On October 20th, 2025, during another hearing on the 105 Keefer / 570 Columbia Street application, over 100 speakers had signed up largely to oppose the development.  The Development Permit Board heard from 80 speakers that evening, and a second hearing was scheduled for November 17th. In the interim, speaker #44 Bing Ho sent the following letter published below. To date, November 27, 2025, he still has not received a response.

To:  Development Permit Board, Advisors and Director of Planning 

Date:   November 14, 2025

Re: 105 Keefer (renamed 570 Columbia) 

_________________________________________

My name is Bing Ho.  I was one of the founding partners of a Vancouver law firm that has advised on many major real estate developments in the City.  After toiling ten years at that firm, I moved to Asia to head up a major office of what was then the world’s largest global law firm. More relevantly, I am proud to say that I was born and raised in poverty in an SRO on the edges of Chinatown in Edmonton, and survived.  

When I retired in 2015 and returned to Vancouver, I became increasingly involved in Chinatown and DTES housing issues, and am deeply, deeply concerned about the negative impact that 105 Keefer will have on the neighborhood; it will do nothing to help solve the housing crisis, and will exacerbate a host of homelessness, displacement, gentrification, cultural preservation, unaffordability, and other challenges plaguing these communities.  

I agree with and echo the arguments other objectors have put forth around these issues, but confine my submission to what I — a retired, recovering and repentant lawyer, with justice close to my heart — consider a fundamentally important issue: the rule of law. 

Supreme Court Judgement 

The controversy around different iterations of the Keefer 105/Columbia 570 project (Project) proposed by Beedie Development (Applicant) and now under review by the Development Permit Board (Board) is unprecedented in City history. It ignited almost a decade of passionate protests that continue to this day.  In addition, the Applicant instigated an extraordinary lawsuit against the City that went all the way to the BC Supreme Court.

On June 27, 2017, the Applicant submitted a development application (2017 DP Application) that the Board rejected in its entirety.  On August 16, 2019, the Applicant challenged the Board’s decision in court, making no less than six serious (some would say offensive and aggressive) allegations that the Board had acted in bad faith or contrary to applicable legislation.  After five days of hearings, the Supreme Court issued a detailed judgement on December 9, 2022 which rejected six of the Applicant’s seven accusations out of hand. 

As a small consolation to the Applicant, the Supreme Court agreed that the reasons “provided by the Board are inadequate”.  To make the Applicant whole, the Court directed that the 2017 DP Application must be:  “…remitted to the Board for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons. In particular, it is incumbent upon the Board to reconsider whether the (2017) DP Application warrants being approved, approved with conditions, or refused outright. If the latter, the Board must provide detailed and sufficient reasons to transparently explain why such a refusal is justified in the case of the (2017) DP Application.” 

The Supreme Court’s insistence that the Board must provide fulsome and transparent reasons for its decision echoes the golden rule that governs administrative tribunals – first enunciated by the Lord Chief Justice of England, who famously said, “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”  This ringing maxim has been reiterated many times by the highest courts of BC and Canada.  It emphasizes that administrative organs, like the Board, must always strive to show the public that they are not only administering justice, but administering justice in a way that is demonstrably visible, transparent, and impartial. 

The Project has fueled more than a decade of vehement protests by the communities that will suffer the greatest impact.  Against this backdrop, the members of the Board –  in their role as civil servants of ALL the people  –  must act in a way that “justice (will) manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.   To do so, I respectfully submit that the Board should act strictly, impartially and in accordance with the black and white letters of: (A) the Supreme Court’s decision; and (B) the conditions imposed by the Board itself —all without fear or special favor.  

The Court’s Directive 

I turn first to the Supreme Court decision.  The Court quashed the Board’s rejection of the 2017 Application on the grounds that the Board failed to provide adequate explanations for their decision, and ordered the Board to reconsider the 2017 Application and explain its negative ruling more fully.  The Court asked for and expects nothing less, nothing more, and nothing different. That is also what the public expects and deserves.  

