I wonder what he thinks of Richmond considering laneway houses.
http://www.mylanewayhouse.com/2011/06/richmond-coach-house/

Back in the eighties, my sister and her friend – who were only kids at the time – were flashed by a pervert in the alley behind our home off Cambie and 20th…probably wouldn’t have happened if there were more “eyes” on the street/alleyway (I.e. yay laneway homes!)

I like lane way houses. I have seen some really cool projects

I’d be really interested to hear stories / a survey about the intended/actual inhabitants of laneway houses.

For example, why the parking requirement? Aren’t footprint-conscious laneway renters likely to be bike+transit+car-share types, like my wife and I?

We are about to start our family, and I think a well-designed 600ft 2-bed laneway would be great.

We currently pay under $1500 for our one-bed apartment near Main & Broadway, and would ideally stay under $2000 for a two-bed, moving towards Fraser & King Ed.

Are we the target market? Or are laneway houses aimed at the affluent childless (with a car)? I’ve yet to see a two-bed laneway anywhere near that price.

Finally I have recieved something in the mail from the NPA and it appears that it is a team of candidates that are drawing the line between themselves and the Anton team (there is no mention of her or the others)

I have to agree with J Baker these people on the pamphlet and Bill McCreery and parks board John Cooper, Casey Crawford and Jason Upton will get my support.

@Richard #7,

Underwater housing? I think that would be pretty cool. And bold too.. just the kind of forward thinking we really need to create affordable housing in Vancouver.

I live on a half lot (i.e the same land area as a laneway house) one block from a major arterial where we have seen several 4-5 storey complexes built very recently.

It’s all very good and part of a growing city, but we have always experienced things like constantly increasing traffic.

I don’t believe laneway housing impacts the large lot subdivisions half as much as we in century-old small lot streets overlooked by 5 storeys of condos have experienced for decades. So, please understand I we’re less than sympathetic.

In fact, I think McCreery’s stance is meant to preserve the large lots that cover 70% of our land base. It’s Glass Bubble policy making, and is not worth the vote I almost threw his way.

And that’s on top of the fact Bill has to clear up where he will reside (Richmond or Vancouver?) if elected.

@Bill McCreery

So Bill, what specific changes would you recommend. A moratorium and and yet another study are obviously not solutions.

At some point, you are going to have to face the uncomfortable fact that there is a minority of people in Vancouver that just don’t want any change near them no matter how tall or small the building. We need people on council who are willing to show leadership and implement the positive changes that the majority of people in the city support.

@ brilliant, I am not a slate voter and was taking Bill at his word, as published on his web site and in prior/current comments here and elsewhere.

I prefer a balanced council and thought Bill’s urban design experience would provide a needed rebuttal to the perception that Vision is susceptible to overdevelopment and excessive spot rezonings.

But then came the issue of his residency — which I only discovered yesterday, and now his “trial” moratorium on lane houses because of the supposed negative impacts. My own neighbourhood has impacts far greater than any leafy enclave beset by a plague of lane houses.

I am not the only one who would turned off by any candidate from any party who is running for election while not living in Vancouver. Bill has had lots of time to state his defence ’til now. I’m voting in about two hours.

Repeat, I will not vote for any candidate running for office in Vancover who does not live in Vancouver. I don’t care what moniker they’re using, Vision, NPA, COPE, Green, Purple, Pink or Alligator Skin.

As many of you know, I have been a longstanding proponent of Laneway Housing. I have written about it extensively on my blog and participated in many tours of completed projects.

With respect to Bill’s proposed moratorium, I am in full agreement with the sentiment it expresses. Whether we need a moratorium, or a pause, can be debated. However, I too believe we can improve the design guidelines and regulations related to Laneway Housing, in order to encourage more single storey ‘cottage-style’ houses, and ensure adequate parking.

On the matter of whether NPA should speak with a single voice, of course it shouldn’t. In fact, during the last election I was rarely coached as to what I should be saying or doing as an NPA candidate. Each of us filled out the Vancouver Sun questionaire, and other questionaires, according to our own views and conscience. By comparison, other parties had ‘head office’ fill out their questionaires.

