Frances Bula header image 1

An analysis of the recent BC Housing review ordered by the province

August 2nd, 2022 · No Comments

The province ordered a review of BC Housing last year to see whether how it was managing as the size and complexity of its mission had been expanded considerably under the NDP.

That review came out and has been universally viewed as a sign that something is seriously wrong at the agency, which has a budget of about $2 billion a year.

But a former Vancouver planner who was in charge of the city’s efforts on social housing, Cameron Gray, thinks there is a lot of missing information in the report. Here’s his take

Ernst & Young: Finance and Operation Review of BC Housing July 28, 2022

I was in charge of the City of Vancouver’s affordable housing initiatives from 1990 to 2010 during which time the City partnered with BC Housing on a wide range of social and supportive housing projects. These were by and large successful partnerships that produced several thousand units of social and supportive housing that provide safe, secure and affordable homes for families and individuals who otherwise would be paying unaffordable rents, be at risk of homelessness or actually homeless. I was surprised by the Ernst Young review of BC Housing as reported in the press.

It contradicted my experience (albeit of a dozen years ago) but also the positive assessment from the Province’s own Auditor General when they reported on BC Housing’s recent purchase of hotels to accommodate the growing numbers of homeless in BC.

I’ve now read the Ernst Young review of BC Housing finances and operations. Twice. It is a travesty and suffers from a major flaw that pervades the report and renders it virtually useless.

The fundamental problem with the report is its failure to describe what BC Housing does and how it operates now. It provides little of the relevant background. As a result it is impossible to know just how serious the issues are that the review identifies; whether there is a big problem, small problem or no problem.

A reader doesn’t know if BC Housing is an unmitigated disaster or only in need of fine tuning – as well as a major investment in IT. In some cases, it’s not clear that there is a problem.

For example, EY recommend that BC Housing’s priorities be aligned with the Province’s, who EY refers to as the shareholder (Ex. Summary and pg. 30/1), but they don’t say what the priorities of each are now and how they are not aligned.

A visit to BC Housing’s website, where BC Housing’s and the Province’s policies and priorities can easily be found in BC Housing’s Service Plans and in the Minister’s mandate letter respectively, and one can see that their priorities are, in fact, well aligned.

Before criticizing BC Housing for not collecting the data needed to monitor their programs, the report should have described the data BC Housing collects now and how it is used. Before recommending that BC Housing improve its documentation, as the EY report does in several places, it would be good to describe what BC Housing documents now and where the gaps are, something the EY report doesn’t do.

This problem pervades the report. To be useful it needs to, but rarely does, contrast what BC Housing does now with what the authors think BC Housing should be doing.

An example: EY recommend BC Housing improve its documentation while noting in the report that BC Housing’s documentation they reviewed for projects (pg. 36) and for selecting operators of non-profit housing providers (pg. 45) was complete and thorough – though this doesn’t appear in EY’s Findings.

Having said that, EY note that there are few sites for supportive and women’s transition housing, and approval of projects under these programs is necessarily opportunistic, but then complain that there isn’t evaluation criteria for them.

However, the programs themselves include the criteria a project needs to satisfy to qualify for funding (BC Housing’s Program Guide on BC Hsg.’s website). Evaluation criteria are required if there is competition for funding which in the case of these programs there isn’t. EY doesn’t describe the programs or how decisions are made, so a reader might think there is no process at all, and we have the story in June 28’s Vancouver Sun on the Kitsilano supportive housing project stating that the BC Housing board was fired because “the agency sometimes handed out multi-million dollar contracts without a rigorous process to ensure the best provider was chosen” when the EY review says no such thing. The report is saturated with generality (a lot of may be this and may be that) and provides few specifics or concrete examples.

For example, on the question of outcomes, which EY contrasts to outputs, units for BC Housing, it recommends BC Housing re-introduce measures of success it once used but doesn’t 2 say what those measures were (pg. 30).

