Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Continuity with change : an investigation of the "monster house" issue in Vancouver's westside single-family… Read, Kim Alexander 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8_2 R42.pdf [ 11.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097983.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097983-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097983-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097983-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097983-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097983-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097983-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097983-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097983.ris

Full Text

CONTINUITY WITH CHANGE An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the 'Monster House' i s s u e i n Vancouver's Westside S i n g l e - F a m i l y Neighbourhoods by KIM ALEXANDER READ B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional P l a n n i n g We accept T h i s T h e s i s as Conforming to the Required Standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1989 (c) Kim Alexander Read, 1979 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date APrtiu Z» i°)9°l DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Vancouver's westside residents complain to City Hall about large new houses being constructed i n t h e i r s i n g l e -family neighbourhoods. To address the r e s i d e n t s ' concerns and to promote the 'neighbour1iness' of new development, Vancouver's planning department has focussed on the manipulation of bulk and s i t i n g controls of new houses, however, residents continue to complain. Why have these new c o n t r o l s been i n e f f e c t i v e i n r e s o l v i n g the concerns of residents? The thesis investigates t h i s problem by surveying r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s and perceptions regarding the development of large new houses. Three d i f f e r e n t sources of information are used: 1. l i t erature review 2. comments recorded at p u b l i c meetings 3. directed home interviews with r e s i d e n t s . A 1 i t e r a t u r e review of " q u a l i t y " , "neighbourhood", "character", "change", and " c o n t i n u i t y " i s undertaken to formulate a concept of " c o n t i n u i t y with change". Comments recorded at p u b l i c meetings dealing with the issue of large new houses are analyzed. A questionnaire at the meetings and mapping of the new houses i d e n t i f i e s southwest Oakridge as an area highly affected by t h i s new development. Resident interviews are conducted i n southwest Oakridge to survey the opinions of r e s i d e n t s . i i i The thesis suggests that there are three major issues which concern r e s i d e n t s : f i r s t , the unaceptable design and general appearance of the new houses. Second, the f e e l i n g of helplessness i n the face of change. Third, a concern with Asian purchasers of the new houses and the r e s u l t i n g c u l t u r a l change i n the neighbourhood. The thesis concludes that since r e s i d e n t s ' concerns are not l i m i t e d to the bulk and s i t i n g of large new houses, the new controls introduced by City Hall are i n s u f f i c i e n t and the f o l l o w i n g issues must be addressed: (a) the design of the new houses, (b) the context of the new houses and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the e x i s t i n g streetscape, (c) c o n t i n u i t y i n landscape design, Id) community p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n managing change, (e) c u l t u r a l change i n the community. A l t e r n a t i v e s to the present "outright use" system are discussed with special reference to development c o n t r o l s c u r r e n t l y being applied successfully i n some neighbourhoods i n Vancouver. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i Tabl e of Contents i v L i s t of F i g u r e s v i 1.0 Problem Definition 1 1.1 Problem H i s t o r y 1.2 The C i t y ' s Response 1.3 The Problem Continues 1.4 The T h e s i s Question 1.5 R a t i o n a l e 1.6 Elements of C o n t i n u i t y 1.7 Importance of Research 1.8 Scope 1.9 Methodology and O r g a n i z a t i o n 1.10 Key Terms 2.0 The "Monster House" Issue 13 2.1 Sources 2.2 B u i l d i n g Pace 2.3 L o c a t i o n of New Houses 2.4 D e s c r i p t i o n of New Houses 2.5 Two Markets 2.6 1986 RS-1 Zoning R e g u l a t i o n Changes 2.7 1987 Co n s u l t a n t s ' Reports 2.8 1988 RS-1 Zoning R e g u l a t i o n Changes 3.0 The Concept of Continuity With Change 26 3.1 Assumptions 3.2 Q u a l i t y 3.3 Ne i ghbourhood 3.4 Character 3.5 Change 3.6 C o n t i n u i t y 3.7 Concept Summary 4.0 The Surveys 50 4.1 Purpose of Surveys 4.2 Methodology 4.3 Survey of Comments at P u b l i c Meetings 4.4 Survey of P u b l i c Meeting P a r t i c i p a n t s 4.5 Oakridge D i r e c t e d Interviews 5.0 Concerns of Existing Residents 5.1 Abhorrance of New Houses 5.2 H e l p l e s s n e s s i n the Face of Change 5.3 I n t o l e r a n c e Toward New C u l t u r e 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 C o n c l u s i o n 6.2 C o n f i r m a t i o n of R e s u l t s 6.3 R e s o l v i n g the Problem 6.4 Recommendations 6.5 F u r t h e r Research References Appendices 1. RS-1 Zoning R e g u l a t i o n s 2. P u b l i c Meeting Survey Data 3. P u b l i c Meeting Comment A n a l y s i s 4. Questions f o r Resident Interviews v i LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e 1 Photos F i g u r e 2 Graph F i g u r e 3 Map F i g u r e 4 Graph F i g u r e 5 Map F i g u r e 7 -Photos F i g u r e 8 -Photos F i g u r e 9 -Photos F i g u r e 10-Map Examples of Large New Houses B u i l t Under RS-1 Zoning R e g u l a t i o n s P r i o r to Changes i n A p r i l , 1986 1A Southwest Oakridge - Trend i n S i n g l e Family-Permits Issued 13A L o c a t i o n of Monster Houses - Vancouver C e n t r a l Westside, February 1986 14A New Houses - Southwest Oakridge - Pace of Redevelopment 15A L o c a t i o n of Monster Houses - Vancouver C e n t r a l Westside, February 1986 and Southwest Oakridge, March 1986 to February 1988 16A Hard Surface Elements of New Designs 17A Examples of Large New Houses B u i l t Under the A p r i l 1986 RS-1 Zoning R e g u l a t i o n s 21A Examples of Large New Houses B u i l t Under the March 1988 RS-1 Zoning R e g u l a t i o n s 23A L o c a t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Interviews - Southwest Oakridge 55A v i i 1 CHAPTER 1 : PROBLEM DEFINITION Residents are complaining about l a r g e new houses being c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e i r neighbourhoods. In order to understand the scope of t h i s problem, a b r i e f h i s t o r y of events, as they were presented to the r e s e a r c h e r , w i l l form an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the t h e s i s q u e s t i o n . The r a t i o n a l e , an i n t r o d u c t i o n to ' c o n t i n u i t y ' , the importance of the r e s e a r c h , methodology and o r g a n i z a t i o n , and a s e l e c t i o n of key terms, f o l l o w s . 1.1 The Problem H i s t o r y Late i n 1985, a problem was d e v e l o p i n g i n s i n g l e - f a m i l y (RS-1 zoned) neighbourhoods on the westside of Vancouver (appendix 1). Newspaper a r t i c l e s suggested that l a r g e new houses were causing a n x i e t y f o r r e s i d e n t s (Vancouver Sun, Sept. 1985). The r e s i d e n t s complained about the l a r g e s i z e and overwhelming appearance of the new houses ( f i g u r e 1). They were being c o n s t r u c t e d t o the maximum a l l o w a b l e f l o o r space r a t i o (FSR) under the RS-1 zoning schedule while the e x i s t i n g homes were, i n most cases, much s m a l l e r . Nicknames were adopted that r e f l e c t e d the p e r c e p t i o n of r e s i d e n t s who d e s c r i b e d the new houses as "monster houses", " m o n s t r o s i t i e s " , or "mega houses". By e a r l y 1986, Vancouver C i t y C o u n c i l members were r e c e i v i n g complaints from r e s i d e n t s who wanted something done about the l a r g e new houses. Alderman George P u i l i n i t i a t e d d i s c u s s i o n of the i s s u e at C i t y C o u n c i l . The r e s e a r c h e r i n t e r v i e w e d Alderman P u i l on February.21, 1986. Alderman P u i l s a i d t h at there were many telephone c a l l s and l e t t e r s from EXAMPLES OF LARGE NEW HOUSES BUILT UNDER RS-1 ZONING REGULATIONS PRIOR TO CHANGES IN APRIL, 1986 2 v a r i o u s p a r t s of the c i t y complaining about l a r g e new houses. In Alderman P u i l ' s o p i n i o n , the main concerns of r e s i d e n t s were: 1. The new houses were out of c h a r a c t e r f o r the neighbourhoods and the new "boxy" designs d i d not f i t i n . 2. Residents complained that the new houses blocked e s t a b l i s h e d views. 3. New houses were overshadowing the back yards of e x i s t i n g houses and e l i m i n a t i n g the p r i v a c y t h a t r e s i d e n t s had p r e v i o u s l y enjoyed. 4. Houses were being c o n s t r u c t e d that were designed f o r the i n c l u s i o n of i l l e g a l s u i t e s . Mr. P u i l , however, f e l t that t h i s was only a problem on the e a s t s i d e of the c i t y . 1.2 The C i t y ' s Response To address the problem the C i t y C o u n c i l (minutes Jan. 7, 1986) f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d the f o l l o w i n g goals f o r RS-1 s i n g l e -f a m i l y neighbourhoods: 1. M a i n t a i n the q u a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y of Vancouver's s i n g l e - f a m i l y neighbourhoods. 2. Allow some change i n RS-1 on the c o n d i t i o n that n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s i s maintained between new development and e x i s t i n g housing. Second, C o u n c i l i n s t r u c t e d p l a n n i n g s t a f f to remedy t h i s problem by proposing changes to the RS-1 zoning by-law that would a l l e v i a t e r e s i d e n t s ' concerns. Dr. Ann McAfee, housing planner f o r the C i t y of Vancouver, was i n t e r v i e w e d on February 27, 1986. Dr. McAfee s a i d that s t a f f was producing r e v i s e d RS-1 zoning r e g u l a t i o n s as requested by C i t y C o u n c i l . They were working to e s t a b l i s h new t e c h n i c a l 3 parameters to a c c e p t a b l e development i n s i n g l e - f a m i l y neighbourhoods by manipulating setbacks, h e i g h t , and other p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l s o u t l i n e d i n the r e g u l a t i o n s . They were to do t h i s without reducing the FSR, the value that determines the o v e r a l l s i z e of the s t r u c t u r e . C o u n c i l was a f r a i d t h a t p r o p e r t y owners would ask f o r compensation f o r l o s t development r i g h t s i f the FSR was reduced. In March 1986, the p l a n n i n g department p u b l i c i z e d i t s proposed r e v i s i o n s at two p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings convened to e x p l a i n the changes to those concerned. I t became evident at the f i r s t meeting that the department had underestimated the p u b l i c concern on the i s s u e as the h a l l s e l e c t e d was approximately one h a l f the s i z e r e q u i r e d to accomodate those i n t e r e s t e d i n a t t e n d i n g the meeting. P a r t i c i p a n t s were very v o c a l about t h e i r d i s p l e a s u r e with the c u r r e n t zoning laws. At the o f f i c i a l p u b l i c meeting r e q u i r e d under the C i t y ' s c h a r t e r the changes were adopted by C o u n c i l . The changes are e x p l a i n e d i n more d e t a i l i n chapter 2. 1.3 The Problem Continues By mid 1986, the C i t y was r e c e i v i n g complaints about l a r g e new houses b u i l t under the new r e g u l a t i o n s . The c o n t i n u e d complaints and press coverage on the i s s u e would suggest that the new r e g u l a t i o n s d i d not r e s o l v e the concerns of e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s . The pace of d e m o l i t i o n and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of houses i n RS-1 neighbourhoods continued to e s c a l a t e d e s p i t e the bulk and s i t i n g changes to the zoning by-law i n t r o d u c e d i n A p r i l 1986. The value 4 of l a n d and the market p r i c e of new and o l d e r homes continued to e s c a l a t e d e s p i t e the warnings of r e a l t e r s and b u i l d e r s who b e l i e v e d that new c o n t r o l s would re v e r s e the market. By mid 1986, the C i t y was r e c e i v i n g complaints about l a r g e new houses being b u i l t under the new r e g u l a t i o n s . The continued complaints and press coverage would suggest that the new r e g u l a t i o n s d i d not r e s o l v e the concerns of e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s . 1.4 The T h e s i s Question Residents i n RS-1 s i n g l e - f a m i l y neighbourhoods have been complaining about l a r g e new houses being b u i l t i n t h e i r neighbourhoods. The response of the C i t y has been to address t h e i r concerns by ma n i p u l a t i n g bulk and s i t i n g c o n t r o l s i n the RS-1 zoning by-law. R e s i d e n t s , however, continue to complain. T h i s suggests that the new c o n t r o l s are i n a p p r o p r i a t e or i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y r e s i d e n t s . Why have changes to RS-1 zoning r e g u l a t i o n s been i n e f f e c t i v e i n r e s o l v i n g the concerns of r e s i d e n t s over l a r g e new houses being c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e i r neighbourhoods? 1.5 R a t i o n a l e P r e l i m i n a r y o b s e r v a t i o n s by the res e a r c h e r suggest that r e t a i n i n g elements of c o n t i n u i t y c o n s i s t e n t with the c h a r a c t e r and s t r e e t s c a p e of each neighbourhood may be more important to r e s i d e n t s than reducing bulk and s i t i n g . In some i n s t a n c e s , i n Shaughnessy f o r example, the new houses are a c t u a l l y smaller than the e x i s t i n g houses yet the r e s i d e n t s s t i l l r e f e r to the 5 new houses as "monster houses". This would suggest that size was not the reason for residents' concern in this neighbourhood. In other areas, where bulk and density are allowed to increase because of bonuses for character retention, there i s no apparent c o n f l i c t between residents and new development. The 200 block West 13th Avenue in Vancouver, zoned RT2A, i s such an example. On t h i s street i t i s d i f f i c u l t to t e l l which houses are new and which are restored seventy-five year old houses. Although developed at the same time as the large new houses in RS-1, there were no corresponding complaints from residents in t h i s d i s t r i c t . The City appeared to achieve increased size and density of development without offending the exi s t i n g neighbourhood. Could t h i s success not be repeated in RS-1? The goals for RS-1 are to maintain the qu a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y of RS-1 neighbourhoods and allow change i f neighbourliness i s maintained. The importance of maintaining character i s revealed in these goals and in the urban design l i t e r a t u r e , yet the schedule for RS-1 zoned land which covers 70% of the r e s i d e n t i a l land area of the c i t y , v i r t u a l l y ignores character in the regulatory by-law. Is i t that the residents here are not concerned about retaining character? The concerns l i s t e d by Alderman P u i l suggest that residents want continuity with change to maintain the character of their neighbourhoods. 1.6 Elements Of Continuity Elements of continuity, the threads of consistency over time that define character, must be maintained to allow the ex i s t i n g residents to accept change. Lynch has described these 6 elements as elements of l o c a l continuity (Lynch 1 9 8 1 ) . New development that i s to enhance the fabric and improve the qua l i t y of a neighbourhood can be accomplished by understanding what the neighbourhood elements of continuity are. Perhaps a tree must remain, a certain pitched roof, a style of siding, a yard orientation, a type of balcony, a sty l e of access, fencing, c l o t h e s l i n e s , chimneys, or a certain l i f e s t y l e or history. There are many neighbourhoods that are enriched by the h i s t o r i c a l aspect of their housing. The residents take pride in restoring older homes and maintaining an environment of a time past. Others with the same values seek out t h i s neighbourhood. It i s an important continuous element in the fabric of the neighbourhood. Orientation may be important in other neighbourhoods. For example, houses positioned to take advantage of views, and the respect that neighbours have for those views may be elements of continuity. The residents may l i v e there because they have th i s common value. There may be many changes in the neighbourhood but this aspect, i f maintained, w i l l allow the character of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r neighbourhood to continue. It may not be only the physical view, but the fact that the people l i v i n g there share a common love of the view and respect t h e i r environment and neighbours for i t . They may not know a l l of their neighbours personally but they know that they have th i s value in common. Oakridge i s a r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood in Vancouver that is the focus of our study. In Oakridge there i s no view. There are no h i s t o r i c a l homes. But there may be something else that establishes the character. Perhaps i t i s the landscape. There 7 are s m a l l houses, bungalows on l a r g e l o t s t h a t leave an abundance of landscape. The landscape and cottage f e e l i n g appears to be important to r e s i d e n t s . Maintenance i s a source of p r i d e and hobby. Preening the landscape c o n t r i b u t e s to much of the c o n t a c t between neighbours. New homes are now being b u i l t that change t h i s v a l u e . They are separate from the landscape and i n t e r r u p t the c o n t i n u i t y of c h a r a c t e r w i t h i n the neighbourhood. The new occupants do not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the preening r i t u a l s . They are not landscape people. There i s a landscape element to the neighbourhood. I t i s a shared value which d e f i n e s i t s c h a r a c t e r . I t i s l i k e the view element or the h i s t o r y element. I t i s one element that makes the neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r what i t i s . Perhaps the s i z e and bulk of the new houses i s not as important to r e s i d e n t s as the l o s s of elements of c o n t i n u i t y w i t h i n the neighbourhood that the new houses r e p r e s e n t . The C i t y of Vancouver has e s t a b l i s h e d goals f o r RS-1 that r e q u i r e c o n t i n u i t y with change. However, there seems to be a d i v i s i o n between these p r i n c i p l e s , the t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , and the e x i s i n g r e s i d e n t s ' concerns on the one hand, and the p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of RS-1 zoning requirements on the other. The o r i g i n a l zoning schedule f o r s i n g l e - f a m i l y zones was w r i t t e n i n 1928 f o r the purpose of bare land development. I t was designed to f a c i l i t a t e the c o n s t r u c t i o n of new neighbourhoods, not the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of e x i s t i n g neighbourhoods. Numerous amendments to the schedule and the zoning and development by-law over the years have not addressed the i s s u e of c h a r a c t e r . When 8 r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n e x i s t i n g neighbourhoods takes p l a c e , the continuous elements of the neighbourhood should be c o n s i d e r e d . If not, the r e s i d e n t s may p e r c e i v e a d e c l i n e i n q u a l i t y i n t h e i r l i v i n g environment. 1.7 Importance Of The Research T h i s r e s e a r c h i s t i m e l y because the number of l a r g e new houses i n RS-1 continues to e s c a l a t e . E x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s are c o n t i n u i n g to be upset. The C i t y c o n t i n u e s to change bulk and s i t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s to s o l v e the problem. The r e s e a r c h i s important because there i s every i n d i c a t i o n that t h i s t r e n d w i l l c o n tinue and i t i s important at t h i s stage to c o n f i r m or deny the v a l i d i t y of the C i t y ' s approach. The pace of redevelopment i s re a c h i n g the p o i n t where the C i t y w i l l l o o s e i t s o p t i o n to pr o v i d e c o n t i n u i t y with change. A l s o , the RS-1 zoned areas cover 70% of the r e s i d e n t i a l land area of the C i t y and any changes to the management of t h i s area have f a r r e a c h i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s . 1.8 Scope The reader may become confused with the time frame of t h i s r e s e a r c h without r e f e r r i n g to t h i s schedule of events: 1985, November - general t o p i c i s s e l e c t e d 1986, March - p u b l i c meetings on changes to RS-1 1986, A p r i l - C i t y adopts new RS-1 schedule 1986, June - r e s i d e n t s i n t e r v i e w e d 1986, August - a n a l y s i s of data 9 1987, August - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t to C o u n c i l 1988, January to September - w r i t e t h e s i s 1988, March - C i t y adopts new RS-1 schedule 1988, A p r i l - c o n f i r m a t i o n of c o n t i n u i n g problem 1988, December - C o u n c i l proposes new changes to RS-1. While the r e s e a r c h f o r t h i s t h e s i s was completed in 1986, background m a t e r i a l i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d up to September, 1988. The problem cont i n u e s and i t was f e l t t h a t events s i n c e 1986 were r e l e v a n t and important to the t h e s i s . The s p a t i a l scope of the r e s e a r c h s t a r t e d with a l l RS-1 zoned neighbourhoods i n Vancouver. I n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s reduced t h i s to westside Vancouver, the area west of Main S t r e e t . I n i t i a l o b s e r v a t i o n s and mappings of l a r g e new houses reduced the scope to southwest Oakridge, the area bounded by G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t , Oak S t r e e t , 49th Avenue and 57th Avenue. While s p e c i f i c data may only be r e l e v a n t to t h i s neighbourhood, the r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t hat the general o b s e r v a t i o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s are r e l e v a n t to a l l r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhoods i n Vancouver. 1.9 Methodology And O r g a n i z a t i o n The t h e s i s contends that the r e s i d e n t s ' concerns are not l i m i t e d to bulk and s i t i n g . I f t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i s v a l i d , a new s t r a t e g y to manage change i n RS-1 may be r e q u i r e d . The C i t y of Vancouver has adopted g o a l s f o r RS-1 that have been o u t l i n e d i n 1.1 . The theme of these goals i s to p r o v i d e c o n t i n u i t y with change as an urban design o b j e c t i v e i n RS-1. To determine why the C i t y ' s course of a c t i o n d i d not a l l e v i a t e 10 r e s i d e n t s ' concerns with new development and maintain these g o a l s , the t h e s i s w i l l do the f o l l o w i n g : 1. Research the trends i n new development f o r westside RS-1 neighbourhoods and d e t a i l the C i t y ' s response to these t r e n d s . The purpose i s to provide background i n f o r m a t i o n and to c o n f i r m t h a t the pace and d i r e c t i o n of development has not changed. 2. Develop a base of support f o r c o n t i n u i t y with change i n the urban design l i t e r a t u r e . The purpose i s to c o n f i r m the v a l i d i t y of the C i t y ' s g o als and to expand these goals i n t o a concept that can be a p p l i e d to the problem. 3. Determine which neighbourhood i s most a f f e c t e d by t h i s new development and explore the r e s i d e n t s ' concerns by a n a l y s i s of home i n t e r v i e w s and comments made at p u b l i c meetings. The purpose i s to c o n f i r m that r e s i d e n t s are concerned with i s s u e s other than bulk and s i t i n g , denying the C i t y ' s approach. The o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the t h e s i s by chapter i s as f o l l o w s . In chapter one, the problem statement f o r the t h e s i s has been o u t l i n e d s t a t i n g what the i s s u e surrounding the problem i s , the t h e s i s q u e s t i o n and a d i s c u s s i o n of the author's r a t i o n a l e and p o i n t of view, the importance of the re s e a r c h , the scope, the three phases of the methodology, and the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the t h e s i s . D e f i n i t i o n s are a l s o p r o v i d e d . In chapter two, background i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e s the reader a broader understanding of trends concerning the c o n s t r u c t i o n of l a r g e new houses i n Westside RS-1 neighbourhoods. The b u i l d i n g pace, l o c a t i o n , market, and d e s c r i p t i o n of the new houses i s i n c l u d e d . The C i t y ' s responses to complaints about the new 11 houses are d e t a i l e d by l i s t i n g the changes made to the RS-1 zoning schedule. C o n c l u s i o n s made by c o n s u l t a n t s c o n t r a c t e d to the C i t y are a l s o o u t l i n e d . Chapter three develops a concept of c o n t i n u i t y with change. I t e s t a b l i s h e s the author's p o i n t of view and develops a base of support f o r t h i s approach i n the urban design l i t e r a t u r e . Q u a l i t y , neighbourhood, c h a r a c t e r , change, and c o n t i n u i t y are key terms that are c o n s i d e r e d . Chapter four o u t l i n e s the methodology used to analyze the r e s i d e n t ' s concerns v o i c e d at the p u b l i c meetings. A survey i s used to e s t a b l i s h the neighbourhood most concerned about l a r g e new houses. The methodology f o r r e s i d e n t i n t e r v i e w s i s d e s c r i b e d . Chapter f i v e l i s t s the main c a t e g o r i e s of comments recorded from the p u b l i c meetings and the neighbourhood i n t e r v i e w s . The comments are presented as areas and sub-areas of concern. Chapter s i x d i s c u s s e s the c o n c l u s i o n s of the t h e s i s . V a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s and approaches to managing neighbourhood change i n RS-1 i n Vancouver are d i s c u s s e d . S p e c i f i c recommendations that the C i t y can impliment to address e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s ' concerns i d e n t i f i e d i n chapter f i v e are o u t l i n e d . The t h e s i s concludes with suggestions f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . 1 . 1 0 Key Terms The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of terms that have s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s when used i n t h i s t h e s i s . 1. Residents - The term ' r e s i d e n t s ' u s u a l l y r e f e r s to every 12 person l i v i n g i n a d e f i n e d area. For the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s , r e s i d e n t s w i l l r e f e r only to people l i v i n g i n houses other than the l a r g e new houses as d e f i n e d i n chapter 2. T h i s i s simply f o r convenience to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the r e s i d e n t s of the e x i s t i n g neighbourhood from the new r e s i d e n t s . 