The laneway houses have started to go up — 89 permits issued so far, despite some road bumps along the way — and a few of them are raising eyebrows with their size and ornate look. (My story on this here.)
I know some people have been opposed to them from day one and so are not going to like them in reality any more than they did in theory. But others who had thought they were a good idea are taken aback by what’s going up.
One piece of info that I couldn’t squeeze into this story was my conversation with Jake Fry, the Smallworks owner who has been a proponent of laneway houses since the beginning. Jake told me that, although he prefers the smaller houses, he can see in some ways why people are choosing the larger ones.
It turns out that it’s costing people around $40,000 to do prep work for the laneway houses. A rule that was meant to apply mainly to people building new principal houses is catching the laneway houses, so that they’re having to put in separated sewer and storm water lines from their property out to the city main. (It’s ironic, too, since the laneway houses, built on slabs, don’t have stormwater drains built in around them the way regular houses do; the water just drains into rock filters.)
Between the cost of excavation for the new lines and the permitting for the sewers and other things, it’s quite a hefty bill. Once people have spent that kind of money before even starting to build, they’re going big, says Jake.
The Zagross Construction owner I spoke to in the story said it costs about $120,000 to $200,000 to build the laneway houses, depending on how elaborate you decide to make the finishings. But she said it looked like a good investment to her. She figured you make your money back on your investment by Year 10 and after that, any rental income you make is pure profit.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Ron // Jun 23, 2010 at 9:46 am
Thanks for the link. We’re thinking of building one sooner or later. This particular laneway house isn’t that gorgeous but it isn’t an eyesore by any means. What is there to complain about? It’s a new garage with an apartment on it, big deal. People will complain about anything!
2 Tiktaalik // Jun 23, 2010 at 10:12 am
That’s a pretty interesting turn of events. I’d be curious to see pictures of all the examples the city has gotten complaints about if you have them available.
The one shown in the Globe article is certainly quite large, but it doesn’t strike me as too horribly garish or inappropriate. Perhaps a wider angle is necessary to get a good feel of how it’s really out of place. As it is I don’t think it’s too much worse than the worn down Vancouver Specials and dilapidated garages that you usually see in alleys like this.
3 Michael Geller // Jun 23, 2010 at 10:47 am
Frances, this is a good and important story. As a long time proponent of laneway housing, I worried last year about the direction that the regulations and design guidelines were taking since they generally encouraged larger 1 1/2 storey units, rather than smaller single level ‘granny flats’. To the credit of staff and Council, they did establish a limit of 100 approvals, following which a review would occur. It’s now time to start the review.
The applicable design regulations and guidelines, and reasons for the current design solutions are somewhat complex, but they can be found at http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/content.php?id=47
Without going into all the details, one of the challenges faced by staff was a directive from the previous council that the new laneway units had to have the same footprint as a two car garage. In other words, a deeper but narrower single storey unit was not permitted on a standard lot. A second consideration, as expressed to me by staff, was that a 1 1/2 storey unit with a smaller ‘footprint’ was preferable to a larger one storey unit since the latter might take up space that was better used for vegetable gardens.
I think laneway housing should be allowed to continue. I agree with the Director of Planning that a major re-think is not necessary, but some revisions should now be made to the guidelines, based on the experience to date.
However, I would also encourage staff and council to approve greater flexibility to allow more single storey solutions, even at the loss of potential garden plot or chicken coup space.
In my opinion, the reduced sense of privacy and increased shadowing from the larger 1 1/2 storey units is a greater problem than the potential loss of space for vegetable gardens.
As for the city’s requirements and approval process encouraging larger more expensive units, Jake Fry is correct. As predicted a year ago on this blog, the requirements would lead to costs that are too high for many households primarily interested in creating affordable rental housing.
One solution might be to reconsider some of the requirements. Another might be to charge fees based on a square foot basis, rather than a per unit basis. This is the approach recommended by the Urban Development Institute two decades ago with respect to the charging of Development Cost Levies. It’s not perfect, or always applicable, but it might address the problem we are experiencing.
Finally, as for the costs, don’t be misled by the $120,000 figure. It is important to clarify whether this is the construction cost, or the ‘all in cost’ including consultant fees, city fees and permits, hydro fees, profit, etc. While I am hopeful that costs may come down in the future as new players enter the fray, and some prefabrication is possible, a well designed and built 500 square foot unit is likely going to cost at least $175,000 and in many cases, much more. But it may still be worth the expense and bother.
4 Tessa // Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm
First of all, a smaller footprint doesn’t just leave room for vegetables gardens, but it allows for more permeable surfaces, which means less water run-of in our storm sewers, which is something that’s important to consider. Maybe some leeway could be considered, though i don’t think we should build over the entire back yards, and I don’t have any problem with the height of the houses I’ve seen, or of the example in the globe article.
And Michael, maybe you could share what some of the requirements are that are increasing the cost as much as it is being increased? I would like to see these units be affordable for renters as well as people who want to build them not just for rental income but also for family members, but who may not be extra rich.