While I don’t always agree with Bill McCreery, I will be supporting him for a seat on Council. Given that so many issues coming before Council are land use related, I like the idea that one out of 11 people actually has a background in planning and architecture.

To see who else I will be supporting for Council, Park and School Board, you can go to http://tinyurl.com/ccxspul

Put me in the camp that questions the relevance of the McCreery issue. Indeed, one could argue that the potential for conflict of interest or undue use of influence would be weakened by not residing in the jurisdiction!

It would be interesting to see what the reaction of the day was to Fred Hume residing outside of Vancouver while being mayor. Finally, there are plenty of provincial and federal examples where the elected members have not resided in their ridings.

George, of course he can run. That isn’t the question at all. The first point is that it matters to some people, and they are free to vote for him or not if his residency matters to them. He was open about declaring his residency on his nomination papers. If he wants to make a statement he can do so. When Christy Clark took a run at the NPA nomination some years back, she didn’t reside in Vancouver either, and that worked against her, so I suspect it matters to some.

The more interesting point to me was the NSV endorsement of Mr. McCreery, given their neighbourhood focus.

I’m surprised it’s not discussed but Vancouver has front-back subdivision. The lots I’m familiar with are around Argyle and SE Marine Drive (south side). Lots are a bit wider and relatively deep. A full-sized house at the front with the normal front/side setbacks and the back lot has two garages on the base level and a two-story tiered house above. The lots seem to blend nicely with the neighbourhood. I believe there are covenants on the garage access (which is common in other cities BTW).

Another thing struck me cycling through some west side streets recently: there is lots of ability to increase density “close to transit”. I look just a block or two off Cambie and the closet developer in me salivates with the possibilities. Same with the Broadway corridor; the nice thing about that area is that it opens up the possibility of expanding some nice north-south transit routes in relatively low-traffic areas into some low density areas that will nicely increase supply.

The possibilities are endless. McCreery is right: laneways aren’t always that desirable; some don’t like having to arrange for property management in abstentia when they take extended vacations, as we all do from time to time. Better just to subdivide the sucker.

MB: “This is a century-old phenomenon that goes a long ways to comfortably increasing density resulting from demographic pressure while also preserving neighbourhood character.”

Subdivision seems to be rather lacking from discourse. There are great concept plans I’ve seen — and others centuries old — that would go a long way to filling Vancouver’s expected population growth for decades. There is so much low density in the city, compared to other “best place to live” cities it’s striking.

I think there needs to be some acknowledgement that low density exerts stresses on the city at large, as well as surrounding municipalities (like Richmond!); if residents in lower-density areas are going to fight tooth-and-nail to preserve it, it’s worth asking if that’s a form of environmental damage. I know a few staff at UBC who commute 45 minutes each way because of the lack of housing close to campus.

“Perhaps, like other mortals, they were willing to trade commute time for square footage.”

Some people don’t like living on campus because, among other things, not every member of a family works or goes to school in the same location.

I find it odd that of the myriad of land use/development issues laneway housing gets the press. There are what 100 of them? 200? Big deal. I have one down the lane from me and another going in right across from my garage. I’m fine with it.

How about the Cambie plan and the thousands of new units proposed? Marpole? Norquay? Fraserlands? These are massive plans, far bigger than silly little laneway houses and we never hear about these.

For those who are interested in where I sleep at night, please read on.

I have lived and worked in Vancouver since the 1970s. I presently own a home in Vancouver that contains my furnishings and personal belongings. However, for the past year I have been living with my partner in Richmond, where she works. It is my intention to return to my Vancouver home in the near future.

In addition, anyone who knows me knows of my commitment to Vancouver as a Park Commissioner, my work over the past few years with neighbourhood groups across the City, and through my architectural practice. Those of you who have followed this blog also will be well aware of my commitment to and knowledge of Vancouver.

I have been endorsed as a Council Candidate by NSV and look forward to continuing the collaborative work we’ve done together over the past couple of years in trying to get City Hall to listen to the voices of local communities.

I am absolutely committed to giving citizens and neighbourhoods a real voice at City Hall, and to having a neighbourhood planning process where the planning is done by the neighbourhood based on their priorities and values in concert with Citywide priorities.

