# Laneway housing: the new trendy edgy thing?



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Supposedly laneway housing are cheaper to build and cheaper to live in than condos, seems like a great use of space. Can you see them picking up in popularity?

From OpenFile Vancouver


> Posted by Michael Aynsley on Monday, September 12, 2011
> 
> They've been around for more than two years in some neighbourhoods, and supposedly Vancouver’s "laneway housing" is growing in popularity across the city.
> 
> ...


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

So it's a fancy name for small house? I'll pass.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Seems like a great idea to me. It's obviously not for everyone, but it may be the only way many people could ever afford to own a detached home in Vancouver.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think it's a great idea in a number of ways.

It allows family to live close to each other, especially at a time when the population is growing. It will reduce urban sprawl and the use of fossil fuels. It provides rental accomodation and possible rental income for retirees.

The only caveat I see, is some people's vision of a "home" in the driveway may more closely resemble a shack........than the beautiful new home illustrated in the movie.

I am not sure it's possible for city planners to legislate against bad taste.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

To me one of the main points of a detached house is that you have a fairly large lot where you can do your own thing and have some privacy. A laneway home doesn't provide that, so you may as well just live in a condo or townhouse.


----------



## kubatron (Jan 17, 2011)

crazyjackcsa said:


> So it's a fancy name for small house? I'll pass.


yeah, that's right. because all we need in this world are butt-ugly suburban monoliths with absolutely zero creativity, sucking up far too much energy.

yeah, that's it. 

laneway houses, for those less in-the-know, are a fantastic development idea and can suit many families' needs. space-wise we should be focusing on less-is-more. http://www.archdaily.com/22045/40_r-laneway-house-superkul-inc/ http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/5601/laneway-house-by-kohn-shnier-architects.html are two examples of great designs and use of space. to each their own, of course.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Laneways? You mean where noisy garbage trucks travel and where the city does a poor job of maintaining road quality and clearing snow in the winter? Old sofas and garbage strewn about with a fanastic up close and personal view of your neighbor's garage. Yeah, that's what we all want in this world.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

kubatron said:


> yeah, that's right. because all we need in this world are butt-ugly suburban monoliths with absolutely zero creativity, sucking up far too much energy.
> 
> yeah, that's it.
> 
> laneway houses, for those less in-the-know, are a fantastic development idea and can suit many families' needs. space-wise we should be focusing on less-is-more. http://www.archdaily.com/22045/40_r-laneway-house-superkul-inc/ http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/5601/laneway-house-by-kohn-shnier-architects.html are two examples of great designs and use of space. to each their own, of course.


That's not really what I said, all I mean is it's a small house with a snazzy name slapped on it. I see nothing wrong with a small house, but don't call it "Laneway housing." 

You're sharing a yard with somebody else, there's no parking. It's worse than a condo on heating and foot print on the ground,therefore, it's harder on the environment. 

700 square feet can't fit a families needs. It can fit a couple's need. I say lift it up, slap a basement under it on it an call it what it is. Bungalow with a crappy lot.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

A lot of downtown Toronto housing has laneways in the back for people to park their cars (they usually predate automobiles). Most of our laneways are extremely tiny though, some no larger than 2 meters wide.

Laneway housing can just make better use of the space than a single purpose parking spot.

What else would you call housing in a laneway? lol. 

I see some laneways in the older neighbourhoods of Chatham on satellite, surely you've seen them?

The Vancouver neighbourhood featured in the original video (McGill and Slocan St.) has lots of room and is pretty accommodating of laneway housing:


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Nothing wrong with creative subdivision ideas to increase density.

Good for the owner to offset costs, good for the renter since they can live in Vancouver proper rather than buy a crappy 2bedroom condo in Maple Ridge for $350,000 and commute 2-3 hours every day.

Also consider, is it better or worse than filling the smallish Vancouver lots with massive monster houses that accomodate 2-3 families?

This way at least there is some 'privacy'.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

A few subdivisions in Markham have something similar to this. Where the rental unit is built on top of the garage, which backs on to a laneway in the rear. Having the lawn between the home and the garage/rental unit. 

The City oversees how many are allowed to be built on each street, to control traffic volumes in the burbs. I don't think you can obtain a permit to make your garage into one, you have to build it that way from the start. Unlike in the video.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Given the incredible housing prices in Vancouver, it seems a reasonable approach to densification in cities that have laneways. My question would be - now that you have 2 homes on the same lot, and the laneway home occupies the space where the garage used to be, where do they park the cars?


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

I suppose my issue is that of the "upsell" referring to a rental on a laneway as "edgy" or "trendy" and pretending it's a new idea. It's a carriage house (basically) and the idea has been around for a very long time. Sure, they wen't all upscale on the finishes but it's not for me. Then again, I'm fairly far removed from the housing prices of Vancouver and the ilk.

