1. The Vancouver Special originated as a way to evade zoning regulations. The lower floor is 18" below grade which qualified it as a "basement" not counting towards floor area ratio calculations.
2. Once the design became widespread, the building permitting process was streamlined -- there was no need for a detailed review of plans if they were identical to previously approved homes.
3. These were fundamentally "cheap and fast" housing, and have a poor reputation not so much for their conformity as for the poor quality construction.
4. As a cost saving measure, Vancouver Specials often came with "unfinished basements". An entire generation of Vancouver homeowners learned to install drywall -- and often electrical and plumbing -- which further contributes to the poor quality of the construction.
It led to a situation where the law was at odds with reality on the ground (tens of thousands of people living in technically-illegal suites), and I think that was a huge factor in Vancouver's decision to (finally) legalize secondary suites across the city in 2004.
Not sure if this is still the case ~25 years later, but when I lived in Vancouver in the late 90s, a lot of those DIY-finished basements were set up as (probably off-the-books) rental units to help cover the homeowners' mortgages.
I lived in one of those for about a year in-between actual apartments, and always thought it was weird how it was just slightly below grade. Thank you for solving that mystery :).
Re: 3 funny to see 1) how people often point to how we need "cheap and fast" simple housing to fix affordability issues, and then get mad at all the "cookie cutter" housing that results from the implementation of this idea.
and 2) these maligned "cheap and fast" building styles eventually become (at least somewhat) loved.
Looking at a generation of houses before the Vancouver Special, it's abundantly clear that all the 1910s era heritage homes one finds near downtown are also pretty much all tweaks on a similar core design, just like the Vancouver Special.
In some Vancouver specials, this plumbing in the "basement" has a drainage problem. As a plumber once told me, circa 1991, there are two rules in the business: (1) shit flows downhill and (2) payday is Friday. In some of these fake basements, the sewage line is well above ground level. Thus, you see weird installations like showers and toilets raised a foot above the floor or more on a little deck. I saw one house many years ago whose owner boasted of the "throne" toilet, haha.
Thanks. I was trying to figure out where the "monster homes" appellation was coming from. It evokes McMansions but it's more about reach and spread than size.
FAR zoning not allowing for a simple 2 story home seems absurd but I suppose those were written to imply a certain setback from the property line.
The concept of a cheap, post-war house that you can finish out yourself is great... for certain places. There isn't really room in Vancouver for them any more, as [Vancouverism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism) has taken over much of the city (i.e. low podium of 2-4 floors with a slender 100m tower).
Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m high buildings). There isn't really very much housing stock in between single family homes and 30 story buildings, and getting those larger high rises built is expensive, and time consuming.
> "...'the missing middle' (i.e. 20-30m high buildings)..."
the missing middle isn't just what's between two extremes, so here, it's not 20-30m (~65-100ft, or roughly 6-10 stories) as you've stated, though i'd certainly prefer cities to adopt zoning that allows much more density too (along with the mixed-zoning, public transportation and micromobility upgrades needed to support that density).
the missing middle specifically refers to 2-6 story stick-framed buildings that can be built quickly and cheaply while also providing ~4-10× the density of single-family zoning. 6-10 story buildings don't fall in this category since they usually need at least a concrete podium for the first 1-4 stories, which puts it in a different (higher-priced) construction category.
the missing middle is literally the space between single-family homes and the 6+ story buildings that require more expensive construction techniques.
A 3-bedroom rental unit is considered "affordable" if it rents at $4000/mo, or $48k/y[1]. The poverty line is at $60k[2] for a family of four. The city is encouraging developers to supply housing at a full 80% of poverty-level income, and wondering why tent cities keep growing.
I grew up in a prewar house in EastVan but the neighborhood had a lot of these houses around it, usually filled with East Asian or Indian immigrants. Taking the Skytrain was so fun as a kid. It was certainly a unique experience. The big culture shock for me was moving to New York and having to deal with large five-floor walkups in Queens, but the diversity was just the same. And the subway was so much bigger.
Truth be told, while I have a lot of nostalgia of the Vancouver of the 90s, I've since been back to visit and if given the choice, I would pick living in New York every time.
I'm under the impression that despite being maligned in the middle of the century Vancouver Specials are in relative high demand compared to houses newer and older because of how their basic flexible layouts make things relatively simple for new modern renovations.
I'm shocked by the memories that photo has unlocked. Early 90s road trip with my parents to their friends' living in Vancouver. Sleepless nights in the summer heat and humidity with no AC. All while reading Cliff Stoll's classic The Cuckoo's Egg.
