Summary#
Vancouver City Council adopted in principle the rezoning application for 904–928 Davie Street and 1223 Hornby Street on July 28, 2026. It would change the site from DD (Downtown) zoning to a site-specific CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) district; the stated goal is to allow a mixed-use residential building. The rezoning is not yet in force: the decision says it creates no legal rights and does not require the City to enact the zoning by-law.
- The proposal is for a 32-storey building with 244 strata-titled homes and commercial space on the ground floor.
- The approved-in-principle motion describes increasing the maximum FSR (floor space ratio, a measure of floor area compared with site area) from 5.0 to 13.0, and maximum height from 91.4 metres to 100 metres.
- Approval is subject to conditions in the staff report. The report also describes two encroachments into protected public views.
- Changes to the Sign By-law and Noise Control By-law are conditional on the CD-1 by-law being approved.
What it means for you#
- People looking for housing: If built as proposed, the project would add 244 strata homes. It is not a rental or affordable-housing project. A condition requires a minimum family-unit mix, but the available material does not give the required mix.
- Nearby residents and businesses: The proposal includes ground-floor commercial uses along Davie and Hornby Streets. The report says parking and loading details will be set at the development-permit stage.
- The applicant and property owners: They may continue meeting rezoning conditions, but the decision does not guarantee that Council will enact the CD-1 by-law. Costs they incur are at their own risk.
- The public: The report says two City-owned trees are proposed for retention, with about 13 new on-site trees and six new City-owned trees proposed. Final tree numbers are to be confirmed at the development-permit stage.
- People using public views: The staff report supports a three-storey encroachment into one protected view and a 4.3-metre encroachment for an enclosed mechanical penthouse into another. It includes a condition against further encroachments during later permitting.
Money#
The staff report estimates development-related contributions, but gives no total public cost for the project or the City’s work.
- The project is expected to pay $6,291,973 in Development Cost Levies, based on December 2025 rates.
- The Community Amenity Contribution is $1,250,000 if the applicant meets all enactment conditions within 24 months of approval in principle. After that, it rises by $100,000 every three months, up to $2,150,000; the full amount applies from 48 months onward.
- The public art contribution is estimated at $385,927, based on the 2016 rate.
- A servicing agreement requires upgrades on or near the site, but the available material does not state their cost.
What is unclear#
- The report’s design table gives a proposed tower height of 114.8 metres, while the motion describes a maximum height of 100 metres. The relationship between these figures is not explained in the available material.
- The full conditions of approval are referenced but not included here, so their requirements and costs cannot be assessed.
- The decision does not say when the City will consider enacting the CD-1 by-law, or whether the applicant will meet the conditions.
- The material does not give the required minimum family-unit mix or the final parking, loading, and tree details.
Case for#
- City staff say the proposal fits the applicable downtown plans and policies, which allow market residential development at this location.
- Three of the 21 public submissions supported more housing; supporters also cited the site’s downtown location, density, architecture, and ground-floor retail.
- City staff say the shadowing would not significantly affect nearby public plazas or parks, and that no water or sewer upgrades are required.
- The project would provide 244 homes and the listed contributions toward public benefits, development costs, and public art.
Case against#
- Eight of the 21 submissions opposed the proposal and eight were mixed. Concerns included the focus on strata homes rather than affordable or guaranteed rental housing.
- Residents who commented raised concerns that more high-rises could harm neighbourhood character and livability.
- Some respondents questioned whether infrastructure, public space, transit, and community amenities can support more development. Staff say the contribution would support nearby facilities, but there is no Downtown South Public Benefits Strategy.
- The staff report supports encroachments into two protected public views; it is unclear from the available material how the height figures in the motion and report table relate.