are the guarantees of affordability for a diverse population?

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    Thank you for your comment. Staff will include a summary of comments provided from the public in a Council report if the project proceeds for Council consideration.

  • Share The Applicant responded to a question below that "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." I understand this to be true. 311 East 6th is in a different policy area that allows the building of a 20-storey tower for a maximum of three to block. 325 and 349 are in another policy area that allows two 20-storey towers per block. That means three for this block. However, the Broadway Plan does not specifically state that these sites should be 20-storey towers. The Plan provides for discretion and thoughtful strategic planning for any development proposal. Is it really desirable to have three towers on this block? The Plan provides guidance: “In all instances, the overall height, density and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing topography, access, circulation, and privacy.” 311 East 6th is a new 7 level building, not a tower, so will there be a tower in the future? The Plan also provides that the 80 ft distance between towers applies to future development. If a tower would be placed at 311 East 6th in the future, the 37 ft "buffer" is not sufficient and future development is impeded, contrary to the Plan. on Facebook Share The Applicant responded to a question below that "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." I understand this to be true. 311 East 6th is in a different policy area that allows the building of a 20-storey tower for a maximum of three to block. 325 and 349 are in another policy area that allows two 20-storey towers per block. That means three for this block. However, the Broadway Plan does not specifically state that these sites should be 20-storey towers. The Plan provides for discretion and thoughtful strategic planning for any development proposal. Is it really desirable to have three towers on this block? The Plan provides guidance: “In all instances, the overall height, density and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing topography, access, circulation, and privacy.” 311 East 6th is a new 7 level building, not a tower, so will there be a tower in the future? The Plan also provides that the 80 ft distance between towers applies to future development. If a tower would be placed at 311 East 6th in the future, the 37 ft "buffer" is not sufficient and future development is impeded, contrary to the Plan. on Twitter Share The Applicant responded to a question below that "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." I understand this to be true. 311 East 6th is in a different policy area that allows the building of a 20-storey tower for a maximum of three to block. 325 and 349 are in another policy area that allows two 20-storey towers per block. That means three for this block. However, the Broadway Plan does not specifically state that these sites should be 20-storey towers. The Plan provides for discretion and thoughtful strategic planning for any development proposal. Is it really desirable to have three towers on this block? The Plan provides guidance: “In all instances, the overall height, density and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing topography, access, circulation, and privacy.” 311 East 6th is a new 7 level building, not a tower, so will there be a tower in the future? The Plan also provides that the 80 ft distance between towers applies to future development. If a tower would be placed at 311 East 6th in the future, the 37 ft "buffer" is not sufficient and future development is impeded, contrary to the Plan. on Linkedin Email The Applicant responded to a question below that "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." I understand this to be true. 311 East 6th is in a different policy area that allows the building of a 20-storey tower for a maximum of three to block. 325 and 349 are in another policy area that allows two 20-storey towers per block. That means three for this block. However, the Broadway Plan does not specifically state that these sites should be 20-storey towers. The Plan provides for discretion and thoughtful strategic planning for any development proposal. Is it really desirable to have three towers on this block? The Plan provides guidance: “In all instances, the overall height, density and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing topography, access, circulation, and privacy.” 311 East 6th is a new 7 level building, not a tower, so will there be a tower in the future? The Plan also provides that the 80 ft distance between towers applies to future development. If a tower would be placed at 311 East 6th in the future, the 37 ft "buffer" is not sufficient and future development is impeded, contrary to the Plan. link

    The Applicant responded to a question below that "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." I understand this to be true. 311 East 6th is in a different policy area that allows the building of a 20-storey tower for a maximum of three to block. 325 and 349 are in another policy area that allows two 20-storey towers per block. That means three for this block. However, the Broadway Plan does not specifically state that these sites should be 20-storey towers. The Plan provides for discretion and thoughtful strategic planning for any development proposal. Is it really desirable to have three towers on this block? The Plan provides guidance: “In all instances, the overall height, density and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing topography, access, circulation, and privacy.” 311 East 6th is a new 7 level building, not a tower, so will there be a tower in the future? The Plan also provides that the 80 ft distance between towers applies to future development. If a tower would be placed at 311 East 6th in the future, the 37 ft "buffer" is not sufficient and future development is impeded, contrary to the Plan.

