UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Manufacturing incubation and the inner city. A case study of Greater Vancouver and implications for land… Chu, Millie 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_chu_millie.pdf [ 10.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086648.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086648-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086648-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086648-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086648-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086648-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086648-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086648-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086648.ris

Full Text

MANUFACTURING INCUBATION AND THE INNER CITYA CASE STUDY OF GREATER VANCOUVERAND IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE POLICYbyMILLIE CHUB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1990A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIANovember 1991© Millie Chu, 1991In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(SirDepartment of ^School of Community and Regional PlanningThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate^DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTUrban governments in Canada face a major challenge from the growing demand to convertinner city industrial land to alternate uses, especially residential. This demand seems to accordwith "de-industrialization" and trends to a growing service economy in the metropolitan areasof industrialized countries. However, a concern remains that reducing inner city industrialland might erode metropolitan manufacturing vitality by jeopardizing the inner city's incubatorfunction, which provides the region with new manufacturing firms.The thesis reviews some compelling arguments which suggest that manufacturing continues tobe important to industrialized countries. At the metropolitan level, while the economies ofolder, large cities such as London and New York are based primarily on corporate services,smaller cities such as Greater Vancouver can rely less on such services to sustain theireconomies. Thus, smaller cities have an additional rationale for maintaining an incubatorfunction in their inner cities. The empirical evidence reviewed also suggests thatdifferentiation between cities may influence the continuing existence of the inner city incubatorfunction.This thesis contributes to the resolution of the land use policy dilemma described, by focusingon an investigation of the inner city hypothesis and using Greater Vancouver as a case study.The simple version of the inner city hypothesis states that the inner city has a higher birth rateof manufacturing firms than the rest of the metropolis. Thus, the inner city functions as theprincipal incubator for new manufacturing firms in the metropolis. The complex version ofthe inner city hypothesis states additionally that firms incubated in the inner city will, uponmaturation, relocate to less dense areas outside the inner city. In this way, the inner citycontributes to metropolitan manufacturing growth.Industrial location theory suggests that new firms find the external economies available in theinner city beneficial for their start-up and initial growth. There is disagreement amongiiresearchers about the type of external economies which are most beneficial to new firms.While there is general consensus that the hypothesis is based on the importance of urbanizationeconomies to new firms, some researchers argue that young firms actually benefit fromlocalization economies. This thesis does not undertake to directly investigate the topic ofexternal economies. However, the thesis proposes to use the supplementary thesis research,i.e. a review of the manufacturing sector, for some insights to help clarify the disagreement.The thesis also suggests that applying the inner city hypothesis to policy development requiresan analysis of the qualitative aspects of inner city incubation activity, in order to determine ifthe inner city is performing a key incubator function in the metropolis. A key incubatorfunction may include either a principal incubator function in the aggregate or a principalincubator function in specific sub-sectors which are significant to the regional manufacturingsector or the regional economy. Therefore, the thesis undertook a review of GreaterVancouver's manufacturing sector and identified some "sunrise" industries which havedemonstrated growth in the number of establishments and employees.Through a count of firm births disaggregated by sub-area and sub-sector, the thesis concludedthat the inner city had in fact performed both a principal and a key incubator role during thestudy period (i.e. 1987 to 1990). On a sub-metropolitan level, the inner city's share of newfirms exceeded its share of existing establishments in 1986, thus confirming the simplehypothesis. On a sub-sectoral level, the inner city also led new firm growth in "sunrise"industries in Greater Vancouver, indicating that the inner city's incubator function wasqualitatively significant to the regional manufacturing sector. However, serious data andmethodology limitations precluded a confident estimate of firm relocations from the inner cityto the suburbs. The complex hypothesis thus needs to be studied further in GreaterVancouver. The thesis research also suggested that firm incubation in Greater Vancouvermight benefit from both localization and urbanization economies.iiiThe thesis concludes generally that urban governments of small metropolises should approachthe rezoning of inner city industrial land with caution. The thesis also concludes specificallythat a choice to retain inner city industrial land in Greater Vancouver can be justified on thebasis of the inner city's sizeable contribution in existing establishments to the regionalmanufacturing sector, and the inner city's regionally significant incubator function.ivMANUFACTURING INCUBATION IN THE INNER CITYA CASE STUDY OF GREATER VANCOUVERAND IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE POLICYTABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACT^ iiLIST OF TABLES viiLIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS^ viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ixChapter 1^INTRODUCTIONIntroduction^ 1A. Inner City Land use Challenge: Housing or Industry?^2B. The Rationale of the Inner City Hypothesis^4C.^Applying the Inner City Hypothesis to Policy Development^7Purpose of the Thesis^ 11Scope of the Thesis 13Methodology 16Chapter 2 THE INNER CITY AS THE METROPOLITAN MANUFACTURINGINCUBATORIntroduction^ 17The Inner City Incubator Hypothesis^ 17A. Agglomeration Economies and the Hypothesis^17B. Product Cycle Theory and the Hypothesis 21C.^Hierarchical Filtering and the Hypothesis 22The Empirical Evidence^ 24Conclusion^ 28Chapter 3 MANUFACTURING IN GREATER VANCOUVERIntroduction^ 31The Role of Manufacturing in the Economic Base^31A. Production from Natural Resources Dominates Provincially^31B. Regional Economic Restructuring Towards Services^33C. Manufacturing Performs Well in Exports^ 35D. Steady Absolute Increase in Manufacturing 35VRegional Manufacturing Trends^ 36A. Composition and Volume of Manufacturing Activity^36B. Decentralization of Manufacturing Activity^45C.^Central City is Still a Major Contributor to Manufacturing^51Some Policy Approaches Towards Manufacturing 60Conclusion 63Chapter 4 TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS IN GREATER VANCOUVERIntroduction^ 66Testing the Simple Hypothesis in Greater Vancouver^66A. Methodology 66B. Summary of Results^ 76Testing the Complex Hypothesis in Greater Vancouver^94A. Methodology 94B. Summary of Results^ 99Conclusion^ 104Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONIntroduction^ 107Case Study Conclusions Regarding the Inner City's Incubator Role^108A. Quantitative Results of the Hypothesis Test^108B. Qualitative Dimensions of Inner City Incubation 110C. Localization or Urbanization Economies? 110D. Methodological Influences on Hypothesis Test^112Implications for Land Use Policy in Vancouver 112Constraints/Limitations of Case Study^ 115Further Policy Considerations 116Recommendations for Implementation 118Areas for Further Research^ 119Closing^ 120BIBLIOGRAPHY^ 121APPENDICES 127viLIST OF TABLESTABLE^ Page1 Summary of Eight Case Studies on the Inner City Hypothesis^252 Vancouver's Sectoral Distribution of Employment, 1961-86 343 Vancouver's CMA Sector Employment, 1984-89 (Annual Average)^374 Capital Expenditure in Manufacturing in Vancouver CMA^385 Major Industry Group Classifications^ 406 1976-86 Change by Industry in Greater Vancouver Establishments and Employees 447 Proportion of Additional Industrial Employment in the Vancouver Metropolitan AreaOccurring in Each Municipality 1900-1950, 1950-1959^ 498 Principal Statistics 1956-1986 City of Vancouver Manufacturing Sector^509 Approximate Costs of Industrial Land, Vancouver Metropolitan Area, 1957^5010 Industrial Land Sale Prices In Greater Vancouver September 1990^5311 Greater Vancouver Regional District - Vacant Industrial Land 1990 5512 Greater Vancouver Percentage Distribution of Total Employees by Industry,1976 and 1986^ 5613 Percentage Distribution of Industry Activity Indicators by Leading Municipalities inGreater Vancouver, 1976 and 1986^ 5814 Greater Vancouver Industrial Floorspace in Square Feet: June 1990^5915 Ranking of Suburban Municipalities Within Industries by Number of Employees,Greater Vancouver, 1976 and 1986^ 6116 Intra-metropolitan Distribution of Existing Establishments in Greater VancouverComparison of 1986 Data from Two Sources^ 7117 Major Industry Group Distribution of Existing Establishments in Greater Vancouver,Comparison of 1986 Data from Two Sources 7118 Annual Totals of New Establishments in Greater Vancouver (1986-87 to 1990)^7719 Inner City Ratio of new Firms (1986-87 to 1990) to Existing Establishments in base year(1986) by Major Industry Group Percentage Distribution, Greater Vancouver^8120 Annual Average Birth Rate of New Firms (1986-87 to 1990)by Major Industry Group and Sub-area in Greater Vancouver^8621 Distribution of New Firms (1986-87 to 1990) by Major Industry Groupand Sub-area in Greater Vancouver^ 8622 New Wood Products Group Firms (1986-87 to 1990)Intra-metropolitan Distribution in Greater Vancouver by S.I.C. Codes^9323 Business Licenses in Vancouver, June 1991^ 9524 Relocations of City Firms in 1989 and 1990Distribution by Major Industry Group in Greater Vancouver^10025 Age and Size Distribution of City Firms Relocating in Greater Vancouver, 1989-90 10226 Size and Major Industry Group Distribution of City Firms Relocating inGreater Vancouver, 1989-90^ 103viiLIST OF FIGURES AND MAPSFIGURE^ Page1^Real GDP by Industry, B.C. 1961 and 1989^ 322^Structure of Manufacturing in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area 1931 and 1956 393^Greater Vancouver Industry Activity, 1956-86: Distribution by Major IndustryGroup^ 424^Industry Activity, 1956-86: City of Vancouver share of region^465^Recent Trends in Industrial Land, Floorspace, Firms and Employment in Vancouverand the Rest of GVRD^ 476^Major Industry Group Distribution of existing establishments in Greater VancouverComparison of 1986 Data from Two Sources^ 727^Distribution of New Firms in Greater Vancouver (1986-87 to 1990)by Major Industry Group^ 788^Comparison of Intra-metropolitan Distribution: Existing Establishments (1986)and New Firms (1986-87 to 1990) in Greater Vancouver^809^Intra-metropolitan Distribution of New Firms in Greater Vancouver(1986-87 to1990)^ 8710^Intra-metropolitan Distribution of New Firms in Greater Vancouver(1986-87 to1990) by Major Industry Group^ 8811^Intra-Metropolitan Distribution of New Firms in Greater Vancouver(1986-87 to 1990) for each Major Industry Group 8912^Ratio of New Firms (1986-87 to 1990) to Existing Establishments (1986)in Greater Vancouver^ 105MAP1^Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area^ 142^Greater Vancouver Industrial Areas 153^Industrial Land Values in Greater Vancouver, 1976^ 524^Downtown Waterfronts in 1974^ 545^Downtown Waterfronts in 1988 546^Vancouver Postal Code Areas 75viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for scholarship assistancewhich made this research possible. I also wish to thank Contacts Target Marketing Inc. forgranting me permission to access their business directories. Without that permission it wouldnot have been possible to complete this thesis. Acknowledgements are also due to themembers of my thesis committee: Doctors Craig Davis, Penny Gurstein, and Tom Hutton andMessrs. Sid Fancy and Phil Mondor. Professor Dave Edgington of the Department ofGeography will recognize elements of industrial location theory in Chapter 2. I am grateful toProfessor Brahm Weisman for early support in SCARP, and to Dr. Alan Artibise for askingand living up to the question "How can I help you?" Some very special friends who meritrecognition here include Bev whose generosity especially during this summer was vital forthesis writing, Colleen who edited my first English assignment in university, and Sandy, whosteered me to SCARP. Last, and most importantly, I wish to acknowledge the love, patienceand encouragement of my family: my parents Jan Fong and Margaret, my siblings, Julie andFrank, my spouse, Kin Sane, and my children, Nicholas and Natalie. This thesis is dedicatedto my mother.ixCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONThe supply of central city industrial ) land in Canada's largest metropolitan areas has, over thelast ten to twenty years, experienced increased pressure for redevelopment to other land uses.These pressures arise from growing demands for central city land by other land uses,particularly housing. The large supply of lower-priced, under-utilized industrial land, relativeto other land uses, and the suburbanization of industry in the last twenty to thirty years, havemade central city industrial land bases in Canada's largest metropolitan areas more and morevulnerable to encroachment and conversion to other uses. On the other hand, "de-industrialization," globalization, and a growing service economy raise some doubts about theviability of and the need for industry, particularly manufacturing 2 , in today's metropolitanareas.Seen in this context, the presence of central city industrial activity in Canada's largestmetropolitan areas is likely to diminish. Such a situation raises important questions for urbanpolicy and city planning about the role of industrial activity, and the optimum quantity andlocation of industrial land. Answers to these questions will involve exploration of severaltopics, including the changing composition and location of labor force, markets andtransportation infrastructure (for goods movement and commuting). It should also include anexamination of the consequences of a diminished central city industrial base for sustainableeconomic development with particular reference to the linkages between service andmanufacturing activity, and between central city manufacturing activity and regionalmanufacturing activity.iThe term "industrial" is used to denote activities associated with goods production, storage ortransportation.2In this thesis manufacturing includes the production of goods covered by major S.I.C.(standard industrial classification) codes numbered from 20 to 39 (see Appendix 5A).1A thesis cannot hope to review and address all of these questions and topics. Urban policymakers and planners too, have not attempted a complete benefit-cost evaluation of maintaininga central city industrial land base. Planners in Toronto and Vancouver have emphasized laborforce, markets and transportation in their partial evaluation of central city industrial activity.Much less emphasis has been given to the roles and viability of central city industrial activityvis-a-vis the regional economy. It seems appropriate, in this context, for thesis research tosupplement the city planners' ongoing work in this area. For this reason, this thesis willexplore the inner city3 manufacturing incubator function as a means of addressing a range oftopics which Toronto and Vancouver planners have, in their own admission, not adequatelyaddressed. The concept of the inner city as the principal "incubator," "seedbed" or "nursery"for new firms4 in the metropolis was formalized as a hypothesis in the industrial literature byHoover and Vernon's 1959 study of location patterns in New York (Kurre 1986, p.429). 5The general purpose of this thesis is to address the concern that the inner city's manufacturingincubator function could be jeopardized by converting inner city industrial land to other uses.Following a discussion of the inner city land use challenge, the rationale of the inner cityhypothesis, and its application to local policy development, Chapter 1 then states the purposeand objectives of the thesis, and defines its scope and methodology.A. Inner City Land Use Challenge: Housing or Industry?Since the late 1950s the loss of inner city industrial employment has been a commonexperience in Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States (Chapman and Walker 1987;Wilde 1986; Butler 1981; Hall 1981). This loss has been more severe in Britain and the3commonly understood as the CBD (Central Business District) and adjacent industrial andresidential areas; also referred to as the metropolitan core or city centre. For a glossary ofdefinitions see Appendix 1.4In this thesis "firms" refer to independent businesses; a firm may be a single locationestablishment or the sum total of the headquarter and branch locations.5Chapter 2 provides a fuller description of the concept of the inner city as the principalmetropolitan manufacturing incubator. The rest of this chapter will refer to the concept as "thehypothesis" or "the inner city hypothesis."2United States, with serious social and physical consequences. Government response hasincluded job creation/retention schemes such as "enterprise zones," but many of these site-based policy instruments have been ineffective and potentially counter-productive (Lever1987). In Canada and Australia, urban governments confront competing demands for the useof inner city industrial lands, which threaten to reduce industrial employment and jeopardizethe inner city's incubator role.The notion that the inner city is the source of new industrial jobs has prevailed for some time.As an early example, Hardwick (1974, p. 93) notes that in the City of Vancouver, Canada, theFairview Slopes area was rezoned to industrial use in the 1950s since:the city planner believed that it was necessary to expand the number of sitesavailable for small-scale industrial plants because, in his experience in Britain,the small industries begat big industries and the begatting of big industriesbrought about additional employment and urban prosperity.A more contemporary example can be found in Wadley's (1987, p.305) proposal for thesetting up of "nursery" areas in Australian inner cities which are perceived to have "potentialas a springboard for small new business."The relative importance of inner city industrial employment has declined with the rapid growthof the service sector in metropolitan economies of industrialized countries (Scott 1988;Chapman and Walker 1987; Dicken 1986; Wilde 1986; Goldberg & Chinloy 1984; Christie1980). Office construction and residential gentrification in and around the CBD, with thesupport of government through rezoning, often encroach upon inner city industrial land. 6 Inaddition, ecologically- and equity-motivated regional7 policies aimed at improving jobs-6See, for example, Vancouver City Planning Department, False Creek Goods Movement andIndustrial Displacement,  June 1982. In this case, the authors noted that while increasing landcosts may have forced industrial relocation in the long run, the immediate "cause" hasteningthe moves was the consolidation of land for Expo '86. There is also evidence from Britishcities that comprehensive redevelopment schemes in the inner city areas have eroded thesupply of small industrial premises used by new firms (Jackson 1982, p.2).71n this thesis metropolitan and regional are used interchangeably.3housing balance increase the demand for residential land in the inner city. 8The pressure for housing near the CBD has led urban policy makers in Vancouver and Torontoto consider the possibility of rezoning inner city industrial land for residential use. 9 Thisapproach can be justified on several counts. First, inner city industrial land constitutes areserve of relatively low-cost developable land relative to residential and commercial land.This cost saving in residential development allows for improved housing affordability.Second, densification is relatively easier to achieve when creating new residential communitiesthan rezoning residential properties. Finally, a pattern of encroachment of inner city industrialland by non-industrial uses is often already establishet1. 10However, the foregoing rationale for the rezoning of inner city industrial land neglects toconsider the potential implications for the regional economic base and direct impacts on innercity industrial employment. The inner city incubator hypothesis suggests that such rezoningwould disrupt the inner city's manufacturing incubator function and impact the rest of themetropolitan area with loss of future income and associated multiplier effects.B. The Rationale of the Inner City HypothesisThe inner city hypothesis underlies the role of the inner city as the principal incubator foryoung manufacturing firms. The origins of the hypothesis are not clear though it appears tohave been formally adopted in the post-war period (Kurre 1986).The principal rationale of the inner city incubator hypothesis is found in industrial location8See for example, the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Creating Our Future: Steps to aMore Livable Region. Technical Report (July 1990, especially p.14).9See, for example, City of Vancouver Manager's Report, "Industrial Lands Strategy," July1990. In an article titled, "Developing an Industrial Policy for a Central City," Christie(1980) notes that "a fundamental goal of a city policy to retain industry" in Toronto, and oneof the two guiding economic principles for developing the City of Toronto's industrial policyin the late 1970s, was "an efficient allocation of land among residential, commercial andindustrial uses."10For example, see Maps 4 and 5 in Chapter 3 of this thesis.4theory. As will be reviewed more thoroughly in Chapter 2, research to date deals mainly withmanufacturing firms and emphasizes the role of external economies" in their location.According to industrial location theory, external economies deriving from agglomerations 12 atcity centres provide young firms with the inputs they require to become establishecl. 13 Thenotion that young firms require additional support in the form of technical, financial,managerial and other services is widely held in the small business incubator literature, and isnot disputed in the industrial literature. An established firm is understood as one which canachieve internal economies of scale and is thus of a size sufficiently large to be a candidate forrelocation to larger and less expensive premises outside the inner city.There are additional grounds for the continued relevance of the inner city hypothesis,particularly manufacturing and service linkages, 14 and the shift to "post-Fordist" production(discussed below). It should first be acknowledged that the metropolitan economies ofindustrialized countries have lost considerable inner city industrial employment, in many casesabsolutely as well as relatively. Two main reasons have been reported for this: industrialdecentralization, also referred to as the "suburbanization of industry" 15 , and economicrestructuring towards services, referred to as "de-industrialization." The apparent effect ofboth trends is to diminish the importance of manufacturing in the urban economies ofindustrialized countries."External economies result in lower costs for goods and services purchased, by virtue of thecompany's location in an agglomeration of producers or producers and customers.12Concentration of activity results in agglomeration economies which include internal andexternal economies allowing businesses to profit from the increase in scale of activity.13Chapter 2 lists (from the industrial literature) some of the locational advantages reportedlyexperienced by new firms in the inner city.14Linkages can be understood as transactions or processes which link cities, sectors,industries, firms, customers and suppliers etc. Such linkages can exist at many levels; forexample, there are linkages between firms, within firms, and between firms and theirsuppliers.15Outside of this phrase and the section title, "industry" describes specific types ofmanufacturing activity e.g. the food and beverage industries, the clothing industry, etc.5In fact, however, manufacturing and service linkages sustain a continued significant role formanufacturing in the economy. The "post-industrial" economy of the United States in 1983still owed 25 percent of its G.N.P. (gross national product) to services used as inputs tomanufacturing; when added to the 24 percent of G.N.P. contributed by manufacturing valueadded, nearly one-half of U.S. G.N.P. was associated with manufactured goods (Skinner1988, p.11). In addition, although manufacturing directly accounted for only 20 percent ofjobs in the United States, when "manufacturing-linked service jobs" were included 40 to 60percent of all U.S. jobs depended on the manufacturing sector (ibid.). Evidence of thecontemporary interdependence of service and manufacturing activity, or the "service-to-manufacturing linkages" was also presented by MacPherson (1988) in a study of Torontomanufacturers. The continuing significance of manufacturing and service linkages suggeststhat the inner city incubator hypothesis is still relevant to cities in industrialized countries.A second reason for continuing to accord serious attention to the incubator role of the innercity and the inner city hypothesis is the shift in the manufacturing sector from "Fordist" ormass production methods to "post-Fordist" or flexible production methods dependent on fastinnovative responses to technological and market changes (Bolwijn 1986). The ability toinnovate and to economically produce a wide scope of small batches of goods improves amanufacturing firm's chances for survival and success. These characteristics encouragemanufacturers to stay fairly small in size and to cluster in order to gain advantages in obtainingtechnical and market information (Scott 1988a).The trend towards post-Fordist manufacturing practices may be of particular interest to policymakers expressing a desire for encouraging advanced technology manufacturing in theirjurisdictions. 16 Advanced technology manufacturing is often favored for its "clean"characteristics and the opportunities it provides for high value added shipments and skilled16see, for example, Greater Vancouver Regional District (1990, p.4), Creating our Future;and, City of Vancouver, City Manager's Report (1989, p.18) "Industry in Vancouver:Background Report."6inputs. Advanced technology manufacturing as a newer sub-sector has also been associatedwith post-Fordist manufacturing practices. Since inner city industrial areas can offer "hi-tech"firms the advantages of market intelligence and face-to-face contacts through agglomerationeconomies, the inner city incubator hypothesis may be of interest to local governmentsproposing to encourage growth of such firms.While these are two good arguments in favor of manufacturing activity and the retention ofinner city industrial land, it should be conceded that they are probably not applicable to allmetropolitan areas. The continuing role of the inner cities of older, large metropolitan areas asmanufacturing incubators has been questioned (Hutton 1991, p.58). In the emergence of aninternational economic system, cities such as London and New York function principally asworld corporate control and research centres (Friedmann 1982). Hutton (1991, p.58) notesthat even by the mid-1970s, "London's industrial incubator role had virtually ceased with themassive contraction of production in inner city boroughs." Production activity diminishedeven though the local authorities had for years prohibited non-industrial uses in industrialareas.For smaller cities, however, the case is not so clear. Unlike the large world cities, there isless assurance that corporate services can sustain or provide resilience to the entiremetropolitan economic base. 17 Therefore, an interest in manufacturing as a generator ofeconomic activity would be justified. It thus appears necessary to confirm the localsignificance of the hypothesis for smaller cities.C. Applying the Inner City Hypothesis to Policy DevelopmentApplication of the inner city hypothesis to policy development depends on the theoretical basesof the hypothesis, the validity of the empirical evidence, and their applicability to particular17For example, Greater Vancouver has shifted to a service-oriented economy (Davis andHutton 1989) but Hutton and Davis (1991, p.71) note the loss of several corporate head officesto Toronto through relocation.7metropolitan areas.Several theoretical challenges to the validity of the inner city hypothesis are reviewed inChapter 2. One of these directly challenges the theoretical foundation of the hypothesis.While proponents of the hypothesis assumed that new firms in the inner city rely on externaleconomies of urbanization18 , researchers such as Nicholson, Brinkley and Evans 19 (1981),and to some extent Heikkila and Hutton (1986), disagreed, arguing that new firms needexternal economies of localization. 20 The disagreement is compounded by the paucity ofempirical confirmation of the specific types of external economies that new firms exploit. 21One reason for this paucity could be the difficulty of defining and measuring agglomerationeconomies for survey purposes (Townroe and Roberts 1980, p.169). Since empirical tests ofthe hypothesis have been inconclusive, the localization economies argument remains plausible.The effect of newer (i.e. post-Fordist) manufacturing practices on the needs of new firms alsoneed to be addressed. To respond to these challenges, an empirical test of the hypothesis usingrecent data can provide some indirect evidence of the strength of inner city urbanizationeconomies for manufacturing incubation today. More direct evidence would be preferable, butthis would require an additional study of the linkages between young firms and their customersand suppliers within and outside the inner city.Mixed results from empirical tests of the inner city hypothesis make them an uncertain basisfor policy analysis. There is also a lack of recent research on the hypothesis which includes18Urbanization economies enhance the profitability or productivity of establishments becauseof advantages which accrue from the concentration of activity at city centres, e.g. access to alarge labor market.19Nicholson, Brinkley and Evans (1981) will simply be referred to as Nicholson (1981) in therest of this thesis.20Localisation economies enhance the profitability or productivity of establishments because ofadvantages which accrue from the clustering of a single industry, e.g. access to specializedsubcontracting services.21As Chapter 2 notes, Nicholson (1981) was the only researcher out of eight case studiesreviewed who pursued this question through additional research. However, he based hisconclusions on a very small sample size (n=19).8the effects of post-Fordist manufacturing practices and advanced technology manufacturing.The latest test of the hypothesis reported by Kurre in 1986 used 1970-1975 data.22 As afurther consideration, it should be noted that the use of the hypothesis as a basis for publicpolicy may be inhibited by the lack of directly relevant local empirical research. 23Review of the literature indicates an implicit assumption that the inner city hypothesis hasuniversal applicability. Research has focused on testing the hypothesis in given metropolitanareas without a theoretical reconciliation of the mixed results over a range of studies in varyingperiods and various metropolises. Questions about the relevance of the inner city incubatorfunction to all cities make it logical to suggest that the validity of the hypothesis is partly afunction of the structure or composition of the regional economic base and particularly of itsmanufacturing sector. This relationship has several implications for studying the hypothesisand developing public policy on inner city industry. Three are particularly important.Firstly, in order to understand the full significance of the inner city's manufacturing incubatorfunction for the regional economy some knowledge of the manufacturing sector in the region'seconomy is needed. Secondly, the contribution of existing establishments24 to themanufacturing sector must be studied since new firms are usually generated from a base ofexisting businesses. 25 Thirdly, industrial land use policy is generally developed andimplemented in the context of other economic policies and programs. Since some of theseseek to promote new firm formation, an understanding of recent incubation activity and itseffect on the existing manufacturing sector is desirable.22Nicholson's 1981 study used data which extended to 1978; see Appendix 1 for a summaryof case studies reviewed and Chapter 2 for a discussion of the case studies.23For example, John Britton (1981, p.16-17) in suggesting a strategy for Toronto's economicdevelopment in innovative industries, found that there was insufficient information on theindustrial incubator function.24An establishment is a business unit at a location; it does not differentiate between branchplants, headquarters or single location firms.25Keeble and Weyer (1986) note that an entrepreneur's past experience overwhelminglydetermines the type and location of business started.9The relevance of the existing activity base in policy analysis can also be justified from astrategic point of view. The rezoning and conversion of industrial lands to other uses aregenerally irreversible. Given the possibility that future opportunities for manufacturingincubation may be foregone, it is desirable to establish if the inner city has a current role ingenerating or maintaining regional manufacturing vitality. The question is not simply whetheror not the inner city is the principal manufacturing incubator in the aggregate. The strategicand relevant question is whether the inner city is currently a key incubator site or aninsignificant incubator site. A key incubator site may then translate specifically as either theprincipal incubator in the metropolis, or an incubator with special metropolitan significance.An incubator with special metropolitan significance could be defined as a case where the innercity is the principal incubator for new firms in specific sub-sectors serving a vital regionalfunction. This vital function might include the employment of a targetted group, the hostingof firms which might not otherwise be incubated, and the incubation of firms in embryonicgrowth sectors or propulsive industries. Therefore, the starting point for policy developmentshould be an empirical count of firm births and relocations by sub-sector and sub-area. Theresults should then be reviewed in relation to trends in the manufacturing sector of the regionaleconomy.For this thesis the significance of the inner city hypothesis thus goes beyond simplyascertaining if the inner city is the principal manufacturing incubator in the metropolis;applying the hypothesis to policy development requires in addition an understanding ofqualitative aspects of the inner city's incubation activity which may have significance for theregional economy. This entails a comparative analysis of sub-sectoral trends between newfirms and existing establishments in the manufacturing sector in order to identify sub-sectorswhich make a special contribution to the regional economy.10PURPOSE OF THE THESISThe purpose of this thesis is to help resolve local government's current dilemmaregarding the use of inner city industrial land. For this purpose, the thesis will examinethe inner city's function as the principal or the key incubator of new manufacturingfirms in the region. To do so, the thesis will undertake a contemporary test of the innercity hypothesis in a small metropolis, including a qualitative assessment of thesignificance of the hypothesis to the regional economy.The specific research objectives of the thesis are to:a) examine the quantitative intra-metropolitan distribution of manufacturing firm birthsand relocations26 and establish whether or not the inner city is the principalmanufacturing incubator;b) establish the qualitative significance of incubation activity in the inner city through anevaluation of sub-sectoral patterns of inner city firm births against an analysis of trendsin the regional manufacturing sector;c) examine the empirical evidence from the quantitative and qualitative analyses to clarifythe role of localization and urbanization economies for firm incubation; andd) apply the conclusions from a), b) and c) to the development of local land use policywhich addresses the need to balance the pressure for more residential land and theregional economic implications of significant incubation activity in the inner city.This thesis proposes to use Greater Vancouver27 as a case study because its policy context isquite representative:a) Greater Vancouver qualifies as a small metropolis when compared to large world citiessuch as London or New York;b) Greater Vancouver's economic base relies primarily on service sector employment --as Chapter 3 demonstrates, both decentralization and de-industrialization have occurredin Greater Vancouver, but, as noted earlier (see footnote 17), there are concerns aboutrelying exclusively on services to sustain the economic base because headquartercontrol functions continue to be attracted to Toronto at Vancouver's expense;26Relocations for the purpose of this thesis are defined as moves by manufacturing firms froman original inner city location to any other location.271n this thesis Greater Vancouver denotes the Census Metropolitan Area of Vancouver asdefined by Statistics Canada (see Map 1).11c)^development of land use policy for inner city industrial areas 28 confronts the dilemmaof conflicting demands for scarce inner city land:- in July 1983 City Council approved an economic strategy which containedrecommendations for the development of light industrial space and multi-storeyindustrial buildings in the inner city based partly on the objective of encouraging theincubator function; greater certainty for selected industrial activities in the city wasadvocated, while the encouragement of advanced technology manufacturers wasconsidered a desirable strategic initiative (Vancouver Economic AdvisoryCommission 1983);- recent Planning reports to City Council have recommended the rezoning of selectedpockets of inner city industrial land (totalling 270 acres, out of which 185 acres aretargetted for residential use); the remaining 1,675 acres are under review as cityplanners and Council attempt to respond to the demand for inner city industrial landby new uses; although they recognize that decentralization and de-industrializationhave occurred, there remains a concern that industrial activity directly servingbusinesses and households in the city should be accommodated; there is also anacknowledgement that the incubator role of inner city industrial areas should beconsidered; (City of Vancouver Manager's Reports, July 1990 and June 1989);- the Greater Vancouver Regional District 29 has recommended additional housingdensity in Vancouver city as a desirable goal to improve jobs-housing balance in theregion; jobs-housing proximity is also considered desirable to reduce commutingand the associated ecological impacts (Greater Vancouver Regional District 1990).Greater Vancouver was further selected because of a relative paucity of empirical research onmanufacturing incubation. The most recent study by Steed in 1973, documented thedecentralization of Greater Vancouver's manufacturing establishments during the two periods,1954-57 and 1964-67. He found that the suburbs gained more from new establishments thanfrom migrations from the inner city; however, the inner city contained close to one-half ofnew establishments in the region, indicating a significant if not principal (i.e. greater than one-half) incubator function. His findings provide a valuable historical reference point forassessing the significance of contemporary incubation patterns in Greater Vancouver.28The inner city in Greater Vancouver (see Map 2) is situated within the City of Vancouver;the latter is referred to in this thesis alternately as "Vancouver" or "the central city."29The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is an affiliation of more than 17 citiesand municipalities around Vancouver city (see Map 1). GVRD also refers to a regionalgoverning body.12SCOPE OF THE THESISThe scope of the research is spatially limited to Greater Vancouver, and sectorally limited tomanufacturing, although references to other cities are made in the literature review in Chapter2 and other economic sectors are referred to for comparative purposes in Chapter 3. The studyperiod for the statistical research on firm births and relocations will be limited to the last fewyears of the 1980s, in order to avoid the confounding effects of the Canadian recession in theearly 1980s, and the extraordinary activity associated with the international exposition, Expo'86, held in mid-decade in Vancouver. However, since the selected study period (1987 to 1990inclusive) was characterized by generally high economic growth and investment in GreaterVancouver30 , a high start-up rate might be anticipated even in the manufacturing sector.Earlier discussion revealed some disagreement in the literature about the role of urbanizationand localization economies for firm incubation, and about the incubator role of the inner cityrelative to those locational advantages. The thesis will not attempt a direct investigation oflocational advantages since the incubator hypothesis assumes that it is urbanization economiesrather than localization economies which explain the incubator role. Therefore, the proposedthesis research of firm births and relocations will instead be supplemented by a review oftrends in the regional manufacturing sector.Finally, this thesis considers only the concept of the inner city manufacturing incubator as ageographical area within the metropolis which is particularly suited to the needs of new firms.It does not address the concept of manufacturing incubators as structural (buildings) andorganizational facilities for housing and servicing new firms. 