2. New house owners - T h i s term w i l l be used f o r the new r e s i d e n t s occupying the l a r g e new houses. 3. Large new houses - The houses are d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n chapter 2. In g e n e r a l , they are houses b u i l t to the maximum al l o w a b l e height and d e n s i t y and minimum setbacks. The houses, by d e f i n i t i o n , have been b u i l t s i n c e the bear market of 1982. Although new replacement houses were b u i l t i n RS-1 neighbourhoods before 1982, the market change r e s u l t e d i n a new form that i s the o b j e c t of our study. 4. C o n t i n u i t y with change - T h i s term i s developed i n chapter 3. I t i s a p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g y as w e l l as an o b j e c t i v e f o r urban design i n the neighborhood. I t a l l o w s p h y s i c a l changes to take p l a c e but only i f they do not d i s t u r b the r e s i d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood. 5. Elements of c o n t i n u i t y - F a c t o r s that d e f i n e the c h a r a c t e r of a neighbourhood over time. These elements are the threads of c o n s i s t e n c y that r e s i d e n t s c o n s i d e r important to w e l l - b e i n g and sense of p l a c e i n the r e s i d e n t i a l environment. 6. Neighbourly development - Development that i s a c c e p t a b l e to the r e s i d e n t s of the neighbourhood. 7. Southwest Oakridge - The area bounded by 49th Avenue, 57th Avenue, G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t , and Oak S t r e e t i n Vancouver. 12a MONSTE 13 CHAPTER 2 : THE 'MONSTER' HOUSE ISSUE T h i s chapter o u t l i n e s background m a t e r i a l r e l e v a n t to the is s u e of l a r g e new houses i n RS-1 neighbourhoods. The b u i l d i n g pace, l o c a t i o n , d e s c r i p t i o n , and economics of the l a r g e new houses are d e s c r i b e d here. The changes i n i t i a t e d by the C i t y i n two by-law amendments are o u t l i n e d . C r i t i q u e s of these amendments by p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t s are reviewed. 2.1 Sources There are many r e p o r t s d e a l i n g with the i s s u e of l a r g e new houses i n e x i s t i n g , s i n g l e f a m i l y neighbourhoods i n Vancouver and other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the lower mainland. The r e f e r e n c e s e c t i o n l i s t s the r e p o r t s c i t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . P r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w s were conducted with aldermen, pl a n n i n g s t a f f , p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and b u i l d i n g c o n t r a c t o r s as o u t l i n e d i n the l i s t of r e f e r e n c e s . A r t i c l e s i n the press on the i s s u e can a l s o be found i n the l i s t of r e f e r e n c e s . R e a l t o r s and neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s were a l s o c o n s u l t e d . The data f o r mapping the l o c a t i o n and the pace of redevelopment of l o t s i n Southwest Oakridge was compiled from o b s e r v a t i o n s taken by the researc h e r d u r i n g the months s t a t e d on each of the r e l e v a n t maps and graphs. 2.2 B u i l d i n g Pace In recent years, new houses i n Vancouver's RS-1 neighbourhoods have begun to r e p l a c e f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n b u i l d i n g s by d e m o l i t i o n and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n on a s e l e c t i v e b a s i s . In most FIGURE 2 New RS—1 House Permits Vancouver Trend 2000 1600 1000 ^ ^ ^ ^ 500 0 i i i i i 1986 1086 1987 1988 proj. 1989 pro]. " Series A Source: Vane. Dept. of Permits and Lie. 14 cases, the poor c o n d i t i o n of the e x i s t i n g d w e l l i n g and the d e s i r e s of new immigrant f a m i l i e s prompted t h i s renewal. U n t i l the r e s i d e n t i a l market peak of 1981, the vast m a j o r i t y of new replacement houses were b u i l t on the e a s t s i d e of the c i t y . The term used f o r these houses was 'Vancouver S p e c i a l ' . Since 1985, the, pace of d w e l l i n g replacement has i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c a l l y . A l s o , a market has a r i s e n f o r new replacement houses on the westside of the c i t y . F i g u r e 2 shows the t r e n d f o r new s i n g l e - f a m i l y house c o n s t r u c t i o n permits i s s u e d i n Vancouver. The pace has i n c r e a s e d 47% from 900 permits i s s u e d i n 1985 t o 1327 i n 1987.(fig.2) Permits i s s u e d f o r the f i r s t q u a r t e r of 1988 suggest a f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e . I f the pace c o n t i n u e s , by a simple r e g r e s s i o n there would be approximately 1700 permits i s s u e d i n 1989 ( f i g . 2 ) . 2.3 L o c a t i o n 0 The concern over the 'monster houses' comes i n v a r y i n g degrees from every neighbourhood i n the c i t y . However, the problems a s s o c i a t e d with l a r g e l o t s (over 50 f t . Frontage) are d i f f e r e n t from s m a l l l o t redevelopment.(City Feb. 1988) T h i s t h e s i s concerns i t s e l f only with l a r g e l o t replacement d w e l l i n g s on the westside of Vancouver. An i n i t i a l v i s u a l survey by the author i n March 1986 concluded that the c e n t r a l westside area of Vancouver ( f i g u r e 3) was e x p e r i e n c i n g the l a r g e s t number of replacements. A f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d survey of t h i s area concluded that the neighbourhood with the h i g h e s t d e n s i t y of l a r g e new houses was southwest Oakridge, bounded by G r a n v i l l e S t r e e t , Oak S t r e e t , 49th Avenue, fin J L _1 L J L 3 I f v u i L i i ^ nP— i i — i r n c ^ J J U FIGURE 3 • B B H S B D C H l u O BSDBDDC C5 1 BD ISO LOCATION OF 'MONSTER1 HOUSES V a n c o u v e r c e n t r a l w e s t s i d e F e b r u a r y , 1986 Inset:?" s o u t h w e s t O a k r i d g e S o u r c e : o b s e r v a t i o n JJU UliDCt&J D ^ S ^ ^ L j Q R D Of j • r'":;::'1 Ldll I S I i 3 m II in FIGURE 4 120 100 BO 60 40 20 New Houses- S.W. Oakridge Pace of Redevelopment M B new houses under constr. staked total % of total lots to March 1988 to March 1988 source:observatton 15 and 57th Avenue.(fig.3) Southwest Oakridge i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t because the houses being demolished i n 1985 were only 25-35 years o l d and i n good c o n d i t i o n . A l s o , the houses i n t h i s area are s m a l l e r than those i n areas where the e x i s t i n g houses are o l d e r , c r e a t i n g a g r e a t e r d i s p a r i t y between new and e x i s t i n g houses. The e x i s t i n g homes are small s i n g l e or s p l i t l e v e l homes under 2000 square f e e t ( s f ) on l a r g e 50-75 foot frontage l o t s . Oakridge has a t t r a c t e d the b u i l d e r s of l a r g e new homes f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: 1. Oakridge has a very p o s i t i v e image and i s generaly c o n s i d e r e d to be one of the best neighbourhoods i n Vancouver, which has been r e f l e c t e d i n lan d prices.(Andrews, i n t e r v i e w ) 2. The area has good s c h o o l s and i s c l o s e to urban amenities 3. Oakridge has a higher than average p r o p o r t i o n of households where c h i l d r e n have l e f t home, 37.2% compared to 24.8% f o r the c i t y as a whole i n 1981 ( C i t y of Vane. A p r i l 1984). 4. Oakridge has a higher than average p r o p o r t i o n of e t h n i c Chinese r e s i d e n t s , 20.3% compared to 6.8% on average f o r other westside neighbourhoods ( C i t y of Vane. A p r i l 1984). T h i s becomes a f a c t o r because the vast m a j o r i t y of the new house owners are e t h n i c Chinese from Hong Kong or Taiwan (Andrews, i n t e r v i e w ) . F i g u r e 4 shows the r a p i d i n c r e a s e of new house c o n s t r u c t i o n i n the southwest Oakridge a r e a . The graph shows the number of l a r g e new houses b u i l t i n southwest Oakridge to March 1986 (black) and to March 1988 i n c l u s i v e (hashed). Separate bar comparisons show houses under c o n s t r u c t i o n , l o t s staked f o r d e m o l i t i o n , and the percentage of l o t s consumed. Over 20% of the 16 l o t s have new houses. At the current pace, the ent i re neighbourhood w i l l be demolished and renewed by the year 2000. The map in f igure 5 shows the l o t s with 'monster houses' in March 1986 (black) and those constructed from March 1986 to March 1988 (red) . 2.4 Descr ipt ion The large new houses are eas i l y recognized when v i s i t i n g the neighbourhood. Although there are many d i f f e r e n t designs, co lours , and f in i shes , there are now three basic forms; those b u i l t p r i o r to zoning rev i s ions in A p r i l 1986, those b u i l t between A p r i l 1986 and A p r i l 1988, and those b u i l t a f ter a further rev i s i on in A p r i l 1988. These dates refer to changes in the RS-1 zoning schedule. There are several features that a l l the large new homes have in common. 1. Size - The large new houses are b u i l t as close to the maximum square footage allowed as poss ib le , many within 5 s f . For example, a 60x130 foot l o t in Oakridge would support a 4680 square foot house. A house of th i s s ize would have s ix bedrooms and den, f ive bathrooms, family room off k i tchen, l i v i n g room, d in ing room, and a f in i shed basement with k i tchen. 2. Shape - They are rectangular in shape and often symmetrical ( f i g . 1). The way that the bulk is d i s t r i b u t e d depends on when the house was constructed in r e l a t i o n to changes in the by-law regulat ions . For example, p r i o r to 1988 basements were not required . 3. S i te Coverage - The houses occupy every allowable square foot l a w m J L /6* FIGURE ..|JUULlO3^UDS\ i^[jQB0D c r LOCATION OF 'MONSTER' HOUSES V a n c o u v e r c e n t r a l w e s t s i d e F e b r u a r y , 1986 s o u t h w e s t O a k r i d g e March, 1986 to F e b r u a r y , 1988 S o u r c e : o b s e r v a t i o n l i e s m nnnnnnnnnlllllin 1 7 of l o t s u r f a c e . 4. Entrance - The entrance h a l l i s v a u l t e d two s t o r i e s high with a c u r v i n g b a l l a s t r a d e d s t a i r c a s e . 5. Borders - The property edges are o f t e n c l e a r l y d e f i n e d with hedges or b r i c k f e n c i n g ( f i g . 8), while the e x i s t i n g p r o p e r t i e s are d e f i n e d by a s i n g l e bush or a flower garden. 6. A c c e s s o r i e s - I f summer k i t c h e n s , 3 car garages, and breezeways were allowed at permit issuance then they were b u i l t . Pre 1986 a c c e s s o r y r e g u l a t i o n s allowed a continuous s t r u c t u r e combining the accessory and p r i n c i p l e b u i l d i n g s . 7. Height - The a l l o w a b l e o v e r a l l height f o r p r e - A p r i l 1986 houses was 35 f e e t and 30 fe e t f o r post-1986. A l l new homes are b u i l t to the maximum a l l o w a b l e h e i g h t . 8. B a l c o n i e s - Second s t o r e y b a l c o n i e s are popular with b u i l d e r s because they are not c a l c u l a t e d as p a r t of the FSR ( f i g . 1). 9. I n t e r n a l Garages - i n t e r n a l garages with s t r e e t f a c i n g access were popular u n t i l they were i n c l u d e d i n FSR i n 1986 ( f i g . 7 ) . In 1988 a f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n d i s a l l o w e d s t r e e t access unless a p a t t e r n of driveways had been e s t a b l i s h e d i n the s t r e e t s c a p e . 10. E x t e r n a l F i n i s h e s - Half b r i c k or stone f a c i n g on the f i r s t s t o r e y , and s t u c c o , v i n y l , or cedar s i d i n g on the second s t o r e y i s the t y p i c a l p a t t e r n . 11. I n t e r i o r s - The i n t e r i o r s are p l a i n l y f i n i s h e d . There may be f i v e to seven bedrooms and bathrooms, a f a m i l y room, a v a u l t e d entrance h a l l , and an emphasis on space r a t h e r than s t y l e or f i n i s h i n g s . 12. Landscaping - because the l o t s have been c l e a r e d p r i o r to c o n s t r u c t i o n , the landscaping i s immature and the coverage i s HARD SURFACE ELEMENTS OF NEW DESIGNS 18 minimal. Low maintenance shrubs and s u r f a c e s are most common. Hard s u r f a c e s and s t r o n g boundary d e f i n i t i o n s p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r l a n d s c a p i n g . Examples are shown i n f i g u r e s 1,7,8, and 9. 2.5 Two Markets The r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s i n southwest Oakridge were s u b d i v i d e d and developed from bush i n the 1950s. At that time they were bare- l a n d f r i n g e developments with one market, the new home buyer. With redevelopment i n the 1980s, there are two markets f o r the same l o t s , o p e r a t i n g at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s , both competing f o r the same l o c a t i o n . The f i r s t market i s the market f o r bare l o t s . B u i l d e r s b i d f o r l o t s , with o l d e r houses to demolish, on the b a s i s of b u i l d a b l e square footage. Large new houses w i l l be c o n s t r u c t e d on these l o t s t h a t s e l l to the end user f o r 500-700 thousand d o l l a r s . The second market i s the market f o r e x i s t i n g houses. Older homes have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been sought a f t e r by f i r s t time buyers or buyers t h a t wish to trade up or down i n the market from another o l d e r home. The d e s i r a b i l i t y of westside neighbourhoods a l s o a t t r a c t s movement from other a r e a s . The developer i n the f i r s t market sees the p r o p e r t y as bare l a n d . There i s no value to the e x i s t i n g house because the developer i s only i n t e r e s t e d i n producing new houses. In f a c t , the e x i s t i n g house i s a negative value i n the equation, r e g a r d l e s s of c o n d i t i o n , because i t has to be demolished. The s o c i a l value of a r e t a i n i n g a q u a l i t y , b u i l t resourse i s not 19 c o n s i d e r e d . The developer knows that the new house buyer must pay whatever the development c o s t s a r e . A l s o , to stay i n business he must purchase land at whatever the market p r i c e i s . To a c q u i r e the l a n d t h i s p r i c e must not only be higher than the competing developers but higher than the e n t i r e second market f o r e x i s t i n g houses. The p r i c e i n c r e a s e s generated by t h i s demand i t s e l f i n c r e a s e s the demand by i n c l u d i n g s p e c u l a t o r s as w e l l as c o n f i r m i n g the new house buyer's c o n f i d e n c e i n the investment. A l s o , the land p r i c e i n 1988 has i n c r e a s e d beyond the a b i l i t y of buyers i n the second market. The house t r a d e r does not see the r a t i o n a l i t y of paying a l a r g e p r i c e f o r a small house. D i v i d i n g the p r i c e of the land by the b u i l t square footage, the o l d e r e x i s t i n g house would be s e l l i n g f o r approximately 250 d o l l a r s per e x i s t i n g sf while a new house s e l l s f o r only 175 d o l l a r s per s f . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s r a t i o n a l to maximize the b u i l d i n g a r e a . Only l a r g e e x i s t i n g houses are tr a d e d f o r and the market f o r l o t s with sm a l l e r houses i s l e f t to developers and eve n t u a l buyers from wealthy o f f s h o r e economies. T h i s covers a l l of southwest Oakridge. Why has the market f o r the l a r g e new houses been t h i s good? There are many c u l t u r a l l y based as w e l l as economic reasons i n f l u e n c i n g the d e c i s i o n of the new house buyer; 1. Maximized b u i l d i n g area -The land i n Oakridge i s more v a l u a b l e than the houses b u i l t on t h a t l a n d . I f the l a n d cost i s d i v i d e d by the co s t of the house, the c o s t of land per b u i l t 20 square foot of house i s p r o p o r t i o n a l l y l e s s as the house s i z e i n c r e a s e s . T h e r e f o r e , the economic r a t i o n a l i t y of b u i l d i n g to the maximum a l l o w a b l e f l o o r space r a t i o i n c r e a s e s as the value of the l a n d i n c r e a s e s i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l a s s e t v a l u e . 2. Immigration - The i n v e s t o r and entreprenneur c a t e g o r i e s under the iMmigration Act tend to encourage wealthy immigrants who would purchase homes i n t h i s market. Home purchase would a l s o provide a base f o r f a m i l y and access to education i n Canada. 3. P a t t e r n - Once there i s a p a t t e r n e s t a b l i s h e d there i s a s t r o n g tendency f o r new immigrants and i n v e s t o r s from the same c u l t u r e to conform to that p a t t e r n . I f t h i s i s the type and l o c a t i o n of housing that i s c o n s i d e r e d proper and d e s i r a b l e then the new immigrant with the c h o i c e w i l l be safe to buy i n t o t h i s market. As the t r e n d i n v o l v e s a product that c o u l d p h y s i c a l l y e x i s t i n the r e s i d e n t i a l environment f o r up to one hundred yea r s , i t w i l l most l i k e l y continue f o r many years with t h i s s e c t o r . 4. Conversion - The houses are designed and b u i l t i n a way that f a c i l i t a t e s easy c o n v e r s i o n to apartment s u i t e s i n the f u t u r e . S y m e t r i c a l design and a d d i t i o n a l hidden plumbing c a p a c i t y add to t h i s p e r c e p t i o n . There i s no evidence, however, that c u r r e n t buyers want anything other than a f a m i l y home. 5. Newness - The new house i n v e s t o r s p l a c e a strong value on the newness of the house and w i l l pay to ensure that no others have 21 l i v e d t h e r e . 6. P r i c e i n c r e a s e - The market p r i c e f o r a new 4500 sf home i n Oakridge has r i s e n from 100 d o l l a r s per sf to 175 d o l l a r s per sf in three y e a r s . While the b u i l d i n g p r i c e has remained the same, the l a n d p r i c e has i n c r e a s e d by over 100% pr o v i n g an e x c e l l e n t r e a l e s t a t e investment. 2.6 RS-1 Zoning Schedule Changes 1986 To address the concerns over p e r c i e v e d bulk and s i t i n g problems, the Planning Deparment made the f o l l o w i n g changes to the.RS-1 schedule i n March 1986; 1. B u i l d i n g h e i g h t - pre 1986 - 35 f e e t maximum new r e g u l a t i o n s - hei g h t i s reduced to 30 f e e t . There i s a l s o the requirement of a 45 degree angled envelope past 21 f e e t . 2. Front setback- pre 1986 - minimum 24 f e e t new r e g u l a t i o n s - r e q u i r e a 24 foot setback except where averaging of adjacent p r o p e r t i e s a l l o w s e i t h e r a g r e a t e r or l e s s e r setback. 3. Side setback- pre 1986 - 10% of l o t width to 5 f e e t , new r e g u l a t i o n s - r e q u i r e a 10% s i d e y a r d . Second s t o r e y setbacks are a l s o r e q u i r e d . 4. Rear setback- pre 1986 - 35 foot minimum r e q u i r e d . new r e g u l a t i o n s - r e q u i r e a 45% setback i n c l u d i n g lane p r o v i s i o n s . Averaging of adjacent p r o p e r t i e s i s allowed. 5. B u i l d i n g depth - pre 1986 - no maximum. new r e g u l a t i o n s - there i s a 75 foot maximum on b u i l d i n g depth. Accessory b u i l d i n g s are s t i l l exempt. 2) A -E X A M P L E S O F L A R G E N E W H O U S E S B U I L T U N D E R T H E A P R I L 1986 R S - 1 Z O N I N G R E G U L A T I O N S 22 6. Front garage access - pre 1986 - no r e g u l a t i o n s . new r e g u l a t i o n s - access to the garage must be from the lane except where a f r o n t access i s necessary or t y p i c a l . T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n , however, was o n l y p o l i c y , not law. 7. Garage FSR- pre 1986 - exempt from c a l c u l a t i o n . new r e g u l a t i o n -the p a r t of the garage en c l o s e d i n the house i s i n c l u d e d i n the c a l c u l a t i o n . A p r o v i s i o n f o r e x c e p t i o n s was made to account f o r steep or u n u s u a l l y shaped l o t s . Other i n d i v i d u a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s of each s i t e were not addressed under the by-law, however, a p r o p e r t y owner may apply f o r r e l a x a t i o n to the Board of Variance d u r i n g the approval p r o c e s s . An a f f e c t e d neighbour may not appeal to the Board i f the p r o p o s a l i s f o r o u t r i g h t use. Compare f i g u r e 8 with f i g u r e 1 to see how the changes a f f e c t e d the o v e r a l l appearance of the houses. 2.7 C o n s u l t a n t s ' Reports A f t e r eighteen months of negative neighbourhood r e a c t i o n to the new r e g u l a t i o n s , a f u r t h e r review of RS-1 was requested by C o u n c i l . T h i s time, independent p l a n n i n g and a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n s u l t a n t s were employed to advise Vancouver Planning s t a f f and c r i t i q u e each ot h e r ' s p r o p o s a l s . A f t e r r e c o g n i z i n g that l o t s of d i f f e r e n t dimensions encountered d i f f e r e n t problems in meeting the o b j e c t i v e of n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s , the e x e r c i s e was d i v i d e d i n t o a small l o t review, (under 40 f e e t ) and l a r g e l o t review (over 50 f e e t ) . The two prime c o n s u l t a n t s were: 1. James Cheng A r c h i t e c t s - l a r g e l o t s 23 2. The Hulb e r t Group, A r c h i t e c t s - s m a l l l o t s . The c r i t i q u e s were presented by: 1. Paul Ohannesian - A r c h i t e c t 2. S t u a r t Howard- A r c h i t e c t 3. Eva Matsuzaki- A r c h i t e c t Each c o n s u l t a n t s t a t e d that m a n i p u l a t i n g only bulk and s i t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s would not make new homes compatible or maintain the n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s of new development. S p e c i f i c recommendations i n the s t u d i e s , however, only addressed these r e g u l a t i o n s . T h e i r mandate was to address the changes made to the RS-1 zoning r e g u l a t i o n s i n 1986. 2.8 RS-1 Zoning Changes 1988 A f t e r the review of proposed changes by p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t s , new RS-1 r e g u l a t i o n s were proposed and approved on March 26th, 1988. The same comments were made by a l l p l a y e r s at t h i s meeting as were made i n 1986. The new changes were: 1. Height- the a l l o w a b l e height f o r the s i d e w a l l to reach before a change of setback i s r e q u i r e d i s i n c r e a s e d from 21 to 24 f e e t . 2. Front setback- 20% of the depth of the l o t i s now r e q u i r e d . There i s an o p t i o n f o r averaging the setback to conform to adjacent l o t s . 3. Rear setback- 45% of the depth of the l o t i s r e q u i r e d . 4. FSR- the FSR remains at .6 however the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the bulk i s now .3 p l u s 1000 sf above ground f o r c i n g the remainder to be p l a c e d underground at the o p t i o n of the developer. 5. S i t e coverage- has been reduced from 45% of the l o t s u r f a c e 21 A Figure 9 EXAMPLES OF LARGE NEW HOUSES BUILT UNDER THE MARCH 1988 RS-1 ZONING REGULATIONS 24 to 40%. 6. B u i l d i n g l e n g t h - the l e n g t h i s l i m i t e d to 35% of the s i t e depth. 7. Accessory b u i l d i n g s - set backs are now r e q u i r e d f o r a l l a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g s . Compare f i g u r e 9 with f i g u r e s 8 and 1 to see how the p h y s i c a l appearance of the new houses has changed with the zoning changes. Note i n f i g u r e 7 that the new bulk and s i t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s do not a f f e c t other a s p e c t s , f o r example, landscape. The s t r a t e g y employed by the C i t y continued i n the same r e s t r i c t i v e l a n d use d i r e c t i o n . I t i s s u r p r i s i n g that a f t e r two years without ^ s u b s t a n t i a l improvement, that a new d i r e c t i o n i s not i n v e s t i g a t e d . There are b e n e f i c i a l a s p e c t s t o the changes: 1. There w i l l be l e s s apparent bulk to the new s t r u c t u r e s . 2. T r a d i t i o n a l back yards w i l l be promoted on small l o t s . 3. The changes are inexpensive to implement and r e g u l a t e . 4. The e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s w i l l be appeased f o r a short time. The d e t r i m e n t a l a s p e c t s , however, s t i l l i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g ; 1. One r u l e s t i l l a p p l i e s to every l o t r e g a r d l e s s of l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s or c h a r a c t e r . 2. They address only one i s s u e , bulk and s i t i n g . Other concerns are not addressed. 3. In areas of l a r g e e x i s t i n g houses, bulk r e d u c t i o n s make new houses appear small and out of p l a c e . 4. They reduce the a b i l i t y to make a l t e r a t i o n s to e x i s t i n g houses thereby encouraging d e m o l i t i o n (Ohannesian, r e p o r t ) . 25 5. The pace of change has not been addressed, i t c o n t i n e s to c l i m b . 6. A l l p l a y e r s concerned with the i s s u e s t i l l have r e s e r v a t i o n s . 7. The changes may a f f e c t p r i c e but have not a f f e c t e d demand, de s i g n , or acceptance of the new houses by the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s . 8. The C o u n c i l ' s o b j e c t i v e of ' n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s of new development' appears as d i s t a n t as i t was before 1986. The f o l l o w i n g chapter p r o v i d e s a t h e o r e t i c a l i n t r o d u c t i o n to c o n t i n u i t y with change, a concept c o n s i s t e n t with the goals f o r RS-1 of the C i t y of Vancouver and capable of r e l i e v i n g r e s i d e n t s ' concerns. 25a CONTINUITY 26 CHAPTER 3 : THE CONCEPT OF CONTINUITY WITH CHANGE Mature neighbourhoods i n Vancouver are f e e l i n g i n c r e a s i n g p r e s s u r e s to change. I t i s the author's c o n t e n t i o n that a s t r a t e g y of c o n t i n u i t y with change w i l l a llow e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s to d e a l with these p r e s s u r e s . T h i s chapter reviews l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the concept of c o n t i n u i t y with change. 3.1 Assumptions I stopped by the o f f i c e of a f r i e n d who teaches an i n t r o d u c t o r y course at an a r c h i t e c t u r a l s c h o o l . He had a s s i g n e d h i s students the job of b u i l d i n g s c a l e models of some of the most famous houses i n the world and they were s i t t i n g i n rows on h i s desk. I t looked l i k e a s c a l e model slum. They were a c o l l e c t i o n of f i n e b u i l d i n g s , but the r e s u l t was a good d e a l l e s s than the sum of the p a r t s . (Barnett 1982, p.213) A neighbourhood i s more complex than a b u i l d i n g but there i s a way of i n t r o d u c i n g some of the coherence and harmony found i n i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g s i n t o the neighbourhood. F i r s t we must s t a r t with s e v e r a l assumptions: 1. The neighbourhood i s f i r s t and foremost a p l a c e to l i v e . I t i s a p l a c e of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between people and the p h y s i c a l environment, i t i s home. Secondly i t can be a v e h i c l e f o r economic g e n e r a t i o n , but only second. We must no longer conceive the c i t y as a forum f o r the e f f i c i e n t e x e r c i s e of f i n a n c i a l t a l e n t s and a s p i r a t i o n s . On the c o n t r a r y , i t must become a household i n which the concern f o r the w e l f a r e of a l l i t s members must be the c e n t r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ( G a l b r a i t h 1971, p.28) 2. Q u a l i t y and abundance are two d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d . The c i t y i s f u l l of good b u i l d i n g s , homes, but improvement in the o v e r a l l design or q u a l i t y of l i f e i s not a chieved. 