Part of this process is allowing neighbourhoods to determine what they will do with their share of the added densities the City needs to provide over the next 30 years to accommodate the 150,000 new residents that are expected to be coming to Vancouver. We need to have some Citywide and neighbourhood discussions about that specific component as well as what to do with social housing, social services, as well as many of the other components that make up a city, and indeed neighbourhoods.

Part of this process includes allowing individual communities to decide whether they want laneway housing or not. If they do not, a particular neighbourhood may decide they will achieve their density allotment with towers, or 4 storey apartment buildings, or perhaps some blend of those and other housing forms.

It appears some commenters above have focused on the laneway built form. If so, they’ve misunderstood what is really important here. The built form, whatever it is in the end, should reflect the values, priorities, needs and financial capabilities of the people of that community.

If you think I am opposed to laneway housing you are very wrong. I have spent time talking and working with people in different neighbourhoods who have concerns about laneway houses. I have also talked to laneway homeowners and inspected many of the finished and some not quite finished products.

It is my professional opinion that there are some serious flaws in the current programme. While he and I might quibble about the details (we often have over many years) Michael Geller agrees with me on the need to improve the design guidelines and regulations as you’ve seen above.

So, just as it’s not important where your pillow is if you’ve got something to contribute and a commitment to do so, so too it’s not valid to suggest one is opposed to a particular housing form because it’s not working and it needs to be fixed. Perhaps the proponents of that latter train of thought might enlighten us further as to how they’ve arrived at that position.

diderottoo #24 –

Bill McCreery came out for Norquay. I was present for that entire evening. He was squeezing his own volunteer effort into a busy situation and lacked adequate preparation time. The fact remains – that he came out for Norquay and tried to do something. Certain Vision councillors also took delight in pestering an NPA candidate, do not miss that factor either.

Everybody should watch that entire video to see how serious questions got tossed off to one side because Council cared about nothing but wrapping up that package for the developer. The one item took three hours. Later on now, Norquay seems to have achieved improvements on some of the issues raised, despite having to suffer hostility both from staff and from Council. Neither Vision nor NPA are the friend of neighborhoods. You only learn that through direct experience, if and when you put forth the time and effort to beat your head against the walls of City Hall. Some details can also be found at http://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com

If I heard correctly at the recent candidate forum held at Britannia, even Andrea Reimer was telling that particular audience that city planning in Vancouver is “broken.” Amen to that.

PS. WHY LANEWAYS?

http://coachhousebuilders.com/benefits.html

1. Antidote to the corrosive nature of sprawl.

2. Mortgage helper.

3. Grannie suite.

4. Close quarters for infirm relatives.

5. Unobtrusive densification.

6. Enhanced use of badly planned sub divisions.

7. Adds value to property.

8. Opportunity to down size without leaving familiar neighbourhood.

9. Guest house.

” I’d be very curious to get inside the garages and see how many have mysteriously sprouted insulation and drywall inside the putative spot for cars.”

While I have continuously endorsed reduced parking requirements as a way to reduce the cost of hsg and GHG’s, I spoke in favour of requiring a parking space for a laneway unit since under the new by-law, it was possible to have three units on one lot (main house, basement suite, and laneway unit) with only one parking space…..and I too suspected the parking space could become living space.

In fact, as I noted following two laneway housing tours, the garages are often designed to be converted into living space. Some have in-floor radiant heating, large window areas including bay windows, and limited thresholds between garage and unit.

Some builders even boast about the potential to convert garages into livable area. They include the garage in the unit area!

So why do I care? Because if laneway housing exacerbates the parking problems in a neighbourhood, there will be greater resistance to it, not just here in Vancouver, but also in other municipalities.

For this reason McCreery is right in asking for a pause to review how well the housing is being received, and how it might be improved. I don’t agree it should be stopped, but it should and can be modified to better fit into neighbourhoods.

Next monday I am speaking to the UBC school of architecture on the history and design requirements related to Laneway Housing. Hopefully I’ll be able to inspire the next generation of architects to come up with better designs and more neighbourly solutions!

