UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Analysis of factors affecting the demand for housing in British Columbia Horwood, Peter J. 1976

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A4_6 H67.pdf [ 8.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093536.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093536-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093536-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093536-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093536-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093536-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093536-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093536-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093536.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by P E T E R J A M E S HORWOOD B . A . , T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1971 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR THE D E G R E E OF MASTER OF S C I E N C E IN B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N i n t h e F a c u l t y o f COMMERCE AND B U S I N E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A J a n u a r y , 1 9 7 6 In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date IrJutA. , l^C ABSTRACT The main j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s e l e c t i n g t h i s topic i s the general lack of understanding surrounding the basic operation of the housing market and the subsequent errors which a r i s e from t h i s basic ignorance. Private discussion, public opinion and even government p o l i c y have d i s -played an unnerving i n a b i l i t y to separate symptom from cause, promoting misdirected e f f o r t and in some cases i n i t i a t i n g action which compounds the perceived problem. Following the premise that an understanding of the fundamentals i s essential to the so l u t i o n of any problem, t h i s thesis helps to elucidate the operation of the housing supply-demand r e l a t i o n s h i p by analyzing the e f f e c t of the four major components of housing demand: demographic forces; income; p r i c e ; and c r e d i t conditions. To give relevance and strength to the t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s , current data pertaining to the e f f e c t of these components, in a B r i t i s h Columbia context, i s supplied wherever possible. F i n a l l y , t h i s thesis provides an exploration of the re l a t e d p o l i c y implications. The majority of the data used in t h i s thesis was obtained from a survey of housing consumers in B r i t i s h Columbia, administered j o i n t l y with the Interdepartmental Study Team on Housing and Rents of the Government i i of B r i t i s h Columbia. The survey co l lected results from 1769 interviews conducted in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , the Prince George Census Agglomeration and the City of Cranbrook in July 1975. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES ix LIST OF TABULATIONS x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Demand V o l a t i l i t y 2 1.2 Demand, Need and Want 3 1.3 The Four Factors 4 1.4 Data 6 1.5 Presentation 8 2 MARKET AND COMMODITY 11 2.1 Summary 17 3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE 18 4 SURVEY 29 4.1 The Survey: General 29 iv Chapter Page 4.1.1 Purpose 29 4.1.2 Coverage 30 4.1.3 C o l l e c t i o n of Information 31 4.2 The Survey: Technical 35 4.2.1 The Frame 35 4.2.2 F i r s t Stage of Sample Selection . . . . 37 4.2.3 Second Stage of Sample Selection. . . . 38 4.2.4 The Block Diagram and Third Stage of Selection 38 4.2.5 The Fourth and Final Stage of Selection 39 4.3 Comments on the Sample Selection Procedure . . . . 39 4.4 The Sample 41 4.5 Comparison with Other Sources of Information. . . . 42 4.6 Summary 47 5 DEMOGRAPHIC FORCES 50 5.1 Family and Non-Family Patterns 55 5.2 Survey Results 58 5.3 Migration 60 5.4 Summary and Pol i c y Implications 64 6 INCOME 69 6.1 Movement 70 6.2 Magnitude 73 6.3 A Review of Previous Income E l a s t i c i t y Research . . 75 6.4 Survey Results 83 6.5 Summary and P o l i c y Implications 84 v Chapter Page 7 PRICE 88 7.1 A Review of Previous Pric e E l a s t i c i t y Research 91 7.2 Demand Flow 95 7.3 Price Expectation 96 7.4 Summary and P o l i c y Implications 97 8 CREDIT CONDITIONS 103 8.1 Summary and Pol i c y Implications I l l 9 CONCLUSION 115 9.1 Areas f o r Further Research 119 APPENDICES A QUESTIONNAIRE ,128 B QUESTIONNAIRE CARDS 152 C TABULATIONS 161 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 The Basic Sample. 41 4.2 Tenure 43 4.3 Structure . . . 44 4.4 Household Income. . . 44 4.5 Income I n f l a t i o n 45 4.6 Age of Head 46 4.7 Number of Occupants 46 5.1 Family and Non-Family Households: G.V.R.D. 1961-71 . . . . . . 52 5.2 Growth of One Person Households in Greater Vancouver 57 5.3 Mean Room and Bedroom Figures . 59 5.4 Mean Number of Occupants Per Room and Bedroom 59 5.5 Mean Income and Shelter/Income Ratios 50 5.6 Immigration to B r i t i s h Columbia 52 5.7 Migration to the G.V.R.D 63 5.8 Age and Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n of Migrants to the G.V.R.D. 1966-71. . 6 3 v i i Table Page 6.1 Mean Number of Rooms/Bedrooms by Income Groups 73 6.2 Mean Shelter/Income Ratios by Income Groups 83 8.1 Monthly Payments Required f o r a Loan of $1 ,000 107 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Basic supply-demand r e l a t i o n s h i p in the housing market 14 2.2 Demand s h i f t and price level 15 2.3 Stock and flow model of the housing market 16 6.1 Indifference theory 70 6.2 Indifference theory and budget constraint 71 7.1 Price creation 88 7.2 Demand v o l a t i l i t y 89 7.3 Perfect substitutes 101 7.4 Perfect complements 101 ix LIST OF TABULATIONS Tabulation Page 5.1 Tenure of Selected Demographic Groups 54 8.1 Primary Reason for not Changing Tenure 105 8.2 Secondary Reason for not Changing Tenure 106 8.3 Response to a 10% Increase in Downpayment 109 8.4 Response to a 10% Increase in Monthly Payment HO C.l Surveyed Population by Tenure 162 C.2 Surveyed Population by Structure Type 163 C.3 Surveyed Population by Income 164 C.4 Surveyed Population by Wealth 165 C.5 Owner's Monthly Shelter Cost 166 C.6 Renter's Monthly Shelter Cost 167 C.7 Mobility of Population Since June 1, 1971 168 C.8 Renter's Preference to Own 169 C.9 Owner's Preference to Rent 169 C.10 Did the Renter Receive the Renter's Resource Grant? . . . .170 C . l l Renter's Estimates of Maximum Permissible Rent Increase . . 170 x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would l i k e to express my gratitude to the members of my committee, Professors Michael Goldberg, Stanley Hamilton and Jim Forbes, f o r t h e i r assistance in the completion of t h i s t h e s i s . I would also l i k e to thank David Dale-Johnson f o r his valuable guidance, Ben McAfee f o r his graphic support and Teresa Tenisci f o r those long nights -- so unfortunately chaperoned by the computer. Furthermore, I would l i k e to thank David Baxter and Stanley Hamilton f o r taking the 'edge' o f f the journey from '307 to the present. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my f r i e n d Michael f o r supplying a l l the advice and material I needed -- s t i r r e d l i b e r a l l y with a Brooklyn chopstick. xi "We need to establish guidelines before corrective policies are applied and for this we need to be clear how the market operates. The alternative (alas, more often than not in practise the norm) is that emotion and expediency are allowed to dictate policy and the housing market becomes choked with well-meant but mis-conceived policies that can (and do) actually finish up doing more harm than good. ..." - Professor F. Pennance (1975) Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION PRICE = f (SUPPLY, DEMAND) As a r e s u l t of the u n i v e r s a l i t y of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n in economic markets, the above equation a l l too often receives but a passing acknow-ledgement in discussions of housing. More importantly, the same lack of understanding of t h i s basic equation has resulted in a large segment of our housing p o l i c y being directed towards symptoms rather than causes. Both the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments operate substantial subsidy programs f o r home buyers, with the implication that t h e i r grants represent a solution to the problem of a market pr i c e which excludes c e r t a i n people from obtaining ownership. In the rental sector, the so-called solutions reach t h e i r penultimate p o s i t i o n by imposing a rent increase c e i l i n g , and thus solving the rental 'problem 1. These govern-ment actions are aimed at the symptoms of the problem with the additional drawback that they "exert unintended e f f e c t s , some d i r e c t l y counter to 2 the delared p o l i c y aims." No one can refute the f a c t that housing prices are a product of supply and demand. However, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the commodity, and 1 2 i t s market, e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n fundamental and c r u c i a l differences in the operation of the housing equation. As a r e s u l t of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the supply of housing i s viewed as i n e l a s t i c ( i . e . fixed) in the short run, and thus, the element of demand i s placed in a po s i t i o n of e x h i b i t -ing the most v o l a t i l i t y i n the supply-demand r e l a t i o n s h i p . It i s t h i s dominating e f f e c t of demand which both sets apart the operation of the basic equation from other economic markets and provides the central theme for t h i s t h e s i s . 1.1 Demand V o l a t i l i t y The best evidence of demand v o l a t i l i t y in the housing market i s displayed by the f l e x i b i l i t y exhibited by the housing stock. This f l e x i -b i l i t y e x i s t s p r i m a r i ly because the i n t e n s i t y of occupation can be varied. Doubling of households, the existence of conversions, basement sleeping rooms and i l l e g a l suites are a l l i n d i c a t i v e of a more intensive use of the standing stock. Moreover, they are i n d i c a t i v e of the adjustment of the e x i s t i n g stock to changes in demand. Another such i n d i c a t o r i s the vacancy rate in the rental submarket and the number of units completed and unoccupied in the ownership market. When vacancy rates and the number of unoccupied units are low then demand i s high. It n a t u r a l l y follows that when such symptoms are evident there i s a corresponding increase in price (given a market free from external i n t e r f e r e n c e ) . This is the natural r e s u l t of increased demand upon a l i m i t e d supply. Such symptoms of more intensive use are in evidence in the housing market of Vancouver today. Recent data on the vacancy rate 3 indicate that v i r t u a l l y no units are a v a i l a b l e , with those units indicated 3 as vacant simply awaiting the a r r i v a l of the new tenant. It i s i n t e r -esting to note that i n t e n s i t y in one submarket does not necessarily imply a s i m i l a r demand in a l l submarkets, as i n Vancouver the number of completed 4 and unoccupied ownership units has increased dramatically. This s i t u a -t i o n serves as evidence of the complexity of the housing demand phenomenon, with the factors of rent control and l i m i t e d mortgage a v a i l a b i l i t y d e f i n i t e l y influencing the observed consumer demand in opposite ways. 1.2 Demand, Need and Want Semantics are a source of confusion in any paper, therefore i t i s considered valuable at t h i s point to elucidate the concepts of demand, need and want. E f f e c t i v e demand i s represented by the quantity of a good people w i l l buy at a p a r t i c u l a r time. As such, i t i s quite d i s t i n c t from need and want, as i t imp! ies .-some action on the part of the i n d i v i d u a l . In essence, marketplace demand represents purchases which consumers have both the desire and the economic means to make, and hence i t implies entrance into the marketplace. Need i s a term heard a l l too often in housing related discussions (e.g. "the basic need f o r housing"). In r e l a t i o n to economics, need may d i f f e r from e f f e c t i v e demand e i t h e r because some of those who need the commodity are not able to a f f o r d i t , or because some who can a f f o r d the commodity are not acting in t h e i r own best i n t e r e s t , according to 5 someone else's judgement. Again using someone else's judgement, s i t u a t i o n s may e x i s t where consumers demand and consume more than they need. Simply 4 put, the difference between demand and need i s the difference between what happens and what someone f e e l s ought to happen. Wants are perhaps best described as constrained d e s i r e s , having more of a basis in the consumer's mind than in r e a l i t y . I f the p a r t i c u l a r want i s without economic support i t cannot f i n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n in necessity, thus i t i s d i s t i n c t from need; and i f i t has economic support, then the very f a c t that i t remains a want and not a demand displays that i t is not real enough to warrant further a c t i o n . As such, wants must take a back seat to need and demand, as t h e i r only relevance i s as a predictor of possible future demand. Ce r t a i n l y , there can be no s o c i a l or economic j u s t i f i c a t i o n f or public or private action to f u l f i l l a consumer's want f o r a v i l l a on the French R i v i e r a . Thus, with these d i s t i n c t i o n s in mind and the basic premise that solution to need i s best accomplished through the smooth operation of the market, the concern of t h i s thesis i s with demand only. 1.3 The Four Factors Due to the i n t r i c a c i e s of our economic system i t i s v i r t u a l l y impossible to construct a complete l i s t of the factors which influence the demand for housing. Adding to t h i s the l i m i t a t i o n s of time and space, t h i s thesis i s forced to s e l e c t for discussion what are considered to be the four 'major' factors influencing demand: demographic forces, income, price and c r e d i t conditions. In addition to the f a c t that there are further factors at play, the reader should also note that the selected factors do not stand i n i s o l a t i o n from each other. There exists a complex int e r p l a y between the elements, some of which t h i s thesis w i l l attempt to explain. 5 There are c e r t a i n basic r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the four factors and the demand f o r housing: ( i ) W i t h r e s p e c t t o demograph i c f o r c e s , t h e g r e a t e r t he a g g r e g a t e number o f e x i s t i n g o r p o t e n t i a l h o u s e h o l d s i n a h o u s i n g ma r ke t a r e a , t h e g r e a t e r t h e demand. ( i i ) W i t h r e s p e c t t o income, t h e g r e a t e r t h e income o f an i n d i v i d u a l consumer o r h o u s e h o l d , t h e g r e a t e r t h e amount t h a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c o n -suming u n i t w i l l spend on h o u s i n g and hence , t h e g r e a t e r t h e demand. ( i i i ) W i th r e s p e c t t o p r i c e , t h e h i g h e r t h e p r i c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r commodity o r s e r v i c e , t h e l e s s o f i t w i l l be demanded by each consumer and t h e f e w e r consumers who wiI I demand i t a t a I I. ( i v ) W i th r e s p e c t t o c r e d i t c o n d i t i o n s , t h e r e l a t i o n -s h i p i s somewhat more comp lex as t h e y do n o t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t t h e demand f o r u n i t s i n t h e r e n t a l s u b m a r k e t . The c o s t and a v a i l a b i l i t y o f , c r e d i t v a r i e s , and bo th have t h e i r own e f f e c t on t h e demand f o r owned u n i t s . C l e a r l y , t h e more a v a i l a b l e i s c r e d i t , t h e more l i k e l y t h a t demand f o r owned u n i t s w i l l i n c r e a s e . The h i g h e r t h e b o r r o w i n g c o s t , t h e f e w e r t h e c o n -sumers who w i l l choose t o own. In a d d i t i o n , i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t more t h a n one l e n d i n g t e r m may v a r y . Fo r e x a m p l e , a h i g h e r i n t e r e s t r a t e may be o f f s e t by a l o n g e r t e r m , so t h a t t h e c o n s u m e r ' s mon th l y payment i s no g r e a t e r d e s p i t e t h e h i g h e r b o r r o w i n g c o s t . These basic r e l a t i o n s h i p s are complicated by the existence of housing submarkets. It i s an acknowledged f a c t that housing markets-are l o c a l i z e d . In add i t i o n , there e x i s t within each l o c a l i z e d area, sub-markets delineated by housing type, l o c a t i o n , tenure and so on. Of p a r t i c u l a r note are the tenure submarkets, which include the markets of dwelling units f o r rent and dwelling units f o r sale. Hence, changes in demand factors influence the level of housing demand i n the aggregate, the level of demand in each submarket and s h i f t s in demand between submarkets. 6 Further complications are added by the r e l a t i o n s h i p s which e x i s t between our four factors of discussion. As an example one can see that although demographic forces may bring households into existence, i t i s income which places households in a position to purchase or rent a dwelling unit. In turn, i t i s the price of the submarket units and the c r e d i t conditions faced which influences the f i n a l d e c i s i o n . Although each of these demand factors w i l l be explored i n d i v i d u a l l y , i t i s necessary to never loose sight of the e f f e c t of the other three and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . 1.4 Data In order to provide a viable context in which to explore the impact of demographic forces, income, price and c r e d i t conditions i t i s essential that up-to-date data with respect to the housing consumer be a v a i l a b l e . V i r t u a l l y the only source of data with respect to housing consumers in B r i t i s h Columbia i s that which can be extracted from the Census of 1971. The unfortunate f a c t remains that 1971 i s not 1975, and there was reason to believe that s i g n i f i c a n t changes had taken place in the market since the Census. In addition to the time-lag problem the Census data does not supply the d e t a i l required. With respect to household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the answers to questions such as the following were considered to be of some value: How is the e x i s t i n g stock of rental and owned units being used? - in other words, what s i z e and type of household i s consuming what size and type of dwelling unit. How much i s being spent by households on t h e i r shelter and on what, s p e c i f i c a l l y , i s the money being spent? Would house-holds prefer alternate types of accommodation and, i f so, why? Had some 7 households recently moved, i f so, from where, from what type of dwelling unit and what were the household's circumstances p r i o r to the move? What are the approximate income and asset figures of current households? Answers to these and other questions would provide valuable information about the current market and the changes in household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that had taken place since the Census of 1971. A decision was reached in l a t e June of 1975 that the Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration would cooperate with the Interdepartmental Study Team on Housing and Rents of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia in order to generate the needed data from housing consumers in the province. Both research teams were working under time constraints which required that whatever data that could be generated would have to be a v a i l a b l e for analysis in the l a t t e r part of the summer. Thus, l i t t l e more than four weeks were a v a i l a b l e to design a questionnaire and sampling procedure; administer the survey; and code, keypunch and v e r i f y the questionnaires so that e d i t i n g and analysis of the data could be undertaken.^ While the l i m i t a t i o n s of a v a i l a b l e time were recognized,.it was decided that the need for current data outweighed the r i s k s involved in undertaking a major survey in such a short period of time.^ A further l i m i t a t i o n of the survey of d i r e c t concern for t h i s thesis i s the f a c t that i t was not s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to obtain data on the e f f e c t of our four factors on demand, but rather to obtain a global picture of the housing consumer in B r i t i s h Columbia. However, c e r t a i n parts of the data base were applicable and are incorporated in the chapters dealing with demographic forces, income, and c r e d i t conditions. 8 1.5 Presentation The thesis proceeds by examining each of the four f a c t o r s : to see how each operates on housing demand; to display evidence of t h i s operation in B r i t i s h Columbia through relevant data; and to present p o l i c y suggestions f o r each of the four f a c t o r s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Chapter 2 w i l l present an explanation of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the housing commodity and i t s market which lead to the v o l a t i l i t y of the demand component. Chapter 3 w i l l contain a review of previous l i t e r a t u r e , with Chapter 4 containing the methodology and administration of the consumer survey. Following t h i s 'stage s e t t i n g 1 , Chapters 5 through 8 w i l l contain the analysis of the operation of the four demand components. In addition to the conclusion contained in Chapter 9, th i s thesis includes as an appendix a copy of the questionnaire used and further tabulation of the r e s u l t s . 9 FOOTNOTES F.G. Pennance, "Background to the Housing Research Project," Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975, p. 5 (Draft Only). 'Ibid., p. 5. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing Statistics, 1974 (Ottawa: CM.H.C, March 1975), p. 20. *Ibid., p. 19. Wallace F. Smith, Aspects of Housing Demand - Absorption, Demolition and Differentiation (Berkeley: The Regents of the University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1966), p. 1. For example, between 1971 and 1974 the vacancy rate in p r i v a t e l y i n i t i a t e d apartment structures of si x units and over dropped dramatically in Vancouver - in June 1971 i t was.4.1% while in June 1974 i t was 0.3% and i n December 1974 i t was 0.1%. See Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing Statistics, 1974 (Ottawa: CM.H.C, March 1975), Table 21, p. 20. The average sale price of multiple l i s t i n g s in Greater Vancouver ( p r i m a r i l y single detached houses and condominiums) increased from $26,471 i n 1971 to $57,242 in June of 1974. See Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Multiple Listing Service Statistics (Vancouver, 1975). See also Mike Grenby, "House Prices Rose $5 Hourly," The Vancouver Sun, May 22, 1974, p. 38. S t a t i s t i c s Canada had administered a s i m i l a r , but s l i g h t l y longer questionnaire in lat e 1974 for the CM.H.C As the sample siz e was considerably larger, i t was not anticipated that the i n i t i a l tabula-tions would be av a i l a b l e p r i o r to ea r l y 1976. The CM.H.C survey was administered in every metropolitan centre in Canada. 10 In retrospect, the need f o r current data may not have out-weighed the problems which were created by the time co n s t r a i n t s . It was necessary f o r the f i e l d consultant to hire additional s t a f f to handle the assignment during one of t h e i r busiest periods of the year. The r e s u l t i n g i n e f f i c i e n c i e s necessitated a major e d i t i n g task before the data could be analyzed. C h a p t e r 2 MARKET AND COMMODITY As demand v o l a t i l i t y in the housing market i s the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f or t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t i s l o g i c a l to begin with an explanation of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of housing which determine t h i s v o l a t i l i t y . C l a s s i c a l economic theory i s based on the 'perfect' market model, composed of many buyers and s e l l e r s , equipped with perfect informa-tion and dealing in a homogeneous commodity. The model maintains an equilibrium position through rapid adjustment of the supply, demand and price v a r i a b l e s , governed by the basic equation of price = f (supply, demand). That the housing market i s imperfect i s hardly a s t a r t l i n g r e v e l a t i o n i t s e l f , however, i t i s through the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which cause the imperfections that the dominant position of the demand variable a r i s e s . The commodity consumed in the housing market i s the flow of services derived from the dwelling unit. This i s a standard c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of consumer durables which adds immediate complexity when one attempts to e x p l i c i t l y define the service. Naturally shelter forms the core of the se r v i c e , but thereafter a myriad of a n c i l l a r y functions are present: l o c a t i o n , privacy, prestige, amenities, etc. As the service of 'location' 11 12 suggests, housing, f o r a l l intents and purposes i s immobile. With an immobile commodity, the market in which i t i s traded i s necessarily l o c a l , with no f a c i l i t y to compensate for an excess demand in one area with an excess supply from another area. In addition, both the s p e c i f i c commodity and the s p e c i f i c market, experience a unique v u l n e r a b i l i t y to the e f f e c t of e x t e r n a l i t i e s , with the t r a d i t i o n a l examples being the glue factory and the c l o s i n g of a loc a l source of employment. A further e f f e c t of immobility i s encountered when one attempts to compare dwelling units and t h e i r transaction p r i c e s . By d e f i n i t i o n each parcel of real estate ( i . e . structure and land) i s unique, hence the market deals in a heterogeneous commodity. It necess a r i l y follows that the establishment of a market price in l i n e with c l a s s i c a l economic theory i s v i r t u a l l y impossible, since the homogeneity assumption i s v i o l a t e d . The second major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of housing i s i t s d u r a b i l i t y . Once constructed, housing w i l l continue to generate i t s flow of services u n t i l the structure collapses (as a r e s u l t of decay or demolition). Thus, the housing market i s composed of a supply b u i l t up through many periods of time, rather than a supply that i s generated and consumed in one period. In the economic theory of housing, this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c establishes a c r u c i a l difference between housing and other economic markets as i t reverses the emphasis of the supply variable from the flow component to the stock. Within the r e a l i t y of the Canadian economy, the maximum produc-tion of housing per year ( i . e . the flow) i s generally agreed to be approxi-mately 3 to 4 percent of the accumulated supply ( i . e . the stock). This 13 means that the supply side of the housing equation i s v i r t u a l l y f i xed or i n e l a s t i c . To accentuate this condition, the provision of new units requires a r e l a t i v e l y lengthy period of planning and construction before the units are ready to provide t h e i r services. Thus, the flow of new units cannot respond r a p i d l y to movement of the demand v a r i a b l e , and demand pressure must be absorbed by the stock. As a r e s u l t of the long l i f e of the services offered by housing, the f i n a n c i a l commitment i s large r e l a t i v e to other commodities and the market involvement i s sporadic. Hence, the majority of the buyers and s e l l e r s lack experience and understanding of the market operation and are slow to respond to market trends in contrast to the r a p i d i t y of the 'perfect' market model. In add i t i o n , the size of the f i n a n c i a l outlay makes the decision to purchase extremely s e n s i t i v e to both the consumer's current economic s i t u a t i o n and his future expectations. As f a r as the requirement of perfect information i s concerned, the housing market has many shortcomings. In addition to the ignorance inherent, in rare and sporadic market involvement, the vari e t y of terms and forms of financing make the determination of the actual market price extremely d i f f i c u l t . Although the real estate industry attempts to reduce t h i s lack of information through multiple l i s t i n g services and t h e i r role as surrogate buyers and s e l l e r s , the market remains quite d i s t a n t from the c l a s s i c a l requirements. The p r i n c i p l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which establishes the d i s t i n c t i o n between housing and other economic markets i s i t s d u r a b i l i t y . As was mentioned previously, the d u r a b i l i t y of structures creates a s i t u a t i o n 14 where the stock of housing completely swamps the e f f e c t of the flow of new units. Thus, the supply variable on which the market price i s estab-l i s h e d i s the total c o l l e c t i o n of housing structures s t i l l standing. In essence, the paucity of the flow component and the time necessary to bring new units on-stream, dictates that the supply variable i s fixed or i n e l a s t i c . This f a c t establishes two c r u c i a l points: (1) that the market price i s established by the standing stock rather than the flow; and (2) that movement in the price leve l i s almost e n t i r e l y accounted f o r by the movement of the demand curve. This s i t u a t i o n is depicted g r a p h i c a l l y in Figure 2.1. $ P i Average Price Per Unit A v a i l a b l e S u p p l y , in 100,000's o f U n i t s Figure 2.1. Basic supply-demand r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the housing market. It i s important to note that although the supply of units i s i n f l e x i b l e i n the short run, the supply of service does e x h i b i t some f l e x i b i l i t y through changes in the i n t e n s i t y of use. Rapid demand f l u c -tuation r e s u l t s in absorption of e x i s t i n g vacancies, doubling up of house-holds, the creation of suites through conversions and an increase i n the market price level (Figure 2.2). 15 Average Price Per Unit A v a i l a b l e Supp l y , in 100 ,000 ' s o f U n i t s Figure 2.2. Demand s h i f t and price leve l In addition to d i c t a t i n g who sh a l l secure housing, the price level serves the v i t a l function of relaying signals to the production sector of the housing industry. This process i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 2.3. As price takers, developers assess t h e i r potential through a process of subtraction of the cost of labour, materials, financing, overhead, land and p r o f i t from the given market price. Under normal conditions, the cost of everything except land and p r o f i t i s considered f i x e d . Thus, the bidding process f o r land i s pictured as absorbing the residual and d i c t a t i n g the p r o f i t . If the p r o f i t i s considered s u f f i c i e n t a f t e r a l l the costs have been subtracted from the market p r i c e , the developer w i l l proceed. It i s at this point that the length of time involved with housing construction i n j e c t s an additional element of r i s k into the c a l c u l a t i o n s . With lengthy periods of time, the various costs and even the market price can change, and healthy p r o f i t s can quickly be eroded. This f a c t has i n s t i l l e d the 16 MATERIALS FINANCING OVERHEAD LAND Quantity (units = 10,000's) Quantity (units = 100's) Source: David Baxter, Speculation in Land, Urban Land Economics, Report no. 7, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, p. 5. Figure 2.3. Stock and Flow Model of the Housing Market. 17 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of caution into the housing industry, adding furt h e r to the i n e l a s t i c i t y of the supply. 