Bob Ransford's perspective on Hollyburn Mews Vancouver Sun May 10, 2013

 

Shared space on limited supply of land equals affordable housing

West Van’s Hollyburn Mews a good example

By Bob Ransford, Vancouver Sun May 10, 2013

Hollyburn Mews in West Vancouver

In a recent column, I suggested Metro Vancouver municipalities eliminate the single-family zoning so that we can more efficiently use land to satisfy the demand for housing.

Vancouver already permits up to three dwellings on most single family lots — a primary residence, a secondary suite and a laneway in-fill house. With more than 500 laneway houses built or under construction across the city and with mortgage-helping secondary suites ubiquitous not just in Vancouver, but throughout the region, we can see that two or three dwellings on a lot that traditionally only accommodated one works.

This kind of gentle density accomplishes many things. First, it provides housing diversity for an evolving society. An aging population means many people have different housing needs than they did two or three decades ago. Maintaining a large detached home on a big lot just isn’t in the cards any more for a lot of people. Nor does everyone want to live in an apartment building. Ground-oriented housing is still the smartest option for many.

Land prices have made it difficult in recent years to build rental housing. The economics simply don’t work. Using land more efficiently, such as by allowing laneway houses and basement suites, makes the economics of rental housing work at a small scale. Moreover, instead of development on a mass scale by developers, this is development by individual homeowners who can release equity they have built up in their own homes — one lot at a time.

How does the intensification of single-family neighbourhoods work on the ground in real physical form? Well, we’ve seen small cottages sprout up in rear lanes across Vancouver over the last few years. Many have been built along with newly developed houses and others have been infill projects in back yards where the main house remains in place. They work. They are of a scale that doesn’t overwhelm and drastically change the character of the neighbourhood.

Michael Geller recently completed his Hollyburn Mews project in West Vancouver. He redeveloped three side-by-side typical single-family lots. On what would have been each lot, he has sensitively designed and built two 2 1/2 storey side-by-side asymmetrical duplex units that reflect the single-family character along the street. Each duplex looks in scale the same as a single-family house. Each duplex home ranges between about 2,150 and 2,500 square feet, including a basement. 

A 1 1/2 storey coach house, about 1,800 square feet in size, sits behind each duplex. It, too, has a basement. He’s fit in one garage for each home.

What impresses me most about Hollyburn Mews is the sense of community the grouping of three homes creates, with homeowners sharing a small front yard area and an interior outdoor space. Every home has its own private outdoor space, but the shared space promises neighbourliness and daily social interaction. This development — nine units across three lots — creates, in effect, a pocket neighbourhood within a neighbourhood.

What Hollyburn Mews demonstrated to me is that we can fit more dwellings on the limited supply of land in our cities. That means more affordable housing.

In fact, while Geller’s project doesn’t have separate basement suites, the building form could certainly be adapted in a different location to provide them. Each unit — the duplex homes and the coach houses — could have basement rental suites and the design and neighbourhood character would not only work but would likely benefit from it.

So, up to six homes could be sensitively designed on a 50 foot wide by approximate 120 foot deep lot. There would be three basement suites of about 600 to 700 square feet each, a coach house of 1,100 to 1,250 square feet and two duplex units of 1,400 to 1,500 square feet each. Imagine families with a couple of kids living in the duplex homes, young singles in basement suites and active seniors in the coach houses. 

That’s housing diversity and no developer is needed.

This scale of housing, sensitively designed for neighbourly living doesn’t disrupt a neighbourhood. It slowly and gently transforms it, making it better by providing the housing we all need.

Bob Ransford is a public affairs consultant with Counterpoint Communications Inc. He is a former real estate developer who specializes in urban land-use issues. Email: ransford@counterpoint.ca or Twitter:@BobRansford

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/cars/Shared+space+limited+supply+land+equals+affordable+housing/8367594/story.html#ixzz2Sw6c8L2n

"Why are we going to let West Vancouver look like North Vancouver?"

This was the response by one West Vancouver resident at the Public Forum last night organized by the District to seek public input into whether coach houses should be allowed on single family lots. The speaker also noted he had homes in Port Moody, Yaletown, and West Vancouver, but chose West Vancouver since it didn't have any social housing.

Yes, he really said that, to a chorus of boos from the majority of people assembled in the Kay Meek Centre.

Earlier in the day CBC Televison's Meera Bains visited Hollyburn Mews to see what West Vancouver's first legal coach houses look like. While these 1800 sq ft coach house units are just one example of what might be possible, they too were criticized by someone in the audience for only having a single car garage!