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    Thank you for your comment. Staff will include a summary of comments provided from the public in a Council report if the project proceeds for Council consideration.

  • Share See website meteoblue.com for evidence that the prevailing wind in Vancouver comes from the East. There is a chart that I wasn't able to paste here. It indicates that most of the year the wind flows from the east, northeast and southeast. The tower will block the air flow and divert it somewhere. The evidence for the interference with sunlight is in the application itself. Their studies show that the east wall of the Wohlsein will be in shadow constantly and the direct sunlight rays will not reach it at any point in the day. on Facebook Share See website meteoblue.com for evidence that the prevailing wind in Vancouver comes from the East. There is a chart that I wasn't able to paste here. It indicates that most of the year the wind flows from the east, northeast and southeast. The tower will block the air flow and divert it somewhere. The evidence for the interference with sunlight is in the application itself. Their studies show that the east wall of the Wohlsein will be in shadow constantly and the direct sunlight rays will not reach it at any point in the day. on Twitter Share See website meteoblue.com for evidence that the prevailing wind in Vancouver comes from the East. There is a chart that I wasn't able to paste here. It indicates that most of the year the wind flows from the east, northeast and southeast. The tower will block the air flow and divert it somewhere. The evidence for the interference with sunlight is in the application itself. Their studies show that the east wall of the Wohlsein will be in shadow constantly and the direct sunlight rays will not reach it at any point in the day. on Linkedin Email See website meteoblue.com for evidence that the prevailing wind in Vancouver comes from the East. There is a chart that I wasn't able to paste here. It indicates that most of the year the wind flows from the east, northeast and southeast. The tower will block the air flow and divert it somewhere. The evidence for the interference with sunlight is in the application itself. Their studies show that the east wall of the Wohlsein will be in shadow constantly and the direct sunlight rays will not reach it at any point in the day. link

    See website meteoblue.com for evidence that the prevailing wind in Vancouver comes from the East. There is a chart that I wasn't able to paste here. It indicates that most of the year the wind flows from the east, northeast and southeast. The tower will block the air flow and divert it somewhere. The evidence for the interference with sunlight is in the application itself. Their studies show that the east wall of the Wohlsein will be in shadow constantly and the direct sunlight rays will not reach it at any point in the day.

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    Thank you for your comment. Staff will include a summary of comments provided from the public in a Council report if the project proceeds for Council consideration.

    The City of Vancouver is not responsible for, and does not endorse, any websites or links posted within the question above.

