Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A methodology for assessing the metropolitan locational flexibility of offices Sikstrom, Brian Murray 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 S54_3.pdf [ 10.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094355.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094355-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094355-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094355-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094355-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094355-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094355-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094355-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094355.ris

Full Text

A METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES by BRIAN MURRAY SIKSTROM B.A., University of Calgary, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE REQUIREMENTS MASTER PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF (School of Community in GRADUATE STUDIES and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1978 (c) Brian Murray Sikstrom, 1978 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i sh Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives . It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of School of Community and Regional Planning The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date October 11, 1978 i i ABSTRACT A METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL  FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES The i n i t i a l premise of the thesis i s that the question of metro-politan locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices — or the capability of offices to decentralize activities outside downtown but within the same metro-politan area — needs to be investigated and objectively assessed. It is apparent from the review of the literature no approach or method so far employed to assess office locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s suitable for use by the researcher and probably for Canadian urban planners and office location decision-makers. The thesis concentrates, therefore, on development and testing on federal government offices in Vancouver of a new method for assessment of metropolitan office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . From the l i t e r a -ture review ten inter-related factors and their possible influences on office locational f l e x i b i l i t y are identified and form a framework or "Criteria Check L i s t " for examination and evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In the Criteria Check List methodology analysis of a l l ten factors and their locational f l e x i b i l i t y influences on federal government offices is undertaken in three stages. The f i r s t stage, a quantitative and quali-tative analysis of six "internal" factors (nature of activity/work; frequency, character and pattern of contacts; prestige; office establishment size and organizational structure; rate of growth and organizational change; tradi-tion) i s based on existing information collected for each of 15 sample fed-eral departments. "Working Departmental Composite Sheets", "Indicators", and a point and weighting system are the major tools developed by the i i i researcher to obtain a comparative evaluation of sample federal departments. Federal departments are classified as "most locationally flexible", "loca-tionally flexible", "locationally inflexible" and "most locationally i n f l e x i -ble". In the second stage, information gleaned largely from library research on the four "external" factors ("general" and "special" physical accessi-b i l i t y downtown; metropolitan telecommunications and transportation systems; metropolitan Vancouver office market; planning and politics) i s examined qualitatively and a synopsis of the "climate" for federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver presented. The third stage of the analysis is a synthesis of the findings from the two previous stages. The thesis presents conclusions about the methodology and conclu-sions derived from specific findings on federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y resulting from the testing of the methodology. The chief conclusion , with respect to the latter, i s that federal offices have considerable metropolitan office locational f l e x i b i l i t y but that prestige; tradition; "general" and "special" accessibility; and the metropolitan office market are prominent factors to be overcome i f federal offices are to be relocated in Regional Town Centres. Of the fifteen federal departments examined office locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s found to be greatest for Supply and Services; Transport; Public Works; Energy, Mines and Resources; Unemployment Insurance; Manpower and Immigration; and Fisheries and Environment departments. The major methodological conclusion is that the Criteria Check List provides a much needed framework for clear thinking on, and examination of, the broad range of inter-related factors which affect office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Its use in the process of office location decision-making and/or planning could pro-vide a rational basis with which perceived locational needs and preferences of offices could be called into question. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag CHAPTER 1; THE PROBLEM, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS, AND STUDY OUTLINE 1 I. THE PROCESS OF PROBLEM DEFINITION 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3 III. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 3 IV. THE STUDY OUTLINE 4 V. THE PROBLEM BACKGROUND 4 A. Growth of the Office 4 B. Growth of the Federal Government Office 6 C. The Federal Government Office Locational 7 Fl e x i b i l i t y Problem in Vancouver VI. DEFINITIONS 9 A. Federal Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y 9 B. Federal Government Offices 9 C. Federal Departments' Office Establishments 10 D. Downtown 10 CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LOCATION AND H LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES AND METHODOLOGIES  FOR ASSESSING OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY I. INTRODUCTION 11 II. BACKGROUND 12 Part 1 III. REASONS FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATIONS AND RELOCATIONS i 6 A. Introduction 16 B. Office Location Theory 17 C. Empirical Office Location and Relocation Findings 21 D. Urban Office Markets 24 V Pag Part 2 IV. THE NEED FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATIONS: GENERAL FINDINGS 28 AND APPROACHES TO EVALUATION OF'OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXI-BILITY A. Introduction 28 B. Office Dispersal to Non-Downtown Locations 28 C. Perceived Need for Downtown Office Locations 32 D. Downtown Office Linkages 34 1. Direct Linkage Analysis 35 i) Communications Questionnaire Survey 36 i i ) Communications Desk Diary Survey 41 2. Critique of Communications Questionnaire and 50 Desk Diary Surveys in Evaluation of Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y V. SUMMARY AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 52 A. Factors Influencing the Location and Locational 52 Fl e x i b i l i t y of Offices 1. "Internal" Factors 53 i) The Nature of Office Activity/Work 53 i i ) The Frequency, Character and Pattern 53 of Contacts i i i ) Organizational and Occupational Prestige 55 iv) Office Establishment Size and Organiza- 55 tional Structure v) Rate of Growth and Organizational Change 56 vi) Organizational Inertia or Tradition 56 2. "External" Factors 57 i) "General" and "Special" Physical Accessi- 57 b i l i t y Downtown i i ) The State of Telecommunications and 57 Transportation Systems i i i ) The State of the Metropolitan Office Market 58 iv) Metropolitan Planning and Politics 59 B. General Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y Findings 59 C. Appraisal of Current Approaches to the Assessment of 60 Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y : The Need for an Alternative Methodology v i Page CHAPTER 3: A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL 63. FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES AND ITS APPLICATION TO FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN VANCOUVER I. INTRODUCTION 63. Part 1 II. A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL 66. FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES A. The Criteria Check Lis t 66. B. The Nature and Process of the Evaluation 68. C. Stage One of the Evaluation 70. 1. Working Departmental Composite Sheets 70. 2. Indicators 71. i) The Nature of Activity/Work Performed in 71. Department Offices Downtown i i ) The Frequency, Character and Pattern of 73. Departmental Office Contacts Downtown i i i ) The Prestige of Federal Government 76. Departments Downtown iv) Federal Government Departments' Office 77. Establishment Size and Organizational Structure Downtown v) The Rate of Federal Departments' Growth 78. and Organizational Change in Vancouver vi) The Tradition of Federal Departments' 79. Offices Downtown 3. Quantitative Analysis 79. 4. Qualitative Analysis 81. 5. Point System and Factor Weighting 83. D. Stage Two of the Evaluation 89. E. Stage Three of the Evaluation 89. F. Information Gathering 90. G. Information Quality 92. Part 2 III. APPLICATION OF THE "CRITERIA CHECK LIST" METHODOLOGY TO 95. FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS IN VANCOUVER: THE FINDINGS A. Analysis of Federal Government Office Location 95. in Metropolitan Vancouver v i i Page B. Federal Government Departments' Office Locational 102. Fl e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver 1. Tables 6 and 7: The General Findings 102. i) The Nature of Federal Departmental Office 106. Work/Activity Downtown i i ) The Frequency, Character and Pattern of 109. Federal Departments' Contacts Downtown i i i ) The Prestige of Federal Government 111. Departments Downtown iv) Federal Government Departments' Office 113. Establishment Size and Organizational Structure Downtown v) The Rate of Federal Departments' Growth H5. and Organizational Change in Vancouver vi) The Tradition of Federal Government 117. Departments Downtown 2. Comparative Locational F l e x i b i l i t y of 15 Federal 118. Departments i) Table 9: Discussion 121. 3. The Climate for Federal Departments' Office 127. Locational F l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver i) The "General" and "Special" Accessibility 128. of Downtown Vancouver i i ) The Metropolitan Telecommunications and 131. Transportation Systems i i i ) Vancouver's Office Market 133. iv) Planning and Politics 135. 4. The Locational F l e x i b i l i t y of Federal Government 136. Offices in Vancouver: A Synthesis CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 141. I. SUMMARY 141. II. FEDERAL OFFICE LOCATION AND LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN 144. VANCOUVER: CONCLUSIONS III. METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS 145. IV. DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 149. BIBLIOGRAPHY 151. APPENDIX I 164. APPENDIX II 172. v i i i Page APPENDIX III 174. APPENDIX IV 186. APPENDIX V • (-to -be—f-ottnd—:in—aecompanyirng-rp-ri-)- 195 to 203 1* > W ^ > Cc4ii\^sJr g ix LIST OF TABLES Pag TABLE I: Criteria Check List 67 TABLE II: Selections of Combinations of Internal Factors 87 Given Double Weights TABLE III: Sample Federal Departments (in order of amount 91 of office space occupied in metro Vancouver - 1976) TABLE IV: Federal Office Space and Employment in the 96 Context of Metropolitan Vancouver TABLE V: Office Space and Employment Distribution of 15 97 Sample Federal Departments' 1971-1976 TABLE VI: Comparative Assessments of Departmental Locational 104 F l e x i b i l i t y (Based on Quantitative Criteria) TABLE VII: Revised Comparative Assessments of Departmental 105 Locational F l e x i b i l i t y (Based on Qualitative Re-examination of Criteria) TABLE VIII: Comparative Locational F l e x i b i l i t y for the Six 119 Internal Factors by Department TABLE IX: Overall Evaluation of 15 Sample Federal Departments 120 Locational F l e x i b i l i t y (Based on Examination of 6 Internal Factors) X LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1: Stated personal, frequent CBD contacts among firm 38. types in Vancouver Figure 2: Daily Face-to-Face Office Contacts in Central Dublin 39. Figure 3: Weekly Face-to-Face Office Contacts in Central Dublin 39. Figure 4.: An Example of a Meeting Record Sheet. 42. Figure 5: An Example of a Telephone Contact Record Sheet. 43. Figure 6: Sources of Information in the Development Space (after 45. Thorngren, 1970) Figure 7: Contact Patterns in the Development Space (after 46. Thorngren, 1970) Figure 8: A Classification of Face-to-Face Meetings and Telephone 48. Contacts Using Latent Profile Analysis (3 Profiles) on Data From a Communications Desk Diary Survey Conducated on Firms in Central London. Figure 9: Sample Working Departmental Composite Sheet 72. Map 1: The Location of Federal Offices in Downtown Vancouver (1976) 98. x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisers, Brahm Wiesman and Henry Hightower for their constructive criticism and encourage-ment during the preparation of this thesis. Thanks are due also to federal department o f f i c i a l s for their time and help. Finally, a special thanks is extended to Marg de Raadt for typing this thesis. 1. CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS, AND STUDY OUTLINE I. THE PROCESS OF PROBLEM DEFINITION There i s recognition by planners and government o f f i c i a l s that the location of private and public offices has played, and can play, a s i g n i f i -cant role in shaping the physical, social and economic character of Canadian c i t i e s . In the words of V. Armstrong (1972, p. 2) The location of office activity in an urban area has ceased to be an isolated concern of the real estate agent and has become an important matter of social policy. Recognition of the importance of offices in shaping c i t i e s i s a major step towards determining what locations might be chosen for, and what roles played by, offices in planning Canadian c i t i e s . Planning and co-ordination of plan-ning i s widely considered as necessary i f efforts to solve today's complex inter-related urban problems are to succeed. The question remains, what i s the f e a s i b i l i t y of office location decisions which could reinforce lo c a l l y formulated plans and help ameliorate urban problems yet not harm the efficiency of their operations? Given the noted propensity of offices to locate in downtowns (Allpass, 1966; Cowan, 1969; Gottman, 1970; Murphy, 1966; Rannells 1955; Richardson, 1971) and the frequently sighted negative impacts of existing and developing city centre office concentrations (some of these impacts are l i s t e d by Gad (1976, p. 1) as: t r a f f i c congestion; increasing commuting distances; destruction of diversity of land uses and subsequent un-even use of f a c i l i t i e s ; the loss of historic buildings) the question frequently i s transformed into: "Which offices and office types can or should be decen-tralized?" To answer this question i t is a major premise of this thesis that, f i r s t office locational f l e x i b i l i t y needs to be investigated. 2. Office locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s the capability (whether acted upon or not) of office organizations to relocate office activities from city centres to either non-downtown locations within the same metropolitan region (this i s termed "metropolitan" office locational f l e x i b i l i t y ) or to c i t i e s and regions away from the present metropolitan location (this might be termed "regional" office locational f l e x i b i l i t y ) . Evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y is particularly important with respect to public offices because they may be used directly by planners and government o f f i c i a l s as a stimulus to encourage the overall location of urban employment opportunities. Understanding the contribution that a deliberate policy of public office location could make to the solution of metropolitan problems the original idea of this thesis was to evaluate using an existing methodology the office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of federal government offices in Vancouver. That i s to say an attempt would be made to solve the federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y problem in Vancouver. It became apparent during work on the literature review that the scope and aims encompassed in the original thesis idea were too broad and ambitious and would have to be modified. The literature revealed no office locational f l e x i b i l i t y approach or method that seemed suitable for the researcher to undertake. On reflection and after further c r i t i c a l examination, the re-searcher concluded that the approaches and methods found in the literature would be unsatisfactory for urban planners and office location decision-makers as well. It was clear investigation and assessment of federal govern-ment office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver should begin with development of a methodology. 3. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem addressed in this thesis i s the development and testing on federal government offices in Vancouver of a new methodology for the assess-ment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . A c r i t i c a l examination of current methods used to evaluate office locational f l e x i b i l i t y reveals that a more appropriate and more easily undertaken methodology for use by urban planners and office location decision-makers i s required i f the f e a s i b i l i t y of office location decisions which could reinforce local plans and help ameliorate urban problems, yet not harm the efficiency of their operations i s to be determined. III. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS This thesis i s methodology and "process" directed rather than "find-ings" oriented. It takes only a small step towards answering the large question of "the f e a s i b i l i t y of office location decisions which ..." and the more specific question of "Which federal government offices can or should be decentralized from downtown?" Federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y findings are, of course, presented but i t must be kept in mind they are generated from the exploratory process of methodology development and testing and are not the study focus. The methodology i s developed to assess "metropolitan" rather than "regional" office locational f l e x i b i l i t y though i t s application to the latter problem need not be precluded. More generally, the thesis does not attempt to undertake a cost/benefit type of analysis of downtown versus non-downtown office locations nor does i t seek to advocate and marshal evidence in favour of one location or the other. 4. IV. THE STUDY OUTLINE The outline for this research is very simple. In Chapter 2 a review of office location research literature is presented with a view to 1) establishing the factors which influence office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y ; and 2) exploring and assessing (for Canadian urban planners and office location decision-makers) the usefulness of methods currently being used to assess private and public office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In Chapter 3 the researcher develops his own alternative methodology which arises from the literature review findings for assessing office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The method is applied and tested, specifically, in an analysis of the current federal govern-ment office locational f l e x i b i l i t y problem in Vancouver. Lastly, in Chapter 4, the conclusions and directions for further research arising from the test of the methodology and from uncovered federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y findings are presented. V. THE PROBLEM BACKGROUND A. Growth of the Office Statistics do not i l l u s t r a t e the growth of offices and office activities as well as do photographs of city skylines. Twenty years ago, staid hotels visually dominated the downtowns of Canada's major c i t i e s . Today forests of office skyscrapers reflect the rapid shift from a rural, resource oriented economy to an urban technological society. Cowan (1969) and Armstrong (1972) briefly examine the history of offices and reasons for their growth. The need for offices is said to "have existed with the emergence of ci t i e s and the invention of writing" (Armstrong, 1972, p. 8). Office demand took a gigantic leap with the industrial revolution and the ensuing growth in urban population, business and government activity, and 5. levels of income. The need to co-ordinate and control complexity has con-tinued to grow. Inventions such as the telephone, typewriter, computer and skyscraper have aided and abetted the satisfaction of this need and greatly influenced how and where i t would be met. Cowan (1969, p. 44) succinctly reveals the past, present and possible future of office location patterns Fir s t of a l l office functions were d i f -fused throughout the city, in houses of merchants or in coffee houses; with  certain concentrations around the court  and government or in professional enclaves. In the second phase (the industrial revo-lution) the office function became detached and concentrated in specially designed accom-modation where economies of scale and rapid transmission of information were f a c i l i t a t e d . We are now entering upon a third phase in which the impact of technological advance is altering the balance once again. Auto-mation is reducing the importance of manu-facturing as part of the role of the city, while at the same time the interchange of ideas and the information handling a c t i v i t i e s , of which the office function i s one, are i n -creasing in importance. Soon the further impact of improved communication may lead to another dispersal of the office function to the homes and gathering places of those with ideas to exchange. The wheel w i l l have come f u l l c i r c l e . The likelihood of f u l l realization of the third phase in office loca-tion patterns postulated by Cowan is a matter for debate. It is not only the technological circumstances which underspin, in varying degrees, a l l location decisions which affects office location patterns and locational f l e x i b i l i t y . This i s but one factor to be considered in an assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The portion of Cowan's statement that is underlined, for example, suggests government offices have been physically concentrated a very long time, even when other office types were dispersed. 6. The tradition of concentration of government offices in the centre of ci t i e s is l i k e l y lengthy and definitely needs to be considered in assessment of government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . B. Growth of the Federal Government Office Growth of federal government offices parallels increased intervention of a l l levels of government in Canadian society. This intervention i s seen to be necessary because: 1) Society's economic system has come to dominate and dictate to (rather than interact with) a l l society's and nature's systems. Man's social, legal, and p o l i t i c a l systems and nature's natural systems cannot quickly adjust to rapid changes in the economic systems. Man has created Governments, therefore, attempt to mitigate widespread adverse effects of the economic system through legislation and regulation. 2) In the economic system i t s e l f , a marked shift in strength from the competitive sector (small business, unorganized workers) to the monopolistic or oligopolistic sector (big business, big labour unions) has occurred. A l l levels of government, but particularly the federal govern-ment, are placed in the role of mediator or referee among economic dispu-tants. In general, individuals and people in organizations have increasingly become dependent upon "big government" and demanded more and more govern-ment intervention. In Canada, while the provincial level of governments i s constitutionally charged with satisfying much of what the public demands, e.g. roads, educational f a c i l i t i e s , hospitals, etc., the variety and expense of public demands i s such that federal help i s increasingly engaged. The federal presence, in the form of offices and office employees has, consequently (in 7. the last decade) spread rapidly beyond Ottawa. A policy of dispersal of federal government c i v i l servants from Ottawa, termed "Regionalization", has further heightened federal office space demand and requirements in Canada's major c i t i e s . The problem of federal office accommodation — of how and where i t should be supplied — is currently of extreme importance to federal o f f i c i a l s as well as urban and regional planners. The question: "Should the downtown post office, long the only visible federal presence in many Canadian c i t i e s , necessarily give way to downtown federal government office towers?" has arisen. C. The Federal Government Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y Problem in  Vancouver Responding to a concentration of office employment in downtown Van-couver and to the "trend toward continued business and cultural domination of the region by downtown Vancouver" the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board, in 1972, reaffirmed: ;cThat i t is the policy of the Board to regionally control and develop 'office centers' or regional town centers out-side of downtown, and decentralize some downtown growth to these centers. Each regional town centre i s expected to serve a population of 100,000 to 150,000 people. It is suggested "that regional town centres should have a million square feet of office space (approximately 7,000 office employees); gross annual r e t a i l sales in the order of $50 million; and be able to draw audiences of several hundred to the theatre and other cultural events." A catalyst for development of these centres is expected to be government offices. Both Vancouver the the Greater Vancouver Regional District are "seeking agreement with senior governments that they w i l l decentralize new 8. major offices in the downtown and that existing government offices w i l l be gradually decentralized." The federal government, at the policy level, seems attuned to Vancouver and G.V.R.D. office decentralization plans. In 1973 the Federal Cabinet issued the Federal Land Management Policy. It states: Federal land should be managed so as to continue the efficient provision of govern-ment services with the achievement of wider social, economic, and environmental objec-tives ... The policy recognizes that the magnitude of federal urban and rural hold-ings gives them strategic importance and jus t i f i e s the need for a more integrated approach to federal land management ... The new policy establishes a land manage-ment process that takes into account the wider public interest in addition to the needs of departments and agencies. -(Treasury Board Circular No. 1975-8) Implementation of the "land management process", nevertheless, presents d i f f i c u l t i e s especially i f perceived locational needs of departments and agencies are at variance with the "wider public interest". In Vancouver, federal departments and agencies are revealed to be unreceptive to decentra-lization of their office activities from downtown (see Federal Requirements Study, 1974). A proposal to construct a large federal government office building downtown to house departments and agencies has been brought forward. It i s clear now that there exists in Vancouver the problem of deter-mining how far the federal government, i t s departments and agencies, can support the G.V.R.D. office decentralization goal by decentralizing existing and future office activities to Regional Town Centres. Which federal govern-ment offices really need to be located in downtowns, and which do not? How can or should office locational f l e x i b i l i t y be f a i r l y evaluated? What factors limit office locational f l e x i b i l i t y and which do not? Answers to 9. these questions would help ensure that opportunities for federal office location decisions reinforcing local plans but not harming the operational efficiency of government office activities are not missed by lack of knowledge. VI. DEFINITIONS In order to proceed a clear understanding of what is meant by major terms used in this study heeds to be presented. A. Federal Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y Specifically, in this study, federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y means the capability (whether acted upon or not) of federal depart-ments to locate their future, and relocate their existing office a c t i v i t i e s , outside downtown Vancouver to the Regional Town Centres proposed by the G.V.R.D. in i t s Livable Region Plan. While federal office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y might be measured empirically (i.e. the number or percentage of c i v i l servants having jobs considered "location flexible" by department or office establishment), in this study i t is gauged relatively and qualitatively for sample departments. Departments are classified into "most flexible", "flex-ible", "inflexible" and "most inflexible" office locational f l e x i b i l i t y categories. B. Federal Government Offices Federal government offices are the physical space (office structures or office establishments within office structures) in which the executive, administrative and quasi-judicial functions of the federal government orga-nization are managed. For purposes of information collection and sample selection, federal government offices in this study are more narrowly defined 10. to include only offices of federal departments and "departmental" corpora-tions. Excluded are "proprietary" and "agency" crown corporations offices (e.g. C.B.C., Bank of Canada, C.M.H.C., National Harbours Board) whose bud-gets, operations and office locations are less subject to scrutiny by the Treasury Board and Treasury Board Advisory Committee on Federal Land Manage-ment. C. Federal Departments' Office Establishments The Vancouver office functions of federal departments are most often performed in more than one location within the downtown and the metropolitan area as a whole. Each separately located and functioning departmental orga-nizational unit i s considered a separate department office establishment. D. Downtown In this study downtown i s considered to be the whole of Vancouver's downtown peninsula, including the West End. 11. CHAPTER 2; A REVIEW OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LOCATION AND LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES AND METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING OFFICE  LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY I. INTRODUCTION Hoover, in "The Evolving Form of the Metropolis" (1968, p. 239) writes: "the f i r s t step in building a useful conceptual framework for understanding urban spatial patterns is to sort out the multifarious location factors that influence the preferences and place-ment of specific ac t i v i t i e s i n types of decision units In this chapter Hoover's f i r s t step is taken as available office location research is reviewed to ascertain factors which influence both the location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices. As well, the literature i s reviewed to examine the approaches and findings of methods currently employed for assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . From this an appraisal is made of the usefulness of current approaches and methods for assessing metro-politan office locational f l e x i b i l i t y for Canadian urban planners, office location decision-makers in general, and for solving the specific federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y problem in Vancouver. After a brief background discussion of office location research the chapter is organized into two major parts. In Part 1 the reasons found in the literature for downtown office locations and relocations are presented. In Part 2 three approaches to assessing office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y are identified and the general findings of each presented. Two methods which make up one current and popular approach — direct linkage analysis — are critiqued. The chapter ends with a summary of factors found to influence office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y , a summary of loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y findings and an evaluation of the usefulness to urban planners and office location decision-makers (in general and specific fed-eral government/Vancouver contexts) of current approaches to assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . II. BACKGROUND A large and growing body of office location and locational f l e x i -b i l i t y research literature has emerged. The stimulus for this research, particularly i n Europe, has been concern for the changing locational pat-terns of offices, their public, as well as private, costs and benefits (Armstrong, 1972). In Europe rapid, geographically concentrated, growth of office employment i s thought to contribute to regional disparities (in terms of employment opportunities, decision-making power, wealth, population) and congestion in the centres of the few dominant urban regions. Policies of private and public office dispersal to ameliorate these perceived problems have evolved and been implemented in England, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The process of policy implementation in England and Sweden has led to the development of two research methods (discussed in Part II) to assess the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of various (public and private) office types. A l l i n a l l European office location research: has progressed from basic descriptions of the distribution of office employ-ment to a broader understanding of the r o l l of these ac t i v i t i e s i n steering urban and regional development Particular attention has been focussed on the nature of the constraints that appear to t i e office jobs to the city centre and also the social and economic consequences of office decentralization. Research has therefore begun to move from description to prescription in attempting to evaluate possible conse-quences of alternative policies. ' (Goddard, 1976 p. 1) North American office location research is found lacking in both quantity and quality. In the United States much research stems from largely descriptive studies of metropolitan New York City (see Haig 1927; Robbins and Terleiky 1960; Litchtenburg 1960; Gottman 1964; Armstrong 1972; and The Conservation of Human Resources Project 1977). United States research is also aimed at gauging the strength and describing the pattern of office dispersal from city centres to suburban locations (see Foley 1957; Fortune Magazine 1967, 1971, 1972 and 1976). Inter-metropolitan comparison of office market locations and characteristics i s another notable United States research interest. Canadian planning interest and research into current and possible office location patterns within and between metropolitan areas appears insubstantial. With a few exceptions Takahashi's (1973) assessment of Canadian office location research stands today. He concludes that most Canadian research i s l i t t l e more than"inventories or surveys of office space, descriptive studies of existing office f a c i l i t i e s , or opinion sur-veys of office space users." There i s , consequently, l i t t l e of a Canadian research base from which this thesis can work. Office location research, in general, concentrates on private sector and neglects analysis of the public sector. Turning to public f a c i l i t y location research, we find i t too overlooks the location of public office buildings, attempting, instead, to determine the best location for public buildings which provide or house services directly demanded by the public (i.e. libraries, hospitals, f i r e h a l l s , etc.). To sum up, the lack of focussed and Canadian research into the loca-tion of both private and public sector offices requires available, pre-dominantly "private" and foreign office location research literature to be reviewed. 15. P A R T 1 REASONS FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATION AND RELOCATIONS III. REASONS FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATIONS AND RELOCATIONS A. INTRODUCTION There is a plethora of factors seen as reasons explaining the loca-tion of any activity. The sorting out of these factors generally involves combined theoretical and empirical work. The great variety of office a c t i v i t i e s , their intangible inputs and outputs, recent rapid growth of office employment, the locational effects of technological advances in telecommunications and transportation — in short, the d i f f i c u l t y of ascertaining office "facts" has challenged a l l office researchers. The sorting out of reasons for city centre office location is s t i l l occuring. Theoretical and empirical office location research has not advanced in tandem nor has i t completely meshed. The former, emerging from the work of location theorists and forming a part of urban land use theory, emphasizes physical accessibility and economic antecedents for downtown office loca-tion. The latter stresses more heavily the communication aspect of physical accessibility among offices as a location factor and is the most recent work undertaken. In neither a theoretical or empirical approach is adequate attention focussed on the downtown locational i n f l u -ence of inertia or "tradition" of metropolitan planning and p o l i t i c s , and, lastly, of the metropolitan office market i t s e l f . The framework appro-priate to d i s t i l l a t i o n of factors which might exert a downtown locational influence on federal government offices i s , then: a brief examination of office location theory (including inertia/tradition and metropolitan planning/politics); followed by a review of empirical research findings; concluding with a look at the office market. B. OFFICE LOCATION THEORY Office location theory i s a branch of the intellectual effort, encompassed by urban land use theory, to comprehend in a simplified but accurate way the complex and changing structure of urban land use. Its emphasis, notwithstanding improved transportation and telecommunications systems, i s on office's need for physical accessibility and their a b i l i t y and willingness to pay i t s costs. Offices are considered avid physical "accessibility seekers". The physical accessibility they seek and value has two major dimensions: "general" accessibility, or nearness in travel costs to a l l other urban uses and f a c i l i t i e s ; and "special" accessibility, or nearness to particular types of complimentary activities (Richardson, 1971, p. 48). The "general" accessibility of downtown attracts offices "to take f u l l advantage of the surrounding metropolitan labour pool" and to "minimize the reach and maximize the convenience of linkages with markets they serve" (Manners, 1974, p. 93). Offices serving national or regional markets are thought particularly to desire downtown locations (Armstrong, 1973). The special accessibility of downtown i s closely re-lated to external agglomeration economies which offices are thought to enjoy in proximate locations. External agglomeration economies are efficiencies an organization benefits from (often in the form of lower input costs) but does not produce by i t s e l f . They arise because office a c t i v i t i e s , especially those labelled "financial" or " quaternary" (Gottman, 1970) are often specialized and interdependent. The costs of face-to-face interaction (i.e. for bargaining, negotiating, signing legal documents) among interdependent offices i s lowered in locations with special accessibility. Special accessibility downtown allows offices to benefit from other conveniences and intangibilities. Gerald Manners (1974, p. 93) writes: '(Offices) can readily exploit the proliferation of information and ideas and the profusion of commercial and institutional services in the central city, taking advantage of business consultants and trade asso-ciations, financial institutions and advertising agencies, libraries and specialist lawyers, restaurants and clubs and the l i k e . They can enjoy, moreover, the prestige frequently associated with a central city address. In simple location theory downtown is the most "accessible", in both dimensions, of a l l urban locations, sites in the city centre conse-quently are in great demand by most urban land users. Office a c t i v i t i e s , being efficient users of land and desiring "general" and "special" accessibility are prepared to pay and outbid other activities for down-town locations. In most c i t i e s , therefore, the majority of offices are located, and reluctant to move from, downtown. The aggregate urban land use pattern i s theoretically the result of a l l urban activities assessing and minimizing their individual "costs of f r i c t i o n " in terms of location rent/physical accessibility trade offs in an effort to maximize revenues, profits or in the case of government to "give taxpayers the most for their money." Office location theory has been honed by several generations of location theorists but not greatly altered since Haig's (1927) i n i t i a l work. While developed primarily as an economic explanation for downtown office location, i t is adaptable to changed office location patterns. It i s hypothesized, for example, by Horwood and Boyce (1959), Cowan (1969) and Clay (1974) that general and special accessibility may be obtainable to a satisfactory degree in lower rent locations outside downtowns. Improved transportation systems, they claim, are creating pervasive metro-politan physical accessibility. Telecommunications improvements (video phone, data transmissions, teleprinters, closed circuit television, com-puters and others) are enabling substitution of "declining in costs" and "increasingly effective non-physical for physical accessibility." In the future, a much more dispersed office location pattern can and w i l l l i k e l y emerge. Other researchers, notably Gottman and Vernon, feel "special" accessibility i f not "general" accessibility, w i l l remain at i t s apogee in downtowns. Office work they suggest w i l l become increasingly specialized and require frequent face-to-face contacts. Reasonable cost communications technology, their researchers suggest, i s not l i k e l y to simulate face-to-face communications "where only the f u l l nuances of gesture, eye gaze, and voice quality can be appreciated." (Custerton, 405, 1973). A pattern of increased office concentration in city centres, therefore, might possibly emerge. Whether or not the city centre continues to monopolize metropolitan "general" and/or "special" accessibility a reason reinforcing downtown office location is "inertia". While not stressed in office location theory, the emphasis placed on inertia in the industrial location branch of urban land use theory suggests i t s importance. Isard (1956, p. 180) writing primarily about industry states: 20. Existing locations are characterized by a great deal of inertia, and advan-tages pile up over time; furthermore existing locations exert considerable influence on subsequent plant (office) location decisions; so that once con-centration i s established i t develops a self-perpetuating momentum.' Inertia of existing locations may operate after locational advan-tages have stopped piling up. Indeed, i t may continue after locational reasons have otherwise become fossilized. In the sphere of a single orga-nization, the socially rooted location factor "tradition" i s akin to inertia and may be a rationalization for the pull of existing or past locations especially when economic and technological rationale for location decisions has weakened. Inertia and tradition deserve explicit incorporation into office location theory. A f i n a l reason for city centre office location not emphasized enough in office location theory i s the downtown oriented influence — quite closely related to inertia and tradition — of metropolitan planning and p o l i t i c s . Land use zoning may only permit substantial office develop-ment downtown. Retention of a strong downtown core i s a frequently sought p o l i t i c a l and planning objective. Developers too are often unwilling to encounter added risks, time delays and expenses associated with land use rezoning, floor space ratio adjustments and other planning and p o l i t i c a l hurdles (see Robert Fisher, 1967) frequently associated with non-downtown office locations. There often exists, as well, a strong downtown business lobby with connections to, and influence upon, city council and adminis-tration o f f i c i a l s (see D. Gutstein, 1973). C. EMPIRICAL OFFICE LOCATION AND RELOCATION FINDINGS Reasons stated by office organization representatives for locating or relocating inside and outside city centres have been revealed through empirical research. Survey interviews and questionnaires conducted in city centres on samples of office organizations (not a l l include govern-ment) usually reveal some or a l l of these reasons for locating downtown: contacts or communications with external office organizations and the public at large; centrality of location; general convenience; proximity to infrastructive, i.e. services, restaurants, stores, tradition, and prestige. The relative importance of these location influencing factors, usually assessed by frequency or by stated priority, i s seen to vary with the type and size of office organization as well as by methodology of research survey.