RSS Feed

Category Archives: Cities

NIMNBY*

*Not In My Neighbour’s Back Yard

This week’s public meeting at City Hall really opened my eyes to some of the problems the city has in getting anything done. Every time the City wants to move forward there’s always push-back.  Not from everyone, no, but from some of the people who have property here.

Sitting and listening to the speakers at the meeting clued me in to how those people really want things to be. And this is how people want things to be:

The same.

They want their neighbourhood to stay the same — the houses the same size they are now.  They want places to park their cars and roads to drive on them.  They don’t want “developers” and “Translink” to ruin everything. They don’t want laneway houses in their neighbour’s back yards.

castles

There goes the neighbourhood!

But at the same time, they want their property values to go up (but not their civic taxes), they want their kids to be able to buy in the same neighbourhood they live in now, to take safe and convenient public transit to schools that are well-maintained and full of happy kids.

It seems like they want a small-town life in a big city. And they don’t see how that just won’t work.

We live in a big city — with big city problems.  We have homeless.  We have poverty.  We have drugs and crime and traffic.  And we can’t solve those problems if everything remains the same.

Everyone who spoke agreed that we have a housing problem in Vancouver.  We have limited rental space, which makes it very expensive.  We have no more room to build more houses, which means the houses that are here go up in value — a limited supply for an increasing demand. And people want to live here because the jobs and the economy.

Of course some people had solutions.  Don’t densify within Vancouver city limits, let the suburbs absorb the people who will be moving here.  Or densify by building large apartment buildings.  Or densify, but don’t build apartment towers, build low-rise rental buildings, only don’t re-zone any single-family homes to do it. Or (my personal favourite) slow down the economy in Vancouver so people won’t want to move here any more.

There seemed to be a quasi-elitist sentiment behind many of the speakers’ comments — I’ve got mine and now I will protect it by making sure that you don’t get yours. I got the feeling some of them wanted Vancouver to become a gated community, where the professionals and the wealthy get to live here, and the people who flip our burgers and clean our hospitals and type our letters and sell us clothes get to take transit in from the suburbs.

But, as Mark Sakai from the Greater Vancouver Home Builder’s Association pointed out, the city is changing, it has to change and we want it to change.  The only important thing is that it changes in ways that mean a better life for its citizens.

So I am happy that the City has allowed laneways to add to the densification of Vancouver, and I am glad that it’s become more inclusive.  There was some talk about limiting the number of laneway homes allowed to be built on any one block, but everyone could see how unfair — and elitist — that was.

By the way, if anyone is thinking that small town life is stress-and-wierdness-free, remember that Mt. Airy, North Carolina, hometown of Andy Griffith and model for Mayberry, was also where Chang and Eng Bunker, the original Siamese Twins, had their home, and their descendants still live there.

City Hall confidential

This isn’t confidential at all, of course.  I just wanted a really dramatic headline for this post.

I’d never been to Vancouver City Hall before DH and I attended the public hearing on June 11. But I wanted to have my say about laneway homes, I wanted to be sure there was at least one voice who didn’t have a dog in the fight.  It’s one thing to have the developers there — and I was sure they would do a good job.  But I just wanted to be a “Jane Citizen” showing support for laneways knowing that we would not be affected either way.

vancouver-city-hall-1930s

There were two items on the agenda.  First there was a discussion of the Regional Context Statement, our contribution to the Regional Growth Strategy that will be shaping our communities in the next few years.  Since this was my first public hearing, there were two things that really stood out for me

  1. The Vancouver City Council is made up of people who are really on the ball, and
  2. Most people do not listen

Although it was explained that there was no new information in the council’s contribution to the Metro Vancouver report, that is was all about giving the baseline information so people could move forward, speaker after speaker insisted that this was all new information, and their neighbourhood/community/back yard would be adversely affected by the report, and HOW DARE THEY submit this report without their input.

I guess I must expect that average people with a full head of steam about something are going to be sitting rehearsing their five minutes at the podium, and won’t be listening to the replies that all the previous speakers were getting.  But I, a neutral by-stander at the beginning of the process, was 147% in favour of council’s acceptance of the amendment by the end.

Thanks, fellow citizens!  You made council look very good!

Also — what is with the hate-on that people have with Translink?  I’m saving a post about the NIMBYism we encountered throughout the evening for later, but wow.