31 It also does not address the30See, for example, Table C6, "Business and Consumer Incorporations" for the period 1981-1990 in Vancouver, Greater Vancouver, and British Columbia, in Vancouver Economic DataBase, City of Vancouver, Economic Development Office (June 1991).31David N. Allen and Janet Hendrickson-Smith, Planning and Implementing Small BusinessIncubators and Enterprise Support Networks, November 1986.13Lions BayWestVancouverNorth VancouverelcarraCoguitlamPort MMaple RidgeNorthVancouverBurnaby^ort Pitt MeadowsCoguitlam CoguitiamNew //"^CtuitlamWestminst ) RichmondDeltaTsawwassenSurrey(LiWhite RockSemiabmooNIMAP 1VANCOUVER CENSUS METROPOLITAN AREA(GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT EXCLUDESMAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS)FROM: CITY OF VANCOUVER, VANCOUVER ECONOMIC DATA BASE 199115development of new products and processes by new or existing manufacturing establishments.METHODOLOGYThe introductory sections provided a brief discussion of the inner city hypothesis, thechallenges to it, and the implications for empirical research and policy development. A moredetailed treatment including a brief review of the case studies in the literature is provided inChapter 2.Since earlier discussion suggested that the validity of the hypothesis depends on the existenceand characteristics of the regional manufacturing sector, a review of Greater Vancouver'smanufacturing sector is undertaken in Chapter 3. A description of the intra-metropolitandistribution and trends in growth and decline of manufacturing activity by sub-sector areprovided to facilitate an assessment of the qualitative significance of inner city firm births.A quantitative assessment of the inner city incubator function, reported in Chapter 4, isundertaken in two steps. The first is to test the "simple" hypothesis which states that the birthrate of firms is higher in the inner city than elsewhere in the metropolis. This involves a countof firm births by sub-area and sub-sector and a mathematical interpretation using three separateformulae to determine if the inner city is the principal incubator. The second step is to testthe "complex" hypothesis which states that the higher birth rate of firms in the inner city isaccompanied by relocations of mature firms from the inner city to the rest of the metropolis.This involves a count of firm relocations out of the inner city to quantify the inner city'scontribution to suburban manufacturing growth.The final chapter draws some conclusions about the contemporary significance of the inner cityhypothesis, based on the analyses reported in the preceding chapters. The resultingimplications for inner city industrial land use policy in Greater Vancouver are identified, somelimitations/constraints of the case study are noted and topics for further research are identified.16CHAPTER 2THE INNER CITY AS THE METROPOLITAN MANUFACTURING INCUBATORINTRODUCTIONThis chapter reviews the theoretical bases of the inner city incubator hypothesis and examinesthe empirical tests of the hypothesis. The objectives are to explore more thoroughly the issuesand topics raised in the introductory chapter, and to derive some practical implications for theempirical research proposed in this thesis.THE INNER CITY INCUBATOR HYPOTHESISHoover and Vernon's 1959 study of location patterns in New York is generally credited in theliterature with formulating the hypothesis that the inner city, or the metropolitan core, "acts asan incubator or seed bed for new firms" (Kurre 1986, p.429). Specifically, the hypothesisstates that birth rates for new firms are higher in inner city areas when compared to non-innercity areas in the metropolis. 32 Therefore, according to the hypothesis, the inner city functionsas the principal incubator in the metropolis.The hypothesis is explained, using industrial location theory, by the presence of agglomerationeconomies at the city centres. Two other theories have been identified as contributingimplicitly to the rationale of the inner city hypothesis: product cycle theory and the notion ofhierarchical filtering (Scott 1988b; Nicholson 1981).A. Agglomeration economies and the Hypothesis: Agglomeration economies allownewborn firms, which are often small and financially marginal, to obtain externally ("externaleconomies") certain services and inputs they themselves cannot produce economically at asmall scale. Among the advantages of an inner city location to new firms are:32Researchers have used three different measurement indices to determine the inner city'shigher birth rate. Chapter 4 explains and uses all three methods for the first part of thehypothesis test.17minimum transport cost locations resulting from the convergence on the CBD(central business district) of major transport networks (Kurre 1986; Fagg 1980;Steed 1976);- the availability of smaller premises at low cost in old industrial buildings (Kurre1986; Nicholson 1981; Fagg 1980; Leone and Struyk 1976);- proximity to suppliers, subcontractors, and markets (Fagg 1980; Nicholson 1981);speedy access to "market intelligence" (Cameron 1980; Fagg 1980; Steed 1976);- availability of and access to varied labor skills (Nicholson 1981; Leone and Struyk1976; Steed 1976);the opportunity for "frequent face-to-face contacts with specialists such as lawyers,bankers, engineers, and government officials" to resolve start-up problems (Kurre1986, p.429); face-to-face contact between customer and supplier is crucial as itallows young firms "to be rapidly responsive to opportunities" (Townroe 1980,p.19).The notion that inner cities have a higher birth rate of new manufacturing firms than do non-inner city areas, has been termed by Leone and Struyk (1976) as the simple version of thehypothesis. They postulate a complex hypothesis that includes the idea that faster growingnew firms will eventually relocate to less dense areas away from the inner city because:- over time, the dependence on the services of the "incubator," i.e. the inner citylocation, will be reduced, as the firm achieves viability at a scale which makes iteconomical to provide most inputs and services internally;as small firms grow, larger spaces are needed which are available more cheaply inless dense areas away from the inner city;- in many cases, growing firms also have easier access to suburban labor markets in asuburban location.Townroe and Roberts (1980, p.16) and Devine (1979, p.457) suggest that agglomerationdiseconomies in the form of higher costs for larger premises and congestion delays areadditional reasons for growing firms to relocate out of the inner city.As noted in Chapter 1, there is a disagreement among researchers regarding the type of18external economies that are beneficial to new firms. The usual interpretation of the inner cityhypothesis stresses the importance of urbanization economies, which are economies derivedfrom the agglomeration of activity at city centres. Other researchers disagree, arguing thatnew firms actually benefit from localization economies derived from the agglomeration of asingle industry. Nicholson (1981, p.63) for example, suggests that Hoover and Vernon (1959)originally based the hypothesis on an analysis of the clustering effects of the inner cityindustries of clothing and printing.Heikkila and Hutton (1986) also question the role of inner city urbanization economies, butthey base their reasoning on the distinction between two agglomeration effects identified byScott (1982): transportation and communication economies derived from the spatialconcentration of businesses and households, and economies derived from the concentration andconsequent increase in scale of production activity. Heikkila and Hutton suggest that since thefirst agglomeration effect benefits both new and established firms, then it is the secondagglomeration effect which makes a difference for new firms. Since large firms have thecapacity to achieve scale economies internally it seems reasonable to deduce that small firms,especially newer ones, would seek scale economies externally in industrial clusters. Thus, theyposit that with the suburbanization of industry the incubation function would have migrated tothe newer and larger industrial clusters in the suburbs.The argument about the relevance of urbanization or localization economies to new firmincubation is not easy to resolve. As noted already in Chapter 1, few empirical studies havesought to directly confirm the type of external economies from which new firms benefit.However, many researchers have established that the suburbanization of industry resulted fromnew and existing establishment growth rather than from establishment relocations originatingfrom the inner city (Goldberg and Chinloy 1984, p.411, Steed 1973, p.251, O'Connor andBlakely 1990). The implication for the hypothesis is that urbanization economies available inthe inner city did not contribute to firm incubation and subsequent relocation to suburban19industrial areas.Arguments against urbanization economies have not been accompanied by proof thatlocalization economies contributed to suburban industry growth. Explanations rely instead onshifts in business practices and on technological advances. Walker (1981, p.399-400) assertsthat industrial decentralization was facilitated by the merger movement which created "thegiant corporation which made a new generation of large factory complexes possible" andcommunications technology which "made the detachment of factory and headquartersfeasible." Townroe and Roberts (1980, p.25) provide three reasons for the decentralizationprocess: first, the shift towards large multi-plant firms reduced the dependence on localagglomeration economies because these firms could substitute intra-firm linkages for externallinkages; second, technological improvements increased the availability of someagglomeration economies outside the city centre; and third, factors such as rising land costsand congestion in the city centre constituted agglomeration diseconomies which deterredestablishments from expanding within the inner city.Walker's interpretation, and to some extent that of Townroe and Roberts', raises questionsabout the continued relevance of industrial suburbanization with the most recent shift back tosmall-scale production and the need to integrate control and production functions in order toshorten response times and maintain flexibility (Cohen and Zysman 1987, p.179). Chapter 1and the early discussion in this chapter noted the association of the inner city with some of theneeds of new manufacturing practices including crucial "market intelligence" and face-to-facecontacts. This suggests that the inner city hypothesis based on the importance of urbanizationeconomies may have particular relevance today.Yet another interpretation of the needs of new firms is possible. There is a good probabilitythat new firms do not rely on one type of external economy to the exclusion of another.Townroe and Roberts (1980, pp.14-15) for example, acknowledge that new firms may need20localization economies to survive, but also state that the existence of urbanization economiescan simplify for a new firm the process of becoming established. 33 This interpretation alsoaccords with the idea presented in Chapter 1 that the validity of the inner city hypothesis is inpart a function of the characteristics of the existing base of manufacturing establishments. Atthe level of explaining the inner city hypothesis through external economies, it implies thatlocalization economies may also contribute to firm incubation in the inner city. Therefore, arelevant research implication would be the examination of the inner city hypothesis inconjunction with the characteristics of the local manufacturing sector.B. Product Cycle Theory and the Hypothesis: The relevance of product cycle theory lies inthe assumption contained in the complex hypothesis that growing firms relocate because theyneed large premises to undertake mass production. Product cycle theory refers to the life cycleof a product from its innovation, introduction and testing in the market to its standardization,which is the stage of "Fordist" or mass production. Competition and market expansion duringthe standardization phase require that the firm rationalize production to lower costs, usuallythrough internal economies of scale. Thus, the firm relocates because it needs large premisesbut it also needs to lower costs, so it seeks the cheaper land available in suburban locations.Scott (1988b) argued that the hypothesis has limited relevance today with the development ofpost-Fordist manufacturing practices. These changes make the production of small batches ofgoods economical. Scott bases his argument on a series of case studies which indicate thatthese changes have allowed a resurgence of industrial activity in Western Europe and NorthAmerica, but in locations which tend to be outside the previously dominant industrial regions.The implication is that the production process described in the product cycle theory has beensuperseded in these "new industrial spaces" by post-Fordist manufacturing practices.While Scott's arguments suggest that industrial decentralization at a metropolitan level can33Townroe and Roberts (1980, p.169) also suggest that the importance of external economiesof either type may vary for specific industries.21result from new manufacturing practices, it should be noted that he bases his conclusions oncase studies which may have limited applicability elsewhere. It seems highly improbable thateither the craft industries of the Third Italy, or the "hi-tech" Silicon Valley productioncomplex in the United States can be found in Vancouver. Scott (1988b) himself acknowledgesthat cultural and political characteristics particular to Italy and the United States form anintegral and significant part of the "new industrial spaces" he describes. 34C. Hierarchical Filtering and the Hypothesis: The relevance of hierarchical filtering lies inthe dynamic of new firm creation at the centre and subsequent relocation to the outer area ofthe metropolis, and sometimes farther to smaller urban areas (Scott 1988b, pp.207-8).Hierarchical filtering suggests that innovations occur in large metropolitan areas and thendiffuse down through the urban hierarchy. Townroe and Roberts (1980), who citeSveikhauskas (1975), Pred (1966) and Jacobs (1970), also suggested that new ideas andinnovations arise in cities. Thus, new firms are started in the city centre because of its role ingenerating new product ideas, while the relocation of firms diffuses these new ideas tometropolitan peripheries.Hierarchical filtering has been questioned by researchers who have observed changes in intra-metropolitan roles and functions. Hicks (1987) notes that as part of the "process of advancedindustrial restructuring" in the United States, entire metropolitan areas, "rather than oldercentral cities35 per se," have become incubators for new growth. O'Connor and Blakely(1990) echo Hicks' theme of the contemporary metropolitan economy as one functional unit.They reinterpret the traditional city-suburb relationship which describes the central city as "thesole generator of work" and "the origin of innovations," and the suburbs as "miniature urbanappendages" (ibid., p.99). Arguing that suburban activity generates demand for central city34In the Third Italy, cultural traditions in craft industries such as footwear, and in the SiliconValley, political decisions about defense priorities and budgets, have been critical factors forthe resurgence of industrial activity.35The central city is the city containing the central business district of the metropolis.22services, they view the city-suburb relationship as being restructured from dependency to inter-or co-dependency. They cite evidence, from aggregate data, of sizeable and simultaneousconstruction of suburban factories and central area offices in Melbourne, and of healthysuburban office growth accompanied by rapid central city office growth in San Francisco.They acknowledge that the data do not reveal the causal relationships and propose furtherresearch to identify the actual intra-metropolitan functional linkages.The earlier discussion of Scott's (1988b) identification of "new industrial spaces" also bears onthe primacy accorded to urban areas as innovation centres in hierarchical filtering. "Newindustrial spaces" thrive on a set of production principles which are quite different from thoseof mass production models. While mass production models emphasize scale economiesinternal to the firm, the flexible or post-Fordist production models take advantage of scaleeconomies achieved by many firms usually functioning as a group in close proximity. Thusinter-firm linkages and the high division of labor between firms result in an abundance ofsmall and medium-sized establishments, and a pronounced clustering or "re-agglomeration" ofproduction activity (Scott 1988b, p.4).Scott (1988b) demonstrates that the agglomeration economies considered beneficial toindustrial activity are no longer an urban monopoly. More specifically, such "new industrialspaces" do not depend on existing urban agglomerations for their generation. The conclusionthat external economies of scale can be achieved at diverse locations, challenges the position ofthe central city and its inner area as the principal incubator for new firms. However, as notedearlier, the applicability of Scott's arguments across metropolitan areas remains questionable.This observation recalls the discussion in Chapter 1 about differences between cities, and theacknowledgement that older metropolitan areas have indeed experienced considerable loss ofindustrial activity through decentralization, sometimes to the point of virtual disappearance ofthe manufacturing incubator function. Therefore, Scott's observations are in part aconfirmation of trends already recognized in the literature. The challenge posed by Scott and23others is to establish that urban incubation activity is also no longer significant outside olderlarge metropolitan areas. Thus, a contemporary test of the hypothesis in small metropolises isrequired before categorical conclusions about the validity of the hypothesis can be reached.THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCEThe hypothesis about the inner city incubator role has been subjected to empirical study,including tests of both the simple and complex hypotheses. 36 Eight case studies are reviewedhere. 37 Four tested only the simple hypothesis (Kurre 1986; Nicholson 1981; Steed 1976;Struyk and James cf. Leone and Struyk 1976), while the rest considered the patterns ofrelocations as well (Cameron 1980; Fagg 1980; Leone and Struyk 1976; Steed 1973). Theresults are summarized in Table 1 while a more detailed outline of the data sources,methodology and results for each case study is presented in Appendix 2.As shown in Table 1, the empirical research covered thirteen cities over varying time periodsbetween 1950 and 1978, and generated inconsistent conclusions about the simple and complexhypotheses. Some key similarities and differences between the case studies, as well asreservations about the data quality can be summarized as follows:- in all cases, the inner core of the city is the primary focus of the research;- in all cases, the simple hypothesis was tested;- in every case the researcher proposed that support for the simple hypothesis is foundin a higher birth rate of new firms in the inner city compared to non-inner cityareas;TABLE 136In this thesis the complex hypothesis will be referred to as "the hypothesis," while thesimple version of the hypothesis will be referred to specifically as the "simple hypothesis."37Townroe (1979, p.53) notes two other studies in the United States, Rees (1978) in the caseof Dallas-Fort Worth, and Schmenner (1978) in the case of Cincinnati, which found supportfor the simple hypothesis. Neither of these could be located for the purposes of the presentstudy. An older study by Cameron in 1973 also could not be located.24SUMMARY OF EIGHT CASE STUDIES ON THE INNER CITY INCUBATOR HYPOTHESISResearcher Study Area(s) Time Hypothesis Test^Result*Period(s) Simple ComplexKurre (1986) Detroit 1970-75 Yes No^No support except formanuf. ind. groupsNicholsonet.al.(1981)London 1970-78 Yes No^No support (from'non-inner city'manuf. inds.)S.W. London 1965-78 Survey to^Markets, notconfirm^externalexternal^economieseconomies^importantargumentCameron (1980) Central Clydeside 1958-68 Yes Yes^No supportFagg (1980) Greater 1957-70 Yes Yes^Strong supportLeicester (for both simple &complex hypothesis)Struyk & Boston 1965-68 Yes No^Weak supportJames (cf ClevelandLeone & MinneapolisStruyk St. Paul1976) PhoenixLeone & New York 1967-69 Yes Yes^Weak supportStruyk (1976) 1969-71 (Young relocating firms tend to remainin or near Core)Steed (1976) Toronto ) 1950-60 Yes No^Strong supportMontreal) 1963-67 in Toronto1971-73 No support inMontrealSteed (1973) Vancouver 1954-57 Yes Yes^No support1964-67 (simple) but significantincubator function*Researchers' evaluation25the researchers did not disaggregate the manufacturing sector, except for Kurre(1986), Nicholson (1981) and Cameron (1980); aggregate data likely masksevidence for and against the hypothesis at the sub-sector level;Kurre (1986) and Nicholson (1981) subjected the hypothesis to a more stringent testrequiring that the new firms in industry groups which are not core-oriented have ahigher birth rate in the inner city; 38 they therefore incorporated into themeasurement index a disaggregation by industry group;- in contrast, Steed (1976) measured the incubation function of Toronto and Montrealby studying the clothing sub-sector, which is considered to be a core-orientedindustry;- four of the case studies did not differentiate between new branch plants and newindependent firms, while the other four did;- both Kurre (1986) and Nicholson (1981) were quite definite that their evidenceshowed no support for the hypothesis, but it should be noted that the time periodcovered by their research, in both cases, included periods of economic downturns;the possibility that new firm births may have been inhibited during the recessionaryperiod cannot be discounted;- Nicholson (1981), in particular, encountered serious data quality problems: forexample, the Register from which the information was obtained did not includefirms with fewer than 20 employees; given that most new firms are small in size,this introduces a serious bias;There is general agreement among the researchers that supporting evidence for at least thesimple hypothesis is found in a higher birth rate of new firms in the inner city than in non-inner city areas. However, there are major differences in assumptions about conclusivesupport. Variations among the studies in sub-sectoral disaggregation, and in differentiatingbetween new branch plants and new independent firms, indicate that they must be compared, ifat all, with caution. When the data quality problems are considered, it becomes additionallydifficult to draw definitive conclusions about the hypothesis from the existing case studies, orto apply their results to policy development in other metropolitan areas.38Nicholson (1981) identify clothing, printing, timber (sic), furniture, and leather as core-oriented or "inner city" industries.26Inconclusive results from empirical tests raise questions about the validity of the hypothesis.Nicholson (1981) argues that the empirical tests by their nature cannot provide irrefutableevidence to support the hypothesis, because they are "surveys of the pattern of location atparticular points in time, and these cannot confirm a hypothesis which relates to changes overtime" (ibid. p.59). Nicholson's argument is a criticism of the methodology used for empiricaltests of the hypothesis. While surveys of location patterns confirm whether or not a particularinner city is the principal generator of new firms during the study period, such surveys bythemselves cannot unequivocally confirm whether the new firms go through a process of initialdependence on and subsequent independence from inner city external economies. Therefore,Nicholson's criticism points out the assumptive nature of empirical tests.Of the empirical studies reviewed, only one (Nicholson 1981) also explored, throughadditional research, the importance of external economies to new firms in the inner city.Nicholson (1981) concluded that the local market, rather than external economies per se, hadbeen the most significant factor in the original inner city location of the firms surveyed.However, it should be noted that his conclusion was based on a rather small sample (n=19),and that firms which were surveyed were founded between 1965 and 1978. This reduces theapplicability of the results to newer manufacturing sub-sectors.Setting aside the defensibility of the research methods in specific case studies, the range ofconclusions could also indicate significant differences between the cities investigated. It isperhaps more than chance that Fagg's (1980) study of Greater Leicester, for example,provided strong support for the hypothesis, while Nicholson (1981) found no support for thehypothesis in London. Greater Leicester enjoyed a strong and diverse manufacturing baseduring the time period of the study (Fagg 1980, p.38), while inner London was experiencingmassive shrinkage of manufacturing activity in the mid-1970s (Hutton 1991, p.58). There isthus a need to guard against the assumption that similar processes necessarily occur in allcities. There is also some basis for giving further consideration to the hypothesis in27metropolitan areas which continue to have relatively stronger manufacturing sectors.The mixed results from the case studies provide no adequate basis for policy development.This demands that central cities of smaller metropolitan areas should undertake to check therecent local demography of new firms when considering policy changes which couldpotentially disrupt existing patterns of manufacturing activity. The importance to smaller citiesof maintaining a favorable stance toward manufacturing activity was mentioned in Chapter 1;unlike large world cities smaller cities have less assurance that corporate services can sustainor provide "resilience" to the entire metropolitan economic base.CONCLUSIONThis chapter has reviewed the concept of the inner city as the principal metropolitanmanufacturing incubator as presented in the literature. An examination of the theoretical basesof the inner city hypothesis revealed doubts about the validity of these theories, while theempirical tests produced inconclusive results.However, the theoretical doubts and empirical ambiguity did not discredit the hypothesisconvincingly, although the relevance of some of these doubts and contradictory empiricalresults might be more applicable to some older large metropolises. Thus, the discussion raisesquestions for the manner in which empirical investigation into the hypothesis should beconducted:a) is there a differentiation between cities when examining the hypothesis? the needto include the existing economic structure and the role of the manufacturing sector asrelevant to empirical enquiries into the hypothesis is based on an explicitacknowledgement of differentiation between cities; this research approach is a logicalresponse to the mixed results of empirical tests of the hypothesis, to observeddifferences in the economic base of cities, and to insights from Scott's (1988a,b)research which indicate that older large metropolitan areas continue to have lessindustrial vitality despite changes in manufacturing practices; these observationssuggest that the incubator function in small metropolises needs further empirical studybefore the hypothesis can be dismissed universally;28b) does the hypothesis have validity today? the lack of empirical tests of the hypothesisusing data beyond the late 1970s and the emergence of newer manufacturing practicessuggest that there is an obvious need to examine the hypothesis using contemporarydata; such a test will help to clarify whether suburbanization has an effect on thehypothesis today, given that there are shifts away from giant firms and separation ofcontrol and production functions; it will also provide some insight into the relevance ofthe hypothesis with the advent of post-Fordist manufacturing practices which emphasizesmall-scale, non- standardized production and fast innovative responses;c) do new firms need either urbanization or localization economies, or do they needboth to survive? testing the hypothesis first requires examining the quantitativedistribution of new firms between inner city and suburban areas, but attempting toinclude in the enquiry some indirect evidence of the role of urbanization andlocalization economies requires that the hypothesis be tested in conjunction with areview of the local manufacturing sector; the implication is that the validity of thehypothesis might be related to the existence of a manufacturing base which can providelocalization economies to new firms in the inner city;d) should disaggregated data be used for the hypothesis test? the summary of empiricalcase studies pointed out that the use of aggregate data in some instances may havemasked significant incubation activity at sub-sectoral levels; Chapter 1 argued that inorder to apply a test of the hypothesis to policy development an assessment of thequalitative significance of the inner city incubator function is required; these are goodreasons for undertaking an analysis of sub-sectoral and sub-metropolitan trends in thedistribution of new firms and existing establishments in the manufacturing sector;e) can the assumptive nature of empirical tests be compensated for? Nicholson's(1981) criticism identified the relevance of a supplementary survey addressing the typesof external economies relevant to new firms; however, a test of the hypothesis whichincludes a supplementary review of the regional manufacturing sector can provide abasis for comparative analyses of new and existing establishments at the sub-sectoraland sub-metropolitan levels; thus, it would be possible to identify instances where highbirth rates in specific industries co-incide with agglomerations of existingestablishments in those industries; this would allow some inferences about the role oflocalization economies to be made;f) which method should be used to measure the test data? the review of empiricalcase studies also revealed that there are three different methods to measure the principalincubator function in the inner city (see Appendix 2); specifically, the simplehypothesis has been tested on a majority percentage basis (greater than 50 percent offirm births in the inner city), a share ratio basis in the aggregate and sub-sectorally (theinner city's share of firm births exceeds its corresponding share of existingestablishments), and a proportional comparison method involving a disaggregation ofinner city and non-inner city industries; the complex hypothesis has been tested bycomparing the number of firm migrations into and out of the inner city; therefore,actual measurement indices for a test of the hypothesis are already available; the29research should undertake to perform all the existing mathematical interpretations toallow for multiple evaluations of the hypothesis test and possibly some analysis into thereasons for mixed results from previous empirical tests.The summary of research questions and issues identified from the review of theoretical andempirical research literature on the inner city hypothesis corresponds to the main findings inChapter 1 about relevant enquiry into the hypothesis which would benefit local policydevelopment. Therefore, the primary objectives stated in the "purpose" section of the previouschapter apply to the research in the following chapters. Thus, Chapter 3 reviews the GreaterVancouver manufacturing sector as an explicit part of the research methodology, whileChapter 4 tests the simple and complex hypotheses in Greater Vancouver. Detailed aspectsidentified here will inform the research and conclusions about the significance of the inner cityhypothesis in Greater Vancouver.30CHAPTER 3MANUFACTURING IN GREATER VANCOUVERINTRODUCTIONThis chapter presents an overview of the manufacturing sector in Greater Vancouver. Theobjectives are to describe the role of manufacturing in the metropolitan economy and thehistorical trends in the spatial and sub-sectoral distribution of manufacturing activity. It isanticipated that this review will provide a basis on which to assess the significance ofdisaggregated results of the hypothesis test in the next chapter.THE ROLE OF MANUFACTURING IN THE ECONOMIC BASEThe role of manufacturing in the economy can be approached in several ways. This sectionfirst reviews the role of manufacturing in British Columbia, where production from naturalresources dominates. Next, manufacturing in Greater Vancouver is reviewed relative to theeconomic restructuring towards services employment in the region. However, the contributionof manufactured shipments to the provincial export base is also noted, as is the steady absoluteincrease in regional and provincial manufacturing activity over time.A. Production from Natural Resources Dominates Provincially: The manufacturing sectorof Greater Vancouver is less significant to the provincial economy than production fromnatural resources and related services employment (Province of British Columbia, 1990). Infact the relative size and importance of the manufacturing sector in the provincial economy isnot only small, but has been steadily declining since 1961. Figure 1 demonstrates that themanufacturing share of the gross domestic product declined from 19 percent in 1961 to 14percent in 1989. The relative increase in importance of the services sector from 61 percent in1961 to 70 percent in 1991 is also evident in Figure 1.31REAL GDP BY INDUSTRY, B.C.1961 & 1989: PER CENT OF TOTALManufacturing19%Construction 8% ,.TSCUtilities 2%Trade 10%19%Primary12%UtilitiesTrade^3%^TSC11% 12%Construction\FIRE^...„,./fT1C-1199'Manufacturing14%FIRE 14 ,Y= -^"BPS^CEPS^8% Primary^20% 21°I. PAD5%1961 1989^$ 13,407.4 million •^$ 48,416.8 million• Excludes unaliocated residual.TSC = Transportation, Storage, CommunicationsFIRE = Finance, Insurance, Real EstateCEPS Community. Business, Personal SeniorsPAD . PUNIC AOrninistraoon & ()NonceFIGURE 1FROM: PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (1990)32B. Regional Economic Restructuring Toward Services: The economic restructuring of theGreater Vancouver economy towards the services sector, as well as technologicalimprovements allowing labor substitution in manufacturing processes, has diminished theimportance of manufacturing in terms of employment. Hutton (1989, 1987) and Davis andHutton (1989a, 1989b) have documented that the growth in services employment in GreaterVancouver has been occurring at least since 1961. Table 2 provides a breakdown ofVancouver's sectoral distribution of employment between 1961 and 1986, and indicates thatservice sector employment increased from 74 percent in 1961 to more than 78 percent in 1986.The increase in services employment has been accompanied by comparatively slower growth,and occasional declines, in manufacturing employment. For example, McGovern (1961,p.198) noted that between 1931 and 1956, manufacturing employment in the food andbeverage industry group declined from 28 percent to 20 percent of total manufacturingemployment in the region "mainly because of productivity increases."The greater role of services in regional employment results in some advantages anddisadvantages. According to Hutton (1989, pp.42-46), growth and diversification in theservices sector of Greater Vancouver provide some autonomy from cyclical fluctuationsassociated with the provincial resources economy. However, Hutton (ibid.) also notes that thecorporate complex in Vancouver continues to be strongly connected with the provincialresource economy in terms of finance, head office functions and producer services. Thus, theGreater Vancouver economy is not fully insulated from resource-related cyclical fluctuations.Hutton (ibid.) further points out that a high dependence on services employment raisesconcerns about the vulnerability of the labor force to capital substitution with technologicaladvances, and the sustainability of continued growth given the possibility that growth inservices may have recently peaked.Concerns about cyclical fluctuations in the provincial resources economy are echoed by theprovincial and the federal governments. Diversifying the economy is seen as an appropriate33TABLE 2Vancouver's sectoral distribution of employment: 1961-19861961^1986 ^Number of % of^Number of % ofIndustrial Group ,^Persons^Total^Persons^TotalGOODS SECTORAgriculture 3,806 1.1 10,220 1.4Forestry 2,518 .7 3,890 .5Fishing and Trapping 1,836 .5 2,725 .4Mining 1,581 .5 2,920 .4Manufacturing 57,485 17.0 91.,065 12.4Construction 19 897 5.9 46,155 6.3Sub-total 87,123 25.8 156,975 21.4SERVICE SECTORTransportation andCommunication 34,934 10.3 73,005 9.9Trade 59,899 17.7 136,815 18.6Finance, Insurance andReal Estate 15,913 4.7 53,560 7.3Education and relatedServices 12,113 3.6 41,940 5.7Health and WelfareServices 18,828 5.6 60,925 8.3Business and personalServices 78,278 23.1 49,885 6.8Accommodation andFood Services 12,905 3.8 58,725 8.0Public Administration andDefense 18 003 5.3 39 350 5.4Sub-total 250,878 74.2 514,205 70.0Other service industries -- .... 