* "Most office location decision-makers surveyed, nevertheless, regard communications as a key factor in location." (Goddard, 1971) "In various interview studies conducted .... the respondents, senior managers responsible for office location decisions, stressed the need to maintain personal (face-to-face) contacts with people in Central London." (Goddard and Pye 10, 1975) Daniels, (1975, p. 121) in conducting his review of these surveys states: ...Although the details vary, the relative importance of the main l o -cation factors i s consistently expressed in the findings of different surveys. In order of importance the major loca-*The influence of questionnaire design and survey technique i s seen most clearly when a locational reason such as "prestige" i s ex p l i c i t l y listed or prompted and when i t i s l e f t absent. In the absence of a reminder or prompt ... prestige seems less l i k e l y to be evaluated as a locational variable by many office organizations. (Daniels 120, 1975) tional factors are therefore: communications (both inside and outside the central area), staffing, rents and related costs, and prestige/tradition." The study conducted by the Vancouver Planning Department in 1973, Office Space Demand in Downtown Vancouver 1961-81 tends support to Daniels' statement. In the study sample of f i f t y firms (three of which are federal government departments) representatives are asked to give reasons for their downtown location. Contacts or communications with external firms and organizations " i s by far the most frequently mentioned reason, being given by 32 firms or 64 percent of a l l firms interviewed". (Vancouver Planning Department, 1973 p. 11) It is followed by general convenience and prestige as other frequently mentioned reasons. Two of three federal o f f i c i a l s interviewed mentioned "tradition" and "government policy" as reasons for locating downtown. Only one of the three however, mentioned "contacts with external firms and organizations" as a downtown location reason. Reasons downtown office organizations relocate within and outside the city centre have been examined by the Economist Intelligence Unit (1964); J.S. Wabe (1966); Facey and Smith (1968); Cowan (1969) and Bannon (1973). Cowan (1969, p. 87) in a locational case study of four central London private firms concludes: 'the most surprising fact to emerge from this part of our work (case studies) is the extent to which or-ganizations moved entirely or in part because of dissatisfaction with a building and the variety of reasons which caused the building to become, or seem to become, unsatisfactory." 23. This conclusion is supported by findings of other studies. For example, Bannon's survey of offices (including government) indicates physical factors (i.e. building too small, expiry of the lease) are the major reasons for office relocations within central Dublin. Wabe's empirical work in d i -cates physical factors relating primarily to expansion requirements are behind the majority of moves to locations outside central London. Also, moves to non-central locations are motivated by possible rent savings (Wabe, 1966) and often a desire to consolidate at one site parts of an organization in scattered locations downtown (Cowan, 1969). External factors such as congestion, lack of parking, and deterioration of the downtown environment are further, less often stated, reasons behind office moves from city centres. Significant differences i n reasons for relocation of different office types within and outside city centres have not been identified in the literature. Apparently public offices relocate for reasons similar to those of private offices. Daniels (1975, p. 128) however, in his extensive review of office location literature relates that, "Merriman, working in Christ Church found that floor space and related problems were particularly important to government offices, insurance and o i l companies." In his case study Cowan also finds relocation a continuing problem facing the firms "as none of the organizations looked very far ahead when planning i t s accommo-dation" (1969, p. 87). The high percentage (49 percent) of office estab-lishments in Bannon's survey that had been at more than one location in central Dublin tends to confirm Cowan's observation. The reasons for the high frequency of office relocation and attending problems are, in Cowan's opinion, complicated by the desire and consequent struggle for the firms he studied to remain in London's centre. Finally, then, there i s a hint that provision of accommodation, a continuing problem facing organizations, may be a particularly important and problematic government task. It may be complicated i f government departments, like Cowan's private organizations, f a i l to plan ahead, yet desire to remain in metropolitan downtowns. D. URBAN OFFICE MARKETS A market perspective may shed a different light on possible reasons for private and public downtown office location. Urban office markets are sets of sub-markets in which demands for types of office space (according to location, structure and space configuration, tenure type) are reconciled with supply through the price mechanism. Characteristics of urban office markets (and sub-markets) and governments' role in these markets may influence both public and private office location decisions. A major characteristic of urban office markets i s that demand, i n the short run, i s more flexible or "uncertain" than supply. (Fisher 1967) Urban office markets are characterized by cycl i c a l periods of over and under supply. On both office demand and supply sides public organizations are major market participants. Their actions on both sides may add further to the already inherent uncertainty of the urban office markets. Robert Fisher (1967, p. 4) writes: Occupancy of floor space in public or private office buildings by federal, state and local governments and agencies has proliferated. Local prospects for the construction or leasing of floor space in privately owned buildings accordingly depends partly on anticipations of public tenants, and the degree to which they w i l l be met by publicly owned structures. This 25. element of uncertainty distinguishes office markets from those of many other types of income producing real estate lacking any public demand for floor space. Office market uncertainty may by i t s e l f be a force influencing where public and private office space is developed. Uncertainty could generally favour established locations — locations like downtown where the demand for offices has proven strong in the long run. A tendancy to cluster offices where others have been located or to "follow the leader" might be a market supply side t r a i t , particularly where large investments are at stake. The intangible nature of office activities might reinforce a general clustering tendency from the demand side of urban office markets. The costs and benefits concomitant with office location for office space consumers are d i f f i c u l t to quantify. Hoover and Vernon (1959, p. 97) state: There is no process of accounting that can weigh the enhancement in the quality of executive decision-making in a given location against the added costs of operating in that location." The importance of any one location to an office space consumer may there-fore be diminished. Selecting a "well defined area" of generally perceived benefits and acceptable costs (where demand and supply are already focussed) may be of most concern. Governments' roles as demander, supplier and uncertainty generator in office markets exposes and perhaps disposes i t to these general market tendencies. A general tendency to group offices downtown, spawned on both supply and demand sides might be d i f f i c u l t for governments to withstand even i f they harboured and caused no such tendencies themselves. A propensity to lease (demand) rather than construct (supply) i t s own office space may extenuate the influence of general market tendencies over public office location (Marriot, 1967). As a leasee the government is a location-taker to the extent i t i s limited by the location of existing available, suitable office space. If such space i s grouped downtown the public and private office space consumer may have l i t t l e choice but to locate downtown. As an office supplier to i t s e l f , and perhaps other office space consumers, the locational influence on govern-ment of local market tendencies may be lessened. The possiblity of locating or relocating government offices outside established supply and demand areas may be increased. In general, the greater the market share of public office demand and supply in a metropolitan office market the stronger w i l l be i t s own market influence. 27. P A R T 2 THE NEED FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATIONS: GENERAL FINDINGS AND APPROACHES TO EVALUATION OF OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY / IV. THE NEED FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATIONS: GENERAL FINDINGS AND APPROACHES TO EVALUATION OF OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY A. INTRODUCTION Three approaches towards assessing the need for downtown office locations or the possibility of relocating offices outside downtown can be identified in the literature. F i r s t , the office organizations actually moving from downtown are monitored, surveyed and analyzed. Second, down-town office decision-makers are questioned to establish the perceived need for city centre locations. Third, physical and non-physical linkages among office organizations downtown are monitored and an assessment made of their strength. B. OFFICE DISPERSAL TO NON-DOWNTOWN LOCATIONS By monitoring, surveying and analyzing office organizations which are located in, or relocate to, non-downtown locations researchers try to determine the amount of office dispersal, the attributes of non-downtown offices, and the characteristics of office moves to non-downtown locations. Through this research factors delimiting the need for downtown locations or, more generally, the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of various office organiza-tions are indicated. Empirical investigation of offices that disperse i s most extensive in Britain and Sweden where dispersal from their respective national capitals i s encouraged by national government policy. The findings show a considerable number of public service jobs relocating. Over 23,000 central government positions have relocated from the City of London since 1963 (Hardman Report, 1973). A further 30,000 central government jobs, Sir Henry Hardman suggests, can be relocated from central London in the 1970's. In Sweden, "11,000 national government c i v i l service jobs (about 25 percent of the total) are in the process of being relocated from Stockholm". As d i f f i c u l t as monitoring the redistribution of central govern-ment jobs, is the determination of private office employment relocations from city centres. Since 1963 the Location of Offices Bureau (a body set up to aid and encourage private office dispersal from London) has assisted 1761 firms move 140,605 jobs out of central London. (L.O.B. Report 1974/75.) If the Bureau assists in relocations of one out of every two jobs from London as Hall (1972, p. 389) suggests, then close to 300,000 private jobs have been removed. The total number of office jobs in central London, of course, may or may not be reduced depending on the level of replacement by new or inmigrating office jobs and by job increases in remaining firms. (Hall, 1970.) Estimates of office relocations in North American c i t i e s rely primarily on changing city centre suburban proportions of office floor space. Changes indicate indigenous suburban office employment growth or suburban expansion of downtown based office organizations as well as job relocations from city centres. Gerald Manners (1974) finds that in many of the larger United States c i t i e s the suburban share of offices, in terms of floor space has risen steadily. In New York, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis and Atlanta over half the office space is located outside downtown. An attribute common to both public and private organizations, evident in European and United States research, Is that office organiza-tion very often relocate c l e r i c a l , records, or other "routine" (i.e. standardized; repetitive) a c t i v i t i e s . Both Hammond (1967) and Rhodes and Kan (1972) point out the routine nature of jobs so far moved from central London by the British Government. Examination of Location of Offices Bureau records (Daniels, 1975, p. 187) shows that private organizations with large routine work departments (insurance, bank and finance companies) are responsible for almost a third of private dispersal from central London. Organizational structure and size characteristics of private office organizations relocated from central London indicate that "small organizations with single, centralized head office activities are poten-t i a l l y more mobile than large organizations which have complex tiered structures". (Daniels, 1975, p. 188) Organizations with a decentra-lized decision-making hierarchy may be better able to relocate from down-town than those with a centralized hierarchy. Wabe (1969) attempts to discover the type of firm that moves or does not move from central London. Through careful examination of L.O.B. f i l e s he discovers the following: • 1. Large firms or large moves (over 300 in size) are the most d i f f i c u l t to make. Medium sized firms find i t easiest to be able to move. 2. Medium sized firms that were expanding or were considering expansion were generally the ones that considered decentralization. 3. Large firms were to an even greater extent motivated by expansion when considering the mints of decentrali-zation. 4. Small firms only seem to be able to move very short distances from the centre. Most small firms only considered decentralization from central London because their lease was expiring and presumably they were going to be faced with increasing rent." (Wabe, 1966, p. 49) Empirical research into the patterns of office organization relo-cation in Britain and North America suggest the great majority of private firms relocate short distances from city centres in the suburbs. National government offices in Britain have, however, relocated greater distances from London, over half the c i v i l service positions relocated have l e f t south east England altogether (Daniels, 1969). Many relocated office organizations (public and private) are attracted to, and help build up, office clusters in the suburbs. In North America these tend to be low density, planned, office "parks" whereas in Europe high density office "centres" have emerged at already established commercial nodes. (Daniels, 1969) The location of office "centres" and "parks" appears largely determined by good transportation/communications links (and concomitant physical and non-physical accessibility) to the city centre, region, nation and world community. Some office organizations, the relocation patterns indicate, choose locations away from office clusters. These are thought generally to be large organizations (typically manufacturing firms) with non-office components already located at or near the relocation site; or research oriented firms desiring relative privacy and quiet. The types of moves undertaken by office organizations are classified into three groups (Rhodes and Kan, 1972, p. 17). Complete moves involve relocating the entire organization from one location to another, partial "majority" moves are those in which the organization relocates most jobs in a new area leaving a smaller group of employees in the original loca-tion; and partial "minority" moves describe the relocation of some posi-tions while most remain in the original location. Analysis of L.O.B. f i l e s in England (Wabe 1966, Rhodes and Kan 1972) indicates that large firms tend to engage in partial "minority" moves while small firms typically undertake complete relocations. C. PERCEIVED NEED FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE LOCATIONS The need for city centre locations i s expressed subjectively by representatives of office organizations. In these surveys the perceived need for city centre locations is el i c i t e d by asking "How essential i s i t , and why is i t essential you be located downtown?" Alternatively, per-ceived need is assessed by asking "Would you consider relocation from downtown i f such and such were offered or were to occur?" In the study, Office Space Demand in Downtown Vancouver: 1961-1980, of the f i f t y repre-sentatives (including three federal government department o f f i c i a l s ) sur-veyed, only 38 percent f e l t i t was essential to be located downtown. Just one of the three federal o f f i c i a l s questioned f e l t a downtown location essential. In general the findings in Vancouver are supported elsewhere. For example, Croft's L.O.B. study, (1964, p. 74) concludes: The potential for dispersal must be regarded as considerable. Only about 1/3 of decision-makers from offices in the core of the central area thought that they were closely tied in location. Similarly, up to half of decision-makers from offices in the core of the central area thought they need not be in the central area at a l l although this figure must be reduced somewhat i f we are to accept the weight given to prestige and tradition surrounding central locations by professional and financial offices. Bannon (1973, p. 76) finds in his study: 44.7 percent (of office location; decision-makers sampled) would at least give consideration to the idea (of moving from Central to Non-Central Dublin) i f they could get better accommodation. Rent or rent subsidy inducements would likewise bring a high level of interest in the idea of moving to a non-central site within Dublin. : : Private office representatives opinions on the need for departments, or types of departments, to be located in the city centre are eli c i t e d in the study, A Survey of Factors Governing the Location of Offices in the  London Area (1964, p. 44 and p. 79). Representatives indicate that "routine" departments, particularly accounting, records and general admin-istration are considered location flexible. These opinions are li k e l y antecedents to the observed relocation of these activities from city centres to suburbs. There i s evidence indicating the perceived locational f l e x i b i l i t y of office organizations i s , in part, a function of whether a decision to relocate or not has been made. Goddard and Pye (1975, p. 11) note inter-views conducted for the Location of Offices Bureau with manufacturing companies show that: Those who had decided against moving tended to stress a l l the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with relocation, including communications. Those who moved tended to dismiss the d i f f i c u l t y arguing that by moving to a location only 30 minutes by train from the city, maintaining a 'pied- a -terre" in London, locating near an international a i r -port or moving nearer their customers they could overcome a l l such problems. After relocation, changes in attitude may be aided by organiza-tional adaptation. Thorngren (1973) finds evidence suggesting that organizations' internal and external contact patterns, functions, and organizational structures adapt over time to the new environment's opportunities and constraints. The major conclusion to be drawn from these studies is that repre-sentatives in a high percentage of firms surveyed in city centres do not consider such locations essential but, nevertheless, prefer and would pay increased rents to remain. From Vancouver evidence, this appears to apply with equal force to private and public offices. The locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices may be underestimated before a relocation decision i s made. After, the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n relocation may be dismissed or rationalized in other ways. D. DOWNTOWN OFFICE LINKAGES Linkages are defined by Rannells (1955, p. 36) as "relationships between establishments characterized by recurrent interactions which require movements of persons or of goods or exchanges of information." The ease, effectiveness, and economy with which information can be exchanged through physical and non-physical channels, i s clearly a downtown location reason for many office organizations whose principle inputs and outputs often consist of information flows (Goddard, 1971). Empirical research indi -cates personal contacts with external organizations as well as the public i s a consistently mentioned reason for city centre office location. Needed face-to-face contacts or linkages may particularly delimit private and government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The particular study of linkages as downtown office location constraints i s currently popular and pursued directly and indirectly. Indirect linkage analysis attempts to delimit intra-downtown patterns of linked offices (see Goddard 1972, Takahashi 1973) using spatial proximity of office types as a surrogate measure of the functional linkages amongst offices. No clear or immediate conclusions on office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y have resulted from this approach, therefore, i t i s not discussed further. 1. DIRECT LINKAGE ANALYSIS The direct methods of linkage investigation may be divided into two groups: Communications Questionnaire Surveys, often relying on manage-ment estimations of office communications volume and characteristics; and Communications Desk Diary Surveys which are recorded accounts of volume and characteristics of communications carried on by office workers. They have been employed because, as Goddard, (1975, p. 12) points out, While stressing the importance of communications factors in their location decisions, very few office organizations have any detailed knowledge about their existing patterns. ' Further, Goddard (1976, p. 21) feels, 'Before deciding on a relocation an individual organization clearly needs to take account of i t s existing and future communications require-ments. A communications survey of existing external (inter-departmental) and external (inter-firm) contacts can suggest a relocation strategy which supports management objectives. The findings that individuals communi-cate in different ways in different places suggests that relocation can be used as a positive tool in manage-ment; for example i t can be used to bring together departments which need to communicate more with each other and perhaps less with other firms; to improve linkages with other firms that are located elsewhere, perhaps in newly emerging spheres of interest for the organizations; to encourage devolution of some functions to lower levels in the organization thereby creating space and time in a city centre office for decision-making activities.' Data, supplied by direct linkage analysis, on volumes and charac-t e r i s t i c s of contacts maintained by office organizations can guide orga-nizational and city planners in assessing the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of various offices and help identify inter-linked offices (assuming communi-cations links imply functional relationships) which might locate or relocate jointly. In Sweden and Britain direct linkage analysis has been incor-porated into national government office relocation decision processes to select departments or agencies which need not be located i n Stockholm and central London respectively. i) Communications Questionnaire Surveys Questionnaire surveys of office communications linkages (i.e. attempts to find out "who contacts who and where") are frequently part of more general office questionnaire surveys which examine the locational traits and motivations (i.e. location reasons, perceived locational needs, locational changes) of office organizations. Communications linkage questions can be either programmed or open-ended but always necessitate the respondent to re c a l l or estimate, often for the organization as a whole, the frequency and other characteristics of communications. Pro-grammed questions usually contain a l i s t of potential meeting partners categorized by industries. The respondent i s asked to scan this l i s t and estimate contact (face-to-face, telephone) frequencies, characteristics, locations, etc. Open ended questionnaires do not l i s t potential meeting partners. The respondent i s asked to recall contact sources as well as frequencies and characteristics. An attempt to directly monitor office communications linkages i s made by the Vancouver Planning Department (1973) in i t s questionnaire survey of downtown office representatives. Figure 1 i s used to il l u s t r a t e in the Planning Department's survey the conclusion that in terms of stated contacts "groups in the general area of finance are most heavily tied in to the downtown business community" (Vancouver Planning Depart-ment 1973, p. 14). Federal government offices (the three departments included in the survey) in terms of stated contacts considered essential (e.g. face-to-face contacts) appear, from the figure, less tied in to downtown than many other Standard Industrial Classification office groups. They appear to have, however, face-to-face contacts with S.I.C. office groups (legal, business services, transportation companies) which them-selves claim strong downtown contact ties. Figures 2 and 3, taken from Bannon (1973) reveal similar face-to-face (personal) office linkage patterns in central Dublin as those in downtown Vancouver. The Irish national government office organization i s seen not as central to the working of the city centre as are financial or legal contacts but does generate some demand for regular face-to-face contacts with other central offices. (Bannon, 1974) 38. Figure 1 Stated personal, frequent CBD contacts among firm types in Vancouver The Figure 1 shows personal contacts taking place in the firms own office, another office, or in a club or restaurant. A line represents a contact. These contacts are considered essential. (Taken from Vancouver City Planning Dept., Office Space Demand in Downtown  Vancouver 1961-1980, p. 40, 1973) 39. Estate Agents Accountants Architects Engineers Legal Banks Stockbrokers Building Societies Insurance Travel Agents Manufacturing Agents Advertising Agents Medical Practitioners Other Medical Trade Unions General Offices Central Government State Sponsored Local Authority Embassies Other Professional Services Other Dublin Firms ND Non Dublin Firms Figure 2 Daily Face-to-Face Office Contacts in Central Dublin -B. 1 Estate Agents 2 Accountants 3 Architects 4 Engineers 5 Legal 6 Banks 7 Stockbrokers 8 Building Societies 9 Insurance 10 Travel Agents 11 Manufacturing Agents 12 Advertising Agents 13 Medical PractitionerE 14 Other Medical 15 Trade Unions 16 General Offices 17 Central Government 18 State Sponsored 19 Local Authority 20 Embassies O Other Professional S Services D Other Dublin Firms ND Non Dublin Firms X Contact within same Group One line represents one contact per week Figure 3 Weekly Face-to-Face Office Contacts in Central Dublin (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 Taken from Bannon, M.J., Office Location in Ireland: The Role of  Central Dublin, p\ 2fT, 1973) Croft's communications questionnaire survey in Leeds (1969) further adds weight to the idea that frequency of face-to-face contacts constrains some office types more than others to city centre locations. It i s chiefly for this reason that Croft (1969, p. 89) concludes "manufacturing, physical service and miscellaneous offices are less tied to central loca-tions than financial and professional offices." In his study Croft (1969, p. 94) further generally concludes offices most amenable to dispersal from downtown 1. Exhibit infrequent face-to-face contacts. 2. Generate face-to-face contacts over a wide geographical range. 3. Generate more trips than v i s i t s . 4. Generate linkages over a relatively narrow range, i.e. simple linkage pattern. 5. Promote irregular patterns of meetings. 6. Have opportunities for intra-functional linkages across the office/non-office boundary e.g. linkages with factories and shops and therefore would be more willing to relocate in non-traditional office centers. Croft's Leeds office survey is especially important because i t shifts research attention to other kinds of office linkages. For example, the volume and characteristics of office to non-office linkages are examined. Results of a "Pedestrian Questionnaire Survey" indicate "most trips generated (by offices) are entirely divorced from the economic activities from which they start and that only a small number of trips generated by offices have destinations in other offices." (Croft 1969, p. 14) These linkages, from an office viewpoint, with the social infra-structure (e.g. shops, restaurants, clubs) are usually stimulated by personal and domestic 41. needs of office employees. They "appear more concentrated locationally than the economic infra-structure (reflecting the needs of office workers as functional economic units)." (Croft, 1969, p. 23) Croft concludes that "in spite of variations, the importance of contacts with restaurants, shops, etc. remains preeminent. These contacts are clearly v i t a l to a l l kinds of offices and i t can be inferred to a l l types of office worker." (Croft, 1969, p. 50) A major downtown constraining force pointed out by Croft, then, i s not just office linkages in a complex economic infra-structure but office linkages in a socio-economic infra-structure as well. In evaluating office locational f l e x i b i l i t y the Leeds survey suggests both types of linkages need to be considered. i i ) Communications Desk Diary Surveys As a detailed discussion of the Communications Desk Diary Survey (C.D.D.S.) technique can be found in Goddard's 1973 book "Office Linkages and Location" only the major points need be presented here. In C.D.D.S. more detailed examination of office communications linkages i s undertaken. Rather than estimation or recall of communications linkages, survey respondents record details of each contact as and when i t occurs in a diary in which one sheet i s used for each contact. A l l contacts, usually for a three day period, are recorded by the respondent. Each contact (face-to-face, telephone) i s treated as a discrete event and no continuous record of the use of time i s maintained. Figures 4 and 5 are examples of "meeting" and "telephone contact sheets" used by Goddard in his analysis of office communications in central London. Similar sheets have been used in Stockholm and Dublin to detail, respectively, communications in the Swedish C i v i l Service and in the Irish Department of Health. The data M E E T I N G R E C O R D 42. .J How long did the meeting l a s t ? 1 • 2 - 1 0 m i n u t e s 2 • 1 0 - 3 0 m i n u t e s 3 • 3 0 - 6 0 m i n u t e s 4 n 1 - 2 h o u r s 5 • m o r e t h a n 2 h o u r s 2 Was the meeting arranged in advance? 1 • N o t p r e - a r r a n g e d at a l l 2 • A r r a n g e d on the s a m e d a y 3 • A r r a n g e d the d a y b e f o r e 4 • A r r a n g e d 2 - 7 d a y s i n a d v a n c e 5 • A r r a n g e d m o r e t h a n 1 w e e k i n a d v a n c e 3 Who initiated the meeting ? ! • M y s e l f / a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n m y f i r m 2 • A n y p e r s o n o u t s i d e the f i r m o r a n y o t h o r o r g a n i z a t i o n 4 How many people, apart from you. were at the meeting ? 1 • O n e o t h e r p e r s o n . 2 • 2 - 4 p e o p l e 3 • 5 - 1 0 p e o p l e 4 C D o v e r 10 p e o p l e I F there was O n l y o n e other person at , the meeting : -' 5 What is the work address of that person ? 8 What was the main purpose of $ ho mooting ? 1 G 3 T o g ive a n o r d e r o r i n s t r u c t i o n 2 E 3 T o r e c e i v e a n o r d e r o r i n s t r u c t i o n 3 ( 3 T o g ive a d v i c e 4 Q T o r e c e i v e a d v i c e 5 • F o r b a r g a i n i n g 6 O T o g ive i n f o r m a t i o n 7 • T o r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n 8 0 T o e x c h a n g e i n f o r m a t i o n 9 a F o r g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n 10 • O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) Q What was the range of subject matter discussed? 1 O O n e s p e c i f i c s u b j e c t 2 O S e v e r a l s p e c i f i c s u b j e c t s 3 O A w i d e r a n g e of g e n e r a l s u b j e c t s 1 0 ^ a s t n e meeting concerned with the purchase or sale of goods or services? i • D i r e c t l y concerned with p u r c h a s e s o r s a l e s ? • I n d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d ; w i t h p u r c h a s e s o r s a l e s 3 • N o t at a l l c o n c e r n e d w i t h p u r c h a s e s o r s a l e s I F the meeting took place outside your place of work : -H What is the address of the meeting place? Q What is the nature of business of his f i rm? I F there was m o r e t h a n o n e other person at the meeting, please complete the details overleaf 7 How often on average do you have a meeting with this person or particular set of people? 1 • D a i l y 2 • A b o u t once a w e e k 3 • A b o u t once a m o n t h 4 CH O c c a s i o n a l l y 5 • F i r s t c o n t a c t | 2 What was your principal method of transport from your office or previous meeting place? 1 n W a l k 2 • B u s 3 • P r i v a t e c a r 4 n T a x i 5 O U n d e r g r o u n d 6 • T r a i n 7 • P l a n e ^3 How Jong did this journey take? ) a L e s s t h a n 10 m i n u t e s 2 C3 1 0 - 3 0 m i n u t e s 3 • 3 0 - 6 0 m i n u t e s 4 • 1-2 h o u r s 5 C D M o r e t h a n 2 h o u r s Figure 4 An Example of a Meeting Record Sheet. (Taken from Goddard, J.D. "Office Communications and Office Location: A Review of Current Research" Regional Studies Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 267, 1971) 43. T E L E P H O N E C O N T A C T R E C O R D 1 How long did the contact l a s t ? 1 • 2 -10 m i n u t e s 2 • 1 0 - 3 0 m i n u t e s 3 • 3 0 - 6 0 m i n u t e s AC3 1-2 h o u r s 5 • M o r e t h a n 2 h o u r s 2 W a s the contact arranged in advance? 1 C D N o t p r e - a r r a n g e d at a l l 2C2 A r r a n g e d on the s a m e d a y 3U2 A r r a n g e d the d a y b e f o r e 4 0 A r r a n g e d 2 - 7 d a y s i n a d v a n c e 5C3 A r r a n g e d m o r e t h a n one w e e k i n a d v a n c e 3 W h o initiated the c o n t a c t ? 1 • M y s e l f / a n y o t h e r p e r s o n i n m y f i r m 2 • A n y p e r s o n o u t s i d e the f i r m o r a n y o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n 4 What is the work address of the person with whom you t a l k e d ? 5 What is the nature of business of his firm ? 0 How often on average do you have contact w i t h this person or f irm, whichever is the most frequent ? 1 • D a i l y 2 O A b o u t once a w e e k 3 • A b o u t once a m o n t h 4 • O c c a s i o n a l l y 5 • F i r s t c o n t a c t 7 What was the main purpose of this contact ? 1 • T o g ive a n o r d e r o r i n s t r u c t i o n 2 • T o r e c e i v e a n o r d e r o r i n s t r u c t i o n 3 O T o g ive a d v i c e 4 • T o r e c e i v e a d v i c e SC3 F o r b a r g a i n i n g 6E3 T o g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n 7 O T o r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n 8 • T o e x c h a n g e i n f o r m a t i o n 9 • F o r g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n 10 • O t h e r s - p l e a s e s p e c i f y 3 What was the range of subject matter d iscussed ? 1 £3 O n e s p e c i f i c s u b j e c t 2 C D S e v e r a l s p e c i f i c subjects ' 3 E 3 A w i d e r u n g o of g c n e i ' a l s u b j e c t s 9 W a s the contact concerned with purchaso or sale of goods or services ? 