{"id":489336,"date":"2026-02-21T06:23:15","date_gmt":"2026-02-21T06:23:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/489336\/"},"modified":"2026-02-21T06:23:15","modified_gmt":"2026-02-21T06:23:15","slug":"park-board-commissioners-oppose-west-end-hotel-tower-over-stanley-park-proximity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/489336\/","title":{"rendered":"Park Board commissioners oppose West End hotel tower over Stanley Park proximity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Could the final decision on a rezoning application \u2014 typically under the jurisdiction of Vancouver City Council \u2014 to build a hotel on private property in downtown Vancouver\u2019s West End also involve the Vancouver Park Board commissioners?<\/p>\n

At least two Vancouver Park Board commissioners are opposing a proposed 25-storey hotel tower<\/a> in the West End, suggesting that City Council is being asked to make a decision without a proper public assessment of the potential impacts on Stanley Park.<\/p>\n

The rezoning application for 2028-2038 Barclay St.<\/a> was discussed during the public hearing that began on the evening of Thursday, Feb. 19, but was not completed, after City Council ran out of time to hear from over 70 public speakers. The public hearing will resume Thursday, March 5, when City Council is also expected to make a final decision.<\/p>\n

The project by Marcon Developments and designed by Henriquez Partners Architects would replace a 1959-built, four-storey, 27-room boutique hotel with a 272-ft-tall, 25-storey hotel tower with 248 guest rooms, including 65 traditional short-term stay units and 183 long-term stay units, which are generally larger and offer more in-suite amenities such as laundry equipment and a kitchen.<\/p>\n

Long-term stay units are known to support business travellers, worker relocation, people seeking medical treatment in the region, and film and television industry workers.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the hotel would also have a ground-level restaurant and a rooftop hotel amenity space.<\/p>\n

In a rare and unusual appearance to City Council during the public hearing, Park Board commissioner Brennan Bastyovanszky told City Council he is opposed to the rezoning, and is also speaking on behalf of Tom Digby, another Park Board commissioner. Bastyovanszky, formerly with the ABC Vancouver party, announced earlier this week he has joined the new Vancouver Liberals civic party<\/a>, while Digby is with the Green Party of Vancouver.<\/p>\n

He said he is not opposing the hotel project necessarily, but because of the process being followed by City of Vancouver staff and the apparent lack of scrutiny of the potential impacts on Stanley Park. The mid-block development site on Barclay Street is located half a block away from Stanley Park.<\/p>\n

Hotel project requires consultation with Park Board, says commissioner<\/p>\n

Bastyovanszky said he agrees Vancouver needs more hotel rooms and that his concerns \u201chas nothing to do with disputing our need for hotels,\u201d but asserted that \u201cthere\u2019s gaps and there\u2019s risk to public engagement that are not being properly followed.\u201d He told City Council they have not received a report on the impacts of Stanley Park, calling this \u201ca red flag\u201d and urging City Council to refer the application back to City staff \u201cuntil that report on the impacts of Stanley Park has been received by Council.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen process is rushed, the risk of injunction and litigation become very real,\u201d he suggested, adding that \u201cwhen major changes happen to Stanley Park, when it\u2019s not deliberated publicly and transparently, then the trust in our institutions drops.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Brennan<\/p>\n

Vancouver Park Board commissioner Brennan Bastyovanszky speaking to Vancouver City Council during the public hearing on the hotel rezoning application at 2028-2038 Barclay St. on Feb. 19, 2026. (City ofVancouver)<\/p>\n

Bastyovanszky pointed to a recent Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling related to Stanley Park, saying the court \u201crecently warned the City about advancing major actions affecting Stanley Park without clear Park Board authorization or deliberation.\u201d Referring to the looper moth case, he said the court found staff \u201cdid not have expressly delegated authority to approve phase one work,\u201d which led to trees being cut down before the Park Board had formally approved it.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe concern today is not about stopping the development,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s actually about avoiding the same issue with governance\u2026 where decisions with direct park impact, they move forward before the elected Park Board has the opportunity to review and publicly consider them.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

Site of 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

Site of 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

Site of 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Google Maps)<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

May 2025 revised concept of the hotel at 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

