affordability

by design
affordability
for all
A summary of what
the City can do to create
affordable housing.

From the Oct 19–20, 2006 conference. A co-production

by the Vancouver City Planning Commission, the Simon
Fraser University City Program and Smart Growth BC

wit h f i n a n c i a l s p o n s o r s h i p o f
 Introduction

contents

introduction 2

s u m m a r y o f key findings 4

c o n f e r e n c e proceedings 6
Affordability by Design,
p u b l i c l e c t ure oct 19
Affordability for All was a
k a r r i e j a cobs : the 6
co-production among the
p e r f e c t $100,000 house
Vancouver City Planning
d a l e m c c lanaghan 7 Commission, the SFU
& l a n c e j akubec City Program and Smart
Growth BC. Financial
o p e n i n g p l e nary oct 20 sponsors of the event
were the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia,
m a y o r s a m sullivan 8
CMHC Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
l a r r y b e a sley : 8 and VanCity. The event featured a free public lecture on
n e w p o s s i bilities ; Thursday, October 19, followed by a full-day conference
o l d b a r r i ers (paid registration of $100) on Friday October 20.
p a n e l d i s cussion : 10 The focus for the event was on medium- to long-term
o v e r c o m i ng barriers solutions to housing affordability, with an emphasis
t o a f f o r dable housing
on what the City can do in the absence of senior
strategies
government funding. Affordability by design in this
di s c u s s i o n s and
context refers to the creation of more affordable housing
r e c o m m e n dations oct 20 through urban planning, good design, incentives, pilot
projects, and working with the private sector to increase
s m a l l i n f i ll houses on 12
the total supply of housing while ensuring affordability
laneways
as this happens.
a d a p t i v e re - use and 16
e n h a n c e d housing mixes The broader political and policy context for this work is
i n s i n g l e family areas the City of Vancouver’s EcoDensity framework, which
i n t e n s i f i c ation along 19
has an affordability component. Interestingly, “eco”,
m a j o r r oads , new nodes
the root of the words economics and ecology, is “oikos”,
a n d t r a nsit - oriented
Greek for “household”. Economics literally means the
d e v e l o p ment management of the wealth of the household; ecology
means knowledge of the household. Good economics
t h i n k i n g o utside the box 22
should equal good ecology, and this is connected to how
t h e s p e a k ers 27 we design and plan for the future.

The Thursday night free public event featured a talk
by New York author and journalist, Karrie Jacobs, on
The Perfect $100,000 House: The Search for Great
Affordable Housing.
Both Thursday and Friday sessions were full to
capacity (about 260 people on Thursday and 145
people on Friday). The audience was diverse, composed
of architects, design professionals, developers and
builders, senior planning and housing staff of all levels
of government, students of planning, architecture
and related disciplines, NGOs and members of the
public. In addition, the conference spurred some media
coverage, including appearances by Karrie Jacobs on
the Fannie Keefer show and some video of the Friday
morning session was broadcast on Shaw cable TV.
The conference was timely and well-received. Of 38
responses to the conference evaluation, 32% rated the
conference overall as excellent and 55% very good.
The combined very good and excellent scores for
various sub-categories were consistently above 85%
of those who responded. Some 47% rated as excellent
the usefulness and currency of the information (42%
very good), and 61% rated the keynote address by
Larry Beasley as excellent (31% very good). Only one
category, the opportunity for discussion, was rated less
than others (30% excellent and 38% very good). In no
category was the conference rated as poor.
This conference report summarizes the ideas presented
at the conference, often in the words of conference
participants. Summaries for each of the sessions of the
day follow below, and a summary of key themes and
messages arising out of the conference is presented at
the end of the report. MP3 audio of most sessions is
available on-line at www.sfu.ca/city/MP3.
Posterboards (PDF) for afternoon sessions are available
at www.sfu.ca/city/affordablehousing.htm.
Lance Jakubec (CMHC) and Dale McClanaghan
(consultant) responded to Jacobs’s talk to make the
connections to the Vancouver context.
The full-day Friday session was opened by City of
Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan.
A keynote address was delivered from past Co-Director
of Planning for the City of Vancouver, Larry Beasley,
followed by a distinguished panel of experts, who
looked at a variety of barriers to affordable housing. In
the afternoon, four workshops were held:
• 1. Small infill houses on laneways.
• 2. Adaptive re-use and enhanced housing mixes
in single-family areas.
• 3. Intensification along major roads, new nodes
and transit stations.
• 4. “Outside the box” housing alternatives.
introduction 
S u m m a ry o f K e y Fi n d i n g s
Vancouver has some major challenges in ensuring
affordability of housing because of its presence as an
international destination city. Vancouver is seen as
a highly desirable place to live and this puts upward
pressures on prices. Demand for real estate in Vancouver
limits the scope of market-based solutions, such as
reducing development cost charges, as these may not be
passed along to the purchaser.
There is a huge potential for new supply through the
various modes identified in the workshops: 47,000
potential laneway homes; 200,000 units through
adaptive re-use; and 360,000 units along arterials and
on Skytrain stations (these are not mutually exclusive;
there would be some overlap).
The market has done a good job of supplying housing in
the middle to upper-end of the population, but has fared
poorly for low to modest income people. Building high-
end condos is more profitable than rental properties.
Because a large segment of the population is priced out
of the housing market, there is a compelling need for
various forms of non-market housing to be developed.
Actions by all levels of government are required to make
this happen.
There are lots of housing alternatives and tremendous
scope for innovation across a range of housing modes,
in order to increase the supply of housing in Vancouver.
Key themes emerging from the conference:
 su m m ary of key fin dings
• Density does not necessarily equal
affordability. Increasing the supply of housing
and range of housing options is a big part of the
solution but in addition to that we will need
strong leadership from the City to ensure that
higher densities also expand affordability. The
City should use its tools, including rezoning
and bonusing, to provide incentives to include
affordable housing in new developments, and to
experiment with alternative tenure and financing
arrangements.
• Progress needs change. Many barriers to density
and affordability are within the City’s power to
change. There are many regulations and zoning
requirements that impede affordability and the
range of choices in housing that many would
like to see. These include: fire code; elevators
in small units; finishings required to get an
occupancy permit; and alternative housing type
and tenure arrangements. The City should allow
for innovation and experimentation, and not be
afraid to make mistakes. The City is in a position
to launch innovative projects that are very difficult
for the private sector to take on due to the risk in
terms of time and money.
• Parking requirements are a huge issue.
The painfully obvious: doubling Vancouver’s
population cannot come with a doubling of cars
and associated parking spaces. Loosening the
parking requirements can greatly reduce costs
from a developer perspective. This is especially
 true for smaller developments. One suggestion was c o n f e r e n c e
to make current minimum parking requirements
the maximum. For a percentage of new suites and p r o c e e d i n g s
in locations well-served by transit, contemplate
eliminating (or substantially reducing) parking
October 19–20, 2006
altogether.