1 • D i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h s a l e s b r b u r c h a s e s 2 C 3 I r i d i r e a t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h s a l e s o r p u r c h a s e s 3 0 N o t iU a l l c o n c e r n e d w i t h s o l e s 6 r p u r c h a s e s Figure 5 An Example of a Telephone Contact Record Sheet (Taken from Goddard, J.D. "Office Communications and Office Location: A Review of Current Research", Regional  Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 268, 1971) generated from these sheets has been analysed in several different ways, the most important from a locational f l e x i b i l i t y standpoint, being Latent Profile Analysis. Latent Profile Analysis (a multivariate analysis technique best explained in Goddard's 1971 paper "Office Communication and Location: A Review of Current Research") enables the plotting of characteristics of respondents recorded contacts and the concomitant identification of three processes which imply locational f l e x i b i l i t y of office workers, sections, and whole organizations. In Goddard's (1971, p. 271) words: " i t can be established which types of contacts most need face-to-face meetings and therefore demand that the individuals recording these contacts remain in the city centre." A classification, stemming from the work of Thorngren (1970) in Sweden (see figures 6 and 7) describes three types of contacts (arising from organizational decision-making processes and interactions with the environment) which can be identified as profiles in Latent Pro-f i l e Analysis. "Orientation" contacts emerge from scanning socio-economic environments in order to identify future possiblities and alternatives. "In terms of actual contacts these are found to involve the highest level decision-makers in wide ranging discussions that often take place in large, lengthy, preplanned meetings." (Goddard 1973, p. 190) "Planning" contacts occur as new alternatives suggested in orientation processes are developed and realized. They involve more intensive contact relations between individuals who can use the telephone reinforced by occassional face-to-face meetings. A third and dominant type of contact are "pro-gramming" contacts which involve day to day management of existing Figure 6 Sources of Information in the Development Space (after Thorngren, 1970) The development space (a concept introduced by Jahstch (1967) in connection with long run technological development) is divided into a values environment and a knowledge environment, with activities located in the central section. Most activities (programmed processes) (1) operate within contemporary socio-economic and technological environments. The next largest group (planning processes) (2) link potential social values and technologies and are therefore concerned with li k e l y changes in the more immediate environments within which pro-grammed activities currently operate. Finally, a very small proportion of total activity (orientation processes) (3) is concerned with long term scanning of the environment, reaching out to ideology and basic science. (Taken from Goddard, J.B. Office Linkages and Location, p. 190, 1973. 46. Figure 7 Contact Patterns in the Development Space (after Thorngren, 1970) Orientation processes and related contacts involve a wide ranging and often random scanning of the knowledge and values environments. Planning processes give rise to con-tacts that take the form of a more directed evaluation and development of new possibilities isolated through previous orientation contacts. Programmed activities and contacts are severely constrained by existing arrangements, possibly laid down in earlier planning contacts. (Taken from Goddard, J.B. Office Linkages and Location, p. 191, 1973.) resources and therefore concern a large volume of routine contacts; i n d i -viduals are in contact on either a regular basis or come together usually by telephone for specific enquiries. (Goddard 1976, p. 18) In Figure 8 (the visible and i l l u s t r a t i v e result of undertaking Latent Profile Analysis on C.D.D.S. data) class 1 profile has character-i s t i c s corresponding to "orientation" contacts, class 2 profile to "programming" contacts, and class 3 profile to "planning" contacts. The locational f l e x i b i l i t y this implies is that characteristics of "orien-tation" contacts (most, for example, are face-to-face meetings) suggest these may be achieved most easily in "information ri c h " downtown locations. The nature of "planning" and especially "programming" contacts on the other hand indicate these could be achieved in locations outside city centres. The number of contacts in each class profile made by an organi-zation, i t s units, and employees can be determined and the locational f l e x i b i l i t y at various levels of organizational aggregation deduced. Goddard on the evidence of his Central London Communications Desk Diary Survey and his analysis of the results, concludes that in terms of office to office contact characteristics most do not need to be located in central London. He states: (1973, p. 212-213) °0n evidence of the communications survey, over 80% of a l l contacts in Central London are of a type that could be readily carried on outside the center. Significantly, around 20% of a l l meetings have character-i s t i c s similar to telephone calls in short and specific discussions between two familiar people, which suggests that even without the introduction of any technology there is considerable scope for replacing face-to-face contact with existing telephone services. 1 48. Length i r Feedback Figure 8 A Classification of Face-to-Face Meetings and Telephone Contacts Using Latent Profile Analysis (3 Profiles) on Data From a Communications Desk Diary Survey Conducted on Firms in Central London. Contacts in class 1 are meetings of above average length, arrange-ment and number of people involved; also, these contacts are con-cerned with above average range of subject matter and an above average degree of feedback. These contacts take place with below average frequency and hence involve generally unfamiliar p a r t i c i -pants. In complete contrast, contacts in class 2 are generally made by telephone, are of below average length, arrangement and number of people involved; these contacts also have below average feedback and are concerned with a below average range of subject matter. On the other hand, contacts in class 2 take place with above average frequency. Class 3 represents a small but distinctive group. It is characterised by contacts that are generally short, very infrequent, involve only two participants, but which are arranged a long time in advance. These contacts require a f a i r amount of feed-back and are directly concerned with sales or purchases. On the evidence of the latent profile analysis there can be l i t t l e doubt that contacts in class 1 can be associated with the orientation processes. Contacts in class 3 can be more tentatively associated with planning processes. Finally, contacts in class 2 are clearly of the programmed variety. (Figure and Quote taken from Goddard, J.B. Office Linkages and Location, pp. 195-197, 1973.) 49. Further, (1973, p. 213) Goddard finds that of orientation contacts themselves "only 15 percent recorded in the survey suggest present tele-communications would be inappropriate .... principally because they involve a large number of relatively unfamiliar people in wide-ranging discussion." While characteristics of office-to-office contacts in central London indicate latent office locational f l e x i b i l i t y for offices in general, the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of particular office types or functions Is also suggested. In other research the relative frequency of "orientation", "planning" and "programming" contacts i s found to vary with types of orga-nizations. Bannon (1976, p. 74) notes, for example, that the results of C.D.D.S. conducted in national government departments "contrast sharply with the results of studies in the private sector where a higher proportion of contacts are of the orientation variety and a much smaller proportion are concerned with planning a c t i v i t i e s , i.e. research and development type work or medium range planning." In the work of both Goddard and Bannon the proportion of orienta-tion contacts in public and private office organizations i s shown to vary widely by department type and employee status. "Market research, long range planning or organization departments generate a much higher propor-tion of orientation contacts compared with records or accounts departments." (Daniels 1975, p. 151) "Office workers of the highest status level have the highest proportions of contacts associated with the orientation net-work." (Goddard 1973, p. 200) Goddard finds, for example, "over 19 percent of managing directors contacts involve orientation compared to almost 9 percent for executives." Finally, analysis of contact characteristics and patterns of relo-cated or about to be relocated offices (through both C.D.D.S. and Ques-tionnaire Surveys) indicates organizations that relocate from city centres have fewer contacts than those which do not. (Goddard and Morris, 1974) Goddard and Morris find, moreover, i t i s those departments most heavily involved in a diverse network of "non-routine" (orientation) communications that are most reluctant to disperse. "Departments involved in routine (programming) communications tasks (such as giving or receiving information) are those that are selected for dispersal or already in dispersed loca-tions." (Goddard and Pye 1976, p. 22) 2. CRITIQUE OF COMMUNICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE AND DESK DIARY SURVEYS  IN EVALUATION OF OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY Communications and Desk Diary surveys have attempted to provide a more sci e n t i f i c and objective basis for evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y and, more generally, for development of office location policies. They have done this by concentrating upon office to office communications linkages. These linkages, however, are not the only or necessarily even the most important factors affecting office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Croft found, for example, office to non-office (social infra-structure) linkages are extremely important. To be considered in evaluation of office loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y , as well, i s the nature of office activity/work, the need for prestige, office establishment size and structure, the rate of office growth and organizational change, inertia/tradition, and region wide accessibility, technology, office market, planning, and p o l i t i c a l factors. Fi r s t , then, i t must be realized evaluation of office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y through analysis of communications questionnaire and desk diary surveys has a narrow factor base. The theoretical basis of communications surveys rests on the assump-tion contact linkages (face-to-face, telephone) are indicators of functional relationships. While this assumption i s probably j u s t i f i e d i t i s bound by the fact existing functional relationships indicated by patterns of communi-cations might not reflect optimal or necessary locations with respect to currently available or future telecommunications technology. It i s especially d i f f i c u l t in communications questionnaire surveys to get at the "essentialness" of existing office communications linkages. "Communications questionnaire surveys most frequently obtain only a narrow assessment of needs as expressed subjectively by representatives of firms which can only give part of the overall picture of linkages and, by inference, locational requirements." (Croft, 1969, p. 14) By examining the characteristics of contact linkages in greater detail and as they occur desk diary surveys may, perhaps, more objectively measure the strength or need of existing contact linkages and the extent these may limit office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Knowledge of the objectivity of desk diary surveys is diminished by the d i f f i c u l t y of checking the actual diary distribution and accuracy of recorded responses within offices surveyed. In general, the value and practicality of office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y evaluations based on desk diary and questionnaire communications surveys is substantially reduced by survey and sampling procedural d i f f i -culties. Both types of surveys present serious access and motivation problems for organizations and researchers alike. A lengthy personal approach to enlist the support and cooperation of office organizations and representatives, especially for desk diary surveys, is frequently necessary. The surveys, then, are time consuming, detailed and expensive. Where the time horizon is five to ten years as i t usually is in urban planning, and so longer than the cycle of significant organizational, environmental, and personnel changes these surveys may be overly rigorous. On the same grounds their practicality at a broad level of planning policy determination may be doubted. In summary communications questionnaire and desk diary surveys have made and can make important contributions to evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . These methods also have however, both practical and theoretical shortcomings which limit their usefulness to urban planners and office location decision-makers. V. SUMMARY AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS A. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LOCATION AND LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY  OF OFFICES A labyrinth of factors influence both the location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices. It is d i f f i c u l t to categorize a l l these factors or to isolate and define precisely their changing, intermingling affects on office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y . An attempt, nevertheless, to identify and briefly summarize what appear to be major factors and their possible influences on office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y follows. It i s clear six inter-related and important factors which operate largely within or "internal" to any organization and influence office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y are: the nature of office activity/ work; the frequency, character and pattern of contacts; organizational and 53. occupational prestige; office establishment size and organizational struc-ture; the rate of growth and organizational change; and organizational tradition or inertia. 1. "Internal" Factors i) The Nature of Office Activity/Work In the literature activity performed in office organizations i s broadly classified as either routine or non-routine. To a certain extent the two office activity types are locationally and organizationally enmeshed and no clear distinction on the relative attractiveness of down-town for both is ventured. Routine processes, and organizations in which they predominate, however, are typically considered most location flex-ible. There is evidence this routine type office activity in organizations is very often the type to be relocated outside city centres. Work performed by office organizations (reflected in S.I.C. and other office classifications) permits only broad and qualified conclusions on i t s location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Research and office work organizationally and functionally linked with non-office functions may find city centres least attractive and, as a result, have greater potential for dispersal from downtowns. Specialized office work, particularly in financial or "quaternary" spheres may, on the other hand, be especially drawn to, and d i f f i c u l t to extricate from, downtown. Ii) The Frequency, Character, and Pattern of Contacts Need of office-to-office, public, and social infra-structure contacts are major downtown location reasons and limit the scope of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In general, the greater the frequency of contacts (particu-l a r l y face-to-face contacts) the greater i s assumed their need, the stronger the attraction of the city centre, and the more an office organization i s thought "tied i n " to the city centre. Similarly the more office-to-office contacts that are "orientation" or "non-routine" in character the greater the city centre pull and the less location flexible offices are considered to be. The proportion of these contact types i s largely a function of office activity or work type and organizational and occupational prestige. "Programming" or "routine" and to a lesser degree "planning" contacts are associated with routine activity or work in middle lower status organiza-tions, departments, and occupations. The opposite seems to be true of orientation contacts. Office-to-office contacts described as narrow, simple or dispersed in both organizational and geographical senses may be considered indicative of inherent locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Contacts crossing the office/non-office occupational boundary (i.e. contacts with warehouses, plants, laboratories) also suggest potential for locational f l e x i b i l i t y towards, at least, these contact sources. Apart from office-to-office and public contacts are office "social" contacts. Characteristics of office social contacts, not so far shown to vary with office activity/work types in organizational or occupational prestige, remain sketchy. The f a c i l i t a t i o n of social contacts may, however, demand their locational concentration and that primarily they be carried out in a face-to-face fashion. These contacts, as much as other types, may limit the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices. i i i ) Organizational and Occupational Prestige Symbolic and image-making nations of "being at the centre"; of being "visible"; and of being among prestigious organizations (and people) attract offices downtown. The extent of the attraction and the degree these ideas limit the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices i s currently being debated. At an organizational level the desire or need for prestige or status i s seen as a function of market size. At an occupational level i t i s seen as a function of decision-making authority and commensurate responsibility. Offices serving national or regional markets and decision-makers of high authority and responsibility may be thought particularly to desire prestige and to gain i t s physical expression downtown. iv) Office Establishment Size and Organizational Structure Office location theory suggests downtown, with i t s abundant external agglomeration economies may have greater attractiveness for small than large offices. Locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s tentatively thought to decrease with increasing office establishment size i n terms of employment. Evidence on moves made by office organizations from central London, however, suggests both large and small offices have more d i f f i c u l t y dispersing from city centres than do medium size (in terms of employees) offices. The effect of organizational structure on office location and loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y i s largely unexplored. It i s suggested offices having complicated organizational structures are potentially less location flexible than those with simple, straight-forward structures. Also offices having decentralized decision-making and responsibility hierarchies may be more location flexible than those where decision-making and responsibility are centralized. They may also find downtown locations less attractive than their "centralized" counterparts. v) Rate of Growth and Organizational Change Rapidly growing and/or changing office organizations (i.e. those increasing their employees, frequently reorganizing, merging, splitting) are considered potentially more location flexible than their opposites. Reasons for relocating offices within, and frequently to sites outside city centres, stem to a surprising degree from dissatisfaction with physical accommodation. Organizations growing or changing rapidly are li k e l y to more quickly become dissatisfied with the quality, quantity, and location of their office accommodation. They may have a strong desire to consoli-date locationally scattered units. Locational f l e x i b i l i t y , more sp e c i f i -cally , amenability to suburban or other location alternatives may increase as accommodation problems loom larger as a consequence of rapid organiza-tional growth or change. vi) Organizational Inertia or Tradition Inertia or tradition, like prestige, i s extremely abstract. The degree i t attracts offices downtown and limits their locational f l e x i b i l i t y is unknown. The broad influence of inertia, largely independent of any single office, is probably dependent on existing and past locational concentration of offices and i s li k e l y reflected in the conditions and configurations of the metropolitan office market. Tradition's influence, working largely within office organizations, may be thought a function of organization age, the time length of senior staff tenure, the time spent in one location, whether accommodation i s owned or leased, and perhaps generally the rate of organization growth or change. 2. "External" Factors Four broad, multifaceted factors operating largely outside the pur-view of a single office organization but influencing any office's location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y are: "General" and "special" physical accessi-b i l i t y downtown; the state of telecommunications and transportation technology; the state of the metropolitan office market; and metropolitan planning and p o l i t i c s . i ) "General" and "Special" Physical Accessibility Downtown The benefits and costs of physical accessibility are li k e l y major office location considerations. "General" accessibility of downtown may be particularly attractive to offices looking for easy access to the urban labour market and the public at large. "Special" accessibility downtown may be especially attractive to offices benefiting from a wide range of agglomeration economies, conveniences, and intangibilities. The importance of "special" accessibility to a l l offices i s enhanced by the "social infra-structure" contacts i t f a c i l i t a t e s . The degree to which "general" and "special" accessibility are obtainable in metropolitan locations other than downtown lik e l y influences potential for office relocation from downtown. The greater the monopoly downtown has on both types of accessibility the less location flexible both private and public offices are li k e l y to be. i i ) The State of Telecommunications and Transportation Systems The changes in telecommunications and transportation systems have radically altered urban land use patterns in the twentieth century. There is no disagreement that the unadvanced state of transportation and communi-cations technology earlier in this century promoted compact ci t i e s with dense, heterogeneous cores. The automobile and telephone have permitted a much more dispersed urban land use pattern today. Location pattern of offices, however, has undergone the least and slowest transformation. Dis-cussion pivots today on the office location pattern currently possible as well as the future office location pattern that current and future trans-portation and communications systems might engender. Some researchers suggest creation of pervasive metropolitan physical accessibility by transportation technology and substitution of non-physical for physical accessibility by communications technology can and w i l l decentralize offices from city centres. Other researchers suggest a growing need for face-to-face communications not satisfiable by telecommunications technology may well perpetuate and perhaps increase the need for downtown office con-centrations. i i i ) The State of the Metropolitan Office Market Office market literature (inherently oriented towards economics and finance) suggests uncertainty in metropolitan office markets, a good portion of which may be generated by public sector office activities helps sway offices to downtown or to other "established" locations. As well, the locational disposition of existing metropolitan office sub-markets at once influences, and i s l i k e l y influenced by, the location and relative size of government office space demand and supply. The extent of influence, down-town or elsewhere, i s affected by whether or not public office space demand is met by leased or self-constructed and owned office space. iv) Metropolitan Planning and Politi c s Downtown oriented metropolitan planning and p o l i t i c s may increase the attraction of downtown for public and private offices and may limit their locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Land use, zoning, floorspace and other planning regulations generally limit major office development to city centres. The more these legal controls favor, or are seen to favor, down-town over other metropolitan locations the less location flexible private and public offices are lik e l y to be. The risk of public conflict or controversy amongst levels of government may be lessened when established locations (like downtown) for public offices are proposed and chosen. B. GENERAL OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY FINDINGS The findings of the three approaches to assessment of office loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y (identified in the literature) generally indicate office organizations in Europe and North America have substantial intra-metropolitan locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The monitoring of office dispersal from European and North American city centres reveals that in many c i t i e s private and public offices are being relocated at least short distances out-side city centres. The majority of office representatives surveyed do not feel a city centre location essential. The volume and characteristics of stated and recorded office-to-office contacts suggests many could be conveniently maintained outside city centres by existing telecommunications systems. It i s notable from the Federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y problem background of this thesis that communications questionnaire surveys in Ireland, Britain, and Vancouver indicate (in terms of stated office-to-office contacts) government offices are less "tied-in" to city centre loca-tions than many private offices. A similar conclusion i s implied i f Bannon is correct and Communications Desk Diary surveys do indeed show fewer "orientation" type contacts in public than private offices.* C. APPRAISAL OF CURRENT APPROACHES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF OFFICE LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY: THE NEED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY A l l three approaches to the assessment of office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y could be further employed and more findings obtained in the general Canadian, and specific Vancouver, contents. While each approach would be helpful in the evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y , the scope for objectively determining which offices really need to be located in city centres, and which do not, seems greatest with the Direct Linkage Analysis approach. Detailed data on contact volumes and characteristics particularly obtained through Communications Desk Diary Surveys has been used in Britain, Ireland, and Sweden to determine which national government departments (or sections of departments) have weak links with the city centre and are therefore l i k e l y candidates for relocation to economically *Opinions that government may have a less compelling need for city centre office locations than private firms are based primarily on the assumption that government is able to give less weight to economic (location theory and office market) reasons in choosing office locations. Jean Gottman (1967, 327) feels "Competition does not have the impor-tance for governmental agencies as i t does for establishments that do not enjoy the monopolistic privileges of government." Daniels similarly suggests that competition and "economics" place greater locational constraints on private offices. He states (1969, 174) "Politics rather than economics of location may well be an important factor on determining the distribution of government offices." Lastly, Gerald Manners (1974, 100) feels "Their (public offices) location i s constrained by the need to assemble an appro-priate labour force, some public f a c i l i t i e s also need to afford a high level of public accessibility. Nevertheless, most federal and state govern-ment activities are to a considerable degree footloose within the metro-politan area." depressed regions (i.e. office locational f l e x i b i l i t y at the "regional" rather than "metropolitan" scale). Unfortunately Direct Linkage Analysis (valuable and important as i t is) provides only a narrow factor and theoretical basis for evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . As well, in i t s undertaking, i t presents severe practical problems for both researcher and the surveyed office organizations. In evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y by urban planners and/or office location decision-makers an alternative methodology needs to be developed. A methodology is required which maintains a reasonable degree of objectivity and specificity yet considers the broad range of factors affecting locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The method must be easily and quickly enough undertaken so as to contribute to the planning and/or locational decision-making processes before and as they occur. It should be applicable to offices of a l l kinds and, i f possible, be based on work already done to avoid duplication of effort. The method should be adjustable and amenable to changes, new findings and new situations. It might be employed before or in parallel with more rigorous and deterministic communications questionnaire and/or desk diary surveys. When used f i r s t , questionable or controversial findings of such a method might suggest where more detailed and rigorous analysis be undertaken. If used in parallel with communications question-naire and/or desk diary surveys the latter might serve as criterion with which to compare the findings of the former. In conclusion, i t is clear from the review of the literature urban planners and, in particular, federal office location decision-makers could benefit from development of an alternative methodology for assessing office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In the next chapter of this thesis such a methodology i s developed and tested with respect to federal government departments' downtown offices in Vancouver. While an evaluation of federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y based on findings generated i n a testing of an alternate, new methodology is inevitable and desirable, i t is insights into the general problem of office locatinal f l e x i b i l i t y assessment gained during the process of methodology development and testing which are chiefly sought. CHAPTER 3: A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY  OF OFFICES AND ITS APPLICATION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES  IN VANCOUVER I. INTRODUCTION It i s posited that investigation of locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s a f i r s t and necessary step in determination of the f e a s i b i l i t y of office location decisions which could reinforce locally formulated plans yet not harm the efficiency of office operational a c t i v i t i e s . A review of the literature in Chapter 2 has exposed factors which influence the location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices and three approaches: 1) the monitoring of office dispersal to non-downtown locations; 2) the determining of the perceived need of office location decision-makers for downtown office locations; and 3) the direct analysis of office communications linkages, used to assess office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The evidence obtained from application of these three approaches to office locational f l e x i b i l i t y problems does not present a strong nor specific enough foundation on which to base a practical assessment of federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver. While a l l three approaches could be undertaken to assess federal office loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y i t i s clear an alternative method of assessment needs to be developed. An alternative methodology needs to be developed because: 1) the determining of the perceived need for downtown locations of office location decision-makers and the monitoring of office dispersal to non-downtown locations expose only the extent office locational f l e x i b i l i t y is perceived and acted upon and not the real or possible degree of locational f l e x i b i l i t y that might be exercised by different office organizations; 2) the Direct Linkage Analysis approach, while providing the greatest scope for objective assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y , has only a narrow 64. factor and theoretical basis. That is to say i t generally considers only one factor — existing office-to-office contacts — in i t s assessments of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y ; 3) undertaking Direct Linkage Analysis presents practical problems chiefly in the form of the personal and lengthy approach required to enlist support and cooperation within office organizations. Direct Linkage Analysis surveys are thus time consuming and expensive. They may not be able to contribute to the office location decision-making process when decisions are quickly required. Also, considering their detailed nature and the usual 5 to 10 year time horizon for urban planning, they may be overly rigorous for use by urban planners. So even though i t i s recommended in Chapter 2 communications and desk diary surveys be further developed and findings obtained in Canada neither of these methods meets the probable time and resource constraints of practicing planners and location decision-makers or the real time and resource limits facing this researcher. In sum, consideration of the merits and faults of the three approaches used so far to assess office locational f l e x i b i l i t y leads to questioning their practicality and appropriateness. In this chapter an alternative methodology is developed and tested. The f i r s t part of the chapter chiefly explains the method which was constructed and applied to the problem of assessing federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver. The second part presents findings from the application of the methodology. P A R T 1 A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICES 66. II. A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE METROPOLITAN LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF  OFFICES A. The Criteria Check List The major factors influencing office location and locational f l e x i -b i l i t y ( d i s t i l l e d in Chapter 2) make up a framework for the analysis of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The framework consists of the ten factors (six internal, four external to an office organization) their relevant charac-te r i s t i c s , and their l i k e l y influence on locational f l e x i b i l i t y . These factors, characteristics, and influences are based primarily on current knowledge as reflected in the literature. The word " l i k e l y " preceding loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y influences reflects the uncertainty surrounding these influences. It i s by no means established, for example, how organizational structure and office establishment size influence office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y or location, for that matter. Indeed, these characteristics are themselves imperfectly understood and described. This fact applies to a l l factors making up the framework. Especially d i f f i c u l t to assess are the constantly changing influences of the external factors. Metropolitan general and special accessibility, communications and transportation systems, metro-politan office markets, and planning and pol i t i c s are unique and constantly changing elements acting on office organizations in every city. In the framework, then (Table 1) location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y influences for internal factors and their characteristics are described, depending on the evidence available, as tending towards "increased", "de-creased" or indeterminate (i.e. possibly increased/possible decreased) locational f l e x i b i l i t y . For external factors no characteristics or i n f l u -ences are ventured in Table 1. 67. C R I T E R I A C H E C K L I S T INTERNAL FACTORS RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS INFLUENCE* NATURE OF. ACTIVITY/WORK PRIMARILY NON-ROUTINE ASSOCIATED WITH QUATERNARY SECTOR ASSOCIATED WITH NON-OFFICE WORK PRIMARILY RESEARCH PRIMARILY ROUTINE 4 F I F i F t F t F FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF CONTACTS FREQUENT FACE-TO-FACT PUBLIC CONTACT INFREQUENT FACE-TO-FACE PUBLIC CONTACT PROBABLY "ORIENTATION" CONTACTS PROBABLY "PLANNING" CONTACTS PROBABLY "PROGRAMMING" CONTACTS FREQUENT NON-DOWNTOWN CONTACTS FREQUENT CONTACTS WITH NON-OFFICE WORKERS 4 F t F i F V F t F t F t F PRESTIGE HIGH ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS MIDDLE ORGANIZATION STATUS LOW ORGANIZATION STATUS HIGH OCCUPATIONAL STATUS MIDDLE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS LOW OCCUPATIONAL STATUS J F H F t F i F S.F t F ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, ESTABLISH-MENT SIZE "CENTRALIZED", COMPLICATED STRUCTURE "DECENTRALIZED", UNCOMPLICATED STRUCTURE LARGE SMALL MEDIUM i F t F i F t F RATE OF ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH AND CHANGE t F 4F 1 U i n Total Employ + %A INDEX NUMBER = ^ ^ ^ V ^ ^ V J T n f in % of Depts. Total Office | Space Outside Downtown TRADITION LENGTH OF TIME DOWNTOWN L ° n g Short i F t F EXTERNAL FACTORS "GENERAL" AND "SPECIAL" ACCESSIBILITY COMMUNICATION/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS METROPOLITAN OFFICE MARKET METROPOLITAN PLANNING AND POLITICS * t F - Tends Towards Increased Locational F l e x i b i l i t y *F - Tends Towards Decreased Locational F l e x i b i l i t y *»F - Locational F l e x i b i l i t y Influence Indeterminate TABLE I 68. The framework is a check l i s t of what are f a i r l y conventional but extremely d i f f i c u l t to measure and weight c r i t e r i a that need to be examined in any evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The framework is not stable or immutable. It is an analytic tool which can be modified and refined through use and as further office research i s conducted. B. The Nature and Process of the Evaluation The two major d i f f i c u l t i e s in applying the Criteria Check List to the problem of evaluating office locational f l e x i b i l i t y are: 1) the measurement of each factors' influence on locational f l e x i b i l i t y and 2) weighting the relative importance of each factor. These d i f f i c u l t i e s strongly influence the nature and process of this evaluation. The changeable, inter-related, and complex nature of factors and their influences makes their reliable iso-lation and measurement a d i f f i c u l t task. In the use of the Criteria Check List, surrogate measures must be relied upon. The importance of "weighting" of factors by location decision-makers can vary from time to time and from one organization to another. Indeed there i s no reason to suppose any especially clear-cut weighting is given to certain factors or combinations of factors when the downtown/non-downtown locational decision comes up. It is possible that an i n f i n i t e l y heavy but fuzzy weighting is consciously or unconsciously applied to one or a few factors in relation to others. It is very l i k e l y the convenience and preju-dices of senior management play a major part in this. In using the Criteria Check List factors are encouraged to be explicitly weighted. In this evalua-tion the Check Lists' internal factors (and different combinations of internal factors) are weighted by the researcher. In reality the weightings of a l l factors should be discussed, agreed and/or disagreed upon, periodically reviewed, and perhaps ultimately come from the collaboration of office 69. location decision-makers and urban planners. The evaluation, while systematic and analytic, becomes, when factors must be weighted, a subjective "decision-making" problem with no easy or obvious resolution. Objective locational f l e x i b i l i t y analysis, and simpler, more efficient methods of undertaking i t , are necessary ( i f office location is to be used as a tool in urban or organizational planning strategies) but are not, in fact, the problem's solution. They may take us a good way there, but not a l l the way. Consequently, in application of the methodology to federal government offices in Vancouver, an empirical and absolute evaluation of their locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s out of the question. Departmental e s t i -mates of downtown federal office employees who can be considered "location flexible" are not derived. Rather a comparative, more general and subjective locational f l e x i b i l i t y appraisal of federal offices downtown (at a Depart-mental level of organizational detail) is ventured by using written and already existent material (reports, pamphlets, organization charts, etc.) on federal departments in Vancouver. Application of the Criteria Check Lis t to this information base becomes at each stage of the analysis more general, subjective, and judgemental and relies greatly upon reasonableness and personal judgement. The virtue of the Criteria Check L i s t , however, is that i t demands that what is considered reasonable be made explicit. Criticism and disagreement on reasonableness can be open and focussed whenever i t i s employed. Use of the framework encourages the mind-frame of a judge — an open and as far as possible consciously objective attempt to evaluate office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . After the information gathering phase, which is f i r s t , there are three stages to this evaluation. 