Vancouver forumers: Thoughts on single detached houses

[delboy]

Originally Posted by cabotp

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.

I think the first stage is to zone the areas to allow for this and then i imagine it would become organic - certain areas would slowly change, as lots become available and developers step in - there could also be incentives of one kind and another from the city. No one is suggesting this should happen overnight but we have to look down the road. Good city planning is about anticipating the needs of future generations.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said, there are lots of people like you, Vancouver island and the Okanagan are the exodus points. Though to be perfectly honest the people leaving Vancouver are more or less Caucasian. I personally wont live in Vancouver for ever as I dont like the fact its to crowded and stressful, life is much easier, pleasant and fun outside of the city, especially if you have lots of outdorsie hobbies like me.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by delboy

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.

More then 50% of the land in the Metro is undeveloped or underdeveloped. I dont remeber the exact number but I think it was close to 70%. There is lots of room to grow.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

weird thread to start on a skyscraper forum.

No different than having sub-forums for Arts, Sports etc. In fact, when you consider how much land in Metro is taken up by single family housing, in makes sense if you look at this as an urban planning forum. I just wish the respective cities scrutinized single family home design to the extent they do for multi-family housing. So much single family housing built in Vancouver and the burbs is such architectural dreck that it should be outlawed.

Interestingly, I've noticed that on Richmond's arterial roads many of the old 60' foot lots are being subdivided into two separate lots, so they're ahead of Vancouver in that respect.

[dleung]

^^They even do that in the side streets.



Personally i think that any SFH area that isn't super upscale and lush like Shaugnhessy, British properties, Point grey, etc, should be densified with terraced mid-rise apartments. One of the biggest obstacles to affordability is the lack of space in the city that is open to development. The process of getting land to build on is so difficult that by the time they get to design something, the costs are so high that they have to cram more people in smaller spaces to make it affordable. It results in one or two blocks of high-density crap-architecture surrounded by low-density, when a mid-range density uniformly spread out over most of the city's uglier neighbourhoods will do just as well, allowing breathing room for families, and luxuries impossible in bundles of 500-square-foot shoe boxes.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by cornholio

More then 50% of the land in the Metro is undeveloped or underdeveloped. I dont remeber the exact number but I think it was close to 70%. There is lots of room to grow.

I was referring largely to vancouver proper which is mostly overbuilt.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by cabotp

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.

thats why areas around the skytrain stations in vancouver have never been developed - take nanaimo most of it is single detached - the city could rezone it but a developer would have to buy up the whole block which is way too cost prohibitive

what is happening a lot is single family homes all over are being bought and than replaced with duplexes or 4 unit houses - my friend lived in east van - the house down the street sold for about $750,000 and eas knocked down and replaced with a duples and both sold for $700,000 each unit - one gets the front yard the other gets the backyard and passersby don't even notice its more than a single house

[s211]

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.

Don't worry. Mayor Moonbeam and his goose-stepping greenshirts will have your soul. Eventually.

[ozonemania]

I have relatives that just moved into a new infill development in Burnaby, not a condo building but a 'rowhouse development' with a common underground garage and a pedestrian lane dividing two rows of houses:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...08.84,,0,-4.26

It's actually very dense, they even have separate basement suites for extra density. Never seen this kind of development before; is it common these days?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

thats why areas around the skytrain stations in vancouver have never been developed - take nanaimo most of it is single detached - the city could rezone it but a developer would have to buy up the whole block which is way too cost prohibitive

Yeah, what needs to happen is the city has to actively support rezoning. Any two adjacent lots over 80' should be allowed to be rezoned into 3 lots. You'd get these narrow friendly houses going up.

what is happening a lot is single family homes all over are being bought and than replaced with duplexes or 4 unit houses - my friend lived in east van - the house down the street sold for about $750,000 and was knocked down and replaced with a duplex and both sold for $700,000 each unit - one gets the front yard the other gets the backyard and passersby don't even notice its more than a single house

Duplexes aren't bad... but they have their trade-offs as well. Owning half a house can be more troublesome than owning a share in a strata townhouse.

Duplexes are "almost-houses" which is why they're not that common. Sure, there are a few where zoning permits it... but not many.

The monster houses in East Van are horrible. ALL new development, as I said before, have 2 or three minuscule suites, with bad layouts. You enter, usually, directly into the kitchen/dining/living room.

It's hard to feel like you're in your "home" when you can get kicked out at any moment should the landlord decide they want a family member to move in. To add to this, most of these landlords have no experience being landlords so are either overly restrictive ( because they were burnt by previous tenants ) or disorganized.

I have nothing but contempt for houses with a mortgage that depends on the suites. That being said, suites are great for multi-generational families... and like 'em or not, the old Vancouver Specials (3 bdrm up / 2 down... many built by Italians/Portuguese/etc. ) have a much higher standard of living than the new Vancouver specials with multiple suites around the back.