• The conversation is critical. Reaching out

early is essential to get the support of citizens,
neighborhoods and communities. We have seen
this bear fruit in the rezonings of the Kingsway-
Knight area. The City should be leading the
charge not individual developers. Charettes that
offer a menu of housing types should be used as
part of the process. In addition, we need a regional
dialogue to set priorities across the GVRD.

• The role of the Property Endowment Fund

should be reviewed. The PEF is a powerful tool
the city can use to achieve its desired objectives.
Many people at our recent housing conference
urged the city to take on a more proactive
role in leading and partnering with others to
achieve affordable housing projects. Council
can demonstrate leadership through showcase or
demonstration projects on City-owned land.

Together, these themes form the basis for a palette of

options to expand housing affordability in Vancouver,
even if senior governments continue to sit on the
sidelines. All agreed that change is needed to make
housing affordable in the context of EcoDensity, and
want to see leadership from the City to make Vancouver
a better and more inclusive place to live. su m m ary of key fin dings 
 T H UR S DAY, o c t o b e r 1 9

public lecture

Karrie Jacobs
the perfect $ 100,000 house : the
search for great affordable housing
Karrie Jacobs, author of The Perfect $100,000
House, reviewed successful cases of low cost housing
and “architecture and technology in the lives of
ordinary people”, based on a 14,000-mile journey
across the USA.
Key insights from her presentation included lessons
learned in reducing the cost of new housing:
• Innovative approaches to lowering the cost of
materials by using panels, roofing material
for siding, modular design pieces, shipping
containers, cheaper windows, and flooring
choices.
• Reducing or eliminating the cost of labour
(“sweat equity”), which entails a more proactive
approach that turns buyers into builders.
• Economizing on the finishings that go into the
house. Energy savings can be had in some models
that use photovoltaics and grey-water recycling
though these may add to the upfront cost.
• Small is more affordable and more
environmentally friendly. The ideal home
size, according to Jacobs, is 1,000 square feet,
compared to a US national average of 2,200
square feet.

Jacobs concluded that we need to seek inspiration

from the post-World War II period where a great deal
of affordable housing was built along with a lot of
innovation in housing forms.

 public lecture — oct 19

 Dale McClanaghan & Lance Jakubec
Two discussants commented on Jacobs’s presentation. beyond its core function of shelter. In real estate terms,
Dale McClanaghan highlighted the importance of Jakubec noted the balance that occurs between “curb
understanding how developers and suppliers relate appeal” and innovation. Buyers and neighbours have
to architecture when making their decisions. When certain expectations about housing, particularly housing
looking to Vancouver, McClanaghan sees a culture in their neighbourhood, and they want houses to look a
of risk aversion with regard to housing for the middle certain way. They are concerned that innovations may
market. He commented on his own experiences in undermine their own housing values.
developing social housing, and needing to use architects
There may be a trade-off between lower labour costs
to mask social housing in order to meet the tastes of the
(by doing it yourself) and the appeal of the end-product
community. This meant paying a premium on the cost
(having it done professionally). Prefabricated homes
of the project.
could lead to a large saving in labour costs, with small
Like Jacobs, he argued that we need to experiment, innovations brought in for customization.
even make mistakes. We need to be open to
In addition, an important part of addressing
prefabricated and other different building materials.
affordability is related to restrictions on what can be
Our current risk aversion to innovative approaches
built in many communities. Zoning and regulations
may be a legacy of the leaky condo crisis, a design
prohibit many of the design innovations we desire.
failure that contributed to restrictions and regulations in
For developers, innovation necessarily translates into
the 1990s that limit innovation. We now need to take
increased risk, time and money to do something
a fresh look and get back to a spirit of adventure and
different.
innovation in housing types.
In the question and answer period, McClanaghan
Lance Jakubec commented on the economics of
wondered if Vancouver really wants low cost housing,
housing in the Vancouver area. The small footprint
and noted that this seemed to be the revealed preference
houses in Jacobs’s travels are largely in a rural or semi-
of the City. Several noted that it can be difficult to deal
urban context, and thus do not address some of the
with the City when doing projects, renovations, etc.
core issues for affordability in Vancouver. Any owner
Cars and parking requirements are major obstacles to
that purchases an expensive piece of land in Vancouver
keeping costs down.
is more likely to build something much larger on
that property. The cost of land is a limiting factor in Vancouver’s self-image may also be a limiting factor. As
developing affordable single-family housing an international destination city, it is a highly desirable
in Vancouver. location to live in, which puts upward pressures on
prices, which tends to restrict the freedom to do new
Both McClanaghan and Jakubec spoke to the nature
and innovative things in housing.
of housing as a commodity. Housing has become an
act of (conspicuous) consumption that now goes well

