I appreciate your coverage of this proposal. But we are still thinking too small! Please no more laneways and basements, these have poor light, feel cramped, and too close to garbage collection and often ugly lanes. No family of four aspires to live in either.
What is wrong with adding density and giving people the dignity to live in an apartment or townhome of 1400 sq ft? In my opinion this is the minimum space to be comfortable with a family of four - others may have other numbers but I think this one is right.
Think of stacked flats in London - a lower ground floor that is not fully below grade so it gets nice light and can have a patio, and 3 or 3.5 storeys above. a footprint of around 1500 sq ft and some small setbacks and outdoor space on each floor. Total max 6000 sq ft on a 33 ft lots gives FSR of 1.5. with three parking spots in the rear plus two street spots that is 5 for 4 units. Or alter the configuration so not all flats take the full floorplate and have up to 5 or 6 smaller units. Still I think we need more family sized houses so 4 x 1500 sq ft is ideal.
This can be set up as a coop or with an owner and some rentals or as strata. Variety is important, people want different things from their home. Think BIG! Zoning is needed but currently WAY too restrictive.
Shamai, when I worked on revisions to Vancouver's single family zoning a generation ago, and we (among other results) achieved a yard space between the garage on the lane and the principal residence, I whispered to Dr. Ann McAffee, then co-Director of Planning, after Council passed our proposals, "We've preserved the opportunity for future granny flats!" (what we then called laneway homes), she answered, "Shh, too soon!" What she meant was that neither council nor citizens were ready for more radical changes at that time.
The point of this anecdote is that we achieve progress iteratively, not all at once. It required another decade to get to laneway homes (a concept I reintroduced at the first EcoDensity forum in 2008). I believe Vancouver's small lot residents are ready for the densification of secondary suites (once very illegal) and multiple laneway homes (only legal for about a decade). My post suggests one way to dramatically increase both rental and ownership homes; you are suggesting another, which has merit and may very well be better for families, although more costly since larger.
The city's new political party, 'TEAM for a Livable Vancouver,' of which I am a member, has as one of its key policies the rejuvenation of neighbourhood planning, BUT in the context of planning for population increase as well as better homes for existing residents. We have been meeting with the city's neighbourhoods (more than half to date) to identify their issues and initiatives. But we always start with the premise that we need more affordable housing. Different neighbourhoods have different approaches to achieving that—the city should accommodate many approaches, of which yours might be an option in one or more neighbourhoods.
A main purpose of my post was to move discussion away from the Mayor's simplistic approach to densification—I seem to be having some success in that. I urge you to check out TEAM at https://www.voteteam.ca to see if it might be a match for your vision and perspective.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments—a welcome change from Twitter and Facebook! Take care and stay safe.
Shamai, when I worked on revisions to Vancouver's single family zoning a generation ago, and we (among other results) achieved a yard space between the garage on the lane and the principal residence, I whispered to Dr. Ann McAffee, then co-Director of Planning, after Council passed our proposals, "We've preserved the opportunity for future granny flats!" (what we then called laneway homes), she answered, "Shh, too soon!" What she meant was that neither council nor citizens were ready for more radical changes at that time.
The point of this anecdote is that we achieve progress iteratively, not all at once. It required another decade to get to laneway homes (a concept I reintroduced at the first EcoDensity forum in 2008). I believe Vancouver's small lot residents are ready for the densification of secondary suites (once very illegal) and multiple laneway homes (only legal for about a decade). My post suggests one way to dramatically increase both rental and ownership homes; you are suggesting another, which has merit and may very well be better for families, although more costly since larger.
The city's new political party, 'TEAM for a Livable Vancouver,' of which I am a member, has as one of its key policies the rejuvenation of neighbourhood planning, BUT in the context of planning for population increase as well as better homes for existing residents. We have been meeting with the city's neighbourhoods (more than half to date) to identify their issues and initiatives. But we always start with the premise that we need more affordable housing. Different neighbourhoods have different approaches to achieving that—the city should accommodate many approaches, of which yours might be an option in one or more neighbourhoods.
A main purpose of my post was to move discussion away from the Mayor's simplistic approach to densification—I seem to be having some success in that. I urge you to check out TEAM at https://www.voteteam.ca to see if it might be a match for your vision and perspective.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments—a welcome change from Twitter and Facebook! Take care and stay safe.