63,115 8.6All service sector 250 878 74.2 577 320 78.6TOTAL 338,001 100.0 734,290 100.0Source: Census of CanadaFROM: FRASER ( 968)policy response, with the federal government in particular targetting $1.2 billion in 1987 for afive-year diversification fund for the four western provinces:to provide a counterforce to the periodic cycles of the marketplace, and tobroaden and strengthen the economic base of the West. 39C. Manufacturing Performs Well in Exports: Despite the dominance of resourcecommodities in provincial exports (70 percent by volume and value in 1989), 40 themanufacturing sector in British Columbia contributes substantially to the economic base interms of export performance. In a survey of provincial manufacturing, wholesale, andproducer service sectors conducted between 1987 and 1988, Hayter and Barnes (1990) foundthat the manufacturing sector was most important in terms of sales and export performance. 41They also found that service sector revenues were small in comparison to the manufacturingsector. Statistics Canada data for 1984 indicate that 37 percent ($6,358 million) of allmanufacturing shipments from British Columbia were exported. 42 In national terms, BritishColumbia accounted for 10 percent of all manufacturing exports from Canada in 1984. 43D. Steady Absolute Increase in Manufacturing: In absolute terms, the manufacturing sectorin Greater Vancouver, and in British Columbia as a whole, has been steadily growing.Between 1931 and 1956, Greater Vancouver's share of national manufacturing outputincreased from 2.6 percent to 4.3 percent (McGovern 1961, p.198). By 1984, 8.0 percent ofCanada's manufacturing shipments originated in British Columbia.44 Manufacturingemployment in Greater Vancouver has also increased from 12,600 in 1931 to 92,059 in 1989(McGovern 1961, p.198, and Davis and Hutton 1990, p.6). In fact, between 1984 and 1989,39Western Economic Diversification Canada information brochure.40Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, 1990 Review,p.82.41However, a small group of manufacturing and wholesale firms accounted for most of theexports; also, most exporters of manufactured products were forest product companies.42Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-530, Destination of shipments of manufacturers.43 ibid.44ibid .35the manufacturing sector ranked second after construction in terms of annual averageemployment growth in Greater Vancouver, registering an increase of 39 percent (see Table 3).Manufacturing also contributed approximately 20 percent of the total annual averageemployment growth in Greater Vancouver. During the same period, there has been a recoveryof capital expenditure in Greater Vancouver manufacturing to 1980-81 levels (see Table 4),reflecting renewed confidence by investors in the local manufacturing economy.REGIONAL MANUFACTURING TRENDSThis section begins by reviewing the historical composition and volume of manufacturingactivity in Greater Vancouver. Leading major industry groups, 45 as well as individualindustries exhibiting trends of growth or decline are highlighted. 46 Next, the decentralizationof manufacturing activity in Greater Vancouver is recorded as a phenomenon occurring asearly as the 1950s. Factors affecting the spatial distribution of manufacturing in GreaterVancouver are reviewed, using historical literature and numerical indicators. The finalsubsection demonstrates that despite the continued operation of these factors, the central city ofVancouver remains the most important employment location for manufacturing.A. Composition and Volume of Manufacturing Activity: The composition and volume ofGreater Vancouver manufacturing activity has been generally influenced by local resourceavailability and local market demands. Hardwick (1974, p.81) notes that one of the earliestindustries was sawmilling in the city core, because "the combination of local market, laboursupply, and transport focus gave Vancouver a comparative advantage over alternative coastsites." Figure 2 from McGovern (1961, p.199) indicates that in 1931 and 1956 the largestmanufacturing employers in Greater Vancouver were the wood products and food andbeverage industry groups.45Statistics Canada aggregates individual industries into seven major industry groups in themanufacturing sector (see Table 5).46While an attempt has been made to provide consistent time series information, changes indata collection methods by Statistics Canada over the years has necessitated some adjustmentsin data compilation. These adjustments are noted as they appear in the text.36TABLE 3Vancouver Q. Sector Employment, 1984-89 (Annual Averages)Industry Sectors 1984 1985Year1987 1988 1989• Change1986 1984-89Average for all sectors 474,805 481,203 500,905 556,620 569,211 600,345 26.4Manufacturing 66,230 69,432 68,554 81,739 88.011 92,059 39.0Durable Goods Manufacturing 32,138 32,855 32,740 41,061 45,700 49,223 53.2Construction 17,834 20.805 19,007 22,764 25,909 30,709 72.2Transportation a Communications 57,517 58,099 56,060 62,640 64,197 64,401 12.0Transportation 32,665 33,589 31,022 35,262 37,519 38,018 16.4Trade 95,377 95,394 104,252 112,498 118,061 119,633 25.4Retail Trade 63,449 61,884 69,812 74,249 77,957 77,246 21.7Finance, Insurance andReal Estate 36,675 38,480 40,788 42,490 44,785 48,803 33.1Finance 21,199 21,960 23,953 24,170 25,970 26,011 22.7Community Business andPersonal Services 182,549 176,542 190,841 212,392 205,741 224,054 22.7Business 31,891 29,317 31,502 35,575 34,395 40,878 28.2Education Services 35.359 34,887 36,226 37,703 39,473 42,564 20.4Health a Welfare Services 47,104 44,706 47,264 54,351 56.406 56.933 20.9Amusement and RecreationalServices 9,803 11,411 10,174 11.896 12,855 11,172 14.0Accommodation a Food Services 37,954 36,140 42,122 51,875 42,671 46,005 21.2Source: CAMBIA data from Statistics CanadaFROM: DAVIS AND MUTTON (1990)37TABLE 4TABLE D2 (Updated May 1991)CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN MANUFACTURING IN VANCOUVER CMA*New Expenditure^RepairsYearConstruc-tionMachinery,EquipmentConstruc-tionMachinery,Equipment1990 $81,200,000 $313,600,000 $30,700,000 $173,000,0001989 91,600,000 354,600,000 28,500,000 168,700,0001988 71,000,000 218,700,000 30,700,000 174,600,0001987 72,400,000 310,600,000 30,700,000 141,800,0001986 45,800,000 196,300,000 26,600,000 136,100,0001985 31,600,000 185,300,000 31,800,000 139,500,0001984 46,200,000 144,900,000 25,100,000 136,600,0001983 47,600,000 159,500,000 25,000,000 117,200,0001982 94,600,000 196,400,000 29,900,000 121,400,0001881 110,300,000 282,400,000 31,800,000 128,600,0001980 81,100,000 179,500,000 29,000,000 120,200,000NOTE:^*See Map 1SOURCES: Planning and Statistics Division, B.C. Ministry of Financeand Corporate RelationsThe Financial Post, "Canadian Markets 1991"FROM: CITY OF VANCOUVER, VANCOUVER ECONOMIC DATA BASE 199138STRUCTURE OF MANUFACTURING IN THEVANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA,1931&1956% of mfg. labour forceo%^lo%^20%Food and BeveragesTashi's and ClothingWood ProductsPaper ProductsPrinting a PublishingIran a Stool ProductsTransportation EqptNon-Ferrous MetalsElectrical ApparatusNon-metallic Masa*Chemical ProductsFIGURE 2Source: Donitenon Bureau of Statistics, Gomm* Reviser ofthe Manufacturing loduskies of Consia,1931 &SWFROM: MCGOVERN ( 1 961 )TABLE 5MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP CLASSIFICATIONSMAJOR GROUP INDUSTRIES1 Food and beverage2 Leather, textile, knitting mills and clothing3 Wood, furniture and fixtures, paper and alliedand printing, publishing and allied4 Machinery, transportation equipment and electricalproducts5 Primary metal and metal fabricating6 Rubber and plastic products, petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products7 Non—metallic mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-2091) The wood products and food and beverage major industry groups continue to be thelargest employers: The dominance of the wood products and food and beverage industrygroups has continued since 1956 (see Figure 3). The graphs in Figure 3 use an average of thepercentage shares of the value of shipments of goods of own manufacture, total value added,and total number of employees as an indicator of industry activity for the seven major industrygroups. Figures 3(a) and 3(b) have been constructed from data published in the StatisticsCanada Catalogue #31-209, Manufacturing Industries of Canada: subprovincial areas for 1956and 1966. However, changes in data collection methods by Statistics Canada have necessitatedthe inclusion in Figures 3(a) and 3(b) of a group called "Other." Thus, strict comparability of1956 and 1966 with subsequent years is not possible, but the general trends depicted in thesegraphs provide a rough historical picture. Figures 3(c) and 3(d) are taken directly from thesame catalogue for 1976 and 1986.The graphs also indicate that the initial strength of the metal products industry group has beenovertaken by major industry group numbers 4 and 6 (see Table 5 on the previous page for akey to major industry group classifications). Growth in these major industry groups representssome product diversification in the local manufacturing sector, probably as a result of agrowing local market.2) Labor contraction has occurred recently in most industries: Between 1976 and 1986 thetotal number of manufacturing employees in Greater Vancouver declined by 1.8 percent. 47The small gross loss of employment over the period masked significant labor contractions insix of the ten individual industries which were the major employers (see Table 6).Employment losses were balanced by gains in the printing, clothing, and electrical andelectronic products industries. Substantial employment increases also occurred in the plastics,miscellaneous and other industries, providing another indication that some productdiversification is occurring in Greater Vancouver's manufacturing base.47Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209.41FIGURE 3GREATER VANCOUVER INDUSTRY ACTIVITY, 1956-86DISTRIBUTION BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP(a) 1936^ LEGEND:PERCENTAGE•^NM I2^3^4^3^6^7^84030201001 = FOOD AND BEVERAGE2 = LEATHER, TEXTILE AND CLOTHING3 = WOOD, PAPER AND ALLIED ANDPRINTING, PUBLISHING AND ALLIED4 = TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT ANDELECTRICAL. APPARATUS5 = IRON AND STEEL AND NON—FERROUSMETAL6 = CHEMICALS AND ALLIED7 = NON—METALLIC MINERAL ANDMISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING8 = OTHERMAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP(b) 196640 PERCENTAGE10dLEGEND:1 = FOOD AND BEVERAGE2 = TEXTILE3 = WOOD, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES,PAPER AND ALLIED, AND PRINTING,PUBLISHING AND ALLIED4 = MACHINERY AND TRANSPORTATIONEQUIPMENT5 = METAL FABRICATING6 = PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS,CHEMICAL AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS7 = NON—METALLIC MINERAL ANDMISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING8 = OTHER1^2^3^4^5^6^7^8MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPSOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209INDUSTRY ACTIVITY IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF THE PERCENTAGESHARES OF THE VALUE OFSHIPMENTS OF GOODS OF OWN MANUFACTURE. TOTAL VALUE ADDED AND TOTAL EMPLOYEES422010FIGURE 3GREATER VANCOUVER INDUSTRY ACTIVITY, 1956-86DISTRIBUTION BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP(c) 1976^ LEGEND:InduatrY groulAnilo -Iri Food and beverage and tobacco productsindustries.Leather, textile, knitting mills andclothing Industries.'Wood. tomiture and fixtures, paper and30^allied and printing, publishing andallied industries.Machinery, transportation equipment andelectrical products industries.Primary 'metal and metal fabricatingindustries.Rubber and plastic products, petroleumand coal products and chemical productsindustries.Non-metallic mineral products and miscel-laneous manufacturing industries.00/040LEGEND:Industry groupings —InFood and beverage and tobacco productsindustries.Leather, textile, knitting mills andclothing industries.Wood, furniture and fixtures, paper andallied and printing, publishing andallied industries.Machinery, transportation equipment andelectrical products industries.Primary metal and metal fabricatingindustries.Rubber and plastic products, petroleumand coal products and chemical productsindustries.Non-metallic mineral products and misc.+.laneous manufactunng industries.FROM: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209INDUSTRY ACTIVITY IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF THE PERCENTAGESHARES OF THE VALUE OFSHIPMENTS OF GOODS OF OWN MANUFACTURE, TOTAL VALUE ADDED AND TOTAL EMPLOYEESTABLE 61976-1986 CHANGE BY INDUSTRYIN GREATER VANCOUVER ESTABLISHMENTS AND EMPLOYEESINDUSTRY ESTABLISHMENTS1976^1986 CHANGE%EMPLOYEES1976^1986 CHANGE%Food & Beverage 244 184 —25 11,521 9,903 —14Clothing / 38 61 +60 2,418 2,943 +22Wood 173 239 +38 13,921 10,525 —24Paper & Allied 41 39 — 5 3,286 3,167 — 4Printing, Pub-lishing & Allied 221 406 +84 4,756 6,467 +36Machinery 105 152 +45 3,938 3,410 —13TransportationEquipment 107 119 +11 4,369 3,485 —20Electrical & 57 72 +26 2,746 3,173 +16Electronic2Metal Fabrication 264 349 +32 7,408 6,226 —16Rubber & Plastic./ 66 91 +38 1,048 1,756 +68Miscellaneous 4 142 308 +117 2,033 2,530 +24Other5 323 474 +47 8,726 11,426 +31TOTAL 1,781 2.494 +40 66.170 65,011 — 2SOURCE:^STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-2091 1986 contains only City of Vancouver2 1986 contains only City of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond3 1986 contains only Plastic4 Miscellaneous includes industries covered by SIC #39 (seeAppendix 59)5 Other includes all other major industry groups44Table 6 also demonstrates that the number of manufacturing establishments increased in allsub-sectors except food and beverage and paper and allied products. 48 In total, the number ofmanufacturing establishments in Greater Vancouver increased by 40 percent between 1976 and1986, although there was a net loss of 1.8 percent in manufacturing employment. This trendtoward numerous smaller establishments is consistent with the characteristics of post-Fordistproduction (refer to the discussion in Chapters 1 and 2 regarding post-Fordist production).B. Decentralization of Manufacturing Activity: Decentralization of manufacturing activityin Greater Vancouver was observed as early as the 1950s, leading Hardwick (1974, p.189) tolabel the period between 1920 and 1950 as the central city's "Industrial Period." Using thesame measure for industry activity as Figures 3(a) to 3(d) (the average of the central city'sshare of the value of shipments of own manufacture, total value added, and total number ofemployees), the central city's performance relative to the region declined from 60 percent in1956 to approximately 31 percent in 1986. Figure 4 depicts this information graphically. Thestrength of manufacturing activity in the surrounding municipalities is further demonstrated inFigure 5, which is taken from the City of Vancouver's "Industry in Vancouver: BackgroundReport" (1989, p.8). The graphs indicate that the rest of the region (as a group) has beenoutpacing the central city in the growth of industrial land supply, floorspace, firms andemployment. However, more recent evidence presented in the next subsection indicates thatdecentralization has halted in Greater Vancouver, and that the central city is actually gainingmanufacturing establishments relative to the suburbs.1) Suburbs gained from new activity rather than relocations: Hodge and Robinson (1960,p.4.0) noted that whereas the inner city ("Vancouver centre") received 46 percent of additionalindustrial employment between 1900 and 1950, by the latter half of the 1950s, its share48Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209 does not provide sub-sector totals for selectedindustries in 1986, and therefore, this statement is true given the available information, whichis displayed in Table 6.45FIGURE 4INDUSTRY ACTIVITY 1956-1986CITY OF VANCOUVER SHARE OF REGION60%♦0%48%62%1958^ 19681976^ 1906CITY OF VANCOUVERREST OF GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. /31-209INDUSTRY ACTIVITY IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF THE PERCENTAGESHARES OF THE VALUE OF SHIPMENTS OF GOODS OF OWN MANUFACTURETOTAL VALUE ADDED AND TOTAL EMPLOYEES.Acres10,0008,0006,0004,0002,000Rest ofGVRDVancouverSqua45re Feet (Millions)4035302520151050 1978^1981Light IndustrialRest ofGVRDVancouver1 961 1966 1971 1976 1981Industrial Land1986FloorspaceRest ofGVRDVancouverRest ofGVRDVancouverOM Oa2,0Firms001,5001,0005000  ^ 01961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1984 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981Manufacturing Firms EmploymentFIGURE 5RECENT TRENDS IN INDUSTRIAL LAND, FLOORSPACE, FIRMSAND EMPLOYMENT IN VANCOUVER AND THE REST OF THE GVRDFROM: CITY OF VANCOUVER (1989)47had dropped to 25 percent (see Table 7). 49 The surrounding municipalities were thereforegaining proportionately larger shares of new industrial activity by the 1950s. This post-warmetropolitan trend was noted by other researchers as well (Goldberg and Chinloy 1984,O'Connor and Blakely 1990). As noted in Chapter 1, Steed (1973) reviewed the distributionof manufacturing establishments in Greater Vancouver for the periods 1954-57 and 1964-67.He also found that the suburban municipalities were gaining mainly as a result of newestablishments, rather than migrations from the inner city. However, Table 8 demonstrates thatsince 1956 the central city also lost, in absolute terms, manufacturing establishments andemployees although the number of establishments has been increasing since 1983; that yearthe number of establishments recorded in the central city was the lowest at 750. 50 Sub-provincial data on manufacturing beyond 1986 are no longer available from Statistics Canada,but estimates from Contacts Target Marketing indicate that the inner city's share ofmanufacturing establishments increased from 22 percent in 1986 to 25 percent as of August1991. The increased share was achieved even while the suburbs were gaining absolutely in thenumber of establishments. This suggests that net losses in the inner city have ceased and thatthe inner city's gain in the number of establishments is both absolute and relative.2) Some factors affecting the spatial distribution of manufacturing in GreaterVancouver: Three major factors have affected the spatial distribution of manufacturingactivity in Greater Vancouver. The first was the general shortage of serviced industrial landpartly as a result of geographical constraints in the region, which encouraged wide dispersionof industrial activity. Steed (1973, p.255) noted that "difficult physical conditions" existed inmany of the extensive industrially zoned areas.49Hodge and Robinson (1960) define industry to include, manufacturing, construction,wholesale trade, and Highway and Water Transportation and Storage (of presumably goods).50Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209.48TABLE 7proportion of Additional Industrialmetropolitan Area Occurring in1950-1959.Employment in the VancouverEach Municipality, 1900-1950 and% INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT ADDED1900 -1950 1950Total -19591955-1959URBAN CENTRES: 75.3 55.2 48.2Vancouver City, Total 61.1 50.3 42.9Vancouver Centre" 46.0 34.5 25.4Outlying Areas' 15.1 15.8 17.5New Westminster 9.6 3.6 5.2North Vancouver City 4.6 1.3 0.1SUBURBAN AREAS 24.7 44.8 51.8Burnaby 8.1 13.1 14.3Richmond 2.4 7.8 11.8North Vancouver District 0.7 3.4 2.7Delta 0.1 9.6 14.7Port MoodyPort Coquitlam 4.7 2.8 2.9Coquitlam DistrictSurrey 1.9 1.4 1.4Other 6.8 6.7 3.5TOTAL METROPOLITAN AREA 100.0 100.0 100.0'Includes False Creek - Burrard Inlet area**Includes Marine Drive, Grandview - Lougheed Highway, Arbutus,Cedar Cottage Areas.Source: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of B.C., IndustrialStudy now in progress, 1959.FROM: HODGE AND ROBINSON (1960)49TABLE 8PRINCIPAL STATISTICS 1956-1986CITY OF VANCOUVER MANUFACTURING SECTORYEAR^ESTABLISH—^EMPLOYEES^VALUE OF^TOTALMENTS SHIPMENTS^VALUE ADDED($000) ($000 )1956 1,299 36,052 534,658 229,0421966 1,100 33,170 710,223 346,24.31976 809 27,257 1,340,236 628,3901986 831 22,721 2,641,326 1,240,384SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209TABLE 9Approximate Costs of Industrial Land, Vancouver Metropolitan Area,1957.Approx. costs per acreDown town Area:Waterfront & Trackage $90,000General 50,000Outside Downtown Area:Boundary-Lougheed 35,000Grandview Highway 25,000Marine Drive 20,000Burnaby 10,000Lulu Island 5,000Coquitlam & Surrey 2,500Source: Technical Committee for Metropolitan Highway Planning, LandUse and Population Survey, 1959.FROM: HODGE AND ROBINSON (1960)50The second factor is the continuing high cost of industrial land in the inner city. Table 9 fromHodge and Robinson (1960, p.64) presents industrial land costs in Greater Vancouver in 1957,and indicates that the high cost of industrial land in the inner city was quite pronounced. Map3 from the City of Vancouver Planning Department (1977, p.65) indicates that the pattern ofhigher land costs at the centre was still prevalent in 1976. Table 10 from the City ofVancouver Economic Development Office (1991, Table N8) confirms that the trend continuesas of September 1990. Such a consistent pattern of higher land costs at the centre canconstitute agglomeration diseconomies as defined by Townroe and Roberts (1980), especiallyfor manufacturing firms requiring extensive horizontal space for production line systems. Atthe same time, lower land costs coupled with the rapid development of industrial parks outsidethe central city attract manufacturers to the suburbs. 51A third factor has been the erosion of industrial land supply in central Vancouver throughrezoning. Maps 4 and 5 depict the sizeable contraction of available industrial land in centralVancouver between 1974 and 1988. Table 11 compiled for the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict indicates that the supply of industrial land in the region is estimated to be adequate fora maximum of 14 years; however, within Vancouver city there are only 100 acres available inthe short term and none in the long term.C. Central City is Still a Major Contributor to the Manufacturing Sector: The largestcluster of manufacturing establishments and employees is still located within the central citydespite decentralization and the continued operation of the factors encouraging manufacturingdispersion. A review of the intra-metropolitan distribution of the industries which are majoremployers in the region for 1976 and 1986, reveals that in both years Vancouver was the topemployer in the top four industries (ranked by number of employees in the industry), includingwood, food and beverage, metal fabrication and printing. Table 12 lists the industries in51Table N2 in the Vancouver Economic Data Base (June 1991) lists 46 industrial parks insurrounding municipalities, and only one in the city of Vancouver.51Off—(Li0-Wa_0fa.0if0ct52TABLE 1 0TABLE N8 (April 1991)INDUSTRIAL LAND SALE PRICES IN GREATER VANCOUVER: SEPTEMBER 1990Community^RangeBurnaby (North)Burnaby (South)CoquitlamDelta (Annacis)Delta (Tilbury)LangleyNorth VancouverPort CoquitlamRichmond (North)Richmond (South)$500,000 - 600,000/acre400,000 - 450,000/acre300,000 - 375,000/acre325,000 - 350,000/acre200,000 - 250,000/acre150,000 - 165,000/acre750,000-1,500,000/acre275,000/acre600,000 - 700,000/acre375,000 - 450,000/acreSurrey^200,000 - 240,000/acreSurrey/Langley^150,000 - 225,000/acreVancouver (Central)^35.00-65.0G/sq. ft.Vancouver (South) 15.00-30.00/sq. ft.SOURCE: Coldwell Banker Greater Vancouver Industrial Report: Fall 1990FROM: CITY OF VANCOUVER, VANCOUVER ECONOMIC DATA BASE 199153MAP 4MAP 5DOWNTOWN WATERFRONTSIN 1974 MOSTLYINDUSTRIALnerVINZ=74. 4. Under d 3C4331 OnDOWNTOWN WATERFRONTS IN 198804(11011101 ihIndustrial twangFROM: CITY OF VANCOUVER (1988)54TABLE 11GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT - VACANT INDUSTRIAL LAND1990 (ACRES)1990 VACANT (1)INDUSTRIAL LANDESTIMATEDTAKE-UPRATE PERMUNICIPALITY SHORT TERM LONG TERM YEAR (2)VANCOUVER (3) 100 0BURNABy (4) 1.000 0NEW WESTMINSTER (5) 100 0SUB-REGION 1,203 0WEST VANCOUVER 0 r,NORTH VANCOUVER CITY (6) 15 65NORTH VANCOUVER DISTRICT (7) 240 NASUB-REGION 235 65COQUITLAM (8) 300 80PORT COQUITLAM (9) 0 270PORT MOODY (10) 0 0BEL CARRA 0 0ANMORE 0 0SUB-REGION 300 350RICHMOND (11) 365 1.445SUB-REGION 365 1,445DELTA (12) 800 700SURREY (13) 1.300 600WHITE ROCK 0 0SUB-REGION 2,100 1,300LANGLEY CITY (14) 60 0LANGLEY TOWNSHIP (15) 790 920SUB-REGION 850 920PITT MEADOWS (16) 0 200MAPLE RIDGE (17) 190 1.400SUB-REGION 190 1,600TOTAL GVRD(INCLUDES MAPLE RIDGE 0,2110 5.600 400 TO 500AND PITT MEADOWS)NOTES AND SOURCES:( 1) SHORT TERM IS DEFINED AS LANDS WHICH ARE ZONED AND SERVICED OR WHICH COULD BEREADILY REZONED AND SERVICED. LONG TERM REFERS TO LANDS WHICH ARE DESIGNATED FORINDUSTRIAL USE. BUT ARE GENERALLY NOT SERVICED.(2) BASED ON INFORMATION FROM REALTORS AND HISTORIC TAKE-UP RATES. TAKE-UP IS DEFINEDAS OCCURING WHEN DEVELOPMENT STARTS.THE REGION HAS A 10.3 TO 13 YEAR SUPPLY Or SHORT TERMINDUSTRIAL LAND AND AN 11 TO 14 YEAR LONG TERM SUPPLYADAPTED FROM: GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (1990)TABLE 12GREATER VANCOUVER PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OFTOTAL EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY, 1976 AND 1986INDUSTRY TOTAL EMPLOYEES1976 1986%Wood 21.04 16.49Food & Beverage 17.41 15.23Metal Fabrication 11.20 9.58Printing,^Publishing& Allied 7.19 9.95Transportation Equipment 6.60 5.36Machinery 5.95 5.25Paper & Allied 4.97 4.87Electrical and^Electronic) 4.15 4.88Cloth ing2 3.65 4.53Other 17.84 24.16TOTAL 100.00 100.30SOURCE:^STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-2091 1986 contains only City of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond2 1986 contains only City of VancouverTotal employees consists of production and related workers,administrative, office and other non—manufacturingemployees.56order of importance by number of employees, while Table 13 indicates the top employmentlocations for each industry. Vancouver was also the leading employer in machinery whilecompletely dominating employment in printing and clothing.1) Central city has the highest percentage of industrial floorspace: Another indication thatthe central city continues to be an important locational cluster of manufacturing activity can befound in the distribution of industrial floorspace in Greater Vancouver. In June 1990,Vancouver contained over 30 percent of the regional industrial floorspace, followed byRichmond and Burnaby at less than 20 percent and approximately 15 percent respectively (seeTable 14). For Richmond and Burnaby, the pattern in industrial floorspace reflects theirpredominance in regional manufacturing employment among the surrounding municipalities.2) Central city performs well in "sunrise" industries: In Greater Vancouver the central cityhas a strong presence of "sunrise" industries, i.e. those industries exhibiting growth in bothestablishments and employees between 1976 and 1986. As demonstrated earlier in Table 6,these industry groups are printing, clothing, electrical and electronic products, plastics,miscellaneous and other. 52 Vancouver is particularly dominant in the printing and clothingindustries (see Tables 12 and 13). In both years, Vancouver ranked second in electrical andelectronic products employment, but outranked the leading municipality, Burnaby, in terms ofnumber of establishments. The value of electrical and electronic products shipments fromVancouver was also higher than Burnaby, indicating that central city establishments producehigher value with fewer employees. The larger number of electrical and electronic productsfirms within the central city is a possible indication of active incubation in "hi-tech" relatedmanufacturing.52These industries have also been identified by the provincial government as growth leaders insecondary manufacturing in British Columbia (Province of British Columbia 1990, pp.36 and105-107).57TABLE 13PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY ACTIVITY INDICATORSBY LEADING MUNICIPALITIES, 1976 AND 1986INDUSTRY^MUNICIPALITY EMPLOYEES1976 1986ESTABLISHMENTS1976 1986VALUE OF SHIPMENTS1976 1986AVERAGE1976 1986WOOD^Vancouver 72^19 20 14 31 17 28 17Surrey 11^17 17 20 11 15 13 17Richmond 10^13 14 15 9 19 11 16Maple Ridge 5^12 3 8 7 11 5 10New Westm. 14^7 6 5 13 8 10 7FOOD^Vancouver 48^54 65 45 52..i.. 56 55 .^52AND Burnaby 18^20 16 16 19 18BEVERAGE^Richmond 15^12 14 13 11..1' 14 14PRINTING^Vancouver 78^71 70 54 80 71 76 65AND PUB-^Burnaby 3^9 6 10 3 11 4 10LISHING^Richmond 5^10 4 9 6 8 4 8METAL^VancouverFABRIC- Richmond36^2516^203912 1323., 3619232637162420ATING^Burnaby 19^17 17 13 18 15 18 15Surrey 6^14 6 15 7 15 6 15TRANSP.^Burnaby 22 n/a 11 n/a 34 n/a 22 n/aEQUIP.^Richmond 10^19 22 29 7 10 13 10North Van. 20^15 8 7 18 8 15 12Vancouver 19^12 "23 17 15 7 19 19MACHINERY^Vancouver 32^29 36 19 30 25 33 24Surrey 18^17 14 15 17 19 24 17Richmond 8^16 9 17 8 15 8 16Burnaby 13^10 14 11 17 15 15 12ELECTRIC-* Burnaby 53^34 18 13 47 21 39 23AL AND^Vancouver 30^23 51 33 28 27 36 28ELECTRONIC Richmond 9^22 7 18 11 27 9 22PAPER^New Westm. n/a^32 n/a 10 n/a 29 n/a 30AND Richmond 33^24 12 26 29 21 25 24ALLIED^Burnaby 20^23 15 23 19 24 18 23Vancouver 12^6 37 15 11 4 30 8CLOTHING** Vancouver n/a^97 n/a 88 n/a 96 n/a 94*1986 based on GVRD which contained 112 of 115 establishments in Vancouver CMA.**1986 based on GVRD which contained 69 of 70 establishments in Vancouver CMA.See Map 1 for definitions of GVRD and Vancouver CMA.SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31 —209TABLE 14TABLE N3 (Updated and Revised April 1991)GREATER VANCOUVER INDUSTRIAL FLOORSPACE IN SQUARE FEET: JUNE 1990Community Existing Proposed or^TotalUnderConstruction%-ageBurnaby 16,156,839 893,507 17,050,346 15.41%Coquitlam 2,488,039 229,616 2,717,655 2.46%Delta 5,161,821 839,771 6,001,592 5.42%Langley, City 2,461,257 88,208 2,549,465 2.30%Langley, District 2,651,423 996,224 3,647,647 3.30%New Westminster 4,364,526 54,010 4,418,536 3.99%North Vancouver, City^1,639,301 84,892 1,724,193 1.56%North Vancouver, Dist^2,424,494 64,799 2,489,293 2.25%Port Coquitlam 1,974,404 19,979 1,994,383 1.80%Port Moody 2,061,225 18,058 2,079,283 1.88%Richmond 20,873,740 1,930,634 .22,804,374 20.61%Surrey 6,981,423 1,114,796 8,096,219 7.32%Vancouver 33,521,907 1,484,871 35,006,778 31.64%West Vancouver 25,783 25,783 0.02%White Rock 26,249 26,249 0.02%Totals 102,812,431 7,819,365 110,631,796 100.00%SOURCE: Greater Vancouver Regional District, Development ServicesDepartmentFROM: CITY OF VANCOUVER, VANCOUVER ECONOMIC DATA BASE 1991593) Decentralization can result in deconcentration or dispersal of industrial clusters:Between 1976 and 1986, some employment decentralization in the wood and metal fabricationindustries occurred. The central city's share of regional employment declined from 32 percentto 19 percent in wood products, and from 36 percent to 25 percent in metal fabrication.However, decentralization resulted in employment dispersal over the surroundingmunicipalities. Consequently, no one suburban municipality contained a dominant cluster inany of the industries which were major employers. Decentralization, therefore, can lead todeconcentration of industrial clusters, with possible implications for the incubation of futuremanufacturing activity. By contrast, the printing and clothing industries, which have beentraditionally classified in the literature as "inner city" industries, continue to cluster and growpredominantly in Vancouver.4) Richmond and Burnaby vie for second position: Although clustering of manufacturingemployment in surrounding municipalities does not rival or replicate the strength ofconcentration in the central city, sizeable proportions of regional manufacturing employmentexist in Richmond and Burnaby. Even among these two municipalities, the spatial distributionof manufacturing activity is changing. In 1986 Burnaby appears to have dropped behindRichmond in major industry group employment (see Table 15). However, Burnaby continuedto maintain its employment lead in electrical and electronic products, and was the secondlargest employer in food and beverage after Vancouver. Estimates from the thesis research ofnew firms and migrating firms between 1987 and 1990, will add further insight to the recentintra-metropolitan distribution of manufacturing activity.SOME POLICY APPROACHES TO MANUFACTURING IN GREATER VANCOUVERGiven the comparatively small role of the manufacturing sector in Greater Vancouveremployment, it is not surprising that manufacturing has not been a high priority in regionalpolicy development. Walker (1980, p.219) asserts that regional planning for manufacturing inVancouver must consider as well the preference of local residents for policies which "enhance60TABLE 15RANKING OF SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN INDUSTRIESBY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, GREATER VANCOUVER 1976 AND 1986BURNABY^ RICHMONDINDUSTRY RANK^INDUSTRY^RANK1976 1986 1976 1986Food and Beverage 2^2^Wood^3^3Metal Fabricating^2^3 Food and Beverage 3^3Printing^3^3^Metal Fabricating^3^2Transport. Equip.^1^n/a Printing^2^2Machinery^3^4^Machinery 4^3Paper and Allied^2^3 Paper and AIileci^1^2Electrical^1^1^Electrical^3^3SURREY^ NEW WESTMINSTERINDUSTRY RANK^INDUSTRY^RANK1976 1986 1976 1986Wood^3^2^Wood -^2^5Food and Beverage 4^4 Paper and Allied^n/a^1Metal Fabricating^4^4Machinery^2^2SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209Not.: n/a denotes data not available In catalogue61Vancouver's environmental and aesthetic attractions." Hardwick (1974, pp.94-95) describedthe transition of the False Creek south shore from industrial to residential use during the late1960s as a timely acknowledgement of life-style changes which had occurred in the city.Hardwick (ibid.) alleged that Vancouver city planning policies continued to have an industrialbias through the 1960s even though the share of industrial employment had not risen. Hemaintained that city planners perpetuated the underutilization of industrial land in the inner cityby rezoning for industrial use previously residential areas such as Fairview slopes, instead ofencouraging higher density industrial development. In fact, according to Hardwick (1974,p.93), during the 1950s the East Indian community occupying the area between Granville andBurrard streets north of Fourth Avenue was displaced to provide small sites for industrialincubation.Today, both regional and city governments have expressed a preference for encouragingadvanced technology manufacturers as a future growth industry which is "clean" and adds highvalue.53 The review in this chapter has demonstrated that Greater Vancouver's manufacturingsector is dominated by two major industry groups: wood products and food and beverage.Some diversification of the manufacturing base has occurred, but the sector as a whole remainsrelatively small even though Greater Vancouver continues to be the major manufacturingcentre in British Columbia. However, targetting advanced technology manufacturing is apolicy approach which appears to have merit. The analysis of growth and decline among sub-sectors has indicated that electrical and electronic products, which is an industry most likely touse advanced technology, is one of Greater Vancouver's "sunrise" industries. Electrical andelectronic products manufacturers also seem to prefer the central city, producing high shipmentvalue with relatively fewer employees.53Greater Vancouver Regional District (1990, p.4), Creating Our Future; and, City ofVancouver, City Manager's Report (1989, p.18) "Industry in Vancouver: BackgroundReport."62CONCLUSIONThe review of the role and characteristics of the Greater Vancouver manufacturing sector hasrevealed that growth in manufacturing through the birth of new firms is desirable for theeconomic base. Although the manufacturing sector is relatively small when compared toresources production and resources-related service employment, heavy reliance on resourcesleaves British Columbia vulnerable to cyclical economic fluctuations. Therefore, seniorgovernment levels advocate product diversification policies for British Columbia. Such apolicy approach finds support in the fact that a substantial proportion of British Columbiamanufacturing shipments were exported in 1984, indicating potential opportunities for incomefrom enhanced manufacturing growth. The renewed confidence of investors in the GreaterVancouver manufacturing sector which is the major manufacturing centre in British Columbiais also apparent in the recent pattern of capital investment. It is possible to envisage a futurerole for manufacturing in Greater Vancouver because the relative smallness of the sector is nota result of shrinkage in manufacturing activity. "De-industrialization" in Greater Vancouverwas relative rather than absolute.At a sub-sectoral level, the review indicates that firm births in "sunrise" industries would bemost desirable for the regional manufacturing base. Between 1976 and 1986 only four of tenindividual industries which were major employers increased both the number of establishmentsand employees. These included the "inner city" industries of printing and clothing, theelectrical industry and the plastics industry. Miscellaneous industries also gained inestablishments and employees. Of the group, the electrical and electronic products industrywhich includes advanced technology manufacturers may have particular significance. It hasproduct diversification potential desired by senior government levels, but it is also targetted bylocal government levels as a "clean" industry with potential opportunities for skilled inputs andhigh value added shipments.63On a spatial level, the intra-metropolitan distribution of manufacturing highlights threeprocesses which have implications for the inner city's role as the principal manufacturingincubator in Greater Vancouver.^First, industrial decentralization has occurred since the1950s. However, the central city still contains the single largest concentration ofmanufacturing establishments and employees. At an individual industry level, the central cityleads in food and beverage, printing, clothing, metal fabrication and machinery. The centralcity is second only to Burnaby in the transportation equipment and electrical industries,although in the case of the latter industry the central city leads in the number ofestablishments. These observations suggest that the central city would have a substantialadvantage in firm births because it can offer both urbanization and localization economies.The second process in the spatial distribution of Greater Vancouver manufacturing is thehalting and reversing of the decentralization trend in recent years. Estimates from ContactsTarget Marketing indicate that the inner city especially is gaining both absolutely and relativelyin the number of manufacturing establishments. 