public lecture — oct 19 

 FR I DAY, o c t o b e r 2 0
opening plenary
Mayor Sam Sullivan
Mayor Sullivan, opened the
session with an overview of the
context for the day’s discussion,
his EcoDensity framework. The
Mayor noted that Vancouverites
hate two things: sprawl and
density. But density, done properly,
can be connected to a better
quality of life and economic development.
The EcoDensity approach is rooted in the fact that
Vancouver’s ecological footprint is 300 times the
geographical area of the city, equivalent to six city
blocks per person. A sustainable rate would be 1.5
blocks per person.
EcoDensity aims to increase densities strategically in
a way that provides better economies for mass transit,
supports commercial development in neighbourhoods,
and reduces infrastructure costs per person. In the
EcoDensity framework, housing affordability is the
result of greater supply, increased housing choice, and
affordability programs tied to increases in density.
 open i ng plena ry — oct 20
Morning
keynote address
Larry Beasley
new possibilities ; old barriers
In a keynote address, former City
of Vancouver Co-Director of
Planning Larry Beasley argued
that affordability is the single most
worrisome issue in Vancouver. Like
other destination cities such as San
Francisco, Boston, New York and
London, the lack of affordability is
the result of our success as a desirable city.
Beasley contrasted the Vancouver situation with other
places in the world. In the US, there are ghettos in
the inner cities. In Europe, low income people are
forced to the edge of town. Elsewhere in the world,
illegal occupations are the norm. Vancouver has
elements of each of these in the city. And yet, the crisis
would be even worse were it not for the addition of
several thousand units in the downtown core over the
past decade.
What Vancouver needs is housing for all people in every
community. Supply is impeded by narrow options that
result from the risk analysis done for private projects.
But changes in the nature of demand are also important,
as what we call a home has moved well away from the
basics to something that is a financial investment and a
social statement.
Low-income people cannot compete in the housing
market without some form of support, either indirectly
to the housing they occupy or directly to their incomes.
To get affordable housing, governments at all levels need
to come to the table in a meaningful way by putting
money into social housing or by giving money to poor
people. In recent years we have rationalized government
walking away from the construction of new housing
stock. He recommended that a dependable source of
funding, such as the property transfer tax, be allocated
to social housing.
Beasley also argued for more opportunities for public-
private collaboration. Bonusing for density is one source
of equity but it is not a source that is limitless, and there
are competing needs such as child care and heritage. He
argued that there is additional scope for unusual public-
private collaborations:
• An SRO replacement initiative could bring private
equity to the table by allowing investors to buy a
unit that would get put into a pool of low-income
rental housing, and the investor would benefit
from the capital gain upon sale of the unit.
• There is more scope for low interest mortgages
through credit unions.
• Government subsidies and breaks on regulation
and timing can be used as incentives to building
new stock.
• Other models can be explored including revolving
social housing investment funds and community
development corporations.
Beasley spoke to three broad areas where innovation is
required: density, tenure and housing type.
Density is connected to increasing the supply of
housing, but, remembering the lessons of big social
housing projects in the post-war US, we must ensure an
appropriate social mix and high quality design. Density
is not the same as more condo towers. For example, we
can have more density in the Downtown Eastside, but
this does not necessarily mean tall towers like other
parts of the downtown peninsula.
Tenure innovations also need to be considered, in order
to remove the “housing as investment” mindset. These
include coops, rent-to-own models, and the “Madrid
model” where the state constructs housing and sells at
a discount, but the occupant must sell back to the state
when they vacate.
Housing Type innovations include moving beyond
the single self-contained unit. We need to broaden our
understanding of what constitutes housing to increase
the range of housing options. Examples include:
• The “suite-within-a-suite” model at SFU’s
UniverCity development. More could do more to
bonus or regulate this form of housing.
• Live/work units. In Vancouver, the regulatory
barriers have been addressed but there are tax
issues that remain.
• “Mingle” suites with more than one family
sharing space.
• Boarding houses
• Float homes. It was noted that there are
conflicting public policy objectives with regard
to keeping the waterfront public.
Eliminating or reducing parking requirements can also
lead to reduced costs. In the question period, Michael
Geller suggested making the minimum parking
requirements the maximum, and argued that this would
improve public transportation, reduce congestion, and
promote better health, while also increasing affordability.
Another innovation would be to leave (often costly)
finishings in a new dwelling for the owners to do
themselves as they get time and money (a “sweat
equity” approach that treats new developments as “fixer-
uppers”). This requires regulatory changes, as currently
an occupancy permit from the City is required for
“finished” unit.
We also need choices in all communities of the Greater
Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), not just the
City of Vancouver. Without innovative approaches in
the City, people may be forced to join suburban sprawl.
The City’s Property Endowment Fund could be used to
purchase land elsewhere in the GVRD to press for new
developments that increase densities.
open i ng plena ry — oct 20 
 FR I DAY, o c t o b e r 2 0 Morning

panel discussion

Bill Buholzer (l e g a l ) Bob Ransford ( m a r k e t )

Bruce Haden ( r e gu l atory / de sig n ) Jay Wollenberg ( f i n a nc i a l )

