Helen Warn asked this question in response to “A Meme from TEAM” below:
What do you feel we can do to stop the frenzy of heritage houses being bulldozed, and the price of property skyrocketing?
Starting with the easy ones, eh Helen? I don’t have easy answers either. But there is something the city could do, without the need for provincial or federal co-operation – if it had citizen support.
But first, to give you some sense of why this is such a difficult question, and why the City would be so reluctant to just stop demolition of houses presumed to be of heritage value, put yourself in the position of these people:
(1) A 70-year-old widow, occupying a wood-and-stucco 1948 house badly in need of repairs that is hopelessly energy inefficient and has a garden and lawn too big for her to maintain.
(2) The City Councillor or staff person telling her she can’t demolish her house, and therefore will take a significant loss over what her neighbour will get for his 1950 wood-and-stucco house badly in need of repairs, etc.
Would you prevent her or a new owner who bought the site for land value from demolishing the house?
.
Yet there is something Council could do that would not require a somewhat arbitrary distinction between what is heritage and what is not. Indeed, Kerry Gold laid an option out in her Globe and Mail column of January 8th: “Housing speculation seems to be taking hold in West Side Vancouver“
Here’s the operative section:
Since the province has made it clear that it doesn’t want to intervene to slow speculative buying, there is one move that could be made at the municipal level that could take the pressure off.
The city could downzone single-family neighbourhoods that are in the crosshairs of speculation to disallow the building of houses that are bigger than what already stands.* After all, a massive house doesn’t house more people or increase density; it’s not sustainable, it’s usually out of scale, it often replaces a character house and it drives up prices.
And in simple terms, if bigger houses were no longer part of the picture, speculative buying would have to ease off. Theoretically, people treating the city as little more than a sure-bet casino would back away, prices would ease up and first-time buyers would have a chance to enter the market.
Legally, the city has the power to do it. The question is more of a political one. So far in the discussion, there’s been more concern about protecting homeowner equity than creating affordable detached housing. Some people argue their life savings completely depend on the overheated market staying overheated – which is nonsensical when you consider that those homeowners could never have anticipated that we’d currently be sitting with an average detached-house price of $2.53-million citywide. Such wealth was not earned or banked: It’s a windfall.
But the political will to upset that windfall is understandably absent, says lawyer Bill Buholzer, who’s an expert in municipal law and land-use zoning.
“I hear elected officials talking about things they can’t do for legal reasons, when what’s really going on is things they don’t want to do for political reasons. Sometimes, it’s easier to explain what they can’t do as a legal impediment. That’s not to say that the political impediment isn’t major. In this economy, in this city, it’s always brought up that the potential value of real estate represents people’s retirement plans.”
But it could be done. According to the Vancouver Charter, the city is entirely within its right to take away development opportunity in a neighbourhood such as Dunbar, for example, without having to compensate homeowners for any subsequent loss in value. As is, Dunbar houses are being relentlessly demolished because zoning allows for much bigger houses than what currently stand.
“The city has essentially added speculation value to those properties by zoning them to permit development in excess of what is there already,” Mr. Buholzer says. “And the city can take that development potential away just as it bestowed it in the first place, by exercising its zoning power. Would it be politically unpopular? Probably. But it’s not something that people would be compensated for.
“I think what’s often missed in this discussion is the fact that local governments can encourage the protection and preservation of buildings in areas like that by putting appropriate zoning in place.”
It would have to be well considered and exhaustively studied, he adds. And it would be a controversial move.
Oh yeah, controversial indeed. But Gold has essentially called the bluff of all those who think there is nothing that could be done.
Let me add one further factor: The city could allow the difference between the existing house on the site and the maximum density allowable by adding the difference to either an additional house to be built on site (like a larger lane cottage) or transferred to another site – perhaps a multiple-family location in the same neighbourhood where the zoning allowed it (thereby encouraging the neighbourhood to have such zones).
That makes it more complicated, and would probably add to the casino-like atmosphere that already exists – but it would do something.
Here’s another test of sincerity, though: Would those who decry the loss of the city’s heritage – particularly pre-1950s west-side bungalows – start a petition calling for what Gold has laid out as a solution? Would they come out to the public hearing to change the zoning in large numbers, sufficient to offset those who would be very pissed off. That is, if they really believed that strongly in trying to save the character of their neighbourhood – rather than just complaining about City Hall as they eventually sold off their homes for the millions more it had accumulated in value.
* Keeping the density at or below the floor-space of the existing building does work – if the precedent of the West End and other neighbourhoods with a large stock of 1940s and ’50s wood-frame walk-ups is an indication. That, and a few other constraints, are what is keeping that lower-middle-income rental housing stock around in the face of excruciating speculation.
Let me add one further factor: The city could allow the difference between the existing house on the site and the maximum density allowable by adding the difference to either an additional house to be built on site (like a larger lane cottage) or transferred to another site – perhaps a multiple-family location in the same neighbourhood where the zoning allowed it (thereby encouraging the neighbourhood to have such zones).