54 This trend is particularly significant giventhat the suburban municipalities are continuing to gain establishments in absolute terms.Therefore, continued enhancement in the availability of localization economies occurs in theinner city.The third process which may have implications for the inner city's incubator role is thedeconcentration that can result from decentralization. The review indicated that in the case oftwo individual industries, wood and metal fabrication, decentralization between 1976 and 1986resulted in deconcentration as manufacturers dispersed among the suburban municipalities.Dispersal of industrial clusters affects the availability of localization economies which depend54As of August 1991, Contacts Target Marketing estimates indicate that the inner city's shareof manufacturing establishments has increased to 25 percent from 22 percent in 1986-87. Thisrelative increase in its share was achieved even though absolute increases were recorded insuburban locations.64on the total number of establishments and quantity of output in any single location (Townroeand Roberts 1980).Thus, in Greater Vancouver's case the inner city might still be expected to function as theprincipal manufacturing incubator because the inner city can provide both urbanization andlocalization economies to new firms. The review has indicated that industrial decentralizationdoes not necessarily result in individually larger suburban industrial clusters with superioradvantage in localization economies over the inner city. Qualitatively, if the inner city is theprincipal incubator in "sunrise" industries, especially electrical and electronic products, it willbe serving a significant regional incubation function in Greater Vancouver.65CHAPTER 4TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS IN GREATER VANCOUVERINTRODUCTIONThis chapter documents the empirical research on manufacturing incubation in the inner city ofGreater Vancouver. 55 As noted in Chapter 1, the thesis research examines the intra-metropolitan and sub-sectoral distribution of firm births and relocations in Greater Vancouverfrom 1987 to 1990. The objective is first to test the simple hypothesis that the birth rate ofnew manufacturing firms is higher in the inner city than in the rest of the metropolitan area.The second objective is to test the complex hypothesis that firms incubated in the inner cityrelocate to less dense areas, thus contributing to manufacturing growth in the region.TESTING THE SIMPLE HYPOTHESIS IN GREATER VANCOUVERThis section presents evidence of manufacturing firm births by sub-area and sub-sector inGreater Vancouver for the period 1987 to 1990, inclusive of both years. As noted in Chapter1, the study period represents an interval which is recent, and which avoids the confoundingeffects of the Canadian economic recession during the early 1980s, and the extraordinaryactivity associated with Vancouver's international exposition, Expo '86, during the mid-1980s.The research is expected to confirm or reject the simple hypothesis that the birth rate ofmanufacturing firms is higher in the inner city. In addition, disaggregations by sub-sector willallow the simple hypothesis to be tested for individual industries. Identifiable sub-sectoralpatterns can provide clues about intra-metropolitan industry specializations or localizedclustering effects.A. MethodologyThis subsection reviews the data sources considered, the quality of the data source selected, theactual counting procedure and some limitations of the methodology.55The inner city in Greater Vancouver is identified on Map 1 in Chapter 1, and furtherspecified for research purposes later in this chapter.661) Data Sources: A secondary data source was selected after surveying all known datasources containing information on firm births in Greater Vancouver. The following potentialdata sources were considered:British Columbia Directory of ManufacturersRegistrar of Companies, Victoria, B.C.Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209Municipal Business License DataStatistics Canada Catalogue #18-501Employment and Immigration Canada Employers DatabaseDun and Bradstreet Guide to Canadian ManufacturersB.C. Hydro S.I.C. DatabaseContacts Target Marketing DirectoryThe main advantages and disadvantages of each source are discussed in Appendix 3. Thesurvey of the data sources indicates that the two best options are the municipal business licensedata, and the Contacts Target Marketing annual directories of businesses in GreaterVancouver. Both these sources can provide sub-metropolitan and sub-sectoral leveldisaggregation of the data, as well as annual counts of firm births for the study period. Theyalso have relatively better coverage of the population of Greater Vancouver manufacturingfirms (comparisons between Statistics Canada and Contacts Target Marketing Directory dataare discussed next under Data Quality of Selected Source). However, municipal license dataare not uniformly collected across 18 municipalities, which increases the complexity ofaccessing and arriving at comparable statistics. Therefore, the best first option as a data sourcewould appear to be Contacts Target Marketing.2) Data Quality of Selected Source:^Contacts Target Marketing compiles an annualdirectory of businesses in Greater Vancouver. 56 Information on company activity, number ofemployees and type of location (local, headquarter or branch) is obtained through direct56lnformation about Contacts Target Marketing data and data collection methods was obtainedby interviewing the President and Research Manager of the company on several occasions inAugust 1991.67contact with the listed company. New businesses are traced from municipal business licensesissued, and are identified in the directory with a "*" beside the listing. Changes to listings areincorporated on an ongoing basis into the electronic database. Name or address changes donot qualify as new establishments, unless the establishment also shifts its operations from oneindustry to another. No major changes have been made to data collection methods since 1986.A major difference exists in the number of manufacturing establishments in Greater Vancouverreported by Statistics Canada in its 1986 catalogue #31-209 and Contacts Target Marketing inits 1986-87 directory. Contacts Target Marketing estimated 4,309 Greater Vancouvermanufacturing establishments while Statistics Canada counted 2,494, resulting in a substantialdifference of 1,815 establishments for 1986. One explanation for the discrepancy can befound in different methods of identifying manufacturing establishments. Contacts TargetMarketing researchers use multiple standard industrial classification (S.I.C.) codes forestablishments engaged in more than one activity. Statistics Canada follows a principle ofassigning establishments to the manufacturing sector only where the majority of value added isderived from manufacturing activity. 57 Therefore, some under-representation ofestablishments engaged in manufacturing activity occurs in Statistics Canada surveys. Inaddition, Statistics Canada uses a different method for calculating value added in the case ofsmall establishments (not defined consistently across industries). The cost of purchasedservices is excluded from value added for small establishments but included for largeestablishments due to the practical difficulties of pro-rating service inputs across multiplebranch locations. The resulting consistent bias inflates the size of value added for largeestablishments.Despite the appearance of over-representation in Contacts Target Marketing data, not allestablishments operating in Greater Vancouver were listed as of the 1991 directory. Between57Telephone interview with Statistics Canada representative in Ottawa, Mr. Bob Stavely,August 18, 1991 and October 25, 1991.6830 and 40 percent of the increase from 48,000 to 62,000 establishments in August 1991 areestimated to be additional (4,200 to 5,600) rather than new listings. As the majority of theseadditional listings are estimated to be in outlying municipalities, Contacts Target Marketingstaff estimate that coverage for the most densely occupied parts of Greater Vancouver shouldbe quite comprehensive. Further, a check of the updates published between August 1990 andJanuary 1991 revealed only 69 additions to the manufacturing sector.Although there is an absolute difference between Statistics Canada and Contacts TargetMarketing manufacturing establishment counts, proportionally the sub-metropolitandistribution is quite comparable with percentage differences within -2.0 and +2.0 (see Table16).In terms of major industry group distribution, the comparison indicates a pronounced over-representation by the Contacts Target Marketing data in the machinery, transportationequipment and electrical products group both absolutely and relatively (see Table 17 andFigure 6). One reason for the over-representation as compared to Statistics Canada data maybe that many small businesses engaged in the assembly of electrical and electronic productswere not included as manufacturing establishments by Statistics Canada. An alternative oradditional explanation could be that rapid rates of entry and exit in any or all of theseindustries make it difficult to keep accurate records, as exits may not always be detected withina short period of time. Without evidence to support the latter explanation and with somereason to suspect the former (i.e. see earlier comments regarding Statistics Canada's criteriafor classifying manufacturing establishments), the research in this chapter will assume thatContacts Target Marketing data are reasonably accurate.While the study period selected covers 1987 to 1990, inclusive of both years, the 1986-87issue of Contacts Target Marketing directory overlaps the end of the Expo '86 period. Anexamination of the annual distribution of new manufacturing establishments derived from69TABLE 1 6INTRA-METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTSIN GREATER VANCOUVER, COMPARISON OF 1986 DATA FROM 2 SOURCESCONTACTS1986-87# EST^7.STATISTICS CANADA1986# EST^%DIFFERENCE# ESTBurnaby 524 12.16 265 10.63 259 1.54Coquitlam 34 0.79 56 2.25 -22 -1.46Delta 133 3.09 120 4.81 13 -1.72Langley 162 3.76 124 4.97 38 -1.21Lions Bay 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00Maple Ridge 65 1.51 43 1.72 22 -0.22New Westminster 167 3.88 91 3.65 76 0.23North Vancouver 277 6.43 179 7.18 98 -0.75Pitt Meadows 7 0.16 0 0.00 7 0.16Port Coquitlam 75 1.74 76 3.05 -1 -1.31Port Moody 33 0.77 36 1.44 -3 -0.68Richmond 577 13.39 354 14.19 223 -0.80Surrey 397 9.21 272 10.91 125 .-1.69Vancouver 1375 31.91 831 33.32 544 -1.41Inner City 965 22.39Rest 410 9.51West Vancouver 47 1.09 23 0.92 24 0.17White Rock 9 0.21 0 0.00 9 •^0.21TOTAL 3882 90.09 2470 99.04 1412 -8.95Unassigned 427 9.91 24 0.96 403 8.95GRAND TOTAL 4309 100.00 2494 100.00 1815 0.00SOURCES: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING 1986-87 DIRECTORYAND STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209, 19867 0TABLE 17MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTSIN GREATER VANCOUVER, COMPARISON OF 1986 DATA FROM 2 SOURCESMAJORINDUSTRYGROUPCONTACTS1986-87# ESTSTATISTICS CANADA1986# EST^7.DIFFERENCE# EST1 292 6.78 199 7.98 93 -1.20247 5.73 148 5.93 99 -0.203 1207 28.01 791 31.72 416 -3.704 992 23.02 386 15.48 606 7.545 546 12.67 7;85 15.44 161 -2.776 356 8.26 211 8.46 145 -0.207 669 15.53 374 15.00 295 0.53TOTAL 4309 100.00 2494 100.00 1815 0.00I Food and beverage2 Leather, textile, knitting mills and clotting3 Wood, furniture and fixtures, paper and alliedand printing. publishing and allied4 Machinery, transportation equipment and electricalproducts3 Primary metal and metal fabricating6 Rubber and plastic products, petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products7 Non—metallic mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCES: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING 1986-87 DIRECTORYAND STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209, 198671FIGURE 6MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTSIN GREATER VANCOUVER, COMPARISON OF 1986 DATA FROM 2 SOURCESPERCENTAGE25201510 1^3^4^5MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPEZI CONTACTS WA STATISTICS CANADArood and beverage,2 Lowther, toxins, knitting ml and dank*3 Weed. ?endure and Thawed, paper end alliedand printing, puddling end allied4 hierehlinew trareeportalion equipment . and edelnoolprodded5 lotinterr mold and maid fabricatingRubber and platen praduen, pendant. and andgraduals and clouded product.7 Man—eneis1e mineral graduate and mlareitanentemanufaerldringSOURCES: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING 1986-87 DIRECTORYAND STATISTICS CANADA CAT. #31-209, 198672Contacts Target Marketing indicates that the bias appears to be minimal as the City ofVancouver share remains at approximately 30 percent for each year (see annual summary bymunicipality in Appendix 4).Differences in actual numbering of S.I.C. codes for the manufacturing sector between ContactsTarget Marketing and Statistics Canada do not affect the comparability of sub-sector data, asindustry classifications are quite similar. Appendices 5A and 5B contain the S.I.C. codes usedby Contacts Target Marketing and Statistics Canada, respectively.Establishments listed in Contacts Target Marketing directories are categorized as branch plants("B"), local firms ("L") or headquarters ("H"). Branch plants have been excluded from finalcounts of new firms, but are shown separately in detailed tables contained in Appendices 4, 6and 7 (the contents of the appendices are described on the next page). A small percentage ofbranch plants of parent firms outside Greater Vancouver are classified as local firms. Thisinconsistency arises when establishments do not disclose their actual status as branches to theContacts Target Marketing researcher. In excess of 80 percent of the firms classified as"local" are considered by the Contacts Target Marketing research manager to be indigenous toGreater Vancouver. For the purposes of this research, local and headquarter firms have beenconsidered indigenous firms and are simply referred to as "firms."Establishment size is reported in Contacts Target Marketing directories in terms of the range innumber of employees. The size ranges used include:M 1-5 employeesN 6-10 employeesO 11-25 employeesP 26-50 employeesQ 51-100 employeesR 101-250 employeesS 251-500 employeesT more than 500 employeesWhile absolute numbers of employees are not available, the size range classification allowsrough estimates to be made for comparative purposes.73Overall, the review of the data quality of the selected source, Contacts Target Marketingannual directories, indicates that its counts of new manufacturing firm start-ups will berelatively reliable. Although direct comparability with Statistics Canada data is precluded bydifferences in data collection methods, the proportional distribution of manufacturingestablishments at the sub-metropolitan level is quite similar. Therefore, intra-metropolitanpatterns of new firms relative to existing firm patterns can be identified with some confidenceusing Contacts Target Marketing data. Where ratio calculations of new firms to existingestablishments in the base year are required, the numbers provided in Contacts TargetMarketing 1986-87 directory are used for the base year estimates to maintain consistency in thedata source.3) Counting Procedure: The 1986-87, 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1991 directories were used toobtain counts of firm births for 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. Since the 1991 directory wasreleased in August 1990, published updates from August 1990 to January 1991 were includedin order to capture firm births up to and including December 1990. Establishments new to theregion and identified with a "*" under S.I.C. codes corresponding to the manufacturing sectorwere included. Postal codes were used to identify the municipality of birth. Postal codesconsidered to be within the inner city are identified on Map 6.Details on location type and establishment size were also recorded. Appendix 7 contains totalsfor the study period, disaggregated by two-digit level S.I.C. code for each municipality.Appendix 6 aggregates for each municipality the two-digit S.I.C. levels into seven majorindustry groups corresponding to those identified in Chapter 3. Annual totals without industrydifferentiation are contained in Appendix 4. These detailed counts were the bases forsummaries of the research results which excluded branch plants and repetitive entries resultingfrom multiple S.I.C. coding. In the latter case, the first appearance of the firm was counted.Minimal bias was introduced since almost all of the multiple entries occurred within relatedS . I. C . codes.74MAP 6^VANCOUVER POSTAL CODE AREAS11111111&10vettRIP1priPrPO,TAL. COLES754) Some Limitations of the Methodology: Two major limitations of the researchmethodology can be identified. Firstly, unlike Statistics Canada survey data, Contacts TargetMarketing data do not include actual numbers of employees, value added or shipment value ofthe establishment. Without such information, and without a survey of the new establishments,it is not possible to identify patterns of low labor input/high value added or high laborinput/low value added by industry and spatial distribution. Knowledge of such patterns can addto the understanding of the inner city's role in firm incubation as there may be a particularaffinity for the inner city by firms of one type.Secondly, since new firms are not contacted directly it is not possible to establish the extent towhich the external economies of an inner city or non-inner city location contributed to thelocation decision of the firm. Therefore, in cases where the research indicates that the innercity was not the host for the majority of firms in total or for a particular industry, no definitiveconclusions can be reached regarding the contribution of inner city external economies to newfirm birth. For example, it is possible that the owner of a new firm outside the inner citypreferred an inner city location, but was unable to find suitable premises.B. Summary of ResultsA total of 673 new manufacturing establishments were recorded in Greater Vancouver duringthe study period. As 139 of these were branch plants, 534 indigenous firms were inferred tohave been started (see Table 18). Since branch plants are excluded from consideration of firmincubation, all results refer only to indigenous manufacturing firms. Approximately 75percent of new firms employed one to five workers, indicating that small firms added between406 and 2,030 new jobs in Greater Vancouver. The remaining firms accounted for aminimum of 1,418 new jobs. By major industry group, the leading contributor of new firmswas the wood products group (see Figure 7), followed by the machinery, transportationequipment and electrical products group, and the non-metallic minerals and miscellaneousmanufacturing industries group.76TABLE 18ANNUAL TOTALS OF NEW ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVER(1986-87 TO 1990)YEAR # EST. LOCATION TYPEL^H^R MEMPLOYEE SIZE RANGEN^OP^OR^S T1986-87 312 221 16 74 216 52 29 10 3 0 0 01987-88 100 85 3 12 89 6 2 2 0 1 0 01989-90 54 38 3 13 39 10 5 0 0 0 0 01991 208 159 9 40 159 25 17 3 4 0 0 0GRAND TOTAL 673 503 31 139 504 93 53 15 7 1 0 0L Local office L4 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500 T over 500SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNets: establishments include branch plantsYear denotes directory date77FIGURE 7DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMS IN GREATER VANCOUVERBY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP (1986-87 TO 1990)NUMBERZOO1501005001^2^3^At^5^a^7MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPI Feed and beverage2 Leather, textile, knitting mills and clothing3 Wood, furniture and fbetunss, paper and alliedand printing, publishing and aliMd4 Machinery. transportation equipment and electricalproduots5 Primary metal and metal fabricating6 Rubber and plash* product's. petroleum and coalproduct** and ohemlool products7 Non—metable mineral praduots and miseellaneousmanufaaturIngSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plants781) The Simple Hypothesis using Simple Majority Calculation: Steed (1976) considered thesimple hypothesis validated when the inner city contained a majority of new firms. Thus, asimple majority is considered here to be greater than 50 percent. Figure 8(b) depicts theregional distribution of new firms in Greater Vancouver for the study period. The inner cityaccounted for 26.2 percent and the central city accounted for 38.2 percent of all new firms.Therefore, in the aggregate, the simple hypothesis is not supported using the simple majoritycalculation. However, the annual average birth rate during the study period is higher in theinner city (3.63 percent) than outside the central city (2.82 percent). In addition, by majorindustry group the results confirm the simple hypothesis by simple majority for the food andbeverage industries. On an individual industry basis, the simple hypothesis was alsoconfirmed by simple majority for food and kindred products and apparel and other textileproducts. Detailed results are contained in Appendices 6 and 7.2) The Simple Hypothesis using Share Ratio Calculations: Kurre (1986), Fagg (1980),Struyk and James (1976) and Leone and Struyk (1976) considered the simple hypothesisconfirmed when the ratio of the inner city's share of new firms/establishments to the innercity's share of base year establishments was greater than 1.0. Table 19 indicates that in theaggregate the ratio is 1.17 for the inner city. This confirms the simple hypothesis using theshare ratio method. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) depict this information graphically. In addition, thesimple hypothesis is confirmed for four major industry groups including i) the food andbeverage industries, ii) the machinery, transportation equipment and electrical productsindustries, iii) the rubber and plastic products, petroleum and coal products and chemicalproducts industries, and iv) the non-metallic mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturing industries. For one major industry group (leather, textile mill and apparel andother textile products) the ratio is 0.98. The simple hypothesis is rejected for the woodproducts group and the primary metal and metal fabricating industries group.5858The wood products group includes the lumber and wood products, the furniture and fixtures,the paper and allied products and the printing and publishing industries.79FIGURE 8COMPARISON OF INTRA-METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION IN GREATER VANCOUVEREXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS (1986) AND NEW FIRMS (1986-87 TO 1990)(a)^EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS, 1986NON--CITY 68%lIlWC art 22%\ 0 001 REST OF CITY 10%(b)^NEW FIRMS, 1987 TO 1990fI,NER CRY 2614REST OF CITY 12%SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNot firms exclude branch plantsCity denotes City of Vancouver80NON—CITY 62XTABLE 19INNER CITY RATIO OF NEW FIRMS (1986-87 TO 1990)TO EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS IN BASE YEAR (1986)BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONMAJORINDUSTRYGROUPEXISTINGEST.1986NEW FIRMS1986-87TO 1990RATIO1 20.21 58.82 2.9144.13 43.14 0.983 27.51 22.87 0.834 17.44 28.10 1.615 15.02 8.70 0.586 17.13 19.23 1.127 22.27 25.88 1.16ALL INDUSTRIES 22-39 26.22 1.17I Food and beverugo2 Leather, textile, knitting mills and clothing3 Wood, furniture and fixtures, paper and alliedand printing, publishing and allied4 Machinery, transportation equipment and electricalproducts5 Primary metal and metal fabricating6 Rubber and plastic products, petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products7 Non—materna mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: As Table 22 (page 93) indicates, within MolarIndustry Group 3, the inner city led new firm growth inprinting and publishing (S.I.C. #27), accounting for 37 of105 firms or approximate* 35 percent.81Higher birth rates in the food and beverage or the chemical industries group have a greaterpotential for contributing to Greater Vancouver industry activity. 59 These major industrygroups have a smaller percentage of establishments as compared to their contribution toindustry activity, 60 at 7 percent versus 20 percent respectively for the food and beverageindustries and 8 percent versus 15 percent respectively for the chemical industries. The innercity hosted more than its share of existing establishments in both these industry groups (seeTable 19).3) The Simple Hypothesis using Nicholson's Proportional Comparison: Nicholson'smeasurement index was predicated upon a disaggregation of industries into two categories:"inner city" (defined earlier in footnote 38) and "non-inner city" industries. Nicholson (1981)considered the simple hypothesis confirmed when, within the inner city, the ratio of newestablishments in "non-inner city" industries to all new manufacturing establishments wasgreater than the ratio of existing establishments in "non-inner city" industries to all existingmanufacturing establishments. He justified his choice of measurement method based on thefollowing reasoning:a) "inner city" industries are already at their optimum location in the inner city;b) if the inner city is performing a principal incubator function, then its share of newfirms in "non-inner city" industries should exceed its share of existing establishments inthose industries;c)^therefore, support for the hypothesis is also found, when the proportion in the innercity of existing establishments in "inner city" industries (calculated as a ratio, where thedenominator consists of all existing establishments in all manufacturing industries in theinner city) is greater than the proportion in the inner city of new "inner city"establishments (calculated as a ratio, where the denominator consists of all newestablishments in all manufacturing industries in the inner city).59The chemical industries group includes the rubber and plastics products, petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products industries.60Industry activity as defined in Chapter 3 is the average of the percentage shares of the valueof shipments of goods of own manufacture, total employees and total value added.82TABLE 20ANNUAL AVERAGE BIRTH RATE OF NEW FIRMS (1986-87 TO 1990)BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP AND SUB-AREA IN GREATER VANCOUVERMAJORINDUSTRYGROUPINNERCITYTOTALCITYNON-CITY TOTAL1 4.24 1.23 0.63 1.465.05 4.82 5.61 J. 163.24 3.63 4.05 3.894 4.91 4.25 2.64 3. 055 1. . 2.62 1.95 2.116 2.05 1.94 1.78 1.837 3.69 4.09 2.75 3.18TOTAL 3.63 3.69 2.82 3.10I Food and beverage2 Leather, textile, knitting mills and clothing3 Wood, furniture and fixtures, paper and alliedand printing, publishing and allied4 Machinery, transportation equipment and electricalproducts5 Primary metal and metal fabricating6 Rubber and plastic product*, petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products7 Non-metallic mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: City denotes City of Vancouverfirms excludes branch plants83If the clothing and printing industries are considered "inner city" industries in GreaterVancouver's case, the simple hypothesis is rejected. However, performing the correspondingtest using data for firms which were not in the printing or clothing industries (i.e. "non-innercity" industries in Greater Vancouver) revealed that the proportional difference was not verylarge. In all other industries outside printing and clothing, the proportion of new firms in theinner city was 62.1 percent, while the proportion of existing establishments in 1986 was 69.5percent.In Greater Vancouver's case, the proportional comparison may have been affected by thedisproportionate representation of new firms in "inner city" industries. The major industrygroup containing the clothing industry experienced the highest annual average birth rate at 5.16percent (see Table 20). In addition, the printing and publishing industry was the single largestcontributor to the total number of new firms (105 out of 534 new firms). Therefore, theresults of the simple hypothesis test in this case should be viewed with some caution.4) At an Intra-metropolitan Level, the Inner City Contained the Largest Number of NewFirms: As Table 21 and Figure 9 demonstrate, the inner city was the single largest host fornew firms in the region.^This pattern roughly parallels the distribution of existingmanufacturing establishments in 1986 (refer to Table 16), with the inner city and the centralcity containing the largest clusters at an infra-metropolitan level. Thus, the empirical evidencesuggests that the number of new firms in the inner city might be related to the relativelargeness of its existing industrial cluster.5) Central City also led Growth by Major Industry Group: The central city (inner cityplus rest of city in Figure 10) led new firm growth only in two major industry groups (foodand beverage industries group and leather, textile and apparel industries group) whencompared to the rest of Greater Vancouver as a group (see Figure 10). However, when therest of the region is considered in terms of separate sub-metropolitan units the strength ofcentral city growth becomes apparent. Figure 11 displays the clustering of new firm growth84TABLE 21DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMS (1986-87 TO 1990)BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP AND SUB—AREA IN GREATER VANCOUVER(a)^BY MUNICIPALITYMUNICIPALITY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTALBurnaby^1 3 17 16 5 2 11 55Coquitlam 0 0 4 4 3 0 2 13Delta 1 4 7 6 1 3 2 24Langley^1 4 12 8 5 1 6 37Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge^0 2 7 2 0 0 2 13New Westminster^0 1 7 5 1 2 1 17North Vancouver^0 1 10 7 4 2 11 35Pitt Meadows^0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2Port Coquitlam 0 1 5 1 2 0 2 11Port Moody^0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Richmond 2 6 22 9 7 2 5 53Surrey 0 2 24 18 4 5 5 58Vancouver^12 27 65 43 13 8 35 203West Vancouver^0 0 3 0 0 0 1 4White Rock^0 0 4 1 1 0 1 7TOTAL^17 51 188 121 46 26 85 534(b)^BY SUB—REGIONMAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTALBurnaby—New Westminster 1 4 24 21 6 4 12 72 tincudes North VancouverNorth Shore* 0 1 13 7 4 2 12 39 City and Dist.Mun.), WestRichmond 2 6 22 9 7 2 5 53 Vancouver and Lions BaySurrey—Delta—White Rock 1 6 35 25 6 8 8- 89 ttincludes Coguitlan,City of Vancouver 12 27 65 43 13 8 •5 203 Langley, Maple Ridge,Inner City 10 ..,22 43 34 4 ,,,,22 140 Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitla.Rest of City 2 5 22 9 9 14 64 and Port MoodyOther** 1 7 29 16 10 2 12 77TOTAL 17 51 188 121 46 26 85 5341 rood and beverage^ 3 Primary MOW and metal fabdoeding2 Leather. *dile, WM, mills and dotting^tt Rubber and plaaIN products, petroleum and awl3 Mood. turnNuny and ftdures. Niemand pedestal and ohentleal prodeeteand priMing.pubRehing and allied 7 Non-metallic mineral products and misoellaneous4 Maohlmuy.tnanspereeen equipment and *Metrical^manutaoturingmedudsSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: (Inns exclude branch plants85FIGURE 9INTRA—METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMSIN GREATER VANCOUVER (1986-87 TO 1990)Number250200ismercity150100500libr441W Kamm Rived Sr).0.1-AVIt Van^MarBby—NW^Burnaby and New WestminsterN.Shore^North Vancouver (City and Dist. Mun.),West Vancouver and Lions BayRmd^RichmondSry—Oei—WR Surrey, Delta and White RockVan^City of VancouverOther Coqultlam. Langley. Maple Ridge, PittMeadows. Port Coqultlam and Port MoodySOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNot.: firms exe.luds branch plantsFIGURE 1 0INTRA-METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMSIN GREATER VANCOUVER (1986-87 TO 1990)BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPNUMBER14012010080201^2^3^4^5^6^7MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPPM INNER CITY ISM REST OF CITY 1=I NON-CITY1 Food and beverage2 Leather. textile. Milting milts and clothing3 Weed. furniture and fixtures. paper and reinedand printing, publishing and allied4 Maehinery. transportation equipment and electricalproducts5 Primary metal and metal fabricating6 Rubber and plastic products. petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products7 Non-metaillo mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plantsCity denotes City of VancouverFIGURE 1 1INTRA-METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMS (1987-1990)IN GREATER VANCOUVER FOR EACH MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPI FOOD AND BEVERAGE^2 LEATHER, TEXTILE, KNITTING MILLSAND CLOTHINGNumbs,.70  ^70so  ^60Numberso^ 3040^ 4030^ 3020^ 2010^100^ 001InrInno-NN NAM.. nnon Srp-0.1-441 Van Mir-tIVI Name Ilnol snp-0.1-Wit VanBby-NW^Burnaby and New WestminsterN.Shoio^North Vancouver (City and Dist. Mun.),West Vancouver and Lions BayRind^RichmondSty-Del-WR Surrey, Delta and White RookVan^City of VancouverOther CoquBlarn, Lank% Maple Ridge, PittMeadows, Port Coquittam and Port MoodySOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNobs: firms exclude branch plantsFIGURE 11 (cont'd)INTRA-METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMS (1987-1990)IN GREATER VANCOUVER FOR EACH MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP3 WOOD, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES,PAPER AND ALLIED AND PRINTING,PUBLISHING AND ALUEDNumberAl6050403020 110 II Pilln I I4 MACHINERY, TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENTAND ELECTRICAL PRODUCTSNumber/II6050ZO10RrM try-Del—WR Van^Ober^ Ned Srp-Oell—WR ValBby—NW^Burnaby and New WestminsterN.Shore^North Vancouver (OW and Diet. Mun.),West Vancouver and Lions BoyRmd^RichmondSry—Del—VIR Surrey, Delta and Whit* RookVan^Ctly of VancouverOther Coquitiam, Langley, Maple Ridge, PittMeadows, Port Coquillam and Port MoodySOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plants8950^ so40^4030^3020^2010^100^ 0Ilbp-NW Name Rind Sty-061-Wit Van OtherFIGURE 1 1 (cont'd)INTRA—METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMS (1987-1990)IN GREATER VANCOUVER FOR EACH MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP5 PRIMARY METAL AND METAL FABRICATING^6 RUBBER AND PLASTIC PRODUCTS,PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTSAND CHEMICAL PRODUCTSNumber^ Number70 ^7060  ^6011W-4111 Kasen^Rind Sri-D*4M VanBby-NW^Burnaby and New WestminsterN.Shore^North Vancouver (City and Dist. Nun.),West Vancouver and Lions BayRmd^RichmondSry-046-WR Surrey, NOM and White RookVan^City of VancouverOther Coquittam, Langley, Maple Ridge, PittMeadows, Port Coquttlam and Port MoodySOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plants90FIGURE 11 (cont'd)INTRA-METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW FIRMS (1987-1990)IN GREATER VANCOUVER FOR EACH MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP7 NON—METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTSAND MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURINGNumber706050403020100111W—NW. N.Shere Mod • ler-Del—Mt Von^OtherBby—NW^Burnaby and New WestminsterN.Shore^North Vancouver (City and Dist. Mun.),West Vancouver and Lions BayRmd^RichmondStyr—Del—WR Surrey, Delta and Whits RookVan^City of VancouverOther Coquittam, Langley, Maple Ridge, PIMMeadows, Port CoquRiam and Port MoodySOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNobs: firms exclude branch plantswithin the central city. The inner city contained the largest cluster of new firms in all but twomajor industry groups (the primary metal and fabricated metal products group and thechemical industries group).6) The Wood Products Major Industry Group led Growth, but Within the Group thePrinting and Publishing Industries Dominated: The Wood products group accounted for 35percent of new firm growth, but 56 percent of growth within the wood products group camefrom the printing and publishing industries. Of 105 printing and publishing firms, 57 firms or54 percent were located in the central city. The evidence suggests that printing andpublishing, which are considered in the industrial literature to be an "inner city" industry, is a"sunrise" industry for Greater Vancouver as discussed in Chapter 3. This "inner city" industryis therefore contributing to the wood products group's maintenance of its position as the leaderin industry activity among manufacturers in Greater Vancouver (see Figures 3(a) to 3(d) inChapter 3).The evidence also indicated that the inner city was not the location of choice for new firms innon-printing industries within the wood products group. Table 22 indicates that lumber andwood products, furniture and fixtures and paper and allied products accounted for 83 of 188firms or 44 percent. Surrey- Delta-White Rock contained the majority of these non-printingfirms (27 percent). In general, the spatial distribution of new non-printing firms in the woodproducts group gravitated south of the Fraser River.7) Second leading Major Industry Group Contained High Technology Manufacturers:The second leading major industry group in new firm growth was the machinery,transportation equipment and electrical products group with 23 percent of all new firms. Theelectrical and electronic equipment industries, which are most likely to use advancedtechnology, accounted for 41 percent of new firms in this major industry group.Approximately 50 percent (24 of 49 electrical and electronic equipment firms) are locatedwithin the central city. This agrees with the suggestion in Chapter 3 that advanced technology92TABLE 22NEW WOOD PRODUCTS GROUP FIRMS (1986-87 TO 1990)INTRA—METROPOLITAN DISTRIBUTION IN GREATER VANCOUVERBY S.I.C. CODESSUB-AREA#24S.I.C.