2.1 Summary This chapter has explained the fundamental aspects of the housing market's operation. Of central concern to t h i s thesis i s the character-i s t i c of d u r a b i l i t y which establishes the housing market's i n e l a s t i c supply, and hence the dominance of the demand variable i n the establishment of market p r i c e . It i s the e f f e c t of the four major components (demographic forces, income, pr i c e and c r e d i t conditions) of t h i s v o l a t i l e variable which i s the central focus of t h i s t h e s i s . C h a p t e r 3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERATURE This chapter.will serve to b r i e f l y o u t l i n e the approach and r e s u l t s of previous research conducted on the demand side of the housing market. This review i s intended to provide the reader with a comparative basis for assessing the d i r e c t i o n , scope and methodology of the analysis presented in t h i s t h e s i s . Although the number of studies of t h i s subject i s l a r g e , t h e majority of the research e f f o r t has been channeled into f i v e s p e c i f i c areas: mobility; journey to work; consumer preference for the p a r t i c u l a r u n i t ; price e l a s t i c i t y ; and income e l a s t i c i t y . As the l a s t two subject areas are of integral importance to our study of the price and income components of housing demand, the review of t h e i r l i t e r a t u r e w i l l be reserved for the appropriate chapters. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review w i l l concentrate on what are considered to be the three leading survey-based studies, with reference to associated studies f o r the interested reader. In 1955, Peter H. Rossi published his study of the urban housing consumer e n t i t l e d , Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mobility. The source of the data was a personal 18 19 interview survey administered to 924 f a m i l i e s l i v i n g in selected areas of Philadelphia. In essence, Rossi was amalgamating the aims of previous r e s i d e n t i a l mobility studies (such as those conducted by Green (1934)J Branch (1942),2 Tableman (1948),3 and Caplow (1949)4) and applying "modern social research methods." Rossi was s u f f i c i e n t l y concerned with the methodology of these new research methods to state that one of his primary aims was to provide an example of t h e i r use in the area of housing consumer study. As the t i t l e of the work ind i c a t e s , the central focus was r e s i d e n t i a l mobility, which Rossi examined on three l e v e l s : area - to es t a b l i s h the di s t i n g u i s h i n g features of mobile areas; household - to pinpoint the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e between stable and mobile f a m i l i e s ; and the individual decision to move - which features a t t r a c t , and which features r e p e l . To check the r e a l i t y of the intention to move discovered in the i n i t i a l interview, a further interview was conducted some eight months l a t e r . There were four areas of Philadelphia selected f o r study, based on an index of mobility and socio-economic status obtained from Census s t a t i s t i c s . The ultimate selections were made to obtain two high mobility and two low mobility areas, with each two characterized by contrasting ( i . e . high and low) socio-economic status. This method of se l e c t i o n was used to remove the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p of the socio-economic element. The p r i n c i p l e f i n d i n g of these area comparisons was that although the more mobile areas were characterized by large proportions of c h i l d l e s s f a m i l i e s and single person households, these segments of the population were not 20 the most mobile elements. The greatest mobility was found in f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . This f i n d i n g was expanded upon in the household level with the incidence of mobility displaying a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p to c e r t a i n stages of the l i f e c y cle. The survey established two indices: M o b i l i t y Potential -family c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which predispose them to be mobile; and a Complaints index - e s t a b l i s h i n g objections of the respondents to t h e i r dwelling unit and neighbourhood. It was found that expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and the position of the family in the l i f e cycle were "extremely good predictors of a household's current desire f o r moving."^ With regard to mobility of households, the survey r e s u l t s established that: large f a m i l i e s were more mobile than small; young f a m i l i e s were more mobile than old ; renters were more mobile than owners; and renters who preferred to own most mobile of a l l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of complaints to mobility was the strongest f o r complaints concerning space within the dwelling unit, neighbourhood and costs; with complaints concerning the journey to work and the distance from friends only s l i g h t l y r e l a t e d to m o b i l i t y . At the t h i r d level of study, Rossi was concerned with the answers to two questions: Why did the family leave t h e i r former home? and Why did they s e l e c t t h e i r present home? His findings established that com-pl a i n t s concerning the lack of space, the q u a l i t y of the neighbourhood and the cost of rent or maintenance were instrumental in promoting mobi l i t y . For the s e l e c t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r dwelling unit, the sampled population placed 'space' at the top of the l i s t of things required, followed by design, l o c a t i o n , and cost. However, at the point of the actual d e c i s i o n , 'cost' was the major consideration, followed by space, location and neighbourhood. 21 Although Rossi's findings s u f f e r from the selectiveness of the sample ( i . e . the r e s u l t s must form generalizations about consumers in the selected mobility and socio-economic grouping rather than a more general universe of housing consumers), they do e s t a b l i s h considerable precedence for the study of the urban housing consumer. S p e c i f i c a l l y , his assessment of mobility as a mechanism by which a family's housing is brought into adjustment to i t s housing needs, as determined by s h i f t s i n family compo-s i t i o n has been substantiated by numerous additional studies (see Greenbie (1968), 7 Butler (1969), 8 and Menchik (1971) 9). In 1960, Housing Choices and Housing Constraints by Foote, Winnick, Abu-Lughod and Foley presented a lengthy t r e a t i s e on the American housing "problem." The problem per se, was expressed by Louis Winnick as being the f a c t that by "comparative standards, a large proportion of American f a m i l i e s occupy inadequate housing and w i l l continue to do so as long as e x i s t i n g conditions p r e v a i l . " ^ In the f i r s t section of the study, e n t i t l e d , Economic Constraints, Winnick analyzed the expenditure on housing by the American consumer. Winnick's premise was founded on his b e l i e f in the ' f i l t e r i n g ' process as an avenue of solution to discrepancies in quantity and q u a l i t y at the lower ends of the income scale. To f a c i l i t a t e betterment through t h i s process, consumption must be a c t i v e at the upper and middle income l e v e l s . Drawing from data of the.1950 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, compiled by the Bureau of Labor S t a t i s t i c s from over 12,000 urban f a m i l i e s , Winiick displays that a dwindling proportion of consumer expenditure has been devoted to housing. The study analyzed housing expenditures by place of residence (both geographical areas and city/suburb comparison); by family 22 s i z e ; l i f e c y c l e ; age of head; type of family; race; occupation and education; and tenure. Winnick acknowledges Rossi's work through his l i f e c y cle analysis of consumer behaviour r e f l e c t i n g changing family needs, and thus changing patterns of consumption. With his strong b e l i e f i n the f i l t e r i n g process, his solution to the problem was to stimulate the upper income l e v e l s through government actio n , and by increasing t h e i r consump-tion of housing, passing on the benefits to the lower echelons. The Consumer Strategies section by Janet Abu-Lughod and Mary Mix Foley, presented an in-depth analysis of the behavioural aspects of housing consumers based on previous research reports. The authors con-centrated on consumer mobility, preference and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Once again l i f e cycle analysis of changing needs occupies the central thrust of the mobility argument. In addition, the importance of neighbourhood charac-t e r i s t i c s and the preference of suburban versus central l o c a t i o n are noted in the area of preferred a t t r i b u t e s . In the f i n a l stage of actual choice, the elements of cost and the st r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s p e c i f i c dwelling unit were considered to be of paramount importance. The analysis of the dwelling unit e f f e c t i s presented in extreme d e t a i l , even to the point of considering laundry and bathroom equipment. The r e s u l t s of a survey conducted by Abu-Lughod are included as an appendix to the study. The survey attempted to determine why people of s u f f i c i e n t economic a b i l i t y to move to the suburbs chose to reside in the urban centre. A sample of 297 households was taken from large luxury apartments in New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. The central f i n d i n g of the survey was that a large percentage of the respondents had migrated from the suburbs for the convenience of the location with regard to work and l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t i e s . The p o s i t i v e nature of these findings in 23 the context of demand for central urban lo c a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t when weighed against the pessimistic opinion held at the time with regard to the future of North American c i t i e s (see Jacobs (196 1 ) ^ ) . Nelson Foote's concluding section on Consumers as Actors, uses the previous two sections as his basis f o r a unique observation of the 12 housing consumer within, as he terms i t , a "wider s o c i a l context." Foote's remarks are based on the i n f l e x i b i l i t y of present r e s i d e n t i a l structure and the acknowledgement of the need for structural f l e x i b i l i t y presented by household change during the l i f e c y c l e . Through the concept of modular construction, Foote envisages the dwelling unit as a chameleon-like object to be a l t e r e d as the needs of the household are a l t e r e d . The premier behavioural work incorporating interview-questionnaire r e s u l t s was conducted by J.B. Lansing in 1966. 1 3 His study of r e s i d e n t i a l l ocation and urban mobility represented the completion of research begun in 1963, when 824 interviews were taken of f a m i l i e s l i v i n g in private 14 dwellings in metropolitan areas of the United States. In this concluding study, Lansing added 740 more interviews from 32 metropolitan s t a t i s t i c a l areas, using an enlarged and more refined questionnaire than the previous study. Lansing divided his objectives into f i v e areas of concern: r e s i d e n t i a l density; locational preference; factors in choosing a home; vacation homes; and the journey to work. In the area of r e s i d e n t i a l density, Lansing found that in the choice between single and multiple family housing, 85% of the sample pre-ferred the si n g l e family home. In addition, the proportion who occupied sin g l e family homes rose with income and the general evidence pointed to continued increases in the overall proportion of si n g l e to multiple dwellings. As another variable of density, the l o t si z e was studied. 24 The observed preference was with a l o t s i z e larger than the median of the sampled population and the r e s u l t s provided evidence that the l o t s i z e rose with income. With regard to lo c a t i o n a l preferences, the surveyed population overwhelmingly preferred locations well out from the centre of the metro-politan area; c i t i n g noise, crowding and confusion as the r e p e l l i n g f a c tors and the desire f or space and recreational a c t i v i t i e s as the a t t r a c t i o n to more d i s t a n t l o c a t i o n s . The factors involved with housing choice were pri m a r i l y related to the need for space, centering on the f l o o r plan, the number of bedrooms and the si z e of the rooms. Lansing's analysis of the journey to work centres more on the journey i t s e l f with regard to choice of mode, time, cost and preference, 15 rather than as a determinant of r e s i d e n t i a l location (see Kain (1961) and Wolforth ( 1 9 6 5 ) ^ ) . His analysis does suggest that maximum distance to work i s not a factor in housing s e l e c t i o n , with 66% of the sampled population not even having a time l i m i t in mind p r i o r to t h e i r dwelling s e l e c t i o n . It is beyond the scope of t h i s thesis to review a l l of the works concerning the demand side of the housing market. The three works pre-sented here were selected as much for the precedence they established in housing consumer research as for t h e i r s t a t i s t i c a l f i n d i n g s . In addition to the studies referred to throughout the body of t h i s chapter, the interested reader i s directed to the more recent, 17 18 survey-backed, behavioural studies by Clark (1971), Moore (1972), Barrett (1973) and Ermuth (1974). Furthermore, the works by Lowry (1964), 2 1 Chapin (1965) 2 2 and Goldner (1968) 2 3 w i l l give the reader an 25 opportunity to view the question of housing demand and r e s i d e n t i a l loca-t i o n through the medium of model simulation. In addition to presenting the reader with a comparative frame-work from which to view t h i s t h e s i s , this review serves to e s t a b l i s h the gaps in our knowledge of housing demand in general, and s p e c i f i c a l l y the lack of research i n B r i t i s h Columbia. C l e a r l y , one of the underlying purposes of this thesis i s to present some recent material to help e s t a b l i s h a B r i t i s h Columbia picture of housing demand. 26 FOOTNOTES Howard W. Green, Movements of Families Within the Cleveland Metropolitan District, 1933 (Cleveland: Real Property Inventory of Metropolitan Cleveland, 1934). 2 M e l v i l l e C. Branch, J r . , Urban Planning and Public Opinion (Princeton, N.J.: The Princeton University Press, 1942). 3 Betty Tableman, Intra Community Migration in the Flint Metropolitan District (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1948). 4 Theodore Caplow, "Incidence and Direc t i o n of Residential Mobility in a Minneapolis Sample," Social Forces 27, no. 4 (May.1949). c Peter H. Rossi, Why Families Move (Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free Press, 1955), p. 3. 6Ibid., p. 7. ^Barrie B. Greenbie, New House or New Neighbourhood? A Survey of Priorities Among Home Owners in Madison, Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin: By the Author, 1968). 8 Edgar W. Butler et al., Moving Behavior and Residential Choice: A National Survey (Chapel H i l l , North Carolina: Highway Research Board, 1969). g Mark D. Menchik, Residential Environmental Preferences and Choice: Some Preliminary Empirical Results Relevant to Urban Form (Philadelphia: Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , 1971). 27 ^ N e l s o n Foote et al., Rousing Choices and Rousing Constraints (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960), p. x x i . ^ J a n e Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961). 12 Foote et. al., op. cit., p. xxiv. 1 3 . John B. Lansing, Residential Location and Urban Mobility: The Second Wave of Interviews (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1966). 14 John B. Lansing and Eva Mueller, Residential Location and Urban Mobility (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1964). 15 J.F. Kain, The Journey to Work as a Determinant of Residential Location (Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, 1961). 1 g John R. Wolforth, Residential Location and the Place of Work (Vancouver: Tantalus Research, 1965). ^ C . Clark and G.T. Jones, The Demand for Housing (London: Centre for Environmental Studies, 1971). 1 g E. G. Moore, Residential Mobility in the City, Resource Paper No. 13 (Washington: Association of American Geographers, 1972). 19 F. A. Barrett, Residential Search Behavior: A Study of Intra-urban Relocation in Toronto (Toronto: York University, 1973). 20 • . F. Ermuth, Residential Satisfaction and Urban Environmental Preferences (Toronto: York University, 1974). I.S. Lowry, A Model of Metropolis (Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, 1964). 22 F. Stuart Chapin J r . , "A Model for Simulating Residential Development," Journal of American Institute of Planners 31 (1965). 28 William Goldner, Projective Land Use Model (PLUM): A Model for the Spatial Allocation of Activities and Land Uses in a Metropolitan Region (Berkeley: Bay Area Transportation Study Commission, 1968). Chapter 4 SURVEY The majority of the data used in t h i s thesis was obtained from a survey of housing consumers i n B r i t i s h Columbia. This chapter w i l l provide both general and technical comments with respect to the prep-aration; administration; and the methodology of generating and analyzing the survey data. 4.1 The Survey: General 4.1.1 Purpose The purpose of the survey was to provide information about the current housing market i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. This informa-ti o n would be used to both update and augment the data provided by the 1971 Census of Canada. Hopefully, the survey would allow conclusions to be drawn about the e x i s t i n g stock of housing units and how those units are being used. Data would be generated about the s i z e and type of households consuming p a r t i c u l a r sizes and types of housing units. Furthermore, data on household income, wealth and housing expenditure would be generated. In addition, numerous peripheral questions directed towards respondents would provide helpful information on consumer preferences, opinion and 29 30 mobi l i t y . In essence, the survey would present an up-to-date picture of housing consumers in B r i t i s h Columbia. 4.1.2 Coverage C l e a r l y , both time and cost constraints preclude the administra-tion of a survey to every household in the province, or even a large proportion of households in the province. Thus, i t was necessary to devise a sampling procedure that would generate enough useful information within a l i m i t e d budget. This placed the two study teams in a p o s i t i o n of having to make a trade-off between the siz e of the.sample and the physical length of the questionnaire. D e f i n i t e l y , there was a c e r t a i n minimum sample s i z e that would be required to make any in-depth analysis of the data possible, but at the same time the scope of the analysis would depend upon the amount of questions directed at each respondent. To compound the problem, the respective study teams f e l t that any data obtained should be gathered from all types of households in the province. When one placed- these desires in the context of the recognized time and cost contraints, the design of the sample and the survey appeared impossible. As a consequence, i t was deemed to be necessary to relax the prerequisite with respect to coverage. I n i t i a l l y i t was proposed that f i v e to seven communities be surveyed i n d i v i d u a l l y rather than sampling from the province as a whole. This was an obvious way to s t r a t i f y the study area in order to maximize the value of a r e l a t i v e l y small sample.^ However, i t l a t e r appeared that i t would be necessary to reduce the number of communities further, to ensure that the sample in each community was large enough to form an adequate basis f o r analysis of the data. 31 The choice of p a r t i c u l a r communities was further constrained by both groups involved in the survey. Each group was concurrently conducting research on other aspects of the housing market in p a r t i c u l a r communities throughout the province. Hence, i t was considered valuable to generate data from households l i v i n g in those centres in which other data was being obtained. This would mean that at the conclusion of the data c o l l e c t i o n a r e l a t i v e l y complete package of data would e x i s t f o r a few centres as opposed to an incomplete package for a larger number of centres. A dwelling unit was defined as a set of l i v i n g quarters which 1. i s s t r u c t u r a l l y s e p a r a t e , and 2. has a p r i v a t e e n t r a n c e o u t s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g o r f rom a common s t a i r w a y o r ha I I i n s i d e . The e n t r a n c e must be one wh ich can be used w i t h o u t p a s s i n g t h r o u g h anyone e l s e ' s l i v i n g q u a r t e r s . The only other l i m i t a t i o n placed on the coverage was that an interview was not to be c a r r i e d out i f the dwelling unit was a tent, boarding house, motel, hotel, dormatory or any kind of i n s t i t u t i o n (e.g. p student hostel, h o s p i t a l , e t c . ) . The next area of importance i s the nature of the information c o l l e c t e d . 4.1.3 C o l l e c t i o n of Information The questionnaire i s structured in the following manner. Section A deals with the composition of the household being interviewed. Section B deals with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the present dwelling unit of the house-hold. This i s a lengthy section which covers st r u c t u r a l type and 32 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the dwelling; tenure type; shelter expenditure by renters; the awareness of renters with respect to rent control regulations; and the preferences of renters with respect to home ownership. The section goes on to determine sh e l t e r expenditure f o r owner occupiers and preference with respect ot renting. Section B concludes with questions e l i c i t i n g information about expenditures by renters and owners on u t i l i t i e s , r e p a i r s , maintenance and improvements. Section C deals with m o b i l i t y . I f the household head had moved since June 1, 1971 the d e t a i l s of his move (or moves) were recorded; his reasons for moving; his reasons f o r choosing the current dwelling; and his search procedure. Household heads who had not moved since June 1, 1971 were not required to complete sections C, D or E. Section D deals with previous dwelling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s including type of structure; type of tenure; and approximate monthly rental or sale price and level of additional expenses. Section E deals with the household composition of the head's previous dwelling. Section F was to be completed by a l l respondents and deals with current household income and wealth. The respondents were asked to com-plete quite de t a i l e d income information. The purpose of doing so was prim a r i l y to ensure accuracy by the respondent, as i t was f e l t that going through every source of income f o r every member of the household would provide a more accurate fi g u r e than i f the household head was simply asked to approximate a range of household income. While the d e t a i l e d data are a v a i l a b l e , f o r the purposes of th i s analysis they were aggregated. With respect to household wealth, respondents were asked to review household 33 assets and l i a b i l i t i e s and approximate a range in which household wealth would f a l l . Section G was completed by only those respondents who had moved since June 1, 1971 and deals with previous income and wealth. Respondents were asked to approximate the range in which t h e i r previous household income f e l l and a s i m i l a r range for t h e i r previous household wealth. This section completed the survey. No respondnet would have completed every section of the question-naire, as the type of tenure or mobility of the respondent would have determined which sections were completed f u l l y and which were ignored. The questionnaire i t s e l f composes Appendix A to t h i s t h e s i s . The survey was intended to be i s o l a t e d ; that i s , undertaken only once to generate data for current housing market research. The survey was administered by Regional Marketing Surveys Ltd. of Vancouver. Personal interviews with the household for the purpose of the survey took place at the respondent's place of residence during the month of July, 1975. Completed questionnaires were edited and coded p e r i o d i c a l l y during the l a t t e r part of July and then keypunched. The keypunched data was transferred to magnetic tape and provided to the study team in August, 1975. The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the Social Sciences (SPSS) was the 3 vehicle for the analysis of the data. However, considerable e d i t i n g was required before any s t a t i s t i c a l analysis could be undertaken. F i r s t , interviewing, coding and keypunching errors had to be tracked down and 4 corrected. Second, some new variables had to be generated from the data 34 contained in the o r i g i n a l tape. For example, the household composition data contained in section A had to be reworked to generate the va r i a b l e s : number of people in the household; number of f a m i l i e s ; number of people in each family; type of family; and number of non-family occupants. 5 This new information was added to a s p e c i f i c data card. In many cases generation of the new variables required physical examination of the individual questionnaires. Despite the technical problems involved i n generating the data, the r e s u l t s of the survey appear accurate-iand f u l f i l l the purpose f o r which the survey was intended. Before proceeding with the technical aspects of the survey, the groups responsible f o r the survey should be described. The survey was undertaken j o i n t l y by the Interdepartmental Study Team on Housing and Rents of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Housing Study Team of the Urban Land Economics Di v i s i o n of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration at The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The questionnaire was designed j o i n t l y by the groups and a mutually acceptable sample design was constituted in cooperation with a consultant, Regional Marketing Surveys Ltd. and t h e i r a f f i l i a t e , Canada Facts Co. Ltd. The Interdepart-mental Study Team on Housing and Rents hired the consultant, Regional Marketing Surveys Ltd. to undertake the fieldwork re l a t e d to the survey and the i n i t i a l coding and e d i t i n g of the data. The U.B.C. group, i n turn, undertook f i n a l e d i t i n g of the data and the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the data. As w e l l , the U.B.C. group worked c l o s e l y with the consultant during the administration of the survey. 35 The data generated was intended to be used by the Interdepartmental Study Team as an aid in the preparation of p o l i c y recommendations related to housing for the Cabinet of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia in f a l l 1975. The U.B.C. group intended to use the data to aid in the analysis of the housing market for t h e i r study for the Real Estate I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia. 4.2 The Survey: Technical 4.2.1 The Frame The frame i s defined to be the l i s t i n g of a l l the items from which the sample i s drawn. In t h i s case the frame a v a i l a b l e f or use in t h i s study was the 1971 Census of Canada population counts of households for each of: 1. t h e G r e a t e r Vancouve r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t 2 . t h e P r i n c e George Census A g g l o m e r a t i o n 3 . t h e C i t y o f C r a n b r o o k It should be noted that the 1971 census figures are no longer accurate but the census data i s the only viable source f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a sampling framework for this type of survey.^ The sample design was undertaken by Canada Facts Co. Ltd., an a f f i l i a t e of Regional Marketing Surveys Ltd. The frame was s t r a t i f i e d i n : a geographic and economic sense. A tape was constructed for the urban parts of each geographic zone. In each urbanized area on each tape the census t r a c t s were ordered from highest average income to lowest average 36 income and within each census t r a c t the enumeration areas were ordered according to t h e i r designated number. The type of geographic s t r a t i f i c a t i o n depended on the size of the c i t y or town involved. Whether or not economic s t r a t i f i c a t i o n took place depended on whether or not census t r a c t s e x i s t , since an average income i s published f or census t r a c t s only. Hence, in t h i s study, both geographic and economic ordering of the population frame only took place in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Geographic ordering of the data i s important because of the systematic random sampling approach which was used. Geographic ordering forces geographic dispersion on the selected sample. Ordering of the data by average income where census tr a c t s e x i s t , forces economic dispersion on the selected sample in the GVRD, where the sample proportion was low; s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the frame ensured a dispersed sample. Canadian Facts used the 1971 Census of Canada not in i t s pub-l i s h e d form, but transposed to physical tape l i s t i n g s of household counts in the following h i e r a r c h i c a l order: 1. C i ty/Town 2. Urban P a r t s 3 . Census T r a c t s (where t h e y e x i s t ) 4 . E numera t i on A rea s . The tapes were then used as the frame in the f i r s t stage of sample s e l e c t i o n . 37 4.2.2 F i r s t Stage of Sample Selection To s e l e c t a sample from the tapes that make up the frame by a systematic random process, i t was f i r s t necessary to ca l c u l a t e the s e l e c t i o n i n t e r v a l . The c a l c u l a t i o n i s : (Total Household Count According to the Tapes) _ y-Sample Size — Then a random s t a r t between 1 and was selected from a table of random numbers. If the random s t a r t was X, the X item or household i n the l i s t was duly noted by the enumeration area of residence. By adding the inter v a l J_ to the X item, the second item or household selected was again noted by the enumeration area of residence. Continuing t h i s process u n t i l the l i s t was exhausted, a l i s t of enumeration areas that form the f i r s t stage of s e l e c t i o n was achieved. At the second stage of sampling a set of blocks was selected. An emuneration area i s defined by S t a t i s t i c s Canada as a sp a t i a l unit canvassed by one census representative. It i s defined according to the following c r i t e r i a : (1) Population - an area may include as many as 300 households, depending on i t s l o c a t i o n ; (2) Number of farms (in rural areas) - an emuneration area always includes fewer than 100 farms; (3) Limits - an enumeration area being the building block of a l l s t a t i s t i c a l areas, never cuts across any area recognized by the census. Also, emunera-tion area boundaries are such that they may r e a d i l y be located by census representatives (e.g. s t r e e t s , roads, railways, r i v e r s , e t c . ) . 7 38 4.2.3 Second Stage of Sample Selection Each enumeration area selected was matched with a corresponding enumeration area map. This map contained a sequenced and monotonic numerical i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a l l blocks. (For the purposes of t h i s study, these were city/town blocks as generally understood.) Again, the table of random numbers was u t i l i z e d to s e l e c t a single block from a l l blocks in the enumeration area. A f t e r t h i s s e l e c t i o n was made for each enumera-tion area of Stage 1, the l i s t i n g of blocks for Stage 2 was complete. It i s at this point that production of a block diagram began forming the basis f or the t h i r d stage. 