Small steps (shared laundries), big steps (‘reciprocal development’) would trim new-housing costs in city, former councillor writes

Jim Green
Sun

Jim Green is a one-term Vancouver city councillor, two-time mayoral candidate and long-time developer and builder of social housing. He presented the comments published here to a forum on housing affordability earlier this month.

To help people enter the housing market and then to help them maintain their housing choices in today’s atmosphere of rising costs we need to question the basic assumptions of what is the best way for development to proceed.

In the past there have been many developments that have been contested by communities and sometimes by the City of Vancouver itself. (The CPR and the city have been involved in the courts for years over the future of the Arbutus ”Right of Way.” The costs have been enormous for both corporation and taxpayer.)

It seems to me that an antagonistic development process adds to the expense of housing and makes it more difficult to deliver in a timely manner.

An alternative to this is “reciprocal development” in which the developer engages consumer and community in a very real way and at the earliest possible moment.

Developer, community and consumer must be educated by one another.

I would further argue that the more the developer involves consumer and community in the design and placement the better the end product will be.

The approval process will clearly be faster if there is community support. In addition community support could lead to more density and height if there are benefits to the consumer, the community and the city.

There can be further reciprocal benefits if the development also provides specific components that address desired social and cultural elements such as social housing and/or support for the arts.

This reciprocal development, I believe, is the key element in development of a diverse, vibrant and inclusive city.

This is not a pie-in-the-sky concept that simply looks good on paper.

We have a laboratory example of “reciprocal development” in the Woodward’s redevelopment which went forward with the support of Chinatown and Gastown businesses and the residents of the Downtown Eastside.

The project received increased density and height from city hall as a result of providing social housing, public outdoor amenities, housing for the disabled, space for SFU’s school of contemporary art, community office and commercial space, and a child-care hub.

Another development, L’Hermitage, acquired extra density and height by providing new replacement single room accommodation units for the local low-income community.

Living Shangri La contributed to an affordable housing fund, saved and upgraded a significant heritage structure, endowed a public sculpture garden and planted thousand of trees to offset emissions.

The key to affordability generated by this process is that the community and development partners must create a compact that creates a proper working relationship and that this is endorsed and championed by the City of Vancouver.

The city must then apply the greatest degree of flexibility to allow reciprocity to create the desired results.

This is only the first assumption that needs to be question. Others may include:

– Persons entering the housing market prefer private amenities to shared amenities.

– A starter home must include an array of high quality appliances and finishes.

– Sustainable options are more expensive than conventional technology and materials.

– Households are static entities.

We assume we know what a person entering the market is looking for.

However, a starter home may not need a garburator; the new owner might be happier with rooftop composting.

If we are to generate affordable homes we must re-examine our assumptions and create a new philosophy of affordability.

For any number of reasons, shared living arrangements may be preferable to private and sustainability and creative design may be less expensive, more desirable and highly marketable.

If we take all of these factors into account, consumers and developers will both benefit from user design modelling.

This approach allows the developer to better understand the consumer’s needs and the “sacrifices” that are acceptable in achieving affordability.

Affordability is not created by choosing one alternative over another. It requires the correct bundling of options that work together to create affordability, livability and sustainability.

Are purchasers prepared to give up or reduce individual amenities in exchange for shared amenities?

For example, if they gave up smaller individual balconies in exchange for shared roof decks that allow for community gardens and other activities, they would most likely have better views than from apartment balconies.

This could be a very attractive alternative and would also be in keeping with sustainability goals and could add to social cohesion.

We must examine our concepts of housing units. For example, what is a two-bedroom unit?

This is an important concept in that the needs of people change through time as does the household makeup.

Students, young workers and others often get together to purchase or rent housing.

A two-bedroom home may be adapted to a three-bedroom by converting the living room into a bedroom. This may be designed to ensure access to the bedrooms does not require violating anyone’s personal space.

Later if things change the bedroom can go back to being a living room and a bedroom may change into a study or workroom.

This flexibility in the unity allows for affordability, more flexibility of lifestyles as well as allowing aging in place. More stable housing also leads to more stable communities.

Mortgage helpers in the form of secondary suites are one of the most cost-effective means of creating affordable housing.

These need not be confined to single-family-detached housing. They may work just as well in multi-storey, multi-unit housing. And they do not have to be an owner with a tenant in the secondary suite.

Both may be renters with the primary tenant being responsible for the two units. In this situation the secondary suites are referred to as lock-off suites. We have local examples at SFU’s UniverCity and Bastion Development’s projects at UBC.