^(Standard#25Industrial^Classification)#26^#27^TOTALBurnaby-New Westminster 8 5 '3 9 24North Shore* 4 0 1 8 13Richmond 9 1 9Surrey-Delta-White Rock 11 7 4 13 35City of Vancouver 4 1 57 65Inner City 3 1 37 43Rest of City 1 1 20 22Other** 15 4 1 9 29TOTAL 51 22 10 105 188*includes North Vancouver (City andDist. Mun.), West Vancouver andLions Bay**includes Coquitlam, Langley, MapleRidge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlamand Port MoodyS.I.C. # 24 = Lumber and Wood Products25 = Furniture and Fixtures26 = Paper and Allied Products27 = Printing and PublishingSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plantsS.I.C. denotes Standard Industrial Classification93manufacturing is another "sunrise" industry, and that active incubation in this industry isoccurring in the central city.TESTING THE COMPLEX HYPOTHESISThis section examines the complex hypothesis that firms incubated in the inner city relocate toother areas in the region, thus contributing to industrial growth in non-inner city areas. Due toproblems with data collection, only the last two years of the study period (i.e. 1989 and 1990)are represented. Firms identified from the data sources as migrating from the inner city aretraced to their new location and their pre-move and post-move characteristics noted. Thedistribution of these migrating firms by major industry group is also reviewed.A. MethodologyThis subsection reviews the data sources used, the quality of the data sources, the verificationprocedure and some limitations of the methodology.1) Data Sources: No single data source was found to be sufficient for researching themovement of manufacturing firms in Greater Vancouver. Instead, a combination of datasources was used. The City of Vancouver's Business License Master File (BLMF) provided alist of manufacturing establishments which ceased to obtain a business license in 1989 and1990. Contacts Target Marketing annual directories for 1986-87 to 1991 and its currentelectronic database served as the data source for verifying the prior and subsequent activity ofthe firms on the BLMF list. Further verification was obtained by checking selected firms inthe British Columbia Telephone white pages directories of 1986 and 1991. In some cases,verification required a telephone call to the listed firm.2) Data Quality: The BLMF contained 1,009 business licensed as manufacturers in thecentral city in April 1991 (see Table 23), compared to 1,380 manufacturing establishmentslisted in Contacts Target Marketing's 1991 directory and 1,205 in the Employment andImmigration Canada employers database in November 1990. The BLMF could therefore be94TABLE 23Business Licenses,^City of Vancouver, April^30, 1991.ZONING BY-LAW INDUSTRIAL percent COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL FROM OUTSIDE TOTALUSE CATEGORIES AREAS of total AREAS AREAS THE CITYagricultural 0 .00% 10 0 0 10cultural 4 recreational 3 2.75% 106 0 0 109dwelling 107 2.03% 5169 0 0 5276institutional 6 4.55% 110 16 0 132manufacturing 610 60.46% 366 32 1 1009office 224 3.77% 5489 218 13 5944parking 0 .00% 57 0 0 57retail 326 5.17% 5734 202 38 6300service 776 7.02% 5937 1944 2403 11060transportation 4 storage 52 45.61% 60 2 0 114utility 4 communications 1 100.00% 0 0 0 1wholesale 700 41.27% 578 336 82 1696'total classified 2805 8.85% 23616 2750 2537 31708unclassified 489 9.81% 3490 794 210 4983TOTAL 3294 27106 3544 2747 36691SOURCE: CITY OF VANCOUVER PERMITS AND LICENSE DEPARTMENT95considered at least 73 percent comprehensive in its coverage of manufacturers within thecentral city, assuming all 1,009 businesses belonged to S.I.C. codes 20 to 39. However, sincethe objective is to identify migrating firms which are assumed to be of a threshold size andtherefore fairly visible in their operations, it is likely that the BLMF contains most of thetarget firms.Only one manufacturing establishment in 1987 and six establishments in 1988 were recorded inthe BLMF as having ceased to operate within the central city. Since the number for these twoyears appears unusually low and could therefore be the result of database managementproblems (suggested by City staff), the research focused instead on 1989 and 1990. A total of207 businesses were recorded as having ceased to operate within Vancouver during 1989 and1990.Manufacturing activity coding is not detailed enough in the BLMF to allow classification intomajor industry groups, so Contacts Target Marketing directories were used for this purpose.A discussion of the data quality of Contacts Target Marketing directories was provided earlierin this chapter. Contacts Target Marketing does not maintain a file of address changes byestablishments, hence the use of multiple sources for the research.The BLMF includes establishments which are not strictly manufacturers in its list of businesseslicensed as manufacturers. For example, people who engage in cottage industry work at homeand bakeries for restaurants or supermarkets may be issued manufacturers' licenses. Non-manufacturers who occupy premises in industrial areas may also be issued manufacturers'licenses. This raises questions about the BLMF's accuracy in identifying migrating firms ifthe coverage of existing manufacturers (estimated earlier at 73 percent) includes suchbusinesses.3) Verification Procedure: The list of manufacturing establishments which ceased operatingin the central city in 1989 and 1990 was cross-checked in the 1991 Contacts Target Marketing96directory, to verify whether an establishment had ceased operating completely or had relocatedoutside the central city. Those establishments continuing to appear in the Contacts TargetMarketing directory at their previous address were then cross-checked with the BritishColumbia Telephone white pages directory of 1991. 61 Using this procedure, each of the 207establishments on the BLMF was verified as either closed completely or relocated to anotheraddress. A few establishments were verified as existing and not relocated.The pre-move and post-move characteristics of the final list of relocated establishments werethen obtained from the Contacts Target Marketing directories for 1986-87, 1987-88, 1989-90and 1991. In a few cases, information was verified from the Contacts Target Marketingelectronic database. Where there was some doubt about the address of the establishment at thestart of the study period, the 1986 telephone white pages directory was consulted. Somebusinesses were also contacted by telephone for clarification regarding either their pre-move orpost-move characteristics such as company name.Using all four data sources it was possible to identify branch plants and indigenous firms, aswell as the origin and destination of migrating firms by postal code. Branch plant relocationsare excluded from the summary of results. The employee size range coding in Contacts TargetMarketing directories provided an estimation of firm size prior and subsequent to therelocation. The age of the firm was estimated from the Start of Business year coded in theBLMF for each record.4) Limitations of Methodology: There are four main limitations to the methodology used.Firstly, relocations of manufacturing establishments into the inner city are not included. Nosatisfactory data source or sources were found, which precluded testing the complex hypothesisby comparing the percentage of relocations from the inner city and into the inner city usingFagg's (1980) and Steed's (1973) methodology.61The 1986-87 Contacts Target Marketing directory and the 1986 telephone white pages werealso consulted to ensure that establishments not appearing in 1991 were indeed originally listedat the start of the study period.97Secondly, without data on actual number of employees or shipment value or value added, thesize of the firm prior to the relocation is simply estimated from the size range of the number ofemployees. The latter varies substantially so that a firm coded as size "0" could employ anynumber between 11 and 25 workers. For firms relocating from the inner city, the differencebetween 11 employees and 25 employees could mean a substantial change in the amount ofspace required. At the same time, firms which do not exhibit major changes in the number ofemployees but substantially increase their shipment value or value added, could be relocatingto obtain more space for their production or storage needs.Thirdly, studying the movement patterns and some characteristics of relocating firms cannotprovide conclusions about the reasons for relocation. Without a survey of the relocated firms,and given the reservations discussed in the previous paragraph, definitive conclusionsregarding the motivation for relocation decisions cannot be advanced. In addition, withoutprior knowledge of "threshold" sizes in the incubation history of firms in different industries,no conclusion can be reached as to whether the relocating firm has reduced its dependence onthe external economies found in the inner city.Fourthly, it is unknown how many migrating firms remain unidentified due to name changes,mergers with or takeovers of suburban firms, closures in the inner city followed by new start-ups in suburban locations by the same owner(s) in the same industry, moves out of the GreaterVancouver area and inadequate coverage of manufacturers in the BLMF. Given thesereservations, if the current method reveals a substantial number of relocations then thecomplex hypothesis can be considered confirmed with confidence. However, the oppositecannot be true since a small number of identified relocations may reflect the effect oflimitations of the methodology. In the latter case, the test result would need to be supported atthe minimum with a survey of new suburban manufacturers to obtain a better estimate of thepercentage originating from the inner city.98B. Summary of ResultsOf 207 businesses listed in the BLMF as having ceased operations within the central cityduring 1989 and 1990, 26 were identified as still operating within city limits, 149 wereidentified as ceasing to exist and 32 were identified as relocated to a different address. Branchplants accounted for 5 of 32 migrating firms. Of the balance, 11 were listed in ContactsTarget Marketing under non-manufacturing S.I.C. codes, one relocated prior to 1989 and 2 ofthe 15 remaining manufacturing firms moved to another location within the inner city. Thefinal list of 13 manufacturing firms are distributed by origin, destination and major industrygroup in Table 24. Nine of these 13 firms originated from the inner city at the start of thestudy period.1) The Complex Hypothesis: The foregoing summary indicates that the data quality of theBLMF list is less than satisfactory. For example, 26 of the 207 businesses recorded as ceasingto operate within city limits were in fact found to be still operating there (each of thesebusinesses was identified in the 1991 Contacts Target Marketing directory and the currenttelephone directory; a telephone call to the business verified their existence). While this mayindicate that the businesses concerned neglected to obtain a license or that some businessesmay have discontinued their manufacturing operations, it may also reflect data entry and datamaintenance problems in the BLMF. In fact, there is no consistency in the method of updatingrecords in the BLMF as changes may be recorded through a complete replacement of therecord or an addition of a new record after flagging the original one as obsolete. Thesummary also indicated that 11 businesses on the list identified as non-manufacturers wereholding manufacturers' licenses.Given additional data quality concerns already identified in previous sections, the confidence inthe methodology should be qualified. Therefore, the final list of 9 migrating firms identifiedhere should not be viewed as definitive or statistically significant.99TABLE 24RELOCATIONS OF CITY FIRMS IN 1989 AND 1990DISTRIBUTION BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP IN GREATER VANCOUVERMAJOR ^INDUSTRY^INNERGROUP^CITYORIGINREST^TOTALOF CITY CITYDESTINATIONS1 0 0 02 2 0 Burnaby = 1, Surrey =13 3 .7 5 Richmond = 3, Burnaby = 1, Port Coquitlam =4 1 1 Richmond = 1, Burnaby = 15 2 1 3 Richmond = 1, Surrey = 26 0 0 07 1 0 1 North Vancouver = 1TOTAL 9 4 13 Burnaby = 3, North Van = 1, Richmond = 5,Surrey = 3, Port Coquitlam = 11I Feed and beverage2 Learner. trek.. imilffng mile and clothing3 Wood. furniture and fixtures. paper and alliedand ocean& publIsMng and allied4 Machinery. transmutation equiprnent and etechloalproductsS Primary metal and metal fabrleating5 Rubber and Mae*, products. petroleum and am*products and chemloal products7 Plen—metallio mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plantsCtty denotes City of Vancouver100Having noted the concern about accuracy in identifying migrating firms, the rest of this sectionwill attempt to make some inferences from the nine firms which relocated out of the inner city.One possible method to confirm the complex hypothesis is to determine if migrating firmsfrom the inner city increase the rest of the region's share ratio of new firms to base yearexisting establishments closer to 1.0, in cases where the rest of the region's share of new firmsis less than its share of existing establishments. Using this method, the complex hypothesis isconfirmed for Greater Vancouver, as even the 9 migrating firms from the inner city increasethe rest of the region's share ratio of new firms to base year existing establishments from 0.91to 0.94. It should be noted that the reverse situation - i.e. the contribution to the inner city'sshare ratio of new firms to existing establishments from firms migrating from an originallocation in the rest of the region - has not been explored here due to lack of data.2) Pre-Move Characteristics of Migrating Firms: Tables 25 and 26 summarize the age,size and industry classification of the migrating firms prior to the year of actual relocation.Six of the nine firms were at least 10 years old and employed between 6 and 25 workers priorto moving. There is no discernible pattern linking size and type of industry. Therefore, thissuggests that inner city firms grow to a moderate size over a fairly lengthy incubation periodbefore relocating. However, as suggested earlier, the small number of migrating firmsidentified here raise questions about the statistical significance of the findings. Alternatively,the high average age of the migrating firms could be an indication that the BLMF's coverageof younger and smaller firms is not sufficiently comprehensive.3) Post-Move Characteristics of Migrating Firms: Only one firm changed the size rangecoding of the number of workers employed following relocation. However, as pointed out inthe methodology size range coding can sometimes mask major increases in the number ofemployees. The number of employees alone are an insufficient indicator to judge whether theneed for larger premises motivated the relocation. A firm could also need larger premises forstorage and production machinery. An alternative explanation for the apparent lack of change101TABLE 25AGE AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF CITY FIRMS RELOCATING INGREATER VANCOUVER, 1989-90AGE GROUP^FIRMS RELOCATING^EMPLOYEE SIZE RANGE (INNER CITY FIRMS ONLY)FROM^1-5^6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-250 250+CITY^INNER CITY10 YRS & OVER^7^6^1^3^26 TO 9 YRS 5 2 1 14 YRS^1^1 1TOTAL 13^9^2^4^2^ 1SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plantsCity denotes City of Vancouver102TABLE 26SIZE AND MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP DISTRIBUTION OF CITY FIRMSRELOCATING IN GREATER VANCOUVER, 1989-90SIZE RANGE # FIRMS MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP1^2^3 4 51-5 2 1 16-10 4 1 1 111-25 2 1 126-50 051-1001131-250 1 1TOTAL 9 0 3 1 '"1Feed and beverage2 leather. fettle, knitting mills and clothing3 Vfeed, furneuro and 'Mures. paper and allbdand prinMng. publishing and a/Ned4 Machinery. transportation equip/nest and electricalproducts3 Primary metal and metal fabrioating8 Rubber and plank products. petroleum and coalproducts and chemical products7 Non—metallb mineral products and miscellaneousmanufacturingSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING ANNUAL DIRECTORIESNote: firms exclude branch plantsCity denotes City of Vancouversubsequent to relocation could be that firms need an initial adjustment period before expandingtheir operations.CONCLUSIONThe relocations that were identified in the complex hypothesis test contributed to suburbanfirm growth in a situation where the suburban share of new firms was less than its share ofexisting establishments. However, based on the available information, it appears that thesuburban municipalities gained more from new firms than from relocations. This observationconcurs with Steed's (1973) earlier study of Greater Vancouver manufacturing distribution,although serious data and methodology limitations encountered during the present test of thecomplex hypothesis suggest that the results should not be considered definitive or statisticallysignificant.Disaggregated results from the simple hypothesis test suggest that the inner city and centralcity of Greater Vancouver appear to har appear to have both a substantive and a &a+7Hregionalmanufacturing incubation. The dominance of the central city in the absolute number of newfirms parallels its dominance in the absolute number of existing establishments observed inChapter 3. 62 The inner city and the central city's share of new firms also exceeded their shareof existing establishments. These observations suggest that:a) the central city incubates a sufficient number of new firms to maintain andenhance its own share of regional manufacturing activity;b) the inner city is the principal manufacturing incubator in the region according tothe share ratio test for the simple hypothesis;c)^inferring from the theoretical basis of the hypothesis (which states that externaleconomies found in the inner city are important to firm start-ups), the externaleconomies in the inner city are important to a substantial portion of Greater Vancouverfirm start-ups, leading to a further inference that the inner city and the central city cancontribute to regional manufacturing incubation because of characteristics unique tothem.62Since the inner city accounts for most of the central city's share of new firms, the discussionwill refer to the central city where comparisons with existing establishment trends observed inChapter 3 are required.104MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPFIGURE 12RATIO OF NEW FIRMS (1986-87 TO 1990) TO EXISTINGESTABLISHMENTS (1986) IN GREATER VANCOUVER(a) INNER CITY^ (b) REST OF CITY°16^A^MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPMEW FIRMS (19a7-9o)MI EXISTING EST. (1986)(c) TOTAL CITYMAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP(d) REST OF REGIONMAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPFood and brooreao2 LaoNow, %Oak WORM, mil* and Wetiting3 Wood, tomato,* and tbduros, paw end Marlend printing, pubilahlitu and *Sled4 libsultimmi, trsmporsallan imisiporiont dad itleatricalProductsSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING Al*tUAL DIRECTORIESNaha firms eactudo branch plants5 Miner? motet and mast tobricoting$ Rubber and pied% mode** protteloom and coalproducts and ofterniaci products7 Non-mmtallie mhotral products and mismikinmosmanufacturing105At the sub-sectoral level, similar correspondences can be observed as the inner city and centralcity's share of new firms exceeded their share of existing establishments in most sub-sectors.Figure 12 demonstrates that at the major industry group level, the central city's ("total city")share of new firms was slightly below its share of existing establishments only in groups 2 and3 (consisting generally of textile products and wood products). However, within those groupsat the individual industry level, the inner city dominated in the number of new firms andexisting establishments in clothing and printing. These two industries were also the maincontributors of new firms for their respective major industry groups. Along with electrical andelectronic products, another industry in which the central city led new firm growth, they wereconsidered to be "sunrise" industries from the review of Greater Vancouver manufacturing inChapter 3. These observations suggest that:a) the central city also contributes qualitatively to the regional manufacturing sectorthrough a selective incubation process at the sub-sectoral level, including the hosting ofa majority of new firms in industries exhibiting growth potential;b) inferring again from the theoretical basis of the hypothesis, a substantial number of newfirms in "sunrise" industries find urbanization economies (which, according toindustrial location theory, are concentrated in the inner city) beneficial for their start-up; andc)^localization economies are also important since, at the individual industry level, there isa correspondence in most cases between the dominance of the inner city in existingestablishments and in new firms started.The final chapter will attempt to draw some conclusions about the inner city's incubator rolebased on the test results reported in this chapter. A discussion of some implications for landuse policy in Greater Vancouver's inner city follows the case study conclusions.106CHAPTER 5CONCLUSIONINTRODUCTIONThis thesis used Greater Vancouver as a case study because it is representative of a smallmetropolis which faces a major challenge regarding the use of inner city industrial land. Thearguments for residential use seem to accord with trends toward industrial decentralization,"de-industrialization" and economic restructuring towards services. However, there remains aconcern about the importance of manufacturing to the economic base, especially for smallcities. There is thus a further concern that rezoning inner city industrial land might disrupt theincubator role of the inner city with negative consequences for regional manufacturing vitality.The purpose of the thesis was to contribute to the resolution of the dilemma regarding the useof inner city industrial land by examining the inner city's incubator function. The mainresearch objective was to establish the quantitative significance of manufacturing incubation inthe inner city by testing the inner city hypothesis using data for a recent period in a smallmetropolis. The review of theoretical and empirical literature indicated that the hypothesismay not be valid in older large metropolises which had experienced severe loss ofmanufacturing activity and advanced economic restructuring, but that it may still be valid forsmall metropolises.Thus, a test of the hypothesis in a small metropolis would have one of two consequences: ifthe test rejected the hypothesis there would be some grounds for rejecting the hypothesisuniversally, but if the test confirmed the hypothesis there would be some support for assertingthat differentiation between cities affected the validity of the hypothesis.The second objective of the thesis was to assess the qualitative significance of incubationactivity in the inner city to facilitate application of the test results to policy development.Disaggregated test results were to be evaluated in conjunction with a review of sub-sectoral107and sub-metropolitan manufacturing trends. In this way, any specialized principal incubatorfunction of the inner city could be identified and its significance to the regional economynoted.As a contribution towards resolving the disagreement among researchers a clarification of therole of localization and urbanization economies in new firm incubation was also sought fromthe case study. Since recent data was used it would be possible to:a) provide some indirect evidence of the strength of urbanization economies in inner cityincubation in the context of changing manufacturing practices, especially in the case ofadvanced technology manufacturing; andb) provide some indirect evidence of the role of localization and urbanization economiesby comparing sub-sectoral and sub-metropolitan trends for new and existingestablishments.Finally, using all three measurement indices identified in the literature for testing the simplehypothesis would provide multiple ways to examine the hypothesis, and possibly provide someinsights into the mixed results of previous tests of the hypothesis.CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS ON THE INNER CITY'S INCUBATOR ROLEThis section presents the case study conclusions regarding the quantitative and qualitative roleof inner city manufacturing incubation in Greater Vancouver. A discussion of thecontemporary role of urbanization and localization economies in inner city firm births follows.Some implications for land use policy in Greater Vancouver's inner city are addressed in thenext section.A. Quantitative Results of the Hypothesis Test: For the period 1986-87 to 1990 in GreaterVancouver, the simple hypothesis was confirmed using the share ratio measurement index butsevere data limitations precluded a reliable assessment of firm relocations. However, the innercity contained the single largest cluster of new firms, paralleling the trend in the intra-108metropolitan distribution of existing establishments. This suggests that the inner city incubatessufficient new firms to maintain its own share of regional manufacturing activity, while itshigher birth rate indicates that it contributes more than its share of total regional manufacturinggrowth. 63The results of the simple hypothesis test in Greater Vancouver illustrate the continuing validityof the hypothesis in a small metropolis. It appears that differentiation between cities have animpact on the validity of the hypothesis. In Greater Vancouver's case, its manufacturingsector has grown steadily in absolute terms while its inner city continues to contain the singlelargest cluster of manufacturing establishments. Thus, relative "de-industrialization" andindustrial decentralization have not eroded the incubation function in its inner city.The conclusions are even more interesting when compared to the results of Steed's (1973)study of Greater Vancouver for the periods between 1954-57 and 1964-67. Steed found thatthe inner city failed the simple hypothesis test using both the majority and share ratiomeasurement indices, although it generated the highest number of relocations. These trendsindicated that between 1954 and 1967, but especially during the mid 1960s, rapiddecentralization was taking place in Greater Vancouver's manufacturing sector consonant withgeneral suburbanization trends of the time.Today, the inner city continues to host the single largest cluster of new firms and existingestablishments, and a higher birth rate of firms, despite a reduced supply of industrial land andhigher and increasing land costs. Obviously, manufacturing has been resilient in the inner cityand deserves serious consideration in land use decisions. The recent absolute and relativeincrease in the inner city's share of manufacturing establishments (see footnote 54) indicatesthat inner city manufacturing can be viable in the era of post-Fordist production methods.63Footnote 54 indicated that the inner city's share of manufacturing establishments hasincreased to 25 percent in 1991 from 22 percent in 1986-87.109B. Qualitative Dimensions of Inner City Incubation: Disaggregation of test results by sub-sector and sub-area indicated that the inner city led new growth in four of five industriesconsidered to be "sunrise" industries in the review of regional manufacturing trends. Theseindustries showed a positive change in the number of establishments and employees between1976 and 1986 (see Table 12 in Chapter 3). The inner city's performance was especiallystrong in printing, clothing and electrical and electronic industries. The latter has beenidentified as a major component of advanced technology related industries (Basten 1989) and isconsidered by governments at all levels as a desirable industry because of its propulsive andtransformative potential for the manufacturing base.Qualitatively, then, incubation activity in the inner city has the potential for diversifying theregional economic base and improving its capacity for change. In applying the hypothesis topolicy development, it is desirable to know if the inner city has a specialized incubationfunction of regional significance. When attempting to balance the demand for residential landagainst the needs of the manufacturing sector, such qualitative knowledge can provide anadditional justification for retaining inner city industrial land.C. Localization or Urbanization Economies? As Nicholson (1981) pointed out, tests of thehypothesis are assumptive in nature when referring to the type of external economies fromwhich new firms benefit. However, in this thesis the hypothesis test was undertaken inconjunction with a review of sub-sectoral and intra-metropolitan trends in the manufacturingsector. An assessment of test results in the context of existing manufacturing trends canprovide some confidence in conclusions regarding the role of localization and urbanizationeconomies, although a supplementary survey is ultimately the best source of conclusiveevidence.The case study of Greater Vancouver revealed some support for the role of both localizationand urbanization economies in firm incubation. The inner city's greater share of new firmscompared to its corresponding share of existing establishments suggests that urbanization110economies might be contributing to that greater share. Since advanced technologymanufacturers were included in the research, and since the inner city led growth in newelectrical and electronic products firms which include advanced technology manufacturers,urbanization economies appear to have contemporary relevance. At the same time,localization economies could be interpreted as having some impact especially in the case of the"sunrise" industries of printing, clothing, electrical and electronic products and miscellaneousindustries. The central city contained the largest clusters of existing establishments in thesegroups at the start of the study period and the largest clusters of new firms during the studyperiod.The case study also provided an example which suggests that localization economies alone areinsufficient to explain the number of firm births occurring in an area. Table 13 in Chapter 3indicates that the majority of existing establishments in the machinery industry were spreadfairly evenly between Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey in that order. The spatial distributionof new firms (see Appendix 7) indicates that Vancouver and Surrey contained most of the newfirms. Richmond did not contain a share of new firms proportional to its share of existingestablishments; this runs counter to the expectation under the localization economiesargument. Given that land costs are higher in the inner city, new machinery firms seekinglocalization economies would be expected to prefer both Richmond and Surrey overVancouver.The case study of Greater Vancouver thus indicates that either type of external economy maybe important to manufacturing incubation. The empirical evidence from the literature reviewalso suggests that incubation is not exclusively related to urbanization economies. In citiessuch as London where massive shrinkage of manufacturing industry was observed no supportfor the hypothesis was found (refer to the discussion in Chapter 1).A case can thus be made for acknowledging the relevance of an existing manufacturing base inthe inner city or the contribution of localization economies to firm start-up and incubation.Using this rationale, the mixed results from the case studies reported in Chapter 2 appear lessambiguous. The resulting implication for the hypothesis is that the underlying assumption ofuniversal applicability for all cities at all times needs to be questioned.D. Methodological Influences on Hypothesis Tests: While the complex hypothesis test inGreater Vancouver was hampered by data quality problems, the test of the simple hypothesiswas quite thorough. The use of all three measurement indices described in Chapter 4 providedan opportunity to compare their effect on the test results. Using a straightforward majorityindex of greater than 50 percent of firm births in the inner city, the simple hypothesis wasrejected for Greater Vancouver. However, at the individual industry level, the simplehypothesis was confirmed by straightforward majority for food and clothing. Using a shareratio measurement index comparing the percentage of new firms to existing establishments, thesimple hypothesis was confirmed in the aggregate and for most sub-sectors. UsingNicholson's (1981) proportional comparison method which separated "inner city" and "non-inner city" industries, the simple hypothesis was rejected. However, the discussion in Chapter4 raised some doubts about Nicholson's measurement method thereby suggesting that thatparticular test result should be viewed with caution. The conflicting results from a single casestudy arising from the use of different measurement methods indicate that at least one reasonfor the mixed results of empirical tests of the hypothesis might be the inconsistency inmeasurement indices used.IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE POLICY IN VANCOUVERThe case study of manufacturing incubation in the inner city of Vancouver and the review ofthe Greater Vancouver manufacturing sector provide sound empirical justification for a landuse policy in favor of central city industrial activity. Five conclusions which contribute to thisjustification are reviewed below.1. Strong Performance in Existing Manufacturing Activity: The central city contains thesingle largest cluster of existing manufacturing establishments and employees at the sub-metropolitan level. Statistical evidence of trends in the decade between 1976 and 1986112indicate that the central city also contained the largest clusters of establishments in industrieswhich are major employers except wood, paper and allied and transportation equipment.Among these latter industries, the central city did not have a substantial presence only in paperand allied. Decentralization has occurred, but industrial clusters in the suburbs do not rival orreplicate the strength of central city industrial clusters. In fact, suburban industrial clusterstend to be dispersed. As noted before, estimates from Contacts Target Marketing indicate thatthe inner city has increased its relative share of establishments from 22 percent in 1986 to 25percent in 1991. This increase is significant because it occurred even while the suburbs gainedestablishments in absolute terms. Therefore, the inner city and the central city constitute animportant part of the regional manufacturing base in total volume and by sub-sector.2. Arrest of Declining Share/Decentralization Trend: There is recent evidence to suggestthat the trend towards the declining relative share of central city manufacturing activityobserved since 1956 (see Figure 4 in Chapter 3) has been halted. In 1986 the number ofmanufacturing establishments increased from 809 to 831, after having steadily decreased from1299 in 1956 (see Table 8 in Chapter 3). As noted in the previous section, estimates of trendssince 1986 indicate that the central city has continued to add to its share of manufacturingactivity both relatively and absolutely.3. Strong Performance in New Firm Activity: The empirical research documented inChapter 4 indicates that the inner city and central city contained the largest single cluster ofnew manufacturing firms in the region. Their share of new firms exceeded their share ofexisting establishments, providing support for the simple hypothesis. Data problems precludeda conclusive test of the complex hypothesis.The central city led growth in "sunrise" industries including printing, clothing, advancedtechnology and miscellaneous manufacturing. These industries, especially advancedtechnology manufacturing, provide the regional manufacturing sector with growth potential113and the regional economy with diversification potential. Thus, incubation activity in the innercity has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of regional significance, making the innercity currently a key incubator site.4. Small Remaining Base of Industrial Land: The central city has the smallest remainingbase of industrial land in the region, with no long-term supply available (see Table 11 inChapter 3). Region-wide the short-term supply of vacant industrial land is estimated at 10.5 to13 years and the long-term supply at 11 to 14 years. With increasing sensitivity among policymakers and citizens regarding ecological concerns, it is unlikely that the inventory of industrialland will be increased in the near future. As pointed out in Chapter 1, the rezoning andconversion of industrial land to other uses are generally irreversible. Therefore, given theevidence of strong growth in existing and new manufacturing activity in the inner city, andgiven the potential for economic spin-offs through inter-linkages between manufacturing andservice activity, there is a rationale for retaining existing industrial land.5. Changes in Production Technology and Organization Benefit Inner CityManufacturing: The evidence in Chapter 3 indicated that land costs in the inner city haveremained higher than the rest of the region. While this trend increases manufacturing costs inthe inner city, improved production technology increases the productivity of land andreinforces the general trend toward substituting land for more efficient production processes(Currie, Coopers and Lybrand 1983, pp.30 and 77). Post-Fordist manufacturing practices alsoreduce the need for storage space because minimal inventories are maintained using "just-in-time" production methods. These trends suggest that the inner city can continue to be a viablemanufacturing location in the future. Retaining central industrial land will thus provide anopportunity for a vigorous central city manufacturing base to develop in concert with newtechnology and production methods.The central city's strong position in industries which are major manufacturing employers, aswell as in industries which exhibit signs of expansion, result in Vancouver's land use planning114policy having potentially major impacts on Greater Vancouver's manufacturing sector. Thereview of Greater Vancouver manufacturing in Chapter 3 indicated that in spite of reducedland supply and higher and increasing land costs in the inner city, Vancouver continues toretain a substantial manufacturing role. Thus, central city industrial land use policy hasimplications for the maintenance as well as growth of the regional manufacturing base.CONSTRAINTS/LINIITATIONS OF CASE STUDYThe case study of Greater Vancouver was based on secondary data sources which established ageneral understanding of the intra-metropolitan and sub-sectoral distribution of manufacturingactivity and recent firm start-ups. The research results provided sufficient justification for arecommendation to retain inner city industrial land in Vancouver. They also provided insightsinto the theoretical assumptions regarding the type of external economies needed by new firmsin the simple hypothesis. However, the methodology was also limited by the case studyapproach and constrained by the research methods used.The main limitation of the case study approach is that transferability of the results is inhibitedby the specificity of the metropolis and time period studied. While there are up to eleven casestudies reported in the literature, none followed the approach of this thesis in linking thevalidity of the hypothesis with the structure of the manufacturing sector and its role in theeconomy. Therefore, similar supporting evidence from various time periods for comparablestudy areas is desirable.Tests of the simple and complex hypotheses were also constrained by the research methodsused. Using counts of new firm births provided a basis for quantitative analysis and evaluationof the simple hypothesis, but not an assessment of firm-level reasons for locating either in theinner city or elsewhere. Therefore, a supplementary survey of new firms should beundertaken to confirm the relative importance of localization and urbanization economies byindustry, and to gauge the accessibility of the inner city for new firms.115In the case of the complex hypothesis, data quality problems were compounded bymethodological shortcomings. It was suggested that counts of migrating firms may excludename changes, mergers, takeovers, closures followed by subsequent re-openings, moves out ofthe region and other types of implicit migrations. Lack of suitable data sources also precludedan assessment of firm migrations into the inner city. Tracing several firm migrations from theinner city provided some support for the complex hypothesis, but no confirmation of thefactors motivating the relocations or that the migrating firms had reduced their dependence oninner city external economies. A supplementary survey of new suburban firms and migratingfirms would be helpful to provide statistically significant estimates of relocations and toestablish whether the need for more space and the ability to provide internal economies ofscale motivated the relocations.FURTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONSThe summary of conclusions derived from the case study of Greater Vancouver provide somesound reasons for retaining inner city industrial land. Further supporting arguments in favorof retaining inner city industrial land in Vancouver include:1. Potential for more housing on existing residential land: From the perspective of efficientuse of land resources within the central city existing residential land is presently under-utilized. Single-family houses constitute only 38 percent of the total number of occupiedprivate dwellings in the city (1986 Census) although 70 percent of residential land is zoned forsingle-family use. Recent changes to the single-family zoning schedules aim at increasing thepermitted residential density by allowing rented secondary suites in selected areas. However,the bulk of single-family areas on the west side of the city (estimated at over 25,000 lots out ofa total of approximately 65,000 single-family lots) which contains larger lots and is thereforeless dense, remain primarily single-family. 