Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Townhouse design characteristics and residential satisfaction Fitzpatrick, Roderick Dudley Wayne 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 F58.pdf [ 5.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094896.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094896-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094896-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094896-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094896-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094896-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094896-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094896-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094896.ris

Full Text

TOWNHOUSE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS AND RESIDENTIAL SATISFACTION by RODERICK DUDLEY WAYNE F1TZPATRICK B.A., University of British Columbia, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in '"" THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1980 © Roderick Dudley Wayne Fitzpatrick lin presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require-ments for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that per-mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. Date: September, 1980 A B S T R A C T T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o e v a l u a t e t o w n h o u s e d e s i g n i n t e r m s o f u s e r p r e f e r e n c e s a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , t o a s s e s s d e s i g n p r o v i -s i o n s a s t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e p r e f e r e n c e s a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s . S i n c e t h e c o n d o m i n i u m c o n c e p t w a s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i n 1 9 6 6 , t h e c o n d o m i n i u m m a r k e t h a s r e s p o n d e d t o c h a n g e s i n t h e h o u s i n g m a r k e t g e n e r a l l y . I n t h e G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r a r e a , o n e o f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s h a s b e e n t o d e s i g n t o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p -m e n t s t o a t t r a c t a b r o a d s p e c t r u m o f p o t e n t i a l p u r c h a s e r s , i n c l u d i n g f a m i l i e s b o t h w i t h a n d w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n . T h e t w o h y p o t h e s e s a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s s t u d y a r e : 1 . T h e d e s i g n o f t o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p m e n t s h a s b e e n p r e d i c a t e d o n t h e n e e d t o m a r k e t t h e p r o j e c t , w i t h i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n b e i n g g i v e n t o t h e d e s i g n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e o c c u p a n t s . 2 . T o w n h o u s e s a r e d e s i g n e d t o m e e t t h e n e e d s o f s m a l l h o u s e h o l d s w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n a n d , a s s u c h , d o n o t s a t i s f y t h e d e m a n d f o r m o d e r a t e l y p r i c e d f a m i l y h o u s i n g . T h e r e s e a r c h i s b a s e d o n 2 9 1 r e s p o n s e s t o a s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e d a t a w e r e a n a l y s e d u s i n g m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . T h e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n r e v e a l e d c o l i n e a r i t y a m o n g v a r i a b l e s , s o , f a c t o r a n a l y s i s w a s u t i l i z e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e p a t t e r n o f v a r i a t i o n i n t h e d a t a . F i v e f a c t o r s e m e r g e d , a l l o f w h i c h a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r m s o f g e n e r a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . iii 1. Basic Provisions - essential and universal design characteristics. 2 . Private Amenities - non-essential, primarily unit features. 3. Public Indoor Amenities - non-essential indoor common facilities. 4. Family Accommodation - unit and project characteristics for children. 5. Storage Provisions - provision, size and location of storage spaces. The factor loadings were utilized to rank design features accord-ing to their contribution to the explanation of the variation in general satisfaction. Similarly, univariate statistics were employed to rank these same features in terms of their provision in townhouse projects. A comparison of the rank orderings revealed substantial differences be-tween the design preferences of townhouse residents and the design characteristics of townhouse developments. No clear pattern emerged, however, to suggest that marketing considerations influenced design decisions at the expense of residents' requirements. Although the first hypothesis was rejected, developers should note that in several im-portant respects, they have misjudged the preferences of those they serve. For purposes of the second hypothesis, the procedures were re-peated utilizing only those responses from family households. From this analysis, four factors emerged. These factors were the same as four of the factors revealed by the earlier analysis, although only the first two are statistically significant in terms of general satisfac-tion. 1. Basic Provisions 2 . Private Amenities 3. Public Indoor Amenities 4. Storage Provisions i v T h e d a t a w e r e a g a i n s u b j e c t e d t o r a n k - o r d e r i n g a s h a d b e e n d o n e f o r t h e t o t a l s a m p l e . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e r a n k o r d e r s r e v e a l e d t h a t i n a n e f f o r t t o p r o v i d e a p r o d u c t w h i c h w o u l d b e a c c e p t a b l e t o a b r o a d s p e c t r u m o f u s e r s , d e v e l o p e r s f a i l e d i n m a n y r e s p e c t s t o s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s . I n d e e d , a c o m p a r i s o n o f f a m i l y a n d n o n - f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r a m o n g f a m i l y r e s p o n d e n t s t h a n a m o n g n o n - f a m i l y r e s p o n d e n t s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s s t u d y i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . T h i s s t u d y c o n c l u d e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e t o w n h o u s e c o n d o m i n i u m c o n c e p t , i n a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e s i g n p r e f e r e n c e s o f s p e c i f i c g r o u p s r e s u l t e d i n e x p r e s s e d d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n a m o n g f a m i l y r e s p o n d e n t s . T o i n c r e a s e s a t i s f a c t i o n a m o n g m e m b e r s o f t h i s a n d o t h e r g r o u p s , t o w n h o u s e p r o j e c t s m u s t b e d e s i g n e d , d e v e l o p e d a n d m a r k e t e d f o r a s p e c i f i c a n d h o m o g e n e o u s p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s c h a l l e n g e s d e v e l o p e r s a n d p l a n n e r s t o d e f i n e t h e p r e f e r e n c e s o f p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p s a n d t o d e v i s e a p p r o p r i a t e t o o l s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e m e t t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e r e s i d e n t a n d t h e d e -v e l o p e r a l i k e . V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Housing Market 1 1.1.1 Investors/Developers 2 1.1.2 Legislative Influences 3 1.1.3 Increasing Demand and Rising Costs 4 1.1.4 Senior Government Reactions...: 4 1.1.5 Demographic Realities. 6 1.1.6 The Market Softens 6 1.1.7 The Housing Market: A Summary 7 1.2 Focus on Townhouses 7 1.2.1 Previous Studies 8 1.2.2 The Present Study: A Different Approach 9 Notes to Chapter I 10 II OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 12 2.1 Two Hypotheses.... 12 2.1.1 Marketing vs. Occupancy Requirements 12 2.1.2 Townhouses are for Adults 13 2.2 Scope of the Study 14 2.3 The Questionnaire 15 2.4 Sampling Methodology 17 2.5 Statistical Procedures 18 2.5.1 UBC SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 19 2.5.2 UBC BMDP: 1R - Multiple Regression 19 2.5.3 UBC BMDP:AM 19 2.5.4 UBC BMDP:4M - Factor Analysis 19 Notes to Chapter II 22 III FACTOR ANALYSIS 23 3.1 Factor Labels 24 3.2 Factor Interpretation 25 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued Chapter Page 3.2.1 Basic Provisions 26 3.2.2 Private Amenities 27 3.2.3 Public Indoor Amenities 28 3.2.4 Family Accommodation 29 3.2.5 Storage Provisions 29 3.2.6 Factor X 30 3.3 The Factors and General Satisfaction 31 3.4 The Factors and the Hypotheses 33 3.4.1 Design Decisions and Resident Requirements 33 3.4.2 Townhouses and Household Structure 40 Notes to Chapter III 48 IV CONCLUSIONS,.;/,. 49 4.1 General Summary 49 4.2 Implications for Planning and Development 50 Notes to Chapter IV 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY 59 APPENDICES A, The Survey Questionnaire 65 B List of Variables and Coding 71 C Factor Analyses - Total Sample 76 D Factor Analyses - Family Households 79 vii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figure 1.1.3 Average MLS Prices and Condominium Development 1966-1972 5 Table 2.4 Summary of Sampling Data by Geographic Area 20 Table 3.3 Multiple Regression Analysis - Factor Scores Independent, GENSAT Dependent 32 Table 3.4.1 Preferences and Provision - A Rank-Ordering 36 Table 3.4.2.1 Multiple Regression Analysis For Family Households - Factor Scores Independent, GENSAT Dependent 42 Table 3.4.2.2 Preference and Provision: Rank-Ordering for Family Households 43 Table 3.4.2.3 Satisfaction of Family and Non-Family Households 46 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation for the assis-tance and informed criticism of Dr. H. C. Hightower in the design and preparation of this study. His interest, suggestions and encouragement made my work much easier and much more enjoyable. My thanks also go to Professors M. Seelig and B. Wiesman for their assistance in formulating the research design and offer-ing advice at various stages in the preparation of the study. The assistance of Mr. Kevin Johnstone of the U.B.C. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administra-tion in providing Land Registry Data on Condominium Development is also gratefully acknowledged. The willing cooperation of the 294 townhouse residents who responded to the questionnaire deserves a particular mention since it is their assistance upon which this study depended. My special thanks go to my wife, Connie, and three children, Gary, Jeffrey and Ryan to whom, in recog-nition of the sacrifices they have made toward its completion, this study is dedicated. 1 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Condominium development in the Greater Vancouver area has wit-nessed changes during the course of its brief history. These changes, ranging from the subtle to the pronounced, are responses to short and long term changes in the housing market generally. One of these re-sponses is the tendency to design townhouse developments to attract a broad spectrum of potential purchasers. The purpose of this study is to evaluate townhouse design in terms of user preferences and, in particular, to assess design provisions as they relate to the preferences and requirements of family households. Since the condominium concept was introduced into British Columbia with the proclamation September 1, 1966 of the Strata Titles Act, a total 1 of 1,441 residential strata plans representing 32,787 units had been re-gistered in the municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (G.V.R.D.) up to December 31, 1978. Of these, 1,359 projects and 29,355 units were built since January 1, 1972. Thus, although the statutory authority had been present for thirteen years, fully 94.3 per cent of all projects and 89.5 per cent of all units developed in the G.V.R.D. were registered in the last seven years. 1.1 THE HOUSING MARKET To understand condominium development, it is essential to appreci-ate the significant processes which have shaped the housing market 2 generally during the last fifteen years. The rate and nature of 2 condominium development in large part reflect initial reluctance on the part of investors and developers to venture into this untried market, changes in federal and provincial legislation which rendered the condo-minium concept more attractive to investors and developers, the in-creasing demand for housing wrought particularly by rapid population growth, changing household structure and rising family incomes, and the unprecedented escalation in land prices. Each of these factors will be discussed in terms of its impact on condominium development in the Greater Vancouver Region. 1.1.1 I nvestors /Developers After the Second World War and into the late 1960's, private in-vestors and developers concentrated their efforts almost exclusively in single family development and the multi-unit rental market. The con-cept of a fee simple interest in individual units of a multi-unit develop-ment was virtually unknown in British Columbia. It is not surprising that developers were slow to use the opportunities created by proclama-tion of the Strata Titles Act. Indeed, the enabling legislation had been in place for 16 months before the first strata plan was registered in Metropolitan Vancouver and only three plans for 102 units had been re-gistered in the G.V.R.D. by the end of 1968, fully 27 months after the Strata Titles Act came into force. From the perspective of the investor, Roberts demonstrated that government involvement in the form of National Housing Act (N.H.A.) 3 insured mortgages declined substantially between 1971 and 1973. This was interpreted as indicating an increasing preparedness of private sector investors to finance condominium projects. Roberts suggests that. 3 . . . a s l e n d e r s h a v e g r o w n m o r e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c o n d o m i n i u m c o n c e p t , a n d a s t h e c o n c e p t ' s s u c c e s s h a s b e e n m o r e f u l l y d e m o n s t r a t e d , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r t h e e x t r a s e c u r i t y p r o -v i d e d m o r t g a g e e s b y C M H C m o r t g a g e i n s u r a n c e h a s d e -c r e a s e d . 4 1 . 1 . 2 L e g i s l a t i v e I n f l u e n c e s T h e r a t e o f c o n d o m i n i u m d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e V a n c o u v e r a r e a w a s p a r a l l e d b y r e l a t e d l e g i s l a t i v e c h a n g e s a t b o t h t h e f e d e r a l a n d p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s . B y t h e e n d o f t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s , t h e r e n t a l a p a r t m e n t b o o m w h i c h h a d c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e d e c a d e w a s s l o w i n g a s a r e s u l t o f t h e o v e r s u p p l y o f s u c h u n i t s . I n 1 9 7 1 , t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a m e n d e d t h e I n c o m e T a x A c t t o i n c o r p o r a t e c a p i t a l g a i n s t a x o n r e n t a l p r o p e r t y b u t n o t o n o w n e r -o c c u p i e d h o u s i n g . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e " t a x - s h e l t e r " p r o v i s i o n s a p p l i -c a b l e t o r e v e n u e p r o p e r t y w e r e r e m o v e d . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e s e c h a n g e s , i n v e s t m e n t i n r e n t a l p r o p e r t y v i r t u a l l y c e a s e d . B y M a y o f 1 9 7 4 , i n - m i g r a t i o n , r i s i n g f a m i l y i n c o m e s , a n d i n c r e a s e d h o u s e h o l d f o r m a -t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e p o s t - w a r b a b y b o o m r e s u l t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i n t h e s e v e r e s h o r t a g e o f r e n t a l u n i t s , a r i s i n g d e m a n d f o r o w n e r s h i p u n i t s a n d r a p i d l y e s c a l a t i n g p r i c e s f o r b o t h r e n t a l a n d o w n e r s h i p u n i t s . T h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a G o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d t o t h e s e p r o c e s s e s b y i m p o s i n g r e n t c o n t r o l s o n M a y 2 , 1 9 7 4 , t h e r e b y d i s c o u r a g i n g f u r t h e r t h e i n v e s t -m e n t i n r e n t a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n . W i t h r e n t a l p r o p e r t y a n u n a t t r a c t i v e i n v e s t m e n t o p p o r t u n i t y , t h e f i n a n c i a l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t c o m m u n i t i e s s o u g h t a l t e r n a t i v e a r e a s f o r t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . T h e f e d e r a l a n d p r o v i n c i a l a c t i o n s w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n d i s -c o u r a g i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r e n t a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n , h o w e v e r , r e p r e s e n t e d o n l y o n e s i d e o f t h e e q u a t i o n w h i c h e s s e n t i a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d a p o l i c y t o e n c o u r a g e h o m e - o w n e r s h i p . T h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e e q u a t i o n t o o k t h e f o r m o f i n c e n t i v e p r o g r a m m e s t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e p u r c h a s e o f u n i t s b y l o w 4 to moderate income households. Programmes such as the federal Assisted Home Ownership Programme (AHOP) and the Provincial Home Acquisition Programme provided the investment and development opportunity sought by the private sector. 1.1.3 Increasing Demand and Rising Costs By 1974, however, the average Multiple Listing Service (MLS) transaction had reached $57,861,5 a 3. 8-fold increase since the Strata  Titles Act was proclaimed eight years earlier. Inasmuch as the price ceiling for the AHOP programme was well below the average MLS price for all residential forms, this programme provided a substantial stimulus to the higher density, multi-unit ownership developments. The extent of the rising demand for both rental and ownership units in the Vancouver area warrants further discussion. In its Livable  Region Plan, the Planning Department of the G.V.R.D. reported that, at 2.9 per cent, the annual growth rate of the regional district was almost twice the 1.5 per cent national average. The trends, documented as early as 1971 by Smith, 7 toward smaller family sizes, delayed or re-duced child-bearing, and increased incidence of single person families generate a much greater housing demand per unit of population than had previously occurred. The pressures during the early 1970's resulted in an unprecedented rise in house prices and a boom period for condominium development. Figure 1.1.3 illustrates these processes. 1.1.4 Senior Government Reactions The rapid development of condominiums, therefore, is explained in large part by the opportunity perceived by developers and investors to fulfill a housing demand without being subjected to the disadvantages of the rental market. By 1973, however, both the federal and provincial FIGURE 1.1.3 AVERAGE MLS PRICES AND CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT 1966-1977 $70,000 cu y a. CU U) (0 i . CU > < $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 5000 'E § 2! 4000 E o cn •a cu c al 3000 o <+-2000 ° d z 1000 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 YEAR Av. MLS price Condo. Units Registered SOURCES: Trends (1978) S. W. Hamilton, Decade of Experience. 6 governments began to recognize the need to stimulate rental construc-tion. The federal government restored the "tax-shelter" provisions of the Income Tax Act and the provincial government, content simply to maintain the existing stock of rental accommodation, amended the Strata:  Titles Act enabling local governments to control or prohibit the conver-sion to condominium of existing rental apartments. It was not until 1976 when the federal government instituted a programme to provide financial assistance for rental construction under the Assisted Rental Programme (ARP), that development of new market rental accommodation resumed, albeit slowly. 1.1.5 Demographic Realities The easing of the rental market was further assisted by the reality of demographic characteristics revealed by the 1976 Census. While it had been assumed that the high rate of growth experienced by the G.V.R.D. up to 1971 would continue, in fact the average normal growth g rate between 1971 and 1976 dropped to 1.1. per cent. During the same period, however, 23,620 residential condominium units, representing more than 25 per cent of all housing starts in the metropolitan area, were g registered. Although there is no evidence to suggest that a general surplus of housing units prevailed during this period,^ condominium developers, for the first time, encountered difficulties marketing their units as early as 1975.^ By July, 1977, 53 per cent of units produced 12 in the previous six months remained unsold. 