November 24, 2016

Jake Fry: Making Heritage and Housing a Win-Win

A proposal for increasing attainable home ownership and/or rental that builds on the City of Vancouver’s Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) policy – developed by Jake Fry, the owner of Smallworks Studios and Laneway Housing Inc.
A Proposal for Increasing Home Ownership and/or Rental using Vancouver’s existing Heritage Revitalization Agreement Policy
The core idea is to use the HRA tool to promote an initiative that would provide easy and significant incentives for property owners, resulting in both more housing and heritage retention.
The proposal is to develop a three-tiered system of development streams, with each tier representing an incremental increase in housing density.
Tier One
Allow a homeowner to preserve an existing character home by designating it through the HRA program, whereby the incentive is to allow the construction and strata-titling of a typical-sized (approx. 600–900 sq. ft. or 0.16 FSR) laneway house (laneway houses in Vancouver are currently not allowed to be strata-titled, only rented).
This incentive would increase the number of houses that would be heritage designated (thus saving such homes from demolition), add more housing density in a neighbourhood-compatible form, and offer an alternative to renting (thus appealing to a wider range of potential residents).
kitsilano-residence-1
Tier Two
Allow a homeowner to preserve an existing character home by designating it through the HRA program, and to add a modest amount of additional density (say up to 0.9 FSR) over current permitted levels in RS zones, and to build an infill house such as is allowed in the RT8 zone (e.g. Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, etc.).
In this option, the principal building (the original home) would be permitted to be divided into up to 4 strata-titled units, plus the strata-titled infill house.
In this model, all the units thus created would have restrictions placed on their resale price, to reduce speculation and maintain affordability. Such restrictions could lower resale prices by 15-20% of market value, and keep this housing stock below market value in perpetuity.
Tier Three
Allow a homeowner to preserve an existing character home by designating it through the HRA program, and to add a modest amount of additional density over current permitted levels in RS zones, and to build an infill house such as is allowed in the RT8 zone (e.g. Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, etc.).
This option is similar to the Tier Two option in terms of the building form, however in this option the housing units thus created would be required to stay as rental units (no strata-titling allowed). In exchange the homeowner would be allowed to have a little more density (say 0.95 FSR) and the principal building (the original home) would be permitted to be divided into up to 5 units, plus the infill house. In addition, the main house could also have the opportunity to create a lock-off suite.
General Conditions
Under this proposal, this initiative would be available to any single-family character or heritage home. All lot sizes could work as long as there is (as in current laneway houses) the safety requirement of a minimum 1.2 m (4 ft.) wide access path to the infill/laneway house in the rear, plus the standard 4.8 m (16 ft.) separating distance between the homes.
The City’s approvals process is key to the success of this proposal. It needs to be easy, quick and simple to get approval. The approvals process should be expedited. The City could even go so far as to put specific time limits on development application staff, within which permits must be issued under this process.
Unlike in a typical HRA, there would be less focus on ‘heritage revitalization’ and more on ‘character preservation’: this proposal seeks to keep the subject houses largely as they are rather than restoring them to a specific heritage style.
Parking is also addressed in this proposal:
In the Tier One option, only 1 on-site parking stall would be required. This will free up more of the site for the proposed development, reduce demand for vehicles, and encourage alternative means of moving about the city.
In the Tier Two and Tier Three options, 2–3 on-site parking stalls would be required for lots over 12 m (40 ft.) in width. The City could consider parking relaxations for sites narrower than 40 ft.
Observations
Any infill housing triggered by character home retention under this proposal potentially can have a lot of flexibility, meaning it would not have to be exclusively traditional infill or a laneway house.
The infill housing that existed in the pre-laneway housing era was taller (24 ft. in height whereas laneway houses are 20 ft.) and usually comprised more square footage than a laneway house.
An infill building on a character/heritage home site could differ from property to property, depending on the lot size, location of the existing character home, and surrounding character context.
‘Character Home’ will need to be defined with specific criteria developed by the City, in order to determine whether an application is eligible under this program. There are a number of ways in which this can be defined such as a date cutoff (e.g. all home older than say 1940, etc.), specific design criteria, a set of characteristics/attributes that are spelled out by the City, etc.
vhf-7-credit-martin-knowles-900x600

VHF: Martin Knowles

Under this proposal, the result does not have to be what we have done in the past. The HRA process is potentially very flexible if the program is administered in a progressive and more facilitative manner. For example:

  • it could privilege single storey designs, with greater parking relaxations
  • it could be bigger units for rental, smaller for strata title
  • it could comprise a rental unit option
  • it could offer options which avoid onerous rezoning approvals processes
  • it could showcase innovative, progressive housing design