4.2.4 The Block Diagram and Third Stage of Sample Selection The block diagram was an 8 i x 11" sheet of paper containing: (!) The s p e c i f i c b l o c k t h a t t h e i n t e r v i e w e r was t o v i s i t as no ted by i t s s t r e e t b o u n d a r i e s and names. (2) The i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o wh ich h o u s e h o l d was t h e b e g i n n i n g h o u s e h o l d . (3) The p a t t e r n o f s k i p s between h o u s e h o l d s t h a t was t o be m a i n t a i n e d . (4) The number o f h o u s e h o l d s t h a t were t o be v i s i t e d o r t h e number o f c o m p l e t i o n s t h a t were e x p e c t e d f rom a v i s i t t o t h e b l o c k . ( In t h i s s t u d y , 5 c o m p l e t i o n s were r e q u i r e d f rom a b l o c k ) (5) Any s p e c i a l t i e s ' r e g a r d i n g i n t e r v i e w i n g . In t h i s s t u d y t h e r e were s p e c i a l r u l e s when a p a r t -ment d w e l i n g s were encountered,-. ' Since special rules were in e f f e c t (as requested by the Inter-departmental Study Team on Housing and Rents), they are here restated: 39 (a) A maximum o f two i n t e r v i e w s were t o be c o n d u c t e d i n any one a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e number o f o c c u p i e d u n i t s . (b) I n t e r v i e w s wh ich were i n i t i a l l y a s s i g n e d t o an a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g but n o t c o m p l e t e d due t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i tem a , were t o be r e a s s i g n e d t o a n o t h e r a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g on t h e same b l o c k i f p o s s i b l e . ( c ) The p a t t e r n o f s k i p s between h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n an a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g was t o be a d j u s t e d t o compen-s a t e f o r t h e number o f o c c u p i e d u n i t s . 4.2.5 The Fourth and Final Stage of Selection The f i n a l stage selected the respondent from the dwelling unit. The major c r i t e r i o n f o r choosing a respondent was that he be able to answer a l l the questions. Generally, i t was assumed that the household head, the person who contributed the largest amount of money for the operation of the household, would have been appropriate. In a non-family household, any individual who contributed to the rent or shared in owner-ship would have been appropriate. 4.3 Comments on the Sample Selection Procedure With respect to the sampling procedures, a number of points should be made. (1) The sample was selected from only three urban areas in the province; the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , the Prince George Census Agglomeration, and the C i t y of Cranbrook. To the extent that a metro-po l i t a n area, a major urban area and a c i t y were chosen, a case can be 40 made a f t e r the f a c t that population s t r a t a were formed by inspection. However, i t remains that other factors such as growth rate, average income and economic base should have been considered when determining the s t r a t a . Hence, the data generated by t h i s survey cannot be i n t e r -preted to accurately represent the province at large. The data f o r each urban area taken separately or weighted by population and pooled s t i l l only represent the three communities surveyed. With considerable caution inferences might be made about s i m i l a r communities but the r i s k s inherent in such a procedure must be recognized. In defence of the approach used, i t must be remembered that knowing a l o t about three communities from d i f f e r e n t geographic regions i n the province, and each of d i f f e r e n t size was considered more valuable than knowing very l i t t l e about the whole province. Moreover, other sources were generating up-to-date data with respect to the three urban areas surveyed. (2) This study dealt only with i n d i v i d u a l s at home at the time of the interview. Call back studies indicate that the portion of the households that can be contacted on one c a l l i s approximately 40%, thus i t must be recognized that the study opinions may not represent a majority of the households. This i s a potential source of bias. (3) For cost reasons, a c l u s t e r i n g process was used in the sample s e l e c t i o n . Once a random process had been used to choose a block, interviews on the block were clustered by a predetermined process. The p procedure i s cost e f f i c i e n t but may increase the variance of the r e s u l t s . 41 (4) The procedure used to determine the c l u s t e r i n g of dwelling units in multi-unit buildings was d i f f e r e n t from that used to determine the c l u s t e r i n g of single detached dwelling u n i t s . It would be impossible to gauge the e f f e c t or non-effect of the differences in the types of c l u s t e r i n g . For example, i f interviews in apartment blocks tended to be conducted on lower f l o o r s , the r e s u l t s would be biased against occupants who could a f f o r d the higher rents on the upper f l o o r s . In the opinion of the researchers, the constraints applied to the sampling procedure did not s e r i o u s l y impede the generation of data which i s representative of current housing markets in the three urban areas surveyed. C e r t a i n l y , one would not be precluded from drawing q u a l i t a t i v e conclusions from the data. 4.4 The Sample The basic sample consisted of 1675 interviews in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , the Prince George Census Agglomeration and the C i t y of Cranbrook. This sample was divided up in the following way. Table 4.1 The Basic Sample Number of Interviews Number of Households 1971 Census Sample as % of Population (Total Households) GVRD 925 329,505 0.28 Prince George CA. 472 12,710 3.71 Cranbrook 278 3,260 8.53 42 1971 census figures indicated that the l i k e l y proportion of renters in the Cranbrook sample would form a subgroup too small to provide any det a i l e d a n a l y s i s . Consequently, an over-sample of renters was taken in Cranbrook by interviewing an additional 94 renters. The data from the special Cranbrook sample (Cran 9) can be used f o r the analysis of renters, but cannot be aggregated with the basic sample of 278 interviews -unless the other tenure types are weighted accordingly. The prime determinant of the sample size in each urban area was the need to be ce r t a i n that f a i r l y extensive cross-tabulations could be undertaken with the data. It was f o r th i s reason that an additional tenant sample was taken in Cranbrook. Hence, there exists a s i g n i f i c a n t range in the sample as a proportion of the s t a t i s t i c a l population (the number of households as of the 1971 census). The proportion ranges from .28% in G.V.R.D. to 3.71% in the Prince George CA. and 8.53% in Cranbrook. Since there was no intention that the data be aggregated, weighting was not necessary in the basic sample. The only possible concern might be that the GVRD sample was too small but the costs of even a 1% sample would have been p r o h i b i t i v e . However, the GVRD sample seems adequate provided one does not wish to make de t a i l e d analysis of individual munici-p a l i t i e s within the metro area. 4.5 Comparison with Other Sources of Information It would be valuable to make some comparisons with other sources of data. Unfortunately, the only a v a i l a b l e source i s the 1971 census data which, as pointed out e a r l i e r in th i s paper, cannot be considered s t r i c t l y 43 comparable due to changing market conditions. On the other hand, i f a n t i c i -pated changes show up in the survey data, potential sources of bias could be discounted. It should be recognized that these comparisons are l i m i t e d in scope and d e t a i l by the publications of Census Canada. Thus, the com-parisons offered are b r i e f and, with two exceptions, they are given only f o r the G.V.R.D. The f i r s t table gives a comparison of the renter/owner tenure g s p l i t in the three communities studies. Table 4.2 Tenure G.V.R .D. ' Prince George Cranbrook Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey Owner 58% 61% 61.8% 63.1% 72.1% 75.9% Renter 42% 39% 38.2%' 36.9% 27.9% 24.1% The observed decline in renters and the consequent increase in owners was predictable, given the emphasis placed on home ownership by federal and provin c i a l governments and the p o l i c i e s constraining rental development (e.g. removal of ca p i t a l cost allowance and the introduction of rent c o n t r o l ) . ^ Table 4.3's comparison of structures displays the same evidence. 44 Table 4.3 Structure G.V.R.D. Prince George Census Survey Census Survey Single Detached Apartment 61.5% 34.3% 68.5% 25.2% 72.3% 16.6% 81 .3% 4.0% Table 4.4 shows the comparison of income r e s u l t s , with a pre-dictable increase i n the Survey observed incomes. Table 4.4 Household Income G.V.R .D. Census Survey Less than $1,000 2.89% 3.02% $1,000 - $2,999 11.60% 7.76% $3,000 - $4,999 10.80% 6.58% $5,000 - $6,999 11.80% 8.68% $7,000 - $9,999 21.10% 11.18% $10,000 - $14,999 25.00% 21.84% $15,000 - $19,999 9.69% 17.11% Greater than $20,000 6.96% 23.82% 45 The divergence between the survey's income responses and those offered by the 1971 Census i s considerable. However, when one takes into account the i n f l a t i o n experienced between the time periods, the s h i f t in income appears reasonable. Personal disposable income per capita f o r a l l Canadians, rose 42.3% between 1971 and 1974. 1 1 Thus, i t i s reasonable to assume that the i n f l a t i o n e f f e c t to 1975 f o r the G.V.R.D. was approximately 50% (given the additional year and the G.V.R.D.'s comparatively high p o s i t i o n in Canadian i n f l a t i o n a r y trends). To test this approximation, the income categories were raised 50% and the Survey's responses were regenerated into the new categories. The re s u l t s are displayed in Table 4.5, with the o r i g i n a l r e s u l t s . Table 4.5 Income I n f l a t i o n G.V R.D. Census G.V R.D. Less than $1,500 4 8% Less than $1,000 2 89% 3 02% $1,500 to $4,500 10 8% $1,000 to $2,999 11 60% "7 76% $4,501 to $7,500 12 4% $3,000 to $4,999 10 80% 6 58% $7,501 to $10,500 13 .6% $5,000 to $6,999 11 80% 8 68% $10,501 to $15,000 18 .1% $7,000 to $9,999 21 10% 11 .18% $15,001 to $22,500 . 24 .6% $10,000 to $14,999 25 00% • 21 84% $22,501 to $30,000 9 .3% $15,000 to$19,999 .. 9' 69% 17 .11% Greater than $30,000 6 .4% Greater than $20,000 6 96% 23 .82% 46 These r e s u l t s help to j u s t i f y the comparability of the sample, if one accepts the assumption of a 50% to t a l income i n f l a t i o n f o r the G.V.R.D. from 1971 to 1975. Table 4.6 and 4.7 o f f e r the f i n a l comparisons by age of house-hold head and by number of occupants per household. Table 4.6 Age of Head G.V.R.D. Census Survey Less than 25 years 5.894% 8.00% 25 to 34 years 22.000% 22.70% 35 to 44 years 22.940% 18.10% 45 to 54 years 21.000% 18.70% 55 to 64 years 15.540% 14.90% Greater than. 65.,years 12.580% 17.50% Table 4.7 Number of Occupants G.V.F ,.D. Census Survey One 18.96% 16.6% Two 29.32% 32.9% Three 16.00% 18.5% Four/Five 26.80% 26.3% Six/Nine 8.50% 5.7% Ten plus 0.29% 0.0% 47 4.6 Summary The v a l i d i t y of any survey-generated conclusions must ultimately r e s t on the 'purity' of the sampling technique and the methodology used. In addition, the comparisons offered in the previous section add further credance to the representative nature of the sample. Thus, there appears to be no reason to hesitate in applying the data to the analysis contained i n t h i s t h e s i s . 48 FOOTNOTES 'Technically the correct approach to s t r a t i f y i n g the communities within the province would have been to s t r a t i f y a l l communities within the province according to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each individual community such as s i z e , growth rate, average income, and economic base. Then a sample com-munity i s selected from each stratum and the sample r e s u l t s from each stratum can then be pooled to a r r i v e at an estimate for the whole. See Des Raj, The Design of Sample Surveys (New York: MacGraw-Hi11, 1972), pp. 22-24. See Question B3, option #8 of the Survey contained in Appendix A. N.H. Nie, D.H. Bent and C H . H u l l , Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), and see also Nie and Bent, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences: Update Manual (Chicago: N.O.R.C., University of Chicago, A p r i l 1971 and A p r i l 1972). ^Due to the complexity of the questionnaire and the speed at which the survey had to be undertaken, i t i s l i k e l y that the potential f or error at every stage of the survey was magnified. Hence, a lengthy process was required before the data was considered "clean" enough to subject i t to s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Since so many of the questions in the question-naire were i n t e r r e l a t e d (household composition data i s a good example), interviewer, coding and keypunching, errors were usually r e a d i l y apparent and e a s i l y corrected. Unfortunately such corrections required, i n v i r i t u a l l y every case, individual examination of the questionnaire or at l e a s t the data f i l e . See the Questionnaire, Appendix A. For example, in 1971 the population of the G.V.R.D. was 1,028,345. Projections by the Regional D i s t r i c t suggest a population of 1,169,923 in 1976. An increase of 13.77%. The increase in population, primarily taking place in the suburbs, would tend to bias any sample design based on 1971 census f i g u r e s . Assuming population growth i s taking place in the suburbs 49 and not in Vancouver C i t y , a sample based on 1971 census figures would be biased s l i g h t l y toward Vancouver C i t y . See Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Population Forecast (Vancouver: January 1973), p. 6. 7 S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Dictionary of 1971 Census Terms (12-540). (Ottawa: Information Canada), p. 49. o Des Raj, op. cit.3 pp. 24-25. The figures f o r Prince George and Cranbrook were taken from a d e t a i l e d analysis of .the 1971 census data, performed by Prof. David E. Baxter and Mr. Danial minder (Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975). For further analysis of th i s subject see Robert C. Levine, "The Economic Reasons f o r the Shortage of Residential Rental Accommodation in Greater Vancouver" (M.Sc. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974). See reference Table 11, Economic Review, April 1975 (Finance) (Ottawa: Information Canada), p. 112. Chapter 5 DEMOGRAPHIC FORCES This chapter discusses demographic forces as they a f f e c t the demand f o r housing by analyzing two areas of influence: those factors influencing household formation; and those factors influencing the s i z e of the population from which the households are formed. Increases i n eith e r area implies an increase i n the demand f o r housing.* Every Canadian, at some point i n his l i f e , must choose a l i v i n g arrangement to s u i t his p a r t i c u l a r needs at the time. He may l i v e alone, with a f r i e n d or f r i e n d s , with a spouse or with a spouse and c h i l d r e n . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the household,* the household income, mo b i l i t y , the ages of the household members and so on, a l l come together as factors determining the type of dwelling un i t , the form of tenure and the loc a t i o n 2 which i s appropriate f o r a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l , family, or combination thereof. In the aggregate, the desired l i v i n g arrangements of people are major determinants of housing demand from an economic point of view. *The assumption of new households having s u f f i c i e n t funds to express demand w i l l be c a r r i e d throughout t h i s chapter. 50 51 S h i f t s in l i v i n g arrangements of the population may be determined by any number of variab l e s , but one which w i l l be discussed at t h i s time i s demographic structure. Past research has used the concept of the family l i f e cycle or "normal l i f e c y c l e " as a framework for the study of demographic forces. While i t i s customary to use the concept of households in any analysis of housing markets, trends with respect to family formation must be observed in order to determine what kind of households are apt to be formed. Alder Speare constructed a cycle of six stages, each of which i s occupied in succession by a person passing through a "normal l i f e c y c l e . " They are: 1. Young U n m a r r i e d : 2 . J u s t M a r r i e d : 3 . Young M a r r i e d : M a r r i e d w i t h Schoo l Age Ch i I d r e r i : O l d e r M a r r i e d : 6. O l d e r U n m a r r i e d : aged under 45 and n e v e r m a r r i e d , w idowed, s e p a r a t e d o r d i v o r c e d . t h e y e a r o f m a r r i a g e . o l d e s t c h i l d under age 5, o r c h i l d l e s s ; and r e s p o n d e n t under age 4 5 . y o u n g e s t c h i l d 5 o r o l d e r , o I d e s t c h i l d under I 8. y o u n g e s t c h i l d o v e r 18, o r c h i l d i h e s s ; and r e s p o n d e n t age 45 o r o v e r . age 45 and o v e r , and neve r m a r r i e d , widowed, s e p a r a t e d o r d i v o r c e d . ^ These catagories were designed by Speare s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the analysis of data pertaining to r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . Nonetheless, they can also be used for general a p p l i c a t i o n as a set of stages that are each representative of c e r t a i n housing needs. Assuming that at each stage, the individual or 52 family has the resources to bid e f f e c t i v e l y in the marketplace, they w i l l demand housing appropriate to those needs. It should be noted that not a l l persons w i l l pass through t h i s "normal l i f e c y c l e " : some never marry, while others marry but never have children and s t i l l others have t h e i r marriage terminated by death, divorce or separation before t h e i r children reach maturity. The rate of growth of non-family households in metropolitan Vancouver was dramatic between 1961 and 1971. Table 5.1 Family and Non-Family Households: G.V.R.D. 1961-71 1961 % Increase 1966 % Increase 1971 Non-Family Households 40,484 48.5 60,155 38.1 83,130 Family Households 188,114 12.5 211,801 16.2 246,315 Source: Michele Lioy, Social Trends in Greater Vancouver, United Way of Greater Vancouver, 1975. While these figures may not indicate an increase i n the number of individuals who w i l l not progress through every stage in the l i f e cycle of the family, the data c e r t a i n l y indicate a burgeoning of the number of households in stages one and s i x . As previously stated, the manner in which an area divides i t s e l f into households i s one fa c t o r of housing demand. An exploration of trends i n past years may be helpful i n shedding l i g h t on the current 53 market s i t u a t i o n . The number of new f a m i l i e s being formed depends on h i s t o r i c changes in population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , b i r t h rates, death rates, marriage rates, divorce rates and so on. The number of f a m i l i e s at any p a r t i c u l a r time can be assumed to approximate a large portion of the house-holds. In addition, as can be seen from the figures i n Table 5.1, the proportion of non-family groups i s also s i g n i f i c a n t . Hence, an important f a c t o r i n the analysis of demographic forces (and thus housing demand) i s to observe trends i n family household formation, type of family household formation and also non-family household formation within the housed population. Such observations of the marketplace allow conclusions to be drawn, not only about the type of households being formed, but also about those family and non-family groups which have been successful i n converting t h e i r need to e f f e c t i v e demand, through the exercise of purchasing power. Tabulation 5.1 presents the surveyed population divided into f a m i l i e s with no c h i l d r e n , f a m i l i e s with ch i l d r e n and non-family house-5 holds, cross-tabulated by t h e i r tenure. In the short-run, the pressures of new family formation and the desire of unattached i n d i v i d u a l s to form households encounters the i n e l a s t i c i t y of housing supply, thus producing s i g n i f i c a n t p r i c e r i s e s . I f , at the same time, incomes are r i s i n g and c r e d i t conditions are favorable, these price r i s e s can be even more dramatic. R e s t r i c t i o n s on the number of a v a i l a b l e units and the existence of high prices may require that f a m i l i e s and/or i n d i v i d u a l s pool t h e i r resources in order to tr a n s l a t e t h e i r needs into e f f e c t i v e demand ( i . e . doubling-up: which i s akin to a reduction i n the number of households). N T E N COUNT I ROW PCT ] [CONDOM IN OWNER_OC RENTED LONG TRM LEASED ROW COL PCT 1 LEASE LAND TOTAL TOT PCT ] 1.00 [ 2.00] [ 3.00] 4. 00 [ 5.001 OEM 1.00 ! 5 1 270 ] 13 8 ] 0 [ 1 I 414 NO CHILDREN f 1.2 ] [ 65.2 [ 3 3.3 1 [ 0.0 [ 0. 2 I 24.7 [ 55.6 1 25.4 [ 23.0 [ 0 .0 [ 33.3 I [ 0.3 1 [ *6.1 [ 8.2 1 0. 0 [ 0.1 I 2.00 1 [ 2 1 692 [ 231 1 [ 1 I 2 I 928 F AM ANC CHILDREN I ' 0.2 [ 74.6 [ 24.9 ] [ 0. 1 [ 0.2 I 55.4 [ 22.2 [ 65.2 [ 38.5 [ 50 .0 I 66.7 I [ 0. L 1 [ 41.3 [ 13.8 [ 0.1 I 0.1 I 3.00 [. 2 1 [ 99 I 231 I 1 I 0 I 333 NON FAMILY I 0.6 [ 29.7 [ 69.4 [ 0 .3 I 0.0 I 19.9 [ 22.2 [ 9.3 I 38.5 [ 50.0 [ 0. 0 I [ 0. 1 1 [ 5.9 [ 13.8 I 0.1 I 0.0 I COLUMN 9 1061 600 2 3 1675 TOTAL 0.5 63. 3 35.8 0 . 1 0.2 100.0 Tabulation 5.1. Tenure of Selected Demographic Groups. 55 5.1 Family and Non-Family Patterns The family has continued to be the predominant form of l i v i n g arrangement f or Canadians. In recent years, marriage rates have been on the upswing, causing a marked increase in family household formation between 1966 and 1971, as opposed to the previous f i v e years. To a great-extent, t h i s f a c t r e f l e c t s the increase in the number of people of marriageable age — the children of post World War II marriages, r e f e r r e d to in many contemporary a r t i c l e s as the 'baby boom'.^ Demographers have likened the as s i m i l a t i o n of the baby boom "to the process by which a python digests a pig. As the pig moves along the snake's digestive t r a c t , i t makes a bulge, j u s t as the boom babies are causing a t r a v e l l i n g bulge in the economy and so c i a l l i f e of the country."^ In addition to t h i s surge i n fa m i l i e s that demographers have been able to predict f o r many years, the housing market i s facing an even greater r i s e i n the number of non-family households. As can be seen from the figures in Table 5.1, non-family formation i s increasing at a much fa s t e r pace than family formation, a f a c t which has led housing analysts to emphasize even more the need f or a free-flowing productive market. The reason for th i s increase in non-family formation i s con-siderably more complex than a f a c t o r of age in the population. In essence, i t has been caused by a major s h i f t in socia l a t t i t u d e s , placing much more emphasis on the period i n a person's l i f e cycle between his natural family and the creation of a new family unit. To t i e the emergence of t h i s 'independent' period to any one cause i s v i r t u a l l y impossible, and whether one leans to the new ro l e of women or Roszak's "counter culture" i s a matter of personal opinion. S u f f i c e i t to say, that a l l submarkets of housing 56 demand have been swelled by the new non-family households with fewer expenses ( i . e . dependents) and thus greater disposable income than the t r a d i t i o n a l family unit. It can also be suggested that as the a t t i t u d e of these non-family households i s not constrained by the need to provide secu-r i t y f o r dependents, they tend to be more aggressive in the marketplace and more investment oriented in t h e i r approach to housing consumption. A c l o s e r look at non-family households displays that an increased prevalence of one person households, backed by the prosperity of the 1960's and 1970's, has been a s i g n i f i c a n t contributor to the general increase in housing demand. A recent a r t i c l e by Robert M. Fisher and John W. Graham outlines the growth of the one person households in the United States: the number of one person households as a percentage of a l l households increased from 9.3% in 1950 to 17.6% in 1970; while the share of one person house-holds in t o t a l household growth amounted to 16% in the 1940's, 30% in the 1950's and 39% in the 1960's. The authors also add that in 1970, 11 m i l l i o n of the 52 m i l l i o n occupied dwellings were occupied by one person households, while the remaining 41 m i l l i o n dwellings were occupied by 192 m i l l i o n people. Canadian data support the American research in that the number of one person households as a percentage of the t o t a l number of households has increased, and that 29% of the new households formed in Greater Vancouver between 1960 and 1970 were one person households. From the accumulation of t h i s data, i t has become apparent that changing s o c i a l and economic factors have resulted in the rapid growth of a new household sector which has added pressure to an already d i f f i c u l t market s i t u a t i o n . A society which permits independence from the family 57 Table 5.2 Growth of One Person Households in Greater Vancouver 1961 Change 1961-66 1966 Change 1966-71 1971 A = No., of one person households 30,080 17,187 57% 47,267 18,408 39% 65,675 B = Total households 228,598 43,358 19% 271,956 74,259 27% 346,215 | x 100 13% 40% 17% 25% 19% Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Population and Bousing Characteristics by Census Tracts, Vancouver, Census of Canada, 1961, 1966, 1971. unit at an e a r l y age, accepts unmarried l i f e as a norm for many and demands independence and freedom f o r i t s e l d e r l y has given the impetus to this growing sector of housing demand. That the number of one person households has mushroomed should not be condemned, but t h e i r r o l e as disproportionate consumers of sh e l t e r space must be recognized in a market where dramatic q increases in demand are evident. These changes in the aggregate make-up of households have s i g -n i f i c a n t implications. If i t can be assumed that the increased prevalence of one person households has not been o f f s e t by a corresponding drop in the number of family households, then there has been increased competition f o r the e x i s t i n g housing units. Since by d e f i n i t i o n a household must occupy a dwelling unit, then (in many cases) one person households must have outbid family households f o r the e x i s t i n g dwelling u n i t s . The number of intended households has increased, thereby i n t e n s i f y i n g the bidding f o r 58 the e x i s t i n g dwelling units and the flow of new units. Without the expense that dependents necessarily e n t a i l , the one person household can apply a f a r greater percentage of his (or her) income to shelter cost. A further implication of increased non-family households (including one person households) arises from the f a c t that these house-holds are less consistent pa r t i c i p a n t s than family households. Non-family households of more than one person are potential sources of one person households and one person households can r e a d i l y s h i f t to some other household status. Louis Winnick noted as early as the 1950's that: The one-person household may possibly be the most volatile sector of housing demand shifting from headship to other household status more readily than other groups. That is, the 'doubling' and 'undoubling' of adult individuals may be charac-terized by wider cyclical swings than in the case for married couples or other types of families.H The young adult i s t o t a l l y f l e x i b l e in his a b i l i t y to 'double' or 'undouble 1, or i n f a c t to return to his family, depending primarily on his economic circumstances. E s s e n t i a l l y t h i s means that the e l a s t i c i t y of housing demand with respect to income may be considerably greater f o r the young sin g l e householder than for the established family household. 5.2 Survey Results The survey-generated data helps to elucidate the operation of demographic groups in the B r i t i s h Columbia housing market. The means offered i n Table 5.3 display one measurement of housing size f o r fam i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , f a m i l i e s without children and non-family households. 59 Table 5.3 Mean Room and Bedroom Figures Room Bedroom Families with Children 6.798 3.089 Families without Children 5.754 2.321 Non-family Households 4.330 1.700 Total Population 6.050 2.623 Although the mean size f a l l s i n favour of f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that one measurement of housing q u a l i t y , crowding ( i . e . number of occupants per room and bedroom), displays benefits in the opposite d i r e c t i o n . Table 5.4 Mean Number of Occupants Per Room and Bedroom Occupants/Room Occupants/Bedroom Families with Children 0.649 1.416 Families without Children 0.397 1.069 Non-family Households 0.355 0.859 Total Population 0.528 1.219 With respect to income and shelter/income r a t i o s , the non-family group of the sampled population, while displaying a lower mean income devoted more of t h e i r income to housing consumption. 60 Table 5.5 Mean Income and Shelter/Income Ratios Income Shelter/Income Ratios Families with Children $16,728,547 17.759% Families without Children $13,564,465 16.018% Non-Family Households $ 9,167.840 23.947% Total Population $14,468,848 18.534% The reader should be cautioned that the existence of consumer preference must be acknowledged when viewing the observed shelter/income figu r e s . That i s , one cannot be t o t a l l y sure that the figures represent the con-sumer's a b i l i t y in the market place rather than his preference f o r how he spends his money. 5.3 Net Migration The most overwhelming contributor to increased household forma-tion and housing demand in B r i t i s h Columbia i s net migration. As the cartoon i l l u s t r a t e s , i f the other factors are pictured as d r i b b l i n g taps then net migration adds i t s influence by the bucket f u l l . Net migration i s determined by the residual increase in population a f t e r natural increase (the number of births less the number of deaths) i s accounted f o r . Obviously, any net i n f l u x of people w i l l s h i f t the demand curve f o r housing upward. In B r i t i s h Columbia's case, the high opinion in which i t i s held f o r c l i m a t i c and amenity benefits has had the e f f e c t of a t t r a c t i n g large 61 62 numbers of migrants. These people come from other provinces as well as other countries to form two 'prongs' of migration a c t i v i t y . As long as B r i t i s h Columbia remains in this p o s i t i o n of high esteem, our man w i l l have no problem f i l l i n g his bucket and the aggregate demand f o r housing w i l l continue to r i s e . Total immigration ( i . e . migrants from outside Canada) has risen s t e a d i l y f o r the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Table 5.6 Immigration to B r i t i s h Columbia 1972 1973 1974 Number of People 20,107 27.949 34.481 % of Canadian Total 16.48% 15.17% 15.78% % Increase 39.00% 23.37% S o u r c e : Immigration Quarterly, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, ^ th q u a r t e r , 1973, 197^. Up-to-date information on migration from points within Canada is more d i f f i c u l t to obtain, thus one has to r e l y on the census s t a t i s t i c s of 1971. These show that movement from a l l other provinces to B r i t i s h Columbia t o t a l l e d 194,195 .with the movement of people away from the province t o t a l l i n g 74,160, giving a net increase of 120,035. Net migration ( i . e . migration from both inside and outside of Canada) has long been recognized as a major f a c t o r in the increased rates of household formation in Greater Vancouver. Net migration accounted f o r a staggering 76.5% of the growth in population in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t between 1966 and 1971. 