1.1.6 The Market Softens Various explanations for this oversupply of units have been given including consumer disillusionment with the condominium concept, the overbuilding of a finite sub-market, and a general slowdown in housing 7 market activity. In fact, each of these explanations is probably valid to some degree although it is beyond the scope of this present analysis to evaluate the relative merits of each position. For purposes of this research, it is sufficient to suggest that as a result of changes in the market forces affecting condominium development and sales, demand alone could no longer be relied upon to ensure the marketing success of condominiums.1^ 1.1.7 The Housing Market: A Summary To generalize from the foregoing review of the Greater Vancouver housing market, during the boom period of condominium construction from 1971 to 1976, housing prices increased at an unprecedented rate, 14 the average MLS price rising from $26,471 to $68,693. Thereafter, an unsold inventory of condominium units began to accumulate, probably the result of the combined effects of a general slowdown in housing market activity, an overbuilding of this particular sub-market and con-sumer disillusionment with the condominium concept itself. This study addresses the question of consumer disillusionment and, more specifi-cally, the extent to which a particular segment of the condominium market fulfills or fails to fulfill selected needs of those within it. 1. 2 FOCUS ON TOWNHOUSES The rising costs of accommodation during the last 20 years, and particularly the last decade, has created the most hardship for families of low to moderate income.1^ Because of the size of family households, and since it is commonly accepted that children require opportunities to play outdoors but within view of their parents, a family houshold re-quires larger accommodation than does a non-family household and it 8 strongly favours a dwelling unit with direct ground level access. Both of these factors imply substantial additional housing costs which families of low to moderate income cannot meet easily. Of the various housing forms to which the condominium concept has been applied, the single detached, duplex and townhouse forms are most suitable for family accom-modation and, of these, only the latter is most commonly illustrative of the condominium form of tenure. Consequently, this study addresses specifically developments which are composed exclusively of townhouses, defined as two or more attached residential units each with direct ground level access and with no separate dwelling unit either above or below. 1.2.1 Previous Studies A number of condominium studies have been undertaken during the last decade. In 1970, Condominium Research Associates published their National Survey of Condominium Owners the stated purpose of which was "to determine who the purchasers of condominium dwellings are, why they purchased a condominium and what their experience with the 16 condominium and the project has been." The following year and in 17 1973, the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver published two reports each of which provided a general overview of condominium development and owner characteristics for projects in the metropolitan Vancouver area. A thesis by I to entitled An Analysis of the Residential Satisfaction of  Condominium Owners (1972) determined that owners are generally satis-fied with their accommodation, that the location of the project distinguishes between owners in terms of their socio-economic characteristics and their residential satisfaction, and that the attitudes and behaviour patterns 1 g of condominium owners vary as a function of project size. The study by Hamilton examined condominiums from a broader perspective including 9 sections on the rate of development, the Strata Titles Act, the charac-teristics of condominium occupants, the developers and managers, and some special considerations such as property taxation, conversion of rental projects to strata title, land only projects, non-residential con-19 dominiums and leasehold strata plans. 1.2.2 The Present Study: A Different Approach These studies reflect a concentration of interest in two specific areas, the rate of condominium development and the characteristics of condominium occupants. While these studies make an effort to deter-mine the extent of resident satisfaction, none has endeavoured to ex-plore the specific factors which explain such satisfaction. Research con-ducted by the G.V.R.D. Planning Department's "Compact Housing Pro-gramme" strongly suggests that residential satisfaction generally varies as a function of dwelling unit characteristics followed by adjacent out-door space, neighbourhood characteristics and proximity to required goods and services. Put another way, the most important determinant of satisfaction is the unit itself, and its lot, the neighbourhood and the location of declining importance. ^ Although several of the previously cited studies enquired into the perceived importance of locational considerations, project facilities and 21 unit features, none attempted to determine in a rigorous fashion the relative importance of these factors to a general measure of satisfaction. It is considered, therefore, that a more detailed analysis is needed to evaluate townhouse projects in terms of the effects of specific design features on general residential satisfaction. 10 FOOTNOTES 1. I am indebted to Mr. Kevin Johnstone of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, who made available to me condominium registration data from the Vancouver and New Westminster Land Registry Offices. 2. The following review of the housing market reflects the analyses presented in: S. W. Hamilton, Condominiums: A Decade of Experi- ence in B.C., Vancouver, The British Columbia Real Estate Associ-ation, 1978. R. S. Roberts, Condominium Housing in Metro Vancouver, unpub-lished M.B.A. Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1973. K. K. I to. Residential Satisfaction of Condominium Owners, unpub-lished M.A. Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1972. L. B. Smith, Housing in Canada: Market Structure and Policy  Performance, Research Monograph No. 2, Ottawa, Ontario, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1971. R. Fitzpatrick and M. Sinclair, "Housing" in C. Davis (ed.). The Vancouver Book, Vancouver, B.C., Evergreen Press, 1976, pp. 236-242. United Way of Greater Vancouver, Housing Costs, the Urban Land  Market and Urban Growth in the Municipalities of the Greater  Vancouver Regional District, Vancouver, United Way of Greater Vancouver, 1975. ICO Real Estate Management, The Land Development Process as it  Affects the Supply of New Housing Within the Greater Vancouver  Regional District, Vancouver, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1974. 3. R. S. Roberts, op. cit., pp. 31-33. 4. Ibid., p. 32. 5. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Trends, Vancouver, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1975. 6. Greater Vancouver Regional District, The Livable Region 1975/1986:  Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver, Vancouver, Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1975, p. 5. 7. L. B. Smith, op. cit., p. 30. 8. Statistics Canada, Census Tracts: Population and Housing Charac- teristics: Vancouver, Catalogue 95-828, Ottawa, Queens Printer, 1976 Census of Canada, November 1978. 9. S. W. Hamilton, op. cit., p. 19. 10. lan Beveridge suggested that in 1974, the housing shortage in the Greater Vancouver Region totalled 20,000 units. ICO Real Estate Management Ltd., op. cit., p. 15. 11 11. S. W. Hamilton, "Condominium Development," in Trends, Vancouver, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1978, p. B-19. 12. S. W. Hamilton, Decade of Experience, op. cit., p. 125. 13. Support for this position is offered below. 14. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Trends, Vancouver, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1972 and 1977. 15. See Ann McAfee, "Housing a City," in C. Davis, op, cit. pp. 244-247. 16. Condominium Research Associates, National Survey of Condominium  Owners, Ottawa, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1970, p. 1. 17. S. W. Hamilton, I. Davis, and J. Lowden, Condominium Development  in Metropolitan Vancouver, Vancouver, Real Estate Council of Greater Vancouver, 1971. S. W. Hamilton and R. S. Roberts, Condominium Development and  Ownership, Vancouver, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1973. 18. K. K. Ito, op. cit., pp. i i - i i i . 19. S. W. Hamilton, Decade of Experience, op. cit.. Although the author: is familiar with the literature relating to town-house experience in the United States, it is clear that such develop-ment is directed toward those with above average income. Since much of the impetus and justification for townhouse development in Greater Vancouver was provided by the demand for low-cost family accommodation, the American experience is not germane. 20. R. Burgess, formerly Programme Coordinator, G.V.R.D. Compact Housing Programme, personal interview. May 23, 1980. For the references used in this research, the reader is referred to G.V.R.D. Housing References: Annotated Bibliography, G.V.R.D., Vancouver, 1977. 21. K. K. Ito, op. cit., p. 87; R. S. Roberts, op. cit., pp. 65-68; S. W. Hamilton, Decade of Experience, op. cit., pp. 96-99. 12 Chapter II OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To determine the relative contribution of specific project facilities and unit features to the general satisfaction of townhouse resi-dents. 2 . To make design recommendations for planners, designers, developers and investors of townhouse developments based on the perceptions of those who have direct experience with the townhouse form. 2.1 TWO HYPOTHESES The author's review of related literature, experiences as an owner-occupant of a townhouse unit and association with numerous townhouse developments as a member of a property management team have sug-gested two hypotheses which the study will evaluate. 1. The design of townhouse developments has been predicated on the need to market the project, with insufficient attention being given to the design requirements of the occupants. 2 . Townhouses are designed to meet the needs of small households without children and, as such, do not satisfy the demand for moderately priced family housing. 2.1.1 Marketing vs. Occupancy Requirements Implicit in the first hypothesis is the assumption there is a distinc-tion between what might be termed "marketing" and "occupancy" require-ments, the former being defined as those characteristics which are con-sidered necessary for marketing purposes, the latter being those which 13 are demonstrated through the experience of occupants to be of value. The 1978 Hamilton study revealed that this distinction may constitute a dilemma for developers. Hamilton reports that, while project features were cited by owners as more important determinants of unit selection than were unit features, the most common project facilities suffer from a significant lack of use. ^  Developers may be faced with the necessity of including facilities which are required for marketing purposes but which subsequently fail to generate sufficient use to justify either their initial capital cost or continuing operating and maintenance costs. The alternative may be to risk a slow absorption rate relative to competing projects by incorporating only those features which are demonstrated to be of continuing value. 2.1.2 Townhouses are for Adults With respect to the second hypothesis, the wide variety of town-house developments suggests diversity in both requirements and tastes of townhouse consumers. Some developments are, in fact, designed to attract households with particular characteristics. The features pro-vided in an "adult only" project, for example, differ substantially from those included in a development intended to fulfill the requirements of single parent families. Considering the market conditions which have prevailed during the history of condominium development in Greater Vancouver, however, the tendency has been to develop projects intended to appeal to and meet the needs df a broad spectrum of users. It is suggested, however, that design decisions, in fact, reflect an implicit bias which favours the non-family household at the expense of larger households with children. If the evidence of this study supports this contention, the development industry should carefully assess the kind 14 o f h o u s e h o l d m i x d e s i r e d a n d d e v e l o p u n i t s w h i c h m e e t t h e r e s p e c t i v e n e e d s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e d e s i g n s u t i l i z e d i n t o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p m e n t s s h o u l d b e f l e x i b l e e n o u g h t o a c c o m m o d a t e a v a r i e t y o f u s e s a n d t o s a t i s f y a v a r i e t y , o f n e e d s . 2 . 2 S C O P E O F T H E S T U D Y T h e d e s i g n p r e f e r e n c e s o f t o w n h o u s e r e s i d e n t s , i n c l u d i n g b o t h p r o -j e c t a n d u n i t f e a t u r e s , c o n s t i t u t e t h e p r i m a r y f o c u s o f t h i s s t u d y . R e -f e r r i n g t o t h e p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d i e v i d e n c e w h i c h s u g g e s t s t h e p r o g r e s -s i v e l y i n c r e a s i n g i m p o r t a n c e o f n e i g h b o u r h o o d , l o t a n d u n i t i n t h e d e t e r -m i n a t i o n o f r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n , i t i s n o t e d t h a t t h e m e a n i n g s o f t h e s e s p a c e d e f i n i n g t e r m s a r e l e s s p r e c i s e f o r a t o w n h o u s e e n v i r o n m e n t t h a n f o r c o n v e n t i o n a l s u b d i v i s i o n s . I n a s m u c h a s p r i v a t e o u t d o o r s p a c e f o r m s a n e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f t h e l i v i n g e n v i r o n m e n t , i t m a y b e d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e i n a n y t h i n g b u t l e g a l o r s t r i c t l y p h y s i c a l t e r m s , t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n a t o w n h o u s e " u n i t " a n d a " l o t . " S i m i l a r l y , t h e l o t m a y b e p e r c e i v e d a s e n c o m p a s s i n g m o r e t h a n t h e s m a l l e x c l u s i v e u s e a r e a a d j a c e n t t o e a c h u n i t . I t m a y i n c l u d e c o m m o n o p e n s p a c e b e y o n d t h e b a c k f e n c e a n d a l s o c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s s u c h a s a p l a y g r o u n d o r a s w i m m i n g p o o l , f e a t u r e s o r f u n c t i o n s w h i c h c o u l d b e f u l f i l l e d w i t h i n t h e b a c k y a r d o f a s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e . T h e t e r m " n e i g h b o u r h o o d " m a y m e a n a s i n g l e c l u s t e r o f u n i t s w i t h i n a l a r g e r p r o j e c t , t h e p r o j e c t i t s e l f , a n u m b e r o f a d j a c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s o f v a r i o u s f o r m s o r v i r t u a l l y a n y c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e . W h i l e i t i s n o t a n e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m e a n -i n g s a s s i g n e d t o t h e s e t e r m s b y t o w n h o u s e r e s i d e n t s , i t i s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e s t u d y t o e x p l o r e t h e v a l u e a s s i g n e d b y r e s i d e n t s t o t h e f e a t u r e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s o v e r w h i c h t h e p r o j e c t d e v e l o p e r h a s d i r e c t c o n -t r o l , n a m e l y t h e f e a t u r e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n a g i v e n p r o j e c t . 15 T h e g e o g r a p h i c a l s c o p e o f t h e s t u d y i s l i m i t e d t o t h e G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . T h i s a r e a w a s s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e i t i s f e l t t o r e p r e s e n t a d e f i n e d m a r k e t a r e a , t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t l e v e l o f g o v e r n m e n t p r o v i d e s s o m e s e m b l a n c e o f p l a n n i n g a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o h e s i o n , a n d t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h r e s o u r c e s p r e c l u d e d a b r o a d e r p e r s p e c t i v e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e p r o j e c t s a n a l y s e d i n t h e s t u d y i n c l u d e a t o t a l o f 3 7 d e v e l o p m e n t s , f i v e i n S u r r e y , f o u r i n t h e n o r t h e a s t s e c t o r ( C o q u i t l a m , P o r t C o q u i t l a m a n d P o r t M o o d y ) , s e v e n i n B u r n a b y , t e n i n R i c h m o n d ( f o u r o f w h i c h h a v e a m a l g a m a t e d t o f o r m a s i n g l e s t r a t a p l a n ) , t h r e e i n V a n c o u v e r , f o u r i n N o r t h V a n c o u v e r ( t w o o f w h i c h a m a l -g a m a t e d t o f o r m a s i n g l e s t r a t a p l a n ) , a n d f o u r i n D e l t a . T h e p r o j e c t s r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m 1 0 t o 1 3 4 u n i t s ( 2 2 0 u n i t s i f t h e R i c h m o n d a m a l g a m a -t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d a s i n g l e p r o j e c t ) w i t h a n a v e r a g e o f 5 4 . 1 1 u n i t s p e r p r o j e c t ( 6 0 . 6 7 i f t h e R i c h m o n d a n d N o r t h V a n c o u v e r a m a l g a m a t i o n s a r e e a c h c o n s i d e r e d a s i n g l e p r o j e c t ) . F u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s i s o f f e r e d u n d e r " S a m p l i n g M e t h o d o l o g y " b e l o w . 2 . 3 T H E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E T h i s s t u d y r e l i e s o n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r v e y o f t o w n h o u s e o w n e r s r e s i d e n t i n t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d t o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p m e n t s . T h e d a t a a r e s u b j e c t e d t o v a r i o u s s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s i n c l u d i n g m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n d f a c t o r a n a l y s e s . T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( s e e A p p e n d i x A ) c o n s i s t e d o f f i v e t y p e - w r i t t e n p a g e s a n d a c o v e r i n g l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g t h e g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e s t u d y . T h e l a y o u t w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e n d e d t o r e d u c e t h e i m p r e s s i o n o f a n o n e r o u s , t i m e - c o n s u m i n g e x e r c i s e a n d , i n f a c t , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o u l d b e c o m p l e t e d i n t e n t o f i f t e e n m i n u t e s . 1 6 T h e q u e s t i o n s f a l l i n t o s e v e n g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s : 1 . T h e d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e t o w n h o u s e p o p u l a t i o n . S p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e a g e s o f h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s ; r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s a n d h o u s e h o l d s i z e . A l t h o u g h i t i s c o n c e d e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o h o u s e h o l d i n c o m e a n d o c c u -p a t i o n m i g h t w e l l h a v e p r o v e d u s e f u l , t h e s e w e r e i n t e n t i o n a l l y e x c l u d e d s i n c e s u c h q u e s t i o n s r i s k a l i e n a t i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t . 2 . G e n e r a l f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e o c c u p a n t s , i n c l u d i n g l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , l e n g t h o f o c c u p a n c y , w h e t h e r t h e p r e s e n t o c c u p a n t s a r e t h e f i r s t r e s i d e n t s i n t h e u n i t o r o t h e r s h a d o c c u p i e d i t b e f o r e t h e m , a n d f o r m o f t e n u r e . 3 . P r o v i s i o n a n d u s e o f c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s s u c h a s s w i m m i n g p o o l , s a u n a , p l a y s p a c e a n d w o r k s h o p . H. P r o v i s i o n a n d p e r c e i v e d v a l u e o f u n i t f e a t u r e s s u c h a s f i r e p l a c e , b a s e m e n t , e n s u i t e b a t h r o o m , f a m i l y r o o m a n d u n i q u e d e s i g n f e a -t u r e s . 5 . S p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f s p a c e s a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s a n d u n i t f e a t u r e s . E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e q u a l i t y o f s o u n d p r o o f i n g , c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u i l d i n g a n d g r o u n d s a p p e a r a n c e , a d e q u a c y o f p a r k -i n g p r o v i s i o n s , s i z e o f r o o m s a n d s p a c e s , a n d a d e q u a c y o f s t o r a g e f o r v a r i o u s p u r p o s e s . 6 . F i n a n c i a l d e t a i l s i m p l i c i t i n r e s i d e n c y i n t h e t o w n h o u s e . S u c h v a r i a b l e s a s p u r c h a s e p r i c e , e s t i m a t e d p r e s e n t v a l u e , m o r t g a g e p a y m e n t s , m o n t h l y m a i n t e n a n c e c h a r g e s , p r o p e r t y t a x a n d , i n t h e c a s e o f t e n a n t s , m o n t h l y r e n t a r e i n c l u d e d . 