The following is being circulated with the invitation for supporters to add their names and send to Council at mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca
Dear Mayor and Council:
RE: CHARACTER HOME ZONING REVIEW
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Vancouver’s Character Home Zoning Review. Heritage Vancouver Society (HVS) supports the official recognition of houses as heritage through the tools available to the City (e.g. Heritage Register, designation bylaws, heritage conservation areas). We also support planning policies, zoning and design guidelines that will enable the evolution of place character and livability in neighbourhoods through retention of historic houses and new contemporary design that will be ‘heritage for the future’.
Heritage Vancouver Society (HVS) is a long-standing, independent voice for heritage with a progressive, inclusive vision:
We want to inspire people with an idea. The idea that significant and irreplaceable aspects of Vancouver’s cultural heritage provide the community a social benefit, and are worth protecting for future generations. Through a thoughtful layering of new and old we are creating a diverse and inspiring place to live.
We believe in the conservation of historic places that matter to communities and support policies that connect heritage to community values around broader planning issues such as place making and livable, affordable cities.
Specifically, with respect to the Character House Zoning Review, we propose that historic houses be understood and considered as part of a vision for the future of Vancouver neighbourhoods within a framework of four principles:
- The character of our neighbourhoods is ever evolving, diverse and unique to each place.
- Pre-1940s – and post-1940s – houses are important to retain where their architectural quality, or uniqueness, is integral to place character.
- Contemporary architectural expression is essential for place character in historic areas to evolve through the inclusion of ‘heritage for the future’.
- A diversity of housing types and tenures in older neighbourhoods enables more people to enjoy living in historic areas with cultural and built heritage.
Based on these principles, we support the following options as presented in the Open House material for the Character House Zoning Review:
- Expansion of the Heritage Conservation Area Official Development Plan (HCA ODP) to include schedules listing the pre-1940s – and post-war – houses in study areas to protect as heritage houses.
- Zoning that supports retention through bonus density and allowances for conversion of pre-1940s houses to multiple dwellings and for ancillary dwellings (e.g. secondary suites and laneway houses).
- Zoning that allows densities, site coverage and building heights that will ensure that single-family dwellings will blend into the scale of residential streetscapes, and that permits multiple dwellings (e.g. duplexes, triplexes and other multi-unit residential options).
We also support:
- Assessment of pre-1940s – and post-war – houses to identify those which should be added to the Heritage Register.
- Removal of all design guidelines from zoning regulations other than basic metrics for maximum density, floor area, building height and site coverage, and minimum building setbacks and permeable landscaping.
- Separate outcome-oriented (or ‘performance-based’) design guidelines that respect historic context, where a street has established place character, but enable and encourage contemporary architectural expression.
Recommended Actions
We urge the City to adopt forward-thinking policies for historic neighbourhoods that embrace diversity in place character and livability through a set of actions:
- In the upcoming consultation in early 2017, work with communities to assess the pre-1940s – and post-war – houses in each study area to identify those which are significant enough to be officially heritage houses, and then include them in new HCAs and additions to the Heritage Register.
- Allow modifications to pre-1940s houses that have original features but are not significant enough to be heritage houses. Non-heritage houses should be permitted to alter in appearance and features so that place character continues to evolve in our historic areas.
At the same time, encourage the retention of pre-1940s houses through:
- Continue to offer bonus density and allow conversion into multiple dwelling units, building additions for secondary suites and/or laneway houses, subject to retention of historic houses.
- Retain zoning entitlements for new construction that result in sizes and scale of new buildings that are compatible with the place character in older neighbourhoods.
- Encourage and support contemporary architectural expression – in the design of modifications, new additions and new buildings – in historic neighbourhoods, to ensure that we have culture from our own time to bring forward with us as heritage for the future.
On the last point, the Open House materials did not include the proposed design guidelines. For the next round of consultation, we strongly encourage the City to engage residents, homeowners, practitioners and citizens on the following topics:
- Which pre-1940s – and post-war – houses to recognize as heritage?
- What modifications to pre-1940s houses are desired and supported?
- Is there support for contemporary design, where it will respect the place character of neighbourhoods through the size and scale of new houses?
At present, and in the recent past, the City processes for building approvals and planning often lack clarity and are leading to undesirable ‘fake history’ in design which is contrary to National Standard #4 “do not create a false sense of history”.