West Vancouver is considering a wide range of options to promote coach houses, which are defined as detached dwellings that are accessory to a larger single family house. They are considering appropriate limits on size, form of tenure, etc.  My sense is that the District will copy the best from the Vancouver Laneway Housing program, while introducing its own ideas to improve the program.

My recommendation is that they not offer density bonuses for laneway housing, in an effort to encourage the retention of older homes on the lots.

I also think they should allow basements to reduce the above ground bulk.

In some instances, coach houses should be available for sale as well as for rent.

Eventurally, I would like to see Vancouver incorporate the same ideas into its program.

In the meanwhile, here's some footage of Hollyburn Mews and Stephen Mikicich, the West Vancouver planner who along with Director Bob Sokol is very capably leading this initative.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2384102461/

Coach House Discussion in West Vancouver! Yes West Vancouver May 8th, 2013

 I am pleased to see that West Vancouver is moving forward with a community discussion on considering coach house development in the District. This forthcoming forum on May 8th will be of interest to both West Vancouver residents and other planners and architects around Metro interested in this type of housing.

It is my hope that West Vancouver can learn from the Vancouver experience, and copy the things that worked well, but avoid the mistakes that were made...and yes, there were a few mistakes!

I look forward to seeing some of you at the forum.
For more information go to housing@westvancouver.ca or call 604 925 7055

Hollyburn Mews is NOT SOLD OUT!

I received an email this morning from a West Vancouver resident who complimented me on the look of Hollyburn Mews but assumed all the homes were sold.  I told her that although two homes were sold pre-completion, we decided to delay our marketing program until the landscaping was complete, since I wanted potential buyers to see what they would be getting, especially the outdoor patio areas and gardens.

Well, the landscaping is nearing completion and I'm pleased with the way things are turning out. So in the coming weeks, Elaine Biggan, my Sales Associate, will show the remaining five duplexes and two coach houses by appointment.

As Hadani Ditmars noted in her Globe and Mail story, the planning concept which combines duplexes and coach houses on former single family lots in an established single family neighbourhood is innovative, especially for West Vancouver.  http://tinyurl.com/cje8zw8

Hollyburn Mews has been designed and constructed for households who are ready to downsize, but not downgrade! It is located in the 2000 Block Esquimalt Avenue, one block north of Marine Drive, close to the shops and services of Ambleside and Dundarave Villages and steps away from the West Van Community Centre complex and West Vancouver United Church. The homes range in size from 1810 square feet to 2490 square feet. Careful consideration has been given to the layouts and details, including features to make the homes both accessible and sustainable.

These include stairs designed for chair lifts if required in the future, gas powered 'combi boilers that provide in-floor radiant heat and on-demand domestic hot water http://tinyurl.com/cw4ozmv,
heat recovery ventilation which offers improved energy efficiency and indoor air quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation.

The homes feature state-of-the-art kitchen appliances including a remote-controlled dual drawer dishwasher, an under-counter wine fridge, and panelled double door European liebherr refrigerators  http://www.liebherr-appliances.com/


I've also included details that hark back to a by-gone era, including dutch doors, wainscoting, porches front and back, and the extensive use of carrera marble.

Architects are Formwerks; the landscape architect is Jane Durante; the contractor is Trasolini-Chetner and the interior staging of the model home is by Decora. Engineers include Nemetz Associates-Electrical, Thomas Leung-Structural, Creus-Civil and Level 5-Envelope. Davies Geotechnical is responsible for the significant extra costs I incurred to ensure the buildings will never settle and basements will not leak!

To learn more about Hollyburn Mews you can visit our website www.hollyburnmewshomes.com.  Or call Elaine Biggan at 604 880 4559 or email me geller@sfu.ca.

I welcome your comments and  appreciate your interest.

The SFU City Conversation: Where is big too big?

Where is Big TOO Big?

Vancouver has had periodic debates over heights of new buildings, first in downtown, then in some neighbourhoods like Mt. Pleasant. Successive councils have allowed developers to build taller buildings than zoning would otherwise allow, in trade for developers’ donations of parks, preservation of historic buildings, day care centres, recreation facilities and other public amenities.
But where is the tradeoff inappropriate? That’s the discussion around an interesting proposal on Helmcken St. at Richards St. Brenhill Developments is proposing to replace a deteriorating city social house, with a far larger social residence and other amenities, in trade for constructing a much taller residential tower than zoning now allows.
Public benefits? Too tall? To frame the discussion, we’re very pleased to host Vancouver City Councillor Raymond Louie, former planning director Brent Toderian, and architect/developer Michael Geller. Then it’s your turn. Feel free to bring your lunch.

