Enumerating informal housing: A field method for identifying secondary units

Abstract

This study developed and tested an initial tool for the systematic observation of secondary units at the neighbourhood scale by utilizing an inventory checklist method inspired by studies in the fields of health geography and criminology. Single‐family dwellings with secondary units were found to have one or more of 18 visual characteristics as outlined in the proposed tool. In the neighbourhoods where the tool was applied it was found that, within the Canadian context, urban neighbourhoods contain a higher proportion and density of secondary units than newer, suburban areas. Indicators that emerged as most prevalent included more than one mailbox per dwelling, unit numbers on single‐family dwellings, more than one electric meter, and lawns converted for parking of multiple vehicles. Local and regional variations in housing stock characteristics and local housing markets make the standardization of such a tool problematic. However, this method does present a place‐based approach that provides a subtle means of understanding the unique attributes, and distribution, of this type of housing at a scale relevant to municipal planning decisions.

Rethinking public participation in the smart city

“…Precise statistics, however, are unavailable due to the informal and often illegal status of secondary suites. For instance, the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation has never sought to enumerate secondary suites, which take many forms (Harris 2017; Kinsella 2017). In Canada, secondary suites typically contain bathrooms and cooking facilities.…”

“…These dwellings usually can be locked off from the main premises, and sometimes they have separate entrances and also include the newer form of laneway housing—a detached secondary suite typically in the backyard and opening onto the back lane or alleyway. Given the predominance of single‐family homes in suburbs that were built in the decades following WWII, secondary suites are often located in Canadians' basements, and occasionally within garages (Kinsella 2017; Suttor 2017).…”

Is ‘informal’ housing an affordability solution for expensive cities? Evidence from Sydney, Australia

“…In simple terms, informal housing bypasses 'formal' regulatory systems of production or tenure because these rules are too onerous, costly, and/or the potential profits are high. Secondary dwellings, boarding houses, as well as mobile or manufactured home estates and other non-conventional housing types are increasingly referred to in the literature as informal (Durst & Sullivan, 2019;Kinsella, 2017;Mendez, 2017) whether or not they meet regulatory requirements, because they challenge predominant conceptions of the single family home and household unit; typically involve different processes of residential production (financing and construction); often involve some negotiated sharing of spaces or facilities; and may be occupied by a negotiated or ad hoc rental arrangement.…”

“…For instance, illegal secondary units have long been concealed within single family zones, comprising a 'horizontal density' in the 'cityscapes' of California (Wegmann & Chapple, 2014). The advice of a local building inspector was critical in identifying non-compliant housing in the city of Los Angeles (Wegmann, 2015) while in Canada, a 'field method' for discerning unauthorised secondary dwellings focused on excess letterboxes, garbage bins and vehicles (Kinsella, 2017). However, precisely quantifying the total number of informal housing units across a housing system is very difficult.…”