17 7. Residential satisfaction. Two questions were included in this cate-gory, one relating to the perceived value for the cost of the re-spondent's accommodation and one to the overall level of satisfac-tion with living in the townhouse development. Generally, the questionnaire was designed to progress from general and impersonal questions to ones of a more specific and perhaps sensi-tive nature. Questions relating to location, length of occupancy, pro-ject characteristics and unit features were placed toward the beginning with those pertaining to household composition and housing costs at the end. 2.4 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The sampling procedure was designed to provide a microcosm of condominium townhouse development in the region, excluding projects 2 with fewer than ten units. Projects were selected to represent as accu-rately as possible the variety in size, age, location, value and features which characterizes the Greater Vancouver townhouse market. By December 31, 1978, 147 projects representing 8,286 units (an average of 56 units per project) had been registered in the G.V.R.D. The 37 pro-jects selected contain 2,002 units (an average project size of 54 units). The sample, therefore, represents 25 per cent of all projects and 24 per cent of all units registered prior to January 1, 1979, within projects of 10 or more units. Between June and November of 1979, questionnaires were mailed to approximately every fourth unit in the selected projects resulting in a 3 total of 488 units receiving a questionnaire. Within a week of mailing the questionnaire, an initial visit was made to pick it up, if completed, or to arrange a time to pick it up, to leave a self-addressed envelope for 1 8 i t s r e t u r n , o r t o l e a v e a n o t e i n d i c a t i n g a r e t u r n c a l l a b o u t o n e w e e k l a t e r . T h e s u b s e q u e n t c a l l r e s u l t e d i n a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e b e i n g l e f t i f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s n o t c o m p l e t e d o r i f c o n t a c t c o u l d n o t b e m a d e . I t w a s h o p e d t h a t t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h i s a p p r o a c h w o u l d p r o v i d e 2 5 0 c o m -p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r a r e s p o n s e r a t e o f s l i g h t l y m o r e t h a n 5 0 p e r c e n t . I n f a c t , 2 9 4 r e s p o n s e s w e r e o b t a i n e d f o r a r a t e o f 6 0 . 2 5 p e r c e n t . T h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r o j e c t s , t o t a l u n i t s , s a m p l e d u n i t s a n d n u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s b y g e o g r a p h i c a r e a i s s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e 2 . 4 . O n e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u g g e s t e d a t t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n s t a g e a n d c o n -f i r m e d b y t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e s o f a n a l y s i s l e d t o t h e d e l e t i o n o f o n e s m a l l d e v e l o p m e n t ( 2 1 u n i t s ) f r o m w h i c h t h r e e r e s p o n s e s w e r e r e c e i v e d . W i t h p u r c h a s e p r i c e s r a n g i n g f r o m $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 t o $ 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 a n d p r e s e n t e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s a s h i g h a s $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 , t h i s p r o j e c t w a s a t y p i c a l o f o t h e r p r o j e c t s i n t h e s a m p l e a n d w a s , c o n s e q u e n t l y , r e m o v e d f r o m f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o a v o i d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i t d i s t o r t i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l p r o -c e d u r e s . T h e r e s u l t s a r e , t h e r e f o r e , b a s e d o n 2 9 1 r e s p o n s e s . E x c l u d -i n g t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e r a n g e o f r e p o r t e d p u r c h a s e p r i c e s w a s $ 1 7 , 0 0 0 t o $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 , w i t h a m e a n o f $ 4 6 , 7 3 6 , a n d t h e r a n g e o f p r e s e n t e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s w a s $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 t o $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , w i t h a m e a n o f $ 5 6 , 3 5 7 . 2 . 5 S T A T I S T I C A L P R O C E D U R E S F o l l o w i n g t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s c o d e d ( s e e A p p e n d i x B ) , k e y p u n c h e d o n t o c o m p u t e r c a r d s , a n d p r o c e s s e d u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g s o f t w a r e p a c k a g e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m -b i a C o m p u t i n g C e n t r e . 1 9 2 . 5 . 1 U . B . C . S P S S - S t a t i s t i c a l P a c k a g e f o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s A l t h o u g h t h i s p a c k a g e i s c a p a b l e o f p e r f o r m i n g a n u m b e r o f c o m p l e x s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s i n c l u d i n g r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s s t u d y w a s c o n f i n e d t o b a s i c p r o c e d u r e s i n c l u d i n g f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i -b u t i o n s , c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s , c o n d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s a n d c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s . S P S S w a s u s e d p r i m a r i l y f o r i t s f a c i l i t y w i t h d a t a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , r e n d e r -i n g t h e d a t a c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b o t h t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e s t u d y a n d t h e a s s u m p t i o n s a n d r e q u i r e d f o r m a t o f t h e o t h e r p r o g r a m m e p a c k a g e s e m -p l o y e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s . S P S S w a s n o t u t i l i z e d f o r t h e r e g r e s s i o n a n d f a c t o r a n a l y s e s b e c a u s e i t i s l e s s p o w e r f u l a n d l e s s f l e x i b l e t h a n t h e B M D P s e r i e s . 2 . 5 . 2 U . B . C . B M D P : 1 R M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n F r o m t h e o u t s e t , t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n a n t i c i p a t e d t h e u s e o f M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n . T h e q u e s t i o n s w e r e d r a f t e d t o p r o v i d e d a t a c o n s i s t e n t , w h e r e v e r p o s s i b l e , w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e . B M D P : 1 R w a s u s e d b e c a u s e o f i t s c a p a c i t y , i t s e a s e o f u s e a n d t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f i t s c o n t r o l l a n g u a g e w i t h o t h e r p r o g r a m m e s i n t h e B M D P s e r i e s , s p e c i -f i c a l l y , B M D P : A M a n d B M D P : 4 M . 2 . 5 . 3 U . B . C . B M D P : A M T h i s p r o g r a m m e w a s u s e d t o e s t i m a t e m i s s i n g v a l u e s p r i o r t o f a c t o r a n a l y s i s s i n c e B M D P : 4 M r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l o b s e r v a t i o n s b e c o m p l e t e . 2 . 5 . 4 U . B . C . B M D P : 4 M F a c t o r A n a l y s i s T h e p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h i s t e c h n i q u e ^ w a s a n t i c i p a t e d d u r i n g t h e d e s i g n s t a g e o f t h e s t u d y a n d i t s r e l e v a n c e b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y a p p a r e n t a s t h e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s p r o c e e d e d . S i n c e r e g r e s s i o n r e l i e s o n t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s , t h e e m e r g e n c e d u r i n g 20 TABLE 2.4 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA Geographic Area Surrey Northeast Sector* Burnaby/New Westminster Richmond Vancouver t North Shore Delta TOTAL No. of Total Projects Units 5 4 10 3 4 _4 37 422 129 429 529 147 227 119 2002 Units Sampled 102 36 101 130 36 55 28 488 Response Responses Rate 52 17 72 80 21 37 15 294 50.98% 47.22% 71.29% 61.54% 58.33% 67.27% 53.57% 60.25% includes Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody. Amalgamations are treated here as separate strata plans, tlncludes the project (3 responses) deleted from the analysis. 21 r e g r e s s i o n o f c o - l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n s o f v a r i a b l e s c a l l e d f o r a p r o c e d u r e w h i c h g r o u p s v a r i a b l e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r c o m m o n v a r i a n c e . T h e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s t e c h n i q u e a c c o m p l i s h e s p r e c i s e l y t h i s a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e f o c u s o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s e m p l o y e d i n t h i s s t u d y w a s s h i f t e d t o t h i s p r o c e d u r e . I n f a c t , a l l c o n c l u s i o n s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y r e s u l t e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y f r o m f a c t o r a n a l y s i s r a t h e r t h a n m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a . 22 FOOTNOTES 1. S. W. Hamilton, Decade of Experience, op. cit., pp. 98-100. Unfortunately, Hamilton did not determine if those whose deci-sion to purchase was influenced by the availability of specific project facilities made extensive use of these features after living in the project. 2. The study was confined to developments of 10 or more units both to permit comparisons with other studies, many of which utilized the same limitation, and to ensure that the effect on satisfaction of the "communal" aspect of condominium living is at least im-plicitly recognized. 3. The method of selection was based on strata lot numbers with those selected being multiples of 4. Thus, strata lots 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, etc. were identified from the records of the B.C. Assessment Authority, these records also providing the names of the registered owners. Because the units in many developments did not total a multiple of 4, the total sample is less than would be expected with 2002 units represented in those developments surveyed. 4. For discussion of Multiple Regression, see George W. Snedecor and William G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, Ames, Iowa, The Iowa State University Press, 1972, pp. 381-418. 5. For an introduction to Factor Analysis, see Dennis Child, The  Essentials of Factor Analysis, London, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. A detailed and comprehensive discussion of the procedure is provided in R. J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis, Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1970. 2 3 C h a p t e r I I I F A C T O R A N A L Y S I S I n a s m u c h a s t h e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d a s t r o n g i n t e r d e p e n -d e n c e a m o n g s e v e r a l s u p p o s e d l y i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e -n e s s o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s w a s i n d i c a t e d . T h e f a c t o r m o d e l , c o m b i n i n g t h e c o m m o n v a r i a n c e a m o n g t h e v a r i a b l e s , i d e n t i f i e s u n i q u e a n d t h e r e f o r e i n d e p e n d e n t d i m e n s i o n s o r f a c t o r s w i t h a m i n i m u m l o s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . R u m m e l s t a t e s : . . . f a c t o r a n a l y s i s u n c o v e r s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t " s o u r c e s " o f d a t a v a r i a t i o n . B e c a u s e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s m a y e x i s t b e t w e e n t h e d a t a , f a c t o r a n a l y s t s a r e a s k i n g w h e t h e r t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f v a r i a t i o n i n t h e d a t a c a n b e r e p r e s e n t e d e q u a l l y w e l l b y d i -m e n s i o n s s m a l l e r i n n u m b e r t h a n t h e c o l u m n s n e c e s s a r y t o t a b u l a t e t h e d a t a . . . . D i m e n s i o n s d i s c l o s e d b y a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s m e a s u r e s o f t h e a m o u n t o f o r d e r e d o r p a t t e r n e d v a r i a t i o n i n d a t a . 1 T h u s , u n l i k e t h e r e g r e s s i o n m o d e l w h i c h a s s u m e s a c a u s a t i v e r e -l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e a c h o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s a n d t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , f a c t o r a n a l y s i s a s s u m e s a n u n d e r l y i n g o r i g i n f o r t h e c o m m o n v a r i a t i o n i n a n u m b e r o f v a r i a b l e s . B y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a , t h i r t y f a c t o r s w i t h e i g e n v a l u e s g r e a t e r t h a n u n i t y e m e r g e d f r o m a d a t a s e t w i t h 101 v a r i a b l e s . T h e 2 " s c r e e t e s t " r e v e a l e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e o r t h o g o n a l r o t a t i o n o f s i x f a c -t o r s w o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e m a x i m u m a m o u n t o f c o m m o n v a r i a t i o n a n d t h e m i n i m u m a m o u n t o f v a r i a t i o n u n i q u e t o a g i v e n v a r i a b l e . A n o r t h o g o n a l r o t a t i o n w a s e m p l o y e d b e c a u s e t h i s f o r m o f a n a l y s i s e n s u r e s t h a t t h e f a c t o r s w i l l d e l i n e a t e s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a t i o n . A r e l a t e d a n d a n c i l l a r y a d v a n t a g e i s t h a t f a c t o r l o a d i n g s d e r i v e d f r o m 24 o r t h o g o n a l r o t a t i o n a r e c o m p a r a b l e t o c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i n m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e f a c t o r s c o r e s c a n b e u t i l i z e d i n r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t o o b t a i n m e a s u r e s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e a n d p r o b a b i l i t i e s 3 f o l l o w i n g t h e " S t u d e n t ' s " t - d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h e a n a l y s i s e m p l o y e d i n t h i s s t u d y w a s d e s i g n e d t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e s e c o m p l e m e n t a r y a s p e c t s o f t h e f a c t o r a n d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n m o d e l s . F o u r f a c t o r a n a l y s e s w e r e p e r f o r m e d , e a c h p r o v i d i n g a n o r t h o g o n a l r o -t a t i o n o f s i x f a c t o r s . T h e f i r s t a n a l y s i s e x c l u d e d t h e v a r i a b l e G E N S A T , i d e n t i f i e d i ; n S e c t i o n 2 . 3 a b o v e a n d i n A p p e n d i x B a s t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i -a b l e m e a s u r i n g t h e o v e r a l l l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t o w n h o u s e l i v i n g . T h e f a c t o r s c o r e s f r o m t h i s a n a l y s i s w e r e u s e d a s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i -a b l e s i n a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n w i t h G E N S A T a s t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . T h e s e c o n d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e d G E N S A T . T h e t h i r d a n d f o u r t h a n a l y s e s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 3 . 4 . 2 . 3.1 F A C T O R L A B E L S A l t h o u g h t h e s c r e e t e s t a n d s u b s e q u e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n u m b e r o f f a c t o r s t o b e s i x , o n e o f t h e f a c t o r s p r o v e d b o t h d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t a n d s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h r e -s p e c t t o s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t o w n h o u s e l i v i n g . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s f a c t o r w a s d r o p p e d f r o m f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n e x c e p t f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s i n w h i c h i t i s c i t e d a s F a c t o r X . T h e f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s h a v e b e e n g i v e n d e s c r i p t i v e l a b e l s b o t h t o s u g g e s t t h e p a t t e r n s o f v a r i a t i o n r e v e a l e d b y t h e a n a l y s i s a n d t o f a c i l i t a t e c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t w o f a c t o r a n a l y s e s . B y e x c l u d i n g G E N S A T f r o m o n e a n a l y s i s , t h e t o t a l v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e r e s p e c t i v e f a c t o r s w a s a l t e r e d s l i g h t l y a n d , b e c a u s e t h e s t r e n g t h o f 25 the factors was evenly balanced, the changes effected by the presence of GENSAT, though not large, were sufficient to reorder the factors without changing their composition or meaning. The five substantive factors have been assigned the following de-scriptive labels: 1. Basic Provisions 2. Private Amenities 3. Public Indoor Amenities H. Family Structure 5. Storage Provisions 3.2 FACTOR INTERPRETATION Each of these factors is statistically significant in relation to GENSAT as will be discussed in Section 3.3 below, and the factor structure is re-produced in its entirety in Appendix C. This section covers the analysis in which GENSAT was included. In Section 3.3 the analysis in which GENSAT was excluded and the regression analysis, will be discussed. The labels assigned to the factors reflect the strength and direction of the relationship between the variables and the factor. As Rummel, Harman and others have suggested, the interpretation of factors must take into consideration not only those variables which load highly on a factor, it must also recognize the importance of variables with zero or near-zero loadings. In essence, the question to be answered when in-terpreting factors is: "What is likely to have a positive effect on some variables, a negative effect on other variables and virtually no effect on the remaining variables?" Each of the five factors will be examined separately from this perspective. 26 3.2.1 Basic Provisions As Appendix C reveals, the Basic Provisions factor shows high positive loadings for variables addressing fundamental concerns in terms of the residential environment. That a pattern of common variation should emerge among variables which assess the quality of various as-pects of the living environment is reasonable. Similarly, the adequacy of virtually universal provisions such as living room, kitchen and bed-rooms might also be expected to emerge within the same factor, though perhaps to a lesser extent. Thus, quality of construction, general satis-faction, appearance of buildings and grounds, adequacy of parking pro-visions for residents and quality of soundproofing load highest on this factor with the sizes of the living room, master bedroom, kitchen, second bedroom, dining room and patio demonstrating a less pronounced relationship to the factor. On the other hand, features and facilities which can be described as non-essential show very little relationship to this factor. Variables re-lating to the provision, value or use of facilities such as a fireplace, storage facilities, indoor swimming pool, sauna, basement, design features, family room, workshop, garden and common room do not appear as sub-stantial contributors to this factor. It is interesting to note the appear-ance in this factor of PROJ1 (provision of outdoor pool), albeit with a fairly low loading. This suggests that perhaps the widespread inclusion of outdoor pools in townhouse projects is leading to an expectation on the part of occupants that this facility should be provided. Subsequent studies may suggest that the expectation of an outdoor pool or, for that matter, any other virtually universal feature or facility, may lead to a perception of such a feature as an essential or basic component of t o w n h o u s e p r o j e c t s . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e -s e n t e d h e r e i s i n c o n c l u s i v e s i n c e t h e l o a d i n g i s l o w , b u t t h e s u g g e s t i o n i s m a d e t h a t f u t u r e s t u d i e s m a y e x p l o r e t h i s f u r t h e r , e i t h e r c o n f i r m i n g o r r e f u t i n g t h i s t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n . 3 . 2 . 2 P r i v a t e A m e n i t i e s U n l i k e t h e p r e v i o u s f a c t o r w h i c h i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o m m o n v a r i a n c e a m o n g w h a t m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h i s f a c t o r i d e n t i f i e s t h o s e u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h , w h i l e n o t e s s e n t i a l , c o n t r i b u t e s u b s t a n t i -a l l y t o t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t a l l f e a t u r e s w i t h l o a d i n g s g r e a t e r t h a n + 0 . 