The implication is that EY is recommending that BC Housing’s outcomes should include things that can’t be measured, like improving access to affordable housing, or measures BC Housing can’t control, like reducing homelessness; if society manufactures homelessness faster than BC Housing can provide shelters and supportive housing, homelessness will increase through no fault of BC Housing!

Actually the outcome that matters, and which BC Housing does control, is that every social and supportive housing unit BC Housing subsidizes be occupied by a person or family who would otherwise be paying too much for housing, be inadequately housed, or be homeless.

This data BC Housing does collect and, through its processes (stringent as non-profit providers can attest), is an outcome that BC Housing measures and monitors closely.

The provision of safe, secure and affordable homes (as opposed to units) is the outcome that matters, and needs to be and is BC Housing’s primary focus.

I could go on, but will try not to. But just a couple more examples. EY notes that in one case a subsidy payment was made before the operating agreement was signed, and on that basis recommends controls be put in place to ensure it never happens again (Recommendation 5-11).

But they don’t say why it happened; was it an oversight or was it because of some urgent circumstance, such as having to move homeless into a building before documents could be finalized? If the latter, then what would the proposed control do? Leave a building empty for a month or two?

The facts matter and EY doesn’t provide them.

Another example is EY’s recommendation that BC Housing conduct variance analysis, in particular as regards inflation, as they question whether the 3% estimate used in 2021 is still appropriate.

What they don’t do is describe is how BC Housing already deals with variances and, in particular, inflation. To imply that BC Housing doesn’t now is a cheap shot.

BC Housing is in contact with contractors daily and reviews non-profit operator budgets continually. It has better information than most as to inflation pressures. It doesn’t need EY to tell them to do the obvious.

And a last one: EY criticizes BC Housing for not reviewing it’s policies every 3 – 5 years but don’t tell us what the current review process is. Are its policies never reviewed, how often, how many fail the 3-5 year test? Is it a big or small problem or what? A minor example, but typical.

In short, the EY review is not the devastating critique that some think it is. The problems it identifies are largely the result of BC Housing’s rapid growth (BC Housing’s work and budget more than doubling in the past 5 years in response to the affordable housing crisis), and the consequences of the Covid pandemic, in particular on BC Housing’s capacity to do its work due to staffing shortfalls.

The most serious need EY identifies is upgrading the IT systems. Will Treasury Board fund that? It won’t be cheap. Much of the rest is ‘i’ dotting and ’t’ crossing.

So why the EY review and why what appears to be the Minister’s overreaction to it? Supposedly the review was motivated by the Little Mountain fiasco.

But the review doesn’t discuss Little Mountain, and its recommendations do not address how to avoid similar decisions being made in the future. This isn’t surprising, since the Little Mtn. deal was politically driven – get as big a price as possible to boost operating revenue in an election year, so the government of the day could claim a balanced budget, even if it meant leaving the site vacant for a decade or two.

What other reason then? Well, the fact that implementation of 19 of the 44 recommendations are to be led by the Chief Financial Officer, and only 5 by Development Services and 2 by Operations, the divisions that actually deliver and provide affordable housing, is a clue.

EY recommends that the role of Finance be “elevated” and that Finance should be embedded in all the departments where it should “take ownership for and actively manage the financial drivers of value” (Fig. 4) whatever that means – might give us another clue.

Even the IT recommendations are to be led by the CFO, which doesn’t make much sense given that EY recommends the CIO report directly to the CEO.

And it is interesting that Finance is 3 seen by EY as representing the shareholder’s (the Province’s) interests within BC Housing, see Recommendation 2-4, when surely that is one of the Board’s key roles.

It’s hard not to think that the review is the result of accountants hiring accountants to recommend more power to accountants!

And so it is not surprising the new board consists of 5 finance focused current and former senior bureaucrats and 2 indigenous business leaders. And I suppose also not surprising, though it should be, that it doesn’t include anyone with real experience in housing development, either from the for-profit or non-profit sector, or a tenant, or anyone with experience in operating housing, either from the for- profit or non-profit sector, or anyone from the services sector.