We got to the part of the evening where we were discussing the amendments affecting laneway homes. The city gave their presentation, which you can see here.  SPOILER ALERT!  These amendments were accepted. (Yay Us!)

I was 8th in the line-up to speak.  First was Jake Fry of Smallworks, who did a very good job presenting the “pro” argument, as did the representative of LaneFab.  A couple of people spoke about their lane homes.  I spoke about how building our laneway is helping keep our family truly together.

There were some arguments against the laneways (see what people opposed wrote to City Hall here).  They were basically:

  1. I don’t like laneways
  2. No one should have them.

Most of the problems people were speaking about were with parking (laneway dwellers using their in-home garages as living or storage rooms so they have to park on the street) and the heights of the 1.5 storey laneways causing loss of sunlight and privacy in their yards.

Since both of these problems are addressed (and hopefully solved) with the new amendments, those arguments didn’t seem to be helpful to the process.

All in all this was a very valuable experience for me.  I actually walked away from the meeting (taking Translink home with DH) feeling much more confident in the transparency of the processes the City uses to decide issues, and in the City Council itself.

And now there will be more laneways!  Huzzah!

Another view of the laneway situation from way down south — five reasons to embrace laneways

James Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion has also written a blog post on the Wall Street Journal story — and he sums up the laneway situation quite eloquently.

Be sure to read the whole story, but briefly, his points are:

First, while accessory units may increase the population density of a neighborhood by today’s standards, they reverse a decades-long trend of de-densification….increasing numbers of accessory units allow urban neighborhoods to return to population densities for which they were originally designed. Why would cities support regulations to halt a healthy evolution?

Second, allowing homeowners to convert idle space (in the case of basement and garage apartments) or add new space (in the case of laneway houses) creates a revenue stream from the property.

Third, accessory units provide an alternative to institutionalizing the elderly in extended living facilities and nursing homes.

Fourth, there is a question of property rights. Conservatives believe in an expanded definition of property rights

Fifth, accessory units are fiscally efficient. They embed new housing in an existing urban fabric of streets, sidewalks, water, sewer and utilities.

I’m pretty sure James and I would not see eye to eye on many political issues, but on the concept of densification in our cities and laneway homes we have found common ground.

From the Wall Street Journal – laneway homes as urban development trend

The Wall Street Journal has been paying attention to the small home trend.  And, clever capitalists as they are, they have put the article behind a paywall.  Scamps.
Video interview with article author, Conor Dougherty.

But writer Conor Dougherty seems to be quite impressed with our laneway homes.

Ajay Kumar built a $300,000, Moroccan-themed cottage that sits in his backyard and will soon be occupied by his parents.

Mr. Kumar’s “laneway house” is part of a broader plan that encourages Vancouver homeowners to add rental units in their basements, attics and backyards. The hope is to reduce sky-high housing costs and increase population density throughout the city—including the single-family-home neighborhoods like Mr. Kumar’s that surround the city’s towering downtown.

…….

During the past two decades, Vancouver’s main approach to add housing has been to go up, constructing scores of downtown condo towers. Recently the city has started rezoning arterial streets to allow more compact row houses.

The city took a step toward increasing density in single-family neighborhoods in the 1980s, when it first allowed basement suites. Since 2009, it has reduced the amount of time it takes to get a permit for basement apartments and permitted laneway homes like Mr. Kumar’s throughout the city.

The article also acknowledges that not everyone is crazy about the idea.

A dozen blocks away, Ronald Hatch also lives next to a laneway home, and he hates it. Mr. Hatch, 73, a retired literature professor, says the two-story home shades his backyard, reducing his raspberry crop.

I can see his point.  I know I would hate it if I had someone build a home that overlooked a formerly open back yard.  But you don’t have to build a laneway to get that effect.  Who has not seen huge, behemoth homes taking up more space vertically and horizontally in these older neighbourhoods?  The zoning is in place.

Getting more people into the city can be done in a number of ways.  You can build more smaller homes or fewer large ones, or some kind of combination of the two.

I’m prejudiced of course, but I prefer the charm of the laneway homes to the giant houses that can take over a neighbourhood.

Another super cool super small NYC apartment

Thius 425 square foot Manahttan apartment comes to us via the Inhabit website.

