Vancouver forumers: Thoughts on single detached houses

[Dante86]

I've noticed that the majority of users in this section feel very strongly about housing densicty in Vancouver and the lower mainland to the point where it conflicts with people's lifestyle choices. All I hear about are how bad single detached houses are and how they should be outlawed. Which is fine, thats your opinion. Now my question is, what about the people that choose to have 3 or more children? There should be housing options for these people to live in this new high-denscity world of Vancouver. Unless you're against people having that amount of children, in which case that is just wrong and offensive. Going against mankind's instinctual need to procreate is unacceptable.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by Dante86

I've noticed that the majority of users in this section feel very strongly about housing densicty in Vancouver and the lower mainland to the point where it conflicts with people's lifestyle choices. All I hear about are how bad single detached houses are and how they should be outlawed. Which is fine, thats your opinion. Now my question is, what about the people that choose to have 3 or more children? There should be housing options for these people to live in this new high-denscity world of Vancouver. Unless you're against people having that amount of children, in which case that is just wrong and offensive. Going against mankind's instinctual need to procreate is unacceptable.

look at Europe, the UK for instance. People have been raising families with 3 or more children in much smaller footprints for generations with no problems. there is a great array of Edwardian and Victorian townhomes that are built up, rather than out on much smaller footprints. the uk was better at density 200 years ago than we are now:

http://maps.google.com/maps/svpw?url...%3Dembed&hl=en

Vancouver likes to talk big on density, the reality is outside of downtown this notion is laughable. Also here, urban sprawl is a real problem - the future is not communities built around the auto, but higher density with work, medical centres, stores, entertainment with in walking distance all properly served by transit. Communities of large houses cut off from everything are simply not sustainable. the suburbs is a failed social experiment. What happens to boomers as they age, can no longer drive, cut off from medical centres and local stores, not to mention the social isolation.

[idunno]

Dante, I wouldn't necessarily say the majority of this forum thinks that single-family housing development should be outlawed. It just isn't the [I]best[I] form of development for sustainable living. There are different forms of SFH, and not all of them are as bad as others. A large gated community with loads of dead-ends and curvy roads that lead to nowhere with only one entrance/exit is much worse for implementing transit than a normal grid-design, I would say. Increased density actually warrants transit, whereas acres of low-density sprawl housing only serves to perpetuate auto-use.

There are many examples of both of these styles of development around metro vancouver. I guess they serve different groups of people, and that's fine. SFH just doesn't have to be quite so spread out, and in many new developments, it isn't. Just look at Westwood Plateau - those houses are crammed in beside eachother. Quite a difference from the early British Properties neighbourhoods I think.

[SpongeG]

society has to change first developers will do what the buyers want

[Architype]

You can't tell people how to live or what to live in (this isn't the USSR), but slowly you can make policy changes. Transition from SFH to higher density can only happen (slowly) if there is a high consistency in quality community oriented developments; leadership is set by good example.

[Architype]

I still see single detached houses built all over the place. The costs may be high, but if you can afford it it's still very much an option.

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by Dante86

In a way though, Vancouver is forcing people to live a certain way. City planners of Vancouver (and the lowermainland in general) have basically put a morotorium on single detached houses, without a cheaper alternative for large families, thus forcing people to either move, or reconsider the amount of children they want in their family if they want to live in the lower mainland. Its quite scary.

Vancouver has been built out for a long time - what do you mean the city has a moratorium on SFH? And as far as know, single family neighborhoods continue to go up in the outer suburbs i.e. where there is land available...

As well, I'm not sure I quite get your concern that encouraging density makes it harder for families to live in the region - I'd say that planning/zoning for density is the only reason a lot of young families are able to live anywhere close to Vancouver.

[Prometheus]

Single detached homes?

I love them. To me, and most others, I think, they are the highest form of domestic existence and most meaningful example of property ownership. To possess your own independent home, sitting on its own independent land, surrounded by beautiful lawns, gardens, bushes and trees, all of which are exclusively yours, is the ultimate dream.

When I drive by a beautiful, stately home on a tree-lined street in a elegant neigbourhood, I say to myself, "That's how I want to live some day."

[Yume-sama]

Would love to have one. But only in Point Grey, North Van (up the mountain), or West Van

Not picky, really!

I probably will one day. When I retire or settle down with kids. Whichever comes first lol. I'm destined for suburbia.