  • Share Section 10.19.1 MNAA Policy Summary Table in the Broadway Plan. There are two options: 1. Secured Market rental housing and social housing in tower form or non-tower form. 2. Strata ownership housing, limited to sites without existing purpose built rental or social housing in tower form or non-tower form. It appears the applicant has chosen option 2, which is not an option because the project replaces 36 units of purpose built rental or social housing on the specific site. Option 1 is required. Under option 1, if a tower is built, it must be 100% rental or social housing. If they are justifying option 2 because the occupants of the 36 units were offered units in 349 East 6th, this is not consistent with the policy. How are you able to offer this developer concessions? I have heard from the residents who were moved from 325 to 349 East 6th that the units provide far less quality and space than they enjoyed in their original homes. It is also costing them more than they were led to believe. What a shame to displace disadvantaged people from spacious units that provided better storage options, private laundry facilities, parking spaces and ready access to the outdoors. Do you follow up to assess if the objectives for development have been met? on Facebook Share Section 10.19.1 MNAA Policy Summary Table in the Broadway Plan. There are two options: 1. Secured Market rental housing and social housing in tower form or non-tower form. 2. Strata ownership housing, limited to sites without existing purpose built rental or social housing in tower form or non-tower form. It appears the applicant has chosen option 2, which is not an option because the project replaces 36 units of purpose built rental or social housing on the specific site. Option 1 is required. Under option 1, if a tower is built, it must be 100% rental or social housing. If they are justifying option 2 because the occupants of the 36 units were offered units in 349 East 6th, this is not consistent with the policy. How are you able to offer this developer concessions? I have heard from the residents who were moved from 325 to 349 East 6th that the units provide far less quality and space than they enjoyed in their original homes. It is also costing them more than they were led to believe. What a shame to displace disadvantaged people from spacious units that provided better storage options, private laundry facilities, parking spaces and ready access to the outdoors. Do you follow up to assess if the objectives for development have been met? on Twitter Share Section 10.19.1 MNAA Policy Summary Table in the Broadway Plan. There are two options: 1. Secured Market rental housing and social housing in tower form or non-tower form. 2. Strata ownership housing, limited to sites without existing purpose built rental or social housing in tower form or non-tower form. It appears the applicant has chosen option 2, which is not an option because the project replaces 36 units of purpose built rental or social housing on the specific site. Option 1 is required. Under option 1, if a tower is built, it must be 100% rental or social housing. If they are justifying option 2 because the occupants of the 36 units were offered units in 349 East 6th, this is not consistent with the policy. How are you able to offer this developer concessions? I have heard from the residents who were moved from 325 to 349 East 6th that the units provide far less quality and space than they enjoyed in their original homes. It is also costing them more than they were led to believe. What a shame to displace disadvantaged people from spacious units that provided better storage options, private laundry facilities, parking spaces and ready access to the outdoors. Do you follow up to assess if the objectives for development have been met? on Linkedin Email Section 10.19.1 MNAA Policy Summary Table in the Broadway Plan. There are two options: 1. Secured Market rental housing and social housing in tower form or non-tower form. 2. Strata ownership housing, limited to sites without existing purpose built rental or social housing in tower form or non-tower form. It appears the applicant has chosen option 2, which is not an option because the project replaces 36 units of purpose built rental or social housing on the specific site. Option 1 is required. Under option 1, if a tower is built, it must be 100% rental or social housing. If they are justifying option 2 because the occupants of the 36 units were offered units in 349 East 6th, this is not consistent with the policy. How are you able to offer this developer concessions? I have heard from the residents who were moved from 325 to 349 East 6th that the units provide far less quality and space than they enjoyed in their original homes. It is also costing them more than they were led to believe. What a shame to displace disadvantaged people from spacious units that provided better storage options, private laundry facilities, parking spaces and ready access to the outdoors. Do you follow up to assess if the objectives for development have been met? link

    Section 10.19.1 MNAA Policy Summary Table in the Broadway Plan. There are two options: 1. Secured Market rental housing and social housing in tower form or non-tower form. 2. Strata ownership housing, limited to sites without existing purpose built rental or social housing in tower form or non-tower form. It appears the applicant has chosen option 2, which is not an option because the project replaces 36 units of purpose built rental or social housing on the specific site. Option 1 is required. Under option 1, if a tower is built, it must be 100% rental or social housing. If they are justifying option 2 because the occupants of the 36 units were offered units in 349 East 6th, this is not consistent with the policy. How are you able to offer this developer concessions? I have heard from the residents who were moved from 325 to 349 East 6th that the units provide far less quality and space than they enjoyed in their original homes. It is also costing them more than they were led to believe. What a shame to displace disadvantaged people from spacious units that provided better storage options, private laundry facilities, parking spaces and ready access to the outdoors. Do you follow up to assess if the objectives for development have been met?

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    The 36 social housing units previously located on this 325 E 6th have been replaced on the adjacent site at 349 East 6th Avenue. The Rental Housing Stock ODP rental replacement requirement does not apply to this subject property and strata residential housing is permitted (as outlined in Option 2 of MNAA in the Broadway Plan). Important to note the site is still subject to the provisions of the Broadway Plan which requires 20% turn key social housing.

    Please note, a previous response was revised to remove the incorrect statement that the Rental Housing Stock ODP was applicable to this site.

  • Share What evidence do you have that this type of development increases affordability? Have you considered the development history in Toronto. Smaller units are not as marketable and there is some controversy around how these types of condo units are being purchased by investors who rent out at market rental prices so no guarantee of affordability. Also, there is some question as to whether lending institutions will approve mortgages on units less than 500 sq ft. on Facebook Share What evidence do you have that this type of development increases affordability? Have you considered the development history in Toronto. Smaller units are not as marketable and there is some controversy around how these types of condo units are being purchased by investors who rent out at market rental prices so no guarantee of affordability. Also, there is some question as to whether lending institutions will approve mortgages on units less than 500 sq ft. on Twitter Share What evidence do you have that this type of development increases affordability? Have you considered the development history in Toronto. Smaller units are not as marketable and there is some controversy around how these types of condo units are being purchased by investors who rent out at market rental prices so no guarantee of affordability. Also, there is some question as to whether lending institutions will approve mortgages on units less than 500 sq ft. on Linkedin Email What evidence do you have that this type of development increases affordability? Have you considered the development history in Toronto. Smaller units are not as marketable and there is some controversy around how these types of condo units are being purchased by investors who rent out at market rental prices so no guarantee of affordability. Also, there is some question as to whether lending institutions will approve mortgages on units less than 500 sq ft. link

