Comparing Single Family Homes In Vancouver

Posted on: July 20th, 2010 | 34 Comments

This is Day 182 of the Slow Home Project and we need you to join us in our quest to evaluate the design quality of houses in nine North American cities in nine months.

In today’s “Which House Should I Buy?” episode, we are comparing two single family house plans from the Vancouver area to see which would be the better real estate purchase for our two clients, Pia and Rhonda.

Pia and Rhonda have an internet based craft business and work out of their home, so a main floor study space is essential to them. They have narrowed their choices down to two final candidates.

The first option is the “Rutherford” which is 1,491 sq ft and has 3 bedrooms plus a den.

The second option is the “Wellington” which is slightly larger at 1,581 sq ft and also has 3 bedrooms plus a den.

Both homes are located in the “Seasons at Milner Heights” development in Langley, B.C., which is about 45 minutes to the east of downtown Vancouver.

Which house do you think is the better choice for Pia and Rhonda? We need you to study the floor plans and use the Slow Home Test to see which plan you think the better choice. Post your results and your comments to the site and let’s have a discussion!

When you are ready, click on the player below to watch John and Matthew’s analysis of these two properties.

To see how John and Matthew scored these plans using the Slow Home Test, click on the links below.

Tomorrow is our Design Project day, where we will need everyone to try their hand at re-designing a poorly designed single family house floor plan and transforming it into a Slow Home!

  • Franco

    This week’s Which House Should I Buy? is another tough call. Although I like the upstairs laundry room, and the more organized rear entry in the Wellington. When it came down to office space, the Rutherford had a study that was considerably larger (10 x 11 vs 9 x 10) and for Pia and Rhonda I think the extra space for the business will be a nice amenity if not a necessity.

    For the reason of the larger office area and consolidated living/dining area, I’m going to disagree with John and Matthew and say the Rutherford.

  • MollyK

    John & Matthew,
    Just a quick question…

    Where did you find these floorplans? I have gone over the Milner Creek website several times, looked at all the neighborhoods and still can’t find these 2 plans. Am I missing something?

  • MollyK

    John & Matthew,
    I’m surprised that a point was given for the kitchen in the Wellington. The work triangle is too big with the island further complicating the triangle circulation. Plus, the circulation from the back entry cuts straight through the triangle.

    The overall spaces are similar enough…but the big difference is the size and location of the den. Although John & Matthew believe the location of the den in the Wellington is better I argue from a functional standpoint that it is not. The Rutherford den is slightly larger and its location is better for access to the front door. Receiving materials/packages is easier with an office at the front of the house. (In the Wellington plan, Pia & Rhonda will have to traverse the length of the house to answer the door. Then haul any packages through the Living/Dining space to the far corner of the house.)

    I also think the Rutherford Living/Dining location is better because it becomes the “retreat” at the end of the day. Business at the front of the house. Entertaining/relaxing at the back of the house.

  • Mid America Mom

    What a green discussion we had yesterday
    - http://theslowhome.com/slow-home-project/evaluating-single-family-homes-in-vancouver/#comments !

    Thank you DanM for providing an insight of the Built program.

    MollyK That is interesting what John Wiles had to say. The improvements you cited are easier to achieve and not a huge bite into the budget.

    Grace Coulter I understand homebuyers need to their homework but as for LEED … the community that has been participating in the slow home project this year has so far gives environmental points to LEED buildings.

    Terri I knew I could rely on you for a quick response : )

    ***********************************************************

    Nicole asked about WHAT WE USE FOR AWARDING the Environmental points. So far we award them for (John / Matthew please add or correct if I am wrong ):

    Leed certified or seeking projects

    And for the next two though the buildings themselves may not be green John has awarded points for the following.

    Brownfield redevelopment (A term in the USA I am used to ) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield_land

    Adaptive reuse of an existing building

    Mid America Mom

  • Terri

    I chose Rutherford for Pia and Rhonda for the same reasons that MollyK and Franco give above (bigger office and better living/kitchen area). I think MollyK makes an excellent point about the day-to-day running of the business needing easy access to the door. How true. Aside from the business angle, though, I think the dining and living are much nicer at the back–the dining in the Wellington is side yard–why not have a kitchen, where you’re not sitting and relaxing, there instead? I thought the back porch was a little odd, but possibly the garage access is there? Maybe Pia and Rhonda aren’t out in their car everyday anyway. (I work at home, at that’s the case for me.)

    The only thing I liked better in Wellington was the laundry.I’ll have to watch John & Matthew’s video now and see if they change my mind. ;)

  • BradW

    Rutherford agreeing with MollyK, Terri, etc…

  • JPod

    I would recommend Rutherford for this couple. I think the bigger office space will be an asset for Pia and Rhonda. I agree with MollyK about the location of the office, it is excellent having it so close to the front door, and the double doors are also a nice touch.

    I also like the kitchen in the Rutherford better than the Wellington, even though it is slightly smaller, it has a much better workspace and flow.

    For that alone I would choose Rutherford over Wellington.

  • MollyK

    MAM & Nicole,
    You can break down the criteria for LEED homes, making a combination of energy-efficient features worthy of the Environmental Performance score. For example, a house with good (passive) solar orientation, energy-star appliances, and significant use of LED lighting could get the points. It isn’t an “all or nothing” concept…John has said on occasion that you may have to make a judgement call with Environmental Performance.

  • nicole

    I disagree with awarding the points for just providing energy efficient appliances and LED lighting – sorry Molly. (Same goes for the reuse of an existing building. Just because you are renovating an existing building does not make it sustainable (yes, it is one part of it, but there are other things that can be done! (Yes, I am probably being a bit hard, but think that we must get our point across – we need MORE sustainability!)

    My guess is that most new homes are not environmentally sound for a few reasons:
    1. The builder / developer has no knowledge of what it takes to be sustainable
    2. The builder / developer feels that there is no market for it (no consumers are asking for it – or at least their clientele is not asking for it because they think that it is too expensive)
    3. The builder / developer feels that by putting energy efficient appliances, they are doing enough to ‘save the planet’

    Consumers can change this!

    As for my selection, I choose the rutherford. The back of the house opens up nicely to the back yard. Nice to keep the office at the front and separate from the rest of the house.
    I would however, revise the 2nd floor plan layout to suit their needs more. (maybe 2 ensuites?)
    Entry is also better, with powder room that seems to be out of the way.

  • Grace Coulter

    Interesting conversation happening today. Its great that so many people are so opinionated when it comes to what continues “sustainable design.” For my part I agree with Nicole’s comment. i was writing out some thoughts before I looked at the postings today and from another perspective I wrote on my consumers
    need to be educated and demand better buildings…. see below.

    Matthew stacker/washer dryers are more compact and good in any size space! Lol.

    Rutherford is my choice – If they are going to have clients come in (even internet businesses need to occasionally do business in an office) then this is the better space. It is private in the back but the front could easily serve as a public office space. In the W. this would be more difficult.

    Its interesting how various priorities and needs can sometimes conflict with the guidelines set out in the slow home (wanting a suburban home in an auto dependant neighbourhood because of the atmosphere). I think buyers need to drive change in homes too. While developers should be providing a good stock of homes for people to choose from, I think equally buyers can demand excellence. Just some thoughts as each week the clients have various needs and often the homes these “clients” choose from are always the best homes (very similar to real life scenarios). Is it the designers or the buyers responsibility to make overall well designed homes? Obviously I think it is both.

  • Manolo

    Hi all!
    I can’t help but add my 2 cents into the conversation…

    I think that another contributing factor to sustainability – above and beyond the integrated systems in a house – is the impact of lifestyle. This means that a home that is located on the edge of the city, with a sprawling footprint, and in a community with minuscule density, regardless of what systems involved in the construction of the home, is highly debatable as a green type development. This is because of lifestyle! LEED or any other kind of sustainable building program is a metric for achieving the ill-defined world of green-ness. It is most definitely not a ‘green alibi’. If our lifestyle still means buying big, living far, and having lots, technology – however active or passive or high-tech – will have a tough time making our future a livable one.

