West Vancouver considers allowing coach houses

[TheKingdom2000]

West Vancouver is exploring whether to allow coach houses on single family lots to improve housing affordability and to increase the variety of housing available.

Stephen Mikicich, a West Vancouver community planner, said this “gentler form of densification” could add options to an area that has many single family homes and a few apartments, but very little in between.

Coach houses are smaller houses that share a common property with a main house on a single-family lot. Sometimes they are accessed via a laneway — in Vancouver, for example — but they can also be accessed via a common driveway or be built on top of a garage.

“We have a community that is aging, that needs different housing options. We have younger families who are having difficulty establishing themselves or remaining in West Vancouver because of the cost of housing,” Mikicich said. “At the same time, it’s a community that highly values the established character of its neighbourhoods.”

West Vancouver residents’ median age was 50 in 2011, compared to 40 in Metro Vancouver, and one-quarter of residents were age 65 or older in 2011, compared to 13 per cent in Metro Vancouver, a discussion paper on coach houses prepared by West Vancouver states.

“We’ve had ongoing community interest in the concept of coach houses — older people wanting to remain in their community, when a multi-level house no longer works, but if they could build a single-level house in their backyard and rent out their house or have their kids live in it, it may work,” Mikicich said.

“We legalized secondary suites a couple of years ago, but not everyone wants to have a suite in the house and it’s difficult to add one later.”

While many Lower Mainland cities now allow these types of houses, most communities allow them as rentals only. Mikicich said the discussion in West Vancouver will include whether they should do the same, or allow strata titles to be created.

On Wednesday evening, a panel was scheduled to discuss the idea, including Jake Fry, owner of Smallworks, which builds laneway and coach houses, and other interested individuals.

Fry said allowing infill housing would be a way to “mitigate the monster home” and encourage more families in neighbourhoods that are today full of single-family homes occupied by a lone senior citizen.

“There are no new people — the single-family model is extremely difficult for people to get in. I think it’s one way to make home ownership possible for people,” Fry said. “You may have more roofs per acre, but they’re going to be smaller roofs. They’ll probably even have less square footage per city lot, but there’s going to be more families and you’ll see the ... communities become much more dynamic.”



Read more: West Vancouver considers allowing coach houses

West Vancouver considers allowing coach houses

[TheKingdom2000]

There doesn't seem to be a spot for a car in that picture though. So is this different than the ones we have in Vancouver? Because the Vancouver one's I saw all had a spot for a car.

[tofu1413]

not gonna work.

still going to be a million+ for a place in west van.

[Hondaracer]

Wasn't really sold on this idea before but I've walked through east van looking at some of the new ones and they are very nice! Not for me but a nice little mortgage helper, not like west van residents would need it
Posted via RS Mobile

[Gridlock]

Just what I want when I put down several million on some prime real estate in West Van...a mortgage helper in the backyard.

I can see it for a nanny suite, or inlaw suite, but to hell if I want my neighbors renting this shit out to randoms.

[Gumby]

Wrong neighbourhood for this kind of thing...

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Wrong neighbourhood for this kind of thing...

why? many expensive areas have this type of housing.. it seems to be where they flourish

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

why? many expensive areas have this type of housing.. it seems to be where they flourish

Let me rephase: it depends on the purpose of these coach houses - For aging parents, or nannies? Ok fine.

Similar to what Gridlock says, if you can afford to buy a house in West Van, chances are you don't need a mortgage helper. West Van isn't the neighbourhood for that!

How many properties in Shaughnessey have rental suites?

Side note - Look at a standard (33x122 lot) new house in Vancouver East. Most will have two rental suites (one legal, one not) in the basement! Home owners would never build something like that in Vancouver West.

[Marshall Placid]

Interesting topic/article OP.

Like most districts, West Vancouver has different areas.

Some houses are below the $1 mill range (hard to believe in West Van eh?)

Even the sub $1 mill to $1.5 mill might have owners who need mortgage assistance.

Considering that a coach house can be rented out for $1,500 to $2,500, it could greatly help with mortgages.

A $2,000 per month mortgage payment is like the equivalent of a $300,000 mortgage (give or take).

So, it does help for a lot of houses in West Van, but I am assuming less than other areas based on median house prices.

I also think that the mayor and the council wants to keep residents within West Van by offering this option, rather than having them move out.

Here is a quick list of areas in West Van, from most expensive to least expensive (from looking up mls.ca and reading real-estate articles and just remembering some facts)...