2 5 a r e u n i t f e a t u r e s a n d t h o s e w h i c h a r e n o t s t r i c t l y u n i t f e a t u r e s a r e f a c i l i t i e s w h i c h c a n b e a s s u m e d t o b e f o r t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f a p a r t i c u l a r h o u s e h o l d u n i t . C l e a r l y , s u c h f e a t u r e s a s a f i r e p l a c e , a n . e h s u i t e b a t h r o o m , a b a s e m e n t , a n e a t i n g a r e a i n t h e k i t c h e n , a t h i r d b e d r o o m a n d a f a m i l y r o o m a r e u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i l e t h e c o n -v e n i e n c e o f p a r k i n g f o r r e s i d e n t s , i n m o s t d e v e l o p m e n t s , w o u l d b e c o n -s i d e r e d c o m m o n a r e a f o r t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t h o s e o c c u p y i n g a s p e c i f i c u n i t . P e r h a p s b e c a u s e t h e a d d i t i o n o f n o n - e s s e n t i a l a m e n i t i e s i n c r e a s e s c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s a n d a l s o i n c r e a s e s t h e v a l u e o f a u n i t r e l a t i v e t o u n i t s i n o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t s , b o t h p r e s e n t v a l u e a n d p u r c h a s e p r i c e a l s o l o a d h i g h l y o n t h i s f a c t o r . A l t h o u g h n o v a r i a b l e s h a v e h i g h n e g a t i v e l o a d i n g s o n t h i s f a c t o r , t h e p a t t e r n a m o n g t h e l o w l o a d i n g s i s r e v e a l i n g . T h o s e v a r i a b l e s i n d i c a t -i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f v e r y p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s h a v e n e g a t i v e l o a d -i n g s , a l b e i t l o w . T h e s e i n c l u d e o u t d o o r s w i m m i n g p o o l , p l a y s p a c e f o r c h i l d r e n f r o m p r e - s c h o o l t o t e e n a g e r , a n d c o m m o n w o r k s h o p . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h o s e c o m m o n s p a c e s w h i c h m a y o f f e r s o m e d e g r e e o f p r i v a c y h a v e l o w p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g s . V a r i a b l e s s u c h a s s a u n a , c o m m o n r o o m a n d 2 8 g a r d e n o r l a r g e w o o d e d a r e a a r e i n t h i s c a t e g o r y . E v e r y v a r i a b l e r e -l a t i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n o f u n i t f e a t u r e s h a s a p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g e x c e p t U N I T 10 ( h o b b y r o o m ) w h i c h i s a l o w n e g a t i v e l o a d i n g . T h u s , i t i s a p -p a r e n t t h a t t h i s f a c t o r r e v e a l s a d e s i r e o n t h e p a r t o f t o w n h o u s e o c c u -p a n t s f o r p r i v a t e a m e n i t y f e a t u r e s , f a c i l i t i e s a n d s p a c e s , t h e m o s t p o p u l a r o f t h e s e b e i n g u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 3 . 2 . 3 P u b l i c I n d o o r A m e n i t i e s T o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p m e n t s o f f e r a w i d e r a n g e o f f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e u s e o f t h e o c c u p a n t s . T h e e m p h a s i s i s c l e a r l y o n p h y s i c a l r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s s u c h a s s w i m m i n g p o o l s , p l a y a r e a s f o r c h i l d r e n , w o r k s h o p s a n d t e n n i s c o u r t s , a l t h o u g h n o n e o f t h e p r o j e c t s s a m p l e d i n t h i s s t u d y i n c l u d e d t h e l a t t e r . L e s s a c t i v e f o r m s o f r e c r e a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y s u c h f a c i l i t i e s a s s a u n a s , w h i r l p o o l s , c o m m o n r o o m s a n d g a r d e n s a r e a l s o a c c o m m o d a t e d . T h i s f a c t o r r e v e a l s c o m m o n v a r i a t i o n a m o n g v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g t o i n d o o r f a c i l i t i e s f o r b o t h a c t i v e a n d p a s s i v e f o r m s o f r e c r e a t i o n . T h e h i g h e s t p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g s e m e r g e f o r i n d o o r s w i m m i n g p o o l , w o r k s h o p , c o m m o n r o o m , s a u n a a n d d e s i g n f e a t u r e s . T h e h i g h e s t n e g a t i v e l o a d i n g — a n d i t i s n o t a h i g h l o a d i n g — o c c u r s f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a n o u t d o o r p o o l . M a n y o f t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g t o o u t d o o r f a c i l i t i e s s h o w w e a k r e -l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h i s f a c t o r , a s r e v e a l e d b y : t h e i r l o w l o a d i n g s , b o t h n e g a t i v e a n d p o s i t i v e . T h e s e i n c l u d e v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g t o g a r d e n s a n d p l a y s p a c e f o r c h i l d r e n . S i m i l a r l y , t h e l o w l o a d i n g s a m o n g m o s t u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e c o m m o n u s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s a s u b s t a n -t i v e a n d d e t e r m i n i n g a s p e c t o f t h i s f a c t o r . I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e r e f o r e , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s f a c t o r i d e n t i f i e s t h e d e s i r e f o r i n d o o r p u b l i c a m e n i t i e s a s t h e u n d e r l y i n g s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n . 29 3 . 2 . 4 F a m i l y A c c o m m o d a t i o n I t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t t h e h o u s i n g n e e d s o f a h o u s e h o l d w i t h c h i l d r e n w i l l d i f f e r f r o m t h o s e o f a h o u s e h o l d w i t h a d u l t s o n l y . I f s u c h c o n j e c t u r e i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h i s a n d o t h e r s t u d i e s , t h e t o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p m e n t i n d u s t r y s h o u l d r e f l e c t i t i n b o t h t h e d e s i g n a n d m a r k e t i n g o f t h e i r p r o j e c t s . T h i s f a c t o r r e v e a l s c l e a r l y t h a t s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s s h o u l d b e p r o v i d e d i n u n i t s e x p e c t e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e f a m i l i e s . S u c h f e a t u r e s a s b a c k y a r d s , b a c k d o o r s , t h i r d b e d r o o m s , e a t i n g a r e a s i n t h e k i t c h e n a n d s p a c e f o r h o b b i e s a r e s u g g e s t e d b y t h i s f a c t o r . A g a i n , t h e l o w l o a d i n g s f o r p r o j e c t f a c i l i t i e s r e i n f o r c e s t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t u n i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e m o r e i m p o r t a n t h o u s i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a n a r e p r o -j e c t a m e n i t i e s . I t s h o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e u n i t f e a t u r e s l o a d i n g h i g h l y o n t h i s f a c t o r a r e f e a t u r e s w h i c h , w h i l e c o m m o n i n t o w n h o u s e p r o j e c t s , a r e o r i e n t e d t o w a r d t h e p a r t i c u l a r r e q u i r e m e n t s o f c h i l d r e n . T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t a d u l t s w o u l d n o t a l s o a p p r e c i a t e a n d u s e t h e m ; i t r a t h e r s u g -g e s t s e i t h e r t h a n c h i l d r e n r e a p a g r e a t e r d i r e c t b e n e f i t o r t h a t t h e p r o v i -s i o n o f s u c h f e a t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e s t h e m a n a g e m e n t , c a r e a n d e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n . 3 . 2 . 5 S t o r a g e P r o v i s i o n s D e s p i t e t h e s h o r t h i s t o r y o f t o w n h o u s e d e v e l o p m e n t i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , i t i s a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e s t o r a g e s p a c e p r o -v i d e d i n t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s i s g e n e r a l l y i n a d e q u a t e . T h i s s t u d y e n -d e a v o u r e d t o d e t e r m i n e b o t h t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h i s b e l i e f a n d t h e r e l a t i v e a d e q u a c y o f s t o r a g e p r o v i s i o n s f o r v a r i o u s p u r p o s e s . T h e l a t t e r o b -j e c t i v e i s c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n t h i s f a c t o r i n a s m u c h a s a l l o f t h e v a r i a b l e s 3 0 r e l a t i n g t o s t o r a g e e m e r g e . T w e l v e o f t h e f i f t e e n v a r i a b l e s h a v e l o a d i n g s g r e a t e r t h a n + 0 . 5 a n d t h r e e a r e b e t w e e n + 0 . 3 8 a n d + 0 . 5 . T h e l o w l o a d -i n g s f o r s u c h v a r i a b l e s a s l o c a t i o n , a g e o f d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s i z e o f d e -v e l o p m e n t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n a n d n e e d f o r s t o r a g e f a c i l i t i e s a r e c o m p a r a b l e t h r o u g h o u t t h e l o w e r m a i n l a n d t o w n h o u s e m a r k e t . 3 . 2 . 6 F a c t o r X I t w i l l b e r e c a l l e d f r o m S e c t i o n 3 . 2 t h a t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f a c t o r s d e p e n d s o n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a d i m e n s i o n w h i c h e x e r c i s e s a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e o n s o m e v a r i a b l e s , a n e g a t i v e i n f l u e n c e o n o t h e r s a n d l i t t l e o r n o i n f l u e n c e o n t h e r e m a i n d e r . T h i s i m p l i c i t l y a s s u m e s t h a t a s i m i l a r i n -f l u e n c e i s e x e r c i s e d o v e r t h o s e v a r i a b l e s w h i c h c a n b e s e e n t o c o n t a i n a c o m m o n e l e m e n t . I n d e e d , i t i s t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e l o a d i n g s w h i c h l e a d s t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r ' s m e a n i n g . I n t h e c a s e o f F a c t o r X , n o c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n e m e r g e d . W h i l e m o d e r a t e t o h i g h p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g s f o r v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g t o o u t d o o r p o o l s , p l a y s p a c e f o r n o n - t e e n a g e c h i l d r e n , b a s e m e n t s a n d f a m i l y r o o m s s u g g e s t a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o y o u n g c h i l d r e n , t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e n e a r z e r o l o a d i n g s f o r o t h e r v a r i a b l e s w h i c h w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o l o a d s i m i l a r l y o n t h i s f a c t o r . T h e m o s t c o n s p i c u o u s o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e t o i n d o o r s w i m m i n g p o o l s a n d b a c k d o o r s . S i m i l a r l y , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n d o o r a n d o u t d o o r f a c i l i t i e s d o e s n o t a p p l y s i n c e b o t h t y p e s o f f e a t u r e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d a m o n g t h e v a r i a b l e s w i t h m o d e r a t e t o h i g h l o a d i n g s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i n -a s m u c h a s n o c l e a r p a t t e r n w a s d i s c e r n a b l e a n d s i n c e t h e f a c t o r e x p l a i n s a n i n s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n g e n e r a l s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h i s f a c t o r w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r . 31 3. 3 THE FACTORS AND GENERAL SATISFACTION As stated in Section 3.2, a second factor analysis was performed on the data with GENSAT excluded from the analysis. The factor scores were calculated and used as independent variables in a multiple regres-sion analysis with GENSAT as the dependent variable. Inasmuch as the factors revealed by the second analysis are virtually identical to those already reported, a detailed review will not be presented. For compari-son purposes, however, the rotated factor loadings for this second analysis are included in Appendix C. The major objective in using the factor scores and GENSAT in a multiple regression was to attach some measure of significance to the relationship between each of the respective factors and the level of general satisfaction. Since a loading in a orthogonal rotation is essenti-ally a correlation coefficient, the loadings for GENSAT in the analysis in which it was included should be similar"5 to the regression coefficients revealed by the multiple regression analysis utilizing GENSAT and the factor scores. Table 3.3 shows the results of the regression analysis. The six factors together account for 45 per cent of the variance in general satis-faction. The table also shows the regression coefficients for each of the factors, together with the 111" statistic and the probability of the null hypothesis (that the observed coefficient would occur in a random sample from a population in which the coefficient is zero) associated with the regression coefficients. The first five factors have statistically significant coefficients and Factor X is clearly not significantly correlated with general satisfaction. 32 TABLE 3.3 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS -FACTOR SCORES INDEPENDENT, GENSAT DEPENDENT Multiple r = 0.6737 Factor Basic Provisions Private Amenities Public Indoor Amenities Family Accommodation Storage Provisions Factor X ^Regression Coefficient : Loading 0.451 0.323 0.125 0.102 0.097 0.021 0.541 0.340 0.129 Oil 01 0.095 0. 024 10.054 7.190 2.775 2.264 2.161 0.470 Probability 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.024 0.032 0.639 3 3 As suggested in Section 1 . 2 . 2 , the adequacy of basic unit features is the strongest determinant of satisfaction, followed in descending order of importance by private non-essential features, public indoor amenities, facilities for family households and provision for storage of various household items. It is also noted that the regression analysis, though it provides a measure of significance by evaluating the probability of ob-taining, by chance, "t" values as high or higher than those which occur, it results in comparable explanation of the variation in the dependent variable. By taking the square of the multiple r, it is determined that 4 5 . 3 9 per cent of the variation in GENSAT is explained by the multiple regression. 3 . 4 THE FACTORS AND THE HYPOTHESES In Section 2 . 1 , two hypotheses were stated: 1. The design of townhouse developments has been predicated on the need to market the project, with insufficient attention being given to the design requirements of the occupants. 2 . Townhouses are designed to meet the needs of households with-out children and, as such, do not satisfy the demand for moder-ately priced family housing. In the following sections, the implications of the factor analysis will be assessed in terms of these hypotheses. 3 . 4 . 1 Design Decisions and Resident Requirements The factor analysis has demonstrated that the most important de-terminants of satisfaction form a group which can best be described as basic provisions. Since the square of the loading represents the pro-portion of the variance explained by the factor, the basic provision 3 4 -factor explains 29.27 per cent of the variance in GENSAT. Similarly, the private amenities factor explains 11.56 per cent, public indoor amenities 1.66 per cent, family structure 1.02 per cent and storage provisions 0.90 per cent. Clearly, developers wishing to optimize the residential satis-faction of townhouse occupants should direct their attention to those characteristics loading highly on the basic provisions factor. Of descend-ing importance are those variables loading highly on each of the succeed-ing factors. Of the 101 variables entered into the factor analysis, 56 are design aspects over which the developers have a direct influence. The remain-ing variables serve as controls and are not considered here. The objective in this section is to relate the preferences for speci-fic design characteristics to their presence within the developments sampled. To summarize preferences, it was necessary to establish how much of the variation in GENSAT is explained by the variation in each of the design variables. This was accomplished using the following formula: L 2 — - — X L 2 VP G where l_v = the loading for the design variable on a given factor. As noted previously, the square of a loading in an ortho-gonal rotation represents the proportion of that variable's variance explained by the factor; VP = the total variance explained by the factor; l_r = the loading for GENSAT on a given factor. The sum of the products of this formula for a given variable on all five factors represents the total variation in GENSAT explained by the varia-tion in the design variable. By applying this formula to each of the 56 design variables, it was possible to rank the variables in order of their contribution to the variance in GENSAT. The supply side of the equation was established by ranking the variables according to their medians. For the dichotomous variables, no transformation was required, but for the variables measured on a five point scale, it was necessary to divide the medians by 5 so that they would be comparable to the dichotomous variables. Having established the contribution that each design characteristic makes to GENSAT and the supply of such characteristics within the pro-jects sampled, the relationship between the desire and provision was evaluated. The correlation between the desire and provision values is low with a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of 0.1784 (this is sig-nificant at the 1% level). There appears to be little relationship between the facilities provided in townhouse developments and the characteristics which the occupants desire. In an effort to determine which facilities are oversupplied and which are undersupplied relative to their contribution to satisfaction, the vari-ables were rank-ordered on both the provision and preference dimensions. The highest value was ranked "1" with smaller values assigned progres-sively higher rank-order values. Since the rank-order values were assigned in increments of "1 , " the lowest value on each dimension was given a value of "56." Table 3.4.1 provides the variable names, the explanatory value in terms of GENSAT, the rank-order values for both the explanatory value and the supply value, the difference between the TABLE 3.4.1 PREFERENCES AND PROVI! N = Variable GENSAT Ex-plained (%) R - 0 E V CONQUAL 1. 5174 1 UNIT6 1.4763 2 BLDGAPP 1.3022 3 CRNDAPP 1.1007 4 UNIT2 1.0318 5 RESINUM 1.0315 6 SNDPROOF 0.9604 7 BULKSUIT 0.7929 8 BULKSIZE 0.7751 9 SIZEFMRM 0.6964 10 SIZELVRM 0.6619 11 UNIT7 0.6249 12 SI ZEDNRM 0. 5541 13 SPACE9 0.5401 14 VISINUM 0.5291 15 SIZEKIT 0.5269 16 VISISUIT 0.5194 17 SIZEPAT 0.4737 18 SIZE1 0.4707 19 SIZE2 0.4630 20 PROJ1 0.4443 21 PATPRIV 0.4231 22 SPACE1 0.4141 23 KITSIZE 0.4080 24 UNIT4 0.4070 25 UNIT8 0.4012 26 UNIT9 0.3423 27 TIRESIZE 0.3283 28 PROJ10 0.3005 29 RESISUIT 0.2993 30 SIZE3 0.2982 31 KITSUIT 0.2756 32 UNIT5 0.2420 33 UNIT11 0.2369 34 UNIT10 0.2353 35 PROJ2 0.2351 36 PROJ3 0.2120 37 SPACE10 0.1668 38 SPACE6 0.1664 39 TIRESUIT 0.1614 40 FURNSIZE 0. 1611 41 UNIT1 0.1496 42 PROJ6 0.1321 43 UNIT3 0.1255 44 A RANK-ORDERING R-0 s R - ° E V - R - ° s Median 19 -18 0.660 41 -39 0.507 11 - 8 0.794 5 - 1 0.867 16 -11 0.730 14 - 8 0.750 15 - 8 0.739 17 - 9 0.693 38 -29 0.525 27 -17 0.598 25 -14 0.604 24 -12 0.609 40 -27 0.510 2 +12 0.923 99 -34 0.369 31 -15 0.580 42 -25 0.5001 34 -16 0.542 22 - 3 0.624 29 - 9 0.582 28 - 7 0.597 33 -11 0.562 1 +22 0.929 37 -13 0.527 47 -22 0.429 12 +14 0.780 51 -24 0.167 39 -11 0.511 55 -^26 0.104 3 +26 0. 916 36 - 5 0.537 13 +19 0.760 10 +23 0.796 52 -18 0.136 50 -15 0.176 53 -17 0.134 32 + 5 0.576 4 +34 0.869 8 +31 0.7971 26 +14 0.601 45 - 4 0.479 7 +35 0.815 48 - 5 0.403 6 +38 0.828 3 7 TABLE 3.4.1 - continued Variable GENSAT Ex-plained Co) 0.1215 R - 0 E V R - 0 s R - 0 £ V - R-Os Median RVOWN 45 56 -11 0.010 BIKESUIT 0.1164 46 20 +26 0.655 PROJ11 0.1142 47 46 + 1 0.458 BIKESIZE 0.1122 48 43 + 5 0.5003 MOWRSIZE 0.0892 49 44 + 5 0.488 FURNSUIT 0.0809 50 35 +15 0.541 SPACE8 0.0796 51 23 +28 0.616 MOWRSUIT 0.0722 52 30 +22 0.581 PROJ8 0.06344 53 18 +35 0.673 PROJ7 0. 06343 54 9 +45 0.7970 SPACE7 0. 