    As other Slow Homers have pointed out, LEED and similar programs are essential, but aren’t the only criteria for determining green-ness.

    I have been giving the Environmental Performance points accounting for lot size, walkscore, context (ie. transit and nearby uses other than shopping and residential), floor area, systems, building age, site history, daylighting, and garage area (without being glib). Though this is a lot to research when working through the speculative Slow Home Project, but I think that when the test is put to a real situation (ie I am looking for my next place) this kind of seriousness and time commitment will pay off richly.

  • Tara

    I also chose the Rutherford for Pia and Rhonda. The study space was the deciding factor for me. Not only is the study space larger in the Rutherford, I also like its placement much better. The study is seperated from the rest of main living areas, which I think would work better for a home based buisness that might have to entertain clients, buisness partners, etc. The front entry, guest bath and study are all located at the front of the house which is easily accessible. If buisness guests were to come into the Rutherford, it would feel much less like they were invading into someones personal living space than in the Wellington where they would have to walk through the entire length of the house and all the main living areas.
    In the Rutherford, Pia and Rhonda would be able to better segment their working space from their living spaces so it gets my vote.

  • Joshua

    As per always in this sustainability talk, in my opinion the main issue is the definition. Sustainable means living now in a way that will allow future generations to continue to live at the same way. For a lot of North Americans this mostly likely mean living at what could be considered a lower standard of living. I am however a realist and feel as though the fact that it is an important feature of a “slow home” is a step in the right direction. The idea that it may even be a reason to buy one house over another, is also a good step. We all know that in a market economy that producer will eventually produce what consumers are demanding, so I would agree with Grace. If we as consumers demand more sustainable housing then eventually we will get it.

    As far as the houses go…

    I liked the Rutherford more on first glance, because of the bigger Den (Business needing good workspace) and also found I liked the kitchen as well as the powder room better.

    The the Wellington caught my eye, with a better laundry, but that was all…

    Rutherford would be my choice for the sisters.

    Joshua

  • Tayler

    On the topic of sustainability, I really think it’s about time that these “families of three or less” realize that they don’t need all THIS room. The extra square footage they pay for could easily translate back into a smaller home with more energy efficient materials instead. Basically what I am saying is that sure, there are standards other than LEED but I think that bigger homes should be held to a higher standard just because of their bigger ‘footprint’. Therefore, when I’m evaluating, I will be judging them more harshly. Is this fair? I’m not exactly sure but that’s my own criteria alongside the Slow Home one. Consumers need to be more demanding, sometimes we just aren’t given enough OPTIONS.

    The videos haven’t been working for me all morning/so far this afternoon. Anyone else?

    Anyways, I believe that they should choose The Rutherford.

    The layout works better in my opinion and it has a bigger den. The traffic areas and the size of the kitchen just work better. I don’t like the small den at the back of the house in the Wellington. And if their business grows I think the basement in The Rutherford has a better layout for another den and storage potential.

  • Tayler

    Maybe I missed the posting on this already, everyone here is very on the ball… but:

    http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/content.php?id=48

  • Mid America Mom

    About the exercise today. The plans look slow themselves. Where do they park the cars???

    So further looking at the two plans:

    Wellington 1/2 bath has a view to the dining room. That room faces the side yard and has small windows. The kitchen has one small window. Those two together make me think DARK. A rear yard facing Den. The rear entry is good. The bedroom closets are problematic as they stick into the room. Laundry room hooray! Future rec room and bedroom space… the bedroom would not pass many community codes as there is no window. The rec room is narrow with many doors off of it.

    Rutherford has a larger den and in the front of the plan away from great room noise. Front entry is good and the back is non existent but what is that going to? If yard it is OK. Upstairs we have a hall laundry and it is located OK but not a fan. We also see a side bedroom which is not ideal. The great room space is full of light. The future rec room and bedroom are rooms and can pass for them.