Most expensive to least expensive (not 100% accurate of course, there are anomalies in the low and high range, but here it goes):

1- British Properties (West Side, Chartwell area), $2.5 mill +
2- Ambleside/Queens area from 21st street to Taylor Way, $1.8 mill + (ideal for coach houses because of the squarish street divisions)
3- Marine Drive near Lighthouse Park, beach houses (some are more expensive than the BP ones, but median wise, BP is the most expensive), $1.8 mill +
4- British Properties (East Side, Southborough Glenmore area), $1.6 mill+
5- West Bay, $1.5 mill + (hilly, not good for coach houses that use back lanes))
6- Rockridge, $1.4 mill + (hilly)
7- Caulfeild (I know, the spelling is weird, but it is Feild), $1.4 mill+ (hilly)
8- Eagle Harbour/Ridge, $1.3 mill+ (hilly)
9 -Gleneagles, $1.2 mill+ (hilly)
10 - Horseshoe Bay, $800,000+ (ideal for coach houses because it is inexpensive, flat and have square street divisions)
11 - Lions Bay, $800,000+ (hilly, faraway removed from the main West Van areas, but still considered West Van, so cheaper prices)

Basically, the Western parts of West Van are generally less expensive than the Eastern parts of West Van.

I think coach houses is a good idea, but it goes without saying the rent that will be charged will probably be higher than the median rent, due to the higher land-value of the MAIN houses that the coach house is attached to, and due to hilly terrain.

[!SG]

if your gonna be spending 2500 bucks a month on rent, you should look to buying a place and putting that 2500 towards a mortgage

[godwin]

Not everyone wants to own property, especially at a overheated and cooling market. Not to mention the amount of rent is one thing, it is the ratio between the rent and the cost of the property that really matters. That's before downpayment considerations etc etc.

There are a lot of situations where your statement won't be feasible.. eg families with kids etc.

People should seek guidance and advice from a trusted financial advisor before (at the minimum) committing to rent or purchase property.

The problem I see with West Van's proposal is since West Van is on a hill and there aren't a lot of lane ways to start.. parking will be an issue especially in the Dundarave, West Bay, Sandy Cove areas. Especially if there is sanding / snow clearing involved, thankfully it is rather minimal.

Originally Posted by !SG

if your gonna be spending 2500 bucks a month on rent, you should look to buying a place and putting that 2500 towards a mortgage

[!SG]

yeah, but at the same time, unless you are able to write off the amount spent to rent, at 2500 a month, its essentially going towards nothing than just cost of living. though not everyone need to nor want to invest in property, at least with 2500 towards a mortgage, its 2500 towards building equity.

thats just how i see it. aside from other factors like having enough to cover the down payment to be able to get a mortgage at that amount a month.

Originally Posted by godwin

Not everyone wants to own property, especially at a overheated and cooling market. Not to mention the amount of rent is one thing, it is the ratio between the rent and the cost of the property that really matters. That's before downpayment considerations etc etc.

There are a lot of situations where your statement won't be feasible.. eg families with kids etc.

People should seek guidance and advice from a trusted financial advisor before (at the minimum) committing to rent or purchase property.

The problem I see with West Van's proposal is since West Van is on a hill and there aren't a lot of lane ways to start.. parking will be an issue especially in the Dundarave, West Bay, Sandy Cove areas. Especially if there is sanding / snow clearing involved, thankfully it is rather minimal.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Just what I want when I put down several million on some prime real estate in West Van...a mortgage helper in the backyard.

I can see it for a nanny suite, or inlaw suite, but to hell if I want my neighbors renting this shit out to randoms.

it's to keep the mistress/gf on the side...duh...

[SpeedStars]

doesn't this already exist on East Van/south van houses? There's those houses above garages with their own address...If this goes through, I would still expect a 300-400k price point...for living on someone else's land.
Posted via RS Mobile

[BurnoutBinLaden]

Please don't let this thread turn into another Rent vs. Own shitshow...

[Hondaracer]

Here are a couple in east van I took a look at, a company with their signs up claiming to build them starting at 120k, so if you can rent it for 1500 a month that's quite an investment long term if you've already got a mortgage





And I'm asuming both of these would be over that price point, nice stuff though
Posted via RS Mobile

[snails]

if you live in the area and you are single or just with a significant other i can see it working, most people dont need more then a basement but dont want to live in a "basement"

i agree that the money is better invested in a mortgage but if you are not ready to make that kind of investment then renting is a good alternative until you do figure out what you want.. eg. if you plan to go away for work, relationships fall apart, you have a serious injury.

i was looking into buying one of the varsity condos in Langley because my current rent would cover the mortgage of the condo alone but realizing i may not want to live in Langley or would maybe consider working in Alberta made it seem like a poor investment for this stage in my life.

[melloman]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Just what I want when I put down several million on some prime real estate in West Van...a mortgage helper in the backyard.

I can see it for a nanny suite, or inlaw suite, but to hell if I want my neighbors renting this shit out to randoms.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Let me rephase: it depends on the purpose of these coach houses - For aging parents, or nannies? Ok fine.

Similar to what Gridlock says, if you can afford to buy a house in West Van, chances are you don't need a mortgage helper. West Van isn't the neighbourhood for that!

How many properties in Shaughnessey have rental suites?

I have to disagree with the both of you.
If this is implemented it will help develop West Van more. With a larger population in a denser area. Not a bad thing.