0609 55 21 +34 0.636 PROJ9 0.0346 56 54 + 2 0.112 Spearman's r = 0.1784 p < 0.01 38 rank-order values and the supply value Itself. The difference between the rank-order values represents an approxi-mate measure of the relationship between the provision and desirability of the development characteristics. The positive scores suggest that the supply exceeds the requirements while the negative scores suggest the opposite. Table 3.4.1 suggests that townhouse developers have seriously mis-interpreted the requirements of townhouse residents. Fully 27 of the 56 design variables used in the analysis demonstrate rank-order differ-entials exceeding ±16,: with only 16 showing less than ±10. With 33 vari-ables having negative rank-order values and 23 having positive values, there is no statistically significant difference between the negative and positive rank-order distributions. Despite the indications that some features are either oversupplied or undersupplied, no clear pattern emerges to suggest that marketing requirements greatly influence the rank-order distribution. The high amenity facilities such as indoor and outdoor swimming pools, saunas, whirlpools, common rooms, workshops, gardens, fireplaces, family rooms and unique design features, do not demonstrate a consistent pattern of positive rank-order differential values. Indeed, the desirability exceeds the provision for indoor pools, workshops, fireplaces and design features, each of which shows a differential value at least as high as -11. Although it is apparent that features intended to expedite project marketing are not included at the expense of resident requirements, the provision of design characteristics does not, in fact, give adequate recognition to those characteristics which are demonstrated to be of value to townhouse occupants. Insufficient attention has been given to the 39 amount of space provided for the storage of bulky items like vacuum cleaners. Where included, the dining rooms are too small. Parking pro-visions for visitors are both inadequate and inconveniently located. En-suite bathrooms, workshops, family rooms, design features, indoor pools, space for hobbies, powder rooms, fireplaces and parking accommodation for recreational vehicles are the items which residents indicate are too infrequently provided. Patios, kitchens, family rooms, storage for snow tires and kitchen utensils, second and third bedrooms and living rooms are felt to be of inadequate size. The privacy of patios and the quality of construction are also considered unsatisfactory. ln contrast to the abovementioned deficiencies, the evidence in this study suggests that developers have devoted excessive attention to the provision of playspace for non-teenage children and the supply of back yards and back doors exceeds the need. The high positive value relat-ing to the provision of storage space for lawn mowers, snow tires, sports equipment and lawn furniture indicates that many residents do not require such space. The negative values for the corresponding variables relat-ing to the size of such spaces suggest that, for those who require accom-modation for these items, the spaces provided are inadequate in terms of size, although the locations of such spaces are felt to be convenient. Similarly, the need for third bedrooms is met but, where they are re-quired, they are considered to be too small. To conclude this section, the hypothesis that occupancy requirements have been subordinated to marketing considerations is not supported by the evidence provided in this study. Marketing would not appear to be a major determinant of townhouse project design or, perhaps more accurately, marketing and resident requirements coincide more closely than the hypothesis no suggests. It is clear, however, that many design characteristics do not reflect the needs, expectations and aspirations of townhouse residents. Certain of these conclusions should be reflected in all projects regardless of specific populations to whom they are directed. These include construc-tion quality, parking provisions, patio privacy, fireplace provision and certain room sizes and storage spaces. Other conclusions may be appli-cable only under specific circumstances and this suggestion forms the basis for discussion in the next section. 3.4.2 Townhouses and Household Structure The second hypothesis addressed in this study is stated as follows: Townhouses are designed to meet the needs of households without children and, as such, do not satisfy the demand for moderately priced family housing. It will be recalled from Section 3.2 that the factor analysis isolated a number of related variables which were seen to identify specific require-ments of family households. Since almost half of the responses come from households without children, however, the factor analysis was repeated utilizing only those responses from family households. This represents a total of 146 responses. This procedure was the same as for the pre-vious analysis. Two analyses were performed, one including GENSAT and one excluding GENSAT. The factor scores from the second analysis were used in a multiple regression run with GENSAT as the dependent variable. The factors which emerged from this analysis were similar to those which were originally derived, as can be seen in Appendix D. Because much of the variation in the data which led to the isolation of the family accommodation factor was removed with the exclusion of non-family re-sponses, this factor did not appear. Factors relating to private amenities, storage, basic provisions and indoor public amenities, however, did 41 emerge but only the private amenities and basic provisions were shown by the regression analysis to be statistically significant in terms of GENSAT. Table 3.4.2.1 gives the regression coefficients, the loadings for GENSAT, the Student's "t" value and the probability. Factor X and Factor Y, the sixth factor to emerge in place of family accommodation, are included in the table to indicate their limited contribution to the explanation of GENSAT. The same procedure utilized in Section 3.4.1 was employed for the present analysis to derive rank-order differential values for each of the 56 design variables. In this case, only the values for the two factors representing a significant contribution to GENSAT are considered. This is consistent with the earlier application wherein Factor X was deleted as being not significant in terms of GENSAT. The derivation of the rank-ordering is shown in Table 3.4.2.2. The rank-order differential values for the total sample are also provided for comparison. The initial factor analysis including all responses suggested the im-portance to family households of providing a back door, a back yard, an eating area in the kitchen, a third bedroom and space for hobbies. This argument is reinforced by the results of the factor analysis utilizing only those responses from households with children, although other variables emerge to suggest that design features such as a fireplace, an ensuite bathroom and a family room are desirable regardless of family structure. A comparison of the two factor analyses reveals some interesting observations regarding the preferences and provision of specific features. Whether all responses or only those from family households are considered, the provision of a back yard and a back door is more than adequate with rank-order differential values of +42 and +32 respectively for families 42 TABLE 3.4.2.1 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS FACTOR SCORES INDEPENDENT, GENSAT DEPENDENT Multiple r = 0.5967 Factor Basic Provisions Private Amenities Public Indoor Amenities Storage Provisions Factor X Factor Y Regression Coefficient Loading "t" Probabil , 0.35125 0.430 5.765 0.000 0.38963 0.478 6.394 0.000 0.06072 0.056 0.996 0.321 0.06668 0.055 1.094 0.276 0.05746 0.054 0.943 0.347 0.02812 0.039 0.461 0.645 TABLE 3.4.2.2 PREFERENCES AND PROVISION : RANK -ORDERING FOR FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS N = 146 Variable GENSAT Ex-plained (%) R - ° G E R-O s v R - ° G E - R - ° s v Median R-0 ; Total Sample UNIT2 1.6378 1 14 -13 0.720 -11 UNIT6 1.5411 2 46 -44 0.378 -39 UNIT9 1.1337 3 49 -46 0.237 -24 S1ZEFMRM 1.0123 4 24 -20 0. 591 -17 UNIT8 0.7846 5 8 - 3 0.783 +14 BLDGAPP 0.7837 6 11 - 5 0.770 - 8 RESINUM 0.7823 7 18 -11 0.6722 - 8 CONQUAL 0.7624 8 20 -12 0.642 -18 SNDPROOF 0.7466 9 16 - 7 0.685 - 8 SIZEDNRM 0.7201 10 38 -28 0.479 -27 VISINUM 0.6785 11 47 -36 0. 345 -34 SPACE1 0.6651 12 1 +11 0. 950 +22 SIZE3 0.6408 13 34 -21 0.518 - 5 UNIT10 0.6222 14 52 -38 0.147 -15 UNIT11 0.5785 15 53 -38 0.117 -18 VISISUIT 0.5453 16 39 -23 0.478 -25 UNIT5 0.5285 17 9 + 8 0.782 +23 SIZE2 0. 3975 18 26 - 8 0. 582 - 9 UNIT4 0.3651 19 19 0.643 -22 GRNDAPP 0.3418 20 7 +13 0. 815 - 1 S1ZEKIT 0.3380 21 28 - 7 0. 569 -15 KITSIZE 0.3164 22 33 -11 0. 519 -13 BULKSIZE 0.3077 23 36 -13 0.493 -29 RESISlilJIT 0.2972 24 2 +22 0. 908 +26 SPACE9 0.2966 25 4 +21 0. 872 +12 PROJ11 0.2936 26 31 - 5 0.528 + 1 PROJ2 0.2741 27 54 -27 0. 116 -17 BULKSUIT 0.2325 28 15 +13 0.700 - 9 UNIT7 0.2240 29 44 -15 0.423 -12 SIZEPAT 0.2031 30 32 + 2 0.521 -16 SIZELVRM 0.1942 31 23 + 8 0.593 -14 BIKESUIT 0.1919 32 42 -10 0.457 +26 PROJ3 0.1666 33 27 + 6 0. 578 •+ 5 PROJ7 0.1609 34 3 +31 0. 876 + 45 TABLE 3.4.2.2 - continued Variable GENSAT Ex-plained (%) R - ° G E R-O s v R - 0 G E _ R-O s v Median R-0 Total Sample PROJ9 0.1529 35 51 -16 0. 148 + 2 SIZE1 0.1430 36 22 +14 0.622 - 3 UNIT1 0.1400 37 5 +32 0.845 +35 KITSUIT 0.1309 38 13 +25 0.736 +19 PROJ8 0.1143 39 12 +27 0.742 +35 SPACE6 0.1064 40 21 +19 0.634 +31 BIKESIZE 0.0963 41 40 + 1 0.474 + 5 SPACE7 0.0794 42 50 - 8 0.196 +34 TIRESIZE 0.0556 43 37 + 6 0.486 --11 MOWRSIZE 0.0538 44 43 + 1 0.433 + 5 PROJ1 0.0497 45 17 +28 0.6724 - 7 RVOWN 0.0464 46 55 - 0 0. 100 -11 MOWRSUIT 0.0378 47 30 +17 0. 544 +22 UNIT3 0.0353 48 6 +42 0.844 +38 PATPRIV 0. 0289 49 29 +20 0. 565 -11 FURNSU1T 0.0236 50 35 +15 0.500 +15 PROJ6 0.0235 51 45 + 6 0.410 - 5 SPACE10 0.0214 52 10 +42 0.771 +34 FURNSIZE 0.0206 53 41 +12 0.464 - 4 SPACE8 0.0200 54 48 + 6 0.335 +28 PROJ10 0.0189 55 56 - 1 0.057 -26 TIRESUIT 0.0119 56 25 +31 0. 590 +14 Spearman's r = 0.1565 s p < 0.01 45 and +38 and +35 for all households. The provision of a kitchen eating area, however, reveals a different conclusion. For all responses, the pro-vision of this feature was seen to be more than adequate with a rank-order differential of +14. For family households, the perception of respondents is that too often this feature is not included, the result being a rank-order differential of -3. Similarly, recreation space for teenagers was perceived as adequate by the total sample (+2) but controlling for family households resulted in a substantial drop (-16). The rank-order differential values for a further seven variables in-dicate that certain features are inadequately provided for all households but families are adversely affected by the inadequacy to a greater extent than is the total sample. As might be expected, the shortage of space for hobbies is acutely felt by family households as is the small size of third bedrooms , the limited provision of family rooms and small dining rooms. Less expected is the evidence indicating that family households are less satisfied than the total sample with the provision of unique de-sign features, indoor swimming pools and parking spaces for visitors. To conclude, it is apparent that households of all types express dissatisfaction with various aspects of townhouse design. Certain of these features are felt equally by both family and non-family households. Others are felt more acutely by family households. Still others are found by the total sample to be adequately provided while family households express dissatisfaction with their provision. To evaluate the results of these differing perceptions, the family and non-family households were treated as independent samples in a Kendall's Tau-C test for GENSAT. The re-sults of this test are given on the page following. 46 TABLE 3.4.2.3 SATISFACTION OF FAMILY AND NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Frequency Distribution for GENSAT Level of Satisfaction Family(N) Non-Family(N) Total(N) (Extremely Dissatisfied) 1 4 2 6 2 14 11 25 3 57 36 95 4 54 55 109 (Extremely Satisfied) 5 _15 _4J_ _56 146 145 291 Kendall's TAU-C = 0.25 p < 0.001 47 The Kendall's Tau-C test indicates that there: is, in fact, a statis-tically significant difference in the satisfaction expressed by family and non-family households. This conclusion and the evidence advanced with respect to the preferences and supply of specific design features leads to the conclusion that the hypothesis -Townhouses are designed to meet the needs of households without children and, as such, do not satisfy the demand for moderately priced family housing -is not rejected. 48 FOOTNOTES 1. R. J. Rummel, op. cit., p. 16. 2. Ibid, pp. 361 and 366. 3. See Ibid., pp. 385-386. 4. Ibid., pp. 477-8, H. H. Harman, Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967, p. 328. 5. The inclusion of an additional variable precludes their being identical. In fact, it is to be expected that the difference between the loading and the corresponding regression coefficient will be greater where the relationship between the factor and GENSAT is strongest. This occurs because more of the variation among all the related variables is explained by the addition of yet another related variable. 4 9 Chapter IV CONCLUSIONS 4.1 GENERAL SUMMARY The basic objective of this study was to relate the provision of design features to the design preferences of townhouse residents with particular attention directed at the requirements of family households. To place the scope of this study in perspective, it is noted that resi-dential satisfaction is a function of much more than the form of the physical environment. Those variables included in the factor analysis explain less than 45 per cent of the variation in GENSAT. It might be argued that this figure is surprisingly high considering that aspects of management and interpersonal relations among owners, their children and their pets often influence satisfaction substantially. The high figure, however, suggests that the design of townhouse developments warrants careful attention by developers. Residents recognize that developers have endeavoured to meet the demand for storage space and third bedrooms but feel that the space provided is inadequate. Play space for pre-teenage children, back doors, back yards, dining rooms, gardens, kitchen eating areas, common rooms and saunas are provided more often than residents require. In many cases, the perceptions of family respondents are more ex-treme than those of the total sample. As would be expected, those spaces indicated by the total sample to be of insufficient size are con-sidered by family households to be even less adequate. Moreover, the total sample expressed satisfaction with the provision of kitchen eating areas and recreation space for teenagers but family respondents indicated that these same features are not adequately provided. The perception of family households that their requirements are not reflected in townhouse design is indicated by their statistically significant lower level of satisfaction. Considering that the suitability of townhouses for family accommodation provided a major impetus to their development and, inasmuch as this argument is often advanced in marketing townhouse units, it is a matter of some concern that family households find them less satisfactory than do non-family households. It is also of note that virtually half of the households sampled do not include children. 4.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The results of this study pose two challenges to planning and develop-ment. The statistically significant lower level of satisfaction among family households compared to non-family households confirms the previously stated suggestion that household structure substantially affects design preferences. It is also suggested that age, income level and lifestyle are important determinants of user preferences. While the market analyst appreciates the importance of such considerations in the short term, the challenge is to understand the longer term processes which ensure that a purchaser's initial satisfaction will be sustained. A market analysis is intended to evaluate the demand for a specific product at a given point in time. The adequacy of such an analysis is measured by the rate at which the product sells. A competent analysis will define the characteristics to be incorporated into the product and the rapid sales rate will confirm the analysis. For durable goods, such as housing, however, changes which exercise a pronounced influence on user preferences can be expected. A townhouse project which initially and 51 perhaps for several years provides adequate satisfaction may be rendered unsuitable as changes occur affecting family, health, income and/or employment. While market analysis has been relatively successful in indicating what is marketable, different analytic tools are required to understand the processes which determine long term satisfaction among townhouse residents. Because the concept is new, however, empirical studies and, conse-quently an appreciation of the mechanisms affecting such satisfaction are limited. The housing market generally and the condominium market speci-fically have been highly volatile during the past fifteen years and, as a result, it is impossible to establish reliable guidelines for townhouse de-sign. It can be assumed that, as more research is undertaken, the im-portant determinants of resident satisfaction will become more clear. Care-ful consideration, however, must be given to the way such understanding is reflected in planning practice. Discussion in Chapter II suggested how government intervention at the provincial and federal levels can distort the market. A more promising approach would involve planners, developers and purchasers in the design process, with the additional knowledge provided by empirical studies as guidance. The demonstrated lower level of satisfaction among family households represents both a challenge and a concern. It is a concern since the townhouse form, as suggested earlier, appears to offer the characteristics appropriate for family accommodation. It is a challenge because planning and development have yet to realize its potential in this respect. The evidence provided in this study does not suggest that the town-house concept is not suitable for families. The ground orientation renders it particularly appropriate and, despite the deficiencies in size identified 52 earlier, generally the townhouse form offers more opportunities for family activities than do other higher density residential forms. If the concept, therefore, is consistent with the requirements of family households, the explanation for dissatisfaction among family re-spondents must be sought elsewhere. Others have demonstrated that a large proportion of owners below the age of forty consider townhouse ownership an interim step toward the purchase of a single family home.^ Such respondents might be expected to demonstrate a lower leve) of satis-faction than those who do not intend to move. Other respondents, however, may consider their townhouse a poor substitute for the single family residence they feel will always be out of reach. This argument is supported by the results of the factor analyses. Since general satisfaction is most closely related to Basic Provisions, it is this factor which will be examined in terms of length of occupancy (MONTHS). When the loadings for length of occupancy are compared for the total sample and family households, the conclusion is striking. For the total sample, the loading is moderately high and positive (0.463), but for family households, the loading is low and negative (-0.086). This suggests that for the total sample, satisfaction increases as length of occupancy increases. On the other hand, although the relationship is not strong, the tendency among family respondents is to be less satisfied as length of occupancy increases. The evidence is not conclusive, but'a possible explanation of this finding is that while family households are not satisfied with the basic provisions in townhouse developments, they consider themselves locked into their present accommodation. The town-house represents the only affordable ownership unit available and, despite its inadequacies, the resident feels compelled to remain. 