27 (Barnett 1982, p.238) 3. The neighbourhood i s the s c a l e that i s best s u i t e d to the d i s c u s s i o n because i t s u n i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s most s e n s i t i v e to change. Although the l i t e r a t u r e r e f e r s many times to the c i t y , the community, the v i l l a g e , the settlement, or the b u i l d i n g , the comments are r e l e v e n t to the neighbourhood s c a l e . A good p l a c e i s one which i s someway a p p r o p r i a t e to the person and her c u l t u r e , makes her aware of her community, her p a s t , the web of l i f e , and the u n i v e r s e of time and space i n which those are c o n t a i n e d . (Lynch 1981, p.142) 4. Neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r i s v a l u a b l e . I t i s the p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the q u a l i t y of l i f e i n the neighbourhood. We can not a f f o r d to w r i t e o f f the very s u b s t a n t i a l investment, s o c i a l , f i n a n c i a l , and c u l t u r a l , i n the e x i s t i n g f a b r i c of our c i t i e s . (Barnett 1982, p.7) A f t e r many decades of simply b u i l d i n g another neighbourhood f a r t h e r out i n the sprawling suburbs, the pendulum has swung back to the c i t y . The o r i g i n a l maturing neighbourhoods are being seen i n the same l i g h t as the new s u b d i v i s i o n s of previous y e a r s . They are, f o r many reasons, ' r i p e ' f o r redevelopment. The r e c y c l i n g of the s i n g l e f a m i l y suburb a l r e a d y b u i l t w i l l be a major design task of the f u t u r e . These o l d e r suburbs, as t h e i r l a n d s c a p i n g matures, begin to a t t a i n a s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e i r own. How to enhance that sensed c h a r a c t e r and how to d e n s i t y these aging p l a c e s i s an important prototype problem. (Lynch 1981, p.415) Vancouver has a r r i v e d at Lynch's f u t u r e . T h i s chapter d i s c u s s e s a concept, a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s t r a t e g y as a b a s i s f o r the c o n f r o n t a t i o n of t h i s f u t u r e . 28 3.2 Q u a l i t y The shape of one's home or workplace or community where most people l i v e out t h e i r l i v e s has something to do with the q u a l i t y of l i f e . (Lynch 1981, p.103) The q u a l i t y of l i f e has always been an e l u s i v e t o p i c to d i s c u s s because i t i s so hard to d e f i n e . I t pursues the planner i n every aspect of h i s work because man i s pursuing i t i n d a i l y l i f e . I t i s a u n i v e r s a l l y d e s i r e d a t t r i b u t e that d i s r e g a r d s l o c a t i o n and c r o s s e s a l l c u l t u r a l boundaries. The quest f o r a b e t t e r q u a l i t y of l i f e cannot be confused with a search f o r happiness. I t i s a c t u a l l y a d e t e r m i n a t i o n to improve the c o n d i t i o n s we need to s u r v i v e . ( F r a d i e r 1976, p.56) To F r a d i e r , t h i s concern f o r the q u a l i t y of l i f e i s a b a s i c quest i n consort with a need f o r s u r v i v a l . I t i s i n the same l e v e l of needs as good h e a l t h and c h i l d r e a r i n g , j u s t l e s s important than the need f o r food and s h e l t e r . T h i s i s a very b a s i c need yet there i s very l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n about the q u a l i t y of l i f e i n our c i t i e s . Lynch s t a t e s that "there i s l e s s a t t e n t i o n . . . t o those p e r s o n a l v a l u e s which cannot be converted i n t o d o l l a r s . " (Lynch 1981, p.241) The recent concern of our s o c i e t y has been with q u a n t i t y , not q u a l i t y . The number of u n i t s , the d o l l a r value of investment i n the p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e , the square footage, d e n s i f y i n g and r e d e n s i f y i n g are the standard c a t c h - p h r a s e s . One speaks of the number of amenities that are a v a i l a b l e , the p r o x i m i t y of t r a n s p o r t systems, and the range of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d to s u s t a i n a c e r t a i n ' l e v e l ' of l i v i n g . The 'standard of l i v i n g ' has r i s e n a g a i n . I t i s always bigger or b e t t e r or more than the year b e f o r e . 29 T h i s q u a n t i t a t i v e p rogress appears i n f r e e and planned economies. We are c o n s t a n t l y reminded of q u a n t i t a t i v e improvements. For the developer there i s l i t t l e time or no time f o r qu e s t i o n s about q u a l i t y , f o r q u a n t i t y takes up a l l h i s a t t e n t i o n and energy. The a c t u a l developments not only smother the r e a l q u e s t i o n s , they reduce the q u e s t i o n s of values to ' f a c t s ' which are expressed i n terms of hard cash. (Tanghe 1984, p.109) Co s t o n i s c a l l s the world of consumerism a mindless tendency toward a c c e l e r a t e d o b s o l e s c e n c e . ( C o s t o n i s 1974) However with a l l the b e n e f i t s of q u a n t i t y , why do people r e f e r c o n t i n u o u s l y to a mi s s i n g q u a l i t y of l i f e ? Older people w i l l say that when they were young l i f e was not without q u a l i t y and the community environment i n which they l i v e d was as good or s u p e r i o r to that of today. They w i l l say that f a c t o r s of q u a l i t y t h at they enjoyed have disappeared i n our ' p r o g r e s s i v e ' s o c i e t y ( F r a d i e r 1976). Of course comparisons of t h i s s o r t are d i f f i c u l t to make because "progress i s not cumulative", however i t i s f a i r to say th a t "the improvements i n l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s have r e a l l y only amounted to the improvement of t e c h n i c a l a i d s to comfort w i t h i n the home".(Tanghe 1984, p.106) Tanghe suggests that the standard of l i v i n g must give way to needs other than the continuous e x t e n s i o n of consumer goods. There i s a need f o r q u a l i t y , even at the expense of q u a n t i t y . The w e l l - b e i n g of the community i s more important than a f f l u e n c e , s i z e , the development business e t c . (Tanghe 1984, p.111) In the s o c i e t y of q u a n t i t y , s t a t i s t i c s end up r e p l a c i n g v a l u e s . Values are very d i f f i c u l t to q u a n t i f y , and f o r many elements of the q u a l i t y of l i f e i t i s i m p o s s i b l e . 30 C o s t o n i s equates the q u a l i t y of l i f e with w e l l - b e i n g . The way to i t s f u l f i l l m e n t i s suggested as being through a c l o s e r a s s o c i a t i o n with the environment. There i s a new reverence f o r environmental v a l u e s , showing them " i n d i s p e n s i b l e to human, p h y s i c a l and emotional w e l l -b e i n g " . ( C o s t o n i s 1974, p.167) Tanghe a l s o mentions w e l l - b e i n g when he suggests that we "harmonize t h i s p l a n n i n g f o r p r o s p e r i t y with p l a n n i n g f o r w e l l -b e i n g " . (Tanghe 1984, p.107) He sees the values i n the way of l i f e of h i s f o r e f a t h e r s being r e f l e c t e d i n the environment they c r e a t e d . The neighbourhoods and communities seemed so "genuine and honest" to him, a " l e s s o n f o r l i v i n g born out of the everyday l i f e of o r d i n a r y people".(Tanghe 1984, p.95) He d e l i g h t s i n the way people took c o n t r o l of t h e i r own b u i l d i n g . No p l a n n i n g p e r m i s s i o n was r e q u i r e d or needed because a s o c i a l c o n t r o l mechanism that was b u i l t i n t o the community l i f e balanced the i n d i v i d u a l and community concerns "harmoniously and spontaneously". B u i l d i n g form grew up slowly and was p e r f e c t e d over many g e n e r a t i o n s . Development was a community a c t , not a p r i v a t e one. Someone owned a p l o t of l a n d . He found a mason or c a r p e n t e r . Neighbours and f r i e n d s were i n v i t e d to j o i n i n ; they d i s c u s s e d the t r e e s on the s i t e , i t s topography, the best way of doing t h i n g s , and whether the neighbourhood, nearby houses, the s t r e e t and v i l l a g e had a l l been p r o p e r l y taken i n t o account. (Tanghe 1984, p.96) People shared the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : i t was a matter of t r u s t amongst those i n v o l v e d i n the community. T h i s appears to be a very naive and i d e a l i s t i c b i t of n o s t a l g i a at f i r s t glance, however i t i l l u s t r a t e s the c a r e l e s s way i n which we have d i s o r g a n i z e d our urban environment. 31 Tanghe's comment that t h i s p o i n t s "to what must happen to our homes and towns i f we want to c r e a t e more h o s p i t a b l e housing d i s t r i c t s i n the f u t u r e " cannot be wholly d i s c a r d e d . I t i s a,. r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t the a f f l u e n t s o c i e t y . I t i s true that we have p a i d a " t e r r i b l e p r i c e f o r p r o g r e s s " and that we now f e e l a " n o s t a l g i a f o r the house i n which our homeless s o u l s once l i v e d , an inescapable l o n g i n g f o r a s h e l t e r that we can no longer find".(Tanghe 1984, p.95) A home i s more than j u s t having a roof over one's head, being from " t h i s neighbourhood, with a l l that makes l i f e p l e a s a n t i n i t " i s something e x t r a that concerns the q u a l i t y of l i f e . (Tanghe 1984, p.87) Is i t too much to ask that a c i t y environment be l a i d out, b u i l t and equipped to meet the p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs of i t s i n h a b i t a n t s , to f i t t h e i r customs, to r e s p e c t t h e i r r e c o g n i z a b l e hopes? ( F r a d i e r 1976, p.65) F r a d i e r c o n s i d e r s the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the environment (neighbourhood) and the i n h a b i t a n t s to be the measure of the q u a l i t y of l i f e , that environment i n c l u d e s people, and the b u i l t and n a t u r a l environment. Is our s o c i e t y ' s i n a b i l i t y to d e a l with t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p "an outward m a n i f e s t a t i o n of a much deeper s t r u g g l e and the l o n g i n g f o r another way of l i f e ? " ( T a n g h e 1984, p-111) Why are there "no t h e o r i e s d e a l i n g with environmental q u a l i t y , with the r i c h t e x t u r e of c i t y form and meaning"?(Lynch 1984, p.39) There are two important g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s that can be made; (1) the r e l a t i o n s people e s t a b l i s h between themselves and t h e i r environment count more f o r development and enrichment of l i f e than amenities or consumer goods they enjoy, and (2) the user himse l f must be allowed to e x e r c i s e more i n f l u e n c e 32 over the q u a l i t y of h i s own environment. T h e r e f o r e , the measure of q u a l i t y of l i f e i n the neighbourhood i n v o l v e s the emotional w e l l - b e i n g of i t s i n h a b i t a n t s . T h i s w e l l - b e i n g i s r e f l e c t e d i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p that people have with t h e i r environment. There are c e r t a i n l y other a s p e c t s to the emotional w e l l - b e i n g of i n h a b i t a n t s , income, h e a l t h , f a m i l y s t a t u s , but t h i s t h e s i s i s only c o n s i d e r i n g i t i n r e l a t i o n to the r e s i d e n t i a l environment. Alexander goes so f a r as to s t a t e that a person's s t a t e of harmony depends e n t i r e l y with t h e i r harmony with t h e i r s urroundings. (Alexander 1977) T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p that i n h a b i t a n t s have with t h e i r environment i s cumulative and the whole i s g r e a t e r than the sum of i t s p a r t s ( F r a d i e r 1976). T h i s added value beyond the sum of the p a r t s i s the v a l u e , the q u a l i t y t h at must be i d e n t i f i e d and preserved i n our neighbourhoods. (Alexander 1977) 3.3 Neighbourhood To f i n d t h i s q u a l i t y , t h i s w e l l - b e i n g , we can look at communities that have i t and t r y to i s o l a t e i t . F r a d i e r has suggested that areas with t h i s q u a l i t y have 1. People that know one another. They do not have to have a pe r s o n a l or i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p , simply knowing one another. 2. People that know t h e i r a r e a . In our s o c i e t y people know very l i t t l e about t h e i r neighbourhood. 3. People that know the h i s t o r y of t h e i r community. T h i s knowledge g i v e s the neighbourhood a sense of being one stage i n 33 a c o n t i n u i n g p r o c e s s . 4. A form that g i v e s r i s e t o r e l a t i o n s , f e s t i v a l s and encounters. A p u b l i c or communally o r i e n t e d o v e r a l l form, not p r i v a t e . ( F r a d i e r 1976) Barnes d e f i n e s the added q u a l i t y as 'optimum h e a l t h ' and r e q u i r e s a v i s u a l environment which i s i n t e r e s t i n g , which has a e s t h e t i c i n t e g r i t y , and i n which a c e r t a i n amount of change meaningful to the observer i s t a k i n g p l a c e . ( B a r n e s 1970) There are many d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of neighbourhood. These range from one small area where the r e s i d e n t s 'neighbour' with each o t h e r , to Pe r r y ' s elementary school catchment area, to a l a r g e p o l i t i c a l u n i t that i n c l u d e s a l l the s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d f o r s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y i n d a i l y l i f e . The American P u b l i c H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n d e f i n e s a neighbourhood as an "area w i t h i n which r e s i d e n t s may a l l share common s e r v i c e s , s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , and f a c i l i t i e s r e q u i r e d i n the v i c i n i t y of the dwelling".(Hygeine of Housing committee 1960, p.1) In F o l e y ' s study of Rochester New York, he suggests t h a t the neighbourhood cannot be p h y s i c a l l y d e f i n e d . Instead he d i v i d e s r e s i d e n t s i n t o 'neighbours' and ' u r b a n i t e s ' . U r b a n i t e s are a t t a c h e d to i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the l a r g e r m e t r o p o l i s while the neighbours share l o c a l f a c i l i t i e s i n a r e c o g n i z a b l e d i s t r i c t and neighbour with each o t h e r . F a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , and r e n t e r s tend to be 'neighbours'.(Foley 1952) Lynch d e s c r i b e s a neighbourhood as a pl a c e that has homogeneity at a small s c a l e . He would r a t h e r use ' l o c a l d i s t r i c t ' than the word neighbourhood because we are not t a l k i n g 34 of t h i s s o c i a l community here, we are t a l k i n g of the p h y s i c a l environment which i s a r e f l e c t i o n of c u l t u r a l v a l u e s . ( L y n c h 1981 ) In p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s the neighbourhood u n i t of Perry and Mumford has been d e c r i e d as o b s o l e t e and unworkable because one's s o c i a l neighbourhood i s no longer s p a t i a l . ( L y n c h 1981) With the a v a i l a b i l i t y of new t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and communication technology the importance of l o c a t i o n to f u l l f i l l s o c i a l or work-home r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s diminished.(Leven 1984) While r e s i d i n g i n one l o c a t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s to other areas may be very s t r o n g , with t h i s s o c i a l space being more important than p h y s i c a l space. A l l the c r i t i c i s m of the neighbourhood concept, however, does not a l t e r the d e s i r e f o r the v a l u e s a s s o c i a t e d with i t , "the model p e r s i s t s , and even becomes stronger today, as the concept of neighbourhood reemerges".(Lynch 1981, p.395) L o c a t i o n i s the s i n g l e o v e r r i d i n g concern i n a l l r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s f o r housing.(Andrews, i n t e r v i e w ) While the neighbouring aspect of neighbourhood has d i m i n i s h e d , the aspects of neighbourhood s t a t u s , neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r , and neighbourhood l o c a t i o n have i n c r e a s e d i n importance. The neighbourhood idea appears i n such d i s p a r a t e p l a c e s as the new c a p i t a l of B r a z i l i a , the suburban new town of Columbia Maryland, and the p o l i t i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the new China. (Mumford 1954) Because people do not l i v e a l o c a l e x i s t e n c e does not mean that there i s not a strong c o n n e c t i o n with plac e and i t i s stronger i n an area with a strong i d e n t i t y . ( L y n c h 1981) 35 Gerson c a l l s the neighbourhood an 'environ', "each one with i t s own character, each giving the p o s s i b i l i t y of and setting the framework for a s p e c i f i c way of life".(Gerson 1970, p.18) While his environs are places where a 'perceptible group' meets a 'discernable area', the perceptible group i s not necessarily a homogeneous grouping of people. There i s a common bond that a t t r a c t s them to the discernable area which could be one factor only, for example a common desire to ski in a resort town. The environ has i t s own 'personality'. Gerson suggests that in the context of the modern c i t y the ide n t i t y of the environ should become an even more important consideration. The image or identity of the neighbourhood takes place at various scales. Everyone has an image of Hollywood, Harlem, or an Inuit v i l l a g e regardless of whether they have been there or not. There i s an image even though the close s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n i s gone. The image, perpetuated by writers, t e l e v i s i o n and other mediums, reinforces the actual character of certain neighbourhoods. At a d i f f e r e n t scale, the identity of each neighbourhood has been established in the minds of those who reside in the neighbourhood. If the image of the residents and those outside the neighbourhood are similar then the o v e r a l l image of both i s reinforced. This image can involve just one element or many. A strong image, although important, i s only a small part of the q u a l i t y , the well-being that we are looking for. Regardless of l i v i n g in crowded c i t i e s , sprawling suburbs or outlying areas, those l i v i n g in areas without the qual i t y complain of enslavement to routines, t e r r i b l e transportation, nervous 36 exhaustion, and a long l i s t of t e n s i o n s and f r u s t r a t i o n s . (Tanghe 1984) Our attempts to c r e a t e communities from formulas are f a i l u r e s . ( A l e x a n d e r 1979) Surveys are taken of how many parks are needed, what housing requirements are, percentage and p r e f e r e n c e f o r playgrounds or shops, but they w i l l not address the i m p e r c e p t i b l e q u a l i t y of l i f e that i s necessary. Lynch c l a i m s that the neighbourhood concept i s reemerging, however t h i s 'concept' i s never p r o p e r l y d e f i n e d . For the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s , i t i s assumed that most r e s i d e n t s f e e l a st r o n g attachment to t h e i r g e n e r a l l o c a l e and r e s i d e n t i a l environment f o r whatever reason, and r e a c t with some p e r c e i v e d knowledge of an area they c a l l t h e i r neighbourhood. The neighbourhood i n c l u d e s s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l elements. Each of these elements has a g r a i n which Lynch d e s c r i b e s as "the way i n which the d i f f e r e n t elements of a settlement are mixed together i n space."(Lynch 1981, p.265) Observing the behaviour of these d i f f e r e n t elements s e p a r a t e l y i s p o i n t l e s s as they are p a r t of a s y n e r g i s t i c system. (Richman and Chapin 1977) Gans suggests that w i t h i n any mix there must be c l u s t e r s of s i m i l a r i t y which are r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous and pure so that people may be at ease among t h e i r own. At the same time the mix w i t h i n l a r g e areas should be more balanced, and r e g i o n a l access should be h i g h . (Gans 1961) Although Gans was r e f e r r i n g t o socio-economic s t a t u s , the same c o u l d h o l d true f o r p h y s i c a l or c u l t u r a l a spects of a neighbourhood. The aspects are i n t e r r e l a t e d and cannot be c o n s i d e r e d on t h e i r own. 37 There are b r i l l i a n t s p a t i a l f a n t a s i e s which accept s o c i e t y as i t i s , and s o c i a l U topias which sketch a few d i s c o n n e c t e d s p a t i a l f e a t u r e s , i n order to add c o l o u r and a semblence of r e a l i t y . The s p a t i a l p r o p o s a l s are as banal and c o n v e n t i o n a l as are the a r c h i t e c t ' s thoughts of s o c i e t y . (Lynch 1981, p.293) The q u a l i t y that i s d e s i r e d i n a neighbourhood, the w e l l -being, the value added, i s r e f l e c t e d i n the p h y s i c a l c h a r a r c t e r . As planners we can not produce t h i s q u a l i t y but we can prepare the s o i l f o r a community with t h i s q u a l i t y to grow, or h e l p p r o t e c t communities that have t h i s q u a l i t y from l o s i n g i t . The f i r s t s tep i s to recognize that i t i s t h e r e . 38 3.4 Character The c h a r a c t e r of a neighbourhood i s important because i t i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the q u a l i t y of l i f e i n i t . Once the c h a r a c t e r i s e s t a b l i s h e d , i t feeds back onto the neighbourhood, i t s c u l t u r e , and the q u a l i t y of l i f e i n a continuous c y c l e . We must look at a settlement as a whole whose elements are in constant and s u p p o r t i n g interchange, and where process and form are i n d i v i s i b l e . (Lynch 1981, p.98) The c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood i s s t r o n g l y dependent on t h i s i n terchange. I t i s not o n l y an interchange of neighbourhood s c a l e elements, but a nested h i e r a r c h y of interchange between i n d i v i d u a l homes, neighbourhood elements, and the settlement environment as a whole. Each i n f l u e n c e feeds back to another s c a l e with d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s of i n f l u e n c e . The a r t of l i v i n g and b u i l d i n g l i e s i n harmonizing the f e r t i l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between 'my' home and 'our' s t r e e t , 'my' s t r e e t and 'our' neighbourhood, 'my' neighbourhood and 'our' town. (Tanghe 1984, p.183) The neighbourhood with c h a r a c t e r r e f l e c t s t h i s harmony. Character i s not c r e a t e d by harmony but there i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i f not a c a u s a l one. T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s very str o n g at the dwelling/neighbourhood l e v e l . A r c h i t e c t s are w i l l i n g to admit that the p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y of a neighbourhood depends on the p r o p o r t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r o p o r t i o n s of b u i l t and landscape f e a t u r e s . ( F r a d i e r 1976) I t i s the same at the b u i l d i n g s c a l e . 'The beauty of good p r o p o r t i o n s ' was a key phrase i n L e C o r b u s i e r ' s work. "The welcome sense of a v i s i b l e o r d er...the cadence on the human s c a l e governing the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r . " ( G u i t o n 1981, p.65) The l i t e r a t u r e i s f i l l e d with m u s i c a l terms used to r e f l e c t 39 c h a r a c t e r . " A r c h i t e c t u r e i s c l o s e l y a k i n to music. I t i s s e q u e n t i a l , a s e r i e s of v i s u a l e v e n t s . " ( G u i t o n 1981, p.43) Character i s o f t e n equated with f a m i l i a r n a t u r a l elements. A sense of i d e n t i t y i s c r e a t e d by r e t a i n i n g these elements which determine the c h a r a c t e r of an environment.(Lynch 1981) Lynch f e e l s that i n low d e n s i t y areas the n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s and the landscape c o n t r o l the c h a r a c t e r of an area more than the b u i l t environment. "The p r o p o r t i o n s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and connections of these p u b l i c hollows are the c h a r a c t e r of the c i t y . " ( L y n c h 1981, p.407) He suggests that b u i l d i n g s and facades are d e c o r a t i v e elements f o r these spaces and houses take t h e i r i d e n t i t y from them. In a d i s c u s s i o n of s t r e e t s c a p e c h a r a c t e r Wilson a l s o s e l e c t s the landscape as the f i r s t p r i o r i t y w i t h i n the i n t e r r e l a t e d b u i l d i n g s , t r a f f i c , topography, and landscape.(Wilson and Vaughn, 1971) He d e f i n e s c h a r a c t e r as a rhythmic v a r i e t y , c o n t i n u i t y with i n t e r e s t , a harmonious whole. A neighbourhood with c h a r a c t e r i s more than the sum of i t s p a r t s . ( W i l s o n and Vaughn, 1971) P r e s e r v i n g e x i s t i n g environmental c h a r a c t e r i s l i s t e d by Lynch as a s t r o n g value while F r a d i e r i n c l u d e s that a c e r t a i n amount of meaningful change i s necessary as a b a s i c need f o r our w e l l - b e i n g . T h e r e f o r e the q u e s t i o n must be at what r a t e of change can these q u a l i t i e s , or elements of c h a r a c t e r be c o n t i n u o u s l y provided? (Lynch 1981) 40 3.5 Change The process of change in the neighbourhood has three v a r i a b l e s that we are concerned with: 1 . Rate - i s the change ( a ) i n c r e a s i n g , ( b ) d e c r e a s i n g , or remaining ( c ) c o n s t a n t . The r a t e i s the a c c e l e r a t i o n component of change. For example, i f there were two new houses b u i l t i n January, four i n February, and e i g h t i n March, the r a t e would be i n c r e a s i n g . 2. D i r e c t i o n - i s the change towards (a)growth, ( b ) d e c l i n e , or ( c ) s t a b i l i t y . D i r e c t i o n i s d e f i n i n g where the change i s t a k i n g the neighbourhood. If r e s i d e n t s p e r c e i v e that the neighbourhood w i l l d e t e r i o r a t e because of the change, the d i r e c t i o n i s toward d e c l i n e . For example, i f the e i g h t houses in March were 'c r a c k 1 houses. 