64 There is thus more justification for usingexisting residential land more efficiently, especially since the supply of industrial land has64Figures from City of Vancouver Planning Department as of April 1990.116already been reduced substantially by 700 acres as of the mid-1970s and by 270 acresproposed as of July 1990.2. Jobs-housing Proximity for Industrial Workers: Densifying residential use near the citycentre can improve the jobs-housing balance for service workers, but retaining industrialactivity in the inner city can also improve jobs-housing proximity for some industrial workers.Empirical research on reverse commuting in Vancouver is rare, but where feasible, equity inaccess to jobs for industrial workers resident in the city is a valid public policy objective.3. Mixed use Zoning can Increase Housing Potential: Selectively applied mixed use zoninginstead of outright rezoning in present industrial areas can also increase housing potential inthe inner city. Given that new manufacturing sub-sectors such as advanced technologymanufacturing can be quite "clean," it is possible for manufacturing and housing to beneighborly today. Innovative approaches to existing residential and commercial areas in theinner city could include exploration of the reverse option: some types of industrial use couldbe permitted in existing non-industrial areas.4. More Intensive Use of Existing Industrial Land is Possible: The idea of using industrialland more intensively is not new (e.g. Hardwick 1974), and appears to be quite logical giventhat land costs are higher in the inner city and land supply is scarce. The 1983 economicstrategy for Vancouver also proposed the development of multi-storey industrial buildings asan efficient way to increase the supply of industrial space in the city. Allowing higherdensities in industrial areas could increase the opportunities available for mixed use zoning.This method of encroaching on inner city industrial land can be less hostile to manufacturinguse, and could be an innovative approach towards balancing the need for both housing andindustrial use in the inner city.5. Economic Diversity Increases Employment Alternatives: In addition to the cyclicalfluctuations associated with a resources economy, the ecological arguments against over-117harvesting have increased the need for employment alternatives in British Columbia.Therefore, public policy objectives such as the Western Diversification Fund mentioned inChapter 3 or local industrial land use policy which provide opportunities for developing astrong manufacturing sector can be justified.6. Developing "Knowledge" Skills and Increasing Services Export Potential: The inter-linkages between manufacturing activity and service activity imply that a local manufacturingsector which can provide new opportunities for developing "knowledge" skills is desirable.Unlike Toronto or New York, Greater Vancouver is not at the top of a national orinternational urban hierarchy and therefore cannot rely exclusively on corporate services as adefinite source of economic growth. Developing local expertise in service provision alsoincreases the potential for services export as a source of income for the region.7. Public Policy can be Adapted in Future: Since industrial land values are usually lowerthan residential and commercial land values, rezoning from non-industrial to industrial use ishighly unlikely. Therefore, retaining inner city industrial land maintains the options availablefor future use of the land resources. It does not preclude a different policy approach shouldcircumstances change in the future. Given the conclusions about inner city manufacturing inVancouver retaining industrial land at this time appears to be a sound policy approach in thelong-term.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATIONActual zoning regulations and boundaries specific to the inner city should be decided afterconsideration of other related factors. For example, the functional relationships of other typesof industrial activity to manufacturing activity in the region, and in the central city, should beexamined to efficiently allocate land among industrial uses both spatially and quantitatively.The distribution of firm start-ups in the inner city should be studied further in order tounderstand which sub-areas should be reserved and provided with suitable zoning for118incubation purposes. The possibility of introducing mixed use zoning and higher density useshould be explored since industries such as advanced technology manufacturing which are"clean" can be quite compatible with other uses. Finally, given the suggestion that the innercity role adjusts dynamically to changes in the region's manufacturing sector and to changesaffecting manufacturing activity in general, a monitoring program which can indicate whenzoning or land use policies should be reviewed is desirable.AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCHAreas for further research have been alluded to throughout the thesis. They belong to twogeneral categories - confirmation research and implementation research - and are summarizedbelow.Support for the argument that the validity of the hypothesis depends on the existence andstructure of the local manufacturing sector requires additional evidence from case studyresearch covering various time periods from comparable study areas. Confirmation of reasonsfor the location decisions of firms at start-up and relocation require supplementary surveys assuggested in the section on case study limitations. The development of statistically significantestimates of relocated firms also require a survey of new suburban establishments.Confirmation of policy assumptions in Greater Vancouver regarding the inter-linkages betweenmanufacturing and service activity and regarding the propulsive potential of advancedtechnology-related manufacturing require detailed empirical research.Implementation of the recommendation to retain industrially zoned land in the inner cityshould be undertaken upon further study of the functional relationships between manufacturingand other types of supporting industrial activity. The efficient allocation of industrial land canalso be enhanced by identifying the specific sub-areas where firm start-ups tend to occur andensuring that those sub-areas are zoned appropriately. The possibility of introducing mixeduse zoning and higher density use should be explored given that newer manufacturing sub-119sectors such as advanced technology manufacturing can be quite "clean" and neighborly.Finally, a monitoring program can help to assess the effectiveness of the zoning and to indicatewhen changes caused by regional trends or general manufacturing trends necessitate a reviewof land use policies.CLOSINGThis thesis noted the challenge to urban governments from growing demands to use inner cityindustrial land for alternate uses, especially residential, and the concern that reducing innercity industrial land might erode metropolitan manufacturing vitality. In particular, the concernthat rezoning industrial land might jeopardize the inner city's principal incubator functionprompted this thesis' focus on testing the inner city hypothesis in Greater Vancouver. Thethesis research indicates that there is sufficient evidence to support the role of the inner city asa principal and a key incubator site in Greater Vancouver, although the distribution of firmmigrations should be studied further. Therefore, this thesis concludes generally that urbangovernments of small metropolises should approach the rezoning of inner city industrial landcautiously. This thesis also concludes specifically that a choice to retain inner city industrialland in Greater Vancouver can be justified on the basis of the inner city's sizeable contributionin existing establishments to the regional manufacturing sector, and the inner city's regionallysignificant incubator function.120BIBLIOGRAPHYAllen D.N. and Hendrickson-Smith, J. 1986. Planning and Implementing Small BusinessIncubators and Incubators and Enterprise Networks. Amin, A. 1989. "A Model of the Small Firm in Italy" in E. Goodman et.al. (eds.), SmallFirms and Industrial Districts in Italy. London: Routledge.Basten, L. 1989. "A Study of Vancouver High Tech Industries." Report prepared for City ofVancouver, Economic Development Office.Bolwijn, P.T. et.al . 1986. Flexible Manufacturing: Integrating Technological and SocialInnovation. New York: Elsevier.Breathnach, P. 1985. "Rural industrialization in the West of Ireland" in M.J. Healey andB.W. Ibery (eds.) The Industrialization of the Countryside. Norwich: Geo Books.Brown, T. 1991. Statistics Canada. Regional Economist. Telephone Interviews on June 6and 7. Vancouver, B.C.Britton, J. 1981. "Innovation, Industrial Strategy, and theUrban Economy: Toronto'sDevelopment Options," Research Paper No. 127. University of Toronto: Centre for Urbanand Community Studies.Butler, S. 1981. Enterprise Zones: Greenlining the Inner Cities. New York: UniverseBooks.Calderbank, K. 1991. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Finance (Statistics Division)Telephone interviews on June 6 and 9. Vancouver, B.C.Cameron, G.C. 1980. "The Inner City: New Plant Incubator?" in A. Evans and D. Eversley(eds.) The Inner City: Employment and Industry. London: Heinemann, 351-366.Chapman, K. and D. Walker. 1987. Industrial Location. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Christie, R.C. 1980. "Developing an Industrial Policy for a Central City: A Case Study ofToronto, Canada," in D.F. Walker (ed.) Planning Industrial Development. New York:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.City of Vancouver Planning Department. 1977. Industry in Vancouver. A PreliminaryReport for Discussion by Len Tennant.City of Vancouver. 1988. "Downtown Vancouver: Planning Strategies for a ChangingWorld." Briefing paper prepared for the Symposium on Downtown Vancouver, March1988.121City of Vancouver. June 1989. City Manager's Report, "Industry in Vancouver: BackgroundReport."City of Vancouver Economic Development Office. June 1991. Vancouver Economic DataBase.Cohen, S. and J. Zysman. 1987. Manufacturing Matters: The Myth of the Post-IndustrialEconomy. New York: Basic Books.Contacts Target Marketing. Vancouver. 1991. Vancouver: Contacts Target Marketing Inc.Contacts Target Marketing. Vancouver.  1989-90. Vancouver: Contacts Target MarketingInc.Contacts Target Marketing. Vancouver.  1987-88. Vancouver: Contacts Target MarketingInc.Contacts Target Marketing. Vancouver.  1986-87. Vancouver: Contacts Target MarketingInc.Contacts Target Marketing. Vancouver. (electronic database) August 1991. Vancouver:Contacts Target Marketing Inc.Currie, Cooper and Lybrand Management Consultants. 1983. The Demand for IndustrialLand in the Vancouver Lower Mainland: Volume 1 - Main Report.  Victoria: Queen'sPrinter for British Columbia.Davelaar, E.J. and P. Nijkamp. 1989: "The Role of the Metropolitan Milieu as an IncubationCentre for technological innovations: A Dutch Case Study." Urban Studies 26(5): 517-525.Davis, H.C. and T.A. Hutton. 1989a. "Vancouver as an Emerging Centre of the Pacific RimUrban System." Working Paper presented to the Inaugural Pacific Rim Urban DevelopmentCouncil Conference, Los Angeles, California. August 1989.Davis, H.C. and T.A. Hutton. 1989b. "The Two Economies of British Columbia." B.C.Studies. No. 82: Summer 1989.Davis, H.C. and T.A. Hutton. 1990. "Vancouver's Emergence as a Pacific Rim City: Issues,Implications and Responses." Prepared for Metropolis '90, Melbourne, Australia, October1990.Dicken, P. 1986. Global Shift: Industrial Change in a Turbulent World.  London: Harper &Row Ltd.Dun and Bradstreet. 1991. Guide to Canadian Manufacturers. Toronto: Dun and BradstreetCanada.122Fagg, J. 1980: "A re-examination of the incubator hypothesis: a case study of GreaterLeicester." Urban Studies 17(1): 35-44.Fraser, J., T. Semmens, L. Swain , and J. McRae. 1988. "Achieving Greater Vancouver'sPotential: An Economic Vision and Action Plan for the Livable Region." Draft Reportprepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Vancouver: Stevenson Kellog Ernstand Whinney.Goldberg, M. and P. Chinloy. 1984. Urban Land Economics. New York: John Wiley &Sons.Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1990. "Creating Our Future: Steps to a More LivableRegion: Technical Report."Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1990. "Choosing Our Future: Evaluation of GreaterVancouver's Land Supply."Green, D.H., P.D. Foley, and I. Burford. 1984. Putting Spare Space to Work. London:Small Business Research Trust.Hall, P. (ed.). 1981. The Inner City in Context. London: Heinemann.Hardwick, W.G. 1974. Vancouver: Canadian Cities. Don Mills: Collier-MacMillan CanadaLtd.Hayter, R. and T. Barnes. 1990. "Innis' Staple Theory, Exports and Recession: BritishColumbia, 1981-1986." Economic Geography 66(2): 156-173.Heikkila, E. and T.A. Hutton. 1986: "Toward an Evaluative Framework for Land Use Policyin Industrial Districts of the Urban Core: A Qualitative Analysis of the Exclusionary ZoningApproach". Urban Studies 23: 47-60.Hodge, G. and I.M. Robinson. 1960. Jobs. People and  Transportation: Their Role inMetropolitan Physical Development. A report to the Metropolitan Joint Committee.Vancouver, B.C.Hutton, T.A. 1987. "Economic Development in a Large Urban Centre: Linkages betweenVancouver and the Rest of British Columbia." Presentation to conference on "ImportReplacement: Making it work in your Community," University of Victoria, October 1987.Hutton, T.A. 1989. A Profile of Vancouver's Service Sector. Presentation to the "Metropolis'90" Workshop on the Role of Tertiary Industries in Metropolitan Development, Plymouth,England. June 1989.Hutton, T.A. 1991. "Office Location in the Metropolitan Setting," in Local Office Policy inthe Context of Strategic Planning and Structural Change: The Case of the London-SouthEast Region. Unpublished dissertation.123Jackson, A. et.al . 1987. Managing Workspaces: Case Studies of Good Practice in UrbanRegeneration. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Japan External Trade Organization. 1987. Japanese Small Business: Responds Big in the Eraof Diversification and Sophistication. Tokyo: JETRO.Keeble, D. and A. Gould. 1985. "Entrepreneurship and Manufacturing Firm Formation inRural Regions: the East Anglian Case" in M.J. Healey and B.W. Ibery (eds.) TheIndustrialization of the Countryside. Norwich: Geo Books.Keeble, D. and E. Weyer. 1986. New Firms and Regional Development in Europe.London: Croom Helm.Knauf. J. 1991. Employment and Immigration Canada. Regional Economist. Telephone andPersonal Interviews, various dates in June. Vancouver, B.C.Kurre, J.A. 1986: "Additional Evidence on the Incubator Hypothesis: Detroit 1970-75."Urban Studies 23(5): 429-434.Leone, A. and R. Struyk. 1976: "The incubator hypothesis: evidence from five SMSAs."Urban Studies 13(3): 325-31.Lever, W.F. (ed.) 1987. Industrial Change in the United Kingdom. Burnt Mill: LongmanScientific and Technical.MacPherson, A. 1988: "Industrial Innovation and Technical Service Linkages: EmpiricalEvidence from Toronto." Urban Geography 9(5): 466-486.McGovern, P.D. 1961. "Industrial Development in the Vancouver Area." EconomicGeography 37(3): 189-206.Mak, H. 1991. B.C. Hydro. Manager - Forecasting. Telephone Interview on June 26.Vancouver, B.C.Nicholson, B.M., I. Brinkley, and A.W. Evans. 1981: "The role of the inner city in thedevelopment of manufacturing industry." Urban Studies 18: 57-71.O'Connor, K. and E.J. Blakely. 1990: "Suburbia Makes the Central City: A NewInterpretation of City Suburb Relationships." Urban Policy and Research 7(3): 99-105.Piore, M.J. and C.F. Sabel. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic BooksInc.Province of British Columbia. 1990. 1990 Review. Victoria: Ministry of Finance andCorporate Relations.124Province of British Columbia. 1990. British Columbia Manufacturers Directory. Victoria:Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.Province of British Columbia. 1990. British Columbia Economic Accounts 1961-89.Victoria: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.Ranson, C. 1991. Contacts Target Marketing Inc. Research Manager. Telephone andPersonal Interviews, various dates in July and August. Vancouver, B.C.Rose, D. 1981. "Accumulation versus reproduction in the inner city: The Recurrent Crisis ofLondon revisited" in M. Dear and A.J. Scott (eds.) Urbanization and Urban Planning inCapitalist Society. New York: Methuen & Co.Ltd., 339-381.Royal Lepage. 1990. Map titled "Greater Vancouver Industrial Areas." Vancouver: RoyalLePage Commercial Real Estate Services, Industrial Division.Savi, F. 1988. "Business Services and Industrial Innovation In the Italian Periphery" inG.J.R. Linge (ed.), Peripheralisation and Industrial Change. London: Croom Helm.Scott, A.J. 1983. "Industrial Organization and the Logic of Intra-metropolitan Location: I.Theoretical Considerations." Economic Geography 59(3): 233-244.Scott, A.J. 1988a. New Industrial Spaces. London: Pion Ltd.Scott, A.J. 1988b. Metropolis: From the Division of Labor to Urban Form. Berkeley:University of California Press.Skinner, W. 1988. "What Matters to Manufacturing," in Harvard Business Review. January-February 1988: 10-16.Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209. Manufacturing Industries of Canada: subprovincialareas.Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-530. Destination of shipments by Manufacturers.Statistics Canada Catalogue #15-203. Provincial gross domestic product by industry.Statistics Canada Catalogue #61-202. The Survey of Production.Steed, G.P.F. 1973. "Intrametropolitan Manufacturing: Spatial Distribution and LocationalDynamics in Greater Vancouver." Canadian Geographer XVII(3): 235-258.Steed, G.P.F. 1976. "Standardization, scale, incubation, and inertia: Montreal and Torontoclothing industries." Canadian Geographer 20(3): 298-309.Taylor, M. 1986. "The Product-Cycle Model: A Critique." Environment and Planning A.18: 751-761.125The Network. n.d. Incubators in Canada: A Review of Current Canadian Small BusinessIncubator Programs Prepared for Investment Canada and the National Research Council.Townroe, P.M. 1979. Industrial Movement: Experience in the U.S. and the U.K..Westmead: Saxon House.Townroe, P.M. and N.J. Roberts.^1980.^Local-External Economies for BritishManufacturing Industry. Westmead: Gower.Wadley, D. 1987. "Planning for Business Development in the Urban Transition Zone" inF.E.Ian Hamilton (ed.) Industrial Change in Advanced Economies. London: Croom Helm.Walker, D.F. 1980. Canada's Industrial Space Economy. Toronto: John Wiley & SonsCanada Limited.Walker, R.A. 1981. "A theory of suburbanization: capitalism and the construction of urbanspace in the United States" in M. Dear and A.J. Scott (eds.) Urbanization and UrbanPlanning in Capitalist Society. New York: Methuen & Co.Ltd., 383-429.Western Economic Diversification Canada. (n.d.) Western Economic Diversification Fundinformation brochure.Wilde, P.D. 1986. "Economic Restructuring and Australia's Changing Role in the WorldSystem" in F.E. Ian Hamilton (ed.) Industrialization in Developing and PeripheralRegions. London: Croom Helm.Williams, H. et.al. 1980. Industrial Renewal in the Inner City: An Assessment of Potentialand Problems. London: Department of the Environment.126GLOSSARY OF DEFINITIONS^ APPENDIX 1Advanced technology industry: is an industry (defined below) which uses scientificknowledge as a major or critical input; Basten (1989) lists the individual standardindustrial classification numbers of industries considered to be advanced technologyusers.Agglomeration economies: include internal and external economies (see definitions below);they allow businesses to profit from the concentration and, therefore, increases in thescale of activity.Central city: is the city containing the central business district of the metropolis. WithinGreater Vancouver the central city is the City of Vancouver (also referred to as"Vancouver").Complex Hypothesis: in this thesis refers to the notions that the inner city has a higher birthrate of firms than the rest of the metropolis, and that upon maturation, firms from theinner city relocate to the rest of the metropolis; together, these two processes contributeto metropolitan firm growth.Decentralization: in the industrial literature and in this thesis refers to the pronouncedmovement by industrial (mainly manufacturing) establishments to the suburbs followingthe second World War; also known as the "suburbanization of industry."Deconcentration: in this thesis describes the diminishing or lessening of the strength of anindustrial cluster (a dominant share in the percentage of establishments or employees) ina sub-area as compared to all other sub-areas in the metropolis.De-industrialization: refers to the absolute or relative contraction of manufacturing activityin industrialized nations which accompanied the expansion of the service sector since atleast the late 1970s.Establishment: is a business unit at a location; does not differentiate between branch plants,headquarters or single location indigenous firms.External economies: are scale economies experienced as lower costs for goods and servicespurchased by establishments, by virtue of their location in a cluster; there are two typesof external economies: localization economies and urbanization economies (definedbelow).Firm: in this thesis refers to an independent business establishment, i.e. a firm is the sumtotal of its headquarter and branch locations; a firm may also be a single locationestablishment.Greater Vancouver: in this thesis refers to Vancouver C.M.A. (Census Metropolitan Area)as defined by Statistics Canada (see Map 1).127Greater Vancouver Regional District: a regional government body, but also denotes acollection of cities and municipalities (see Map 1).Incubator: in this thesis denotes a physical environment conducive to the birth and initialgrowth of firms; principally used in association with the inner city (defined below).Incubation: in this thesis refers to the birth and initial growth of firms.Industry: describes specific types of manufacturing activity e.g. the food and beverageindustries, the clothing industry, etc.Industrial: used in a generic sense to denote activities associated with goods production,storage or transportation.Inner City: is a geographical area consisting of the central business district and adjacentresidential, industrial and other areas; also referred to as the metropolitan core or citycentre. In Greater Vancouver, the inner city roughly corresponds to the area identifiedon Map 2.Internal economies of scale: allow a firm to profit from the production of services orproducts in sufficiently large quantities through the lowering of unit costs of production.Key incubator: in this thesis describes either a principal incubator (defined below) or anincubator which performs a principal incubator function for specific sub-sectors ofsignificance to the regional economy or the regional manufacturing sector (see page 9 inChapter 1 for further details).Linkages: refer to transactions or processes which link two or more entities, e.g. cities,sectors, industries, firms, customers and suppliers, etc.; linkages exist at many levels,e.g. between firms, within firms and between firms and their suppliers.Localization economies: enhance the profitability or productivity of establishments becauseof advantages which accrue from the clustering of a single industry, e.g. access tospecialized subcontracting services.Manufacturing: is the production of goods; in this thesis manufacturing includes theproduction of goods covered by major S.I.C. (standard industrial classification) codesnumbered from 20 to 39 (see appendix 5A).Principal Incubator: see definition of simple hypothesis below.Service(s): in production, refers to activities used as inputs but which are not directly engagedin goods production.Simple Hypothesis: in this thesis refers to the notion that the inner city has a higher birth rateof firms than the rest of the metropolis, thus serving as the principal incubator (incubatorwas defined earlier) of firms in the metropolis.128Standardization: refers to the large scale production of a good following its innovation andusually after the firm has tested its acceptance and performance in the market.Suburbanization of industry: see definition under decentralization.Urbanization economies: enhance the profitability or productivity of establishments becauseof advantages which accrue from the concentration of activity at city centres, e.g. accessto a large labor market.129APPENDIX 21 of 4DETAILED SUMMARY OF EIGHT CASE STUDIES ON THE INNER CITY HYPOTHESISResearcher(s)^Study Area(s)^Study^Hypothesis TestPeriod(s)^Simple^ComplexMeasurementIndexDataSourceFagg (1980)^GreaterLeceister1957-70^Yes Yes^Simple:1)Share of new entries/Share of base year est.2)Share of new firms/Share of base year est.(entries include branch plants)Complex:'4 origins in inner area, lessdestinations in inner areaH.M. FactoryInspectorateRegisters,1957 and 1970Struyk and^BostonJames (et^ClevelandLeone and^MinneapolisStruyk (1976)) St. PaulPhoenix1965-68^Yes No^1) Share of new est./^(data sourceShare of base year est.^described in2) Share of emp. in new firms/^Leone (1971))Share of esp. in existing firmsin base yearLeone and^New York^A) 1967-69^Yes^Yes same as Struyk and James^same as StruykStruyk (1976) B) 1969-71 and JamesSteed (1976)^MontrealToronto^1950-60^Yes^No^%new firms located downtown (per Statistics1963-67 period)^ Canada annual1971-73 Ind. Reports1949-67(exc.1961);StatisticsCanada listsof new plants1971-73 Steed (1973)^Greater^1954-57^Yes^Yes^1) new firms located in each zoneVancouver^1964-67 per time period2)%migration origins in each zoneper time period3)%migration destinations in eachzone per time periodDominionBureau ofStatisticsannual ind.reports130Leone and^same asStruyk (1976)Struyk andJamesa)^b)^c)A)1) 1.00 0.92 1.182) 0.93 0.93 0.93B)1) 1.18 1.03 0.642) 1.05 0.96 0.83Complex:None sane as ^Simple:Struyk andJamessame as Struyk and JamesAPPENDIX 22 of 4Researcher(s)Spatial Dis- Subsectoral^Study^Study^Notesaggregation Disaggregation^Assumption^Result/Conclusion^Fagg (1980) Inner area Simple:^Simple:Outer area aggregate^Ratioil in^Complex:^Inner areaaggregate, and Complex:11 mfg. groups Difference>0Simple:1)Inner area = 0.81Outer area = 1.542)Inner area = 0.90Outer area = 1.30Complex:true for 9 efg.groups;(clothing & mech.engg.nes ( 0)- firms which closed weredeleted from register; i.e.register only contains firms inoperation in 1970;- higher *absolute births ininner area;- villages with stocks of cheappremises snow similar patternof origins ano transfers asinner city;- industrial estates containfar higher Ztransferred est.Struyk and^a) Central^NoneJames (cf^Ind. Dist.Leone and^b) CentralStruyk^City1976)^c)Traditionalmfg.locationsRatio>1 in^a)^b)^c)a) =^1) all SMSAs (1 (1 (1support for^2) Boston^1.14hypothesis^Cleveland 1.97 1.10 1.01St. Paul^2.00Phoenix 1.03- no differentiation b/weenbranch plants and independentfirms;- aggregate data may maskincubation function forsubsectors;- data source not revealed inarticle.Young plants tended torelocate within CoreSteed (1976) downtown clothing ind. higher(>50%)(?)percentageof newfirmslocateddowntown =support forhypothesisToronto Montreal^- no differentiation b/ween^50-60^801^36%^branch plants and independent63-67^65%^20%^firms.71-73^80%^191Steed (1973) travel time^nonezone 0-10minutes =inner coreSimple:same as^1954-57Steed (1976)^1964-67Complex:%migrationorigins >%migrationdestinations1)^2)^3)^- new firms include branch43% 61% 421 plants, takeovers and shifts36% 50% 301 from one SIC group to another;- migrations include transfersto Greater Vancouver byexisting firms from outside thearea.131APPENDIX 23 of 4DETAILED SUMMARY OF EIGHT CASE STUDIES ON THE INNER CITY HYPOTHESISResearcher(s)^Study Area(s)^Study^Hypothesis Test^Measurement^DataPeriod(s)^Simple^Complex Index SourceKurre (1986)^Detroit 1970-75^Yes No^:industry i's firms in CBD/%industry i's firms in CBD(in base year)ES202 files,MichiganEmploymentSecurityCommission.Nicholson,^Inner London^1970-78^YesBrinkley, andEvans (1981)No^1) x versus y, where x=^Dept. of Ind.#new firms in non-inner city inds/ Register of#all new firms^ENMsand y= (Enterprises# existing firms in non-inner city New to Mfg.)inds / all existing firms^(post-1965firms)S.M. London^1965-78^Edo new firms(sample^locate inpopn =^- Inner City tofirms^obtain externalfounded in economies]this period)2) xl versus yl, where xl and ylcorrespond to x and yrespectively, but refer to innercity inds.Interviews with founders BusinessRegisterspublished byMarketLocation Ltd.^Cameron^Central^1958-68^Yes^Yes inner city birth rate >^database^(1988) Clydeside birth rate in rest of central^compiledClydeside^ byresearcher132APPENDIX 24 of 4Researcher(s)Spatial Dis- Suosectoral^Study^Study^Notesaggregation Disaggreoation^Assumption Result/ConclusionKurre (1986) CBD 31 industry^Ratio>1 =groups^support for(including 13 hypothesisnon-mfg. inds.)Total CBD Ratio = 0.64;Incubator Ratio>1 for5 ofg.ind.groups;(apparel, newspapers,misc plastic, basicsteel, other durables)-no aifferentiation b/weenbranch plants, new independentfirms, or migrants;-slower rate of growth inDetroit region during 1970-75;Period included 2 recessions.-poor coverage of the Register;i.e. firms which remain small(<20 employees) do not qualifyfor registration;new firms with less than 20employees also excluded;fires which close prior toreaching 20 employees also notrecorded.-1974-78 economic downturn.- most ENMs located in innerNorth London, but survey area =SW sector;- small sample size (n=19);- sample did not includesuburban firms incubated ininner city;- inter-firm linkages to innercity designers/decision makersnot classified as externaleconomies;Nicholson,^InnerBrinkley, andLondonEvans (1981)a)Inner City x>y =Inds.(Clothing,support forPrinting,^hypothesisTimber,Furniture,^xl(y1=Leather)^support forb)Non-Inner^hypothesisCity Inds.x<yS.W. London Non-inner city new firmsInner Area Inds.^(esp.non-innercity inds.)use innercityexternaleconomies- strong market linksencourage inner citylocation by new firms insample- also, firms in smaplelocated in old &non-ind. bldgs.^Cameron^inner area 'external(198O) economy'industriesSimple:higher birthrate ininner areaComplex:'non-externaleconomy' firmsmove out ofinner areainner area birth rate 2/3^- branch plants differentiated;of average birth rate^- database excluded firms withfewer than 5 employees;- 'external economy' inds. =only 31 percent of^inds. with more than 57 percentrelocating firms from inner of est. in inner areaarea moved out of inner area1.33APPENDIX 3ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DATA SOURCES CONSIDERED:1.^British Columbia Manufacturers DirectoryThe British Columbia Manufacturers Directory is published by the provincial Ministry ofFinance and Corporate Relations. Advantages of using this data source include:annual time series available for the years 1987 to 1990;- a fairly comprehensive profile of the firm, including name, address, name of contactperson, telephone and fax number, number of employees, main products, and markets;- availability of the database in electronic form, greatly increasing the ease ofmanipulation of the data;information is open to the general public.Disadvantages of the directory include:- unknown quality of the data coverage; firms are listed on a voluntary basis, therefore,the appearance of new listings does not necessarily mean the appearance of a new firm;also, there is no assurance that all new or existing firms are listed in the directory;the cost of purchasing the electronic files (estimated at more than $300);- subsidiaries and independent firms are not distinguished.2. Registrar of Companies, Victoria, B.C.The Registrar of Companies in Victoria, B.C. maintains records of company registrations inthe province of British Columbia. Advantages of using this data source include:- a fairly comprehensive coverage of new companies registered in the province;- the availability of annual lists.Disadvantages include:- no industry coding, therefore, difficult to separate manufacturing and sub-sectoral data;no existing statistical compilations from the data;search capability restricted to company name.1343. Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209Statistics Canada Catalogue #31-209, Manufacturing Industries of Canada: Sub-provincialareas, provides principal statistics for manufacturing industries. Advantages of using thissource include:the survey is conducted annually;- the data is available at municipal level;net increase or decrease in the number of establishments can be inferred at sub-sectorallevel;- relatively easy access to the publication.Disadvantages include:- latest survey available is 1986; 1987 and 1988 surveys are expected later in the Fall,however, the reporting method has changed so that sub-sectoral disaggregation may nolonger be available;net change does not indicate actual births, deaths, or relocations;establishments include head offices and subsidiary plants;- manufacturing data not available on CANSIM, the electronic database of StatisticsCanada.4. Municipal Business License DataMunicipalities issue business licenses annually. As a data source, advantages include:- an annual list of existing businesses in each municipality;- fairly comprehensive coverage of firms in Greater Vancouver.Disadvantages include:- non-standardized system of information collection among the municipalities; therefore,no assurance that sectoral and/or sub-sectoral disaggregation will be available;- difficulty of accessing and collating the information from each municipality;- difficult to establish relocation patterns;- difficult to differentiate between head offices, branch plants and independent firms.1355. Statistics Canada Catalogue #18-501Statistics Canada Catalogue #18-501, Developing a Longitudinal Database on Businesses in theCanadian Economy: an approach to the study of employment,  uses payroll data to compileemployment statistics of Canadian firms. Advantages include:data available by industry, and by each industry sub-group;- base year for the data is 1978; other years available are 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987;source data is payroll deduction number, which can serve as a common identifierthrough the years;- three categories of firms: continuously identified, newly identified, and no longeridentified.Disadvantages include:- lowest level of statistics available is provincial; no resources at present to code at sub-provincial level;- lack of information after 1987;- number of employees imputed (calculated) from payroll data.6. Employment and Immigration Canada Employers DatabaseEmployment and Immigration Canada developed a special database on employers in the LowerMainland in 1988. Advantages of using this source include:- comparison between 1989 and 1990 available;- information available for sub-metropolitan level by 20 CEC (Canada EmploymentCentre) zones;- information coded by SIC (standard industrial classification).Disadvantages include:- database did not exist prior to 1989; therefore, comparison between 1987 and 1990 notpossible;- only printed copy available; information transferred to mainframe in Winnipeg;number of employees is imputed from T4 employment slips;136- irregular statistical compilations, which add to the difficulty of identifying relocations.7. Dun and Bradstreet Guide to Canadian ManufacturersGuide to Canadian Manufacturers is published by Dun and Bradstreet Canada Limited.Advantages of using this directory include:- annual listings available;- geographically coded by city, postal code, and telephone area code;- product coding by S.I.C., primary and secondary;- firm details comparable to B.C. Directory of Manufacturers.Disadvantages include:- use of U.S. government S.I.C. coding;- lists only the large manufacturing locations in Canada.8. B.C. Hydro S.I.C. DatabaseB.C. Hydro maintains a database of commercial and industrial clients for billing purposes.Advantages of using this database include:client requests for utility connections and disconnections can be grouped by S.I.C. andgeographic area;possibility of obtaining annual data;- possibility of tracking some relocations through client requests for utility reconnections.Disadvantages include:- readily available statistics limited to monthly printouts of net change in the number ofactive clients;- staff shortage at B.C. Hydro increases the difficulty of accessing detailed summaries;relocations are often masked by client reconnecting utility service under a differentname.9. Contacts Target Marketing DirectoryContacts Target Marketing Directory is published by a private company and lists businesses inthe Lower Mainland. Advantages of using this data source include:- an annual record of businesses in Greater Vancouver;137a fairly comprehensive profile of firms, comparable to that contained in the BritishColumbia Directory of Manufacturers;coverage of businesses in the area apparently compares favorably against municipalbusiness license data;- information is available in electronic form.Disadvantages include:- coverage of small firms may not be as accurate; i.e., continued listing of obsoletefirms possible; however, coverage of manufacturing firms may be adequate;- difficulty in obtaining data on disk (including cost).138APPENDIX 41 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVER(SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991)Municipality # Est.^Location TypeL^H^BGRAND TOTAL '86-87Est.MSizeNOPQRST(# Employees)Burnaby 21 12 1 8 13 6 1 0 1 0 0^0Coquitlam 14 10 0 4 9 0 4 1 0 0 0^0Delta 14 12 1 1 11 2 0 1 0 0 0^0Langley 19 12 1 6 10 4 4 0 1 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 10 6 0 4 9 0 1 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 9 7 1 1 6 2 0 1 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 28 20 1 6 20 3 3 1 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 5 3 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 22 14 2 6 16 2 3 1 0 0 0^0Surrey 31 22 1 8 18 6 4 2 1 0 0^0Vancouver 130 97 8 25 95 24 8 3 0 0 0^0Inner City 97 68 8 21 66 20 7 3 0 0 0^0Rest 33 29 0 4 28 4 1 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 6 4 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0^0GRAND TOTAL 312 221 16 74 216 52 29 10 3 0 0^0L Local office Na 1-5^N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^0 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500139APPENDIX 42 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVER(SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991)Municipality # Est.