What I suspect is happening is that the keepers of the purse in Victoria (Treasury Board and Finance) want to rein in BC Housing, and the Province’s investment in housing in general, as they are concerned that the cost may double again over the next 5 years.

This is, in fact, a valid concern. Even if the land and construction costs are paid for, supportive housing for high need populations (homeless, substance users, mentally ill) requires on-going annual subsidies so every new building requires an increase in BC Housing’s annual operating budgets.

It’s not as if the Province doesn’t have a lot on its plate: rebuilding Lytton, the Coquihalla, the debt hangover from Covid, health care capacity, reconciliation, etc. That said, housing affordability and homelessness remain a crisis in BC.

My guess is that the affordable housing commitments the government has made will take a lot longer to fulfill than originally promised and may shrink. It is not surprising that the Minister has said that his housing priority as Premier will be affordable housing for the middle class, which costs a lot less/unit than housing for the homeless and other high need populations. It seems the government doesn’t want to come out and admit that the cost of meeting its affordable housing commitments (see the Minister’s mandate letter) is more than a challenge, and may exceed the Province’s capacity or willingness to pay, so have used this review as cover, hoping or pretending that by implementing its recommendations “to gain efficiencies and creating more capacity” (Executive Summary) aka ‘doing more with less’ which, unfortunately, usually means doing less, and often with more – more reviews, more monitoring, more reports, and more delay.

So even if the EY review is not the condemnation of BC Housing as some think, commentators may be right in thinking the Province is about to declare, not just housing supply, but even housing affordability and homelessness, to be problems caused by and therefore to be solved by municipalities at their expense.

 

 

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Why the difference in public reactions to upzoning for two big projects: Heather Lands and Jericho Lands

April 12th, 2022 · No Comments

Too long to do this as a screenshot, but here’s an interesting email someone (identifying as initials “PC”) sent me on this recent Twitter question.

You mentioned the difference in reactions between the Jericho and Heather Lands, wondering why one project is facing an organised NIMBY revolt and the other is basically being ignored:
“So it’s actually further along than Jericho and yet, as far as I can tell, there has been little or no public commentary. (Probably something out there but nothing like the current Jericho debate.) Why is that? Same FSR, similar concepts, also some towers.”
I’m not a social scientist, but using Jens’ excellent census mapper, I’d suggest a good portion of the reason for this difference in reaction lies with the racial/ethnic make-up of the two neighbourhoods. There’s a pretty clear difference in visible minority between the neighbourhoods surrounding the Heather Lands, and those surrounding Jericho:
In the census block immediately to the East of the Heather Lands, visible minorities make up over 80% of the population. In the census blocks surrounding Jericho, visible minorities make up 15-30%.
You can also look at the difference in how different neighbourhoods reacted to the Cambie Corridor rezoning of the last decade. I took part in the Douglas Park workshops organized by the City in 2015-2016. I was the only one at the table who argued in favour of even modest density in that neighbourhood (and the City had already taken the decision prior to the workshops of only allowing density along the Cambie and King Ed arterials). At most, the others at my table were ok with townhouses along King Ed.
I don’t know if you remember it, but here’s a prime example of how vociferous Douglas Park’s NIMBY’s are:
In sharp contrast, I don’t recall even a hint of controversy last year when this 19 storey rental tower was proposed for Columbia Park, also part of the Cambie Corridor, but about 15 blocks South, in the neighbourhood East of Oakridge and South of 41st:
Visible Minority of Columbia Park: 78%
Visible Minority of Douglas Park: 25-40%
I can only imagine how Douglas Park would implode at the thought of a 19-storey tower anywhere in this neighbourhood, especially based on how they’re reacting to the idea of a couple of 4-5 storey condo buildings on the old Balfour Lands:
“It’s often said gentle density proposed under a community plan would be warmly welcomed across #Vancouver. Perhaps some near Douglas Park missed that memo, as they’re vehemently opposed to this mix of strata, market & moderate income rental homes”
That diversion aside, and back to your original question: in terms of the difference between Heather and Jericho, I don’t think it’s a question of age, since the neighbourhoods around Heather tend to skew slightly older than those around Jericho:
I also don’t think it’s a question of income level, since the census areas to the East of Heather have slightly higher incomes than many of the areas around Jericho:

I don’t know if the Canadian Census tracks household wealth (vs just income), but maybe there’s a bit of a difference there between the two.