As for Richmond densifying... believe it or not, places like Cloverdale are too.

Check out this aerial google image. The lots look to be about 8-9m (25'-30') The houses are narrow and close together. They're about 3m from from the sidewalk. They're actually about the same width of row houses, which were usually 20-25' wide.

Yes, it's a bunch of houses which look more or less the same, but it's sort of like a West-Coast row house.

Personally, this is a better form of grid, to me. I don't like the grid in much of Vancouver. There is no good reason to allow for a grid in neighbourhoods. The arterials are where the grid needs to be. It's the same reason the west end is hard to navigate in a car. A broken grid. This is good. Neighbourhoods are much better suited to curvy streets like this one in Cloverdale... or the war zone in East Vancouver (Streets all named after WWII battles... between 22nd and Grandview, Rupert and Boundary )

Traffic moves slowly on these narrow roads, especially around curves.

I also found an interesting essay on housing on the interwebs.

I don't think we need to worry about people being able to afford buying houses and tearing them down. They're doing that now. They buy bungalows and tear 'em down. Then they built a house that you can put suites in so people can justify the high price of buying the house. I think if there was more money to be made on buying two adjacent houses and selling three houses ( with one potential suite... as that's all you could fit in a narrow lot ) people would do it. The density would be about the same, but you would find each house would be more affordable for families who are upgrading from a condo.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

...I have nothing but contempt for houses with a mortgage that depends on the suites.

That's a real "let them eat cake attitude". How would you expect anyone with a "normal" job buying today to afford the insanely overinflated house prices in Vancouver without the income from a suite? Are they consigned to drudge in by transit from Langley everyday to be our teachers, policemen, grocery clerks etc. or resign themselves to having the one kid they can fit into their overpriced 2 bedroom condo?

[delboy]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's a real "let them eat cake attitude". How would you expect anyone with a "normal" job buying today to afford the insanely overinflated house prices in Vancouver without the income from a suite? Are they consigned to drudge in by transit from Langley everyday to be our teachers, policemen, grocery clerks etc. or resign themselves to having the one kid they can fit into their overpriced 2 bedroom condo?

this is the bottom line - we have to have young people to work retail, pump gas, serve coffee etc, it's all part of the fabric of the city. Also with police officers there's the notion of 'commitment to community' when coppers live in the same communities they police- they also tend to be active in PTA or little league, soccer etc, Sad that coppers, many who incidentally make close to 6 figures, can't afford to raise a family in Vancouver or Burnaby for that matter, at least not in a traditional SFH.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by cabotp

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.

Yes, row/town house are the way to go. way better than the lanehousing policy which is just a way to add more income for people able to afford to buy an house in the first place (hence increasing the price of house): Lanehousing do nothing for housing affordability, at the difference of row/town house.

33' lot should be allow to be subdivized: house to be built on all the house frontage length, and front set back reduced, to still allow for decent backyard (front yard is a waste of space, and ~10' set back should be allowed just to ensure some privacy

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

thats why areas around the skytrain stations in vancouver have never been developed - take nanaimo most of it is single detached - the city could rezone it but a developer would have to buy up the whole block which is way too cost prohibitive

what is happening a lot is single family homes all over are being bought and than replaced with duplexes or 4 unit houses - my friend lived in east van - the house down the street sold for about $750,000 and eas knocked down and replaced with a duples and both sold for $700,000 each unit - one gets the front yard the other gets the backyard and passersby don't even notice its more than a single house

I was thinking the same thing for places like 29th and Nanaimo stations. The only reason why places like Joyce and Metrotown and New West and Downtown and Brentwood and Lougheed etc. Got all those towers so quickly. Is because there was not detached homes. Most of it was either industrial or commercial. It is easier to have one business move than it is to have 40-50 people moving.

There doing the same thing about 3 houses from mine. Standard 2,000 sq ft two story house. It has 3 living spaces 1 upstairs at 1,000 and two down stairs at about 500 each. In addition there is a 250 sq ft laneway house. From the front of the house all you see is the two door front door. So from there it just looks like the typical single family home. But if you go to the back you then see the two separate entrances for the down stairs suites. Plus the upstairs had a small balcony with a stair well going down. And of course the laneway house. It was sold before it was even started at $900,000. This is in East Van around 41st and Knight.

Which is why I say Vancouver proper on the east side is a lot more dense than what it appears to be. I actually looked up the census info from 2006 for my tract. And apparently 45% of the people live in an apartment. I sure as hell know that if you walked around you walked around that most of what you would see is detached homes and not apartments. You would not see 45% of the area as apartments. Which made me realize that most of that 45% is people living in secondary suites.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by delboy

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.

