I called the city recently to try to figure out why there are such different numbers circulating as to the number of single-family houses in Vancouver? Some people (Bob Rennie, reporters) are saying 47,000, down from 67,000 some number of years before. Others (general manager of planning Brian Jackson, other reporters) say 75,000.
My question went off to the city’s wizardy stats-crunchers, who know all things StatsCan and more, and it came back with this response:
There are two sources of data, (census and BC Assessment Authority) and they use different definitions, so it’s not straightforward. (But when was it ever?)
To answer a query earlier in the week we looked at single family, and single family with a suite from the BC Assessment data. They identify all the structures in the city, and categorize them by type. We didn’t include any with two suites, as those might or might not look like a house (in theory, they’re not usually legal unless they’re often a big house cut up into strata apartments).
There were 75,510 structures in 1996, and 75,780 in 2015 – hence our statement of 75,000 no real change over 20 years. In 1996, BCAA thought 56,700 were single family, and 18,800 were with a suite. (They probably undercounted the suites in those days, as there were still many unauthorised that they don’t know about). That means in 1996 there were 94,300 dwellings in 75,500 buildings. In 2015, there were 43,100 single family, and 32,700 had a suite. So that’s 108,500 dwellings in total. That’s total stock – some will be empty, awaiting redevelopment (on Cambie) etc.
The 47,000 single family number is what Bob Rennie quotes: it’s a 2011 census number. It’s technically correct, although it undercounts a bit, as it’s the number of occupied single family dwellings. There were around 47,500, and there were also 2,000 more considered as unoccupied in the census (although 230 were occupied by temporary/foreign workers, so while they don’t count as occupied – somebody was living there).
That means there were 49,500 single family buildings in 2011, according to the census. Comparing the 2011 census to the 2015 BCAA, it looks like the census people might have missed a few thousand suites, although they’re doing much better than they used to. On top of that the 2011 census says there are about 25,000 houses with suites or duplexes (so 50,000 dwellings) – confusingly they label them all as ‘duplex’, and they don’t differentiate between up and down and back/front. Fortunately BCAA do separate types out, and so that’s what we counted (see above).
Bearing in mind the four years between the two data sets, and how many more houses are now built with a suite when they’re rebuilt, the two data sets are pretty close. 100,000 dwellings in 75,000 buildings, Census 2011, and 108,000 in 75,800 BCAA 2015. 49,000 without a suite in 2011 (and probably a bit less as they missed some) and about 43,000 in 2015.
10 responses so far ↓
1 sthrendyle // Sep 29, 2015 at 5:00 pm
There are (or used to be) some funny anomalies. Just ask your letter carrier. In Kits (80s era) there were massive rooming houses – one on York had something like 8 rooms – but of course, it only ever counted as one house. Then, there were all of the illegal suites that suddenly became legal in the 90s (what was that all about, anyway?). On what we used to call Welfare Wednesday (politically correct as the term is) – you would often have cheques going to people who never got a single other piece of mail. The best part was when someone (this happened in Kits all the time) would hand you a HUGE bundle of letters – months’ worth, in some cases, and say “these people no longer live here.” Ahh… hippies. And the white VW Bug was the most popular car on the street. Around this time, though, places were beginning to be stratified (they would get ‘new numbers’) – most of these were renos, not tear downs. I would bet the number of actual houses has stayed close to the same.
2 peakie // Sep 29, 2015 at 10:01 pm
Such a good-natured on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand response. And the background to the methodology, (though I kept on wondering what the BC Automobile Association has to do with housing, .. until I read about the VW vans in one comment 😉 )
3 jenables // Sep 30, 2015 at 2:19 pm
So where do laneway houses fit in to all this? Or are they irrelevant?
4 penguinstorm // Sep 30, 2015 at 5:21 pm
We are aware that the term “Welfare Wednesday” is a pretty ignorant term, right?
5 sthrendyle // Sep 30, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Yes “incorrect” was what I meant to write. I will say this; many of those people were/are truly invisible. They would get no other mail. In many cases you would wonder where exactly they lived in the house.
6 jenables // Oct 1, 2015 at 1:17 pm
Yeah it’s called mardi gras, get with the times! Loool
7 penguinstorm // Oct 2, 2015 at 10:26 am
Sure. Regardless, using it and then asking for forgiveness for using it doesn’t improve the situation.
Those people are still people, and slapping a term like Welfare Wednesday on them is part of why they’re invisible.
8 YVR_City // Oct 2, 2015 at 5:48 pm
This does not really explain why the single detached count using the census and national household survey for the Vancouver CMA rose from 273,705 in 1981, to 302,135 in 1991, to 327,655 in 2001, and then fell to 301,140 in 2011. However, it is reflective of the problems with the 2011 census and the voluntary 2011 National Housing Survey. BC Assessment is also problematic as they are not always accurate at updating classifications if there is not a permit drawn for the renovation
9 jenables // Oct 3, 2015 at 9:04 am
what people are you referring to, penguinstorm? I’ve never heard welfare Wednesday used to describe anyone.
10 AdamFitch // Oct 7, 2015 at 2:49 pm
A laneway house is counted as a secondary suite by BCAA.
And by the way, BCAA is the assessment authority, not the auto association.