^Location TypeL^H^BGRAND TOTAL '87-88Est.MSizeNOPQRST(# Employees)Burnaby 12 10 0 2 11 0 0 0 0 1 0^0Coquitlam 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Delta 5 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Langley 6 5 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 8 5 0 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Moody 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 5 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Surrey 18 14 0 4 17 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Vancouver 36 31 1 3 31 2 2 1 0 0 0^0Inner City 24 20 1 3 20 2 1 1 0 0 0^0Rest 12 12 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0GRAND TOTAL 100 85 3 12 89 6 2 2 0 1 0^0L Local office^PA 1-5 h 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 0 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500140APPENDIX 43 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVER(SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991)Municipality # Est.^Location TypeL^H^BGRAND TOTAL '89-90Est.MSizeNOPQRST(St Employees)Burnaby 11 6 2 3 8 2 1 0 0 0 0^0Coquitlam 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Delta 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Langley 6 6 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 7 5 0 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0^0Surrey 3 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0^0Vancouver 19 15 0 4 12 5 2 0 0 0 0^0Inner City 12 8 0 4 6 5 1 0 0 0 0^0Rest 7 7 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0GRAND TOTAL 54 38 3 13 39 10 5 0 0 0 0.^0L Local office^WI 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500141APPENDIX 44 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVER(SOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991)Municipality # Est.^Location TypeL^H^BEst.MSizeNOPQRST(# Employees)GRAND TOTAL '91Burnaby 38^22 2 14 29 6 1 0 2 0 0^0Coquitlam 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0^0Delta 9^6 0 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Langley 13^12 0 1 12 0 0 1 0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 5^4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 6 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 10^9 0 1 5 2 3 0 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 5^2 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 29^26 1 2 20 3 4 1 1 0 0^0Surrey 23^19 0 4 16 4 3 0 0 0 0^0Vancouver 62^47 4 11 48 8 5 1 0 0 0^0Inner City 44^33 2 9 34 5 4 1 0 0 0^0Rest 18^14 2 2 14 3 1 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 2^2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0GRAND TOTAL 208^159 9 40 159 25 17 3 4 0 0^0L Local office M 1-5^P4 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500142APPENDIX 5A1 of 9CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING INC.NUMERICAL INDEX TO S.I.C. CODESSIC NO. DESCRIPTION SIC NO. DESCRIPTION0111 N WHEAT 0821 N FOREST NURSERIES AND SEED GATHERING0112 N RICE 0843 N EXTRACTION OF PINE GUM0115 N CORN 0849 N GATHERING OF FOREST PRODUCTS, NEC0116 N SOYBEANS 0851 N FORESTRY SERVICES0119 N CASH GRAINS, NEC 0912 N FINFISH0131 N COTTON 0913 N SHELLFISH0132 N TOBACCO 0919 N MISCELLANEOUS MARINE PRODUCTS0133 N SUGAR CROPS 0921 N FISH HATCHERIES AND PRESERVES0134 N IRISH POTATOES 0971 N HUNTING, TRAPPING, GAME PROPAGATION0139 N FIELD CROPS, EXCEPT CASH GRAINS,NEC 1011 N IRON ORES0161 N VEGETABLES AND MELONS 1021 N COPPER ORES0171 N BERRY CROPS 1031 N LEAD AND ZINC ORES0172 N GRAPES 1041 N GOLD ORES0173 N TREE NUTS 1044 N SILVER ORES0174 N CITRUS FRUITS 1051 N BAUXITE AND OTHER ALUMINUM ORES0175 N DECIDUOUS TREE FRUITS 1061 N FERROALLOY ORES, EXCEPT VANADIUM0179 N FRUITS AND TREE NUTS, NEC 1081 N METAL MINING SERVICES0181 N ORNAMENTAL NURSERY PRODUCTS 1092 N MERCURY ORES0182 N FOOD CROPS GROWN UNDER COVER 1094 N URANIUM-RADIUM-VANADIUM ORES0189 N HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTIES, NEC 1099 N METAL ORES, NEC0191 N GENERAL FARMS, PRIMARILY CROP 1111 N ANTHRACITE0211 N BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOTS 1112 N ANTHRACITE MINING SERVICES0212 N BEEF CATTLE, EXCEPT FEEDLOTS 1211 N BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE0213 N HOGS 1213 N BITUMINOUS& LIGNITE MINING SERVICES0214 N SHEEP AND GOATS 1311 N CRUDE PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS0219 N GENERAL LIVESTOCK, NEC 1321 N NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS0241 N DAIRY FARMS 1381 N DRILLING OIL AND GAS WELLS0251 N BROILER, FRYER, AND ROASTER CHICKENS 1382 N OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES0252 N CHICKEN EGGS 1389 N OIL AND GAS FIELD SERVICES, NEC0253 N TURKEYS AND TURKEY EGGS 1411 N DIMENSION STONE0254 N POULTRY HATCHERIES 1422 N CRUSHED AND BROKEN LIMESTONE0259 N POULTRY AND EGGS, NEC 1423 N CRUSHED AND BROKEN GRANITE0271 N FUR-BEARING ANIMALS AND RABBITS 1429 N CRUSHED AND BROKEN STONE, NEC0272 N HORSES AND OTHER EQUINES 1442 N CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL0279 N ANIMAL SPECIALTIES, NEC 1446 N INDUSTRIAL SAND0291 N GENERAL FARMS, PRIMARILY LIVESTOCK 1452 N BENTONITE0711 N SOIL PREPARATION SERVICES 1453 N FIRE CLAY0721 N CROP PLANTING AND PROTECTION 1454 N FULLER'S EARTH0722 N CROP HARVESTING 1455 N KAOLIN AND BALL CLAY0723 N CROP PREPARATION SERVICES FOR MARKET 1459 N CLAY AND RELATED MINERALS,NEC0724 N COTTON GINNING 1472 N BARITE0729 N GENERAL CROP SERVICES 1473 N FLUORSPAR0741 N VETERINARY SERVICES, FARM LIVESTOCK 1474 N POTASH, SODA, AND BORATE MINERALS0742 N VETERINARY SERVICES, SPECIALTIES 1475 N PHOSPHATE ROCK0751 N LIVESTOCK SERVICES, EXC. SPECIALTIES 1476 N ROCK SALT0752 N ANIMAL SPECIALTY SERVICES 1477 N SULFUR0761 N FARM LABOR CONTRACTORS 1479 N CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER MINING, NEC0762 N FARM MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1481 N NONMETALLIC MINERALS SERVICES0781 N LANDSCAPE COUNSELING AND PLANNING 1492 N GYPSUM0782 N LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICES 1496 N TALC, SOAPSTONE, AND PYROPHYLLITE0783 N ORNAMENTAL SHRUB AND TREE SERVICES 1499 N NONMETALLIC MINERALS, NEC0811 N TIMBER TRACTS 1521 N SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTIONL = LOCAL OFFICE^ 1-5 M 6-10 = N 11-25 = 0H = HEAD OFFICE 26-50 P 51-100^101.250 RB = BRANCH OFFICE 251-500 = S 501-UP = T143APPENDIX 5A2 of 9SIC NO.1522 N1531 NDESCRIPTIONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, NECOPERATIVE BUILDERSSIC NO.2082 M2083 MDESCRIPTIONMALT BEVERAGESMALT1541 N INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND WAREHOUSES 2064 M WINES, BRANDY, AND BRANDY SPIRITS1542 N NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, NEC 2085 M DISTILLED LIQUOR, EXCEPT BRANDY1611 N HIGHWAY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION 2066 M BOTTLED AND CANNED SOFT DRINKS1622 N BRIDGE, TUNNEL & ELEVATED HIGHWAY 2087 M FLAVORING EXTRACTS AND SIRUPS, NEC1623 N WATER, SEWER, AND UTILITY LINES 2091 M CANNED AND CURED SEAFOODS1629 N HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, NEC 2092 M FRESH OR FROZEN PACKAGED FISH1711 N PLUMBING, HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING 2095 M ROASTED COFFEE1721 N PAINTING, PAPER HANGING, DECORATING 2097 M MANUFACTURED ICE1731 N ELECTRICAL WORK 2098 M MACARONI AND SPAGHETTI1741 N MASONRY AND OTHER STONEWORK 2099 M FOOD PREPARATIONS, NEC1742 N PLASTERING, DRYWALL AND INSULATION 2111 M CIGARETTES1743 N TERRAllO, TILE, MARBLE, MOSAIC WORK 2121 M CIGARS1751 N CARPENTERING 2131 M CHEWING AND SMOKING TOBACCO1752 N FLOOR LAYING AND FLOOR WORK, NEC 2141 M TOBACCO STEMMING AND REDRYING1761 N ROOFING AND SHEET METAL WORK 2211 M WEAVING MILLS, COTTON1771 N CONCRETE WORK 2221 M WEAVING MILLS, SYNTHETICS1781 N WATER WELL DRILLING 2231 M WEAVING AND FINISHING MILLS, WOOL1791 N STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTION 2241 M NARROW FABRIC MILLS1793 N GLASS AND GLAZING WORK 2251 M WOMEN'S HOSIERY, EXCEPT SOCKS1794 N EXCAVATING AND FOUNDATION WORK 2252 M HOSIERY, NEC1795 N WRECKING AND DEMOLITION WORK 2253 M KNIT OUTERWEAR MILLS1796 N INSTALLING BUILDING EQUIPMENT, NEC 2254 M KNIT UNDERWEAR MILLS1799 N SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS, NEC 2257 M CIRCULAR KNIT FABRIC MILLS2011 M MEAT PACKING PLANTS zzoes M WARP KNIT FABRIC MILLS2013 M SAUSAGES AND OTHER PREPARED MEATS 2259 M KNITTING MILLS, NEC2016 M POULTRY DRESSING PLANTS 2261 M FINISHING PLANTS, COTTON2017 M POULTRY AND EGG PROCESSING 2262 M FINISHING PLANTS, SYNTHETICS2021 M CREAMERY BUTTER 2269 M FINISHING PLANTS, NEC2022 M CHEESE, NATURAL AND PROCESSED 2271 M WOVEN CARPETS AND RUGS2023 M CONDENSED AND EVAPORATED MILK 2272 M TUFTED CARPETS AND RUGS2024 M ICE CREAM AND FROZEN DESSERTS 2279 M CARPETS AND RUGS, NEC2026 M FLUID MILK 2281 M YARN MILLS, EXCEPT WOOL2032 M CANNED SPECIALTIES 2282 M THROWING AND WINDING MILLS2033 M CANNED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 2283 M WOOL YARN MILLS2034 M DEHYDRATED FRUITS, VEGETABLES, SOUPS 2284 M THREAD MILLS2035 M PICKLES, SAUCES, AND SALAD DRESSINGS 2291 M FELT GOODS, EXC. WOVEN FELTS&HATS2037 M FROZEN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 2292 M LACE GOODS2038 M FROZEN SPECIALTIES 2293 M PADDINGS AND UPHOLSTERY FILLING2041 M FLOUR AND OTHER GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS 2294 M PROCESSED TEXTILE WASTE2043 M CEREAL BREAKFAST FOODS 2295 M COATED FABRICS, NOT RUBBERIZED2044 M RICE MILLING 2296 M TIRE CORD AND FABRIC2045 M BLENDED AND PREPARED FLOUR 2297 M NONWOVEN FABRICS2046 M WET CORN MILLING 2298 M CORDAGE AND TWINE2047 M DOG, CAT, AND OTHER PET FOOD 2299 M TEXTILE GOODS, NEC2048 M PREPARED FEEDS, NEC 2311 M MEN'S AND BOYS' SUITS AND COATS2051 M BREAD, CAKE, AND RELATED PRODUCTS 2321 M MEN'S AND BOYS' SHIRTS AND NIGHTWEAR2052 M COOKIES AND CRACKERS 2322 M MEN'S AND BOYS' UNDERWEAR2061 M RAW CANE SUGAR 2323 M MEN'S AND BOYS' NECKWEAR2062 M CANE SUGAR REFINING 2327 M MEN'S AND BOYS' SEPARATE TROUSERS2063 M BEET SUGAR 2328 M MEN'S AND BOYS' WORK CLOTHING2065 M CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS 2329 M MEN'S AND BOYS' CLOTHING, NEC2066 M CHOCOLATE AND COCOA PRODUCTS 2331 M WOMEN'S & MISSES' BLOUSES&WAISTS2067 M CHEWING GUM 2335 M WOMEN'S AND MISSES' DRESSES2074 M COTTONSEED OIL MILLS 2337 M WOMEN'S AND MISSES' SUITS AND COATS2075 M SOYBEAN OIL MILLS 2339 M WOMEN'S AND MISSES' OUTERWEAR, NEC2076 M VEGETABLE OIL MILLS, NEC 2341 M WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S UNDERWEAR2077 M ANIMAL AND MARINE FATS AND OILS 2342 M BRASSIERES AND ALLIED GARMENTS2079 M SHORTENING AND COOKING OILS 2351 M MILLINERYL LOCAL OFFICEH a. HEAD OFFICEB ot BRANCH OFFICE 1 -5- M 6-10 = N 11-25 P. 02e:50 P. P 51-100 P. Q 101.250 R251-500 = S 501-UP T144APPENDIX 5A3 of 9SIC NO. DESCRIPTION^SIC NO.^DESCRIPTION2352 M HATS AND CAPS, EXCEPT MILLINERY 2653 M CORRUGATED AND SOLID FIBER BOXES2361 M CHILDREN'S DRESSES AND BLOUSES 2654 M SANITARY FOOD CONTAINERS2363 M CHILDREN'S COATS AND SUITS 2655 M FIBER CANS, DRUMS & SIMILAR PRODUCTS2369 M CHILDREN'S OUTERWEAR, NEC 2661 M BUILDING PAPER AND BOARD MILLS2371 M FUR GOODS 2711 M NEWSPAPERS2381 M FABRIC DRESS AND WORK GLOVES 2721 M PERIODICALS2384 M ROBES AND DRESSING GOWNS 2731 M BOOK PUBLISHING2385 M WATERPROOF OUTERGARMENTS 2732 M BOOK PRINTING2386 M LEATHER AND SHEEP LINED CLOTHING 2741 M MISCELLANEOUS PUBLISHING2387 M APPAREL BELTS 2751 M COMMERCIAL PRINTING, LETTERPRESS2389 M APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES, NEC 2752 M COMMERCIAL PRINTING, LITHOGRAPHIC2391 M CURTAINS AND DRAPERIES 2753 M ENGRAVING AND PLATE PRINTING2392 M HOUSE FURNISHINGS, NEC 2754 M COMMERCIAL PRINTING, GRAVURE2393 M TEXTILE BAGS 2761 M MANIFOLD BUSINESS FORMS2394 M CANVAS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 2771 M GREETING CARD PUBLISHING2395 M PLEATING AND STITCHING 2782 M BLANKBOOKS AND LOOSELEAF BINDERS2396 M AUTOMOTIVE AND APPAREL TRIMMINGS 2789 M BOOKBINDING AND RELATED WORK2397 M SCHIFFLI MACHINE EMBROIDERIES 2791 M TYPESETTING2399 M FABRICATED TEXTILE PRODUCTS, NEC 2793 M PHOTOENGRAVING2411 M LOGGING CAMPS & LOGGING CONTRACTORS 2794 M ELECTROTYPING AND STEREOTYPING2421 M SAWMILLS AND PLANING MILLS, GENERAL 2795 M LITHOGRAPHIC PLATEMAKING SERVICES2426 M HARDWOOD DIMENSION AND FLOORING 2812 M ALKALIES AND CHLORINE2429 M SPECIAL PRODUCT SAWMILLS, NEC 2813 M INDUSTRIAL GASES2431 M MILLWORK 2816 M INORGANIC PIGMENTS2434 M WOOD KITCHEN CABINETS 2819 M INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS, NEC2435 M HARDWOOD VENEER AND PLYWOOD 2821 M PLASTICS MATERIALS AND RESINS2436 M SOFTWOOD VENEER AND PLYWOOD 2822 M SYNTHETIC RUBBER2439 M STRUCTURAL WOOD MEMBERS, NEC 2823 M CELLULOSIC MAN-MADE FIBERS2441 M NAILED WOOD BOXES AND SHOOK 2824 M ORGANIC FIBERS, NONCELLULOSIC2448 M WOOD PALLETS AND SKIDS 2831 M BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS2449 M WOOD CONTAINERS, NEC 2833 M MEDICINALS AND BOTANICALS2451 M MOBILE HOMES 2834 M PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS2452 M PREFABRICATED WOOD BUILDINGS 2841 M SOAP AND OTHER DETERGENTS2491 M WOOD PRESERVING 2842 M POLISHES AND SANITATION GOODS2492 M PARTICLEBOARD 2843 M SURFACE ACTIVE AGENTS2499 M WOOD PRODUCTS, NEC 2844 M TOILET PREPARATIONS2511 M WOOD HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE 2851 M PAINTS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS2512 M UPHOLSTERED HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE 2861 M GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS2514 M METAL HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE 2865 M CYCLIC CRUDES AND INTERMEDIATES2515 M MATTRESSES AND BEDSPRINGS 2869 M INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS, NEC2517 M WOOD TV AND RADIO CABINETS 2873 M NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS2519 M HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, NEC 2874 M PHOSPHATIC FERTILIZERS2521 M WOOD OFFICE FURNITURE 2875 M FERTILIZERS, MIXING ONLY2522 M METAL OFFICE FURNITURE 2879 M AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS, NEC2531 M PUBLIC BUILDING & RELATED FURNITURE 2891 M ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS2541 M WOOD PARTITIONS AND FIXTURES 2892 M EXPLOSIVES2542 M METAL PARTITIONS AND FIXTURES 2893 M PRINTING INK2591 M DRAPERY HARDWARE & BLINDS & SHADES 2895 M CARBON BLACK2599 M FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, NEC 2899 M CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS, NEC2611 M PULP MILLS 2911 M PETROLEUM REFINING2621 M PAER MILLS, EXCEPT BUILDING PAPER 2951 M PAVING MIXTURES AND BLOCKS2631 M PAPERBOARD MILLS 2952 M ASPHALT FELTS AND COATINGS2641 M PAPER COATING AND GLAZING 2992 M LUBRICATING OILS AND GREASES2642 M ENVELOPES 2999 M PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS, NEC2643 M BAGS, EXCEPT TEXTILE BAGS 3011 M TIRES AND INNER TUBES2645 M DIE-CUT PAPER AND BOARD 3021 M RUBBER AND PLASTICS FOOTWEAR2646 M PRESSED AND MOLDED PULP GOODS 3031 M RECLAIMED RUBBER2647 M SANITARY PAPER PRODUCTS 3041 M RUBBER AND PLASTICS HOSE AND BELTING2648 M STATIONERY PRODUCTS 3069 M FABRICATED RUBBER PRODUCTS, NEC2649 M CONVERTED PAPER PRODUCTS, NEC 3079 M MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS2651 M FOLDING PAPERBOARD BOXES 3111 M LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING2652 M SET-UP PAPERBOARD BOXES 3131 M BOOT AND SHOE CUT STOCK AND FINDINGSL = LOCAL OFFICE^1-5 et M 6-10 = N 11-25 I. 0H = HEAD OFFICE 26-50 P 51-100 = 0 101.250 RB = BRANCH OFFICE 251-500 S 501-UP T145APPENDIX 5A4 of 9SIC NO. DESCRIPTION SIC NO. DESCRIPTION3142 M HOUSE SLIPPERS 3399 M PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS, NEC3143 M MEN'S FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT ATHLETIC 3411 M METAL CANS3144 M WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT ATHLETIC 3412 M METAL BARRELS, DRUMS, AND PAILS3149 M FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT RUBBER, NEC 3421 M CUTLERY3151 M LEATHER GLOVES AND MITTENS 3423 M HAND AND EDGE TOOLS, NEC3161 M LUGGAGE 3425 M HAND SAWS AND SAW BLADES3171 M WOMEN'S HANDBAGS AND PURSES 3429 M HARDWARE, NEC3172 M PERSONAL LEATHER GOODS, NEC 3431 M METAL SANITARY WARE3199 M LEATHER GOODS, NEC 3432 M PLUMBING FITTINGS AND BRASS GOODS3211 M FLAT GLASS 3433 M HEATING EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL3221 M GLASS CONTAINERS 3441 M FABRICATED STRUCTURAL METAL3229 M PRESSED AND BLOWN GLASS, NEC 3442 M METAL DOORS, SASH, AND TRIM3231 M PRODUCTS OF PURCHASED GLASS 3443 M FABRICATED PLATE WORK (BOILER SHOPS)3241 M CEMENT, HYDRAULIC 3444 M SHEET METAL WORK3251 M BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY TILE 3446 M ARCHITECTURAL METAL WORK3253 M CERAMIC WALL AND FLOOR TILE 3448 M PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDINGS3255 M CLAY REFRACTORIES 3449 M MISCELLANEOUS METAL WORK3259 M STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS, NEC 3451 M SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS3261 M VITREOUS PLUMBING FIXTURES 3452 M BOLTS, NUTS, RIVETS, AND WASHERS3262 M VITREOUS CHINA FOOD UTENSILS 3462 M IRON AND STEEL FORGINGS3263 M FINE EARTHENWARE FOOD UTENSILS 3463 M NONFERROUS FORGINGS3264 M PORCELAIN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 3465 M AUTOMOTIVE STAMPINGS3269 M POTTERY PRODUCTS, NEC 3466 M CROWNS AND CLOSURES3271 M CONCRETE BLOCK AND BRICK 3469 M METAL STAMPINGS, NEC3272 M CONCRETE PRODUCTS, NEC 3471 M PLATING AND POLISHING3273 M READY-MIXED CONCRETE 3479 M METAL COATING AND ALLIED SERVICES3274 M LIME 3482 M SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION3275 M GYPSUM PRODUCTS 3483 M AMMUNITION, EXC. FOR SMALL ARMS, NEC3281 M CUT STONE AND STONE PRODUCTS 3484 M SMALL ARMS3291 M ABRASIVE PRODUCTS 3489 M ORDNANCE AND ACCESSORIES, NEC3292 M ASBESTOS PRODUCTS 3493 M STEEL SPRINGS, EXCEPT WIRE3293 M GASKETS, PACKING AND SEALING DEVICES 3494 M VALVES AND PIPE FITTINGS3295 M MINERALS, GROUND OR TREATED 3495 M WIRE SPRINGS3296 M MINERAL WOOL 3496 M MISC. FABRICATED WIRE PRODUCTS3297 M NONCLAY REFRACTORIES 3497 M METAL FOIL AND LEAF3299 M NONMETALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS, NEC 3498 M FABRICATED PIPE AND FITTINGS3312 M BLAST FURNACES AND STEEL MILLS 3499 M FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS, NEC3313 M ELECTROMETALLURGICAL PRODUCTS —3511 M TURBINES AND TURBINE GENERATOR SETS3315 M STEEL WIRE AND RELATED PRODUCTS 3519 M INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NEC3316 M COLD FINISHING OF STEEL SHAPES 3523 M FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT3317 M STEEL PIPE AND TUBES 3524 M LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT3321 M GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES 3531 M CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY3322 M MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES 3532 M MINING MACHINERY3324 M STEEL INVESTMENT FOUNDRIES 3533 M OIL FIELD MACHINERY3325 M STEEL FOUNDRIES, NEC 3534 M ELEVATORS AND MOVING STAIRWAYS3331 M PRIMARY COPPER 3535 M CONVEYORS AND CONVEYING EQUIPMENT3332 M3333 M3334 M3339 M3341 M3351 M3353 M3354 M3355 M3356 M3357 M3361 M3362 M3369 M3398 MPRIMARY LEADPRIMARY ZINCPRIMARY ALUMINUMPRIMARY NONFERROUS METALS, NECSECONDARY NONFERROUS METALSCOPPER ROLLING AND DRAWINGALUMINUM SHEET, PLATE, AND FOILALUMINUM EXTRUDED PRODUCTSALUMINUM ROLLING AND DRAWING, NECNONFERROUS ROLLING AND DRAWING, NECNONFERROUS WIRE DRAWING & INSULATINGALUMINUM FOUNDRIESBRASS, BRONZE, AND COPPER FOUNDRIESNONFERROUS FOUNDRIES, NECMETAL HEAT TREATING3536 M3537 M3541 M3542 M3544 M3545 M3546 M3547 M3549 M3551 M3552 M3553 M3554 M3555 M3559 MHOISTS, CRANES, AND MONORAILSINDUSTRIAL TRUCKS AND TRACTORSMACHINE TOOLS, METAL CUTTING TYPESMACHINE TOOLS, METAL FORMING TYPESSPECIAL DIES, TOOLS, JIGS & FIXTURESMACHINE TOOL ACCESSORIESPOWER DRIVEN HAND TOOLSROLLING MILL MACHINERYMETALWORKING MACHINERY, NECFOOD PRODUCTS MACHINERYTEXTILE MACHINERYWOODWORKING MACHINERYPAPER INDUSTRIES MACHINERYPRINTING TRADES MACHINERYSPECIAL INDUSTRY MACHINERY, NECL 1= LOCAL OFFICEH = HEAD OFFICEB = BRANCH OFFICE1-5 = M 6-10 2- N 11-25 = 026-50 P 51.100 = 0 101-250 R251.500 = S 501-UP T146APPENDIX 5A5 of 9SIC NO. DESCRIPTION SIC NO. DESCRIPTION3561 M PUMPS AND PUMPING EQUIPMENT 3699 M ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, NEC3562 M BALL AND ROLLER BEARINGS 3711 M MOTOR VEHICLES AND CAR BODIES3563 M AIR AND GAS COMPRESSORS 3713 M TRUCK AND BUS BODIES3564 M BLOWERS AND FANS 3714 M MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES3565 M INDUSTRIAL PATTERNS 3715 M TRUCK TRAILERS3566 M SPEED CHANGERS, DRIVES, AND GEARS 3721 M AIRCRAFT3567 M INDUSTRIAL FURNACES AND OVENS 3724 M AIRCRAFT ENGINES AND ENGINE PARTS3568 M POWER TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT, NEC 3728 M AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT, NEC3569 M GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY, NEC 3731 M SHIP BUILDING AND REPAIRING3572 M TYPEWRITERS 3732 M BOAT BUILDING AND REPAIRING3573 M ELECTRONIC COMPUTING EQUIPMENT 3743 M RAILROAD EQUIPMENT3574 M CALCULATING AND ACCOUNTING MACHINES 3751 M MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES, AND PARTS3576 M SCALES AND BALANCES, EXC. LABORATORY 3761 M GUIDED MISSILES AND SPACE VEHICLES3579 M OFFICE MACHINES, NEC 3764 M SPACE PROPULSION UNITS AND PARTS3581 M AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING MACHINES 3769 M SPACE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT, NEC3582 M COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT 3792 M TRAVEL TRAILERS AND CAMPERS3585 M REFRIGERATION AND HEATING EQUIPMENT 3795 M TANKS AND TANK COMPONENTS3586 M MEASURING AND DISPENSING PUMPS 3799 M TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT, NEC3589 M SERVICE INDUSTRY MACHINERY, NEC 3811 M ENGINEERING & SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS3592 M CARBURETORS, PISTONS, RINGS, VALVES 3822 M ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS3599 M MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL NEC 3823 M PROCESS CONTROL INSTRUMENTS3612 M TRANSFORMERS 3824 M FLUID METERS AND COUNTING DEVICES3613 M SWITCHGEAR AND SWITCHBOARD APPARATUS 3825 M INSTRUMENTS TO MEASURE ELECTRICITY3621 M MOTORS AND GENERATORS 3829 M MEASURING & CONTROLLING DEVICES,NEC3622 M INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS 3832 M OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS AND LENSES3623 M WELDING APPARATUS, ELECTRIC 3841 M SURGICAL AND MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS3624 M CARBON AND GRAPHITE PRODUCTS 3842 M SURGICAL APPLIANCES AND SUPPLIES3629 M ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL APPARATUS, NEC 3843 M DENTAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES3631 M HOUSEHOLD COOKING EQUIPMENT 3851 M OPHTHALMIC GOODS3632 M HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS 3861 M PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES3633 M HOUSEHOLD LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT 3873 M WATCHES, CLOCKS, AND WATCHCASES3634 M ELECTRIC HOUSEWARES AND FANS 3911 M JEWELRY, PRECIOUS METAL3635 M HOUSEHOLD VACUUM CLEANERS 3914 M SILVERWARE AND PLATED WARE3636 M SEWING MACHINES 3915 M JEWELERS' MATERIALS & LAPIDARY WORK3639 M HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES, NEC 3931 M MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS3641 M ELECTRIC LAMPS 3942 M DOLLS3643 M CURRENT-CARRYING WIRING DEVICES 3944 M GAMES, TOYS, AND CHILDREN'S VEHICLES3644 M NONCURRENT-CARRYING WIRING DEVICES 3949 M SPORTING AND ATHLETIC GOODS, NEC3645 M RESIDENTAIL LIGHTING FIXTURES 3951 M PENS AND MECHANICAL PENCILS3646 M COMMERCIAL LIGHTING FIXTURES 3952 M LEAD PENCILS AND ART GOODS3647 M VEHICULAR LIGHTING EQUIPMENT 3953 M MARKING DEVICES3648 M LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, NEC 3955 M CARBON PAPER AND INKED RIBBONS3651 M RADIO AND TV RECEIVING SETS 3961 M COSTUME JEWELRY3652 M PHONOGRAPH RECORDS 3962 M ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS3661 M TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH APPARATUS 3963 M BUTTONS3662 M RADIO AND TV COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 3964 M NEEDLES, PINS, AND FASTENERS3671 M ELECTRON TUBES, RECEIVING TYPE 3991 M BROOMS AND BRUSHES3672 M CATHODE RAY TELEVISION PICTURE TUBES 3993 M SIGNS AND ADVERTISING DISPLAYS3673 M ELECTRON TUBES, TRANSMITTING 3995 M BURIAL CASKETS3674 M SEMICONDUCTORS AND RELATED DEVICES 3996 M HARD SURFACE FLOOR COVERINGS3675 M ELECTRONIC CAPACITORS 3999 M MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, NEC3676 M ELECTRONIC RESISTORS 4011 N RAILROADS, LINE-HAUL OPERATING3677 M ELECTRONIC COILS AND TRANSFORMERS 4013 N SWITCHING AND TERMINAL SERVICES3678 M3679 MELECTRONIC CONNECTORSELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, NEC4041 N4111 NRAILWAY EXPRESS SERVICELOCAL AND SUBURBAN TRANSIT3691 M3692 MSTORAGE BATTERIESPRIMARY BATTERIES, DRY AND WET4119 N4121 NLOCAL PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION, NECTAXICABS3693 M X-RAY APPARATUS AND TUBES 4131 N INTERCITY HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION3694 M ENGINE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 4141 N LOCAL PASSENGER CHARTER SERVICE4142 N CHARTER SERVICE, EXCEPT LOCALL = LOCAL OFFICEH = HEAD OFFICEB = BRANCH OFFICE1-5= M 6-10 = N 11-25 = 026-50 P 51.100 = Q 101-250 R251-600 S 501-UP = T147APPENDIX 5A6 of 9SIC NO. DESCRIPTION^ SIC NO. DESCRIPTION4151 N SCHOOL BUSES 4971 N IRRIGATION SYSTEMS4171 N BUS TERMINAL FACILITIES^ '5012 N AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES4172 N BUS SERVICE FACILITIES '5013 N AUTOMOTIVE PARTS AND SUPPLIES4212 N LOCAL TRUCKING, WITHOUT STORAGE^'5014 N TIRES AND TUBES4213 N TRUCKING, EXCEPT LOCAL^ '5021 N FURNITURE4214 N LOCAL TRUCKING AND STORAGE^5023 N HOME FURNISHINGS4221 N4222 NFARM PRODUCT WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE' ^NREFRIGERATED WAREHOUSING 5039 NLUMBER, PLYWOOD AND MILLWORKCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, NEC4224 N HOUSEHOLD GOODS WAREHOUSING^5041 N SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL GOODS4225 N GENERAL WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE^'5042 N TOYS AND HOBBY GOODS AND SUPPLIES4226 N SPECIAL WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE,NEC^5043 N PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES4231 N TRUCKING TERMINAL FACILITIES^5051 N METALS SERVICE CENTERS AND OFFICES4311 N POSTAL SERVICE^ 5052 N COAL AND OTHER MINERALS AND ORES4411 N DEEP SEA FOREIGN TRANSPORTATION^5063 N ELECTRICAL APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT4421 N NONCONTIGUOUS AREA TRANSPORTATION^5064 N ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES, TV AND RADIOS4422 N COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION^5065 N ELECTRONIC PARTS AND EQUIPMENT4423 N INTERCOASTAL TRANSPORTATION 5072 N HARDWARE4431 N GREAT LAKES TRANSPORTATION 5074 N PLUMBING & HYDRONIC HEATING SUPPLIES4441 N TRANSPORTATION ON RIVERS AND CANALS^5075 N WARM AIR HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING4452 N FERRIES^ 5078 N REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES4453 N LIGHTERAGE 5081 N COMMERCIAL MACHINES AND EQUIPMENT4454 N TOWING AND TUGBOAT SERVICE^'5082 N CONSTRUCTION AND MINING MACHINERY4459 N LOCAL WATER TRANSPORTATION, NEC^'5083 N FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT4463 N MARINE CARGO HANDLING '5084 N INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT4464 N CANAL OPERATION^ '5085 N INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES4469 N WATER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, NEC^'5086 N PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES4511 N CERTIFICATED AIR TRANSPORTATION^15087 N SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT EQUIPMENT4521 N NONCERTIFICATED AIR TRANSPORTATION^'5088 N TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES4582 N AIRPORTS AND FLYING FIELDS^5093 N SCRAP AND WASTE MATERIALS4583 N AIRPORT TERMINAL SERVICES '5094 N JEWELRY, WATCHES & PRECIOUS STONES4612 N CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPE LINES 5099 N DURABLE GOODS, NEC4613 N REFINED PETROLEUM PIPE LINES^'5111 N PRINTING AND WRITING PAPER4619 N PIPE LINES, NEC^ 5112 N STATIONERY SUPPLIES4712 N FREIGHT FORWARDING^ 5113 N INDUSTRIAL & PERSONAL SERVICE PAPER4722 N PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENT 5122 N DRUGS, PROPRIETARIES, AND SUNDRIES4723 N FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENT^5133 N PIECE GOODS4742 N RAILROAD CAR RENTAL WITH SERVICE^5134 N NOTIONS AND OTHER DRY GOODS4743 N RAILROAD CAR RENTAL WITHOUT SERVICE^5136 N MEN'S CLOTHING AND FURNISHINGS4782 N INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES^5137 N WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S CLOTHING4783 N PACKING AND CRATING^ 5139 N FOOTWEAR4784 N FIXED FACILITIES FOR VEHICLES, NEC^5141 N GROCERIES, GENERAL LINE4789 N TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, NEC 5142 N FROZEN FOODS4811 N TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION^5143 N DAIRY PRODUCTS4821 N TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION 5144 N POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS4832 N RADIO BROADCASTING^ 5145 N CONFECTIONERY4833 N TELEVISION BROADCASTING 5146 N FISH AND SEAFOODS4899 N COMMUNICATION SERVICES, NEC^5147 N MEATS AND MEAT PRODUCTS4911 N ELECTRICAL SERVICES^ 5148 N FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES4922 N NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION 5149 N GROCERIES AND RELATED PRODUCTS, NEC4923 N GAS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION^5152 N COTTON4924 N NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION^ 5153 N GRAIN4925 N GAS PRODUCTION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION^5154 N LIVESTOCK4931 N ELECTRIC AND OTHER SERVICES COMBINED^5159 N FARM-PRODUCT RAW MATERIALS, NEC4932 N GAS AND OTHER SERVICES COMBINED^5161 N CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS4939 N COMBINATION UTILITY SERVICES, NEC 5171 N PETROLEUM BULK STATIONS & TERMINALS4941 N WATER SUPPLY^ 5172 N PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, NEC4952 N SEWERAGE SYSTEMS^ 5181 N BEER AND ALE4953 N REFUSE SYSTEMS 5182 N WINES AND DISTILLED BEVERAGES4959 N SANITARY SERVICES, NEC 5191 N FARM SUPPLIES4961 N STEAM SUPPLY^ 5194 N TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTSL = LOCAL OFFICE 1-5 = M 6-10^N 11-25^0H = HEAD OFFICE 26-50 - P 51-100 = 0 101-250 = RB = BRANCH OFFICE • 251-500^S 501-UP = T148APPENDIX 5A7 of 9SIC NO. DESCRIPTION SIC NO. DESCRIPTION5198 N PAINTS, VARNISHES, AND SUPPLIES 5993 N CIGAR STORES AND STANDS5199 N NONDURABLE GOODS, NEC 5994 N NEWS DEALERS AND NEWSSTANDS5211 N LUMBER AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS 5999 N MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES, NEC5231 N PAINT, GLASS AND WALLPAPER STORES 6011 N FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS5251 N HARDWARE STORES 6022 N STATE BANKS, FEDERAL RESERVE5261 N RETAIL NURSERIES AND GARDEN STORES 6023 N STATE BANKS, NOT FED. RESERVE, FDIC5271 N MOBILE HOME DEALERS 6024 N STATE BANKS, NOT FED RES., NOT FDIC5311 N DEPARTMENT STORES 6025 N NATIONAL BANKS, FEDERAL RESERVE5331 N VARIETY STORES 6026 N NATIONAL BANKS,NOT FED. RES., FDIC5399 N MISC. GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE 6027 N NATIONAL BANKS, NOT FDIC5411 N GROCERY STORES 6028 N PRIVATE BANKS, NOT INCORP.,NOT FDIC5422 N FREEZER AND LOCKER MEAT PROVISIONERS 6032 N MUTUAL SAVINGS BANKS, FEDERAL RESERVE5423 N MEAT AND FISH (SEAFOOD) MARKETS 6033 N MUTUAL SAVINGS BANKS, NEC5431 N FRUIT STORES AND VEGETABLE MARKETS 6034 N MUTUAL SAVINGS BANKS, NOT FDIC5441 N5451 NCANDY, NUT, AND CONFECTIONERY STORESDAIRY PRODUCTS STORES6042 N6044 NNONDEPOSIT TRUSTS, FEDERAL RESERVENONDEPOSIT TRUSTS, NOT FDIC5462 N5463 NRETAIL BAKERIES-BAKING AND SELLINGRETAIL BAKERIES-SELLING ONLY6052 N6054 NFOREIGN EXCHANGE ESTABLISHMENTSSAFE DEPOSIT COMPANIES5499 N MISCELLANEOUS FOOD STORES 6055 N CLEARINGHOUSE ASSOCIATIONS5511 N5521 N5531 N5541 NNEW AND USED CAR DEALERSUSED CAR DEALERSAUTO AND HOME SUPPLY STORESGASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS6056 N.6059 N6112 N'6113 NCORPORATIONS FOR BANKING ABROADFUNCTIONS RELATED TO BANKING, NECREDISCOUNTING, NOT FOR AGRICULTURALREDISCOUNTING, FOR AGRICULTURAL5551 N5561 NBOAT DEALERSRECREATION & UTILITY TRAILER DEALERS6122 N6123 NFEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATIONSSTATE ASSOCIATIONS, INSURED5571 N5599 N5611 N5621 NMOTORCYCLE DEALERSAUTOMOTIVE DEALERS. NECMEN'S&BOYS' CLOTHING&FURNISHINGSWOMEN'S READY-TO-WEAR STORES.6124 N6125 N6131 N6143 NSTATE ASSOCIATIONS, NONINSURED, FHLBSTATE ASSOCIATIONS, NONINSURED, NECAGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSTITUTIONSFEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS5631 N WOMEN'S ACCESSORY AND SPECIALTY STORES 6143 N STATE CREDIT UNIONS5641 N5651 N5661 NCHILDREN'S AND INFANTS' WEAR STORESFAMILY CLOTHING STORESSHOE STORES6144 N6145 N'6146 NNONDEPOSIT INDUSTRIAL LOAN COMPANIESLICENSED SMALL LOAN LENDERSINSTALLMENT SALES FINANCE COMPANIES5681 N FURRIERS AND FUR SHOPS 6149 N MISC. PERSONAL CREDIT INSTITUTIONS5699 N MISCELLANEOUS APPAREL&ACCESSORIES 6153 N SHORT-TERM BUSINESS CREDIT5712 N FURNITURE STORES '6159 N MISC. BUSINESS CREDIT INSTITUTIONS5713 N FLOOR COVERING STORES 6162 N MORTGAGE BANKERS AND CORRESPONDENTS5714 N DRAPERY AND UPHOLSTERY STORES 6163 N LOAN BROKERS5719 N MISC. HOME FURNISHINGS STORES 6211 N SECURITY BROKERS AND DEALERS5722 N HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE STORES 6221 N COMMODITY CONTRACTS BROKERS, DEALERS5732 N RADIO AND TELEVISION STORES 6231 N SECURITY AND COMMODITY EXCHANGES5733 N MUSIC STORES 6281 N SECURITY AND COMMODITY SERVICES5812 N EATING PLACES 6311 N LIFE INSURANCE5813 N DRINKING PLACES 6321 N ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE5912 N DRUG STORES AND PROPRIETARY STORES 6324 N HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICE PLANS5921 N LIQUOR STORES 6331 N FIRE, MARINE, AND CASUALTY INSURANCE5931 N USED MERCHANDISE STORES 6351 N SURETY INSURANCE5941 N SPORTING GOODS AND BICYCLE SHOPS 6361 N TITLE INSURANCE5942 N BOOK STORES 6371 N PENSION, HEALTH, AND WELFARE FUNDS5943 N STATIONERY STORES 6399 N INSURANCE CARRIERS, NEC5944 N5945 N5946 NJEWELRY STORESHOBBY, TOY, AND GAME SHOPSCAMERA & PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLY STORES6411 N6512 N6513 NINSURANCE AGENTS, BROKERS & SERVICENONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING OPERATORSAPARTMENT BUILDING OPERATORS5947 N GIFT, NOVELTY, AND SOUVENIR SHOPS 6514 N DWELLING OPERATORS, EXC. APARTMENTS5948 N LUGGAGE AND LEATHER GOODS STORES 6515 N MOBILE HOME SITE OPERATORS5949 N SEWING, NEEDLEWORK, AND PIECE GOODS 6517 N RAILROAD PROPERTY LESSORS5961 N MAIL ORDER HOUSES '6519 N REAL PROPERTY LESSORS, NEC5962 N MERCHANDISING MACHINE OPERATORS 6531 N REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND MANAGERS5963 N DIRECT SELLING ORGANIZATIONS 6541 N TITLE ABSTRACT OFFICES5982 N FUEL AND ICE DEALERS, NEC 6552 N SUBDIVIDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NEC5983 N FUEL OIL DEALERS 6553 N CEMETERY SUBDIVIDERS AND DEVELOPERS5984 N LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS DEALERS 6611 N COMBINED REAL ESTATE, INSURANCE, ETC5992 FLORISTSL a. LOCAL OFFICEH a. HEAD OFFICEB e BRANCH OFFICE1-5 a. M 6-10 aa N 11-25 = 026-50 = P 51-100 - Q 101.250 R251-500 a. S 501-UP T149SIC NO. DESCRIPTION SIC NO.APPENDIX 5A8 of 9DESCRIPTION6711 N HOLDING OFFICES 7525 N PARKING STRUCTURES6722 N MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT OPEN-END 7531 N TOP AND BODY REPAIR SHOPS6723 N6724 NMANAGEMENT INVESTMENT, CLOSED-ENDUNIT INVESTMENT TRUSTS7534 N7535 NTIRE RETREADING AND REPAIR SHOPSPAINT SHOPS6725 N FACE-AMOUNT CERTIFICATE OFFICES 7538 N GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS6732 N EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, ETC. TRUSTS 7539 N AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS, NEC6733 N TRUSTS, NEC 7542 N CAR WASHES6792 N OIL ROYALTY TRADERS 7549 N AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, NEC6793 N COMMODITY TRADERS 7622 N RADIO AND TELEVISION REPAIR6794 N6799 NPATENT OWNERS AND LESSORSINVESTORS, NEC7623 N7629 NREFRIGERATION SERVICE AND REPAIRELECTRICAL REPAIR SHOPS, NEC7011 N HOTELS, MOTELS, AND TOURIST COURTS 7631 N WATCH, CLOCK, AND JEWELRY REPAIR7021 N ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSES 7641 N REUPHOLSTERY AND FURNITURE REPAIR7032 N SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL CAMPS 7692 N WELDING REPAIR7033 N TRAILERING PARKS FOR TRANSIENTS 7694 N ARMATURE REWINDING SHOPS7041 N MEMBERSHIP-BASIS ORGANIZATION HOTELS 7699 N REPAIR SERVICES, NEC7211 N POWER LAUNDRIES, FAMILY & COMMERCIAL 7813 N MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION, EXCEPT TV7212 N GARMENT PRESSING & CLEANERS' AGENTS 7814 N MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION FOR TV7213 N LINEN SUPPLY 7819 N SERVICES ALLIED TO MOTION PICTURES7214 N DIAPER SERVICE 7823 N MOTION PICTURE FILM EXCHANGES7215 N COIN-OPERATED LAUNDRIES AND CLEANING 7824 N FILM OR TAPE DISTRIBUTION FOR TV7216 N7217 NDRY CLEANING PLANTS, EXCEPT RUGCARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANING7829 N7832 NMOTION PICTURE DISTRIBUTION SERVICESMOTION PICTURE THEATERS, EX DRIVE-IN7218 N INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERERS 7833 N DRIVE-IN MOTION PICTURE THEATERS7219 N LAUNDRY AND GARMENT SERVICES, NEC 7911 N DANCE HALLS, STUDIOS, AND SCHOOLS7221 N PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS, PORTRAIT 7922 N THEATRICAL PRODUCERS AND SERVICES7231 N BEAUTY SHOPS 7929 N ENTERTAINERS & ENTERTAINMENT GROUPS7241 N BARBER SHOPS 7932 N BILLIARD AND POOL ESTABLISHMENTS7251 N SHOE REPAIR AND HAT CLEANING SHOPS 7933 N BOWLING ALLEYS7261 N FUNERAL SERVICE AND CREMATORIES 7941 N SPORTS CLUBS AND PROMOTERS7299 N7311 NMISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL SERVICESADVERTISING AGENCIES7948 N7992 NRACING, INCLUDING TRACK OPERATIONPUBLIC GOLF COURSES7312 N7313 NOUTDOOR ADVERTISING SERVICESRADIO, TV, PUBLISHER REPRESENTATIVES7993 N7996 NCOIN-OPERATED AMUSEMENT DEVICESAMUSEMENT PARKS7319 N7321 NADVERTISING,'NECCREDIT REPORTING AND COLLECTION7997 N7999 NMEMBERSHIP SPORTS&RECREATION CLUBSAMUSEMENT AND RECREATION, NEC7331 N DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING SERVICES 8011 N OFFICE OF PHYSICIANS7332 N BLUEPRINTING AND PHOTOCOPYING 8021 N OFFICES OF DENTISTS7333 N COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND ART 8031 N OFFICES OF OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS7339 N STENOGRAPHIC AND REPRODUCTION, NEC 6041 N OFFICES OF CHIROPRACTORS7341 N WINDOW CLEANING 8042 N OFFICES OF OPTOMETRISTS7342 N7349 NDISINFECTING AND EXTERMINATINGBUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, NEC8049 N8051 NOFFICES OF HEALTH PRACTITIONERS, NECSKILLED NURSING CARE FACILITIES7351 N7361 N7362 NNEWS SYNDICATESEMPLOYMENT AGENCIESTEMPORARY HELP SUPPLY SERVICES8059 N8062 N8063 NNURSING AND PERSONAL CARE, NECGENERAL MEDICAL & SURGICAL HOSPITALSPSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS7369 N7372 NPERSONNEL SUPPLY SERVICES, NECCOMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND SOFTWARE8069 N8071 NSPECIALTY HOSPITALS, EXC. PSYCHIATRICMEDICAL LABORATORIES7374 N DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 8072 N DENTAL LABORATORIES7379 N7391 N7392 NCOMPUTER RELATED SERVICES, NECRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LABORATORIESMANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC RELATIONS8081 N8091 N 8111 NOUTPATIENT CARE FACILITIESHEALTH AND ALLIED SERVICES, NECLEGAL SERVICES7393 N7394 N7395 NDETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICESEQUIPMENT RENTAL AND LEASINGPHOTOFINISHING LABORATORIES8211 N8221 N8222 NELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLSCOLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, NECJUNIOR COLLEGES7396 N TRADING STAMP SERVICES 8231 N LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION CENTERS7397 N COMMERCIAL TESTING LABORATORIES 8241 N CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOLS7399 N BUSINESS SERVICES, NEC 8243 N DATA PROCESSING SCHOOLS7512 N PASSENGER CAR RENTAL AND LEASING 8244 N BUSINESS AND SECRETARIAL SCHOOLS7513 N TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING 8249 N VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS, NEC7519 N UTILITY TRAILER RENTAL 8299 N SCHOOLS & EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NEC7523 N PARKING LOTS 8321 N INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SERVICESL = LOCAL OFFICEH = HEAD OFFICEB = BRANCH OFFICE1-5 I. M 6-10 = N 11-25 E. 026-50 = P 51-100 = 0 101-250 R150APPENDIX 5A9 of 9SIC NO.