In short, the building form could be tailored to meet Council’s agenda. More importantly, this can be done without having to go to any committee or rewriting any bylaws – it just needs the right people supervising the HRA approvals process, with approval subject to the Director of Planning’s discretion, which could be delegated to the staff person managing this program.
Addressing Speculation
Firstly, it is important to remember that this would not be implemented city-wide. Whereas it would be available everywhere across the city, it would only be taken up by those homeowners proposing an infill project in association with character home protection through an HRA. There are a limited number of character homes.
262-grayhouseThis in itself will be a great regulator of price as this is not a bare land strata, and such projects will come with encumbrances associated with a heritage designated property. This is in addition to the price regulation proposed in the Tier Two option.
It is important that this become a homeowner-driven program – one which gives real incentives for homeowners to consider this option over simply selling their property, to open up potential equity in their homes.
It is worth bearing in mind that the hesitation by Council to allow strata-titling of laneway houses at the time this policy was introduced was two-fold:

  • At the time of its implementation, laneway housing was targeted at the lack of affordable rental – the situation has changed since then, and laneway houses are not commanding higher rents.
  • Currently the City also needs to add to the ground-orientated housing stock, to address this dwindling portion of the housing spectrum: the starter home and the downsizing home.

This dynamic has existed in the older parts of Kitsilano for a long time and we have not seen a price jump because of speculation but rather because of lack of volume of these small housing forms. This is not a housing form typically being bought by speculators but rather by owner-occupiers. For example, a look at recent sales in Tatlow Court reveals an older cohort lining up to buy there because there are no similar options allowed elsewhere.
Add to this dynamic that with a greater volume of smaller homes becoming available we will see market volumes help keep prices down, or at least slow price increases. In addition, if we allow more living units on a given property without a large increase in permitted density (FSR), as this proposal suggests, we will inherently get smaller units. As such, even if prices do not decrease (as expressed in $ per square foot) the price will go down per household, as we will have more options for smaller ground-orientated living units.
Using Covenants
The City has some options around covenants/resale restrictions. The most appropriate might be:
A covenant on resale:
This scenario lets the market set the price initially, but as a property is resold there is a fixed increase in price. This approach has been used in other cities and works to ensure that ownership is connected to occupancy, not speculation.
There could also be a scenario where price is limited to a specified profit margin (e.g. indexed to cost of living, linked to inflation, resale cap, etc.)
This program could also be used to develop by non-profit housing projects.
Some Final Thoughts
This proposal is not intended to replace or eliminate other forms of infill housing in locations or on sites that would not qualify under this program. There remain significant opportunities for other small infill housing projects in single-family neighborhoods across Vancouver.
It is important to remember that the fundamental idea behind this proposal is to privilege rental co-ownership – both in units per lot and the size of units, so that rental (versus strata title) could very well remain the most attractive option for many homeowners taking advantage of this program.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to Alex BottaCancel Reply

  1. The housing affordability crisis is starting to generate some creative thinking and innovative solutions. Many kudos to Jake Fry. There are parallels to Bryn Davidson’s published thoughts.
    These ideas seem a little complex, but because they are focused on the limited heritage supply there is perhaps an opportunity here for the city to approve some of them, conduct an analysis after a trial period, then allow key components to enter the wider community with conditions. This may be the very technique that fits with the cautious, incremental approach by the city that has to date stifled innovative ideas and not kept up with the times.
    One item Fry seems to downplay is the level of car ownership, and the conversion of on-site parking to unintended uses. No matter how many (or in some cases, how few) parking spaces are provided within the properties, the cars-to-household ownership tends to collide with policy. The cars flood the street from owners who prefer to convert their garages and driveways to workshops or a spare bedroom or a garden patio. Dead car storage on public streets is cheap (even with permits), and people ironically find better utility by converting the valuable internal private space to human habitation.

  2. If it’s possible to require covenants regarding resale price etc., I wonder if it’s also possible to require covenants regarding car ownership? I’ve never driven a car, and none of my friends own cars—literally, none. I’m not a hip youngster, either; I’m 53. There are loads of people who’d be perfectly happy renting (or even owning) a home with no parking, and a clause forbidding them to keep a car. That would make infill housing cheaper to build and more compact, and assuage neighbourhood worries that density means parking congestion.

  3. How enforceable / effective are covenants anyhow – especially ones restricting resale price?
    I seem to remember my parents having had to have built a flat roof because of a covenant but then later someone was able to build a very peaked roof house in front of them that blocked most of their view.

  4. I am just stunned to keep seeing people suggest that affordable parking trumps affordable housing. The parking problem has a simple solution: Charge a proper price for on-street parking. Solving the parking problem by pushing it onto housing to reduce density and make housing more expensive is just ridiculous. And something Vancouver simply cannot afford.