[flight_from_kamakura]

weird thread to start on a skyscraper forum.

still, worth a response: on the one hand, probably almost everyone on this forum was raised in a detached sfd, so it's not like we're four square against you "procreators" or whatever. on the other hand, most of the critiques you've read here (uhh, do they exist?) are leveled against the grotesque form that these babies took in the great post-war build out. moreover, and as another commenter already noted, if you likes the house for your family, building more towers is good for you, as new condo stock absorbs new arrivals. so what's the problem?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Dante86

I definately think the future will move towards higher density with everything within walking distance or served by transit, I just fear that the majority of residences will only serve singles or couples with 1 child. Way too many 1 bedroom condos going up in Vancouver. Where are the options for larger families. They deserve to be a part of the high density community too

I disagree. As technology and society changes the trend towards densification will reverse, this as far as im concerned is a given. I say this based on one single fact, nothing ever stays constant and therefore we will eventually see the opposite of densification.

Right now the overall need to move goods and people is increasing faster then our ability. Because of this costs are increasing and the more costs increase the more we densify as the optimum level of density and built form of cities changes to compensate for the higher costs. Once our ability to move people and goods begins to increase faster then our need then we will begin to see a reverse effect and increased sprawl as the optimum level of density shifts the other way...............Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way again and so on and so forth.

Obviously a simplistic view of things but the point is that nothing ever stays the same.

[Millennium2002]

@ cornholio:
I don't know about that pendulum effect... although it may apply in some situations I don't think it's wise to apply it in this case.
_________________________________________________________________________

There's two arguments that I'm seeing here... one favouring ownership of property, the other leaning more towards high density.

Now... I do want to ask the pro-land people... how do achieve ownership of property when the available land begins to shrink? Do you stake out and build on farmland at the price of paying more at the grocery shop and reducing the food supply? Or do you expand into the forests and reduce the capacity for the air to replenish itself, not to mention reduced water quality and less land for animals?

I do realize that ownership of land can be a big thing here with some people... and it does give you some nice rights specific to that area... but unfortunately, there will need to be a trade-off.
_________________________________________________________________________

Some people have mentioned here that the current high-density housing is not suited for families. To be honest, that is true. I'm probably betting that the reason why is that the cost to build and sell as many suites as possible (which therefore favours smaller homes) is probably more lucrative than building homes sufficiently large enough for families. It's sad that this is occurring... and I wish the developers can take the initiative to build more homes for families or maybe the government can help convince them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Some people have mentioned here that the current high-density housing is not suited for families. To be honest, that is true. I'm probably betting that the reason why is that the cost to build and sell as many suites as possible (which therefore favours smaller homes) is probably more lucrative than building homes sufficiently large enough for families. It's sad that this is occurring... and I wish the developers can take the initiative to build more homes for families or maybe the government can help convince them.

Why do you believe high density housing is not suited for families? What about the density is a problem? It's one thing to suggest that a family of 4 can't live too well in 600sf, but that's just a small apartment. It doesn't mean they can't live well in 1200sf that happens to be in a very dense neighbourhood.

[twoNeurons]

Take 3 40' lots and create 4 30' lots. Boom! Density!

Seriously speaking, though. I think there needs to be some work done so that basement suites are fewer and a sfh is both smaller and taller.

Narrower lots would help this.

Row housing would help this.

Most of the sfh houses are built on land that was originally meant to house a single story bungalow with ample land around the sides. They maximize the land, build 2 or three tiny hovels ( also called basement suites ) into the base and force buyers to become landlords or be very wealthy.

I wish there was an easy solution, but I think that we're building condos instead.

Row housing ( in my opinion ) is a LOT more livable for families than condos.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Take 3 40' lots and create 4 30' lots. Boom! Density!

Seriously speaking, though. I think there needs to be some work done so that basement suites are fewer and a sfh is both smaller and taller.

Narrower lots would help this.

Row housing would help this.

Most of the sfh houses are built on land that was originally meant to house a single story bungalow with ample land around the sides. They maximize the land, build 2 or three tiny hovels ( also called basement suites ) into the base and force buyers to become landlords or be very wealthy.

I wish there was an easy solution, but I think that we're building condos instead.

Row housing ( in my opinion ) is a LOT more livable for families than condos.

I agree with the option of row housing for families. There are town homes but they are on strata. Vancouver went straight to suburban model in its early years, due to plentiful cheap land. Very few row houses or apartments for that matter were built.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Single detached homes?

