Summary#
Vancouver City Council approved this rezoning in principle, from R3-3 (Residential) to R5-4 (Residential), for 2277 West 2nd Avenue and 1750 Vine Street. City staff say the proposal fits the Vancouver Official Development Plan and Broadway Plan; the stated goal is to enable a mixed-use rental building of up to 26 storeys.
- The proposal is for about 233 rental homes. At least 20% of the residential floor area must be secured as below-market rental.
- The report estimates about 186 market-rental homes and 47 below-market-rental homes, but these are not final unit counts.
- The proposed housing agreement would secure all homes for the longer of 60 years or the life of the building. The below-market rents would start at 20% below city-wide average market rents.
- The zoning change is not yet in force. The motion directs the City to prepare a housing-agreement by-law before the zoning amendment by-law is enacted. The decision itself creates no legal rights for the applicant.
What it means for you#
- People living in the buildings now: The site has 62 rental homes. The report says 58 tenancies are eligible for the City’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy. Eligible tenants are to be offered a right to return to the new building, to a home suited to their household, at below-market rent or their current rent, whichever is lower.
- Future renters: The proposal would provide rental homes, including below-market homes. The report says the building must meet minimum unit-mix rules: at least 35% of homes must have two or more bedrooms, and at least 10% must have three or more bedrooms.
- Nearby residents: The building’s final design, parking and loading arrangements are not settled by this decision. They are to be addressed at the development-permit stage, when the public will be notified.
- Applicant and landowners: The current R3-3 zoning has not yet changed. The motion says the City is not obligated to enact the zoning by-law, and costs incurred by the applicant are at the applicant’s risk.
Money#
The materials give some expected development-related charges, but no full cost estimate for the City or the project.
- City staff estimate development cost levies of $1,951,927 at December 2025 rates, based on the maximum floor area for a high-rise apartment. The applicant requested a Class A waiver; the report estimates its value at $3,115,110, but the Council motion does not say whether the waiver was granted.
- Staff expect no community amenity contribution, after considering the cost of securing the rental homes.
- A public-art contribution of $308,952 may apply if the project meets the required size threshold. The amount would be determined at the development-permit stage.
- The final levies and any public-art contribution depend on the building’s final size and use.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a date for enactment of the zoning by-law or say whether it will be enacted.
- The report’s Appendix B, which contains the approval conditions, is not included in the supplied materials. The full details of those conditions cannot be checked here.
- The final design, home count, floor area, parking and loading spaces are not settled.
- The report describes the below-market homes’ rent and eligibility rules by reference to a City bulletin, but the bulletin’s full rules are not included here.
- The report says a public hearing cannot be held for this application because it is residential and consistent with the relevant plans. The motion also includes standard wording about approval following a public hearing; the supplied material does not explain that wording alongside the report’s statement.
Case for#
- City staff say the proposal is consistent with the Vancouver Official Development Plan and Broadway Plan, and that R5-4 zoning provides a streamlined route for rental housing on this site.
- The site currently has 62 rental homes; the proposal could add about 233, including below-market rental homes secured for at least 60 years or the building’s life.
- In public input, some respondents supported the added housing and affordability, and some supported the building’s design.
Case against#
- Of 150 online responses, 136 opposed the proposal, 3 supported it and 11 were mixed. Residents who commented raised concerns about the tower’s height, shadows, views and fit with the neighbourhood.
- Residents also raised concerns about traffic, parking and pressure on schools, transit and community services. City staff say parking and loading will be reviewed later, and that the site is near transit and cycling routes.
- Some residents questioned affordability and feared displacement of existing tenants. The report describes return rights for eligible tenants, but not all 62 tenancies are identified as eligible under the City policy.
- The final design and actual number of below-market homes are not settled at this stage. The estimates therefore do not guarantee the final building’s form or unit count.