When it comes to "my neighbour having tenants," I don't see the issue as an upscale neighbourhood should bring in upscale tenants. Yet if you don't want your neighbour to have tenants, you should've bought MORE land so you could space your home away from theirs. Properties are shrinking by the day and prices are going through the roof, so you got to spend a lot to get the privacy you want. If you don't have the money, that's not your neighbours problem, clearly he spent the money and decided to put a coach house on some of it.

[Gumby]

Let me ask you this - if you don't need the money, would you want to share your property with someone else?

I am currently building a new house (basement + 2 levels) in Vancouver, just west of Main. I have included a 2 bedroom suite in the basement to be rented out because that income would help tremendously with my mortgage. I even considered building a laneway house too, but my lot is 0.8 ft too narrow (yes, 10 inches).

I don't want to share my property with others, but I kinda need the money.

How many home owners in West Vancouver need the money?

[snails]

^ all depends on the tenant, my landlords have to sacrifice half their driveway for me, my car will not be parked on the street but in exchange they never hear me, never have a problem and they get their money ontime. in a nicer neighborhood i think there will be less chance of low class tenants, they might respect themselves and property more due to the value of the place

[melloman]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Let me ask you this - if you don't need the money, would you want to share your property with someone else?

This is how your confusing me.. Just with this statement.

It's an OPPURTUNITY for someone to build a coach house on their property. It is NOT MANDATORY for every house on the block to have one.

The city is just proposing the concept to the residents to see if they like the idea or not. Ofcourse if it passes, some people will not like this, and developers will come in and "destroy" the neighbourhood by building tons of these.

And just to solidify my thinking, please tell me how a coach house differs from a "pool house" that is equipped with a kitchen, living room, bathroom, bedroom. (Because we all know those rich fucks like pools, and a "pool house" or "nanny suite" is CLEARLY different. )

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by melloman

This is how your confusing me.. Just with this statement.

It's an OPPURTUNITY for someone to build a coach house on their property. It is NOT MANDATORY for every house on the block to have one.

The city is just proposing the concept to the residents to see if they like the idea or not. Ofcourse if it passes, some people will not like this, and developers will come in and "destroy" the neighbourhood by building tons of these.

And just to solidify my thinking, please tell me how a coach house differs from a "pool house" that is equipped with a kitchen, living room, bathroom, bedroom. (Because we all know those rich fucks like pools, and a "pool house" or "nanny suite" is CLEARLY different. )

Point taken. I am forgetting the fact that the city is simply looking at giving home owners the opportunity to build a coach house.

However, I'm still thinking that most West Van home owners will say "no, I don't want a coach house, and I don't want my neighbour to have the choice of having one either". You know, rich fucks are selfish, and like telling others what they can/cannot do!

Interesting thing - in upscale neighbourhoods, these standalone buildings are often called coach houses, whereas in less expensive areas, they're called laneway houses.

A coach/laneway house is a legal suite with a separate address, and can be rented out to a third party. A pool house/nanny suite does not have a separate address and cannot be legally rented out.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by melloman

It's an OPPURTUNITY for someone to build a coach house on their property. It is NOT MANDATORY for every house on the block to have one.

The city is just proposing the concept to the residents to see if they like the idea or not. Ofcourse if it passes, some people will not like this, and developers will come in and "destroy" the neighbourhood by building tons of these.

good point. not everyone would want to throw down $200k-ish to build one.

if these structures pop up left and right....we'll see more buckets and crates on the public street ala east van to block parking spots off in front of houses

[urban.boi]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Let me ask you this - if you don't need the money, would you want to share your property with someone else?

I am currently building a new house (basement + 2 levels) in Vancouver, just west of Main. I have included a 2 bedroom suite in the basement to be rented out because that income would help tremendously with my mortgage. I even considered building a laneway house too, but my lot is 0.8 ft too narrow (yes, 10 inches).

I don't want to share my property with others, but I kinda need the money.

Smart choice. Having someone else cover your mortgage for you this way. And once you build up enough capital you can just buy another property and rent out the rest of the space.
I just finish doing what you did cept with the added laneway house. Cambie and SW Marine dr.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Let me ask you this - if you don't need the money, would you want to share your property with someone else?

No, when I was looking for a new home every house on my street (except 4) had carriage houses over the garage. I didn't need the rental income so I chose to go with the house without the carriage home. As an investment the home over the garage would have paid for itself within 4 years but I didn't want to deal with the headaches of renting. There is also the privacy thing, I have little kids, I have a dog I don't want people fucking with my shit or my family. I can see why people do it houses are fucking expensive but honestly from some of the issues my neighbors have had with tenants I don't regret it one little bit. That's not to say some people don't mind doing it and make a tidy little bit of money doing it, just not for me.

In that area of Vancouver where they are proposing it there is nothing wrong with making it legal IMO. If the demand is there they'll be built and if it isn't they won't. Who am I to judge what people want in there own neighborhood?