So what did I have to say?  Here are some notes I prepared for the event.
 

“When you’re sitting in the bathtub with the hot water running, how do you know when to shout?”

I first shouted about the scale of some new Vancouver developments a year ago when I wrote a blog posting in response of a number of developments that in my opinion, as an architect and planner…were too big.  But they were often justified because they offered greater affordability or sustainability.http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca/2012/03/what-hell-is-going-on-in-this-city.html

Today’s discussion was prompted in part by Tweets I posted expressing concern with a proposal for a 17.4 FSR building on Helmcken.  For those of you who don’t know what 17.4 FSR means, it’s about 3 times the permitted FSR for Downtown South or 10 times the density of the high rise district in Kerrisdale.

Now, normally I’m the one advocating for more height or density;  today I’m going to be arguing that some developments in Vancouver are being approved at heights and densities that are not justifiable in terms of context, good planning, but rather because they offer exceptional public amenities or affordable housing or both.

Put crudely, the City and other Metro municipalities occasionally approve developments at densities higher than might normally be appropriate because of the substantial CAC’s or other public benefits being offered by or extracted from the developers.

I know that Brent and Raymond are going to dismiss my concerns by assuring me that they would never approve a building that’s too large just because of the benefits…in other words…they would never allow form to follow finance….they will say they first determine an acceptable building form…then they negotiate the $$$. 

I would argue that form should follow fit, not finance!

I will confess my views on this topic are somewhat influenced by Ray Spaxman.  I recall when I was a member of the City’s Development Permit Board Advisory Panel and a proposal came forward around 1984 for a large but very plain rental building complex on the north shore of False Creek. It was argued that it should be approved because it would provide much needed housing for EXPO 86 and beyond.  I recall Jimmy Pattison, then in charge of EXPO, urging us to approve it.

I recall Spaxman questioning why we should approve a rather unattractive building on a prominent site  just because it was needed for EXPO 86 and offered rental housing.  However, if I recall correctly, the Board approved the project, but fortunately it was never built. Today, the site is occupied by 888 Beach, one of Vancouver’s best waterfront developments.

In coming here today, I acknowledge that design and planning are highly subjective.  

I also know that often it doesn’t matter whether a building is 20 storeys or 22 storeys…what matters more is what’s happening at the ground plane or the size of the floorplate…or the detailed design of the building, the materials, the balcony details and so on

As others have suggested to me, the FSR calculation is a blunt instrument.

I agree…but when I see a proposal for a 17.4 FSR building for a site on Helmcken, I start to worry…It wasn’t that long ago I was advocating for 4 or 5 FSR for the area. Have things really changed that much in two decades.

So what’s the rationale for such a high density on what is a City-owned site?  In a somewhat complex transaction, the developer is proposing a lot of social housing units and rental housing and other community benefits.  And on its own, it’s not an unattractive building….it's across from a park, but just happens to be on a small site.  

(I would add that it has a 10,300 sq.ft. floorplate and ten levels of underground parking for about 500 cars)

I had similar concerns with the PCI development at Marine and Cambie.  To my mind, it too was too big. I once expressed my concerns on Frances Bula’s blog and asked, what is the justification for the size of this complex…did the developer pay too much for the land?  Is the city seeking too many amenities?  Is there too much rental housing?

Later that day I received a confidential email from a City planner who said the answer to these questions was yes.  She wrote that she and others in planning were also uncomfortable with the scale and massing of the complex, but had essentially been instructed to make it work. 

Time will tell if our concerns were valid.

Another development that troubled me was the Rize in Mount Pleasant. Again, time will tell if my concerns are valid, but I contend that this building form was driven by the CAC package.  Now, in 20 years there will be other large buildings around it so maybe we won’t care. But for a few years to come, I predict this building will be out of scale and detract somewhat from the neighbourhood.

Two other recent examples are 1401 Comox that was approved at 5 times the permitted FSR since it was rental (I hesitate to criticize it since I admire the architects and developer) but if this had been a condo the proposed density would never have been approved…it was approved because it was rental.

I am also troubled by the new development in the 900 Block East Hastings.  It looks like 12 floors of stacked containers, so I should like it.  But it too is too big for the context.  When I asked the developer about this…a very good developer I might add, he said the city was insisting that he develop and donate, yes donate 70 social housing units as part of the zoning trade-off.  He was also having to build light industrial space.   