Anyway, that’s my two cents on this. Happy to read/hear about other possible explanations for this broad difference in NIMBY reactions.

 

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Damaged Vancouver seawalls will be a massive repair job, prompt re-think of how to deal with shores as tides and sea levels rise

January 11th, 2022 · No Comments

My first story of the new year. I hope it’s not going to be a year of just one disaster after another.

After a severe winter storm that crumbled portions of Stanley Park’s seawall and hurled logs and other debris across area beaches last week, the Vancouver Park Board says it has no idea how much time or money it will take to undertake repairs of long stretches of waterfront.

The damage from the king-tide surge that coincided with high winds last Friday is prompting the city’s park commissioners to consider what to prioritize as they expect a multimillion-dollar repair bill. Those choices include delaying or abandoning a planned restoration of the Jericho Pier on the Kitsilano shore, which had been closed already because of previous storm damage.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Civic campaign 2022: Ken Sim speech at ABC party dinner Oct. 13

October 29th, 2021 · No Comments

NOMINATION SPEECH
KEN SIM FOR MAYOR 2022
A BETTER CITY VANCOUVER

 Wednesday, October 13th, 2021

 FLOATA SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
180 Keefer St, Chinatown

Vancouver, BC V6A 1X4

I want to acknowledge that are on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples and I want to thank them for hosting us.

Thank you Elder Howard Grant for that wonderful welcome.

Floata restaurant for hosting such a wonderful dinner.

As a lot of you know, I am the son of immigrants

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

A portrait of Philip Owen from the early years

October 1st, 2021 · No Comments

Former mayor Philip Owen died today. Many, many memories of him. Here’s a very early profile I did of him at the Vancouver Sun in 1996.

It’s close to midnight and, on the third floor at Vancouver city hall, the lighted windows are going dark, one by one. The man walking through the council offices turning out the lights and shutting the windows is Philip Owen. The mayor. Owen has gone through the stack of city reports coming up at next week’s council meeting. On each report, no matter how mundane — a lane closure, a copper tubing contract — there are notes, underlinings, highlighting, question marks.

Later, with the list of addresses of every city site mentioned, he makes a point that week of driving by to take a look at each one: the lane that is going to be closed, the house that is going to be demolished, the downtown block that is going to be rezoned.

Owen is getting ready to do the mayor’s monthly talk show in his office — an hour during which the general public is free to call in and complain about dog poop in the parks, motorcycle noise in the West End, and the city’s stupid new garbage fee. As he waits around in his TV make-up for the program to start, I ask how he likes the television format. He answers with boyish anxiety: “Well, you’ll see how it is. But with you here tonight, maybe someone will call in and I’ll goof.”

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

As government money for social housing climbs, communities are in debates as they see proposals for new projects of a type they’ve never had before

May 31st, 2021 · No Comments

My story in the Globe is here and also in text below. I’m also appending below the police statistics I got on calls to addresses of all the supportive-housing projects built since 2010.

B.C. Housing is proposing a 12-storey building with 140 studio apartments geared for very low-income singles at a key intersection next to the new Arbutus SkyTrain station.

It has been 9 years since any social housing was built in Kitsilano, a Vancouver neighbourhood once known for its counterculture leanings that has since become an increasingly high-end enclave of extensively renovated older homes.

