Yesterday I sat in the kitchen of our neighbhours immediately south of us and introduced our project over homemade ginger cookies. Mary and John* have lived in their house since the 1950s and are in many ways the heart of the neighbourhood. They know all the stories. They know everyone who lives on the block and everyone who used to live on the block. They know about the developments that have come and the ones that have been pushed away. They built onto their own tiny bungalow as their family grew to five kids. Mary showed me two photos in their front hall: one of the original 1940s bungalow and another with the first addition that John built himself in the evenings after work.
Given their status and history with the neighbhourhood, as well as the fact that they would be right next to our proposed new house, I felt they needed to be one of the very first I approached about our plans.
Mary’s first reaction was to say, “Oh, you’ll have a fight on your hands!” Something about ‘those small lot projects’ sounded like a sticking point for many in the neighbhourhood. She told a few stories of how the neighbhours had mobilized against past developments. She mentioned one fellow a block over who originally wanted to subdivide. All the neighbhours came out in protest, and in the end he built a duplex in the style of a heritage house, which Mary thought was beautiful. Many houses in the neighbourhood have been added to, or have been divided into suites over the years.
I asked Mary if she could describe the basis for resistance to past projects. “It’s change,” she said.
After feeling buoyed by my recent meeting with Ian Scott, I now feel deflated again. I realize I could do a better job of describing the project’s benefits, yet I don’t want to throw a big list out there the first time we talk. Neither do I want to have a fight on my hands. I want to have constructive conversations with our neighbours; to understand the issues and address them as best we can. This is our home too, after all, and we envision ourselves being here for the long-term.
And frankly, our property is ripe for development. It is the third property in from Oak Bay Avenue. It is the first house after the large mixed use building on the corner and the 6-unit townhouse next door. The house itself would have little value to a pure investor developer. Something will happen with this lot. A pure developer would surely tear down the existing house and fill the lot with as much square footage as possible. If we can accept that something will happen to our property, what is the best possible outcome? We think it’s a modest increase in density that maintains the neighbourhood’s single family character. We think it’s breathing new life into a solid 100+ year old home so it goes strong for another 100+ years. As a bonus, it will use a fraction of the energy it uses now.
We also think it’s creating a showcase – one new and one existing – of healthy, comfortable, ultra-low energy, high quality homes that go well beyond what is required by code. We want to show what is possible if we push ourselves a little to consider benefits beyond financial return and quality indicators beyond countertop material.
We think it’s even things like putting some thought and effort into the landscaping design so that people enjoy walking by and stopping for a chat.
So that’s me on my soapbox for today. I must maintain my enthusiasm, and, as always…be patient.
*Names changed to respect privacy.
Leave a Reply