    1. I’ve come to think that the politically actionable solution would be to just deed residential curb space to property owners. Not especially fair, but it gets the common resource problem out of the way

  5. I live in a heritage neighborhood in New West (Queens Park) and I’m all about preserving the few heritage neighborhoods (not just the homes) that we have left in the Lower Mainland. However, I’m not blind to the need for more density. However, I think there needs to be more dialogue on how we add in-fill and new build to heritage areas so that we keep their character and heritage charm. This article does not address that and therefore puts into question its purpose. What I’ve seen more often in the argument towards new build is not an attempt at increased density, affordability or long range planning, but a quick attempt at selling homes and making a profit.
    Those who move to a heritage neighborhood do so because they like heritage homes and the ambiance of heritage streetscapes. People who prefer new homes can build them elsewhere, whereas we cannot move our heritage homes. (Those who walk through heritage areas also tell me the same thing: they do so to see/feel the history).
    I do believe that laneway homes and in-fill housing are a good option for addressing the density issue. But to encourage the use of HRAs for this purpose is a miss-use of the intent of an HRA (Heritage Revitalization Agreements)! First, there needs to be in place heritage guidelines (better yet bylaws) so that what is built is sympathetic to the heritage home and the streetscape of the neighborhood. For example, the laneway home exhibited in the Tier one photo above would stand out like a sore thumb put behind any of the heritage homes shown above. Nor would it be welcomed in my neighborhood.
    So Jake, I challenge you: when are companies like yours, who encourage the use of HRA’s for laneway homes, going to start building them to nestle sympathetically in character to the heritage neighborhoods in which they are built? (A better sell to folks like me would be – “pay for all those restoration bills with rent from your heritage-looking laneway home”). Understand your target audience Jake!
    Another way cities can make heritage neighborhoods “attainable”(as this is the title of this article), is to not allow demolition of smaller heritage homes that often comes with the “argument” that it is too small and needs too many upgrades (then some massive home is built in its place). I’ve never seen ANY heritage home that doesn’t need more upgrades than probably warrants the cost! The fact is – small heritage homes come with smaller reno costs and allow first time home owners to get in the market and neighborhood – and this I speak from experience. It may not be for everyone, but with restrictions, it will protect it from demolition and it will be of interest to those who want to get into a heritage home and save it for future generations. I would not own the home I’m in if I hadn’t started small (and very run-down) and restored my way to the home and neighborhood I live in.
    Developers need not be shut-out from heritage neighborhoods, but they need to rethink their designs so that they too can become part of the history that compliments our neighborhoods.

    1. I commend you for taking on the renovation of a small heritage house in the lovely Queens park. However, I suspect you didn’t have many big surprises when the walls were opened up, such as crumbling foundations, extensive amounts of asbestos in the heating system, load-bearing studs and joists rotted almost through and so on, all requiring very expensive remediation.
      Sometimes character houses need to be gutted and redone from the inside out, which in many cases is the less onerous option. If they are in worse condition, then there just isn’t much left to save and are demolished. I agree that today demolition is just too easily justified and approved, and that heritage designations need to be re-examined to minimize them. But “minimize” doesn’t mean “eliminate.”
      Many (but not all) heritage houses can me moved on a site to make room for infill. This is where planning departments need to liberalize and allow those humongous setbacks to be used more efficiently. Setbacks are where all the available land is in cities like New West and Vancouver, and current zoning effectively freezes them in place. Moving a heritage house to the edge of a property from the centre while rebuilding the foundations will cost in six figures, and no builder or developer will tackle that as a charitable donation. Therefore, one way to recoup the cost is to allow an additional unit, hopefully designed under guidelines, or with exemplary complementary architecture.

  6. Mr. Fry has spent a lot of time on his proposal. Too much time – it’s a minefield of complexity. Three tiers of development streams, City approvals, Council agendas, resale restrictions, covenants … and not implemented city-wide?
    I love heritage houses, but not to the detriment of modern. Whatever is special about them is not diminished by a well-thought-out new structure alongside. The greatness of Foster’s Reichstadt building is precisely the juxtaposition of styles. What if Liebeskind wanted to build in Strathcona or Queen’s Park. Should he be deterred? Sorry, Mr. Starchitect, you need to build a working class Vernacular.
    Our house was built in 1913. Should we be given incentives to repeat its style?
    Not so long ago the know-betters wanted to raze Chinatown for a freeway. Now, it’s a complete volte-face and everything is just so precious. The case for preserving Chinatown can be made because it brings in tourist dollars – and everything in real estate comes down to cash.
    Preserving Strathcona is harder to justify. I used to be there almost every day – now, once or twice a year. It’s nice to walk around, but they’re not making money off me. Even a heritage afficionado like John Atkin, who owns a house there, would have a hard time turning down the massive bump in value if the area permitted more development. He’s a special case – a buff. The majority of the other owners would be thrilled with a spike in values and would take the money and move.
    This notion of a heritage neighbourhood is dubious. It smacks of strata council fascism where owners aren’t even allowed to change the colour of their curtains. Should people in so-called heritage neighbourhoods be forced to drive classic cars? What is the right car to drive in Queen’s Park? A Jaguar? A Mini?
    Similarly puzzling is the heritage designation of Shaugnessy. It’s clearly not done for the common good. Not one in a thousand Vancouverites has strolled along these streets, admiring the gated mansions. It’s the rich and powerful sticking it to the merely rich.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles