Planner and former MLA Art Cowie clarifies exactly what a Fee-Simple Rowhouse is.

Fee-Simple Rowhouse
Before moving to Vancouver in 1966 to study community and regional planning at the University of British Columbia, I traveled and worked for several years as a landscape architect helping to design a dozen neighbourhoods in 'New Towns' in Australia, England, Scotland and in the military town of Oromocto in New Brunswick, Canada. These were urban communities unlike the sprawling subdivisions with shopping centres that passed for new towns here in British Columbia at the time. A lot of the houses in these new towns were joined rowhouses that were traditional in cities and villages all over the world before the creation of the motor vehicle and sprawling highways.

During this time I developed a respect and passion for fee-simple rowhousing where families can own their own lot with a front and back door and a private garden where they could grow vegetables and plant what trees and shrubs they like without asking permission from an unpredictable strata council. While in Sydney, Australia in 1963, I bought a turn of the century rowhouse in the inner city area of Paddington not far from famous Bondi Beach and a short distance by transit to the city centre. The rowhouse needed repairs and the price was $6,000 Canadian.

Typical rowhouses in Paddington before being renovated

These particular houses were originally built around 1895 with hand made brick joint party walls with a plaster finish. The front and back walls were also built of brick and plaster and the roof was slate that came from Britain as ballast in sailing ships. The widths of these homes vary from 12.5 to 24 feet and on some more expensive areas they are as wide as 36 feet. Each lot has at least one small single garage and back garden. I gutted the inside of my house and completely modernized it with a small home office with a view to Sydney Harbour in the distance. I restored the outside original look with cast iron gates and colorful frieze.

The whole area has been restored since with several small parks and street tree planting and some rowhouses have been converted to small tourist shops and coffee houses. There is a pub, art gallery, or grocery store on every second corner. My rowhouse was sold two years later for $12,000 just before I returned to England and later moved to Vancouver. I remember making a profit of $2,000. I am told that this rowhouse is now worth over $1M!

Restored 1895 Paddington Rowhouse

Ground floor of Rowhouse converted to a shop

Several attempts to design and build fee-simple rowhouses in Vancouver
In the early 1970's I bought a 66 foot wide lot on the south west corner of 8^th Avenue and Tolmie Street just a block away from several highrise apartment buildings on 10^th Avenue in Point Grey. I engaged talented Architect Richard Renriquez to work with me on what I thought would be an innovative way to own an affordable home. The plan was to build a 20 foot wide zero lot home on both sides of the lot and later when more density would be allowed, a infill unit would go in the centre. Each home was to be around 1,600 square feet in size with front and back enclosed gardens and a carport. The cost of an individual lot and a new home would be around $20,000. I didn't even get a chance to apply at city hall. My neighbour to the west who also owned an old house on a 66 foot wide lot went nuts when I approached him for support and he organized opposition up and down the street. He was the first NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) that I encountered.

Model of proposed three rowhouses at 8th Ave. and Tolmie St.

I wasn't about to take on my neighbours in an expensive battle when there was unpredictable support in the planning department at that time and I sold the property to a builder who subdivided the lot and build two ugly "Vancouver Specials". It took the neighbour ages to sell his property and eventually two more priceless Vancouver Specials were built. It is sad that there was little imagination in the single family home building in Vancouver in the 1970's and this situation still remains. The RS5 zoning guidelines were established in much of the Westside in the 1990's to enhance house design. In my opinion, all these guidelines have done is to promote mock heritage looking homes that are larger than ever and less and less affordable.

In 2004 I thought it was time for the city to embrace Fee-Simple Rowhousing
Most great cities of the world have fee simple row housing, except Vancouver. Why is this form of housing not allowed here? There is no simple answer. In the 1970's the provincial government passed strata ownership legislation and municipalities have been using this form of ownership in British Columbia even for the smallest of multi-housing developments, even duplexes. It is time to get away from this when possible for at least rowhousing with a Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 or less for the following reasons:

• Not everyone wants to live in a high rise or mid-level condo building in the downtown or in neighbourhood centres, but they still want to live close to the city downtown;
• Ground oriented alternatives are feasible, at various densities, size and costs, in the fee-simple row house concept;
• Vancouver could grow by 100,000 people in the next 20 years, with detached single family homes becoming more scarce and prohibitively expensive;
• For families wanting to own their own residential lot and avoid strata ownership (with the hassles of strata governance), the fee-simple rowhouse is a sensible alternative.

