This comment is in response to a post on Barbara Yaffe’s column about a drop in property values as a result of City initiatives to retain character homes. Ralgh Segal was one of the City’s most experienced development-permit architects (now retired), so it’s worth bringing this to the foreground for a discussion on the policy implications:
.
While I understand that it makes good copy to trash the bureaucracy, and true enough it’s often justified, your opinion piece does not give any credit to the City’s attempt to stem a flood of destruction by lazy, quick-buck builders who seem to take joy in bulldozing charming, but undersized older housing and carting the debris to the land fill. This does not even speak to the environmental affront of this trend, much less the loss of neighbourhood character, to be replaced by stock off-the-shelf house plans usually unworthy of a site valued at $3.5 million or the lovely treed street onto which they will be thrust.
It is correct to note that the City has done a poor job of explaining how it would intend to REWARD homeowners who would retain their character houses and incorporate them into a redevelopment of their lot, with compatible additions to the existing character house, and a new laneway house, all of which would include relaxations, under heritage provisions, to setbacks, floor area, height and any other by-law requirements needed to make the proposition attractive to those builders who actually care about their city and the neighbourhoods in which they build.
And the City of Vancouver should do one more thing…allow stratification of the beautifully restored and added-to main house and secondary suite as well as a larger than permitted lane house (presently secondary suites and lane houses must be kept as rental only).
If the City did this, homeowners, finding that these incentives would elevate the market value of their property, would clamour to have their worthy houses deemed as “character” structures and, further, creative, energetic builders, seeing the value of this exercise, would hire architects to pursue interesting designs that would have wide appeal in the marketplace while preserving neighbourhood character and increasing housing supply.
Come on, City of Vancouver, complete the needed further steps in this process and provide the incentives that would make heritage preservation a winner!
.
As I understand it, Ralph is suggesting two things in order to help retain character homes:
- Allow an increase in density and site coverage
- Allow stratification of the secondary suites and lane cottages so they could be sold separately
I stand to be corrected, but I believe both changes would go against the positions of resident associations in neighbourhoods like Dunbar. And yet, they’d likely work. A similar strategy was tried in South Shaughnessy, where houses that submit to design guidelines get a higher density allowance than those built outright. And it’s certainly likely that stratification and sale of lane cottages and suites would offset losses that would come with designation or protection of the existing house.
So how important is this issue to neighbourhoods that want to keep their character? Are they willing to make the trade-offs necessary to both retain the high property values that have led to widespread demolition of character homes, and still keep the homes themselves? Or is any loss of property values an unacceptable consequence? Demolition and replacement are actually more acceptable than an increase in density and stratification.
Are there alternatives?
It seems to me the City is stepping into quicksand when it tries to define what is a ‘character’ home and what is not. In my own professional experience I have designed older homes that lacked so called character, and have succeeded in making them attractive, some might even that they now have character.
Wouldn’t it be better to simply level the playing field, making retaining a house at least as if not more beneficial than knocking it down? And, requiring the redo to achieve a certain deign level. Look at what some talented designers have done recently with the despised Vancouver Specials.
No matter what is done to try to make this retention method work it will be nullified by the new Building Bylaw about to go into effect in January.
I think this is a great idea, and agree absolutely that it would work. And when confronted with the choice between ugly monster house rebuilds and a bit of a larger laneway house, I think people would make the choice to keep the heritage and accept a little bit more density. As long as people are made aware that this is the choice.
Reblogged this on GitanoAfricano and commented:
As a property developer myself, I am witnessing first hand the policy changes at city hall.
The house we originally considered demolishing is now under a retention restriction. We are faced with two options: build new and much smaller, or retain and get a lot of extra square feet. Simply math makes the latter the route of choice, which has the added benefit of retaining neighbourhood character while still adding housing density.
I think homeowners need to realize that we can’t have our cake and eat it too. If we want retention of the neighbourhood then we have to restrict demolitions, but if we restrict demolitions, then the value of the homes will fall, unless they can be densified through stratification.
I am often at a loss to figure out why self-proclaimed environmentalists frequently champion covering the surface of every lot with as much man made construction as possible. Where do your vegetable gardens fit? How is the permeability of the land negatively impacted?
Why must council shutdown all rebuilding? Simply cap the size of new homes allowed. It’s no coincidence demolitions took off when Vision Vancouver relaxed the sensible home size allowed which the NPA had belatedly put in place after the same issues arose in the early 90’s
Simple: people don’t disappear when you keep them out of Vancouver, they just spread out.
Every additional housing unit in Vancouver means:
1) Less housing is required elsewhere
2) A family is able to live in a temperate city with good transit and hydro power
This is a pretty great part of the world to house people in as far as environmental impact goes, so we might as well let people move here. Your environmental concerns (land permeability, vegetable gardens) are hyper-local and they ignore the wider world out there.
The only real influence you have over the environment is hyper-local. Any small difference you make to greenhouse gasses by switching a local 5km car trip to a bike is quickly undone by somebody in China being lifted out of poverty by capitalism and its attendant consumption.
Usually it is cheaper, per apple or strawberry produced, to have industrial scale operations, say in the Fraser Valley, Okanagon, California, NZ or Mexico. Growing vegetables in condo buildings, or near them, say the community garden across a gas station on Burrard at Davie, is a novelty, a nice hobby diversion but not a real solution to food production.
Shutting down Davie at least once a week for cars, with a vegetable / farmers market would make far more sense.
How about making Davie, Denmen and Robson a permanent pedestrian zone with a subway below and very limited car access to the West-End ? That would be real green and urban livability to me.
You’re suggesting that we might as well emit lots of carbon because China emits more? There are a few problems with that:
1) Our per-capita emissions are much higher than China’s, and if they stay that way then it reduces China’s incentive to cut emissions.
2) Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’d like to think that we’re able to take the moral high ground, especially compared to China!
The Sun piece reads like yet another indulgence of multimillion-dollar property owners, unsympathetic or unable to see the dilemma the city faces with regard to real estate speculation and character retention in Vancouver’s residential neighbourhoods. It is an impossible task to keep westside single-family homes both highly valued and completely unchanged. The current square footage bonuses for retention are the best possible solution.
Land value is based not merely on physical desirability, but on what kind of development (return) the zoning will bear. So if you bar demolition and monster home construction, you will necessarily force down the price that any developer is willing to pay for it. A builder cannot obtain the same profit in RS zoning through renovation as they can from demolition, hence the assessment goes down. If, on the other hand, you do what the city is currently doing in RT zoning (like in Kitsilano), and offer square footage bonuses for renovation of character elements plus allow stratification, then developers will still be able to make money by renovating that charming Craftsman into a duplex. The happy accident of this policy, apart from pandering to westside worries of property values, is to increase the housing supply and reduce the amount of debris dumped in the landfill.
It makes excellent sense to me. The only problem is the resistance to upzoning RS (single family) to RT (two family) across vast swaths of the city (nevermind RM).
What, a policy of allowing greater freedom of choice to homeowners instead of ever-stricter rules? Blasphemy! That’s enough for excommunication from the city planner league.