I think the biggest thing that will force it. Is the price of land itself. As land becomes more expensive. Eventually people will just sell and move and the city or some developers will buy it up and convert it. We just haven't hit that tipping point.

I must say I have nothing against density and Vancouver could easily get more dense. I'm just more concerned with being forced out of my home. When right now I have no desire to move. Who knows I might one day, just not today.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yeah, what needs to happen is the city has to actively support rezoning. Any two adjacent lots over 80' should be allowed to be rezoned into 3 lots. You'd get these narrow friendly houses going up.

The problem is getting those 2 80' lots at the same time. One owner wants to sell but the other doesn't. Then next time it goes the other way.

Duplexes aren't bad... but they have their trade-offs as well. Owning half a house can be more troublesome than owning a share in a strata townhouse.

Duplexes are "almost-houses" which is why they're not that common. Sure, there are a few where zoning permits it... but not many.

The monster houses in East Van are horrible. ALL new development, as I said before, have 2 or three minuscule suites, with bad layouts. You enter, usually, directly into the kitchen/dining/living room.

I'd rather this right now then someone coming in and telling me to move out now. At some point when the price of land gets too much it will really start to switch to probably something like a townhouse or those 5 story condo towers.

It's hard to feel like you're in your "home" when you can get kicked out at any moment should the landlord decide they want a family member to move in. To add to this, most of these landlords have no experience being landlords so are either overly restrictive ( because they were burnt by previous tenants ) or disorganized.

Thing is you could get kicked out of any apartment. Of course there are rules to protect you when you are renting. I'm not saying it is the perfect living situation. But if it allows someone who might be single or is just a couple to live in the city. Compared to forcing them to live way out in the Valley and having them drive in. I'm more inclined to support this. Better of the evils as it were.

As for Richmond densifying... believe it or not, places like Cloverdale are too.

Check out this aerial google image. The lots look to be about 8-9m (25'-30') The houses are narrow and close together. They're about 3m from from the sidewalk. They're actually about the same width of row houses, which were usually 20-25' wide.

Yes, it's a bunch of houses which look more or less the same, but it's sort of like a West-Coast row house.

My brothers house in in Maple Ridge out by 240th. Is very similar to that. They've basically bought a detach home on a smaller lot. And I'm guessing those houses in Cloverdale are about 2,700 sq ft and 900 per floor. Which is what my brother's is.

Personally, this is a better form of grid, to me. I don't like the grid in much of Vancouver. There is no good reason to allow for a grid in neighbourhoods. The arterials are where the grid needs to be. It's the same reason the west end is hard to navigate in a car. A broken grid. This is good. Neighbourhoods are much better suited to curvy streets like this one in Cloverdale... or the war zone in East Vancouver (Streets all named after WWII battles... between 22nd and Grandview, Rupert and Boundary )

The grid in Vancouver to me is actually better for people who take transit. While the sub division style is getting better. For a long time they built them with no way for a pedestrian to cut through. Which forces them to walk a longer route to a bus stop.

I don't think we need to worry about people being able to afford buying houses and tearing them down. They're doing that now. They buy bungalows and tear 'em down. Then they built a house that you can put suites in so people can justify the high price of buying the house. I think if there was more money to be made on buying two adjacent houses and selling three houses ( with one potential suite... as that's all you could fit in a narrow lot ) people would do it. The density would be about the same, but you would find each house would be more affordable for families who are upgrading from a condo.

The whole thing again is it is easier said than done. When trying to purchase two lots side by side.

I remember about 2 years ago. When the house next door for me went on sale and the house 3 lots from me went on sale. A few people in the neighbourhood. Were actually worried that the middle house may decide to sell. The owner was thinking about it. And some of the older people were worried that a developer was going to buy all three lots and convert it into a row house complex.

Personally I wouldn't have cared. But you can see how it can be hard to get all the lots together.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The problem is getting those 2 80' lots at the same time. One owner wants to sell but the other doesn't. Then next time it goes the other way...

Maybe one way to start is to allow the subdivision of 60' lots into two 30' lots. This architectural abomination could easily make way for two homes:
http://www.realtylink.org/prop_searc...000000&SCTP=RS

[delboy]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Maybe one way to start is to allow the subdivision of 60' lots into two 30' lots. This architectural abomination could easily make way for two homes:
http://www.realtylink.org/prop_searc...000000&SCTP=RS

awful and who needs 4300 sq feet.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Dante86

I just think its funny how Canada complains about how it has such a low birth rate. What do you expect when places like Vancouver exist??

What exactly does a place like Vancouver have to do with the low Birth Rate in Canada.

The low birth rate has nothing to do with Vancouver and would be low even if Vancouver did not exist.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by delboy

awful and who needs 4300 sq feet.

I think whatnext is saying that we should take that 4300 sq ft home on the 60' wide lot and knock it down to build two lots of 30' wide.