3. Generation - i s the f o r c e of the change ( a ) i n t e r n a l , or ( b ) e x t e r n a l . Where i s the change being generated? For example, i f a youth gang from Los Angeles opened the 'crack' houses i n Vancouver, then the f o r c e of the change would be e x t e r n a l . Man adapts b i o l o g i c a l l y very s l o w l y . The c o n d i t i o n s our a n c e s t o r s found f a v o u r a b l e thousands of years ago are s t i l l the ones that s u i t us best, the ones s t i l l r e q u i r e d f o r optimum h e a l t h . ( F r a d i e r 1976, p.54) Man has overcome many o b s t a c l e s to s u r v i v a l to evolve to h i s advanced c a p a b i l i t y , however the speed of development and change that e x i s t s today i s ahead of the a d a p t i v e process by an e x p o n e n t i a l f a c t o r . ( F r a d i e r 1976) M o b i l i t y and development i s a r e a l i t y that no one f e e l s the need to e x p l a i n . Constant change 41 i s c o n s i d e r e d the steady s t a t e with an i n c r e a s e i n the r a t e , a c c e l e r a t i o n , being the r e a l measure of change. " I t has become a dogma. Movement, change at any c o s t i s the l i f e b l o o d of dynamic s o c i e t i e s . " ( F r a d i e r 1976, p.45) We seem to be t r a d i n g o f f the q u a l i t y i n our environment f o r i n c r e a s e d amenity. Change can a l s o occur at c e r t a i n c r i t i c a l p o i n t s . L i k e a wave t h a t o r g a n i z e s , b u i l d s , and c r e s t s , there i s a c e r t a i n p o i n t when the impetus to change f o r c e s the wave to break up or c u r l . I t i s a b i f u r c a t i o n p o i n t , the p o i n t where change must occur.(Prygogene 1984) A small added increment f o r c e s the wave past t h i s t h r e s h o l d p o i n t . Once a t h r e s h o l d i s determined, the proper s t r a t e g y may be to r e s t r a i n growth below t h i s p o i n t as long as p o s s i b l e then move r a p i d l y beyond i t to gain a new s t a b i l i t y . ( S t a n b a c k 1985) Other models i n c l u d e the i n f e c t i o n model t h a t c o n s i d e r s the consequences of p l a n t i n g a p o s i t i v e or negative 'germ' i n the neighbourhood. Again, the i n f e c t i o n r a t e , the r a t e at which the new idea or change moves through the community, i s an important f a c t o r . The r a t e of change may be more important than the change i t s e l f . The r a t e of growth should be c o n t r o l l e d i n order to prevent s o c i a l d i s r u p t i o n and preserve community c h a r a c t e r and environmental q u a l i t y . ( L y n c h 1981) The d i r e c t i o n of change can be growing, d e c l i n i n g , or n e i t h e r growing nor d e c l i n i n g , although t h i s s t a t e of s t a b i l i t y i s very hard to a c h i e v e . In western s o c i e t y continuous change i s almost u n i v e r s a l , yet Lynch f e e l s that none of the p l a n n i n g 42 t h e o r i e s d e a l s u c c e s s f u l l y with continuous change.(Lynch 1981) Lynch f e e l s that P l a t o ' s theory of ab s o l u t e s t a b i l i t y i s very hard t o ma i n t a i n . There i s a tendency f o r s t a b i l i t y to f o s t e r d e c l i n e , e s p e c i a l l y i n American communities. Alexander s t a t e s that "although i t i s true that nothing i s p e r f e c t l y s t a b l e , and true that e v e r y t h i n g changes i n the end, there are s t i l l great d i f f e r e n c e s i n degree."(Alexander 1979, p.118) While Lynch f e e l s that there i s some moderate r a t e of growth which i s opt i m a l , he does not d i s m i s s the p o s s i b l e m e r i t s of g e n t l e d e c l i n e . T o u r i s t s and others seek out these p l a c e s because of low s t r e s s , s t r o n g h i s t o r y , and abundance.(Lynch 1981) By abundance he means many amenities per person. Gerson s t a t e s that while change i s i n e v i t a b l e , one searches fo r s t a b i l i t y . " I t i s p o s s i b l e to l i m i t the r a t e of change i n p a r t s of the urban area and even c r e a t e p l a c e s of q u i e t l a s t i n g t r a d i t i o n . " ( G e r s o n 1970, p.15) T h i s i s very d i f f i c u l t to achieve in our s o c i e t y because i t u s u a l l y depends on where the change i s being generated. There are few examples of dramatic change being generated from w i t h i n the community. I n t e r n a l changes are u s u a l l y incremental and i n a form that i s s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e . E x t e r n a l change, on the other hand, can be d e v a s t a t i n g to the c h a r a c t e r and q u a l i t y of l i f e w i t h i n the community. Other f a c t o r s become more important. Barnett suggests that "the l o c a t i o n of a new development i s determined by ease of assemblage as much as by any l o g i c a l l a n d use f a c t o r s " . ( B a r n e t t 1982, p.58) Lynch contends that those making changes i n an urban 43 s e t t i n g must have a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y borne out of a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the p l a c e to be changed. Those who c o n t r o l a p l a c e should have the motives, i n f o r m a t i o n , and power to do i t w e l l , a committment to the p l a c e , and to the needs of other persons and c r e a t u r e s i n i t . (Lynch 1981, p.221) If a developer from o u t s i d e the area b u i l d s a house to s e l l i t o f f immediately, he has q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t e x p e c t a t i o n from the p r o j e c t than i f he i s going to h o l d the p r o j e c t or l i v e i n i t . Change i n our neighbourhoods, r e g a r d l e s s of d i r e c t i o n , has to be generated by people with the understanding of e f f e c t s of change on i n d i v i d u a l s and groups, and at a pace that a l l o w s f o r the c o n t i n u i t y of the community. Otherwise the r e s u l t i s that "the o l d p a t t e r n i s l o s t while no s a t i s f a c t o r y new p a t t e r n i s c r e a t e d " . ( B a r n e t t 1982, p.58) 44 3.6 C o n t i n u i t y But while change i s i n e v i t a b l e , man searches f o r s t a b i l i t y . (Gerson 1970, p.15) The q u a l i t y of l i f e i s most important at the neighbourhood l e v e l . The q u a l i t y of the neighbourhood i s manifest i n the c h a r a c t e r of the p h y s i c a l environment. The p h y s i c a l environment i s c o n s t a n t l y changing. To h e l p maintain the q u a l i t y t h at e x i s t s i n our neighbourhoods i t i s important t o maintain a sense of c o n t i n u i t y i n the c h a r a c t e r of the n a t u r a l and b u i l t environment, c o n t i n u i t y w i t h change. The q u a l i t y of the l i v e s we le a d depends h e a v i l y on our a b i l i t y to maintain, i n the context of continuous change, a sense of p l a c e , a sense of time, and a sense of p r o p r i e t y . (Fram and W e i l e r , l 9 8 4 , p . x i x ) I t i s important to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of change management. The u n i n i t i a t e d observer w i l l only see t o t a l c o n s e r v a t i o n or t o t a l redevelopment as the a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h i s p o l a r i z e s a community because the two are always i n c o n f l i c t . There are however d i f f e r e n t p h i l o s o p h i e s that range between the two p o l e s . As there are as many d e f i n i t i o n s as authors on the s u b j e c t , a r e d e f i n i t i o n of three c o n s e r v a t i o n l e v e l s i s as f o l l o w s : 1. H i s t o r i c p r e s e r v a t i o n — attempts to r e c r e a t e a past t h a t ignores a l l changes, as i f there was a moment i n the l i f e of a b u i l d i n g , park, or landscape that was t r u e to i t s h i s t o r y . I t c r e a t e s a museum pie c e and i s best used f o r monument p r o t e c t i o n . 2. H e r i t a g e c o n s e r v a t i o n - - a l l o w s the p h y s i c a l environment to remain a p a r t of the present by a l l o w i n g p r a c t i c a l re-use while r e t a i n i n g the i l l u s i o n of an h i s t o r i c environment. I t r e t a i n s 45 the best of the past and makes i t r e l e v e n t to and u s e f u l f o r today's needs. The s t i p u l a t i o n i s that the environment must be re c o g n i z e d as important to the n a t i o n a l or l o c a l h e r i t a g e . I t i s o f t e n used as a t o o l f o r r e v i t a l i z i n g d e c l i n i n g commercial d i s t r i c t s and promoting tou r i s m . 3. C o n t i n u i t y with change - - p r o v i d e s a set of g u i d e l i n e s to r e t a i n the i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y of areas, p r o v i d i n g a sense of p l a c e with which r e s i d e n t s can i d e n t i f y over time. I t emphasizes the d i f f e r e n c e s between communities that were developed by separate h i s t o r i e s . C o n t i n u i t y r e c o g n i z e s that a community's c h a r a c t e r or sense of p l a c e i s a v a l u a b l e resource that must be maintained while a l l o w i n g changes s e n s i t i v e to t h i s c h a r a c t e r to occur. I t i s o f t e n the best p o l i c y f o r managing change i n mature r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . Alexander used the f o l l o w i n g words f o r d e s c r i b i n g a p l a c e that has the q u a l i t y , the added v a l u e ; a l i v e , whole, balanced, comfortable, f r e e , exact, e g o l e s s , and e t e r n a l . They have an "order of t h i n g s which stand o u t s i d e of time".(Alexander 1979, p.38) C o n t i n u i t y i s a s t r o n g element i n h i s theory of p a t t e r n s fo r "every p l a c e i s given i t s c h a r a c t e r by c e r t a i n p a t t e r n s of events that keep on happenning there".(Alexander 1979, p.55) Although changes over time d i s s o l v e c e r t a i n elements of the environment, a ' f a b r i c of r e l a t i o n s h i p s ' i s l e f t behind that repeats i t s e l f and b u i l d s the c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood.(Alexander 1977) Barnett agrees that the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of h e i g h t , scale,, m a t e r i a l s and a r c h i t e c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r are each important. The most important r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y area deal with 46 l a n d s c a p i n g t h a t w i l l " e v e n t u a l l y c r e a t e an ensemble".(Barnett 1982, p.214) Tanghe e x p l a i n s that d e s i g n i n g f o r c o n t i n u i t y does not imply that the e x i s t i n g environment be i m i t a t e d , but i t should r e s p e c t the "form, c o l o u r , t e x t u r e s , and the g e n e r a l s p a t i a l q u a l i t i e s of the e x i s t i n g development".(Tanghe 1984, p.121) He d i s c u s s e s change and renewal w i t h i n c o n t i n u i t y to preserve s p a t i a l and s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s f o r an area with i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r . The e x i s t i n g f a b r i c has to be the model f o r new b u i l d i n g s . I t i s a matter of s t a r t i n g with a philosophy of c o n t i n u i t y . We are concerned with a time and space bound c u l t u r a l -h i s t o r i c a l process by means of which a p o p u l a t i o n g r a d u a l l y becomes aware of i t s i d e n t i t y and i t s f u t u r e . (Tanghe 1984, p.119) Harmony i s o f t e n used to d e s c r i b e the r e s u l t s of t h i s p hilosophy of c o n t i n u i t y . If the s t y l e does not harmonize with the l o c a l t r a d i t i o n s we have i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the p l a c e of c o n t i n u i t y . (Tanghe 1984, p.157) Alexander used harmony to d e s c r i b e p l a c e s that had the q u a l i t y . They were b e a u t i f u l , harmonious, and e s p e c i a l l y a l i v e . ( A l e x a n d e r 1979) He reasoned t h a t one g e n e r a l l y remembered the harmonious c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an area i n s t e a d of the p e c u l i a r i t i e s . L e C o r b u s i e r ' s goal was to a t t a i n harmonious p r o p o r t i o n s , "a harmonious e x i s t e n c e , man i n h i s environment".(Guiton 1981 p.69) C o s t o n i s warns of disharmonious v i s u a l and dimensional p a t t e r n s i n s e n s i t i v e a r e a s . Harmoniously r e l a t e d b u i l d i n g s from d i f f e r e n t p e r i o d s e n r i c h the observer's sense of time and space as components of the urban e x p e r i e n c e . ( C o s t o n i s 1974) He f e e l s 47 that areas c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a unique roofscape or d i s t i n c t i v e b u i l d i n g type should be i d e n t i f i e d as s e n s i t i v e to changes i n the elements. Fram and Weiler a l s o mentioned the need f o r harmony between the o l d and the new. "...the sense of f i t t i n g w e l l t ogether, a combination of p a r t s i n t o an o r d e r l y whole. T h i s s o r t of harmony i s a matter of great v a l u e . " ( p . x i i ) There are many arguments a g a i n s t the use of c o n t i n u i t y to c o n t r o l development. The s t a t e i s stopping p r o g r e s s and i n t e r f e r i n g i n the f r e e marketplace. They are t r y i n g to reverse time. I f the p o l i c y was i n pl a c e hundreds of years ago i t would have d e p r i v e d our ge n e r a t i o n of the landmarks that we c h e r i s h . F i r s t , the assumption that p rogress and f r e e market s p e c u l a t i o n i n land development are d e s i r a b l e ends f o r a s o c i e t y i n a l l circumbstances has been c o n s i s t e n t l y and s u c c e s s f u l l y challenged.(Fram and W e i l e r , 1984) C o n t i n u i t y r e s i s t s i n d i v i d u a l l y i l l - c o n c e i v e d changes. I t a l s o d i r e c t s change to keep i t from causing damage, waste or l o s s . S o c i e t y has always c o n t r o l l e d and d i r e c t e d l a n d development by f o r c e , s o c i a l p r e s s u r e , and investment. Anyone can be a b u i l d e r . I f a mistake i s made, the b u i l d e r may l o s e money or go out of b u s i n e s s . The community, however, may have to l i v e with the mistake f o r the f i f t y to one hundred year n a t u r a l l i f e s p a n of the wood frame house. B u i l d i n g changes the environment s i g n i f i c a n t l y over time. I t a f f e c t s the f u t u r e as w e l l as the prese n t . Secondly, the stakes are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t today. You cannot compare the c u r r e n t b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y , that can o b l i t e r a t e then 48 r e b u i l d an e n t i r e c i t y , with the way b u i l d i n g was done i n the past. Man f o r g o t how f a t a l i t i s to upset the c o n t i n u i t y of a s p i r i t u a l growth which i n c o r p o r a t e d a l l the worthwhile elements assembled by p r e v i o u s g e n e r a t i o n s . That s t a b i l i t y i s p o s s i b l e only by m a i n t a i n i n g the bond with an environment which has evolved i n a n a t u r a l way through the care of many gen e r a t i o n s of men. (Tanghe 1984, p.106) B u i l d i n g s are designed today by people that have no r e l a t i o n s h i p to the environment. The vast m a j o r i t y of the new houses are not custom designed. The only r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t a 'rack' or mail order plan design has with the context of the s i t e i s the l o t dimension. Houses are being b u i l t everyday that h o r r i f y not onl y the e x i s t i n g neighbourhoods but the b u i l d e r s as w e l l . ( F r a d i e r 1976) People are being condemned to l i v e i n a f o r e i g n environment about which they understand nothing, or r a t h e r , about which there i s nothing to u n d e r s t a n d . ( F r a d i e r 1976) There i s no s o c i a l c o n t r o l borne out of ge n e r a t i o n s l i v i n g i n one community. In the past there was tremendous s o c i a l p r e ssure to conform. Today, the r a t e and s c a l e of changes that happen ove r n i g h t are s t a r t l i n g . There i s no time f o r t h i s ' n a t u r a l ' c o n t r o l to work.CFram and w e i l e r , 1984) Change i s now much f a s t e r and the c o s t s are much g r e a t e r . We cannot t r e a t the urban landscape i n a ' f r o n t i e r ' f a s h i o n any lo n g e r . C o n t i n u i t y i s a s t r a t e g y f o r p l a n n i n g , f o r moderating the pace of change and ' h e a l i n g the raw edges of the new as i t meets the o l d i n mature neighbourhoods. In f a c t to make sure that new development i s an enhancing process r a t h e r than a d e s r u c t i v e one i s simply proper p l a n n i n g . ( D o m i n c e l j 1980) 49 3.7 Concept Summary Q u a l i t y i s the most important element a s s o c i a t e d with a community. Where r e s i d e n t s p e r c e i v e a h i g h l e v e l of q u a l i t y , care must be taken to conserve and enhance i t . The neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r i s the p h y s i c a l embodiment of t h i s q u a l i t y . Our neighbourhoods are c o n s t a n t l y changing at an i n c r e a s i n g pace. C o n t i n u i t y i s the p h i l o s o p h i c a l v e h i c l e t hat w i l l allow p l a n n e r s to manage t h i s change. A sense of community and of c o n t i n u i t y , a f e e l i n g of common d e s t i n y i s e s s e n t i a l f o r the w e l l - b e i n g of any se t t l e m e n t . (Mead 1973) L i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been given to the q u a l i t y of mature neighbourhoods i n Vancouver. With changes that are t a k i n g p l a c e that a l t e r the c h a r a c t e r of the environment i n s i n g l e f a m i l y neighbourhoods i t i s important f o r planners to keep t h i s p h i l osophy i n mind when making d e c i s i o n s about the impact of new development. The aim would be to maintain c o n t i n u i t y , both of the neighbourhood i t s e l f and of the image of h i s t o r y and of nature that i s h e l d by i t s members. The concept of l o c a l c o n t i n u i t y w i l l become a key idea i n reshaping our s e t t l e m e n t s . (Lynch 1981, p.260) 49a . . . ^ ^ M m a i itf a • • s ~ i i " a e_s_s s i a D O a . i ' l ' i ' . ' i ' i ' i S iii: 3R51 50 CHAPTER 4 : THE SURVEYS T h i s chapter d i s c u s s e s e m p i r i c a l surveys taken at p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings and home i n t e r v i e w s conducted i n the Oakridge neighbourhood. 4.1 Purpose Of Surveys The purpose of the surveys was to gather data about the concerns of r e s i d e n t s i n a neighbourhood f e e l i n g the impact of l a r g e new houses. The approach was to r e c o r d the p e r c e p t i o n s and f e e l i n g s of r e s i d e n t s without regard f o r t h e i r p h y s i c a l v a l i d i t y . I f f e a r s about new c o n s t r u c t i o n e x i s t e d then they were recorded and t r e a t e d as r e a l whether the source of the fear was r e a l or not. The survey; (a) recorded and ev a l u a t e d comments at p u b l i c meetings (b) determined the community of most d i s c o n t e n t (c) gathered comments i n that community 4.2 Methodology "One must l i v e i n a c i t y and t a l k to i t s people before we can comment." (Lynch 1981, p.350) To gain some understanding about e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s i t i s important to enter t h e i r world and experience t h e i r concerns f i r s t hand. 51 To gather background m a t e r i a l f o r chapter 2.0 i t was s u f f i c i e n t to use the p r e s s , v a r i o u s r e p o r t s , and i n t e r v i e w s with p r o f e s s i o n a l s and p o l i t i c i a n s concerned with the i s s u e . These sources, however, c o u l d not get at u n d e r l y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s and concerns t h a t are more p r i v a t e . I n i t i a l i n q u i r i e s suggested that there was some c o n f u s i o n concerning the problem. Assumptions had been made by C i t y C o u n c i l and p l a n n i n g s t a f f that the problem was one of s i z e and s i t i n g of the new houses. Most r e s i d e n t s , however, were not s a t i s f i e d with proposed changes to the s i z e and s i t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . The r e s e a r c h e r wanted to determine what were the u n d e r l y i n g causes of d i s t r e s s among e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s . A d i a g n o s t i c study would deepen the understanding of the s e t t i n g by g a t h e r i n g i n s i g h t i n t o the s t r u c t u r e and dynamics of the o v e r a l l problem ( Z e i s e l 1981). Three s e t s of data were recorded. 1. Comments made by p a r t i c i p a n t s at three p u b l i c meetings were recorded. These comments were then e v a l u a t e d by grading each response i n r e l a t i o n to accompanying applause. The purpose was to produce a h i e r a r c h y of concerns (see 4.3). 2. The p a r t i c i p a n t s at the meetings were surveyed to determine which neighbourhoods were represented and i n what numbers. The purpose was to p r o v i d e an i n d i c a t o r of concern (see 4.4). 3. In the neighbourhood with the h i g h e s t percentage of the p o p u l a t i o n a t t e n d i n g the meetings and the h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n of l a r g e new houses, a sample of r e s i d e n t s was i n t e r v i e w e d . The purpose was to p r o v i d e a l i s t of concerns to supplement the 52 concerns expressed at p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings (see 4.5). In the home i n t e r v i e w s the respondents were allowed to f r e e l y e x p l o r e a range of t o p i c s r e l a t i n g to the new houses. Although t h i s s t y l e of i n t e r v i e w was time consuming and would not produce s t a t i s t i c a l data, i t was f e l t that the r e s u l t s would be more a c c u r a t e c o n s i d e r i n g the purpose of the survey. The i n t e r v i e w e r d i r e c t e d the respondent along a l i n e of q u e s t i o n s l i s t e d i n appendix 4. The l i s t was very g e n e r a l , and was designed to ensure that broad c a t e g o r i e s or areas of concern were addressed. There was no time l i m i t and the respondent c o u l d speak f o r one minute or one hour on any t o p i c . The q u e s t i o n s ensured that areas were covered but d i d not r e s t r i c t the respondent. On the c o n t r a r y , they o f t e n s t i m u l a t e d the respondent to c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s d i r e c t i o n s . The respondent was always asked f o r any other comments or concerns not covered i n the i n t e r v i e w . A l l of the n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and dynamics of the neighbourhood are best e x p l o r e d where they occur. Residents are able to p h y s i c a l l y p o i n t out problems. I t i s assumed that r e s i d e n t s f e e l more comfortable i n e x p r e s s i n g concerns while i n t h e i r home. There i s a co n f i d e n c e that allows them to say t h i n g s that they would not say at a p u b l i c meeting. In the d i r e c t e d i n t e r v i e w , a new d i r e c t i o n c o u l d be ex p l o r e d by the researc h e r as new i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d i n the i n t e r v i e w . While a set q u e s t i o n n a i r e a l l o w s the data to be more e a s i l y q u a n t i f i e d , the respondent i s r a r e l y allowed to q u a l i f y h i s answer. The u n d e r l y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s and emotions may not be d i s c o v e r e d because the res e a r c h e r has a l r e a d y designed the 53 q u e s t i o n n a i r e from h i s own p e r s p e c t i v e of the problem. While b i a s may a l s o appear i n the f i n d i n g s of the l e s s s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w , i t i s l e s s l i k e l y to remain unnoticed i n a n a l y s i s . In the s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the r e s e a r c h e r may never know that b i a s has e l i m i n a t e d p o s s i b l e answers. In the d i r e c t e d i n t e r v i e w , the r e s e a r c h e r ' s primary purpose i s to e l i c i t responses that are not s e l f - e v i d e n t . The i s s u e s e x p l o r e d i n t h i s t h e s i s are q u a l i t a t i v e i s s u e s . I t i s very d i f f i c u l t to d e f i n e w e l l - b e i n g of neighbourhood or the emotions surrounding a change i n c h a r a c t e r or neighbourhood i n numerical terms. 4.3 Survey Of Comments At P u b l i c Meetings Before changing the RS-1 zoning r e g u l a t i o n s i n 1986, two in f o r m a t i o n meetings were h e l d at the Oakridge a u d i t o r i u m and S i r C h a r l e s Tupper secondary school r e s p e c t i v e l y . A t h i r d meeting, the p u b l i c h e a r i n g f o r the zoning change, was a l s o h e l d at the s c h o o l . Each meeting was attended by the r e s e a r c h e r . Comments made by those a d d r e s s i n g the meetings were tape recorded. An a n a l y s i s of the comments was made by grading the r e a c t i o n of the audience to the comments on a d e c i b e l s c a l e u sing the l e v e l i n d i c a t o r on the r e c o r d i n g machine. The applause i s graded from l e v e l 5, raucous applause, to l e v e l 1, s c a t t e r e d applause. A l i s t of the comments recorded and the graded a n a l y s i s of comments at the f i r s t and second meeting can be found i n appendix 3. I t i s assumed t h a t i f the audience agreed 54 with a comment by the speaker they supported i t with loud applause. There were many other i n d i c a t o r s of concern at the meetings. At the f i r s t meeting over two hundred r e s i d e n t s were turned away at the door because the a u d i t o r i u m was f u l l . The s t a f f o r g a n i z i n g the meeting was unaware of the importance of the i s s u e . The s t a f f a l s o m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the i s s u e i t s e l f . While they wanted to speak about t e c h n i c a l parameters of the zoning schedule, the p u b l i c wanted them to address b a s i c concepts, f e e l i n g s , and p r i n c i p l e s . At the second meeting the press was thrown out. The r e s i d e n t s d i d not want a media event, they wanted t h e i r concerns adressed by c o u n c i l and s t a f f . They were not comfortable with the cameras. The t h i r d meeting was the o f f i c i a l p u b l i c h e a r i n g r e q u i r e d fo r the zoning changes. The new by-law which was proclaimed a f t e r these meetings i s by-law 5986 (appendix 5). 4.4 Survey Of P u b l i c Meetings P a r t i c i p a n t s At each meeting a survey was conducted to determine which neighbourhoods the p a r t i c i p a n t s l i v e d i n and whether they were new home owners, e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s , or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the development i n d u s t r y . The data f o r these surveys can be seen i n t a b l e form i n appendix 2. The community of Oakridge i n southwest Vancouver had the h i g h e s t l e v e l of attendance at the meetings as a percentage of t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . Oakridge p a r t i c i p a t i o n was 55% higher than the 55 second community, K e r r i s d a l e . T h i s c o r r e l a t e s to the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of new houses i n t h i s area as shown i n f i g u r e 3 (see 2.3). T h e r e f o r e , the more new houses i n the neighbourhood, the more concerned the r e s i d e n t s . 