53 Despite their shortcomings, higher density forms of family housing are likely to represent an ever-increasing proportion of the housing stock in Greater Vancouver and other metropolitan areas. The rising costs of land, services and construction are making single family resi-dences less and less affordable. For families of low income, the expecta-tion of owning such accommodation is probably unrealistic already. For those of moderate income, it soon will be if present trends continue and there is little evidence to suggest that they will not. On the positive side, however, the higher density condominium offers opportunities not readily available to owners of single family residences. A small proportion of those who can afford a single detached home can also afford to own and operate a swimming pool, sauna, whirlpool, fully equipped workshop and games room. Such facilities, though not universal in town-house projects, are nonetheless common. Few single family house owners employ a gardener to maintain the lawn, shrubs and planting areas, yet complete landscape maintenance is virtually universal in townhouse de-velopments. Moreover, the townhouse form offers companionship for those who wish it and security unequalled in a typical single family subdivision. With these advantages, the failure of townhouse developments to satisfy the requirements of family households lies not with the concept itself but rather with its application in the Vancouver area. The chal-lenge to the planner and the developer is to provide projects which satis-fy these requirements. The most important statement to emerge from this study is that projects should be designed, constructed and marketed toward a specific and homogeneous population, toward those who would most appreciate the features provided. The objection to this approach is that it appears to contradict the objective of a broad social and economic mix. It requires homogeneity of population within each project rather than a diversity of family types, age and income levels. Based on discussions with those who have had direct experience with efforts 2 to provide such diversity within projects, however, as well as the authorls personal experience with townhouse developments, the objective of social mix is most successfully applied on a larger scale. The ap-proach adopted in Champlain Heights and False Creek assumes homo-geneity within enclaves but diversity among the enclaves which comprise the whole project. Consequently, these comprehensive developments accommodate singles, couples, families and seniors but each is accommo-dated in distinct developments. A similar mixture of income levels is found but again these are separated. Inasmuch as this practice functions well where it has been applied, the recommendation that projects be de-signed and marketed for specific populations is supported by experience as well as by the findings of this study. The development of family townhousing would also be stimulated by a shift in emphasis in the drafting of zoning by-laws. In the lower mainland, the practice, generally, has been to regulate density by speci-fying a maximum Floor Space Ratio (F.S.R.) for each zone. The em-phasis has been on the square footage of built floor space rather than on the number of people accommodated or the number of dwelling units. The combined effects of development costs, demand for both rental and condo-minium units, and rent controls have discouraged developers of either rental or condominium housing from building large units which families would find attractive. Because they can gain a better return by de-veloping more small units, they do not provide larger family units. It is strongly suggested that Planning Departments give serious consideration 5 5 to establishing density standards based on numbers of units, perhaps combined with an F.S.R. maximum. An alternative would be to provide a bonus in the form of a higher maximum floor space ratio for family units. In establishing such standards, the objective must be to provide a sufficient incentive to encourage the development of large units for families. Municipalities, through their powers to regulate land use, can offer additional incentives by designating areas of difficult terrain for town-house development. Such sites, though difficult and expensive to service for single family subdivisions, very often provide opportunities for inno-vative and efficient site layouts for townhouse projects. With careful at-tention to contours, light angles and vegetation, the utilization of such sites for family townhousing can prove very successful. The foregoing measures are either municipal (or regional) govern-ment initiatives, not requiring provincial or federal subsidies to encourage family housing development. Tax measures resulting in lower tax rates for revenues derived from either the sale or rental of large units is an obvious possibility for the federal government and a less obvious but still possible measure for the provincial level. Both senior governments can exercise considerable influence in the development of family housing through carefully considered tax measures, although it is recognized that, by virtue of its larger tax share and its existing administrative infra-structure, a federal programme would have greater impact and could be more easily implemented. Senior governments could also offer preferen-tial interest rates on loans and subsidize land acquisition costs to de-velopers of higher density family housing. During the early 1970's, the Provincial Government, in fact, provided subsidies to cooperative associations wishing to develop in Champlain Heights, although such sub-sidies are usually directed toward the acquisition of long term leases. Yet another approach to stimulate development of large, higher density family units is available to all levels of government. This in-volves the selling or leasing of government owned land at below market value in an effort to generate specific forms of development. Generally, this approach is applied to lands held under long term leases rather than fee simple ownership, for the obvious reason that governments are re-luctant to relinquish their interest without obtaining full value. Even without government assistance, however, the utilization of leasehold land for family townhouse units merits consideration since the market value for leasehold property is generally lower than the freehold value of comparable land and, consequently, developers could offer better housing value. The success of the various measures discussed above depends upon the adequacy of both the incentive offered and the safeguards provided. Clearly, the incentive must be attractive enough to render the desired development economically realistic. It may be that some of the suggested approaches will not alone provide sufficient incentive and it is, there-fore, important that programmes offered by various levels of government be integrated to ensure their adequacy. Regardless of the adequacy of the incentives and their success in providing appropriate developments, the presence of family townhousing does not guarantee its occupancy by family households. Developers must consider more than the project characteristics. Among the most important factors to be considered by families in selecting a residence is the proximity of necessary services. Without convenient access to 57 schools, parks and shopping opportunities, families will be less inclined to purchase a townhouse regardless of how perfectly the project itself fulfills their aspirations, expectations and requirements. Thus, design characteristics of townhouse developments, though important in the deter-mination of residential satisfaction, work with other influences in the process of choosing a residence and in the longer term level of satisfac-tion expressed by the residents. To conclude, the major implication of this study for developers and planners is that the future success of the townhouse concept requires that projects be designed for a specific and homogeneous client group. The challenges are to determine the particular requirements of each such group and to devise appropriate tools to ensure that the developer and planner may cooperate in the interests of the developer, the planner and the future townhouse resident. While all levels of government have roles in housing supply, encouragement of family housing through more appropriate townhouse design may be achieved by municipal planning policy, independent of expensive subsidy programmes. FOOTNOTES See Condominium Research Associates, op. cit., pp. 42-43, and S. W. Hamilton, Decade of Experience, op. cit., pp. 90-91. Mike Egan, Project Manager, Champlain Heights, Personal Inter- view, July 15, 1980. Ann McAfee, Housing Planner, City of Vancouver, Personal  Interview, July 14, 1980. 5 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldrich, John and Cnudde, Charles F. "Probing the Bounds of Con-ventional Wisdom: A Comparison of Regression, Probit and Discriminant Analysis." American Journal of Political Science, XIX, 3, August, 1975, pp. 571-608. Arnold, A. Developing a Condominium: Feasibility, Financing and  Marketing. Boston: Warren, Gorham S Lamont, 1973. Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973. Bell, L. I. The Housing Game: A Survey of Consumer Preferences in  Medium-Density Housing in the Greater Vancouver Region. Vancouver: United Way of Greater Vancouver, 1974. Berridge, J. D. The Housing Market and Urban Residential Structure:  A Review. Toronto: University of Toronto Centre for Urban and Community Studies, 1971. Black, Jerome H. "The Multi-Candidate Calculus of Voting: Applica-tion to Canadian Federal Elections." American Journal of  Political Science. Vol. 22, No. 3, August, 1978, pp. 609-638. Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972. Burgess, R. Personal Interview, Prince George, B.C., May 23, 1980. (Formerly Programme-Coordinator Greater Vancouver Regional District Compact Housing Programme.) Capilano College Conference Centre. Condominiums: Concepts and Challenges. Transcript of a two-day Seminar, January 27-28, 1975. North Vancouver: Capilano College, 1975. Child, D. The Essentials of Factor Analysis. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Clarke, John. Condominiums: What are you really buying? Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1977. Clurman, David and Hebard, Edna. Condominiums and Cooperatives. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970. Condominium Research Associates. National Survey of Condominium Owners. Toronto: 1971. Derkowski, Andrzej. Costs in the Land Development Process. Toronto Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, 1976. 61 Dombal, Robert W. Residential Condominiums: A Guide to Analysis and  Appraisal. Chicago, III.: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1976. Egan, Mike (Project Manager - Champlain Heights). Personal Interview. Vancouver: July 15, 1980. Fitzpatrick, R. and Sinclair, M. "Housing," in C. Davis (Ed.) The Vancouver Book. Vancouver: Evergreen Press, 1976, pp. 236-242. Carson, G. David. Handbook of Political Science Methods. Boston, Mass.: Holbrook Press, Inc., 1971. Government of British Columbia. Strata Titles Act, Chapter 46, SBC 1966. Victoria: Queen's Printer. Government of British Columbia. Strata Titles Act, Chapter 89, SBC 1974, Victoria: Queen's Printer, Consolidated to September 21, 1978. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Colloquia on Housing and Land  Development, Summaries of Proceedings July 4, 1973 and Sep- tember 20, 1973. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1974. Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Livable Region 1976/1986:  Proposals to Manage the Growth of Greater Vancouver. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1975. Gunderson, M. "Retention of Trainees, a Study with Dichotomous Dependent Variables." Journal of Econometrics. Vol. 2, No. 1, May 1974, pp. 79-93. Hall, R. H., (Ed.). UBC Commands: The MTS Commands Manual. UBC Computing Centre, May 1979. Hamilton, S. W., et al. "Condominiums: A Comparative Analysis." Appraisal Institute Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1969, pp. 53-58. Hamilton, S.,,W., et al. Condominium Development in Metropolitan  Vancouver, Vancouver: The Real Estate Council of B.C., 1971. Hamilton, S. W., and Roberts, R. S. Condominium Development and Ownership. Vancouver: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1973. Hamilton, S. W. Condominiums: A Decade of Experience in B.C. Vancouver: The British Columbia Real Estate Association, 1978. 62 Hamilton, S. W. "Comdonimium Development." in Trends. Vancouver: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1978. Harman, H. H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Hippaka, William H. The Development, Marketing and Management of Residential Condominiums. San Diego: Calif. Dept. of Real Estate, 1973. Hogg, J. F. and Tenisci, Teresa. UBC Edit: The Line File Editor. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Computing Centre, August, 1976. Hyman, Herbert. Survey Design and Analysis: Principles, Cases and  Procedures. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955. ICO Real Estate Management Ltd. The Land Development Process as it Affects the Supply of New Housing Within the Greater Vancouver  Regional District. Vancouver: The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1974. Isaacson, Andrew L. and Roth, Steven M. "Condominium Workouts: Balancing the Interests of the parties." Real Estate Law  Journal. Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring, 1977, pp. 3-20. Ito, K. K. Residential Satisfaction of Condominium Owners. Vancouver: Unpublished M.A. Thesis - UBC, 1972. Karr, James H. Condominium Buyer's Guide. 1973. Kita, Stan. UBC SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 7.01 (Under MTS). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Computing Centre, September 1978. Le, Chinh and Tenisci, Teresa. UBC TRP: Triangular Regression Package. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Computing Centre, October 1978. Leigh, J. L. UBC Introduction: Introduction to the Computing Centre  and MTS. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Computing Centre, September 1976. McAfee, Ann. "Housing a City." in C. Davis (Ed.) The Vancouver  Book. Vancouver: Evergreen Press, 1976. McAfee,, Ann. Personal Interview. Vancouver, B.C., July 15, 1980. (Housing Planner - City of Vancouver.) Michelson, William D., (ed.). Behavioral Research Methods in Environ- mental Design. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975. 63 Nie, Norman H. SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Norcross, Carl. Townhouses and Condominiums: Residents' Likes and  Dislikes. Washington, D.C: U.L.I., 1973. Onibokun, Adepoju.G. "Evaluating Consumers' Satisfaction with Housing: An Application of a Systems Approach," Journal of the AIP. Vol. 40, No. 3, May, 1974, pp. 189-200. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Consumer Guide to Condominiums Vancouver: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1976. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Current Listings and Sales. Vancouver: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, April 17, 1979. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. MLS Sales Summary: 1978 Sales. Vancouver: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, 1979. Real Estate Boaard of Greater Vancouver. Trends. Vancouver: Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. All Issues 1966 to 1979. Roberts, R. S. Condominium Housing in Metro Vancouver. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, unpublished MBA Thesis, 1973. Rummel, R. J. Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Selltiz, Claire, et al. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Smith, L. B. Housing in Canada: Market Structure and Policy Per- formance. Ottawa: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation -Research Monograph No. 2, 1971. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. Statistical Methods, 6th Ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1967. Snedecor, G.W.. and Cochran, W. G. Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1972. Statistics Canada. Census Tracts: Population and Housing Characteristics: Vancouver. Ottawa: 1976 Census of Canada Catalogue 95-828. November 1978. The Challenge - Condominium Management. Bulletin No. 39, HUDAC. The Management Function of the Condominium. Bulletin No. 38, HUDAC. Thomas, Wm. Griffith. "Volume Closings: A New Approach for Condominium Units." Real Estate Law Journal. Vol. 5, No. 4. Winter, 1976, pp. 364-369. 64 Trade Union Research Bureau. A Summary of Housing in the Lower  Mainland. Vancouver: Trade Union Research Bureau, 1974. U.S. Dep't ofi Housing and Urban Development. HUD Condominium Co- operative Study. Washington, D.C: Dep't of Housing and Urban Development, 1975. 3 vols. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Development. Questions About Condo- miniums: What to Ask Before You Buy. Washington, D.C: Dep't of Housing and Urban Development. 1978. United Way of Greater Vancouver. Housing Costs, The Urban Land  Market and Urban Growth in the Municipalities of the Greater  Vancouver Regional District. Vancouver: United Way of Greater Vancouver, 1975. Urban Land Institute. Financial Management of Condominiums and Home-Owner's Associations. 1975. Vancouver City Planning Department. Understanding Vancouver's Housing:  Synopsis. Vancouver: Vancouver City Planning Department, 1979. Waldron, Wm. D. "Curtain May Soon Rise on Act 2 of Condominium Problems." Mortgage Banker, Nov. 1976, pp. 27-29+. APPENDIX A THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX A TOWNHOUSE STUDY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Before you begin the questionnaire, I would like to emphasize that all information obtained will be aggregated in the final report. None of the information you pro-vide will, in any way, be attributable to you. K Please indicate the location of your home by placing an "X" in the appropriate space. Burnaby, New Westminster Richmond Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Surrey, White Rock Port Moody D e | t g North Vancouver (City or District), West Vancouver Vancouver 2. When did you move into this home? Month Year If you do not recall the exact time, please estimate as closely as possible. 3. Had it been occupied by someone else before you? Yes No 4. Listed below are a number of features and facilities sometimes provided in townhouse developments. In the left hand column, please indicate whether the facility is or is not provided within your development. I am interested only in the features which form part of your development so don't include public parks or other facilities which may be near your development. Also, for each facility provided in your development, please estimate the total number of times that members of your family, including yourself, use that facility. For example, if three members of your household each use the out-door swimming pool twice a month during good weather, you would answer "6 times per month" (3 persons x 2 times per month = 6 times). If the facility is available but your family including yourself do not use it, please place an "0" in the right hand column. FEATURES AND FACILITIES PROVIDED? YOUR FAMILY'S USE Yes No outdoor swimming pool (times used in weather) Times per month indoor swimming pool Times per month sauna or whirlpool Times per month outdoor tennis court (times used in good weather) Times per month indoor tennis court Times per month common room for games, meetings, visit-ing, etc. Times per month outdoor playspace for preschoolers Times per month outdoor playspace for children aged 6-12 years Times per month playfield or other outdoor space suitable for teenagers' recreation Times per month workshop Tinies per month open garden or large wooded area Times per month 5. Please list below any other facilities or spaces which are provided for the use of residents in your development, and indicate, as you did for the APPENDIX A - continued preceding items, how much, if at all, you and your family use each. YOUR FAMILY'S USE Times per month _Times per month Times per month 6. The preceding question asked about features and facilities that are open to all ~ the residents of your development. In this question, however, I am interested in features provided for the exclusive use of you and your family. As in the previous question, please indicate in the left hand column whether the feature is provided in your unit. For those features included, please indicate in the right hand column how much that feature contributes to your enjoyment of your home. Do this by placing an "X" at the place on the line which most closely represents your opinion. INCREASES ENJOYMENT OF TOWNHOUSE Yes NO _ _ Secondary Entrance (back door) Not at all . Very Much Fireplace Not at all . Very Much Backyard Not at all . Very Much Basement Not at all . Very Much Separate Dining Room or Area Not at all .Very Much Ensuite Bathroom Not at all . Very Much Powder Room Not at a" . . Very Much Eating Area in Kitchen Not at all . . Very Much Family Room Not at all . Very Much Hobby Space (sewing, photo-graphy, crafts, etc.) Not at all . . . Very Much Unique Design Features (sky-lights, planters, vaulted ceiling, etc.) Not at a" . . . . Very Much 7. Please list below any other features, facilities or spaces which are included in ".. your townhouse unit but are not mentioned in the previous question. Again, please indicate how much the inclusion of each feature increases your enjoy-ment of your townhouse. INCREASES ENJOYMENT OF TOWNHOUSE Not at all Very Much . Not at all Very Much Not at all Very Much The previous two questions asked about your enjoyment of features and facilities in your home. This question relates to specific aspects of spaces and charac-teristics of your home. These aspects include size, privacy, quality and con-venience. On the scale provided, please indicate with an "X" the point on the line which most accurately reflects your opinion. a) Soundproofing Very poor ( i ( l l i Very good b) Construction quality Very poor t i 1 . . Very good c) Appearance of buildings Very poor l . ( i Very good d) Appearance of grounds Very poor . i . • • V-ery good APPENDIX A - c o n t i n u e d e) Number of parking spaces for residents Entirely inadequate f) Location of resident parking Very inconvenient g) Number of parking spaces for visitors Entirely inadequate h) Location of visitors' parking Very inconvenient i) Kitchen Entirely too small j) Living Room Entirely too small k) Master Bedroom Entirely too small I) Second Bedroom Entirely too small Entirely adequate Very convenient JEntirely adequate _Very convenient JEntirely too large JEntirely too large JEntirely too large JEntirely too large 9. The last question dealt with features and spaces which would be found in all tow house unit . This question, however, deals with features sometimes pro-vided and it also asks about how you choose to use certain spaces such as storage. In the left hand column, please indicate if the space or feature is included in your unit. For the "storage" sections, if you do not require storage space for the items listed, please place an "X" in the space marked "N.A." As in previous questions, you are also asked to indicate on the scale provided, the point on the line which most accurately reflects your opinion. PROVIDED Yes No N.A. Third bedroom Entirely too small , Fourth bedroom Entirely too small (  Dining room or dining area Entirely too small ; Family room Entirely too small (  Patio area Entirely too small |  Entirely too little privacy , Storage for bikes, skiis, sports equipment, etc. Entirely too small , Inconvenient location Storage for lawn mower, garden tools, etc. Entirely too small , Inconvenient location Storage for patio furniture, barbecue, etc. Entirely too small Inconvenient location Storage for vacuum cleaner, etc. Entirely too small Inconvenient location Entirely too large Entirely too large JEntirely too large JEntirely too large JEntirely too large Entirely too isolated _ from neighbours JEntirely too large Convenient location JEntirely too large Convenient location JEntirely too large Convenient location JEntirely too large Convenient location APPENDIX A - continued 4 PROVIDED? Yes No N.A. Storage for Snow tires, Christmas decorations etc. Entirely too small Inconvenient location Storage for kitchen utensils, dishes, cutlery, etc. Entirely too small . Inconvenient location _£ntirely too large Convenient location ^Entirely too large Convenient location 10. Do you own a boat, travel trailer, motor home or other recreational vehicle for which you require parking space in your townhouse development? Yes No (Please go to Question 12) 11. How adequate are the parking facilities within your development for your re-creational vehicle? No Provision for R.V. R.V. Parking Parking ^ t , is excellent 12. Most of the questions so far have considered specific features and facilities in your development and your unit. I would like you to think for a moment about all these features and all the requirements and preferences which you and your family feel toward your home. Considering all the things which you and your family think are important about a home, please indicate on the scale below how satisfied you and your family are with this townhouse. Extremely dissatisfied l t i i Extremely satisfied To this point the questions have dealt, for the most part, with your feelings about your development and your unit. The next few questions are a little more personal. Because the information provided by these questions will make an important contri-bution to an understanding of townhouse design, you are asked to answer these questions as fully and accurately as possible. You are reminded again, however, that the information will be used in aggregated form only for statistical analysis. 