Dear Editor:
Re: Laneway housing is no solution, Letters to the editor, The Record, Jan. 22.
Jim Hutson contends that permitting laneway houses will cause the number of demolitions to accelerate. This is unlikely. Growing numbers of older homes are already being demolished in areas that do not allow laneway houses. And when an old house is demolished, the developer will almost always build the new one to the maximum allowed floorspace whether or not this includes a legal laneway house.
It is often uneconomic to augment usable living space by building an addition onto an older smaller house. Typically the way to get more value from the lot is to demolish the old house and build a bigger new house, or sell to a developer who will do the same. But if a laneway house can be built, the value of additional living space on the lot can be realized without having to demolish the original house. Having the additional living space in a separate building rather than in one or more secondary suites makes the laneway house a good solution for an adult child who cannot afford to buy, aging parents, or for renting out to help a retired couple stay in their original home.
Allowing laneway houses will tend to reduce the number of demolitions rather than increase them.
Laneway houses can help preserve the character of a neighbourhood by allowing more of the existing homes to be retained. Thoughtful densification also reduces pressures for rezoning for apartments and townhouses.
Lack of affordability is a criticism that can be levelled against anything that is built in Metro Vancouver, but it is not a reason to disallow laneway houses. Anything that increases the housing supply will help affordability, and building a laneway house behind an older house is less costly than demolishing the older house and building a bigger new house, both in terms of cost and ecological impact.
Frank Norman, New Westminster