70. C. Stage One of the Evaluation The i n i t i a l stage of the evaluation is an assessment of the comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y of 15 sample federal departments based on the six internal factors of the Criteria Check L i s t . The sample departments are classified into four categories: 1) most locationally flexible, 2) loca-tionally flexible, 3) locationally inflexible, and 4) most locationally i n -flexible. This evaluation is made f i r s t with respect to each internal factor as i f i t could be separated. That i s to say six different relative office locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluations of 15 sample federal departments are pre-sented with respect to: 1) the nature of office activity/work; 2) the frequency, charcter, and pattern of contacts; 3) prestige; 4) office estab-lishment size and organizational structure; 5) the rate of growth and organi-zational change; and 6) tradition. Second, a comparative evaluation (or classification) of these departments i s made for the six internal factors combined. An explanation of the way departments are evaluated with respect to each internal factor separately and with respect to a l l six internal factors combined follows. 1. Working Departmental Composite Sheets To aid in the analysis what this researcher calls "Working Departmental Composite Sheets" are constructed for each department. These sheets are matrices which permit both quantitative and qualitative information to be recorded. Across the top of each sheet the internal factors, their relevant characteristics, and li k e l y effect on locational f l e x i b i l i t y are arrayed to form columns. On the l e f t margin of each sheet a department's downtown office establishments and t i t l e s representing the various organizational sections or units within office establishments are li s t e d . Beside i t , on the right, the size of office establishments in square feet and numbers of 71. employees as well as the breakdown (where ascertainable) of numbers of employees by various organizational sections or units i s presented. Figure 9 presents a sample Working Departmental Composite Sheet. Completed Working Departmental Composite Sheets can be found for the 15 departments sampled in Appendix V. 2. Indicators The type and quality of indicators used in the analysis depends on the nature of the factor evaluated, the information available, and the researcher's ingenuity. While some indicators were developed before information gathering from departments began most were conceived only as the information available became apparent. The following pages explain, factor by factor, how these indicators are employed, the characteristics they denote, and the influences made on their use. In Appendix I these written pages are capsulized in table form. i) The Nature of Activity/Work Performed i n Department Offices Downtown The analysis chiefly attempts to characterize federal office employees as having jobs of either a "routine" or "non-routine" nature. As well, an effort i s made to identify employees whose office jobs entail research work, are connected with non-office work, and/or are associated with the financial or "quaternary" spheres downtown. From the literature i t seems reasonable to infer that federal employees and offices involved in routine, research, or non-routine functions have (potentially at least) greater locational f l e x i b i l i t y than those comprising non-routine or "financial" work. The greater the proportion of employees having jobs with the former characteristics the greater i s assumed a depart-ment's office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . 72. SAMPLE WORKING DEPARTMENTAL COMPOSITE SHEET__ INTERNAL FACTORS LOCATIONAL FLEXI-BILITY INFLUENCES R E L E V A N T CRAR| ACTER15T1C5 D E P A R T M E N T S ESTABLISHMENTS s q ET OF O F E I C E J S P A C E OF ¥MFC6Y E E S N A T U R E O F A C T I V I T Y / -WORK, T S513 mi tli HO- C ui 8 FREQUENCY, CHARACTER 4-P A T T E R N OF CONTACTS b i F l F \ F f F t F T F [US t * i£ £ 3 or Is - ( • O f 3 x * x IS f i s P , •<0-H O o ttFiFTFlFtFfF. P R E S T I G E a; If f | f 5 - sf s i u. a !£2 5^ 1 f-Z 2 o o OFFICE. E S T A B L I S H -MENT SIZ.E. t ORGANIZ -ATIONAL STRUCTURE. ui O U ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH +-CHANG E. c u m IH TcrrM-mi--Jfe IN T o T A U THE % Op 5Pnce. i n SPA<£ tWT-SIDg . VANCOUVER. mi--it> INDE* CP TRADITION ft OF "fcA«S> Figure 9 73. The two indicators mainly used to classify the characteristics of employee's jobs in federal office establishments are: Department, section, unit and occupational t i t l e s found in organization charts, reports, and government telephone listings; and the government's own job classification and hierarchical system seen in organization charts and represented in the Federal Job Classification Pyramid (found in Appendix I) . Wherever possible both indicators are used to classify the characteristics of employee's jobs (in sections and units of departments). The t i t l e s presented as indicative of employee's job characteristics in the tables of Appendix I are chosen from the researcher's own reasoning, from the literature, and from information provided by interviews with Depart-ment o f f i c i a l s . Employee's job characteristic categories derived from the existing federal job and hierarchical classifications are based primarily on the federal description of the nature of jobs or work represented by i t s classifications (in the Occupational Classification Manual: Census of  Canada, 1971. See Appendix I) . Further clues to the general nature of work performed by employees in certain departmental sections and-,,units are found in job or task descriptions and key words gleaned from reports, federal job advertisements, and in the Canada Public Service Careers pamphlet. Interview statements with, particu-l a r l y , personnel officers and observation are also helpful but more limited ways of gaining insight into the nature of work performed in federal office establishments downtown. i i ) The Frequency, Character and Pattern of Departmental Office Contacts  Downtown Quantification of frequency, character and pattern of contacts by the methods discussed in Chapter 2 i s the major foundation from which recent 74. assessments of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y have been launched. Since the genesis of this study i s an effort to develop an alternative to these methods no similarly elaborate quantification of this factor i s ventured. The major concern of this analysis i s to classify employee's jobs in sections or units of departments as entailing either "frequent" or "infre-quent" face-to-face contacts with the downtown public. The downtown public is the public at large who may work downtown or come downtown to v i s i t a federal government office (or on other pleasure or business related matters). The downtown public includes other government employees and specified depart-ment clientele whose place of work is downtown. Further an effort i s made to identify employees l i k e l y having significant amounts of face-to-face contacts with non-office employees and with staff or clientele located outside down-town Vancouver. Judging from the literature i t seems legitimate to conclude that federal department offices with few employees whose jobs entail frequent face-to-face public contacts downtown are potentially more location flexible than those with many. Federal department offices with employees having frequent face-to-face contacts across the office/non-office work boundary or with contact sources outside downtown might similarly be thought more location flexible than department offices lacking such employees. The findings in the literature suggest, while frequency, character, and pattern of contacts i s associated with many variables, the character of contacts may be particularly covariant with occupational status/prestige and with the nature of activity/work performed. Consequently, there i s no attempt here to directly investigate the character of federal department offices' contacts. Instead, the probable character of contacts — whether "orienta-tion", "planning" or "programming" — i s assumed to correspond with employees 75. (high, middle, or low) job status. Where prestige or status of employees' jobs is not ascertainable the general character of contacts is taken by the nature of activity/work (i.e. employees with "routine" jobs are assumed to have primarily "programming" contacts while those in "non-routine" jobs are considered to have "orientation" or "planning" type contacts). It i s observed that the greater the proportion of high status employees or office employees performing non-routine work the greater the significance of "orientation" contacts. Observations were carried out during the course of information collec-tion from federal departments that was useful in giving an impression of the frequency and character of face-to-face public contacts. Indicators noted were the numbers of visitors, the behaviour of employees towards visitors (including the researcher), and the arrangements and physical accommodations provided for v i s i t o r s . Other "observed" indicators are found in the tables of Appendix I. Further indications of frequency of public face-to-face contacts are gleaned from reports and interview statements with department o f f i c i a l s and from perusal of telephone and lobby directory listi n g s noting especially those sections or units included and/or those l e f t out. Certain department, section, unit and occupational t i t l e s are also considered to be indicative of frequent face-to-face contacts (see the tables in Appendix I) . Evidence of significant non-downtown contact sources and face-to-face contacts with employees engaged in non-office work i s derived chiefly from reports and interview statements with department o f f i c i a l s . Again, certain department sections, units, and occupational t i t l e s or categories are con-sidered to involve significant non-downtown and/or non-office employee contact sources (see the tables in Appendix I) . Job or task description key words found in reports, federal job advertisements, and the Public Service Careers pamphlet are also helpful. i i i ) The Prestige of Federal Government Departments Downtown The desire for prestige and i t s influence upon locational f l e x i b i l i t y is extremely d i f f i c u l t to ascertain. In this analysis i t i s derived from hierarchical status at both organizational and occupational levels. Federal office organizations and office employees in positions of high status are considered to most covet prestige and to have less locational f l e x i b i l i t y . As the proportion of employees in high status organizations increases the less location flexible departments' offices are thought to be. Similarly, the greater the proportion of department office employees having jobs with high status the less location flexible departments' offices promise and are presumed to be. The major indicators of prestige at the organizational level are taken as departmental t i t l e s . "Regional" headquarters or "Distric t " offices directly responsible to Ottawa for federal policy in substantial geographical or policy areas, are considered to have "high" status. Office establish-ments (frequently labelled "Dist r i c t " offices as well) in subordinate geo-graphical or policy areas, directed from "Regional" or "D i s t r i c t " head-quarters are characterized as having "middle" status. So called "Local" or "Metro" offices, responsible for the smallest geographical or functional areas are classified as "low" status. Occupational prestige or status was discerned from departmental orga-nization charts. Employee's occupational positions and levels are graded and recorded on these charts according to duties and payscale, with reference to the Federal Job Classification Pyramid. The f u l l l i s t i n g of employee's positions considered "high", "middle", and "low" status i s found in the tables of Appendix I. Where detailed organization charts were unavailable employees' 77. job t i t l e s are used to classify their job status. Occupational t i t l e s con-sidered to represent "high", "middle", and "low" status are also presented in the tables in Appendix I. iv) Federal Government Departments' Office Establishment Size and  Organizational Structure Downtown In this analysis "large", "medium", and "small" federal departments' office establishments are defined as having, respectively, greater than 100, between 20 and 100, and less than 20 office employees. (This definition is f a i r l y common in the literature) The numbers of employees in depart-ments' offices establishments are estimated from organization charts. Where detailed organization charts were unobtainable, the number of office employees downtown was obtained from other sources (i.e. interview and written state-ments) or alternatively was derived by converting the floor area of office space into numbers of office employees using a 202 square foot per federal employee conversion factor obtained from a Vancouver Planning Department office sutdy. (Vancouver Planning Department Quarterly Review, October 1975) To characterize departmental organization as "centralized" or "decentra-lized" and as "complex, multitiered" or "uncomplex, and straight-forward" on the information available to this researcher is extremely d i f f i c u l t . These qualities are themselves d i f f i c u l t to define — what one might claim to be "centralized" structure another might claim to be "decentralized" and the same is true of the other two characteristics. The sketches of organizational structure gleaned from reports, organization charts, and interview statements are poor substitutes for personal knowledge and experience of the structure and function of the departments. Only the most cursory and general statements on organizational structure are ventured in this analysis. Wherever possible judgements are based on reported statements. 78. While far from proven, even as a general rule, i t is inferred in this analysis that large federal office establishments have less locational f l e x i -b i l i t y than their middle or small-sized counterparts. In this analysis, therefore, the greater the proportion of departments' office employees down-town in large office establishments the less i s considered departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Based on evidence from England, "middle" rather than "small" size office establishments demonstrate the greatest loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y . Small federal department office establishments, then, are considered to have locational f l e x i b i l i t y between that of large and middle-sized departmental office establishments. Based on the literature, as well, i t is inferred in this study that "decentralized" and/or "uncomplicated, straight-forward" organizational structures engender greater (potential) locational f l e x i b i l i t y than "cen-tralized" and/or "complicated, multi-tiered" organizational structures. v) The Rate of Federal Departments' Growth and Organizational Change  in Vancouver It seems f a i r to suggest that those federal departments growing and changing (organizationally) most rapidly are potentially more location flex-ible than those exhibiting slow expansion or organizational change. In this analysis the rate of departmental growth and change between 1971 and 1976 is assumed to indicate future departmental growth and organizational change (though this assumption has no real basis in fact). The rate of depart-mental growth is represented in this analysis by the percentage change in total (office and non-office) employees in Vancouver, the percentage change in departments' metropolitan office space, and the change in the percentage of the departments' office space outside downtown. The last indicator i s based on the premise that the greater the rate of departments' office space 79. growth outside downtown the greater may be thought departments' locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The figures obtained for each indicator in each department are added together as an "index number" indicative of departments' growth. The higher the index number the greater the departments' assumed office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The amount and nature of organizational change within departments i s gleaned chiefly from report and interview statements. The greater and more frequent the organizational change the greater i s considered departments' potential locational f l e x i b i l i t y . vi) The Tradition of Federal Departments' Offices Downtown The strength of tradition as an inhibitor of Departments' office loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y i s indicated i n this analysis by the length of time the department and/or i t s various components have been located downtown. It i s inferred that the longer departments' offices have been located downtown the greater the presence of tradition and locational i n f l e x i b i l i t y . In this study the effect of inertia on federal offices i s assumed to be reflected in the influence of the Vancouver office market. 3. Quantitative Analysis On Working Departmental Composite Sheets the downtown office employees of sample federal departments (wherever possible for a l l their downtown office establishments) are sorted at the office establishment, section, or unit level of organizational detail (depending on the information available) into the relevant characteristic columns with respect to four internal factors: 1) the nature of activity/work; 2) the frequency, character, and pattern of contacts; 3) prestige; and 4) size and organizational structure (dots are used when numbers of employees cannot be ascertained). Employees are sorted into relevant 80. factor characteristic columns by means of "indicators". The total number of employees sorted into each relevant factor characteristic column i s t a l l i e d (to show the total number of employees whose work is primarily routine, who have frequent face-to-face contact with the downtown public, etc.) f i r s t for each downtown office establishment of a department and then for each depart-ments' total downtown office establishments. These t a l l i e s , on the Working Departmental Composite Sheets, are found on the row of the departments' name and, for office establishments, on the row of the office establishment address (or name) in factor characteristic columns. After tallying the number of employees each in the relevant factor characteristic columns by each internal factor the number of employees with characteristics which suggest "increased" and "decreased" locational f l e x i -b i l i t y can be summed for each department. Where the locational f l e x i b i l i t y is indeterminate (e.g. for "planning" type contacts, "middle" organizational status, "small" office establishment size) half of the employees are arbi-t r a r i l y allocated to "increased" and to "decreased" locational f l e x i b i l i t y . On the Working Departmental Composite Sheets the departmental summations of employees with "increased" and "decreased" locational f l e x i b i l i t y are found in the appropriately t i t l e d columns on the row of the department name. The percentage of departmental downtown office employees with charac-ter i s t i c s which suggest "increased" as well as "decreased" locational f l e x i -b i l i t y for each of the four internal factors can now be calculated. On Working Departmental Composite Sheets these percentages are found on the row of the department name in the appropriately t i t l e d columns. Departments' percentages of downtown office employees with factor characteristics suggesting "increased" locational f l e x i b i l i t y are ranked from highest to lowest with respect to each of the four internal factors. Departments are then categorized 81. as: 1) most locationally flexible; 2) locationally flexible; 3) locationally inflexible; and 4) most locationally inflexible. The percentage of depart-ments' employees with factor characteristics suggesting "increased" locational f l e x i b i l i t y is thus used in the case of these four internal factors as a surrogate of comparative departmental office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Quantitative analysis respecting the two remaining internal factors — the Rate of Growth and Organizational Change and Tradition -— i s undertaken solely at the departmental level of organization. As a surrogate for the former and i t s influence on departmental locational f l e x i b i l i t y an index is constructed. The influence of the latter i s quantitatively represented by the number of years departments (and their major components where ascertainable) have been located downtown. These figures are recorded under the appropriate factor columns on Working Departmental Composite Sheets. The comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluation of the departments, with respect to each internal factor, is made by ranking (from highest to lowest in the case of the Rate of Growth and Organizational Change and from lowest to highest for Tradition). Departments are then categorized from "most locationally flex-ible" to "most locationally inflexible" for each of these two factors. Throughout the evaluation the distribution of departments into the various locational f l e x i b i l i t y categories is guided by the data (both quanti-tative and qualitative). Uneven distribution of departments into the cate-gories i s allowed when and i f the data points to i t . 4. Qualitative Analysis The nature of the factors and of the information available largely determines the r e l i a b i l i t y of quantitatively based comparative departmental office locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluations discussed in preceding sections. 82. For some factors, particularly "Size and Organizational Structure" and "Rate of Growth and Organizational Change" quantification alone i s plainly an inadequate basis for evaluation. The "Organizational Structure" and "Orga-nizational Change" components of these two internal factors are not taken into account in quantitative analysis. For example, the large percentage of office staff in large office establishments categorizes Transport and Public Works Departments as "locationally inflexible". Consideration of the decen-tralized organizational structure of these departments and, moreover, their large operations oriented sections suggests they would be better classified as "locationally flexible" relative to other departments. Similarly i f one considers growth alone (as defined by the "index" of growth) then the Unem-ployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower and Immigration Departments warrant being categorized as "locationally inflexible" as they have not grown particularly fast in relation to other departments. Taking into considera-tion the major organizational changes involved in the merger of these depart-ments into one, however, suggests they should be categorized as "locationally flexible" (as consideration of office space and locational problems i s lik e l y to be on the minds of o f f i c i a l s in both departments). Evaluation of locational f l e x i b i l i t y based on quantification alone i s inadequate, as well, because for some departments and their components down-town, available information i s incomplete. Because of this important office establishments in Fisheries and Environment, Health and Welfare, Unemploy-ment Insurance Commission, Manpower and Immigration, and Post Office Depart-ments are l e f t out of quantitative analysis and their absence can distort quantitatively based comparative evaluations. For example: without including the Post Office Department's Western Regional Office (for which no organiza-tion chart or quantifiable data could be obtained) the department's non-profit 83. (policy, research) work is seriously underestimated. Consideration of the Western Regional Office indicates•the Post Office should be classified as "locationally inflexible" rather than "flexible" as categorization based on quantification alone would have i t . In general, office establishments not in the judgement of the researcher, adequately covered by quantitative analy-sis are covered in a qualitative evaluation. Essentially this qualitative evaluation amounts to a re-examination of the available information for each department using the Criteria Check List's consideration of quantitatively based evaluations already professed for other departments and their revision where the researcher feels changes in the departmental make up of locational f l e x i b i l i t y categories can be ju s t i f i e d . In this analysis, whenever changes in the quantitatively based evaluations are made a written explanation of the change is offered. 5. Point System and Factor Weighting No exhaustive effort is made to investigate the various point and factor weighting systems which could be invented to obtain an evaluation of federal departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y for a l l six internal factors combined. In this analysis this evaluation of the federal departments i s begun by attaching 8, 6, 4 and 2 points, respectively, to "most locationally flexible", "locationally flexible", "locationally inflexible" and "most l o -cationally inflexible" categories. Then, for each department, the categori-zations derived respecting the six internal factors are profiled in table forms (see Table 8 in Part 2 of this chapter). For example, i t i s shown that the Revenue Taxation Department i s classified as "most locationally flexible" with respect to the Rate of Growth and Organizational Change; "locationally flexible" with respect to the Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts as well as with respect to Prestige; "locationally inflexible" 84. with respect to the Nature of Activity/Work; and last l y "most locationally inflexible" with respect to Tradition as well as with respect to Size and Organizational Structure. The points associated with each departments' categorizations are added together. Revenue Taxation's one "most locationally flexible" (8 points), two "locationally flexible" (12 points), one "location-al l y inflexible (4 points), and two "most locationally inflexible (4 points) categorizations add up to 28 points. A comparative evaluation of Departments for a l l six factors combined is obtained by ranking departmental totals from highest to lowest. Revenue Taxation's 28 points, for example, is surpassed by eight departments, matched by two (Justice and the Post Office), and not met by four other departments. From the point total and subsequent rankings departments are categorized once again as "most locationally flexible", "locationally flexible", "locationally inflexible" and "most locationally inflexible". Revenue Taxation, with 28 points, is classified as "locationally inflexible" relative to other departments with respect to a l l six factors combined. (This evaluation and the evaluation of the other departments i s presented in Appendix III.) The classification above involves no weighting of factors. A l l are considered of equal importance in influencing office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In the example of Revenue Taxation i t does not matter whether the department is "most locationally flexible" with respect to Rate of Growth and Organi-zational Change or with respect to Prestige or any other factor. The point total for Revenue Taxation w i l l remain the same i f a l l factors are considered equally important. Of course, a l l factors need not be considered of equal importance. In reality one or more factors are li k e l y to be considered more important than others. It probably matters very much with respect to which factors a 85. department i s classified "most locationally flexible", "locationally flex-ible", etc. The relative importance of factors i s , however, d i f f i c u l t to ascertain. To meet and yet proceed from this problem the researcher's own "double weighting" of factors i s employed. A "double" rather than t r i p l e or quad-ruple weighting was selected after testing with the point system. The tests showed double weights were sufficient to produce changes in point standings and subsequent departmental rankings but not, at the same time, so powerful as to make redundant those classifications with the lowest points attached (i.e. "locationally inflexible" or "most locationally inflexible" categories) or classifications with respect to unweighted factors. In other words, the evaluation of locational f l e x i b i l i t y would not simply b o i l down to identif-cation of departments classified "most locationally f l e x i b l e " with respect to the weighted factor or factors. A double weighting means a departments' classification with respect to a factor w i l l not always have attached 8, 6, 4 or 2 points. A departments' classification with respect to a "double weighted" factor w i l l have attached, instead, 16, 12, 8 or 4 points corresponding to "most locationally flexible", "locationally flexible", etc. classifications. Returning to the Revenue Taxation example, i f the Rate of Growth and Organizational Change factor i s "double weighted" (i.e. considered doubly important in influencing office locational f l e x i b i l i t y ) then the points attached to Revenue Taxation's "most locationally flexible" classification with respect to this factor w i l l be 16 rather than 8. Evaluation of the comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y of Revenue Taxation w i l l be undertaken exactly as before except for the 16 rather than 8 points to be attached to the double weighted Rate of Growth and Orga-nizational Change factor. With new point totals, a new comparative evaluation of Revenue Taxation and other departments i s achieved. 86. Excluding the equal weighting options of applying or not applying double weights to a l l six internal factors (which result in exactly the same compara-tive evaluation only with the former option doubling department point totals) there are 62 different combinations of factors for which i t i s possible to give double weights. In addition, then, to an evaluation of departments compar-ative locational f l e x i b i l i t y based on factors having equal weights i t i s possible to undertake 62 more evaluations based on different combinations of factors having double weights. To avoid undertaking, and laboriously synthesizing, a l l the possible evaluations (including the "equal weighting" evaluation) but at the same time, to lessen a bias introduced by the researcher making his own single choice of factors to be double weighted a selection of eleven different combinations of factors were given double weights and evaluations (for a l l six internal factors combined) were made. Table 2 shows the selec-tions. These reflect generally the importance of internal factors as indica-ted in the literature hence the numerous combinations of internal factors in which Prestige; Tradition; Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts; and Nature of Activity/Work are given double weights. The selections reflect as well the researcher's own feeling that only one or a few factors in real location decision-making situations are l i k e l y to be considered of relatively great importance thus selections have only one, two or at most three factors double weighted. There is no particular justification for eleven selections except that the number seemed adequate to meet the above provisos placed on selections, represented a significant proportion of the total possible selec-tions, and made undertaking and synthesizing the subsequent evaluations a comparatively easy task. The eleven evaluations can be found in Appendix III. S E L E C T I O N S OF C O M B I N A T I O N S OF I N T E R N A L F A C T O R S G I V E N D O U B L E W E I G H T S INTERNAL FACTORS GIVEN DOUBLE WEIGHTS UNWEIGHTED INTERNAL FACTORS Selection 1 Nature of Activity/Work; Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts; Prestige Size and Organizational Structure; Rate of Growth/ Change; Tradition Selection 2 Tradition; Frequency, Char-acter and Pattern of Contacts; Prestige Size and Organizational Structure; Rate of Growth/ Change; Nature of Activity/ Work Selection 3 Prestige A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 4 Tradition A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 5 Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 6 Nature of Activity/Work A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 7 Size and Organizational Structure A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 8 Rate of Growth and Change A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 9 Nature of Activity/Work; Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 10 Tradition; Prestige A l l Other Internal Factors Selection 11 Size and Organizational Structure; Rate of Growth and Change A l l Other Internal Factors TABLE II 88. Examination of these evaluations shows the changes in departments' point totals, rankings and consequent changes in their locational f l e x i b i l i t y clas-sifications when different factors and combinations of factors are considered more important than others. For example, when only the Rate of Growth and Change among the six internal factors i s given a double weighting, Revenue Taxation's point total of 36 places i t among departments considered "location-al l y flexible". On the other hand, when only Tradition among the six internal factors is given a double weighting, Revenue Taxation's 30 points categorizes i t among departments considered "most locationally inflexible". There are different ways the eleven evaluations based on different com-binations of double weighted factors, and the evaluation given a l l factors i s considered of equal weight, can be synthesized to form one f i n a l comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluation of.federal departments for a l l six internal factors combined. For consistency i t was decided simply to total for each department the points acquired in each of the twelve evaluations. A compara-tive locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluation of federal departments for a l l six internal factors combined synthesizing the. findings of a l l twelve evaluations undertaken is obtained by ranking the departmental point totals from highest to lowest. On this basis departments, for the fin a l time, are classified into "most locationally flexible", "locationally flexible", "locationally inflexible" and "most locationally inflexible" categories (see Table 9 in Part 2 of this chapter). The fi n a l evaluation, for example, of Revenue Taxation is obtained by summing i t s 28 points when a l l factors are considered of equal weight; i t s 36 points when only the Rate of Growth and Change i s double weighted; i t s 30 points when only Tradition i s double weighted; and i t s nine other sets of points acquired in the other nine evaluations. Revenue Taxation's total of 89. 420 points, surpassed by nine other federal departments and not met by five others, suggests i t f i n a l l y be categorized among departments considered "loca-tionally inflexible" with respect to a l l six internal factors combined. D. Stage Two of the Evaluation A largely qualitative and cursory examination of the four "external" factors of the Criteria Check List — 1) "General and "Special" Accessibility Downtown; 2) Metropolitan Telecommunications and Transportation Systems; 3) the Metropolitan Vancouver Office Market; and 4) Planning and Politics — are the basis for a second complementary assessment which is the second stage of the evaluation. Examination of these factors and their influence on office locational f l e x i b i l i t y provides the opportunity for several theses and thus precludes their indepth analysis here. In this study these factors are broadly assumed to influence the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of a l l downtown federal depart-ments equally though any extraordinary influences are looked for and noted in their discussion. The likely influence of these external factors are sepa-rately examined as far as possible. The findings of these examinations are scrutinized and combined to establish the metropolitan "climate" for office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of federal departments. E. Stage Three of the Evaluation The third and last stage of the evaluation i s an attempt to combine the findings of the previous two stages. It attempts from this to draw conclusions on federal departments current and prospective office locational f l e x i b i l i t y , the factors influencing i t , and the significance a l l of this might have for federal o f f i c i a l s and urban planners in Vancouver. 90. F. Information Gathering Information was collected from three major sources. The federal Depart-ment of Public Works, Program Planning and Co-ordination section, provided "Accommodation Sheets" from which s t a t i s t i c a l and locational data on federal departments' offices in Vancouver were derived. Library research yielded insight into the broad character, organizational structure, functions and history of the federal government and i t s departments in Canada. Similarly familiarization with Vancouver's metropolitan structure, overall office loca-tion pattern, office markets, planning and p o l i t i c s was gained through library work (newspaper and magazine articles made a significant contribution here). Finally, written information and verbal information (obtained from informal interviews with knowledgeable federal c i v i l servants) was collected directly, whenever possible, from the federal departments. The fifteen largest federal government departments, in terms of office space (administered by the Department of Public Works) in downtown Vancouver, were selected for the study sample. The departments (listed in Table 3) account for 85 percent of the total federal department office space, and 81 percent of federal department office employment, downtown. Personnel (Classi-fication) Officers or Public Affairs Officers in each department were approached, i n i t i a l l y over the telephone. The purpose of the study was briefly explained. Any available documents (organization charts, annual reports, research papers, pamphlets, etc.) were requested that would shed light on the departments' character with respect to i t s functions and a c t i v i t i e s , the types of clients served, the organizational structure, the numbers and types of employees, and the department's locational history. The request occasionally resulted in a telephone interview (e.g. the Post Office, the Immigration Branch of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources) and the receipt of any available literature by mail. Most often personal, un-S A M P L E F E D E R A L D E P A R T M E N T S (in order of amount of office space occupied in metro Vancouver - 1976) ABBREVIATION REVENUE (TAXATION) REV. (TAX.) MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION M. & I. FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT F. & E. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION U. I. C. TRANSPORT M. o T. POST OFFICE P. 0. REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) REV. (C.&E.) HEALTH AND WELFARE H. W. C. SUPPLY AND SERVICES S. S. C. INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS I. N. A. PUBLIC WORKS D. P. W. VETERANS' AFFAIRS D. V. A. ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES E. M. R. SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Excluding R.C.M.P.) C. N. P. S. P. B. JUSTICE JUST. TABLE III structured interviews (in total - 22) with the public affairs or personnel officers and sometimes with their superiors preceded the granting and picking up of available documents. Such interviews permitted explanations of the documents' contents and helped, particularly, with the interpretation of departmental organization charts. Also, on three occasions the researcher was given a tour of the office operation (e.g. the Ministry of Transport's Marine Transport Authority, Fisheries and Environment's Environmental Pro-tection Agency, and the Department of Veteran's Af f a i r s ) . Both the informal personal and telephone interviews with federal o f f i c i a l s enabled the researcher to glean information unobtainable in written form. The chief information sources, then, from federal departments included in this analysis are: Departmental organization charts, The Vancouver-Victoria Federal Government Telephone Directory, departmental annual reports and other documents, direct observation, and personal or telephone, unstructured, interviews with knowledgeable federal c i v i l servants. A complete l i s t of the personal inter-views from each department i s found in Appendix II. G. Information Quality The information obtained from sample departments i s of disparate quality. The willingness and/or a b i l i t y of department o f f i c i a l s to divulge both written and verbal information on departments' operations in Vancouver varied considerably. Also, the level of detail at which departments could be examined varied. Organization charts provided the most complete quantitative information and substantially aided the qualitative analysis of a l l the downtown office establishments for nine departments (Revenue Taxation, Revenue Custom and Excise, Manpower and Immigration, Supply and Services, Indian and Northern 93. Affairs, Public Works, Veteran's Affairs, Solicitor-General, and Justice). The charts, sometimes out of date, nevertheless clearly revealed these departments' Vancouver organizational components and structures (i.e. their organizational relationships) and their numbers and types of employees). Moreover, these charts presented indicators — job t i t l e s and classifications — which enabled the Nature of Activity/Work; Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts; and the need or desire for Prestige to be inferred for each employee and progressively for each unit, section and office establishment. Detailed organization charts were made available for some, but not a l l , downtown components and office establishments of three other sample federal departments (Fisheries and Environment, Transport, and Health and Welfare). More general information on the missing components and indicators of internal factors characteristics were obtained from the telephone directory for Vancouver and the federal government as well as from various reports, pam-phlets and interviews. Only very general organization charts were obtained for the three remaining departments (Unemployment Insurance, Post Office and Energy, Mines and Resources) and an even greater reliance on reports, pamphlets, and inter-view statements in the overall analysis was necessary. 