4.5 Oakridge D i r e c t e d Interviews Oakridge was s e l e c t e d f o r the i n t e r v i e w s from the r e s u l t s of the p u b l i c meetings survey. I t was the neighbourhood that had the l a r g e s t percentage of new houses and the l a r g e s t number of concerned r e s i d e n t s at the p u b l i c meetings. The new houses a l s o had the l a r g e s t impact i n Oakridge because the new houses were c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r than the e x i s t i n g small bungalows. The southwest Oakridge quadrant was the area with the l a r g e s t percentage of new houses i n Oakridge (see 2.3). The researc h e r s e l e c t e d a s t r e e t t h at had a t y p i c a l p a t t e r n of new and e x i s t i n g houses and approached t w e n t y - f i v e houses over three v i s i t s to be i n t e r v i e w e d . Twelve r e s i d e n t s or r e s i d e n t f a m i l i e s i n o l d e r e x i s t i n g houses were i n t e r v i e w e d while the remainder e i t h e r r e f u s e d or were not co n t a c t e d on three v i s i t s . F i g u r e 10 shows a map of the re s e a r c h area and the houses approached. The l o t s c o l o u r e d orange are l a r g e new houses e x i s t i n g at the time of i n t e r v i e w i n June 1986. An o u t l i n e d l o t i s one under c o n s t r u c t i o n while a dot means that the l o t i s staked f o r d e m o l i t i o n . ( I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 25% of the surveyed houses i n 1986 had been redeveloped or were i n the process of being redeveloped i n A p r i l 1988.) Each respondent was asked a general guide of q u e s t i o n s to ensure that c e r t a i n t o p i c s were covered (appendix 4). T h i s was FIGURE 10 LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL INTERVIEWS SOUTHWEST OAKRIDGE J L J L Ave. 17 i9 /9 j o to k Co o CO 0 u *0 V Mi CO y 0 0 5 k to <»* in O FIGURE 10 -NEW HOUSES EXISTING AT INTERVIEW, JUNE 1986 -NEW HOUSES BUILT FROM JUNE 198G TO AUGUST 1988 /-2 r-NUMBERED HOUSES APPROACHED FOR INTERVIFW 56 only used, however, as a guide to d i r e c t the conversation which was allowed to take any course that the respondent wished. Several interviews were done with more than one family member. In a l l , four men and twelve women were interviewed. A l l respondents owned their home. Only three of twelve households had children at home. A l l residents had been there more than five years, some for twenty years and more. 56a CONCERNS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS 5 57 CHAPTER 5 : CONCERNS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS Comments of e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s from the p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings and the neighbourhood d i r e c t e d i n t e r v i e w s have been arranged i n t o meaningful c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s c h a pter. The three main areas of concern were: 1. Abhorrance of the new houses 2. H e l p l e s s n e s s i n the face of change 3. I n t o l e r a n c e towards new c u l t u r e Respondents ranged i n age from s i x t e e n to e i g h t y p r o v i d i n g o p i n i o n s from a c r o s s s e c t i o n w i t h i n the community. The p e r c e p t i o n s of the households were remarkably s i m i l a r . A l l age groups and household types had a negative o p i n i o n of the new houses. The i n t e n s i t y of concern ran from m i l d i r r i t a t i o n from a r e s i d e n t who intended to take advantage of the i n c r e a s e d p r i c e s , to d e s p a i r from a r e s i d e n t who f e l t t h a t she was being f o r c e d to s e l l . The concern of the r e s i d e n t s can simply be s t a t e d as fea r of change, the fear of p h y s i c a l changes i n the b u i l t and landscaped environment, the fear of s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l changes, and the fe a r of the process of change i t s e l f , i n c l u d i n g the d i r e c t i o n , pace, and ge n e r a t i o n of change, and the way that change was being managed by the C i t y . Comments i n q u o t a t i o n s were made by r e s i d e n t s . 58 5.1 Abhorrance Of The New Houses A l l respondents had negative comments about the new houses and how they were changing the c h a r a c t e r of t h e i r neighbourhood. 5.1.1 The new houses are ugly For the most part respondents were unable to communicate what aspects of the new houses they d i d or d i d not l i k e . The t y p i c a l comments were very g e n e r a l and n e g a t i v e . "I j u s t don't l i k e them, they're u g l y " Residents gave few s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s . They l i k e d t h i n g s the way they were. "The o l d houses were not good l o o k i n g , t h a t ' s not the p o i n t " Attempts were made to c r e a t e a l i s t of elements or p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new houses that were p a r t i c u l a r l y o f f e n s i v e to the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s . T h i s process was f u t i l e . Although there were comments from adjacent p r o p e r t i e s r e l a t i n g to overshadowing or the l o s s of p r i v a c y , the s t r o n g e s t and most inten s e sentiments d i d not r e l a t e to i d e n t i f i a b l e a r c h i t e c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of the b u i l d i n g but to the general presence of the new houses. Common responses r e g a r d i n g p h y s i c a l design were: " b o x l i k e " , "poor design", " o f f e n s i v e " , "poor q u a l i t y " , " s t e r i l e " , "cheap l o o k i n g " , "overwhelming", "out of p r o p o r t i o n " , " f a c t o r i e s " , " b i g square boxes", " a b o r t i o n s " , and " m o n s t r o s i t i e s " . Not one respondent gave more d e t a i l . The general d i s r u p t i o n 59 i n s t r e e t s c a p e and neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r were more important to the r e s i d e n t s and c o u l d be more e a s i l y f e l t and expressed. "Maintain the c o n t i n u i t y of the s t r e e t s c a p e . " "We need to respect the q u a l i t y of our neighbourhoods." The neighbourhood belonged to them and the new houses were t r e s s p a s s i n g . T h e i r concern was a change i n the g e n e r a l f e e l i n g of repose or harmony w i t h i n the whole neighbourhood. Each house i s seen i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r s and then to the r e s t of the neighbourhood. 5.1.2 Some new houses are b e t t e r than o t h e r s . While a l l respondents c o n s i d e r e d the new houses to be ugly and out of c h a r a c t e r , they a l s o f e l t t h a t some of the new houses were b e t t e r than others and when prompted c o u l d p o i n t out ones that were not as o f f e n s i v e . These were g e n e r a l l y houses with i n t e n s i v e l a n d s c a p i n g , mature t r e e s remaining, l a r g e roof areas with v a r i e d p i t c h , and west coast m a t e r i a l s and d e t a i l s . The houses p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s l i k e d had f l a t r o o f s , hard s u r f a c e l a n d s c a p i n g , and b r i c k or s t u c c o s i d i n g . Houses f u r t h e r away from the respondent were more l i k e l y to be i n the ' b e t t e r ' category than houses i n the respondent's immediate s t r e e t s c a p e . 5.1.3 The new houses do not belong i n my neighbourhood. Although some of the houses were b e t t e r than o t h e r s , i t was f e l t that they d i d not belong i n the neighbourhood. "They are n i c e houses but not i n t h i s neighbourhood, Richmond maybe". 60 The s t y l e s of the new houses were equated with suburban f r i n g e development as t h i s was where the r e s i d e n t s had seen these s t y l e s b e f o r e . The outer suburbs are c o n s i d e r e d l e s s d e s i r a b l e and the r e s i d e n t s d i d not want houses that resembled them. F u r t h e r , the rese a r c h e r was o f t e n l e f t c o n s i d e r i n g whether the respondent meant that the houses d i d not belong or that the people d i d not belong, or both. "we have our quota of these houses, they should not a l l o w any more u n t i l these a s s i m i l a t e . " 5.1.4 They are p u t t i n g i n s u i t e s Another common fe a r was that the s i n g l e f a m i l y s t a t u s of the neighbourhood would be l o s t with extended f a m i l i e s or m u l t i -s u i t e c o n v e r s i o n s . Many comments were about the p o s s i b l e d e n s i f i c a t i o n of the neighbourhood. " I t l ooks l i k e an apartment, not a house." One r e s i d e n t was convinced that a t r i p l e x was being b u i l t next door. Although t h i s was not the case, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms i n the new house suggested an easy c o n v e r s i o n to s u i t e s a f t e r i n s p e c t i o n s were completed. Extended f a m i l i e s were blamed f o r new houses with ten to twelve bedrooms and as many bathrooms. The r e s i d e n t s p e r c e i v e d a l a r g e r neighbourhood p o p u l a t i o n and accompanying problems. 5.1.5 The new houses have no l a n d s c a p i n g Landscape was a s e r i o u s concern, g r e a t e r than the concern f o r the houses themselves. I t was f e l t that the houses were i n 61 an e x i s t i n g landscape. The landscape was not an adjunct to the b u i l t environment or c r e a t i o n to v i s u a l l y complement new houses but an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the u n i f i e d s t r e e t s c a p e . R e s i dents wanted the e x i s t i n g landscape to be r e t a i n e d . The e x i s t i n g s t r e e t s c a p e was l i n k e d to the n a t u r a l environment of l a r g e open lawns, a p e r s o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with t r e e s , an absence of geometric r e g u l a r i t y , and an absence of borders. With the e x i s t i n g homes there were few i n s t a n c e s of man-made f e n c i n g or hedges used as l i n e a l s e p a r a t i o n . A l l gardens were e q u a l l y w e l l maintained without being manicured. The landscape tended to belong to the p u b l i c space as common p r o p e r t y . When t h i s was i n t e r u p t e d by the c r e a t i o n of a f o r e i g n landscape i t took away p a r t of the i n t e g r i t y of the e x i s t i n g landscape and reduced the q u a l i t y of the whole environment. Many respondents r e f e r r e d to the c l e a r e d l o t c o n s t r u c t i o n procedure of b u l l d o z i n g a l l e x i s t i n g t r e e s and bushes and l e v e l l i n g the l o t . Neighbours r e c a l l e d o l d and grand t r e e s that were p o i n t l e s s l y destroyed although they would not have a f f e c t e d the s t r u c t u r a l s i t i n g . Roots of other t r e e s were des t r o y e d by exc a v a t i o n or l o t c l e a r i n g . Some adjacent owners i n s i s t e d t h at the grade l e v e l had r i s e n up to 24 inches from the p r e v i o u s s t r u c t u r e ' s grade l e v e l , u s u a l l y accomplished by t r u c k i n g excavated m a t e r i a l from other s i t e s or us i n g the e x i s t i n g excavated m a t e r i a l so that i t d i d not have to be removed. With the e x i s t i n g d w e l l i n g s the landscape i s as important 62 as the s t r u c t u r e with the focus outward from l a r g e p i c t u r e windows t a k i n g advantage of neighbour's gardens as w e l l as i t s own. The new houses reversed t h i s p h i l o s o p h y with landscape being secondary to the i n t e r n a l environment. There i s an inward focu s . Most t r e e s and shrubs are used to s h i e l d the house from the neighbourhood and d e c l a r e the l i m i t s of a p r i v a t e space. The p u b l i c landscape had p r o v i d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l i z i n g . Many r e s i d e n t s complained that the new landscape and p h y s i c a l d e sign of the houses r e s t r i c t e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r neighbouring. The use of f r o n t access i n t e r n a l garages with driveways to the s t r e e t was c o n s i d e r e d the main cause of d i s r u p t i o n i n the c o n t i n u i t y of the landscape. 5.1.6 The c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood i s changing Residents made many comments that r e f e r r e d t o the f e e l i n g of d i s t u r b a n c e and i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the general p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood caused by the new houses. "The ambience i s changing" "The v i l l a g e atmosphere i s d i s a p p e a r i n g " " I t ' s not cozy anymore" "There was a c h a r a c t e r that i s now being destroyed" Many negative a d j e c t i v e s were used t h a t d e s c r i b e d a f e e l i n g of l o s s a t t r i b u t e d to the new development. C o n s t r u c t i v e comments were r a r e . When expressed, however, the tone echoed the goals of the C i t y C o u n c i l . " A s s i m i l a t e the new, not des t r o y and r e b u i l d " "I would make i t s u i t the neighbourhood more" 63 This change was very hard for the residents to accept. "I l i k e d i t the way i t was" "It just exaggerates other changes in the community" 5.1.7 Our neighbourhood i s losing i t s quality The residents spoke frequently of "sa c r a f i c i n g neighbourhood character and q u a l i t y " . Although the new houses were very expensive they were s t i l l percieved to reduce the qual i t y of the neighbourhood. This qua l i t y could not be quantified in the market but existed in the minds of the residents and they wanted i t preserved. 64 5.2 H e l p l e s s n e s s In The Face Of Change Other comments r e l a t e d to the process of change i t s e l f and the i n a b i l i t y of the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s to address i t . The qu e s t i o n was, why should we have to adapt to these changes? Why are we not d i r e c t i n g change i n our neighbourhood? I t i s our neighbourhood. Why not have new development adapt to us? 5.2.1 We d i d not know of changes. The f e a r of change i s heightened when the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s are unaware of impending development and when the f o r c e s behind the change are unknown. "I would have l i k e d to have known. Maybe I c o u l d have stopped i t from being a monster" The r e s i d e n t s had no fore-warning of d e m o l i t i o n s or new c o n s t r u c t i o n i n the neighbourhood. Often the r e s i d e n t would r e t u r n home and a house on the block would simply have disappeared. Only one respondent had any knowledge of p u b l i c meetings concerning the i s s u e presented by the Planning Department. The e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s simply wanted to know what was planned f o r t h e i r neighbourhood. 5.2.2 We don't have any say. The e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s f e l t t o t a l l y h e l p l e s s . No one was c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . Most r e s i d e n t s f e l t t h a t they c o u l d not i n f l u e n c e the changing course of the neighbourhood. Residents spoke of an "economic imperative" or " f o r c e s beyond our c o n t r o l " 65 "If someone has 600,000 d o l l a r s to spend then the house w i l l be b u i l t " They perceived that changes were made by the forces of economics and not the w i l l of the neighbourhood or the i r representatives at the municipal government. 5.2.3 Contractors are inconsiderate . Many comments referred to the side ef fects of change. Contractors are notorious for being uncooperative. Respondents complained of loud radios and rude comments e spec ia l l y from adjacent s i t e s . Residents complained that the developers ignored the ir existence. For example, in one s i t u a t i o n a well landscaped property has a new house constructed on the adjacent l o t . After s t r i p p i n g the land and destroying root networks and without any consul tat ion the developer placed a new fence up against the ex i s t ing fences of the neighbours. The neighbours expected the owner to discuss the matter with them to provide a shared fence which is the usual pract i ce with ex i s t ing proper t i e s . Residents a l so complained that staggered construct ion s tar t s guaranteed the cont inui ty of construct ion noise . Nine homes had been s tarted at d i f f erent times over three years within earshot of the res idents . There had l i t e r a l l y been construct ion noise d a i l y for three years . 5.2.4 Real estate agents hound us. A l l respondents complained about being hounded by rea l estate agents wanting them to s e l l the i r property . One resident 66 claimed that r e a l e s t a t e agents knock on her door up to three times a week i n q u i r i n g i f the owner was prepared to s e l l so that a developer c o u l d knock the house down. I t was not a very secure way to l i v e . In f a c t a l o t of s t r e s s c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d to t h i s nuisance. Agents would telephone r e s i d e n t s to i n q u i r e as w e l l . While a l l respondents s a i d t h a t the agents were courteous i n t h e i r approach and d i d not use pressure t a c t i c s , the t r u e pressure was exer t e d by the constant reminder that the neighbourhood was changing and someone was w a i t i n g f o r them to le a v e . "We've had two people a week knocking at the door wanting to buy the house" "Every day we get n o t i c e s and people from these r e a l e s t a t e people coming around" "At l e a s t twice a week f o r eighteen months" 5.2.5 Our taxes w i l l i n c r e a s e . A l l respondents were worried about t h e i r taxes going up to r e f l e c t the i n c r e a s e d value of the land and improvements i n the neighbourhood. Many were e l d e r l y , on f i x e d incomes, and would f i n d i t very d i f f i c u l t to absorb i n c r e a s e s . One r e s i d e n t saw a b e n e f i t to i n c r e a s e d v a l u e s while most d i d not c o n s i d e r i t to be a p o s i t i v e change. Residents f e l t that there were other values being l o s t . "Yes i t s h e l d up p r o p e r t y values but not e v e r y t h i n g i s monetary" " I t ' s a c t u a l l y reduced the value of my house to zero" 67 Residents f e l t that the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of the neighbourhood was d e c r e a s i n g yet the taxes were i n c r e a s i n g . 5.2.6 The pace of change i s too f a s t . A l l respondents were s u r p r i s e d at the pace of the change. They wanted a moratorium so they c o u l d have time to a d j u s t and adapt to the new environment. "We have accepted more of these houses than our share. We have our quota now." The pace was c o n s i s t e n t with urban renewal, not gradual change and improvement that was d e s i r e d by the r e s i d e n t s . 5.2.7 The process i s geared to the developers not the r e s i d e n t s . E x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s blamed the C i t y f o r a l l o w i n g these dramatic changes without t h e i r c o n s u l t a t i o n . The p l a n n i n g s t a f f was even accused of d e l i b e r a t e l y a l l o w i n g the change as a prelude to d e n s i f i c a t i o n of RS-1 and " a l t e r i n g our r e s i d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r t h a t i s unique i n the world". Residents f e l t that s t a f f gave every advantage and c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the developers while they were given no c o n s i d e r a t i o n . O u t s i d e r s were making the d e c i s i o n s . 68 5.3 I n t o l e r a n c e Towards New C u l t u r e Many comments (the most intense ones) d i d not r e f e r to the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood, the new houses, or the process of change. The changing c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r was e q u a l l y or more important than the p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s of new development. The c u l t u r a l changes that the new houses represented were as d i s t u r b i n g to the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s as the houses themselves. 1. New immigrants are t a k i n g over. A l l of the new houses i n the area were b e l i e v e d to be purchased by recent immigrants from or r e s i d e n t s of Hong Kong. I t was c l e a r that r e s i d e n t s were f e a r f u l of a c u l t u r a l s h i f t that would s e v e r e l y a l t e r the neighbourhood. "Where i s t h i s a l l l e a d i n g " " I t i s the end of our way of l i f e " Most r e s i d e n t s wanted to slowly a s s i m i l a t e immigrants i n t o t h e i r way of l i f e as they b e l i e v e d had been the case i n p r e v i o u s decades. For the most pa r t they d i d not want a b i c u l t u r a l neighbourhood. They wanted t h e i r neighbourhood to remain t h e i r own c u l t u r e , whatever they f e l t that to be, and r e g a r d l e s s of the background of the respondent. The r e s i d e n t s saw the changes as as a d e s t r u c t i v e f o r c e , an i n v a s i o n and s u c c e s s i o n r a t h e r than an a s s i m i l a t i o n . E x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s d i d not a p p r e c i a t e t h e i r neighbourhood being t r e a t e d as bare lan d by a d i f f e r e n t community . They f e l t t h e i r neighbourhood to be v i b r a n t and i n i t s prime. S e v e r a l respondents s a i d that they c o u l d not communicate with t h e i r new neighbours because of a language b a r r i e r . Others 69 s t a t e d that the new r e s i d e n t s had not been o u t s i d e f o r t h e i r e n t i r e tenure but simply drove i n t o t h e i r homes through the i n t e r n a l garage without any p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n t a c t with the neighbourhood. If people l i k e d t h e i r neighbourhood and wanted to l i v e i n i t then the r e s i d e n t s expected them to accept the e x i s t i n g standards and v a l u e s . Residents d i d not want the c u l t u r a l v alues of the neighbourhood to change. 5.3.2 Neighbours l e a v i n g were our f r i e n d s . Many respondents spoke at l e n g t h about f r i e n d s t hat had l i v e d i n the b u l l - d o z e d houses. Without e x c e p t i o n they were the new houses that were p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s l i k e d . As the new r e s i d e n t s were i n v a r i a b l y from a d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e , the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s f e a r e d t h a t they would never have f r i e n d s i n those houses a g a i n . The houses represented that change and were hated f o r i t . "They've been here a year and I wouldn't even recognize them on the s t r e e t " "The people now i n these houses, w e l l l e t ' s j u s t say that they keep to themselves" "I never see them, the neighbourhood was very f r i e n d l y b e f o r e " "We used to see our neighbours, now we never see them" The p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s c r e a t e d by the designs of the new houses exagerated the g u l f c r e a t e d by language and c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Each respondent claimed to have made o v e r t u r e s to the new neighbours that were r e j e c t e d . Most respondents, while not d i r e c t i n g r a c i a l s l u r s , i m p l i e d 70 that we a l l know what the problem i s but cannot t a l k about i t . One respondent f o r c e d me to erase tape recorded comments that c o u l d be c o n s t r u e d as b i g o t e d . Other comments i n c l u d e d ; " I f you stop the tape r e c o r d e r we can r e a l l y t a l k " The r e s i d e n t s wanted to l i v e i n a r e s i d e n t i a l community that was comfortable and secure. A homogeneous c u l t u r e was seen as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to t h i s s t a b i l i t y . A new neighbour from a new c u l t u r e of a. d i f f e r e n t race i n a new house of a d i f f e r e n t s i z e from a d i f f e r e n t economic c l a s s was simply too many changes to accept. 70a RECOMME 71 CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS T h i s chapter w i l l d i s c u s s the c o n c l u s i o n s of the r e s e a r c h , suggest ways of r e s o l v i n g the problem, and d i s c u s s areas f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . 6.1 Co n c l u s i o n In chapter one, the qu e s t i o n was asked 'why have changes to RS-1 zoning r e g u l a t i o n s been i n e f f e c t i v e i n r e s o l v i n g the concerns of r e s i d e n t s over l a r g e new houses being c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e i r neighbourhoods?' T h i s r e s e a r c h has e s t a b l i s h e d that the r e s i d e n t s ' concerns are not l i m i t e d to bulk and s i t i n g . The new c o n t r o l s o f f e r e d by the C i t y are t h e r e f o r e not s u f f i c i e n t to s a t i s f y r e s i d e n t s . I t i s tr u e that e x i s t i n g houses are being demolished and l a r g e new houses are t a k i n g t h e i r p l a c e , however, the s i z e of these new houses i s only one aspect of a m u l t i f a r i o u s change o c c u r r i n g i n RS-1 neighbourhoods i n Vancouver. The res e a r c h has concluded that r e s i d e n t s are a l s o concerned with a l l of the f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s of the change: 1. The appearance of the new houses 2. The context of the new houses 3. Landscaping 4. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process 5. C u l t u r a l change These aspects w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l . 72 6.1.1 The Appearance Of The New Houses The l a r g e new houses do not look l i k e the e x i s t i n g houses. Most are b u i l t from stock plans designed f o r standard l o t s i z e s . The designs are s t a r k , p l a i n , and b o x - l i k e , and have been more t y p i c a l of suburban f r i n g e s u b d i v i s i o n s . The most common complaint i s that the new houses are ug l y . Some designs are c o n s i d e r e d by r e s i d e n t s to be b e t t e r than others although there i s no consensus. These more a c c e p t a b l e designs t y p i c a l l y have more t r a d i t i o n a l l i n e s , more i n t e r e s t , and more s u b t e l t y . In other words, they are more l i k e the e x i s t i n g houses i n shape, s t y l e , and m a t e r i a l s . T h i s r e s e a r c h e r has spoken with many homeowners, de v e l o p e r s , and d e s i g n e r s . The d i s c u s s i o n r a r e l y remains on the is s u e of design without r e f e r r i n g to the argument about the ' r i g h t s ' of the i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y owner. Should the t i t l e -h o l d e r be able to e r e c t whatever he or she wishes on the pro p e r t y ? While the developers and d e s i g n e r s wish to have t h i s r i g h t the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s are s p l i t on the i s s u e . In theory most r e s i d e n t s want t h i s r i g h t . In p r a c t i c e , the r e s i d e n t s who have been a f f e c t e d by new development want the neighbourhood to be p r o t e c t e d from i n d i v i d u a l l y e x p r e s i v e or unneighbourly d e s i g n s . I n i t i a l l y c l a i m s were made by r e s i d e n t s that 'ugly' new houses would devalue the adjacent p r o p e r t i e s . T h i s has not been the case. Neighbourhoods that are c o n s i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e f o r the l a r g e new house market have i n c r e a s e d i n value c o n s i d e r a b l y over the l a s t three y e a r s . The r e s i d e n t s now fear i n c r e a s e d taxes d r i v e n up by i n c r e a s e d p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . 73 It i s concluded that the physical appearance of the new dwelling i s as important to the residents as bulk and s i t i n g . The residents would l i k e the designs of the new houses to r e f l e c t the designs of e x i s t i n g houses. When the e x i s t i n g houses were constructed, continuity of design had been maintained by zoning controls, the building styles of the period, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of technology and materials, construction practices, the e f f i c i e n c y of r e p e t i t i o n , and the s o c i a l control of a homogenous market as perceived by the builder. The same influences for design conformity exist today for the speculative builder. The new houses a l l have similar design elements, however, the new houses are now b u i l t in a mature neighbourhood context and should relate to the designs of e x i s t i n g houses as well as to each other i f neighbourliness i s to be maintained. 