1. The Vancouver Special originated as a way to evade zoning regulations. The lower floor is 18" below grade which qualified it as a "basement" not counting towards floor area ratio calculations.
2. Once the design became widespread, the building permitting process was streamlined -- there was no need for a detailed review of plans if they were identical to previously approved homes.
3. These were fundamentally "cheap and fast" housing, and have a poor reputation not so much for their conformity as for the poor quality construction.
4. As a cost saving measure, Vancouver Specials often came with "unfinished basements". An entire generation of Vancouver homeowners learned to install drywall -- and often electrical and plumbing -- which further contributes to the poor quality of the construction.
Their design was optimized for 2 suites even though they were usually built in single-family zoning districts; enforcement of the 1-family rule was fairly lax: https://twitter.com/GRIDSVancouver/status/134921351159592140...
It led to a situation where the law was at odds with reality on the ground (tens of thousands of people living in technically-illegal suites), and I think that was a huge factor in Vancouver's decision to (finally) legalize secondary suites across the city in 2004.
I lived in one of those for about a year in-between actual apartments, and always thought it was weird how it was just slightly below grade. Thank you for solving that mystery :).
BTW the "slightly below grade" situation is helped by Vancouver having lots of hills -- in many cases the front door is at grade even though the average ground level is 18" higher.
and 2) these maligned "cheap and fast" building styles eventually become (at least somewhat) loved.
Looking at a generation of houses before the Vancouver Special, it's abundantly clear that all the 1910s era heritage homes one finds near downtown are also pretty much all tweaks on a similar core design, just like the Vancouver Special.
FAR zoning not allowing for a simple 2 story home seems absurd but I suppose those were written to imply a certain setback from the property line.
Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m high buildings). There isn't really very much housing stock in between single family homes and 30 story buildings, and getting those larger high rises built is expensive, and time consuming.
There are plenty of towers downtown but the rest of Vancouver (i.e. most of the city by land area) is still zoned for suburban levels of density: https://twitter.com/Scott_dLB/status/1599177703466610688
the missing middle isn't just what's between two extremes, so here, it's not 20-30m (~65-100ft, or roughly 6-10 stories) as you've stated, though i'd certainly prefer cities to adopt zoning that allows much more density too (along with the mixed-zoning, public transportation and micromobility upgrades needed to support that density).
the missing middle specifically refers to 2-6 story stick-framed buildings that can be built quickly and cheaply while also providing ~4-10× the density of single-family zoning. 6-10 story buildings don't fall in this category since they usually need at least a concrete podium for the first 1-4 stories, which puts it in a different (higher-priced) construction category.
the missing middle is literally the space between single-family homes and the 6+ story buildings that require more expensive construction techniques.
A 3-bedroom rental unit is considered "affordable" if it rents at $4000/mo, or $48k/y[1]. The poverty line is at $60k[2] for a family of four. The city is encouraging developers to supply housing at a full 80% of poverty-level income, and wondering why tent cities keep growing.
[1] https://www.straight.com/news/4094-rent-for-three-bedrooms-n...
[2] https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/national-news/new-study-c...
The global poverty line is $785 but in New York City, the cutoff for cash aid is $83,250. Why does NYC keep giving aid to the top 1% !?
This is an oversimplification that has been repeatedly pushed by Carlo Pablito for clicks. He knows it's not quite right, but the incentives for media these days are what they are...
I would summarize the situation like this:
- Vancouver wants to incentivize some % of new development to be rental instead of condo
- For various reasons (some dumb, some legal) they ended up using the word "affordable" when defining some limits on said rental developments
- Newer-than-average buildings are understandably more expensive than average, so the limits are fairly high
It's a bad choice of words but the program is generally more ambitious than what other municipalities around the Lower Mainland do for rental housing. Please think twice before sharing this misleading information again.
Truth be told, while I have a lot of nostalgia of the Vancouver of the 90s, I've since been back to visit and if given the choice, I would pick living in New York every time.
I'm under the impression that despite being maligned in the middle of the century Vancouver Specials are in relative high demand compared to houses newer and older because of how their basic flexible layouts make things relatively simple for new modern renovations.
It is like this in the nearby suburbs as well (Burnaby, Richmond, etc.)?
My kids like to play count the Vancouver Special when we drive down 1st Ave.
His ‘Revenge’ on Architects Was the Vancouver Special
https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2019/12/17/Vancouver-Special-Reve...
Most people in my circles (UBC engineering and humanities) agreed with this appellation. I wonder if it’s still used.
