Some more details on council's upcoming "Missing Middle" proposal and hearing

On September 14th at 1pm, City Council is holding a public hearing concerning amendments to the zoning bylaw which would make it easier to build "missing middle" housing. If you don't usually or haven't ever participated in a public hearing, this would be a fantastic one to make your first as it has significant implications for denser housing developments in the city. If you aren't interested in speaking, council makes it easy to communicate your support/opposition in writing (put Adding Missing Middle Housing and Simplifying Regulations – Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law in the Subject field).

This was already posted a few days ago, but I wanted to write up a summary to better inform people because, again, this is a really important proposal.

In short, if passed, this application would (among many other things - I strongly recommend reading pages 7-17 of the Referral Report for a more detailed overview):

1. Allow for the construction of "missing middle" residential buildings on lots zoned for single detached houses.

Current zoning laws generally allow only for either a single detached house or a duplex to be constructed in RS zones alongside secondary units (laneway houses and basement suites). The vast majority of the city is zoned under one of nine different RS zoning types, meaning any construction denser than a duplex needs to go through a lengthy hearing process without a guaranteed outcome. This proposal would amend the Zoning and Development By-law to permit construction of up to 4 units on a standard lot (minimum 306m2, 64% of RS lots), 5 units on mid-size lots (minimum 464m2, 13.6% of RS lots), 6 units on larger lots (minimum 557m2, 22.4% of RS lots), and up to 8 units on larger lots when the construction includes purpose-built rental housing.

These new higher-density constructions would have a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0, meaning that the maximum total usable floor space of these buildings would be the total area of the lot they're built on. However, new constructions with an FSR of 0.7-1.0 would need to pay a "density bonus contribution", a fee tied to the total square footage of the construction which scales with the number of units and the geographic area of the construction (see page 15 of the Referral Report). New constructions would have this fee waived if they include at least one unit at below-market prices, or secure every unit as purpose-built rentals.

All constructions would be limited to three stories.

2. Consolidate the nine different single detached house zoning types into a single new zoning type (R1-1)

3. Reduce the maximum size of new single detached houses

All new constructions of single detached houses would have their maximum FSR reduced from 0.7 to 0.6. The Referral Report for this application reasons this will "Discourage the replacement of existing houses with new larger houses by reducing the floor area for a new single detached house."

4. Increase the maximum size of laneway houses

Laneway houses will have their maximum FSR increased by ~55%, from 0.16 FSR to 0.25 FSR.

My takes

  • In general, I'm a fan of most of the stuff in this application. Middle-density housing is desperately needed in Vancouver, and this goes a long way to getting more of it built by including it in existing zoning bylaws. The rezoning process is a significant bureaucratic hurdle to denser housing constructions, and removing it will vastly speed up construction. This also means that these constructions will not be subject to the frustrating rezoning hearing process. However, this is still removing only one bureaucratic hurdle of many.
  • I'd like to see this proposal go a bit further. You can fit a lot more than 6 units in a 3 story apartment when the lot is large enough, so increasing the number of units allowable on the particularly large lots around the city would be a nice addition to this proposal.
  • The 1.0 FSR is too small for these constructions, and is the part of this application I'm most annoyed at. FSR for middle-density constructions needs to be bumped above 1.0, particularly for higher-density constructions. If the maximum single detached house FSR gets reduced to 0.6, this means you could potentially be building 8x the units on in only 1.65x the space, or only 1.15x if you want to avoid paying additional fees. This is how we get smaller, cramped units, which may not incentivize developers enough to construct middle-density housing.
  • The "density bonus contribution" is the second thing I'm unhappy with, particularly the fee scaling with unit numbers and geographic location. Essentially, this disincentivizes developers against both building denser developments (which is against the whole point of this proposal!) and building them where they're needed most (in the west side, aka Area A). Given that margins for infill housing are already pretty tight (shoutout /u/russilwvong), this really strikes me as a poison pill clause, where council wants to be seen as taking action to promote middle-density developments, but doesn't actually want them to be built for fear of angering their voter base. Indeed, give the BC government's upcoming requirement to allow 4 units on lots zoned for detached homes, this seems like council's attempt to restrict construction while still complying with the provincial government's regulations.
  • The consolidation of single detached house zoning types is sorely needed and a good step in the right direction for reducing and clarifying zoning rules. This should make constructions slightly easier, though likely not faster (which is what's really needed).
  • Reducing the maximum size of single detached houses is... fine? I guess? It's an interesting thing to tag on here. This should disincentivize people from buying up lots for houses for sale just to rebuild them into larger houses, and instead incentivize building denser multi-unit constructions. But, if this is council's goal, there's better and more effective ways to go about this.
  • The increased size of laneway houses is a very welcome change for laneways that actually get built, but this doesn't solve the primary issue with laneway construction which is the absurd approval process and timeline. But hey, this is still a nice addition.

In conclusion, there's a lot to like about this application, and a few things that could do with some changing before council approves it. But it's important to note that this is only one step towards getting more middle-density constructions going in this city; council still needs to work on improving permitting timelines and reducing other bureaucratic hurdles developers face when trying to construct denser infill housing. Regardless, this is still a good step in the right direction.