The Arbutus Co-op, a multiunit high-rise, and the Alumnae Manor, a seniors’ housing project, went up in 2002 in the last dribble of subsidized housing built in the area. Except for one project from 1991 and another in 2012, the rest of the subsidized housing in the area is mostly mixed-income, low-rise co-ops or seniors’ housing from the 1960s through to the 80s.

So a recent proposal from B.C. Housing comes as a wake-up call for the Kitsilano community – announced in February, the plan calls for a 12-storey building with 140 studio apartments geared for very low-income singles at a key intersection next to the new Arbutus SkyTrain station – the size and type of building that has not been seen in Vancouver beyond the Downtown Eastside.

 

The lack of details around the proposal has left current residents trying to figure out what the plan means for their neighbourhood – some are concerned, while others welcome it as a solution to the city’s ongoing problems with homelessness and lack of affordable housing.

Such divisions are likely to continue as the federal government, province and municipalities push to tackle these issues after many years where little was done to address the growing housing crisis in much of the country.

Not only is the pace of social-housing funding increasing from all three levels of government, but the flood of new initiatives has resulted in buildings being proposed in neighbourhoods that have not seen low-cost housing projects in decades.

Progress on city’s pledge to build much-needed social housing in Vancouver remains stalled

Vancouver’s affordable housing announcements remain unfulfilled years later

Many of the new proposals are also specifically for supportive housing, not just affordable units. Supportive housing encompasses projects designed to house those with the lowest incomes, with assistance provided for residents on site – ranging from meal programs and housekeeping to mental-health and addiction services.

In addition to the west-end Kitsilano proposal, the February B.C. Housing announcement included another, similar supportive-housing project in east Vancouver at King Edward Avenue and Knight Street.

In Kitsilano, one neighbourhood group, called Parents for Thoughtful City Planning, says their research unearthed some worst-case scenarios, such as a news account of a social-housing resident in Victoria who had guns and machetes in his room; the raft of police calls at the 147-unit Marguerite Ford building in the Olympic Village when it first opened in 2013; and ongoing complaints from nearby condo residents about garbage, drug paraphernalia and low-level crime.

“We’re opposed to more of the same,” group member Charlene Kettlewell said as she relayed the list. She and other group members, many of them connected to the private St. Augustine elementary Catholic school across the street from the proposed housing project, are concerned about adding more buildings to the area that they say will be too big, filled with too many residents and only increase problems in the neighbourhood.

But Lindsey Murphy, who lives a few blocks away from Ms. Kettlewell in a co-op with her children, says the social-housing buildings she’s familiar with are working well – a hopeful sign, she notes.

“I don’t think the Marguerite Ford is an accurate comparison,” she says. “It was built before [B.C. Housing] used a vulnerability-assessment tool to assess what residents need.”

Ms. Murphy points to a different project, the Kettle on Burrard – which provides housing and support services for adult and youth tenants at risk of homelessness – as a successful example resulting from the careful assessment of what residents might require to be fully supported in their new home.

Ms. Murphy and other supporters have formed their own group, Kitsilano for Inclusivity, and say it’s time for the neighbourhood to do its part in housing the city’s poorest residents.

“I understand the hesitancy and the fear,” she says. “A lot of it has to do with the stigmas – we see this every time one of these buildings is proposed. By and large, a lot of things have been proven not to be true.”

Ms. Murphy, who is president of her housing co-op and a member of the Canadian Housing Renewal Association’s tenant leadership group, has a lot of familiarity with the issues. Many other local residents don’t – something that housing operators acknowledge.

“I think it’s challenging in Vancouver right now because supportive-housing buildings are going into neighbourhoods where they haven’t been before,” says Tanya Fader, who oversees the management of hundreds of apartments for the non-profit PHS Community Services Society in 20 buildings throughout the region.

Newer developments result in entire neighbourhoods of people trying to understand how social-housing residents are selected, what kinds of supports they receive, how housing operators will connect with the community and many other related questions.