94. P A R T 2 APPLICATION OF THE "CRITERIA CHECK LIST" METHODOLOGY TO FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS IN VANCOUVER: THE FINDINGS 95. I l l APPLICATION OF THE "CRITERIA CHECK LIST" METHODOLOGY TO FEDERAL  DEPARTMENTS IN VANCOUVER: THE FINDINGS A. Analysis of Federal Government Office Location in Metropolitan  Vancouver Before presenting findings resulting from application of the "Criteria Check Lis t Methodology" i t is important to determine the current (1976) pattern of federal departments' office location and employment pattern in metropolitan Vancouver. Once this i s established the importance of federal departmental offices in Vancouver and, more particularly, downtown Vancouver, becomes apparent. Also, from the current federal office location pattern one might make some judgements on the degree of locational f l e x i b i l i t y of federal departments' offices so far exhibited. No elaborate, department by department, examination of office locations past or present i s ventured. Nor is the spatial proximity of various departments' office establishments investigated in an effort to postulate existing functional linkages amongst federal departments downtown. The findings of this analysis are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 and Map 1. Office space and employment, especially of federal departments, is found to be concentrated in downtown Vancouver. In 1976, 70 percent of federal departments' office accommodation administered by the Department of Public Works was located downtown (Greater Vancouver Forward Plan, 1977 P. 3) as against 60 percent for a l l office accommodation i n the metropolitan area. (Real Estate Trends, 1975-76) The fifteen departments analysed in this study had an even greater concentration of office space downtown in 1976 — approxi-mately 77 percent. Only one department, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, had less than half (47 percent) of i t s office space downtown. (Percentages derived from Public Works Accommodation Sheets, 1976) From 1971 to 1976 the FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER OFFICE SPACE (in millions square feet) Federal Office Federal* 1971 1976 % A 1971-1976 % of Total 1971 1976 A l l 1971 Kinds 1976 % A 1971-1976 % of Total 1971 1976 Space As A % of Total Office Space (1976) DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER REST OF VANCOUVER ) ) .90 ) 1.13 .25 ) ) +53 ) ) ) 89 ) 70 15 8.92 2.98 12.50 4.48 +46 +50 65 22 60 22 9 ) ) 6 SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES .12 .25 +108 11 15 1.78 3.64 +104 13 18 ) TOTAL METRO-VANCOUVER 1.02 1.62 +59 100 100 13.68 20.62 +51 100 100 8 EMPLOYMENT (in thousands of employed) FEDERAL % A OFFICE OFFICE + 197, 1-1976 NON-OFFICE OFFICE + 19 71 197 6 1971 1976 OFFICE NON-OFFICE DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER ) )4 .5 5. 6 - - +51 REST OF VANCOUVER ) 1. 2 - -SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES .6 1. 2 - - +100 TOTAL METRO-VANCOUVER 5 .1 8 10.9X 13.6X +57 +25 ALL S. I. C. GROUPS OFFICE + OFFICE NON-OFFICE 1971 1975 1971 1975 61 ) 98 )251 - 25 ) -- 21 175 -- 107 426 540 POPULATION 1971 1976 % A % of Total 1971-1976 1971 1976 VANCOUVER 426,298 410,188 -4 39 35 SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES 656,054 756,162 +15 61 65 TOTAL METRO-VANCOUVER 1,082,352 1,166,350 +8 100 100 *Data Obtained from Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board "Real Estate Trends in Vancouver" *Includes only Space Administered by Public Works ABased on City of Vancouver Planning Dept. Est. of 202 sq. f t . per office employee (1974) S t a t i s t i c s Canada ON TABLE IV OFFICE SPACE AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION OF 15 SAMPLE FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS 1971-1976 Office Space i n 1000's Sq. Ft. REV (TAX) M&I F&E UIC MoT P.O. ( REV C&E) KWC SSC INA DPW DVA EMR CPS NPB JUST TOTAL 15 SAMPLE DEPTS. # of Office Est. Downtown 1971 1976 4 6 6 7 2 7 4 2 4 5 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 3 5 1 1 1 2 I 4 2 1 42 60 # of Office Est. Out-side Downtown 1971 1976 _ 7 10 3 7 5 8 1 3 8 9 5 5 5 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 -38 52 Amount of Office Space Downtown %A. 1971-1976 1971 1976 126 203 +61 98 110 -13 53 110 +108 86 62 -27 69 93 +34 50 65 +30 71 54 -25 26 48 +80 25 36 +43 29 43 +51 26 46 +80 60 28 -53 16 28 +71 7 23 +225 10 17 +65 752 966 +29 Amount of Office Space Outside Downtown %A 1971-1976 1971 1976 - 40 61 +53 12 40 +231 17 72 +329 .8 10 +1104 50 35 -33 14 33 +33 15 13 -12 5 21 +282 7 + .0 -3 2 -34 2 -.0 ? ? -158 292 +84 % of Total Office Space Downtown 1971 1976 100 100 71 64 82 74 84 47 99 91 50 65 84 62 64 78 82 63 100 88 100 100 95 93 91 100 100 90-100 100 100 83 77 Total Amount of Office Space in Metro Vane. %A 1971-1976 1971 1976 126 203 +61 138 171 +24 65 150 +131 102 134 +31 70 103 +46 100 100 85 87 +2 41 61 +45 30 57 +86 29 49 +74 26 46 +80 64 30 -52 18 28 +55 7 23 +225 10 17 +65 910 1,258 +38 # of Employees i n Metro Vancouver % A 1971-1976 1971 1976 610 948 +51 550 791 +44 683 946 +39 675 783 +16 876 1070 +22 2890 4231 +46 504 615 +22 198 226 +14 181 275 +52 160 230 +44 443 486 +10 1604 221 -86 33 49 +48 304 508 +67 36 95 +164 9,747 11,502 +18 Est. it of Office Employ-ees Downtown 1971 1976 610 948 460 470 300 450 400 210 150 18C 23C 300 162 49 150 36 95 4,554 Office Employees Down-town as a % of Total 1976 100 58 50 38 42 9 34 66 65 100 62 73 100 30 100 Metro Employ. * 0 f f i c e Space Figures derived from Federal Department of Public Works Accommodation Sheets - 1971 and 1976. Federal Employment Figures obtained from S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Federal "Office" Employment Figur obtained from Depts. and from estimates made by the Researcher. TABLE V THE LOCATION OF FEDERAL QFEIC i ~. s '6 LEGEND F E D E R A L L Y O W N E p OFF ICE SPACE F E D E R A L L Y L E A S E D OFFICE" SPACE • SQUARE.FEET OVVNEP OR LEASED MAP 1 99. percentage of total metropolitan office space downtown, both for federal and offices of a l l kinds, declined by 5 percent. In absolute terms, the growth of federal and a l l other office space continued to be greatest downtown. About 60 percent (1971) of the metropolitan work force (office and non-office) are employed in Vancouver while the city i t s e l f has but 35 percent (1976) of the metropolitan population. Office employees currently make up 20 percent of the total metropolitan work force (Vancouver Planning Depart-ment's Quarterly Review, October 1975, p. 16). Of Vancouver's federal c i v i l service roughly 60 percent work in offices (estimate confirmed by interview with Department of Public Works o f f i c i a l ) . General and federal employment estimates, based on office space and land use surveys, indicate the focus of office employment to be downtown. Also, when these estimates are checked with data on general employment (office and non-office), the indication i s of extremely rapid office employment growth. Between 1971 and 1976 almost a l l the growth of the Vancouver federal c i v i l service seems to be in office employment and most of this i s i n Vancouver's downtown (i.e. the increase i n non-office type employment in the Post Office was balanced by the decrease in hospital employment in the Veteran's Affairs Department). In ten of the fifteen departments examined in this study at least half of their staff, office and non-office, in metropolitan Vancouver are employed in offices downtown. The downtown concentration of federal departments' office employment is scattered in no less than 33 separate buildings. In these buildings (7 of which are crown-owned) the fifteen sampled departments comprise at least 60 separate establishments. The pattern of federal office location downtown adheres to the general trend of city centre office location. Historically, Vancouver's office 100. buildings have moved westward along Pender and Hastings Streets. What is now frequently termed the "financial d i s t r i c t " emerged in an area delimited (some-what fuzzily) by Hastings, Burrard, Dunsmuir and Seymour Streets. This area, close to the harbour and CP. station, was particularly attractive to the forest industrial firms, shipping agents and the legal, financial and tech-nical services supporting the forest and shipping industries (Hardwick, 1974, P. 57). As well, i t attracted the federal government. Indeed, the embryo of current federal office and non-office ac t i v i t i e s developed here. Immigra-tion and postal operations were housed, early in this century, in crown-owned and built Immigration and Post Office Buildings adjacent to the harbour. Customs operations remain in the area, in a late 1950's "Customs House" con-structed at Burrard and Pender. At one time or another most federal depart-ments have been provided with crown-owned or leased space in this financial d i s t r i c t . Office space currently occupied by federal departments in the area amounts to about 350,000 square feet or almost one third of federally occupied office space downtown. In the 1960's and 70's a new office d i s t r i c t delimited by Granville, Georgia and Pender Streets (called the "golden triangle" by real estate people) emerged, partially overlapping but generally west and south of the financial d i s t r i c t . Most of Vancouver's large and prestigeous office buildings of the last ten years have been constructed here. About half of federal departments' downtown office space and the majority of their downtown office establish-ments are now located in this triangle. Federal departments (notably Man-power and Immigration; Fisheries and Environment; Revenue (Taxation); Indian and Northern Affairs; and the Solicitor-General) completely lease two private office buildings on Pender Street and considerable space in the huge Pacific 101. and Royal Centre office towers on Georgia Street. Smaller amounts of space are leased in other new developments (e.g. Bentall Centre, Sandwell Building, MacMillan-Bloedel Building). The remaining federal departments' downtown office space (about 200,000 square feet) i s on the eastern fringe. It i s here on Block 56, across from the Post Office Building, that i t i s proposed to construct a large new 950,000 square foot federal office building. In the 1970's the Broadway corridor, just across False Creek from down-town, emerged as a significant non-downtown office location alternative. In 1976 Broadway contained almost two million square feet or about 25 percent of the total non-downtown office space in metropolitan Vancouver. Office space in suburban municipalities, by and large, remains dispersed though new offices in Burnaby's Metro-Town (B. C. Tel.) and along Canada Way as well as in Richmond's Executive Office Park suggest some emergent concentrations. Federal departments' one half million square feet of non-downtown office space (in 1976) is s p l i t evenly between the rest of Vancouver outside down-town and suburban municipalities. It consists mostly of dispersed, compara-tively small, local population serving offices of Manpower, Unemployment Insurance, the Post Office and Health and Welfare. Large Broadway and Marpole office establishments of the R.C.M.P. and Fisheries and Environment's West Vancouver (Park Royal) offices are notable exceptions. In Vancouver, at least half of federal departments' non-downtown office space i s in the Broadway office d i s t r i c t . Almost 60 percent of federal departments' office space in suburban municipalities i s in Burnaby and downtown New Westminster. Downtown New Westminster i s the only proposed Regional Town Centre site that currently has a significant amount of federal office space (approximately 70,000 square feet). 102. In conclusion, federal office space and office employment, accounting for 8 percent of total metropolitan office space and employment, is an integral component of the metropolitan Vancouver office market. The city centre con-centration of federal office space and employment heightens i t s downtown sig-nificance. Federal departments' office space and employment make up about 9 percent of the downtown totals but only 6 percent of non-downtown totals. Federal departments, then, following on their stated preference for downtown office locations (revealed in the 1974 "Federal Requirements Study in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t " mentioned in Chapter 1) currently show a small degree of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . A latent potential for relo-cation of at least some departmental sections and units may, however, be suggested by the existence of a great many separately sited establishments downtown and the very rapid growth of suburban federal office space. B. Federal Government Departments' Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y  in::. Vancouver A comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluation of 15 federal depart-ments is derived from Tables 6 and 7. Table 7 is a qualitatively "revised" version of Table 6 which presents comparative departmental locational f l e x i -b i l i t y assessments, factor by factor, based solely on quantification of factors and relevant factor characteristics using indicators. The following discussion of Tables 6 and 7 provides an introduction to the comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluation of the 15 departments. 1. Tables 6 and 7: The General Findings While the analysis of information and subsequent categorization shown in Tables 6 and 7 produced no direct evidence as to which internal factors (if any) are the most important for office locational f l e x i b i l i t y a sense was obtained of those factors which currently appear to be the strongest and 103. weakest constraints on this f l e x i b i l i t y . Examination of the quantitative data used to categorize Federal Departments in Table 6 reveals the following factor correlations: FACTORS WHERE THE QUANTITATIVE DATA SEEMS GENERALLY TO SUPPORT INCREASED DEPARTMENTAL LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY • Nature of Activity/Work t F Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts t F Organizational Growth t F FACTORS WHERE THE QUANTITATIVE DATA SEEMS GENERALLY NOT TO  SUPPORT INCREASED DEPARTMENTAL LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY Tradition I F Organizational Size ^ F Prestige I F The basis of the factor correlations in the direction of increased loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y (tF) are generally the high percentages of employees whose "routine" activity/work and "programming" communications characteristics in departments suggest conduciveness to a greater locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Also, the generally high "index of growth" figures for departments (indicating rapid growth) suggest departmental amenability to increased locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The factor correlations i n the opposite direction of decreased locational f l e x i b i l i t y (4*F) stem, generally, from low percentages of employees in depart-ments where low organizational and occupational prestige and "medium" organi-zational size characteristics suggest conduciveness to increased locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The generally high figures representing the many years (or strong "tradition" of) departments and their major sections being located down-town also suggest a generally low amenability to increased locational C O M P A R A T I V E A S S E S S M E N T S OF D E P A R T M E N T A L L O C A T I O N A L F L E X I B I L I T Y (BASED ON QUANTITATIVE CRITERIA) NFACTORS CATEGORIES \ ^ NATURE OF ACTIVITY/ WORK (% of employees with jobs suggesting Loca-. tional F l e x i b i l i t y ) FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF CON-TACTS (% of employees with jobs suggesting Loca-tional Flexibility) PRESTIGE ;(% of employees with * •jobs suggesting Loca-' tional Flexibility) OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT SIZE (% of employees with jobs suggesting Loca-tional Flexibility) i ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH (Index of Growth) TRADITION (# of years located downtown) MOST LOCATIONALLY FLEXIBLE Veterans' Affairs (100) Transport (100) Supply and Services (100) Unemployment Insur-ance (95) Supply and Services (95) Post Office (95) Unemployment Insur-ance (95) (Post Office (70) Supply and Services (70) Revenue (Customs and Excise) (65) Justice (100) Health and Welfare (100) Energy, Mines and Resources (90) Solicitor-General (292) Justice (229) Fisheries and Environ-ment (178) Supply and Services (157) Justice (<10) Solicitor-General (<10) Energy, Mines and Resources (<10) LOCATIONALLY FLEXIBLE Fisheries and Environ-ment (90) Health and Welfare (90) Public Works (85) Post Office (85) Revenue (Taxation) (95) Transport (90) Revenue (Customs and Excise) (85) Public Works (85) Solicitor-General (85) Fisheries and Environ-ment (85) Manpower and Immigra-! tion (50) Revenue (Taxation) (45) • Health and Welfare (45) iIndian and Northern i Affairs (40) Transport (40) Indian and Northern Affairs (25) Manpower and Immigra-tion (25) Indian and Northern Affairs (130) Revenue (Taxation) (115) Energy, Mines and Resources (94) Public Works (90) Supply and Services (<10, services have a long history of being downtown) Fisheries and Envi-ronment (<10, some sections have a long history of being downtown) Veterans' Affairs Public1 work's (20-30) LOCATIONALLY INFLEXIBLE Solicitor-General (75) Manpower and Immigra-tion (75) Energy, Mines and Resources (75) Revenue (Taxation) (70) Indian and Northern Affairs (70) Veterans' Affairs (80) Indian and Northern Affairs (80) Health and Welfare (80) Manpower and Immigra-tion (80) Solicitor-General (35) Unemployment- Insur-ance (35) i Unemployment Insur-ance (20) Transport (20) Supply and Services (20) Public Works (15) Unemployment Insur-ance (84) Transport (76) Manpower and Immigra-tion (75) Revenue (Customs and Excise) (>"30) Post Office (^50, Manpower and Immigra-tion ( >60, -£10) Transport (730,-clO, MOST LOCATIONALLY INFLEXIBLE Revenue (Customs and Excise) (60) Justice (60 Justice (75) Energy, Mines and Resources (75) Fisheries and Environ-ment (30) Public Works (30) Justice (30) Veterans' Affairs (30) Energy, Mines and Resources (25) i Revenue (Taxation) (10) Revenue (Customs and Excise (10) Fisheries and Environ-ment (10) Post Office (10) Veterans' Affairs (0) Solicitor-General (0) Health and Welfare (59) Revenue (Customs and Excise) (46) Post Office (31) Veterans' Affairs (-136) Indian and Northern Affairs (?-30) Unemployment Insur-ance (>30) Health and Welfare (760,<20) Revenue (Taxation) (>50) TABLE VI R E V I S E D C O M P A R A T I V E A S S E S S M E N T S OF D E P A R T M E N T A L L O C A T I O N A L F L E X I B I L I T Y 105. (BASED ON QUALITATIVE RE-EXAMINATION OF CRITERIA) \ FACTORS CATEGORIES\ NATURE OF ACTIVITY/ WORK FREQUENCY, CHARACTER and PATTERN OF CON-CONTACTS PRESTIGE OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT SIZE AND ORGANIZA-TIONAL STRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH AND CHANGE TRADITION MOST LOCATIONALLY FLEXIBLE Veterans' Affairs Transport Supply and Services Post Office Supply and Services Post Office Supply and Services Revenue (Customs and Excise) Justice Health and Welfare Energy, Mines and Resources Solicitor-General Justice Fisheries and Environ-ment Supply and Services Revenue (Taxation) Solicitor-General Energy, Mines and Resources LOCATIONALLY FLEXIBLE Unemployment Insur-ance Fisheries and Environ-ment Health and Welfare Solicitor-General Public Works Energy, Mines and Resources Unemployment Insur-ance Revenue (Taxation) Transport Public Works Solicitor-General Fisheries and Environ-ment Manpower and Immigra-tion Revenue (Taxation) Unemployment Insur-ance Indian and Northern Affairs Transport Indian and Northern Affairs Manpower and Immigra-tion Transport Public Works Public Works Unemployment Insur-ance Manpower and Immigra-tion Public Works Veterans' Affairs Fisheries and En-vironment Justice Supply and Services LOCATIONALLY INFLEXIBLE Revenue (Taxation) Manpower and Immigra-tion Indian and Northern Affairs Post Office Veterans' Affairs Indian and Northern Affairs Health and Welfare Revenue (Customs and Excise) Manpower and Immigra-tion Solicitor-General Health and Welfare Energy, Mines and Resources Unemployment Insur-ance Supply and Services Veterans' Affairs Solicitor-General Energy, Mines and Resources Indian and Northern Affairs Transport Manpower and Immi-gration Revenue (Customs and Excise) Transport Post Office MOST LOCATIONALLY INFLEXIBLE Justice Revenue (Customs and Excise) Justice Energy, Mines and Resources Fisheries and Environ-ment Public Works Justice Veterans' Affairs Revenue (Taxation) Revenue (Customs and Excise) Fisheries and Environ-ment Post Office Revenue (Customs and Excise) Health and Welfare Post Office Veterans' Affairs Revenue (Taxation) Indian and Northern Affairs Unemployment Insur-ance Health and Welfare TABLE VII 106. f l e x i b i l i t y . In qualitative analysis, "organizational change" as well as "growth" and "organizational structure" as well as "size" are considered. Fairly rapid organizational change in most departments supports increased locational f l e x i -b i l i t y and the correlation suggested by generally rapid departmental growth. "Decentralized" organizational structures discerned in most departments, on the other hand, may lessen the importance of departments' large office estab-lishment size as an inhibitor to office locational f l e x i b i l i t y and thus does not support the decreased locational f l e x i b i l i t y direction of i t s correlation. In sum, the overall analysis suggests "prestige" and "tradition" are the current "internal" factors most li k e l y to inhibit federal departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y downtown. Barriers to relocation of federal departments' offices outside downtown presented by the remaining internal factors generally appear (due to their federal employee and departmental characteristics) of lesser consequence. Further general (and comparative) findings derived from Tables 6 and 7 are presented factor by factor. i) The Nature of Federal Departmental Office Work/Activity Downtown The greatest proportion of federal office work downtown is undoubtedly of the routine, day-to-day variety. It entails implementation of prescribed policy which includes the keeping of records, correspondence and accounts (generally termed " c l e r i c a l " work); data processing (through use of computers); prescribed services to designated (statutory) clientele and information to the public at large; and policy implementation reviews (administrative audits and inspections). While these activities are interspersed throughout the federal bureaucracy, there are notable concentrations. Veteran's Affairs appears to be the most routinely " c l e r i c a l " of a l l departments analysed. Both Supply and Services and the Unemployment Insurance Commission have large data processing 107. (cheque issuing) components. Revenue (Taxation); Manpower and Immigration; Indian and Northern Affairs; and the Post Office each have particular sections and office establishments where routine day-to-day departmental work is con-centrated. The counterpart of "routine" federal office work — federal "non-routine" office work — primarily involves decision making affecting policy and program implementation and encompasses policy and program research, formu-lation, evaluation, and revision processes. It requires inter and intra departmental co-operative efforts (i.e. exchanging of information and ideas often in face-to-face meetings) of line management executives and staff consultants, technicians, advisors and specialists. Federal non-routine office work probably results in direct face-to-face contact with other govern-ment departments and designated clientele and embraces negotiating, advising, consulting and j u d i c i a l type administrative appeal procedures. Most federal non-routine work i s concentrated in comparatively small sections of "Regional" department headquarters downtown. The Justice Department, however, seems most clearly and predominantly constrained downtown by pervasive non-routine type office work. Its highly specialized functions appear tied-in with the Courts, private law practice and client departments. Major sections of non-routine office work in Revenue (Taxation), Manpower and Immigration, and Indian and Northern Affairs departments prevent classification of these as "locationally flexible" with respect to the nature of activity/work. Possible underestimation of the "non-routine" work in the Unemployment Insurance Commis-sion resulting from a lack of detailed organization charts and the emphasis in interview and written statements of i t s important presence suggest that i t be dropped into a lower f l e x i b i l i t y category than was quantitatively indicated in Table 6. Similarly the uncertain degree "non-routine" work is inter-related with, and needs to be located by, routine office and non-office work 108. downtown in the Post Office suggests a locationally "inflexible" rather than "flexible" classification most appropriate. Research i s another important downtown federal office activity and is largely accountable for classification (in Table 7) of Fisheries and Environ-ment and Health and Welfare as departments considered "locationally flexible". As well, i t s importance in the Energy, Mines and Resources Department, as emphasized in interview and written statements, suggests i t s underrating in quantitative analysis and that i t i s best classed among departments considered locationally "flexible" rather than "inflexible". In some instances the research work performed downtown by.federal departments l i e s along the office/non-office occupational boundary. Particularly in the Fisheries and Environment Department both:research and administrative activities are closely inter-connected with non-office ( f i e l d , laboratory) work performed outside downtown. While lacking a strong research emphasis, the Solicitor-General and Public Works Departments are also classified as locationally flexible (in Table 7). The prime basis for this classification and that of the Transport Department (amongst the "most locationally flexible") is that their downtown office administrations function closely with major non-office operational components both inside and outside downtown. This aspect of work in the Solicitor-General Department — because three office establishments that likely function closely with penal institutions outside Vancouver were not included in the quantitative analysis — was lik e l y underestimated. Therefore, the department was classified in Table 7 as locationally "flexible" rather than "inflexible". Downtown office work in Transport seems especially "routine" and closely connected with operations of B. C. airports (particu-larly Vancouver International Airport). 109. Finally, Revenue (Customs and Excise) joins the Justice Department in being considered "most locationally inflexible" (with respect to the nature of departmental office activity/work). The office work It undertakes i s highly specialized and related to downtown's quaternary sector (customs brokerage) and non-office work associated with the functioning of the adjacent harbour (the shipping of imports and exports). i i ) The Frequency, Character and Pattern of Federal Departments' Contacts  Downtown Overall, federal departments included in this analysis appear to have f a i r l y infrequent face-to-face contact with the general public and (more speculatively) other federal and provincial departments, private corporations, and organizations downtown. This seems especially characteristic of depart-ments' large downtown regional headquarters where much of the work serves the departments' clientele indirectly and is substantially self-contained. The sketch of contact character and pattern follows from the nature of departmental work/activity. Recurring face-to-face meetings of a non-routine ("orientation" and "planning") character l i k e l y occur most often i n special-ized, non-routine work sections of departments. The major extra-departmental contact sources for such meetings appear to be other federal and provincial departments engaged in similar or related work. Federal department sections more directly responsible for program and policy implementation l i k e l y gener-ate more "routine" or "programming" face-to-face contacts with the general public (e.g. Veteran's Affairs, assists war veterans). With the majority of federal, provincial and private office activities downtown the geographical pattern of federal face-to-face contacts l i k e l y i s focussed upon the city centre. Most federal departments with major offices downtown, however, serve clientele outside downtown. Many departments 110. depending on the size, nature, and location of their clientele and the geograph-i c a l area of their jurisdictional responsibility deploy major office and non-office components outside downtown. Face-to-face meetings with non-downtown clients and staff are not necessarily most convenient downtown. Evidence of frequent trips by downtown staff (usually professionals, supervisors, specialists, inspectors, auditors) suggests the existence of more "dispersed" and perhaps non-downtown focussed face-to-face contact pattern than might generally be supposed in many departments analysed (especially Transport, the Solicitor-General, and Fisheries and Environment). The categorization of federal departments with respect to "frequency, character and pattern of contacts" in Tables 6 and .7 is more speculative than for the "nature of activity/work" but does not differ greatly from i t . Only five departments (Post Office, Revenue (Taxation), Veteran's Affairs, Health and Welfare, and Energy, Mines and Resources) change from a "flexible" to "inflexible" classification. The general reasoning behind the departmental groupings concerning contacts is the following. The Post Office and Supply and Services departments are classified as "most locationally flexible" because, overall, their regional and d i s t r i c t offices downtown seem to have the fewest fact-to-face contacts with the general public. In Supply and Services, moreover, the work is preeminently routine and intra and extra departmental face-to-face contacts are li k e l y to follow suit. The Justice and Energy, Mines and Resources departments are categorized as "most locationally inflexible". The latter i s assigned this classification chiefly because i t s library l i k e l y generates the patronage of public and private professionals downtown. Justice Department is given this c l a s s i f i -cation because i t s lawyers face-to-face contacts with downtown's private 111. practice lawyers, other departments' staff, and Court o f f i c i a l s are likely necessary, frequent and most consistently of a non-routine or "orientation" character. The sorting of the remaining departments into locationally flexible and inflexible categories is based largely on the relative size of departmental sections generating frequent face-to-face contacts. The large departmental size and relatively small sections dealing with the public and clientele directly suggest Revenue (Taxation), Transport, Public Works, Solicitor-General, and Fisheries and Environment departments be considered "locationally flexible". The five departments (Veterans' Affairs, Indian and Northern Affairs, Health and Welfare, Revenue (Customs and Excise), and Manpower and Immigration) classified as "locationally inflexible" have relatively major sections and often whole office establishments downtown where work, serving clientele directly, generates frequent face-to-face contacts. Lastly, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Revenue (Customs and Excise) are reclassified from Table 6 to Table 7 into lower locational f l e x i -b i l i t y categories. Tabulation of the number of jobs having frequent face-to-face contacts in the Unemployment Insurance Commission did not include a downtown "District" office which likely has frequent face-to-face contacts with benefit claimants. The importance and convenience of face-to-face contacts with Customs Brokers for Revenue (Customs and Excise) staff down-town (particularly in the "Long Room") lik e l y is undervalued in the quanti-tative analysis. i i i ) The Prestige of Federal Government Departments Downtown The characteristics of quantitative and qualitative indicators found in this analysis suggest a strong need or desire for prestige. The large 112. majority (78 percent) of employees of the departments included in this study work in offices of "Regional" or equivalent status downtown. A significant proportion (40 percent) of the employees in these downtown departmental offices enjoy positions of high and middle occupational status. In several departments' downtown offices (Fisheries and Environment, Manpower and Immi-gration, Public Works, Indian and Northern Affairs and the Solicitor-General) over half of the employees have high or middle occupational status. Qualitatively, at the overall federal level, the need or desire for prestige i s manifest in the motive to establish a "federal presence" in Vancouver. This "federal presence" has been and is a driving force behind proposals to construct a federal building downtown (interviews: with Gary Webster (Public Works) and Larry McFarland, Arthur Erickson, Archi-tects) . On the departmental and occupational plane aspiration for prestige is reflected by federal departments locating in many of the new and prominent office buildings downtown. Turning to the departmental categorizations in Tables 6 and 7 the three departments (Post Office, Supply and Services, Revenue/Customs and Excise) classed as "most locationally flexible" with respect to prestige stand out with relatively small (in terms of employees) "Regional" offices downtown compared to their downtown "Distric t " and "Metro" components. As well, a l l three departments have very high proportions of office employees with comparatively low occupational status. The departments categorized as locationally "flexible" (Manpower and Immigration, Revenue (Taxation), Unemployment Insurance, Indian and Northern Affairs, Transport)."inflexible" (Solicitor-General, Health and Welfare, Energy, Mines and Resources) and "most inflexible" (Fisheries and Environ-ment, Public Works, Justice, Veterans' Affairs) generally have progressively 113. smaller proportions of staff having low occupational status and an increasing preponderance of downtown departmental staff working in offices with "Regional" responsibilities and jurisdiction. The locational f l e x i b i l i t y categorizations of Health and Welfare and the Unemployment Insurance Commission are interchanged from Table 6 to Table 7 . In the former a major "Regional", and in the latter, a major "Distri c t " office establishment were not included in the quantitative analysis. The downtown constraining influence of prestige was, therefore, underestimated for Health and Welfare and exaggerated for the Unemployment Insurance Commis-sion. Energy, Mines and Resources i s reclassified to "locationally f l e x i b l e " in Table 7 because the department has, in fact, no offices of "Regional" designation in Canada though in the quantitative analysis i t s offices in Vancouver were considered to have status equivalent to a regional office. iv) Federal Government Departments' Office Establishment Size and  Organizational Structure Downtown Large downtown office establishments (over 100 employees) and decentra-lized organizational structures seem characteristic of federal departments analysed i n this study for which the number of employees in office establish-ments could be obtained or estimated. Most downtown federal office employees (77 percent) in these departments work in 16 large city centre office estab-lishments. A minority (23 percent) occupy 15 medium (between 20 and 100 employees) and 23 small (less than 20 employees) office establishments. A l l but three departments have at least one large office establishment downtown and four departments (Revenue (Taxation), Fisheries and Environment, Manpower and Immigration, and the Post Office) have two. Mention in reports or interviews of "decentralized" organizational structures i s found for most of the departments included in this study. Some 114. of these statements may be in reference to Ottawa's control-the move to establish "Regional" offices i s as recent as the early 1970's in some depart-ments. There are other hints, however, that for many departments organization and decision-making in Vancouver i s f a i r l y decentralized. Fi r s t evidence is the large number of departmental office establishments (both downtown and outside downtown). This geographical dispersion, more apparent than real in terms of office employees, nevertheless, suggests achievement of some degree of departmental decentralization. Furthermore, examination of organization charts reveals that numerous sections of departments downtown are headed by management executives with major decision-making responsibilities. The efficient management of the wide variety of different programs and operations undertaken by especially large departments also suggests not just the exis-tence but the necessity of decentralized decision-making authority and operational autonomy. The characteristics of departmental size and organizational structure downtown would seem to have opposite influences on locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The apparent hinderance to locational f l e x i b i l i t y arising from the concen-tration of employees in large office establishments may be mitigated by decentralized organizational structures. In other words, partial "majority" or "minority" moves from downtown of departments' offices may be feasible because sections of departments' large office establishments often operate quite independently of one another. Departmental categorizations in Table 7, due to the lack of hard comparative evidence on the real nature of departments' organizational struc-tures in Vancouver, differ only slightly from Table 6. Justice, Health and Welfare and Energy, Mines and Resources departments merit their "most loca-tionally flexible" classification, and stand out from a l l other departments, by having almost a l l their downtown office staff in medium-sized office 115. establishments and are joined in the "locationally flexible" category by Transport and Public Works departments. The latter are reclassified from "locationally inflexible" (in Table 6) because relocation of, at least, operations-oriented sections from downtown seems quite feasible. Veterans' Affairs and Solicitor-General departments are removed from the "most locationally inflexible" category (in Table 6) and replace Transport and Public Works in the "locationally inflexible" classification of Table 7. Veterans' Affairs and Solicitor-General departments join the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Supply and Services and have fewer and smaller size "large" office establishments than departments classified as "most loca-tionally inflexible". The departments classified "most locationally inflexible" (Revenue (Taxation), Revenue (Customs and Excise), Fisheries and Environment, Post Office) though organizationally quite decentralized, operate the largest of federal office establishments downtown. Revenue (Taxation), Fisheries and Environment and the Post Office each manage two large downtown office estab-lishments. v) The Rate of Federal Departments Growth and Organizational Change  in Vancouver The period between 1971 and 1976 was marked by rapid growth and orga-nizational change in federal departments. The number of federal employees, in the fifteen departments of this study, grew by 18 percent (from about 10,000 to 11,500). The amount of office space occupied in metropolitan Vancouver grew by 38 percent. Examination of individual departments shows that high percentage rates of employment and office space growth are not con-fined to small departments. Large departments (Revenue (Taxation), Fisheries and Environment, Manpower and Immigration) have high employment and office 116. occupancy percentage growth rates which reinforce the fact that departmental growth has been rapid in both the absolute and relative sense. A further indication of rapid departmental growth, particularly as i t influences locational f l e x i b i l i t y , i s that for at least seven of fifteen departments the percentage of total office space outside downtown has grown. In three large departments (Manpower and Immigration, Fisheries and Environ-ment, Unemployment Insurance) the Increase in non-downtown office space occupancy is substantial (i.e. over 20,000 square feet). The difference between the growth of departmental employment and of office space is indicative of the more rapid growth of office compared to non-office federal employees in Vancouver. It li k e l y reflects, as well, an increasing square footage of office space per employee. Both trends seem plausible in light of major departmental organizational and locational changes which have accompanied rapid growth. The major organizational change, in several departments (Post Office, Solicitor-General, Fisheries and Environ-ment, Transport, Manpower and Immigration) has been the setting up of "Regional" headquarters to decentralize decision-making from Ottawa. As well, major organizational restructuring between 1971 and 1976 results from the merging of departments (Unemployment Insurance and Manpower and Immigra-tion) and a quickly changing and growing number of statutory functions (Fish-eries and Environment, Revenue (Taxation)) performed in departments. A l l but one department (Veterans' Affairs) required increased office space. Changes in the locations of downtown office establishments occurred for almost every department (even Veterans' Af f a i r s ) . Most often the growth of new and established components was accommodated in new privately owned office space downtown. 