Login / RegisterVancouver urban design panel rejects Cedar Cottage cohousing proposal
Making a cohousing breakthrough in Vancouver is proving to be challenging.
Where a previous attempt didn’t succeed because of the difficulty in assembling land, a recent rezoning-and-development application that covers three available lots has been sent back to the drawing board.
The Cedar Cottage Cohousing Company has again failed to win the support of the city’s urban design panel for a multifamily residential building in the 1700 block of East 33rd Avenue.
The panel is composed of members appointed by council to provide professional advice on development projects seeking city approval. For the second time, it didn’t endorse the plan, this time at its January 16 meeting.
Cohousing is a model that emphasizes cooperation among homeowners, from the conceptualization to the development and management of their buildings. Although homes are individually owned, projects feature common areas that typically include a community kitchen and dining hall.
There are cohousing developments in a number of cities in the Lower Mainland, but Vancouver has none. According to Cedar Cottage project manager Yonas Jongkind, the urban design panel had concerns about density, height, and the siting of the proposed 3.5-storey building containing 31 housing units.
“We feel a little frustrated,” Jongkind told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. “We feel a little disheartened by it, and the urban design panel feels that we’re not adequately respectful of the single-family context.”
Cedar Cottage intends to present a revised application. Jongkind said, “We need to figure out how we can create a proposal that meets our needs as a cohousing [group] and meets everyone else’s needs.”
Their first proposal was for 27 units. It met with overwhelming opposition. Despite this opposition they came back with a new proposal for 29 units. The response was again, vocal and negative.
This final proposal is for 31 units. So much for compromise.
Rather than address the community's concern about height, mass, views, and shadows they totally ignored them.
They talk about a lifestyle that embraces cooperation, consensus and caring. Where is it in their dealings with their potential new neighbours?
The Urban Design Panel described the proposal as 'not adequately respectful of the single family context.' That's putting it mildly.
I wonder if Rod's comments are more in reaction to increased density rather than the group proposing the density? I can't say I have ever heard of single-family homeowners welcoming anything other than the status quo for housing development in their immediate area.
I think the relentless force of inevitable consquences means that higher density is coming: the questions are how and when? With single-family houses costing $800k to $1M in Vancouver, change in neighborhoods is inevitable. We may see millionaires displacing the middle class. Or perhaps uncontrolled and semi-legal density (mutliple families and wage earners in a house, secondary and tertiary suites, business and residetial combined) with their attendant parking, building safety and esthetic challenges. Or planned redevelopment to higher-densiy housing (tear down single-family-homes and build multi-family).
Cohousing is a pleasant and human way to achieve the density and affordability needed by regular folks who can afford $400 to $500k for a home, but have no way to afford $800 to $1M. The Vancouver special on a 33 x 120 lot is not the last word in housing - what we did in the '70s and '80s is not the only future.