They don’t get always get the answers they’re seeking out, however.

Residents who live near the planned Arbutus project who are concerned about its size say it’s been frustrating that B.C. Housing has compared the project in community meetings with a three-storey building – an example that they say does not seem like what is actually being proposed. As well, early efforts at public engagement didn’t include the St. Augustine school across the street because TransLink mistakenly sent an email regarding the outreach to a school with the same name in Newfoundland.

Residents who have concerns about the project say they don’t know at this point how new residents will be chosen for the building, or any details about the vulnerability assessment tool (VAT) that has been used by B.C. Housing and non-profit housing providers since 2014.

The assessment, which B.C. imported from Seattle, aims to provide a picture for housing providers about what kind of support future residents might need, from basic survival skills to mental-health counselling. That allows building managers to decide how many and what type of staff will be needed, and to help ensure of a mix of residents.

“We do want to achieve a balance. That’s the key to success,” said Damian Murphy, the manager of Kettle on Burrard, one of the housing projects managed by the Kettle Society, which provides community services and advocacy to empower those living with mental illness, addiction, poverty and homelessness (the organization is not being considered as an operator for the Arbutus project).

The Kettle building is one of 14 supportive-housing projects constructed during a big push from the previous B.C. Liberal government, which came along with a memorandum of agreement that included two formulas about who should get one of the 1,400 apartments that were created.

One formula outlined that 50 per cent of people offered such housing should be those truly living on the street, 30 per cent should be those who were precariously housed (sleeping on a sofa at a friend’s, for example) and 20 per cent should be people at risk of losing their housing through situations such as renovictions or rent increases.

The second formula also spelled out that 50 per cent of the future residents in a social-housing building should be low-needs, 40 per cent medium-needs and only 10 per cent high-needs.

“Definitely the size of the building does play a role, but it depends on how it is managed,” Mr. Murphy said. “Some operators get bids because their budget is low – they only have two staff altogether. That’s not enough.”

At the Kettle on Burrard, there are 11 permanent staff and nine relief workers, plus a maintenance team. Because it’s a 24/7 operation, that means there are typically two people on shift at a time, with visiting specialists coming in for specific activities and services at various points.

Ms. Fader said PHS uses the same approach and has similar staffing levels.

“I review every referral that comes through and discuss with the managers, ‘Where is this person going to be the most set up for success?’ We’re always trying to figure out the balance.”

Too many high-needs residents can overwhelm staff. People who are prone to starting fires or to hoarding need to be in concrete buildings, Ms. Fader explained. Some people need to be near the mental-health team they’re already connected to.

But nervous resident groups sometimes default to the bits of data occasionally provided by police about the number of police calls to the most high-profile buildings.

Vancouver police records requested by The Globe and Mail show that the range of calls to the city’s 14 supportive-housing buildings ranged in 2020 from a low of four calls at the Broadway Youth Resources tower at Fraser and Broadway Streets, to 789 calls at the Alexander Street community housing tower at 111 Princess St., managed by PHS. The Kettle on Burrard had 90 calls, the McLaren Housing Society building on Howe Street had 95, while The Budzy, also on Princess Street, had 305.

Among the city’s temporary modular housing projects, which typically have around 40 units, the police calls in 2020 ranged from 333 to the project near the Olympic Village station to eight at a cluster on Heather Street in the Marpole area.

But as housing advocates point out, such statistics are not an accurate measure, since the call volume can stem from anything such as irate neighbours phoning in, a resident who is obsessively calling 911 or issues on the street nearby.

Meanwhile, there is no available data on non-profit agencies’ track record in managing such housing projects. Nor is there precise information on how calls to police might be a reflection of an agency’s willingness – or not – to take on difficult residents who may have been kicked out of other places. Some PHS buildings will have more challenging residents, Ms. Fader said, because the organization does not evict people who are likely to end up on the street.