Well hello….the site was zoned for light industrial.  This project is over 6 FSR and it may ultimately 

be an interesting building to look at…but now others are now buying sites assuming 6 FSR will be approved for them too. I worry what this area will look like with a parade of 6 FSR developments.

Furthermore, if 6 FSR is considered appropriate along East Hastings, why isn’t it acceptable everywhere?   

Arthur Erickson once said something in a radio interview that is quite germane to this conversation.  He said it was important for any new development to relate to its surroundings.  When the interviewer noted the surroundings will likely change over time, Erickson agreed, but added future buildings will relate to his building and change will happen incrementally. 

I support an incremental approach to increasing heights and density. But that’s not what’s happening…just look around 70^th and Granville or along Kingsway…these new developments do not relate to their surroundings…but they each offered a package of community amenities, rental housing, social housing, or cash that the City found too hard to refuse. 

Last year the City received $180 million from developers in return for site rezonings. Many people will say that’s great, it means taxes didn’t go up so much…but I still worry that we’re letting housing affordability, and CAC packages drive building forms that may ultimately detract from the design quality of our city that we have enjoyed for so many decades. 

Form should follow fit, not finance.

City of Vancouverf Chief Housing Officer

During the 2008 Municipal Election, I remember debating with Geoff Meggs and Ellen Woodsworth whether Vancouver should create a Housing Corporation to oversee development on City owned lands, etc. Having worked with the Vancouver Housing Corp in the 70's (remember Morris Jerroff?) and once being offered a similar position by then Mayor Mike Harcourt (it was never put in writing!) I have often thought about the need/benefits of a Housing Corporation led by a qualified individual.

During the debate, I remember being a bit ambivalent.  If the City hired the right person, who could withstand the substantial political pressure to often do things that didn't make economic or social sense, then it might be worthwhile. But if a Housing Corporation was created with the wrong person at the head, then it could be a very expensive and questionable endeavour.

I recently had a call from the headhunter hired by the City to find the right candidate. No, he wasn't calling because he thought I was the guy for the job. He knew much better!  But he did ask me for names, and I provided a few.  However, in case anyone who reads my blog thinks they're the right candidate, or might know someone, below is the Job Notice.  Good luck....for all of us!

Chief Housing Officer

City of Vancouver

The City of Vancouver is the largest city in British Columbia and recognized internationally as one

of the most livable cities in the world. It has an annual operating budget in excess of $1 billion, and a

staff count of almost 10,000. As one of the most d

esirable cities in the world constrained by

geography and faced with a rapidly increasing population, Vancouver faces significant housing

challenges. As a result, providing housing options that are affordable, accessible and suitable for all

income levels

and residents has been identified as a key mandate and poses one of the biggest

challenges facing the City of Vancouver.

The City of Vancouver recently developed a 10 year strategic housing plan with the goal of ending

street homelessness and increasing

affordable housing choices. There now exists an opportunity for

a senior leader with relevant experience to take on the critical and high profile role of Chief Housing

Officer and make a lasting impact on the City of Vancouver.

In this strategic role, th

e Chief Housing Officer’s mandate will be to lead

the various departments

and groups across

the City in the achievement of its housing goals and objectives. This will not be

an administratively focused role; rather, the role will focus on

identifying strat

egic partners and

opportunities, assessing the economic metrics for success of each,

providing high level oversight to

current and potential projects, and seeking out additional

examples and options for reaching our

housing

goals.

The CHO will be tasked

with working with a wide variety of stakeholders including developers, not

for profits, and internal City resources to facilitate and execute on opportunities for housing. Over

time, the goal is for the Chief Housing Officer to help define, set up and eventually lead a new City owned housing authority

that can

enhance the ability of the City to

effectively and efficiently deliver

on its housing mandate.

The ideal candidate will

bring experience from areas such as real estate, development, construction

fin

ance, ideally with the private, public and non

-

profit sectors. They may be a

residential/commercial developer or a senior executive with an organization focused on housing or

land development. Strategic and creative, they will be a

business or professiona

l leader

who is able

to lead, primarily through influence, and build strong, trusting partnerships with external

stakeholders.

This is a unique opportunity to lead a broad, high profile and complex portfolio, create something

new, make an impact, and bri

ng creative application.

For more information

, please call Lorraine Scrimshaw,

Barbara Morrison,

Derrick Chow or Lisa

Kershaw at 604

-

685

-

0261 or  416 366 1990  or via email to

lorraine.scrimshaw@od

gersberndtson.ca

or

b

arbara.morrison@odgersberndtson.ca

.

To be

considered for this position, please submit your resume and related information online at:

http://www.odgersberndtson.ca/careers/11508