Washrooms are more functional if functions are separated. Separation of toilets and washbasins from bath and shower allows simultaneous use.

This saves space and is cheaper than providing plumbing and appliances for two fully equipped bathrooms. Pocket (sliding) doors save space.

In units that are two bedrooms or larger there need not be a bathtub in all washrooms and showers may replace tubs in others.

LOFTs

– Sleeping lofts (static): A permanent sleeping loft over a work area could be well designed and be a sought-after design and living feature. It would add about 50 square feet to the home.

If the city were to include that 50 feet in its floor-space-ratio calculation, this could be a drawback. And building codes may require higher ceilings.

– Sleeping lofts (animated): This option has all the positive aspects of the static option, but disappears when not in use.

It required a pulley system that elevates the loft to the ceiling when it is not needed. It also requires a floor-lock system.

The sides and underside are treated with wood panelling or other claddings that adds to the overall design of the unit. There could be code considerations with this option. This would be seen as a very cool and hip unique option. Animated sleeping lofts may be powered by hand or electronically.

MURPHY BEDS

This is another option that has worked well in small homes in Vancouver (Bruce Erikson Place). Murphy beds need very exacting design to function well. They also require vacant floor area or daily re-arranging of furniture.

‘SHELL UNITS’

These homes are turned over to the resident with an occupancy permit, but are in different stages of finish. The resident is then required to provide “sweat equity.” “Shell” design allows the residents to alter bedrooms, living rooms, kitchen and dining arrangements as financial and livability needs change.

This allows the occupant to be involved in do-it-yourself design and renovation. (This is a very popular aspect for residents of single-family homes that can now be enjoyed by people in multi-unit accommodations.)

Unlike a static design the “shell” unit concept allows for units to better reflect the personality of the inhabitants. What are people prepared to forego to reduce purchase price? Are they prepared to purchase with less expensive materials that can be upgraded at a later time? Will they buy inexpensive armoires and do without built-in closets for the time being? What materials and appliances will they accept? In understanding “starter” home we need to know where “starter” starts.

Reduced finishes, or amenities, could include:

– Washer, dryer and dishwasher connections roughed in, but the appliances sold as options. Alternatively washers and dryers could be provided in basements and shared.

– Vinyl surrounds and flooring in bathrooms.

– Exposed concrete ceilings and polished concrete floors.

– Range-tops, with ovens optional.

– Shared composting areas for community gardens on roof decks rather than in-sink garbage disposers.

– Fewer parking stalls.

Any alternative to supplying parking is a great savings. In general, the less we use our vehicles the bigger our contribution to sustainability and livability.

The city may reduce parking requirements if alternatives are provided such as car-sharing or car-pooling options. As a parking stall costs up to $34,000 to provide, reduced parking can be one of the greatest way to provide affordability. Parking stalls should be leased or sold to inhabitants if they are needed. If all the stalls are not taken up by the residents and the car co-op they could be offered to the public.

We may also look at operating costs. Affordability is not just based on purchase price but the ability to sustain the residence. Therefore operational aspects of the home are as important as purchase price.

Fuel costs will continue to rise and could rise at a pace that would make it difficult for the owner to keep the unit. We need to look at alternative ways of heating air, heating water and cooling the unit.

Alternate systems are becoming less costly to install and are less costly to operate. Also there are programs that can offset the cost of installation. For example:

– Geothermal systems can save greatly on electrical and related costs while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gases and other emissions.

– Radiant floor heat is highly efficient.

– Passive solar floor heating is also efficient but needs to be used in conjunction with other systems.

– Installation of energy efficient lighting through the use of fluorescent lamps rather than incandescents.

Water is a resource that is becoming rare and more costly. Collecting rainwater, reducing consumption and recycling water can reduce costs.

There are very aggressive roles that the federal and provincial governments can embrace to assist in providing affordable housing.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is very strongly lobbying the federal government to create a nation housing policy and plan.

Without this all of our attempts to assist persons to acquire appropriate housing will be at best patchwork solutions.

This is true of the province as well. The recent provincial budget had some elements, such as the elimination of the Property Transfer Tax for first-time home owners, that will help in the attempt to reduce housing costs.

IN SUMMARY

There are many little tricks that can make minor contributions to affordability. But we can make major steps to achieve affordable housing if we follow the model of “Reciprocal Development;” use sustainable approaches; seek density and height bonuses for providing social and cultural components; and reduce parking.

The beauty of this approach is that it not only produces more affordable housing, it also supports low income housing, the arts and livability. This in turn helps build a better Vancouver.

© The Vancouver Sun 2007

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Real Estate Related. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.