I appreciate your coverage of this proposal. But we are still thinking too small! Please no more laneways and basements, these have poor light, feel cramped, and too close to garbage collection and often ugly lanes. No family of four aspires to live in either.
What is wrong with adding density and giving people the dignity to live in an apartment or townhome of 1400 sq ft? In my opinion this is the minimum space to be comfortable with a family of four - others may have other numbers but I think this one is right.
Think of stacked flats in London - a lower ground floor that is not fully below grade so it gets nice light and can have a patio, and 3 or 3.5 storeys above. a footprint of around 1500 sq ft and some small setbacks and outdoor space on each floor. Total max 6000 sq ft on a 33 ft lots gives FSR of 1.5. with three parking spots in the rear plus two street spots that is 5 for 4 units. Or alter the configuration so not all flats take the full floorplate and have up to 5 or 6 smaller units. Still I think we need more family sized houses so 4 x 1500 sq ft is ideal.
This can be set up as a coop or with an owner and some rentals or as strata. Variety is important, people want different things from their home. Think BIG! Zoning is needed but currently WAY too restrictive.
Shamai, when I worked on revisions to Vancouver's single family zoning a generation ago, and we (among other results) achieved a yard space between the garage on the lane and the principal residence, I whispered to Dr. Ann McAffee, then co-Director of Planning, after Council passed our proposals, "We've preserved the opportunity for future granny flats!" (what we then called laneway homes), she answered, "Shh, too soon!" What she meant was that neither council nor citizens were ready for more radical changes at that time.
The point of this anecdote is that we achieve progress iteratively, not all at once. It required another decade to get to laneway homes (a concept I reintroduced at the first EcoDensity forum in 2008). I believe Vancouver's small lot residents are ready for the densification of secondary suites (once very illegal) and multiple laneway homes (only legal for about a decade). My post suggests one way to dramatically increase both rental and ownership homes; you are suggesting another, which has merit and may very well be better for families, although more costly since larger.
The city's new political party, 'TEAM for a Livable Vancouver,' of which I am a member, has as one of its key policies the rejuvenation of neighbourhood planning, BUT in the context of planning for population increase as well as better homes for existing residents. We have been meeting with the city's neighbourhoods (more than half to date) to identify their issues and initiatives. But we always start with the premise that we need more affordable housing. Different neighbourhoods have different approaches to achieving that—the city should accommodate many approaches, of which yours might be an option in one or more neighbourhoods.
A main purpose of my post was to move discussion away from the Mayor's simplistic approach to densification—I seem to be having some success in that. I urge you to check out TEAM at https://www.voteteam.ca to see if it might be a match for your vision and perspective.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments—a welcome change from Twitter and Facebook! Take care and stay safe.
Shamai, when I worked on revisions to Vancouver's single family zoning a generation ago, and we (among other results) achieved a yard space between the garage on the lane and the principal residence, I whispered to Dr. Ann McAffee, then co-Director of Planning, after Council passed our proposals, "We've preserved the opportunity for future granny flats!" (what we then called laneway homes), she answered, "Shh, too soon!" What she meant was that neither council nor citizens were ready for more radical changes at that time.
The point of this anecdote is that we achieve progress iteratively, not all at once. It required another decade to get to laneway homes (a concept I reintroduced at the first EcoDensity forum in 2008). I believe Vancouver's small lot residents are ready for the densification of secondary suites (once very illegal) and multiple laneway homes (only legal for about a decade). My post suggests one way to dramatically increase both rental and ownership homes; you are suggesting another, which has merit and may very well be better for families, although more costly since larger.
The city's new political party, 'TEAM for a Livable Vancouver,' of which I am a member, has as one of its key policies the rejuvenation of neighbourhood planning, BUT in the context of planning for population increase as well as better homes for existing residents. We have been meeting with the city's neighbourhoods (more than half to date) to identify their issues and initiatives. But we always start with the premise that we need more affordable housing. Different neighbourhoods have different approaches to achieving that—the city should accommodate many approaches, of which yours might be an option in one or more neighbourhoods.
A main purpose of my post was to move discussion away from the Mayor's simplistic approach to densification—I seem to be having some success in that. I urge you to check out TEAM at https://www.voteteam.ca to see if it might be a match for your vision and perspective.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments—a welcome change from Twitter and Facebook! Take care and stay safe.