6.1.2 The Context Of The New Houses The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the new houses to adjacent houses and the streetcape was more important to residents than bulk and s i t i n g controls. The new houses ignore the integration of design that gave a neighbourhood i t s character. For example, internal garages facing the street in new houses severely disrupts the streetscape in Oakridge. Residents c l e a r l y want the new houses to relate to the ex i s t i n g streetscape. They f e e l that developers ignore the ex i s t i n g neighbourhood context and treat the land in the same fashion as building on a bare land subdivision on the suburban fringe. Even in these new subdivisions the builder i s required 74 to conform to s t r i c t g u i d e l i n e s that w i l l produce a conformity of design w i t h i n the new neighbourhood and a v o i d any c o n f l i c t s between adjacent p r o p e r t i e s . Redevelopment i n mature neighbourhoods should r e q u i r e s i m i l a r g u i d e l i n e s to a v o i d c o n f l i c t , not only between designs of new houses, but between new and e x i s t i n g houses, and the new houses and the s t r e e t s c a p e . T h i s i s not only d e s i r e d by e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s , i t i s the p o l i c y of the C i t y as s t a t e d i n C o u n c i l ' s 'Goals f o r RS-1' (see s e c t i o n 1.2). T h i s p o l i c y has not been e f f e c t i v e l y implimented i n RS-1. Each mature neighbourhood i n Vancouver may have d i s t i n c t neighbourhood s t r e e t s c a p e elements. The r e s i d e n t s want those elements that d e f i n e the c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood to be r e t a i n e d . I t i s concluded that the s i z e of the new d w e l l i n g i s not as important as r e t a i n i n g elements of c o n t i n u i t y c o n s i s t e n t with the c h a r a c t e r and s t r e e t s c a p e of each neighbourhood. Residents w i l l be more w i l l i n g to accept new development i n t h e i r neighbourhood i f i n a d d i t i o n to c o n t r o l l i n g bulk and s i t i n g c o n t r o l s r e l a t e d to s t r e e t s c a p e r e t e n t i o n . 6.1.3 Landscaping In p u b l i c meetings, neighbourhood i n t e r v i e w s , and d i s c u s s i o n s with p r o f e s s i o n a l s , the management of land not occupied by b u i l d i n g s was e q u a l l y c o n t e n t i o u s as the b u i l d i n g s themselves. Residents wanted to maintain e x i s t i n g landscapes i n t h e i r neighbourhood. It i s concluded that the management of landscaped areas surrounding the l a r g e new houses i s more important to r e s i d e n t s than bulk and s i t i n g i s s u e s . The changes to RS-1 r e g u l a t i o n s do 75 not address landscape management. The e x i s t i n g RS-1 r e g u l a t i o n s leave the design and management of the n o n - b u i l t area of the s i t e to the d i s c r e t i o n of the b u i l d e r . The b u i l d e r may decide to pour concre t e from one pr o p e r t y l i n e to the other. There are no compulsory r e g u l a t i o n s f o r v e g e t a t i o n or green space. The most c o n t e n t i o u s landscape i s s u e i s the c l e a r i n g of a l l t r e e s and v e g e t a t i o n from the s i t e before s t a r t i n g new c o n s t r u c t i o n . The c o n t i n u i t y of the landscape i s important to r e s i d e n t s . R e t e n t i o n of e x i s t i n g t r e e s and bushes would s o f t e n the impact of new development i n c r e a s i n g the r e s i d e n t s ' acceptance of l a r g e new houses. The f e n c i n g and l i g h t i n g of new houses i s a l s o out of c h a r a c t e r with the e x i s t i n g neighbourhood. While the e x i s t i n g houses r e l y on s u b t l e forms of boundary d e f i n i t i o n and s e c u r i t y , the new houses' perimeters and p r i v a t e spaces are s t a r k l y i d e n t i f i e d and secured by h i g h s o l i d fences and f l o o d l i g h t i n g . If f e n c i n g and l i g h t i n g were designed i n the context of the e x i s t i n g neighbourhood, the r e s i d e n t s would be more a c c e p t i n g of the l a r g e new houses. 6.1.4 The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Process Residents do not understand the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process f o r demolishing o l d e r houses and c o n s t r u c t i n g new ones. Residents f e e l that the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process i s weighted i n favour of the developer. A m a j o r i t y of comments at p u b l i c meetings r e l a t e d to a general f e a r of change. The l a c k of knowledge about the development process i n c r e a s e d t h i s f e a r . Residents p e r c e i v e the changes t a k i n g p l a c e i n t h e i r 76 neighbourhood t o be d e s t r u c t i v e . They f e e l t h a t t h e i r neighbourhood i s a very d e s i r a b l e p l a c e to l i v e without these changes. Before the b u i l d i n g of l a r g e new houses, new r e s i d e n t s had s e l e c t e d t h e i r neighbourhood because they l i k e d the e x i s t i n g c h a r a c t e r and e x i s t i n g houses. New r e s i d e n t s became a p a r t of the e x i s t i n g neighbourhood. Now the developers of new houses wanted to change t h e i r neighbourhood. Residents are unaware of impending changes. They f e a r t h a t t h e i r neighbour's house w i l l be s o l d and demolished. They have no say i n what changes w i l l take p l a c e i n t h e i r neighbourhood. They do not f e e l t h a t t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are ad d r e s s i n g the problem. They do not t r u s t the p l a n n i n g department. Residents p e r c e i v e that change i s out of c o n t r o l and i s not d i r e c t e d i n the i n t e r e s t s of the community. I n c o n s i d e r a t e c o n t r a c t o r s and r e a l t o r s i n c r e a s e the a n x i e t y f e l t by r e s i d e n t s . The fear of tax i n c r e a s e s a l s o causes a n x i e t y . L i t t l e i s done to s o f t e n the process of change to make change more a c c e p t a b l e to r e s i d e n t s . I t i s concluded that the process of change and the an x i e t y i t c r e a t e s i s more important to r e s i d e n t s than the bulk and s i t i n g of new houses. I f measures were taken to make the process more p a r t i c i p a t o r y and neig h b o u r l y , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of l a r g e new houses to e x i s t i n g neighbourhoods would be more a c c e p t a b l e to r e s i d e n t s . 6.1.5 C u l t u r a l Change The l a r g e new houses are p e r c e i v e d to be s o l d to Hong kong or Taiwanese i n v e s t o r s . The harshest r e a c t i o n s to the l a r g e new houses were d i r e c t e d to the occupants and t h e i r e t h n i c i t y . 77 Although t h i s t h e s i s d e a l s with the p h y s i c a l changes surrounding the development of l a r g e new houses i n RS-1, the overwhelming and i n t e n s e l y negative r e a c t i o n to the changing s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood must be noted here f o r i t became i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t to i s o l a t e t h i s aspect from the data. The q u e s t i o n of whether derogatory remarks were d i r e c t e d at the houses or at the people i n the houses was always p r e s e n t . While the r e s e a r c h d i d not pursue the i s s u e of c u l t u r a l changes i n the neighbourhood other than r e c o r d i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g commentary on the i s s u e , i t can s a f e l y be concluded that c u l t u r a l changes a s s o c i a t e d with the new houses are more important to r e s i d e n t s than bulk and s i t i n g . Residents do not want the c u l t u r a l v a l u e s of t h e i r e x i s t i n g community to change. They p e r c e i v e the l a r g e new house to be the p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n of t h i s change. The d e s i r e d r e t e n t i o n of elements of c o n t i n u i t y c o n s i s t e n t with the c h a r a c t e r and s t r e e t s c a p e of each neighbourhood can t h e r e f o r e not be d i v o r c e d from the c u l t u r a l context of the changes. 6.2 C o n f i r m a t i o n Of R e s u l t s T h i s t h e s i s has had the b e n e f i t of two years d u r a t i o n between the data c o l l e c t i o n stage and the defense p r e s e n t a t i o n . Events and p u b l i c a t i o n s s i n c e t h i s i n i t i a l r e s e a r c h tend to c o n f i r m the r e s u l t s and c o n c l u s i o n s f i r s t made i n 1986. Through 1988, the problem of r e s i d e n t s o b j e c t i n g to l a r g e new houses i n Vancouver's Westside neighbourhoods p e r s i s t s d e s p i t e three attempts at a d j u s t i n g the bulk and s i t i n g 78 r e g u l a t i o n s f o r RS-1. In Oakridge and adjacent neighbourhoods i t i s s t i l l the i s s u e dominating s o c i a l meetings between neighbours. Complaints are s t i l l f i e l d e d by aldermen. A l s o , the demand f o r the new houses has not abated, but has i n c r e a s e d every year. A r t i c l e s on the i s s u e are s t i l l appearing i n l o c a l magazines and newspapers, and r e c e n t l y on n a t i o n a l r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n news programs. For example, Sean R o s s i t e r i n the Vancouver Magazine (November 1988) quotes a r c h i t e c t R i c h a r d Henriquez to s t a t e that l a r g e houses are not the problem but l a r g e 'ugly' houses ar e . R o s s i t e r confirms that i t i s not merely a q u e s t i o n of s i z e . I t i s a q u e s t i o n of c o n t e x t . No house, however b i g , stands alon e . Alderman Ca r o l e T a y l o r s t i l l gets many c a l l s on the i s s u e . T a y l o r f e e l s that the C i t y should accept change but address the worst manefestations by making change kinder and more a c e p t a b l e . R o s s i t e r suggests that i f the new houses are c a r e f u l l y landscaped and designed, b i g i s 'OK'. He s t a t e s that s i z e gets mixed up i n a host of other complaints i n c l u d i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n and development p r o c e s s . In K e r r i s d a l e , r e s i d e n t s r e c e n t l y stood i n f r o n t of b u l l -dozers to stop t r e e s from being uprooted. Three hundred r e s i d e n t s attended an ad-hoc meeting on November 16, 1988 and e s t a b l i s h e d a homeowners a s s o c i a t i o n i n the area to address the i s s u e s of d e s i g n , s t r e e t s c a p e and landscape. They voted to demand a neighbourhood design review panel fo r the community. In December 1988, the C i t y proposed seventeen new changes to the RS-1 r e g u l a t i o n s . Many of these changes d i r e c t l y r e l a t e to c h a r a c t e r and s t r e e t s c a p e r e t e n t i o n ( C i t y of Vane. Dec. 79 1988). For example, there are seven a c t i o n s recommending maintenance of s t r e e t s c a p e c h a r a c t e r i n RS-1 neighbourhoods i n c l u d i n g encouraging porches, averaging p r o v i s i o n s , and a statement of the importance of l a n d s c a p i n g . Others d e a l with the uniqueness of neighbourhoods and s i t e s . A l s o , a c t i o n s to a s s i s t i n r e n o v a t i n g e x i s t i n g houses are suggested. The C i t y has adopted a "continuous adjustment" approach to the RS-1 r e g u l a t i o n s f o r 1989. Funds have been budgeted f o r f u r t h e r study on s e v e r a l areas i n c l u d i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of lan d s c a p i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . An urban design a d m i n i s t r a t o r has been h i r e d by the C i t y to d e a l s p e c i f i c a l l y with RS-1 i s s u e s and the development of new r e g u l a t i o n s to address them. 6.3 R e s o l v i n g The Problem The r e s e a r c h has now e s t a b l i s h e d a set of c r i t e r i a t h a t must be observed when d i s c u s s i n g p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s to the problem c r e a t e d by l a r g e new houses i n Vancouver's Westside RS-1 neighbourhoods. (a) S o l u t i o n s must conform to the goals of the C i t y d e s c r i b e d i n chapter one (1.2). They must maintain the q u a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y of Vancouver's s i n g l e f a m i l y neighbourhoods while a l l o w i n g some change on the c o n d i t i o n that n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s i s maintained between new development and e x i s t i n g housing. (b) S o l u t i o n s must be c o n s i s t e n t with the concept of c o n t i n u i t y with change d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e review chapter t h r e e . (c) S o l u t i o n s must a l s o address r e s i d e n t s ' concerns d i s c o v e r e d by t h i s r e s e a r c h and summarized i n chapter f i v e . 80 The s t r u c t u r e of the RS-1 zoning by-law i n Vancouver appears to be incapable of s u p p l y i n g a s o l u t i o n that f i t s these c r i t e r i a . The schedule was o r i g i n a l l y designed to manage the c o n s t r u c t i o n of new houses i n newly c r e a t e d s u b d i v i s i o n s . I t pr o v i d e s f o r bulk and s i t i n g c o n t r o l s that today take l i t t l e account of the d i f f e r e n c e s between neighbourhoods, l i f e s t y l e demands w i t h i n neighbourhoods, or continuous elements e s t a b l i s h e d over time when redevelopment i n mature neighbourhoods i s c o n s i d e r e d . For example, the zoning schedule cannot d e f i n e or p r o t e c t landscape p a t t e r n s , s t r e e t s c a p e s , or i n d i v i d u a l d esign elements. The RS-1 zoning schedule a l s o excludes the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of r e s i d e n t s i n changes to t h e i r neighbourhood. E x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t s c o n s i d e r t h e i r input to neighbourhood change to be e s s e n t i a l f o r ma i n t a i n i n g neighbourhood q u a l i t y . They want a process that p r o v i d e s f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n with them when change i n t h e i r immediate environment i s being c o n s i d e r e d . To r e s o l v e the problems a s s o c i a t e d with l a r g e new replacement houses, new forms of c o n t r o l must be added. There are c u r r e n t l y s u c c e s s f u l examples i n Vancouver to draw upon. (a) Bonus zoning has been s u c c e s s f u l i n Vancouver i n both RT2A and CD-1. T h i s process al l o w s the s t a f f a d m i n i s t e r i n g the zoning requirements to trade i n c r e a s e d development r i g h t s f o r good design, h e r i t a g e c o n s e r v a t i o n , or the i n c l u s i o n of community a m e n i t i e s . The D i r e c t o r of Planning has the d i s c r e t i o n a r y power to allow the developer to b u i l d the maximum i n a range of p o s s i b l e d e n s i t i e s i f plans are produced that the department c o n s i d e r s to be neighbourly or w e l l planned. In CD-1 81 the p r o p e r t y i s rezoned a l l o w i n g a higher d e n s i t y f o r a s p e c i f i c development p r o j e c t that would not be allowed under the e x i s t i n g zoning but i s c o n s i d e r e d i n the best i n t e r e s t of the community. In t h i s case the plans are reviewed by a design p a n e l . C o u n c i l must a l s o e s t a b l i s h the rezoning a f t e r a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . Opponents of bonus zoning b e l i e v e that the p l a n n i n g department i s given too much power and that the system i s open to abuse. They say that there r e a l l y i s no c h o i c e i n bonus zoning because the market p r i c e f o r development s i t e s always r i s e s t o . r e f l e c t the bonuses before the developer i s a b l e to make the d e c i s i o n . S t i l l , bonus zoning (or B a r n e t t ' s ' i n c e n t i v e zoning') has a s s i s t e d the C i t y i n meeting i t s o b j e c t i v e s i n other zones. If continuous elements are i d e n t i f i e d , i t can be an e f f e c t i v e approach i n r e d e v e l o p i n g and d e n s i f y i n g e x i s t i n g mature neighbourhoods. A good example i n RT2-A i s the 200 block West 13th Avenue. While i t i s very d i f f i c u l t f o r the observer to t e l l which houses are new and which are seventy years o l d , the developers of the new houses obtained i n c r e a s e d d e n s i t i e s and f l o o r space. There has been no c o n t r o v e r s y about l a r g e houses on t h i s s t r e e t . (b) A Neighbourhood a d v i s o r y design panel has been used s u c c e s s f u l l y i n the F i r s t Shaughnessy d i s t r i c t i n Vancouver. A unique neighbourhood has combined a zoning schedule and design g u i d e l i n e s with a design panel which a d v i s e s the p l a n n i n g department on matters concerning development p r o p o s a l s i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . The panel i s composed of r e s i d e n t s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s as w e l l as p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n p l a n n i n g , a r c h i t e c t u r e , and h e r i t a g e p r e s e r v a t i o n . 82 Developers can i n c r e a s e the d e n s i t y to a maximum of four u n i t s i f the design p r e s e r v e s the neighbourhood continuous elements, set out i n design g u i d e l i n e s , and meets with the approval of the panel and the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g . The meetings of the panel, however, are not p u b l i c and the f a c t t h at the panel members are appointed by C o u n c i l r a t h e r than being s e l e c t e d by the community i s a p o i n t of c o n t e n t i o n . The r e a l power i s the a b i l i t y to delay p r o j e c t s that are not a c c e p t a b l e . (c) the neighbourhood p r o f e s s i o n a l i s another example t h a t has been s u c c e s s f u l i n Vancouver. Norman Hotson on G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d i s an example. Although a f e d e r a l l y owned mixed use community, the same b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s c o u l d be adapted to RS-1 zoned neighbourhoods. Goals are set by the C i t y f o r the neighbourhood. A p r o f e s s i o n a l planner or urban designer i s then c o n s u l t e d t o e s t a b l i s h the g u i d e l i n e s f o r a c c e p t a b l e development, the continuous elements of the neighbourhood. The p r o f e s s i o n a l i s then r e t a i n e d to oversee and approve a l l redevelopment i n the f u t u r e . A planner with a c o n s u l t i n g p r a c t i c e i n the neighbourhood would be the most e f f e c t i v e . The author has i n t e r v i e w e d a s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l i n a r e s i d e n t i a l neighbourhood i n Jerusalem. The p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t h i s case was an a r c h i t e c t and planner who had designed the redevelopment g u i d e l i n e s f o r the community, Yemin Moshe. Approximately 25% of the planner's time was spent approving neighbourhood redevelopment. He was not allowed to have any pecuniary i n t e r e s t i n development or approve h i s own d e s i g n s . 83 Each developer would consult with the neighbourhood professional before submission to ensure that plans were consistent with the City's goals, the neighbourhood elements, and adjacent neighbour's concerns. Another advantage of t h i s process was that the cost of planning approvals was paid for by the developer on an hourly basis. If neighbourly plans were submitted, the approval would be inexpensive. Also, the neighbourhood professional could look at d e t a i l s that concerned individual neighbours or l o t s p e c i f i c conditions. Plans were on display at the professional's o f f i c e during the approval period. The disadvantage i s that the professional has the power of d i s c r e t i o n . Although an appeal process i s available to the developer and resident, there i s always the p o s s i b i l i t y of abuse. S t r i c t c o n f l i c t of interest rules must apply. For example, the professional cannot have an interest in land or development that i s before him for approval. The range of dis c r e t i o n must be limited and well defined. The professional simply applies a set of c r i t e r i a and guidelines to the proposal. Alexander has warned that "when a place i s l i f e l e s s or unreal, there i s almost always a mastermind behind i t " (Alexander 1979, p.36) The assertion that a s t e r i l e environment i s created when an ov e r a l l planner or designer i s present has no merit in the case of Granville Island and Yemin Moshe. The developer can s t i l l create a unique structure within the parameters of neighbourhood design. The existence of the neighbourhood professional simply confirms the concept that the neighbourhood must have a designer. One would not consider 84 having d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n e r s f o r each u n i t i n a condominium complex or d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n e r s f o r i n d i v i d u a l f e a t u r e s i n a house. The neighbourhood p r o f e s s i o n a l i n the examples looks at the neighbourhood as one design p r o j e c t , b a l a n c i n g a l l of the components. I t i s concluded that the c u r r e n t RS-1 zoning by-law i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o address r e s i d e n t s ' concerns. An a d d i t i o n a l form of c o n t r o l i s r e q u i r e d to o b t a i n neighbourly development i n Vancouver's s i n g l e f a m i l y neighbourhoods. The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of s p e c i f i c recommendations. 6.4 Recommendations 6.4.1 Appearance of the new houses I t i s recommended that a form of bonus zoning be e s t a b l i s h e d t o allow i n c r e a s e d d e n s i t y or f l o o r space f o r designs t h a t are a c c e p t a b l e to a Neighbourhood Design Panel or a Neighbourhood P r o f e s s i o n a l . Acceptable designs would be those c o n s i d e r e d 'neighbourly' by the reviewing body. The c o s t of t h i s process would be borne by the developer i n accordance with the time r e q u i r e d to process the a p p r o v a l . I t may be necessary to downzone the o u t r i g h t use FSR i n some neighbourhoods as there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that developers would ignore the bonuses i f allowed to develop to .6. There i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y that r e s i d e n t s would o b j e c t to a bonus FSR i f the bonus exceeded .6 . 85 I t i s not necessary to bonus above .6 unless the u n i t d e n s i t y was i n c r e a s e d f o r the bonus. Some RS-1 zoned areas w i l l have to be d e n s i f i e d as c a p a c i t y i s reached i n e x i s t i n g m u l t i -f a m i l y zones, and the bonus zoning system c o u l d be adopted to ensure neighbourly d e n s i f i c a t i o n . Many e x i s t i n g houses were b u i l t under .45 FSR r e g u l a t i o n s . If RS-1 was downzoned to .45 with d i s c r e t i o n a r y bonussing to .6, the s i n g l e f a m i l y s t a t u s of the neighbourhood c o u l d be maintained. The same bonus would apply to a d d i t i o n s and ren o v a t i o n s of e x i s t i n g homes up to .6 . 6.4.2 context of the new houses The reviewing body would e s t a b l i s h a set of continuous elements i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with r e s i d e n t s . These elements would form the b a s i s f o r a c c e p t a b l e development and bonusing. Each submission would i n c l u d e s t r e e t s c a p e plans with an o v e r l a y of the new p r o j e c t f o r a p p r o v a l . There would be an i n i t i a l c o s t to the C i t y to i d e n t i f y the continuous elements. In each neighbourhood. The developer would i n c u r a d d i t i o n a l design c o s t s . 6.4.3 Landscaping Each submission f o r development would i n c l u d e a landscape plan and a performance bond would be posted. S i g n i f i c a n t e x i s t i n g landscape f e a t u r e s would be shown and proposed changes noted on the p l a n . I f these f e a t u r e s were i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t of neighbourhood continuous elements, approval would be c o n t i n g e n t on the i n c l u s i o n or r e t e n t i o n of these f e a t u r e s . The developer would i n c u r a d d i t i o n a l design c o s t s . 86 6.4.4 The administrative process There are several concerns regarding the development process that could be a l l e v i a t e d i f the following recommendations were included. (a) Residents and other interested parties would be able to view plans for new development in their neighbourhood before approvals were given. Development in the neighbourhood should be a public process. The cost of t h i s recommendation would be the increased approval period for the developer. Administrative costs would be included in the development fee schedule. (b) Before demolition, the developer would be required to post a sign describing the development and informing the residents of their right to view plans and make representation to the approving body. Most other zones in Vancouver require t h i s signage. The cost would be approximately $200 to the developer. (c) The building permit for new house construction should be approved and issued before a demolition permit on the exis t i n g structures i s issued. This would control the unnecessary demolition of houses when markets change. There i s no cost to this recommendation. (d) Construction on Sundays and holidays should be disallowed. There i s provision in the e x i s t i n g noise by-law to a f f e c t this change. Appendix 6 shows that one half of the municipalities in the lower mainland already have th i s regulation. The maximum cost of t h i s recommendation would be a few days carrying costs to the developer. 87 6 . 4 . 5 C u l t u r a l change The C i t y should promote c u l t u r a l understanding by educating r e s i d e n t s and immigrants about each o t h e r ' s housing needs and v a l u e s . New r e s i d e n t s have simply purchased new housing that was a v a i l a b l e under the e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . B u i l d e r s have b u i l t housing that they b e l i e v e to be d e s i r e d by the Asi a n market. The only a l t e r n a t i v e would be to zone f o r houses that are p r e f e r r e d by t h i s market. T h i s would be unacceptable, t h e r e f o r e the C i t y must convince r e s i d e n t s and new home owners that they must both compromise. The C i t y should make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to s e n i o r l e v e l s of government e x p r e s s i n g the concern of c i t i z e n s over o f f - s h o r e s p e c u l a t i o n and investment i n the housing market. A l l l e v e l s of government are c u r r e n t l y encouraging investment and immigration by i n v e s t o r s from P a c i f i c Rim c o u n t r i e s . I f r e s i d e n t s do not want t h i s investment or immigration, they must e x e r c i s e t h e i r o p t i o n s under the p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s . 