Residents who live near existing supportive or transitional housing say they find it difficult to assess what issues might be connected to already existing problems in their neighbourhoods, and what might be related to the realities of those with high needs living in social housing.

Non-profit housing managers emphasize that neighbourhood concerns often go down when residents are able to connect with the group that will be running the building. So far, B.C. Housing has not announced which non-profit organizations will manage the two new proposed supportive-housing towers. When that information is made public and the project progresses, residents will have an opportunity to engage with those organizations, Ms. Fader explained.

“When we were opening places in False Creek, there were a lot of concerned seniors,” Ms. Fader recalled. “Once we told them how involved our staff were, you could see the weight roll off their shoulders.”

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the last social housing was built 19 years ago. It was nine years ago. Also, it was TransLink that sent an email to the wrong neighbourhood school, not the city.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Many social-housing announcements and approvals in Vancouver, not so much getting built

May 28th, 2021 · No Comments

I got an email from someone back in January with a list of social-housing projects that had been announced going back a few years, asking what had happened. At first, I thought it might be a problem with BC Housing funding and rules. That probably plays a part, but the bigger issue turned out to be the city’s increasingly slow planning and permitting processes, as I found when I started compiling all the statistics.

 

FRANCES BULA

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Building an infill/laneway, Part 4: Do you have the stamina, interest, location to make this doable?

February 17th, 2021 · No Comments

My neighbour spent $40,000 going down the road to building an infill house on his lot, with a plan almost identical to ours. He actually started a little before I did, also hoping for a place for their son, his wife and toddler.

But he gave up after a couple of years into the same process I went through. He and his wife sold at the top of the market to what turned out to be an investor buyer, and their young relatives, who had camped at the house with them for a while, moved somewhere else in the city.

We kept going because we felt we had no options. And, as well, I had prepared myself and everyone else at the beginning: “Be patient,” I was warned. “Anything can happen. There will be twists and turns.”

That’s the kind of thing anyone is going to have to weigh as they contemplate whether to house a whole other family on their existing lot, along with many other factors.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Building an infill/laneway, Part 3: The part where I pay all the bills and the construction happens

February 17th, 2021 · No Comments

The Bula laneway house started to take shape on March 25, 2020.

Here is my unsolicited advice to those who build infills and laneway houses for us amateur developers.

There should be prenatal classes before construction starts.

A class where someone teaches you how to keep breathing deeply and staying calm when the budget-prep person at your builder tells you your project will now cost $100,000 or so more than you thought. Or when drugs are an acceptable option in the event that you get called out into the backyard to hear the construction supervisor say they’ll have to chop down a favourite tree to put in some new piece of required-by-the-city-for-the-first-time-ever plumbing infrastructure that will, by the way, cost an additional $10,000.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized

Building a laneway/infill in Vancouver, Part 2: Two years of tussles over buildable space, sidewalks, trees, much more

February 4th, 2021 · No Comments

Part 2 of the series, the link and the text below. (Sorry no pix because I can only reprint what belongs to me, not the Globe.)

The low point in Phase 2 of the Ironman slog to build our infill house for my husband’s daughter and her family came when my patient architect let me know the people at city hall were suggesting we might have to decommission our existing basement suite.

That suite, where daughter No. 2 was living, would need to have the stove removed and stairs to the main floor put back in if we wanted to avoid the city requiring us to build in two enclosed parking spaces into the ground floor of the laneway.

That seemed like a “both roads lead to hell” scenario. One: Keep basement suite, provide housing for extra car, create architectural abomination, add costs. Two: Keep laneway house as non-grotesque building, lose suite, force daughter two to move to have some privacy, lose rent money.

That suggestion quietly floated away after a few weeks.

But it was one of several stomach-lurching dips in the roller coaster that we, inexperienced homeowners, went through during the year-long phase that comes before you ever apply for your development and building permits. It’s a year of long negotiations that precedes the second nearly-year-long wait between official application and actual granting of permits.

[Read more →]

→ No CommentsTags: Uncategorized