He noted the Park Board is set to request a formal Stanley Park impact report on Monday, Feb. 23rd, and argued that means City Council \u201cdoes not yet have the necessary information to make a fully informed decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bastyovanszky has put forward a member motion to be debated at the Park Board\u2019s public meeting on Feb. 23, which would seek a formal briefing on the proposed hotel project. The motion calls on City staff from planning, engineering, and other departments to present on potential impacts to Stanley Park, including traffic flow at park access points, emergency access and egress, effects on the environment and heritage trees along the park boundary, pedestrian and cycling safety, and park-adjacent infrastructure. It also asks City staff to report back on the scope of the Park Board\u2019s jurisdiction and consultation authority when major developments are proposed next to park land, and urges that City Council receive the Park Board\u2019s impact report before it considers the redevelopment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe staff report, it does thoroughly cover the City planning process and what is missing, but what is missing is a public analysis of the impacts of Stanley Park. There is no policy guiding like the creation of a major commercial operation adjacent to Stanley Park. Stanley Park does get special treatment. It is the crown jewel of the city. It\u2019s also the reason why the Park Board was set up as independent, so we don\u2019t have conflicts of interest when we\u2019re protecting our park,\u201d Bastyovanszky told City Council.<\/p>\n

He suggests that in addition to Park Board input, the application needs consultation with local First Nations and an evaluation of how it could impact the park\u2019s ecology. He even suggested the developer should be required to make a community amenity contribution (CAC) cash payment to help restore Lost Lagoon, which he described as being in \u201creal dire shape,\u201d pointing to recent algae blooms and fish die-offs.<\/p>\n

He said City staff\u2019s report, which recommends the project\u2019s rezoning approval, mentions building shadowing impacts, but does not discuss the impacts on nearby amenities such as a childcare facility and Stanley Park\u2019s nearby tennis courts and garden.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you add this big shade in that area, it\u2019s going to have ecological impact,\u201d he argued. \u201cAnd yet there\u2019s nothing talking about the established park amenities\u2026 You actually don\u2019t know as councillors what you\u2019re voting on right now on the impact of that.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, while this hotel tower would be the tallest building in immediate vicinity, it should be emphasized that there are already existing towers with a comparable height in the same area, including some that are further to the west and even closer to Stanley Park. Other towers in the area include the 1975-built, 23-storey tower of 2077 Nelson St., the 1965-built, 26-storey tower of 2020 Haro St., the 1990-built, 19-storey tower of 2088 Barclay St., the 1968-built, 22-storey tower of 2075 Comox St., the 1965-built, 25-storey tower of 2055 Pendrell St., and others.<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

Previous May 2025 revised 27-storey concept of the hotel at 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Common Ground Studios\/Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

Previous May 2025 revised 27-storey concept of the hotel at 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Common Ground Studios\/Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

Bastyovanszky also raised traffic concerns, suggesting the hotel could increase vehicle traffic on Lagoon Drive and North Lagoon Drive.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnything that obstructs or impacts traffic in Stanley Park, we\u2019ve already faced litigation as a city and none of that is in your report,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cHigh-rise buildings have been a part of the West End for over 70 years\u201d<\/p>\n

In stark contrast, West End resident Sebastien Zein told City Council during the public hearing he supports the project and sees it as a positive addition to the neighbourhood. He also suggested there should be many more projects just like it for the area, and that hotel projects should not only be concentrated within the Central Business District of the downtown Vancouver peninsula.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a second generation West Ender who chooses to keep living in the neighbourhood, because I think it\u2019s the best urban neighbourhood in the country, I\u2019m here to say I think this project will only make the neighbourhood even better. I do, however, have a very serious concern \u2014 my concern is that there are not 17 more projects like this one proposed in the West End,\u201d said Zein.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis location is perfect for a hotel as attested to the fact by the fact that there is already a hotel on the site today. The proposal may strike some as unusual because in recent decades, the City has pursued a policy of concentrating almost all hotel development into the same 10 blocks of the financial district. That practice has been a primary cause of the hotel shortage that we have in the city today. It is also very, very weird. In most cities anywhere in the world, there are a range of modern accommodations available in any urban neighbourhood, not so in Vancouver.\u201d<\/p>\n

Zein also pushed back against the idea that a 25-storey building is out of place in the West End. \u201cHigh-rise buildings have been a part of the West End for over 70 years,\u201d he said, noting there are four on his block alone. \u201cI live in one, I think they\u2019re great, I think they\u2019re normal, and they are the reason why the West End works today as a complete community.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said he looks forward to \u201cthe day when there is no longer the whiff of controversy surrounding a simple 25-storey high-rise in the downtown peninsula.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

Previous May 2025 revised 27-storey concept of the hotel at 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Common Ground Studios\/Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

May 2025 revised concept of the hotel at 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