63 Table 5.7 Migration to the G.V.R.D. Period Met Migration % of Population Increase 1951-56 57,608 55.8% 1956-61 72,052 57.6% 1961-66 63,054 61.6% 1966-71 103,592 76.5% Source: Population Forecast, G.V.R.D. Planning Department, Vancouver, B.C. January 1973. While these s t a t i s t i c s are i n t e r e s t i n g because net migration gives some in d i c a t i o n of additional housing requirements, a look at the age d i s -t r i b u t i o n of the 1966 to 1971 group i s even more h e l p f u l . Table 5.8 Age and Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n of Migrants to the G.V.R.D. 1966-71 Age % Male % Female % Total 0-9 16% 16% 16.0% 10-19 14% 15% 14.5% 20-29 33% 33% 33.0% 30-39 16% . 12% 14.0% 40-49 9% 6% 7.5% 50-59 5% 5% 5.0% 60-69 4% 7% 5.5% 70-79 1% 3% 2.0% 80 + 2% 3% 2.5% Source: Population Forecast, G.V.R.D. Planning Department, Vancouver, B.C., January 1973. 64 The greatest proportion of migrants to the G.V.R.D. during t h i s period was, and s t i l l i s , i n the household formation stage of t h e i r l i f e c y c l e . C l e a r l y , these in-migration factors have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the demand f o r housing i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 5.4 Summary and P o l i c y Implications In t h i s analysis of the demographic component, i t has been shown that B r i t i s h Columbia's housing market has experienced s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t from the two areas of influence: population s i z e and household formation. S p e c i f i c a l l y , in-migration and the increasing influence of non-family households have both led to i n t e n s i f i e d demand f o r housing. I n i t i a l l y , i t would appear as i f the basic r i g h t s of freedom of movement and freedom of choice would negate any attempts at p o l i c y with regard to t h i s component. However, i t i s possible to influence movement and l o c a t i o n i n d i r e c t l y through e i t h e r o f f e r i n g greater benefits in areas of low population or more stringent measures in areas of high population. This idea of "carrot or s t i c k " manipulation creates a number of questions, not the l e a s t of which i s the degree to which such p o l i c i e s could be used and s t i l l remain within the boundaries of democracy. In addition, the 'success' of such p o l i c y i s questionable, given the example of B r i t a i n ' s "new towns". There can be no doubt that these new towns have reached a s a t i s f a c t o r y le v e l of population, however, the amount of ' s t i c k ' used, and thus the loss to freedom of choice, makes the whole question of 'success' rather nebulous. E s s e n t i a l l y , what one must emphasize i s that governments remain 65 cognizant of the demographic influence and structure t h e i r p o l i c y accordingly. In essence, they should be aware that a large amount of increased housing demand i n c e r t a i n areas remains a given f a c t . Accordingly, market conditions w i l l r e f l e c t t h i s pressure and p o l i c i e s which stimulate demand w i l l increase the pressure. 66 FOOTNOTES 'Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing Statistics, 1974 (Ottawa: C.M.H.C., March 1975), p. 100, defines a house-hold as follows: "A h o u s e h o l d f o r cen su s p u r p o s e s , c o n s i s t s o f a pe r s on o r g roup o f pe r s on s o c c u p y i n g one d w e l l i n g . I t u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s o f a f a m i l y g r o u p , w i t h o r w i t h o u t l o d g e r s o r e m p l o y e e s . I t may c o n s i s t o f a g roup o f u n r e l a t e d p e r s o n s , o r two o r more f a m i l i e s s h a r i n g a d w e l l i n g , o r o f one pe r s on l i v i n g a l o n e . E ve r y pe r s on i s a member o f some h o u s e h o l d , and t h e number o f h o u s e h o l d s e q u a l s t h e number o f o c c u p i e d dweI I i n g s . A " n o n - f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d " i s one whose head i s no t t h e head o f a f a m i l y . A non -f a m i l y hou seho l d may c o n t a i n l o d g i n g f a m i l i e s . " 2 A census family corresponds to the 'nuclear family . It con-s i s t s of a husband and wife (with or without children who have never been married, regardless of age) or a parent with one or more chi l d r e n (never married), l i v i n g i n the same swelling. A family may also consist of a man or woman l i v i n g with a guardianship c h i l d or ward under 21 years, for whom no pay was received. Persons not in fami l i e s or "non-family persons" r e f e r to those l i v i n g alone; those l i v i n g with unrelated i n d i v i d u a l s and those l i v i n g with r e l a -t i v e s but not i n a husband-wife or parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p . S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Census Tract Bulletin, 1971 Census, Population and Housing Characteristics: Vancouver (Ottawa: August 1974). JSee Paul C. Glic k and Robert Parre J r . , "New Approaches i n Studying the L i f e Cycle of the Family," demography, February 1965, pp. 187-202 and Alden Speare J r . , "Home Ownership, L i f e Cycle State, and Residential M o b i l i t y , " Demography, November 1970, pp. 449-458 ; In the context of the housing consumer see Nelson Foote et al., Housing Choices and Housing Constraints (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), Chapter 5. Speare, op. cit., p. 452. 67 This footnote w i l l serve as a general example of how to read the cross-tabulation r e s u l t s appearing in t h i s report. NT EN COUNT ROW PCT C O L PCT T O T P C T DEM NO 1 . 0 0 C H I L D R E N 2 . 00 F AM AN C C H I L D R E N NON 3 . 0 0 F A M I L Y COLUMN T O T A L :CONDOM IN OWNER_OC R ENT f:D LONG TRM L E A S E D L E A S E L A N D 1 . 0 0 ] 2 . 0 0 1 3 . 0 0 ] 4 . 00] [ 5 . 0 0 5 I 2 7 0 I 13 8 ] 0 [ 1 [ 1 . 2 1 6 5 . 2 I 3 3 „ 3 ] [ 0 . 0 ] 0 . 2 r 5 5 . 6 I 2 5 . 4 I 2 3 . 0 ] 0 . 0 t 3 3 . 3 [ 0 . 3 1 1 6 . 1 I 8 . 2 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 2 I •A 6 92 I 231 1 1 ] I 2 [ 0 . 2 I A B 7 4 . 6 I 2 4 . 9 I 0 . 1 ] 0 . 2 2 2 . 2 A AC65.2 I 3 8 . 5 1 5 0 . 0 ] [ 6 6 . 7 0 . 1 /A / D 4 1 . 3 I 1 3 . 8 I 0 . 1 ] 0 . 1 99 I 2 3 i I 1 1 0 O . J / 1 2 9 . 7 1 6 9 . 4 I 0 . 3 1 0 . 0 2 2 / 2 I 9 . 3 I 3 8 . 5 I 5 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 df.i I 5 . 9 I 1 3 . 8 I 0 . 1 I 0 . 0 1 0 6 1 6 3 . 3 6 0 0 3 5 . 8 2 0 . I 3 0 . 2 Count: 692 of the 1675 respondents were fa m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n having owner occupier tendency. Row PCT: 74.6% of the fa m i l i e s with children were owner occupiers. Col PCT: 65.2% of the owner occupiers were fa m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n . Tot PCT: 41.3% of the sample were f a m i l i e s with children having owner occupier tendency. 68 Warren E. Kalbach and Wayne W. McVey, The Demographic Bases of Canadian Society (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1971), p. 304. 7Those Missing Babies," Time Magazine, 16 September 1974, p. 51. p Robert Moore Fisher and John W. Graham, "Housing Demand in One-Person Households," Land Economics, v o l . L, No. 2 (May 1974). 9 David Dale-Johnson, "Housing P o l i c y , Tenure Choice and the Demand f o r Housing in Greater Vancouver" (M.Sc. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975), pp. 116-117. ]0Ibid., p. 117. ^ L o u i s Winnick, American Housing and its Use, the Demand for Shelter Space (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957), p. 86, c i t e d by Fisher and Graham, op. cit., p. 166. Chapter 6 INCOME Housing i s an economic good and income represents the a b i l i t y of people to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the market; the a b i l i t y to tra n s l a t e t h e i r desires into e f f e c t i v e demand. In addition, the r e l a t i v e s i z e of a consumer's income dictates the s i z e and q u a l i t y of housing f o r which he i s able to bid. Rising incomes r e s u l t i n more people having basic market a b i l i t y i n the short-run. That i s , more people can a f f o r d the downpayment and monthly payment required to purchase a home or the monthly payment required to rent a dwelling unit. At the same time, the increased income w i l l allow those already i n the market to increase the qu a l i t y of the housing services they are consuming. They may do t h i s by e i t h e r undoubling ( i . e . moving from shared accommodation) or by moving into a more expensive dwelling un i t , as much as the market permits ( i . e . a v a i l a b l e units) Thus, one observes in the short-run both enlargement of the aggregate number of pa r t i c i p a n t s i n the market and also s h i f t s within the market to higher q u a l i t y housing when incomes r i s e . While decreases in income 69 70 appear rather farfetched at t h i s point in time, in theory they would have the opposite e f f e c t , causing a decrease i n the demand for housing. 6.1 Movement To show the consumer's reaction to a r i s e in income i t i s b e n e f i c i a l to use the basic economic tool of i n d i f f e r e n c e curves. Quite simply, the individual consumer responds to the u t i l i t y of a combination of goods. He receives greater u t i l i t y from some combinations than he does from others, and in c e r t a i n cases he i s i n d i f f e r e n t . As an example, a consumer may be i n d i f f e r e n t to receiving e i t h e r 5 units of commodity X and 5 units of commodity Y, or 7 units of commodity X and 3 units of commodity Y. Obviously there exists a countless number of these combi-nations f o r each consumer, and the points of indi f f e r e n c e may be linked to form a series of curves on a graph. Figure 6.1 displays a number of combination points with several i n d i f f e r e n c e curves drawn i n . '(units) 10 10 Y (units) Figure 6.1. Indifference theory. 71 To this theory we add the basic assumption that i f a consumer receives more of a commodity without a decrease in the quantity of any other good, his total u t i l i t y i s increased. Thus, looking at Figure 6.1 we can say that the consumer i s i n d i f f e r e n t along the curves, but expresses preference between the curves. As an example, the consumer i s i n d i f f e r e n t to receiving either 5 units of X and 5 units of Y (point A), or 7 units of X and 3 units of Y (point B). However, the consumer would prefer to receive 10 units of X and 10 units of Y (point C). Without any constraints, the consumer would n a t u r a l l y s h i f t to the curve giving his highest u t i l i t y . Unfortunately, everyone's opera-tion in an economic market i s constrained by income. Thus, when the consumer's budget l i n e is added to the i n d i f f e r e n c e graph his movements are l i m i t e d . The l i n e labeled 'income-|' in Figure 6.2 represents such a budget l i n e . X", Figure 6.2. Indifference theory and budget constraint. 72 The points of i n t e r s e c t i o n with the X and Y axes indicate the maximum units of e i t h e r commodity that can be purchased ( i . e . i f the consumer applies a l l his income to the purchase of e i t h e r commodity). Thus, the area beneath the budget l i n e represents the p o s s i b i l i t i e s open to the consumer. With the assumption that the consumer w i l l attempt to reach the highest possible curve, his actions are depicted by the point of tangency of the budget l i n e with the highest indi f f e r e n c e curve (point A in Figure 6.2). From t h i s analysis we can see the e f f e c t of a r i s e i n income on housing consumption and thus housing demand. Looking at commodity X as being housing and commodity Y as being ' a l l other goods', and assuming that prices are held constant, a r i s e i n income w i l l s h i f t the budget l i n e upwards to the r i g h t (incorm^)- One can see that a l l quantities are increased: the amounts attainable by spending a l l of one's income on X or Y, and the combination given by the point of tangency (point D in Figure 6.2). Looking at the data generated by the survey, one observes that the s i z e of the respondent's accommodation (indicated by the number of rooms and bedrooms) increases with the respondent's yearly income. These re s u l t s are consistent with our indi f f e r e n c e theory of larger amounts of housing being consumed as the budget l i n e moves out from the o r i g i n ( i . e . as income increases). 73 Table 6.1 Mean Number of Rooms/Bedrooms by Income Groups Income Rooms Bedrooms Less than $3,000 4.843 1.933 $3,000 - $5,999 5.013 2.127 $6,000 - $8,999 5.350 2.357 $9,000 - $11,999 5.533 2.480 $12,000 - $14,999 5.864 2.615 $15,000 - $17,999 6.284 2.812 $18,000 - $20,999 6.553 2.807 $21,000 - $23,999 6.987 3.063 $24,000 - $26,999 7.338 3.062 Greater than $27,000 8.236 3.528 Total Population 6.024 2.620 6.2 Magnitude Although the d i r e c t i o n of the movement indicated by i n d i f f e r e n c e theory i s undeniable, the actual magnitude of these movements i s d i f f i c u l t to determine. To th i s end, most economic studies with respect to income and housing demand have attempted to quantify the proportion of marginal increases i n income which would be spent om housing. What these studies t r i e d to determine was the degree of responsiveness of the quantity of housing demanded, given a change in income. The formula used to determine the income e l a s t i c i t y of a good i s : ^ Ax _ _x_ _ % change in quantity of x (e.g. housing) demanded I AJ_ % change in income I 74 If such a r e l a t i o n s h i p could be measured, projections of housing demand based on changes in income would be r e l a t i v e l y straightforward. Early observers theorized that housing used a constant propor-tion of income, while a l a t e r study by Schwabe observed that the higher 2 the income, the lower the proportion of income going to housing. This became known as the "Schwabe Law of Rent." This theory was subjected to some uncertainty in the early 1950s. Studies by Margret Reid and Richard F. Muth noted that housing-income r a t i o s rose markedly with 3 lncome. Hence, the view generally held u n t i l the mid-1950s was that the e l a s t i c i t y of housing consumption with respect to current income was less than one. In other words, for any increase in income there was a less than proportionate increase in expenditure on housing. Since that time i t has been argued that i f consumption i s related to current income, re s u l t s are downward biased because such factors as wealth and expectations of future income are ignored. This more recent view of income in r e l a t i o n to housing demand was given impetus by Friedman's permanent income hypothesis. This theory of consumption should be considered i n greater d e t a i l in order to throw some l i g h t on how income influences housing demand. Friedman asserted that measured income and measured consump-tion can each be regarded as the sum of two components: the permanent income component and the t r a n s i t o r y component r e f l e c t i n g the influences of factors regarded as changeable or random by the consumer u n i t . The permanent income component i s to be interpreted as r e f l e c t i n g those factors which the consumer unit regards as determining i t s c a p i t a l value 75 or wealth. The t r a n s i t o r y component can be ei t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative and does not influence permanent consumption which i s proportional to permanent income. Since the incorporation of the permanent income hypothesis into the r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and the demand f o r housing, the following conclusions have been r e l a t i v e l y consistent among researchers: When using current or yearly income f i g u r e s , as the consumer's income increases, the proportion spent on housing decreases; and when using permanent income, the consumption of shelter space and housing q u a l i t y increases propor-t i o n a t e l y . Thus, the current income approach supports the view that housing i s a staple good and the permanent income approach supports the view that housing i s a luxury item. 6.3 A Review of Previous Income E l a s t i c i t y Research This review serves to b r i e f l y o u t l i n e the techniques and r e s u l t s of the major works on income e l a s t i c i t y of demand (presented i n a chronological order). The i n i t i a l studies of the income e l a s t i c i t y of demand for housing produced below unity r e s u l t s that supported Schwabe's 'law of rent', namely that the higher the income, the lower the proportion of income going to housing. The Duesenberry and K i s t i n study of 1950 used intertemporal comparisons of budget studies derived from the B.L.S. study 5 Spending and Saving in Wartime (1918-1948). In a l i n e a r regression using per capita consumption of housing as the dependent v a r i a b l e , and per capita expenditure and average family s i z e as the independent, the study obtained a fig u r e of 0.15 f o r income e l a s t i c i t y . 76 In 1955, Morton included a section on income e l a s t i c i t y in his study e n t i t l e d , Housing Taxation.^ By his own admission, l i t t l e importance should be attached to the absolute magnitudes of the figures due to the smallness of the sample, the b r i e f period of the years studied and the lack of e f f o r t to eliminate the e f f e c t of influences other than income. Cross section data was taken from the annual reports of the Federal Housing Administration and the National Housing Administration (1938-1947). Using the F.H.A. mortgage value f o r single family, owner occupied housing and Morton's own formula for the demand f o r housing amenities (housing space) in conjunction with annual income (measured) data, he derived an e l a s t i c i t y of 0.5 to 0.6 using value and 0.75 using amenities. The Maisel and Winhick study of 1960 derived i t s data from the Wharton B.L.S. study of consumer expenditures. 7 Logarithmic regression was used, with housing expenditures (including u t i l i t i e s ) as the dependent variable and measured income (af t e r taxes) used in a l l cases as one of the independent v a r i a b l e s , along with: race, family s i z e , education, age of head, and l o c a t i o n (taken s i n g l y or in combination). The r e s u l t s were grouped by tenure, occupation, education, family s i z e , age of head and l o c a t i o n . They ranged from 0.49 to 0.721, with a reading of 0.605 fo r " a l l f a m i l i e s . " This study followed Friedman's permanent income hypothesis, prompting the authors to include an estimate using groups that reported stable income or as they termed i t , "more permanent." They concluded that the e l a s t i c i t y r e s u l t s were "no d i f f e r e n t " from those using measured income. 77 Richard Muth conducted the f i r s t extensive research on housing P income e l a s t i c i t y using Friedman's income hypothesis. With data obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce 1954 (B.L.S.), the 1950 Census of Housing and the 1950 Census of Population, Muth established a number of equations which produced e l a s t i c i t y estimates. The r e s u l t s of the four major equations are as follows: (1) F low Demand - New c o n s t r u c t i o n as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and : t h e Boeckh i ndex o f r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; F r i e d m a n ' s pe r c a p i t a income s e r i e s * ; D u r a n d ' s b a s i c y i e l d o f t e n y e a r c o r -p o r a t e bonds; and t h e s t o c k a c t u a l l y i n e x i s t e n c e a s t h e i ndependen t v a r i a b l e s . Income E l a s t i c i t y : 0 .879 (2) Demand f o r S e r v i c e s - N a t i o n a l I n d u s t r i a l C o n -f e r e n c e Board r e n t i ndex as t h e dependen t v a r i a b l e and F r i e d m a n ' s pe r c a p i t a income s e r i e s and s t o c k a c t u a l l y i n e x i s t e n c e as t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b I e s . Income E l a s t i c i t y : 0 .935 (3) Q u a l i t y o f D w e l l i n g s i n V a r i o u s C i t i e s - Ave rage q u a l i t y o f new d w e l l i n g s as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and : t h e Boeckh i ndex o f r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; e x p e c t e d income pe r h o u s e h o l d ; D u r a n d ' s b a s i c y i e l d o f t e n y e a r c o r p o r a t e bonds ; and t h e a v e r a g e s i z e o f h o u s e h o l d s as t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b I e s . Income E l a s t i c i t y : 1.87 (4) Q u a l i t y o f D w e l l i n g s i n . V a r i o u s C i t i e s - S t o c k p e r d w e l l i n g u n i t i n d i f f e r e n t c i t i e s (1949) a s t h e dependent v a r i a b l e a n d : t h e Boeckh i ndex o f r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; e x p e c t e d income per h o u s e h o l d ; p e r s on s pe r h o u s e h o l d ; and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s in t h e c i t y wh i ch a r e in one u n i t d e t a c h e d s t r u c t u r e s a s t h e i ndependen t v a r i a b l e s . Income E l a s t i c i t y : 1.68 The e x p e c t e d - i n c o m e s e r i e s i s i n tended to be an e m p i r i c a l a p p r o x i -mat ion to the s u b j e c t i v e c o n c e p t o f " n o r m a l " o r " p e r m a n e n t " income. It i s in f a c t a we i gh ted moving average o f d i s p o s a b l e income, in wh ich c u r r e n t income ge t s we i gh t s wh ich d e c l i n e p r o g r e s s i v e l y and r o u g h l y e x p o n e n t i a l l y , income o f n i ne y e a r s ago and e a r l i e r r e c e i v i n g z e r o w e i g h t . ^ 78 As f a r as Muth was concerned, these r e s u l t s could probably be much higher due to the associated confidence l i m i t s . In 1962, Margaret Reid published her study of housing and income, containing e l a s t i c i t y figures even higher than those estimated by Muth.^ Her data was compiled from several sources: the 1950 Census of Housing; the 1933 Housing Survey; the National Housing Inventory; and the Consumption Survey of 1950 (B.L.S.). Reid begins her study by d i s -playing the low e l a s t i c i t i e s obtained using measured income against expenditures f o r the "main" dwelling. This produced r e s u l t s of 0.314 to 0.527 for owners, and 0.261 to 0.431 for tenants. She then proceeded to display the e f f e c t of s h i f t i n g to an estimate of permanent income on the l i n e s established by Friedman. Like Muth, Reid chose to use an averaging process to approximate permanent income. The f i r s t estimates were made from inter-place comparisons of U.S. geographical areas and metro areas. For owner occupier, Reid used two dependent va r i a b l e s ; 10% of market value and "actual" housing expense. For tenant housing she used contract rent as the dependent v a r i a b l e . The independent v a r i a b l e s , other than income, included: degree of employment; r i s e in the rent index; housing b u i l t during 1945 or l a t e r ; housing b u i l t during 1940 through 1944; and the number of households per 100 households that do not have either a male head of 65 years or more, or a female head. The r e s u l t s of the logarithmic regressions were: 1.7 for owners (using the 10% variable) and 1.55 (using expense); 0.8 to 1.0 f o r tenants (the lowness a t t r i b u t e d by Reid to the l i n g e r i n g e f f e c t of rent c o n t r o l ) . Reid concludes her analysis with an estimate using i n t r a - c i t y comparisons. For t h i s she used q u a l i t y of housing and census t r a c t 79 areas for grouping the data. With the same variables in e f f e c t , the r e s u l t s were 2.051 for owners and 1.162 f o r tenants. In 1963, Lee produced a cross section analysis of the demand for housing.^ The data was taken from the 1958 survey of consumer finances conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. The income figure used was disposable income (measured), and the e l a s t i c i t y figure was f o r owned homes only. Using a combination of two equations used to determine p r o b a b i l i t y of purchase and cost of purchase, the estimated e l a s t i c i t y obtained was 0.89. A number of indepen-dent variables were used, including: age of head, marital status, s i z e of unit, occupation, education, race, sex and new or old house. This 12 study was added to by Lee in 1964. The majority of the data used was taken from Muth's study of the demand f o r non-farm housing, with Lee a l t e r i n g the handling of the data and adding a "stronger" credit-term v a r i a b l e . Lee chose two equations to form a "high" and "low" bracket f o r income e l a s t i c i t y and also two measures of income to t e s t Friedman's hypothesis. The variables of these equations were: gross housing con-s t r u c t i o n ; the Boeckh index of r e s i d e n t i a l construction cost; per family current (measured) income (Raymond Goldsmith's s e r i e s ) ; per family per-manent income (Friedman's s e r i e s ) ; mortgage rate times the time horizon of the mortgage contract*; loan to value r a t i o * ; and beginning-of-year per family housing stock. Gross housing construction and income were used as the dependent variables f o r the low and high equations. The r e s u l t s from the f i r s t set of equations using measured income were 0.366 Taken f rom f i g u r e s o b t a i n e d from 2k l e a d i n g l i f e i n s u r a n c e compan ie s . 80 and 0.978, with an average of 0.652 taken as the estimate of "true income e l a s t i c i t y . " Using permanent income, Lee produced a bracket of 0.335 and 1.283, with 0.809 as the income e l a s t i c i t y measure. 13 Oksanen presented the f i r s t study using Canadian data. Using the National Accounts, Income and Expenditures (D.B.S.) for 1947 to 1954 and 1955 to 1962, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s (CM.H.C.) and the S t a t i s t i c a l Summary for the Bank of Canada (1954), he compiled a number of e l a s t i c i t y estimates. Two forms of income were used: measured income and an "un-weighted and uncentered, three year moving.average" to approximate per-manent income. Oksanen developed three stock and flow estimates using: r e l a t i v e price of housing; government bond rate; N.H.A. rate and govern-ment bond rate d i f f e r e n t i a l ; stock of housing; and the two measures of income as the var i a b l e s . The estimates of e l a s t i c i t y are as follows: (1) C u r r e n t Income: s t o c k 0.527 f l o w 1.900 (2) Permanent Income: s t o c k 0 .500 (bond r a t e ) f l o w 2.410 (3) Permanent Income: s t o c k 0.330 ( d i f f e r e n t i a l ) f l o w 1.450 In 1968, Lee published yet another study of housing demand, thi s time using permanent income. 1 4 The data was supplied from a r e i n t e r -view survey covering the years 1960 to 1962. This study o f f e r s e l a s t i c i t y estimates for 1959 and 1961, for both owners and tenants; with or with-out socio-demographic v a r i a b l e s ; and measured as well as permanent income. The dependent variables were 10% of market value for owners and monthly rent payments for tenants. The r e s u l t s were as follows: 81 (1) Owners - Mea su red : 0.338 t o 0 .552 - Pe rmanent : 0 .782 t o 0 .892 (2) Tenan t s - Mea su red : 0 .293 t o 0.559 - Pe rmanent : 0 .462 t o 0 .678 In 1970, Houthakker and Taylor published t h e i r study on con-15 sumer demand in the United States. This included in i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s an estimate for long-run income e l a s t i c i t i e s of demand for housing. The data was supplied by the Department of Commerce, and consisted of private consumption expenditure from 1929 to 'date'. I t was f e l t by the authors that the use of total expenditure was in keeping with Friedman's hypothesis. The dependent variable was per capita consumption expenditure f o r both tenant and owner occupied housing; with r e l a t i v e price (using 1958 as the base year) and tota l per capita personal consumption as the independent v a r i a b l e s . Their study revealed e l a s t i c i t y estimates of 1.5 for renters and 2.45 for owners. In 1971, Frank de Leeuw produced a study reviewing previous cross section evidence of the demand for housing, in which he incorporated an adjustment process for figures presented by Muth, Reid, Lee and Winger, while also presenting evidence of his own.^ De Leeuw's f i r s t objection to the previous studies concerned the use of market value rather than housing expense. Using F.H.A. s t a t i s t i c s (1967) he suggests that e l a s t i c i t y f igures are biased upward some 15 to 20 per cent. In a d d i t i o n , he points out that the exclusion of inputed rent creates a bias in the r e s u l t s away from 1.0. His t h i r d c r i t i c i s m was concerned with studies not taking into account the "wide regional differences in the p r i c e of a standard bundle of housing services." 82 The f i r s t study adjustment was taken for Muth's estimate of 1.68, which de Leeuw reduces to 1.35 by a formula based on his c r i t i c i s m s . With Reid's study, he takes the inter-place estimate of owner-occupancy e l a s t i c i t y of 1.7 and 1.55 and adjusts them to 1.35 and 1.46 r e s p e c t i v e l y . He then adjusts the i n t r a - c i t y estimate from 2.05 for owners to the range of 1.55 to 1.60; adding a basic c r i t i c i s m (supported by Lee) of Reid's grouping technique, f e e l i n g that t h i s also caused an upward bias. The adjustment to Lee's reinterview study places the income e l a s t i c i t y f i g u r e for owners at 0.7 rather than 0.8; and for renters the adjustment i s upward from 0.65 to 0.85 (due to the omission of movers in the survey). De Leeuw adjusts Winger's study f o r f a u l t s in grouping and the use of value rather than expense. The r e s u l t was an e l a s t i c i t y f i g u r e of 1.25 rather than 1.05. In presenting his own evidence, de Leeuw takes data from the 1960 Census of Housing and the B.L.S. Survey of City-Worker Budget Costs (1959). He produces e l a s t i c i t y figures based on median housing expense, median income (permanent) and price l e v e l s i n 19 metropolitan areas in 1960. The r e s u l t s of the e n t i r e study ( i . e . de Leeuw's work and the adjustments) suggests an income e l a s t i c i t y f o r renters in the range of 0.8 to 1.0 and "moderately" above 1.0 for owners. In 1971, Smith produced a study of Canadian housing which included an estimate of income e l a s t i c i t y and a review of past works in the a r e a J 7 Using C.M.H.C. and the Bank of Canada s t a t i s t i c s , and per family housing s t a r t s as the dependent v a r i a b l e , Smith estimated permanent income e l a s t i c i t y of 0.5 (with reservations suggesting a downward b i a s ) . His concluding remarks, based on his evidence and previous work, suggest that the permanent income e l a s t i c i t y f a l l s somewhere between 0.6 and 1.0. 83 To conclude t h i s review, C a r l i n e r ' s 1973 study offered further estimates based on "better data than has been a v a i l a b l e to researchers 1 g before." The study used a four-year panel which followed up movers and used two d e f i n i t i o n s of permanent income: four-year average of measured real family income and the same four-year average, but applying an a r i t h m e t i c a l l y d e c l i n i n g weight. The data was supplied by a research e n t i t l e d , A Panel Study of Income Dynamics, from the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. The regressions were run with house value and rent as the dependent variables and: permanent income, p r i c e , age of head, sex of head, and race of head as the independent v a r i a b l e s . This produced r e s u l t s of 0.6 to 0.7 f o r owners and 0.5 f o r renters. 