I have to wonder how much some requirements are impacting the affordability of all buildings, not just these ones, I just don’t have any insight into the labyrinth of regulations around new buildings, and which ones are absolutely important and which ones could maybe be altered.
Overall, though, I think the program is working. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy when a neighbour builds a gigantic house, but people build massive ugly houses all the time in Vancouver without any press. The only difference here is it’s in a lane.
5 Paul C // Jun 23, 2010 at 1:30 pm
They’ve been building a new house and laneway house just down the street from me. Nothing overly extravagant quick estimate I’d say it is about 250-300 sq ft for the living quarters. Basically a 2 car garage with a garage on one side and the living area on the other side. With a peaked roof for the bedroom upstairs.
Unless they wanted to build it without the garage section. I don’t see how they could of done it without adding the upstairs section.
I do wonder if maybe there needs to be size restriction based on the size of the main house and the size of the lot.
6 Michael Geller // Jun 23, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Last year, I participated in discussions in Seattle as that city reviewed whether to allow more laneway housing, or ‘backyard cottages’ as they call them, to be built.
For those of you who have an interest in the subject, here’s a document summarizing Seattle’s approach to design. I’m not suggesting it’s better or worse than Vancouver’s approach….just interesting!
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/static/Backyard%20Cottages%20Guide_web_LatestReleased_DPDS015822.pdf
7 Otis Krayola // Jun 23, 2010 at 5:54 pm
@Michael Geller
Regarding the pecking order of chickens, sometimes (as you imply) these things are not determined by secret ballot which leads, literally, to the chicken with it’s head cut off.
All want to know who rules the roost, so I expect Cllr. Reimer to very soon introduce an amendment specifying the required area needed to (humanely) stage a chicken coup.
8 michael geller // Jun 24, 2010 at 9:16 am
Tessa, a pervious paver or gravel parking pad would result in a larger permeable area than an enclosed garage. However, the way the guidelines are drafted, one is encouraged to build a garage (to increase the ground floor area) since this allows a larger second floor (calculated at 60% of the area of the ground floor, including garage.)
One could build a 20 by 24 single level unit, with a single parking pad beside it. However, for a variety of reasons, this is not being built.
Despite the council decision not to require a second parking space on a lot, I am told that many homeowners, and most builders prefer a solution that allows two parking spaces on the lot.
Indeed, one of the problems with the guidelines as drafted, according to many people interested in a laneway unit, is that it is not possible to have a double car garage and a small laneway house above, unless one reduces the area of the laneway house by an area equivalent to a single garage.
I’m sure this pleases some of you who don’t want to see any more two car garages being built, but don’t forget that garages often serve as storage rooms…
9 Bill McCreery // Jun 24, 2010 at 3:34 pm
No doubt fine tuning of the regs & guidelines needs to be done, not just now but over time. I have just reviewed these & must say I’m not sure where or how one eats, other than standing or perched, based on their examples. Eating is normally considered a basic residential requirement, so to that extent these examples are sub-standard dwellings. Will that effect their rentability?
The sloped roof regs don’t spec slopes. Tell me I’m wrong, will we see Vancouver Special 1/12 slopes?
The garden question is interesting. first, quite a prolific garden can occupy a small area. I saw a wonderful back garden yesterday in the Norquay area, raised 12″. 3′ deep, the full length of the back yard positioned by the owner in glorious sunshine.
It may be worthwhile requiring the applicant to demonstrate there will be useable outdoor space with sun exposure for occupant use as well as a garden.
I designed dense, 11.4 units per gross acre zero-lot line, freehold courtyard housing project in Victoria. A typical lot was 33′x69′. We found we had to design every square foot of exterior space as carefully as we designed the interior space. The result was an extremely livable indoor / outdoor home. It looks like that kind of design rigour is necessary here.
10 jesse // Jun 24, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Looks like laneways are having some success! Now it’s time to tackle those pesky semi-legal basement suites that nobody wants to seriously talk about.
11 Tessa // Jun 24, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Those are good points, Michael, and should be considered in the review. However I think there would be concerns if people built second floor laneway houses above two-car garages with second floors that covered the entire square footage. It does increase the impact for sure, and I think it would make for a bigger problem of these so-called laneway “mcmansions,” if we can really call these that.
Also, Frances, I just noticed the cutline in the Globe story says the house is in West Vancouver. Is that the municipality of West Vancouver or does that mean the West Side of Vancouver? Very different things.
12 Ron Yamauchi // Jun 26, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I am trying to imagine the problem of second floor suites above a two car garage.
Um… it would deplete the city’s paint and shingle reserves? Uh… too much enjoyment of one’s property? Excessive temptation to tag with graffiti? What?
I’m annoyed that I can only have 500 sq ft of laneway house… it never occurred to me to question why this might be, let alone that there is a “problem” with having a new garage with living quarters above. What could it be? Too new? Not rotten and crumbling enough therefore out of character with the rest of my neighbourhood? Jeez.
Leave a Comment