    What evidence do you have that this type of development increases affordability? Have you considered the development history in Toronto. Smaller units are not as marketable and there is some controversy around how these types of condo units are being purchased by investors who rent out at market rental prices so no guarantee of affordability. Also, there is some question as to whether lending institutions will approve mortgages on units less than 500 sq ft.

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    Chapter 12 of the Broadway Plan contains the Housing Key Directions, one Key Direction is enabling incremental change in existing rental apartment areas to renew the aging rental stock, while acknowledging significant increases in height and density will be needed to ensure replacement of existing affordability and tenant protections in new developments so that existing renters have the choice to stay in their neighbourhoods. In existing apartment residential areas, housing policy section 12.2.5 (b) states: “On strata condominium sites, additional height and density will be considered for new developments that provide 20 per cent of the residential floor area as social housing to be owned by the City and delivered as completed units on terms that are satisfactory to the City, or, in specific locations, that provide 100 per cent of the residential floor area as strata ownership housing with a community amenity contribution (cash contribution or in-kind contribution),” this application is proposing the former.

  • Share Are the bedrooms in the one bedroom units separated by a solid wall or a sliding door? The trend has been to call what used to be suites as one bedroom by adding a sliding door to accommodate smaller living space. Is that part of the proposal? on Facebook Share Are the bedrooms in the one bedroom units separated by a solid wall or a sliding door? The trend has been to call what used to be suites as one bedroom by adding a sliding door to accommodate smaller living space. Is that part of the proposal? on Twitter Share Are the bedrooms in the one bedroom units separated by a solid wall or a sliding door? The trend has been to call what used to be suites as one bedroom by adding a sliding door to accommodate smaller living space. Is that part of the proposal? on Linkedin Email Are the bedrooms in the one bedroom units separated by a solid wall or a sliding door? The trend has been to call what used to be suites as one bedroom by adding a sliding door to accommodate smaller living space. Is that part of the proposal? link

    Are the bedrooms in the one bedroom units separated by a solid wall or a sliding door? The trend has been to call what used to be suites as one bedroom by adding a sliding door to accommodate smaller living space. Is that part of the proposal?

    Maggie99 asked 9 months ago

    This question was forwarded to the Applicant, this was their response:

    The current proposal shows the bedroom separated by a solid wall. However, please note that Interior unit designs may evolve during the design process.

  • Share Why isn’t 311 east 6th avenue considered a tower in need of a larger setback considering it is a new development (2017) and a mid rise? Conceivably the smaller setback is allowed assuming that new buildings will also provide an additional buffer when a new tower is put in place of the adjacent property. This proposal provides considerate view from many units onto balconies and amenity space of 311 east 6th avenue. on Facebook Share Why isn’t 311 east 6th avenue considered a tower in need of a larger setback considering it is a new development (2017) and a mid rise? Conceivably the smaller setback is allowed assuming that new buildings will also provide an additional buffer when a new tower is put in place of the adjacent property. This proposal provides considerate view from many units onto balconies and amenity space of 311 east 6th avenue. on Twitter Share Why isn’t 311 east 6th avenue considered a tower in need of a larger setback considering it is a new development (2017) and a mid rise? Conceivably the smaller setback is allowed assuming that new buildings will also provide an additional buffer when a new tower is put in place of the adjacent property. This proposal provides considerate view from many units onto balconies and amenity space of 311 east 6th avenue. on Linkedin Email Why isn’t 311 east 6th avenue considered a tower in need of a larger setback considering it is a new development (2017) and a mid rise? Conceivably the smaller setback is allowed assuming that new buildings will also provide an additional buffer when a new tower is put in place of the adjacent property. This proposal provides considerate view from many units onto balconies and amenity space of 311 east 6th avenue. link

    Why isn’t 311 east 6th avenue considered a tower in need of a larger setback considering it is a new development (2017) and a mid rise? Conceivably the smaller setback is allowed assuming that new buildings will also provide an additional buffer when a new tower is put in place of the adjacent property. This proposal provides considerate view from many units onto balconies and amenity space of 311 east 6th avenue.