6.4 Survey Results An i n d i c a t i o n of the amounts spent on housing by our surveyed population was obtained by c a l c u l a t i n g shelter/income r a t i o s f o r each income group. The r e s u l t s display a de c l i n i n g magnitude as the respondent's yearly household income (current) increases. Table 6.2 Mean Shelter/Income Ratios by Income Groups Income Shelter/Income Ratios Less than $ 3,000 43.798% $ 3,000 to $ 5,999 36.555% $ 6,000 to $ 8,999 26.318% $ 9,000 to $11,999 20.262% $12,000 to $14,999 18.342% $15,000 to $17,999 15.486% $18,000 to $20,999 15.112% $21,000 to $23,999 11.796% $24,000 to $26,999 12.194% Greater than $27,000 9.231% Total Population 20.596% 84 Although these r e s u l t s are consistent with the 'current' income theory presented above, one must r e i t e r a t e the warning pertaining to consumer 19 preference contained in Chapter 5. It i s also an acknowledged f a c t that higher income households devote more of t h e i r income to housing 'oriented' expenditures ( i . e . f u r n i t u r e , paintings, antiques, etc.) than do lower income consumers. Although these expenditures were intended to be included in the survey's section on " r e p a i r s , maintenance and improve-ments," i t i s often d i f f i c u l t f o r people to r e l a t e such items to actual expenditure on the dwelling unit. Furthermore, higher incomes are associated with p r e f e r e n t i a l mortgage terms and c e r t a i n l y mortgage pay-on ments form a large proportion of shelter cost f o r owners. A f i n a l point to note i s that the yearly income figures are gross ( i . e . before taxes and other deductions), thus, as deductions generally increase with income, the shelter/income figures receive a downward bias at the higher l e v e l s . 6.5 Summary and Policy Implications This chapter has explained the basic e f f e c t of income on the demand f o r housing. Although a consensus of the actual magnitude (income e l a s t i c i t y ) may be d i f f i c u l t to obtain, the short-run stimulation of housing demand with r i s i n g incomes i s undeniable {oeterus -paribus). Obviously the government control f o r t h i s component i s found in the federal and p r o v i n c i a l income tax provisions. By increasing or decreasing the amounts taken by income tax, the consumer's disposable income (and thus his demand f o r housing) i s decreased and increased r e s p e c t i v e l y . 85 Putting aside the p o l i t i c a l v o l a t i l i t y of t h i s c o n t r o l l i n g device, we should f i r s t attempt to determine in which d i r e c t i o n the disposable income amount should be moved and thus the housing demand. To do t h i s we should look at the government's j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r tampering with housing markets in general. For years t h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n has been founded upon the i n a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n segments of society to obtain housing in accordance with some anonymous standard. L o g i c a l l y , the segments experiencing t h i s i n a b i l i t y were, and s t i l l are, the lower and fixed income groups of society. Thus, i f we are going to adjust disposable income, the adjustment should be in the favour of these two groups. By decreasing the disposable income of the higher echelons and by increasing the disposable income of the lower and fixed income groups, we would e f f e c t a d i s t r i b u t i o n of housing demand to the benefit of the segments of society who we seek to help. In essence, t h i s process would dampen the demand at the top and stimulate the demand at the bottom. Unfortunately, such manipulation of income tax amounts i s about as p o l i t i c a l l y explosive a technique as one can f i n d . Thus, governments f i n d i t far easier to point to so-called i n e q u i t i e s i n the operation of the housing market than to acknowledge that disposable income i s r e a l l y the heart of the problem. However, i f the desire of governments i s r e a l l y to a s s i s t these people- at the lower end of the income scale, they must r e a l i z e that aggregate increases i n income r e s u l t in these groups being l e f t further and further behind in t h e i r a b i l i t y to operate e f f e c -t i v e l y in the market. Thus, additional adjustments to income d i s t r i b u t i o n and further income supplementation are required to balance the differences in demand between the upper and lower ends of the income scale. 86 FOOTNOTES ^Michael J . Brennan, Theory of Economic Statics, 2nd ed. (New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1970), pp. 69-86. 2 Margaret Reid, Housing and Income (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 3 Reid, op. cit. and R.F. Muth, "The Demand for Non-Farm Housing," in The Demand for Durable Goods, ed. A.C. Harberger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). 4 . Milton Friedman, A Theory of the Consumption Function (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 220-224. 5 J.S. Duesenberry and H. K i s t i n , "The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure," in Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, ed. W. Leontief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953). W.A. Morton, Housing Taxation (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1955). 7 S . J . Maisel and L. Winnick, "Family Housing Expenditures: Elusive Laws and Intrusive Variances," in Consumption and Saving, v o l . 1, ed. I. Friend (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1960). g Muth, op. cit. 9 Harberger, op. cit., p. 7. ^ R e i d , op. cit. 87 ^T.H. Lee, "Demand for Housing: A Cross-Section Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 45 (May 1963). 1 p Idem, "The Stock Demand E l a s t i c i t i e s of Non-Farm Housing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 46 (February 1964). 13 E. Oksanen, "Housing Demand in Canada, 1947-62: Some Preliminary Experimentation," Canadian Journal of Economies and Statistics, 50 (November 1968). 14 T.H. Lee, "Housing and'-Permanent Income: Tests Based on a Three-Year Reinterview Survey," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 50 (November 1968). 15 H.S. Houthakker and L.D. Taylor, Consumer Demand in the United States: Analyses and Projections (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970). 16 F. de Leeuw, "The Demand for Housing: A Review of Cross-Section Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 53 (February 1971). ^\.B. Smith, Housing in Canada: Market Structure and Policy Performance (Ottawa: C.M.H.C., 1971). 1 p G. C a r l i n e r , "Income E l a s t i c i t y of Housing Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55 (November 1973). 19 See page 60 of th i s t h e s i s . 20 See P h i l i p H. White, Prologue to an Analysis of the Residential Mortgage Market (Vancouver: The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965). Chapter 7 PRICE Our t h i r d component of housing demand i s p r i c e , where one immediately observes a fundamental diffe r e n c e between t h i s component and the components of demographic forces and income. P r i c e , defined in our i n i t i a l formula of Price = f (Supply, Demand), a f f e c t s both the demand f o r housing and i s in turn created by the i n t e r a c t i o n of that demand and the supply of housing units. Thus, we have a two-way flow i n our equation: from p r i c e to demand, and from demand to p r i c e . The process of pri c e creation i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 7.1. Price ($) | | Figure 7.1. Price creation. 88 89 Drawing once again on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d u r a b i l i t y and immobility, and the f a c t that normally only 3-4% i s added to the total stock per year when the housing industry i s operating at f u l l capacity our supply curve (S) i s i n e l a s t i c , and hence i s drawn p a r a l l e l to the pri c e a x i s . The demand curve (D) intersects the supply curve at point A, producing price P. An increase in demand (curve D 1) or a decrease in demand (curve D") r e s u l t s in a corresponding r i s e (P 1) or f a l l (P") in p r i c e . To r e i n -force our basic premise of demand v o l a t i l i t y , Figure 7.2 i l l u s t r a t e s the difference in price movement created by the maximum yearly increase in supply (S 1 - exaggerated f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes) and an increase i n demand (D 1). Price ($) \ Supply s h i f t Demand s h i f t 0 Quantity (units) Figure 7.2. Demand v o l a t i l i t y . 90 Housing prices have an impact on the demand f o r housing units j u s t as the price of any good has a bearing on how much of that good w i l l be demanded and by whom. With a simple commodity, an increase in the price causes a decrease in demand, and a decrease in price causes an increase in demand (assuming that a l l other factors remain constant). However, due to the complexity of the housing commodity and the various methods which can be used to pay f o r i t one must add some important q u a l i f i -cations . To explain this process i n the housing market we w i l l return to the indi f f e r e n c e theory presented in the previous chapter. There the consumer's action was depicted as a process of maximizing his s a t i s f a c t i o n from a combination of housing and 'other goods', given the constraints of his budget. To t h i s we add the concept of marginal u t i l i t y : the more an individual consumes the more his u t i l i t y increases, however, the marginal or extra u t i l i t y added by the l a s t unit consumed, decreases with the consumption of successive new units ( s i m i l a r to the s a t i s f a c t i o n derived from the l a s t piece of pie as compared to the f i r s t piece). At the point of tangency of the budget l i n e with the indi f f e r e n c e curve, the marginal rate of s u b s t i t u t i o n ( i . e the amount of Y the consumer i s w i l l i n g to give up to get an extra unit of X) between housing and 'other goods' is equal to the r a t i o of the price of 'other goods' over the price of housing. The consumer maximizes his u t i l i t y by consuming quantities of housing and 'other goods' such that the marginal u t i l i t y per d o l l a r of each a l t e r n a t i v e i s equal. 1 In t h i s two commodity pi c t u r e , the i n d i v i d u a l ' s consumption may.be alte r e d by any of the four f a c t o r s : his marginal u t i l i t y f o r 91 housing; his marginal u t i l i t y for 'other goods'; the price of housing; or the pri c e of 'other goods'. The price factors of both commodities are presented to the consumer by the market. Adjustments to his marginal u t i l i t y and his po s i t i o n on the indiff e r e n c e curve must follow accordingly. Thus, we observe adjustments in the in d i v i d u a l ' s consumption being influenced by market adjustment of the pr i c e . The consumption adjustments follow the basic pattern of increasing price and decreasing demand, and decreasing price and increasing demand. 7.1 A Review of Previous Price E l a s t i c i t y Research In the same manner as income e l a s t i c i t y , housing analysts have long sought to measure the proportionate change in housing demand 2 that accompanies a change in p r i c e . This section w i l l b r i e f l y o u t l i n e the research attempts to determine the s p e c i f i c magnitude of the price e l a s t i c i t y of demand f o r housing. Empirical studies of price e l a s t i c i t y received the majority of t h e i r North American attention i n the 1960's. In f a c t , p r i o r to Richard Muth's The Demand for Non-Farm Housing,, the only published estimate was 3 made by Duesenberry and K i s t i n i n 1953. The data source for the Duesenberry and K i s t i n study was the B.L.S. study e n t i t l e d , Spending and Saving in Wartime (1918-1948). Their estimate was derived through logarithmic regression of intertemporal comparisons, using consumption of housing as the dependent variable and: the r e l a t i v e price of housing; the real income (measured) of family groups; and family s i z e as the inde-pendent vari a b l e s . The r e s u l t obtained f o r price e l a s t i c i t y was -0.078. 92 In 1960, Muth published his major analysis of price e l a s t i c i t y for housing demand, using the more enlightened approach of incorporating Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis. 4 His data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce 1954 (B.L.S.), the 1950 Census of Housing and the 1950 Census of Population. His estimates were derived from four equations: (1) F low Demand - u s i n g new c o n s t r u c t i o n as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and : t h e Boeckh i ndex o f r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; F r i e d m a n ' s per c a p i t a income s e r i e s ; D u r a n d ' s b a s i c y i e l d o f t e n y e a r c o r p o r a t e bonds; and t h e s t o c k a c t u a l l y in e x i s t e n c e a s t he i n d e p e n -dent v a r i a b l e s . P r i c e E l a s t i c i t y : - 0 . 904 (2) Demand f o r S e r v i c e s - u s i n g t h e N a t i o n a l I n d u s t r i a l C o n f e r e n c e Board r e n t i ndex as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and F r i e d m a n ' s per c a p i t a income s e r i e s and s t o c k a c t u a l l y in e x i s t e n c e as t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . P r i c e E l a s t i c i t y : - 1 . 4 7 (3) Q u a l i t y o f New D w e l l i n g s - u s i n g a v e r a g e q u a l i t y o f new d w e l l i n g s as t h e dependen t v a r i a b l e and: t h e Boeckh i ndex o f r e s i d e n -t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; e x p e c t e d income per h o u s e h o l d ; D u r a n d ' s b a s i c y i e l d o f t e n y e a r c o r p o r a t e bonds ; and t h e a v e r a g e s i z e o f h o u s e h o l d s a s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . P r i c e E l a s t i c i t y : -1.21 (4) Q u a l i t y o f D w e l l i n g s i n V a r i o u s C i t i e s - u s i n g s t o c k pe r d w e l l i n g u n i t in d i f f e r e n t c i t i e s i n 1949 as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and : t h e Boeckh i ndex o f r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; e x p e c t e d income pe r h o u s e h o l d ; pe r s on s pe r h o u s e h o l d ; and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s in t h e c i t y wh ich a r e i n one u n i t d e t a c h e d s t r u c t u r e s a s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . P r i c e E l a s t i c i t y : - 1 . 5 9 In 1962, Margaret Reid included price e l a s t i c i t y estimates in 5 her Housing and Income study. Using data from the consumption survey of 93 1918 to 1919 and 1934 to 1936, and the Census of Housing, Reid conducted intertemporal estimates. The main dependent variable was "housing of the terminal year, adjusted for change in the rent index," and change in average income (permanent) and change in the r e l a t i v e price of housing (compared to that of other consumer products) as the independent v a r i a b l e s . Reid was un s a t i s f i e d with her price data, however, the more consistent r e s u l t s suggested a price e l a s t i c i t y of around -1.0. In 1964, Lee published a study on the demand f o r non-farm housing. In essence, Lee's study represented a r e v i s i o n of Muth's pre-vious work, in that the bulk of the data was taken from Muth, however, the handling of the data was al t e r e d and a "stronger" measurement of credit-term e f f e c t was incorporated. Lee chose to compare r e s u l t s from two equations which presented 'high' and 'low' brackets for the ultimate estimate of price e l a s t i c i t y . In add i t i o n , the author made estimates using both permanent and measured income to determine i f there was any noticeable change in the r e s u l t s . The f i r s t equation (low) treats gross housing construction as the dependent v a r i a b l e , with: the Boeckh index of r e s i d e n t i a l construction cost; per family current (measured) income (Raymond Goldsmith's s e r i e s ) ; mortgage rate times the time horizon of the * * mortgage contract; loan to value r a t i o ; and beginning-of-year per family housing stock as the independent var i a b l e s . The high estimate equation used the same variables but made price the dependent v a r i a b l e . The r e s u l t s obtained from using measured income produced a bracket of -1.79 and -1.07, giving an average estimate f o r price e l a s t i c i t y of -1.43. Lee then compan ies. Taken from f i g u r e s o b t a i n e d f rom 2k l e a d i n g l i f e i n s u r a n c e 94 exchanged the measured income series f or permanent income (using Friedman's s e r i e s ) . This produced a bracket of -1.05 and -1.90, giving an average estimate of -1.48. Houthakker and Taylor's 1970 study of consumer demand in the United States included both long-run and short-run estimates of price e l a s t i c i t y f o r housing. 7 The data used in t h e i r analysis was supplied by the Department of Commerce in the form of private consumption expenditures from 1929 to 'date'. The dependent variable was per capita consumption expenditure for both tenant and owner occupied housing, with r e l a t i v e price (using 1958 as the base year) and total per capita personal con-sumption as the independent var i a b l e s . The r e s u l t s of t h e i r study revealed that the short-run r e l a t i v e price e l a s t i c i t y f o r owner occupied housing was -0.0351 and that the long-run r e l a t i v e price e l a s t i c i t y was -1.215. For tenant occupied housing only a short-run figure of -0.1839 was offered. In 1971, Frank de Leeuw reviewed a number of previous cross-Q section estimates of income e l a s t i c i t y of demand for housing. He also included in this study his own estimates for price e l a s t i c i t y f o r renters, using data from the 1960 Census of Housing and the B.L.S. Survey of C i t y -Worker Budget Costs in 1959. He produced price e l a s t i c i t i e s through regression of median housing expense, median income (permanent) and price l e v e l s in 19 metropolitan areas, with both price and deflated expenditures as a l t e r n a t i v e dependent variables. The r e s u l t s suggested a range of -0.7 to -1.5 for the overall price e l a s t i c i t y f o r rental accommodation. In Smith's study of Canadian housing, using CM.H.C. and Q Bank of Canada data, he reaches an estimate of -0.35 for price e l a s t i c i t y . This was derived from time series data, using family demand f o r housing 95 units as the dependent variable and: permanent family disposable income; price of dwelling units; and the price of a l t e r n a t i v e goods and services as the independent variables. To conclude, Geofferey C a r l i n e r ' s 1973 study used data from a research e n t i t l e d , A Panel Study of Income Dynamics (S.R.C., University of M i c h i g a n ) . ^ The author ran regressions with house value and rent as the dependent variables and: permanent income, p r i c e , age of head, sex of head and race of head as the independent v a r i a b l e s . This produced r e s u l t s of -0.8 for owners and -0.101 f o r renters (the l a t t e r r e s u l t was obtained using measured income and was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ) . 7.2 Demand Flow The e f f e c t of the price component i s complicated by the existence of the rental and ownership submarkets in the housing market as a whole. Despite the difference between the 'bundle of r i g h t s ' provided the renter and the owner, the flow of services from a rental unit i s sub-11 s t i t u t a b l e for the flow of services from an owned unit. This means that when the price of commodity Y (e.g. a unit f or rent) i s f i x e d , an increase in the p r i c e of commodity X(e.g. a unit f or sale) w i l l r e s u l t in increased demand for commodity Y, and vice versa. This creates a flow of demand between these two housing submarkets. In economic theory, the process of price c a l c u l a t i o n i s considered to be on-going, and thus the movement between the two submarkets should be equally f l u i d i n either d i r e c t i o n . However, in r e a l i t y , the nature of the commitment that home ownership involves v i r t u a l l y negates the flow from the ownership submarket to the rental submarket, and thus 96 the majority of the flow i s seen as t r a v e l l i n g i n the other d i r e c t i o n . The best example to help v i s u a l i z e the complete process i s that of a newly formed family seeking accommodation for the f i r s t time. Here, the con-sumer faces the prices offered by both submarkets, and his demand i s directed from one market to the other by s h i f t s in p r i c e . 7.3 Price Expectation A further complication to the e f f e c t of price on housing demand i s added by the concept of 'price expectation'. As the name suggests, price expectation refers to the consumer's b e l i e f of what future housing prices w i l l be. If the consumer i s convinced that the price of houses fo r sale w i l l continue to escalate, he w i l l make every attempt to make his purchase now rather than wait. Obviously, the existence of price expectation i s spurred on by evidence of i n f l a t i o n in other consumer markets. Thus, i t i s not surp r i s i n g that under the conditions that the Canadian economy i s presently experiencing, the e f f e c t of price expectation in the housing market i s abundantly evident. As ownership i s viewed as a growing asset that w i l l provide a desired 'hedge' against i n f l a t i o n as well as a form of accommodation, the consumer does not react 'normally' to increases in pr i c e . Instead of high housing prices d r i v i n g down the demand f or home ownership, the con-sumer reacts with a form of 'do-or-die' urgency to e s t a b l i s h a toe-hold in the market place. Under these conditions, any attempt to measure the price e l a s t i c i t y of demand for housing i s v i r t u a l l y impossible. 97 Unfortunately, none of the survey data was found to be applicable to t h i s analysis of the p r i c e component of housing demand. Shortcomings of t h i s nature were predictable, given that the o r i g i n a l intention of the survey was to provide a general picture of housing con-sumers, rather than s p e c i f i c data on housing demand. 7.4 Summary and P o l i c y Implications In our analysis of the e f f e c t of price on housing demand we have i d e n t i f i e d three main e f f e c t s : the basic r e l a t i o n s h i p that an increase in price leads to a decrease in demand; that the flow of demand between the ownership and rental submarkets i s influenced by the r e l a t i v e prices offered in both submarkets; and that the e f f e c t of p r i c e expectation in the ownership submarket has promoted continued demand, placing the con-sumer in a vicious c i r c l e of increasing p r i c e s . The market pr i c e gf housing has long held the centre of a t t e n t i o n f o r government housing p o l i c y . With an i n f a n t i l e s i m p l i c i t y , p o l i c i e s of subsidization and p r i c e control have been advanced as solutions to the housing problem. However, what should be c l e a r from our analysis i s that housing subsidization in the ownership submarket adds fuel to the perceived problem of high p r i c e s . By reducing the p r i c e through govern-ment subsidies, demand must i n t e n s i f y . Given the v o l a t i l i t y of the demand component i n the housing equation, t h i s has to lead to f u r t h e r increases in housing p r i c e s , quite possibly to the point of n e u t r a l i z i n g the subsidy. With increasing prices being spurred on by such s u b s i d i z a t i o n , a perfect environment i s created f o r p r i c e expectation, and thus further increases in demand and p r i c e . 98 A further e f f e c t of ownership subsidization i s brought about by the reduction of the price offered in the ownership submarket r e l a t i v e to the price offered in the rental submarket. This reduction tends to s h i f t demand from rental accommodation to ownership. As t h i s e f f e c t i s caused by forces outside the market, the natural process of 'resource a l l o c a t i o n through market price ' becomes unbalanced in favour of home ownership. This a f f e c t s both the e f f i c i e n c y of the market and the maximization of benefits derived from market resource a l l o c a t i o n . Displaying a s i m i l a r f a u l t of attacking the symptoms rather than the cause, B r i t i s h Columbia's former government introduced price control in the rental sector. Although rent control has the desired e f f e c t of holding down the price of rental units, the inadvertant damage to the 13 rental submarket i s large. In addition, a r t i f i c i a l l y reduced prices help to keep the demand high and to deter further additions to the rental stock by presenting the investor with a s i t u a t i o n of c o n t r o l l e d revenues and uncontrolled costs. In l i g h t of these c r i t i c i s m s of current p o l i c y with respect to p r i c e , one should ask i f any p o l i c y aimed at t h i s component i s j u s t i f i e d . The i n a b i l i t y of certain groups to operate, given the market p r i c e , suggests a s i m i l a r i n a b i l i t y in other markets, and as such, the problem i s one of income rather than price. Attempts to give assistance through subsidization and price control only adds fuel to the f i r e s of demand and creates c e r t a i n side e f f e c t s which add further problems to the housing market. In essence, one must recognize that price i s but a symptom of the housing problem and p o l i c y should be aimed at the cause. 99 FOOTNOTES 1 MU MU 'that i s : = " uOG PH POG where: MU^  = marginal u t i l i t y of housing MU^  = marginal u t i l i t y of 'other goods' P^ = price of housing P0G = P r i c e 0 T" 'other goods' 2 For price e l a s t i c i t y of demand, the concept i s v i r t u a l l y the same as income e l a s t i c i t y described in Chapter 6. Its formula i s as follows: Ax _ x _ % change in quantity of x (e.g. housing) demanded P " AP % change in price P 3 J.S. Duesenberry and H. K i s t i n , "The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure," in Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, ed. W. Leontief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953). 4 Richard F. Muth, "The Demand f o r Non-Farm Housing," in The Demand for Durable Goods, ed. A.C. Harberger (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960). c Margaret Reid, Housing and Income (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962). ^T.H. Lee, "The Stock Demand E l a s t i c i t i e s of Non-Farm Housing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 46 (February 1964). 100 H.S. Houthakker and L.D. Taylor, Consumer Demand in the United States: Analyses and Projections (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970). F. de Leeuw, "The Demand for Housing: A Review of Cross-Section Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 53 (February 1971). L.B. Smith, Rousing in Canada: Market Structure and Policy Performance (Ottawa: C.M.H.C., 1971). G. C a r l i n e r , "Income E l a s t i c i t y of Housing Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55 (November 1973). David Dale-Johnson, "Housing Pol i c y , Tenure Choice and the Demand for Housing in Greater Vancouver" (M.Sc. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975), pp. 84-89. l c I n a s i t u a t i o n of cross-demand, the quantity of commodity X demanded by the consumer i s a function of the price of commodity' Y: q x = f (P y) This occurs when the commodities are related as 'substitutes' or 'complements.' In substitute s i t u a t i o n s , the consumer i s faced with an eit h e r / o r condition; whereas with complements the commodities are consumed together and thus t h e i r consumption i s linked by necessity. Indifference curves f o r these two si t u a t i o n s are i l l u s t r a t e d in Figures 7.3 and 7.4. The s t r a i g h t l i n e s of the 'perfectsubstitutes' allow for only a corner solution to depict the in d i v i d u a l ' s consumption, as by d e f i n i t i o n only one i s consumed at any p a r t i c u l a r time. With com-plements, the curves form a r i g h t angle, giving j u s t one point of tangency with the budget l i n e (determined by the consumption r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two commodities). To observe the e f f e c t of a change in price of one of the commodities, with everything else held constant, two budget l i n e s have been drawn into each graph. In the case of complements, the price of Y (e.g. gasoline) has been increased. Py 1 i s greater than Py, thus the maximum units a t t a i n -able i s reduced from 25 units to 16. As the price of X (e.g. automobiles) remains unchanged, the budget l i n e intercept with the X axis remains the same. The point of indiff e r e n c e tangency has s h i f t e d down from curve 13 to curve 12, leading to decreasing consumption of both commodity X and commodity Y. 101 X (e.g. owned units) (e.g. rental units) Figure 7.3. Perfect substitutes. Budget 1ine at Py 1 Figure 7.4. Perfect complements. 102 In the substitute s i t u a t i o n , the price of X (e.g. owned units) is increased. With Px' greater than Px, the maximum units attainable i s reduced from 15 to approximately 10. The consumer, being committed to reaching his highest indi f f e r e n c e curve, displays a s h i f t in demand from commodity X to commodity Y (e.g. rental u n i t s ) . See David Baxter and S.W. Hamilton, Landlords and Tenants in Danger - Rent Control in Canada (Winnipeg: Appraisal I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 1975). Chapter 8 CREDIT CONDITIONS The fourth and f i n a l component of housing demand i s that of c r e d i t conditions, i n which, i n a manner s i m i l a r to the price component, there e x i s t s a two-way flow between c r e d i t conditions and housing demand. This occurs because the mortgage market i s an economic market i t s e l f , with i t s own features of supply, demand and p r i c e . The nature of the two markets r e s u l t s i n a meshing of the two demands ( i n the fashion of com-plementary goods), thus the demand f o r housing a f f e c t s c r e d i t conditions and c r e d i t conditions a f f e c t the demand f o r housing. The impact of c r e d i t conditions occurs predominantly i n the ownership submarket, as i t i s there that the consumer i s generally faced with the need to finance a c q u i s i t i o n . Demand in the rental submarket experiences an i n d i r e c t influence to the extent that the cost and a v a i l -a b i l i t y of financing may s h i f t potential home owners to the rental sub-market or vice versa. In a d d i t i o n , the supply of rental units i s influenced by the f a c t that the flow of new units i s dependent on adequate financing.* For the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s , the major emphasis w i l l be on the e f f e c t of c r e d i t conditions on the ind i v i d u a l purchaser of a housing unit. 103 104 Due to the si z e of the f i n a n c i a l commitment involved in pur-chasing a home, most consumers must amortize the c a p i t a l cost of the dwelling unit through mortgage financing. This a f f e c t s the demand f o r owned units both through the cost presented in the form of downpayment and monthly payment amounts, and through the absolute a v a i l a b i l i t y of mortgage funds. The impact of t h i s component depends p r i m a r i l y on the l i q u i d i t y p o s i t ion of the purchasing household. C l e a r l y , a buyer who has already b u i l t up a large equity in another house (already sold or f o r sale) or a household which simply has s u f f i c i e n t funds to purchase without borrowing would not be s e r i o u s l y influenced by c r e d i t conditions. Demand by such households would be influenced p r i m a r i l y by r e l a t i v e prices and the potential return from alternate investments. On the other hand, households with i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l must finance some part of t h e i r purchase with one or more mortgage loans (60% of the surveyed homeowners). The a b i l i t y of c r e d i t conditions to a f f e c t the housing demand of the surveyed population i s displayed in the following tabulations. Of the respondents currently occupying rental accommodation and with a preference to own, 81.1% selected c r e d i t related problems ( i . e . downpayment, monthly payment or mortgage financing not a v a i l a b l e ) as t h e i r primary reason f o r not changing tenure, and 58.9% choose c r e d i t conditions as t h e i r 2 secondary reason. It i s important to note that mortgage financing has a rather unique influence on the housing demand of individual consumers. F i r s t , financing involves a cost and thus i t exhibits a l l the e f f e c t s on demand outlined in the chapter on p r i c e . In a d d i t i o n , there i s the 'cost' in the 105 L O C I COUNT R4NC1 OOWN _ NO MTGF OTHER ROW PCT ] G . V o R . 