6.5 F u r t h e r Research The scope of t h i s r e s e a r c h has been l i m i t e d to the a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s of c o n t i n u i t y with change to the problem of l a r g e new houses i n RS-1 neighbourhoods. Residents' concerns have been c o l l e c t e d at p u b l i c meetings and neighbourhood i n t e r v i e w s to e s t a b l i s h that bulk and s i t i n g i s only one of many i s s u e s the C i t y needs to address when d e a l i n g with the problem of l a r g e new houses, "massaging" the e x i s t i n g zoning schedule w i l l t h e r e f o r e not a l l e v i a t e r e s i d e n t s ' 88 concerns. The market f o r the new houses changes c o n s t a n t l y . The p e r c e p t i o n s that r e s i d e n t s have about the new houses a l s o change. Fur t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to maintain a f r e s h p e r s p e c t i v e on the i s s u e . For example, what does the C i t y a n t i c i p a t e to be the f u t u r e of RS -1? Should l o c a l community d e s i r e s take precedence over the f u t u r e d e s i r e d by market f o r c e s ? Do new house owners r e a l l y want or need t h i s type of housing or are they purchasing what i s a v a i l a b l e ? What other ways are there to manage t h i s change? Other c i t i e s have a l s o experienced t h i s problem, f o r example Honolulu, Toronto and Sydney. How have they managed t h i s change? A u s t r a l i a does not allow f o r e i g n investment i n r e s i d e n t i a l r e a l e s t a t e . How has t h i s a f f e c t e d t h e i r market and the l i v a b i l i t y of mature neighbourhoods? The c u l t u r a l component of the i s s u e i s a l s o very e x p l o s i v e and should be immediately researched before a s e r i o u s b a c k l a s h o c c u r s . 89 REFERENCES LITERATURE CITED C h r i s t o p h e r Alexander, A P a t t e r n Language. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1977. C h r i s t o p h e r Alexander, The Timeless Way Of B u i l d i n g . Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. Donald Appleyard, L i v a b l e S t r e e t s . U n i v e r s i t y Of C a l i f o r n i a P r ess, 1981. R i c h a r d F. Babcock, The Zoning Game. U n i v e r s i t y Of Wisconson Press, 1966. F. Barnes and S. Boyden, The Impact Of C i v i l i z a t i o n On The  B i o l o g y Of Man. 1970. Johnathan B a r n e t t , An I n t r o d u c t i o n To Urban Design. Harper And Row, 1982. R i c h a r d C. B e r n s t e i n , Vancouver R e s i d e n t i a l Design G u i d e l i n e s  Process: A Case Study. U n i v e r s i t y Of B r i t i s h Columbia, School Of Community And Regional P l a n n i n g , Master Of A r t s T h e s i s , 1980. H a r o l d B r a i n f o r d , "A B r i e f For A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l s " , The  Planner's J o u r n a l , Vol.4 No.2, 1938. G. Chambers and F. M o o r c r o f t , B r i t i s h Columbia Houses. U n i v e r s i t y Of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1981. C. Cooper, "The House As Symbol", Design And Environment 3, F a l l 1972. Michael C o r b e t t , A B e t t e r P l a c e To L i v e . Rodale Press, 1981. John L. C o s t o n i s , Space A d r i f t . N a t i o n a l T r u s t For H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n , 1974. Joan Domincelj, "Rapporteur", i n Urban Conservation At The L o c a l  L e v e l . N a t i o n a l T r u s t Of A u s t r a l i a , 1980. Donald L. F o l e y , Neighbours Or U r b a n i t e s ? Rochester New York: Department Of S o c i o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y Of Rochester, 1952. John F o r e s t e r , The Planning A n a l y s t s Q u e s t i o n i n g : Toward A  Communicative Theory Of Design. Department Of C i t y And Regional Planning, C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. Georges F r a d i e r , About The Q u a l i t y Of L i f e . Unesco, 1976. Mark Fram and John W e i l e r , C o n t i n u i t y With Change. Dundurn Press,"1984. 90 John K. G a l b r a i t h , "The Welfare C i t y " , i n C i t i z e n And C i t y In  The Year 2000. Deventer: The European C u l t u r a l Foundation, 1971. Herbert Gans, "The Balanced Community: Homogeneity Or Heterogeneity In R e s i d e n t i a l Areas", J o u r n a l Of The American  I n s t i t u t e Of Planners, Vol.27 No.3, 1961. Wolfgang Gerson, P a t t e r n s Of L i v i n g . U n i v e r s i t y Of Toronto Press, 1970. Robert Goodman, A f t e r The P l a n n e r s . New York: Simon And Schuster, 1971. Jacques Guiton, The Ideas Of L e C o r b u s i e r . New York: Georges B r a z i l l e r , 1981. Tom Gunton, "A Theory Of The Planning C y c l e " , Plan Canada, F a l l 1985. Joe Hazan, The Treatment Of A e s t h e t i c s In Urban P l a n n i n g . P o l y t e c h n i c Of C e n t r a l London, 1979. Randolph Hester, Neighbourhood Space. New York: Dowden Hutchison And Ross, 1975. Hygiene Of Housing Committee, American P u b l i c H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n , Planning The Neighbourhood. Chicago, I l l i n o i s : P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S e r v i c e , 1960. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union Of L o c a l A u t h o r i t i e s , Improving The Q u a l i t y  Of L i f e . The Hague: IULA, 1977. Ch a r l e s Leven, "Scenarios For Urban Development In I n d u s t r i a l i z e d C o u n t r i e s In The 90's", i n Technologies And Urban  Development. 1st I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference Of P r o g r e t t o Milano, June 1984. Kevin Lynch, Good C i t y Form. Cambridge Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1981. Margaret Mead, "The Kind Of C i t y We Want", E k i s t i c s , Vol.35 No.209, 1973. Jack M e l t z e r , M e t r o p o l i s To Metroplex. Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1984. Lewis Mumford, "The Neighbourhood And The Neighbourhood U n i t " , Town Planning Review, Vol.24 No.4, Jan. 1954. C l i n t Page and Penelope C u f f , N e g o t i a t i n g For Amenities. Washington, 1982. Norman Pressman, C r e a t i n g L i v a b l e C i t i e s . U n i v e r s i t y Of Waterloo Press, 1977. I l y a Prygogene, Order Out Of Chaos. Bantam Books, 1984. 91 Alan Richman and F. S t u a r t Chapin, J r . , A Review Of The S o c i a l  And P h y s i c a l Concepts Of The Neighbourhood As A B a s i s For  P l a n n i n g R e s i d e n t i a l Environments. Chapel H i l l : U n i v e r s i t y Of North C a r o l i n a , Department Of C i t y And Regional Planning, 1977. Sean R o s s i t e r , "Big Houses," Vancouver Magazine, Telemedia West, Nov. 1988. M i c h a el S e e l i g and J u l i e S e e l i g , " R e c y c l i n g Vancouver's G r a n v i l l e I s l a n d , " A r c h i t e c t u r a l Record, Sept. 1980. M i c h ael S e e l i g , "Vancouver A r c h i t e c t u r e : I t s Not The B u i l d i n g s I t s The Spaces Between Them", West Coast Review, Vol.15 No.4, 1981 . M i c h a e l S e e l i g and J u l i e S e e l i g , The New P h y s i c a l P l a n n i n g :  L i n k i n g I n t u i t i o n And L i m i t s . U.B.C. Press, 1984. Paul D. S p r e i r e g a n , Urban Design: The A r c h i t e c t u r e Of Towns And  C i t i e s . Toronto: Mcgraw H i l l , 1965. T. M. Stanback, "The Changing Fortunes Of M e t r o p o l i t a n Economies", i n Manuel C a s t e l l s , High Technology Space And  S o c i e t y . Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1985. Jan Tanghe, S i e g Vlaeminck, and Jo Berghoef, L i v i n g C i t i e s . Pergamon Press, 1984. U n i v e r s i t y Of Maryland, S o c i a l Areas In C i t i e s : Past And F u t u r e . U. of M. Press, 1984. D a n i e l Vanin, L e g i s l a t i n g For Urban A e s t h e t i c s . U.B.C, School Of Community And Regional P l a n n i n g , Master Of A r t s T h e s i s , 1972. R.G. Wilson and E.T. Vaughn, Old West Side: Ann Arbor Michigan. N a t i o n a l T r u s t For H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n , 1971. John Z e i s e l , I n q u i r y By Design. Monterey: Brooks C o l e s , 1981. INTERVIEWS David Andrews, owner and g e n e r a l manager of Re/max R e a l t y , Oakridge, top westside salesman f o r 1986 and 1987. B i l l Dumoulin, d i r e c t o r of Shaughnessy Heights Ratepayers A s s o c i a t i o n . Michael Hennessey, p r e s i d e n t of the A l l i e d B u i l d e r ' s S o c i e t y . G a b r i e l K e r t e s s , a r c h i t e c t and p r o f e s s i o n a l p l a n n i n g c o n s u l t a n t f o r Yemin Moshe, Jerusalem. Dr. Ann McAfee, A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r of O v e r a l l Planning f o r the C i t y of Vancouver. 92 George P u i l , S enior Alderman f o r the C i t y of Vancouver. Bruce Wyet, Manager of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n , Department of Permits and L i c e n c e s , C i t y of Vancouver. PLANNING REPORTS C i t y Of Vancouver, Dec. 1928, A Plan For Vancouver. C i t y Of Vancouver, Apr. 1979, Vancouver L o c a l Areas, P l a n n i n g Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, Oct. 1981, 8 Years A f t e r : Case S t u d i e s Under  D i s c r e t i o n a r y Zoning In Vancouver, Planning Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, May 1982, F i r s t Shaughnessy Plan Background  Report, P l a n n i n g Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, May 1982, F i r s t Shaughnessy Design  G u i d e l i n e s , P l a n n i n g Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, May 1983, Case S t u d i e s On R e s i d e n t i a l  D e n s i t y , Planning Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, Apr. 1984, Vancouver L o c a l Areas, P l a n n i n g Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, Apr. 1985, F i r s t Shaughnessy D i s t r i c t , By-law 5543, Pl a n n i n g Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, J u l . 1985, RS-1 D i s t r i c t Schedule. C i t y Of Vancouver, Dec. 12, 1985, 'Minutes Of The Standing Committee Of C o u n c i l On Planning And Development.' Development.' C i t y Of Vancouver, Jan. 7, 1986, Regular C o u n c i l Meeting Minutes. C i t y Of Vancouver, Jan. 8, 1986, Memorandum From C i t y C l e r k Re RS-1 S i n g l e Family Areas. C i t y Of Vancouver, Feb. 1986, Proposed Changes To RS-1 S i n g l e  Family R e g u l a t i o n s . C i t y Of Vancouver, Mar. 4, 1986, Minutes Of The P u b l i c Information Meeting, Planning Department. C i t y Of Vancouver, Mar. 20, 1986, P u b l i c Hearing Agenda, Text Amendments To RS-1 D i s t r i c t Schedule. C i t y Of Vancouver, Mar. 1987, RS-1 D i s t r i c t Schedule. C i t y Of Vancouver, Feb. 11, 1988, RS-1 House S i z e And L o c a t i o n  Summary Report, Standing Committee On Finance And P r i o r i t i e s . 93 C i t y Of Vancouver, Mar.24, 1988, P u b l i c Hearing Agenda. C i t y Of Vancouver, Dec.13, 1988, Reports To C o u n c i l . James K. M. Cheng, RS-1 R e g u l a t i o n s Review (Large L o t s ) , Report To The C i t y Of Vancouver, Sept. 1987. The Hu l b e r t Group, RS-1 R e g u l a t i o n s : Small Lot Review, Report To The C i t y Of Vancouver, 1987. Paul B. Ohannesian RS-1 R e g u l a t i o n s Review: C r i t i q u e Of  Pro p o s a l s With Emphasis On Housing Ret e n t i o n And Renovations, Report To The C i t y Of Vancouver, Sept. 1987. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Burnaby Now, Mar. 26, 1986, D a n i e l Spaner, 'big Houses Offend Neighbours.' The Vancouver C o u r i e r , Dec. 18, 1985, C r a i g Spence, 'being Neighbourly By-law'. The Vancouver C o u r i e r , Apr. 22, 1987, John Johnson, 'a Monster Problem'. The Vancouver C o u r i e r , Mar. 23, 1988, C r a i g Spence, 'Hands Off Our Neighbourhood'. The Vancouver Sun, Mar. 12, 1981, 'Shaughnessy C i t e d As Model For P l a n n e r s ' . The Vancouver Sun, Feb. 1, 1982, Karen Krangle, ' C i t y P l a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s I n s i s t New B u i l d i n g s Show C r e a t i v i t y ' . The Vancouver Sun, Apr. 30, 1982, 'Residents Debate Change In Shaughnessy Zoning'. The Vancouver Sun, Oct. 22, 1982, ' C o u n c i l Group Scraps R e s i d e n t i a l View P r o t e c t i o n ' . The Vancouver Sun, Sept. 14, 1983, 'Neighbours D e l i g h t e d By Big House R u l i n g ' . The Vancouver Sun, Mar. 8, 1984, Pete McMartin, 'Giving People What They Want'. The Vancouver Sun, Aug. 18, 1984, Donna Anderson, ' F a c e l i f t For Frumpy Vancouver S p e c i a l ' . The Vancouver Sun, June 1, 1985, Barbara P e t i t , 'Streetscapes Under P r e s s u r e ' . The Vancouver Sun, Sept. 12, 1985, Pete McMartin, 'Legal D e s e c r a t i o n Of Neighbourhoods'. 94 The Vancouver Sun, Mar. 5, 1986, Karenn Krangle, 'Neighbourly Homes Urged In C i t y ' . The Vancouver Sun, Apr. 9, 1986, Karenn Krangle, 'Housing Permits On Hold'. The Vancouver Sun, Aug. 27, 1986, 'Sharp Houses Seem Shocking To Alderman L i t t l e ' . The Vancouver Sun, Mar. 21, 1987, 'Big House B l u e s ' . The Vancouver Sun, May 12, 1987, C a r o l V o l k a r t , 'Neighbourhoods Push For R i g h t s ' . The Vancouver Sun, Feb. 27, 1988, 'Hands Off Our Neighbourhoods'. The Vancouver Sun, Feb. 27, 1988, Sarah Cox, 'Hong Kong Immigrants Drawn To C i t y ' s Westside'. The Vancouver Sun, Mar. 1988, Sarah Cox, 'C o u n c i l Votes For Zoning'. The Vancouver Sun, Apr. 1988, ' C i t y House B u i l d i n g Sets F u r i o u s Pace'. The Vancouver Sun, May 14, 1988, Susan Balcom, 'Feng S h u i ' . The Westside Week, Apr. 5, 1987, Doug C o l l i n s , 'Hordes Of A s i a Move In'. The Westside Weekly ( r e a l t o r ) , Feb. 26, 1986, 'Vancouver Considers Zoning Change To Block B i g Houses'. V i V s ' i V i i B i » ' " 8 " a V liiijfflffliiiii B'B'B 1 B B 1 i • I B i B I B a a a a a a a s a a s a APPENDIX 1 RS-1 DISTRICT SCHEDULE 1 INTENT The intent of this Schedule is to maintain the single-family residential character of the Dist r ic t . 2 OUTRIGHT APPROVAL USES 2.1 Subject to al l other provisions of this By-law and to compliance with the regulations of this Schedule, the uses l is ted in section 2.2 shall be permitted in this Dist r ic t and shall be issued a permit. 2.2 Uses 2.2.A * Accessory Buildings customarily ancil lary to any of the uses l isted in this Schedule, provided that: (a) no accessory building exceeds 12 feet in height measured to the highest point of the roof i f a f l a t roof, to the deck l ine of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between the eaves and the ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, provided that no portion of an accessory building may exceed 15 feet in height; (b) al l accessory buildings are located in the rear yard and in no case are less than 5 feet from a flanking street, subject also to the provisions of section 11.1 of this By-law;. (c) the total floor area, measured to the extreme outer l imits of the building, of al l accessory buildings is not greater than 35 percent of the minimum rear yard prescribed in this Schedule, or 520 square feet, whichever is the greater; (d) not more than 80 percent of the width of the rear yard of any lot is occupied by accessory buildings. * Accessory Uses customarily ancil lary to any of the uses l is ted in this section. 2.2.D * One-Family Dwelling. 3 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL USES 3.1 Subject to al l other provisions of this By-law, including section 3.3.3, and the provisions and regulations of this Schedule, the Development Permit Board may approve any of the uses l is ted in section 3.2 including such conditions or additional regulations as i t may decide, provided that before making a decision i t : (a) considers the intent of this Schedule and the recommendations of any advisory groups, plan or guidelines approved by Council • for the area; and City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 July 1985 (b) notif ies such adjacent property owners and residents i t deems necessary. 3.2 Uses 3.2.A * Accessory Buildings customarily ancil lary to any of the uses l is ted in this Schedule, other than as provided for in section 2.2.A of this Schedule. * Accessory Uses customarily ancillary to any of the uses l is ted in this section. * Aircraf t Landing Place. * Ambulance Station. 3.2.B * Bed and Breakfast Accommodation. 3.2.C * Child Day Care Fac i l i t y . * Church, subject to the provisions of section 11.7 of this By-law. * Community Centre or Neighbourhood House. 3.2.D * Deposition or extraction of material so as to alter the configuration of the land. * Dwelling Unit for a caretaker or servant in conjunction with a one-family dwelling, provided that the site or dwelling is of suff icient size to warrant the need for a ful l - t ime caretaker or servant. * Dwelling Unit in conjunction with a neighbourhood grocery store which was in existence prior to July 29, 1980. 3.2.G * Golf Course. 3.2.H * Hospital, but not including a conversion from an existing building, a mental hospital or an animal hospital , subject to the provisions of section 11.9 of this By-law. 3.2.1 * Institution of a re l ig ious, philanthropic or charitable character. 3.2.L * Local Area Off ice. 3.2.M * Marina, but not including boat building and major repairs and overhaul of boats. 3.2.N * Neighbourhood Grocery Store operating immediately prior to July 29, 1980, subject to the provisions of section 11.16 of this By-law. City of Vancouver RS-1 Zoning and Development By-law July 1985 3.2.P * Park or Playground. * Parking Area ancil lary to a principal use on an adjacent s i te . * Public Authority Building or use essential in this Distr ic t . * Public U t i l i t y . 3.2.S * School (public or private), subject to the provisions of section 11.8 of this By-law. * Social Service Centre operated by a non-profit society. * Special Needs Residential Fac i l i t y , subject to the provisions of section 11.17. * Stadium or any similar place of assembly. 3.2.T * Tourist Court, subject to the provisions of section 11.12 of this By-1aw. 4 REGULATIONS Al l uses approved under sections 2 and 3 of this Distr ict Schedule shall be subject to the following regulations: 4.1 Site Area 4.1.1 The minimum site area for a one-family dwelling shall be 3,600 square feet. 4.1.2 Where the site is less than 32 feet in width or less than 3,600 square feet in area, the design of any new dwelling shall f i r s t require the approval of the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board, as the case may be, who shall before making a decision consider any design guidelines approved by Council. 4.2 Frontage — Not Applicable. 4.3 Height 4.3.1 The maximum height of a building shall be the lesser of 35 feet or 2-1/2 storeys. 4.4 Front Yard 4.4.1 A front yard with a minimum depth of 24 feet shall be provided. 4.4.2 In the case of a site having an average depth of less than 120 feet, the required front yard may be reduced in accordance with section 11.2 of this By-law. City of Vancouver RS-1 Zoning and Development By-law July 1985 4.5 Side Yard 4.5.1 A siae yard with a minimum width of not less than 10 percent of the width of the site shall be provided on each side of the building, except that i t need not be more than 5 feet in width. 4.5.2 In the case of a corner s i te , the exterior side yard shall be regulated by the provisions of section 11.1 of this By-law. 4.6 Rear Yard 4.6.1 A rear yard with a minimum depth of 35 feet shall be provided except that where the rear of the site abuts a lane, this required minimum depth shall be decreased by the lane width between the rear property line and the ultimate centre l ine of the lane. 4.6.2 In the case of a site having an average depth of less than 120 feet, the required rear yard may be reduced in accordance with section 11.2 of this By-law. 4.b.3 Where a building line has been established pursuant to the provisions of section 14.2, such building line shall be deemed to be the southerly boundary of any required rear yard on a riparian s ite , notwithstanding any dimension contained herein. 4.7 Floor Space Ratio 4.7.1 The floor space ratio shall not exceed 0.60, except that where an existing lot is less than 7.315 m (24 feet) in width the floor space ratio shall not exceed 0.45. 4.7.2 The following shall be included in the computation of floor space ratio: (a) al l floors having a minimum cei l ing height of 4 feet, including earthen floor, both above and below ground level , to be measured to the extreme outer limits of the building. (b) stairways, f ire escapes, elevator shafts and other features which the Director of Planning considers similar, to be measured by their gross cross-sectional areas and included in the measurements for each floor at which they are located. 4.7.3 The following shall be excluded in the computation of floor space ratio: (a) open balconies, canopies, sundecks, and any other appurtenances which, in the opinion of the Director of Planning, are similar to the foregoing, provided that the total area of all exclusions does not exceed eight percent of the permitted floor area, City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 October 1985 (c) where f loors are used for o f f -s t ree t parking and loading, heating and mechanical equipment, or uses which in the opinion of the Director of Planning are s imi la r to the foregoing, those f loors or portions thereof so used, which: ( i ) are at or below the base surface; and ( i i ) are developed as o f f -s t ree t parking spaces having a f loor located above the base surface, provided that: the spaces are located in an accessory bui ld ing or bui ldings situated in the rear yard ; and the spaces do not have a length of more that 24 feet for the purpose of exclusion from f loor space ra t io computation. (d) ch i l d day care f a c i l i t i e s to a maximum f loor area of 10 percent of the permitted f loor area, provided the Director of Planning, on the advice of the Director of Social Planning, i s sa t i s f i ed that there i s a need for a day care f a c i l i t y in the immediate neighbourhood; (e) areas of undeveloped f loors located above the highest storey or ha l f -s to rey , or adjacent to a hal f -storey with a c e i l i n g height of less than 4 feet , and to which there i s no permanent means of access other than a hatch. 4.8 Si te Coverage 4.8.1 The maximum s i te coverage for bui ldings shal l be 45 percent of the s i te area, except that where an ex is t ing l o t i s less than 7.315 m (24 feet) in width the maximum s i te coverage for bui ldings shal l be 35 percent of the s i te area. 4.8.2 For the purpose of th is sect ion, s i te coverage for bui ldings shal l be based on the projected area of the outside of the outermost wal ls of a l l bui ldings and includes carpor ts , but excludes steps, eaves, cant i levered balconies and sundecks. 4.8.3 4.9 4.9.1 Except where the pr inc ipal use of the s i te i s a parking area, the maximum s i te coverage for any portion of the s i te used as parking area shal l be 30 percent. Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces shal l be provided and / is ions of section 12 of th is By-1aw. Of f -s t reet parking and loading spaces imaintained in accordance with the provi i  f t i   lCi ty of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 October 1984 /oo 5 RELAXATION OF REGULATIONS 5.1 The Director of Planning may relax the minimum s i te area requirements of section 4.1 with respect to any of the fol lowing developments on an ex is t ing l o t of lesser s i te area on record in the Land T i t l e Off ice for Vancouver: (a) one-family dwel l ing. City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 October 1984 101 APPENDIX 2 The F i r s t Meeting The f i r s t meeting was h e l d at the Oakridge Auditorium on March 4, 1986. The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r community of r e s i d e n c e . T o t a l i n meeting h a l l 214 t o t a l i n t e r v i e w e d 107 s t a f f 6 aldermen 4 community r e s i d e n t s b u i l d e r s n. h. owners Marpole 1 Dunbar 5 Pt.grey 5 K e r r i s d a l e 21 Oakridge 30 1 Shaughnessy 4 Arbutus r i d g e 3 T o t a l westside 69 0 1 E a s t s i d e 30 2 1 Outside Vancouver 2 2 0 T o t a l 101 4 2 Speakers b u i l d e r s 1 a r c h i t e c t s 3 r e s i d e n t s . . . . . . . . . 14 t o t a l 18 102 The Second Meeting The second meeting was h e l d at S i r C h a r l e s Tupper School a u d i t o r i u m on March 11, 1986. The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r community of r e s i d e n c e . T o t a l i n meeting h a l l 261 t o t a l i n t e r v i e w e d 1 90 (73%) s t a f f 6 aldermen 0 community r e s i d e n t s b u i l d e r s n. h. owners H a s t i n g s / s u n r i s e 10 1 Renfrew/collingwd 4 K i l l a r n e y 7 1 2 Sunset 9 2 1 V i c . Fraserview 9 2 Kensington/cedar c. 9 1 Mt. Pleasant 5 3 Oakridge 23 1 K e r r i s d a l e 26 4 1 Dunbar 8 Poi n t grey 8 1 Arbutus 7 1 Shaughnessy 9 R i l e y park 11 2 2 Grandview/woodlds. 1 Marpole 1 T o t a l westside 82 5 3 T o t a l e a s t s i d e 65 12 5 Outside Vancouver 4 14 T o t a l s 151 31 8 Speakers r e s i d e n t s 15 a r c h / b u i l d e r s / r .e 15 new house owners 1 t o t a l 31 103 The T h i r d Meeting The t h i r d meeting was h e l d at S i r C h a r l e s Tupper Secondary School a u d i t o r i u m on March 18, 1986. The f u l l c i t y c o u n c i l was present as an o f f i c i a l p u b l i c meeting. The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r community of r e s i d e n c e . Community r e s i d e n t s H a s t i n g s / s u n r i s e 3 Renfrew/collingwd 2 K i l l a r n e y 6 Sunset 9 V i c . f r a s e r v i e w 8 Kensingtn/cedar ctge 9 Mount p l e a s a n t 2 Oakridge 23 K e r r i s d a l e 14 Dunbar 12 Point grey 12 Arbutus 13 Shaughnessy 8 R i l e y park 9 Grandview/woodlds. 2 K i t s i l a n o 2 Marpole West end b u i l d e r s 4 1 4 6 6 3 1 2 4 3 3 1 2 5 3 2 n. h. owners Westside t o t a l E a s t s i d e t o t a l Outside Vancouver T o t a l s 84 50 0 134 21 29 17 67 2 1 0 3 Speakers r e s i d e n t s 12 a r c h i t e c t s 4 b u i l d e r s 3 r e a l e s t a t e 5 new home owner 1 t o t a l 25 104 APPENDIX 3A The F i r s t Meeting Applause meter l e v e l 5 readings (raucous) to l e v e l 1 readings ( s c a t t e r e d ) . L e v e l 5 Responses — I n t r o d u c t i o n of George P u i l and Gordon Campbell --'The vast m a j o r i t y of people who l i v e i n the neighbourhoods l i k e them the way they are. The c i t y gains by t h i s change ( l a r g e new houses). What do we get, n o t h i n g . Up to a year ago the C i t y thought t h i s was a non-issue.' --'You j u s t move i n , go to C i t y H a l l and p l e a d h a r d s h i p and you get a permit f o r s u i t e s , that shouldn't be.' — ' I f we delay f o r another 6 months to a year another 1000 of these damn t h i n g s are going to go up.' --'There seems to be a f e e l i n g t h a t there i s a worldwide p o p u l a t i o n problem so we have to s a c r i f i c e our neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r and q u a l i t y to accomodate d e n s i t y t h a t goes up and up.' —'What would i t take to put a f r e e z e on while t h i s whole q u e s t i o n i s thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e d ? ' --'You s t i l l get m o n s t r o s i t i e s with the new r u l e s . I t i s s t i l l going to d e s t r o y our neighbourhoods and that i s what you are a s k i n g us to accept.' L e v e l 4 Responses — ' I would l i k e i t on r e c o r d t h a t t h i s meeting supports my motion to put a f r e e z e on new c o n s t r u c t i o n . ' —'We can stop i t l e g a l l y f o r a p e r i o d . . . w e l l t h a t ' s b e t t e r than nothing, w e ' l l take i t . ' — ' T h e idea i s q u i t e d e l i b e r a t e l y to allow these m o n s t r o s i t i e s to continue to a l t e r the d e n s i t y and a l t e r our r e s i d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r that i s unique in the world.' — ' C a n we not have a f r e e z e ? ' 105 —'Many of these owners do not pay income tax, take the income to other countries and s t i l l get the homeowners grant.' — ' I t i s not residents that are putting up these houses, i t i s developers from other areas that buy up old houses and put up monstrosities that are not economically viable as an ordinary single family house.' --'The overviewing and shadowing problem w i l l s t i l l e x i s t . ' --'We look at other people's homes not our own. It i s important what we have to look at.' —'Why has the City not enforced i t s own by-laws for single family areas?' --'How can there be hardship suites after someone pays for a half m i l l i o n d o l l a r house?' --'The FSR has not changed. I am flabergasted by thi s fac t . ' Level 3 Responses —'People think that i t i s ar b i t r a r y relaxation of regulations that i s the problem.' --'We are reducing our standards to t h i r d world countries...we should not only be maintaining our standards but improving them.' - - ' T a i l o r make zoning schedules to special needs and circumbstances of the many diverse r e s i d e n t i a l sub-areas.' — ' I f bulk i s the problem then reduce FSR.' — ' A l l the houses were the same shape then along came one of these guys with a l o t of money and no brains and put up a three storey building.' —'We can define them in d i f f e r e n t communities l a t e r . There's no harm in accepting them now.' (new regulations) --'These people don't pay taxes(suites). They are not adding anything to the c i t y . ' Level 2 Responses —'What q u a l i f i c a t i o n do you need to be a builder?' --'The City should require i t to conform to the setbacks of the street.' 