Manhattan-Micro-Loft-Specht-Harpman-5-537x357It’s another sleek, cool looking micro-apartment, built into a loft and over 3 floors.  Of course it is loaded with built-in storage — the space beneath the stairs is non-stop closet.  And it manages to maintain a comfortable feel while keeping clutter to a minimum.

The owners are using it as a pied-a-terre, not planning to live there full time, but I think it would be perfect for a single person (or a very compatible couple). I hope they hang a few paintings to take advantage of all that light.

BTW, you may want to subscribe to Inhabit’s newsletter.  It’s NYC-centric, but full of articles of interest to all sustainability and small-living fans.

Laneway homes in the news

Two stories in the Vancouver Sun today about laneway homes:

West Vancouver is considering allowing laneway homes.  Or, as they say in the carriage trade, “coach houses”.

As a community planner put it all into perspective,

“We have a community that is aging, that needs different housing options. We have younger families who are having difficulty establishing themselves or remaining in West Vancouver because of the cost of housing,” Mikicich said. “At the same time, it’s a community that highly values the established character of its neighbourhoods.”

It’s a way to increase density in this charming suburb of Vancouver without incurring the “monster house” syndrome. As Jake Fry of Smallworks remarked,

“You may have more roofs per acre, but they’re going to be smaller roofs. They’ll probably even have less square footage per city lot, but there’s going to be more families and you’ll see the … communities become much more dynamic”

In this story, homeowners who have build laneway homes and applied for HST (now GST) rebates were instead charged bills by the CRA.  The Canada Revenue Agency rules are not just confusing, they can be contradictory.

It LOOKS straightforward, you build a house and apply for a tax rebate.

But where the rules may get sticky — especially in high-priced Vancouver — is when it comes to determining the value of a laneway home built as a rental.

“The GST/HST new residential rental property rebate is limited to rental units that are less than $450,000 at the time of substantial completion of construction,” CRA said.”

Most laneways can be built for less than $450K, but if you take the value of the property into account the value would be much greater.

To me, this is ridiculous.  You cannot find a property in Vancouver that is worth less than $450K.  As the writer, Don Cayo, says, determining the added cost of the property is difficult and moot:

But simple division may, in fact, overestimate the land value — it hasn’t been subdivided and it can’t ever be, so there’s no market reference to determine its value. Land assessments are usually based on “highest and best use,” but there’s no other use — or only unlikely or very limited use — for pieces of property that small. So their “worth” is highly hypothetical.

I’m taking more than a casual interest in how this plays out, so stay tuned for updates.

Living small on the West Coast

It’s not surprising that Vancouver might embrace the small-living model.  Pressed on three sides by water — the Fraser River and the harbour — there’s no place to go but deeper, making more homes in less space.

Reliance Properties has won praise for its innovative makeover of the historic Burns Building in our city’s Downtown Eastside.

The suites, which range in size from 226 to 291 square feet, go for an average of $850 per month, including cable and internet.

Yes, in Vancouver, $850 a month is quite a reasonable price to pay for less than 300 square feet.

And they’re cute, too!

BurnsBlock

The surprising thing for me is that there’s a movement in our neighbouring suburb of Surrey for microsuites.  Surrey is huge, with lots of wide open spaces.  But homes here are still out of most people’s budget.  To increase affordability even more than density, Surrey is selling suites for prices even people earning $17 an hour can purchase.

With prices as low as $109,900, the project is designed for first-time home buyers lacking the income to afford the traditional larger home.

Once again, there’s no sacrifice of style in these units.

BALANCEClosedBed

No doubt about it in my mind — small has a place everywhere.

State of the address

We have permits!

And all it costs us is $18.232.88 for the city permits and the hookups to those little things that make life worth living, electricity, gas, sewage et al.  And another $1,303.48 for the DCL.  What is a DCL, you ask?  As did we.  A DCL is a Development Cost Levy. That is what it is.

To put it simply, it is part of the cost of doing business with the city, and so pay it, take your permits and go away. It’s a good idea, it pays for some good stuff, but it was a bit of a surprise.  We are, however, thankful we are not building in an area that needs a layered DCL.

And we are thankful we have permits!  And a new address – 3222 East 8th. It sings! It rolls off the tongue, does it not?  Three-two-two-two!  Thirty-two, twenty-two!  Three thousand, two hundred and twenty-two!

We are moving forward, for the mere cost of $19, 535.56!  Thank you, City of Vancouver!

vancouver-city-hall-1930s

 

And thanks to our builder/designer who held our hands through the process.  And thanks to Ryan at the City of Vancouver, who really likes the design of our laneway home!