12- age of yourself age of second member age of third member age of fourth member age of fifth member ; age of sixth member relationship to you relationship to you Relationship to you relationship to you relationship to you minutes travel time _minutes travel time minutes travel time jninutes travel time minutes travel time minutes travel time 14. By placing an "X" in the appropriate space, please indicate whether you own or rent your present home. Own (Please answer questions 15, 16 and 17, but skip 18) Rent (Please skip questions 15, 16 and 17, and go to 18) 15. Please state the price you paid for this home: $ 16i. What do you think you could get for your home if you decided to sell it within the next few months? $ APPENDIX A - continued 5 17. Please state in the appropriate space how much you pay for each of the items listed: First Mortgage $ per month Second Mortgage $ per month Third Mortgage $ per month Monthly Maintenance fee $ per month Property Taxes $ per year* *Does this amount represent your gross taxes (before the homeowner's grant is subtracted) or does it represent your net taxes (after the homeowner's grant is deducted) ? gross taxes net taxes 20 ' Please go to Question 19 18. If you are renting your present home, please state the current monthly rent. $ per month. _9. Generally, do you feel that you are getting good value for the money you spend on housing? Please place an "X" at the point which most accurately reflects your opinion. Very Poor Value< § i i i .Very Good Value One of the real advantages of the Condominium idea is that people can be as active or inactive in the affairs of the development as they choose to be. It is up to the individual. On the scale provided, please indicate how involved you consider yourself to be in the affairs of your townhouse project. (This question should reflect the involvement of just one person in your family and that should be the person completing the questionnaire.) No involvement . Very active involvement Thank you very much. Your assistance in completing this survey is sincerely appreciated. R. Fitzpatrick APPENDIX B LIST OF VARIABLES AND CODING 72 APPENDIX B List of Variables Employed and Coding Used For Statistical Analysis  Variable Name BURNABY NESECTOR NORSHORE RICHMOND SURREY DELTA VANCOUVER MONTHS Explanation Location i n Burnaby Location i n Port Moody or Coquitlam/Port Coquitlam Location on North Shore Location i n Richmond Location i n Surrey Location i n Delta Location i n Vancouver Assigned Values 0 = No 1 = Yes 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No = Yes = Yes = Yes = Yes = Yes = Yes (deleted from analysis) Lenth of Residence i n Months 001 to 120 PREVIOWN Previously owned unit? 0 = No 1 = Yes PROJ1 Provision of outdoor pool 0 = No 1 = Yes PROJ2 Provision of indoor pool 0 = No 1 = Yes POOL Provision of pool 0 = No " 1 = Yes PROJ3 Provision of sauna, whirlpool 0 = No 1 = Yes PROJ4 Provision of outdoor tennis (deleted court 0 = No 1 = Yes 1 PROJ5 Provision of indoor tennis a n a l y s i court 0 — No 1 _ Yes' p r o j e c t these f PROJ6 Provision of common room 0 = No 1 = Yes PR0J7 Provision of preschooler playspace 0 = No 1 = Yes PROJ8 Provision of schoolager playspace 0 = No 1 = Yes PROJ9 Provision of teenager play-space 0 = = No PROJ10 Provi s i o n of workshop 0 = = No PROJ11 Provision of garden 0 = = No OUTPOOL Usage of outdoor pool 00 to 98 INPOOL Usage of indoor pool 00 to 98 SWIM Usage of pool 00 to 98 SAUNA Usage of Sauna, Whirlpool 00 to 98 OUTCOURT Usage of outdoor tennis court 00 to 98 INCOURT Usage of indoor tennis court 00 to 98 COMMROOM Usage of common room 00 to 98 PREPLAY Usage of preschooler play-space 00 to 98 KIDSPLAY Usage of schoolage playspace 00 to 98 TEENPLAY Usage of teenager playspace 00 to 98 WORKSHOP Usage of workshop 00 to 98 Yes Yes Yes (deleted from analysis -no pr o j e c t had these f a c i l i t i e s ) 73 APPENDIX B - continued Variable Name Explanation Assigned Values GARDEN UNIT1 UNIT2 . UNIT 3 UNIT4 UNIT5 UNIT6 UNIT 7 UNIT8 UNIT 9 UNIT10 UNIT11 BACKDOOR FYRPLACE BACKYARD BASEMENT DINEAREA ENSUITE POWDERRM KITCHNEA FAMILYRM HOBBYRM DESFEATR SNDPROOF CONQUAL BLDGAPP GRNDAPP RESINUM RESISUIT VISINUM SIZEKIT SIZELVRM SIZE1 SIZE2 SPACEIf SPACE2 . SPACE3 SPACE4 SPACE 5 SPACE6 SPACE7 Usage of garden Provision of back door Provision of f i r e p l a c e Provision of backyard Provision of basement Provision of dining room/ area Provision of ensuite bath Provision of powder room Provision of kitchen eating area Provision of family room Provision of hobby: :room Provision of unique design features Value of backdoor Value of f i r e p l a c e Value of backyard Value of basement Value of diningroom/area Value of ensuite bath Value of powder room Value of kitchen eating area Value of family room Value of hobby room Value of unique design features Quality of soundproofing Quality of construction Appearance of buildings Appearance of grounds Number of parking spaces-residents Location of resident parking Number of parking spaces for v i s i t o r s Size of kitchen Size of l i v i n g room Size. )bf master bedroom Size of second bedroom Provision of t h i r d bedroom Provision of fourth bedroom Provision of dining room Provision of family room Provision of patio Provision of storage f o r bikes etc Provision of storage f o r lawn mower, etc. 00 to 98 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No 0 = No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 No 1 = Yes 0 = F a c i l i t y not provided Low value .. 1 .:2f. 3 ..4r5";..ihigh value Very :v.>•:•):; Very Poor 1 . 2 . 3 4.5 Good E n t i r e l y E n t i r e l y Inadequate 1,2.3.4.5. Adequate Very In- Very con-convenient 1 2 3.45 venient E n t i r e l y E n t i r e l y Inadequate ,1,2 ,3,4,5, Adequate E n t i r e l y E n t i r e l y Too Small , 1,2,3,4,5, Too Large 0 = No 1 = Yes deleted - too few cases deleted - duplicate variable (UNIT5) deleted - duplicate variable (UNIT9) deleted - a l l "yes" responses 74 APPENDIX B - continued Variable Name SPACE8 SPACE9 SPACE10 SPACE11 SIZE3 SIZE 4 SIZEDNRM SIZEFMRM SIZEPAT PATPRIV BIKESIZE BIKESUIT MOWRSIZE MOWRSUIT FURNSIZE FURNSUIT BULKSIZE BULKSUIT TTRESIZE TIRESUIT KITSIZE KITSUIT RVOWN RVPARK Explanation Provision of storage f or patio f u r n i t u r e , etc. Provision of storage f o r vacuums, etc. Provision of storage f or snow t i r e s , e tc. Provision of storage f or kitchen u t e n s i l s Size of t h i r d bedroom Size of fourth bedroom Size of dining room Size of family room Size of patio Patio privacy Adequacy of storage for bikes etc. Location of storage f or bikes, etc. Adequacy of storage f or lawnmowers, etc. Location of storage for lawnmowers, etc. Adequacy of storage f or patio f u r n i t u r e , etc. Location of storage f o r patio f u r n i t u r e , etc. Adequacy of storage for vacuums, etc. Location of storage f or vacuums, etc. Adequacy of storage f or snow t i r e s , e tc. Location of storage f or snow t i r e s , e tc. Adequacy of storage for kitchen u t e n s i l s Location of storage f or kitchen u t e n s i l s Recreational Vehicle ownership Recreational Vehicle parking Assigned Value deleted - a l l "yes" responses E n t i r e l y E n t i r e l y too small , 1,2,3,4.5, too large E n t i r e l y E n t i r e l y too too l i t t l e i s o l a t e d from privacy r1.2,3,4,5, neighbours E n t i r e l y E n t i r e l y too small .1.2,3,4,5, too large Inconve- Conve-nient ,1,2.3,4,5. nient 0 = No 1 = Yes No pro- R.V. Parking v i s i o n , 1,2,3,4,5, i s excelleng I 75 APPENDIX B - continued Variable Name Explanation Assigned Value GENSAT General s a t i s f a c t i o n with townhouse Extremely D i s s a t i s f i e d 1.2 3 4.5 Extremely S a t i s f i e d This v a r i a b l e was used as the dependent v a r i a b l e i n the regres-sion a n a l y s i s and i t was also used i n the fac t o r analyses to deter-mine the value of the design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . AGE1 Age of Respondent 00 to 98 AGE 2 Age of second member 00 to 98 deleted - N was so small AGE 3 Age of t h i r d member 00 to 98 ) that i t re s u l t e d i n mean-AGE4 Age of fourth member 00 to 98 ) i n g l e s s , chance c o r r e l a -AGE 5 Age of f i f t h member 00 to 98 ) tions with other v a r i a b l e s . AGE6 Age of s i x t h member 00 to 98 ) YOUNG Age of youngest member 00 to 19 20 = a l l those over 19 HSLDSIZE Household size 1 to 6 TENURE Tenure 0 = Rent 1 - own PURPRICE Purchase p r i c e (standardized) 17,000 to 82,000 This v a r i a b l e was standardized according to the average cost of a l l u n i t s purchased i n a given year. PRESVALU Estimated present value of uni t 30,000 to 100,000 MAINTFEE Monthly operating assessment 27 to 75 HSGCOST Tota l monthly housing cost -owners and renters 0000 to $1002 HSGVALUE Value f o r money spent on housing Very poor ,1,2,3,4.5, Very good PARTICON Level of involvement i n No i n - Very active p r o j e c t ' s business volvement ,1,2.3.4.5. involvement DEVELAGE Age of development i n months 025 to 123 DEVELSIZ Size of development (no. of u n i t s 013 to 220 APPENDIX C FACTOR ANALYSES - TOTAL SAMPLE VARIABLE BASIC PROVISIONS PRIVATE AMENITIES PUBLIC INDOOR AMENITIES FAMILY ACCOMMODATION STORAGE PROVISIONS FACTOR X WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT BURNABY NESECTOR - 0 . 159 i - 0 . 207 i - 0 . 1 7 0 -0.232 . 0 . 2 0 4 : - 0 . 1 0 3 ! 0.198 - 0 . I l l - 0 . 2 1 4 0 . 2 3 3 - 0 . 2 1 7 . 0 . 2 2 6 - 0 . 2 3 7 0 . 1 6 2 - 0 . 2 3 6 0 . 1 7 6 0 . 0 0 3 ' - 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 0 5 - 0 . 0 25 0 . 1 75 , • 0 . 2 7 3 ' •0. 176 Ci ?7 1 NORSHORE RICHMOND SURREY 0 . 0 9 2 j 0 . 1 0 4 ' 0 . 0 9 3 0 . 0 9 1 0 . 109 0 . 1 2 1 ' 0 . 3 2 9 1 0 . 102 1 - 0 . 5 7 1 ' 0 .331 0. 108 -r>. 566 - 0 . 2 1 6 0 . 2 1 6 - 0 . 0 8 6 - 0 . 2 1 3 0 . 2 1 8 ; - 0 . 0 8 2 1 - 0 . 104 0 . 296 0 . 0 6 5 - 0 . 108 0 . 2 9 0 0 . 0 6 1 i 0 . 1 0 9 - 0 . 0 4 0 - 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 1 0 9 ' - 0 . 0 4 2 ! - 0 . 0 9 0 0 . 3 4 1 ' - 0 . 5 9 8 i 0 . 1 3 9 V* L 0 . 3 4 3 - 0 . 598 G. 138 DELTA MONTHS PREVIOMN • - 0 . 1 5 1 0 . 4 6 3 ; - C . 1 3 6 ' - 0 . 1 4 5 0 . 4 7 1 - 0 . 1 ?9 ' - 0 . 2 0 8 - 0 . 0 8 9 0 . 0 8 7 - 0 . 2 1 1 - 0 . 0 7 5 0 ,0H3 - 0 . 0 2 8 - 0 . 1 9 7 - 0 . 2 3 3 -0 .0311 - 0 . 1 8 7 - 0 . 2 3 5 - 0 . 2 2 4 : 0 . 0 5 1 - 0 . 1 4 1 - 0 . 2 2 1 ; 0 . 0 5 0 - 0 . 1 4 7 0 . 0 2 2 - 0 . 0 1 6 - 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 2 1 - 0 . 0 1 6 . - 0 . 0 0 7 - 0 . 1 6 8 0 . 2 2 4 0 . 0 1 8 - 0 . 168 C . 2 2 4 0 . 0 1 9 P R O J I n PROJ2 POOL C . 2 7 8 - 0 . 0 2 8 ' C . 2 8 5 0 . 2 9 8 - 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 2 8 9 - 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 0 2 4 - 0 . 0 7 6 0 . 105 0 .035 - 0 . 3 J 3 0 . 846 0 . 3 3 1 - 0 . 3 6 4 . : 0 . 8 4 5 0 . 3 4 0 - 0 . 1 9 1 0 . 106 - 0 . 1 1 3 - 0 . 2 0 1 0 . 1 1 1 - 0 , 1 2 0 - 0 . 1 3 3 - 0 . 1 3 0 ' - 0 . 2 7 1 - 0 . 1 3 4 - 0 . 1 2 8 - C . 2 7 1 0 . 5 2 1 - 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 5 1 1 0 . 5 2 3 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 5 1 2 PROJ3 PR0J6 PK0J7 . 0 . 0 5 4 - 0 . 0 2 5 . 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 3 9 - 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 2 1 9 0 . 0 0 9 - 0 . 1 70 0. 222 0 .013 - 0 . 1 6 9 0 . 6 3 3 0 . 6 5 8 0 . 130 0 . 6 0 5 0 . 6 5 8 0 . 1 3 3 - 0 . 1 8 3 - 0 . 0 9 0 - 0 . 0 7 2 - 0 . 1 8 3 - 0 . 0 9 0 - 0 . 0 7 ? - 0 . 0 9 3 - 0 . 1 0 9 - 0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 0 9 2 - 0 . 1 0 8 - 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 2 6 3 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 5 6 7 0 . 263 0 . 199 0 . 566' PR0J8 PROJ9 ; 1 PROJIO O . 0 5 7 | 0 . 0 4 9 ! 0 . 173 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 5 4 , 0 . 1 7 5 ; - 0 . 1 5 4 - 0 . 0 2 0 - 0 . 1 0 3 - 0 . 1 5 4 - 0 . 0 1 7 : - 0 . 0 9 5 - 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 2 3 4 0 . 6 7 1 - 0 . 0 3 3 0 .235 0 . 6 7 5 0 . 140 0 . 1 4 4 0 t13_5_ 0 . 140 0 . 1 4 1 AtllS. 0 . C 9 6 0 . 0 9 0 - 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 0 9 6 0 . 0 8 9 ! - 0 . 1 5 7 0 . 4 5 0 - 0 . 0 0 2 - 0 . 2 6 4 0. 449 - 0 . 0 0 2 - 0 . 265 P R O J U ' >:, OUTPOOL INPOOL o. 1 4 3 ; 0 . 0 1 7 j - 0 . 0 7 6 ! 0 . 1 4 0 i 0 . 0 3 2 ': -0 .091 ... 0 . 0 5 4 ; - 0 . 0 7 3 0 . 1 1 3 0 . 0 5 7 - 0 . 0 7 2 n . i09 ; 0 . 0 4 5 - 0 . 1 8 0 0 . 7 0 8 0 . 0 4 7 - 0 . 1 7 7 O . 7 0 6 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 7 4 0 . 156 - 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 7 « i 0 . 1 1 5 - 0 . 1 1 1 - 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 115 - 0 . 1 1 3 - 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 6 7 1 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 6 7 1 n o i l SUIM-SAUNA. CQMMROOM - 0 . 0 0 4 ! - 0 . 0 5 6 ! - 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 7 - 0 . 0 7 1 - 0 . 0 1 1 - 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 1 4 3 - 0 . 1 8 4 - 0 . 037 0 . 1 4 2 - 0 . 1 8 6 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 6 3 4 0 . 325 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 6 3 3 0 . 3 2 5 0 . 0 2 5 - 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 1 3 7 0 . 0 1 9 - 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 139 - 0 . 1 2 5 0 . 0 0 4 - 0 . 0 0 2 - 0 . 1 2 6 0 . 0 0 4 - 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 6 7 1 0 . 0 9 7 , 0 . 1 7 4 u * u 1 1 0 . 6 7 2 0 . 0 9 6 0 . 1 7 3 PREPLAY KIDSPLAY TEENPLAY - 0 . 0 8 7 - 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 0 0 7 - 0 . 0 7 9 . - 0 . 0 2 8 0 .01 1 - 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 0 1 9 - 0 . 0 4 1 - 0 . 0 8 3 0 . 0 1 8 - P . 0 3 ? - 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 8 2 : 0 . 1 7 2 - 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 82 0 .1 73 0 . 104 0 . 0 9 9 0 . 0 9 1 0 . 104 0 . 1 0 0 n . 0 9 i - 0 . 0 6 3 - 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 2 4 - 0 . 0 6 4 - 0 . 0 0 8 o . n ? j 0 . 3 8 4 0 . 5 0 8 - 0 . 0 1 9 0. 384 . 0 . 5 0 8 — c Ci?n WORKSHCP GARDEN UNIT l 0 . 0 7 1 0 . 0 4 3 - 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 6 3 j 0 . 0 3 7 ! - 0 . 0 5 Q - 0 . 1 3 1 0 . 0 1 5 ; 0 . 1 5 1 : - C . 133; 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 147 0 . 2 4 7 0 . 1 1 7 0 . 146 0 . 2 4 7 0 . 1 1 7 0 . 1 4 3 - 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 0 6 4 0 . 6 2 7 - 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 6 6 .-0^63.1 - 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 8 1 - C . 0 1 0 - 0 . 0 3 6 0 . 0 8 2 - C . 0 1 0 - 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 2 3 2 0 . 0 7 1 - 0 . 105 0 . 231 0 . 0 7 0 UNIT2 UNIT3 UNIT4 0 . 156 - 0 . 0 3 0 - 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 1 4 7 : - 0 . 0 3 0 . - 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 7 2 4 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 4 5 5 0 . 7 2 9 0 . 0 4 2 0. 453 - 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 4 3 - 0 . 113 - 0 . 0 9 3 0 . 0 4 0 - 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 1 3 2 0 . 6 8 9 - 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 1 2 7 0 . 6 8 9 - 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 0 2 8 - 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 5 6 0 . 0 2 8 - 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 5 9 ! - 0 . 0 6 1 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 6 0 7 ^ 0 . 0 5 9 - 0 . 0 5 5 C. 60 8 UNIT5 UNIT6 UNIT? 0 . 139 : 0 . 4 5 2! 0 . 340 i 0 . 1 2 3 : 0 . 4 4 3 -0 . 3 4 0 0 . 2 8 5 0 . 5 2 0 , 0 . 1 6 4 0 . 2 8 7 0 . 535 0 . 1 7 5 - 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 6 0 - 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 9 0 0 . 0 6 6 0 . 1 1 7 0 . 0 5 C 0 . 1 8 8 0 . 1 2 5 0 . 0 4 9 0 . 1 8 7 0 . C 9 1 C . 0 8 3 0 . 0 0 9 0 .O92 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 0 0 9 0 . 1 8 6 - 0 . 0 9 1 - 0 . 1 2 9 0 . 186 - 0 . 0 9 1 - 0 . 129 UN I T8 UNIT9 UNITIO' 0 . 0 3 6 j 0 . 0 7 6 | 0 . 201 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 7 0 0.209. 0 . 4 4 9 0 . 4 2 4 - 0 . 0 3 3 0. 449; 0 . 4 2 6 - 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 9 4 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 2 0 0 . C 9 8 0 . 4 3 1 0 . 103 0 . 336 0 . 4 3 0 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 3 3 ? - 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 3 7 C . l 77 - 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 3 7 0.1 75 - 0 . 1 3 9 0 . 4 4 3 0 . 0 7 9 ! - 0 . 1 3 9 C. 444 0 . 0 7 9 UNIT l1 BACKDOOR FYRPLACE - 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 6 2 C. 150 - J . 0 4 0 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 1 4 0 0 . 2 9 8 . 0 . 135 0 . 7 0 2 I 0 . 301. 0 . 134 0 .707 0 . 5 2 2 0 . 1 2 3 - 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 5 2 0 0 . 1 2 2 - 0 .066 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 5 9 7 0 . 1 5 3 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 6 0 1 Q.t 14_8_ 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 1 8 - 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 0 1 9 - 0 . 0 0 3 - 0 . 1 8 3 ! 0 . 1 2 2 - 0 . 1 1 1 - 0 . 184 0. 121 - 0 . 1 1 0 BACKYARD BASEMENT OINEAREA 0 . 0 7 0 ' - C . 0 7 8 0. 212 0 .072 - 0 . 0 9 9 0 . 1 9 5 0 . 0 6 4 i 0 . 4 4 3 ! 0 . 3 1 7 0 . 0 6 4 0. 438 0 .321 0 . 0 3 7 - 0 . 1 0 4 - 0 . 0 4 8 0 . 0 3 6 - 0 . 1 0 6 - 0 . 0 4 7 0 . 7 2 9 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 8 9 0 . 7 2 8 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 9 7 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 9 8 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 1 0 0 - 0 . 0 3 2 . , 0 . 6 2 3 ' 0 . 1 6 8 - 0 . 0 3 3 0 . 6 2 3 0 . 168 ENSUI TE POWDERRM KITCHNEA 0 . 4 7 2 0 . 349 0 . 0 9 7 0 . 4 6 3 0 . 346 .... 0 . 0 8 6 0 . 540 0 . 2 0 9 0.45D 0. 55b 0 . 2 2 3 0 . 4 5 1 . 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 0 3 9 - 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 0 4 5 - 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 1 7 5 0 . 4 0 8 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 1 7 5 0 . 4 0 6 0 . 0 6 0 - 0 . 0 0 4 - 0 . 0 5 6 0 . 0 6 1 - 0 . 0 0 4 - 0 . 0 5 6 - 0 . 0 6 6 -- 0 . 1 1 3 - 0 . 0 9 2 - 0 . 0 6 5 - 0 . 113 - 0 . 0 9 2 , FAMILYRM HOBBYRM DESFEATR 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 223 0 . 0 1 0 ; 0 . 0 7 8 0 . 2 3 1 - 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 4 4 3 - 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 3 0 9 0 . 4 4 6 - 0 . 0 2 4 0 .313 ' 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 84 0 . 5 1 3 0 . 0 3 9 0 .089 0 . 5 1 2 0 . 104 0 . 3 4 7 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 106 0 . 3 4 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 3 8 C. 152 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 1 5 0 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 4 5 3 , 0 . 0 81 j - 0 . 1 8 1 i 0. 454 0 . 0 8 1 - 0 . 181 > T3 m z D X o -~4 VARIABLE BASIC PROVISIONS WITH GENSAT PRIVATE AMENITIES PUBLIC INDOOR AMENITIES , FAMILY ACCOMMODATION  H/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT STORAGE PROVISIONS FACTOR X WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT :WITH GEttSflT W/O GENSAT SNDPROOF BLDGAPP GRNOAPP 0 . 