    Rutherford has a light and open living space, larger Den by 20 sq feet ( size of a single bed), better designed bedrooms, and the basement holds more potential. This is the home I would recommend.

    Mid America Mom

  • Manolo

    Here’s the charter .pdf from the link Tayler posted.
    Interesting! Nice find Tayler.

    http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/webupload/File/ecodensity-charter-low.pdf

  • Grace coulter

    Tayler great link,

    I think it is worth noting and maybe someone can clarify more….Vancouver proper is different from all the surrounding communities (all making up the great vancouver area) and thus their great legistlation and efforts towards sustainaiblity may not be followed in the surrounding communities… Any vancouverites that can clarify this?

    I think this ecodensity would be limited to the City of Vancouver. Similar to the post I put up a few weeks ago. We have been looking at lots of homes outside of that district if I am correct.

  • ReneP

    Following Dan M’s usefull comments on Built Green yesterday, and Manolo’s insightful comments on sustainability and lifestyle (as well as all the other comments on green-ness today) I cannot see myself giving these two homes full points for environmental performance.

    I recommend the Rutherford also – the den is bigger, has more light, double doors, is right in the front of the house, and an area that Pia and Rhonda will enjoy spending time in (way more than the den in the Wellington). I like the powder room in the front near the large entrance, and the living, dining, and kitchen layouts work better than in the Wellington. As far as drawbacks, the back entrance is not well defined, but acceptable; and the laundry in the Wellington is clearly superior – although I agree with Grace that stacker/washer dryers are more compact and good in any size space. Lastly, the basement layout is superior in the Rutherford also.

    Finally, I have a question regarding parking: even though there is no garage in either of these plans, am I safe to assume that these homes gets full points for parking since they sit in suburban sprawl?

  • Terri

    The City of Vancouver’s Eco Density Charter sounds good. In light of this document I find it interesting that just last week we learned that the city is shipping granite from China (how much carbon will that cargo ship produce?) to repair the Stanley Park seawall instead of awarding the contract to a local BC company which had geared up to do the work. It’s all because of money.

    Until sustainability is affordable by all, we need governments and the wealthy to buy the products which will bring us all in line with the ideal. This is precisely the conclusion in the Vancouver Sun article that’s mentioned by Slowhome on the Twitter window above. The article discusses the BC government choosing more sustainable options while renovating an older subsidized housing complex.

  • Mid America Mom

    AH the thought of carbon imprint.

    Affordable housing I assume is a hot topic in Vancouver since it has some of the most expensive real estate in the World. Just how well can that be achieved? I will have to read the article.

    Mid America Mom

    *************

    Still time to contribute single family floorplans in the slow home project for Vancouver!

    *********

  • Amanda

    I would give the two houses the same score as Mathew and John did. Both kitchens do have a non-functional island, however, I think this is a preference situation, because the island can be used as extra seating when having friends over for a drink!

    I would choose the Rutherford because I like the layout of the main floor better. It seems to flow more naturally. I don’t like back entrance of the wellingtons because it takes up window space and should be left open. I also like the Rutherford’s better because of the placement and size of the den, it also has more windows than in the Wellingtons.

  • jim baer

    molly k, i also looked ALL over the site and could not find the floor plans…. i wanted to see how the units fit onto the site, to see if this would influence the decision any…. :-( …. john? matthew? some funny business going on here??

    i have to agree with everyone who picked the rutherford, and for all the reasons mentioned. the den just works better in the front of the house.

    something only addressed by nicole is the question of two ADULTS sharing a home and it’s impact (yea nicole!). who gets the ensuite and why?? how will this affect housing in the future?? i can definitely see co-housing of some sort as the boomers (yes, i am one of them!) age and many are single again (or still)….

    and now the walk score….i am a thoroughly urban person, but i still disagree with weighting the walk score too heavily. is a large, poorly designed urban mansion slower than a small, well designed country house?? even an urban house can have a multiple car garage and even urban dwellers can drive way too often and for all the wrong reasons….i am putting my money on the design of the house as making the biggest, most immediate difference for the occupants.