We believe that the ideal outcomes of the current process would be three-fold:
- Retention of pre-1940s – and post war houses – where these are important to the communities in historic neighbourhoods.
- Conservation of houses that should be officially recognized as heritage.
- Continual evolution of place character though the contemporary design of new building modifications, additions and houses: heritage for the future.
We look forward to further discussion and dialogue on the HVS vision: “to create a diverse and inspiring place to live through a thoughtful layering of new and old”.
Respectfully submitted,
Javier Campos
President, Heritage Vancouver Society
Other info on this topic:
Michael Geller last November:
http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca/2016/11/vancouvers-character-house-zoning.html
.. ditto last week:
http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca/2017/02/opinion-are-city-of-vancouvers.html
Jens von Bergman in November:
http://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2016/11/26/character-retention/
(Jens does a great job at pointing out exactly what houses are at risk of being demolished … and shows that 1940 is a bad date to choose … he has a further post showing SFH size/height/volume/footprint over time, which makes clear that the rule changes in 1988 are the issue when it comes to the creation of ‘Monster’ houses which are fundamentally the crux of the outcry for keeping character housing)
Abundant Housing Open Letter:
http://www.abundanthousingvancouver.com/characterreview
and me – working title was “How Green is your Character?”:
https://www.biv.com/article/2017/1/character-house-plan-penalizes-future-trying-prese/
And as the inevitable argument for keeping green buildings is that the greenest building is the one that already exists … the energy use says otherwise, and that especially in the case of a full gut reno – to keep the existing is far less green than replacing it with something which is. Bryn from Lanefab has a good talk on this: http://www.lanefab.com/tedx/
#MakeVancouver[Look]GreatAgain! The rallying cry of the ‘vanishing city’.
There have been several passive house projects which have already been abandoned because of the current character assessment process … I’m all for keeping worthy history, and think the rules for conservation need to be strengthened, but certainly not at the expense of standard-bearers for the necessary future. The future we need is being made impossible by the past we have.
Great post and informative links, Arti. Thanks.
” … a diverse and inspiring place to live.” According to the royal “We.”
Like all the prarie dog basement suites that are in every new Van Spec? Those nasty lilliputian rooms that resonate from the sound of the furnace and the landlord’s feet above? Ever try looking out the window of one of these holes – jumping up and down to catch views of the bottom of a fence, or the landlord’s feet? These places are dismal.
This is a bigger issue than the aesthetics of character houses. It’s the leaky condo crisis redux – houses not worth keeping.
+1 on the basement suite dislike … I think a real duplex setup is vastly preferable.
Heritage preservation in New Westminster. Depends on the point of view, I suppose.
http://www.newwestrecord.ca/news/new-westminster-approves-demolition-of-queen-s-park-home-1.8887679
“Maureen Arvanitidis, president of the New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society, said the city doesn’t have criteria in place for determining homes worth retaining, nor does it have up-to-date criteria about the type of homes that should replace homes being demolished.”
…
““I’d say there are a number of houses on that street that I’d definitely want to protect from demolition,” he [Mayor Jonathan Cote] said. “Based on living on the street and from what I know about this house, this particular house would not be one of them.”
This is the crux of the issue … there are some places that really should be saved, but they can be of any era (there are houses built last year I would hope would be preserved in 100 years, just as houses 100 years ago might in another 100 years) … the CoV proposal to blanket protect-kinda (protect only by imposing a stick if you don’t) seems to ignore that value and age are not necessarily related.
It also ignores the fact that in general, few can afford the SFH being protected, or the smaller SFH proposed to be allowed thereafter. Napkin math says that most Vancouver sites need 4+ units on them to average into the sane $ territory for those making a living in Vancouver. This does not equate to preserving existing housing and maybe adding a potentially uncomfortable basement suite to the mix.
The recent census bumps the vacant properties in Van to 10% … which is undoubtedly part of the problem, but even if available, who can honestly to afford to live in one of the other 90% who doesn’t already own one? Addressing the vacancy issue won’t unsail the ship. Sailing a new and denser ship, however, might help, if blanket regard for Character doesn’t sink it first.
The permit-renovated small old timer character home across the street from me has a great new basement suite, light, bright, heated floors, only 3.5 feet below grade to the FFE. Very comfy.