That makes it more complicated, and would probably add to the casino-like atmosphere that already exists – but it would do something.
Here’s another test of sincerity, though: Would those who decry the loss of the city’s heritage – particularly pre-1950s west-side bungalows – start a petition calling for what Gold has laid out as a solution? Would they come out to the public hearing to change the zoning in large numbers, sufficient to offset those who would be very pissed off. That is, if they really believed that strongly in trying to save the character of their neighbourhood – rather than just complaining about City Hall as they eventually sold off their homes for the millions more it had accumulated in value.
* Keeping the density at or below the floor-space of the existing building does work – if the precedent of the West End and other neighbourhoods with a large stock of 1940s and ’50s wood-frame walk-ups is an indication. That, and a few other constraints, are what is keeping that lower-middle-income rental housing stock around in the face of excruciating speculation.
.
Department of Irony: This just came in the mail.
Of course a large part of drive for the demolition of heritage properties is the huge win fall profits by developers by upzoning properties. Take away the incentive and the problem is reduced. Easier said than done of course. Especially, as the major political parties in Vancouver are heavily funded by developers and realtors.
I don’t know what each level of government has the power to do with respect to limiting (or abolishing) foreign ownership, but that does seem to be the root of the problem.
And it’s not just the demolition of single-family dwellings, but it extends to changing the character of neighbourhoods and of the whole city. For example, my veterinarian (located near Cambie and 57th) thinks that he will be forced to move his practice when his lease is up, because his rent will skyrocket.
That being said, your suggestions sound reasonable to me.
Ultimately I believe that our only hope is to implement a form of Direct Democracy, as has been used in Switzerland for decades, where a relatively small percentage of the population can force a binding referendum at each level of government. I can’t see any other way to force politicians to do what they are elected to do: represent the people.
It could not be more clear that people in Vancouver are very upset at what is happening to our city, and are being completely ignored by the Mayor. After all, there won’t be another election for years.
Oh, and since Christie Clark has put in appearance to prove my point: she is looking for something to promise to get herself re-elected; no need to worry about actually implementing it.
I think you are throwing everything but the kitchen sink into one development basket. The issue is zoning on large lots, not on every development in the City’s history. And changing character? Show me one single neighbourhood in one single city that is protected by a zoning bubble in perpetuity. Our population has doubled since the 80s. Cities morph to meet the demand, and will always morph to meet future demand. If you stopped all foreign ownership and speculation, you will probably have housing prices going down by 15% at best because population pressure alone will always exert pressure on prices.
Changing character doesn’t automatically equate with political donations, foreign ownership and negativity. Some neighbourhoods have high streets with a greater choice of non-multinational, local shops and businesses.
The real crime here is not zoning to meet basic population demographics on a static land area. That means UPzoning detached home lots, especially large lots, not downzoning.
The protection of heritage homes on large lots with detached homes would be relatively easy when the city upzones. Should the city allow a reasonable diminishment in front yard setbacks, say to 3m from 7m. hat works out to 4.26 m2 per standard lot (or ~4.26 hectares per 1,000 lots), more on large lots. This is a land planning issue more than anything because there is no more greenfield land left to develop.
Should the city allow more housing to be built on the site, then the heritage structure could be moved to the edges and new housing built in adjacent spaces. But the cost of moving and preserving the original house pose financial challenges to the architect, builder and buyers if the costs cannot be recovered in the prices of the new homes. The city may have to allow an extra unit to be built to spread the costs in a balanced way. If builders and contractors are forced to stop demolitions and assume the costs of heritage preservation, then these are some of the trade-offs that have to be made in zoning.
Down zoning will not increase the supply of housing. Therefore, housing prices will go up even more with a crimped supply that cannot meet demand. This is why upzoning large and standard lots (which occupy 70% of the private land in Vancouver) to accommodate more lane housing, duplexes, tri-quad-drupexes, attached single-family homes (rowhouses) with suites, townhouses and low rises. Some of these can be done on two-lot assemblies.
Lots of holes in this proposal. First it’s unfair. Take Mary, my old neighbour, who lived in a tiny cottage on her large property, one of the “depression houses” built on the back of the property during the 30s waiting for better times and more money so that the real house could be built in front. She paid full-freight for the land when she bought it. When she sells, should she be limited to the value of her 800 sq ft buildable envelope when the lots on each side of her have a 4,000 sq foot house? And should the lot be forever encumbered? Second it doesn’t protect the larger heritage houses of which there are many, some of which are over the current floor area ratio and would give developers a bonus to tear down. Third it protects small crap that should be torn down over time but won’t because there will be no value in it to anyone who would want to do it. Fourth it prevents people from being able to expand their existing houses, for an extra bedroom for example, because their house is already by definition limited by its own size.