overcoming barriers to affordable housing str ategies

Gordon Price facilitated a discussion on barriers to for someone with mental health issues compared to
affordability by a panel of experts: Bill Buholzer (legal), a young professional; timeline of action ranges from
Jay Wollenberg (financial), Bob Ransford (market), and short-term stop-gap measures like freezes on conversion
Bruce Haden (regulatory/design). to longer-term actions like EcoDensity; middle-income
affordability is different than traditional low-income
Much of the discussion by the panel focused on the social housing.
tensions between affordability and market forces in
the Vancouver context. The market has been good at Most of the innovation in affordability in recent
producing housing for middle- to upper-income families, decades has come from illegal actions, or “underground
along with densification in some parts of the city. But housing”. Secondary suites were not such a big issue
the withdrawal of senior governments from supporting once they were officially acknowledged without
new social housing has made affordability a more requiring full compliance with building codes (note:
pressing issue for low- to middle-income earners. the building code is provincial, so there are constraints
beyond municipal regulations).
Affordability is a long-term game. Some argued that
the answer to affordability comes down to more supply An obstacle can be that we hold an abstract ideal of
across the marketplace, especially in submarkets and perfect design. Zoning is based on the ideal of a single
areas that are not subject to strong international demand family house; similar for a condo tower. The result is a
(e.g. downtown). In this version, government should narrow range of housing types. This also reflects some
focus on income support. snobbery about who we want to live beside us. Design
constraints are based on preconceptions of livability
Others felt that supply alone was not the answer, and — instead, we need to relax and experiment a bit.
there is a need to lock in affordable housing. There are
cyclical ups and downs in the marketplace but the long- There is a green dimension to all of this discussion.
term trend in prices is up. Legal mechanisms exist to cap There are limits to sprawl as a relief valve due to
resale prices; the key issue is political will. Addressing declining availability of land. Sustainability is more
affordability may mean constraints on how units are sold about land use and transportation, than the use of green
by the developer, or alternatively taking money from the building materials. Requiring additional green features
developer to support other affordability projects. These may increase prices though they may lower operating
financial realities mean there are limits to industry’s costs of the unit.
capacity to create new housing, and there was a concern
that such measures could increase the overall cost of Parking was identified as a key barrier. One suggestion
housing. is for changes in design/engineering of parking to
reflect smaller, “smart cars”. On smaller building sites,
Given the limits of the marketplace, we need to expand parking is a bigger constraint because cars are bigger
the non-market side of the equation. Context matters for than people. Small sites are often developed at below
government’s role: the degree of support will be different the permitted density due to the challenges of including

10 open i ng plena ry — oct 20

the required number of parking spaces. Ideally, there
should be some continuum of parking, as not everyone
has or needs a car. There could be requirements that a
percentage of units have no parking. However, relaxing
parking regulations may result in people who own
cars parking them on the street (a concern from an
engineering perspective).
Alternative housing models include community land
trusts or some form of revolving fund. A danger
is a “key market”, a black market that emerges in
private sales involving side-payments to get access to a
subsidized suite (capitalizing the future rent savings).
This is not an issue if sales are back to the government
or some third party.
Rent controls were cited as an issue for apartment
owners, especially in combination with the elimination
of tax credits for the development of rental properties.
Together this has stopped the development of new rental
stock. The federal and provincial governments are in a
better position to create incentives, such as tax credits
and GST elimination towards increasing the supply of
purpose-built rental housing stock.
Each panel member offered a best next step:
People confuse high density with high rise. To
better communicate density, we need a number of
showcase projects — such as laneway and other infill
developments, creative mid-rise developments,
reduced parking requirements, and reduced minimum
lot requirements. In moving forward, we need to
engage the public early on, at the neighbourhood and
regional levels.
Some other thoughts:
• We can increase density in C2 zone (major
arterials) to 4–6 stories, and upzone the next
block along these corridors so there is a better
transition to surrounding single-family areas.
• We need a faster process at City Hall for new
projects, and the courage to be bold.
• Minimum unit sizes are not necessarily a solution
due to the economics of building. For the
homeless, smaller units are at best a short-run
solution.
• Freezing conversions is a short-term measure not a
long-term fix. The danger with a freeze is that it is
not in any kind of community context but places
the burden on the owner at the time.
• With three story walk-ups and existing social
housing, the buildings may be at the end of their
lifespan, so there is an opportunity to densify. In
the case of social housing, some land could be sold
to pay for new social units.
• Loosen parking requirements, and make current
minimums the maximums.
• Enable small, affordable elevators for units
with seniors.
• Make stacked townhouses feasible via changes
to the fire code.
• Let the planners get reckless for a while. We need
lots of small innovative things to happen.
• Need to add density in hard places — and make
it physically, financially and socially acceptable.
open i ng plena ry — oct 20 11
 f r i d ay, o c t o b e r 2 0 afternoon

small group discussion and recommendations

The afternoon session featured workshops in four broad areas: small infill houses on laneways; adaptive
re-use and enhanced housing mixes in single family areas; intensification along major roads, new nodes and
transit stations; and “outside the box” housing alternatives. Each is supportive of EcoDensity principles as
they reinforce mass transit efficiencies and the viability of local commercial operations. New housing options
also enable seniors (or older children) to move from single-family homes but stay in the neighbourhood.

These broad areas each speak to increasing the supply of housing through densification and offering a range
of housing types. In many cases, there are already examples of successful development around the city, and
the question is how to address barriers to expansion in other parts of the city, while ensuring that affordability
is achieved as this happens. Each workshop featured a presentation by one or two experts followed by
discussion leading to recommendations.

sm a l l i n f i l l house s on l a n e way s

e xperts Joaquin Karakas & June Christy | facilitator Robert Barrs

Joaquin Karakas
presented findings of
a research project on
laneway infill housing
being conducted
for the CMHC
titled Livable Lanes:
Overcoming the Barriers to Laneway Infill in Vancouver’s
Single Family Residential Neighbourhoods. He presented
a spatial analysis, a design study, and an analysis of
existing infill examples, policy and zoning schedules in
the City of Vancouver to illustrate the opportunities for
expanding this form of infill housing.
Research findings so far indicate that under-
utilized backyards in many single-family residential
neighbourhoods, and the extensive laneway network
that provides access to them, provide significant
opportunities for increasing housing supply,
affordability, safety, and density in a way that maintains
the existing scale and character of neighbourhoods.
Residents in many neighbourhoods want change away
from new homes that are “big box” and may find
appeal in the retention of existing homes with new
development on the laneway.
The spatial analysis of existing conditions in Vancouver’s
single family neighbourhoods shows that approximately
three-quarters of lots in Vancouver have the potential
to build a laneway house. Fully built out, this translates
into some 47,000 new units that could be developed in
Vancouver’s lanes. [fig 1]
As a form of single lot infill, laneway infill housing can
be built while maintaining existing principal dwellings,
and as such, avoids the cumbersome and often
expensive processes of parcel assembly (consolidation)
and redevelopment. As such, this type of housing is
amenable to small-scale developers and homeowners
looking for a mortgage helper or to house elders,

