This is Part 4 in a series. If you haven't already, you can check out Part 1 in "Rumble on Craven Row," Part 2 in "How About a Craven Row Challenge?", and Part 3 in "Thoroughly Modern Through-Lots."
I've approached a few architecture profs and departments with the idea of a Craven Row Challenge, but haven't had a bite yet.
In the meantime, the video below highlights a fascinating initiative in Vancouver called Decoding Density, an "international contest [that] addresses two of the most existential problems today: climate change and housing affordability."
Click to jump to an argument that "one key rule that we should modify" relates to setbacks:
Click to jump to an argument that "one key rule that we should modify" relates to setbacks:
This is a very cool thought experiment.
For the sake of fairness, here's another.
Imagine Parkmount Road if its front-yard setback rules changed to match those currently governing the west side of Craven Road. This is 331 Coxwell Ave, which was "a shoe repair shop in the 1970s, and a tattoo parlour in the 1980s":
 |
The rules for garden suites and laneway suites both assume that the new suites are back to back with their neighbours, which is why the distance to the side and rear lot lines can be so small:
By contrast, the front side of houses are normally given more space to breathe, with decent setbacks from the street and sidewalk:
Now, it's understandable that Parkmount's residents think of their gardens as normal back yards...
...and often treat Craven as a back alley or laneway.
However, a structure built at the back of a Parkmount through-lot is a structure fronting on a city street.
As garden suite homes begin to be built fronting the west side of Craven Road, ideally the same setback rules should be applied to them as to homes on the east side of both Craven and Parkmount.
