From the New York Times:
Portland’s Small-House Movement Is Catching On
A simple 800-square-foot cottage in Portland, Ore., has helped focus attention on the need for affordable housing that can be wedged into existing urban spaces.
The cottage, which won a top design award last year from the American Institute of Architects, is technically called an “accessory dwelling unit,” or A.D.U. Portland has been ahead of the curve in allowing these smaller housing units, which are illegal in many cities and towns under current zoning rules. …
The cottage, known as Garden House, is hidden behind Ms. Wilson’s 1924 gabled bungalow, which she now rents to the older of her two sons. The cottage’s silhouette looks crisply modern: an upward-pointing arrow in a garden setting. The arrow shaft has open-plan living spaces; horizontal windows are the only breaks on its south side; and wide floor-to-ceiling doors and windows open to outdoor living space on the east and west sides. …
Not surprisingly, the concentration of accessory dwelling units has been in central, higher-income areas close to amenities like transit and shops. “Part of this could be due to the fact that people with large amounts of equity can more easily secure financing,” Mr. Wood said. “The City of Portland and Portland State University will be working on a project to encourage and facilitate A.D.U. development in more diverse neighborhoods.”
A beautiful design that SO wouldn’t be allowed in Vancouver. Shame too.
I like the built in rain cover on both sides.
I agree that it’s a nice design and appreciate the rain cover on both sides. Why wouldn’t it be permitted in Vancouver?
Too tall.
No entrance to laneway.
Not enough glass on laneway side.
Overhangs would be considered FSR
Too large on the site (vancouver would allow about half that footprint).
‘2 story massing’ contrary to 1.5 story preference.
Probably have issues with pervious area having the pavement on both sides.
Too much overall site coverage (probably)
Possibly insufficient parking (can’t tell if possible to park between the laneway house and the laneway, if not, there would have to be at least one parking space.
… not saying I agree with any of the above (in fact, I think none of the above except potentially the pervious thing, which could be addressed otherwise also), but those are what would be seen as issues were that design to be proposed here.
Thanks, I’m not familiar with the rules.
In the interest of having the most useful and appealing secondary structures on Vancouver lots I’d have thought some of those objections would have been rescinded to encourage a variety of building styles. The overhangs as FSR seems particularly draconian, a rule that virtually guarantees homes in this city end up as boxes.
I could see adding a bit more glass to the Portland design, but even storm windows aren’t as energy efficient as an insulated wall.
I’m guessing from the photo that the Portland home is on a rather deep lot. I know such places exist in Vancouver, but the places I’ve lived have lot depths in the 100′ to 115′ range. Given the generous front setback requirements in Vancouver that leaves precious little space between the main and secondary structures.
I really think front setbacks in this city are excessive. Almost nobody uses their front yards and my experience living in buildings set just a shallow garden off the street has been positive. I believe almost every resident would gladly trade off some “useless” front yard for a bigger back yard. Moving main houses forward would also enable even shallow lots to accommodate a lane way structure.