0 . PR INC E CRANBRKo ROW COL PCT 1 GEORGE TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 0 [ 3 . 0 0 1 1 . 0 0 I 1 9 7 ] [ 85 I 31 I 3 1 3 PAYMENT 1 6 2 . 9 ] 2 7 . 2 ] [ 9 . 9 I 7 4 . 7 7 7 . 9 [ 6 6 . 9 I 7 9 . 5 I 4 7 . 0 ] t 2 0 . 3 [ 7 . 4 I 2 . 0 0 3 10 i [ 4 1 [ 0 I 14 PAYMENT ] 7 1 . 4 ] 2 8 . 6 [ 0 . 0 I 3 . 3 4 . 0 ] [ 3 . 1 t 0 . 0 I [ 2 . 4 " [ 1 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 3 . 0 0 1 [ 15 [ 8 t 1 I 24 S U I T A B L E [ 6 2 . 5 [ 3 3 . 3 I . 4 . 2 I 5 . 7 5 . 9 ] [ 6 . 3 [ 2 . 6 1 [ 3 . 6 I 1 . 9 I Oo 2 I 4 . 0 0 ! 6 ] [ 7 [ 0 I 13 [ 4 6 . 2 [ 5 3 . 8 [ 0 . 0 I 3 . 1 2 . 4 [ 5 . 5 I 0 . 0 I 1. 4 ] [ 1 .7 [ 0 . 0 I 5 . 0 0 ] 8 : 8 ! 2 I 18 I B I L I T Y ] 4 4 . 4 [ 4 4 . 4 [ l l o l I 4 . 3 [ 3 . 2 [ 6 . 3 I 5 . 1 I ! 1 . 9 [ 1 . 9 I 0 . 5 I 6 . 0 0 1 [ 17 I 15 I 5 I 37 [ 4 5 . 9 [ 4 0 . 5 I 1 3 . 5 I 8 . 8 [ 6 . 7 I 1 1 . 8 I 1 2 . 8 I [ 4 . 1 I 3 . 6 I 1 . 2 I COLUMN 2 5 3 127 39 4 1 9 TOTAL 6 0 . 4 3 0 . 3 9 . 3 1 0 0 . 0 Tabulation 8 . 1 . Primary Reason for not Changing Tenure. 106 LOCI COUNT I ROW PCT [G.V.R.D. PRINCE CRANBRK. ROW COL PCT GEORGE TOTAL TOT PCT L.OOl [ 2.00 [ 3.001 R4NC2 2.00 [ 114 ] [ 31 [ 8 I 153 MONTHL Y PAYMENT [ 74.5 ] 20.3 ] [ 5.2 1 38.8 [ 46.7 ] [ 2 7 0 4 1 21.6 I [ 28.9 ] [ 7.9 1 [ 2.0 I 3.00 [ 1 1 . 1 11 1 1 I 23 NOTHING SUITABLE E 47.8 ] r 47.8 ] 4.3 I 5.8 4. 5 I 9. 7 1 2.7 I [ 2 . 8 ] 2. 0 1 0.3 I 4.00 42 I 24 I 13 I 79 NO MTGE [ 53.2 1 3.0.4 ] 16. 5 I 20. 1 [ 17.2 1 21.2 1 35.1 I 10. 7 I 6. 1 I 3. 3 I 5.00 36 1 26 ] 5 I 67 RESPONS. I B I L I T Y 3 53. 7 I 38. 8 I 7. 5 I 17.0 14.8 ] 23.0 ] 13.5 I 9.1 3 6.6 ] 1.3 I 6.00 [ 41 I 21 ! 10 I 72 OTHER 56.9 I 29.2 I 13.9 I 18.3 [ 16.8 I 18.6 I 27. 0 I 10.4 I 5„3 I 2.5 I COLUMN 244 113 37 394 TOTAL 61.9 28.7 9.4 100.0 Tabulation 8.2. Secondary Reason f o r not Changing Tenure. 107 sense of a cash flow from the consumer (both i n i t i a l l y and monthly), depending on the s i z e of his downpayment and the terms he can negotiate with the lender.* Both these costs are affected by the f l u c t u a t i o n of three terms: i n t e r e s t rate, amortization period and loan-to-value r a t i o . The in t e r a c t i o n of the i n t e r e s t rate with the amortization period gives the required monthly payment per d o l l a r borrowed. A comparison of the monthly payment figures displayed in Table 8.1, with t h e i r associated i n t e r e s t rates and amortization periods, shows the e f f e c t of a movement in e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n of the two terms. Table 8.1 Monthly Payments Required f o r a Loan of $1,000 Amortization Period (yrs) 20 25 30 35 40 Interest Rate 8.0% $ 8.28 $ 7.63 $ 7.25 $ 7.01 $ 6.86 8.5% $ 8.59 $ 7.95 $ 7.59 $ 7.35 $ 7.21 9.0% $ 8.89 $ 8.28 $ 7.93 $ 7.69 $ 7.56 9.5% $ 9.20 $ 8.61 $ 8.28 $ 8.04 $ 7.92 10.0% $ 9.52 $ 8.95 $ 8.63 $ 8.44 $ 8.33 10.5% $ 9.84 $ 9.28 $ 8.98 $ 8.81 $ 8.71 11.0% $10.16 $ 9.63 $ 9.34 $ 9.18 $ 9.09 The loan-to-value r a t i o determines the s i z e of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s loan i n r e l a t i o n to the value of the purchased property and hence, the downpayment required. *Recognizing but ignoring i n t h i s analysis the opportunity cost equity. 108 A research project was undertaken by Jack E. Gelfand to attempt to show the influence of these c r e d i t terms on the lower middle-income housing market in three Pennsylvania c i t i e s : Philadelphia, Pittsburg and 3 Harrisburg. He concluded that the downpayment required was the most onerous for the prospective buyer. The percentage of respondents who were " f i n a n c i a l l y capable" ( i . e . who could use e f f e c t i v e demand in the market-place) almost doubled as the downpayment was reduced from one-third to one-tenth. By comparison, decreases i n the mortgage rate and increases in the mortgage maturity period ( i . e . decreased monthly payments) resulted in only a marginal increase in the percentage of those who were " f i n a n c i a l l y capable." An i n d i c a t i o n of the impact of these variables i n a Canadian mili e u i s provided by the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance's consumer 4 survey. The re s u l t s of this research indicated that of the fa m i l i e s who purchased homes in the period 1957 to 1962, 9% would not have purchased a home and 6% would have purchased a cheaper home i f the downpayment had been 10% higher. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , 20 to 25% would not have purchased a home and 12 to 15% would have purchased a cheaper home i f the monthly payment had been 10% higher. Using two questions with a s i m i l a r format to the questions used in the l a t t e r studies, the survey generated r e s u l t s to the question of consumer action in the face of a 10% increase in downpayment s i z e and a 5 10% increase i n the monthly payment s i z e . It should be noted that any question which asks the respondent to "think back" cannot avoid being tainted by the events which have occurred since that time. As can be seen from the tabulations, the survey respondents found the s i z e of the 109 LOCI COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT UPDP SAME 1. OO HOUSE 2. OO CHEAPER HOUSE 3 . 0 0 NOT BOUGHT OTHER 4 . 0 0 COLUMN TOTAL G . V . R . O . P R I N C E C R A N B R K . i ROW GEORGE TOTAL 1 . 0 0 [ 2 . 0 0 ] 3 . 0 0 1 3 8 3 I 164 ] 129 I 6 7 6 5 6 . 7 1 2 4 . 3 ] 1 9 . 1 I 6 8 . 8 7 3 . 5 ] 6 0 . 3 ] 6 8 . 3 I 3 9 . 0 • I 1 6 . 7 3 1 3 . 1 I 62 3 3 0 ] 19 I 111 5 5 . 9 1 2 7 „ 0 I 1 7 . 1 I 1 1 . 3 1 1 . 9 1 1 1 . 0 I 1 0 . 1 I 6 . 3 I 3 . 1 I 1 . 9 I 6 2 I 69 I 31 I 162 3 8 . 3 I 4 2 . 6 I 1 9 . 1 I 1 6 . 5 1 1 . 9 I 2 5 . 4 I 1 6 . 4 I 6 . 3 I 7 . 0 I 3 . 2 I 14 I 9 I 10 I 33 4 2 . 4 I 2 7 . 3 I 3 0 . 3 I 3.4 2 . 7 I 3 . 3 I 5 . 3 I 1 . 4 I 0 . 9 I 1 . 0 I 5 2 1 2 7 2 189 982 5 3 . 1 2 7 . 7 1 9 . 2 1 0 0 . 0 Tabulation 8.3. Response to a 1 0 % Increase in Downpayment. 110 L O C I UPMP SAM: NOT OTHER COUNT I ROW PCT IG.V.R.D. PR IMCE CRANBP.K. ROW COL PCT I GEORGE TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.00] 2.001 3. 001 1.00 I 3 94 1 175 I 136 I 705 HOUSE I 55. 9 [ 24. 8 I 19.3 I 72.2 I 75.5 1 [ 65.5 I 72.3 I I 40.3 ' [ 17.9 I 13.9 I 2.00 I 5 a [ 29 I 17 I 104 HOUSE I 55. 8 [ 27.9 I 16.3 I 10.6 I 11. 1 I 10.9 I 9. 0 I I 5.9 I 3.0 I 1.7 I 3.00 I 4 9 I 54 T 30 I 133 BOUGHT I 36. a I 40.6 T i. 22.6 I 13.6 I 9. 4 I 20.2 I 16. 0 I T i 5.0 I 5.5 7 3. 1 I 4.00 I 21 I 9 I 5 I 35 T * 60.0 I 25.7 I 14.3 I 3.6 I 4.0 I 3.4 I 2.7 I I 2. 1 I 0.9 T 0. 5 I COLUMN 522 267 188 977 TOTAL 53. 4 27.3 19.2 100.0 Tabulation 8.4. Response to a 10% Increase in Monthly Payment. Ill downpayment more onerous, in l i n e with Gelfand's f i n d i n g s . However, the majority of respondents would have gone ahead with t h e i r purchase, regardless of the increased f i n a n c i a l outlay (both monthly and i n i t i a l l y ) . In addition to the cost of mortgage c r e d i t , there i s also the fa c t o r of absolute a v a i l a b i l i t y which has an obvious e f f e c t on the demand fo r housing.^ In periods of high demand f o r mortgage funds, supplies may be depleted to the point where they are not a v a i l a b l e at any price or a v a i l a b l e only to refinance e x i s t i n g mortgages. During the ea r l y months <of 1975, i t ^ was the high i n t e r e s t rates f o r mortgages which dominated the G.V.R.D. headlines, but i t was also a f a c t that a large number of mortgage lenders e i t h e r had no funds a v a i l a b l e or q u a l i f i e d t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y with re-financing or maximum amount r e s t r i c t i o n s . 7 When t h i s occurs, the consumer i s e f f e c t i v e l y precluded from p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the home ownership sub-market and the demand must necessa r i l y decline. 8.1 Summary and Policy Implications This chapter has shown that c r e d i t conditions occupy a c r u c i a l p o s i t i o n i n the stimulation or retardation of housing demand. If the factors of cost (both in terms of cost of c a p i t a l and cash flow) and a v a i l a b i l i t y are favorable, then the demand f o r owned units w i l l increase. If c r e d i t conditions are not favorable then demand must decrease due to the high percentage of people who require financing i n order to purchase. As these two factors (cost and a v a i l a b i l i t y ) of c r e d i t have such an obvious e f f e c t on housing demand, i t has been a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of govern-ments to use t h e i r influence on f i n a n c i a l conditions to adjust the flow of 112 housing demand and in turn influence the economy. This arises because of the size of the housing sector — new residential construction expenditures are roughly 40% of total new construction expendi-ture, 24% of business gross fixed capital formation, and 4%% of gross national expenditure. ... In the past, most federal government p o l i c i e s have operated v i a the r e s i -dential mortgage market: easing c r e d i t terms i n an e f f o r t to give a greater proportion of the population access to home ownership; federal mortgage guarantee and insurance program; the regulation of lenders; and g the 'guidance' provided by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Over the long run the trend has been toward less onerous lending terms such as longer amortization periods, higher loan-to-value r a t i o s and higher debt-service r a t i o s . While to a large extent such moves have been i n i t i a t e d to o f f s e t higher i n t e r e s t rates, they have also opened up r e s i -dential mortgage financing to increasing numbers of housing consumers, thus increasing the demand. Such eased c r e d i t terms tend to s h i f t demand from the rental submarket to the home ownership sector (a s i m i l a r action to the demand s h i f t created by a price change, as outlined i n footnote 12 of Chapter 7) and e x i s t i n g home owners tend to upgrade the q u a l i t y and quantity of the housing services they c u r r e n t l y consume. While eased c r e d i t terms may provide access to more buyers, that increased access implies greater demand and hence higher p r i c e s . For t h i s reason the inception of easier c r e d i t terms when the construction of new units i s taking place at the maximum seems rather a pointless p o l i c y . Easier c r e d i t when demand i s 113 already increasing r a p i d l y due to demographic for c e s , higher income and subsidies p r e f e r e n t i a l to home ownership only serves to aggravate demand and work at cross-purposes to the o r i g i n a l intent by d r i v i n g prices up. When c r e d i t conditions are allowed to operate f r e e l y , they can serve a valuable function i n the operation of the ownership submarket. Restricted a v a i l a b i l i t y and more stringent c r e d i t terms, which a r i s e as a natural function of increased demand f o r mortgage funds, can have the e f f e c t of reducing housing demand. With such an e f f e c t , r e s t r i c t e d c r e d i t conditions o f f e r the simplest e x i t from the vici o u s c i r c l e of 'price expectation - p r i c e increase'. Tighter conditions i n the mortgage market must reduce the demand f o r housing, thus causing prices to s t a b i l i z e and possibly f a l l . Unfortunately, i t i s during periods of high housing prices that the government experiences the greatest pressure to influence a relaxa-t i o n of mortgage c r e d i t terms. Thus, the government i s placed i n a pos i t i o n of increasing the problem by s a t i s f y i n g public demands. However, in the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , the government's decision to influence mortgage conditions r e s u l t s more from the potential f o r t h e i r general e f f e c t on the country's economy, rather than t h e i r s p e c i f i c e f f e c t on the housing market. 114 FOOTNOTES See M.A. Goldberg and D. Ulinder, Residential Developer Behaviour: 1975 (Vancouver: Faculty of Commerce, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976). See questions B 36 and B 37 of the questionnaire, Appendix A. 3 Jack E. Gelfand, "The Credit E l a s t i c i t y of Lower Middle-Income Housing Demand," Land Economics (November 1966). ^Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, Appendix Volume (Ottawa, 1964), p. 100, c i t e d by L.B. Smith, Postwar Canadian Housing and Residential Mortgage Markets and the Role of Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), p. 37. 5 See question B 60 and B 61 of the questionnaire, Appendix A. The term 'absolute' i s added to d i s t i n g u i s h t h i s f a c t o r from personal a v a i l a b i l i t y , which i s dictated by the cost of mortgage c r e d i t and the s p e c i f i c person. 7 l n a survey of G.V.R.D. lenders, of the 27 surveyed lenders, 16 q u a l i f i e d t h e i r terms with "maximum amounts," "refinancing only," " l i m i t e d funds" or "no funds a v a i l a b l e . " See Vancouver Sun, 28 May 1975, p. 32. g L.B. Smith, Housing in Urban Canada: Problems^and Prospects (Ottawa: CM.H.C., January 1971), p. 81. 9 Idem, "Postwar Canadian Housing Po l i c y in Theory and Practice,' Land Economics (August 1968), pp. 339-349. Chapter 9 CONCLUSION This thesis has analyzed the four major components of housing demand to explain t h e i r e f f e c t on the housing equation's most v o l a t i l e v a r i a b l e : demand. As the supply of housing units i s viewed as i n e l a s t i c in the short-run, an understanding of the influence provided by demographic forces, income, price and c r e d i t conditions i s essential to the understanding of our current housing s i t u a t i o n . This chapter brings together the more s a l i e n t points of t h i s analysis and makes some concluding comments. Demographic forces have been shown to provide t h e i r influence on housing demand through a l t e r a t i o n s i n the population s i z e and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which lead to household formation. In t h i s regard, i n -migration, the growth of non-family households and the influence of the 'baby boom' have been responsible f o r increased housing demand in B r i t i s h Columbia. The dramatic increase of income over the past ten years has heightened the demand f o r housing.* With greater amounts to spend, consumers have directed greater amounts toward housing. 115 116 Through t h i s increase in demand, with no corresponding increase o in supply, the price of housing in B r i t i s h Columbia has r i s e n r a p i d l y . Although t h i s increase in p r i c e has tempered demand to a c e r t a i n extent, the phenomenon of pr i c e expectation has created a sense of urgency in the ownership submarket. With housing consumers belie v i n g that prices w i l l continue to r i s e and t h e i r perception of housing as a hedge against i n f l a -t i o n , the high prices have not acted as a complete deterrent and the high demand has been maintained. The only real escape from t h i s c i r c l e of p r i c e expectation-demand has been supplied by the r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on c r e d i t a v a i l a b i l i t y as a r e s u l t of the high demand f o r funds. With the major avenue of financing c u r t a i l e d , the demand f o r ownership must decline. Evidence of the operation of our four components of housing demand has been supplied throughout the text, with the main source being a consumer survey conducted in J u l y 1975. While the data supplied are considered adequate, the amount of applicable data does f a l l short of what was o r i g i n a l l y desired (e.g. none of the survey data were found to be applicable to the chapter on p r i c e ) . What was required, were more sub-j e c t i v e questions as to why the consumer chose t h e i r current form of housing and what factors would lead to what changes. To place i t on a more s p e c i f i c plane, more questions were required dealing with the e f f e c t of our four components on the consumer's choice of housing. The main reason f o r these shortcomings was the f a i l u r e to s p e c i f i c a l l y define the use of the survey data, p r i o r to i t s administration. To a c e r t a i n extent, t h i s f a i l u r e was predictable, given the circumstances surrounding the creation of the survey. The opportunity to co-ordinate and share expenses with the Interdepartmental Study Team on Housing and 117 Rents arose quite r a p i d l y , e s t a b l i s h i n g unavoidable time const r a i n t s . Thus, with l i t t l e time to prepare, the trade-off had to be made between having some data on a v a r i e t y of consumer oriented subjects, rather than f u l f i l l i n g a l l the requirements f o r s p e c i f i c topics. The gaps in the applicable data f o r t h i s thesis serve as evidence of what happens when a report attempts to f i t i t s e l f into the a v a i l a b l e survey. C e r t a i n l y , the ideal method i s to design the survey s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the report. The f i n a l intention of t h i s thesis was to provide p o l i c y sug-gestions to be directed toward the f a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g the demand f o r housing. Although one always hopes to provide the p o l i c y key which w i l l unlock the housing problem, in the f i n a l analysis one must admit that the nature of the problem defies p o l i c y oriented, short-run s o l u t i o n . It i s possible f o r governments to use 'carrot or s t i c k ' p o l i c i e s to manipulate demographic for c e s , however, the p r a c t i c e raises serious moral questions. The important point i s that governments should recognize demographic impact and i t s e f f e c t on housing demand, and structure t h e i r p o l i c y accordingly. With regard to the p r i c e component, the current manipulation through subsidy and p r i c e control p o l i c i e s has served to stimulate demand, increasing prices further and causing detrimental side e f f e c t s in the market's operation. In addition, the advocates of p r i c e oriented p o l i c i e s should be attacked f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e to d i s t i n g u i s h between symptom and cause, and the facade of s o l u t i o n under which they operate should be recognized as ludicrous. When c r e d i t conditions are allowed to operate f r e e l y they can serve the useful function of c u r t a i l i n g demand spurred on by p r i c e expec-t a t i o n . However, c r e d i t oriented p o l i c i e s are c o n t i n u a l l y being used to 118 manipulate the terms faced by housing consumers. Through a l t e r a t i o n s in the c r e d i t terms, the demand f o r home ownership i s a l t e r e d , and the country's economy i s e i t h e r stimulated or held back. In a number of ways, the relaxation of c r e d i t conditions has the same e f f e c t on housing demand as price s u b s i d i z a t i o n , and i t i s usually accompanied by the same erroneous a i r of s o l u t i o n . Although the e f f e c t on the economy may be of general benefit, the short run e f f e c t on housing demand w i l l be to drive up the price of housing and thus to eat away the benefits derived from relaxed mortgage terms. It should be noted that there i s nothing inherently e v i l in high prices alone, as they are simply the natural product of high demand reacting with limited supply. In f a c t , high prices serve a number of b e n e f i c i a l functions: by c u r t a i l i n g demand; by ensuring that the a v a i l a b l e supply i s u t i l i z e d to i t s f u l l e s t p o t e n t i a l ; and by passing on the necessary signals to the production sector. One can assume that the housing problem, as perceived by govern-ments, i s the i n a b i l i t y of low and fixed income groups to cope with the market p r i c e . Thus, the course of p o l i c y action should be to move against the factors which created the price and the size of the disposable income which creates the i n a b i l i t y . As demand i s so dominant in i t s short run e f f e c t , the removal of demand-stimulation in the form of price subsidization and relaxed c r e d i t conditions w i l l do much to a l l e v i a t e the high p r i c e s . In addition, adjustments to disposable income, through income-tax provisions, w i l l a s s i s t i n r e d i s t r i b u t i n g the a b i l i t y to bid for housing to those groups who are considered to be in need. 119 If one i s to believe that the housing problem has reached c r i s i s proportions, then there is a l l the more reason for governments to r e a l i z e the detrimental e f f e c t s of t h e i r demand-stimulation p o l i c i e s , the need for further income r e d i s t r i b u t i o n and the necessity of easing the supply of housing to avoid problems in the future. 9.1 Areas for Further Research It i s an acknowledged f a c t that the bulk of the empirical studies concerning housing, on which our economic theory r e s t s , originates from the United States and the United Kingdom. Although the general theory that these studies impart i s transportable, the s p e c i f i c s of housing condi-tions are as immobile as the commodity i t s e l f . In t h i s regard, the paucity of current, or in some subject areas any information concerning the B r i t i s h Columbia s i t u a t i o n , makes the f i e l d for further research almost l i m i t l e s s . With the additional f a c t that the l i m i t a t i o n s of money and time (both for researchers and respondents) r e s t r i c t the depth of any research that i s undertaken, we are l e f t with a fragmented picture of the present, with l i t t l e or no opportunity for h i s t o r i c a l comparison. To delineate a l l the areas of research needed i s almost impossible, however, with regard to the demand aspect, c e r t a i n l y the subjects of mobi l i t y , preference and ' l i f e cycle' e f f e c t are sadly lacking at present. Although the housing consumer survey forms an integral part of t h i s t h e s i s , this in no way implies that t h i s work has exhausted the potential f o r analysis of the c o l l e c t e d data. Hopefully future work with the survey material w i l l help to f i l l the void described in the previous two paragraphs. It i s also hoped that such work w i l l encourage additional 120 survey research in the future r e l a t i n g to the elements of housing demand in B r i t i s h Columbia. 121 FOOTNOTES Between 1961 and 1973 personal disposable income per capita increased 232% while a l l consumer prices increased 167%; a l l housing 166%; home ownership 227%; and new home ownership 241%. See David Baxter and S.W. Hamilton, "Residential Real Estate Markets: C r i s i s or Confusion," Financial Post (October 1975), (draft paper). Figures used i n a recent a r t i c l e on Canadian c i t i e s , l i s t e d the average s e l l i n g price of r e s i d e n t i a l homes in Vancouver, over the f i r s t six months of 1975, at $56,000; second only to Toronto ($57,150), using a comparison of 22 c i t i e s . See "The Great Canadian C i t i e s , Game," Weekend Magazine: Vancouver Sun (18 October 1975). BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, F.A. Residential Search Behavior: A Study of Intra-Urban Relocation in Toronto. Toronto: York University, 1973. Baxter, David. Speculation in Land. Vancouver: Faculty of Commerce, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. Baxter, D. and Hamilton, S.W. Landlords and Tenants in Danger - Rent Control in Canada. Winnipeg: Appraisal I n s t i t u t e of Canada, 1975. Bossons, John. Credit Rationing, Indivisibilities, Portfolio Balance Effects, and Wealth Elasticity of the Demand for Rousing. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1973. Branch, M e l v i l l e C , J r . Urban Planning and Public Opinion. Princeton, N.J.: The Princeton University Press, 1942. Brennan,"Michael J . Theory of Economic Statics. 2nd ed. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1970. Butler, Edgar W., Chapin, F. Stuart, J r . , Hemmens, George C , Kaiser, Edward J . , Stegman, Michael A., and Weiss, S h i r l e y F. Moving Behavior and Residential Choice: A National Survey. Chapel H i l l , North Carolina: Highway Research Board, 1969. Caplow, Theodore. "Incidence and Direction of Residential Mobility in a Minneapolis Sample." Social Forces, 45 (May 1949): 413-417. C a r l i n e r , Geofferey. "Income E l a s t i c i t i e s of Housing Demand." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55 (November 1973): 528-532. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Canadian Bousing Statistics, 1974. Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1975. 122 123 Chapin, F. Stuart, J r . "A Model f o r Simulating Residential Development." Journal of American Institute of Planners, 31 (1965): 120-125. Clark, C. and Jones, G.T. The Demand for Rousing. London: Centre f o r Environmental Studies, 1971. Dale-Johnson, David. "Housing P o l i c y , Tenure Choice and the Demand for Housing in Greater Vancouver." M. Sc. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Duesenberry, J.S., and K i s t i n , H. "The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure." In Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, pp. 451-482. Edited by W. Leontief. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. Ermuth, F. Residential Satisfaction and Urban Environmental Preferences. Toronto: York University, 1974. Fisher, Robert Moore, and Graham, John. "Housing Demand by One-Person Households." Land Economics, Volume L, Number 2 (May 1974): 163-168. Foote, Nelson H.; Abu-Lughod, J.; Foley, Mary M.;. and Winnick, Louis. Housing Choices and Housing Constraints. New York: McGraw-H i l l Book Company, Incorporated, 1960. Friedman, Milton. A Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. Gelfand, Jack E. "The Credit E l a s t i c i t y of Lower Middle-Income Housing Demand." Land Economics (November 1966): 464-472. Glick , Paul C , and Parre, Robert, J . "New Approaches in Studying the L i f e Cycle of the Family." Demography (February 1965): 187-202. Goldberg, M.A., and Ulinder, D. Residential Developer Behavior: 1975. Vancouver: Faculty of Commerce, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Goldner, William. Projective Land Use Model (PLUM): A Model for the Spatial Allocation of Activities and Land Uses in a Metropolitan Region. Berkeley: Bay Area Transportation Study Commission, 1968. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Population Forecast. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , 1973. 124 Green, Howard. Movements of Families Within the Cleveland Metropolitan District, 1933. Cleveland: Real Property Inventory of Metropolitan Cleveland, 1934. Greenbie, Barrie B. New House or New Neighbourhood? A Survey of Priorities Among Home Owners in Madison, Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: By the Author, 1968. Harberger, A.C., ed. The Demand for Durable Goods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Houthakker, H.S. "New Evidence of Demand E l a s t i c i t i e s . " Econometrica, Volume 33, Number 2 (April 1965): 277-288. Houthakker, H.S., and Taylor, L.D. Consumer Demand in the United States: Analyses and Projections. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Kain, J.F. The Journey to Work as a. Determinant of Residential Location. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, 1961. Kalbach, Warren E., and McVey, Wayne, W. The Demographic Bases of Canadian Society. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1971. Lansing, J.B. Residential Location and Urban Mobility: The Second Wave of Interviews. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1966. Lansing, J.B., and Mueller, Eva. Residential Location and Urban Mobility. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1964. Lee, T.H. "Demand for Housing: A Cross-Section Analysis." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 45 (May 1963): 190-196. : . "The Stock Demand E l a s t i c i t i e s of Non-Farm Housing." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 46 (February 1964): 82-89. . "Housing and Permanent Income: Tests Based on a Three-Year Reinterview Study." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 50 (November 1968): 480-490. 125 de Leeuw, Frank. "The Demand for Housing: A Review of Cross-Section Evidence." The Review of Economies and Statistics, 53 (February 1971): 1-10. Levine, Robert C. "The Economic Reasons for the Shortage of Residential Rental Accommodation in Greater Vancouver." M. Sc. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. Lioy, Michele. Social Trends in Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: United Way of Greater Vancouver, 1975. Lowry, I.S. A Model of Metropolis. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, 1964. Maisel, S.J., and Winnick, Louis. "Family Housing Expenditures: Elusive Laws and Intrusive Variances." In Consumption and Saving, Volume 1, pp. 359-435. Edited by I. Friend. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1960. Menchik, Mark D. Residential Environmental Preferences and Choice: Some Preliminary Empirical Results Relevant to Urban Form. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , 1971. Moore, E.G. Residential Mobility in the City. Resource Paper No. 13. Washington: Association of American Geographers, 1972. Morgan, James N. "Housing and the A b i l i t y to Pay." Econometrica, Volume 33, Number 2 (April 1963): 289-306. Morton, W.A. Housing Taxation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1955. Muth, Richard F. "The Demand for Non-Farm Housing." In The Demand for Durable Goods, pp. 29-96. Edited by A.C. Harberger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. . Cities and Housing: The Spatial Pattern of Urban Residential Land Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. . Permanent Income, Instrumental Variables, and the Income Elasticity of Housing Demand. St. Louis: I n s t i t u t e f o r Urban and Regional Studies, University of Washington, 1970. Needleman, L i o n e l . The Economics of Housing. London: Stapel Press, 1965. 126 Nie, N.H., and Bent, D.H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences: Update Manual. Chicago: University of Chicago, A p r i l 1971 and A p r i l 1972. Nie, N.H., Bent, D.H., and H u l l , C H . Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1970. Oksanen, E. "Housing Demand in Canada, 1947-62: Some Preliminary Experimentation." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32 (August 1966): 302-318. Raj, Des. The Design of Sample Surveys. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1972. R a t c l i f f e , Richard U. Urban Land Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1949. Reid, Margaret. Bousing and Income. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Rossi, Peter H. Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mobility. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free Press, 1955. Smith, Lawrence B. "Postwar Canadian Housing Policy in Theory and Practice." Land Economics (August 1968): 339-349. — . Housing in Urban Canada: Problems-and Prospects. Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1971. . Housing in Canada: Market Structure and Policy Performance. Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1971. — . Postwar Canadian Housing and Residential Mortgage Markets and the Role of Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974. Smith, Wallace F. Aspects of Housing Demand - Absorption, Demolition and Differentiation. Berkeley: The Regents of the University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1968. Speare, Alder, J r . "Home Ownership, L i f e Cycle Stages, and Residential M o b i l i t y . " Demography (November 1970): 449-457. 127 S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Dictionary of 1971 Census Terms (12-540). Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974. . Census Tract Bulletin, 1971 Census, Population and Housing Characteristics: Vancouver. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974. . S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Immigration Quarterly. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974. Tableman, Betty. Intra Community Migration in the Flint Metropolitan District. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1948. White, P h i l i p H. Prologue to an Analysis of the Residential Mortgage Market. Vancouver: The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965. Winnick, Louis. American Housing and its Use, the Demand for Shelter Space. New York: Wiley, 1957. Wolforth, John R. Residential Location and the Place of Work. Vancouver: Tantalus Research, 1965. APPENDIX A HOUSING CONSUMER SURVEY 128 129 R e g i o n a l M a r k e t i n g S u r v e y s Vancouver ^ p M START TIME FINISH TIME • • • • 1 2 S t u d y R5590 (CARD) STREET NAME AND NUMBER CITY, TOWNSHIP OR MUNICIPALITY_ POSTAL CODE 13 1* 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 H e l l o , I am o f R e g i o n a l M a r k e t i n g S u r v e y s . S i n c e H o u s i n g c o n t i n u e s t o be a pr o b l e m o f c o n c e r n t o government, b u s i n e s s , and t h e p u b l i c , a j o i n t s u r v e y i s b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d by the F a c u l t y o f Commerce and B u s i n e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t U.B.C. and the Government of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a to e v a l u a t e the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n . R e g i o n a l M a r k e t i n g S u r v e y s has been a s k e d t o c o n d u c t t h i s s u r v e y and y o u r h o u s e h o l d has been s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s s t u d y . I w o u l d l i k e t o a s k some q u e s t i o n s a b out yo u r home. Here i s a l e t t e r t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e s t u d y i n a l i t t l e more d e t a i l . ADDITIONS TO CARD ONE column item JL _ 19 - 27 Prince I 28 - 30 Number < 31 - 33 Number i 34 - 35 Number < 36 - 37 Number < 38 - 45 Number i 46 - 49 Type of 50 - 51 Number i 52 Type of 53 - 56 Monthly (1) Husband and wife (2) One parent 130 , Duplicate Columns 1"<> (CARD) 0_ 2 SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 7 3 DEFINITION OF THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLDS BY THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF tTTlS SURVEY,' WE MEAN THE PERSON WHO CONTRIBUTES THE -LARGEST AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD, IF THE HOUSEHOLD IS A NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD, ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE RENT OR SHARES OWNERSHIP | MAY COMPLETE THE SURVEY EVEN THROUGH THERE MAY NOT EXIST A NOMINAL HOUSEHOLD HEAD. rAl Surname Given Name Al. Would you please tell me the name of-all household members, starting with 01 Head: cne ne.ia 01 trie nousenoia.' lHfcKfc ARE MORE THAN NINE MEMBERS IN THE HOUSEHOLD CONTINUE USING A SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE) 02 03 A2. Axe there any persons away from this household attending school, visiting, travelling, or in hospital who normally live here? YES f j j LIST ANY OMMISSIONS IN A 1. NO rzj (FOR EACH NAME LISTED, COMPLETE QUESTIONS A3 to A 6) 04 05 06 07 08 09 Line number 01 j 02 i 03 i 04 | 05 06 i 07 .' 08 09 9/10 ill/12; — i — j — i — ! — i ' i ' • i •—• 13/14 115/16 17/18 19/20 21/22 ;23/24 25/26 A4. What sex is ? .. , 1. Male 2. Female 27-il—i a 28-o a i 29-! • 2 Q 30-i n 31-1 1 1 2 • 32-- 33-O 1 IZJ a : 2 • 34- 35-1| i 1 i • 2 1 I 2 j i A5. What is -s u S i n g l e marital status? . . , 2. Married 3. Other 36-a a a 37- | a i o 38-3 CZJ 39-i d 2 C Z 3 L_J 40-2 j | 3LZ3 41- i42-n 11 i r~2 CD- 2 G 3 a ; 3 G J 43- 44-i i G : i CZJ 2 l' 2 G j 3 G J : 3C~J A6. What is *s relationship to the household? 2. Spouse(husb. or wife 4. Son/Caughter-in-law. 9. Brother/Sister-in-la 11. Roomer/Boarder/Lodge 13. Partner/Roommate... 14. Other (SPECIFY).... 45/46 r 47/48 o a » o o Q o Q o Q o n o Q i « a iCZ3 i Q 49/50. o O 03| 1 0 { j ° a _ 07f~J oaj l 091 1 i c O 12J 1 13l | X V 51/52 o Q o Q o Q o O o O o Q o Q i O i O d l Q 53/54 o Q o Q » o o Q J G oej | o Q i O i2f—, i Q l ° 55/56 o Q 03| 1 OCJ o Q oej 1 o Q o Q o Q !2L_J 57/58 o Q o Q o G o a o G o G Qgj 1 o9rn i Q i O i Q i Q I Q 59/60 o Q ; » G ! o Q i o a ! o G ! .-°8' a i O i Q "ZD 61/62 o a o a o a o a o a 07[G oa 0? ioJ | a A7. Which member(s) if any, owns this dwelling? NONE OWN [ 1 63-a 64-a 65-O 66-o 67-a 68-a 69-a 70-a 71-A8. Which member(s), if any, pay rent in this dwelling? NONE RENT fJTJ 72- 173- j 74- 1 75-a i a | a a 76- 77- 78-o a a 79-a 80-a 131 3 - DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1 (CARD) SECTION B: PRESENT DWELLING CHARACTERISTICS B1. What type o f d w e l l i n g i s t h i s ? (HAND CARD A) 1. S i n g l e house 2. House a t t a c h e d to n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e 3. S e m i - d e t a c h e d o r d o u b l e house ... 4. Row house 5. D u p l e x (UP - DOWN) 6. A p a r t m e n t , f l a t o r m u l t i p l e d w e l l i n g 7. M o b i l e home on a f i x e d f o u n d a t i o n 8. O t h e r (SPECIFY) B2. How many s t o r i e s h a v i n g d w e l l i n g u n i t s a r e t h e r e i n t h i s b u i l d i n g ? . B3. How many d w e l l i n g u n i t s a r e t h e r e i n t h i s b u i l d i n g ? 2.. 1941 - 1950 3. 1951 - 1960 4. 1961 - 1970 5. 1971 - Dec. '73 6. J a n . 1974 - P r e s e n t 1 • 3 D THANK. RESPONDENT TERMINATE INTERVIEW B4. When was t h i s b u i l d i n g o r i g i n a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d ? (HAND CARD B) 1. 1940 o r b e f o r e 10 .11 12 13 1 • S O B5. Doeo t h i s d w e l l i n g u n i t have a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.-13. 14. 15. 16. K i t c h e n L i v i n g room D i n i n g room F a m i l y room R e c r e a t i o n room Den L i b r a r y Workshop B u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l room Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 .. Bedroom 3 ., Bedroom .4 •. Bedroom 5 .. Bathroom'1 , Bathroom 2. , YES 15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -26 -27 -28 -29 -30 -B6. How many a d d i t i o n a l rooms a r e t h e r e i n t h i s d w e l l i n g u n i t n o t i n c l u d i n g h a l l s , v e s t i b u l e s , u n f i n i s h e d basement rooms, g a r a g e s , e t c . ? 31 32 B7. A r c any o f these rooms u s e d s o l e l y f o r b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l p u r p o s e s ? No . Yes • t How many?. 33 34 132 -4-B8 (ASK ONLY IF SINGLE DETACHED HOUSE - SEE QUESTION B l ) What i s the s i z e of your l o t i n feet? What i s the Width-Depth-35 36 37 38 39 40 Area-(NOTE: 1 ACRE EQUALS 43.560 SQUARE FEET) B9 (ASK EVERYONE) Does t h i s household have a f l u s h t o i l e t e x c l u s i v e l y for the use of t h i s unit? 41 42 43 44 45 46 YES. NO. . 47-2 n B 10 Does t h i s household have a sink i n the main bathroom? 48-YES. NO.. B 11 Is the payment f o r t h i s dwelling reduced f o r one or more of the| f o l l o w i n g reason? *"" This includes Federal P r o v i n c i a l and Municipal projects as w e l l as Department of National Defence and l i m i t e d dividend projects (HAND CARD C) 49--1. Subsidized by governmen t 1 • 2. Subsidized by employer 2 3. Subsidized by r e l a t i v e • 3 • 4. Services to lan d l o r d . . 4 • 5. 5 • 6. 6 rj-7. Payment not reduced... 7 • Specify 12 Which of these statements describes your dwelli n g u n i t ? (HAND 1. 2. 3. RENTED FOR MONEY BY A MEMBER (S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD, OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A CONDOMINIUM BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD .' CARD D) 50- 1 • 51- 1 • 52- 1 OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A LONG TERM PREPAID LEASEHOLD BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD.. 5. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD BUT SITUATED ON LEASED LAND. (INCLUDE MOBILE HOMES ON RENTED PAD)... OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD AS A UNIT IN A COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECT 7. OTHER GO TO B.38 GO TO B.13 GO TO B.38 (SPECIFY. THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW) 133 -5-FOR RENTERS ONLY B13 What is the regular rent payment for this dwelling? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 56 47 58 59 60 B14 '.How often is this payment made?' (HAND CARD E) 1. Once a week (weekly) 2. Every two weeks (bi-weekly)....« 3. Once a month (monthly).........• 4. ' Every two months (bi-monthly)... 5. Every three months (quarterly).. 6. Every six months (twice a year). 7. Once a year (yearly) 8. Other 61 Specify 1 l_ 2 r 3 ~ * L 5 f 6 r 7 r B15 Does this payment include the value of rent for rooms used solely for business or professional purposes? No (not included or no such rooms) (GO TO B17) Don't know.....(GO TO B 17) Yes............(GO TO B 16)...... B16 What is the value of the (READ TIME PERIOD FROM B.14) rent for these rooms? 62-1 ~2 2 n~j 63~ oT~ 65~ 66~ TT B17 Did you receive the Renter's Resource Grant last year? 68-1. YES 2. NO .3. DON'T KNOW. 3 Q B18 To the best of your knowledge, is this dwelling unit covered by the rent control law? 69-1. YES 2. NO 3. DON'T KNOW. 1 i I 3 • B19 Do you know what the maximum permissible rent increase is? 70-YES...(GO TO B20) NO/DON'T KNOW.,(GO TO B21). JLT~L B20 What is the maximum permissible rent increase? PERCENTAGE 71 72. 73 74 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1 - 6 CARD 0 4 7 8 134 - 6 -B21 Do y o u know how o f t e n t h e r e n t c a n be' i n c r e a s e d ? YES (GO TO B 2 2 ) NO/DON'T KNOW (GO TO B23) B22 How o f t e n c a n t h e . r e n t be i n c r e a s e d ? (DO NOT READ L I S T ) ONCE A Y E A R . ONCE A MONTH ANY TIME OTHER S P E C I F Y B23 A s f a r as you k n o w , c a n the r e n t be r a i s e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y when a new t e n a n t moves i n ? 1. YES 2 . NO 3 . DON'T KNOW. B24 A s f a r as y o u k n o w , a r e t h e r e any c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h t h e r e n t c a n be r a i s e d more t h a n t h e o f f i c i a l p e r c e n t a g e ? 1 . Y E S — ( G O TO B 2 5 ) _--2 . NO (GO TO B 2 6 ) 3 . DON'T KNOW—(GO TO B 26) B25 ( a ) U n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s c a n t h e r e n t be r a i s e d m o r e ? (DO NOT READ L I S T ) FOR RENOVATIONS OTHER FOR RENOVATIONS AND OTHER. DON'T KNOW ( b ) C a n s u c h t.-i i n c r e a s e be c h a l l e n g e d by t h e t e n a n t ? 1 Y e s 2 No 3 D o n ' t k n o w . B26 D i d y o u move i n t o t h i s d w e l l i n g o n o r a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 , 1975? 1 Y E S . . . . ( G O TO B27) 2 NO (GO TO B 2 S ) 3 DON'T K N O W . . ( G O TO B 2 8 ) . B 27 ( a ) What r e n t d i d y o u pay f o r t h e f i r s t m o n t h o f o c c u p a n c y ? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) ( b ) Do y o u know how much r e n t t h e p r e v i o u s . t e n a n t p a i d ? Y E S . . ( G O TO B 27 ( c ) ) NO/DON'T KNOW.. (GO TO B27 - ( d ) ) . *(c) What d i d t h e y p a y ? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) ( d ) Do y o u know when t h e l a s t r e n t i n c r e a s e p r i o r t o y o u r m o v i n g i n o c c u r r e d ? Y E S . . ( G O TO B27 ( e ) ) . N O . . . ( G O TO B 2 8 ) ( c ) When d i d i t o c c u r ? MONTH_ Y E A R . . 1 0 -2D 3 0 4 i r l i -1 2 -1 3 -*D 3 D 1 4 -i D 2D 3 D 1 5 -16 17 18 19 20 2 1 -t o 22 23 24 25 26 2 7 -28 29 30 IT 135 - -7-B 28. Has your rent been raised or have you received Notice of a Rent Increase since January 1, 1975? 1. YES..(GO TO B29 (a)) 2. NO...(GO TO B 30) ! B29 (a) Did you receive Notice of the increase on the government's Notice of Rent Increase form? (SHOW FORM) 1« YES o « o * o o o a a > o o * o o * o a s a « a * * a j 2. NO (b) Did you receive notice of the increase 3 months in advance? 32-1 ' 2 K 33-11_ 2 !~ 1. YES. 2. NO.. 34-I 1 . 2 (c) What was the dollar amount of the increase? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) (d) Did the increase include any amount for renovations? YES..(GO TO B 29 (e)) NO;..(GO TO B 29 (f)) DON'T KNOW (GO TO B V: ( f) . . .„ |(e) What amount included for renovations? I (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 39-(f) In what month did or wi l l the increase take effect?_ (g) Do you know when the last rent increase on this unit (PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1975) OCCURED?-YES..(CO TO B 29 (h)) NO/DON'T KNOW..(GO TO B 3C) 35 36 37 38 1 i 2 \ • 40 T l 42 43 44 45 i(h) When did i t occur? MONTH YEAR. B 30. Did you feel that any aspect of your rer. • increase was not allowable? 1. YES..(GO TO B31) 2. NO...(GO TO B34) 3. DON'T KNOW..(GO TO B34). B31. Did you ask a Government Agency to review or investigate any aspect of your rent increase? 1. YES..(GO TO B32 (a)) . . . . 2. NO/DON'T KNOW..(GO TO B33) B 32 (a) Which agency? (DO NOT READ LIST) 1. RENT REVIEW COMMISSION. 2. RENTALSMAN 3. BOTH...... 4. OTHER.... |SPECIFY (b) Was the entire rent increase permitted? 1. YES 2. NO. . . . . . 3. STILL PENDING (c) Did the agency investigate your complaint or inquiry? 1. Y E S . . . . . . o o . o * . . . . . . . . . 2. N O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. DON'T KNOW (d) Was your complaint dealt with promptly? 1. Y E S . . . . . . . . 2. NO 3. DON'T KNOW. (e) Would you contact this agency again about a similar rent increase? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON'T KNOW....... 47 48 49 50 51-52-IB 53-54-55-56-57-GO TO B 34 I 136 -8-B 33. Why didn't you contact a Government Agency? (DO NOT READ LIST) 1. s a t i s f i e d with increase 2. didn't know who to contact 3. too much trouble/didn't think i t would help. 4. a f r a i d of landlord r e t a l i a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. other „ SPECIFY B 34. Was any payment other than rent required when you moved i n t o t h i s apartment? 1. YES..(GO TO B 35) 2. NO..(GO TO B 36) 3. DON'T KNOW.•(GO TO B 36). 58-1 2 L J 3 L_J * L _ J 5 i I-59-11 T 2 0 3 d B 35 Which of the f o l l o w i n g were required (READ LIST) 1. damage or s e c u r i t y deposit?. 2. advance rent payment? 3. other?.. SPECIFY B 36 Would you prefer to own your own dwelling u n i t rather than renting? YES..(GO TO B 37) NO..(GO TO B63) DON'T KNOW..(GO TO B63) B 37 (HAND CARD F) Which of these are the two most important reasons why you have not made the change? 1. Cannot a f f o r d down payment 2. Cannot a f f o r d monthly payments 3. S u i t a b l e u n i t not a v a i l a b l e 4. Mortgage f i n a n c i n g not a v a i l a b l e 5. Not ready to undertake r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of ownership yet 6. Other 7. Other SPECIEY 'SPECIFY 60- 1 61- 1 62- 1 YES 63-64- 1 • 65- 1 • 66- 1 | I 67- 1 • 68- 1 L J 69- 1 L J -'70-1 I r-| < « GO TO B 63 - 9 -FOR OWNERS ONLY B.38 What was the purchase p r i c e of t h i s dwelling? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 15/16 -B.39 What was the month and year of the purchase? • MONTH — JAN. 01 FEB. 02 • V MAR. 03 • APR. 04 • MAY 05 • JUNE 06 • JULY 07 • AUG. 08 • SEPT. 09 • OCT. 10 • NOV. 11 • DEC. 12 • "77 Ta ~ "lo B.40 How much was the value of the downpayment? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 21 22 23 24 25 26 DUPLICATE COLUMN-S 137 1 " * (CARD) _0_ _5_ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 B.41 If you were s e l l i n g t h i s dwelling now, for how much would you expect to s e l l i t ? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 27 28 29 30 31 32 B.42 Do these amounts re f e r to one dwelling u n i t only? YES ....(GO. TO B44).. NO (GO TO B43).. 33 -1 • 2 t=h B.43 How many dwelling u n i t s does i t 34 35 36 B.44 How many mortgages are there on t h i s dwelling? • 0. 0 1. 1 • 2. 2 • 3. 3 • 4. Four or more .. 4 • B.45 Is there an agreement for sale on t h i s dwelling? 37 -1. YES (GO TO B46).. 2. NO (GO TO B47).. 3. DON'T KNOW (GO TO B47). (AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE IS A LEGAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER OF A HOUSE WHICH IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A MORTGAGE. IN AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE THE SELLER CONTINUES TO HOLD THE TITLE UNTIL THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED HAS BEEN PAID BY THE PURCHASER) 1 CJ-i 2 • 3 • B.46 How does i t rank as a charge against the t i t l e of the property? 38 1 • 2 • 3 • - 1 0" 138 (IF THERE ARE NO MORTGAGES - SEE B 44 -AND THERE IS NO AGREEMENT FOR SALE-SEE B45 - GO TO B 54) IF THERE ARE. MORTGAGES OR AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE COMPLETE. QUESTIONS B 47 - B 53 FOR EACH)  i—r •—: : — ; : • 1 1 — ! 1 p Do not inciude any amounts beyond the third mortgage and the agreement for sale B 47 What is the amount of the principal outstanding on the mortgage'/ (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) FIRST mortgage 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 45 49 50 SECOND mortgage THIRD mortgage AGREEMENT FOR SALE 51 52 53 54 55 56 j57 58 59 60 61 i>2 B 48 What is the regular payment? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 7-3 74 75 76 77 78 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1 ICARD) u B 49 How often is- this payment made? 1. Once a week (weekly) 2* Every two weeks (bi-weekly) 3. " Once a month (monthly) 4. Every two months (bi-montly) 5. Every three months (quarterly) 6. Every six months (twice a year) 7. Once a year (yearly) 8. Other B 50 Does the payment include: ° Principal? ° Interest?. ' Taxes? ° Any other charges 10- 11-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12-SPECIFY SPECIFY YES NO 13- 1 O 2 • 17- 1 • 2 • 21- 1 [~~| 2 | j 25- 1 • 2 • YES NO 14- Q 2 • 18- O 2 • 22- li | 2 | j 26- O 2 • YES NO 15- O O 19- Q O 23- Q Q 27- O Q YES NO 16-it I O 20-ll I O 2 4 - O O 28-Q Q B 51 What interest rate is currently on the; mortgage/agreement for sale? (IN PERCENT) 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 7. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 B 52 Does the mortgage/agreement for sale apply to one dwelling unit only? 45- 46- ;47- 48-YES..(G0 TO B54).. NO...(GO TO B 53). I B IB B 53 To how many dwelling units does i t apply? 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 B 54 What was the amount of the total yearly property tax payment in 1974? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 57 58 59 60 61 B 55 Is this property tax for one dwelling unit only? 62-YES...(G0 TO B 57). NO....(GO TO B 56). • B 56 How many dwelling units does i t include? 63 64 56 (CHECK B 50 - IF NO TAXES INCLUDED OR NO MORTAGES GO TO B 58. IF TAXES INCLUDED, ASK:) Do your mortgage payments include any property tax payments? YES..(GO TO B 57 (a))..;.... NO,••(GO TO B 58). DON'T KNOW.(GO TO B 58)..... 65-B 57 (a) Do you pay any additional property tax? YES...(GO TO B 57 (b).., NO....(GO TO B 58)....., DON'T KNOW.(GO TO B 58). (b) How much additional did you pay? 66-67 68 69 79 71 139 •11-B 58 When y o u r e c e i v e d y o u r p r o p e r t y t a x s t a t e m e n t f o r 1974 what was t h e r e d u c t i o n , i f a n y , f o r t h e home o w n e r s g r a n t ? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) s c h o o l t a x r e m o v a l ? (R01M) TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) and what was t h e t o t a l r e d u c t i o n ? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1 - 6 (CARD) 0 7_ 7 8 9- 10 11. 12 17" 17" 17" 17" 17" 17" 17" 7d~ B 59 I am g o i n g t o r e a d y o u a l i s t o f s o u r c e s p e o p l e s o m e t i m e s g e t t h e i r downpayment f r o m . F o r e a c h s o u r c e , c a n you t e l l me w h e t h e r y o u g o t y o u r downpayment p a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y f r o m t h a t s o u r c e ; o r g o t no p a r t o f y o u r downpayment f r o m t h a t s o u r c e ? (READ L I S T ) s a v i n g s ? . . . . . . . . P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . No p a r t s a l e o f p r e v i o u s h o u s e . » « • . P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . No p a r t . . b o r r o w e d f r o m f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . No p a r t b o r r o w e d f r o m bank o r o t h e r f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . No p a r t . . p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t Home A c q u i s i t i o n . P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . G r a n t No p a r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F e d e r a l G r a n t P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . No p a r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A n y o t h e r s o u r c e s o f down payment P a r t l y o r e n t i r e l y . . . . No p a r t S P E C I F Y 2 1 -22-23-2 4 -i j B 60 I w o u l d l i k e y o u t o t h i n k b a c k t o t h e t i m e when you p u r c h a s e d t h i s h o u s e . S u p p o s e t h a t t h e amount you had been a b l e t o b o r r o w on y o u r f i r s t m o r t g a g e h a d b e e n 107. l e s s , and t h a t you had t o make up t h e d i f f e r e n c e w i t h a n i n c r e a s e d downpayment . W o u l d you h a v e . . . ( R E A D L I S T ) 1 . b o u g h t t h e same h o u s e . • 2 . b o u g h t a c h e a p e r h o u s e 3 . n o t b o u g h t a t t h a t t i m e 4 . o r done s o m e t h i n g e l s e ? 2 8 -S P E C I F Y D . B 61 Now, s u p p o s e t h a t t h e downpayment was t h e same as y o u a c t u a l l y p a i d , b u t t h a t y o u r m o n t h l y payments were 107. h i g h e r t h a n y o u a c t u a l l y p a i d ( p e r h a p s b e c a u s e of h i g h e r i n t e r e s t r a t e s , o r a s h o r t e r t e r m ) . W o u l d y o u h a v e . . . 2 9 -1 . b o u g h t t h e same h o u s e . . . 2 . b o u g h t a c h e a p e r h o u s e . . 3 . n o t b o u g h t a t t h a t t i m e . 4 . o r done s o m e t h i n g e l s e ? . S P E C I F Y B 62 ( a ) W o u l d y o u p r e f e r t o r e n t r a t h e r t h a n o w n i n g y o u r own d w e l l i n g ? Y E S . . ( G O TO B 62 ( b ) N O . . . ( G O TO B 63) DON'T KNOW.(GO TO B 6 3 ) . . 3 0 -B 62 ( b ) (HAND CARD G) W h i c h o f t h e s e a r e t h e two m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s why y o u h a v e n o t made t h e c h a n g e ? 1 . RENTAL ACCOMMODATION NOT A V A I L A B L E OR NOT A V A I L A B L E I N S U I T A B L E LOCATION 2 . RENTS ARE TOO HIGH 3 . F E E L I T I S IMPORTANT TO OWN NOW BECAUSE OF I N F L A T I O N 4 . A V A I L A B L E RENTAL UNITS NOT OF ADEQUATE QUALITY 5 . A V A I L A B L E RENTAL UNITS TOO L A R G E . . . . . . 6 . A V A I L A B L E RENTAL UNITS TOO S M A L L . . . . . . . . . . • 7 . OTHER. 8 . OTHER. S P E C I F Y S P E C I F Y 3 1 - 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 - 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 - 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 - 1 FOR RENTERS AND OWNERS 140 (READ) The next few questions are asked to determine how much this household pays yearly for basic uti l it ies and services in addition to any rent or mortgage payments. (OWNERS START WITH B64) Utilities & Services B.64 How often do you make payments for B.63 (FOR RENTERS ASK:) Is in-cluded in the rent? (IF YES, CHECK BOX AND CO TO NEXT ITEM IF NO CO TO B.64) Water Electricity or electri-city and gasl 39 -48 1 • No pay-Once a month Every two months Every three months 40- I I 1 r_7j2 • 49-" 3 2 D Every six months Once year Other (Specify no. of paymen ts per year) 3 • 4 • I* • J L * D 3 .D | * • I * 0 ? D B.65 What is the average regular pay-ment? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 41 42 43 44 ? D 50 51 52 53 B.66 Does this amount refer to one dwelling unit only? 45 -YES I I I NO 2 I H DON'T KNOW... 3 D I I y — • To. how many does i t apply? 46 47 54 -YES NO DON'T KNOW. 1 • 2L_>1 To how many does i t apply? 55 56 57 Oil, coal, wood or kerosene for cooking or heating 1 • 58-1 D l 2 O 3 D | * • s D * 0 ? D 59 60 61 62 63 -YES 1 DI NO 2 I f—| DON'T KNOW... 3 | | To now many ^ _ does i t apply? 64 65 Parking 66 -i D 67 2 D 3 • I * • 5 • 68 69 70 71 72 -YES 1 I I NO 2 I I—| DON'T KNOW... 3 | | To how many does i t apply? 73 74 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1 - 6 0 8 (CARD) - 7 - - 3 -Services for the upkeep of this condominium , prepaid lease pay-ments, land lease pay-ments or payments to a housing co-operative Other services and ut i l i t ies, not inclu-ding telephone SPECIFY 9 -1 D 10 -I 1 o 2 D 3 D i4 D i 5 D * D 7 D 11 12 13 14 18 1 • 19 -1 D ^ D I I 3 D * O 5 D I I 20 21 22 23 15 -YES 1 D NO 2 D-| DON'T KNOW .. 3 [_7J To how" many does It apply 16 17 24 -YES NO DON'T KNOW.. To how" many does i t apply? 25 3 26 141 -13-B 67 Were there any expenditures on repairs, maintenance or improvements in this dwelling unit in 1974? YES (GO TO B 68) NO (GO TO SECTION C) DON'T KNOW (GO TO SECTION C ) . . . . . . . . B 68 How much was spent by you or other members of your household on each of the following items in 1974. (READ LIST) 1 (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 1. electrical repairs or improvements............... 2. plumbing system....... • o o 3. roofing . . . . . . . . . . 4. heating s y s t e m , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o o • • o . . . . 5. carport/garage 6. structural repairs to foundation 7. moving walls, adding walls, or adding rooms...... 8. finishing basement, 9. driveway. o , . . . , , • • . • . • • • • , , • • > • . • . . . . . . . . . B 69 Did you or any member of your household make any additional expenditures on repairs, maintenance or improvements? Y:-S . . . (GO TO B 70) NO....(GO TO B 72).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW.(GO TO B 72) B 70 How much were these additional expenditures? (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) , B 71 (ASK ONLY IF EXPENDITURES IN B 70 EQUAL $250 OR MORE) (a) What was the largest portion of this_: (READ AMOUNT IN B 70) spent on? (b) And how' much was spent on (READ ANSWER TO B71(a)) B 72 Do the repair, maintenance and improvement expenditures you described refer to one dwelling unit only? YES..(GO TO SECTION C)..„ NO...(GO TO B 73)......... DON'T KNOW.(GO TO SECTION C).. . . B 73 How many dwelling units were involved?......,........ 27-2 ' i 3(Zi Is - 29~ 30. 32 34 ~ 30 ;1 38~ 39~ 40~ ~ 44~ 45~ 46~ 48 49 50"~ TT 53 54 55 56 57 ~ ~ 60~ bT~ 62 65~ 66~ ZT 68 7cT TT TT 73-1 l_ 2 L 3 I 74 75 76 77 78 DUPLICATE COLUMNS (CARD) 1-6 0 ± 7 8 9 10 I T 17" ~ ~ ~ 16-1 LZJ 2 L J 3 L_J IT" Ti~ Choices for B 71 (a): 0 1 . Paint House 0 2 . Furniture / Rugs 0 3 . Landscape / Outdoor Maintenance 0 4 . General Maintenance 0 5 . Rebuild/Remodel Rooms 0 6 . Windows, Doors, Siding SECTION C: M03ILITY ~ 1 4 ~ C I Has the head of this household moved since June 1, 1971? 1 YES..(CO TO C 2) 2 NO,.(GO TO SECTION F) 3 DO NOT KNOW,.(CO TO SECTION F) .C 2 Beginning with the head of this household's most recent move, what was the month and year of each move since June 1, 1971? 142 19-3 L _ T INCLUDE THE 5 MOST RECENT MOVES ONLY FIRST MOST RECENT MONTH. YEAR.. SECOND MOST RECENT MONTH. YEAR.. THIRD MOST RECENT MONTH• YEAR.. FOURTH MOST RECENT MONTH. YEAR.. FIFTH MOST RECENT MONTH,, YEAR... 20 21 22~ ~ ~ 25~ 26"" 27~ 2H~ 29" ~ 3T~ 32~ TT UT ~ 36~ 37" 38~ 39~ C 3 At what address did the head of this household reside prior to the move to this dwelling? (DO NOT READ LIST) 1. OUTSIDE CANADA...............(GO TO C 5) 2. IN CANADA, OUTSIDE BRITISH COLUMBIA..(GO TO C 5) 3. IN BRITISH COLUMBIA..... (IF IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING) 40-I d 2 L ~ jCITY, TOWNSHIP, MUNICIPALITY, ETC. STREET NAME AND NO. OR BOX NO. PROVINCE AND POSTAL CODE C 4 What was the distance involved in the move to this dwelling? (ROUND TO NEAREST MILE).,.. 41 42 43 44 45~ 46~ 47~ 48~ 49~ 50~ 51 52 53 54 (HAND CARD H) '. C 5 Which of these were the TWO most important reasons for moving from the previous dwelling? 1. Change in household m e m b e r s h i p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Desired less space and/or m a i n t e n a c e 0 . . . . . . . . . . » • 3* Desired more living space, D  4. Desired better neighbourhood conditions 5. Desired better'quality of unit...... 6. Desired less expensive u n i t . • 7. To establish an equity..... 8. To be closer to transportation, work, services, friends, etc 9. Job transfer or change....,.,,.. 10. To own.......................... 11. To rent .,. 12. Other.............. 13 . Other -55 56 57 58 SPECIFY SPECIFY <—• i <— 14. D w e l l i n g u n i t t o be demolished 15. L a n d l o r d problems i 16. L a n d l o r d moving i n 143 -15> C 6 (HAND CARD I) Which of these were the TWO most important.reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g t h i s -p a r t i c u l a r dwelling? 1 . S a t i s f i e d the need for less space 2. S a t i s f i e d the need for more s p a c e . , s . , 0 , . i . . . . . . . 3 . Neighbourhood conditions. ....... 4 . Q u a l i t y of the unit....,, 5 . Closer to tra n s p o r t a t i o n , work, s e r v i c e s , f r i e n d s , e t c . 6 . S a t i s f a c t o r y f i n a n c i a l arrangements...... 7. Other 8. Other 59 60 l l 61 62 o p SPECIFY <-SPECIFY «-C 7 How many a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h i s dwelling were inspected before choosing t h i s one? ZT~ C4~ o f -C 8 How was t h i s dwelling found? (HAND CARD J) 1 . • 2 . Through f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s . . . O 3 . -....a 4 . Through newspaper, r a d i o , T.V.. o o a e o a o « a * o o « « J t [ 5 . a 6 . a 7. a 8. a SPECIFY 66 67 6 T " vr Addition to C 6 : 9. Only place available or was av a i l a b l e at the time. 144 -16-SECTION D: PREVIOUS DWELLING CHARACTERISTICS Now I am going to ask you some questions about the l a s t place of residence of the head of thisj household (READ OUT ADDRESS IN C 3) at the time that he/she l e f t there. D 1. What type of dwelling was that? (HAND CARD A) 70-1. SINGLE HOUSE..... '•' 2. HOUSE ATTACHED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE] 3. SEMI-DETACHED OR DOUBLE HOUSE 4. ROW HOUSE; • ... 5. DUPLEX (UP-DOWN) 6. APARTMENT, FLAT OR MULTIPLE DWELLING.... 7-. MOBILE HOME ON FIXED FOUNDATION 8 . OTHER . (SPECIFY) "B. 2 How many s t o r i e s h a v i n g d w e l l i n g u n i t s were t h e r e i n t h a t b u i l d i n g ? •••• D. 3 How many dwelling u n i t s were there i n that b u i l d i n g ? D 4. When was that b u i l d i n g o r i g i n a l l y constructed? (HAND CARD B) 1. 1940 or before. 2. 1941 - 1950.... 3. 1951 - I960.... 4. 1901 - 1970.... 5. 1971 - present. D 5. How many rooms were there i n that dwelling u n i t , not in c l u d i n g h a l l s , garages, v e s t i b u l e s or unfinished rooir.s i n the basement or a t t i c ? . . . . . . . . . . 76 77 D 6. Would you say that your previous residence was. 1. about the same size as your present residence?. 2. larger than your present residence?....... 3. or smaller than your present residence? 0. DON'T KNOW D 7. Was the payment for that dwelling reduced f o r one or more of the f o l l o w i n g reasons? (HAND CARD C) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. This includes Federal, P r o v i n c i a l and Municipal p r o j e c t s , as well as Department of National Defence and l i m i t e d dividend projects Subsidized by government. Subsidized by employer... Subsidized by r e l a t i v e . . . Services to landlord Longer lease Some other reason Payment not reduced. 78-0 ~1 DUPLICATE COLUMNS (CARD) 9-1 2 3 4 5 6 I •7 a SPECIFY D 8. Which of these statements describes the previous dwelling unit? (HAND CARD D - 1) 1. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A CONDOMINIUM BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD... 2. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD 3. RENTED FOR MONEY BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD.... 4. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A LONG TERM PREPAID LEASEHOLD BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD......... 5. OWNED OR BEING BOUCHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD BUT SITUATED ON LEASED LAND. (INCLUDE MOBILE HOMES ON RENTED PAD) 6. OWNED OR BEING BOUCHT BY A MEMBER (S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD AS A UNIT IN A COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECT 7. OTHER (SPECIFY) no-• 145 -17-D 9. Will you toll me approximately the monthly rent/sale price of your previous residence? ; (HAND CARD K) Just give me the number please. (NOTE: MONTHLY RENTS ARE NUMBERS 01 TO 11, SALE PRICES ARE NUMBERS 12 TO 24) j^D 11. How many dwelling units were there? 11 12 D 10. Did that amount refer to one dwelling unit only? | 13-YES.(GO TO D 12) J 1 [~2 NO...