The Applicant’s New 2025 Concept

However — notwithstanding the clarity and simplicity of the Court’s ruling  — instead of resubmitting its 2017 Application as directed, in 2025, the Applicant submitted a brand new architectural concept (New 2025 Concept) calling for a courtyard building form, a concept completely different from the ordinary building form the 2017 Application envisioned.  For the purposes of the upcoming October 20th Board hearing, the City Development Permit Staff issued a report on October 8, 2025 which states that: “…the applicant engaged a new architectural design firm and advanced a revised proposal adopting a courtyard building form.”  Some will love the new courtyard concept and others will hate it, but everyone will agree that it is vastly different from the concept proposed by the 2017 DP Application.  Other major differences are discussed below.   

The Applicant, of course, is entitled to change the architectural concept of its project as it wishes.  However, asking the Board to consider a patently different concept flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s directive for the Applicant to resubmit  and for the Board to reconsider, the 2017 DP Application. I respectfully submit that, in order to be seen doing justice, the Board must restrict itself to complying with the Court’s directive: to simply reconsider the 2017 Application and the Board’s original rejection against the 2017 Zoning and Bylaws, and fully explain its reconsidered decision.  The Court did NOT require the Board to review anything going beyond the 2017 Application, and the Board should not do so as a gratuitous favor to the Applicant.  The Board should consider the New 2025 Concept if and only if it is within a new application submitted for review under the current (and more restrictive) Zoning and Bylaws. More on that below. 

The Board’s 2023 Prior-To Conditions

Prior to submitting the New 2025 Concept, the Applicant submitted a revised application.  The Board approved the application on June 26, 2023 but, pursuant to its usual and Court-approved protocol, the Board imposed conditions (Prior-to Conditions) for the issuance of the all-important Development Permit. Others have commented on the technical, zoning and architectural conditions that the Applicant’s New 2025 Concept fails to meet, but I confine myself to two Prior-to-Conditions fundamental to the Board’s duty to act transparently and impartially.  

1. Strict Application Deadline 

Paragraph B.1.1 of the Prior-to Conditions warns that: “It should be noted that your Development Permit will be issued when you have complied with all the above conditions. However, if these conditions have not been complied with on, or before January 15, 2024, this Development Application may stand refused.”  

According to the Shape the City website, the Applicant submitted a response to the Board’s Prior-To Conditions on October 5, 2023. Strangely, that response was not and, despite repeated requests, has still not been disclosed; the public has no way of determining whether the Prior-to Conditions were satisfied in time, or not satisfied in time. Either way, the Applicant and the Board should have divulged the Applicant’s submission and the Board’s response, and not hidden them from public view. Justice must be seen to be done in order to be done. 

Common sense and the common law “adverse inference” doctrine allows one to assume that a party that refuses to provide evidence of important facts is hiding unfavourable ones. On that basis, the public is entitled to conclude that the Applicant failed to satisfy the Prior-To Conditions on time, and that the application must therefore stand refused – in accordance with the Board’s clear warning to that effect.  Breathing new life into an approval that died on January 15, 2024 would constitute a gratuitous rescue mission for the Applicant’s one-sided benefit.  If the Board ignores its own deadline, impartial observers could well conclude that the Board lacks the spine and integrity to enforce its own conditions. For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. 

1.  No Significant Changes 

Second, Paragraph B.1.2 of the Prior-To Conditions stipulates:  “A new Development Application will be required for any significant changes. This approval is subject to any change in the Zoning and Development By-law or other regulations affecting the development that occurs before the permit is issuable.” 

The Applicant is asking the Board to approve and accept as “minor” the dramatic conceptual change at the very heart of the New 2025 Concept (the “public” courtyard discussed below) as well as the many other significant changes and special relaxations of the applicable rules, including the following: 

• An FSR increase of 7.8%;
• A unit increase of 20%; 
• A rear-yard setback reduction of 84%;
• A whopping additional 13,297 sq ft of floor area, of which the lion’s share will enure to the sole benefit of the Applicant; and
• A height increase of 17% that exceeds the 97’ maximum height restriction set out in 2017 HA1-A district schedule 4.3.4.

