How six storeys becomes seven in the Vancouver development game
City Conversation #128: Generic rezoning is good for an extra storey at development permit
NOTE: I made a mistake—the April 21st KitsPlan Town Hall meeting noted below is NOT a ticketed event—my bad! See you (all) there!
Proposal at rezoning - six storeys
Proposal at DP—seven tall storeys
I hate to tell you “I told you so!” but alas, I did and what I predicted has come to pass.
As I said in my City Conversation almost two years ago (July 2022), “When I spoke at Council about the Streamlining Rental initiative, I expressed concern at the overly generous height per storey allowances proposed, which have now come to pass in these detail-free proposals. So how is it that a proposed six storey building with at-grade commercial (which usually has higher heights) is allowed to be twice as high as a four storey commercial/residential project?” I was talking about the type of illustration at the top of this post.
In the months that followed the Streamlining Rental (RR) rezoning adoption, there was a rush of RR rezoning proposals, affecting (so far) half of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods. Even a year ago, when I ran out of time and energy to count, there were more than 50 of these proposed RR rezonings, all benefiting from no need to tell the public what was actually proposed until a project proceeded to the Development Permit (DP) phase.
Those of us within a two block radius of these projects are now finding out some of the missing details, as they proceed to DP. The rest of us need to find the streetside DP signage, which in the case of the illustrated proposal1 continues to insist this is a six storey building, even though it is clearly seven. But that’s okay, apparently, because the building fits within the generous 22m height limit contained in the original RR zoning, which means for this example project:
A first level commercial space on the lane of almost 15 feet2 “floor-to-floor”—that’s at least a 12’ clear ceiling inside;
A 2nd level commercial space with a 14-14’ clear inside height;
Four residential floors with 9’ clear ceilings;
A top residential floor with ceilings more than 9’.
I can’t be any clearer than these estimates, because, as the responsible city staffer advised, “There are privacy concerns associated with posting floor plans and sections for proposed developments.” 3
So let me get this right. At rezoning we were told details would follow at the Development Permit stage. But come the DP and the information available remains carefully curated.
Why do these details matter? Noticing this is all supposed to be affordable rental housing, I can’t help remembering all the rental, co-op and affordable strata housing I and many other architects designed in the days when these forms of housing were encouraged. These homes all had eight foot ceilings—higher was both prohibited by zoning height limits and by all the various guidelines for affordable housing. In no universe is nine feet more affordable than eight.
So why fill the 22m height envelope? I will set aside the obvious “Because they can” thought, instead suggest the extra height boosts each floor, affording better views, at least until the Jericho Lands development blocks them. And, of course, there is the precedent set by other developers, wherein rental projects that don’t “pencil out”4 are permitted to become strata for sale. Higher ceilings are worth more in the strata market.
As to the expectation that this will be affordable housing, I notice that only 16% of the proposed 82 rental homes in the above-mentioned project are called affordable. Wait a minute, you say, I thought the city wide deal for major rezonings5 was at least 20% affordable? Apparently not—must have been one more detail the public did not need to know. I’d like to be able to tell you what the affordable rentals look like, but again, protection of the developer’s privacy prohibits us from seeing any floor plans or unit allocations.
As to collateral damage, well, all the folks across the lane have completely lost their access to sunlight—I know, this argument is now a non-starter despite our latitude and climate, but one can hope.
My naysayers will point out that the extra floor provides more rental housing, to which I answer with the name of my tracking spreadsheet: Homes for Whom? Affordable rental? I don’t think so, either in stated quantity or in rent related to excessive building height.
Next KitsPlan then hall meeting April 21
The first KitsPlan town hall was a hit, leaving about 40% of attendees (without free tickets) out on the street due to venue fire limitations.
The next event will be April 21st at St James Community Centre, 6-8pm. More details coming.
Jane’s Walk Vancouver—mark your calendar
Jane’s Walk is an annual festival of free, citizen-led walking conversations inspired by the late urban visionary Jane Jacobs. They take place annually on the first weekend in May—last year there were walks in 133 countries. Check out their web site for what’s planned. I hope to be on a walk through Kits around the Maple Street communal gardens, if I can get a free ticket.
Broadway Plan numbers update—halfway there in only two years!
As mentioned in CC 127, Stephen Bohus and I have been tracking activity in the Broadway Plan area, focused on higher, denser development. Interesting to report that less than two years into a 30-year plan, 40% of the expected homes have now been staked out, with just over half the expected population boost:
In summary for those who hate spreadsheets, we have so far identified 90 separate projects in Kitsilano East, Fairview and Mount Pleasant, averaging more than 20 storeys in height. City staff admit to a significantly lower number—ours arises from official city channels plus real estate media announcements and clear pre-development activity such as sold signs on older affordable rental buildings which may or may not yet sport rezoning signs.
We can’t help but wonder if anyone at the city is tracking activity against the plan—at this rate we will have applications for all of the proposed density in five years rather than 30—just sayin’.
If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at
Brian Palmquist is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 45+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” and hoping to start in 2024 a book about how we can accommodate a growing population in the cities we love.
The city’s Shape Your City page at https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3803-3823-w-10-ave-2 also calls this six storeys.
Many development permit documents remain in feet and inches despite Canada being a metric country for construction.
Excerpt from email from the city’s “Project Facilitator”. This appears to be a recent policy change, as I have recently seen floor plans for other residential proposals,
Pencil out is developer talk for the spreadsheet(s) that track costs against revenue.
This may not be “major” in terms of building height, but is double the previously permitted height and floor space—I call that major.
Thanks for another well researched post and keeping up the resistance. Does the city receive City Conversations?