\"2030<\/p>\n

May 2025 revised concept of the hotel at 2028-2038 Barclay St., Vancouver. (Henriquez Partners Architects\/Marcon Developments)<\/p>\n

Marcon Developments executive vice-president Nic Paolella told City Council the project \u2018is compatible with the surrounding buildings\u201d and \u201cisn\u2019t introducing a form, whether that be height or plate size or tower separation, that is inconsistent with the West End.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not inconsistent with the historical pattern of development, nor is it inconsistent with the recent pattern of development,\u201d he said. \u201cWe do feel that it fits.\u201d<\/p>\n

He emphasized that the project would add hotel rooms without displacing any tenants or residents, which is a \u201cvery rare thing,\u201d and pointed to the site\u2019s proximity to Stanley Park and English Bay as a major asset \u2014 not a negative factor.<\/p>\n

\u201cGlobally, Stanley Park, English Bay are some of the most recognized amenities in the country,\u201d he said, adding that many cities \u2014 specifically listing New York City, London, Sydney, Seattle, Chicago, and Barcelona \u2014 have \u201cworld-class parks and natural features\u201d with hotels integrated into nearby residential areas. More specifically, major hotels and towers with other uses prominently frame Central Park in Manhattan, and add to its unique character.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese amenities and these communities work in symbiosis,\u201d he said, arguing that a hotel in this location would allow visitors to be \u201cimmersed in the cultural fabric of the cities that we visit,\u201d rather than staying only in central business districts.<\/p>\n

\"central<\/p>\n

Central Park in New York City. (Donaldb\/Shutterstock)<\/p>\n

\"central<\/p>\n

Central Park in New York City. (WhiteYura\/Shutterstock)<\/p>\n

Developer received \u201cdisturbing threats\u201d<\/p>\n

Paolella also addressed criticism about the lack of an in-person public open house during the rezoning application\u2019s formal public consultation process. He said his team had received \u201ccredible and disturbing threats to the safety of staff, our team, and our family members,\u201d which forced them to rethink how they conducted public consultation.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur choice consciously was to engage actively, openly, and as freely as possible and try to create venues that were safe to do that. And while that wasn\u2019t easy, we feel like we did our best. And as you\u2019ll see here, the feedback that we heard, we took seriously. And we feel that that has influenced now where we stand today,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He said feedback from the the public input gathered led the team to modify the design, including reducing the proposed height of 329 ft. with 29 storeys \u2014 as outlined in the original rezoning application submission in July 2024<\/a> \u2014 to 289 ft. with 27 storeys in the May 2025 revised submission. Ahead of the public hearing, the application was further downsized to 272 ft. with 25 storeys, which also results in a reduction of 44 guest rooms compared to the original 2024 submission.<\/p>\n

On transportation and servicing, Paolella noted the site already operates as a hotel, with regular linen, garbage and service vehicles. He asserted the new building would handle those movements on site \u201cmuch more safely and logistically much, much better than the current building,\u201d with parking and pick-up and drop-off located in the underground levels.<\/p>\n

According to the City\u2019s staff report, the response during the previous formal public consultation period has been heavy, with about 1,570 submissions through comments, questions and other input methods, as well as a petition with more than 5,000 signatures. While some submissions support increasing hotel supply and cite economic and community benefits, many raise concerns about neighbourhood character, vehicle traffic, and parking.<\/p>\n

For written submissions during the current public hearing process, the City received 94 in support and 296 against.<\/p>\n

Among those in support is a former letter from Dayna Miller, the general manager of Vancouver for Destination British Columbia. She emphasized the project\u2019s close proximity to Stanley Park is an asset.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis proposal would add hotel rooms within walking distance of Stanley Park, one of Vancouver\u2019s biggest tourist attractions,\u201d wrote Miller.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis proposal is compliant under the City\u2019s Hotel Development Policy (2025) and, in addition to increasing hotel capacity, will create jobs, support the local economy and deliver benefits such as a neighbourhood-serving commercial amenity on the ground floor and public realm enhancements.\u201d<\/p>\n

With dozens of speakers still waiting to be heard after the Feb. 19 session, City Council will resume the public hearing on March 5, when they are also expected to vote on whether to approve the rezoning.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Could the final decision on a rezoning application \u2014 typically under the jurisdiction of Vancouver City Council \u2014…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":489337,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194298],"tags":[49,48,55],"class_list":["post-489336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-vancouver","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-vancouver"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/489336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=489336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/489336\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/489337"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=489336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=489336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=489336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}