Subdivide two standard lots at a corner cross-wise into six lots (same height restriction) and you’ve got 12 new homes, namely six rowhouses with rental suites. Super-insulation, triple-glazing and micro-geothermal will greatly reduce the heating costs and carbon footprint over time.
Allowing an extra floor on two of the units in exchange for dismantling and recycling the materials from the existing houses will go a long ways to reducing emissions. Preserving but moving a heritage home to the corner of a lot to make room for infill development with an extra unit or two will create the flexibility to ensure the city’s heritage and green goals are retained.
Downzoning is so regressive and unimaginative, and will do nothing to divide up expensive land into more affordable units (this is key to affordability in Vancouver), let alone reduce per capita emissions.
It’s absurd that heritage busybodies would try to save this nothing post-war tract house. Don’t they have anything better to do? Like quilting?
Queen’s Park has some beautiful old houses. We go there occasionally to walk around and look at them – like, once a year. Should their owners’ be forced to keep them as is – in a bubble – for our personal annual delectation. The very idea is ridiculous.
The West End had exceptional houses for hundreds. Now it has housing for tens of thousands. Life goes on.
The heritage advocate mentality is almost like that of a hoarder. How many people really care about these houses. I like some of them a lot, but what the owners do with them is none of my business.
The juxtaposition of old with new gives interest – like Foster’s genius work on the Reichstag; or the Hearst Tower. Who would have heard of Bilbao if the museum had been contextual. The dance centre on Granville St is more interesting because of its dichotomous aspect.
Grandview has restrictions on how new houses should look. A modern style would pop and give interest to its surroundings. Not that most people don’t care one way or the other. The best restriction would be no more loathsome prairie dog basement Van Specs. They are a downer. They are ugly, impractical, and will age gracelessy. There will be no heritage advocates rising in indignation when this garbage is collapsed into its own hole.
In many ways though, the renovations done by several to Vancouver Specials prove that they CAN be excellent spaces – they are a ‘poor-mans west coast modern’ and are much more of a Vancouver specific vernacular than any house harking to character-ey ye olde England.
Often, yes they are ugly, but they fit the modern lifestyle (open plan/etc) a lot better than that built before, and certainly better than many of the 3-bay (with front door in the middle and double eyebrow gables either side) ‘monster’ homes built today, full of pokey small rooms which increase the length of the house’s specification list, without increasing its livability. (4 bedrooms + 5 bath + parlour + living + dining + family + kitchen + powder room + office + study all within 2000sf! Where do I sign!)
Totally agree that juxtaposition makes things interesting – and the Standards of Conservation for Historic Places Canada makes clear that when making changes to a historic structure, the preferred conservation route is to make it clear what is old and what is new – on the same building!
Taking this logic and applying it to a city, it only helps conserve real history more when there is a clear difference between real history, and new building, enforcing design guidelines making new-look-old creates only pastiche.
http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx – Conservation guidelines from Historic Places.
There’s a world of difference between the previously ridiculed old slab-on-grade Van Specs and the new prairie dog basement variety. BTW, when I say Van Spec it refers to Speculative, not Special. Pretty much everything being thrown up is speculative.
As ridiculed as the old Van Specs have been, at least they don’t allow water ingress through the foundation; like our 100-year-old decidedly non-heritage house – the lowest point of the basement is 1′ above grade. Foundation leaks are an impossibility.
The odds of no foundation leaks in the new prairie dog basement variant – well, they’re Las Vegas odds. Concrete cracks. Coatings emulsify. Hydrostatic pressure will prevail. Costs to fix this are astronomical. Hello new leaky condo crisis.
To call the old Van Specs west coast modern is a conceit. They were a cheap and ugly solution to high land costs. In normal places the price of land is 25% of total outlay. Here it’s 75%.
“Open plan”, or the slicker terms “open concept” and “open design” are great for selling houses, and great for builders that don’t have to put up walls and doors – but they are awful to live in. There needs to be a door between the kitchen and the living room. The kitchen is a work area that creates a lot of noise, not to mention fridges that never stop buzzing. Our kitchen door is closed most of the time. Having a non-defined kitchen/living space with sofas and armchairs is clever marketing – not good living – not cozy, not nice. For the few times in a year you entertain you want to put up with this? You want your living room furniture in the kitchen?