12 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20

 | s m a l l i n f i l l h o u s e s o n l a n e wa y s
fig 1 — Figure ground drawings showing existing dwelling
footprints in black and infill opportunities in yellow.
neighbourhood: Dunbar in the west-side
neighbourhood: Hastings-Sunrise in the east-side
students and extended family. However, changes to
allow greater infill must recognize the differences across
neighbourhoods.
Conceptually, these units are better thought of as a new
type of housing on a new type of street. This presents
an opportunity for laneway infill to have a unique
character from existing principal dwellings fronting
the main street. The tighter scale, lack of street trees,
and smaller buildings suggest that designs different in
di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions
— karakas & christ y |
character and scale to that of the principal dwelling is
preferable. Parking requirements will make a difference
in terms of the form that gets built.
Precedents for laneway infill on larger lots (50-
foot frontages or more) are plentiful in the City
of Vancouver, typically permitted under RT-3
(Strathcona), RT-6 (Mount Pleasant character
retention), and RT-8 (Kitsilano). There are also a few
precedents in RM-4 zones on smaller (33-foot) lots
where variances where given in exchange for character
retention. These small lot examples are precedents
showing how laneway infill housing could be expanded
to the typical Vancouver single family lots that exist in
much of the east side of the city. [fig 2, 3]
More recently new RT-10 zoning has been introduced
in the Kingsway-Knight neighbourhood that allows
single lot infill on typical (33-foot) lots. This zoning is
intended to encourage the retention of existing character
buildings. In addition, this zoning addresses the fire
access requirement, which stipulates a minimum of a 4
foot sideyard for reliable fire access. Most 33-foot lots do
not have a 4 foot side-yard setback, and therefore would
have to share the side-yard with their neighbour, for
which the new RT-10 zoning allows. [fig 4, 5]
Participants noted that laneway infill can create
market rate affordability by introducing a product to
the market that has a smaller square footage and is
located fronting a lane (considered to be less desirable
than the principal dwelling). However, because the
market will determine the price, laneway homes could
also be expensive. Other considerations will also be
needed, however, such as incentives and agreements
that ensure affordability. Kelowna has created a housing
agreement in the development of laneways that supports
affordability. This model should be explored in more
detail to determine its applicability to Vancouver and
other Lower Mainland municipalities.
Participants noted that laneway-oriented infill housing
offers a number of tenureship options including rental,
strata and fee-simple. Fee-simple laneway infill has
a number of barriers including the need to have an
— oct 20 13
| s m a l l i n f i l l h o u s e s o n l a n e wa y s — karakas & christ y |

fig 2

fig 3

address on the laneway, which is currently prohibited as
laneways are not regarded as providing reliable fire access. by workshop participants included looking at new
Current parking requirements were also identified as
a considerable barrier to expanding laneway housing
and it was suggested that these requirements need to be
re-examined within the context for the imperative for
urban sustainability as set out in the City’s Eco-Density
initiative. Other key barriers to expanding this form of
infill include building codes and local resident opposition.
14 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions
Strategies for overcoming the barriers identified
approaches (different from the existing Community
Visioning Process) to structuring and carrying out
local resident decision-making processes at the local
level. Participants suggested generating discussion,
awareness-building and buy-in to various forms of
innovative infill including laneway housing through
block level discussions that could occur as ‘block
parties’ and other means of bringing local residents
together around a discussion of absorbing more growth
and density in their neighbourhoods.
— oct 20
 | s m a l l i n f i l l h o u s e s o n l a n e wa y s — karakas & christ y |

fig 4 — RT-4, FT-5, RT-6, RT-7, RT-8

• Parking requirements
should be relaxed for
laneway infill housing,
particularly if it can be
located within a 5–10
minute walking distance
from a transit stop. This
would allow this form
of housing to be built
more affordably and
on more challenging
sites where space is
tight. Further research
is needed to determine
actual on-street parking
capacity in existing
single-family residential
fig 5 — RT-10 Small Lot Infill neighbourhoods. This
parking study should also
determine the rate of off-
street (private) parking in
these neighbourhoods.
• The use of housing
agreements registered on
title can ensure long-term
affordability. Models
from Kelowna and
elsewhere to ensure long-
term affordability for new
laneway infill through
covenants and other
Recommendations: types of housing agreements should be explored
for Vancouver
• Laneway-oriented infill housing should be
• Laneways should be thought of as a unique part
expanded to other parts of the City and
of the urban residential fabric. New housing
encouraged on small lot conditions (33 foot
forms with unique architectural expressions
frontages) typical of most single-family residential
different from the traditional housing character
areas in Vancouver. Laneway-oriented infill
on the principal residential streets should be
housing should be presented as a core component
encouraged. Unique and innovative housing
of the City’s “Eco-Density” Initiative.
character on laneways should match the scale of
the laneway.

di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20 15

 adaptive re-use and enhanced housing mixes in single family areas
e xpert Patricia St. Michel | facilitator Marta Farevaag

The largest area of the City of Vancouver is occupied

by single family homes; the potential for these zones West End
Downtown
to densify is therefore significant. The City has been Strathcona Hastings-Sunrise

exploring a range of opportunities for single family West Point Grey Kitsilano
Fairview
infill in the Kingsway and Knight area as part of the
Mount Pleasant

implementation of CityPlan. Patricia St. Michel, a

planner and urban designer who has led this initiative, Arbutus-Ridge
Riley Park
Renfrew-Collingwood

spoke about the resulting new zoning that has now Dunbar-Southlands

been adopted. Oakridge

Kerrisdale

Two new residential zones for the Kingsway and Sunset Killarney

Knight area were enacted early this year; several Marpole

developments are currently close to receiving approval.