  • ReneP

    Good point about who gets which room – I thought about that also. No matter which home they choose, the traditional prescription for a single family dream house with ensuite makes things a little unfair to one of the sisters.

  • Anonymous

    I recommend the Rutherford as well, it just seems to be better apportioned to the couples needs, while balancing privacy as well.

    One will also note the ‘future bedroom’ in the wellington does not have a window… this is a no-no according to Canadian national building codes (which BC’s local provincial codes are based on) you need to have operable windows in ALL bedrooms (means of exit in emergency, i.e. fire)

    Jim baer and nicole, good points on the ensuite/bedroom who gets what issues… funny how the idea of the ensuite has arisen over the 20th century (mostly due to post-war boomers and the nuclear family American dream with white picket fence etc.) only to be re-examined as we start to question the ideal nuclear family and look back to the past and the practicalities of previous generations and their vernacular and how our current housing is no longer one type suits all (frazer I know will no doubt advocate for the ultimate one architype solution if he reads this, as we’ve discussed this issue before).
    The more I examine these plans the more I see the pervasiveness of the attitudes that have been instilled on western society to promote me-firstism and consumerism (bigger is better, keep up with the jones’). ok I’ll end my rant there for now….

  • Dan M

    FYI ‘Anonymus’ was me… cookies must have been cleared… doh!

  • ReneP

    Dan M, those comments are right on the money (no pun intended).

  • bstone52

    I like the wellington more than the rutherford. I think that the den being situated at the back of the house is a nice feature as well as its location relative to the kitchen. I also think that there is an ideal layout to the communal living spaces that forces more of the home to be used continually (living room in front, kitchen in back etc.)

  • Ashley P

    I feel like the decision maker in this situation is the den and this is why I chose the Rutherford for Pia and Rhonda. I also prefer the layout of this house over the Wellington. Although I do have issues with the back entry (it opens right into the great room), I do love having the den at the front of the house away from the more relaxing areas like the dining and great room. I am also a big fan of having the laundry on the second floor. There is also a good use of natural light and overall this floor plan very well organized. Both great choices (17 and 17 on the Slow Tests) but I would suggest the Wellington.

  • frazer

    Nice looking plans….the space has been used very efficiently and the organization is very clear. I’d go with the Rutherford since it has the larger den with more light in an accessible/convient location. This is important since the clients will spend most of their time working in this space.

    Dan:
    Interesting time to bring that up again….Makes you wonder how often a certain way of living is promoted by design (or bad design…) and that people are subjected to it due to various circumstances. My position would be to incorporate more of the user’s input into design to provide more flexible and user-specific results….

  • sdokter

    My choice would be the Wellington. I love the open space at the entrance of the house and how it continues into the living room, dining room and kitchen. Also, I found the placement of the den excellent.
    The upstairs had a beautiful ensuite for the master bathroom and the extra bedrooms are a good size.

  • Anonymous

    My choice is the Wellington. There are a number of features in it that I prefer when compared to the Rutherford:

    Upstairs, the laundry room is larger, providing greater convenience, storage, and comfortability. In addition to this, there is much less wasted hallway space.
    The rear exit has a space of its own with a coat closet. On the Slow Home Test this would receive points whereas for the Rutherford, the rear exit would not.
    Most importantlz, while the main floor study space is larger in the Rutherford, the downstairs study space has no availability to natural light. This problem is not the case in the Wellington.

  • Kyle B

    Sorry! I forgot to type in my name in the above comment. I guess that’s what I get for being on a different computer. =)

  • kcull

    After looking over the two plans a couple of different times, i’ve decided that the Wellington is slightly more apealing to my taste in design. This does not take away from the Rutherfors however because it is also a very good desigh. The aspect for me that seperated the two was where the rear enterance was locted in the Rutherford, which is in the middle of the living space. I prefer the enterance to be off to one of the sides because otherwise the door becomes the focal point of the living space, especially when people are walking into the living space from the front.