One beef I have with the even older Van Spec homes (which is what the Character Houses also largely were) is that by raising the entrance into the sky, they make them fundamentally inaccessible, and not useful for any form of age-in-place. At least in the Vancouver Special, the almost at grade basement is accessible to all, however the distinction is that in the Special, it counts as above grade space, and in the Spec, it often just squeaks by as being basement space – so there is a great disparity in the amount of above grade living space available depending on where you are around the 7′ above grade L1 height. (Many older houses are too tall also, meaning that to renovate them usefully, not only would their basements have to get dug out, the whole house would have to drop also … or try the dice at an HRA). The rules on this are quite arbitrary w
And yes, of course they were cheap (the Vancouver Special), and they are ugly, but they don’t need to stay that way and they have been transformed many times into things which add a more appealing visage to that which IS a very livable core.
As for basements, somehow the every house in the netherlands is below sea level, many have basements below the water table, and they seem to be ok … so its certainly not impossible – but I agree, any system that makes density only be below grade or in pokey LWH’s isn’t a great system.
The conceit in Vancouver is that statistically, EVERY house is a cheap and ugly solution to land costs. Here are the only buildings in Vancouver which pass muster with respect to land values: http://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2014/09/07/vancouver-high-value-improvements-map/
The only solution to land cost in Vancouver is to either disentangle land from home (land trust, coop, baugruppen, etc.) or allow sufficient density to let the land cost get split amongst many (but to do so in a sufficiently broad manner as to not arbitrarily bump land costs in spot cases based on the unique extra density potential. See: land assembly /sf costs on Oak, Granville, etc…
And finally, every house I have lived in in the last decade has had a kitchen open to the rest of the living area. Every house I have been asked to design has had the same request. Every condo in Vancouver has this layout, and almost every renovation I have seen has done some measure of ‘opening’ up of space to connect the kitchen to the living space, and to connect the living and dining spaces together. You might not like this … but obviously many do. I do. I *must* live in *such* an awful place. I quite like being able to talk with my partner when either of us is cooking, not to be squirrel away behind a door. But then again, maybe I just got lazy and forgot to put up that last wall and am post-rationalizing my decision. Ya, that *must* be it.
… I’ll take cheap and ugly (but useful) over cramped, poor light, unsustainable, inaccessible, hard to renovate, poor use of space, un-dense, unaffordable any day. But more specifically, I and the rest of my generation would like the mere luxury of having the modicum of security that those who bought 20+ years ago took for granted. Any policy that doesn’t help address this, or specifically goes counter to this (as this Character House measure does), is a policy that says F*** O** to the future.
Vancouver has lots of models to copy to address this, many of which also come with significant historical protection where it is warranted. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but we do have to stop fetishizing the character of the spokes.
Some of the 70’s and 80’s Van Specs had at grade entrances, but too many dropped below grade – it was just cheaper to pour the slab onto the scraped surface than to build it up to create an elevated slab; or to build a crawl space. Hate that term crawl space – prefer to call it an elevated, or suspended floor. The elevated floor would have made these houses wheelchair accessible and obviated expensive technological fixes like stair lifts.
There was a moment in the late fifties early sixties that some of the post war boxes got it right with at grade first floors. These are pretty rare. Some were raised, but they were not as successful as purpose-built.
As concerns cramped and poor light, these do not have to go together. Christopher Alexander (take your hats off and bow), states that a room, to be pleasant, should have light on two sides. Our kitchen is small – under 100 sq’, but it has windows on two sides. That makes a world of difference. In a pinch we can seat 8 people around the table.
And as for conversing with people in the living room while cooking, that’s called yelling.
Most current kitchen design is horrible. It shouldn’t be. It’s not rocket science. Not only is the most basic precept of the work triangle ignored, there is the craze to insert a work island – often rock topped. I have seen one home owner tape the corners of her island because she, understandably, was afraid her toddler would bash her head in.
At its most simple: you should be able to touch the holy trinity of your fridge, stove, and sink with, at most, a pivot. You must not have to scurry around an island, or do the jump side step. There must be no passageway between the work triangle. Each unit of the trinity requires counter space. That’s it.
One more thing: the most important window is the one over the kitchen sink. This is where most of the tedium relating to cooking takes place. If you can give the person at the sink, washing or doing prep, a view, you will have achieved one of Vitruvius’ tenets of architecture.