    JessicaMacDaniel asked 9 months ago

    The existing building located on 311 East 6th Avenue is six storeys tall, therefore, it is not considered a tower and not subject to 80 ft. separation. Nonetheless, staff are currently assessing whether the setback provided by the 325 E 6th application to the west is sufficient to address privacy and neighbourliness concerns.  

  • Share "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." The assumption that this tower will fit in because 311 east 6th avenue could be developed into a 20-storey building is insensitive and infuriating. I live in 311 east 6th avenue and it was built in 2017 as a forever home to many now residents. I find the applicants answers to questions generally insensitive. Did the applicant study this neighbourhood at all? Or are you proposing that justifying a 20 storey building next to a 6/7 storey building is okay because you are hoping and assuming that someone will tear down a 2017 build with a lot of character? As far as I know 311 is left out of the area for potential 20 storey buildings. Please confirm. on Facebook Share "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." The assumption that this tower will fit in because 311 east 6th avenue could be developed into a 20-storey building is insensitive and infuriating. I live in 311 east 6th avenue and it was built in 2017 as a forever home to many now residents. I find the applicants answers to questions generally insensitive. Did the applicant study this neighbourhood at all? Or are you proposing that justifying a 20 storey building next to a 6/7 storey building is okay because you are hoping and assuming that someone will tear down a 2017 build with a lot of character? As far as I know 311 is left out of the area for potential 20 storey buildings. Please confirm. on Twitter Share "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." The assumption that this tower will fit in because 311 east 6th avenue could be developed into a 20-storey building is insensitive and infuriating. I live in 311 east 6th avenue and it was built in 2017 as a forever home to many now residents. I find the applicants answers to questions generally insensitive. Did the applicant study this neighbourhood at all? Or are you proposing that justifying a 20 storey building next to a 6/7 storey building is okay because you are hoping and assuming that someone will tear down a 2017 build with a lot of character? As far as I know 311 is left out of the area for potential 20 storey buildings. Please confirm. on Linkedin Email "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." The assumption that this tower will fit in because 311 east 6th avenue could be developed into a 20-storey building is insensitive and infuriating. I live in 311 east 6th avenue and it was built in 2017 as a forever home to many now residents. I find the applicants answers to questions generally insensitive. Did the applicant study this neighbourhood at all? Or are you proposing that justifying a 20 storey building next to a 6/7 storey building is okay because you are hoping and assuming that someone will tear down a 2017 build with a lot of character? As far as I know 311 is left out of the area for potential 20 storey buildings. Please confirm. link

    "The building at 349 East 6th Avenue was developed before the implementation of the Broadway Plan. According to the Broadway Plan, all three lots within this block, 311, 325 and 349 East 6th Avenue, could potentially be redeveloped with 20-storey towers." The assumption that this tower will fit in because 311 east 6th avenue could be developed into a 20-storey building is insensitive and infuriating. I live in 311 east 6th avenue and it was built in 2017 as a forever home to many now residents. I find the applicants answers to questions generally insensitive. Did the applicant study this neighbourhood at all? Or are you proposing that justifying a 20 storey building next to a 6/7 storey building is okay because you are hoping and assuming that someone will tear down a 2017 build with a lot of character? As far as I know 311 is left out of the area for potential 20 storey buildings. Please confirm.

    Jen.Kel asked 9 months ago

    311 East 6th Avenue is within the Mount Pleasant Centre – Area H (MCEH Policy 10.18) of the Broadway Plan, at this location the Broadway Plan allows consideration of: a strata ownership housing tenure with a minimum 20% of the residential floor area to be delivered as turnkey social housing units to the City, up to a maximum building height of 20 storeys; and secured market rental housing with a minimum 20% of the residential floor area required to be secured at below-market rents, up to a maximum building height of 20 storeys.  

    The Applicant submitted the rezoning application on May 28, 2024, the City is required to process all rezoning applications submitted and staff’s position on the proposal will be summarized in the referral report later in the application process timeline. Here’s a Visual Guide to the Rezoning Process Overview, and additional information on the steps in the rezoning process: How rezoning works | City of Vancouver, we’re currently in Step 2 of the rezoning process in the aforementioned link. 

Page last updated: 16 Jan 2025, 01:45 PM