I love them. To me, and most others, I think, they are the highest form of domestic existence and most meaningful example of property ownership. To possess your own independent home, sitting on its own independent land, surrounded by beautiful lawns, gardens, bushes and trees, all of which are exclusively yours, is the ultimate dream.

When I drive by a beautiful, stately home on a tree-lined street in a elegant neigbourhood, I say to myself, "That's how I want to live some day."

Prometheus, I agree with you 100% when I drive by on the kind of street you mentioned (especially if it has a curve to it). That idea works in cities like Dallas and Houston, which have a lot of space around them.

Unfortunately, here in Vancouver, space is at a premium for reasons well-known, and I think people are just going to have the bite the bullet (owwww) and adapt to row housing, or higher density housing that does not have that dreamsville image you love. (... and that I love ... and that a lot of people love)

[djmk]

i own a house.

i have 2 young kids, a wife and a tenant in the basement. the tenant is only there because i need the money. North van is my community.

there is no way i would move my family into a condo. its just too small of a space for me and i hate stratas. And once property values (or its ugly cousin, commuting) force me into that situation, i'm moving to the okanagan, just like thousands of other families. besides, once you factor in the tenant rent, the price between the house/condo get smaller.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by delboy

Vancouver likes to talk big on density, the reality is outside of downtown this notion is laughable. Also here, urban sprawl is a real problem - the future is not communities built around the auto, but higher density with work, medical centres, stores, entertainment with in walking distance all properly served by transit. Communities of large houses cut off from everything are simply not sustainable. the suburbs is a failed social experiment. What happens to boomers as they age, can no longer drive, cut off from medical centres and local stores, not to mention the social isolation.

You maybe surprised that even though the majority of East Vancouver is detached houses. Has a density level far higher than the North American average. Now I'm not saying it is like NYC or Paris or any of the Asian cities. Where it drops of considerably the density level is when you are talking about the metro region.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Take 3 40' lots and create 4 30' lots. Boom! Density!

Seriously speaking, though. I think there needs to be some work done so that basement suites are fewer and a sfh is both smaller and taller.

Narrower lots would help this.

Row housing would help this.

Most of the sfh houses are built on land that was originally meant to house a single story bungalow with ample land around the sides. They maximize the land, build 2 or three tiny hovels ( also called basement suites ) into the base and force buyers to become landlords or be very wealthy.

I wish there was an easy solution, but I think that we're building condos instead.

Row housing ( in my opinion ) is a LOT more livable for families than condos.

My brother and his family live out on the eastern end of Maple Ridge. Out by 240th. In a new area of single family homes built about 10 years ago now. And even though it is a single family home. His lot size is actually smaller than mine in East Van. The houses are narrower but have one extra floor. Also they front of the house to the side walk is quite close and the back yard is much smaller. So they've increased the density by putting people on a smaller lot.

One thing I've always wondered is how do you convert the detached homes in lets say east van. To a higher density for example row houses or town houses. Sure it is one thing to rezone. But you still need to knock down the houses to build the new dwelling units. Do you wait for people to move out and have the city buy up the land to convert it. Does a developer do the same thing. Problem then is either the city or the developer gets stuck with land while waiting for more land. Do you kick people out of their homes. Which I must say I do not support. Reason being why should I or anyone else be forced to move. I have no reason to move. Of course I realize that people are forced out of their homes in many situations and some people willing move because they don't like the area they live in.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by cabotp

You maybe surprised that even though the majority of East Vancouver is detached houses. Has a density level far higher than the North American average. Now I'm not saying it is like NYC or Paris or any of the Asian cities. Where it drops of considerably the density level is when you are talking about the metro region.

Yes I'm familiar with the east side and the standard lots are certainly better than other areas, doesn't change the fact thought that it could be a lot more dense that it is. Vancouver could easily fit another 200,000, even more, with better density.

Having said that, though, I certainly value heritage structures and don't propose that we level everything in the pursuit of density. The reality is that we don't have a lot of room here and Vancouver has become overbuilt very quickly when you consider we are only 130 years old. Where will we be 30 or even 50 years from now?

I think that it's also a matter of perspective. My brother and I were raised in a small house in the UK that was less than 900 sq feet with a postage stamp sized yard - we were fine. This is often the norm in the UK and much of Europe.