^DESCRIPTION8331 N^JOB TRAINING AND RELATED SERVICES8351 N^CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES8361 N^RESIDENTIAL CARE8399 N^SOCIAL SERVICES, NEC8411 N^MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES8421 N^BOTANICAL AND ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS8611 N^BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS8621 N^PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS8631 N^LABOR ORGANIZATIONS8641 N^CIVIC AND SOCIAL ASSOCIATIONS8651 N^POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS8661 N^RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS8699 N^MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS, NEC8811 N^PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS8911 N^ENGINEERING & ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES8922 N^NONCOMMERCIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS8931 N^ACCOUNTING, AUDITING & BOOKKEEPING8999 N^SERVICES, NEC9111 N^EXECUTIVE OFFICES9121 N^LEGISLATIVE BODIES9131 N^EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE COMBINED9199 N^GENERAL GOVERNMENT, NEC9211 N^COURTS9221 N^POLICE PROTECTION9222 N^LEGAL COUNSEL AND PROSECUTION9223 N^CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS9224 N^FIRE PROTECTION9229 N^PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY, NEC9311 N^FINANCE, TAXATION & MONETARY POLICY9411 N^ADMIN. OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS9431 N^ADMIN. OF PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS9441 N^ADMIN. OF SOCIAL&MANPOWER PROGRAMS9451 N^ADMINISTRATION OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS9511 N^AIR, WATER & SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT9512 N^LAND, MINERAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION9531 N^HOUSING PROGRAMS9532 N^URBAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT9611 N^ADMIN. OF GENERAL ECONOMIC PROGRAMS9621 N^REGULATION, ADMIN. OF TRANSPORTATION9631 N^REGULATION, ADMIN. OF UTILITIES9641 N^REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING9651 N^REGULATION MISC. COMMERCIAL SECTORS9661 N^SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY9711 N^NATIONAL SECURITY9721 N^INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS9999 N^NONCLASSIFIABLE ESTABLISHMENTSL = LOCAL OFFICEH = HEAD OFFICEB - BRANCH OFFICE1-5 M 6-10 = N 11-25 = 026-50 = P 51-100 - 0 101-250 = R2i1-5001; S toTOP"T151402Appendix II - ConcludedOUTLINE OF MANUFACTURING STATISTICAL AREAS, 1986 - ConcludedAppendice II - finCONTENU DES REGIONS STATISTIOUES MANUFACTURIERES, 1988 - lin.Manulacheogsleiisteal alesComponent membersComposanlesManufacho lngstatistical area'Component membersComposantesRmegion,,noi.3,1:1„1:1:iueCensus diviaOriDenman de recensernentMunicipalityMunwpalitiRfneg.nouon staltstquelactuntve' Census divisionDivision de reconsernentMumcipahlyktunicipelileOntario . Ontario -Gonnnokri • Vole Concluded • I.Oshawa Slalisleal Durham. RM - MR 2 ansck Sumps Stalislical Sono.'areasMee Newcastle AreaAlkslonOshawa,ScudedwnankBatheGoldwaterCal^woodCookstownOtt.. StatisticalArea011aws-Carleton,RSA • MRCieennia0ElmvalePrescott and Russell Es.FlosSI Catnannes. Niagara. MA • un2 F. Eta InnislilPeewee StatisticalAreaLincolnNagar. FalbMaraMedonleThegare•on-the•Lake MidlandPelham NottawasagaPort Colborne Clutha ICISI Catharines Onlba ITWPIThoroldMenge.OroPenetangutsheneWellandwest LincolnPort MeThcollRamaStaynerToronto Statistical Dull.° lackennoSunnideleArea Durham. RM - MR2yak. RM - MRToronto MetropolitanAlasteduidgeTayTinyTosorontioyes..Mun.pakty Voctona HarbourPeek R1.1 - MR Wasaga BeachHatton, R. • LAW Oalivilie ^-Milton Saskatchewan:Helton HillsSaskatoon Census Division I ISuncoe2 Beelon Statistics; Area Census Division 12EbadfordTecurnsethTottenhamWest (Holton..Appendix1980 REVISION OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (MANUFACTURINGINDUSTRIES)AppendiceREVISION DE 1980 DE LA CLASSIFICATION TYPE DES INDUSTRIES (INDUSTRIESMANUFACTURIERES)SIC^Major groups, groups and classesCodeMajor Group 10 - Food Industries^ Grand groupe 10 - Industries des ailments101^Meat and Poultry Products Industries 101^Industries de Ia viande et de la volaille1011 Meat and Meal Products Industry (Except^1011 Industrie de Ia viande et de ses produitsPoultry)^(sauf la volaille)1012 Poultry Products Industry^ 1012 Industrie des produits de la volaille102^Industrie de Ia transformation du poisson1021 Industrie de la transformation du poisson103^Industries de la preparation des fruits et legumes1031 Conserveries de fruits et de legumes1032 Industrie des fruits et legumes conceits104^Industries laitieres1041 Industrie du loft de consommation1049 Alines industries de produits laitiers105^Industries de la farine, des cereales de tablepreparees et des aliments pour animaux1051 Meunerles1052 Industrie des melanges de farine prepares etdes cereales de table preparees1053 Industrie des aliments pour animus106^Industrie des huiles vegetales (sauf I'huile de mass)1061 Industrie des huiles vegetales (sauf l'huile demais)107^Industries des produits de boulangerie.pitisserie1071 Industrie des biscuits1072 Industrie du pain et suites produits deboutangerie-pAtisserieCode^Grands grooms, groupes it classesde laCT!102^Fish Products Industry1021 Fish Products Industry103^Fruit and Vegetable Industries1031 Canned and Preserved Fruit and VegetableIndustry1032 Frozen Fruit and Vegetable Industry104^Dairy Products Industries1041 Fluid Milk Industry1049 Other Dairy Products Industries105^Flour, Prepared Cereal Food and Feed Industries1051 Cereal Grain Flour Industry1052 Prepared Flour Mixes and Prepared CerealFoods Industry1053 Feed Industry106^Vegetable Oil Mills (Except Corn Oil)1061 Vegetable Oil mills (Except Corn Oil)107^Bakery Products Industries1071 Biscuit Industry1072 Bread and other Bakery Products IndustryThe manufaclultng sralialical Nei IS composed of pert re whole CDs which con.ra menu ac temp es a Is menlsLa region stahstque nsenufactuneeasecompose de DR peolelles ou enhd as gut tenleonent des eleblissernents inanulaCitine 3Pail CD. where only the above munqqatthes to the CD belong to she manulactuong statistical arse.Paine de DO pia Settees Ms inunocipallies cedessus du DR apperhennent d la region statostque manulacluniee108^Sugar and Sugar Confectionery Industries1081 Cane and Beet Sugar Industry1082 Chewing Gum Industry1083 Sugar and Chocolate Confectionery Industry108^Industries du sucre et des confiseries1081 Industrie du sucre de canne et de betterave1082 Industrie de la gomme 8 rnicher1083 Industrie des confiseries et du chocolatzz2O7aOOOzm.xe• •• 0O 'za0_7gxp=z4004Ca7OCiaONz0U7W• .< I0,,C4mmWt00Z-cr.1APPENDIX 5B2 of 83^r.:".',.^.^4aaa.^1 s^-2;1.•1 3 '20ag. 9.71aaaSiXa3atr.24E.aa ..aaa4aO2U.a Oes11aaaaaatlsa"3aA3aa00•1a2 14guas. =c.c41.2•0Xaaa43a.a0a1aa7aInoara13s'ON4aaaAaa000a0ag7a0a.a346 4alasX42'2'aaCu1aZP:REa8153APPENDIX 583 of 8• 22• MC.)• a.• 0=z e• M• 7.cy.Z• U.Amt < 'a1- (5 owoff ofmw <wo.zor,f•Islt.t^1 ^P-gtt.2 ;.E.r.t t. a^1 t4 i : :: :: 5.:tv :514: t: 1..°i... ^-0^m z :^ -,tE cE a. m 1^t.^q :^- 211 .0 .,-.^ ^[41 E^8 oD^3^-Rti1 ,71-0^-0, ` 3T" T.,2'' P2^ 1" 1^,,,,,1“.2^;.:: :^1 I 6' 1= t .:4.-‘,:;4.9- t^ '^e :- vs1 ^2zU VIV23 v11! 5 a i -^1=12t tE i. ,1,7 8! 2 4:tc4 Er 4s1.4=^r'...3^1^1 .a 14,21 ai g.11..4 g 4.7 iliS A lt^eta ^a a`4.5 r.n^l'!ei 41 Wg^. 2= " :.^8zea ", a ... : .5. 7.4n NN^ ..i.""71E.FR m›.,..^,,.^En^■-+ 24F,A3A CP O....ry 3cca^ii i.....^,..T^. . .t^-- =,1.2 ^g ... RE^E.. ..,;; a E E ..-1 e.e. .8 . g t •g.a ,:.. c ri,E 2 ' ' Wig:4^E^E E 5 ''''t vz.2°UgT.Z^2 'a t" g 11 lc '6 1:3 :17c5 er,= = ,--, g gitE a m en87ia a 0 l' ,L. Ma gasA ..= i t .§1 ^-gi'; gtTeta iE g .a ... ^z..4..... E 4:f4 . ...t v g. , .,1 =E ' 4..2-uu t =e ct.-MSEli .1:3 1 ,;E:10. 8 ig "0=1.44g:1•E12 .1102::70 11 r..te :f^ '7.-''':0 :?..7 2 2 N 2 liiaiteit", L•^I.^g^. 31^:E^II 1^lit^I1^zr,^t g^7,^5t It:Lt^1.' j 4,,^g3ga x t^.cx. # 2 2 v^'F.1 t^.p.  1 il." 1 :-. = 4. .1., 1^1 ;4i ^1 ,.,^.tt -15la.2 tl ; 1^-ttr .t. g 4:i 2r a 2 gs-.0.r ^..ic.=t0 ..t..11 -& -5 g: N A:^vr.-6 . ,..5 e= 2^r 'a 5 I 1^ .u^r.........11 142 '8 'a ff! i ^i^ul °cr. t 2 L'^.I 1: 4St-sz^tos^ma= . ^aaAA raag 11E.. T ce^1 .r, r. c'' 1 ,-..v^ . 12^..I- , ... mr.^'v...^52 re 7' ,g 1 '4 1 3t-=:g Hi 1 C__ g t i:t1 4PV7_ E i .i -; i C ^W ig.......z11.,. 2 8 2 xs2^33333.m...=...,-z: s .g.m-a .5 i^2 m^v...TE...Z1 0 3 a .zu- t....., E g t; -▪^E. • ,^n .. *'. Az^F.OaaO 1547.U0Ig218;2aa= 9tiV-2UyU09.6.0.5„aawWOwmphatZ■CD^ Zccu08Lg.."8igaaa5ac;015540APPENDIX 584 of 8e•■f,APPENDIX 585 of 8g SMA. 2aaz, CJ80111:--.Ci=z8atE .EmmE x12 m 4a Httat4itm!: •0 2.4VEt. °1 2R4VVE: 77:T 1elE ,,,E zi^12 EE. v S. ^Sr.2F e 4 lt 40..^ : 4 re07...". EA j427. 4 Y2^m C°..,._trzt E......V^C. Et„Vg'N....,.11.7"""e' aEfg I-4 7,1 E 2 LE^1 5 1' ^_^'So ^ .3Ev 2 i % C t- l t tg_A2Es t^4..,..,1 ^ti,,CI .. ^CZo E z 6 R2 -2^.t ^7 4.3 ..!+^7:2. '.514^tr.v:8 V E E -° N"cTICc.56 1 74 .111;i17 11 42 i iiy.clum gat Em-mm,.N. - el m. e- is. "-18 o,cc coo5 gVC00e.4O1Uiz20G.)0z00)-).°crINca4.F.F U0.ZErticd0NESaSa3 0156APPENDIX 5B6 oft^C^g EEM=^ Em^m^a m^,,.^Et^,.,41 41^14^S F-7. 7es 2^7;^4^'C. ^E, g.35.-7cs -8 g^-8 g" !I.^CI tl t .^..-2 2.uctt1; it I i Ilyt"11 t E.^t gg . ,`E- ,r, s ."mt 1 iE 8""^v^;..; E g„ mERiRT^po 7.-. •^ t5a'1 s2ti ^0 1=2 ,Gi!=6 1^E.11!! i^IWt't E.A ^.'.Pit a . v-^.1': i. ,4 8 c: si4a.„"'-^ ii7 8 t ,t1 0^'''''S..t .5tA..tc.E..7;4141 1411 vra I: ii ; it mgg, - ; agm 1],lAk 1::1 : I tl If i e ! ,..... 2Evi tii:2^:a.s gg 6 =RI^ :4^a 2P 4gP =PM V85 g^1^St 7^t11^mZ .n^1 ' O• g2'1^ .,t^4=^t^' 1^. 11 i'^t^4 .3 t I i^1 ii^; la. Id. 27,g^3^4g^lt t.1 41 •M e M.. ..-cSi^ -.4 gT, s g^i 1-^4= sEINs 1 g 1 m 4 'Il lxc-) EU^ ; 7= 11 *1 2 7.i^it"t6^mit to -.m ^t ",In 0 2^4^tc^V17, 81 t 1 iroga^g 1 -5 = 1 bi!=^g^A 0^cet. c.,,.24 i ..^Zi „Or, I.< g .^=6.1101: E. 1: 71 .7.2 : .! u'l 1.^e 1^e g .c^I. ^171 1 =^1 .5. , ...4 4g. meg - •..2„ -1s-as^; l 5 0... 7,-;4^r ,....1.1 1:, r^1 1^411i^"q7, ml = .... ::,11 !* ''.5 8.4i O. f1fiql Si 32 Idt_g z„ t3SE^.5 5^.5r ^Et S I; 1 .° 1 .4-ago^2 ^,=:. t Igl 0 ME a^ .'4.i2 .t.,:lm_,.^.. B E .0^..e,m ow-3 ; m Tt...c. Egg r. .0  IF TiC.2..fi VW 11 17.:^2 61-,^At^:A E ., 1;,q .n..1M^,w , a „, 6P^X^g,^tPV. P^§-I;^ES.7a2P 6a.PM=P V• r•IT.•^i^T.^g^08^,.^s 2^1 ^S^'^E^2 2'..7.^g Eg^5 . gi °5^1114^'a ^.&.-E it1 E^2 i 1 x 0 ^oklEa f -r ' " 7;'-- v"^2"▪ V-s'iOa=^-0.-4.2-tg2 " 1 ! '1 1 1 11111111iiciliiiiIiii !!su w `o 1 m...........v^c° ,.^.^-,^,,,,^gi^5 s1.:li ! 1 ; 1",^!ES 7.:1«'iga :.,.11, :., r v t2. 2 E E 9 8. R. 4-:-E- 3"'-417"7'7' iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11 E.^-Or ^ 8 tEC  CI,Ia^E^.7.^Ew! 44 :', 2.8..% 'c'tvg..EZEIIt= c.,r,z;,-,..,-^ ;'-""741 47,21!-EE..-11: WI! MTN. 1 .4,F: il.-^., Zg.,,^.4^.4^l i:1rn r.^ 4^.,"'^•," ''' .'CD^.E.., -, - v ----AIV^AIVZ 1_lt; ^t a5 aa^..0^5 2.17 cTg.t. ; -!...^.^ 1^ !ii^5^gi^2 4,^a E2i 4=• it...-.A t... t 1 7w<eil 5^m 2i^.^<gliN tly 8 " A 1t -.-.. t^t. 72 2 ' 1 t t E 1 <• ti ISA^20s4 = ..tii .a^ill ^e X Ii i^8-3 r5. :. 1 ^1 LE^01 05 2.1•^Ir."^.^...mA^I;^Z'''..-.4., . ,t2v ^3°1781EIitl.^31^II k BS^r C4az >7 ' ^mx, y,15 >- t  t E x A c 8^- E^042V .,s,^1-^,^1 : ii§iti° g''- z 2 s,...=^8g1.I^.n ;§^4. E 1 •-I 2 .E^ .07,=^0E..=^ 1 82 2 8= 2-M-2,., g X a 2,^...,^.,.,,,^g , IR31 1= VA .?' , ms.P^,^.... ,, , ...X^X V^,REUyDi u OOL. !157Ve!'503372711647- ,004^ONV'^T)'A SA <6..,,mmgo'auOC=a^0U7ev<.OGw^t0=^ZOTCFO*EP.0mJ266EJealita=^9.e.OK.walc=MOW6.3t=co zM<>2uaO2(4a" ..dOn,158ggr^E zG^,^.25,,^ tP5 & .1^.;54. 2^gN .r. f ..e^4 8 -., P82^a _ ,., 71 ^,,..^LI^23^3r^,7 74^;,^-.E^,E -°'2^v=^„L. „1-, .44^=..Lag l..., ES.2^v . E ''2 4. e^..^ z^. 2 .. Em$E i Wi !! A ^i .  !i Hi I V:I" lv7gft Idg Ili il 4211.110;.E„:E. 14 Dii;: 11:7I T4i 14 ;441r't 5 .0 2 -..s'' ,.27.7,E. :^41ttilwa 'a^ ?. 1z..!;.:; .„r aG ^-^ 4a ^uT.M^41 E2 V:i 17,.zags.ESI^ 11arE:ggl 7,= g- :1, 7.g t. v.g454.,..,„ <=s.r..: :g4:s. , -.. ..--4-^=, ml^T.. '._,Bz2..9z2...11 11: °° 77! g7-5cE - . '- '4 ":" P 4 g =RR E i E^„ .....„^■ 1. , ■ M <M, ,• ::114•^ONON!^ t^7^ '^-so . S -E. n^ao^Tg c'C^7^ 8 c^= "2^P. i=^Zi^1 "At.=^E ta T w 4g ^1^111-2...g^.^Ag.r.^t^1^;..ur, t ila'^-E 210 u ,F, 4..^-.^,,^4 -el 4^1^gte; g 1^.c.! p, 1 1 I. - it .11 .i2^1 gt= 3i. it§^:12 ..1 147„-. = : 15.^'52 " 2 -c1 gA ^g-. n. .. i s i g ,F3. •E rse^ '^.0m-r.^-wig li E.. 2 'M^2 -! gil,^!As ; ,8 521 ::". 1 •tE 1 gihi ,E '4 ,- 1r1 Si V°.:4titiSi ; lilill tli Tat i°5 itii 1 " .'0181^440-00 .e.4a^40, Iiii ,mgo2M42-0?'- . g g Eg lEil^tER1 =E..- IRE E g- - .°.,, „ ...., .„, i.„ 6,, „ ,en▪ FT.:^.^e.^.^.^.,^LI^:'t^q t 7^.P^. 74. I.. a E.^0^ EI .., ,. c w .^. = .^.^,^.^.s t 0 ..^.2ia .° 111. ° E i.4^71 Ir.^f g -^31^i•^ E lil.t •.1, i $...g ^a i^i a.5 t i^.z m-,.. z..t^1 .1:i f a pj^g r1 Erg t^.^E'^E o^it :t 22^.B... -s- ^.;^u^s^2 . 1%^.§.7, 5;.3 i MI i itiL ! tl ! i m 0 2 1 ti^!10 °...i• ' t livi 1 0 .,41; lai i.ii 0Y 1 V P !LHt i^,^..^ I, ".5.-4^-^r^...ri _..^.i ...y.=▪ , =ir, .5-E 4 i.rl'irrAlir 41.4%1 Ag 4 gs, 4..g zglgElL^c-e4;42 ; 41425 ..241.. .2-4m A:1 +filf, „....1 .5.11s4..=%-z....6. '. .g. E c < ;,3 tc c,^.wic.0 •.,^c,..... c ..^c __< =v2^gg- .,^g 'a „ ;,^,..-. ....-^.....rXO0 APPENDIX 588 of 8<.;.4^xTs^. 5^ t^N a t r,e . 12^17,^1 .4. t.. 1 .^.,. ....^.. . .^.^:-.,^==6^". 2^S. . ..,..,.0^c^I' -9^t 3^A 1 12^cs -....^- u--`=^g^0^L.^V^4^.E^-F-^I'^t .6^a71^eil^... ,..te  ^slictilE 1^s^E 2^!.3 a ‘.4. . ■ mU 'll t^1 1te.) ^3 i .1^_^Lt, -9 .^ce N^2^.^4N g =^82 .y.^E 21 1 .5..^ ';.^1 t^t ;., , c^4 . = 4 6 E X E.f,^..'..'u 1 =a- -^.t.. I 1^T. 8^11 i 1^r" 2 All^st.,..< a wSI VtEE^] ill^!. 1's^1^t. ^......f 12 * AA - '1 .1,-:^7=2^1.^6:1,5.^...^-^g^-fe ,^.y..^.. . w -. re^.5. =^rs -^2F, A .14 0 ,^< , , ,^a. , a ,u.12=159APPENDIX 6I of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991TOTAL BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP AND MUNICIPALITYMunicipality # Est.^Location TypeL^H^BFOOD & BEVERAGEEst.MSizeNOPQRST(# Employees)Burnaby 3 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Coquitlam 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0^0Delta 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Langley 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Surrey 3 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0^0Vancouver 16 11 1 4 13 3 0 0 0 0 0^0Inner City 14 9 1 4 11 3 0 0 0 0 0^0Rest 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 30 16 1 13 23 4 3 0 0 0 0^0LEATHER, TEXTILE AND APPARELBurnaby 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Delta 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Langley 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 7 6 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0^0Surrey 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Vancouver 31 26 1 4 21 6 4 0 0 0 0^0Inner City 26 21 1 4 17 5 4 0 0 0 0^0Rest 5 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 57 50 1 6 45 7 4 0 1 0 0^0L Local office^M 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 0 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500160APPENDIX 62 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991TOTAL BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP AND MUNICIPALITYMunicipality^# Est. Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)^L H B^M NOPQRSTWOOD PRODUCTS GROUP (SIC 24,25,26,27)Burnaby^26^17 0^9^18 6 1 0 1 0 0 0Coquitlam 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Delta 7^7 0 0^6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Langley^15^11^1^3 11 2 1 1 0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge^8^7 0^1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0New Westminster^7 7 0 0^5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0North Vancouver^13^10 0^3 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows^0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam^5^5 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Moody^1 1 0 0^1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-tIchmond 23^21^1^1 16 3 3 1 0 0 0 0Surrey 29^24 0^5^20 4 3 1 1 0 0 0Vancouver^77^60^5 12 52 16 7 2 0 0 0 0Inner City^55^39^4 12^34 13 6 2 0 0 0 0Rest 22^21^1^0 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 0West Vancouver^3 3 0 0^3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0White Rock^4^4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0GROUP TOTAL 222^181^7 34^159 38 18 5 2 0 0 0MACHINERY, TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICBurnaby^20^12 4^4^14 3 2 0 1 0 0 0Coquitlam 5 4^0^1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0Delta 8^4^2^2^8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Langley^9 7^1^1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0^0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge^3^2 0^1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0New Westminster^6 4^1^1^5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0North Vancouver^11^6^1^4 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows^1 1 0 0^1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam^1^0^1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Port Moody^0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Richmond 10^7^2^1 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0Surrey 20^17^1^2^15 3 2 0 0 0 0 0Vancouver^51^42^1^8 43 5 2 1 0 0 0 0Inner City^40^33^1^6^32 5 2 1 0 0 0 0Rest 11 9^0^2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0West Vancouver^0^0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0White Rock^1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GROUP TOTAL 146^107 14 25^113 15 12 4 2 0 0 0L Local office^IA 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500161APPENDIX 63 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991TOTAL BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP AND MUNICIPALITYMunicipality^# Est.^Location Type^Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B^M^NOPQRSTPRIMARY METAL AND FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTSBurnaby 9 5 0 4 7^2 0 0 0 0 0 0Coquitlam 3 3 0 0 2^0 0 1 0 0 0 0Delta 1 1 0 0 0^1 0 0 0 0 0 0Langley 7 5 0 2 1^2 2 1 1 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 1 0 0 1 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0New Westminster 1 1 0 0 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0North Vancouver 6 4 0 2 4^2 0 0 0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 4 2 0 2 1^3 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Richmond 8 7 0 1 5^1 2 0 0 0 0 0Surrey 5 4 0 1 5^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Vancouver 20 13 0 7 13^4 3 0 0 0 0 0Inner City 9 4 0 5 6^2 1 0 0 0 0 0Rest 11 9 0 2 7^2 2 0 0 0 0 0West Vancouver 1 0 0 1 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0White Rock 1 1 0 0 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0GROUP TOTAL 67 46 0 21 42 15 7 2 1 0 0 0CHEMICAL PRODUCTS GROUP (SIC 28,29,30)Burnaby 3 2 0 1 1^1 0 0 0 1 0 0Coquitlam 1 0 0 1 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Delta 4 3 0 1 3^0 0 1 0 0 0 0Langley 2 1 0 1 1^1 0 0 0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0New Westminster 3 2 0 1 3^0 0 0 0 0 0 0North Vancouver 2 2 0 0 1^0 1 0 0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 1 1 0 0 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 1 0 0 1 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Richmond 2 2 0 0 2^0 0 0 0 0 0 0Surrey 6 5 0 1 4^1 0 1 0 0 0 0Vancouver 10 8 0 2 9^1 0 0 0 0 0 0Inner City 7 5 0 2 6^1 0 0 0 0 0 0Rest 3 3 0 0 3^0 0 0 0 0 0 0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0White Rock 1 0 0 1 1^0 0 0 0 0 0 0GROUP TOTAL 36 26 0 10 28^4 1 2 0 1 0 0L Local office 14 1-5^N 6-10^0 11-25Head office P 26-50^0 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500162APPENDIX 64 of 4NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991TOTAL BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP AND MUNICIPALITYMunicipality # Est.^Location Type^Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B^M^NOPQRSTNON-METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS & MISCELLANEOUS MFG.Burnaby 18 10 1 7 16 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Coquitlam 5 2 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Delta 4 2 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Langley 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0New Westminster 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0North Vancouver 12 11 0 1 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Richmond 10 5 0 5 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Surrey 10 4 1 5 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0Vancouver 42 30 5 6 35 4 1 2 0 0 0 0Inner City 26 18 4 4 21 3 0 2 0 0 0 0Rest 16 13 1 2 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0West Vancouver 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0White Rock 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GROUP TOTAL 115 77 8 30 94 10 8 2 1 0 0 0L Local office^WI 1-5 t',1 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 0 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500163APPENDIX 71 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 20Burnaby 3^1^0^2 2 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 1 0^0^1 0 0^1 0^0^0^0^0Delta 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 1 0^0^1 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 1 0^0^1 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 3 2^0^1 3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 3^0^0^3 1 0^2 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 16^11^1^4 13 3^0 0^0^0^0^0Inner City 14 9^1^4 11 3^0 0^0^0^0^0Rest 2^2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 30^16^1^13 23 4^3 0^0^0^0^0SIC # 21Burnaby 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Inner City 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Rest 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0L Local office M 1-5 N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100^R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500164APPENDIX 72 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 22Burnaby 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Delta 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Langley 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0New Westminster 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0North Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Richmond 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Surrey 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Vancouver 12 9^0^3 8 4 0 0^0 0 0^0Inner City 8 5^0^3 5 3 0 0^0 0 0^0Rest 4 4^0^0 3 1 0 0^0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0White Rock 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 18 15^0^3 14 4 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC # 23Burnaby 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Delta 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Langley 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0New Westminster 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0North Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 1 1^0^0 0 1 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Richmond 4 3^0^1 3 0 0 0^1 0 0^0Surrey 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Vancouver 18 16^1^1 12 2 4 0^0 0 0^0Inner City 17 15^1^1 11 2 4 0^0 0 0^0Rest 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0White Rock 1 0^0^1 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 34 30^1^3 26 3 4 0^1 0 0^0L Local office IA 1-5 N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^Q 51-100^R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500165APPENDIX 73 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 24Burnaby 6^4^0^2 3 2^0 0^1^0^0^0Coquitlam 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 2^2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 8 6^1^1 6 1^0 1^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 4 4^0^0 3 0^1 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 4^4^0^0 3 1^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 3 3^0^0 3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 2 2^0^0 1 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 9 8^1^0 5 2^1 1^0^0^0^0Surrey 10^8^0^2 4 1^3 1^1^0^0^0Vancouver 6 3^1^2 5 0^0 1^0^0^0^0Inner City 5^2^1^2 4 0^0 1^0^0^0^0Rest 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 58^48^3^7 39 8^5 4^2^0^0^0SIC # 25Burnaby 5^5^0^0 2 2^1 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 2^2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 2 1^0^1 0 1^1 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 2 2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 1 0^0^1 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 3 3^0^0 2 0^1 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 5^4^0^1 5 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 4 2^1^1 2 1^1 0^0^0^0^0Inner City 3^2^0^1 2 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Rest 1 0^1^0 0 0^1 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 26^21^1^4 18 4^4 0^0^0^0^0L Local office^M 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^• 251-500 T over 500166APPENDIX 74 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 26Burnaby 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 2^2^0^0 1 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 1^1^0^0 0 1^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 2^2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 1 1^0^0 0 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Inner City 1^1^0^0 0 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Rest 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 10^10^0^0 7 3^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC # 27Burnaby 14^7^0^7 12 2^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 5 4^0^1 5 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 2 1^0^1 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 2^2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 8 6^0^2 4 3^1 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 3 3^0^0 3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 10 9^0^1 8 1^1 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 12^10^0^2 9 3^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 66^54^3^9 45 14^6 1^0^0^0^0Inner City 46^34^3^9 28 11^6 1^0^0^0^0Rest 20^20^0^0 17 3^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 2 2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 2^2^0^0 1 0^1 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 128^102^3^23 95 23^9 1^0^0^0^0L Local office M 1-5^N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^0 51-100^P 101-250e Branch office S 251-500 T over 500167APPENDIX 75 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 28Burnaby 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Coquitlam 1 0^0^1 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Delta 4 3^0^1 3 0 0 1^0 0 0^0Langley 2 1^0^1 1 1 0 0^0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0New Westminster 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0North Vancouver 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 1 0^0^1 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Richmond 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Surrey 3 2^0^1 2 1 0 0^0 0 0^0Vancouver 3 2^0^1 3 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Inner City 2 1^0^1 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Rest 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0White Rock 1 0^0^1 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 18 11^0^7 15 2 0 1^0 0 0 0SIC # 29Burnaby 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Delta 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Langley 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0New Westminster 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0North Vancouver 1 1^0^0 0 0 1 0^0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Moody 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Richmond 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Surrey 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Vancouver 3 3^0^0 3 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Inner City 3 3^0^0 3 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Rest 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0White Rock 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 5 5^0^0 4 0 1 0^0 0 0^0L Local office M 1-5 N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^0 51-100^R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500168APPENDIX 76 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 30Burnaby 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0^0 1 0 0Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Langley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0New Westminster 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0^0 0 0 0North Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Richmond 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Surrey 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1^0 0 0 0Vancouver 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 0^0 0 0 0Inner City 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0^0 0 0 0Rest 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0 0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0White Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0SIC TOTAL 13 10 0 3 9 2 0 1^0 1 0 0SIC # 31Burnaby 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Delta 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Langley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0New Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0North Vancouver 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Richmond 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Surrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Vancouver 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Inner City 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Rest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0White Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0SIC TOTAL 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0^0 0 0 0L Local office^IA 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-53 0 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500169APPENDIX 77 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type^Est, Size (# Employees)L^H^B^M NOPQRSTSIC # 32Burnaby 3^3^0^0^3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 2 2^0^0 1 0^1 0^0^0^0^0Delta 3^1^0^2^2 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 4 4^0^0 1 0^3 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 3^1^1^1^2 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 7 7^0^0 6 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Inner City 3^3^0^0^2 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Rest 4 4^0^0 4 0^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 26^22^1^3^19 3^4 0^0^0^0^0SIC # 33Burnaby 1^1^0^0^1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 1 1^0^0 0 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 1 0^0^1 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 3 2^0^1 2 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 1 0^0^1 0 1^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 1 1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 1^1^0^0^1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 4 4^0^0 2 0^2 0^0^0^0^0Inner City 2^2^0^0^1 0^1 0^0^0^0^0Rest 2 2^0^0 1 0^1 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 0 0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 13^10^0^3^8 3^2 0^0^0^0^0L Local office IA 1-5^N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^Q 51-100^R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500170APPENDIX 78 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 34Burnaby 8^4 0 4 6 2 0 0^0 0 0^0Coquitlam 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1^0 0 0^0Delta 1^1 0 0 0 1 0 0^0 0 0^0Langley 6 4 0 2 1 1 2 1^1 0 0^0Lions Bay 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0New Westminster 1^1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0North Vancouver 3 2 0 1 2 1 0 0^0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 3 2 0 1 1 2 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Moody 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Richmond 7 6 0 1 4 1 2 0^0 0 0^0Surrey 4^3 0 1 4 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Vancouver 16 9 0 7 11 4 1 0^0 0 0^0Inner City 7^2 0 5 5 2 0 0^0 0 0^0Rest 9 7 0 2 6 2 1 0^0 0 0^0West Vancouver 1^0 0 1 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0White Rock 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 54^36 0 18 34 12 5 2^1 0 0^0SIC # 35Burnaby 7^3 2 2 5 1 1 0^0 0 0^0Coquitlam 3 3 0 0 2 0 1 0^0 0 0^0Delta 2^0 2 0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Langley 4 3 0 1 3 0 1 0^0 0 0^0Lions Bay 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0^0 0 0^0New Westminster 3^2 1 0 2 0 0 1^0 0 0^0North Vancouver 6 4 1 1 3 1 1 1^0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Port Moody 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0Richmond 4 3 0 1 1 2 1 0^0 0 0^0Surrey 13^11 1 1 10 2 1 0^0 0 0^0Vancouver 13^12 0 1 11 0 1 1^0 0 0^0Inner City 7 7 0 0 5 0 1 1^0 0 0^0Rest 6^5 0 1 6 0 0 0^0 0 0^0West Vancouver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0White Rock 0^0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0^0SIC TOTAL 57^42 7 8 41 6 7 3^0 0 0^0L Local office^1,4 1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500171APPENDIX 79 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B M NOPQRSTSIC # 36Burnaby 8 5^2^1 5 1 1 0^1 0 0 0Coquitlam 1 1^0^0 0 1 0 0^0 0 0 0Delta 5 3^0^2 5 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Langley 3 2^1^0 3 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0New Westminster 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0 0North Vancouver 4 1^0^3 4 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Richmond 4 3^1^0 4 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Surrey 3 3^0^0 1 1 1 0^0 0 0 0Vancouver 30 23^1^6 24 5 1 0^0 0 0 0Inner City 26 20^1^5 20 5 1 0^0 0 0 0Rest 4 3^0^1 4 0 0 0^0 0 0 0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0White Rock 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0SIC TOTAL 61 44^5^12 49 8 3 0^1 '0 0 0SIC # 37Burnaby 5 4^0^1 4 1 0 0^0 0 0 0Coquitlam 1 0^0^1 0 0 1 0^0 0 0 0Delta 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Langley 2 2^0^0 2 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Maple Ridge 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0New Westminster 1 0^0^1 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0North Vancouver 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Pitt Meadows 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Port Coquitlam 1 0^1^0 0 0 0 0^1 0 0 0Port Moody 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Richmond 2 1^1^0 0 0 1 1^0 0 0 0Surrey 4 3^0^1 4 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Vancouver 8 7^0^1 8 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Inner City 7 6^0^1 7 0 0 0^0 0 0 0Rest 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0West Vancouver 0 0^0^0 0 0 0 0^0 0 0 0White Rock 1 1^0^0 1 0 0 0^0 0 0 0SIC TOTAL 28 21^2^5 23 1 2 1^1 0 0 0L Local office M 1-5 N 6-10^011-25H Head office P 26-50^Q 51-100^R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500172APPENDIX 710 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE:^CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991GRAND TOTALMunicipality # Est.^Location Type^Est. Size (# Employees)L^H^B^M NOPQRSTSIC # 38Burnaby 6^1^1^4^4 1^0 0^1^0^0^0Coquitlam 1 0^0^1 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Delta 1^1^0^0^1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 3 3^0^0 3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 1 0^0^1 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 3 3^0^0 3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 1 0^1^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 4 0^0^4 2 1^1 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 3^1^0^2^3 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 18 9^2^6 13 3^1 1^0^0^0^0Inner City 11^6^1^4^8 2^0 1^0^0^0^0Rest 7 4^1^2 5 1^1 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 0^0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 41^19^4^18^32 5^2 1^1^0^0^0SIC # 39Burnaby 9^6^0^3^9 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Coquitlam 2^0^0^2 1 0^1 0^0^0^0^0Delta 0 0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Langley 2^2^0^0 2 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Lions Bay 0 0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Maple Ridge 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0New Westminster 1 1^0^0^1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0North Vancouver 5^4^0^1 5 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Pitt Meadows 0 0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Coquitlam 1^1^0^0 1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Port Moody 0 0^0^0^0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Richmond 5^4^0^1 5 0^0 0^0^0^0^0Surrey 4 2^0^2^1 2^1 0^0^0^0^0Vancouver 17^14^3^0 16 0^0 1^0^0^0^0Inner City 12 9^3^0^11 0^0 1^0^0^0^0Rest 5^5^0^0 5 0^0 0^0^0^0^0West Vancouver 1 1^0^0^1 0^0 0^0^0^0^0White Rock 0^0^0^0 0 0^0 0^0^0^0^0SIC TOTAL 48^36^3^9^43 2^2 1^0^0^0^0L Local office td 1-5^N 6-10^0 11-25H Head office P 26-50^4 51-100^R 101-250B Branch office S 251-500^T over 500173APPENDIX 711 of 11NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN GREATER VANCOUVERSOURCE: CONTACTS TARGET MARKETING DIRECTORY, 1986-87 TO 1991MunicipalityGRAND TOTALGRAND TOTAL# Est.^Location TypeL^H^BEst.MSizeNOPQRST(# Employees)Burnaby 82 50 5 27 61 14 3 0 3 1 0^0Coquitlam 19 13 0 6 12 1 5 1 0 0 0^0Delta 29 22 2 5 25 3 0 1 0 0 0^0Langley 44 35 2 7 32 5 4 2 1 0 0^0Lions Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Maple Ridge 18 13 0 5 17 0 1 0 0 0 0^0New Westminster 19 16 1 2 16 2 0 1 0 0 0^0North Vancouver 46 34 1 11 33 6 6 1 0 0 0^0Pitt Meadows 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Port Coquitlam 14 9 2 3 8 5 0 0 1 0 0^0Port Moody 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^0Richmond 63 50 3 10 45 7 8 2 1 0 0^0Surrey 75 56 2 17 53 11 8 2 1 0 0^0Vancouver 247 190 13 43 186 39 17 5 0 0 0^0Inner City 177 129 11 37 127 32 13 5 0 0 0^0Rest 70 62 2 6 59 7 4 0 0 0 0^0West Vancouver 5 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0^0White Rock 9 7 0 2 8 0 1 0 0 0 0^0GRAND TOTAL 673 503 31 139 504 93 53 15 7 1 0^0L Local office^1-5 N 6-10 0 11-25H Head office P 26-50 Q 51-100 R 101-250B Branch office^S 251-500 T over 500174

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086648/manifest

Comment

Related Items