These new housing types — RM-1 Courtyard
Rowhouse and RT-10 Small House/Duplex — will
provide 800 additional homes (2,400 more residents)
beyond what could have been accommodated with ki
existing zoning in this particular area. By 2031, the ng
development of an additional 200,000 units city-wide
sw
ay
are expected via these new zonings.
St. Michel’s presentation stressed the importance of
having the conversation with the community at the
outset. The City has engaged with citizens for more than
a decade, going back to the 1995 CityPlan process, then
subsequent community visioning at the neighbourhood
level, and more recently the neighbourhood centres
knight

program. Community consultation and participation

was harnessed through newsletters, open housing
surveys, shopping and housing area working groups
(HAWGs and SAWGs), and Chinese translation.
After being screened by developers to ensure they were
economically feasible, new housing types were “tested”
using community input. The City provided a series of
illustrations, plans and data, creating a menu of
housing variety, then asked residents whether these
options fit in the community, for whom, and in what
locations. Kingsway-Knight residents responded by
seeking to enlarge the area under consideration for the
denser zoning. The community accepted the denser
zone (RM-1) behind the four-storey C2 zoning along
1 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct
Kingsway, followed by another transition from RM-1 to
the RT-10 zoning, which in turn then transitions to the
existing single-family zoning at the periphery of the study
area.
In response to questions, St. Michel noted that, like many
other areas, parking requirements are a significant barrier
to affordability. Residents of the community still want to
ensure that there is sufficient parking on site to avoid on-
street congestion. However, the City gained support for
the waiving of parking requirements for small units.
20
 | a da p t i v e r e -us e a n d e n h a nc e d hous i ng m i x e s i n s i ng l e fa m i ly a r e a s — s t. m i c h e l |

Bringing in new housing

forms may create housing that
is relatively more affordable
but still far short of meeting
core needs (a “magic number”
of around $500-600 per
month was suggested).
Because developers may not
find building affordable
housing to be economical,
RM-1 courtyard rowhouse zone RT-10 small house and duplex zone the City can take on a more
active role as a developer.
The City has been acquiring
sites, but has not been willing
to go as far as acting as
developer because it is viewed
as a provincial and federal
responsibility.
Whistler has experience
in housing development
that could provide valuable
lessons to Vancouver. The
Whistler Housing Authority
was created to obtain land
Community engagement through the CityPlan process
and work with partners/
developers. This removes the
Community acceptance is also improved if there are
risk, and while profits are limited, they are guaranteed.
strong incentives, such as retention of existing character
The struggle is then to keep units affordable over time.
homes or the lure of a new $2.4 million shopping area
In Whistler, there is not a lot of community support for
within walking distance. People also want to see high-
increasing density, but developers are building duplexes
quality housing developments in their neighbourhood
and must ensure one suite is for employees.
not “big boxes”.
Other thoughts:
Future prospects for these new zoning types include
Dunbar, Point Grey, and Kerrisdale/Shaughnessy, • Measures to increase the supply of rental housing
neighbourhoods in community visioning processes. The should also be explored, such as providing tax-
City recently held a community charrette that included credits to non-profits and corporations to build
consideration of new unit types south of Joyce station in housing, or requirements that some rental housing
the proposed Norquay Village. be built as part of a new development.
After the presentation, the group turned to questions
posed to bring affordability into the discussion. A
danger with rezonings is that they may increase prices.
di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20 17
 | a da p t i v e r e -us e a n d e n h a nc e d hous i ng m i x e s i n s i ng l e fa m i ly a r e a s
Two new zones: RM-1 courtyard rowhouse zone | RT-10 small house and duplex zone
• Participants cited the issue of “empty bedrooms”
due to foreign investment. A key barrier is that
many strata councils do not allow rentals, thus
regulations to disallow “no rental” clauses could
be explored.
• Expectations and attitudes are important. On one
hand, shared accommodation is frowned on by
some. On the other, zoning prohibits having more
than five unrelated people living together in the
same house.
• The RS zones do not allow two doors on the front
of a building. This is an example of an outdated
regulation that should be revisited.
Recommendations:
1. More small area rezonings should be initiated by
the City to experiment with new housing types.
18 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct
— s t. m i c h e l |
2. Don’t forget importance of rental housing:
• Consider new infill units that are guaranteed
to be rentals.
• Provide tax incentives for developing rental
housing.
3. Create a Task Force to eliminate known barriers to
infill (code, fire access, subdivision regulations).
In particular, change regulations to allow existing
houses to stay unchanged on development
sites, without having to fully upgrade for code
compliance.
4. Use Property Endowment Fund and the Housing
Centre to facilitate housing that is not inflated
in price by speculation. For example, a widow
wanting to develop a coach house on her property
might get advice and even financial assistance in
return for a rental or price commitment towards
affordability from City staff.
20
 intensification along major roads, new nodes
and tr ansit-oriented development
e xpert Patrick Condon | facilitator
Patrick Condon spoke on work he has done in relation
to increasing density along arterials and transit hubs
as an alternative to the “regional centres” model. A
starting point is demographic trends that point to a
future where there will be “empty nesters” and “never
nesters” (statistically inclined to never have kids) who
will want urban amenities and living situations with
little or no yard. Technically, we currently have enough
single-family homes but they are not necessarily being
occupied by single families.
Cheeying Ho
At regional charettes looking at how Greater Vancouver
could accommodate a total population of four million,
participants chose to increase the density around
transit nodes and recognized that arterial structures are
important for development. This only makes sense as
the downtown core is less than ten percent of the city.
Historically, Vancouver is a region that grew out of the
streetcar system, and was originally intended to have
densities built out on that basis. This is now being
rediscovered, after a detour to the suburbs. Walking
times of less than five minutes to transit and services are
critical. This requires finding the right mix of density,
services, and jobs that make transit more efficient and
also reduce the number of trips.
The arterials are a more robust and nuanced
alternative that can add more housing in
the city, without a single-minded focus of
“the tower” being the answer to the suburbs.
About 17 percent of developed possible land
(up to the laneway) is on the arterials. If we
were to redevelop all of the city’s arterials, up
to 223,000 dwelling units could be created
through four-story mixed-use developments
(i.e. four levels of residential or three levels
residential plus one commercial). Technically,
then, a half-million people could live there
— compare this to Downtown Vancouver,
which has produced 40,000 dwelling units
since the 1990s.
Transit-oriented development
(TOD) includes areas along
and around Skytrain stations
(except Collingwood as it is
already developed), which
may be more suitable to
towers (with a floor-space
ratio of three). Along Skytrain
stations there is capacity for
di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20 19
 | i n t e nsi f ic at ion a l ong m ajor roa ds / t r a n s i t- o r i e n t e d d e v e l o p m e n t — condon |