117. The classifications of Table 7 take into account organizational change in departments as well as growth. The most rapidly growing departments in terms of employment, metropolitan office space occupancy and office space percentage change outside downtown (Solicitor-General, Justice, Fisheries and Environment, Supply and Services) are classified as "most locationally flexible". The remaining departments exhibiting progressively slower growth and less evident organizational change are slotted into the remaining categories. Major ongoing organizational change in the form of a merger of operations i s responsible for the interchange of classifications of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission with Indian and Northern Affairs and Energy, Mines and Resources. The immanent organizational and locational changes resulting from construction of a Taxation Data Center in Surrey suggests Revenue (Taxation) should be considered (in Table 7) amongst depart-ments classified as "most locationally flexible" with respect to growth and change. vi) The Tradition of Federal Government Departments Downtown Most of the federal departments and/or their components examined in this study have been located downtown for at least two decades. For this reason i t i s possible that a strong tradition of downtown location s t i l l exists despite recent rapid departmental growth and change and the infusion of younger employees into the c i v i l service who li v e in the suburbs. Table 7 differs in only one respect from Table 6. The Justice Depart-ment is moved from the "most locationally flexible" to the "locationally flexible" category. This seems reasonable, despite less than ten years of existence downtown, because the law firms and courts with which the Justice Department is connected have always been centered downtown. 118. A l l other departments' categorizations from "most locationally flexible" to "most locationally inflexible" are based on the progressively longer periods of time their major sections could be traced to downtown locations. 2. Comparative Locational F l e x i b i l i t y of 15 Federal Departments In Table 9 a f i n a l , overall comparative evaluation of 15 federal depart-ments' locational f l e x i b i l i t y i s presented. Its generation stems from Table 8 — a rearrangement of the findings in Table .7 — which shows for each department the comparative locational f l e x i b i l i t y categories derived with respect to each of the six internal factors. From the points attached to these categories, points associated with each departments' categorizations are added together and form the basis of comparative evaluation of depart-ments for a l l six internal factors combined. In total twelve different evaluations result from eleven evaluations based on different combinations of double-weighted factors and an evaluation where a l l factors are given equal weights. Table 9 is the synthesis of these twelve evaluations based simply on totalling the points for each department derived in each of the twelve evaluations and ranking the department point totals from highest ("most l o -cationally flexible") to lowest ("most locationally inflexible"). In general, the twelve evaluations which make up Table 9 do not differ greatly from one another. Departments are consistently found on one side of the flexible/inflexible classification frontier or another. The difference between the evaluation where a l l factors are weighted equally and where tra-dition and prestige are given double weights, for example, i s slight. Only the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Post Office and Fisheries and Environ-ment departments change classifications. Table 9, then, is particularly C O M P A R A T I V E L O C A T I O N A L F L E X I B I L I T Y F O R T H E S I X I N T E R N A L F A C T O R S B Y ' D E P A R T M E N T MOST FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLE j INFLEXIBLE MOST INFLEXIBLE REVENUE (TAXATION) Rate of Growth/ Change Frequency, Charac-ter and Patte r n of Contacts PrestiRC Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work T r a d i t i o n Size and Orga-n i z a t i o n a l , Structure .MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION P r e s t i g e Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S tructure Rate of Growth/ Chanj>e ' T r a d i t i o n Frequency, Charac-ter and Patte r n of Contacts Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT Rate of Growth/ Change Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work T r a d i t i o n Frequency, Charac-t e r and Pa t t e r n of Contacts P r e s t i g e Size and Orga-n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION Frequency, Charac-t e r and Patte r n of Contacts Nnturc of A c t i v -ity/Work Rate of Growth/ Change P r e s t i g e Size and Organi- • z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e T r a d i t i o n TRANSPORT Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Frequency, Charac-ter and Patte r n of Contacts P r e s t i g e Size a n d O r g a n i -z a t i o n o l S t r u c t u r e Rntc of Crowth/. Gianni T r a d i t i o n POST OFFICE -Frequency, Char-act e r and Patter n of Contacts PrestiRC i Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work T r a d i t i o n Size and Orga-n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e Rate of Growth/ Change REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) TrndlL l o n Frequency, Charac-ter and Patte r n of Contacts Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Size and Orga-n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e Rate of Growth/ Chnnp.c: HEALTH AND WELFARE Size and Orga-n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Frequency, Charac-t e r and Pa t t e r n of Contacts P r e s t i R e Rate of Growth/ Change T r a d i t i o n SUPPLY AND SERVICES Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Frequency, Char-a c t e r and Pat t e r n of Contacts P r e s t i g e Rate of Growth/ Change T r a d i t i o n . Si z e and Organi-z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS P r e s t i g e Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Frequency, Charac-ter and Patte r n of Contacts Rate of Growth/ Change T r a d i t i o n PUBLIC WORKS Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Frequency, Charac-t e r and Pa t t e r n of Contacts Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e Rate of Growth/ Change T r a d i t i o n P r e s t i g e VETERANS' AFFAIRS Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work T r a d i t i o n Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S tructure Frequency, Charac-t e r and Pottern of Contacts P r e s t i g e Rate of Growth/ Change ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e T r a d i t i o n Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work P r e s t i g e Rate of Growth/ Change Frequency, Char-act e r and Pat t e r n of Contacts SOLICITOR-GENERAL Rate of Growth/ Change T r a d i t i o n Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work 1 Frequency, Charac-ter and Pa t t e r n of Contacts P r e s t i g e Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e JUSTICE Size and Organi-z a t i o n a l S tructure ftate of Growth/ Change T r a d i t i o n Nature of A c t i v -ity/Work Frequency,' Char-act e r and Patter n of Contacts P r e s t i g e TABLE VIII 120. OVERALL EVALUATION OF 15 SAMPLE FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY (Based on Examination of 6 Internal Factors) DEPARTMENTS POINT TOTAL FOR 12 DIFFERENT EVALUATIONS CLASSIFICATION SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL TRANSPORT PUBLIC WORKS ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 634 536 512 474 474 MOST LOCATIONALLY FLEXIBLE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 446 446 446 LOCATIONALLY FLEXIBLE POST OFFICE REVENUE (TAXATION) JUSTICE 428 420 408 LOCATIONALLY INFLEXIBLE VETERANS' AFFAIRS INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS HEALTH AND WELFARE REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 388 388 388 344 MOST LOCATIONALLY INFLEXIBLE TABLE IX 121. consonant with a l l twelve evaluations using different combinations of weighted factors. i) Table 9: Discussion The classification presented in Table 9 is a guide for planning action based on the examination of six internal factors. It certainly does not suggest that departments classified as "locationally inflexible" or "most locationally inflexible" have no office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In Vancouver we are primarily interested in the possibility for decen-tralization of federal departmental offices from downtown to Regional Town Centres. Four of the six internal factors examined would seem comparatively, and even absolutely, to be weak constraints on departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . This brief discussion, therefore, emphasizes whatever rationale or potential exists for office locational f l e x i b i l i t y for a l l departments in a l l four classifications. It could almost be surmised from Table 9, without applying a point and weighting system, that the Supply and Services, Solicitor-General, Transport, Public Works and Energy, Mines and Resources departments could be considered "most locationally flexible" of a l l the departments analysed in this study. Most of the internal factors for these departments suggest they be considered locationally "most flexible" or "flexible". In each of the twelve weighted evaluations which are combined in Table 9, Supply and Services always ranked f i r s t , the Solicitor-General and Transport departments consistently alternated between second and third positions, Public Works frequently ranked fourth, and Energy, Mines and Resources oscillated between third and f i f t h positions. These five departments have in common characteristics of work and contacts which seem most clearly to obviate the necessity for downtown office locations. 122. Indeed, i t i s possible in the case of Transport and the Solicitor-General to argue that as far as departmental operations are concerned the downtown loca-tion of office activities i s unstrategic. In general, the operations of these five departments do not directly affect the general public or private businesses downtown. Contacts generated with these groups downtown appear especially low except in Energy, Mines and Resources which operates a library open to the general public. Intra-departmental and inter-departmental contacts nevertheless l i k e l y predominate, in Energy, Mines and Resources and the other departments. For Supply and Services and Public Works departments, whose clients are other federal depart-ments, the bulk of these contacts may or may not be made more convenient by a downtown location. Further study i s needed here. The region-wide nature of their operations and li k e l y predominantly routine nature of their contacts, however, lead one to suspect that the downtown location of both departments could be given up with small damage to operational efficiency especially i f their client departments were to decentralize as well. The downtown office a c t i v i t i e s , and the contacts generated in the Transport and Solicitor-General departments (and to a lesser degree in Public Works) appear primarily associated with and directed towards management of large B. C.-wide operations. Concentration of the major non-office components of Transport and the Solicitor-General departments at Vancouver International Airport and in Fraser Valley penitentiaries respectively, suggests the possi-b i l i t y gains in operational efficiency by a closer location of related office management. Location of new, or relocating of existing, office activities in these departments to nearby Regional Town Centre sites (Richmond, New West-minster) might logically be considered. Research activity and contacts in 123. Energy, Mines and Resources suggests as well that a downtown location for i t is unnecessary. The remaining factors examined for these five departments, by and large, suggest the existence of potential office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Only the need or desire for prestige is l i k e l y to function as a major internal con-straint on office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of the Public Works department. A tradition of downtown location and comparatively slow growth and change may be an impediment to locational f l e x i b i l i t y for the Transport department. For both Supply and Services and the Solicitor-General departments comparatively centralized organizational structures of major downtown components could hinder their total or partial removal from downtown. As well, the need or desire for prestige in the Solicitor-General and Energy, Mines and Resources depart-ments could hinder their locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Three departments — the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Manpower and Immigration and Fisheries and Environment — are classified as "loca-tionally flexible" in Table 9. The principle distinction between these three departments and those classified as "most locationally f l e x i b l e " rests upon the frequency of face-to-face contacts and, to a lesser degree, the nature of their activity/work downtown. These departments li k e l y have more frequent face-to-face contacts with clients, private business, and the general public downtown. Certainly more employees, sections and office establishments of these departments, especially Unemployment Insurance and Manpower and Immigra-tion, provide direct services to clients. The Fisheries Management section of the Department of Fisheries and Environment, for example, issues licences and provides over the counter infor-mation to the general public from the main floor of i t s downtown office. The local population served by Canada Manpower and Immigration Centres and an 124. Unemployment Insurance Commission Vancouver District Office, meets the demands for program services generated from the city centre and inner-city communi-ties. These offices are most appropriately located downtown. In these three departments, also, there is clear evidence of non-routine (policy formulation, planning, evaluation) type work performed in compara-tively small specialized sections. The nature of this activity, the "orien-tation" type contacts i t may engender, and the high or middle occupational status of the staff may limit their locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Having considered a l l this other internal factors seem to legitimize their categorizations as "locationally flexible". For Fisheries and Environment the prevailing research and science orientation of i t s office work suggests a downtown loca-tion i s unnecessary. In the regional offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Manpower and Immigration, major sections of routine work might enable at least partial decentralization. With major office and non-office operations already outside downtown, the intra-departmental contact pattern of Fisheries and Environment, Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission regional offices (like the Solicitor-General, Transport and Public Works departments) may, in fact, be quite dispersed. From the perspective of the department as a whole, the downtown, or even metropolitan Vancouver, regional headquarters location may be inconvenient. Turning to a l l other factors, a l l three departments have decentralized organizational and decision-making structures. This might alleviate reloca-tion d i f f i c u l t i e s caused by the large size of the regional office establish-ments. The departments have comparatively short organizational and down-town locational histories. They have undergone, as well, rapid growth and recurrent organizational change. Accommodation and i t s location are l i k e l y to continue to be important departmental concerns. 125. Crossing the locationally flexible/locationally inflexible c l a s s i f i c a -tion boundary we find no sharp distinction to be drawn between the departments grouped in one or the other categories. Indeed only the Post Office and Veterans' Affairs departments in the*"locationally inflexible" category have a plurality of factors with characteristics which suggest comparative loca-tional i n f l e x i b i l i t y . The supporting rationale for the various departments found in both the inflexible categories of Table 9 is best sketched depart-ment by department. The "locationally inflexible" categorization of the Post Office stems mainly from uncertainty surrounding the extent i t s office activities downtown are tied-in and need to be near non-office (postal plant) operations downtown. Despite the non-routine (specialized) nature of work and a need for prestige i t may be that the regional office of the Post Office holds the greatest potential for relocation from downtown. Revenue (Taxation) is special, in this analysis, because i t is the only department where definite plans to relocate office staff from downtown were found. The planned relocation in Surrey of at least one third of the depart-ment's current downtown contingent by 1981 is the prime evidence that i t s "locationally inflexible" classification i s unwarranted. This classification of the department is retained, however, because factor characteristics of the sections and units scheduled to remain downtown suggest strong locational i n f l e x i b i l i t y . Chiefly the non-routine nature of this auditing work and i t s close association with the downtown business community may prevent i t s early consideration for relocation in Regional Town Centres. Specialized legal work; the necessity for face-to-face contacts with other departments' staff, private lawyers, and court o f f i c i a l s ; and the strong need for prestige of downtown indicate the Justice Department should 126. be considered location inflexible but the frequent travelling of the depart-ment's lawyers outside downtown hints that Regional Town Centre location for this department i s possible though not necessarily convenient or efficient. It i s mainly the routine " c l e r i c a l " nature of Veterans' Affairs office activities downtown which suggest the department could function just as well in a Regional Town Centre. The department's "most locationally inflexible" classification arises, however, from the frequent face-to-face contacts i t generates with i t s clients, i t s lack of growth and declining importance, and i t s apparent comparatively strong need for prestige. The frequency, however, with which Veterans' Affairs changes rankings and is classified with depart-ments considered "locationally flexible" in the twelve evaluations which comprise the f i n a l standings of Table 9 suggest i t might just as well be considered amongst either the "locationally inflexible" or the "most loca-tionally inflexible" of departments. The f e a s i b i l i t y of relocating the d i s t r i c t office of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs from downtown depends primarily, as in Veterans' Affairs, on the necessity and convenience of having regular face-to-face contacts with clientele downtown. The d i s t r i c t office of the department might perhaps be located nearer the clientele i t serves in a Regional Town Centre. The work i t undertakes i s predominantly routine in nature and i t s office establishment i s of medium size. Beyond this prospects for locational f l e x i b i l i t y of this department are unpromising. Key inhibiting factors appear to be a strong need for prestige, the non-routine (policy planning and re-search) nature of activities performed in the regional office and an overall departmental tradition of downtown location. The factors in the Health and Welfare department commending at least the possibility of i t s partial decentralization are i t s decentralized 127. organizational structure, the medium size of i t s downtown office establish-ments and the existence of a significant amount of routine (clerical) as well as research (science) work. S t i l l the majority of internal factors indicate the department's comparative locational i n f l e x i b i l i t y . Most important are the regular face-to-face contacts which occur in Medical Services Branch offices downtown. Also, important constraining influences arise from a strong need or desire for prestige as well as a relatively long downtown locational history. In eight out of the twelve locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluations which make up Table 9 the Revenue (Customs and Excise) ranked last. The department appears the most locationally inflexible of a l l departments analysed in this study chiefly because the nature of i t s work — i t s close association with shipping and customs brokers — is tied-in with the harbour and quaternary sectors downtown. In conclusion, more detailed reasoning behind the overall departmental locational f l e x i b i l i t y classifications proposed in Table 9 and further information on characteristics of the internal factors discerned for each department was transferred to what might be termed "Final" or "Finished" Departmental Composite Sheets. Two examples of these sheets, one for Public Works Canada, a department categorized "most locationally flexible"; and one for Revenue (Taxation), a department classified "locationally inflexible"; are presented in Appendix IV. 3. The "Climate" for Federal Departments' Office Locational F l e x i b i l i t y  in Vancouver Appraisal of the "climate" for federal departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y resulting from the Interplay of the four "external" factors of 128. the Criteria Check Lis t can never be entirely objective or accurate as their real and perceived influences are ever-changing. It seems nevertheless possible to venture this synopsis. Currently the comparatively high level of (1) "general" and "special" accessibility to downtown and (2) the downtown domination of the metropolitan office market seem the strongest "internal" elements acting to constrain federal departments' offices to the city centre. On the other hand, (3) existing telecommunications system technology and increasingly congested transportation systems as well as (4) the growing regional orientation i n metropolitan plans and pol i t i c s are the recent factors most strongly favouring increased federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The combined influence of these four factors would seem to have created a climate "moderately favourable" towards increased federal as well as private office decentralization from downtown but not one which actively encourages i t as the proposal to construct a large federal office building downtown might indicate. The factor-by-factor survey follows. i ) The "General" and "Special" Accessibility of Downtown Vancouver "General" accessibility or the locational quality of being central and convenient to the whole range of urban act i v i t i e s and to urban consumer and labour markets and "special" accessibility or the locational t r a i t of having quick and easy access to complimentary f a c i l i t i e s are traditional advantages of downtown. More than for most large North American c i t i e s , Vancouver's downtown seems to have held on to i t s monopoly on these qualities in relation to the competing suburban milieu. "General" accessibility of downtown Vancouver relative to suburban locations has fallen and i s declining due to congestion and increased commuting distances but i s s t i l l a major city centre locational advantage. Downtown remains the preeminent centre for office, 129. hotel, r e t a i l and cultural a c t i v i t i e s . Though on a peninsula, downtown is well connected by major roads, bridges, bus and now ferry transit to the surrounding metropolitan consumer and labour markets. A major population concentration — the West End — is adjacent to downtown on the peninsula i t s e l f . Recent improvements to Vancouver's road infra-structure and transit system might be seen, at least, to have maintained downtown's general access-i b i l i t y especially with regard to white collar suburban neighbourhoods. Two new bridges across the North Arm of the Fraser River provide better downtown access for Richmond and Delta commuters and a very convenient almost exclu-sive downtown airport link. Transit improvements include a trans-harbour ferry service between downtown and affluent north shore suburbs as well as a new FASTBUS service designed to entice suburban commuters from their cars. Vancouver's dearth of freeways may, perhaps, enhance the general accessi-b i l i t y of i t s downtown. The "general" accessibility aspect of downtown seems from interview statements especially important to federal departments such as Supply and Services, Post Office, Revenue (Customs and Excise), and Revenue (Taxation) employing large numbers of c l e r i c a l and/or seasonal staff. A reason for Revenue Taxation's planned relocation of i t s routine, seasonal, data center operations to Surrey, however, i s the belief that a large untapped pool of housewives for seasonal staff can be found there just as well as downtown. This may indicate not only the relative decline of downtown's "general" accessibility advantage but i t s perception and serious consideration by federal departments in locational decisions. In contrast to "general" accessibility, downtown Vancouver's "special" accessibility advantage for offices seems to have substantially increased relative to suburban locations. In part this i s the consequence of the 130. burgeoning growth in the number of offices located downtown. Just as impor-tant, however, the majority of this growth has been geographically delimited within the "golden triangle". Most new offices and most federal departments' office establishments downtown are within easy walking distance of each other. This may particularly benefit departments which, besides contact with the general public, require or desire some face-to-face contacts with other federal and provincial government departments and agencies or with private business downtown. In this analysis important regular contacts, many, per-haps, face-to-face were discerned as l i k e l y to occur downtown between: Justice and Revenue (Taxation); Fisheries and Environment and Transport; Supply and Services and most other departments; Public Works and most other departments; Solicitor-General and Justice; Manpower and Immigration and large private employers; Unemployment Insurance and the Post Office; Health and Welfare and Indian and Northern Affairs; Revenue (Taxation) and corporate taxpayers; and Revenue (Customs and Excise) and customs brokers. In general, then, the downtown offers convenient services and maximizes opportunities for "choice" and planned or chance face-to-face contact. Also within easy walking distance of most downtown federal government offices there is now a well developed and complementary commercial cultural and infra-structure. The new hotels, clubs and theatres and suburban type shopping malls and r e t a i l outlets downtown help to hold existing and attract new private and government offices downtown by providing the most concentrated variety and choice of entertainment and urban leisure services within the region. As was stated in Chapter 2 this whole aspect of "social" contacts of offices needs study. It may, by i t s e l f , be a very important inhibitor to federal departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . 131. In sum, the current "general" and "special" accessibility of downtown would seem to have a strong constraining influence on federal departments' office f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver. While in the long run this downtown con-straining influence of accessibility may be seen as weakening, that of "special" accessibility may be strengthening. i i ) Metropolitan Telecommunications and Transportation Systems Continuing developments in telecommunications technology, resulting from the electronics "explosion" since World War II, and the fact federal departments are major telecommunications systems users in Vancouver suggest the office locational f l e x i b i l i t y these systems permit or encourage be care-f u l l y evaluated. In Vancouver, as in other c i t i e s , telecommunication i s dominated by the telephone with increasing use of teletype and computer linkups to send and retrieve information to and from sources within and outside the city. Vancouver's transportation system relies on the private automobile as well as an improved downtown-oriented transit system. Diurnal commuting to and from downtown, in cars and buses, i s the major pattern. It takes place on a grid street infra-structure, lacking freeways, but with major and wide arte r i a l street corridors and bridges servicing the downtown. In peak periods this road and bridge infra-structure and the bus system together prove inadequate to the demands placed on them and congestion results. In Vancouver's telecommunications and transportation systems no major technological or infra-structural changes appear imminent. The advent of fibre optics, which w i l l allow development and use of reasonable cost video telephone and conference f a c i l i t i e s in offices, i s s t i l l some years into the future and holds unforeseen locational implications. Development of a 132. reasonable cost automobile powered by a source other than gasoline i s also to be awaited. Another major bridge spanning the Fraser River i s mooted but has not been definitely announced. The planning for construction of a light rapid transit system (LRT) to link downtown Vancouver with Regional Town Centres in Burnaby and New Westminster i s only in i t s i n i t i a l stages. There is controversy over just what locational consequences for offices such a line could have. According to federal Public Works department o f f i c i a l s the line i s essential i f federal departments are to consider location of future offices outside downtown in Regional Town Centres. Of f i c i a l s in the department believe that "maximizing accessibility" to the general population should be the key factor in determining future office locations. Other planners, Richard Mann for example, question the wisdom of linking downtown by LRT to Regional Town Centres. Such a line, by also increasing (or at least main-taining) the level of general accessibility of downtown may further boost i t s attraction over Regional Town Centres for federal departments' offices and offices in general. A l l in a l l , the state of Vancouver's telecommunications and transpor-tation systems now and in the near future seems to favour increased loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y for federal departments' offices. Over time the overworked state of the transportation system l i k e l y encourages greater u t i l i z a t i o n of the telecommunications system, i.e. substitution of non-physical for physical accessibility — even for contacts within downtown. The existing telecommuni-cations system of telephones, teletype and computer hookups has enabled a growing number of offices (AO percent of total metropolitan office space i s outside downtown) the choice of non-downtown locations. In Los Angeles current telecommunications technology has been successfully used by an insur-ance firm to set up neighbourhood "work centres" for i t s employees. A similar experimental scheme, for Vancouver, involving the provincial government was 133. proposed by B. C. Telephone but shelved with the change of government in the-last election. Federal government departments, with but 30 percent of their office space outside downtown, would seem especially able to take better advantage of the increased office locational f l e x i b i l i t y f a c i l i t a t e d by existing tele-communications systems. This may not necessarily permit relocation of whole federal departments to Regional Town Centres but may allow various sections or units to relocate outside downtown. i i i ) Vancouver's Office Market Between 1971 and 1976 the downtown office market grew rapidly. Total office space downtown increased by three and one half million square feet from about nine to twelve and one half million square feet. The office space supply kept pace with a demand which absorbed about 700,000 square feet and 10 percent rental increases (to $8.50 - $10.00 per square foot in class "A" buildings) annually u n t i l 1975. In 1975 and 1976 supply far outstripped a demand which f e l l to 200,000 - 400,000 square feet annually due to depressed economic conditions and restrictions on governments' spending and hiring. An over supply condition in the downtown office market has continued to the time of writing (1978). Between 1971 and 1976 the suburban office alternative gained a larger market share as the price of downtown land rose and i t s avai l a b i l i t y declined. Suburban office space grew from five to six and one half million square feet. Leasing costs of class "A" suburban space reflected cheaper land costs and were about $2.50 cheaper per square foot than downtown. The suburban office market's share of total metropolitan office space rose from 35 to 40 percent. The downtown office market remained, however, predominant. 134. In this market context, due to rapid increases in departments' staff and an inadequate inventory of suitable crown-owned office space the federal government assumed the role of an office space consumer. It maintained i t s occupancy of a roughly 9 percent share of total office space downtown through leasing (i.e. i t increased i t s metropolitan office space occupancy by about 600,000 square feet between 1971 and 1976). By 1976, 68 percent or almost 800,000 square feet of federally occupied space downtown was leased at a cost of some $10 million annually (up 350 percent from 1971 leasing costs). As a leasee, downtown locations for new staff were and are today (1978) encouraged by the availability and relative preponderance of office space compared to the suburbs. The federal role, between 1971 and 1976, as an "uncertainty generator" in the metropolitan office market was minimal. The proposal to construct a federal office building downtown surfaced in September 1973 but was shelved and not brought forward again unt i l late 1976. The downtown location for this building was li k e l y influenced by the domination of the metropolitan office market. The large investment, perhaps $100 million, i s li k e l y to involve the least perceived risk i f i t is downtown especially i f some private tenants are sought for the building. Certainly the current metropolitan office market, and federal departments' office location patterns w i l l be changed least, and l i k e l y reinforced, by the choice of a downtown location for the proposed new federal building. The principal point, then, arising from the above is that character-i s t i c s of Vancouver's office market and the federal role in i t between 1971 and 1976 has discouraged federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . 135. Iv) Planning and Politics While i t is d i f f i c u l t to monitor, year by year, the strength of currents and undercurrents in the stream of planning and p o l i t i c s , i t is clear the flow reversed direction in the 1970's. The major p o l i t i c a l and planning concern in the 1960's was for the development and economic health of downtown Vancouver. Early in the decade the lack of new downtown development, the rapid growth of suburbs and the American problem and experience of "dying" downtowns raised fears the same process was happening in Vancouver. Private and public urban renewal investment downtown was encouraged and welcomed by planners and politicians. The planning and p o l i t i c a l contribution to the "climate" for private and public office locational f l e x i b i l i t y was extremely unfavourable at that time. Citizen opposition to public urban renewal and freeways downtown led quite quickly to planning and p o l i t i c a l reevaluation and eventual abandon-ment of the urban renewal and freeway program. Concern for the mushrooming private development, particularly of offices downtown, and i t s city-wide social and physical implications took longer to emerge. By 1974, however, the worry that downtown Vancouver was becoming too "developed" too quickly to the detriment of the whole region's " l i v a b i l i t y " was clearly enunciated in the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Livable Region Plan. In the plan Regional Town Centres are proposed to relieve the development pressure on downtown and to balance work, cultural, educational and entertainment opportunities within the region. Decentralization and diversion of office growth, especially of government offices, from downtown to Regional Town Centres was to be encouraged. Complementing, and in accordance with the G. V. R. D. plan, the city of Vancouver acted in 1973 to restrict dense office development by down-zoning both downtown and the Broadway commercial d i s t r i c t s . Surrounding municipalities began the selection and planning 136. of Regional Town Centre sites. Adoption of the G.V.R.D. plan in 1976 by a l l member municipalities sig-nalled o f f i c i a l l y , then, the existence of p o l i t i c a l as well as planning con-ditions favourable towards office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in general and federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y , in particular. Promulgation of the Federal Land Management Policy — in which federal lands would be managed with a view towards achievement of wider social, economic and environmental objec-tives — enhanced this climate further at the federal p o l i t i c a l level. Finally, while obvious, i t needs to be said that the locational f l e x i -b i l i t y of federal departments' offices i s more subject to the vagaries of p o l i t i c a l winds than that of private offices. P o l i t i c s , more than stated policies, planning, economics or any other consideration, may ultimately be the important factor in the locational decisions regarding major federal office buildings. Postscript(1978) : 1976 may have been the year when p o l i t i c a l and planning conditions most favoured and contributed to increased locational f l e x i b i l i t y of federal departmental offices. A sluggish metropolitan economic climate, the announcement of a population decline in the city of Vancouver, election of a new Vancouver mayor with a major concern for the city's con-tinued economic development, and an approaching federal election l i k e l y have helped to generate the p o l i t i c a l undercurrent which brought forward, again, the proposal to construct a federal office building downtown. A. Locational F l e x i b i l i t y of Federal Government Offices i n Vancouver: A Synthesis The examination of federal departments' office location reveals their concentration, to an even greater degree than for other types of offices, in downtown Vancouver. Federal departments are shown, as well, to be important 137. office space users and employment generators not only downtown, but in the metropolitan area as a whole. The relative dominance of downtown as a loca-tion for federal departments' offices has declined only slowly and in absolute terms growth continues to be greatest downtown. Federal departments in their office location pattern to date, then, demonstrate only a small degree of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The rapid percentage increase in departments' non-downtown office space and their numerous and scattered office establish-ments downtown, however, are the f i r s t intimations in this analysis of existence of latent office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in federal departments in Vancouver. From analysis of the ten factors which make up the Criteria Check L i s t , an appreciation was secured of the factors which seem most li k e l y to restrain federal departments' offices from locating future or relocating existing office staff in Regional Town Centres. Overall, the analysis indicates a need or desire for prestige and a long tradition of downtown location as the most prominent internal factors, which inhibit f l e x i b i l i t y . A continued high level of "general" and "special" accessibility downtown as well as a strong downtown domination of the metropolitan office market appear to be the chief external factors constraining federal offices to the city centre. The re-maining internal factors (the nature of activity/work; frequency, character, and pattern of contacts; size and organizational structure; rate of growth and organizational change) and external factors (telecommunications and transportation systems; planning and politics) appear, by and large, amenable towards and sometimes positively encourage increased locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Altogether, then, characteristics of a plurality of factors seem to provide a f a i r l y convincing rationale supporting the f e a s i b i l i t y , i f not the current likelihood, of increased office locational f l e x i b i l i t y for federal 138. departments in Vancouver. Many federal departments' offices i t appears do not need to be located downtown and could be relocated in Regional Town Centres i n support of, and i n accordance with, the G.V.R.D. Livable Region Plan. The fe a s i b i l i t y of at least partial decentralization of federal offices from downtown to Regional Town Centres i s found, in the comparative evalua-tion of fifteen sample departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y , to be most evident in Supply and Services, Solicitor-General, Transport, Public Works, Energy, Mines and Resources, Unemployment Insurance, Manpower and Immi-gration, and Fisheries and Environment departments. Of the fifteen depart-ments examined, this study indicates these should be considered f i r s t as candidates for total or partial relocation from downtown to Regional Town Centres by federal o f f i c i a l s and/or urban planners. These federal o f f i c i a l s and urban planners can, of course, by their future actions and plans affect the f e a s i b i l i t y and chances for locating new and relocating existing depart-ments' offices outside downtown in Regional Town Centres. The most signi-ficant "internal" factors inhibiting federal departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y — prestige and tradition — are primarily psychological. Urban planners, to some extent might mitigate the downtown constraining influence of prestige by encouraging through physical design alternate prestigeous non-downtown office centres as Regional Town Centres are meant to be. But a change in attitude i s also required of federal as well as provincial and private office location decision-makers. A consciousness in federal o f f i c i a l s that prestige or "federal presence" i s not the result solely of a downtown office location i s required. Certainly the importance of prestige vis a vis other locational c r i t e r i a and metropolitan objectives needs to be debated for the federal organization as a whole and in a l l departments in Vancouver. Urban planners, i t seems, can do l i t t l e about tradition as a factor inhibiting either public or private office decentralization from Vancouver's 139. downtown. Again, i t is chiefly, in the case of the federal government, departmental o f f i c i a l s whose consciousness must be raised i f this factor's influence i s to be reduced. Even so, not much can be done about tradition except to have decision-makers recognize and "break i t " when i t is necessary or appropriate to do so. The actions and plans, both of urban planners and federal o f f i c i a l s , can and w i l l alter the "climate" affecting office locational f l e x i b i l i t y i n Vancouver. It i s clear that the city centre constraining influences of "general" and "special" accessibility and the office market make these the major external factors to be faced i f Regional Town Centres are to become reality. In this light the proposal to link downtown by Light Rail Transit with Burnaby "Metro-Town" and New Westminster Regional Town Centres and other transportation system improvements which could maintain or even increase the levels of both "general" and "special" accessibility downtown, need to be thoroughly re-examined by urban planners. Considering the importance of "special" accessibility and associated "social" infra-structure contacts to both private and public offices and an apparent large c r i t i c a l mass of con-centrated offices required for i t to develop, the proposal to eventually construct seven Regional Town Centres also needs to be reviewed. A strategy to concentrate planning efforts on development of one much more significant Regional Town Centre even a r i v a l to downtown, serviced by L.R.T. but not linked to downtown might better satisfy both the Region's and federal depart-ments' planning and office location aspirations. With respect to the office market, urban planners in Vancouver have already hampered i t s growth in the city centre and Broadway by lessening permitted densities, though "bonusing" has been Instituted. Further office 140. restrictions downtown and/or positive incentives for locating and developing offices outside downtown in Regional Town Centres may, however, be required to lessen the office markets' downtown concentration and metropolitan domi-nation. Within Vancouver's federal departments a consciousness needs to be raised of their collective a b i l i t y to influence the geographical pattern of the office market in which they are integral components. Associated with this is the need to assess the extent market variables should influence depart-ments' office location decisions. The contribution of the office market towards creating a "climate" for increased, rather than decreased office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in the future i s to a significant degree dependent on the actions of the federal government i t s e l f . If in the future the federal government departments collectively take leading office demand and/or supply roles, their office market leverage might be employed to direct private office supply and demand to Regional Town Centre sites. In conclusion, the analysis of federal office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y shows that while l i t t l e federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y has so far been demonstrated perhaps the f e a s i b i l i t y of federal departments' office location decisions which could reinforce locally formulated plans, yet not harm the effieiency of their office operations, would seem considerable. 141. CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH I. SUMMARY This study began by asking the broad question, "What is the f e a s i b i l i t y of office location decisions which could reinforce locally formulated plans and help ameliorate urban problems, yet not harm the efficiency of their operations?" In the Vancouver context the question has current and particu-lar significance. One class of federal and provincial government activities — office activities — are counted on by the G.V.R.D. to locate in, and act as development catalysts for, the "Livable Region's" Regional Town Centres. In i t s particular Vancouver "office" context an important step towards an-swering the broad opening question required that f i r s t the locational f l e x i -b i l i t y of senior government office activities be investigated. In limiting and focussing the study further only the offices of the federal government were chosen for analysis. The research began with a literature review in Chapter 2 to find out the factors which possibly influence the location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y of offices as well as approaches and methods employed in the assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . From the literature ten inter-related factors and their possible influences on office locational f l e x i b i l i t y were d i s t i l l e d . The influences of six factors — the nature of office activity/work; the frequency, character and pattern of contacts; prestige; office establishment size and organizational structure; the rate of growth and organizational change; and inertia or tradition — were seen as largely unique and "inter-nal" to each office organization. The affects of the remaining four factors — "general" and "special" accessibility downtown; the state of telecommuni-cations and transportation systems; the state of the metropolitan office 142. market; and metropolitan planning and p o l i t i c s — were viewed as givens and therefore largely "external" to any single office or office organization. Three approaches to assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y — the monitoring of office dispersal from downtown; determination of the perceived need for downtown office locations; and "Direct Linkage Analysis" — were identified in the literature. The general findings resulting from application of these approaches were presented and contributed to the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of ten location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y influencing factors. Two methods which comprise the Direct Linkage Approach — Communica-tions Questionnaire and Communications Desk Diary Surveys — seemed the most adequate methods so far developed to objectively and specifically establish which offices (and office types) really need to be downtown and which do not. Their examination, however, revealed theoretical shortcomings and significant practical implementation d i f f i c u l t i e s particularly with respect to Communi-cations Desk Diary Surveys. These d i f f i c u l t i e s suggested investigation of federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver should begin with development of a more appropriate and more easily undertaken methodology for use by urban planners and office location decision-makers. The emphasis of this study thus became methodology and "process" directed rather than "findings" oriented as was thought before the literature review was under-taken . The methodology developed and applied to analysis and assessment of Vancouver's federal government office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Chapter 3 arose from the literature review findings. The ten factors influencing office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Chapter 2 form a framework or "Criteria Check L i s t " for examination and evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . In the framework, relevant characteristics of the six "internal" 143. factors were delimited and their l i k e l y locational f l e x i b i l i t y influences postulated. Analysis of a l l ten factors and their locational f l e x i b i l i t y influences on federal government offices in Vancouver using the Criteria Check L i s t was undertaken i n three stages. In the f i r s t stage, quantitative and qualitative analysis of "internal" factors was based largely on existing written information collected for each of fifteen sample federal departments. Development of "Working Departmental Composite Sheets" and employment of "indicators" of, and surrogate measures for, locational f l e x i b i l i t y i n f l u -ences resulted in six quantitatively based comparative office locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluations. These evaluations respecting each internal factor were revised by the researcher on a qualitative re-examination of the infor-mation for each department. The attachment of points to locational f l e x i -b i l i t y categories (i.e. most locationally flexible, locationally flexible, locationally inflexible and most locationally inflexible) and weightings to different combinations of internal factors enabled overall comparative evalu-ation for the six internal factors taken together. In the second stage of the analysis, information gleaned largely from library research on the four "external" factors of the Criteria Check Lis t in the Vancouver context was examined qualitatively. An overall evaluation or synopsis of the "climate" for federal departmental office locational f l e x i b i l i t y in Vancouver was thereby presented. The third stage of the analysis attempted to bring together the findings of a brief examination of federal departments' office location in Vancouver and the locational f l e x i b i l i t y findings derived from the two stages of loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y assessment using the Criteria Check L i s t . Some overall conclusions on federal departments' office locational f l e x i b i l i t y , the 144. factors influencing i t , and i t s significance for federal locational decision-makers and urban planners in Vancouver were drawn. II. FEDERAL OFFICE LOCATION AND LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN VANCOUVER; CONCLUSIONS The conclusions which arise from the federal government office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y findings of this study are presented at the end of Chapter 3. Three major conclusions bear repeating here. 1) The f e a s i b i l i t y of federal departments' office location decisions which could support the G.V.R.D.'s Regional Town Centres scheme yet not harm the efficiency of their operations seems considerable though l i t t l e federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y has so far been demonstrated. 2) Prestige; tradition; "general" and "special" accessibility; and the office market are the most prominent factors lessening federal office loca-tional f l e x i b i l i t y . If realization of Regional Town Centres is to be cata-lysed by federal departments' offices these four factors would seem the major hurdles to be overcome. 3) Of the fifteen federal departments examined the office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y was found to be greatest for Supply and Services; Transport; Public Works; Energy, Mines and Resources; Unemployment Insurance; Manpower and Immigration; and Fisheries and Environment departments. These departments downtown offices, accordingly, should be considered f i r s t as candidates for total or partial relocation from downtown Vancouver to Regional Town Centres. 145. III. METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS The Criteria Check List provides a much needed framework for clear thinking on, and examination of, the broad range of inter-related factors which affect office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y . Such a framework is needed and is of value because many office location decision-makers, urban planners, and researchers never carefully, objectively and openly examine the rationale behind their office location; decisions. Use of the Criteria Check List i n the process of office location decision-making and/or planning would encourage them to do so. It could, at the same time, reveal office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y presuppositions held by decision-makers and planners and put their validity to the test. At the very least i t would show what information is lacking and is useful for consideration before office location and locational f l e x i b i l i t y decisions or judgements are made. The method developed in this study — using the Criteria Check Lis t to evaluate the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of federal departments' downtown offices — is an attempt to conform to the c r i t e r i a for an "ideal" method of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y assessment lai d out in Chapter 2. These c r i t e r i a included: 1) the maintenance of a reasonable degree of objectivity and specificity; 2) consideration of a broad range of factors affecting locational f l e x i b i l i t y ; 3) ease and speed of undertaking so as to contribute to the planning and/or locational decision-making process; 4) applicability to offices of a l l kinds; 5) based on work already done and 6) amenability and adjustability to changes, new findings and new situations. The framework, i t s e l f , i s based on work already done and in i t s appli-cation is adjustable and amenable to changes, new findings and new situations. Indeed, i t i s unlikely to be applied in quite the same way in every situation. The degree the method meets other aspects of the "ideal" depends on the nature, quality, and availability of information. This in turn, depends on 146. the number and size of offices being evaluated and whether the evaluation is made by an "insider" or "outsider". A l l these, together, determine the level of organizational detail (i.e. departmental, office establishment, section, unit, "blocks of work") and the certainty with which i t is possible and/or appropriate to assess office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . For this study a l l that was required was a general and comparative federal office locational f l e x i b i l i t y analysis and assessment at the broad departmental and overall "federal" level of organizational detail. This study was limited by the large number and size of departments and their offices included, the uneven nature and quality of information obtained from departments, and the fact the researcher was an "outsider". For urban planning purposes the degree of specificity and objectivity achieved in this study l i k e l y would prove sufficient. Though the method was not easily nor quickly undertaken, this i s largely attributable to the exploratory nature of the process of methodology development and application. Incorporation of the Criteria Check List method of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y analysis and/or assessment into the office location decision-making process by office organization o f f i c i a l s may meet the "ideal" method cr i t e r i a of Chapter 2 to a considerable degree. A quite specific and exact type of assessment in terms of the number of jobs and specific organizational units considered or not considered "location fle x i b l e " would seem possible. It might, furthermore, be done quite quickly and easily by organizational "insiders". An organizational "insider" or team of "insiders" could obtain detailed existing information (e.g. organization charts and other documents, candid interview statements) not easily available or perhaps unavailable to "outsiders" and use "inside" knowledge that would lessen reliance on " i n d i -cators" and increase the accuracy of quantitatively based locational 147. f l e x i b i l i t y assessments. As well, more informed qualitative revisions of these assessments and attachment of suitable weights to both "internal" and "external" Criteria Check Lis t factors may be feasible. An assessment team would, as stages of the evaluation become more general, subjective and judgemental, increasingly involve and/or include the office location decision-makers themselves. The figures and statements recorded on Departmental Com-posite Sheets (see Appendix IV and V) could be reviewed, disputed and revised by team members and decision-makers. The inclusion of the Criteria Check List method of locational f l e x i -b i l i t y assessment in the federal government office location decision process in Vancouver could aid implementation of the Federal Land Management Policy. It would provide a rational basis with which the perceived locational needs and preferences of departments could be called into question. Currently office location decision-makers are dispersed in the various departments and agencies of the federal government in Vancouver. A team, using the Criteria Check List to assess the office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of departments in Vancouver should include these decision-makers and be headed by Department of Public Works o f f i c i a l s responsible for overseeing the assessment process. Department of Public Works o f f i c i a l s should head the team because the department i s charged with servicing the space requirements of "client" departments. In such a position, while not able to dictate office location, the Department of Public Works influence on departments' office location choices would l i k e l y increase. The results of the assessment process might be presented to the Treasury Board Advisory Committee on Fed-eral Land Management for consideration. The committee might act to arbitrate any disagreements not settled by the assessment team. 148. The approach to analysis and assessment of office locational f l e x i -b i l i t y , represented by the Criteria Check List method, can, in summation, be said to have i t s major strength in promotion of a re-examination (or perhaps examination for the f i r s t time) of office location rationale. Its major weak-ness, at the same time, i s an abundance of simplifications and assumptions which make the evaluation of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y a f i c t i t i o u s exer-cise. The assumptions and simplifications of the Criteria Check List method-ology were made f a i r l y clear in the course of i t s explanation (in the f i r s t part of Chapter 3) and need not be discussed at length. Chiefly, i t should be noted that in application of the Criteria Check List method, the "internal" factors and their influences are assumed inde-pendent of one another and of "external" factors. Of course, the influences of both internal and external factors on locational f l e x i b i l i t y are only partly a matter of how they affect office organizations independently of each other. It i s primarily a matter of how they affect offices in combination with one another that i s important and which this evaluation, through a point system and factor weighting, was only marginally, i f at a l l , successful in delimiting. "Indicators" of internal factors' effects; surrogate measures of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y influences; and "locational f l e x i b i l i t y categories" are elements of the methodology which limit i t s usefulness by lessening the specificity and certainty with which locational f l e x i b i l i t y evaluations can be made. Ultimately, the methodology, for a l l i t s simplifications and assump-tions, i s limited by the available information. For urban planners wishing to analyse and perhaps assess the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of "private" offices there is no guarantee that information such as organization charts w i l l be obtainable. 149. A l l of the above leads to the conclusion that the Criteria Check List methodology, though far from perfect and perhaps at this stage charitably described as "unpolished", has potential for further development and refine-ment as an alternative tool for objective analysis and assessment of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y by urban planners and office location decision-makers. IV. DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Many directions and fields for further research have emerged from this study. Most Important i t i s clear that the validity of each of the six internal factors of the Criteria Check Lis t needs to be tested by empirical research. That i s to say further inductive, detailed and painstaking explora-tion into the factors — their relationships and inter-connections — need to be undertaken to identify, understand and constructively use the factors that are actually relevant to offices. Careful observation of the behaviour of office organizations in dealing with changing influences of the factors (individually and collectively) i s also required. With respect to the Criteria Check List methodology i t s e l f , a further testing with application to private offices i s in order. As well an indepth analysis and assessment using the Criteria Check List of the office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of a single government department or large private office orga-nization downtown should be undertaken. Use of the Delphi Technique for establishing factor weights and use of a computer for data and factor analysis are possible methodological improvements which should be considered in future use of the methodology. Following from, and complementing a Criteria Check Lis t analysis of federal offices a c r i t i c a l examination of the current and actual federal office location decision-making process needs to be undertaken. This could include a 150. case study of a specific office location decision. It would establish what factors or c r i t e r i a are considered and how the location decisions reinforce or conflict with current local, regional and federal plans and policies. Other worthwhile avenues for research include: the study of the costs and benefits of downtown versus non-downtown office locations; the examination of social infra-structural linkages of office organizations; and examination of office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of government offices in the "regional" rather than metropolitan context. Finally, further development and appli-cation of Communications Questionnaire and Desk Diary surveys should be carried out in Canada. 151. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allpass, J. et a l "Urban Centres and Changes in Centre Structure". Urban Core and  Inner City, Proceedings of the International Study Week, Amsterdam 1966. Archer, R. W. "The Efficiency of the Sydney Central D i s t r i c t " . Australian  Planning Institute Journal 7:3 (July 1969) 64-76 Armstrong, V. B. The Office Industry. Cambridge M.I.T. Press 1972. Baker, L.L.M. and Goddard, J. B. "Inter-sectoral contact flows and office location". Patterns  and Processes of Urbanization, Pion London, 1972. Bannon, M. J. "The Potential Impact of Telecommunications on Office Block Location". Irish Times Annual Review, 1972. "The Office Industry - A Facet of the White Collar Revolution" Geographical Review, (pp. 404-406) 1975 Studies of Office Linkages and Location in Ireland. Paper to Conference on Interorganizational Communications, 1974. (ed.) Office Location and Regional Development: Proceedings of a Conference, An Foras Forbartha, 1973. "The Changing Role of the Office in the Industrial Firm" Management, Vol. xxi, 1974. —Office Location in Ireland: The Role of Central Dublin An Foras Forbartha, 1973. A Study of Person-to-Person Communications in the Department of Health. (A Report prepared for the Department of Public Service on behalf of the Irish Government and the European Economic Community.), An Foras Forbartha Teoranta, 1976. Bartlett School of Architecture "The Growth of Offices in London". Transactions of the  Bartlett Society. University College, London, 1967-68. Berkley: Center for Business and Economic Research The Suburbanization of Administrative Offices in the San  Francisco Bay Area. Research Report #10. Real Estate Research Program, 1957. 152. Breckenfeld, G. "Downtown Has Fled to the Suburbs" Fortune Magazine, October 1972. Burrows, M. and S. Town Office Services in the East Midlands: An Economic and  Sociological Study. East Midlands Economic Planning Council, 1971. Burtenshaw, D. et a l i a "Office Decentralization - 10 years' Experience" Surveyor, 22 February, pp. 22-5, 1974 and 1 March, pp. 21-3, 1974. Carruth, E. "Manhattan's Office Building Binge" Fortune LXXX:5 pp. 114-117 (October 1969). "New York Hangs Out the For Rent Sign, Houston is Where They're Moving". Fortune Magazine, February 1971. Chapin, F. "Taking Stock of Techniques for Shaping Urban Growth" Journal of A.I.P. XXIX, No. 2, p. 8 (May 1963). Cherry, C. "Electronic Communication: A Force for Dispersal" O f f i c i a l Architecture and Planning, Vol. 23, No. 9 Sept. 1970 C i v i l Service Commission The Analysis of Organizations in the Government of Canada Ottawa 1964. Connell, S. A Review of Communications Survey Methodologies, Communications Studies Group, University College London. (Mimeo) Conservation of Human Resources Project The Corporate Headquarters Complex in New York City Columbia University, New York, December 1977. Coughlin, R. E. "Programming Public F a c i l i t i e s to Shape Community Growth" A Place to Live. The Yearbook of Agriculture 1963. U.S.A. Department of Agriculture. Washington Government Printing Office, pp. 460-468, 1963. 153. Cowan, P. The Office, A Facet of Urban Growth. Joint Unit for Planning Research, University College London and London School of Economics. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. London, 1969. Custerton, A. "Telecommunications: the Key to the Non-City?". Built  Environment, pp. 403-406, July 1973. Daniels, P. W. "Office Decentralization from London: . Policy and Practice" Regional Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, 1969. Office Location: An Urban and Regional Study, George Bell and Son, London, 1975. Davey, J. A. The Office Industry in Wellington: A Study of Contact Patterns, Location and Employment. Wellington: Ministry of Works 1972. Diamond, D. "The Location of Offices". Town and Country Planning, London February 1971. Downtown Idea Exchange "The Office Function" Part I 18:7 (April 1, 1971) and Part II 18:10 (May 15, 1971) . Economist Intelligence Unit Limited A Survey of Factors Governing the Location of Offices in the  London Area. Prepared for the Location of Offices Bureau, London, 1964. Elks, J. "Offices - Direction and Development". Architect and Surveyor, Vol. 16, March/April 1971. Elton, M. et a l An Approach to the Location of Government. Institute of Management Science London, 1970. (Mimeo) Evans, L. "Dispersal of Government Departments". Town and Country Planning, Vol. 29, March 1961. Faeey, M. and G. Smith Offices in a Regional Centre: A Study of Office Location in Leeds. Research Paper #2, L.O.B. London 1968. 154. Fernie, J. "Office Linkages and Location: An Evaluation of Patterns in Three Cities" Town Planning Review, January 1977. Fisher, F. M. "The Boom in Office Buildings". Urban Land Institute Technical  Bulletin, No. 58, Washington, D.C., Urban Land Institute, 1967. Foley, D. The Suburbanization of Administrative Offices in the San Francisco  Bay Area. Res. Report No. 10, Real Estate Res. Program, Berkley: Center for Business and Economic Research, 1957. Gad, H. R. Central Toronto Offices: Observations on Location Patterns and  Linkages. City of Toronto Planning Board, Oct. 1975. Goddard, J. B. Contact Studies and Office Decentralization from London and  Stockholm. To be published in 1976, Public Policy, (ed.) J.C. Coppock and J. Sewell, Pergamon Press, Oxford. et a l . Office Linkages in Central London, Report to the South East Economic Planning Council. 1971. : Office Location in Urban and Regional Development. Oxford University Press, 1975. —• "Multivariate Analysis of Office Location: Patterns in the city centre: A London Example". Regional Studies, Vol. 2 Pergamon Press, 1968. "Office Communications and Office Location: a Review of Current Research". Regional Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, Dec. 1971. —Office Linkages and Location: A Study of Communications and Spatial Patterns in Central London. Pergamon Press, Oxford (Progress in Planning Series) Vol. 1, part 2, 1973. and D. M. Morris. The Communications Factor in Office Decentra- lization. To be published by Pergamon Press. •and Roger Pye. Telecommunications and Office Location. Communi-cations Studies Group Joint Unit for Planning Research. Depart-ment of the Environment 1975. 155. Gottman, J. "Urban Centrality and the Interweaving of Quaternary Ac t i v i t i e s " Ekistics, Vol. 29, No. 174, 1970. "Why the Skyscraper?" Geographical Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, 1966. "The New Geography of Transactions and Its Consequences for Planning". Application of Geographic Techniques to Physical  Planning. (1974) Government of Canada Royal Commission on Government Organization. J. Grant Glassco, 1962. Vancouver-Victoria Telephone Directory, 1975. Organization of the Government of Canada, (Information Canada) 1975 and 1976. Graves, D. "Reported Communication Ratios and Informal States in Managerial Work Groups" Human Relations, 25, 159-170, 1972. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Town Centres: A Policy Report. November 1975. The Livable Region 1976/1986: Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver, 1975. Living Close to Work: A Policy Study for the Vancouver Region. Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1974. Greenwood, D. Intra-Metropolitan Office Location - An Examination of Land and  Building Costs as Criteria in the Decision to Locate Offices, MBA Thesis U.B.C., 1973. Gutstein, D. Vancouver Limited. James Lorimer and Company, Toronto 1975. Haig, R. M. Regional Survey of New York and i t s Environs. N.Y. (N.Y. Reg. Plan, Vol. 1) 1927. Hall, P. G. "The Office Industry" New Society, No. 286, p. 419, 1968. 156. Hall, R. K. "The Movement of Offices from Central London". Regional Studies Vol. 6, pp. 385-92, 1972. "The Vacated Offices Controversy" J. of Town Planning Institute 56, pp. 298-300, 1970. Hammond, E. "Dispersal of Government Offices: A Survey". Urban Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1967. Hardman, H. The Dispersal of Government Work from London (The Hardman Report) London H.M.S.O. cmnd. 5322, 1973. Hardwick, W. Vancouver, Collier-MacMillan Canada, Ltd. 1974. Hawkes, D. "Offices: A Digest of Data" Working Paper No. 10. Land Use  and Built Form Studies, University of Cambridge, 1968. Hedlin Menzies and Associates Ltd. Downtown Vancouver 1969: An Economic Study. Vancouver, B. C. January 1970. Herrera, P. "That Manhattan Exodus". Fortune, pp. 106-109, June 1967. Hesseling, P. "Communication and Organizational Structure in a Large Multi-National Company", in Herald, G. (eds). Approaches to the  Study of Organizational Behavior, Travistock, London, 1970. Hoover, E. M. "The Evolving Form of the Metropolis". Issues in Urban Economics, ed. Harvey S. Perloff and Lowden Winge, Jr. John Hopkins Press, 1968. and R. Vernon. Anatomy of Metropolis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1959. Horwood, E. M. and R. R. Boyce Studies of Central Business District and Urban Freeway Development, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1959. "The Office Park: A New Concept in Office Space" Industrial  Development, 15 September 1965. 157. Isard, W. Location and Space Economy: A General Theory Relating To  Location, Market Areas, Land Use, Trade and Urban Structures. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1956. Janstch, E. Technological Forecasting in Perspective. Paris, O.E.C.D., 1967. Kernaghan, W.D.K. and A.M. Willms Public Administration in Canada, Second edition, Methuen Publications, 1970. Kral l , H. "Offices" the Issues Restated". Built Environment, Vol. 1, No. 7, pp. 468-9, October 1972. Lazerfield, P. F. and N. W. Henry "The Application of Latent Structure Analysis to Quantitative Ecological Data" in F. Massarik and P. Ratoosh (Eds.). Mathematical Explorations in the Behavioral Services, Dorcey Press, III. Lichtenberg, R. M. One-Tenth of a Nation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1960. Ling, A. "Office Building in the Big Cities" Town and Country Planning, Vol. 24, Oct. 1956. Location of Offices Bureau Commuters to the London Office: A Survey. London 1966. Offices in a Regional Centre: Follow-up Studies on Infrastructure and Linkages (Research Paper No. 3). Based on a Report by M. J. Croft, 1969. Location of Offices Bureau Report, 1974/75, London. McKeever, J. R. Business Parks. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Tech. Bulletin 65, pp. 7-44, 1970. McLoughlin, J. Control and Urban Planning. Faber and Faber Limited, London, 1973. 158. Manners. G. The Office in Metropolis: An Opportunity to Shape Urban America. (Harvard: Joint Centre for Urban Studies, Working Paper 22, 1973) Mardberg, B. A Computer Programme for Green's Solution of Latent Class Analysis  applied to Latent Profile Analysis. University of Bergen, 1974. Marriott, 0. The Property Boom. (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1967) Meier, R. L. A Communications Theory of Urban Growth. Harvard: M.I..T. Press, 1962. Merriman, R. H. "Office Movement in Central Christchurch: 1955 to 1965", New  Zealand Geographer, Vol. 23, p. 123, 1967. Moore, R. B. "Downtown Office Building Versus the Office Park Complex". Skyscraper Management, No. 54 June 1969. Murphy, R. The Central Business Di s t r i c t . Clark University, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, New York. Ontario Public Works Summary of the Proceedings of the Government Accommodation Seminar, Toronto, 1971. Prendergast, C. A. "Decentralization: the Pattern Changes" Investors Chronicle Public Service Canada Careers (pamphlet). 1976. Public Works Canada Accommodation Sheets (December 1975 and December 1971) . Xeroxed copies obtained from Program Planning and Coordination Section, Vancouver. Federal Requirements Study in the Greater Vancouver Regional Dis t r i c t. Ottawa, 1974. -Greater Vancouver Forward Plan. A Long Range Office Accommodation Strategy. Pacific Region, February, 1977. 159. Rannells, J. The Core of the City. Columbia University Press, N.Y., 1955. "Approaches to the Analysis of the City Centre". Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 27, p. 17, 1961. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver Real Estate Trends in Metropolitan Vancouver. 1974-1975, 1975-1976. Regional Plan Association Growth and Location of' Office Jobs in the United States and New  York Region: Summary Report. New York, N.Y. Rhodes, J. and A. Kan Office Dispersal and Regional Policy. Cambridge at the University Press, 1971. Richardson, H. W. Urban Economics. Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondworth, Middlesex, England, 1971. Samuels, A. "Control of Office and Industrial Development Act 1965", Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, Vol. 29, No. 5, Sept./Oct., pp. 374-384, 1965. Schermer Associates Policy Recommendations for the Location of Federal Work F a c i l i t i e s  in the National Capital Region. Washington, D. C. National Capital Planning Commission, 1970. Seligman, D. "The Future of the Office-Building Boom", Fortune, pp. 84-88, March, 1963. Shultz, E. and W. Simmons Offices in the Sky. The New Bobbs - M e r r i l l Company Inc. Indianapolis - New York. 1955. Statistics Canada Federal Government Employment in Metropolitan Areas. Catalogue No. 72-005, 1971 and 1976. Street, E. and G. Ledgerwood "Central Government Office Location and Design: Recent Experience in Government Management of Land in Ci t i e s " Plan Canada, September 1977. 160. Takahashi, D. L. C.B.D. Office Location Patterns - A Vancouver Case Study. M.A. Thesis in the School of Community and Regional Planning, U.B.C. 1972. Teitz, M. B. "Toward A Theory of Urban Public F a c i l i t y Location" Papers of  the Regional Science Association, Vol. XXI, pp. 35-44 Thorngren, B. "External Economies of the Urban Core" Urban Core and Inner City ed. University of Amsterdam Sociographical Department. Proceedings of the International Study Week. B r i l l , 1967. "Communications Studies for. Government Offices Dispersal in Sweden" in Bannon, M.J. (ed.) Office Location and Regional  Development (Dublin: An Foras Forbartha, 1973). and Goddard, J. B. Groupings of Government Agencies Through An Analysis of Contact Flows, Economics Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics. 1973. Toby, J. "Regional Development and Government Office Location in the Netherlands" in Bannon, M.J. (ed.) Office Location and  Regional Development (Dublin: An Foras Forbartha 1973). Town and Country Planning Association The Paper Metropolis: A Study of London's Office Growth London, 1962. Treasury Board Treasury Board Circular. Circular No.: 1975-80 T.B. No. 736554 Federal Land Management. Vancouver City Planning Department Non-Downtown Office Space, December, 1973. -Office Space Demand in Downtown Vancouver 1961-1980. Summary Report and F u l l Technical Report, August 1973. "Employment in Vancouver" Quarterly Review, pp. 15-19, October 1975. "Downtown Employment Projections 1976-1986". Quarterly Review pp. 18-21, July 1975. "Growth of Downtown Employment". Quarterly Review, pp. 24-31 October 1974. 161. Van Halten, Dr. M.H.H. (ed.) Urban Core and Inner City. University of Amsterdam Socio-graphical Department. Proceedings of the International Study Week, 11-17, Sept. 1966. B r i l l , 1967. Vernon, R. „ , „ The Changing Function of the Central City, New York: Committee for Economic Development. 1959. Wabe, J. S. "Office Decentralization: An Empirical Approach Urban Studies, III, 1 February 1966. Wheaton, W. L. "Public and Private Agents of Change in Urban Expansion" in (Webber, M. (ed.)) Explorations into Urban Structure, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1964. Wise, A. "The Impact of Electronic Communications on Metropolitan Form" Ekistics, pp. 22-31, July 1971. 162. BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) Written Materials Obtained from Sample Federal Departments National Revenue (Taxation) - Organization Chart - Internal memo regarding decentralization - Booklet: "Inside Taxation" National Revenue (Customs and Excise) - Organization Chart for Customs - Drawn organization chart for Excise Manpower and Immigration - Detailed Organization Chart - Booklet: "Before Integration: a Staff Guide to UIC/M & I" - Mimeo: "Programs and Services" - Newspaper Clipping "The Emigration of Immigration." Vancouver Sun. Unemployment Insurance Commission - General Organization Chart Fisheries and Environment - Organization Charts for Atmospheric Environment, Environmental Management, Environmental Protection - 1090 W. Pender - Building Telephone List - Environment Canada Annual Reports - Fisheries and Environment Canada "Guide to Services: British Columbia and the Yukon". - Booklet: "The Work of the Environmental Protection Service" - Letter: "Inland Waters Directorate" from Olive Churchill Transport Canada - Detailed Organization Chart (Marine Services) - General Organization Chart (C.A.T.A.) - Address by Herb Buchanan to Marine Underwriters of Western Canada - Paper: "D.O.T. Marine Responsibilities, Role and Operations" - Paper: "The Historical Development of the Coast Guard Function in Canada" - Newspaper Clipping: "Coast Guard is Looking at the Future", Toronto Globe and Mail, 1977. 163. Public Works - Detailed Organization Chart National Health and Welfare - Detailed Organization Chart (Medical Services) - Paper: "A Brief History of Medical Services" Indian and Northern Affairs - Detailed Organization Charts, Regional and District Offices - Departmental "internal" telephone listings - Annual Reports Supply and Services Canada - Detailed Organization Chart - Services section, Regional and District offices Department of Justice - Detailed Organization Chart - Paper: "Canada Department of Justice" - Paper: "Providing a Legal Service Within a Public Administration System" Department of Veterans' Affairs - Detailed Organization Charts Ministry of the Solicitor-General - Detailed Organization Chart - Regional Office Penitentiary Service - Newspaper Clipping: "No One Seems to Know Who Runs Canada's Penitentiaries" - Vancouver Sun, 1977. Post Office - General Organization Chart: Western Regional Office - Detailed Organization Chart: District Office APPENDIX I Federal Occupational Categories (from Occupational Classification Manual: Census of Canada, 1971) — Executive Category i s composed of occupational groups engaged in the development of government policy, the direction of government pro-grammes and related functions in which there i s a requirement for exceptional a b i l i t y in u t i l i z i n g resources or i n i t i a t i n g or modi-fying administrative functions. — Scientific and Professional Category i s composed of occupational groups engaged in the application of a comprehensive body of knowledge acquired through university graduation in fields specified in group definitions, and of professional groups in which membership in Canada i s generally controlled by legally established licensing bodies. Some of the fields included within this occupational category are: auditing, biological sciences, dentistry, economics, sociology and st a t i s t i c s , engineering and land survey. — Administrative and Foreign Service Category is composed of occupational groups engaged i n the planning, execution, conduct and control of programmes serving the public interest, the p o l i t i c a l and economic relations between Canada, other countries, and the requirements of internal management in the public service of Canada. — Technical Category i s composed of occupational groups engaged in the conduct of analytical, experimental and investigative duties in 165 the natural, physical and social sciences, and the preparation, inspection and measurement of biological, chemical and physical substances and materials, and the design, construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of complex equipment, systems and process and the performance of similar technical data. Administrative Support Category i s composed of occupational groups engaged in the preparation, transcribing, transmitting, systema-tizing and maintenance of records, reports and communications of manual processes, or by operating various machines and equipment, as i n the direct application of rules and regulations. Operational Category i s composed of occupational groups engaged in the performance of a craft or of unskilled work in the fabrication, maintenance and repair activities i n the operation of machines, equipment and vehicles, and in the provision of postal protective, correctional, personal and domestic services. Other category i s composed of employees of a department or a depart-mental corporation or administrative, regulatory and special fund for whom no occupational breakdown i s available to our sources of information. : ;-v FEDERAL:-::.:: OBCLASSjEICATLOK i.: PYRAMID I 166. S C I E N T I F I C ! • . +• TRDFCSSIDMAI, . ADmiN lSTRATWf f FORCI&M S E R V I C E , T E C H N I C A L . 1 , SUPPORT I i ' . , . ..... - p - I A D A H W I S T R A T W E . . - ! . -SUPPORT • i r * ' O P E R A T I O N A L - -• ( F XF.Ct rPA/E. C A T E G O R Y " ': ADmiMlSTRATWe + FoRB6tJiSKfo£. APfY l lk i I S T P R A T W F T S U P P O R T , : ADmiMSTWiTiME 5«\/te> . : ft5 : ccmmuNicftTioi\) , ; 1 / a y a a - : : . . •; ADfOlNteiRftTiyE TRAIWEE. . '. ,' .... . ftT : .Dft-ift fRoccSs i rOki-, OA ic: . " ! GSfflftTCR. SY&TPWS ftWliNiSTPATiV' C 6 Cft. , , CATEGORY... .. i. .. F I N A N C I A L . ADmiNISTPVATlOiO ! . F l . .. O F F I C E : eevj iem'BOTvorgRATio^ O E . ACTUARIAL SCiE JUCE r . : A C . I N F O R M A T I O N ;SRV<£S> . . „ . . : . — X S . . . . BOOKKEePlNvr EQUIP. tfawro'RL & E C j :A&AicpLTuke : ; ' . ; : .J..'"..- ACr .; OR&ftAifZATiON 4-«1ETHtoDS , OPO _... CAICUWINC- EQUifi" C E O j W W r r E d x i R E . ' -t-.TOUJN P L N C - ftH- P£. . , . PUPUiATir/i- £(§UlP Cf tRATOI i . D C L AUbiTihiCb-;. ... All i PROfrRAjYl} ,<VDmiN16TnjOFiOI\) : .. Ptr\. . SECI^rifiRlAU'^THvJCC-flftPrttC, T V P i N C r ' ST , B iCLc6 : cAL. Sci£K<G£S> . ... B X . . fURCI+fVJlMG- .t- S U P P L Y . . . . . . P f r c k s n i S T R y . , .. .: i C H l»£L-FARt- ? R 0 6 f t A m S W P ; TELEPHONE. OPEWulOhJ , T t . ] DiN 'TiVrUY ? £ . c o m w e A c e . . . . ! . C O ! j EeoM , S'OCloWrY', .fSTSPSTlCS' c S , FORE IGN S A V C S . ! riPERATIOWAl CATEGORY E D TM^LATIOIv ) • . . • .:. 7 f t , . COAAecTlOiUAL. : • ao i i K i E sw IJ fr. + LAV©. S W M &y £Ni ; FIRE F l f r l t T E f t S : FPL soc- 1 T E C H K I I C A L C A T E f r O R Y (^ENEtoL- UOu-'R. 1-TAPE 'S &L '•. "^ ' iVKVEY : ; . - "' : 5Uft f t l f tC f lAPT OPERATIONS. | AO G E N E R A L S e r v i c e s • i F O O U I L A V I A T I C I O I N S P E C T O R S '. .; ' C A X BLOfr S E R V I C E S . . ; &ib ' H R ftlRTRAfRC. CONTROL- : A X F O O D S E R V I C E S ; ; H E . ' DRIFTING + 1LLUSTRAT/01M. . ; | D P ' LAUNDfc/ . S P R V IOi^> L A S : . L A W / ; ' v : ' ; ', LA . E L E C T R a J l c S . . ; E L i.!TjfV>AY Saa-'CE . . . I S . EWfrtMeeWKikV v-SCIENniFIC SUPPORT E 6 - flH4)OELLAiJaws feKeoNftL-ijivce mPS TECHN ICAL i & T . fWHECn^p-K^TOClAL-SRVCS P R C mp PY . fifliiYiMty. f f i o o i i c T S l N ^ p E c T i o h j : . PI , HEVTlUC", PCW6I5L O?EPATI0Ay HP-Pc . ftVDIO OPER.'vTlOi-i : . : • . RO .H06P|TAi_ ^ERUiCFi . . lis : PSYc\tUjcc-Y ' •. !.. PS •SHIPS O F R C t R . 6 I . : .. ;. so RDSTALQPc&YTfepiS i. IPO • •ScUEfv/TlPIC. R-kfrULATlOl'O : ; $ H I P 6 P I L O T S ' ; : ' S P PRINTING- 6PEMTICN.5 pa s c i e M T t R c •fvesEftacH-. . . ' S O C I A L , S C I E W C E . S U P P O R T .. 6 1 .. REVciuiUS.. POSTAL. d E M n n w s . .fit^EARcH scidxTlST R £ S ; T E C H N I C A L INS^ECTIOIO . , j T I ' S R . , 'R,FSeflRcrt ' ft- •, REM j EPUCffTIOlO AL £\){»POfl.T.-... EU. „, . .SHIPS cAEWJ i ; 1 SoaAt- uucr<K. .. : ••SW. . . . . . . . . . . i . ... . . . . . . . - '. Soc^LWfcl-FARE. . '! •sew) !. : i 1 : i I • : 1 " 1 j j CHAPLAIN) C M j UNIV£(;'ilTyTeAa^i\i<3r- ' U T :• • • j VETERINARY 6 C i e W C E . vs •' ' ' . ' ' ' . ' ' 1 : 167 I; INDICATORS F A C T O R v N A T U R E O F A C T I V I T Y / W O R K DEPART-MENT, SEC-TION OR UNIT TITLES FEDERAL OCCUPA-TIONAL CA-TEGORIES AND GROUPS OCCUPAi-TIONAL TITLES JOB OR TASK DESCRIP-TION KEY WORDS OBSERVA-TION NGN-OFFICE • WORK J . C P . Technical' Category A l l But ' Dr a f t i n g and I l l u s -t r a t i o n and S o c i a l Science Support A l l Operational r Category Custodian 1 Maintain,' Inspect, Construct, E x p e r i -ments ' Non-Officij Estab- . lishraent i . e . Warehouse Labora-tory PRIMARILY NON-ROUTINE D i r e c t o r ' s O f f i c e I n v e s t i g a t i o n s A p p r a i s a l Some A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Services J . C P . A l l i n the "Executive" Cate-gory. Employees of High Status i n S c i e n t i f i c and Pro-f e s s i o n a l and Admin-i s t r a t i v e Services Categories I n v e s t i g a t o r s A d v i s i n g , Evalu-a t i n g Planning • Make Decisions Manage Programs O r i e n t a t i o n L e v e l Design Conference Rooms Large O f f i c e s Enclosed O f f i c e s ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUATERNARY SECTOR Audit ( B a s i c , F i e l d , Business) Long Room (Customs) A u d i t o r s i V a u l t s ASSOCIATED WITH NON-OFFICE WORK. Marine Operations (Customs) Terminal Operations J . CP. Occupations L i s t e d i n S c i e n t i -f i c and P r o f e s s i o n -a l Category: AG, BI, CH, ED, FO, LA, MD.'NV, PC, SE, SW, VS F i e l d Work PRIMARILY RESEARCH Program Planning ( P u b l i c Works) Most of the Occupa-t i o n a l T i t l e s L i s t e d i n Scien-t i f i c and Profea7 s i o n a l Category. Analyse, Plan. 1 . t. S c i e n t i f i c D i s -plays Maps L i b r a r y PRIMARILY ROUTINE Finance, Records, Stores, Personnel Management Se r v i c e s , A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Word Processing, C l e r i c a l U n i t , Accounting ' J . C P . A l l Occupa-t i o n a l T i t l e s L i s t e d i n Adminis-t r a t i v e Support A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Foreign Service Category—Low Status Employees. S c i e n -t i f i c and Pro f e s -s i o n a l C a t e g o r y — Some AU B. C l a s s i f i e r C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r . R e t r i e v e r and Records C l e r k C a l c u l a t i n g Equip-ment Operator. Cashiers Entry Processing C l e r k . . AccountinR C l c r k n Typing Pools C a l c u l a t i n g Equip-ment • Computers * Abbreviations: J. CP.-Federal Job Classification Pyramid 168. FACTOR: FREQUENCY, CHARACTER, AND PATTERN OF CONTACTS x Depart-ment, Section and Unit Titles Federal Occupa-tional Catego-ries and Groups Occupa-tional Titles Observa-tions Report and Inter-, view-State-ments Tele-phone and Lobby Direct-ory Listing Clients FREQUENT PUBLIC • CONTACTS Appeals, In-formation, .Manpower/U.I. C. Centers .Licences D is t r i c t Of-f ice "Long Room" (Customs) Information Off icer Cashier Many People Observed Leav-ing .and Enter-ing Off ice Es-tablishment. Chairs for Waiting, Coun-ters for Serv-ing. V is ib le Ground f loor Location. Mention of Frequent Contacts Listed Under-Frequently Called Num-bers Listed in Lobby Directory Public At Large Signif icant " Segments of General Public INFREQUENT PUBLIC CONTACTS Regional Off ice J . C P . Execu-tive Category Employees of High Status in Sc ient i f i c and Profes-sional Admin'. • Category Regional Director- . General Opposites of the Above. Mention of Infrequent Contacts Opposites of the Above Other Depts. Small Segment of General Publ ic. FREQUENT NON-DOWNTOWN CONTACTS Regional Director 's Office J . C P . Executive Category Some V is i to rs Mention of Signif icant "Non-Down-town" Contact Sources FREQUENT CONTACTS WITH NON-OFFICE WORK -Operations Mention of Contacts . with Non-Office Work. NATURE OF ACTIVITY/WORK PRESTIGE PROBABLY "ORIENTATION" CONTACTS Primarily Non-Routine Activity/Work High Occupational Status PROBABLY "PLANNING" CONTACTS Middle Occupational Status .• PROBABLY "PROGRAMMING" CONTACTS ' . Primarily Routine Off ice Activity/Work Low Occupational Status' *Abbreviations: J. CP.-Federal Job Classification Pyramid 169. FACTOR^ PRESTIGE DEPARTMENT, SECTION AND UNIT TITLES FEDERAL OCCUPATIONAL. CATEGORIES AND GROUPS OCCUPATIONAL - TITLES OBSERVATION HIGH ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS R e g i o n a l Headquar-t e r s or D i s t r i c t O f f i c e D i r e c t l y R e s p o n s i b l e to Ottawa New B u i l d i n g . Large " P l u s h " E s t a b l i s h -ment . E x p e n s i v e F u r n i s h i n g s . . MIDDLE ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS D i s t r i c t O f f i c e R e s p o n s i b l e to R e g i o n a l Headquar-t e r s or Another D i s t r i c t O f f i c e -O l d e r B u i l d i n g S m a l l e r more U t i l i -t a r i a n E s t a b l i s h -ment LOW ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS L o c a l o r "Metro" O f f i c e R e s p o n s i b l e to R e g i o n a l Head-q u a r t e r s o r to a D i s t r i c t O f f i c e F u n c t i o n a l , Small O l d , Perhaps Cramped "Qu a r t e r s . HIGH , OCCUPATIONAL STATUS Any Employee i n the E x e c u t i v e (SX) Cat e g o r y . J . C P . S c i e n t i f i c and P r o f e s s i o n a l C a t e g o r y : ES4; F I 4, 5, 6; EG-ESS '8, 9; EN-SUR 5; AU 5, 6; ED 4,. 5, 6; MOF 4-, 5; EN-ENG 6, 7; AR 7; WP 5, 6; CO 4. Admin, and F o r e i g n S e r v i c e .Category: PE 4, 5; AS 6 , 7 ; PG 3, 4; PM 5, 6; IS 4,'5; AS 5. Admin.. Support: C R 6 ; ST-6. Head ...; R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l • Deputy D i r e c t o r -G e n e r a l R e g i o n a l Manager R e g i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r 1 R e g i o n a l C h i e f R e g i o n a l C o l l e c t o r -' Customs MIDDLE OCCUPATIONAL, STATUS A l l Not A l r e a d y I n c l u d e d as High S t a t u s i n the S c i e n t i f i c . a n d P r o -f e s s i o n a l C a t e g o r y . Admin, and F o r e i g n S e r v i c e : PE 2, 3; IS 2, 3; PG 2; WP 2, 3, 4; ED 2, 3; ES 1, 2, 3; PM 3, 4; FI 2, 3; AS 3, 4. Ad-min. Support: CR 5; ST-SCY 4,-5; T e c h n i c a l C a t e g o r y : OD 4, 5; GT 4; EG-ESS 7, 8, 9. Manager • ' • '• • S e c t i o n Head Group Head A d m i n i s t r a t o r • C h i e f A s s i s t a n t . . . . R u l i n g s . . . . S e n i o r . O f f i c e r LOW OCCUPATIONAL .STATUS A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and F o r e i g n S e r v i c e : PE 1; AS 1; PM 1, 2; IS 1. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Support: CR 2, 3; DA 3; OE-DE l j STY-SCY 2, 3; CR 4. T e c h n i c a l C a t e g o r y : EG-ESS 4, 5, 6; PD 3; GT 3. S e c r e t a r y T y p i s t T r a i n e e A s s i s t a n t . . . . C l e r k J u n i o r C a s h i e r Emry. P r o c e s s i n g . C l e r k * Abbreviations: J. CP. Federal Job Classification Pyramid 170. FACTOR = OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT SIZE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE # OF EMPLOYEES . REPORT AND INTERVIEW STATEMENTS LARGE OFFICE ~ ESTABLISHMENT SIZE Over 100 Employees MEDIUM OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT SIZE Between 20 - 100 Employees SMALL OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT, SIZE Less Than 20 Employees /-• - • • • CENTRALIZED/ MULTI-TIERED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE •'. . • ' Mention of Centralized Organizational Structure Complicated Organization Charts DECENTRALIZED/ UNCOMPLEX ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Mention of Decentralized Organizational Structure Straight Forward Organization Charts FACTOR= RATE OF GROWTH AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 3#£ INDEX OF GROWTH REPORT AND INTERVIEW STATEMENTS - GROWTH % Change in Total Employment 1971 - 1976-% Change In Total Office.Space 1971 - 1976 % Change in Off ice Space Outside . Downtown 1971 - 1976 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Mention of Locational and Organizational Change i .e . Mergers, Spl i ts *Abbreviations:. J.C.P.-Federal Job Classification Pyramid FACTOR: TRADITION REPORT AND INTERVIEW STATEMENTS TRADITION . . . ; • ( Number of Years Department and/or Its Components . Have- Been Located Downtown 172. APPENDIX II List of Persons Interviewed National Revenue (Taxation) Mr. Broughton (Public Affairs Officer) Mrs. D. Ellinor (Public Affairs Officer) National Revenue (Customs and Excise) Ms. Cathy Caper (Personnel Department, Customs) Mr. Lionell Trottier (Classification Officer, Excise) Manpower and Immigration Mr. Ted Lloyd (Regional Manager Personnel Services) Unemployment Insurance Commission Mr. Tony S. Strachan (Regional Public Relations Advisor) Mr. A.S. Hayre (Regional Chief, Administrative Services) Fisheries and Environment Canada Mr. George Grant (Senior Classification Officer, Personnel) Mr. M.E. Tinck (Regional Administration Officer, Atmospheric Environment) Mr. G.B. Armstrong (Regional Director, General Environmental Management Service) Mr. G. Chambers (Regional Administration Officer, Environmental Protection Service) Transport Canada Mr. Dutchak (Regional Personnel Officer, Marine Services) Mr. D.G. Hosgood (Regional Planning Manager, C.A. T.A.) Mr. Reg Vose (Regional Classification Officer, C.A.T.A.) Mr. A.R. English (Regional Personnel Administrator, C.A.T.A.) Public Works Canada Mr. Gary Webster (Forward Planning Officer, Program Planning and Co-ordination) Mr. H. Radke (Head Classification and Staff Relations, Personnel) National Health and Welfare Mr. R.J. Fraser (Regional Personnel Advisor) Indian and Northern Affairs Mr. Alain Cunningham (Planning, Regional Office) Supply and Services Canada Mr. John Stone (Personnel Services Administrator) Department of Justice Mrs. Anne Beresford (Librarian) Department of Veterans' Affairs Mr. Pyne (Manager, Administrative Services) Ministry of the Solicitor-General Mr. Ron Zapp (Regional Classification Officer) Post Office Mrs. Betty Amos (Public Affairs, District Office) Mrs. Florida Town (Public Affairs, Regional Office) Arthur Erickson Architects Larry McFarland 174. APPENDIX III COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHTS Point System Most Flexible Flexible Inflexible Most Inflexible 8 Points 6 Points 4 Points 2 Points Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES 42 SOLICITOR-GENERAL 36 Most Locationally TRANSPORT 34 Flexible ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 32 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 30 MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 30 Locationally FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 30 Flexible PUBLIC WORKS 30 JUSTICE REVENUE (TAXATION) POST OFFICE 28 28 28 Locationally Inflexible HEALTH AND WELFARE 26 VETERANS' AFFAIRS 26 Most Locationally INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS 26 Inflexible REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 22 175. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO NATURE OF ACTIVITY/WORK, FREQUENCY CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF CONTACTS AND PRESTIGE Point System Most Most Flexible Flexible Inflexible Inflexible Nature of Activity/Work ) Frequency, Character and) ^ 2^ Pattern of Contacts ) Prestige ) Size and Organizational ) Structure ) Rate of Growth/Change ) Tradition ) Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES TRANSPORT SOLICITOR-GENERAL 66 54 52 Most Locationally Flexible UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION POST OFFICE PUBLIC WORKS 48 48 46 Locationally Flexible REVENUE (TAXATION) 44 MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 44 Locationally FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 44 Inflexible ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 44 REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 42 HEALTH AND WELFARE INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS VETERANS* AFFAIRS 40 40 40 Most Locationally Inflexible JUSTICE 34 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO TRADITION, FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF CONTACTS AND PRESTIGE 176. Point System ^ 3 Most Most Flexible Flexible Inflexible Inflexible Tradition ) Frequency, Character and) 1 9 fi Pattern of Contacts ) 4 Prestige ) Size and Organizational ) Structure ) Rate of Growth/Change ) ° ° 4 * Nature of Activity/Work ) Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL TRANSPORT 64 54 50 Most Locationally Flexible PUBLIC WORKS 46 ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES POST OFFICE MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 46 46 44 Locationally Flexible FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 44 REVENUE(TAXATION) 42 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 42 Locationally JUSTICE 38 Inflexible REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 38 INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS VETERANS' AFFAIRS HEALTH AND WELFARE 36 36 36 Most Locationally Inflexible 177. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO PRESTIGE Point System Prestige Most Flexible Flexible 16 12 Inflexible 8 Most Inflexible A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES TRANSPORT SOLICITOR-GENERAL 50 40 38 Most Locationally Flexible MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 36 POST OFFICE 36 Locationally ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 36 Flexible UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 36 PUBLIC WORKS REVENUE (TAXATION) 34 34 Locationally FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 32 Inflexible INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS 32 REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) JUSTICE 30 30 Most Locationally HEALTH AND WELFARE 30 Inflexible VETERANS' AFFAIRS 28 178. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO TRADITION Point System Most Flexible Flexible Inflexible Most Inflexible Tradition 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 48 44 40 Most Locationally Flexible TRANSPORT PUBLIC WORKS 38 38 Locationally Flexible JUSTICE 34 FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 34 MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 34 VETERANS' AFFAIRS 32 POST OFFICE 32 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 32 Locationally Inflexible REVENUE (TAXATION) HEALTH AND WELFARE INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 30 28 28 26 Most Locationally Inflexible 179. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF CONTACTS Point System Most Flexible Flexible Most Inflexible Inflexible Frequency, Character and Pattern of Contacts 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL TRANSPORT 50 42 40 Most Locationally Flexible PUBLIC WORKS 38 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 36 Locationally FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 36 Flexible POST OFFICE 36 REVENUE (TAXATION) MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 34 34 Locationally Inflexible ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 34 HEALTH AND WELFARE 30 INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS JUSTICE VETERANS* AFFAIRS 30 30 30 Most Locationally Inflexible REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 26 180. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO NATURE OF ACTIVITY/WORK Point System Most Flexible Flexible Most Inflexible Inflexible Nature of Activity/Work 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL TRANSPORT 50 42 42 Most Locationally Flexible ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 38 PUBLIC WORKS 38 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 36 FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 36 Locationally Flexible VETERANS' AFFAIRS REVENUE (TAXATION) HEALTH AND WELFARE MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION POST OFFICE 34 32 32 32 32 Locationally Inflexible INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS JUSTICE REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 30 30 24 Most Locationally Inflexible 181. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO SIZE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Point System Most Flexible Flexible Most Inflexible Inflexible Size and Organizational Structure 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES TRANSPORT SOLICITOR-GENERAL 46 40 40 Most Locationally Flexible ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 40 PUBLIC WORKS MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION JUSTICE 38 36 36 Locationally Flexible HEALTH AND WELFARE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 34 34 32 Locationally Inflexible INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS 32 REVENUE (TAXATION) VETERANS' AFFAIRS POST OFFICE 30 30 30 Most Locationally Inflexible REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 24 182. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO RATE OF GROWTH AND CHANGE Point System Most Flexible Flexible Most Inflexible Inflexible Rate of Growth and Change 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES 50 SOLICITOR-GENERAL 44 Most Locationally FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 38 Flexible TRANSPORT 38 PUBLIC WORKS 38 REVENUE (TAXATION) 36 MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 36 Locationally ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 36 Flexible JUSTICE 36 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION POST OFFICE INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS 32 30 30 Locationally Inflexible HEALTH AND WELFARE VETERANS' AFFAIRS REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 28 28 24 Most Locationally Inflexible 183. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO NATURE OF ACTIVITY/WORK AND FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF CONTACTS Point System Most Flexible Flexible Most Inflexible Inflexible Nature of Activity/Work ) Frequency, Character and) Pattern of Contacts ) 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES TRANSPORT SOLICITOR-GENERAL 58 48 48 Most Locationally Flexible PUBLIC WORKS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES POST OFFICE 44 42 42 40 40 Locationally Flexible REVENUE (TAXATION) MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION VETERANS' AFFAIRS HEALTH AND WELFARE 38 38 38 36 Locationally Inflexible INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS JUSTICE REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 34 32 28 Most Locationally Inflexible 184. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO PRESTIGE AND TRADITION Point System Most Flexible Flexible Inflexible Most Inflexible Tradition ) Prestige ) 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of Locational F l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL 56 48 Most Locationally ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES 44 Flexible TRANSPORT 44 MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION PUBLIC WORKS POST OFFICE 40 40 40 Locationally Flexible FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 38 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 38 Locationally REVENUE (TAXATION) 36 Inflexible JUSTICE 36 VETERANS' AFFAIRS REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 34 34 Most Locationally INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS 34 Inflexible HEALTH AND WELFARE 32 185. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF LOCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF 15 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS BASED ON SIX INTERNAL FACTORS GIVING DOUBLE WEIGHTING TO SIZE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RATE OF GROWTH/CHANGE Point System Most Flexible Flexible Inflexible Most Inflexible^ Size and Organizational ) Structure ) Rate of Growth/Change ) 16 12 A l l Other Factors Index of locational f l e x i b i l i t y = a+b+c+d+e+f SUPPLY AND SERVICES SOLICITOR-GENERAL 54 48 Most Locationally Flexible ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES JUSTICE PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORT MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION 44 44 44 44 42 Locationally Flexible UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION 40 FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT 40 HEALTH AND WELFARE 36 REVENUE (TAXATION) 36 INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS 36 Locationally Inflexible VETERANS' AFFAIRS POST OFFICE REVENUE (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) 32 30 26 Most Locationally Inflexible 186. APPENDIX IV TWO EXAMPLES OF "FINAL" DEPARTMENTAL COMPOSITE SHEETS Public Works Canada 1971 1975/76 '...% # of office est. downtown 3 5 66% # of office est. outside downtown - 1 100% amount of office space 25,823 46,462 80% amount of office space downtown 25,823/100% 46,462/100% amount of office space n/downtown - — # of employees in Vancouver 443 486 10% # of office employees in Vancouver ? # of office employees in downtown Vancouver 1 300/62% Locational F l e x i b i l i t y Categorization "Most Locationally Flexible" SUMMARY The major internal factor l i k e l y to function as a constraint on office locational f l e x i b i l i t y of the department is the need or desire for prestige. A l l staff downtown are in Regional headquarters offices and over half occupy high and middle status positions. On the whole the characteristics of Public Works with respect to the other five internal factors seem amenable to increased locational f l e x i b i l i t y . A significant feature of i t s downtown work is i t s region-wide orientation and association with non-office operations outside downtown. Face-to-face contacts with the general public downtown are 187. minimal as the department's clients are other federal departments. While the major departmental office establishment downtown i s large, a decentra-lized organizational structure would seem to permit the geographical separa-tion of components currently centralized downtown. Finally the rate of departmental growth has been brisk and the length of time the department has been located downtown (between 20 and 30 years) less than for many other departments and sections of departments. GENERAL The Department of Public Works is generally responsible for the manage-ment and direction of federal public works in Canada. Specifically i t is responsible for the construction and maintenance of public buildings, the acquisition of leased accommodation for public use, construction and main-tenance of wharves, piers, roads;and bridges, and improvements of harbours and navigable channels. In Vancouver, Pacific Regional Headquarters for the department, almost a l l office staff work in five downtown office establish-ments. The department, however, operates a trades shop (Vancouver Trades Shop) downtown and maintains a small survey office in Steveston. THE NATURE OF DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITY/WORK DOWNTOWN While most of i t s clients (other federal departments) are headquartered downtown, the department's work i s region-wide. A significant amount of travelling of staff, particularly in Design and Construction and Realty (Property Services and Administration Divisions), outside downtown Vancouver would seem required as part of the work, i.e. supervising, inspecting, negotiating and consulting. Other downtown office staff routinely administer the department's non-office work, e.g. building repair, maintenance and 188. security, project construction, river dredging, land surveying. Personnel and Finance Administration staff also seem involved with f a i r l y routine duties. THE FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF DEPARTMENTAL CONTACTS DOWNTOWN Like most departments, face-to-face contacts with the general public downtown are infrequent. Contacts within the department are lik e l y f a i r l y routine in character. Clear exceptions are the weekly Regional Management and Regional Strategy Committee meetings and meetings with other federal departments' staff (clients, private construction, realty) and architectural firms. It i s l i k e l y most of these contact sources have offices in or near downtown convenient to Public Works. PRESTIGE Prestige i s the factor which seems most lik e l y to inhibit the depart-ment's office locational f l e x i b i l i t y . The department, as Regional Head-quarters, has high status. Also, over half of Public Works', staff occupy high and middle status positions. The department, therefore, i s grouped with those considered "most inflexible" with respect to prestige. SIZE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE While 85 percent of the department's office staff are currently accom-modated in one large office establishment downtown (this quantitatively suggests "comparative locational i n f l e x i b i l i t y " ) the decentralized organiza-tional and decision-making structure of the department indicates this may be unnecessary. The "Design and Construction" division, for example, might possibly be geographically separated from the rest of the department. There fore, considering structure and as well size, the department i s best cate-189. gorized as location flexible relevant to other sample departments. RATE OF DEPARTMENTAL GROWTH AND CHANGE The department's recent spurt of growth (particularly the past rapid increase in downtown office space occupied) and plans for relocation down-town (to the Crown-owned Begg Building) justify at least i t s temporary classification among departments considered locationally flexible with respect to this factor. TRADITION The department has been headquartered downtown for between twenty and thirty years. This no doubt i s sufficient time for a tradition of downtown location to emerge. If, however, length of time downtown increases tra-dition's strength progressively, the department can be classed "location flexible" with respect to tradition as other departments have been located downtown longer. 190. Revenue Canada - Taxation 1971 1975/76 '% # of office est. downtown 4 6 50% # of office est. outside downtown 0 0 4 6 amount of office space 125,648 202,773 61% amount of office space downtown 125,648 202,773/100% 61% amount of office space n/downtown 0 0/0% -# of employees in Vancouver 610 948 51% # of office employees in Vancouver 610 948/100% 51% # of office employees in downtown Vancouver 610 948/100% 51% Locational F l e x i b i l i t y Categorization "Locationally Inflexible" SUMMARY Considered as a whole Revenue (Taxation) is given a comparative c l a s s i -fication as "locationally inflexible". At an office establishment level of detail, however, this categorization i s misleading because work, primarily of a different nature, is concentrated in two separate and large office estab-lishments downtown. In the largest, activity predominantly involves the largely routine but labour intensive task of processing taxation forms. Major sections undertaking this work are already planned to relocate outside down-town by 1981. Business auditing is the major work performed by staff in the second largest office establishment downtown. Its non-routine nature and close associations with the business community downtown suggests i t s locational 191. i n f l e x i b i l i t y . The long departmental tradition of downtown location and the large size of i t s office establishments may reinforce, particularly, the loca-tional i n f l e x i b i l i t y of auditing and related sections as well, perhaps, as for sections not currently planned to relocate from downtown. Factors which could suggest the f e a s i b i l i t y of continued decentralization of the department (beyond what is currently planned) are i t s rapid growth, the comparatively infrequent face-to-face contacts with people outside the depart-ment of most sections, i t s decentralized organizational structure and the pre-dominance of low occupational status employees in many sections currently slated to remain downtown. Finally with relocation of sections already planned department o f f i c i a l s disposition to consider a regional town centre location (perhaps in Surrey) for further decentralization may be most favourable. GENERAL Revenue Canada (Taxation) is charged with assessing and collecting taxes, contributions and premiums under law for residents of Canada. Under Canada's self-assessment tax system the main responsibility of the department is to ensure the accuracy of self-assessments and uniform observance of the law. A l l Revenue Canada (Taxation) staff (almost 1,000) in Vancouver are currently housed in six office establishments downtown. In this study the department is special because i t i s the only one where definite future plans for relocation of office staff downtown were revealed. Construction of a Taxation Data Centre (for i n i t i a l processing of taxation forms formerly sent to Ottawa) in Surrey (outside two proposed Regional Town Centre sites) i s underway. In 1981 this centre w i l l be converted to a "Taxation Service Centre" and house at least one third of the staff currently working downtown. 192. THE NATURE OF DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITY/WORK DOWNTOWN In Revenue Canada Taxation's main office establishment (the largest of a l l federal department office establishments downtown) a great body of employees perform routine processing work In "Verification and Collections" and "Admin-istrative Services" divisions. It i s primarily these divisions which w i l l be relocated in Surrey. The department's "Audit Support" section, in another office establishment downtown, also undertakes f a i r l y routine work. The notable and sizeable unit not currently being considered for relocation in Surrey i s the Audit Division. It constitutes the department's second largest office establishment downtown. While some of this auditing work is complex and non-routine, the important aspect seems to be i t s close association with large business enterprises and their entrepreneurs downtown. The important work, from an auditor's viewpoint, should be close at hand as auditing i s conducted at the place of business. The extent to which the nature of this work really restrains federal auditors downtown, however, needs detailed study. The work of the "Field" and "Office" audit divisions should, speci-f i c a l l y be examined. THE FREQUENCY, CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF DEPARTMENTAL CONTACTS DOWNTOWN By and large face-to-face contacts with the general public downtown are infrequent. A few sections of the department (Assessing, Regional and District Appeals) l i k e l y have face-to-face contacts regularly and these may be convenienced downtown. It is possible that "orientation" and "planning" type contacts, of the department, occur most frequently in the "Directors Office", "Special Investigations", "Appeals" and "Audit" sections of the department. Such "contacts", and the extent they are necessary, especially with the Justice Department and business o f f i c i a l s downtown possibly lessens 193. the locational f l e x i b i l i t y of these departmental sections. A l l things con-sidered the great amount of routine work in the department l i k e l y generates a great number of routine or "programmed" (day-to-day) contacts that could occur just as well outside downtown. There exist, as well, significant contact sources outside downtown and outside Vancouver (the Vancouver Taxa-tion District includes West Central and Northern B. C. and the Yukon) necessi-tating frequent travelling of supervisors, administrators, investigators and auditors both in and beyond metropolitan Vancouver. PRESTIGE The responsibility for a large, populous and important d i s t r i c t and i t s large number of employees in Vancouver suggest, despite i t s "Distr i c t " designation, that the department desires and needs high organizational prestige. The quasijudicial Western Regional Taxation Appeals office located downtown may, particularly, require accommodation and locational "status". Perhaps lessening the organization's need or desire for prestige is the large proportion of full-time and seasonal employees possessing low occupational status. SIZE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The vast majority of Revenue (Taxation) employees work in large office establishments which could impede locational f l e x i b i l i t y of sections planned to remain downtown. Of the department's organizational structure as a whole i t can claim to be decentralized, multi-tiered but quite straight-forward. It no doubt enables the partial minority move to Surrey to be undertaken. 194. RATE OF DEPARTMENTAL GROWTH AND CHANGE The comparatively rapid growth of the department from 1971 - 1976 both in terms of employees and amount of office space occupied as well as loca-tional changes between 1971 and 1976 and planned in the future (i.e. partial relocation of the department in Surrey) suggest accommodation and location problems are much on department o f f i c i a l s minds. Now and for the next few years, their disposition to consider a regional town centre location (perhaps in Surrey) for office sections currently planned to remain downtown, may be most favourable. TRADITION The department has always been located downtown. In Vancouver i t s existence spans five decades. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094355/manifest

Comment

Related Items