What about the new monster homes being built with increased square footage?
Why did the city decide to go back to the bad old days of houses taking up almost the entire lot. Some of them also have second homes in the backyard (laneway houses).
On the westside, these house are being built by the mainland Chinese 99.99% of the time.
I suspect they don’t plan on renting the “laneway house” out to earnest, bicycle-riding locals.
How is any of this sustainable or green?

@ Bill McCreery 33: “I have lived and worked in Vancouver since the 1970s. I presently own a home in Vancouver that contains my furnishings and personal belongings. However, for the past year I have been living with my partner in Richmond, where she works. It is my intention to return to my Vancouver home in the near future. ”

Thank for finally clarifying that issue. This should have been done when it first came up, though.

However, even with the clarification of your residency, your ballot slot would still have remained blank last night regarding your proposed moratorium on lane houses. I find them quite innocuous in “impact”, as you put it, than much older, denser, and to date far more widespread precedences in my own neighbourhood.

If an intelligent and experiened design professional calls for a moratorium on such things as lane houses, of which there are many finely designed structures that fit well into the neighbourhood (and some ugly ones, like trashy Vancouver Specials which never were subject to moratoriums), then god only knows how many wasteful moratoriums will be suggested fro anything outside of the single family detatched house.

I don’t hold much hope for freehold row housing or front-back subdivisions (good idea Jesse, but it’s been out there for a while) when someone with the expertise of Bill McCreery calls for a moratorium when his potential West Side constituents feel invaded by lane houses.

Thank god we don’t govern by referenda.

The election is coming. Let’s look at STATE OF VANCOUVER ’s participants: they’re easy to type caste.

Few compare to the range, ethnicity and intellectual prowess of the city’s potential voting population.

Do they have clout? Does anyone care about our loquacious demagogues? Probably not!

I am out of the Vancouver pale with freedom to express my opinions harmlessly: who cares?

As for the perennials, there are the liars, the opportunists, the naïve and the unfortunate plebes who struggle thru the debris left by political busy bodies.

One liar tells us, “the banks have been rewarded! ” Rewarded! For what?

Glass-Steagle, 1932, was enacted to separate deposit banks from investment banks.

Combination deposit/investment banks were “rewarded” to cheat.

Using their clients’ deposits to gamble and lose banksters son learned to honey-ed up to their political cronies for bail-outs.

1999 Glass-Steagle was repealed. Immediately, corrupt banksters quickly grasped the licentious opportunity for chicanery: CDS, other arcane monetary slights-of-hand, gamed the system.

That was 2008. We are living with the fall-out and it ain’t over yet!

Michael Geller oppo of opportunists.

Whining about graffiti festooning the walls of his Andalusian summer redoubt, I was not surprised.

No attempt to learn the language, or understand his gracious hosts. Indeed, he showed a complete indifference as he debates pretty angels on his pins: shallow, gadfly. Ummmmm . . .

S of A students will be graced by his Fol de Rols . . .

http://members.shaw.ca/aguaflor/BC.architecture.since.1952.pdf

If they excuse and go to YUM YUM there is hope.

Yup, a surfeit of agreeable commentators will ride along, naïve plebs drive home to Mission in time to kiss the kids good night and complain to the missus about the traffic. Aw, vote tomorrow!

Our man will win, our woman will win next week: we hope. Then, weeks spent, stunned, wondering why nothing changed.

Nowt changes, because, oblivious, rf’s banks hold the cards. Michael soft-soaps.

Students unloosen their ties (if you get wot I mean) fog horns fade: we thrive.

@ Michael Geller 39: “Hopefully I’ll be able to inspire the next generation of architects to come up with better designs and more neighbourly solutions!”

Good for you, Michael. But you’d need to find a way to discuss this issue with small-scale builders who will probably be responsible for the majority of the designs.

MB @ #48

“But you’d need to find a way to discuss this issue with small-scale builders who will probably be responsible for the majority of the designs.”

And you are right there MB Such a class of residential structure is the domain of the small contractor: and rightly so!

An architect’s seal is not required and is, code-wise anyway, unnecessary.

There are many areas where Michael should mind his own biz.

Laneways are but one.