an additional 137,000 units. Thus, the

combined untapped potential of arterials
and TOD is 360,000 dwelling units, or,
roughly, 700,000 new citizens.
There are two key ways of intensifying
in Vancouver. One is to take an existing
single family home, e.g. 1,000 square
feet, and make it a three-family home
of 3,000 square feet, with parking
underground. As this rolls out, it is
important to maintain the character
of the neighbourhood, and if done
properly, this can enhance the value of
the area.
The other way is to take one-story
commercial buildings along arterials
and add residential above. There are
numerous examples of redevelopment
to include three stories of housing above, while Other approaches, such as steel frame construction or
maintaining the original business on the ground floor. use of other building materials could also be considered.
The design of these projects is crucial to fashion appeal
in terms of lifestyles. The architectural community is There are also lessons for the suburbs. As land becomes
already very advanced on this front. On-site density more valuable, dedicated parking in front of commercial
bonusing was suggested to ensure affordability is built spaces no longer makes economic sense. The good news
into new developments. is that large parcels in suburban strip-mall forms are
easy to redevelop.
C2 zones (residential above commercial) should cover
most arterial roads of the city. It was suggested that the Ensuring that these density initiatives translate into
City initiate pre/rezonings along arterials (rather than affordability is a challenge. Much of the discussion
by the private sector on a case-by-case basis). This must centred on how policies affect developers’ economic
be balanced against having more scope for variety by calculations. Development cost charges, for example, are
“punctuation” of differing building heights to avoid passed along to the end user. But lowering development
relentless four-story buildings along an arterial. cost charges may not lead to more affordability when
price is determined by what the market will bear. Flat
For developments over four stories, there is a regulatory DCCs also encourage the development of larger units.
issue as more expensive concrete is required instead
of wood, and this changes the economics of the For developers, larger developments also allow for
development. In contrast, Seattle uses a model with two greater risks to be borne. Pre-zoning (with design
floors of concrete (for commercial and office space) plus guidelines) is preferred for developers in terms of
four-story wood frame for the residential component. providing greater certainty around costs associated with
approvals (and more certainty for the City as well in

20 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20

 | i n t e nsi f ic at ion a l ong m ajor roa ds
Broadway
terms of revenues). The City prefers re-zonings on a
case-by-case basis with input from the community. It
was argued that pre-zoning need not be at odds with
discretion and incentives to add density in exchange for
affordability or amenities.
Recommendations:
1. Set timeline for charette process to piggyback
on the EcoDensity initiative. Design charettes
would result in a physical representation of what
intensification would look like across the city
with input from residents, and would give us a
launching point for EcoDensity.
2. Ensure varied building heights along arterials to
punctuate the street and avoid blanket four-story
/ t r a n s i t- o r i e n t e d d e v e l o p m e n t — condon |
Broadway with infill
form. Look at barriers as to what limits us to the
four-story wood frame form in terms of code.
Explore new forms and reinterpret the four-story
residential building. Vary the size and permit taller
buildings (seven or eight stories) to punctuate the
street
3. Examine building and zoning codes and
understand how they have a powerful effect on
affordability.
4. Consider transitional zones on streets on either
side of arterials. A transition zone would make
density’s impact on single-family neighbourhoods
gradual and create a buffer.
di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20 21
 thinking outside the box
e xperts Rick Balfour and Art Cowie |
Rick Balfour presented options for developing a range
of “missing housing”, as too often we think in terms of
either low-rise or high-rise developments. In addition, he
highlighted the importance of sustainability in future
design, in particular with regard to the cost of energy.
A number of dimensions are present for outside-the-box
alternatives:
• A wider array of building materials could be used
(beyond wood and concrete) that could include
prefabricated materials and shipping containers.
Mid-rise developments have multiple solutions, not
just wood versus concrete, including mixed media.
• Developments could include small suite (or “start-
up village”) options suitable for empty nesters,
students and others that better utilize the nearby
public spaces. It is timely to relearn the lessons
of traditional city forms, with house, street and
village without the car being the dominant design
parameter.
• Alternative tenure arrangements should be
considered, including co-housing, coops, and rent-
to-own models, but outright ownership has to be
pursued to higher density forms in all categories.
• The location for alternatives could include on the
water, air space over highways (like the Cassiar
exchange) and railways. Hillsides have been
ignored due to the limited ability of car era zoning
to adapt to non flatland sites.
It will be difficult to have the experimentation we
desire with these alternatives if we only rely on private
developers, as they bear all of the risk for a project,
reflected in their time and money. They will be much
more inclined to go the easy route of risk aversion. The
City has a role and responsibility to act, not just in
bylaws but in built form, to help the children who grew
up here to have a place in their own community.
22 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct
facilitator Marc Lee
Some of this is just historical inertia. The City supports,
and developers build, what has been built before and
what the market expects. This means that fee-simple
row housing has not emerged in Vancouver even though
there is no reason why it could not.
The City needs to play a more prominent role in
experimentation as it can better bear the risks, and
the city has land that could be used for pilot projects.
A design competition could be held. Demonstration
projects should be held in each zone. Once completed
they can become an educational tool and can ease
concerns about density in single family neighbourhoods.
Successes can then be replicated across the City and the
metro area.
Row housing, infill and other alternatives may not
necessarily be affordable unless there are some
incentives built in. New models that have some
form of price control built in should be considered.
A model in Kamloops is “integrative housing” where
housing of different costs are located side by side, the
result of a purposeful city plan that does not allow for
exclusive housing.
In Whistler, the Whistler Housing Authority currently
oversees an inventory of over 1,400 units (4,000 beds)
restricted to employees and permanent residents. Price-
controlled units have been built in Whistler through
partnerships where developers receive increased density
in exchange for affordable housing. The density is
offered on site, and a covenant on title is established
requiring the resale price to be below market price.
Whistler has a range of units that are both rental and
ownership, with access determined by wait-lists, and
with varying restrictions on rent, resale price and
occupancy in order to meet the policy objective of
affordable workforce housing.
20
 | t h i n k i ng ou t si de t h e b ox — b a l fou r & cow i e |