(CO TO D 11) ] 2 Lj-f DON'T KNOW,. (GO TO D 12)...,,,,.,,, \ '. j | i 14 15 D 12. What were the approximate additional monthly expenses for basic utilities and services at the previous dwelling? Please include common area fees if the previous dwelling unit was a condominium. (ROUND TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) 10 17 lrt 19 D 13. And what were the approximate monthly expenses for repairs and maintenance on the previous dwelling unit? 20 21 22 23 146 •18-SECTION E: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION - PREVIOUS DWELLING E 1. Including y o u r s e l f , how many people l i v e d i n your previous dwelling unit? I (IF '01' GO TO SECTION F) E 2 Did a l l of these people move with you to your current dwelling unit? YES..(CO TO SECTION F)„.,„ NO...(GO TO E 3) E 3. Including y o u r s e l f , how many people moved together from your previous dwelling unit to your current one? 24 25 t>-21—1-1 E 4 (HAND CARD L) Here are two d e f i n i t i o n s of a f a m i l y . Using only these d e f i n i t i o n s how many f a m i l i e s l i v e d i n your previous dwelling unit? (IF '0' CO TO E 8 (a)) 29 E 5 (FOR EACH FAMILY ASK:) (a) How many people were there i n the family? (b) And did that family include both a husband and wife or was i t a one parent family FIRST FAMILY SECOND • THIRD FAMILY : FAMILY FOURTH FAMILY SIZE OF FAMILY: 30 31 32 ii 34 35 36 37 TYPE: HUSBAND & WIFE ONE PARENT *L3 J 9 " l • • 2 LJ LJ 2 D * l - i r j -2 i _ J E 6 In add i t i o n to that family/these f a m i l i e s did anyone else l i v e i n your previous d w e l l i n g unit? YES... (GO TO E 7 ( a ) ) . . . NO.... (GO TO SECTION F ) . E 7 (a) How many of these people, i f any, were r e l a t i v e s of the f a m i l y ( s ) that l i v e d there? (b) And how many, i f any, were not r e l a t i v e s of the f a m i l y ( s ) that l i v e d there? (GO TO SECTION F) E 8 (a) How many of the people who l i v e d i n your previous dwelling u n i t , i f any, were re l a t e d to one another? (b) How many of them were.not related? 42-2 L J 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 -19-SECTION F: PRESENT HOUSEHOLD INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL.INCOME 147 Fl F2 COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS (ENTER THE LINE NUMBERS AND NAMES OF ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS LISTED IN SECTION A WHO ARE 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER) (Start with the head and then the spouse,if any) DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) JL. JL. 7 8 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 1_ 3_ 7 8 HEAD SPOUSE (if any) DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 1_ Jj_ 7 8 Ol'IIER Line No. _0_ _1_ 9 10 Name Line No. J0_ l_ 9 10 Name Line No. 0_ _1_ 9 10 Name (a) For each person ask: During the twelve months ending December 31, 1974, what was 's income from each of the following sources: (ROUND ALL ANSWERS TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) Wages and salaries before deductions, commissions, bonuses, tips, e t c 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 ( b ) Net 'income from self-employment or from operating his/her own non-farm business or professional practice, (Total business income less expenses of operation) (IF MONEY WAS LOST, MARK LOSS ^ ] AND WRITE ANSWER IN LOWER SET OF COLUMNS Loss [ |-17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) Net income from operating a farm on his/her own account or in partnership. (Total farm income less expenses of operation) (IF MONEY WAS LOST MARK LOSS AND WRITE ANSWER IN LOWER SET OF COLUMNS 29 30 31 32 33 34 29 30 31 32 33 34 29 30 31 32 33 34 Loss | |-» 35 36 37 38 39 40 35 36 37 38 39 40 35 36 37 38 39 40 (d) Family and youth allowances 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 (e) Old age security, guaranteed income supplement, and Mincome 47 48 49 50 51 52 47 48 49 50 51 52 47 48 49 50 51 52 (f) Canada or Quebec pension plan benefits 53 54 55 56 57 58 53 54 55 56 57 58 53 54 55 56 57 58 (g) Unemployment insurance benefits 59 60 61 62 63 64 59 60 61 62 63 64 59 60 61 62 63 64 ( h ) Canada Manpower training allowance 65 66 67 68 69 70 65 66 67 68 69 70 65 66 67 68 69 70 (i) Social assistance 71 72 73 74 75 76 71 72 73 74 75 76 71 72 73 74 75 76 (j) Other income from government sources DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 1 2 7 8 ID 9 10 TT Tf 7514 TI T6 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1- 6 (CARD) _1 4 7 8 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1- 6 (CARD) . 1 6 7 8 ID ID 9 10 9 10 Specify J~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 Specify I ' 11 12 13 14 15 16 Specify £ (k) Gross income from rcomers and boarders 17 18 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 (1) Interest on bonds, deposits and savings certificates 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 I 23 24 25 26 27. 28 (m) Dividends and other investment income 29 30 31 32 33 34 29 30 31 32 33 34 29 30 31 32 33 34 (n) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annul tie 35 36 37 38 39 40 35 36 37 38 39 40 35 36 37 38 39 40 (o) Other money income 41 42 43 44 45 46 Specify I 41 42 43 44 45 46 Specify JT" 41 42 43 44 45 46 Specify Jv If no breakdown by source can be given, ask: What was total income from a l l sources in 19747 .47 48 49 50 51 52 47 4-3 49 50 51 52 47 48 49 50 51 52 NO MONEY INCOME IN 1974 CHECK BOX 53- 53- 53-F l SECTION F: PRESENT HOUSEHOLO INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL INCOME . . ; — y ± g 1 COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS | DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) -1 9 7 8 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) _2_ J L 7 8 (ENTER THE LINE NUMBERS AND NAMES OF ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS LISTED IN SECTION A WHO ARE 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER) . > ( S t a r t with the head and then the spouse,if any) DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) '. J _ Z_ 7 8 OTHER INDIVIDUAL OTHER INDIVIDUAL OTHER INDIVIDUAL Line No. 9 10 Line No. 9 10 Line No. 9 10 Name Name Name For each person ask: During the twelve months ending December 31, 1974, what was 's income from each of the f o l l o w i n g sources: (ROUND ALL ANSWERS TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) (a) Wages and s a l a r i e s before deductions, IT TI TJ 14 13 16 TT I I TJ "14 T3 16 TT T7 TJ 13 13 13 (b) Net income from self-employment or from operating his/her own non-farm business or pr o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e . (Total business income l e s s expenses of operation) (IF MONEY WAS LOST, MARK LOSS l><1 AND WRITE ANSWER IN LOWER SET OF COLUMNS Loss | |T-» 17 Is 13 To Tf 77 73 74 13 73 27 73 T7 13 13 76" TT 77 33 74 73 13 77 73 17 13 13 To 71 77 33 73 Is 73 77 33 (c) Net income from operating a farm on his/her own account or i n partnership. (Total farm income le s s expenses of operation) (IF MONEY WAS LOST MARK LOSS [>£] AND WRITE ANSWER IN LOWER SET OF COLUMNS Loss | h> 29 30 31 37 33 34 33 33 37 33 35 3o I? 33 3T 37 33 34 33 33 37 33 33 40 13 33 3T 31 33 33 33 33.37 33 33 3o (d) Family and youth allowances 41 31 43 44 45 46 31 31 43 44 45 46 3T 31 33 33 33 33 (e) Old age s e c u r i t y , guaranteed income supplement, and Mincomc 47 48 49 50 51"52 37 33 35 3o 3T 37 37 33 33 To 3T 31 ( f ) Canada or Quebec pension plan b e n e f i t s 33 54 55 56 37 58 33 33 33 33 37 33 33 33 33 33 37 33 (g) Unemployment insurance b e n e f i t s 35 60 31 3133 64 33 36" 3T 31 33 33 35 33 3T 37 33 33 (h) Canada Manpower t r a i n i n g allowance 33 33 37 33 33 76" 33 33 37 33 33 To 33 33 37 33 33 To ( i ) S o c i a l assistance 71 72 73 74 73 76 71 TI 73 74 73 73 TT 71 73 73 73 73 ( j ) Other income from government sources DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 1 8 7 8 ID 9 10 TT TI T3 TA 13 13 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1- 6 (CARD) 2 0 7 8 ID 9 10 TT T7 TJ 13 17 13 DUPLICATL. COLUMNS' '.- 6 (CARD) X 2. 7 8 ID 9 10 TT 17 TJ 13 T3 13 Specify Specify i/ Specify i, (k) Cross income from rcomers and boarders 77 Is 13 76" TT 71 T7 33 13 To TT 71 T7 13 13 To TT 77 (1) I n t e r e s t oh bonds, deposits and savings c e r t i f i c a t e s 73 24 33 73 77 7s" 73 73 -73 73 77 73 33 73 73 73 77 73 (m) Dividends and other investment income 73 35" 3T 37 33 33 73 33 3T 33 33 33 73 33 3T 31 33 33 (n) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annu i t i e 33 33 37 3s 33 40 33 33 . 37 33 33 40 33 33 37 33 33 To (o) Other money income TT Tl 33 44 45 46 3T 31 33 33 33 33 TT Ti 33 33 33 33 I f no breakdown by source can be given, ask: What was t o t a l income from a l l sources i n 1974? Specify i, S p e c i f y Specify 4-\ .47 48 49 50 51 52 47 43 49 50 51 52 47 43 49 50 51 52 NO MONEY INCOME IN 1974 CHECK BOX 5 3 - i . D " " I D " " I d SECTION F: PRESENT HOUSEHOLD INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL INCOME ] 149 FI | COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS | DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 2 5 7 8 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) l_ J_ 7 8 (ENTER THE LINE NUMBERS AND NAMES OF ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS LISTED IN SECTION A WHO »HP 14 YF.ARS OF ACR OR OLDER 1 ^ ' ( S t a r t with the head and then the spouse,if any) DUPLICATE COLUMNS . 1 - 6 (CARD) i _ L. 7 8 OTHER INDIVIDUAL OTHER INDIVIDUAL OTHER INDIVIDUAL Line No. 9 10 Line No. 9 10 Line No. 9 10 Name Name Name For each person ask: During the twelve months ending December. 31, 1974, what was. 's income from each of the f o l l o w i n g sources: (ROUND ALL ANSWERS TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR) (a) Wages and s a l a r i e s before deductions, IT 12 13 14 13 16 IT Tf "iT IT IT To" If Tf 13 14 TTTT (b) Net income from self-employment or from operating his/her own non-farm business or pro f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e . (Total business income le s s expenses of operation) (IF MONEY WAS LOST, MARK LOSS A ™ WRITE ANSWER IN LOWER SET OF COLUMNS Loss | |—» 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "24 25 26 Tf 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 77 TT 17 13 19 20 21 22 T3 24 25 26 Tf 28 (c) Net income from operating a farm on his/her own account or i n partnership. (Total farm income le s s expenses of operation) (IF MONEY WAS LOST MARK LOSS [><[] AND WRITE ANSWER IN LOWER SET OF COLUMNS Loss I h> 29 30 Tf 32 "33 34 35 36 "37 38 "39 40 79 TO Tl Tf 33 34 35 36 Tf 38 39 40 29 30 Tl 31 33 34 31 36 37 33 39 40 (d) Family and youth allowances 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 (e) Old age s e c u r i t y , guaranteed income supplement, and Mincome 47 48 49 50 Tl Tf 47 48 "49 Td TT Tf Tf 48 4? To 31 Tf ( f ) Canada or Quebec pension plan b e n e f i t s "53 "54 55 "56 Tf Ta 53 54 "55 56 Tf "58 33 54 31 56 Tf 33 (g) Unemployment insurance b e n e f i t s 59 60 Tf Tf 63 64 59 60 Tf Tf 63 64 39 To Tf Tf 75 64 (h) Canada Manpower t r a i n i n g allowance 65 66 67 68 69 70 oT 66 Tf 68 69 TO 75 76 Tf 78 79 To ( i ) S o c i a l assistance 71 TI 75 74 71 73 71 77 77 74 75 71 71 77 73 74 73 76 ( j ) Other income from government sources DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 2 4 7 8 ID 9 10 Tf n H IT IT 16 DUPLICATE COLUMNS h6 (CARD) 2 A 7 8 ID 9 10 If 17 17 TT 13 17 DUPLICATE COLUMNS 1-6 (CARD) 2 £_ 7 8 ID 9 10 If Tf 13 IT IT T6 S p e c i f y 1 S p e c i f y i. Specify ^ (k) Cross income from rcomers and boarders 17 Is IT To U Tf "17 IT TTToTfTT Tf TE 13 20 Tf Tf (1) I n t e r e s t on bonds, deposits and savings c e r t i f i c a t e s T3 24 25 26 77 TE TT 24 'TT 26" 77 28 73 TT TT TI Tf TT (m) Dividends and other investment income 29 Td Tf Tf TI 34 79 Td Tf Tf 33 34 T3 3o 3f 3T 33 34 (n) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities 35 36 37 38 39 40 35 36 . Tf 33 33 75" 33 36 37 33 33 To (o) Other money income 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 41 42 43 44 45 46 I f no breakdown by source can be given, ask: What was t o t a l income from a l l sources in 19747 Specify J, S p e c i f y j, Specify i-47 48 49 50 51 52 47 4-3 49 50 51 52 47 48 49 50 51 52 NO MONEY INCOME IN 1974 CHECK BOX 53-, | 1 53-, r — I 53-, r—1 150 -22-F. 3 (IF RESPONDENT PROVIDED DETAILED INFORMATION REQUESTED IN F-2 GO TO F-4. IF RESPONDENT WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION REQUESTED IN F-2 ASK:) DUPLICATE | COLUMNS 1 - 6 (CARD) 2 9 7 8 (HAND CARD M) What was the approximate t o t a l money income of t h i s household i n 1974 taking into account the income of a i l members from a l l sources? Just give me the number from the card. F 4 (HAND CARD N) What i s the approximate t o t a l net assets of t h i s household. To obtain the net assets would you f i r s t estimate the t o t a l assets of a l l members (PAUSE). Then would you estimate the t o t a l l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l members. (PAUSE) Subtract the l i a b i l i t i e s from the assets. Now b i v e me the number of the category i n which your answer f a l l s . 23. SECTION G: PREVIOUS HOUSEHOLD INCOME G 1. (CHECK QUESTION C - l . IF HOUSEHOLD HEAD HAS NOT MOVED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1971 THANK RESPONDENT AND END INTERVIEW..IF HOUSEHOLD HEAD HAS MOVED, ASK:) Now would you think back to your previous dwelling u n i t . What was the approximate t o t a l money income of that household i n the year p r i o r to the time you moved here? (HAND CARD M) Take i n t o account the income from a l l sources of a l l members of that dwelling u n i t . Just give me the number from the ca r d . G 2. (HAND CARD N) What was the approximate t o t a l net assets of tiiat household i n the year p r i o r to the time you moved here? To obtain the net assets would you. f i r s t estimate the t o t a l assets of a l l members (PAUSE). Then would you estimate the t o t a l l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l members. (PAUSE) Subtract the l i a b i l i t i e s from the assets. Now give the number of the category i n which your answer f a l l s . Additions to card 29 column item 55 - 62 53 - 54 Household income by card M breakdown Household income by actual dollar amount APPENDIX B SURVEY FLASH CARDS 152 153 CARD A - QUESTION Bl 1. SINGLE HOUSE STUDY R5590 2. HOUSE ATTACHED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 3. SEMI-DETACHED OR DOUBLE HOUSE 4. ROW HOUSE 5. DUPLEX (UP-DOWN) 6. APARTMENT, FLAT OR MULTIPLE DWELLING 7. MOBILE HOME ON FIXED FOUNDATION 8. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY CARD B - QUESTION B4 * STUDY R5590 1. 1940 OR BEFORE 2. 1941 - 1950 3. 1951 - 1960 4. 1961 - 1970 , 5. 1971 - DEC. '73 6. JAN. 1974 - PRESENT 154 CARD C - QUESTION B l l STUDY R5590 1. SUBSIDIZED BY GOVERNMENT: includes federal, provincial or municipal projects, such as low income or senior citizens housing; Department of National Defence Veterans subsidization; or Limited Dividend Projects. (Restricted in the amount of pr o f i t because of a financial arrangement with the government.) 2. SUBSIDIZED BY EMPLOYER; some employees subsidize or cover completely a l l payments as part of their company benefits, 3. SUBSIDIZED BY RELATIVE: some respondents may live in a relative s dwelling at no or reduced cost to themselves, or else they may be subsidized indirectly. 4. SERVICES TO LANDLORD: i n return for maintenance or other services, a landlord may reduce rent payments. 5. LONGER LEASE: rent payments may be reduced in return for taking a lease longer than normally expected. 6. SOME OTHER*REASON: Payments may be reduced for another reason; i f this i s the case, specify that reason i n the space provided. 7. PAYMENT NOT REDUCED: The normal charge for the dwelling i s the amount paid by the tenant. CARD D - QUESTION B12 STUDY R5590 1. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A CONDOMINUM BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD? 2. OWNED OR BEINC BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD? 3. RENTED FOR MONEY BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD? 4. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A LONGTERM PREPAID LEASEHOLD BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD? 5. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD BUT SITUATED ON LEASED LAND. (INCLUDE MOBILE HOMES ON RENTED PAD). 6. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THIS HOUSEHOLD AS A UNIT IN A COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECT? 7. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY. 155 CARD E - QUESTION B14 STUDY R5590 1. ONCE A WEEK (WEEKLY) 2. EVERY TWO WEEKS (BI-WEEKLY) 3. ONCE A MONTH (MONTHLY) 4. EVERY TWO MONTHS (BI- MONTHLY) 5. EVERY THREE MONTHS (QUARTERLY) 6. EVERY SIX MONTHS (TWICE A YEAR) 7. ONCE A YEAR (YEARLY) 8. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY CARD P - QUESTION B37 STUDY R5590 1. CANNOT AFFORD DOWN PAYMENT 2. CANNOT AFFORD MONTHLY PAYMENTS 3. SUITABLE UNIT NOT AVAILABLE 4. MORTGAGE FINANCING NOT AVAILABLE 5. NOT READY TO UNDERTAKE RESPONSIBILITY 6. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY 7. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY 156 CARD G - QUESTION B62 STUDY R5590 1. RENTAL ACCOMMODATION NOT AVAILABLE OR NOT AVAILABLE IN SUITABLE LOCATION 2. RENTS ARE TOO HIGH 3. FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT TO OWN NOW BECAUSE OF INFLATION 4. AVAILABLE RENTAL UNITS NOT OF ADEQUATE QUALITY 5. AVAILABLE RENTAL UNITS TOO LARGE 6. AVAILABLE RENTAL UNITS TOO SMALL 7. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY '8. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY CARD tt - QUESTION CS STUDY R5590 01. CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERSHIP 02. DESIRED LESS SPACE AND/OR MAINTENANCE 03. DESIRED MORE LIVING SPACE 04. DESIRED BETTER NEIGHBOURHOOD CONDITIONS 05. DESIRED BETTER QUALITY OF UNIT 06. DESIRED LESS EXPENSIVE UNIT 07. TO ESTABLISH AN EQUITY 08. TO BE CLOSER TO TRANSPORTATION, WORK, SERVICES, • FRIENDS, ETC. 09* JOB TRANSFER OR CHANGE 10. TO OWN 11* TO RENT 12. OTHER * PLEASE SPECIFY 13. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY 157 CARD I - QUESTION C6 STUDY R5590! .1 01. SATISFIED THE NEED FOR LESS SPACE -02. SATISFIED THE NEED FOR MORE SPACE \. ^ 03. NEIGHBOURHOOD CONDITIONS y . 04. QUALITY OF THE UNIT 05. CLOSER TO TRANSPORTATION, WORK, SERVICES, FRIENDS, ETC. 06. SATISFACTORY FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS 07. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY , 08. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY / 1 , '''/ CARD J - QUESTION C8 -X h: r- ;;V STUDY R5590 01. BY INDIVIDUAL SEARCH 02. THROUGH FRIENDS OR RELATIVES ' 03. THROUGH EMPLOYER 1 04. THROUGH NEWSPAPER, RADIO TV 'I 05. THROUGH A REALTOR 06. THROUGH A PUBLIC AGENCY ''"<'.'> 1 f ' 07. THROUGH A RENTAL AGENCY 08. BY OTHER MEANS - PLEASE SPECIFY 158 CARD D-l QUESTION D8 '\. STUDY R5590 1. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A CONDOMINIUM BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD 2. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEKBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD 3. RENTED FOR MONEY BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD 4. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT AS A LONG TERM PREPAID LEASEHOLD \ BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD 5. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD BUT SITUATED ON LEASED LAND. (INCLUDE MOBILE HOMES ON RENTED PAD) 6. OWNED OR BEING BOUGHT BY A MEMBER(S) OF THAT HOUSEHOLD AS A UNIT IN A COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECT 7. OTHER - PLEASE SPECIFY CARD K - QUESTION D9 STUDY R5590. MONTHLY RENT 1) UP TO 100 2) 101 TO 200 ' 3) 201 TO 300 4) 301 TO 400 .• 5) 401 TO 500 6) 501 TO 600 7) 601 TO 700 8) 701 TO 800, 9) ' 801 TO 900 10) 901 TO IOOO 11) GREATER THAN 1000 SALE PRICE . 12) LESS THAN 10,000 . 13) 10,001 TO 20,000 . 14) 20,001 TO 30,000 15) 30,001 TO 40,000 , V 16) 40,001 TO 50,000 . 17) 50,001 TO 60,000 , 18) 60,001 TO 70,000 19) , 70,001 TO 80,000 20) ' 80,001 TO 90,000 ' 21) 90,001 TO 100,000 22) GREATER THAN 100,000 159 CARD L - QUESTION E4 ' , ,' ; ,'i ,v ;./ STUDY R5590 ' \,. (A) , HUSBAND AND WIPE, WITH OR WITHOUT UNMARRIED CHILDREN LIVING WITH THEM x (B) ONE PARENT WITH UNMARRIED CHILDREN LIVING WITH THEM . ; • ' ' ' ' ' ,'. . .• :' • . -'' ' i,'v : CARD M - QUESTION F3 i i •]'•. STUDY R5590 . . ' ' •• ' •'. >••,'. ''• RANGES OF INCOME EARNED BEFORE TAXES r ; / •,' ':"AV (1> UNDER $1,000 (11) $10,000 - $10,999 / ^ . y ." J (2) $1,000 - $1,999 (12) $11,000 - $11,999 / ( 3 ) $2,000 - $2,999 (13) $12,000 - $12,999' 'V, ; ' (4) $3,000 - $3,999 (14) $13,000 - $13,999, ; ' A ' ' . . . ! • (5) $4,000 - $4,999 (15) $14,000 - $14,999 $5,000 - $5,999 (16) $15,000 - $19,999 , V • K \ ( 7 > $6,000 - $6,999 (17) $20,000 - $29,999 V • • * 1 (8) i f ' $7,000 - $7,999 (18) $30,000 - $39,999 , (9) $8,000 - $8,999 (19) $40,000 - $49,999 . '• 1 ••• \ (10) $9,000 - $9,999 (20) $50,000 OR OVER • ' , V . ,4 ] • 160 CARD N - QUESTION F4 ASSETS' ; • 7/ 7 7 ( ; ij '• •'.' • 1. ' CASH ON HAND 7 " ! 2. STOCKS AND BONDS / ; , 3. AUTOMOBILE 4... INSURANCE 1 / 5. FURNITURE 6. REAL ESTATE (OTHER THAN PRINCIPAL , RESIDENCE 7. BUSINESS ASSETS , 8. OTHER ASSETS • ' ' (01) NONE * ' . (02) U.000 OR LESS ' , (03) $1,001 TO $5,000 7 (04) $5,001 TO $10,000 , •• (05) $10,001 TO $15,000 7 ' '7-.'.;.» STUDY R5590 LIABILITIES 1. BANK LOANS ) 2. AUTOMOBILE LOAN 3. FINANCE COMPANY LOANS ' 4. CHARGE ACCOUNTS 5. MORTGAGES (OTHER THAN ON PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE) 6. OTHER LOANS (06), $15,001 TO $20,000 (Q7) $20,001 TO $30,000 (08) $30,001 TO $40,000 (09) $40,001 TO $50,000 (10) MORE THAN $50,000 APPENDIX C SURVEY TABULATIONS Number of Owners 1075 * Number of Renters 694 * Total Number of Respondents 1769 * Totals displaying less than the above numbers indicate respon-dent's f a i l u r e to answer — w i t h the exception of Tabulation 11 where the 319 missing responses mean the respondent did not know the maximum per-missible rent increase (see question B 19 and B 20 of the Survey). 161 NTEN COUNT I ROW PCT ] [CONOOMIN CWNER_OC RENTED LONG TRM LEASED ROW COL PCT 1 LEASE LAND TOTAL LOC I TOT PCT ] 1.001 [ 2.00 t 3.001 [ 4.001 t 5.001 1.00 [ 8 [ 556 ] 359 1 1 [ 1 I 925 G . V . R . D . t 0.9 1 60.1 1 t 38.8 [ 0.1 [ 0.1 I 52.3 88.9 1 52.4 ] [ 51.7 ] 50.0 ] [ 33.3 I [ 0.5 1 [ 31.4 [ 20.3 [ 0.1 ] 0. 1 I 2.00 1 [ 296 ] 174 ] t 1 1 [ 0 I 472 PRINCE GEORGE [ 0.2 [ 62.7 [ 36.9 [ 0.2 [ 0.0 I 26. 7 11.1 1 27.9 [ 25.1 ] [ 50.0 [ 0.0 I t 0. 1 [ 16.7 [ 9. 8 ] 0. 1 [ 0.0 I 3.00 0 209 t 67 [ 0 I 2 1 278 CRANBRK. I 0.0 [ 75.2 I 24.1 [ 0.0 ] [ 0.7 I 15.7 [ 0. 0 1 [ 19.7 [ 9.7 [ 0.0 I 66.7 I I 0.0 [ 11.8 t 3.8 1 [ 0.0 I 0.1 I 4.00 [ 0 [ 0 [ . 94 [ 0 I 0 1 94 C RANBRK. TENANT I 0.0 I 0.0 [ 100.0 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I 5.3 [ 0.0 [ 0.0 I 13.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 0. 0 [ 0.0 I 5.3 [ 0.0 I 0.0 I COLUMN 9 1061 694 2 3 1769 TOTAL 0. 5 60.0 39. 2 0. 1 0.2 lOOoO Tabulation 1. Surveyed Population by Tenure. co COUNT ROW P C T C O L P C T T O T PCT S T R U C S I N G L E HOUSE 1.00 LOC 1 1.00 G . V . R . D . 2.00 PRINCE GEORG^-3.00 CRANBRK. 4 . 00 CRANBRK. TENANT COLUMN T O T A L 634 68.5 5 1 . 9 3 5. 3 326 69. 1 26. 7 13. 4 226 31.3 13.5 12.3 36 .8.3 2.9 2.0 1222 69. I A T T C H D 2 S NON_FES 0! 2.001 I 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :MI_ ROWHOUSE ; T A C H E D 3.001 4.00 •I D U P L E X A P A R T M N T M O B I L E HOME 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.7 100.0 0. I 0 I 7 I 6 I 8 1 [ 37 0.0 I 7. 4 I 6.4 I 8. 5 3 3 9.4 0.0 I 10. 1 I 11.5 I 12.7 i 11.0 0.0 I 0.4 I 0.3 1 0.5 ] 2.1 2 69 52 63 335 0. 1 3.9 2.9 3. 6 18.9 5.00 I 11 I 16 I 31 I 233 I 0 I 1.2 I 1.7 I 3.4 I 25. 2 I 0. 0 I 15. 9 I 3 0.8 1 49.2 I 69.6 I 0.0 I 0.6 I 0.9 I 1. 8 I 13. 2 I 0.0 12 I 43 I 25 1 12 I 54 I I 9 . 1 I 5. 3 1 2. 5 I 11.4 I 2. 5 I 62.3 I 48.1 1 [ 19.0 I 16. 1 1 46.2 I ' 2.4 I 1.4 I t 0. 7 I 3.1 I 0.7 I 8 I 5 [ . 12 1 [ U 1 [ 14 I 2.9 I 1.8 1 [ 4. 3 ] [ 4.0 i 5.0 I 11.6 I 9.6 I 19.0 1 [ 3.3 1 [ 53.3 I 0. 5 I 0.3 [ 0. 7 [ 0.6 [ 0.8 6. 00 7.001 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 26 1.5 R3A T O T A L 925 52. 3 472 26.7 273 15.7 94 5.3 1769 100.0 Tabulation 2. Surveyed Population by Structure Type. 10 COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT LOCI 1.00 G.V.R.D. 2.00 PRINCE GEORGE 3.00 CRANBRK. 4.00 CRANBRK. TENANT COLUMN TOTAL INCOME LT_$3000 •1.00 86 10.8 57. 0 5.3 25 5.5 16.6 1.6 23 8.6 15.2 1.4 17 19.3 11.3 1.1 151 9.4 $3000 TO $5999 2.001 $6000 TO $9000 TO $12000 _ $15000 _ $18000 _ $21000 $24000 _ GE TO $8999 $11999 $14999 $17999 $20999 $23999 $26999 $27000 3.001 4.001 5.001 6.001 7.001 8.001 9.001 10.00 89 I 11.2 I 49.7 I 5.5 I 90 11.3 54.2 5.6 33 I 7.2 I 18.4 I 2. 1 I 38 8. 3 22.9 2.4 '3 5 I 13.1 I 19.6 I 2.2 I 29 10. 8 17.5 1.8 22 I 25.0 I 12.3 I 1.4 I 1-9 10.2 5.4 0.6 101 12.7 41.6 6. 3 79 17.3 32.5 4.9 47 17. 5 19.3 2.9 16 18.2 6.6 1.0 103 12. 9 44. 8 6.4 73 17.1 33.9 4.8 40 14.9 17. 4 2.5 9 10.2 3. 9 0.6 87 I 10. 9 I 42.9 I 5.4 I 87 10.9 52.4 5.4 74 I 16.2 I 36.5 I 4.6 I 47 10.3 28. 3 2.9 1-36 I 13.4 I 17.7 I 2.2 I 27 10.1 16. 3 1. 7 — I -6 I 6.8 I 3.0 I 0.4 I 5 5. 7 3.0 0.3 179 11.1 166 10.3 •I-40 5.0 49.4 2.5 33 7.2 40. 7 2.1 6 2.2 7.4 0.4 2 2.3 2.5 0.1 243 15.1 230 14.3 203 12.6 166 10.3 81 5.0 40 I 73 5.0 I 9.2 60.6 I 58.9 2.5 I 4.5 20 I 30 4.4 I 6.6 30.3 I 24.2 1.2 I 1.9 — 1 5 1 20 1.9 I 7.5 7.6 I 16.1 0.3 I 1.2 1 I 1.1 I 1.5 I 0.1 I •I-66 4.1 1 1.1 0.8 0. 1 124 7.7 ROW TOTAL 796 49.5 457 28.4 268 16.7 88 5.5 1609 100.0 Tabulation 3. Surveyed Population by Income. LO COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT LOCI G.V.R.D. 1.00 2.00 PRINCE GEORGE CRANBRK. 3.00 4.00 CRANBRK. TENANT COLUMN TOTAL WITH I NONE I 1.001 -I 1 I 38 1 I 5.2 I I 40.9 I I 2.6 1 -I 1 I 26 I I 6.2 I I 28.0 I I .1.8 I -I 1 I 18 I I 7.3 I I 19.4 I I 1.2 1 •I I-I 1 1 1 I 13.1 I I 11.8 I I 0.7 I I 1-93 6.3 LTS1000 2.001 43 I 5.9 I 37.1 I 2.9 I — I-36 I 8.6 I 31.0 I 2.4 I 1-$1001 _ $5000 3.001 130 I 17.8 I 52.2 I 8.8 I $5001 $10000 4.00 130 17.8 46.8 8.8 62 I 14.8 I 24.9 I 4.2 I 82 19.6 29.5 5.5 16 I 6.5 I 13.8 I 1.1 I 36 I 14.5 I 14. 5 I 2.4 I 1-52 21.0 18. 7 3.5 21 I 25.0 I 18.1 I 1.4 I 21 I 25.0 I 8.4 I 1.4 1 — 1-14 16.7 5.0 0.9 116 7.8 249 16.8 278 18.8 $10001 $15001 _ $20001 _ $30001 _ $40001 GT$50000 $15000 $20000 $30000 $40000 $50000 [ 5. 001 6.001 7.00] t 8.001 [ 9. 001 10.001 67 I 47 I 61 1 44 1 34 I 135 I 9. 2 I 6.4 I 8.4 ] 6.0 ] 4.7 I 18.5 I 39. 4 I 45.6 I 50.8 I 55.7 1 58.6 I 63.1 I [ 4.5 I 3.2 T 4.1 1 3.0 1 2. 3 I 9.1 I 62 I 31 I 31 I 22 I 15 I 52 I 14.8 I 7.4 I 7.4 I 5.3 I 3.6 I 12.4 I 3 6. 5 I 30. 1 I 25.8 I 27.8 I 25.9 I 24.3 I 4. 2 I 2. 1 I 2.1 I 1.5 I 1.0 I 3.5 I 38 I 21 I 24 I 12 I 8 I 23 I 15.3 I 8. 5 I 9.7 I 4.8 I 3. 2 I 9.3 I 22.4 I 20.4 I 20.0 I 15.2 I 13.8 I 10.7 I 2.6 I 1.4 I 1.6 I 0.8 I 0. 5 I 1.6 I 3 I 4 I 4 I 1 I 1 I 4 I 3.6 I 4.8 I 4.8 I 1.2 I 1.2 I 4. 8 I 1.8 I 3.9 I 3.3 I 1.3 I 1.7 I 1.9 I 0.2 I 0.3 I 0.3 I 0.1 I 0. 1 I 0.3 I 170 103 120 79 58 214 11.5 7.0 8.1 5.3 3.9 14.5 ROW TOTAL 729 49.3 419 28.3 248 16. 8 84 5.7 1480 100.0 Tabulation 4. Surveyed Population by Wealth. OSC COUNT I ROW PCT 1 LT$100 T0_$150 T0_$200 T0_$300 T0_$400 T0_$500 GT_$500 ROW COL PCT ] TOTAL TOT PCT ] 1.00] [ 2.00 [ 3.00] [ 4.00 [ 5.001 6. 001 7.001 LOCI 1.00 [ 220 [ 65 [ 70 [ 91 ] [ 60 ] 34 ] [ 26 I 566 G.V.R.D. [ 38.9 ] [ 11.5 I 12.4 [ 16.1 [ 10.6 [ 6.0 ] [ 4.6 I 52.7 t 57.1 ] [ 56.0 ] t 48.6 1 39 0 1 ! [ 49.6 ] 75.6 ] [ 83.9 I t 20.5 [ 6.0 [ 6.5 ] [ 8.5 1 [ 5.6 ] 3.2 ] 2.4 I 2.00 ] [ 68 ] [ 28 [ 46 ] 105 [ 38 ] 8 ] [ 5 I 293 PRINCE GEORGE [ 22.8 [ 9.4 I 15.4 [ 35.2 [ 12.8 ] 2.7 ] [ 1.7 1 27 .7 17. 7 ] 24.1 [ 31.9 ] [ 45.1 [ 31.4 1 17.8 [ 16.1 I [ 6.3 [ 2.6 I 4.3 [ 9.8 [ 3. 5 ] 0.7 [ 0.5 I 3.00 97 23 [ 28 ] [ 37 [ 23 ] [ 3 I 0 I 211 CRANBRK. [ 46 .0 I 10.9 [ 13. 3 [ 17.5 [ 10. 9 ] 1.4 ] [ 0.0 I 19.6 25.2 ] [ 19.8 [ 19.4 [ 15.9 I 19.0 ] [ 6.7 ] [ 0.0 I [ 9.0 [ 2.1 [ 2.6 t 3.4 I 2.1 1 0.3 [ 0.0 I COLUMN 385 116 144 233 121 45 31 1075 TOTAL 35.8 10.8 13.4 21.7 11. 3 4.2 2.9 100.0 Tabulation 5. Owner's Montly Shelter Cost. VO RSC COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT LOCI l o O O G.V.R.D. 2.00 PRINCE GEORGE 3.00 C RANBRK. 4. 00 CRANBRK. TENANT COLUMN TOTAL LTS100 T0_$150 T0.S200 T0_$300 T0_$400 T0_$500 GT_$500 1.00 15 4 . 2 39. 5 2.2 10 5.7 26.3 1.4 8 11.9 21.1 1. 2 5 5. 3 13.2 0. 7 2.00 38 5. 5 3.00 70 I 101 I 114 19.5 I 28.1 I 31.8 54. 7 I 42.6 I 51.4 10.1 I 14.6 I 16.4 26 I 66 [ 64 14.9 I 37.9 [ 36.8 2 0.3 I 27.8 ] [ 28.8 3.7 I * 9. 5 ] 9.2 11 I 26 ] 22 16.4 I 38.8 ] r 32.8 8.6 I 11.0 ] 9.9 1.6 I 3. 7 I 3 .2 21 I 44 I 22 22.3 I 46.8 I 23.4 16.4 I 18.6 I 9.9 3.0 I 6.3 I 3.2 128 237 222 18.4 34.1 32.0 4.00 5.001 40 11. 1 81.6 5. 8 6. 001 18 I 5.0 I 100.0 I 2.6 I 7 I 4. 0 I 14.3 I 1.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0. 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2 I 2.1 I 4 . 1 I 0.3 I 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I •I •I 49 7.1 18 2.6 7.00! 1 0. 3 50.0 0.1 1 0. 6 50.0 0.1 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 .0 2 0.3 ROW TOTAL 359 51.7 174 25 . 1 67 9.7 94 13.5 6 94 100.0 Tabulation 6. Renter's Monthly Shelter Cost. 168 LOCI COUNT NMOVS ROW PCT ' [G .V .R .D. PRINCE CRANBRK. CRANBRK. COL PCT GFORGF TENANT TOT PCT 1.00] [ 2.00 [ 3.00! 4. 00 0.0 [ 475 1 [ 229 ] [ 151 I 18 [ 54.4 ! t 26.2 1 [ 17.3 I 2. 1 51.4 1 48.5 1 54. 3 I 19. 1 [ 26.9 3 12.9 1 [ 8.5 1 1.0 1.00 2 33 I 78 1 62 I 24 [ 58.7 1 19.6 1 15.6 I 6.0 1 25.2 1 16.5 1 [ 22.3 I 25.5 13. 2 I 4.4 1 3. 5 I 1.4 ! 2.00 117 1 75 3 40 I 22 1 46. 1 1 29. 5 I 15. 7 I 8.7 ] [ 12.6 I 15.9 1 14.4 I 23.4 1 6.6 1 4.2 3 2. 3 I 1.2 3.00 : 48 1 42 1 15 I 15 3 40 . 0 I 35.0 I 12.5 I 12.5 ] r 5.2 1 8.9 I 5.4 I 16.0 1 [ 2 .7 I 2.4 I 0.8 I 0. 8 1 4.00 23 I 22 I 1 I 10 1 4 1 . 1 I 39.3 I 1.8 I 17.9 1 2.5 I 4 . 7 I 0 .4 I 10.6 1 1.3 I 1.2 I 0. 1 I 0.6 ] 5.00 ] 29 I 26 I 9 ! 5 3 42 .0 I 37.7 I 13.0 I 7.2 1 3.1 I 5.5 I 3.2 I 5.3 3 1.6 I i . 5 T 0.5 I 0.3 1 COLUMN 925 472 278 94 TOTAL 52.3 26. 7 15. 7 5.3 ROW TOTAL 1769 100.0 Tabulation 7. M o b i l i t y of Population since June 1, 1971. Tabulation 8. COUNT Renter's Preference to Own. P20 169 LOCI ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT [ Y E S ;.t [ 1.00 NO [ 2.00 DON* KNOW T 3.001 ROW TOTAL 1.00 [ 254 1 [ 102 ] 2 I 358 G.V.R.D. I 70.9 [ 28.5 ] 0 .6 I 51 .7 53.0 ] 51.8 1 12 . 5 I [ 36 .7 ] [ 14.7 ] [ 0 .3 I 2.00 ] 128 1 31 I 14 I 173 PRINCE GEORGE ] [ 74.0 [ 17.9 ] 8 . 1 I 25.0 26. 7 ] [ 15.7 ] [ 87 .5 I 18. 5 I 4. 5 I 2 . 0 I 3. 00 [ 39 1 28 ] 0 I 67 CRANBRK. 58. 2 ] 41.8 I 0 . 0 I 9.7 t 8 . 1 1 14.2 1 0 . 0 I 5.6 ] 4 .0 I 0 . 0 I 4 .00 58 ] 36 I 0 I 94 CRANBRK. TENANT 1 6 1 . 7 I 38.3 I 0 .0 I 13.6 12. 1 I 18.3 I 0 • 0 I 8.4 ,1 5.2 I 0 • 0 I COLUMN 479 197 16 692 TOTAL 69.2 28.5 2 .3 100.0 Tabulation 9. Owner's Preference to Rent. P2R LOC I G.V.R.D. CRANBRK. COUNT ROW PCT ] YES NO DON'T ROW COL PCT KNOW TOTAL TOT PCT 1.00 [ 2.00] 3.001 1.00 1 [ 11 1 548 ] 6 I 565 [ 1.9 ] [ 97.0 ] 1.1 I 52 .7 61 . 1 I 52. 3 1 85.7 I [ 1.0 1 51.1 1 0. 6 I 2.00 1 2 I 294 I 1 I 297 3E0RGE 1 0.7 ] 99.0 ] 0.3 I 27 .7 11.1 1 28.1 ] 14.3 I 0. 2 I 27.4 I 0.1 I 3.00 ] 5 I 206 ] 0 I 211 2.4 I 97.6 I 0.0 I 19.7 27.8 I 19.7 I 0.0 I 0. 5 I 19.2 I 0.0 I COLUMN 18 1048 7 1073 TOTAL 1.7 97.7 0.7 100.0 170 ^Tabulation 10. Did the Renter Receive the Renter's Resource Grant? RRG COUNT I ROW PCT IYES NO DON'T ROW COL PCT I KNOW TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.00 [ 2.00 [ 3.00 LOCI * 1.00 I 157 [ 196 I 6 I 359 G.V.R.D. I 43 . 7 [ 54.6 [ 1. 7 I 51 .7 I 64.6 [ 44.7 I 46.2 I 22. 6 I 28.2 [ 0.9 2.00 I 36 138 1 t 0 I 174 PRINCE GEORGE I 20. 7 I 79.3 ] 0. 0 I 25.1 I 14.8 ] [ 31.5 ] 0. 0 I 5.2 [ 19.9 [ 0.0 3.00 I 18 ] [ 48 [ 1 I 67 CRANBRK. I 26 .9 [ 71.6 [ 1.5 I 9.7 I 7. 4 ] 11.0 ] 7. 7 I 2.6 ] [ 6.9 [ 0 . 1 4.00 I 32 1 56 1 6 I 94 CRANBRK. TENANT I 34.0 ] [ 59.6 ] 6.4 I 13.5 I 13.2 ] [ 12.8 ] 46 .2 I 4 . 6 1 8. 1 1 0. 9 COLUMN 243 438 13 694 TOTAL 35. 0 63 . 1 1.9 100.0 Tabulation 11. Renter's Estimates of Maximum Permissible Rent Increase • LOCI COUNT I ROW PCT IG .V .R .D . PRINCE CRANBRK. CRANBRK. ROW COL PCT I GEORGE TENANT TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.001 2.001 3.00 I 4.001 RENTINCR * -1 1 1 1 1.00 I 118 1 1 1 2 I 5 1 126 10.6% I 93 .7 1 0.8 I 1.6 I 4 .0 I 33 .6 I 47 .4 1 1. 7 I 11 . 8 I 10.2 I I 31.5 I 0.3 1 0.5 I 1.3 1 2.00 I 111 I 51 I 13 I 35 I 210 LT_10 . 6 * I 52.9 1 24.3 ! 6.2 I 16.7 I 56 .0 I 44.6 I 85.0 I 76.5 I 71.4 I I 29.6 1 13.6 I 3.5 I 9.3 I 3.00 I 20 I 8 I 2 I 9 I 39 GT_10.65? I 51.3 1 20.5 1 [ 5.1 I 23.1 I 10.4 I 8 . 0 ] 13.3 I 11.8 I 18.4 I I 5.3 1 2. 1 I 0. 5 I 2.4 I COLUMN 249 60 17 49 375 TOTAL 66. 4 16. 0 4.5 13.1 100.0 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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.831.1-0093536/manifest

Comment

Related Items