When this form of housing takes off in Vancouver in the next year or so, we could see up to twenty-five percent of housing outside of the city centre providing fee-simple living, an alternative not now possible. Why would anyone want to live in a strata rowhouse condo when this alternative is available?

2876 33^rd Avenue at MacKenzie Street City Demonstration Project
My wife and I bought a 60 ft. wide lot opposite the small one story neighbourhood shopping centre at 33^rd and MacKenzie, which according to ARKS Vision Plan should be ideal an location for fee-simple or other forms of rowhouses. There is an existing nine unit three story condo development on the next property on the corner.

Front view of the model

Side view of the model showing garages

After applying for rezoning through the city demonstration program and presenting the concept to my immediate neighbours I held an Open House in the barber shop opposite on a Monday afternoon and evening. I felt that most of the immediate neighbours liked the concept. Our architect Richard Balfour did an excellent design. Although there is no consistent design theme in the immediate area, some neighbours felt we should have designed the rowhouses with heritage like pitched roofs. I explained to my neighbours that flat roofs are far more efficient and better for incorporating environmental components such as solar panels. It is also possible to reduce the overall height. The condo building next door has a flat roof. The design received unanimous support from the Advisory Urban Design Panel and was supported by city planning staff.

Just prior to public hearing two local realtors from MACDONALD REALTY took it upon themselves to raise alarm about this form of housing and the contemporary design. They distributed 4,000 notices in the area with their names and real estate company on them (probably illegal since they didn't have permission from the company). After I complained, they sent out 4,000 more anonymously opposing the rezoning. I found out from a prominent realtor friend later that what these two agents were doing was promoting themselves at my expense.

Unfortunately at the subsequent Public Hearing, some council members got caught up in the NIMBY rhetoric and the application was rejected. We had spent nearly 2 years and close to $100,000 on planning, surveying, architectural and engineering design and application permits. We were later allowed to subdivide and sell the property as two lots for traditional houses that were consistent in design with the old three story house on the lot to the east with a pitched roof.

After the houses were built, the old house was demolished and this property subdivided into two lots. There are houses being built now and my guess is that they will look very similar to the two houses that were built on our property. Something isn't right about this design process which forces builders into a heritage design theme without any real reason. A complete review of the RS5 zoning needs to take place.

Bias for traditional design
There are several recently built strata owned townhouse developments in the Cambie/Oak area and more are being built. They have quickly sold out so one has to assume they are popular. They typically look alike with traditional Tudor inspired designs and pitched roofs. The most recent have sold in the $700 a square foot range. They have few environmentally green features.

The Willows on Willow Street near 41st Avenue

The curious might ask - "why the traditional design?" You will get the answer from the architects that if they approached the designs from a contemporary design theme as they would have liked to do, the approval process would be at least 4 months longer. The planning department has shown in the past a preference for traditional designs probably because of resident concerns and attitudes and the developers can't afford to waste 4 months time with the money clock running.

Contemporary Designed Fee-Simple Rowhouses

Front view of Cambie rowhouses

Side view showing suites over garages.

A number of policy regulations pertaining to addressing and fire access to the suites had to be clarified and we are still working on an the party wall agreement. The Advisory Urban Design Panel approved of the design in spite of some views expressed by one panel member that the site warranted higher density. The Vision Plan called for rowhousing and I felt that this use and density was appropriate for this area along Cambie Street.

The application went to public hearing on March 13, 2007 and all council members voted in favour and they congratulated us for our efforts in sticking with this innovative concept. There were no delegations against the proposal. It looks as if the Cambie neighbourhood is a more accepting community when it comes to contemporary design and innovation than some other parts of the city (although the impact of the Canada Line development may have reversed the "fortress neighbourhood" perception prevalent in the previous area we attempted this concept). Our neighbours like the design and some have expressed the desire to do something similar. My two neighbours to the north have expressed a desire to extend the same design concept to their lots, which I think would be appropriate, especially facing the Cambie Boulevard and Queen Elizabeth Park. It would be a classic use of rowhouses.

Since the public hearing, we have been working closely with the planning department on the development permit and other requirements. The party wall is the big issue and requires the legal department to report on its use before we can officially proceed further. This one item has held us up for three months. In the meanwhile our team is working on the construction plans for Building Permit application. Because of the delays with the party wall agreement and the city strike, we may not be able to get the required permits and financing on time to proceed with building this year, and may have to wait until February 2008.

Thanks to Graham Murchie, 'of PeoplePlans' for reviewing and editing this article.