Build too many of them on the same lane way, and traffic really becomes an issue. as does snow removal in the winter.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

See my previous post, crazyjack. Laneways are given LAST priority for winter snow clearing. Major streets and collectors are first and even those take a while to clear after a large snowfall.

As for as dense areas, we have some of them around here and they are an absolute pain. The traffic slows to a crawl at the best of times due to all the cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, crosswalks, traffic lights, speed bumps and other "war on the car" acts. When there is a stalled car or construction in these areas things do not move. That says nothing of the increased demand on power, sewer and water grids that are seeing their usage increase beyond planned capacities. Ever seen what happens during a watermain break?

The solution is to repopulate our rural towns. The cities are full. No more room. Stop trying to jam people in like sardines. There's lots of room and affordable housing in smaller towns across this country. Put the office buildings there, problem solved.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

Laneways do add to the rental stock in Vancouver.

But since their square footage is specifically excluded from allowable build on lots they do nothing to stop 'monster houses.' And, of course, the added revenue just boosts the buy price of the house. 

So see them for what they are: simply a density increase. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

there is a famous laneway in my neighbourhood that reportedly was an old mohawk trail before the white man came. It does trek uphill to join what archaeologists have confirmed was an important pre-european first nation trade artery from the harbour to the western tip of montreal island.

for whatever reason, whether native trail or not, this lane is exceptionally broad. It's studded with garages, usually 2-car size, that belong to the houses which front on the 2 streets. More than half of these garages have small apartments above, in which dwell tenants in varying stages of quasi-legality.

in my burg, it's only legal to build a small apartment over your laneway garage if the occupants will be members of your immediate family. It's against the by-laws to build a dwelling for rent to strangers. I have no idea how or whether the muni checks up on the relationships between house owner & garage tenants as the years pass, as houses are sold, as home owners change and as garage tenants come & go, up & down the old mohawk trail.

one thing remains certain. As soon as a dwelling has been built above a garage, the building becomes a coachhouse. Never again, not even once, will anyone ever refer to it as a garage.

a cousin of mine once owned one of the houses with one of these coachhouses at the back of the property, smack on the old mohawk lane. At one point she rented the coachhouse to a young couple whose husband worked for the CRA. She always thought it was hilarious when the revenue agent crossed the back yard each month to her kitchen door, to hand her $800 in cash.

life in the laneway has quirks of its own. There's no civic number, because "nobody" is officially living in the lane except members of the immediate family. Landlords & landladies of the house proper have to be ready to take mail back to the coachhouse. 

it's not possible to order food in. Pizza delivery becomes a thing of the past. Taxis don't know where, groceries & pharmacies can't deliver, big stores complain about new fridges or beds. Fortunately, according to mah cuz, utility repairmen - phone, water, gas, oil, furnace - were all happy to work in the laneway.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

great idea, bigger than the 500 sq ft houses that are coming.

the more people that move to the cities the better...


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Interesting opinion, spocket1200. Do you suppose these people agree with you?


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> The solution is to repopulate our rural towns. The cities are full. No more room. Stop trying to jam people in like sardines. There's lots of room and affordable housing in smaller towns across this country. Put the office buildings there, problem solved.


I believe the factor that prevents this from happening, is that living in a small town you have to be prepared to entertain yourself. The town nearest to me is Bancroft, some 30km away. The library probably has 30,000 pieces. There is maybe one restaurant that could in any way be considered "fine dining". There is an amateur theatre operation, maybe a 200 seater. There is no public pool. You get the idea.

What do you get then? Well a double professional family could earn say $180K/year. Such a family is royalty around here, exceeded in economic clout only be say those who own the car dealerships, the grocery stores, or the dentists and doctors. They could buy a house in town for $250K that would cost > $1M in Toronto, or get a similar house on 10 to 100 acres 10 or 20 km outside town. Or they could live on one of the big lakes in a $0.5M house. Traffic getting to work is likely to be 2 lights, one stop sign, and the line up of cars trying to turn left into Horton's for the morning fix.

Sure works for me!

hboy43


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> The solution is to repopulate our rural towns. The cities are full. No more room. Stop trying to jam people in like sardines.


The solution is to have less chidren (on global scale).

Decreasing population is the only solution to overpopulation problem.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Homerhomer said:


> The solution is to have less chidren (on global scale).
> 
> Decreasing population is the only solution to overpopulation problem.


Which would in itself would completely drain most countries pension plans......


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Cal said:


> Which would in itself would completely drain most countries pension plans......


which is better than lack of water, food, and resources on a global scale which will eventually happen if the population continues to grow at the current pace...


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> The solution is to have less chidren (on global scale).
> 
> Decreasing population is the only solution to overpopulation problem.


