The laneway houses are proving to be a craze. The city has had 173 applications for laneway houses approved so far and another 50 or so are going through the process. They now account for one out of every eight houses built in the city.
But the city report that just popped up today notes that there are some glitches that still need to be worked out. One is the general size of houses on bigger lots, which can be as large as 750 square feet — bigger than some of the post-war houses we boomers grew up in. One is the height of the houses on both the bigger and the standard 33-foot lots.
City staff are looking at whether there need to be some adjustments made: reduce the overall size of the larger houses, for one. For two, allow the laneway houses on smaller lots to extend further into the backyard so that they have the same amount of square feet, but are one storey instead of two.
No immediate action planned yet, though, which will enrage some people who see this mini-McMansions popping up everywhere. The city’s map in the report seems to indicate, though, that they’re not just a west-side phenomenon, but equally popular on both sides of the city.
And wait for the next step. The city is currently entertaining a proposal from a developer working the 3200-block of East Boulevard, who is suggesting an eight-unit little complex on a lot there, with two strata-titled laneway houses. To this point, the city isn’t allowing strata titles because the aim has been to produce more rental stock, not to create subdivided single-family lots. Not sure where this one will go but, surprise, there’s a neighbourhood group that’s not too excited about this idea.
9 responses so far ↓
1 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 14, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Here’s an idea:
Instead of building yet more boxes (hello cheek byj owl sidexsides at Oak and 46th!) try this, instead:
How about building multis along the line of what exists at Tatlow Park? There is a street entrance, trees, winding pathways, gardens and all the units face inwards on the perimeter of the quadrangle so as NOT to form a solid facade on the street. I have been in them and they may be about 1000-1100 square feet, on 2 levels. Can’t recall how many are there, or if they are attached, but I think they look great, have great neighborhood fit and feel, (it’s so tree/bush/flower covered there, it’s easy to walk by without knowing what is beyond the main gate!) and don’t appear to take up too much space. There may be 16 units on a two-single lot size piece of property? Someone check with land registry, please…
There are some bigger properties on the West Side, where this would be more than feasible. In fact, if you walk around west of the Boulevard to Blenheim you already see some single family dwellings (bigger than the laneways) that appear to be sharing a big lot. I can think of one that appears to have three homes on it.
They are not all laid out at right angles, and thus provide a little “village” feel unto themselves. The owners have ground cover (not lawn!) that wends it way around large perimeter trees, separating, yet joining the buildings Very attractive and clever.
2 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 14, 2010 at 5:32 pm
PS. Tatlow park area: rental apartmets on Pt. Grey Road, multi-res tatlow behind, duplexes after that and single family dwellings. Very livable, good mix, no one hurt in the making of that neighborhood.
The tress and shrubs keep it all very civil (shrubs make great sound/visual barriers, create privacy) .
THAT should be the law, in Vancouver! Build a place, plant a tree(s).
3 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 14, 2010 at 5:33 pm
PPS. That’s the way to bring NIMBY’s to change. NOT plunking a fugly 20 floor condo tower in the middle of things.
Slowly, slowly…
4 KeyPlan // Oct 14, 2010 at 8:20 pm
On the 1-in-8 houses quote, what staff mean is that for every eight (8) new single family homes which are built, one (1) of those properties ~also~ built a new laneway house at the same time.
And of all laneway houses, about 60% are built at the same time as a new main dwelling.
5 voony // Oct 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm
laneway housing:
“To this point, the city isn’t allowing strata titles because the aim has been to produce more rental stock”
by transforming homeowner in landlord….
what about people just aspiring to have their own little house?
they are priced out of the market because, instead to allow lot splitting, to allow more and more affordable ownership, like done in Toronto and elsewhere, the city prefer transform them in rental investment properties.
may be good for wealthy people able to pay the entry ticket at $1 Million+, but it is bad policy for all others.
6 Frances Bula // Oct 15, 2010 at 7:25 am
@KeyPlan. Thanks. I was misreading that.
7 Doug // Oct 15, 2010 at 11:58 am
How about allowing more Cowie style rowhouses? The costs of 33 and 50 foot lots in Vancouver are out of hand.
8 Tessa // Oct 15, 2010 at 2:19 pm
@Doug: Unfortunately the city refuses to allow any more fee simple rowhouses out of concern for legal problems associated with the lack of strata. I find it silly, however, since those types of homes work fine everywhere else. Also, the Cowie homes are technically single family homes built really, really close together, as the city required they each have their own supporting wall, even if it’s only millimetres apart.
As for the laneway houses, I agree that subdividing would even be a decent idea, rather than simply strata council, so that there’s a lot facing the lane and a lot facing the street, but I recognize I’m out of the majority on that one. Better to take something like this reasonably slow, let people get used to it with the rules in place, then we can look at other changes. Strata council homes can be the next step, though it shouldn’t be shoved into a neighbourhood that’s opposing the move.
Also, I like the change that makes one-story homes more reasonable, as that makes them much more attractive to seniors who have trouble with stairs. And let’s face it, with our demographics the way they are, and the prices of these new buildings they way they are, that’s the most likely market.
As it is, these laneway homes are still too expensive for the majority of young people and poorer renters. It’s not something I can afford, for instance. Still, I have to wonder if the concentration of homes near UBC is because of students attending school there. It would be interesting to look at the demographics of those who are renting them.
I’m also looking forward to seeing how these look when there’s a much higher concentration of homes than has happened so far. From the report it looks like we’ll see that at west 11th fairly soon.
9 Graham Barron // Mar 9, 2011 at 3:46 pm
There are a couple of ways to address the issue of overlook.
One is to limit the height of laneway houses to one storey, as discussed. Here is an example of that:
http://lanewave.com/laneway-house-mb01-33/
The other option is to design the 1.5 storey laneway house for privacy. For example:
http://lanewave.com/laneway-house-gb01/
So I do think there are design, rather than political, solutions to the issue.
Leave a Comment