B.C.’s big boom in little houses

Published Friday, Oct. 29, 2010 8:57PM EDTLast updated Friday, Oct. 29, 2010 9:00PM EDT2 comments

Allan Bernardo’s new house in south Vancouver cost him a little more than he had originally thought. Somewhere over $200,000.

But the laneway house that he had built behind his parents’ home was still a bargain compared to any condo he could have bought in the city: The cheapest, older condos listed these days start at $204,000. The laneway option was also half the price of the smallest house available in Vancouver and well below the $681,000 average.

Instead he got a new place built to high-level green standards, with top-quality, durable materials. And he doesn’t have to leave the city.

“I could have done what my friends have done and moved to Surrey or Langley or Coquitlam. But I wanted to stay here,” said Mr. Bernardo, 35, who works in the warehouse at London Drugs. “And this way, I don’t have to worry about strata fees or maintenance.”

Mr. Bernardo and his parents made a choice that is proving to be increasingly popular in the Lower Mainland, as high-altitude house prices and shifting lifestyles have combined with a push for urban densification from city planners. Cheering them on are the lower-carbon-footprint advocates.

At the head of that parade is Vancouver, which introduced a new policy a year ago that allows small houses to be built behind any single-family house in the city that has a lot wider than 33 feet as well as access to a lane or road.

So far, nearly 200 applications have come in – a number that has made Vancouver a North American leader in enthusiasm for this new form of housing.

Many other Lower Mainland municipalities are also on board, albeit with a few more restrictions and cautions than Vancouver.

For 10 years, Surrey has allowed coach houses in certain zones – its new-urbanist development of East Clayton, as well as south Newton, Douglas, Grandview – and the city has nearly 700 of them, which represents almost half the sites where they’re permitted. “It’s something that allows a young couple to meet bank requirements for a mortgage,” said Surrey’s head of planning, Jean Lamontagne.

The City of North Vancouver and Maple Ridge also permit laneway houses.

And others are joining in. Richmond is asking its residents in public consultations whether to allow what it calls coach houses or granny flats anywhere in the municipality. (In Richmond, coach houses are apartments above garages. Granny flats are one-storey standalone houses at the back of the lot.)

That’s all part of Richmond’s move to allow all kinds of new housing forms to flourish in what had once been a monoculture of large single-family homes, as people look for options for their aging parents or for adult children priced out of the housing market.

“This is a new choice and we’re asking people if they would like it,” says Terry Crowe, Richmond’s manager of policy planning.

Coquitlam and West Vancouver, along with Victoria over on Vancouver Island, are also contemplating allowing laneway houses.

Where did the mania for these small, infill houses come from? Besides their appeal for the mortgage-overloaded and the extended families, there are political and environmental reasons.

“This was a low-risk, low-political-cost way of densifying without incurring the wrath of these wealthy homeowner groups,” said Lance Berelowitz, an urban planner and author of Dream City: Vancouver and the Global Imagination.

Mr. Berelowitz points out that, as much as advocates champion laneway houses as solutions to affordable housing, they’re not. Even if Vancouver builds 100 a year for 10 years, that will work out to an amount of housing that is no more than a few condo towers.

View the original article here

Sound, fury and little substance on language law

Lysiane GagnonPublished Monday, Oct. 25, 2010 5:00AM EDTLast updated Monday, Oct. 25, 2010 9:13AM EDT20 comments

Should parents be free to pay out of their own pockets to provide their kids with an education in English? Should a state allow moneyed people to circumvent a law? Should one be able to “buy” a right?

These are some of the questions that were raised all last week in Quebec, as a tough battle in the National Assembly pitted the governing Liberals against the Parti Québécois opposition around a bill that both francophone activists and anglophones equally hate, albeit, of course, for different reasons.

At the root of the debate is the Charte de la langue française, which made French the official language of the province in 1977 and stipulates that all immigrants, as well as old-stock families where at least one parent hasn’t been educated in English, must send their children to French schools. This is perfectly justifiable, since the main danger to the survival of French, a minority language in North America, was that too many immigrants would be, quite naturally, attracted to the English school system.

By and large, the law was, and still is, a great success: Generations of new Quebeckers have integrated into the French majority. The co-existence in the same schools of children from various backgrounds allowed the old-stock francophone population, in Montreal at least, to become more heterogeneous and multicultural.

Don’t think for a minute that young, non-anglophone immigrants “stuck” in the French system don’t learn English. They do, with a vengeance, if only because the pressure to learn this international language is irresistible. In fact, these kids are trilingual, which will give them a formidable edge in the labour market.

But the law, as strict as it was, had a loophole. Children who had part of their primary education in English could be admitted into the English school system. This was a window of opportunity for the private, non-subsidized English schools. In exchange for as much as $12,000 a year, one could buy, for their children and all their descendants, the right to be educated in the English public school system. Quebec tried to outlaw these “bridging schools,” but the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the law was unconstitutional.

The PQ wanted the notwithstanding clause to be invoked against the Supreme Court decision, but the new law that was adopted last week in the National Assembly is as stringent as it can be: A child will have to have spent three full years in a private English school to have a chance to transfer to the anglophone public network – and this transfer is far from guaranteed, since the application will be judged for “authenticity” by a panel of bureaucrats who will apply a lengthy set of regulations. If, for instance, the child had a sister in the French school system, the application would be denied. Who will risk spending up to $36,000 in vain?

Tellingly, these “bridging” schools were mostly used not by immigrants, but by well-to-do francophone families who desperately wanted their child to be perfectly bilingual – an elusive goal for those who live in a totally French environment, especially considering how badly English is taught in the French school system.

In a sense, this furious debate was much ado about nothing. Very few parents will use a smaller-than-ever loophole. Once again, the new law will be contested in court by anglophone lobby groups. And nothing will have been done to force the French schools to improve the teaching of English as a second language.

View the original article here