         The (Not) “Public” Courtyard 

The Applicant makes a great deal of the new “public” courtyard at the center of its New 2025 Concept, claiming that the granting of the many special relaxations requested is justified by the many community benefits conferred. The courtyard appears public and good for the community in theory but, in actual practice, will be private and seriously problematic for all concerned: 

• A Board approval will toss kerosene on a burning fire; the vociferous community outcry will get louder, much louder, and not quieter. 
• To stop the perceived community disaster, the objectors can be counted on to exercise all of their lawful remedies — including, ironically, using the same legal weapons the Applicant used to quash the Board’s 2017 rejection to quash the Board’s 2025 approval. 
• The objectors’ continuing protests and legal action will have a serious adverse impact on the Applicant’s marketing and sales ambitions, especially in a market that already suffers from a glut of empty condos, and where even strong developers have announced the cancellation of major projects. Query also whether the Applicant’s bankers will support the construction of a hyper-controversial project at this extraordinarily fraught time.  
• If, despite all these hurdles, the Project is actually built according to the New 2025 Concept, all the prime luxury condo units will face and be exposed to the courtyard. Yes, a few of the middle-income and high-income inhabitants might warmly welcome a few of the (very!) low-income DTES neighbours into their privately-owned courtyard, or perhaps even into their own luxury homes. But, in reality, the opposite is much more likely to materialize.  Instead of becoming a place of community harmony, the courtyard will quickly become a place of community division — that lays bare and exacerbates the ever-widening divide between the City’s have-lots and its have-nots. 
• The community objectors (and their children!) will certainly continue their protests, both during and beyond the construction period. They will naturally want to stage their most enthusiastic protests within the so-called “public” courtyard.  
• The owners of the luxury condos can be counted on to order the building’s private security forces to “encourage” unwelcome DTES citizens to go elsewhere, and shut down the community protests that will inevitably erupt.  It will not take long for the “public” courtyard “for the community” to deteriorate into a private courtyard for the exclusive enjoyment of the luxury condo owners. 

The above changes —  together with the requested application of the badly outdated 2017 Bylaws and Guidelines — if granted, will bestow significant benefits upon the Applicant that will not help, but harm, the community.  Passing these obviously significant changes off as “minor” is a misleading and disingenuous attempt by the Applicant and supporters to hide the ball, the very antithesis of transparency. Instead of trying to surreptitiously slip patently significant changes past the Board and the public, it would be more honorable and show more respect to the Board and the community for the Applicant to submit a new application and its New 2025 Concept for review against the current rules —  as mandated by Prior-To Condition B.1.2 — a more restrictive outcome the developer is obviously and desperately trying to avoid. 

Conclusions and Requests   

In conclusion, the current application attempts to side-step the Supreme Court’s clear directive for the Board to simply reconsider the 2017 DP Application under the 2017 zoning rules and bylaws.  Moreover, under the Board’s own 2023 Prior-To Conditions, the Applicant’s 2025 New Concept was seriously out-of-time and should have been declared dead on arrival.  The application also contains so many significant changes that it should have been the subject of a brand new application for evaluation under the current (and more restrictive) zoning rules and bylaws, again, in accordance with the Board’s 2023 Prior-to-Conditions.  

While the Board has discretion to grant special allowances when appropriate, I respectfully submit that this is not the time or place for doing so.  This is the umpteenth iteration of a fight that has taken place in dramatic fashion for almost a decade, not only before the Board, but also before Council, the courts, the press and in the public square — a protracted battle that can and must be resolved openly and transparently through democratic political means and open legal processes. 

As impartial administrators and civil servants of ALL the people, the Board must not get embroiled in the political fray by ignoring the Supreme Court’s directive; it must not casually toss its own deadlines and conditions out the window; it must not gratuitously jump on the Applicant’s side of a decade-long fight.  

So that justice will be done, and seen to be done, I urge the Board to:

• comply with the Supreme Court’s order as written by confining its deliberations to a simple reconsideration of the 2017 DP Application as directed; and
• enforce its own Prior-to Conditions as written by:

1. rejecting the Applicant’s out-of-time application, and
2. requiring the Applicant to submit a new application for the New 2025 Concept for review under the current rules. 

The Chinatown and DTES communities have passionately protested a deeply flawed project from inception to this day. They are watching intently, and expect the Board to uphold the administrative golden rule that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Sadly, but realistically, doing what you must do will subject the Board to a barrage of criticisms and pressure from powerful internal, business and political forces. It will take courage for you to hold the line, but hold the line you must.  Please know that the Chinatown and DTES communities and Madame Justice will all be watching closely, and cheering you on. 

Reject the application! Let justice be seen to be done! 

Sincerely, respectfully and with thanks,

Bing Ho

Share: