In 2009, Vancouver created policy and legalized laneway homes. (If you’re not up on laneway housing, click here. I’ve written too much about this topic.)
Since then, the number of laneway homes built in Vancouver has steadily increased to the point where roughly 350 new homes are built every year.
Here’s a chart I found showing the number of laneway home building permits issued in Vancouver since 2009 (the year to date number for 2015 is up to and including June):
This is pretty interesting in its own right.
But as soon as I saw this chart I started wondering how these numbers fit into the overall new home construction landscape. So I decided to dig up the City of Vancouver’s Statement of Building Permits Issued for June 2015.
As the chart above shows, the number of laneway dwelling units built (well, permits issued) was 221 as of June 2015. But what’s really fascinating is that this numbers exceeds the number of building permits issued for single family dwellings, which was only 192!
Also super interesting is the significant spread in building permit value.
For single family dwellings, the total value was $156,086,861 (or $812,952 per dwelling unit). On the other hand, for laneway dwellings the total value was $36,478,785 (or $165,062 per unit).
Now to be fair, if you add single family dwellings with a secondary suite into the mix, you get a total count of 608 new dwelling units (as of June 2015). But at 221 new units, laneway dwellings still make up a meaningful portion of the new construction market.
So while laneway houses might seem fringe for Toronto and other cities right now, they’re really not that fringe. In fact the numbers above start to show that they can be a viable source of new and relatively affordable single family housing.
Eventually other cities will realize this too.
This October 8th and 9th (2015) in Toronto, CityAge will be hosting a summit at the MaRS Discovery District called, Build the Future. The goal is to explore the future of Canada’s economic powerhouse.
Here’s a little bit about CityAge:
CityAge is a platform for ideas and business development, designed to enable new partnerships among the business, government and societal leaders who are shaping the 21st Century.
Founded in 2012 in Vancouver, Canada, our events have taken place, or are scheduled, in New York City, Hong Kong, Toronto, London, Los Angeles, Seattle, Edmonton, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Ottawa, Vancouver and The Waterloo Region in Canada.
To date more than 4,000 leaders in business, government and society have attended a CityAge event.
I’ve seen the draft agenda and list of speakers for the event, and if you enjoy the content on this blog, I think you’ll also really enjoy this CityAge summit.
But even better is the fact that if you’re a young professional (under 35) and a reader of Architect This City, you can use the code YOUNGPRO to attend for just C$195.
You’re welcome. I hope to see you there :)
Vancouver BC City Skyline and Stanley Park by Jit Lim on 500px
In the comment section of my post about Vancouver’s transit referendum, a reader suggested I take a look at an article by Peter McMartin called, The real Vancouver emerges (from the ruins of the plebiscite).
McMartin’s argument is basically that Vancouverism – the name given to the city’s progressive architecture and planning approach – isn’t as widespread as it might seem. The reality is that Vancouver, much like Toronto and other cities, is divided.
“Vancouverism might be a reality for two or three neighbourhoods huddling in the downtown, and that greener, more progressive ethos might hold sway in one or two more.
But Vancouver — and I speak of it in the metro sense — is the sum of its parts, and most of its parts are suburban in their sensibilities, and that includes not just all of the suburbs but most of the neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver proper.
They’re resistant to change. They abhor densification. They’re conventional in their sensibilities and they’re highly dependent on the automobile. More importantly, they’re not just dependent on the automobile, they prefer it.”
Here in Toronto, we know our city is divided. And many people see it as evidence that amalgamating the city in 1998 was a big mistake. The inner suburbs are holding back old Toronto and elitist old Toronto just doesn’t understand the priorities of the inner suburbs.
But I’m not convinced that amalgamation is to blame.
Most cities have long histories of amalgamating adjacent towns, villages, and cities, and I suspect that there was opposition all along the way. At what point is amalgamation acceptable and and what point is it problematic?
The anti-amalgamation camp here in Toronto seems to believe that it would have allowed old Toronto to continue doing what it wants to do and allowed the inner suburbs to do what they want to do.
But this to me feels parochial.
Our cities need to think bigger than that. We need to think as cohesive urban regions. And as Vancouver demonstrated this past week, that’s not always easy. But I don’t think the answer is to just think smaller and ignore the people whose views don’t match our own.
Interestingly enough, what a lot of this comes down to, I think, is built form.
Because different kinds of built form will encourage and often mandate different kinds of transportation choices. And how you get around a city will inform a big part of what you value and what you vote for.
Over time though, I believe that we will see built form start to level out across our city regions through continued intensification. Many people won’t be happy about this change. But it is likely that it will end up creating more cohesive cities.
Built form is no small thing.