There are much simpler and fairer ways to do this sort of thing and you don’t have to go very far to find them. Kitsilano north of fourth is one, where the zoning allows more floor area if you retain heritage or fit into the neighbourhood, less if you don’t. It’s been on the books for some time so you can see the results.
John Graham, respectfully a lot of that is nonsense. In cities with normal real estate markets those little character houses are called starter homes. They are the ones young couple take and lovingly restore by themselves and raise young children in. There is no rule that guarantees old Mary a real estate windfall. Plenty of property markets stagnate or even fall when left to their local forces. Were American homeowners owed compensation by the invisible hand of the market when the Great Recession of 2008 wiped billions of their property values?
Gold’s proposal could be finetuned by continuing to allow small laneway houses on the lots of these older homes. Buyers scouring the globe for ostentatious showplaces could care less about a laneway house. But old Mary or a young couple could build one and enjoy the income.
The important point in Gold’s proposal is that the City does have the power to stem the destruction of heritage homes. The City need not await action by the BC or Canadian governments, and the City should not give the inaction by higher level governments for not doing what they can do under their own authority.
Stopping demolitions cannot be a kneejerk reaction. Doing so will add to the cost of new housing, unless the house is merely allowed to rot, and therein it has to be done with a lot of forethought.
I am not an advocate of demolition, but feel the costs of stopping it and preserving existing character homes have to be borne by someone, and I know it won’t be the builder. The city has to allow for upzoning to fit more housing onto our given amount of land — hopefully comfortably — so that a builder can spread the cost over several new homes. The city could allow one additional unit to help spread the cost more thinly while increasing the supply.
Neighbourhood character is far more than the existence of old houses or lack thereof.
I’ll give one example. Not too far from me two older houses were demolished a few years ago. At least one of the old homes had been in the family for generations, but they had put nostalgia aside and realized that the house needed too much work and were accepting of demolition as the logical next step.
Both sites were large enough to subdivide so there are now 4 houses and a lane way house standing where previously there were just 2 houses. In theory the neighbourhood densified in a gentle and fairly respectful manner.
In reality all 4 were purchased by offshore investors looking for a safe haven. Families who graciously shared their large backyards and tree fruit have been replaced by reclusive people who make no attempt to fit in. Three of the 5 dwellings appear vacant.
Data shows that many Vancouver houses are being purchased by people who report no Canadian income and thus qualify for the same social benefits as those on the Downtown Eastside. If they bother to occupy the homes they buy only necessities: utilities, food and a white luxury SUV so they are contributing virtually nothing to Canada.
Further proof can be found in data that shows refugees earning more than millionaire business category immigrants a few years after arrival.
Let’s stop pretending that rich overseas investors are doing anything positive for Canada.
Let’s put sales tax on all real estate transactions and introduce offsetting income tax credits for those who live and work here.
Maybe adding 12% to the cost of buying Canadian real estate will discourage a few people from treating our neighbourhoods as a commodity or maybe it’ll just add billions to government revenue. Either way it would be a win for Canadians.
Same sentiment shared here:
http://vanmag.com/city/the-van-mag-qa-ian-young/
I wouldn’t be plumping for anything championed by America’s Republicans.
On the other hand, there has been lots of demos and new housing and major renos in my neighbourhood, at least six lots within two blocks of us in the last four years. All houses are occupied, most of the new residents are exceedingly friendly, and some of the contractors went on to work for several other neighbours.
The vacant house syndrom does not apply to every neighbourhood.
True in my neighbourhood as well where developers have built and Chinese buyers have bought in a cluster around two highly-rated schools. Just walk by the schoolyard at lunchtime and you’ll see Chinese students make up a large percentage — perhaps half — of the playground population, so their families are residents, not absentee owners. Slowly we see them integrating more and more into local life in what was only 5 years ago an almost entirely Caucasian community. The lady who sells lottery tickets at the Safeway is one, and she now enthusiastically greets me in Mandarin and English after the time I greeted her in Mandarin. More and more of the people out for walks past my place are Chinese and they too enthusiastically respond when I greet them with a simple “Ni Hao”. Funny how this mirrors my experience all across China where people from 4 to 90 go out of their way to say “Hello” in English.
http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/30/luxury-london-homes-86m-social-housing
From the Guardian
This is from City Lab
Perhaps heritage districts should be a thing of the past
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/01/why-historic-preservation-districts-should-be-a-thing-of-the-past/431598/
Sneaky Kits has the answer, according to this American author.
http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/gov-urban-planning-vancouver-seattle.html
Just goes to show the power of intelligent infill.
“After all, a massive house doesn’t house more people or increase density”
Yes it does. In my neighborhood (Killarney) the post-war bungalows are being replaced with houses that are designed to accommodate three families AND have a laneway house to boot.
Is it only me who suspects that heritage preservation goals are directly at odds with need to increase density?