106 —'What's the use of the new r e g u l a t i o n s i f you're not even e n f o r c i n g the o l d ones?' L e v e l 1 Responses —'How do these c o n t r a c t o r s get a permit to b u i l d these m o n s t r o s i t i e s they are not going to l i v e i n , they b u i l d them to s e l l f o r a p r o f i t . ' --'What about a d d i t i o n a l survey c o s t s ? ' 107 APPENDIX 3B The Second Meeting Level 5 Responses —'I am not against demol i t ions . I am against the lack of information about what w i l l come af ter the demol i t ions . If we're ta lk ing about neighbourliness we must have assurances. We need a sense of what's coming, that ' s a l l I ask . ' - - 'Most of the discuss ion is af ter the f ac t . You could avoid a lo t of the problem by deal ing with the issue before demolit ion permits are issued. —'What has the Ci ty been doing for 50 years i f you're changing quite dramat ica l ly the regulat ions in a few months and not achieve th i s nebulous thing c a l l e d neighbourl iness , a f f ec t ing 200 m i l l i o n worth of property development?(builder) —'Everyone seems to be knocking the b u i l d e r , they b u i l d to economic c o n s t r a i n t s . ( b u i l d e r ) —'What happens to the l i t t l e o ld lady whose house we buy and give i t to a b u i l d e r . She gets 80,000 and can buy a condominium with i t . With the new regulat ions we're only looking at paying the o ld lady 55-60,000.(realter) - - ' I f the facts show that Vancouver fami l ies are gett ing smaller why do we need bigger houses? —'What stands today i s a testimony to the arrogance of the b u i l d e r , the i n s e n s i t i v i t y of the developer, and greed. I hope your ordinance w i l l pass to prevent further monstrosi t ies from being b u i l t . —'These are secondary su i t e s , not i l l e g a l su i t e s , th i s i s not going against the future development of Vancouver.(developer) — ' I f we do th i s in such a short time there w i l l be major repercussions economic and s o c i a l for years to come.(builder) Level 4 Responses - - ' C o u l d we not have the bui ld ings in proportion with the adjacent propert ies perhaps at no more than 40% greater dens i ty . —'Our group i s concerned how hard i t i s to get information 108 r e g a r d i n g d e m o l i t i o n and b u i l d i n g p l a n s . The ease at which d e m o l i t i o n s can occur, they are handed out by a c l e r k f o r a s m a l l fee. There are no assurances how the new c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l conform to the s t r e e t s c a p e . —'Go r e g u l a t e the westside and leave the e a s t s i d e a l o n e . ( b u i l d e r ) — ' I f people are paying 280,000 f o r a l o t I don't t h i n k you can r e s t r i c t them to b u i l d i n g a bungalow.(builder) — ' I t depends on d i f f e r e n t areas and circumbstances that deserve c o n s i d e r a t i o n , many houses w i l l become noncomforming.(architect) — ' R e g u l a t e a l l other l o t s but not 33 by 120 l o t s , leave the l i t t l e guy a l o n e . ' ( b u i l d e r ) — ' T h i s won't stop a 27 f o o t high w a l l being b u i l t next to the l i t t l e house.' — ' T h i s w i l l c r e a t e a new Vancouver s p e c i a l , a f l a t r o o f e d b o x . ' ( a r c h i t e c t ) — ' P e o p l e l i v i n g i n the lower l e v e l are extended f a m i l i e s . The neighbouring going on i s w i t h i n the c o n f i n e s of that house. T h e i r l i f e s t y l e i s the envy of a l o t of p e o p l e . ' ( r e a l t e r ) — ' I n 1974 you had to have f u l l development p l a n s before d e m o l i t i o n . You a l s o had to s i g n that the basement would not be used f o r anything but a s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g . ' --'You are attempting to change i n an extremely short p e r i o d what was f i n e f o r 50 years, i t should take years f o r you to modify i t . ' ( b u i l d e r ) L e v e l 3 Responses — ' C o u l d you q u a n t i f y n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s ? What does i t m e a n ? ( a r c h i t e c t ) - - ' A r c h i t e c t s design a house then walk away sa y i n g i s n ' t t h a t a e s t h e t i c a l l y p l e a s i n g , they l i v e somewhere e l s e . I have nothing but sympathy f o r those l i v i n g i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of these houses.' —'Where i s t h e r e 75 foot deep house? Most homes are 25-30 f e e t . 75 f e e t overshadows most gardens and i t s happening now i n my neighbourhood. --'The p i c t u r e s are i s o l a t e d cases f o r people i n the West End who support you. How many E a s t s i d e r s are at the m e e t i n g ? ( b u i l d e r ) the way these meetings are arranged i s a joke. There are no 109 councilmembers. Neat s t i c k h a n d l i n g . ' — ' 2 7 f o o t height r e s t r i c t i o n i s no good on a s l o p i n g l o t . ( a r c h i t e c t ) —'We must have a s o f t p e n c i l i n the setback so we can have c r e a t i v i t y . ' ( a r c h i t e c t ) — ' I f you happen to be next to one of the l a r g e houses your l o t w i l l be worth more because you can b u i l d t h e r e . ' ( b u i l d e r ) —'I'm sure you're not t e l l i n g us we have to conform to s t r e e t s c a p e the s t y l e of houses b u i l t i n the pre-war. ' ( a r c h i t e c t ) --'We should take a l e s s o n from them. They have grandparents and c o u s i n s and great c e l e b r a t i o n s i n the h o u s e . ' ( r e a l t e r ) — ' T h i s should not be f o r people who a l r e a d y have t h e i r own house. Developers, they make the m o n s t r o s i t i e s . I want more t r e e s . I wish you would f i n d other ways than height to enhance our neighbourhood.' — ' 7 0 % of Vancouver i s RS-1. Obviously a very small percentage are at these meetings. Most are not even aware of what may be happening to them i n the near f u t u r e . ' ( r e a l t e r ) L e v e l 2 Responses — ' I agree that some of these b u i l d i n g s are too l a r g e . ' — ' Y o u are t a l k i n g too t e c h n i c a l and d e t a i l e d f o r most of the people here.' — ' A f t e r 25-30 years the s t r e e t s c a p e i s going to look very n i c e . ' ( b u i l d e r ) - - ' I f i t goes through i t w i l l r u i n Vancouver, e s p e c i a l l y the e a s t s i d e . Why not the westside with the bigger l o t s . ' ( b u i l d e r ) — ' T h e small houses need to be changed. Most housing i n Vancouver needs r e p l a c e m e n t . ' ( b u i l d e r ) —'Why has the c i t y not asked f o r input from d e v e l o p e r s , b u i l d e r s and a r c h i t e c t s as w e l l as c i t i z e n s ? ' ( a r c h i t e c t ) — ' P e s e r v e s i n g l e f a m i l y areas f o r those who value t h a t . You are not being honest about what you are doing.' — ' T h e Pl a n n i n g Department should accept the blame, not un-neighbourly c i t i z e n s i n V a n c o u v e r . ' ( b u i l d e r ) --'The l i t t l e o l d l a d i e s we are t a l k i n g about are very w e l l taken care of as f a r as I'm concerned. They are very happy to 110 d e a l with m e . ' ( r e a l t e r ) — ' D i f f e r e n t neighbourhoods have d i f f e r e n t needs. The i l l e g a l s u i t e i s s u e i s f u e l l e d by these l a r g e houses.' L e v e l 1 Responses --'Vancouver i s p r a i s e d f o r having the best housing design i n Canada.'(builder) — ' I t i s not e n f o r c a b l e , the one of h e i g h t , because you have to get h e i g h t from neighbour.' -- ' I support the g e n e r a l t h r u s t of t h i s program, to preserve e x i s t i n g s t r e e t s c a p e s . ' - - ' I look at the market p o i n t of view. People ask me how i s the market today, not how i s the n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s t o d a y . ' ( r e a l t e r ) 111 APPENDIX 3C The T h i r d Meeting 1. A R e s i d e n t i a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e — t h e new houses were ugly. - - t h e i r p r o p e r t y was being reduced to l o t v a l u e . --the new houses invaded t h e i r p r i v a c y . —some had a 30 foot high w a l l next to t h e i r garden. — a l l the v e g e t a t i o n i s u s u a l l y removed. — t r a f f i c i s i n c r e a s e d . — p e r f e c t l y good a f f o r d a b l e housing i s d e s t r o y e d . — i l l e g a l s u i t e s are a f a c t o r , they simply add to the c o s t of the p r o p e r t y . — t h e term 'summer k i t c h e n ' i s a loophole that should be e l i m i n a t e d . — c i t i z e n s have no i n p u t , there i s nothing you can do. — t h e b u i l d e r s are rude and a r r o g a n t , c r e a t i n g a mess, n o i s y , and t o t a l l y unsympathetic. Other s e l e c t e d comments from r e s i d e n t s were; — T h e houses are not b u i l t to s p e c s , t h i n g s change, the e l e v a t i o n changes and the c i t y does nothing about i t . — A l o t of people enjoy l i v i n g i n t h e i r back yards. —We need to respect the q u a l i t y of our neighbourhoods. — M a i n t a i n the c o n t i n u i t y of the s t r e e y s c a p e . — I t i s a poor use of resouces, to t e a r down w e l l c o n s t r u c t e d housing that i s s t i l l good f o r 30-40 y e a r s . — A r c h i t e c t s want you to study some more so they can put out 5-600 more m o n s t r o s i t i e s . —Anyone can be a b u i l d e r with no e x p e r t i s e or q u a l i f i c a t i o n . 1 12 — A l l houses b u i l t i n the 20s and 30s were set up i n a s u b d i v i s i o n to g i v e the best o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a view. - - T h i s i s a t a c t i c by the Planning Department to r u i n RS-1 and d e n s i f y . --For the board of v a r i a n c e , a small n o t i c e i n the paper i s no good. --Why were m o n s t r o s i t i e s allowed i n the f i r s t p l a ce? 2. Development Industry R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s B u i l d e r s , a r c h i t e c t s , and r e a l e s t a t e agents made p r e s e n t a t i o n s as w e l l , r e c e i v i n g applause from t h e i r s u p p o r t e r s . I t was noted that a l l b u i l d e r s l e f t immediately a f t e r speaking, not remaining to l i s t e n to other speakers. T h e i r comments i n c l u d e d ; —what we are doing i s sending the o l d people to r e s t homes e a r l y . —We should p r i v a t i z e p l a n n i n g . - - T h i s i s down-zoning and i t should go i n the round f i l e . — Y o u are s t e a l i n g people's p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . — Y o u w i l l get worse m o n s t r o s i t i e s with these r e g u l a t i o n s . A l l of the speakers c o u l d not be heard i n the time a l l o t t e d f o r d e l e g a t i o n s and the meeting had to be adjourned with a committment to hear the remaining speakers the f o l l o w i n g week. At the c o n c l u s i o n of the meeting, s t a f f was i n s t r u c t e d to make minor r e v i s i o n s to the zoning p r o p o s a l s i n c l u d i n g modifying the height requirements. At the r e g u l a r c o u n c i l meeting of A p r i l 29, 1986 the changes to the RS-1 zoning schedule were adopted by a vote of c o u n c i l . The new by-law i s by-law 5986. (appendix 5) 113 APPENDIX 4 SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. Male/female 2. Owner/tenant 3. Are c h i l d r e n at home 4. Length of r e s i d e n c y 5. E t h n i c background 1. Do you f e e l there i s a problem r e g a r d i n g new c o n s t r u c t i o n i n your neighbourhood? 2. What do you thin k about the new houses on your block? 3. What do you s p e c i f i c a l l y l i k e / d i s l i k e about them? 4. If you had a c h o i c e how would you change them? 5. Do you f e e l the neighbourhood i s being a f f e c t e d i n any way? 6. What i s the f u t u r e of t h i s neighbourhood? 7. Is t h a t what you want? 8. What are your f u t u r e plans? 114 APPENDIX 5 RS-1 DISTRICT SCHEDULE 1 INTENT The Intent of this Schedule is to maintain the single-family residential character of the District. 2 OUTRIGHT APPROVAL USES 2.1 Subject to all other provisions of this By-law and to compliance with the regulations of this Schedule, the uses listed 1n section 2.2 shall be permitted in this District and shall be issued a permit. 2.2 Uses 2.2.A * Accessory Buildings customarily ancillary to any of the uses listed in this Schedule, provided that: (a) no accessory building exceeds 12 feet 1n height measured to the highest point of the roof i f a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between the eaves and the ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, provided that no portion of an accessory building may exceed 15 feet in height; (b) all accessory buildings are located in the rear yard and in no case are less than 5 feet from a flanking street, subject also to the provisions of section 11.1 of this By-law, except that accessory buildings or portions thereof which: (i) are located between the principal building and the minimum rear yard required by section 4.6, or (ii) extend into the required rear yard for a depth of 12 feet or less, shall comply with the minimum side yard requirements of section 4.5; (c) the total floor area, measured to the extreme outer limits of the building, of all accessory buildings is not greater than 35 percent of the minimum rear yard prescribed 1n this Schedule, or 520 square feet, whichever 1s the greater; (d) not more than 80 percent of the width of the rear yard of any lot is occupied by accessory buildings. * Accessory Uses customarily ancillary to any of the uses listed In this section. 2.2.DW [Dwelling] * One-Family Dwelling. City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 March 1987 115 3 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL USES 3.1 Subject to a l l other p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s By-law, Including s e c t i o n 3.3.3, and the p r o v i s i o n s and r e g u l a t i o n s of t h i s Schedule, the Development Permit Board may approve any of the uses l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 3.2 Including such c o n d i t i o n s or a d d i t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s as 1t may decide, provided that before making a d e c i s i o n 1t: (a) c o n s i d e r s the Intent of t h i s Schedule and the recommendations of any advisory groups, plan or g u i d e l i n e s approved by Council f o r the area; and (b) n o t i f i e s such adjacent property owners and r e s i d e n t s 1t deems necessary. 3.2 Uses 3.2.A * Accessory B u i l d i n g s customarily a n c i l l a r y to any of the uses l i s t e d 1n t h i s Schedule, other than as provided f o r i n s e c t i o n 2.2.A of t h i s Schedule. * Accessory Uses customarily a n c i l l a r y to any of the uses l i s t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . Ambulance S t a t i o n . 3.2.C * C h i l d Day Care F a c i l i t y . * Church, subject to the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 11.7 of t h i s By-law. * Community Centre or Neighbourhood House. 3.2.D * Deposition or e x t r a c t i o n of material so as t o a l t e r the c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the land. 3.2.DW [Dwelling] * Dwelling Unit f o r a caretaker or servant 1n conjunction with a one-family dwelling, provided t h a t the s i t e or d w e l l i n g i s of s u f f i c i e n t s i z e to warrant the need f o r a f u l l - t i m e caretaker or servant. * Dwelling Unit i n conjunction with a neighbourhood grocery store which was 1n existence p r i o r to J u l y 29, 1980, subject to the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 11.16 of t h i s By-law. 3.2.G * G o l f Course. C i t y of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 November 1987 116 3.2.H * H o s p i t a l , b u t n o t I n c l u d i n g a c o n v e r s i o n f r o m an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g , a m e n t a l h o s p i t a l o r an a n i m a l h o s p i t a l , s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 11.9 o f t h i s B y - l a w . 3.2.1 * I n s t i t u t i o n o f a r e l i g i o u s , p h i l a n t h r o p i c o r c h a r i t a b l e c h a r a c t e r . 3.2.L * L o c a l A r e a O f f i c e . 3.2.M * M a r i n a , b u t n o t I n c l u d i n g b o a t b u i l d i n g a n d m a j o r r e p a i r s and o v e r h a u l o f b o a t s . 3.2.N * N e i g h b o u r h o o d G r o c e r y S t o r e o p e r a t i n g i m m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o J u l y 29, 1980, s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 11.16 o f t h i s B y - l a w . 3.2.P * P a r k o r P l a y g r o u n d . * P u b l i c A u t h o r i t y B u i l d i n g o r u s e e s s e n t i a l i n t h i s D i s t r i c t . 3.2.PK [ P a r k i n g ] * P a r k i n g A r e a a n c i l l a r y t o a p r i n c i p a l u s e on an a d j a c e n t s i t e . 3.2.S * S c h o o l ( p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e ) , s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 11.8 o f t h i s B y - l a w . * S o c i a l S e r v i c e C e n t r e o p e r a t e d b y a n o n - p r o f i t s o c i e t y . * S p e c i a l Needs R e s i d e n t i a l F a c i l i t y , s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 11.17. * S t a d i u m o r a n y s i m i l a r p l a c e o f a s s e m b l y . 3.2.UC [ U t i l i t y a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n ] * P u b l i c U t i l i t y . 4 REGULATIONS A l l u s e s a p p r o v e d u n d e r s e c t i o n s 2 and 3 o f t h i s D i s t r i c t S c h e d u l e s h a l l b e s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g r e g u l a t i o n s : 4.1 S i t e A r e a 4.1.1 The minimum s i t e a r e a f o r a o n e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s h a l l be 3,600 s q u a r e f e e t . 4.1.2 Where t h e s i t e i s l e s s t h a n 32 f e e t i n w i d t h o r l e s s t h a n 3,600 s q u a r e f e e t i n a r e a , t h e d e s i g n o f a/iy new d w e l l i n g s h a l l f i r s t r e q u i r e t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g o r t h e D e v e l o p m e n t C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r Z o n i n g and D e v e l o p m e n t B y - l a w RS-1 November 1987 117 Permit Board, as the case may be, who shall before making a decision consider any design guidelines approved by Council. 4.2 Frontage — Not Applicable. 4.3 Height 4.3.1 The height of a building shall not at any point protrude above an envelope located 1n compliance with the side yard regulation and formed by planes vertically extending 21 feet in height and then extending Inward and upward at an angle of 45 degrees from the horizontal to the line where the planes intersect, provided that in no case shall the maximum height of a building exceed the lesser of 30 feet or 2-1/2 storeys. 4.4 Front Yard 4.4.1 A front yard of 24 feet shall be provided, except that: (a) on a site where the average front yard depth of the two adjacent sites on each side of the site 1s less than 20 feet or more than 28 feet, the depth of the required front yard shall be that average, subject to the following: (i) i f one or more of the adjacent sites 1s vacant, i t shall be deemed to have a front yard setback of 24 feet; (ii) i f one or more of the adjacent sites front on a street other than that of the development site, then such adjacent sites shall not be used in computing the average; ( i i i ) where the site is adjacent to a flanking street or lane, the average depth shall be computed using the remainder of the adjacent sites; and (b) on a double fronting site the Director of Planning may vary the front yard requirement. 4.5 Side Yard 4.5.1 A side yard with a minimum width of not less than 10 percent of the width of the site shall be provided on each side of the building. 4.5.2 In the case of a corner site, the exterior side yard shall be regulated by the provisions of section 11.1 of this By-law. 4.6 Rear Yard 4.6.1 A rear yard with a minimum depth of 45 percent of the site depth shall be provided except that where the rear yard abuts a lane the minimum required rear yard shall be decreased by the lane width between the rear property Une and the ultimate centre line of the City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 March 1987 118 lane. Where no lane exists the site depth shall be reduced by 10 feet for the purposes of calculating the required rear yard, which shall be measured from the rear property Une. Accessory buildings and any portions of a principal building which comply with the accessory building regulations, which for this section 4.6.1 shall not be considered as part of the principal building, may be located within the required rear yard. Roof gardens, sun decks, and any other appurtenances which, 1n the opinion of the Director of Planning, are similar to the foregoing, may be located In the required rear yard on accessory buildings or portions of a principal building but only to a maximum depth of 12 feet. 4.6.2 The Director of Planning may permit a decrease of the rear yard to a depth of not less than the average yard depth of the two adjacent sites on each side of the site, subject to the following: (a) where an adjacent site 1s vacant the average rear yard depth shall be computed using the remainder of the adjacent sites; (b) where any adjacent site has Its rear property line abutting the side property line of the site, or any of the adjacent sites, no site adjoining that side property line shall be used 1n computing the average yard depth; (c) where the site 1s adjacent to a flanking street or lane, the average yard depth shall be computed using the remainder of the adjacent sites. 4.6.3 Where a building Une has been established pursuant to the provisions of section 14.2, such building Une shall be deemed to be the southerly boundary of any required rear yard on a riparian site, notwithstanding any dimension contained herein. 4.7 Floor Space Ratio 4.7.1 The floor space ratio shall not exceed 0.60, except that where an existing lot 1s less than 7.315 m (24 feet) in width the floor space ratio shall not exceed 0.45. 4.7.2 The following shall be Included in the computation of floor space ratio: (a) all floors, Including earthen floor, to be measured to the extreme outer limits of the building; (b) stairways, fire escapes, elevator shafts and other features which the Director of Planning considers similar, to be measured by their gross cross-sectional areas and included in the measurements for each floor at which they are located. City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 January 1987 119 4.7.3 The following shall be excluded 1n the computation of floor space ratio: (a) open balconies, canopies, sundecks, and any other appurtenances which, 1n the opinion of the Director of Planning, are similar to the foregoing, provided that the total area of all exclusions does not exceed eight percent of the permitted floor area; (b) patios and roof gardens, provided that the Director of Planning first approves the design of sunroofs and walls; (c) where floors are used for off-street parking and loading or uses which, 1n the opinion of the Director of Planning, are similar to the foregoing, those floors or portions thereof not exceeding 24 feet in length so used which: (1) are located 1n an accessory building and any portions of a principal building which comply with the accessory building regulations, or (11) on sites that have no developed secondary access and are within a portion of the principal building which does not otherwise comply with the accessory building regulations, up to a maximum of 450 square feet. (d) child day care faci l it ies to a maximum floor area of 10 ercent of the permitted floor area, provided the Director of lannlng, on the advice of the Director of Social Planning, is satisfied that there 1s a need for a day care facil ity 1n the immediate neighbourhood; (e) areas of undeveloped floors located above the highest storey or half-storey, or adjacent to a half-storey with a celling height of less than 4 feet, and to which there 1s no permanent means of access other than a hatch; (f) floor located at or below finished grade with a celling height of less than 4 feet. 4.8 Site Coverage 4.8.1 The maximum site coverage for buildings shall be 45 percent of the site area, except that where an existing lot 1s less than 7.315 m (24 feet) 1n width the maximum site coverage for buildings shall be 35 percent of the site area. City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 January 1987 120 4.8.2 For the purpose of this section, site coverage for buildings shall be based on the projected area of the outside of the outermost walls of all buildings and Includes carports, but excludes steps, eaves, balconies and sundecks. 4.8.3 Except where the principal use of the site Is a parking area, the maximum site coverage for any portion of the site used as parking area shall be 30 percent. 4.9 [Deleted— see Parking By-law.] 4.10 to (Reserved.) 4.15 4.16 Building Depth 4.16.1 The distance between the front and the rear of a principal building shall not exceed 75 feet. Accessory buildings, or any portions of a principal building which comply with the accessory building regulations, are exempt from this regulation. 5 RELAXATION OF REGULATIONS 5.1 The Director of Planning may relax the minimum site area requirements of section 4.1 with respect to any of the following developments on an existing lot of lesser site area on record in the Land Title Office for Vancouver: (a) one-family dwelling. 5.2 The Director of Planning may relax the height and yard provisions of sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of this Schedule where, due to conditions peculiar either to the site or to the proposed development, literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship, provided that: (a) he f irst has regard to applicable guidelines or policies which City Council may from time to time determine; (b) he notifies such adjacent property owners and residents he deems necessary; and (c) in no case shall the height be Increased to more than 35 feet or the yard requirements be reduced to less than 60 percent of the amount specified in this Schedule. City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law RS-1 January 1987 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097983/manifest

Comment

Related Items