Bless you, City of Vancouver, and all who sail in you.

We have permits!

High land costs down under mean the end of cottages

I believe you know I am a supporter of living small.  I was just in a neighbourhood a few weeks ago that had undergone a change in the other direction.

I remembered a neighbourhood close to our new house that had been primarily small bungalows that had been constructed in the late forties.  The entire area had been built for returning soldiers after World War II, and had been street after street of similarly designed homes of 1000 to 1500 square foot size.

BungalowI’m a boomer, and when I was small we lived in a house much like this — maybe you remember homes like this — two bedrooms on top (your Dad probably put another in the basement when you and your siblings outgrew the one bedroom). One bathroom for the whole family.  An eat-in kitchen or a tiny dining room.

But when I saw the neighbourhood again recently, I had to look for these old bungalows — they had been replaced by McMansions.  I felt a real sense of loss. But I understood why.  If you visit the site Crack Shack or Mansion, play the game to see if modest bungalows like the one above are dilapidated shacks or worth the price of a mansion in another city.  Who am I kidding — a dilapidated shack in Vancouver IS worth the price of a mansion almost anywhere else.  Because it’s all about the price of the property.

I can understand why someone who buys one of these homes would tear it down, and for another $300K or $400K, build a huge home that dominates the lot and leaves no yard to speak of (or play in).

And Vancouver is certainly not the only city to “suffer” from this.  Even Down Under,  the land crunch is being felt.  In this article we learn that Sydney, Australia is seeing their bungalows (or “cottages” disappearing).   And the reason is

Bob Schwartz, chief economist of Pitney Bowes Software, which did the analysis, said two- and three-bedroom houses were becoming ”too small” for the Sydney housing market.

”Those types of houses are in decline because they are simply not the best use of space,” he said. ”The small cottage just can’t cut it with high land prices.”

I am hoping that the option of increasing the living space in the home by building laneway homes will slow or stop this trend.  As nice as these large houses look, it doesn’t increase the densification of the neighbourhoods, and it completely changes their character.

 

 

Densification comes to small cities

Meadow Lake is a city located in north west Saskatchewan, Canada about 246 kilometers north east of Lloydminster and 156 kilometers north of North Battleford.

So, out of the main hustle and bustle, then.

And it looks like a lovely place.  Lots of amenities, and tons of fresh air and open spaces. An up-and-coming place, with people moving there all the time.

The city government also sees the cost of its own growth. According to this story in the local publication, the Meadow Lake Progress,

If Meadow Lake hopes to live up to its title as a ‘city’ and become a real urban centre, it needs to look at alternative forms of housing.

As it stands, the city faces a shortage not just of affordable housing, but of purpose-built rental units in general. Ask any young professional what the rental situation is like here and they will lament on the challenges on finding a decent apartment. Basement suites are more common, but self-contained rental units are rare and as a result are priced at a premium.

But they are doing something about it. By calling for densification through laneway and coach homes.

Many municipalities are only now learning the true cost of urban sprawl, as long commutes increase emissions, congest city streets and put further strain on our infrastructure.

But there is a way to embrace alternative housing and increase the density in our residential neighbourhoods while still meeting fire, safety and accessibility standards. Council should put their heads together and figure out the best way how.

Of course, I am a fan of densification in residential areas — and it’s good to see that others are seeing the value in it.

My Pain, My Life, My Struggles, My Fight

Come walk with me, Down My Dark & Stormy Journey BUSINESS INQUIRIES & CONTACT EMAIL : GODSCHILD4048@GMAIL.COM

ANNOTATED AUDREY BLOG

Artist and Desert Dweller with Big City Style.

Im ashamed to die until i have won some victory for humanity.

Domenic Garisto / LIFE IS NOT A REHERSAL,SO LIVE IT..if you can't be the poet, be the poem..havau22.com

The Lady Who Lives Down the Lane

Lane Way Housing for the Nervous Novice

Apartment Therapy| Saving the world, one room at a time

Lane Way Housing for the Nervous Novice

Slightly Snug House

building a home that's not too big and not too small

Vancouverandy

Funny thoughts from a nut like me.

Small House Bliss

Small house designs with big impact

WeeHavyn

Lane Way Housing for the Nervous Novice