I disagree, at least in Canada's case. Canada could support a population many times larger than what it is now.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

^ Not if everybody keeps jamming into cities the way they are doing now. The jobs need to spread out across our geography. No reason office towers need to be located in the worse, most undesirable parts of town, full of congestion and nowhere for people to park their cars. The only way this country can take in more people is to spread out. The current model of bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants and simply jamming them into already-congested cities is not sustainable.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Sherlock said:


> I disagree, at least in Canada's case. Canada could support a population many times larger than what it is now.


If the rest of the world was populated like Canada we would be in perfect shape, but we are not Unfortunately Canada's population is not a good representation of global situation. North America is one of the least populated continents, and Canada one of the least populated countries in the world apart from Mongolia, Iceland and few others (population density wise).

edit. If Canada's population increased ten fold it would still be at about average or just below that of global population density, obviously few are going to live up north unless we have severe global warming, so 350 million or so living within 200km of US border wouldn't feel that comfortable.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

That's a photo similar to Beijing-Tibet expressway 60 mile traffic jam. Pretty much a textbook example of how not to do transportation planning. China also has great examples how not to do high speed rail safety inspections, how not to excavate an underground garage, how not to ignore corruption between developers and government officials who depend on land and property taxes for their income etc.

Spreading out businesses sounds like a good idea at first, but that also assumes everyone that works in the neighbourhood lives in the neighbourhood. Downtowns exist because their transportation networks allow them to be accessible to a large population.

How did a 100km 3 hour commute from Barrie to downtown Toronto became socially acceptable? Yet people still do it. Then Toronto ends up on the top 20 "Pain Index" Global Commuter Survey. Notice how no Japanese cities are on this list? People always laugh at the train pushers there, but you know, at least they get people places quickly.

Travelling is a human behaviour, it's about being at a specific place at a specific time. Travelling is usually a scheduled event with frequency. There are short-duration activities (e.g drop-off/pick-up, services, shopping) and there are long-duration activities (e.g. work/school, social/recreation etc.) The bulk of specific activities recur on certain hours and certain days. Traffic engineers under can model that. Rail networks can be scaled to use, you could add more capacity at peak times and remove it off-peak. You can't do that efficiently with cars that have one person in them.

I think people should be able to live outside cities too, but we need better public transportation networks, and unfortunately muni/regional governments are always first to spend money for transportation in already dense areas because they'll get the fastest ROI.

As for the root of the problem, the rate of global human population growth is not sustainable. I think we already know that. Hence the push by every developing nation in the world for education and access to contraception. Especially in Canada the idea that because there's lots of land and we can just "build out" is not a sustainable long-term solution. As long as humans exist and live for a reasonable number of years with access to basic resources, that land will be populated (it may take hundreds of years), and towns then cities will become re-congested because of latent demand. Same reason population growth went nuts after we discovered an abundance of hydrocarbons (coal, then oil) and now we hope we can repeat that a third time with natural gas. If we look at non-industrialised countries we see poor and uneducated populations reproducing multiple times faster than we do. Most people in the Western World are now not able to secure long-term employment until their 30s or later, most people don't consider marriage until their 30s or later, if ever. There is less incentive for the Western World to start families now than ever. Fuel consumption in America is on a projected long-term decline, and so their economy should be too.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> If the rest of the world was populated like Canada we would be in perfect shape, but we are not Unfortunately Canada's population is not a good representation of global situation. North America is one of the least populated continents, and Canada one of the least populated countries in the world apart from Mongolia, Iceland and few others (population density wise).


Why should we as Canadians care about the rest of the world? It's not our fault the Indians or Africans can't control their populations. I don't think Canadians need to feel guilty about having kids considering how much resources we have. Personally I'd like to have a large family someday.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Sherlock said:


> Why should we as Canadians care about the rest of the world? It's not our fault the Indians or Africans can't control their populations. I don't think Canadians need to feel guilty about having kids considering how much resources we have. Personally I'd like to have a large family someday.


You don't need to feel guilthy for what others are doing, as to why should you care, many reasons, I will list only few that directly affect you:

1) supply and demand: the more Indian kids are out there the more you will pay to feed your children, it will cost you more to dress them, as the Indian kids use up the resources everything will costs you more. God forbid Indian parents are ever able to afford to feed their kids like we do, meat every day, fish, cheese and eggs, the cost of your food will go through the roof. Imagine being a grandpa and telling your grands about eating a tuna back in the day, little Jane will ask: grandpa, what is tuna? you will kindly reply it's a delicious flaky meat that came out of a can (or a large fish that used to swim in oceans): but grandpa, Jane asks again: why we don't have tuna, you reply: Indian kids ate them all.

2) health of your children: the more kids are out there (Indian or not), the more pollution they will produce, half of the kids you produce will probably have allergies, asthma or other ailments directly or indirectly linked to the environment, the more kids there are, the more of the resources will be consumed, the more pollution will be produced, and more chemicals will be used to produce the food you will feed your kids, the more health problems your kids will have.


----------