Sleepless nights in the summer heat in Vancouver? Was this during a heatwave? Because average highs in July-August in Vancouver are just 22.2c: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#Climate
cperciva|3 years ago
1. The Vancouver Special originated as a way to evade zoning regulations. The lower floor is 18" below grade which qualified it as a "basement" not counting towards floor area ratio calculations.
2. Once the design became widespread, the building permitting process was streamlined -- there was no need for a detailed review of plans if they were identical to previously approved homes.
3. These were fundamentally "cheap and fast" housing, and have a poor reputation not so much for their conformity as for the poor quality construction.
4. As a cost saving measure, Vancouver Specials often came with "unfinished basements". An entire generation of Vancouver homeowners learned to install drywall -- and often electrical and plumbing -- which further contributes to the poor quality of the construction.
ripley12|3 years ago
Their design was optimized for 2 suites even though they were usually built in single-family zoning districts; enforcement of the 1-family rule was fairly lax: https://twitter.com/GRIDSVancouver/status/134921351159592140...
It led to a situation where the law was at odds with reality on the ground (tens of thousands of people living in technically-illegal suites), and I think that was a huge factor in Vancouver's decision to (finally) legalize secondary suites across the city in 2004.
blincoln|3 years ago
I lived in one of those for about a year in-between actual apartments, and always thought it was weird how it was just slightly below grade. Thank you for solving that mystery :).
Tiktaalik|3 years ago
and 2) these maligned "cheap and fast" building styles eventually become (at least somewhat) loved.
Looking at a generation of houses before the Vancouver Special, it's abundantly clear that all the 1910s era heritage homes one finds near downtown are also pretty much all tweaks on a similar core design, just like the Vancouver Special.
Mezzie|3 years ago
kazinator|3 years ago
Steltek|3 years ago
FAR zoning not allowing for a simple 2 story home seems absurd but I suppose those were written to imply a certain setback from the property line.
SnowProblem|3 years ago
srhngpr|3 years ago
Patrick_Devine|3 years ago
Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m high buildings). There isn't really very much housing stock in between single family homes and 30 story buildings, and getting those larger high rises built is expensive, and time consuming.
ripley12|3 years ago
There are plenty of towers downtown but the rest of Vancouver (i.e. most of the city by land area) is still zoned for suburban levels of density: https://twitter.com/Scott_dLB/status/1599177703466610688
clairity|3 years ago
the missing middle isn't just what's between two extremes, so here, it's not 20-30m (~65-100ft, or roughly 6-10 stories) as you've stated, though i'd certainly prefer cities to adopt zoning that allows much more density too (along with the mixed-zoning, public transportation and micromobility upgrades needed to support that density).
the missing middle specifically refers to 2-6 story stick-framed buildings that can be built quickly and cheaply while also providing ~4-10× the density of single-family zoning. 6-10 story buildings don't fall in this category since they usually need at least a concrete podium for the first 1-4 stories, which puts it in a different (higher-priced) construction category.
the missing middle is literally the space between single-family homes and the 6+ story buildings that require more expensive construction techniques.
klyrs|3 years ago
A 3-bedroom rental unit is considered "affordable" if it rents at $4000/mo, or $48k/y[1]. The poverty line is at $60k[2] for a family of four. The city is encouraging developers to supply housing at a full 80% of poverty-level income, and wondering why tent cities keep growing.
[1] https://www.straight.com/news/4094-rent-for-three-bedrooms-n...
[2] https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/national-news/new-study-c...
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
Tokkemon|3 years ago
Truth be told, while I have a lot of nostalgia of the Vancouver of the 90s, I've since been back to visit and if given the choice, I would pick living in New York every time.
huhtenberg|3 years ago
https://www.darcyjones.com/430-house
Tiktaalik|3 years ago
I'm under the impression that despite being maligned in the middle of the century Vancouver Specials are in relative high demand compared to houses newer and older because of how their basic flexible layouts make things relatively simple for new modern renovations.
nikanj|3 years ago
emacsen|3 years ago
It is like this in the nearby suburbs as well (Burnaby, Richmond, etc.)?
papandada|3 years ago
ido|3 years ago
_whiteCaps_|3 years ago
My kids like to play count the Vancouver Special when we drive down 1st Ave.
Tiktaalik|3 years ago
His ‘Revenge’ on Architects Was the Vancouver Special
https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2019/12/17/Vancouver-Special-Reve...
kridsdale1|3 years ago
Most people in my circles (UBC engineering and humanities) agreed with this appellation. I wonder if it’s still used.
moneywoes|3 years ago