Recycling Containers: Just one small thing to make use of idle

assets. A major form of re-use in the 3rd World.

di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20 23

 | t h i n k i ng ou t si de t h e b ox — b a l fou r & cow i e |

Metro Vancouver Planning Coalition

rning Startup Housing for City Families

38'-0"

540 sf

m Old
Shop mews swing use
18'-0"

shop or
street shop or granny flat
second unit
or court

LDK garden
400 sf

orld
lot 684 sf Fee Simple
Living Level 2040 sf space
fsr 3.0

with street portion (public)

fsr 2.36
br
450 sf
Childrens rooms
section with parking court (public land)

ages
br fsr 2.0

Nursery/
study
450 sf 200 sf
Multi purpose
Master Suite
bath Mbr studio loft roofgarden Crows nest

solar panels,
rainwater collection
earth heated

everyone 450 sf
Master Suite

450 sf

deny this Childrens rooms

400 sf
Living Level

option? shop or
second unit

mews, court, streets

Startup Housing: Single family attached urban

rowhouses with commercial base: in C zones.
Example: Kingsway, Main Street.
B&A•Strategic Planning 2006

Metro Vancouver Planning Coalition

_________________________________________________________________________

Learning from Old World Villages: Not for

everyone, but why denythis kind of option?

24 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20

 | t h i n k i ng ou t si de t h e b ox — b a l fou r & cow i e |

18'-0"

Small
granny flat

granny flat

granny flat

granny flat

granny flat
36'-0"

shop or

shop or

shop or

shop or

shop or
s in Shop

Shop

Shop

Shop

Shop
mews, street
or court- MUST be section

public right of way

ercial ancilllary
for fee simple ownership

shop or
granny flat
Shop

mews & courts

parking on

ges
shop or Shop are public street
granny flat
areas, parking
paved court is easement on
public area for
half of units.
shop or Shop
granny flat

11,300 sf lot
example
11 units

ngle shop or
granny flat
Shop 43 upa
fsr 2.0 overall
3.0 per fee simple lot

s& shop or
granny flat
Shop
67 upa on net

ial Metro Vancouver Planning Coalition

Startup Housing for City Families
granny flat

-Avoiding Nimby by Going to Commercial

shop or

sites first.

Kingsway Example
Shop

e Urban Family Lots

ts. B&A•Strategic Planning 2006

Metro Vancouver Planning Coalition

_________________________________________________________________________

Family Small Lots in Commercial Villages: 40upa single

family lots and commercial base on mews: fee simple lots.

di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct 20 25

| t h i n k i ng ou t si de t h e b ox — b a l fou r
Other thoughts:
• All levels of government must play a role in
affordable housing. The government must be
present in a partnership. There is a history of
government’s strong role in housing in Europe.
• Reduce parking requirements and consider de-
coupling parking from new developments. An
example is the Woodward’s development
• Tax reform was suggested as a part of the solution.
This would include taxing undeveloped land in a
way to encourage development.
• The biggest single barrier to outside the box
alternatives is NIMBYism. The conversation must
happen early with the communities and be led by
the City. Prototypes are needed to show the public
they work. Trading amenities for density is also
possible to overcome community resistance.
• A competition was suggested to replace aging
three-story walk-ups with higher density buildings,
while ensuring existing residents are not displaced.
Conversely, it was suggested that the priority
should be maintaining these units and focusing on
areas where the land is not being used.
26 di s c us sion a n d r e c om m en dat ions — oct
& cow i e |
Recommendations:
1. Launch and showcase more demonstration
projects in each zone and around the city. The
City can use its land to reduce the risk. Conduct
an architecture or design competition subject to
criteria that secures affordability of final housing
unit product.
2. The City should experiment widely with
eliminating or relaxing regulations (parking, fire
code, finishings, etc.).
3. The City should look to other affordable
housing models like those in Madrid or
Whistler and to also facilitate other financial
arrangements for affordable housing strategies
(eg. rent to own, co-housing).
20
S P EA K ER S

Rick Balfour Architect, Planner, Principal, Balfour +

Company / Balfour + Associates, and current Member of
the Vancouver City Planning Commission

Robert Barrs Principal, Holland Barrs Planning Group

Larry Beasley Former Co-Director of Planning,

Planning Department, City of Vancouver

Bill Buholzer Planner, Municipal, Lawyer, Lidstone

Young Anderson

June Christy Planner, City Plans, City of Vancouver

Patrick Condon Associate Professor, James

Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments,
University of British Columbia

Art Cowie Eikos Planning Inc.

Marta Farevaag Principal, Phillips Farevaag

Smallenberg

Bruce Haden Principal, Architect, Hotson Bakker

Boniface Haden Architects + Urbanistes

Cheeying Ho Executive Director, Smart Growth BC

Joaquin Karakas Planning Analyst, Holland Barrs

Planning Group

Marc Lee Economist, Canadian Centre for

Policy Alternatives

Gordon Price Director, The City Program,

Simon Fraser University

Bob Ransford Senior Consultant, Communication &

Public Affairs, Counterpoint Communications Inc.

Patricia St. Michel Urban Designer,

City of Vancouver

Jay Wollenberg mcp, mcip President, Coriolis

Consulting Corporation

27
 From the Oct 19–20, 2006 conference. A co-
production by the Vancouver City Planning
Commission, the Simon Fraser University
City Program and Smart Growth BC

www.sfu.ca/city www.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/civicagencies/vcpc w w w . s m a r t g rowth . bc . ca