4 3 2 0 . 5 5 5 , 0 . 510 0 . 4 5 9 ! 0.4.16' 0 . 1 2 4 0 . 1 3 5 0 . 2 0 1 RESINUM RESISUIT VI SINUM 0 . 5 3 8 0 . 4 8 8 0 . 4 4 3 - 0 7 0 0 8 0 . C 8 6 0 .155 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 9 3 0 . 1 6 7 o.oia 0 . 1 8 2 0 . 2 5 1 0 . 4 4 4 ; 0 . 185 i 0 . 3 0 0 V IS ISUIT S I / E K I T SIZELVRH 0 . 4 2 2 0 . 1 5 9 . 0 . 2 8 8 . 0 . 1 6 6 0 . 2 6 6 0 . 2 0 6 0 . 178 0 . 268 0 . 215 0 . 177 0 . 1 4 9 - 0 . 1 0 1 SIZE1 SIZE2 SPACE 1 0 . 2 9 0 j c. 303; 0.365 ' SPACE6 SPACE7 SPACES . 0 7 0 .3O3 , - 0 . 0 9 9 ,' 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 . 2 9 9 Q.370 0 . 2 2 7 0 . 202 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 2 3 6 0 . 2 1 3 0 . 0 4 7 - 0 . 1 5 4 0 . 0 1 6 -Q .Q66 - 0 . 1 2 1 i - 0 . 0 4 1 :  0 . 0 6 2 1 0 . 3 0 9 . 0 . 3 0 8 - 0 . 1 0 6 0 . 0 3 6 - 0 . 0 3 3 0 . 4 2 5 0 . 0 4 4 . - 0 . 0 2 D . . 0 . 4 2 1 - 0 . 1 2 6 0 . 0 6 1 - 0 . 0 6 5 SPACE9 SPACEIO SIZE3 SIZEDNRM S IZEFMRM SIZEPAT PATPRIV B IKESIZE BIKESUIT MOWRSI ZE ] MOHRSUIT ' FURNS1ZE ; FURNSUIT BULKS IZE BULKSU1T T IRESIZE TIRESUIT K I T S I Z E K l T S U I T I RVQWN i RVPARK <• A"BTI ~ AGE2 YOUNG HSLDSIZE— TENURE j PURPRICE I PRESVALU MAINTFEE HSGCOST HSGVALUE PARTICQN , DEV EL AGE j OEVELStZ j GENSAT "' 1 0 . 3 2 4 I 0 . 1 5 3 ; 0 . O 9 4 , - 0 . 1 2 2 - 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 7 2 0 . 136 0 . 0 5 3 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 1 3 2 0 .052 0 . 0 2 5 0. 300 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 2 9 7 0 . 3 3 7 0 . 1 5 1 0 . 0 8 4 - 0 . 0 2 0 - 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 3 4 5 -a.cor - 0 . 0 0 4 : 0 . 3 4 6 0 . 0 3 2 - 0 . 1 0 8 - 0 . 0 5 7 - 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 7 3 - 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 2 8 0 - 0 . 0 3 3 - 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 2 8 9 ' 0 . 0 8 0 0.283 0 . 248 0 . 3 9 2 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 2 5 7 . 0 . 395 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 0 9 6 - 0 . 0 2 9 0 . 2 7 2 0 . 2 8 0 - 0 . 0 4 4 - 0 . 0 7 9 - 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 1 4 2 0 . 132 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 133, 0 . 1261 0 . 2 4 4 0 . 0 2 3 : - 0 . 0 0 9 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 129 0 . 0 3 5 !C. 390 0 . 3 9 6 0 . 0 1 3 - 0 . 0 2 9 0 - 1 2 9 0 . 1 0 6 0 . 0 7 9 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 0 7 6 0 .058 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 4 0 1 0 . 4 0 4 ' 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 3 6 0 . 0 4 1 0 .014 - 0 . 1 4 2 - 0 . 1 3 4 : - Q t Q 4 8 . - 0 . 0 3 6 - 0 . 0 7 2 - 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 2 3 3 0 . 147 0 . 2 8 1 , C . 2 1 4 • - 0 . 1 3 1 - 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 2 2 7 0.13.4 0.2.86 . 0 .019 0 . 007 - 0 . 0 7 1 0 .023 0 . 0 0 7 -0 .061. - 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 0 9 2 0 . 576 0 . 539 0 . 2 8 7 0 . 2 1 0 - 0 . 1 1 0 - 0 . 0 5 2 - 0 . 144 - 0 . 1 2 4 - 0 . 1 8 5 - 6 . 1 7 5 , 0 . 2 7 5 0 . 122 0 . 5 8 0 0 . 5 5 0 0 . 2 8 2 0 . 0 2 6 - 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 3 5 - 0 . 138 - 0 . 1 2 5 - 0 . 1 8 6 0 . 1 4 4 0 . 0 0 6 O .024 - 0 . 1 7 1 0 . 2 6 7 0 . 1 0 1 0 . 0 1 3 - 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 719 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 4 3 - 0 . 0 9 1 - 0 . 1 0 0 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 0 5 - 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 7 2 3 0 . 1 2 4 0 . 2 0 4 ' - 0 . 2 5 2 0 . 5 0 8 0 . 154 0 . 3 5 4 0 . 1 0 1 0 . 1 9 5 - 0 . 2 6 3 0 . 7 6 5 0 . 5 5 9 0 . 3 2 1 " T J T W 0 . 568 0 . 313 - 0 . 0 7 2 0 . 0 2 2 j 0 . 2 1 2 0 . 2 0 7 0 . 123 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 1 8 9 0 . 2 5 8 0 . 0 9 0 0 . 0 1 2 - 0 . 1 1 9 0.126. 0 . 0 9 4 0 . 0 1 7 - 0 . 1 2 1 0 . 0 5 1 - 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 8 8 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 0 6 4 0 . 0 6 3 - 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 9 1 ! 0 . 0 8 9 - 0 . 0 1 0 : - 0 . 1 3 6 0 . 1 8 3 0 . 1 5 0 - 0 . 0 9 7 - 0 . 1 1 7 . - 0 . 0 0 1 - 0 . 179 - 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 0 0 6 - 0 . 1 7 2 0 . 1 1 0 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 1 2 3 ' 0 . 1 1 3 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 1 2 5 - 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 1 - 0 . 0 5 5 • - 0 . 1 5 0 0 . 0 2 0 - 0 . 0 5 9 - 0 . 1 8 4 0 . 1 1 4 Q .Q73 - 0 . 1 7 6 0 . 117 Q.Q72 . 0 . 0 9 8 0 . 1 0 3 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 1 0 1 0 . 1 0 4 0 . 1 0 9 0 . 0 0 6 - 0 . 1 8 8 - 0 - 0 3 8 - 0 . 1 2 0 0 . 0 6 7 - 0 . 0 6 8 - 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 1 5 4 - 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 156 _ P . . 45 6 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 1 4 4 0 . 0 6 0 1 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 1 4 4 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 1 4 3 0 . 1 9 5 0 . 0 8 3 0 . 0 2 9 - 0 . 1 0 8 - 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 8 6 0 . 0 8 7 - 0 . 0 4 8 0 . 0 8 4 0 . 0 8 3 ; - 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 . 6 6 1 0 . 5 5 5 Q.650 C . 6 6 0 0 . 5 5 4 0 . 6 4 9 - 0 . 1 1 0 - 0 . 1 4 5 0 . 0 5 6 - 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 7 5 - 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 1 0 0 J . . _42 j_ 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 0 9 9 0 . 4 0 3 0 . 5 8 7 0 . 185 0 . 4 0 1 0 . 5 8 7 0.11:5 - 0 . 1 6 6 - 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 1 0 4 0 . 1 0 0 - 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 2 7 6 - 0 . 0 0 9 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 1 4 S - 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 6 6 0 . 1 5 3 0 . 1 2 9 I 0 . 1 2 3 0 . 2 2 4 0 . 1 3 1 0 . 1 2 3 0 . 2 2 5 0 , 0 5 1 1 0 . 4 3 1 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 . 2 4 9 0 . 0 2 0 - 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 1 8 3 0 . 0 4 3 0 . 1 8 3 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 2 9 4 ! 0 . 7 1 9 ' 0 . 6 8 1 0 . 2 9 4 0 . 7 2 0 0 . 6 8 2 - 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 8 2 - 0 . 1 5 3 - 0 . 1 4 2 - 0 . 1 3 6 - 0 . 0 4 6 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 3 3 -Q.Q91 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 3 3 - 0 . 0 9 0 0 . 6 7 3 0 . 6 1 6 0 . 719 0 . 6 7 2 0 . 6 1 6 0 . 7 1 9 0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 1 5 2 - 0 . 0 3 6 - 0 . 0 6 4 - 0 . 0 1 7 - 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 8 2 - 0 . 0 4 9 0 . 0 7 6 - 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 7 2 0 0 . 4 0 3 0 . 3 8 6 0 . 7 2 1 0 . 4 0 2 0 . 3 8 5 0 . 0 4 7 - 0 . 1 3 1 - 0 . 1 1 5 - 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 5 1 0 . 0 9 7 0 . 1 3 8 0 . 0 6 1 - 0 . 0 6 6 0 . 139 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 6 3 6 0 . 6 2 2 0 . 2 3 0 0 . 6 3 6 0 . 6 2 4 0 . 2 3 0 0 . 1 1 2 - 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 1 4 8 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 2 4 - 0 . 1 2 5 o. isa 0 . 2 0 3 - 0 . 123 0 . 1 8 4 0 .2Q0 0 . 1 8 3 0 . 1 1 4 0 . 1 9 0 0 . 1 8 4 0 . 1 1 1 0 . 1 8 8 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 7 5 - 0 . 0 80 - 0 . 0 8 9 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 8 5 - 0 . 1 4 1 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 7 9 - 0 . 145 - 0 . 0 7 4 0 . 0 26 0 . 2 1 3 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 3 8 4 - 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 106 0 . 3 8 6 - 0 . 0 2 0 . - 0 . 1 6 4 - 0 . 1 5 2 0 . 0 4 5 - 0 . 0 9 4 - 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 9 1 - 0 . 1 6 3 - 0 . 1 5 2 0 . 0 4 6 - 0 . 1 0 9 - 0 . 1 3 9 - 0 . 4 1 7 0 . 144 0 . 541 0 . 4 9 1 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 3 7 8 0 . 144 - 0 . 0 0 7 - 0 . 1 6 8 0 . 154 - 0 . 0 0 5 - 0 . 1 5 7 0 . 1 9 5 0 . 1 7 6 0 . 1 4 8 0 . 1 9 6 0 . 1 8 2 0 . 1 4 2 0 . 0 3 9 - 0 . 1 4 4 - 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 3 8 - 0 . 1 5 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 1 0 2 - 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 0 9 4 - 0 . 0 9 4 - 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 9 2 0 . 1 0 3 . - 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 094 0 . 4 7 1 0 . 1 0 8 - 0 . 0 9 9 - 0 . 1 1 5 0 . 3 3 4 0 . 0 2 0 - 0 . 0 3 0 - 0 . 1 6 5 - 0 . 4 8 5 - 0 . 0 2 2 . - 0 . 1 6 2 - 0 . 4 7 6 0 . 192 0 . 2 7 6 - 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 1 9 3 0 . 2 7 6 - 0 . 0 4 3 : 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 6 8 - 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 0 2 1 0 . 0 6 8 - 0 . 0 3 6 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 1 6 5 0 . 1 7 9 5 , 9 5 0 0.1461 . 5 . 5 7 4 : 07029 0 . 340 6 . 6 8 2 0 . 0 3 7 " i 0 . 6 4 9 0 . 1 2 9 0 . 6 5 4 0 . 0 3 7 0 . 101 0 . 0 2 6 - 0 . 1 6 1 0 . 0 9 5 6 . 6 6 0 5 . 7 5 2 5 . 7 4 5 4 . 1 4 0 4 . 1 3 7 6 . 5 4 1 - 0 . 1 6 2 6 . 5 3 7 - 0 . 0 1 5 "" 0 . 0 2 4 5 . 8 9 6 0 . 0 8 8 - 0 . 0 1 1 - 0 . 1 3 6 - 0 . 0 1 6 C.0.11 - 0 . 0 5 5 0.00.7 - 0 . 1 8 8 - 0 . 0 3 B 0 . 1 4 3 0 . 1 9 5 0 . 0 8 3 - C . 110 - 0 . 144 0 . 0 5 6 - 0 . 1 6 5 - 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 104 C . 0 5 1 0 . 4 3 1 •Q.Q5S - 0 . 0 1 2 . 0 .081* - 0 . 1 5 3 0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 152 0 . 0 4 7 - 0 . 1 3 1 - 0 . 1 1 5 0 . 1 1 2 - C . 0 6 3 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 7 4 - 0 . 10 9 - 0 . 1 3 9 - 0 . 4 1 7 0 . 4 7 1 0 . 1 0 7 - 0 . 0 9 8 . - 0 . 1 1 4 0 . 3 3 5 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 4 1 0 . 1 6 5 C. 181 - 0 . 0 1 5 5.899.' •v m z n o r* 5' C ' ro a 00 APPENDIX D FACTOR ANALYSES - FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS .VARIABLE BASIC PROVISIONS PRIVATE AMENITIES PUBLIC INDOOR AMENITIES STORAGE PROVISIONS FACTOR X FACTOR Y WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT • BURNABY 'NESEC TOR - 0 . 1 6 9 0.289 -0 .153 0.288 0.227 -0 .265 0.234 -0 .28) -0 .164 ' - 0 . 0 8 3 • -0 .169 -0 .074 - 0 . 1 8 6 - 0 . 0 4 1 : - 0 . 1 9 1 - 0 . 0 3 1 0.255 - 0 . 0 7 2 0. 252 -0 .072 - 0 . 0 5 9 0 .639 - 0 . 0 5 2 0 .632 ,NORSHORE 'RICHMOND SURREY 0.104 - 0 . 0 5 7 -0 .161 0.104 -0 .061 1 -0 .173 0.352 0 . 22) i -0.514 0.345 0. 234 -0.513 : -0 .174 0.392 0.092 -0 .173 0.394 0.0 86 0. 162 0.082, 0.030 0.164 0.083 0.025 0.383 - 0 . 570 0. 176 C. 386 - 0 . 566 0. 173 - 0 . 0 8 6 , - 0 . 1 7 6 - 0 . 1 5 3 - 0 . 0 8 5 - 0 . 1 7 8 - 0 . 1 5 3 DELTA MONTHS PRE VI OWN - 0 .61 5 - 0 . 0 8 6 - 0 . 0 1 9 - 0 . 0 2 0 -0 .099 -0 .024 -0.224; 0 .13) : 0.02)! -0.219 0 . 131 ;' . 0.021! -0 .208 -0 .147 -0 .129 -tO.207 143 -0 .134 -0 .070 0.071 -0 .056 - 0 . 0 6 9 0.075 ; - 0 . 0 6 0 -C .320 0. 364 - 0 . 0 4 7 -C .320 • C.370 : -0 .048 - 0 . 0 8 6 - 0 . 1 3 5 - 0 . 3 8 2 - 0 . 0 8 5 - 0 . 1 2 8 - 0 . 3 8 1 PROJI PROJ2 POOL - 0 . 1 1 4 0.277 0.084 - 0 . 1 1 8 : 0.284 0.087 0.048, -0 .087, 0.02? ! 0.049; -0 .093 ' 0.015 - 0 . 1 3 9 0.600 0.372 - 0 . 144 0 .607 6.371 -0 .053 -0 .106 -0 .151 - 0 . 0 6 0 -0 .100 - 0 . 1 5 3 0.758 - 0 . 162 0.704 0. 757 - 0 . 162 C. 703 - 0 . 3 1 8 0 .539 0 . 0 8 8 . - 0 . 3 1 1 0 .527 0 .066 PROJ3 . PR0J6 PROJ7 0.223 0.0 74 0.150 0 .235 0.087 i 0 . 1 5 4 : 0.039 -0.042 -0.165 0.029 -0.045 -0.169 "" 0 . 4 4 9 0.503 0.084 0 .450 0 .503 0.083 -0 .108 - 0 . 0 7 4 -0 .032 - 0 . 108 -0 .076 - 0 . 0 3 4 0.371 0. 233 0. 513 0. 369 0.230 0.511 0 .317 0 .361 0 .153 0 .309 0 .355 0 .149 PROJ8 PR0J9 PROJlO 0.142 0.035 0.0 76 0 .135 0 .030 0.072 0.123 0.215 - 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 116 0.215 -O.O04 ! 0 .069 0.333 0.780 0.076 0.336 0.780 0.167 0.060 -0 .007 0.173 0.063 -0 .008 0. 298 - 0 . 1 4 4 - 0 . 198 0. 302 - 0 . 140 - 0 . 197 0 .223 - 0 . 1 0 9 - 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 2 2 2 - 0 . 1 1 1 - 0 . 0 7 5 PROJ11 OUT POOL INPOOL 0.300 0.072 0.095 0 .293 0 .062 0 .097 0.015 -0.15S -0.004 0.004! -0.15S i -0 .01) -0 .013 -0 .093 0.654 -0 .011 -0.094 0.657 0.223 - 0 . 0 2 4 . -0 .002 0.227 - 0 . 0 2 6 0.000 -0 .088 C.708 - 0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 0 8 7 . 0.710 i - 0 . 0 3 3 - 0 . 0 0 7 - 0 . 1 8 0 0 .291 - 0 . 0 1 6 - 0 . 1 7 7 0 .284 • SWIM SAUNA COMMROOM 0.094 0.042 - 0 . 1 6 6 0 .084 0.041 -0 .182 -0.157 0.06) - 0 . I l l -0 .153! 0.053 I - o . i 2 ) ; 0 .088 0 .590 0 .471 0 .088 0.591 0.475 -0.033 0.025 0.058 - 0 . 0 3 4 0.025 0.062 0 .710 0. 186 . 0.085 0.712; 0. 186! 0. 087 ! - 0 . 1 1 3 0 .126 0 .228 - 0 . 1 1 3 0 . 1 2 1 0 .229 PREPLAY KIDSPLAY TEENPLAY 6'. 168 ~" 0.251 0 .059 0 .163 0.243 1 0.056 -0.183 -0 .057 0.058 -0.189 ; -0 .063. 0.059 ! - 0 . 1 1 8 0.067 0.270 -0 .117 0 .071. 0.272 - 0 . 0 4 4 0.049 0.036 - 0 . 0 4 3 0.054 0.037 0 . 261 0.389 - 0 . 175 0.261 j 0.39 2. - C . 173 - 0 . 0 2 0 0 .066 - 0 . 0 6 0 - 0 . 0 2 2 0 .062 - 0 . 0 6 3 WORKSHOP GARDEN UNITl - 0 . 0 9 9 0.327 0.051 - 0 . 1 0 4 0 .321 0.054 0.063 - 0 . 193 0.202 0.064 - 0 . 203 0. 202 0 .578 0.020 0.072 0.578 0.022 0.080 0.028 0.058 0.264 0.028 0.061 0. 2 70 - 0 . 0 5 6 ' 0. 10 2 -C .156 - 0 . 0 5 5 0. 102 -0 .152 i 0 .055 0 .043 0 .366 0 .053 0 .034 0 .366 UNIT2 UNIT3 UNIT4 - 0 . 0 0 3 0.102 0.148 0 .015 0.109 0.163 0.713 / 0.021 0.302 0.7141 0.023 0.294 -0 .060 0.031 -0 .302 -0 .062 0.033 -0 .296 0.102 0.205 0.011 0.098 0. 206 0.015 0. 192 - 0 . 139 0.540 0.192 I - 0 . 139 0.540 -6.168 0 .233 0 .467 - 0 . 1 6 5 0 .230 0 .470 UNIT5 UNIT6 UNIT7 0.394 0.275 0.203 0.407 ; 0.298 0.224 0.08S 0.634 0. 167 0.073 0 . 633 0; 168 - 0 . 1 1 8 0.094 0.101 -0 .117 0.093 0.097 0.093 0.042 -0 .024 0.093 0.040 - 0 . 0 3 0 0. 125 0.033 - 0 . 0 7 6 . 0. 122 0.033 -0 .081 0 . 176 - 0 . 0 3 3 0 .028 0 . 166 - 0 . 0 3 8 0 .020 UNITS UNIT9 UNITIO 0.022 0 .530 0.433 0 .035 0.538 0.432 0.493 0. 261 -0.061 0.494 0.253 -0.065 0 .123 -0 .053 - 0 . 0 1 9 0.127 -0 .049 -0 .019 0.220 0.078 0.174 0.222 0.082 0. 1 74 - 0 . 110. 0. 311 0.058 - 0 . 1 0 7 0.313' 0.059 0 .145 0 .069 - 0 . 1 4 3 0 .145 0 .059 - 0 . 1 5 5 UNITU BACKOOOR FYRPLACE 0.401 0.115 -0 .044 0.425, 0 . 1 1 2 ; - 0 . 0 2 5 ! 0 . 131 0.195 0.713 0.129 0 . I l l 0. 719 0 .277 0.096 0.026 0.278 0.105 0.023 -0 .048 0.243 0.073 - 0 . 0 4 9 0.251 . 0.069 - 0 . 2 7 4 - 0 . 0 8 7 0.141 - 0 . 278 - 0 . 0 8 1 0. 141 0 .303 0 .287 - 0 . 1 2 3 0 .290 0 .285 - 0 . 1 2 0 BACKYARD BASEMENT DINEAREA 0.200 0.180 0.452 0.205 0.193 0.465 0.035 0.269 0 . 10) 0.035 0.263 0 .091 0.037 -0 .291 -0 .080 0.040 -0 .284 -0 .079 0. 251 -0 .002 0.075 0. 253 0 .00 3 0.076 - 0 . 123 0.547 0.097 - 0 . 1 2 2 ! . 0.548 0 .09 5 0 .201 0 .471 0 . 140 0 . 196 0 .473 0 .128 ENSUITE POWDERRM KITCHNEA 0.312 0.217 0.022 0.335 0.239 0.037 0.644 0.16b 0 .535 0.643 0.167 0.533 0.117 0.073 0. 139 0.117 0.069 0.142 0.023 - 0 . 0 2 1 0.198 0.021 - 0 . 0 2 7 0.199 0.050 - 0 . 0 5 3 - 0 . 0 5 4 0 .050 - 0 .057 - 0 . 0 5 2 - 0 . 0 3 3 0 .018 0 .094 - 0 . 0 4 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 .094 FAMILYRM HOBBYRH OESFEATR 0.532 0.445 0.412 0.541 0.443 0.436 0 . 27) -0 .059 0.137 0 . 262 -0.064 0.13b -0 .050 0.007 0. 269 -0 .046 0.007 0.270 0.105 0.142 -0 .083 0.1C8 0.142 -0 .083 C.317 0.079 - C . 268 0. 318 0 .079 - 0 . 271 0 .087 - 0 . 1 6 9 0 .26 5 0 .076 - 0 . 1 8 1 0 . 252 •> TJ , TJ m z D X D oo o _ VARIABLE BASIC PROVISIONS PRIVATE AMENITIES PUBLIC INDOOR AMENITIES STORAGE PROVISIONS FACTOR X FACTOR Y WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT . WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT WITH GENSAT W/O GENSAT SNDPRDOF 0.426 0 .429 0 . 22) ' 0.211 0.134 0.139 0.036 0.041 0 .034 0 .037 0 .04 8 0 .03B "CONQUAL BLDGAPP GRNDAPP 0 .473 0.461 ' 0 .285 0.455 , 0.454 0.269 0.103 0.169 0 . 155 0.09) 0.155 0 . 141 . 0.068 0.125 0.258 0 .072 0 . 129 0.260 - 0 . 1 0 6 - 0 . 0 1 8 0.013 - 0 . 0 9 9 - 0 . 0 1 2 0 .018 - 0 . 0 1 4 0 .026 - 0 . 005 - 0 . 0 0 9 0.030 - 0 . 000 -0 .285 - 0 . 0 7 0 -0 .255 -0 .295 -0 .081 - 0 . 2 6 3 RESTNUM RESISUIT , VISINUM 0.463 0 .144 0 .079 0 .459 0 .147 0.0 79 0 . 162 0.267 0 .452 0.149 0 . 258 0.453 - 0 . 0 4 8 - 0 . 0 2 4 - 0 . 1 6 3 - 0 .041 - 0 . 0 1 7 - 0 . 1 5 9 0 .013 0 .164 0.012 0.021 0.171 0 .016 - 0 . 0 1 7 0 .043 -0 .123 - 0 . 0 1 3 0.046 - 0 . 118 0 .089 0 .327 - 0 . 1 4 7 0 . 0 8 0 0 .325 - 0 . 1 4 4 VI SI SUIT S IZEKIT SIZELVRM 0.111 0.075 0.151 0 .114 0.078 0 .135 " 0 . 396 0. 315 0 . 193 0. 395 0 . 3 U 0 . 187 - 0 . 2 0 8 0.014 - 0 . 0 5 8 - 0 . 2 0 3 0 .019 - 0 . 0 5 6 - 0 . 0 3 8 , 0 .042 0.063 - 0 . 0 3 4 0 .046 ' 0 . 0 6 7 - 0 . 117 - 0 . 1 8 9 - 0 . 0 1 3 - C . 1 1 3 - 0 . 1 8 6 - 0 . 0 0 8 •0 .049 0 .023 -0 .319 -0 .048 0 . 0 2 3 -0.320 SIZE1 SIZE2 SPACE1 0 .207 0 .348 0.055 0.201 0.352 0.063 0.033 - 0 . 0 3 2 0.451 0.033 -0 .035 0.447 - 0 . 0 2 2 0.006 0.059 -0.024 0.006 0 .064 - 0 . 0 4 9 0.011 0. 180 - 0 . 0 5 0 0.011 0 . 184 0 .045 0 .085 0. 114 0 .045 0 .084 0. 118 -0 .306 -0 .019 0 .227 -0 .310 -0 .028 0 .228 SPACE6 SPACE? SPACES 0.102 - 0 . 1 5 5 0 .043 0.106 : - 0 . 1 4 6 0.046 0 .15 ) 0 .01 ) 0.06b 0.151 0.023 0.069 0.021 - 0 . 0 7 8 - 0 . 1 1 3 0.020 - 0 . 0 8 4 - 0 . 1 1 3 0 .6 23 0 .602 0.680 0.621 0 .594 0 .67a -0 .178 - 0 . 0 3 6 0 .087 - 0 . 1 7 7 - 0 . 039 0 .088 -0 .104 -0.100 0 .008 -0 .110 -0. 100 0 .00 5 SPACE9 SPACEIO SIZE3 SIZEDNRM SIZEFMPM SIZEPAT 0 .294 0.081 0 . 3 1 9 0 .277 0.070 0.320 0.06? -0.003 0 . 31) 0 .07 ) -0 .007 : 0 . 2 9 ) : 0.078 0.198 0.056 0 .079 0.201 0.061 0.350 0.646 0.201 0.351 0 .649 0 .207 - 0 . 104 -0 .028 0 .017 - 0 . 0 9 8 - 0 . 0 2 4 0.020 -0.50 7 -0 . 020 0. 137 - 0 . 5 1 5 -0 .026 0 .130 0.432 0 .486 0 .249 0.442 0.490 0.239 0 . 187 0.275 0.023 0 .177 > 0 .267 : 0 . 0 1 2 1 0.033 -0 .129 0 .155 0 .034 - 0 . 1 2 4 0 . 161 - 0 . 0 3 9 0. 106 0 .233 - 0 . 0 3 8 0.110 0. 240 - 0 . 0 2 0 0. 347 - 0 . 1 4 3 rO .022 0. 350 - 0 . 1 3 9 0 .064 0 .029 0 .115 0 .053 0 .021 0 . 108 • PATPRIV BIKESIZE B IKESUIT MOWRSIZE MOWRSUIT FURNSI ZE 0 .094 0.141 0.094 0.088 0.141 0 .089 0.005 0.099 0.225 0.003 ' 0.093 0 .213 : 0 .159 - 0 . 0 4 0 - 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 163 - 0 . 0 3 9 -0 .049 0.349 0 .684 0.572 0.352 0 .684 0.575 - 0 . 0 6 7 - 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 . 2 8 6 - 0 . 0 6 3 - 0 . 0 0 9 - 0 . 283 0 .078 0 .021 -0 .053 0 .074 0 .014 -0 .058 - 0 . 1 0 1 - 0 . 0 8 7 0 .049 - 0 . 0 9 5 - 0 . 0 77 0.0 51 0 .08) 0 .06* 0.063 0.083 0.068 0.061 -0.176 - 0 . 1 8 4 - 0 . 1 4 9 - 0 . 1 7 9 - 0 . 1 9 0 - 0 . 1 4 8 0 .648 0.589 0.705 0 .643 0.582 0.705 0. 127 0 .066 0. 138 0 .126 0 .063 0. 140 -0 .013 -0 .055 0 .086 -0 .013 -0 .056 0 .083 FURNSUIT BULKS I ZE BULKSUIT . 0 .084 0.260 0 .225 0.086 ! 0 . 2 5 3 : 0.201 1 0.014 0.165 0 . 145 0.011 0.167 0 . 142 - 0 . 1 5 5 -0.011 0.037 - 0 . 1 5 6 - 0 . 0 1 1 0 .038 0.710 0.311 0 .272 0.709 0 .310 ; 0 .275 0 .054 - 0 . 0 6 6 - 0 . 0 0 3 0 .054 - 0 . 0 6 2 0 .004 0 .074 -0 .475 -0 ,602 0 .069 -0 .482 - 0 . 6 0 6 T IRESIZE TIRESUIT K I TS IZE 0 .110 0.015 0 .306 0.092 - 0 .003 0.292 0.071 0.059 - 0 . 0 6 ) 0.062 0.051 -0 .O67 0.121 0 . 104 0.063 0.125 0.108 0.066 0.690 0 .648 0.103 0 .695 0.653 0.108 0.060 - 0 . 0 5 8 - 0 . 155 0 .066 - 0 . 0 5 2 - 0 . 151 -0 .05 3 -0 .052 -0. 20 7 - 0 . 0 5 9 -0 .055 - 0 . 2 1 6 K ITSUIT RVOWN RVPARK 0 .195 0 . 0 4 3 ! 0.061 0.187 0.054 0.062 : - 0 .047 -0 .112 . - 0 .217 - 0 . 0 5 * -0 .104 -0.21S • 0 .086 0 .184 0.148 0 .085 0 .179 0 .144 0.071 0.203 0.298 0.071 0.195 0 .293 - 0 . 0 2 2 0 .114 0.045 - 0 . 0 2 2 0 . I l l 0 .042 -0 .180 -0 .112 -0 .086 - 0 . 1 8 7 -0.117 - 0 . 0 9 2 AGE1 AGE2 YOUNG -0 .191 - 0 . 3 6 0 i - 0 .291 - 0 . 1 9 5 - 0 . 3 5 9 - 0 . 3 0 0 0. 55'. . 0.355 0.321 0 . 555 0. 365; 0.32) 0 .085 0.079 0 . 158 0.090 0.080 0 . 161 - 0 . 0 8 6 - 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 . 0 1 5 - 0 . 0 8 2 - 0 . 0 1 2 - 0 . 0 1 1 . 0.023 0. 188 - 0 . 1 1 7 1 0.029 0.191 - C . 1 1 3 -0 .087 - 0 . 1 3 6 - 0 . 0 6 2 - 0 . 0 7 7 - 0 . 1 2 4 -0 .053 HSLOSIZE TENURE PURPRICE - 0 . 0 6 0 0 .050 0 .294 - 0 . 0 6 4 0.032 0.313 0.013 0.057 0.643 0.017 0.045 0 . 6 3 4 ; 0.003 0.134 0.085 0 .004 0 . 141 0 .086 - 0 . 0 2 2 0 .135 0 .077 - 0 . 0 2 2 , 0. 144 0 .077 0. 376 0.055 0.056 0. 378 0.061 0.056 -0 .052 0 .116 0 .017 -0 .047 0 .116 0 .011 PRESVALU MA I NT FEE HSGCOST 0 .267 0 .139 0.099 0.284 0.151 0.109 0.673 0 .494 0 . 105 0.67? 0.493 0.093 0.095 0 . 163 0.098 0 .097 0. 162 0.098 0 .163 - 0 . 0 5 2 - 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 163 - 0 . 0 5 5 - 0 . 0 0 4 0.054 0.522 - C . 0 4 3 0 .055 0 .523 - 0 . 0 4 5 0 .025 -0. 12 8 0 .250 0 .019 - 0 . 1 2 9 0. 246 HSGVAL UE PART I CON OEVELAGE 0.298 0 .034 - 0 . 1 5 7 0.282 0.021 - 0 . 1 7 8 0.293 -0 .032 0. 03 5 0.281 ^0 .03V 1 0.04) - 0 . 0 3 7 - 0 . 2 4 7 - 0 . 2 9 2 - 0 .031 - 0 . 2 4 2 - 0 . 2 9 4 0.025 0.125 0 .044 0.032 0.131 0.042 0 . 118 0. 114 0. 186 0. 125 0. 119 0. 190 -0 .218 -0.011 - 0 . 5 8 6 -0 .221 - 0 . 0 0 8 - 0 . 5 7 7 DEVEL S IZ GENSAT 0.030 • 0 .430 0.030 . 0 .103 0.478 O . IO3; 0.771 0.056 0.768 - 0 . 0 5 5 0.055 - 0 . 0 5 9 0.168 0 .054 0.168 - 0 . 1 3 0 0 .039 4 .781 -0 . 136 , 5 . 6 8 1 : . ... S.59& 7.092 6-7.91.. 5.278 5.302 6.595 6.614_ 5.981 ..., 5. 982; 4 . 7 3 7 . "U--0 m z D X D 1 o o 3 r* 5' c CL CO 

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.831.1-0094896/manifest

Comment

Related Items