In 2009, Vancouver created policy and legalized laneway homes. (If you’re not up on laneway housing, click here. I’ve written too much about this topic.)
Since then, the number of laneway homes built in Vancouver has steadily increased to the point where roughly 350 new homes are built every year.
Here’s a chart I found showing the number of laneway home building permits issued in Vancouver since 2009 (the year to date number for 2015 is up to and including June):
This is pretty interesting in its own right.
But as soon as I saw this chart I started wondering how these numbers fit into the overall new home construction landscape. So I decided to dig up the City of Vancouver’s Statement of Building Permits Issued for June 2015.
As the chart above shows, the number of laneway dwelling units built (well, permits issued) was 221 as of June 2015. But what’s really fascinating is that this numbers exceeds the number of building permits issued for single family dwellings, which was only 192!
Also super interesting is the significant spread in building permit value.
For single family dwellings, the total value was $156,086,861 (or $812,952 per dwelling unit). On the other hand, for laneway dwellings the total value was $36,478,785 (or $165,062 per unit).
Now to be fair, if you add single family dwellings with a secondary suite into the mix, you get a total count of 608 new dwelling units (as of June 2015). But at 221 new units, laneway dwellings still make up a meaningful portion of the new construction market.
So while laneway houses might seem fringe for Toronto and other cities right now, they’re really not that fringe. In fact the numbers above start to show that they can be a viable source of new and relatively affordable single family housing.
Eventually other cities will realize this too.
This October 8th and 9th (2015) in Toronto, CityAge will be hosting a summit at the MaRS Discovery District called, Build the Future. The goal is to explore the future of Canada’s economic powerhouse.
Here’s a little bit about CityAge:
CityAge is a platform for ideas and business development, designed to enable new partnerships among the business, government and societal leaders who are shaping the 21st Century.
Founded in 2012 in Vancouver, Canada, our events have taken place, or are scheduled, in New York City, Hong Kong, Toronto, London, Los Angeles, Seattle, Edmonton, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Ottawa, Vancouver and The Waterloo Region in Canada.
To date more than 4,000 leaders in business, government and society have attended a CityAge event.
I’ve seen the draft agenda and list of speakers for the event, and if you enjoy the content on this blog, I think you’ll also really enjoy this CityAge summit.
But even better is the fact that if you’re a young professional (under 35) and a reader of Architect This City, you can use the code YOUNGPRO to attend for just C$195.
You’re welcome. I hope to see you there :)
Vancouver BC City Skyline and Stanley Park by Jit Lim on 500px
In the comment section of my post about Vancouver’s transit referendum, a reader suggested I take a look at an article by Peter McMartin called, The real Vancouver emerges (from the ruins of the plebiscite).
McMartin’s argument is basically that Vancouverism – the name given to the city’s progressive architecture and planning approach – isn’t as widespread as it might seem. The reality is that Vancouver, much like Toronto and other cities, is divided.
“Vancouverism might be a reality for two or three neighbourhoods huddling in the downtown, and that greener, more progressive ethos might hold sway in one or two more.
But Vancouver — and I speak of it in the metro sense — is the sum of its parts, and most of its parts are suburban in their sensibilities, and that includes not just all of the suburbs but most of the neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver proper.
They’re resistant to change. They abhor densification. They’re conventional in their sensibilities and they’re highly dependent on the automobile. More importantly, they’re not just dependent on the automobile, they prefer it.”
Here in Toronto, we know our city is divided. And many people see it as evidence that amalgamating the city in 1998 was a big mistake. The inner suburbs are holding back old Toronto and elitist old Toronto just doesn’t understand the priorities of the inner suburbs.
But I’m not convinced that amalgamation is to blame.
Most cities have long histories of amalgamating adjacent towns, villages, and cities, and I suspect that there was opposition all along the way. At what point is amalgamation acceptable and and what point is it problematic?
The anti-amalgamation camp here in Toronto seems to believe that it would have allowed old Toronto to continue doing what it wants to do and allowed the inner suburbs to do what they want to do.
But this to me feels parochial.
Our cities need to think bigger than that. We need to think as cohesive urban regions. And as Vancouver demonstrated this past week, that’s not always easy. But I don’t think the answer is to just think smaller and ignore the people whose views don’t match our own.
Interestingly enough, what a lot of this comes down to, I think, is built form.
Because different kinds of built form will encourage and often mandate different kinds of transportation choices. And how you get around a city will inform a big part of what you value and what you vote for.
Over time though, I believe that we will see built form start to level out across our city regions through continued intensification. Many people won’t be happy about this change. But it is likely that it will end up creating more cohesive cities.
Built form is no small thing.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
